Sugar Substitutes are they worth it????

I think that if you're active enough and not diabetic, sugar shouldn't be enough of a concern to you to make this an issue. I'm of the mind that the real thing is best unless your doctor tells you otherwise based upon your specific circumstances.

I do not use any artificial sweeteners (but I did many years ago when I didn't know better). I'm drinking my coffee with just cream. If I choose to make something sweet, I use raw honey or maple syrup. Even gum for my child I have to special order because all gum in my community have artificial sweeteners. I think there is enough evidence out there to support avoiding them, but others will disagree. It's up to you.

As for the debate of sugar substitutes...

Firstly there's the point of the toxicity of it.

Saccharin for instance has been proven in rats to actually be carcinogenic - however, no such tests have been conclusive for humans.

There have been proven tests however showing that if you take the calories out of the equation that some sweeteners (namely Saccharin and Aspartame) spark the same hormonal reaction (i.e. insulin spike) that sugar does.

Sucralose and stevia however, don't.

If you absolutely have to have a sweetener and you want to go the no-sugar route, best to go with something that is naturally occurring if you can.

And if not, then take sugar and just try cut down on your sweet tooth

Mentioning surcalose (Splenda) in the same sentence with stevia doesn't make sense to me. Splenda is a chlorinated sugar molecule, it is no longer sugar, and imo no longer safe to consume. Yes, they've had the most successful marketing campaign in history (imo again) but that doesn't mean it really is "just like sugar". Consume it by all means if one wants to, but I'm hoping people look deeper into things instead of just trusting in the advertisements.

You do understand that the poster was pointing out that both sucralose and stevia have the same effect on insulin levels, right? The poster was not saying they are both natural.

As for the debate of sugar substitutes...

Firstly there's the point of the toxicity of it.

Saccharin for instance has been proven in rats to actually be carcinogenic - however, no such tests have been conclusive for humans.

There have been proven tests however showing that if you take the calories out of the equation that some sweeteners (namely Saccharin and Aspartame) spark the same hormonal reaction (i.e. insulin spike) that sugar does.

Sucralose and stevia however, don't.

If you absolutely have to have a sweetener and you want to go the no-sugar route, best to go with something that is naturally occurring if you can.

And if not, then take sugar and just try cut down on your sweet tooth

Mentioning surcalose (Splenda) in the same sentence with stevia doesn't make sense to me. Splenda is a chlorinated sugar molecule, it is no longer sugar, and imo no longer safe to consume. Yes, they've had the most successful marketing campaign in history (imo again) but that doesn't mean it really is "just like sugar". Consume it by all means if one wants to, but I'm hoping people look deeper into things instead of just trusting in the advertisements.

You do understand that the poster was pointing out that both sucralose and stevia have the same effect on insulin levels, right? The poster was not saying they are both natural.

It's nice that some people read the whole post before commenting, huh?

I'm not talking about the natural vs. man-made debate - we take drugs every day that are synthesised - and with everything comes risk.

If you're really concerned about that - then it's natural or bust.

However if you believe the weight of scientific research that indicates that using sweeteners are no more dangerous than say, taking paracetamol - then you go for the ones that have a) not had test results that indicate anything like a cancer risk, and b) take the one that reduces the chance of an insulin spike.

Let's bring this risk vs reward thing into perspective here. You could use a sweetener that may have _some_ sort of risk down the line (though sweeteners have been around for decades and there aren't many examples worldwide, you be the judge) - You could also cross a road tomorrow and get hit by a car.

The statistical probability of you dying from sweetener use vs dying crossing a road is pretty heavily weighted against crossing the road...

...So using sweeteners is probably one of the least of your concerns in life really.

If you're really concerned - use science to help you (i.e. the bit I posted before) - else don't worry about it. There are more important things in life to worry about!

As for the debate of sugar substitutes...

Firstly there's the point of the toxicity of it.

Saccharin for instance has been proven in rats to actually be carcinogenic - however, no such tests have been conclusive for humans.

There have been proven tests however showing that if you take the calories out of the equation that some sweeteners (namely Saccharin and Aspartame) spark the same hormonal reaction (i.e. insulin spike) that sugar does.

Sucralose and stevia however, don't.

If you absolutely have to have a sweetener and you want to go the no-sugar route, best to go with something that is naturally occurring if you can.

And if not, then take sugar and just try cut down on your sweet tooth

Mentioning surcalose (Splenda) in the same sentence with stevia doesn't make sense to me. Splenda is a chlorinated sugar molecule, it is no longer sugar, and imo no longer safe to consume. Yes, they've had the most successful marketing campaign in history (imo again) but that doesn't mean it really is "just like sugar". Consume it by all means if one wants to, but I'm hoping people look deeper into things instead of just trusting in the advertisements.

You do understand that the poster was pointing out that both sucralose and stevia have the same effect on insulin levels, right? The poster was not saying they are both natural.

It's nice that some people read the whole post before commenting, huh?

I'm not talking about the natural vs. man-made debate - we take drugs every day that are synthesised - and with everything comes risk.

If you're really concerned about that - then it's natural or bust.

However if you believe the weight of scientific research that indicates that using sweeteners are no more dangerous than say, taking paracetamol - then you go for the ones that have a) not had test results that indicate anything like a cancer risk, and b) take the one that reduces the chance of an insulin spike.

Let's bring this risk vs reward thing into perspective here. You could use a sweetener that may have _some_ sort of risk down the line (though sweeteners have been around for decades and there aren't many examples worldwide, you be the judge) - You could also cross a road tomorrow and get hit by a car.

The statistical probability of you dying from sweetener use vs dying crossing a road is pretty heavily weighted against crossing the road...

...So using sweeteners is probably one of the least of your concerns in life really.

If you're really concerned - use science to help you (i.e. the bit I posted before) - else don't worry about it. There are more important things in life to worry about!

No need to be rude. I did read the post and I took it as equating Splenda with Stevia as both being better, that's all, and it's possible that I misunderstood you. I'll refrain from responding in depth to this latest post, which is just getting ridiculous imo, except to say that I don't use paracetamol (aka acetaminophen, Tylenol) either. I don't think dying in an accident is at all comparable to knowingly consuming toxic substances, IMO.

One teaspoon of raw cane sugar is about 15 calories...as long as you're not adding sugar to other foods or eating a lot of processed, sugary foods you should be fine It's better than eating chemicals.

I use Sweet N Low in my coffee and Splenda on my fruit. I can't eat Stevia because I'm allergic to it. It might be natural, but it's from a weed.

As far as Aspartame, don't get me started on that topic. After researching the sweetener myself, I believe there is nothing wrong with it. I will just say that it may be made artificially,but it's made from natural amino acids that your body needs to function, one of which your body can't make and has to get from the food you eat. There has been a lot of hype about it, but most of it was started by a woman who only has an honorary degree in humanities, but uses her honorary doctorate to mislead her followers in believing she is medically trained.

As far as the sugar alcohols, they are not artificial. Just like stevia, they are sweeteners derived from natural sources. They just have to be used in moderation because of their laxative effect. Also, Xylitol can be harmful to dogs, so make sure I keep it out of my house.

My chioce, though, is Sweet N Low. It's been around the longest and while it used to carry a cancer warning, more studies have been conducted that have not proven that hypothesis. Hence, the warning has been removed.

I believe sugar substitues are safe to consume. However, just like everything else, they should be used in moderation. Too much of anything including water is not good for you.

I use Stevia in my coffee and love it. I tried the Agave syrup and ummm, no. Tasted too funky to me. In any case, I think anything natural is always better than the chemical crap on the market.

Yeah, Sweet n Low aka Saccharin did get a bit of a bum rap when it came to the whole cancer risk thing - but that was only ever shown to occur in rats that don't have the same ability to process toxins as humans. I'm sure if you gave a rat half the stuff we ate it would probably get cancer.

I didn't mean to come across as rude - my bad.

Hmmm..."natural" huh?

NECTRESSE™ Natural No Calorie Sweetener is a "natural" sweetener made from
monk fruit extract which is about 150 x's sweeter than sugar.

But, as with all "natural" products it seems these days...they aren't exactly "natural"....it does also include Erythritol which is an additional "natural" sugar substitute that looks and tastes very much like sugar, yet has almost no calories. It comes in granulated and powdered forms.

Erythritol has been used in Japan since 1990 in candies, chocolate, yogurt, fillings, jellies, jams, beverages, and as a sugar substitute.

Erythritol is classified as a sugar alcohol. Sugar alcohols, also called polyols, are sugar substitutes that are either extracted from plants or manufactured from starches. Some of the more common sugar alcohol sweeteners are sorbitol and xylitol.

Sugar alcohols also occur naturally in plants. Erythritol is found naturally in small amounts in grapes, melons, mushrooms, and fermented foods such as wine, beer, cheese, and soy sauce.

The sweetening indredient in Splenda is Sucralose

The makers of Splenda has a new “natural” sweetener known as Nectresse that will cater specifically to those looking for a healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners and sugar. But is Nectresse really as natural as the manufacturer claims it is, or is the product just another example of tricky marketing hype aimed at health-conscious consumers? (You know how I hate that!)

According to the Nectresse website, the product is “100 percent natural,” and is made from the heat-stable extract of an Asian melon known as monk fruit, or Lo Han. Monk fruit is a small round fruit similar in shape to an apple but it's coloring is similiar to a green pear. The fruit was named after monks in Southern China in the 13th century. The manufacturer, NcNeil Nutritionals, (Johnson and Johnson) claim that Nectresse contains zero calories per serving, and that monk fruit is 150 times sweeter than sugar, which means that consumers do not need to use very much of it to effectively sweeten foods and beverages.

So, good so far...But monk fruit is not the only ingredient in Nectresse, nor is it even the primary ingredient. The first and most abundant ingredient in Nectresse is actually erythritol, a sugar alcohol commonly derived from corn, the vast majority of which has been genetically modified in the U.S. And the second ingredient in Nectresse is sugar, which is refined and more than likely comes from GM sugar beets.

The third ingredient in Nectresse is monk fruit, which is extracted using a natural process involving both water and heat rather than chemicals — this is good. But the fourth and final ingredient in Nectresse is molasses, which once again is a sugar that more than likely was derived from GM (GM=Genetically modified) sugar beets — producers that use sugar from sugar cane, after all, typically indicate this on their ingredient labels.

So three out of the four ingredients used in Nectresse appear to be derived from bioengineered crops, and two of these ingredients are refined sugars. And since erythritol is a sugar alcohol, (you can read more about these in Cookbook 2 if you have it) as well as the most abundant ingredient in Nectresse, the manufacturers can legally claim under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines that Nectresse contains zero calories per serving.

But the fact that Nectresse more than likely contains ingredients derived from GM sources means that it is hardly the “natural” product they are hyping it up to be. Sure, Nectresse contains a little bit of monk fruit which, like the stevia plant, contains compounds that are naturally very sweet, but that do not provide the body with calories in the same way as sugar. But the other ingredients found in Nectresse can hardly be considered natural.

Monk fruit can actually be up to 200 times sweeter than sugar because it contains natural antioxidants known as mogrosides that have a strong, sweet taste, but that are not actually considered to be sugar. These mogrosides are unique to monk fruit, and they also contain zero calories.

By itself, in other words, monk fruit appears to be viable as a healthy, alternative sweetener that, because of its heat stability, can work better than stevia in certain food applications that require baking, sauteing, or other forms of heat cooking. Nectresse, on the other hand, appears to be an adulterated version of the monk fruit that represents the corporate food industry’s latest attempt at trying to cash in on the health-conscious.


Since Nectresse contains erythritol, (a sugar alcoho, right) that has 0.213 calories per 1 gram. Since 1 packet of Nectresse™ contains 2 grams of erythritol, it technically has 0.426 calories. Did you know that the FDA considers a food to be ‘calorie-free’ if it has less than 5 calories PER SERVING? So, if you put 2 packets of Nectresse™ in your coffee, you’re getting 8.5 calories. Secondly, since Nectresse™ contains both table sugar and molasses (another sugar), it’s technically NOT sugar-free. While it may seem like Nectresse won’t break the calorie bank, small amounts of unnecessary calories (of any food!) can add up over time. On the plus side, erythritol does not appear to have some of the gastrointestinal side effects (flatulence, bloating, diarrhea, etc.) that may come with consuming other sugar alcohols.

Many food labels require you to have a degree in chemistry in order to understand what is in the food. Most of us know Sodium chloride (salt) – but what about diacetyl tartaric acid ester of mono-diglycerides?

For instance there is a brand called Nature Made.... You'd think having the words “Nature Made” across every product would lead you to believe that the product came from natural sources. But that's not true.

Consumers prefer to see natural flavors on a label, out of a belief that they are more healthful.A natural flavor is not necessarily more healthful or purer than an artificial one. When almond flavor — benzaldehyde — is derived from natural sources, such as peach and apricot pits, it contains traces of hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison. Benzaldehyde derived by mixing oil of clove and amyl acetate does not contain any cyanide. Nevertheless, it is legally considered an artificial flavor and sells at a much lower price. Natural and artificial flavors are now manufactured at the same chemical plants, places that few people would associate with Mother Nature! So Stevia is the ONLY product here that is actually "NATURAL"...the FDA allowed chemicals in "natural" products so as always don't just believe what is on any manufacturers label....they lie!

So if you really want "natural" you should stick with your Stevia...http://www.facebook.com/pages/17-DAY-DIET/154431391270315?sk=wall

I hate the taste of pretty much all artificial sweeteners except for Stevia in the Raw and the actual stevia leaf. I used to grow stevia but it died and I haven't bothered to get a new plant for my garden. I've read about monk fruit and I really want to try the new monk fruit extract sweetener once I run out of stevia.

Off Topic but Bashiera i LOVE your main pic! 'Winter is coming" LOL