Equal, Sweet n Low, Artificial sweeteners

I'm inclined to agree with you.

I would say because sugar is natural and artificial sweeters are..well..artificial/chemicals. I would like to know what people have to say about this also. do people use sugar or artificial sweeteners and why?

In all fairness, sugar is also a chemical.

I wonder the same thing. I use artificial sweeteners all the time. I use the Crystal Lite water flavors (like Mio). I also drink the flavored waters a lot. I get tired of drinking plain water. I figure it's ok since there's no calories etc. in any of it.

Stevia is natural and better for u than sugar

What's so bad about artificial sweeteners? Seems better than using 2-3 spoons of sugar in a tea or coffee.

Nothing is "so bad" about them unless you are allergic to them in some way or they are causing your macros to be out of whack (which would also happen with sugar anyway, if that's the case).

There's a lot of alarmism and fear mongering going around about them, but it is not backed up as heavily as the fear mongers want you to believe.

I'm in the best shape of my life, appearance and internally according to doctor's labs, and I have Splenda everyday. Until a large quantity of peer reviewed studies shows me definitively that it is bad for me, I'll continue using it. A couple of studies based on the idea that readers seem to believe that correlation IS causation isn't going to persuade me to do anything.

There have some studies been made around artificial sweetners - especially aspartame (is this nutrasweet in the US???).
This chemical was released first with high allowed amounts in food. This has been corrected because they found that this can cause cancer in animal models.

The problem may be, that we don't know a lot about "what will be after 30 years full of it". But thats the same for Stevia.

So: I would use them, but not too much of them.

And besides: if you never come away from the sweet taste, temptation will allways be with you (I knwo what I talk about, because I'm a sweet addict as well)

Most of them store as fat

Ya..... no. Totally false.

Stevia is the best one to use.....all natural, zero calories, no chemicals.

Stevia is ALL chemicals.
You've committed the naturalist fallacy.

However ... everything we eat is all chemicals. Our bodies are composed of chemicals. Stevia is a naturally occurring sweetener in the Stevia rebaudiana plant. It's extracted and purified from the plant leaves. I remember many years ago a friend reading the ingredients on some food label and sneering as he read the ingredients; I pointed out that most of the chemical names he was sneering at (like citric acid and guar gum are perfectly natural and extracted from plants.

I can't believe there's yet another natural vs evil chemical thread starting up on these forums ... just because something is naturally occurring doesn't make it good for you, and just because something comes from a lab doesn't make it bad for you. Me, I like my sweeteners and I figure in five or ten years they'll find out all this stuff really extends our lives, so I plan on living at least 150 years. Yay, Splenda! At the very least, I'll be a well-preserved corpse.

I won't eat aspartame or other artificial sweeteners any more. Their track history is terrible. The FDA approves stuff and then years later we learn it's a carcinogen. Anyway, adults can make their own decisions, but I don't agree with putting so much of that stuff on the market for children. I had to quit chewing gum because I couldn't find even one without aspartame.

If you want to look at the preponderance of the evidence, here's a link to a list of peer-reviewed non-industry sponsored studies. You'll notice that all but one of the positive ones are by the FDA, but there are only 7 positive ones out of 92. Apparently most of the other positive studes are industry-sponsored. Can anyone say that's surprising?

http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

No.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

Aspartame has not been shown to cause any harm to humans, period.

Stevia is the best one to use.....all natural, zero calories, no chemicals.

Stevia is ALL chemicals.
You've committed the naturalist fallacy.

However ... everything we eat is all chemicals. Our bodies are composed of chemicals. Stevia is a naturally occurring sweetener in the Stevia rebaudiana plant. It's extracted and purified from the plant leaves. I remember many years ago a friend reading the ingredients on some food label and sneering as he read the ingredients; I pointed out that most of the chemical names he was sneering at (like citric acid and guar gum are perfectly natural and extracted from plants.

I can't believe there's yet another natural vs evil chemical thread starting up on these forums ... just because something is naturally occurring doesn't make it good for you, and just because something comes from a lab doesn't make it bad for you. Me, I like my sweeteners and I figure in five or ten years they'll find out all this stuff really extends our lives, so I plan on living at least 150 years. Yay, Splenda! At the very least, I'll be a well-preserved corpse.

Yes, that was my point. People say OMG chemicals! It's all chemicals people.
Arsenic and oxalic acid are naturally occurring (or taken up during growth) by plants but I'm not shooting shots of those...
Water is a chemical.
...and as to stevia, it may be natural but it has been less studied than aspartame.
I use sucrose myself, table sugar.

I won't eat aspartame or other artificial sweeteners any more. Their track history is terrible. The FDA approves stuff and then years later we learn it's a carcinogen. Anyway, adults can make their own decisions, but I don't agree with putting so much of that stuff on the market for children. I had to quit chewing gum because I couldn't find even one without aspartame.

If you want to look at the preponderance of the evidence, here's a link to a list of peer-reviewed non-industry sponsored studies. You'll notice that all but one of the positive ones are by the FDA, but there are only 7 positive ones out of 92. Apparently most of the other positive studes are industry-sponsored. Can anyone say that's surprising?

http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

bacon, barbecued meat etc have carcinogens as well. Won't stop me from eating them

I think you could probably find a study showing just about everything has carcinogens

Yes, that was my point. People say OMG chemicals! It's all chemicals people.
Arsenic and oxalic acid are naturally occurring (or taken up during growth) by plants but I'm not shooting shots of those...
Water is a chemical.
...and as to stevia, it may be natural but it has been less studied than aspartame.
I use sucrose myself, table sugar.

Spinach and rhubarb contain oxalic acid, peach and apricot pits contain cyanide, sassafrass contains a carcinogen and various other bad things, licorice can raise your blood pressure, all natural. The problem is, people will believe a naturopath's or shaman's. recommendations over the findings of scientific research, or go out looking for questionable studies to confirm what they want to believe.

I don't care for stevia particularly because of the taste ... But I'll use it sometimes in coffee because coffee's a bit bitter anyway. My personal favorites at present are Splenda and It would be fine with me if people presented their preferences as just that ... But when people say things like "X is the worst thing you could use" they seem to be forgetting: none of us are getting out of this alive, and as you get nearer to the end you realize, life goes by faster than you can imagine.

Now, where's that carcinogenic bacon ...?

I don't eat them because they taste like battery acid, no other reason. I had a friend once who got migraines whenever she ate aspertame, but that's rare.

vingogly: While your point still stands, are actually eating the peach and apricot pits? :P