Splenda?

I have no problems with artificial sweeteners except stevia. I don't like the bitter taste it has. I drink diet soda occasionally and don't care which sweetener it has (aspartame or Splenda) and I have a bag of Splenda at home for a few things. I don't like sweetened coffee and I prefer demerara sugar in my tea. None of these seem to affect mt weight loss or cause cravings. The again, I only eat a moderate amount.

earlnabby wrote: »

I have no problems with artificial sweeteners except stevia.

Stevia isn't an artificial sweetener. I grow it in my garden, dry it and grind it up for use.

stevencloser wrote: »

lalalalalaurie wrote: »

I am still torn on the topic.

I trust foods in their most unprocessed form rather than a chemistry project that we add to our food.

That said, I am still using Splenda daily but am not 100% comfortable with the concept.

I do think it possible that there could be long term effects so I wouldn't say confidently that it is harmful OR harmless.

Unprocessed foods are also chemistry projects. Literally everything you eat is chemistry.

Ahhh yes. The old "This is what an apple is made of" response. I'm pretty sure people understand what @lalalalalaurie means.

earlnabby wrote: »

Last_mango_in_paradise wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

I have no problems with artificial sweeteners except stevia.

Stevia isn't an artificial sweetener. I grow it in my garden, dry it and grind it up for use.

Doesn't change the fact that it is bitter tasting and awful. Point taken. I will call the group "low calorie sweeteners" henceforth.

I'm with you. Yucky taste.

queenliz99 wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

Last_mango_in_paradise wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

I have no problems with artificial sweeteners except stevia.

Stevia isn't an artificial sweetener. I grow it in my garden, dry it and grind it up for use.

Doesn't change the fact that it is bitter tasting and awful. Point taken. I will call the group "low calorie sweeteners" henceforth.

I'm with you. Yucky taste.

And all this time I though it was only me. For me, stevia either takes bland or bitter. Whatever sweetness is supposedly hiding in there is mostly masked by so many other unpleasant tastes.

My personal preference is not to use a lot of low-calorie sweeteners, but I don't agonize over my yogurt with sucralose, or an occasional diet drink with aspartame. I'm sure being obese has probably done a lot more damage to my body. A couple of observations though. I have a family and still bake occasionally. I've noticed that I can leave out as much as 1/2 the sugar called for in some recipes & still have it taste fine. When I think it needs more sweetness, I'll use some stevia, which I like better in baked goods for some reason. Also, a while back I bought some sucralose-sweetened diet drinks and was having one almost daily and noticed I started having headaches, which I rarely have. Stopped the daily drinks & the headaches stopped. So I guess I believe in moderation.

BTW truvia is only a small part stevia. If you are going to switch, use true stevia

cmarangi wrote: »

I don't understand the apple idea. Yes, everything is chemistry, but that's not the point. There's a difference between what nature makes and what man makes. With processed foods/products it starts out natural usually (except Cheez Whiz, I still don't get that one) and we pervert it with added salt, sugar, fat and preservatives. Sometimes fortification of vits and mins (but still not as good as natural) Your body can tell the difference. But to each their own. I don't get why people get so worked up about it. If you want to eat Splenda...do it. But lalalalaurie asked for information, which is a great thing. Everyone should gather information and make their own decision.

I wish there was a like button for this portion of your post.

auddii wrote: »

I use splenda in my coffee and prefer it to other low cal sweeteners. Tried baking with it which was a travesty; others liked it fine, but I thought there was a weird, bitter taste.

This!!

cmarangi wrote: »

I don't understand the apple idea. Yes, everything is chemistry, but that's not the point. There's a difference between what nature makes and what man makes. With processed foods/products it starts out natural usually (except Cheez Whiz, I still don't get that one) and we pervert it with added salt, sugar, fat and preservatives. Sometimes fortification of vits and mins (but still not as good as natural) Your body can tell the difference. But to each their own. I don't get why people get so worked up about it. If you want to eat Splenda...do it. But lalalalaurie asked for information, which is a great thing. Everyone should gather information and make their own decision.

The apple "nature" makes is typically small, hard and sour. The apple you find at the market is the product of intensive agricultural domestication, all courtesy of homo sapien ingenuity. Apples were the last major fruit crop to be domesticated because normal breeding techniques usually didn't work: Even if you carefully crossed two trees that produced delicious apples, more often than not, the resultant seeds would yield trees that produced small, hard, sour apples. It boggled mankind for centuries. The trick turned out to be cloning via grafting: Instead of crossing and planting seeds, you cut a branch from an existing "good" tree and then graft it onto the trunk of the more common crab apple tree that "nature" seems particularly fond of producing on its own. You can even graft branches of different apple varieties onto the same tree. So as you can see, the apple you are eating is about as far from anything "nature" intended as can be. It only exists because of our meddling.

The same is true of practically ever other food product you care to name. For many millennia now, mankind has been domesticating and breeding plants and animals to suit our needs so that they bear little resemblance to their ancestors or wild cousins. Indeed, many of the animals we raise could not even hope to survive in the wild. The plants we've domesticated would quickly be out competed if mankind did not step in via plowing, weeding and overseeding. There's nothing "natural" at all about weeding your garden, even if it's 100% organic. So really, outside of the few remaining hunter/gatherers left, human beings don't eat anything that hasn't been tampered with significantly, both now and throughout our history here on earth.

And any time you choose not to eat foods raw, you are, in fact, "processing" your food. The term we use for adding fat, salt, sugar, etc. is called "cooking". Most people prefer their food cooked. Even preservatives get a bad rap for some reason. Food poisoning and spoilage was no laughing matter and often led to starvation in early humans. What good was growing a food surplus if the food would be rotten by the next day? Food preservation freed mankind from having to go out every single day to acquire fresh food that wouldn't make us sick.