Stevia question

[Slapshot]

I love the powdered stevia packets in all things I have tried it with - except coffee! For some reason, it seems to make it bitter to me, to the point of undrinkable. Granted, I am very particular about my coffee. . .

I had a similar feeling. However, I tried a few drops of liquid stevia I found at Whole Foods and the bitterness wasn't there.

[Aways2Go]

RE: stevia drops in coffee -

Ha, I'll have to try that. Once I ruined a few cups of coffee with the powdered stevia, I never attempted the drops in coffee and just learned to love unsweetened coffee. Occasionally it might be nice for a flavored dessert coffee, though.

I used the drops mostly to add a little flavor to water, which was about my only drink for the last several years besides coffee. I used flavored stevia drops sometimes, and sometimes used the unflavored drops and a squeeze of lime juice. I prefer fresh lime juice, but used a plastic squeeze bottle type sometimes too. A Whole Foods near me carried a brand of bottled lime juice (seems like it was a plastic bottle shaped like a lime) that had the zest or oils from the rind added to it - gave it a really intense and fresh flavor, SO much better than any bottled lime juice I have ever tasted otherwise. It was on the shelf in the aisle with canned goods or juices if I remember - worth looking for!

[yoda]

I love stevia! My preferred brand is SweetLeaf Sweetener Stevia. I have learned that it has 0 calories, 0 carbs, and a 0 glycemic index--the only stevia brand or sweetener on the market with all three of these properties! I have also heard that it has no effect on insulin levels. Why the intake of this would need to be limited, I have no idea! Oh, and it has no aftertaste!!

[vmartennis]

So, I looked in the "Artificial Sweeteners" section of DANDR...page 128. "The FDA has approved the herb stevia for use as a supplement, not as a sweetener." I read the first DANDR in 2000 (the '99 edition). I don't see a mention of stevia at all. I don't think there was much interest or knowledge of stevia back then. There is much interest and knowledge now. I think the diff b/w splenda and stevia isn't a lot... but I am concluding that since splenda is derived from sugar and stevia is an herb I will trust stevia @ this point. I don't care crave sweets anymore, I can live without them (except @ Christmas and Thanksgiving) I'm human. But there are some things that need sweetener. Ok... Later...V

[yoda]

The FDA has approved stevia as a sweetener as of about December 2008. That's why there is so much more interest now.

As for the differences between splenda and stevia, yes, stevia is an herb, but splenda is basically (as I undersand it) sugarized chlorine (--I don't think their slogan "It's made from sugar, tastes like sugar, but is not sugar is competely honest--it was originally used as an insecticide).

Just some friendly info.!

[atkinsgal08]

>splenda is basically (as I undersand it) sugarized chlorine (>>

Nope.

That's a common "myth" ... generally put out by people who want to "trash" Splenda (think sugar industry).

You might want to read:

Splenda misinformation | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

Another take on the Splenda nonsense | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

And if it's chlorine you're trying to avoid, then you need to give up table salt!

[LageNomAi]

Originally Posted by atkinsgal08

>splenda is basically (as I undersand it) sugarized chlorine (>>

Nope.

That's a common "myth" ... generally put out by people who want to "trash" Splenda (think sugar industry).

You might want to read:

Splenda misinformation | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

Another take on the Splenda nonsense | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

And if it's chlorine you're trying to avoid, then you need to give up table salt!

Just to add to this, my DH is a chemical engineer and I asked him about a product such as Splenda being chemically similar to something such as chlorine or any other seemingly "scary" substance. He explained that the tiniest difference in the chemical make-up of something can make a huge difference as to its toxicity, and if something is similar but not the same, chemically-speaking they can be worlds apart.

The "naturalness" of a product does not, by itself, render it healthy or toxic. Anthrax results from naturally-occuring spores but no one is purposefully seeking out those spores for personal exposure.

[liv]

Good discussion.
I think we should always be alert and think about what certain studies suggest about the chemicals we ingest.
But to me I don't think embracing one sweetener means we have to hate the other ones. I have a hole array of sweeteners in my arsenal. I like to try them all to find out how I react to them and I often like to combine them as I find that increases the sweetness factor while lowering the amount. I bought some liquid stevia and I love it. But I also have several forms of splenda and Sugar Twin (makde with cyclamate in Canada) I like the combination of those two. I have tried saccarin and I have used aspartame (just so I know if I react negatively to it). To me trying out sweeteners have been as important as trying out food. If I go to the cheesecake factory and they have a sugar free cheese cake with certain sweeteners I know exactly how I will react to it and how much I can have. (Always prepared - is a good low carb motto)

[yoda]

Dear Atkingal08,

I appreciate you're trying to help, but I did look at the two links you provided about splenda from that doctor, and I was not convinced. It didn't seem very scientific to me. Mostly, he was saying that the sugar industry is out to get splenda and the chorine that is in it, in his opinion, doesn't make any difference because it is in other foods like salt. He didn't say that splenda was not sugarized chlorine, as far as I could tell.

I have heard this argument before, but just because chlorine is in other foods doesn't mean the chlorine make up in splenda isn't harmful. Elements have different reactions to different elements. Actually, several people commented on his site that they had had adverse reactions to slpenda, the most common seemed to be depression.

Splenda has not been around for very long. I also understand it has not been very studied. The longest may have been for only 3 months, and I have heard it has never been studied on women or children. It may be too early to definitively say that it is not harmful ( or that it is unsafe) for most people, but evidently, according to what I just read on the links you sent, they are harmful for at least some people.

As for me, I'll stick with my stevia!

Thanks anyway! I know you were trying to help!

[atkinsgal08]

>>I was not convinced. I>>

Ok.

>>He didn't say that splenda was not sugarized chlorine>>

Where have you found that it is?

>> several people commented on his site that they had had adverse reactions to slpenda>>

And people have reactions to aspartame. People have reactions to all sorts of things ... that doesn't make them universally bad.

>> Splenda has not been around for very long. I also understand it has not been very studied.>>

Well, it's been studied in Canada for 20 years ... is that long enough?

For what it's worth, here's what Colette Heimowitz (Atkins Nutritionals) has written:

"McNeil has conducted extensive research on sucralose to ensure that the ingredient is safe and efficacious. The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has endorsed the safety of sucralose. More than 100 studies demonstrating the safety of sucralose have been performed for more than 20 years. Although the FDA does not require post-marketing surveillance of sucralose, McNeil monitors all alleged product complaints. Importantly, sucralose must be tested in accordance with and meet requirements of a published Food Chemicals Codex (FCC) specification established by the FDA before it may be released for sale.

The Research & Development (R&D) Department at Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., (ANI) has performed an exhaustive, independent literature review of sucralose, in order to corroborate the McNeil Specialty Products Company findings that validate the sweetener's safety, efficacy and purity. McNeil markets sucralose under the brand name Splenda.

20 years of human consumption in Canada would have unmasked any unknown risks by now, and to date nothing has come up."

>>I have heard it has never been studied on women or children.>>

"Hearing" something isn't the same as the truth. I've "heard" many things in life ... doesn't make them true.

You need the facts ...

>>I'll stick with my stevia>>

That's fine. Not trying to get you to change.

Just trying to make sure "the facts" are correct.

Here's another comment about Splenda and chlorine:

"chlorine in its pure state is incredibly toxic. The Germans let the gas ooze into the trenches in World War I, and thousands of Allied soldiers were injured and killed as a result, many of them literally drowning in fluid from their own bodies. Among British soldiers alone, chlorine killed 1,976 men and injured over 164,000. ... But the chlorine atoms in sucralose are tightly bound to the sugar molecules, and present no more hazard than the chlorine atoms in table salt, which is half chlorine and half sodium (such an amazingly active and dangerous metal in its pure state that it burns on its own in air, combines explosively with water, and has to be kept either in oil or an inert atmosphere). Side effects may be caused by something else about sucralose ..."