Stevia vs. Splenda

[Conflicted]

Wondering what people prefer, Stevia or Splenda in there food. And why? I heard that Stevia inhibits the absorption of carbs into the blood. True or false?
Is stevia toxic? Is it more natural than Splenda?

So many questions....just had a bad experience with a low carb bar. Afraid of the sugar substitutes.

Thanks so much!

[Matt]

the problem you had with the bar was the sugar alcohols, not the splenda.

[MINDYMOUSE]

I use Stevia and prefer it over Splenda.

I'm real leery about chemical induced/Artifical sweetners. Stevia is a natural herb.

I had'nt heard about the carb absorption thing.

[Dreamer]

I use splenda because I can cook with it. Stevia can't be used at the temperatures that I cook and bake at because it breaks down. If you are only going to use it for sweetening cold or room temperature foods, I don't think that there is much difference between them. I use liquid splenda because it doesn't have the carbs that are in the powder form.

Dreamer

[Reggiano]

i prefer stevia because it is all natural and splenda is a chemical and i try to avoid chemicals...

[Atkins_Nutritionist]

Let's take a look at stevia and splenda and the role they can play in a controlled carb lifestyle.

A main goal of the Atkins Nutritional Approach is to stabilize blood sugar (glucose) and insulin levels through the restriction of carbohydrates. Sugar is a carbohydrate, so it is strictly limited. Controlling carbs naturally curbs sugar cravings. However, if you still crave sweets, we suggest you use a sugar substitute. The prudent, moderate use of artificial sweeteners is usually acceptable. But be aware that not all sugar substitutes are created equal. We recommend specific sweeteners that are safe and will not interfere with weight loss. Some people experience negative reactions to certain sweeteners, and the risk increases with the amount used. With all artificial sweeteners, the less used, the better.

Our preference is sucralose, marketed under the name Splenda®=. Derived from sugar, it is non-caloric, contains less than 1 gram of carbs and doesn't raise blood sugar. It has been used in Canada since 1991 and has been thoroughly tested for safety and efficacy. Sucralose is approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar. It is inert in the body's digestive system, quickly passing through without accumulating in tissues. In addition, it does not lose its sweetness when heated, so it can be used in cooking and baking.

In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sucralose for sale in the United States after reviewing more than 100 studies conducted during the past 20 years.

If Splenda is not available, saccharin is the next best thing. The FDA recently removed saccharin from its list of carcinogens, basing its decision upon a thorough review of the medical literature and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' statement that "there is no clear association between saccharin and human cancer." It can be safely consumed in moderate amounts—no more than three packets a day. Sugar poses a greater threat to good health than saccharin does. Saccharin is marketed as Sweet 'n Low.

Acesulfame potassium, also known as acesulfame-K, another non-caloric sweetener, is approximately 200 times sweeter than sugar. Because it cannot be metabolized, it passes through the body without elevating blood sugar. The FDA has authorized the use of acesulfame-K after evaluating numerous studies and determining its safety. It is sold under the brand name Sunett.

Stevia is a noncaloric herb, native to Paraguay, that has been used as a sweetener and flavor enhancer for centuries. Many people enjoy stevia's natural sweetness and subtle licorice taste. This herb has been used as a sweetener in Japan with no ill effects for more than 25 years. In the United States, it has not yet been approved as a food, so stevia can be sold only as a nutritional supplement. It contains less than one gram of carbs per packet. You can find it in most health food stores.

No matter which you choose it is so important to avoid natural sweetners such as fructose, lactose or maltose.

[klawrence34]

I have been using Splenda, but have read some reports that it really isn't much better than aspartame (I can't remember where I read them, but when I find them will post them). I'm going to switch to Stevia.

Here is a link on Stevia that tells about it's use, what it's made from, safety, etc.:
http://www.mercola.com/forms/stevia.htm

[klawrence34]

Back again. I found some of the articles - they were on the same site ( the others were in health magazines, etc). Anyway, here are some links to articles on Splenda:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/su...e_dangers.htm#

http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/23/chlorine.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2003/aug/23/splenda.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2004/jan/10/s..._questions.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2003/nov/8/splenda_dangers.htm

Sounds kind of scary. I guess we have to make up our own minds about what we want to use. If we want to be safe we wouldn't be able to eat or drink anything - even water as it's unsafe with different chemicals. It's good to be informed, but we have to also use our common sense along with a bit of caution.

[Reggiano]

Laurence 34,
your link about stevia does not work....thanks for the information

[sunflower43017]

I prefer Stevia as too much Splenda gives me a headache.

[klawrence34]

Reggiano, I just tried the links on my posting and they seem to work ok. I tried them all. I don't know why they aren't working.

Maybe if you just copy the address and paste it in your browser it might work. Hope it works. Let me know if it doesn't!

[Queen Mab]

I use stevia, and I wouldn't touch Splenda because it makes me very ill.
I use it in my coffee, for cooking, and no it doesn't break down.

[Atkins_Nutritionist]

Always remember to be sure to check to make sure you are at a reliable source when looking to the internet for information. Here is Atkins response to Mercola's website, complete with references. It is lengthy but well worth the read

Despite the extensive research supporting the safety of sucralose over the past two decades and its approval by multiple regulatory agencies, there have still been reports warning consumers that the sweetener is dangerous for consumption. One of these reports, written in a newsletter article by Dr. Joseph Mercola in December of 2000 (Mercola 2000) has received much media attention recently. However, there are several dangers to relying on this newsletter as a source of information about sucralose. First, it appears at first glance to be supported by science, as Mercola alludes to data from research studies. However, when looking at what the research actually says, it becomes apparent that he has distorted many of the research findings. Additionally, he does not directly reference any of his statements so it is not known what research he is citing where. The studies he does indicate as his sources are outdated as there has been an enormous amount of research published following the writing and internet posting of the newsletter. The nutritionists in Education and Research at Atkins Nutritionals intricately reviewed the science and have countered the greater part of statements in Dr. Mercola’s report regarding the potential dangers of sucralose.

Mercola Warning:
Animal studies have shown that sucralose can cause the following problems in rats, mice, and rabbits: reduced growth rate, decreased fetal body weights and placental weights, shrunken thymus glands, extension of the pregnancy period, aborted pregnancy, increased cecal weight, hyperplasia of the pelvis, and enlarged liver and kidneys.
Evidence Countering the Warning:
It is now known that the reason for the reduced growth rates and decreased weights seen in rat studies can be attributed to the reduction in food intake due to the reduced palatability of the sucralose (Mann, Yuschak et al. 2000). Their weight loss and reduced growth was not related to the safety of sucralose at all. The rats simply ate less because they did not like the taste of sucralose in their food. The shrinking of the thymus gland was a response to the stressful condition associated with reductions in weight (Kille, Ford et al. 2000). The citation regarding pregnancy complications could not be located. However, research has indicated no abnormalities in gestation, maternal and fetal viability, or fetal development in rats or rabbits fed high levels of sucralose (Kille, Ford et al. 2000). Although there is research to support the remaining warnings as listed above, Mercola failed to point out that these changes occur frequently in response to feeding poorly absorbed osmotically active substances, and that any of these substances, not just sucralose would produce the effects seen in rats (Lord and Newberne 1990). In addition, Mercola did not mention that spontaneous changes are commonly observed in aged rats of the strain used (Mann, Yuschak et al. 2000).
Conclusion:
Mercola’s position is not supported by current research and the evidence he references may be misleading to consumers as it is outdated and misrepresents the actual research findings. There are no animal studies that have produced any evidence to suggest that the safety of sucralose should be questioned. Any unfavorable results found were not a direct consequence of the safety of sucralose.

Mercola’s Warning:
The glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) of diabetic patients using sucralose significantly increased. (Increases in HbA1C, a marker of glycemic control, implies a lessening of control of diabetes).
Evidence Countering the Warning:
Although Mercola failed to indicate the source of this information, it is suspected he was referring to a 6-month study on individuals with Type II diabetes that showed an effect on sucralose on HbA1C levels. This study is now obsolete as a recent multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study indicated that the consumption of sucralose in doses three times the estimated maximum intake had no effect on glucose homeostatis in 128 Type II diabetics. Additionally, the study showed that sucralose was as well-tolerated by the subjects as was the placebo (Grotz, Henry et al. 2003).
Conclusion:
Mercola’s position is based upon outdated research. Consumption of sucralose will not complicate the ability of Type II diabetics to achieve and maintain glycemic control.

Mercola’s Warning:
There are only 19 studies that exist on sucralose.
Evidence Countering the Warning:
There may have only been 19 studies published at the time of the writing of this edition of Mercola’s newsletter. However, a current PubMed search yields 70 matches with sucralose. Of these matches, 61 are scientific research studies and the remaining are position papers and reviews of the literature.
Conclusion:
Mercola’s newsletter provides obsolete information. Sucralose is in fact a thoroughly studied sweetener and results from additional, pending studies are highly anticipated.

Mercola’s Warning:
As much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed and concentrates in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. About 20-30% of the absorbed sucralose is metabolized, some into small amounts of 1,6 dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequately tested on humans.
Evidence Countering the Warning:
Compared with Vitamin C, which is typically 95% absorbed, sucralose is considered a poorly absorbed substance. Research has shown that humans given single oral doses of sucralose excrete 93-97% (Roberts, Renwick et al. 2000). The sucralose that is absorbed is bound to glucuronide and is excreted in the urine. The overwhelming majority of an administered dose of sucralose, however, is excreted unchanged in the feces.
Conclusion:
Mercola insinuates that the amount of sucralose absorbed and metabolized is dangerous, despite the lack of evidence to support this. Sucralose is not recognized by the body so it passes through unchanged and is excreted unchanged in the feces and urine.

Mercola’s Warning:
Sucralose is a chlorinated molecule and some chlorinated molecules serves as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T.
Evidence Countering the Warning:
Sucralose is made from sugar by a patented process that selectively substitutes three chlorine atoms for three of the sugar molecule’s hydroxyl (-OH) groups. The substitution of the hydroxyl groups with chlorine atoms stabilizes the bond between the two chlorinated monosaccharides that make up sucralose, making it unavailable for hydrolysis by the body’s enzymes. The chlorine atoms, which are a unique attribute of sucralose, are not harmful to the body. These chlorine atoms are tightly bound to the sucralose molecule and are not stripped off during passage through the body.
Although some chlorine-containing compounds are associated with toxicity (e.g. DDT), this is not the case universally. For example chlorine atoms make up half of the chemical structure of the molecule known as table salt, a commonly used food ingredient in the home and in the food industry. Accordingly, there should be no more concern associated with the consumption of sucralose, as there would be for table salt. Indeed, chlorine in the form of chloride is essential for human nutrition and has a Recommend Daily Intake (RDI) established for it by FDA. Additionally, there are several over-the-counter medications that contain chlorine atoms we tend to use these products with little or no concern.
Some opponents of sucralose have suggested that it is similar to DDT because it to contains chlorine atoms. However, the similarity stops there. An acute dose of as little as 113mg/kg of bodyweight can be lethal. Whereas, in a chlorine feeding study, rats consumed sucralose at a level of 3,000mg/kg of bodyweight per day over a two-year period without harmful effect (John, Wood et al. 2000).
Conclusion:
Mercola attempts to cause alarm where no concern is warranted. Comparing chlorine atoms associated with sucralose to DDT being a chlorinated compound is a distortion of the principles of biochemistry. The chlorine atoms associated with sucralose are a non-issue.

Mercola’s Warning:
It is not known what happens when sucralose is excreted and the raw sewage is treated and then released back into the environment. Questions remain as to whether it remains stable or reacts with other substances to form a new compound, whether it safe for aquatic life and other animals, and whether is will appear in the water supply.
Evidence Countering the Warning:
The speculation that sucralose would pose a threat to the environment has been dismissed. Extensive environmental studies were conducted to evaluate the degradation of sucralose in the environment (Labare and Alexander 1994). The results of these studies showed that sucralose could be completely mineralized in the environment (reduced to water, CO2, and chloride) and that is posed absolutely no harm to the environment. The FDA agreed with this conclusion and classified sucralose as having no significant impact on the environment.
Conclusion:
Again, Mercola attempts to cause concern where it is not warranted. Sucralose does not compromise the safety of the environment.

Mercola’s Warning:
Non-caloric sweeteners are not replacing, but rather supplementing, sugar consumption. Additionally, sugar substitutes that consumers may use in weight reduction may actually stimulate appetite. Therefore, sucralose does not provide any benefit for the public.
Evidence Countering the Warning:
According to the USDA Economic Research Service, per capita consumption of non-caloric sweeteners did increased by 30.1 lbs over the past three decades. However, the per capita consumption of flour and cereal products increased by more than 60 lbs and consumption of carbonated beverages increased by 25 gallons. Although consumption of non-caloric sweeteners did increase, the increase was actually at a rate proportionally less significant than other sources of sugar. The source Mercola referenced that suggests sugar substitutes stimulate appetite was not indicated. However, current research indicates no relationship between sweetener consumption and changes in food intake (Black, Tanaka et al. 1991; Drewnowski, Massien et al. 1994).
Conclusion:
Mercola’s attempt to link sucralose with increasing food intake is found to be uncorroborated with current research. Sucralose can be beneficial for consumers who which to replace sugar with a non-caloric sweetener.

Summary
Referring to Mercola’s warning regarding the dangers of sucralose will provide the reader with obsolete, misconstrued information. There are dozens of scientific studies that were published subsequent to the release of his newsletter supporting the safety of sucralose. Not only should the majority of Mercolas’ statements be dismissed as a result of the date it was written, but also because the research he does reference to support his stance is often distorted. Science has shown sucralose to be safe and multiple regulatory agencies have agreed with the current research. Consumers can safely use products containing sucralose and take advantage of the expanding food options they have as they continue their quest to eat a healthier diet.

References

Black, R. M., P. Tanaka, et al. (1991). "Soft drinks with aspartame: effect on subjective hunger, food selection, and food intake of young adult males." Physiol Behav 49(4): 803-10.


Drewnowski, A., C. Massien, et al. (1994). "Comparing the effects of aspartame and sucrose on motivational ratings, taste preferences, and energy intakes in humans." Am J Clin Nutr 59(2): 338-45.


Grotz, V. L., R. R. Henry, et al. (2003). "Lack of effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis in subjects with type 2 diabetes." J Am Diet Assoc 103(12): 1607-12.

John, B. A., S. G. Wood, et al. (2000). "The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of sucralose in the mouse." Food Chem Toxicol 38 Suppl 2: S107-10.

Kille, J. W., W. C. Ford, et al. (2000). "Sucralose: lack of effects on sperm glycolysis and reproduction in the rat." Food Chem Toxicol 38 Suppl 2: S19-29.

Labare, M. P. and M. Alexander (1994). "Microbial cometabolism of sucralose, a chlorinated disaccharide, in environmental samples." Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 42(1): 173-8.


Lord, G. H. and P. M. Newberne (1990). "Renal mineralization--a ubiquitous lesion in chronic rat studies." Food Chem Toxicol 28(6): 449-55.


Mann, S. W., M. M. Yuschak, et al. (2000). "A combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study of sucralose in Sprague-Dawley rats." Food Chem Toxicol 38 Suppl 2: S71-89.


Mercola, J. (2000). The Potential Dangers of Sucralose. Weekly Health Newsletter. December 3, 2000. http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/su...e_dangers.htm. Accessed April 30, 2004.

Roberts, A., A. G. Renwick, et al. (2000). "Sucralose metabolism and pharmacokinetics in man." Food Chem Toxicol 38 Suppl 2: S31-41.

[Bobby]

Originally posted by Atkins_Nutritionist
Let's take a look at stevia and splenda and the role they can play in a controlled carb lifestyle.

A main goal of the Atkins Nutritional Approach is to stabilize blood sugar (glucose) and insulin levels through the restriction of carbohydrates. Sugar is a carbohydrate, so it is strictly limited. Controlling carbs naturally curbs sugar cravings. However, if you still crave sweets, we suggest you use a sugar substitute. The prudent, moderate use of artificial sweeteners is usually acceptable. But be aware that not all sugar substitutes are created equal. We recommend specific sweeteners that are safe and will not interfere with weight loss. Some people experience negative reactions to certain sweeteners, and the risk increases with the amount used. With all artificial sweeteners, the less used, the better.

Our preference is sucralose, marketed under the name Splenda®=. Derived from sugar, it is non-caloric, contains less than 1 gram of carbs and doesn't raise blood sugar. It has been used in Canada since 1991 and has been thoroughly tested for safety and efficacy. Sucralose is approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar. It is inert in the body's digestive system, quickly passing through without accumulating in tissues. In addition, it does not lose its sweetness when heated, so it can be used in cooking and baking.

In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sucralose for sale in the United States after reviewing more than 100 studies conducted during the past 20 years.

If Splenda is not available, saccharin is the next best thing. The FDA recently removed saccharin from its list of carcinogens, basing its decision upon a thorough review of the medical literature and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' statement that "there is no clear association between saccharin and human cancer." It can be safely consumed in moderate amounts—no more than three packets a day. Sugar poses a greater threat to good health than saccharin does. Saccharin is marketed as Sweet 'n Low.

Acesulfame potassium, also known as acesulfame-K, another non-caloric sweetener, is approximately 200 times sweeter than sugar. Because it cannot be metabolized, it passes through the body without elevating blood sugar. The FDA has authorized the use of acesulfame-K after evaluating numerous studies and determining its safety. It is sold under the brand name Sunett.

Stevia is a noncaloric herb, native to Paraguay, that has been used as a sweetener and flavor enhancer for centuries. Many people enjoy stevia's natural sweetness and subtle licorice taste. This herb has been used as a sweetener in Japan with no ill effects for more than 25 years. In the United States, it has not yet been approved as a food, so stevia can be sold only as a nutritional supplement. It contains less than one gram of carbs per packet. You can find it in most health food stores.

No matter which you choose it is so important to avoid natural sweetners such as fructose, lactose or maltose.

Can I share this info on another site, I'll be glad to give you full credit for it.

Thanks
Bobby

[Ayrlin]

Mercola is a loon plain and simple, you should read some of the other dear old doc's works.
I use both products, Splenda for bakeing but Stevia for all my day to day needs such as my tea and such.
Splenda does have a horrible side effect of makeing me vomit if I eat more than a couple teaspoons a day but like any food intolerances are going to happen in certain people.
I have found spledna impacts my glucouse more than stevia, but I use liquid stevia and powdered splenda so it may be from the addatives in the splenda.

[shutterbug]

Originally posted by Dreamer
I use splenda because I can cook with it. Stevia can't be used at the temperatures that I cook and bake at because it breaks down. If you are only going to use it for sweetening cold or room temperature foods, I don't think that there is much difference between them. I use liquid splenda because it doesn't have the carbs that are in the powder form.

Dreamer

I have a friend that uses Stevia for a lot of her cooking and baking. She gets the powdered form.