# Splenda vs. Sweet 10



## In the Kitchen (Aug 2, 2006)

My brother who is conscious of both weight and health, asked me if I knew difference between Splenda and Sweet 10.  I told him I did not buy any soft drinks w/aspartane due to the affect it has on the body at later date.  I feel any kind of chemical, in time, affect s the body.  I also have heard that Splenda better choice over Sweet 10.  That is what he is presently using is Sweet 10.  Don't think Splenda advertised as much.  I did advise him to use Splenda.  Since he is my b rother I want to give him correct information. 

I have received some really helpful advice as well as definite links to confirm what i advise my family.  What is your feeling about something other than sugar?  I have also heard anything white,bread, pasta, rice, is a no no.  No value.  Since I grew up on all the white stuff I should be dead by now.  I never did have much of anything else except the 'white stuff'!

Appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## kyles (Aug 2, 2006)

I still use sugar, and I've managed to lose 64 lbs doing so. I don't use a lot of it, but if I want to sweeten the occasional cup of tea, or if I want a soft drink, then I'll take the sugar option. I don't know what Sweet 10 is, but Splenda is still a synthetic option, though distantly derived from sugar.

As for white stuff, it depends on what you want your food to do. White bread etc is not going to kill anyone, it just won't provide as much fibre and nutrients as a wholewheat or wholegrain version.


----------



## jennyema (Aug 2, 2006)

Sweet 10 is saccarine. Splenda is a derivative of real sugar.

I hadn't even heard of Sweet 10, while I think the entire world now knows about Splenda because it is advertised so much.

Personally, I don't like any artificial sweetner, but to me Splenda definitely tastes the best. People claim it's better for you, as well, but I have my doubts about all this stuff.  I think Saccharin definitely tastes the most artificial of the group.

This is an excerpt from HERE

"*Saccharin* 
Discovered in 1879, it was used during both World Wars to sweeten foods. Saccharin is 300 times sweeter than sugar, but has a slightly bitter or metallic aftertaste. It is not metabolized in the digestive tract and is excreted in the urine. As a result, saccharin does not contribute calories to the diet. 

Saccharin can be used in both hot and cold foods. After some research found that large amounts of saccharin may cause cancer in rats, it was banned in the 1970s. The ban was withdrawn in 1991 since no human studies ever found a problem with saccharin. Saccharin is used in Sweet 'N Low and *Sweet 10.*

*Aspartame* 
Sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, aspartame was discovered in 1969 and was approved by the FDA for use in foods in 1981. It is 180 times as sweet as sugar. It does contain 4 calories per gram, but it can be used in such small amounts that no calories are added to the diet. People who have the rare disease phenylketonuria (PKU) should not eat or drink anything with aspartame. One problem with aspartame is that it loses its sweetness when heated. 

*Acesulfame-K* 
Also known as Sunette and Sweet One, acesulfame potassium has an excellent shelf life and does not break down when cooked or baked. However, the texture of baked goods is not the same with acesulfame K as with sugar. To get a good texture, you might need to add some sugar. It is 200 times sweeter than table sugar. Acesulfame K is not digested, so it contributes no calories to the diet. 

*Sucralose* 
Also known by its trade name, Splenda, sucralose is derived from table sugar but is 600 times sweeter than sugar. t is not recognized by the body as a sugar or as a carbohydrate and has no calories. It can be used in cooking and baking and is often found combined with other sweeteners. "


----------



## In the Kitchen (Aug 2, 2006)

*jennyema, kyles*

I agree w/both of you about not using natural products.  

Did you notice that Splenda is not 'recognized' as or sugar or carbohydrate.  What is it recognized as?  These words scare me.  Not recognized.  Sticking w/natural is best. Good for you kyles.  Congratulations!  Bet you are happy.  Seems I have reached certain weight and won't go lower.  I am just thankful to be able to exercise.  What a good feeling person gets from the effort. I see everyone in the morning on their way to work w/diet, this and diet that.  Plus they are on their cell phones.  I drink the coffee and put soy milk in it.  Guess someone could tell me I am not right either.  

I am just worried that we are all eating something that was grown in a warehouse or produced in a lab.  The sun never did shine on some of the stuff we eat.  

Some guy on a show once said he never buys green bananas, he is afraid he won't be here when they get ripe.  Got a laugh but how true.  when the durn things look yellow the inside is like mush.  Sometimes only green bananas are on the stand in the store.  I always try to smell things.  Getting used to smelling things since I am still throwing out food due to storm when electric went out.  After talking to more people they feel same way about loss but think it better than to eat it.  Tree that got hit again by lightning has big expense too.  How do you guys feel about trees?  I used to admire them.  What an expense when you have to have damage cut out.  Sorry I was talking about sweet 10 and splenda.  Trees and sugar you can tell I can't keep mind on one thing.


----------



## In the Kitchen (Aug 2, 2006)

*jennyema, kyles*

I agree w/both of you about not using natural products.  

Did you notice that Splenda is not 'recognized' as or sugar or carbohydrate.  What is it recognized as?  These words scare me.  Not recognized.  Sticking w/natural is best. Good for you kyles.  Congratulations!  Bet you are happy.  Seems I have reached certain weight and won't go lower.  I am just thankful to be able to exercise.  What a good feeling person gets from the effort. I see everyone in the morning on their way to work w/diet, this and diet that.  Plus they are on their cell phones.  I drink the coffee and put soy milk in it.  Guess someone could tell me I am not right either.  

I am just worried that we are all eating something that was grown in a warehouse or produced in a lab.  The sun never did shine on some of the stuff we eat.  

Some guy on a show once said he never buys green bananas, he is afraid he won't be here when they get ripe.  Got a laugh but how true.  when the durn things look yellow the inside is like mush.  Sometimes only green bananas are on the stand in the store.  I always try to smell things.  Getting used to smelling things since I am still throwing out food due to storm when electric went out.  After talking to more people they feel same way about loss but think it better than to eat it.  Tree that got hit again by lightning has big expense too.  How do you guys feel about trees?  I used to admire them.  What an expense when you have to have damage cut out.  Sorry I was talking about sweet 10 and splenda.  Trees and sugar you can tell I can't keep mind on one thing.


----------



## bethzaring (Aug 2, 2006)

In the Kitchen said:
			
		

> Tree that got hit again by lightning has big expense too. How do you guys feel about trees? I used to admire them.


 

Love 'em.

Here is a photograph of a tree in our front yard that was destroyed by lightening, the day after Columbine Colorado.  DH was at home when it happened, he was quite shook up.  Estimates did not meet our deductable so we were left to deal with it ourselves, had to close the road, got lotsa help, as well as firewood.  It was a real loss.  I still miss that tree.

BTW, I vote for real sugar in moderation.  I do not think it wise to consume chemicals.


----------



## black chef (Aug 2, 2006)

i don't have a sweet tooth, and i'm glad of it.

but type 2 diabetes does run in my family... so i need to be careful anyway.  i ALWAYS like to use natural products, but my father, who is diabetic, uses splenda... and seems to like it a lot.

i use it primarily for baking... where i use half sugar/ half splenda.


----------



## In the Kitchen (Aug 2, 2006)

*Gosh*



			
				bethzaring said:
			
		

> Love 'em.
> 
> Here is a photograph of a tree in our front yard that was destroyed by lightening, the day after Columbine Colorado.  DH was at home when it happened, he was quite shook up.  Estimates did not meet our deductable so we were left to deal with it ourselves, had to close the road, got lotsa help, as well as firewood.  It was a real loss.  I still miss that tree.
> 
> BTW, I vote for real sugar in moderation.  I do not think it wise to consume chemicals.



You did have a big tree.  What a shame to lose something that big.  Ours was about that size or bigger and will miss the nice breeze that it gave.  I have been feeding birds and wonder what i will have to do now.  i worry about them too.  As I said this is second time.  I don't have nerve to keep picture of it.  to look at this breaks your heart. Not cheap to have someone take care of it for you.  Guy kept telling me he is insured.  Guess I could get someone who would fall out of the tree too.


----------



## bethzaring (Aug 3, 2006)

I should say that pop/soda/soft drinks have absolutely no place in my diet.  I simply do not buy or consume them.  But if I did, I would buy regular pop.  And my definition of moderation of pop consumption would be to have one maybe once a month.
I have had a passion for photography for many years now, and this tree stood for almost one year before we took it down.  I have dozens of pictures of it from every conceivable angle, and a video of taking it down.  Yes, it is sad to look at them.  The overall impact for me is to realize the power of nature. This was a perfectly sound, 125 year old white oak tree, simply destroyed with one lightening bolt.  The tree was killed in the lightening strike and was right next to the road.  We needed to take it down in a controlled manner.


----------



## scott123 (Aug 5, 2006)

The biggest difference between splenda and sweet 10, as jennyema mentioned, is taste.

Splenda has a slight aftertaste while sweet 10 has a massive one. Saccharin tastes horrible, plain and simple.

Both of these ingredients fall under the category "artificial sweeteners." If you suscribe to the philosophy that 'natural is healthier' than you'd want to avoid both splenda and saccharin.  The only non caloric sweetener that qualifies as 'natural,' would be stevia. The taste of stevia varies quite a bit from brand to brand, but even the best brands still taste pretty bad. For artificial sweetener-phobes, though, stevia is the only option.

I, personally, don't suscribe to the idea that natural is healthier.  The following list of compounds are all 'natural'

Uranium
Lead
Arsenic
Cyanide
Hemlock
Strychnine
Opium
Tobacco
Mercury

Are any of these things healthy? Of course not. There's absolutely no data suggesting that splenda is any healthier than stevia or vice versa. 10, 20, 30 years down the line, either of these sweeteners could turn out to have unexpected long term health impact. It's a shame that saccharin is so revolting, it's got one of the longest track records of the bunch.

I won't go near saccharin. I use some splenda, but I combine it with other sweeteners. By combining, I get

1. a far better quality of taste
2. the textural qualities of sugar that splenda lacks (gooey/chewy/moist/cohesive)
3. a shared risk

If somewhere down the line splenda does turn out to have issues, I'll be in a lot better stead than someone who relies on splenda alone.


----------



## silvercliff_46 (Aug 5, 2006)

I knew that Scotty! I wonder HOW!  

_Scotty is trying to keep an old diebetic like me, around for awhile._

_and now.............., get him to go on about the combining thing._


----------



## VegasDramaQueen (Aug 5, 2006)

_I have always used sugar in my coffee, and because I drink from a large cup, I use about 3 tsp. per cup.  I use sugar in my baking and cooking too.  I stopped using sugar about 2 months ago and switched to Splenda.  I am amazed at the amount of calories I am saving and have lost 9 lbs.  in 2 months with a good balanced diet and no more sugar.  Had to make a difference.  I have a very sensitive "mouth" and can usually tell the difference between real sugar and the fake stuff.  I can barely tell the difference with Splenda.  _


----------



## arlienb (Aug 5, 2006)

i use splenda in my drinks but i've never used it in baking...will it make a difference in texture of cakes/biscuits?  i know the taste will more or less be the same, but i'm thinking the quality of the cake will not be as good as using the natural thing.  (i don't really care about calories...i always feel that compromising on taste and quality by putting in skimmed/diet versions of ingredients defeats the purpose of making something delectable, but i use the occasional splenda because of my family history of diabetes).


----------



## silvercliff_46 (Aug 5, 2006)

Yeah!  Splenda and baking.., A rule of thumb is if you need to make it sweet use Splenda, if you need it to help the leavener's for rising _as in bread_, you need sugar, Splenda for baking or Scotty's formula of sweetners.

I have it, but I can't find it right now.  I am sure he will check back and let you know.

It's good to watch your sugar, but carbs in general are a bigger concern when it comes to diabetes.  The sugar will spike your blood sugar and then go down quickly.  The carbs first convert to sugar then dissapate more slowly.  I learned this at the Endrocrinologist (diabetes specialist) I go to.

This from a guy that buys his insulin by the barrel.


----------



## Bangbang (Aug 5, 2006)

Splenda rocks.......I like it better than sugar.


----------



## Mylegsbig (Aug 5, 2006)

For all of you that are worried about using splenda that would like to see an article about it, with tons of medical/scientific sources, check out this one.

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1188638

you will hear alot of people say

 "im worried, you dont know what it will do long term, there haven't been that many studies"

in reality there have been 113 studies done over 20 years.

read that article it has alot of good information.


----------



## scott123 (Aug 6, 2006)

I agree, the article does have some good information and I also agree... you should read it (again).



> In summary, there just isn't any data supportive of the idea that sucralose is harmful when used by humans. I'm sure the next thing I'll hear is that famous statement, "There just aren't any long-term studies in humans!" Well, unfortunately, the same can be said for just about anything.
> 
> The "long-term" studies for just about everything you ingest (if they exist to begin with) are typically no longer than a matter of a few years. Sure, if a population is followed long enough and thoroughly enough, epidemiological data can be gathered, but the power of such studies isn't always sufficient and may not be able to detect small risks.
> 
> We must also keep in mind that epidemiological data's purpose isn't to "prove" that a compound is completely harmless. *In short, there's no absolute guarantee that everything you ingest each day is completely safe in the long run.*



In no way does the author say that long term studies have been performed. He's saying that nothing is studied long term/nothing is guaranteed to be harmless.



> Statement #7: There have hardly been any studies on sucralose.
> 
> There have been 113 studies conducted on sucralose and its hydrolyzed metabolites for over 20 years. (2-14)



Every one of them _short term_. 

As far as the number of studies goes... within the frame of reference of a new sweetener, 113 studies is actually not that substantial of a number. For this type of man made compound, 113 is a drop in the bucket. How many studies have been conducted on saccharin?

Long term splenda use aside, this is one of the best articles I've seen on stevia. Highly enlightening. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Claire (Aug 7, 2006)

You've got to pick your poisons.  Luckily my husband and I aren't sweets lovers.  But after the diabetes diagnosis I had to buy some kind of artificial sweetner and chose to go with splenda.  In fact, we really are happy with our tea and coffee and such unsweetened.  So I never even had any artificial sweeteners in the house.  When we needed sugar (very seldom) we used real sugar.  Now I keep the fake (I've always had some around for guests) and still use it so seldom that it can go bad before I use it.  to me the advantage of splenda is that it has a 1:1 use so I don't have to try to figure out how much to use when I use it.  I use it so little that I'll never remember how much I need otherwise.


----------



## Bridgett (Aug 9, 2006)

There are a lot more choices than plain old sugar and artificial sweetener. Over the years i have come across several natural, healthier alternatives to white sugar. 

For sweetening tea, milkshakes, etc. i use honey - its a tasty and natural sweetener, but it's low GI unlike white sugar.
For a stronger taste, maple syrup is good, and as well as tasting great it is a source of zinc and manganese. 

In baking, fructose is a great alternative: It's also low-GI, and natural as it is derived from fruit. Its also sweeter than normal sugar, so you can use less and cut down the overall calories.


----------



## silvercliff_46 (Aug 9, 2006)

That sounds good Bridgett, but the diabetes team that I work with give all that a big NO, NO.  It is to bad too, because I help make hundreds of gallons of maple syrup every spring, and I used to get paid in maple syrup (bummer).


----------



## scott123 (Aug 10, 2006)

Bridgett, I'm not sure what source you're getting your glycemic index information from, but it's incorrect. Honey, being a natural product, can vary in GI, but, generally speaking, it averages around 58. Regular sugar is 61.  In no way could honey ever be considered low GI.

Fructose does happen to be low GI, but it's not what I consider to be a 'healthier' alternative. For information on the dangers of fructose, take a look at these links:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/1128
http://www.drkaslow.com/html/fructose.html
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/6/2963
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/conte...ull/25/1/148...
http://wilstar.com/lowcarb/fructose.htm

Dennis, it's good to see that your doctors are up to speed on fructose. It wasn't a long time ago that doctors (and diabetic organizations) were actually recommending fructose as an alternative sweetener to diabetics. Thank goodness that's all changed. Fructose is especially dangerous to diabetics with it's ties to increased insulin resistance.


----------



## silvercliff_46 (Aug 10, 2006)

I have to say I think they are pretty much cutting edge. When I go there I spend almost 2 hours with the nutritionist, nurse, and doctor. My first visit took half a day. I have to write down everything I eat, when I eat it, how much I eat. I take blood sugars before every meal, and two hours after at least one meal per day, as well as when I get up, and go to bed.

I see them every two months because I live so far away. It would be once a month if I was closer _(I live more then 200 miles round trip.) _On the off months I have to fax all the info to them. If my carb count doesn't jive with their lists I will get a call or an email wanting to know why.

It's kinda like Diabetic Boot Camp . We just had a fight about a panini I made. The nurse said it was 65 carbs, I said 40. I was right because I removed excess bread then weighed it. _I love being right! _


----------

