# Anyone Here Use Stevia Sweetner?



## black chef (Dec 24, 2006)

i went to the doctor because of extreme pain & pressure in my urinary tract, and SURPRISE to me... he said that i should back off the SPLENDA!

now, i'm going to use the stevia sweetner...

anyone here got any tips for using this stuff... in cold drinks like tea, in hot drinks like coffee, and for baking????

Stevia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry if this is a repost...


----------



## Michael in FtW (Dec 24, 2006)

The Stevia.Net site has a lot of good information - click on Recipes and Tips at the top of the page. One of the things they point out is that it's hard to give a definative sugar to steiva conversion chart because different suppliers process it in different ways ... some have fillers and some don't, for example.

Baking yeast breads seems to be a big problem since stevia does not feed the yeast. However, quick breads that are not leavened by yeast would work.

A quick Google search for Stevia Recipes found several sites that might give you some ideas.


----------



## Michelemarie (Dec 24, 2006)

I don't know about stevia - however, I do know about nutrasweet-just like splenda, stay away!  IMO, any artificial sweetener is not worth potential health risks - sugar ain't so bad!


----------



## stargazer021 (Dec 25, 2006)

I haven't tried Stevia but I just joined Weight Watchers and the group leader is recommending Stevia over other sweetners. Not sure why


----------



## black chef (Dec 25, 2006)

stargazer021 said:
			
		

> I haven't tried Stevia but I just joined Weight Watchers and the group leader is recommending Stevia over other sweetners. Not sure why



a friend told me that she's seen it at Whole Foods... so when i get back to houston, i'm gonna give it a try.

regardless, i need to back off the Splenda... it actually hurt me, and i don't like that.


----------



## urmaniac13 (Dec 25, 2006)

One of the benefits of Stevia is it is a natural product and there is no undesirable side effect for your health.  We do have tried it, and used it for our tea and coffee.  It is good, and although it may seem very expensive the sweetness is extremely condenced and a tiny bit goes a long way.  The aftertaste is almost undetectable with the white version.  The brown version has a little, it was better mixed with either honey or brown sugar.  We haven't tried in cooking though, I have read that it can be used for cooking as well.
Here is another site with more info, Stevia - The Natural Sweetener - Recipes, Cooking Tips, Articles, and leading Stevia Products


----------



## black chef (Dec 25, 2006)

urmaniac13 said:
			
		

> One of the benefits of Stevia is it is a natural product and there is no undesirable side effect for your health.  We do have tried it, and used it for our tea and coffee.  It is good, and although it may seem very expensive the sweetness is extremely condenced and a tiny bit goes a long way.  The aftertaste is almost undetectable with the white version.  The brown version has a little, it was better mixed with either honey or brown sugar.  We haven't tried in cooking though, I have read that it can be used for cooking as well.
> Here is another site with more info, Stevia - The Natural Sweetener - Recipes, Cooking Tips, Articles, and leading Stevia Products



thx for the links and info...

after going thru my "episode" and reaction from using too much splenda, i'm giving stevia a try.


----------



## philso (Dec 26, 2006)

here in japan, stevia is used in a lot of products. i may have supersensitive taste buds or something, but to me it tastes like chewing on aluminum foil.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 28, 2006)

black chef said:
			
		

> i went to the doctor because of extreme pain & pressure in my urinary tract, and SURPRISE to me... he said that i should back off the SPLENDA!
> 
> now, i'm going to use the stevia sweetner...


Instead of switching sweeteners, it might be time to switch doctors. In the 100+ splenda studies that have been performed in the last 20 years, not ONE has ever linked splenda with urinary problems. Believe me, if it did cause urinary issues, there's no way it wouldn't have been detected during the testing phase.

You doctor is reaching- big time. I'm surprised he didn't blame your urinary pain/pressure on the alignment of the planets. That's how ridiculous blaming splenda for something like this is.

Is splenda perfectly safe for long term use? The jury's not in. Time will tell. But a direct link between splenda and urinary pressure/pain? That's absolutely ludicrous.

And recommending stevia as a substitute?!?! It sounds like your doctor might need to lay off the self medication.

There's a reason why stevia isn't approved for use in food (and it isn't some sugar lobby conspiracy). The reason is that there are numerous studies that show potential links between steviosides (the sweet component that's extracted from stevia) and both decreased male virility and cancer. CANCER!

Stevia is popular with the holistic crowd because it's 'natural'. They erroneously equate 'natural' with 'safe.'

 Uranium
 Lead
 Arsenic
 Cyanide
 Hemlock
 Strychnine
 Opium
Belladonna
 Tobacco
 Mercury

are all 'natural,' and yet not safe in the slightest. It's truly a twisted society we live in that something so potentially dangerous as stevia would be embraced as a sweetener simply because it's a plant.

Even if someone were to dispute Stevia's carcinogenic/reproductive impact (and some do), it is generally agreed that stevia decreases heart rate and blood pressure. Although on the outside these effects may be perceived as a good thing... it's proof that stevia is impacting physiology to a substantial degree. Do you really want to be altered to that extent (good or bad) by your sweetener?

And lastly, although less processed forms of stevia leaf are considered safer, they taste, across the board, vile. When you get into the more dangerous steviosides, some brands taste better than others, but even the best brand has a noticeable aftertaste (I've tasted all the best selling brands myself and confirmed this).

So, summing everything up:

Splenda- good tasting, approved by the FDA, with no studies proving health issues
Stevia- bad tasting, unapproved by the FDA, with studies proving potential long term health impact

Stick with splenda, get a new doctor.


----------



## JMediger (Dec 28, 2006)

Black Chef, you might want to find out if you have an allergy or sensitivity to chlorine.  If so, Splenda might be the problem but if not, I'm kind of with scott123 on this one.  The only people I've heard of having an issue with Splenda are those with Chlorine sensitivity or allergy since Chlorine is part of the processing.  Why do I know this?  A good friend of mine switched to Splenda after years of Nutrasweet and started getting bad headaches and a scratchy throat, similar to what occured if she went swimming in a pool.  When she went to a few doctors (went to hers then got a second opinion), both confirmed that she was allergic to Chlorine and that was the problem with the Splenda.

I would get a second opinion before you switch foods of any kind as it (bad diagnosis) might be hiding a real problem.

Good Luck!


----------



## black chef (Dec 28, 2006)

scott123 said:
			
		

> Instead of switching sweeteners, it might be time to switch doctors. In the 100+ splenda studies that have been performed in the last 20 years, not ONE has ever linked splenda with urinary problems. Believe me, if it did cause urinary issues, there's no way it wouldn't have been detected during the testing phase.
> 
> You doctor is reaching- big time. I'm surprised he didn't blame your urinary pain/pressure on the alignment of the planets. That's how ridiculous blaming splenda for something like this is.
> 
> ...



wow... where did you get YOUR M.D.?

my doctor NEVER recommended using stevia... that was MY idea; so don't read btw the lines, OK.

secondly, it has been PROVEN that splenda causes irritation in the male urinary tract.

*sits back while you attack the use of stevia and my doctors diagnosis.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 29, 2006)

black chef said:
			
		

> secondly, it has been PROVEN that splenda causes irritation in the male urinary tract.



Proven, huh? Let's see the studies.


----------



## scott123 (Dec 29, 2006)

daisy said:
			
		

> Stevia has long been known to have an effect on the male reproductive organs - natives traditionally used it as a contraceptive.


Yeah... would you like one lump of contraceptive with your tea or two? I guess you, as a woman, are in a position to be cavalier when it comes to reproductive organs that aren't your own. Me, personally, I kinda like my reproductive organs the way they are.

Call me old fashioned, but I try to avoid activities that diminish my sperm count.

I've read all about the great 'Stevia Conspiracy.' I'm also fully versed in Area 51 lore as well as the Loch Ness Monster. It's all very entertaining, but none of it holds a shred of truth.

If the Chinese studies have been disproven by some other research, please, feel free to point me towards this body of knowledge. I'm not sure what 'scientific world' you're referring to. The general consensus among scientists is that the leaf form that's been used for centuries _is_ fairly benign but the highly purified extract (steviosides) has not been studied enough. Until further research occurs, it will continue to be banned in Europe as well as remain unapproved for use in food products in the U.S.


----------



## JMediger (Dec 29, 2006)

scott123 said:
			
		

> Yeah... would you like one lump of contraceptive with your tea or two? I guess you, as a woman, are in a position to be cavalier when it comes to reproductive organs that aren't your own. Me, personally, I kinda like my reproductive organs the way they are...


 
She was simply stating a fact as to prior uses for the stuff - not suggesting that you personally (or any other man) use it for this purpose.  I don't think she was trying to be cavalier about anything ... No need to jump on her response like that.  Argue with the right side, not those of us who are offering support to your statements.  Unless, of course you are chewing on some stevia currently and it's ill effects have interfered with your sense of reason.


----------



## kitchenelf (Dec 29, 2006)

I think it's been made clear that everyone has an opinion.  Everyone needs to check with their own personal doctor.  I think it is a known fact that anything artificial is best in very small doses.  

Everyone should consult with their own doctor to see what's best for them; consult another one if need be.  If you find relief from what your doctor says there must be something to it.  

Please, one of our hard and fast policies here is NOT doing what is being done here.  Take all your arguments to PM please.  A friendly disagreement for the sake of working out problems is fine but this has gone too far.


----------



## Dove (Dec 29, 2006)

Thanks Elf. You saved me from sending invitation's to the wood shed. LOL


----------



## kitchenelf (Dec 29, 2006)

.................


----------



## JMediger (Dec 30, 2006)

My apologies to all ...


----------



## mujiber (Jan 3, 2007)

*Huh?*

Ok Stevia has been used in Japan for over 30 years now - it makes up 40% of their "sweetener" market... and Coke even uses it in all their diet drinks over there... hard to believe it's "well known" that it causes problems with reproduction... that's just absurd. If you want some actual details on Stevia, go here: Stevia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mudbug (Jan 3, 2007)

All I can add to this discussion is personal experience of HH"s use of Splenda for several years now.  No ill effects to _that_ guy's plumbing or ancillary systems.

Hasn't bothered me either.


----------



## scott123 (Jan 3, 2007)

mujiber said:
			
		

> Ok Stevia has been used in Japan for over 30 years now - it makes up 40% of their "sweetener" market... and Coke even uses it in all their diet drinks over there... hard to believe it's "well known" that it causes problems with reproduction... that's just absurd. If you want some actual details on Stevia, go here: Stevia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The problem with Wikipedia is that it's user contributed, so anyone could have written that article.

From Stevia: A Bittersweet Tale



> To stevia’s boosters, there’s no debate. The herb has been consumed without apparent harm in different parts of the world for many years, they argue. No reports of any adverse reactions have surfaced after 30 years of use in Japan, for instance.
> “But the Japanese don’t consume large amounts of stevia,” notes Douglas Kinghorn, professor of pharmacognosy (the study of drugs from plants) at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
> 
> “In the U.S., we like to go to extremes,” adds toxicologist Ryan Huxtable of the University of Arizona in Tucson. “So a significant number of people here might consume much greater amounts.”
> ...


----------



## Silver (Jan 3, 2007)

Every time I see the sugar vs. sweeteners (e.g. aspartame or sucralose) vs. stevia debate, I chuckle.  The reasons are varied - I'll recount by the way I see it:

a) Studies in these fields are mostly commissioned.  Studies that are commissioned *usually* give the desired results of whoever does the commissioning.  Whether this means that inhuman amounts of whatever product are fed to/injected in whatever lab animal is being used so as to be able to garner the necessary results and/or results are coloured by minute differences portrayed as significant because of the failure to provide full disclosure.  Basically, what I understand this to mean is that if the Sugar Producers of America commission a study about the evils of aspartame, the lab will inject  enough aspartame in a rat to give it cancer.  When the rat then dies of natural causes and minute cancers are discovered in the autopsy, the study claims that aspartame causes cancer, but fails to mention that the equivalent dose in humans would be akin to drinking 20 litres of pure aspartame daily for years (these numbers and study are made up for the sake of giving an example).  

b) My understanding is that rats and humans do not always react similarly to various stimuli.  This alone raises questions regarding the effectiveness of the studies.

c) For every study asserting a proposition, there is a study to counter it in some way; however, usually these studies address different aspects of the issues and thus are essentially useless when compared against each other.

d) The only one of the three that we know FOR sure causes problems is sugar.  The reason we know this is that its consumption in excessive amounts is well documented to contribute to significant health problems such as diabetes and other obesity related issues - the basics of calories in vs. calories out and the problems that arise from an imbalance are an example.

e) Most of the products in question have not been in use long enough or in sufficient quantities to properly assess their long term effects.  The notable exception is once again sugar.

f) Much like all things in life that we enjoy so much, moderation is the key.  This likely applies to all of the above items (sugar/sweeteners/stevia).  I cannot think of any particular material that we can consume that will not cause problems if consumed in excess.  Too many apples will give you the runs and may cause fructose related insulin issues.  Too much broccoli may have mineral/vitamin overdose issues.  Even too much water causes problems.  Too much alcohol is well documented. 

I personally enjoy a balance of these sweetening products, which in and of itself shows my own personal bias.  In short, it's pretty much all junk "knowledge" until it is able to be reliably and independently supported over the long term.  Who knows when that'll be in the age of misinformation that we are currently in?


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 3, 2007)

Upon reading Scott123's post, one thing jumped out at me.  Re: cited HIGH DOSES and VERY LARGE AMOUNTS, you have to wonder how those amounts relate to amounts the average American would consume.


----------



## scott123 (Jan 3, 2007)

Silver said:
			
		

> a) Studies in these fields are mostly commissioned.  Studies that are commissioned *usually* give the desired results of whoever does the commissioning.


I agree. The studies that have been done on stevia may have been skewed towards negative results by corporate funding. It's possible.

At the same time, though, even though American stevia manufacturers aren't pulling in a lot of money with their stevia sales, most are involved in the supplement market- a multibillion dollar business. These companies have the money to perform studies proving the safety of their product. But do they? No. Instead they attempt to appeal to people's erroneous correlation between 'natural' and 'benign.' Most people are under that misconception- it's gone a long way to put stevia in many a cupboard. But common belief doesn't make it so. Natural isn't always better.

I'm not a big fan of the FDA. They approve things that shouldn't be approved and don't approve things that should. In this instance, though, I think they're in the right. When dealing with a product that has questions regarding safety, it's not the FDA's job to prove the product's safety, it's the producers. And, rather than fund studies and prove the naysayers wrong, the producers whine and cry foul. If you're going to try to take a bite out of one of the biggest businesses in the country (sweeteners) you had better have your A game going on.



			
				Silver said:
			
		

> In short, it's pretty much all junk "knowledge" until it is able to be reliably and independently supported over the long term. Who knows when that'll be in the age of misinformation that we are currently in?


Again, I am in complete agreement. At no time during this or any other discussion have I ever said 'Splenda is safe but Stevia is not.' It's all a toss up from a long term perspective. When I hear people talking about the alleged 'dangers' of splenda at the same time recommending stevia instead because it's 'perfectly safe,' that's when I take offense.


----------



## scott123 (Jan 3, 2007)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> Upon reading Scott123's post, one thing jumped out at me. Re: cited HIGH DOSES and VERY LARGE AMOUNTS, you have to wonder how those amounts relate to amounts the average American would consume.



That's an excellent observation. I agree that the quantities being consumed by the animals in these studies is probably a hundredfold of what a typical American would consume. Maybe even a thousandfold.

What's important to note, though, is that no studies have come along saying 'such and such amount' _is_ safe.

It's also important to note that the daily consumption of stevia in tea and coffee isn't an issue here. I'm reasonably certain the trace amounts involved would have no negative health impact whatsoever.  The original poster brought up using stevia _for baking_- utilizing it as a substitute for sugar in all of his baked goods. That, imo, is a different story, involving a pretty serious increase in stevioside consumption.


----------



## Silver (Jan 4, 2007)

Until I find a single reliable study for or against any non-sugar sweeteners, I'll condone their uses in "normal" amounts (including baking) as I feel that those amounts are unlikely to cause any harm...particularly in the case of stevia where (to my limited understanding and without significant research to look into any differences in the styles/uses) it has been used for hundreds of years in S.America.  

Besides, if my soldiers stop working, it'll save me loads of money on future child-rearing.


----------



## Dove (Jan 6, 2007)

1 Tsp Stevia (powered)=1 Cup Sugar 
1 Tsp Stevia (liquid)=1 Cup Sugar 
1/2 Tsp Stevia=1 Tbsp Sugar 
6 Drops liquid Stevia=1 Tbsp Sugar 
A pinch of Stevia=1 Tsp sugar 
2 drops liquid stevia=1 Tsp sugar


----------



## Amanda3961 (Jan 6, 2007)

I use Splenda in my tea and anything that calls for sugar.  I'm borderline diabetic so I am very careful with my sugar.  I prefer the taste of Splenda over other artificial sweeteners.


----------



## Dove (Jan 7, 2007)

So am I and so do I...
Diabetic
and like Splenda better.


----------

