Calories in Splenda

I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup. dkw

" How low are the calories in SPLENDA?
SPLENDA®, the brand name for the sweetening ingredient Sucralose, has
no calories. A two-teasoon serving of SPLENDA® Granular or a single
Low-Calorie Sweetener packet also has very few calories -- so few, that
these are considered equivalent to zero under the FDA's nutrition
labeling regulations.

The small amount of calories in the SPLENDA® Granular and Packet
products come from the presence of some common, natural food
ingredients in these products. These ingredients, maltodextrin, for
example, give SPLENDA® the necessary bulk so it can be used like
sugar, but with only 1/8 sugar's calories. Both the Packet and Granular
forms of SPLENDA® have only 2 calories per teaspoon, while sugar has
16, and a cup of SPLENDA® granular has only 96 calories, while sugar
has 770. Using SPLENDA® instead of sugar can therefore significantly
reduce the amount of calories, sugar and carbohydrates in many of your
favorite recipes. "

<dkw12002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168540335.097631.135880@k58g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup. dkw

Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?

"determined" <determined@comcast.nest> wrote in message
news:Rd-dndP8Up0VGTvYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <dkw12002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168540335.097631.135880@k58g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
> Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
> 1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
> teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
> about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
> but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
> think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
> insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
> form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup. dkw
>
> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?

I just went and measured a packet of splenda, and it just fills my 1/4
teaspoon measurer...

determined wrote:
> <dkw12002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168540335.097631.135880@k58g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
> Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
> 1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
> teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
> about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
> but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
> think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
> insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
> form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup. dkw
>
> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?

No. It takes about 4 packets to make a teaspoonful. dkw

determined wrote:
> "determined" <determined@comcast.nest> wrote in message
> news:Rd-dndP8Up0VGTvYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > <dkw12002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168540335.097631.135880@k58g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> > I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
> > Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
> > 1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
> > teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
> > about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
> > but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
> > think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
> > insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
> > form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup. dkw
> >
> > Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>
> I just went and measured a packet of splenda, and it just fills my 1/4
> teaspoon measurer...

Right. So if my info is correct, the 18 Splenda packets I use to make
my meringues would only be 5 cal., an insignificant amount. I think it
is criminal the way they get away with saying something is zero
calories though, like my nonfat Promise margarine that says it is zero
fat per serving of 1 tablespoon...problem is, there is ONLY FAT in the
product, so it could not be zero calories.

I think Sweet and Low and Equal do have 4 cal per packet. If it is
under 5, they can call it zero. That doesn't make sense, because you
know there are people out there using 20 of them at a time, like I do.
dkw

dkw12...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
> Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
> 1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
> teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
> about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
> but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
> think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
> insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
> form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup.

Both granular and packet Splenda are mixtures of sucralose and
maltodextrin. But there's nothing to say that they are the same
mixture.

A packet has enough sucralose to handle a teaspoon of sugar
sweetness, but it takes 4 packets to have that much volume.

You can't open a bunch of packets and compare them to the
granular that way.

Because the packets are listed as "less than 1" calorie, I count
them as 1. If I need to use more than 1, I would probably count
them as 0.50 calories each but round the total up just in case.

dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
> determined wrote:
>
>>"determined" <determined@comcast.nest> wrote in message
>>news:Rd-dndP8Up0VGTvYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>><dkw12002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1168540335.097631.135880@k58g2000hse.googl egroups.com...
>>>I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
>>>Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
>>>1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
>>>teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
>>>about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
>>>but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
>>>think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
>>>insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
>>>form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup. dkw
>>>
>>>Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>>
>>I just went and measured a packet of splenda, and it just fills my 1/4
>>teaspoon measurer...
>
>
> Right. So if my info is correct, the 18 Splenda packets I use to make
> my meringues would only be 5 cal., an insignificant amount. I think it
> is criminal the way they get away with saying something is zero
> calories though, like my nonfat Promise margarine that says it is zero
> fat per serving of 1 tablespoon...problem is, there is ONLY FAT in the
> product, so it could not be zero calories.
>
> I think Sweet and Low and Equal do have 4 cal per packet. If it is
> under 5, they can call it zero. That doesn't make sense, because you
> know there are people out there using 20 of them at a time, like I do.
> dkw
>
Actually there is water, starch, gelatin, and flavoring as well as a
small amount of fat. And the label says what, 5 calories per serving?

So since fat is 9 calories per gram, and gelatin and starch have
calories too, it must be less than 0.5 grams fat per serving.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

determined wrote:

> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?

Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever meet:

Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.

If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it.
Sweet is pleasant, but there are other tastes.

My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)

Dally

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:48:01 -0500, Dally <Dally@whoever.com> wrote:

>determined wrote:
>
>> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>
>Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever meet:
>
>Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
>of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
>from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.
>
>If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it.
>Sweet is pleasant, but there are other tastes.
>
>My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
>questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)
>
>Dally

That was kind of my thought. I'm probably more rigorous about calorie
tracking -- at least over the long haul -- than most folks here, but I
don't worry about how many calories there are in Splenda!

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004

Dally wrote:
> determined wrote:
>
> > Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>
> Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever meet:
>
> Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
> of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
> from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.
>
> If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it.
> Sweet is pleasant, but there are other tastes.
>
> My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
> questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)
>
> Dally


Exactly!!! I don't use much of the stuff, personally. And when I want
to sweeten something, I much, much prefer the taste of honey, and I'm
losing weight, lots of weight.

"Dally" <Dally@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:50nt52F1eetmeU1@mid.individual.net...
> determined wrote:
>
>> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>
> Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever
> meet:
>
> Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
> of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
> from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.
>
> If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it. Sweet
> is pleasant, but there are other tastes.
>
> My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
> questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)
>
> Dally

To each there own. I eat about 6 packets of splenda per day. I was just
trying to figure out if the number of calories was worth tracking. I'm
still trying to lose weight, and when my maintenance level is already pretty
low, every calorie counts.

determined wrote:
> "Dally" <Dally@whoever.com> wrote in message
> news:50nt52F1eetmeU1@mid.individual.net...
>> determined wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>> Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever
>> meet:
>>
>> Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
>> of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
>> from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.
>>
>> If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it. Sweet
>> is pleasant, but there are other tastes.
>>
>> My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
>> questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)
>>
>> Dally
>
> To each there own. I eat about 6 packets of splenda per day. I was just
> trying to figure out if the number of calories was worth tracking. I'm
> still trying to lose weight, and when my maintenance level is already pretty
> low, every calorie counts.
>
>

I read somewhere that most unhealthy or overweight people consider taste
more important than nutrition. If you're eating 6 packets of Splenda
daily, maybe it's time to look at why you don't think food tastes good
unsweetened and avoid joining either of these camps(Unhealthy or
Overweight).
--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contacts/cheese.php

"Cheese" <nospam@cheesensweets.com> wrote in message
news:rDMph.135$y3.42@llnews...
> determined wrote:
>> "Dally" <Dally@whoever.com> wrote in message
>> news:50nt52F1eetmeU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> determined wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>>> Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever
>>> meet:
>>>
>>> Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
>>> of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
>>> from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.
>>>
>>> If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it.
>>> Sweet is pleasant, but there are other tastes.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
>>> questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)
>>>
>>> Dally
>>
>> To each there own. I eat about 6 packets of splenda per day. I was just
>> trying to figure out if the number of calories was worth tracking. I'm
>> still trying to lose weight, and when my maintenance level is already
>> pretty low, every calorie counts.
>
> I read somewhere that most unhealthy or overweight people consider taste
> more important than nutrition. If you're eating 6 packets of Splenda
> daily, maybe it's time to look at why you don't think food tastes good
> unsweetened and avoid joining either of these camps(Unhealthy or
> Overweight).
> --
>
> Cheese
>
> http://cheesensweets.com/contacts/cheese.php

Maybe you are right. I have a serious sweet tooth, and can't live without
chocolate or CHEESE! But, since I am only about 7 lbs from goal weight, I
just can't see giving up the sweet tooth altogether. If I was really
struggling with weight, I might be more compelled to change my habits. Or
maybe with more time... I mean, up until about a year ago, I was a every
single day Starbucks latte drinker, and you couldn't have pried that cup
from my cold dead hands. But over time I became willing to give that up.
And I used to hate diet soda, but eventually traded my regular stuff for
diet, and then I even went from drinking it daily to only a few days a week,
instead opting for crystal lite or water.

But I definitely don't think I prefer taste over health. I actually believe
more in a balance BETWEEN taste and health. Not everything I eat is 100%
healthy, but it is 100% more healthy than it was in the past, and much
healthier than your average population. Add in the fact that I exercise
about 5 days a week, and I just feel that really, I'm ok right where I'm at.

Interesting....I used to have a HUGE sweet tooth. I don't any longer. I
got rid of it by going without sweets (candy, gum, splenda, etc.) for 5
weeks, this includes artificial sweeteners. Now, I don't crave sweets
anymore, including chocolate. In fact, these days the only chocolate I
get is the 1 cup of lowfat chocolate milk I have after my long runs.

I hvae read in many places that artificial/chemical sweeteners adds to
your sweet tooth, making you crave sweets more.

Cheese wrote:
> determined wrote:
> > "Dally" <Dally@whoever.com> wrote in message
> > news:50nt52F1eetmeU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> determined wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
> >> Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever
> >> meet:
> >>
> >> Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
> >> of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
> >> from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.
> >>
> >> If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it. Sweet
> >> is pleasant, but there are other tastes.
> >>
> >> My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
> >> questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)
> >>
> >> Dally
> >
> > To each there own. I eat about 6 packets of splenda per day. I was just
> > trying to figure out if the number of calories was worth tracking. I'm
> > still trying to lose weight, and when my maintenance level is already pretty
> > low, every calorie counts.
> >
> >
>
> I read somewhere that most unhealthy or overweight people consider taste
> more important than nutrition. If you're eating 6 packets of Splenda
> daily, maybe it's time to look at why you don't think food tastes good
> unsweetened and avoid joining either of these camps(Unhealthy or
> Overweight).
> --
>
> Cheese
>
> http://cheesensweets.com/contacts/cheese.php

I doubt there are very many people who don't flavor most of their food
in some way. Do you eat your salad without any dressing or salt or
pepper. Actually, I do. If you eat meat, do you eat meat without any
salt or pepper or catsup, A-1, etc? Sure their is black coffee and tea,
but how many people drink it plain? I think there is not a day goes by
that you don't use a lot of sweetening and salt. It is almost
impossible to avoid. Give me Splenda, lots and lots of Splenda......
Splenda on my oats, Splenda in my green tea, Splenda out my ears.
Splenda. dkw

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> dkw12...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > I can't find the discussion, but someone was asking about calories in
> > Splenda. If this information is correct, Splenda packets are less than
> > 1 cal per packet since it takes more than 4 packets to make a
> > teaspoonful and one teaspoonful equals 2 calories, making each packet
> > about 1/4 calorie. The granular form also has 2 cal. per teaspoonful,
> > but that means it has more calories for the same quantity (volume). I
> > think this means that if you use the packets, the calories are in fact
> > insignificant and do not need to be counted. I would count the granular
> > form used in baking though at 96 cal per cup.
>
> Both granular and packet Splenda are mixtures of sucralose and
> maltodextrin. But there's nothing to say that they are the same
> mixture.
>
> A packet has enough sucralose to handle a teaspoon of sugar
> sweetness, but it takes 4 packets to have that much volume.
>
> You can't open a bunch of packets and compare them to the
> granular that way.
>
> Because the packets are listed as "less than 1" calorie, I count
> them as 1. If I need to use more than 1, I would probably count
> them as 0.50 calories each but round the total up just in case.

All you say is true. The granular and the packets are not blended the
same since they contain different calories per amount by volume.

I actually eat the equivalent of about 100 Splenda packets per day...6
packets in a serving of oats, farina, grits, and on my puffed rice and
wheat cereal. 2 packets in each cup of green tea, 18 packets in the
meringues I make, and there is Splenda in the sugar-free syrup I use
and the sugar-free jam I spread on my toast, so I do want to know the
calories in the stuff. Like I said, I have Splenda coming out my ears.
dkw

dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> All you say is true. The granular and the packets are not blended the
> same since they contain different calories per amount by volume.
>
> I actually eat the equivalent of about 100 Splenda packets per day...6
> packets in a serving of oats, farina, grits, and on my puffed rice and
> wheat cereal. 2 packets in each cup of green tea, 18 packets in the
> meringues I make, and there is Splenda in the sugar-free syrup I use
> and the sugar-free jam I spread on my toast, so I do want to know the
> calories in the stuff. Like I said, I have Splenda coming out my ears.
> dkw

The sugar-free jams and syrups are produced in large quantities and most
likely contain sucralose without the fillers. The calories in the Splenda
packets and granular form come from the fillers not the sucralose. The whole
reason there are fillers in the packet/bulk Splenda is because one serving
of sucralose is so small you wouldn't be able to measure it.

So the only packets you need to keep track of for calorie purposes are the
packets you open and use.
--
Jeri
"Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."

dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
> Cheese wrote:
>> determined wrote:
>>> "Dally" <Dally@whoever.com> wrote in message
>>> news:50nt52F1eetmeU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> determined wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, the question is, is there a teaspoon of splenda in a packet?
>>>> Ladies, speaking as one of the most anal retentive people you'll ever
>>>> meet:
>>>>
>>>> Cut it out. When you start looking at how many calories are in a packet
>>>> of splenda when the choices are less than one or two, PLEASE! Step away
>>>> from the food log. You've got to take a bigger picture here.
>>>>
>>>> If you're drinking/using a lot of sweet stuff, wean yourself off it. Sweet
>>>> is pleasant, but there are other tastes.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion is that you spend the time you'd spend typing these
>>>> questions by jogging in place, instead. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Dally
>>> To each there own. I eat about 6 packets of splenda per day. I was just
>>> trying to figure out if the number of calories was worth tracking. I'm
>>> still trying to lose weight, and when my maintenance level is already pretty
>>> low, every calorie counts.
>>>
>>>
>> I read somewhere that most unhealthy or overweight people consider taste
>> more important than nutrition. If you're eating 6 packets of Splenda
>> daily, maybe it's time to look at why you don't think food tastes good
>> unsweetened and avoid joining either of these camps(Unhealthy or
>> Overweight).
>> --
>>
>> Cheese
>>
>> http://cheesensweets.com/contacts/cheese.php
>
> I doubt there are very many people who don't flavor most of their food
> in some way. Do you eat your salad without any dressing or salt or
> pepper. Actually, I do. If you eat meat, do you eat meat without any
> salt or pepper or catsup, A-1, etc? Sure their is black coffee and tea,
> but how many people drink it plain? I think there is not a day goes by
> that you don't use a lot of sweetening and salt. It is almost
> impossible to avoid. Give me Splenda, lots and lots of Splenda......
> Splenda on my oats, Splenda in my green tea, Splenda out my ears.
> Splenda. dkw
>

Yes, I flavor my salads with fat (olive oil) and I flavor my my meats
with a rub or sprinkle of kosher salt, pepper and garlic but never A1.

Ketchup? Why not put a tomato on a burger for tomato flavor? The sad
answer is society doesn't want the taste of tomato anymore. Instead
they want the candied tomato flavor created by mixing ground tomato with
high fructose corn syrup (ketchup). This is the sweet tooth problem I
was addressing. The fact that people don't even like the taste of a
burger anymore without adding sugar. Maybe I'm alone, but I find that sad.

I'm certain companies like Tate & Lyle aren't sad after marketing super
sugars like Sucralose (600 x sweeter) and next Neotame (13,000 x
sweeter) in the future. They'll unfortunately have a home in every
recipe if this trend continues.

Jeri wrote:
> dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > All you say is true. The granular and the packets are not blended the
> > same since they contain different calories per amount by volume.
> >
> > I actually eat the equivalent of about 100 Splenda packets per day...6
> > packets in a serving of oats, farina, grits, and on my puffed rice and
> > wheat cereal. 2 packets in each cup of green tea, 18 packets in the
> > meringues I make, and there is Splenda in the sugar-free syrup I use
> > and the sugar-free jam I spread on my toast, so I do want to know the
> > calories in the stuff. Like I said, I have Splenda coming out my ears.
> > dkw
>
> The sugar-free jams and syrups are produced in large quantities and most
> likely contain sucralose without the fillers. The calories in the Splenda
> packets and granular form come from the fillers not the sucralose. The whole
> reason there are fillers in the packet/bulk Splenda is because one serving
> of sucralose is so small you wouldn't be able to measure it.
>
> So the only packets you need to keep track of for calorie purposes are the
> packets you open and use.
> --
> Jeri
> "Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."

I'm thinking when the product identifies the sweener as "Splenda" that
it is the same Splenda I can buy. Which one I don't know. If they
called it sucralose, it would't be Splenda. Anyway, the product already
tells you how many calories are in each serving, so I can do the math
easily. Thanks. dkw

dkw12...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I actually eat the equivalent of about 100 Splenda packets per day...

Uh huh. Do you see the problem with that?

While artificial sweeteners might or might not be less bad for you than
the equivilant of diabetes causing refined sugar, imagining that any of
them are harmless enough to eat in that quantity is foolhardy. I hope
you start tapering off and reduce your sweet tooth over time.

"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168721408.032242.313480@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> dkw12...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> I actually eat the equivalent of about 100 Splenda packets per day...
>
> Uh huh. Do you see the problem with that?
>
> While artificial sweeteners might or might not be less bad for you than
> the equivilant of diabetes causing refined sugar, imagining that any of
> them are harmless enough to eat in that quantity is foolhardy. I hope
> you start tapering off and reduce your sweet tooth over time.
>
It is pretty clear that for someone in this group splenda is preferable
to sugar. There is little evidence it has adverse health effects.
Whether it is somehow a moral failing to prefer to eat sweet foods and
continue to do so is open to debate.

100 tsp sugar equivilent. or 400 grams sugar. is the equivilent of 10
cans of soda, more or less.

del

Del Cecchi wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > dkw12...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> I actually eat the equivalent of about 100 Splenda packets per day...
>
> > Uh huh. Do you see the problem with that?
>
> > While artificial sweeteners might or might not be less bad for you than
> > the equivilant of diabetes causing refined sugar, imagining that any of
> > them are harmless enough to eat in that quantity is foolhardy ...
>
> It is pretty clear that for someone in this group splenda is preferable
> to sugar. There is little evidence it has adverse health effects.

The observed historical trend should be taken into account. For every
artificial sweetener introduced on the market at first there has been
little or no evidence it has adverse health effects. Then over the
years
more and more news have come out of studies that find problems.
Some of those studies have been flawed enough that the wrong one
was banned (saccharine seems worse than cyclamates), some bad
enough that many think they should have been banned but weren't
(aspartame draws much flack). But none have ended up considered
a viable alternative to the equivalent amount of sugar. Given this
history, why should sucralose be considered the exception that
becomes a magic bullet?

> > I hope
> > you start tapering off and reduce your sweet tooth over time
>
> Whether it is somehow a moral failing to prefer to eat sweet foods and
> continue to do so is open to debate.

Indeed, but if it's based on the assumption that this time the
artificial
sweetener being used will turn out harmless then it's based on a low
odds bet.

Humans crave sweet foods. It appears to be instinctive. There are
all sorts of speculations on why. Fruit eating ancestors, the narrow
availability window of ripe fruits available in the wild combined with
their high vitamin content. If some magic bullet does end up
happening that will be the time to have the moral argument.

> 100 tsp sugar equivilent. or 400 grams sugar. is the equivilent of 10
> cans of soda, more or less.

Time for me to repeat my original "Uh huh. Do you see the problem
with that?" comment. Four hundred grams of sugar is a major
contributor to getting fat in the first place. Replacing it with
chemicals
masks the original problem. Something about "eat less and exercise
more" doesn't seem to be included in the idea.