Leave a comment

Comments 3

dogs_n_rodents April 7 2010, 17:29:39 UTC
It does have a different sort of sweetness than Splenda, but not in a bad way. I dislike its endothermic tendency to cool my hot beverage. Unless I have a coupon to buy it, I will stick to generic Splenda for the sake of cost.

Something else to factor too is that if you're going to use this in a larger quantity, you will also get a caloric intake than if you use 1-2 packets at most in a day. Splenda won't attribute to a caloric intake because of the chemical structure and the body's biomechanical breakdown of Sucralose versus Strevia. Just some biochem to keep in mind if you're wanting to use this long-term as a sugar substitute.

And just remember, "Natural isn't always better." :D

Reply


nimalqua April 7 2010, 17:43:26 UTC
It's natural, which is its benefit to me over Splenda... fake sugar gives me the willies, as well as headaches.
That being said, it takes some getting used to. Still gives me a weird aftetaste. I can take it in coffee and strong drinks, but can't do tea with anything but sugar.

Reply


f_l_i_r_t April 7 2010, 21:28:38 UTC
This is a natural product, not an artificial sweetener, it is made from the stevia plant. Other cultures and countries have been using it for years, maybe even centuries.

It is a lot less harmful than artificial sweeteners.

It has a slight vanilla flavour too it, but too me is pretty close to regular sugar without the calories.

I prefer TruVia, more for your money... and often on sale or can find coupns for it.

Same thing, made of stevia plant.

We should all just use unrefined sugar in small doses, but if you can't do this, I think this is probably the safest alternative. Agave nectar is natural and come from cactus plants, it is also low glycemic and is a bit like honey in consistency.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up