i'm torn. high fructose corn syrup is obviously out, and table sugar is empty calories.
but when it comes down to artificial sweetener vs. organic cane juice, which is better?
|
Thread: splenda or organic cane sugar?
-
01-19-2009, 03:19 PM #1
-
01-19-2009, 03:23 PM #2
-
01-19-2009, 03:27 PM #3
-
01-19-2009, 03:35 PM #4
- Join Date: Dec 2007
- Location: Queensland, Austria
- Age: 33
- Posts: 11,738
- Rep Power: 460
yeah tru but 1 gram of splenda is about 5 times the volume of 1 gram of sugar and 5 times the sweetness
and as for the op if you dont want extra calories then use splenda if the extra calories is not a problem just have the sugar and the difference in normal sugar and organic cane sugar is so small there is basically no differenceLast edited by Bramble; 01-19-2009 at 03:37 PM.
My are your are birds are all and one gone away the they
ಠ_ಠ
-
-
01-19-2009, 03:36 PM #5
Cane juice is pre-refined table sugar... splenda is a low calorie sweetener.
I don't see how you can compare the two. If you're after low calorie, then clearly splenda is the choice. Otherwise there is little difference between table sugar, sugar cane juice and high fructose corn syrup except for slight difference in the proportions of sugar in them and a very small amount of nutrients in cane juice.Last edited by Wowzer; 01-19-2009 at 04:34 PM.
-
01-19-2009, 03:43 PM #6
i guess it's boiling down to "small amount of nutrients and empty calories" vs "zero nutrients but zero empty calories"..and sort of the question of whether a study is eventually going to come out showing that splenda is going to cause some latent form of cancer or something. :\
gix, granular splenda has enough thickener (dextrose, a sugar) in it to match the volume of sugar. i agree that it is ridicuous. but liquid sucralose or splenda packets contain much less filler.
-
01-19-2009, 03:46 PM #7
-
01-19-2009, 03:57 PM #8
-
-
01-19-2009, 03:59 PM #9
Why?
table sugar is empty calories.
but when it comes down to artificial sweetener vs. organic cane juice, which is better?
Cane juice is sucrose.
Sucrose is a dissacharride of glucose and fructose.
HFCS is a syrup of (approximately) 50/50 glucose and fructose, and is nutritionally equivalent to sucrose.No sir, I don't like it.
-
01-19-2009, 04:01 PM #10
-
01-19-2009, 04:02 PM #11
-
01-19-2009, 04:10 PM #12
-
-
01-19-2009, 04:12 PM #13
-
01-19-2009, 04:15 PM #14
-
01-19-2009, 04:48 PM #15
HFCS isnt 50/50 hence why it's called HIGH fructose corn syrup. I think its 60/40. Really though hfcs doesn't deserve the rap it gets, it's simply a scapegoat for people who eat way to much simple and/or refined carbs and cant control themselves.
The HFCS in your coke didnt make you fat, drinking 8 a day is what made you fat.
In any case, when it comes down to it, you decide if you want the cals or not.
Sugar - tastes great, 4cals/g
splenda - tastes exactly like sugar, only 600x stronger gram per gram 0cals/g pure, 4cals/g if combined with dextrose, although 1 gram is more than enough to sweeten anything.
stevia - very sweet, but tastes a little off. 0clas/g
aspartame - sweet but tastes very off (imo) 0cals/g
acesulfame-k - sweet, but poorly sutdied, and current studies show it could be dangerous 0cals/g
take your pickLast edited by Opies; 01-19-2009 at 04:52 PM.
-
01-19-2009, 04:53 PM #16
-
-
01-19-2009, 04:55 PM #17
That's why I said "approximately". HFCS used in soft drinks is usually HFCS-55.
"According to Maureen Storey, Ph.D., CFNAP director and a member of the study team, there are three types of HFCS products (HFCS-55, HFCS-42, and HFCS-90), but only HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 are commonly used as sweeteners. HFCS-90 is mainly used in the production of HFCS-55, but is seldom directly added to foods and beverages. The composition of HFCS-55 (55% fructose and 42% glucose) is very similar to that of sucrose (50% fructose and 50% glucose). HFCS-42 (42% fructose and 53% glucose) actually contains less fructose than sucrose does. "
from http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/r...ArticleID=1470No sir, I don't like it.
-
01-19-2009, 05:00 PM #18
-
01-19-2009, 05:06 PM #19
my mentality is that health is more important than anything else. empty calories aren't going to do anything for your body.
where i get confused is the fact that i feel sugar in itself needn't be a detrimental part of the diet (hello, glucose IS what we run on). however, there are plenty of studies linking sugar to bone loss, candida, decreased immune functioning, and on and on.
then again, the "artificial" part of artificial sweeteners kind of implies less than healthy. but if it's a trade-off for the above problems, i'll take it.
i'm also not expecting a right or wrong answer on this, but i am very interested in everyone's opinions.
-
01-19-2009, 05:22 PM #20
-
-
01-19-2009, 06:27 PM #21
-
01-19-2009, 06:29 PM #22
-
01-19-2009, 07:05 PM #23
-
01-20-2009, 02:24 PM #24
-
-
01-20-2009, 02:38 PM #25
Agave is little more than pure fructose (70-90% fructose). It's a HIGH fructose sweetener so of course it doesn't impact blood sugar levels, what it does to your blood triglyceride levels is another thing.
http://www.naturalnews.com/024892.html
Honey, stevia, raw sugar or cane juice are better options imo.Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen.
-
01-20-2009, 03:20 PM #26
I think the case for stevia isn't so much the fact that it's natural but because it has been used for centuries (e.g. Japan) and so we have an insight on the long term effects of it. We don't have this same knowledge for all, yes all artificial sweeteners.
Conclusion: Artificial sweeteners MAY really turn out to be harmless even 1000 years from now, but I'm playing safe and taking Stevia in moderation. Some sucralose/aspartame/saccharin etc OCCASIONALLY is not that bad, just don't make it a staple.
-
01-20-2009, 03:24 PM #27
-
01-20-2009, 03:38 PM #28
-
-
01-20-2009, 05:43 PM #29
-
01-20-2009, 05:51 PM #30
Bookmarks