Whey protein that has NO artificial sweeteners?

[rhadam]

That really has no relevance to aspartame or sucralose. There have been countless studies done on both. Aspartame has been around since the late 60s.

[TeamDymatize]

Try out All Natural Elite Whey Isolate - http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/dym/elitenatural.html

No artificial flavors, artificial sweeteners, aspartame, MSG, none of that, and it's sweetened with Stevia. Comes in gourmet vanilla, rich chocolate, and strawberry shake.

[bballaman369]

This is an amusing thread

[onthemove85]

I hear ya man, I don't like artificial colors, sweeteners, or anything. I love my body and try not to put garbage in it. Its just a way to make more money off of people. Funny how many 'bodybuilders' like artificial stuff in there body. The studies go both ways but big business/corporations are for profit and so are the studies they have paid for to done. Studies can be made to tell you just about anything. MANY MANY studies coming out so that all of the garbage/artifical crap in bodies causes damage. I mean my theory is if it aint coin nothin good than it aint worthwhile and it most likely coin harm. Why would anyone want rat poison? even if its "proven" to not do any damage to you? For me I don't like artificial stuff. Its just a personal choice. There's my 2 cents but who cares.

Anyway good brands: BIOCHEM makes a lot of great whey protein, no sucralose or anything, Whole foods has there own brand with no garbage, MRM is one brand they sell on here that is good. Mercola makes a good one with chia seeds. If doesn't have to be whey VEGA SPORT makes some of the best protein period.

Im not sure why people would take offense to anyone's personal health beliefs/desires- or try to debunk them. Always try to better yourself, mind, body and spirit. Whole foods/proteins are the best way to go. Artificial garbage doesn't do anything good for your body.

[drooks10]

I hear ya man, I don't like artificial colors, sweeteners, or anything. I love my body and try not to put garbage in it. Its just a way to make more money off of people. Funny how many 'bodybuilders' like artificial stuff in there body. The studies go both ways but big business/corporations are for profit and so are the studies they have paid for to done. Studies can be made to tell you just about anything. MANY MANY studies coming out so that all of the garbage/artifical crap in bodies causes damage. I mean my theory is if it aint coin nothin good than it aint worthwhile and it most likely coin harm. Why would anyone want rat poison? even if its "proven" to not do any damage to you? For me I don't like artificial stuff. Its just a personal choice. There's my 2 cents but who cares.

Anyway good brands: BIOCHEM makes a lot of great whey protein, no sucralose or anything, Whole foods has there own brand with no garbage, MRM is one brand they sell on here that is good. Mercola makes a good one with chia seeds. If doesn't have to be whey VEGA SPORT makes some of the best protein period.

Im not sure why people would take offense to anyone's personal health beliefs/desires- or try to debunk them. Always try to better yourself, mind, body and spirit. Whole foods/proteins are the best way to go. Artificial garbage doesn't do anything good for your body.

See bolded sentence. I would like to see the studies you are referencing.

David
Team APPNUT

[rhadam]

^ rofl

[onthemove85]

its just a personal choice, i can't even post citations, i just googled artificial sweeteners and cancer and plenty of articles come up...however I'm sure there is far more against me- so you got that- no doubt- but on the real the american cancer society and the medical profession as a whole is not in the business of preventive medicine, it does not make nearly as much money. many people on here I'm sure would argue that mcdonalds is 100% beef because the sign says so- not understanding what the fda has approved to qualify as 100% beef. obviously most weightlifters don't mind aspartame, sucralose, etc etc, as it tends to be in ALL the products. heck many take things far worse so what does it matter in comparison?

but if you want to look at the minority sources, those who dare to go against the status quo and huge corporate profits, you can daily find em with a little googlin, i did just try to post some but it won't let me, but again who cares?

[onthemove85]

hey that dymatize one looks good too, ill check that out, thx for the post

[rhadam]

I'll take medical citations over personal opinion.

[onthemove85]

Show me the medical citations that show you that stuff is good for you. Another thing you might want to consider in the studies you cite are the sources that fund them- and wow why so many studies needed? to keep a huge money maker legally out there? And you can find 'medical citations' that prove otherwise- that artificial stuff in your body is at best a mild contaminant. One easy way to see it with out needing/reading anything (like billion dollar backed studies) is just realizing the pandemic black flag that cancer and obesity have become.

[rhadam]

Show me the medical citations that show you that stuff is good for you. Another thing you might want to consider in the studies you cite are the sources that fund them- and wow why so many studies needed? to keep a huge money maker legally out there? And you can find 'medical citations' that prove otherwise- that artificial stuff in your body is at best a mild contaminant. One easy way to see it with out needing/reading anything (like billion dollar backed studies) is just realizing the pandemic black flag that cancer and obesity have become.

Have you not read any of the studies i've posted? Do you really think that everything is backed by Coke and Pepsi and so it's inaccurate? Think of how many universities with huge budgets that would love to catch the FDA in a lie, yet none have proven aspartame to be as horrible as some people believe (without actual proof). The FDA is pretty strict on what goes in to production, and the fact is that aspartame has been around for 30 years now and it's still in production. There have been countless tests on it as well as other food additives (sugars). Have you ever been to the FDA.gov site? Look at the countless recalls they do.

[onthemove85]

Have you not read any of the studies i've posted? Do you really think that everything is backed by Coke and Pepsi and so it's inaccurate? Think of how many universities with huge budgets that would love to catch the FDA in a lie, yet none have proven aspartame to be as horrible as some people believe (without actual proof). The FDA is pretty strict on what goes in to production, and the fact is that aspartame has been around for 30 years now and it's still in production. There have been countless tests on it as well as other food additives (sugars). Have you ever been to the FDA.gov site? Look at the countless recalls they do.

I studied this stuff a lot at undergrad, and a lot of other times, there are plenty of independent studies that show aspartame cause health issues, i mean agree to disagree thats all

Aspartame is poison. Some say there is no evidence at all of toxicity. They are wrong. They also say it has been a subject of an internet hoax, when ironically, the real hoax is the spreading that it's possible harmful effects is a hoax and that there is no evidence of toxicity. The fact is it has 92 different adverse reactions attributed to it, and it accounts for at least 75% of complaints to the FDA.

The Department of Health And Human Services lists the most common of these reactions and the amount of complaints for each on an official FDA document dated April 1995 that you can look at on (can't post) Just go to the side under "Official Documents" and click on "92" symptoms. There is also great information at holisticmed, You might also want to watch a documentary, called "Sweet Misery." You can easily find it online, just google it, or you should find it on youtube.

The approval of aspartame is a long story of politics and greed, not science. I could comment further about it, including how studies that were funded by the aspartame industry or connected to it were manipulated or as documented was "...at best...sloppy" and were guilty of "a pattern of conduct that compromises the scientific integrity of the study." To that end I will just say that 100% of those studies funded by the aspartame industry and those under contract to the industry found aspartame to be safe, while 90% of the studies done independently found a problem. The FDA approval of aspartame was pretty much the most (probably the most) contested in its history.There is much more, so much corruption involved in the approval process of aspartame. Please research it, it may shock you.

Aspartame is made up of three components. First it's made up of 50% phenylalanine and 40% aspartic acid. These are amino acids. Now yes, we need amino acids for good health. However, they can be dangerous when separated from their amino acid chain, becoming an isolate, or in isolation, such as it is in aspartame. They are never this way in foods we eat. Never. Also, these two amino acids are in huge concentrations in aspartame. For example, in foods we eat everyday, phenylalanine accounts for only 4-6% of it's amino acid chain, while again in aspartame it is a whopping 50%. That toxic amount may adversely affect anyone, not just those with PKU. The third component it 10% methyl ester, methanol, wood alcohol, which is well-known to be poison. At above 86 degrees, and remember the body is 98.6 degrees, the methanol converts to formaldehyde, another well-known poison. While there may be more methanol in natural foods we eat, it is always bonded with a natural antidote, rendering it harmless. In aspartame, the methanol is in isolation with no antidote to ward off its poisonous effects. Furthermore, aspartame is known to be an excitotoxin, stimulating brain cells to death, which is why many of its known reactions are neurological. Some of the effects are brain lesions, seizures, depression, anxiety, memory loss, headaches, including migraines, nausea, dizziness, eye problems, abdominal pain and so on to 92.

We can all do our own research and come to our own conclusions, I just think artificial sweeteners are not good for my body

[rhadam]

Sure, you do what you want to do for your body, your body your choice. I have looked in to artificial sweeteners pretty extensively and i have to side with them being safe for the most part. You disgree, that's cool. I will continue to preach that they are basically safe, you will do the opposite.

[onthemove85]

yea bro its good to have atleast 2 sides to everything, there are things far worse than artificial sweeteners like pro hormones on up da scale. So for some people - like if you drink n smoke regularly or shoot dope or roids or beat your wife n kids or eat fast food regularly and don't exercise etc etc w/e then aspartame is the least of your worries by far

Id just like to see to more products that don't add anything that is unnecessary

[TheGilmore]

I'm still waiting on that human study that shows aspartame is dangerous in HEALTHY people that DO NOT HAVE the RARE condition that makes you sensitive to aspartame. Oh, and that has it in quantities that people actually consume. Not the order of many cases of diet soda a day.

[hemingersl]

Everyone is clearly free to make up their own minds about this but despite the name-calling flying back and forth, it really does NOT seem that research is all clear on this issue despite the length of time that these sweeteners have been available. The study abstracts below (from three peer-reviewed sources) are three quite recent studies that do seem to indicate a negative impact on health through use of artificial sweeteners. The potentially most relevant for us interested in a healthful lifestyle would be the second.
Really, I think focusing mostly on whether or not they cause cancer has lead to the creation of some false arguments and maybe we need to take a more whole-health approach in making these determinations and be more open to the fact that science almost NEVER has a 'case closed' moment.

Are they really safe?
Hell I don't know.
Will I continue using them...probably not. There is far more at play (read money and power) in deciding whether anything is determined safe than simply whether it is. For me its a similar issue to the USDA which is still pushing a 'food pyramid' and providing subsidies to grain farmers that has most Americans fat and wondering how it could be.
Most people can probably keep using supplements with them for years with no ill affects...but you can use supplements with no sweetener or natural substitutes with none for sure.



Yale J Biol Med. 2010 June; 83(2): 101–108.
Published online 2010 June.

Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings

Abstract
America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products (Figure 1). Both forward and reverse causalities have been proposed [1,2]. While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain. In this mini-review, inspired by a discussion with Dr. Dana Small at Yale’s Neuroscience 2010 conference in April, I first examine the development of artificial sweeteners in a historic context. I then summarize the epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning their effects on weight. Finally, I attempt to explain those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward.


Diabetes Care. 2009 April; 32(4): 688–694.
Published online 2009 January 16. doi:

Diet Soda Intake and Risk of Incident Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)*

Abstract
OBJECTIVE

We determined associations between diet soda consumption and risk of incident metabolic syndrome, its components, and type 2 diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Diet soda consumption was assessed by food frequency questionnaire at baseline (2000–2002). Incident type 2 diabetes was identified at three follow-up examinations (2002–2003, 2004–2005, and 2005–2007) as fasting glucose >126 mg/dl, self-reported type 2 diabetes, or use of diabetes medication. Metabolic syndrome (and components) was defined by National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI for type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and metabolic syndrome components were estimated, adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and dietary confounders.

RESULTS

At least daily consumption of diet soda was associated with a 36% greater relative risk of incident metabolic syndrome and a 67% greater relative risk of incident type 2 diabetes compared with nonconsumption (HR 1.36 [95% CI 1.11–1.66] for metabolic syndrome and 1.67 [1.27–2.20] for type 2 diabetes). Of metabolic syndrome components, only high waist circumference (men ≥102 cm and women ≥88 cm) and high fasting glucose (≥100 mg/dl) were prospectively associated with diet soda consumption. Associations between diet soda consumption and type 2 diabetes were independent of baseline measures of adiposity or changes in these measures, whereas associations between diet soda and metabolic syndrome were not independent of these factors.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study of 59,334 Danish pregnant women

Background: Sugar-sweetened soft drinks have been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes such as high weight gain. Therefore, artificially sweetened soft drinks are often promoted as an alternative. However, the safety of artificial sweeteners has been disputed, and consequences of high intakes of artificial sweeteners for pregnant women have been minimally addressed.

Objective: We examined the association between intakes of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks and preterm delivery.

Design: We conducted prospective cohort analyses of 59,334 women from the Danish National Birth Cohort (1996–2002). Soft drink intake was assessed in midpregnancy by using a food-frequency questionnaire. Preterm delivery (<37 wk) was the primary outcome measure. Covariate information was assessed by telephone interviews.

Results: There was an association between intake of artificially sweetened carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks and an increased risk of preterm delivery (P for trend: ≤0.001, both variables). In comparison with women with no intake of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks, the adjusted odds ratio for women who consumed ≥1 serving of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.65). The corresponding odds ratio for women who consumed ≥4 servings of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.66). The association was observed for normal-weight and overweight women. A stronger increase in risk was observed for early preterm and moderately preterm delivery than with late-preterm delivery. No association was observed for sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.29) or for sugar-sweetened noncarbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.93).

Conclusions: Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings.
Received November 19, 2009.
Accepted June 3, 2010.

[nic9212]

I like some of the natural whey's with stevia

[hemingersl]

I like some of the natural whey's with stevia

Nic:
that's the route that I'm starting to consider. All natural and no calorie and preliminary research seems to indicate a slight insulin sensitivity INCREASE and possibly a slight blood pressure lowering benefit...I'll wait just a bit more to see what other research has been completed but it seems to look good all around.

[joregorn]

Everyone is clearly free to make up their own minds about this but despite the name-calling flying back and forth, it really does NOT seem that research is all clear on this issue despite the length of time that these sweeteners have been available. The study abstracts below (from three peer-reviewed sources) are three quite recent studies that do seem to indicate a negative impact on health through use of artificial sweeteners. The potentially most relevant for us interested in a healthful lifestyle would be the second.
Really, I think focusing mostly on whether or not they cause cancer has lead to the creation of some false arguments and maybe we need to take a more whole-health approach in making these determinations and be more open to the fact that science almost NEVER has a 'case closed' moment.

Are they really safe?
Hell I don't know.
Will I continue using them...probably not. There is far more at play (read money and power) in deciding whether anything is determined safe than simply whether it is. For me its a similar issue to the USDA which is still pushing a 'food pyramid' and providing subsidies to grain farmers that has most Americans fat and wondering how it could be.
Most people can probably keep using supplements with them for years with no ill affects...but you can use supplements with no sweetener or natural substitutes with none for sure.



Yale J Biol Med. 2010 June; 83(2): 101–108.
Published online 2010 June.

Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings

Abstract
America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products (Figure 1). Both forward and reverse causalities have been proposed [1,2]. While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain. In this mini-review, inspired by a discussion with Dr. Dana Small at Yale’s Neuroscience 2010 conference in April, I first examine the development of artificial sweeteners in a historic context. I then summarize the epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning their effects on weight. Finally, I attempt to explain those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward.


Diabetes Care. 2009 April; 32(4): 688–694.
Published online 2009 January 16. doi:

Diet Soda Intake and Risk of Incident Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)*

Abstract
OBJECTIVE

We determined associations between diet soda consumption and risk of incident metabolic syndrome, its components, and type 2 diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Diet soda consumption was assessed by food frequency questionnaire at baseline (2000–2002). Incident type 2 diabetes was identified at three follow-up examinations (2002–2003, 2004–2005, and 2005–2007) as fasting glucose >126 mg/dl, self-reported type 2 diabetes, or use of diabetes medication. Metabolic syndrome (and components) was defined by National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI for type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and metabolic syndrome components were estimated, adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and dietary confounders.

RESULTS

At least daily consumption of diet soda was associated with a 36% greater relative risk of incident metabolic syndrome and a 67% greater relative risk of incident type 2 diabetes compared with nonconsumption (HR 1.36 [95% CI 1.11–1.66] for metabolic syndrome and 1.67 [1.27–2.20] for type 2 diabetes). Of metabolic syndrome components, only high waist circumference (men ≥102 cm and women ≥88 cm) and high fasting glucose (≥100 mg/dl) were prospectively associated with diet soda consumption. Associations between diet soda consumption and type 2 diabetes were independent of baseline measures of adiposity or changes in these measures, whereas associations between diet soda and metabolic syndrome were not independent of these factors.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study of 59,334 Danish pregnant women

Background: Sugar-sweetened soft drinks have been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes such as high weight gain. Therefore, artificially sweetened soft drinks are often promoted as an alternative. However, the safety of artificial sweeteners has been disputed, and consequences of high intakes of artificial sweeteners for pregnant women have been minimally addressed.

Objective: We examined the association between intakes of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks and preterm delivery.

Design: We conducted prospective cohort analyses of 59,334 women from the Danish National Birth Cohort (1996–2002). Soft drink intake was assessed in midpregnancy by using a food-frequency questionnaire. Preterm delivery (<37 wk) was the primary outcome measure. Covariate information was assessed by telephone interviews.

Results: There was an association between intake of artificially sweetened carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks and an increased risk of preterm delivery (P for trend: ≤0.001, both variables). In comparison with women with no intake of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks, the adjusted odds ratio for women who consumed ≥1 serving of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.65). The corresponding odds ratio for women who consumed ≥4 servings of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.66). The association was observed for normal-weight and overweight women. A stronger increase in risk was observed for early preterm and moderately preterm delivery than with late-preterm delivery. No association was observed for sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.29) or for sugar-sweetened noncarbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.93).

Conclusions: Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings.
Received November 19, 2009.
Accepted June 3, 2010.

Im still drinking my diet dr.pepper

[hemingersl]

Im still drinking my diet dr.pepper

Enjoy!
I've learned the hard way that insisting everyone do things my way just isolates me...not fun and makes me look like a douche, so will never do the soap-box thing again!

Damned good calves, by the way!

[hemingersl]

Im still drinking my diet dr.pepper

To be painfully honest...even with what I've read, I STILL prefer the taste of diet Dr. Pepper over regular.

[joregorn]

To be painfully honest...even with what I've read, I STILL prefer the taste of diet Dr. Pepper over regular.

I can't help IDK what it is taste better.

[stevedm]

LOL! Chem notes? This is FACT. what i just pasted is the chemical make up of aspartame. ITS PART FECES OF A MICROSCOPIC BACTERIA HAHAHA
AND YOU SAY ITS SAFE? let alone all these other idiots of conventional medicine who are getting payed mega bucks to just nod and say its okay.

Of course i suppose you can't be blamed.. we are all bought up to trust doctors.

haha twist my words more kid, i didn't say all lifters are complete moronic parrots such as yourself.

20 years equals long term, yes. 30 years equals longER term. Its not unfeasable to expect more progressive results in an additional 10 years, are you kidding?

Cited work of bribed doctors is not applicable no.

When there is unanimous agreement on artificial sweeteners being safe, then perhaps i will believe it. But there isn't. There are medical experts all over the word who agree with me, and some agree with you (probably due to the amount of money that's being made of it, as most educated people know, there is no money in cures, but there is money in sickness)

Anyway.

i wasn't here to convince anyone. I want a powder without sucralose, aspartame or any other artificial sweeteners. That is the topic of this thread, and you had to put your 2 cents in. Now **** off

I negged you for multiple reasons....one thing i would like to clear up,is your comment about bribed doctors. In this country (usa) kickbacks to healthcare providers are illegal. No need to be a dic* when talking about people who are not here to defend themselves.

Your comments make you sound like the farthest thing from an educated person.

[hemingersl]

I can't help IDK what it is taste better.

I don't know either...but it is pretty damned good...especially on a hot summer day. Kind of painful thinking that's still months away.

[NO HYPE]

The study abstracts below (from three peer-reviewed sources) are three quite recent studies that do seem to indicate a negative impact on health through use of artificial sweeteners.

Marked for comments.

[NO HYPE]

How did they [accurately] exclude all other external confounding factors out of a 7-year time span, thus isolating the sweetener and/or sweetener[s] themselves as the primary contributing factors?

[joregorn]

How did they [accurately] exclude all other external confounding factors out of a 7-year time span, thus isolating the sweetener and/or sweetener[s] themselves as the primary contributing factors?

They didn't seems to be a correlation study and a poor one.

[hemingersl]

I hope everyone noticed and understood that those were merely the abstracts and conclusions from those above-mentioned studies.
For the sake of space that was all I included but if you wanted to find answers to more in-depth questions like were asked, it wouldn't take much to find them as I included the pertinent info to find them.
I would certainly hope that writers within the Yale Journal of Biological Medicine and the Diabetes Care by the American Diabetes Association would be considered sober, serious sources that would indeed have had their feet held to the fire if their protocols were substandard. It doesn't appear that way however, and it seems that study based on surveys done by researchers within the American Diabetes Association is one of a few...found another just now dated from 2008.

Like I said implied earlier though, research doesn't occur in a political and/or commercial vacuum and perhaps these studies were influence unfairly...if so then the same influence would also have to be a possibility in pro-sweetener research. My point is only that to throw out one set of findings out-of-hand, based on what one really wants to hear isn't right no matter which side of an argument one is on.

Then again...who the hell knows. I do know that I'm not missing anything nutritionally valuable by avoiding artificial sweeteners...that is outside my every-so-often Diet Dr. Pepper.

[Roke]

Isonatural unflavoured by allmax nutrition.

It tastes just fine without any sweeteners but you could add some if you want.

[Bliptrip]

i just got a powder with no aspartame, was over the moon cos it tasted exactly like a milkshake.
Look on the ingredients to see "sucralose"
nek minnut i research it and its got ****ing chlorine in it

Does anyone know of any protein powders that taste good AND have NO artificial sweeteners, i'd prefer one with stevia personally

I'm not going to jump into the artificial sweetener debate but I do want to give the OP a good option for what he asked for:

Check out the whey isolate from Bluebonnet. Sourced from grass-fed New Zealand cows, cross-flow microfiltration, no artifical colors, and uses stevia for the sweetener. A few more bucks than Isolfex or similar, but not a bad price to pay for a more "natural" product that tastes good. They also offer an unflavored version that is controversy-free.