Auto generated link to page (Please do not remove): http://www.lowcarb.ca/tips/tips006.html
This article had lots of great information. I do have a question regarding Splenda. When I went to the supermarket to get a sweetner I reached for it, however, I noticed that it had more carbs per serving than Equal so I bought the Equal. Did I misread something? Very curious. By the way, the online support is invaluable to me! Thanks.

Nope! You read right!

Granulated Splenda has maltodextrin as a filler, and this is where the carbohydrates come from. It has 24 grams per cup. The packets also vary from the pourable varieties. Keep in mind that Equal cannot be heated, so if you're going to be making desserts or baking with it you need to use Splenda or Canadian Sugar Twin.

Here are a some links from past discussions on artificial sweeteners that you may find interesting: Artificial Sweeteners: A Load 'o' Links!

Karen

Actually ... ALL of the powdered sweeteners .. Splenda, Equal, Sweet'n'Low, SugarTwin, NoName, WalMart's brand, etc, etc, etc .. use maltodextrin and sometimes a little dextrose too, as filler. In all cases, the artificial sweetener itself is zero carbs, so it's the filler that provides all of the carbs in any given product. Equal, SugarTwin etc require less filler than Splenda, that's why there's fewer carbs.

For all of the sweeteners, including Splenda, the calorie and carb count is the SAME for the pourable spoonable bulk type and their partner product in the little paper packets/sachets. Even though the volume of powder is different .. the weight is the same. The bulk pourable stuff has been fluffed up more, to make it resemble sugar and to be easier to measure and use. The powder in the paper packets is denser and more crystalline, but has the same weight and carbs as the bulkier, fluffy stuff .. One packet/sachet is equivalent to 2 tsp sugar in sweetness; this is standard amongst the different brands.

• Splenda = one packet/sachet is 1g carb ... the bulk form is 0.5g carb for 1 tsp, or 1g for 2 tsp.
  
• Equal = one packet/sachet is 0.8g carb ... the bulk form is 0.4g carb per tsp, or 0.8g for 2
  
• SugarTwin (Canada) = one packet/sachet is 0.5g carb ... the bulk form is 0.2g per tsp (rounded down) so 0.5g for 2

I'm aware that there is at least one brand of natural stevia sweetener powder, that uses maltodextrin as a filler

Doreen

Thanks for the information! Very helpful. Now for a different subject...I am a bit frustrated lately. I have been out of the induction phase for about 2 weeks and have been pretty stingy with the carbs as I want to keep losing. I haven't gained, but I haven't lost either. I know I was supposed to measure myself but did not. My clothes are fitting better and my ketostiks are still "moderate." I'm determined to hang in there, but wondering if you have any suggestions for me. I thought that maybe I was eating too much protein but I don't think so. I do feel terrific and definetly have more energy. I tried drinking wine and a cocktail now and then and have found that it just doesn't agree with me anymore. Goodbye to that! I also really try to drink 8 glasses of water but some days miss the mark. Could that be my problem? Any advice would be so appreciated!

Oops, I think I replied to the wrong thread before. I'm just getting to know this forum and how it works. Thanks for the input!

I was reading about the sweeteners here:
http://www.lowcarb.ca/tips/tips006.html

and it mentions that Sugar Twin is banned in the U.S.

This is not true as I can freely buy this product at the grocery store.

I don't know if the article is outdated but I thought I would chime in on this one.

Blue Cobra,

• there is a cyclamates-based SugarTwin readily available in Canada and not in the US.
• there is a saccharin-based SugarTwin readily available in Canada and not in the US.

Cyclamates are no longer outright banned in the US but they aren't provided by any manufacturers yet for 'tabletop' or retail use.

Saccharin isn't outright banned in Canada, either, but is only available (so far that I have found) in the tiny little Hermesetas Original tablets.

Just an update.

The box I have has the following for ingredients:

Maltodextrin, sodium, saccharin, calcium chloride. Contains 3.71% saccharin. Each level teaspoon serving contains 14.8mg of saccharin.

BUT... I just read on the front of the box very tiny at the bottom "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product uses saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals"

I think I may start reading the fine print a little more often. Since I had never used any artificial sweetener in the past, only used sugar I never found it necessary to educate myself on the products. I think this box is going in the trash now.

Yes, not drinking enough water can cause a stall in weight loss. You should most definitely up your water intake.

Actually, saccharin is preferred over aspartame. The research done on laboratory animals was the equivalent of some outrageous number... like 40 ounces a day (total guess) ... no human could ingest that much saccharin if he tried!!! In the grand scheme of things, if used moderately, saccharin is safe to use....much safer than aspartame. Here's an article I found that states in 2000 it was dropped from the list of known carcinogens!

Yes I think I should start reading about the artificial sweeteners a little more.

I finally found Splenda at the grocery store and I like the taste better than the Sugar Twin but I have yet to read the ingredients on the Splenda box so I don't know what's in it yet.

Have a great day!!

Has anyone tried Stevia. It doesn't taste that great, but it works for sweeting coffee or tea pretty well. It's an herb you can get in bulk at a health food store, but it's expensive. It also comes in packets. Check it out.

http://www.steviaplus.com/

k

In the article that prompted this thread, the author mentions acesulfame potassium, or ACE-K, as a safe artificial sweetener. Before you accept that statement at face value, I would urge you to read the report, The Dangers of Acesulfame Potassium, published by the Glycemic Research Institute of Washington DC. In summary, the report cites the sloppy research and hurried approval process behind ACE-K, quoting some top-notch researchers. To buy this report, visit the GRI's bonus report site.

I don't always agree with the GRI's findings (they are against high-protein dietary plans), but in this case, their research looks solid.

Disclaimer: I do not work for the GRI or any of its affiliates.

In the article that prompted this thread, the author states


I have yet to find any of these studies. If anyone knows of any, please contact me. In regards to Eades' recommendation, there is a single statement about stevia, which says that due to its bitter taste, stevia is in the same class as other insulin-stimulating sweeteners. Talk about unsupported assertions!

Anyone who does not like the anise tang of pure stevia should try the liquid stevia glycerite by NOW foods.