Off the white powder
Not the other one: I'm talking about Splenda.
One of the things I have been trying to do over the past few months is give up artificial sweeteners. I had managed fairly well with the exception of Splenda (Sucralose). I could never find a suitable natural alternative. I tried pure Stevia as well as products like PureVia, Sweet Leaf, etc. All of them had funny taste problems that I never got with Splenda.
I finally found an acceptable substitute in Truvia which is a mix of Stevia and Erythritol. Some products I consume still have Sucralose and I will work on those individually but the white powder Splenda for me is likely a thing of the past. In the kitchen I now have:
Real (white and brown) Sugar, Agave, Maple Syrup, Honey, and Molasses. These are primarily for baking and cooking, they are the sweeteners with calories.
I also have Maltitol, and Truvia as the natural reduced calorie alternatives.
If you haven't tried it, take a look at Truvia
One of the things I have been trying to do over the past few months is give up artificial sweeteners. I had managed fairly well with the exception of Splenda (Sucralose). I could never find a suitable natural alternative. I tried pure Stevia as well as products like PureVia, Sweet Leaf, etc. All of them had funny taste problems that I never got with Splenda.
I finally found an acceptable substitute in Truvia which is a mix of Stevia and Erythritol. Some products I consume still have Sucralose and I will work on those individually but the white powder Splenda for me is likely a thing of the past. In the kitchen I now have:
Real (white and brown) Sugar, Agave, Maple Syrup, Honey, and Molasses. These are primarily for baking and cooking, they are the sweeteners with calories.
I also have Maltitol, and Truvia as the natural reduced calorie alternatives.
If you haven't tried it, take a look at Truvia
I haven't tried Truvia only because I tried Stevia and thought it was bitter so I figured it would be the same.
Have you tried Whey Low? Its a blend of all natural fruit sugar, milk sugar, and cane sugar - designed by a physicist for his wife who is diabetic. It is by far the best tasting sugar "substitute" (even though it's really sugar) that I've ever tried. Absolutely NO aftertaste. Cup for cup in baking. The brown sugar substitute tastes and has the same consistency of regular brown sugar. Once I found Whey Low I never went back to Splenda. PM me if would like more info!
Bekah
Lap RNY 6/7/07 (Consult -196 / Current - 111.2)
LBL/BA 8/13/08
Coccygectomy 3/09
I see Whey Low is available from Whole Foods so I will try and find it there.
I'm not sure how I would fit it in to my diet. It isn't calorie free so would not fit into the same category as TruVia or Maltitol. In fact, it can cause gastrointestinal discomfort like Maltitol.
I'm inclined to keep using Sugar for baking the pies, cakes, muffins, etc. and TruVia as my Yogurt and Tea sweetener.
I'm not sure how I would fit it in to my diet. It isn't calorie free so would not fit into the same category as TruVia or Maltitol. In fact, it can cause gastrointestinal discomfort like Maltitol.
I'm inclined to keep using Sugar for baking the pies, cakes, muffins, etc. and TruVia as my Yogurt and Tea sweetener.
Very true - it isn't calorie free. It shouldn't cause GI discomfort as there is nothing synthetic in it at all, but I'm sure everyone is different. I haven't had any GI issues with it and I've got a pretty sensitive pouch. Malitol on the other hand...oh the stomach cramps and gas!
Lap RNY 6/7/07 (Consult -196 / Current - 111.2)
LBL/BA 8/13/08
Coccygectomy 3/09
Let me start by saying I am not a dumper SO I could use sugar, honey, or anything else as a sweetener. That said, over the past year and a half I've become very suspicious of what I will call the "Industrial Food Complex" My objections are based on two main lines of thinking:
1) We are food addicts. The problem isn't in the food, it is in ourselves. All too often I see recipe requests for a Sugar Free versions of a favorite comfort food. I have reservations over the motivation for some of these requests. I mean, there is nothing wrong with eating a 100 calorie Toll house cookie. If, however, you make a 60 calorie "sugar free" variant because your inner addict wants you to eat two, six, or a whole dozen; therein lies a problem and it AIN'T the cookie.
2) Science can figure out what it is in food but only if it knows what it is looking to measure. This creates a problem because food along with how it is made and cooked, results in a mystical combination of various compounds that science can't measure. Here are some examples:
BEEF: There was a time when cattle grazed in a pasture filled with grass. The animals walked around finding the best grass and even had to walk many miles from the the ranch to the packing plant. Now most cattle spend their entire lives in a feedlot barely moving so they each market weight quickly. Instead of eating what they have eaten for thousands of years we feed them corn, whey solids, fish protein, etc. All of a sudden, food science declares beef is bad for us. Is it: or is what we have turned beef into making beef bad for us?
EGGS: Somehow, eggs, something we have been eating since the dawn of man now kill us with cholesterol. The problem, of course, is that the eggs early man ate were not laid by chickens who did not move and ate antibiotic laden corn feed. So not only did the industrial food supply reduce the price of eggs, it also reduced the Vitamin A, Beta carotene, Omega-3, and Vitamin E in the egg as well. So, does the egg increase our cholesterol or is it the less nutritious diet?
Let me end with this little example of unintended consequences. If we ate at least a little sugar, there is something for the bacteria in our digestive system to consume. if we stop eating that sugar, what happens to that bacteria? This Duke Study ponders that question.
1) We are food addicts. The problem isn't in the food, it is in ourselves. All too often I see recipe requests for a Sugar Free versions of a favorite comfort food. I have reservations over the motivation for some of these requests. I mean, there is nothing wrong with eating a 100 calorie Toll house cookie. If, however, you make a 60 calorie "sugar free" variant because your inner addict wants you to eat two, six, or a whole dozen; therein lies a problem and it AIN'T the cookie.
2) Science can figure out what it is in food but only if it knows what it is looking to measure. This creates a problem because food along with how it is made and cooked, results in a mystical combination of various compounds that science can't measure. Here are some examples:
BEEF: There was a time when cattle grazed in a pasture filled with grass. The animals walked around finding the best grass and even had to walk many miles from the the ranch to the packing plant. Now most cattle spend their entire lives in a feedlot barely moving so they each market weight quickly. Instead of eating what they have eaten for thousands of years we feed them corn, whey solids, fish protein, etc. All of a sudden, food science declares beef is bad for us. Is it: or is what we have turned beef into making beef bad for us?
EGGS: Somehow, eggs, something we have been eating since the dawn of man now kill us with cholesterol. The problem, of course, is that the eggs early man ate were not laid by chickens who did not move and ate antibiotic laden corn feed. So not only did the industrial food supply reduce the price of eggs, it also reduced the Vitamin A, Beta carotene, Omega-3, and Vitamin E in the egg as well. So, does the egg increase our cholesterol or is it the less nutritious diet?
Let me end with this little example of unintended consequences. If we ate at least a little sugar, there is something for the bacteria in our digestive system to consume. if we stop eating that sugar, what happens to that bacteria? This Duke Study ponders that question.
Most Active
Recent Topics
