We used to have a sugar substitute/sweetner here in the UK called Sweet 'n' Lo (don't know if it's still around).

Do/did you have that in the US? And, if so, what was it called? Sweet 'n' Lo? Or Sweet 'n' Low?

Thanks!

LabRat

Yes, we have it. It's my preferred sweetener, actually. I always go for the pink packets over the blue ones or even the yellow ones.

How is it spelled? Uhm... let me check...

Ah, the official site lists it as "Sweet'N Low."

Paul

Of course, there just had to be an official site, didn't there?

Thanks, Paul!

LabRat

Of course, my Dad just calls it "pink stuff".... :p

We have it in Canada too, actually! But I've been told that Splenda (made with sucralose) is supposed to be the healthiest sweetener on the market.

By whom, Chriscy?

Saccharin (pink packets) got a bad rap a while back because they thought it caused cancer. Turns out, though, that it only causes cancer in mice if you give them giant doses which would be unreasonable for a human. Not only that, but rats and humans have an enzyme which mice lack. So it's perfectly safe in humans.

Splenda (new yellow packets) is sugar. It's modified so that it's not digested.

There used to be older yellow packets, but they, like saccharin, got a bad rap. They're safe, but they're almost gone now. I think Tab cola (which is also almost gone) is about the last place you'll find it.

Aspartame/Nutrasweet (blue packets) is actually more like a protein. There have never been proven health risks, but it's a larger particle.

All three need to be removed from your blood. It's extra work for your kidneys. Nutrasweet is a little harder on the kidneys than the others, but that's a long term issue with high doses. It's nowhere near as bad as, say, a high-protein diet.

Basically... they're all okay. In large doses, over time, they'll take some toll, but that's about it.

Paul

My high school food & nutrition teacher, and I think she might have gotten it from some health magazine or other, because she's addicted to all glossy kinds of publications...in fact, I think she planned all her lessons around the latest thing she read. Also, I was shopping once with a friend who was on an extreme and unhealthy diet (who, frankly, I still think has a bit of a problem) and she bought a lot of Splenda, claiming that it's the healthiest kind of sweetener.

But I wouldn't know any better, because I don't use sweeteners anyway. I tried on several occasions to put sweeteners in my drink (I think I tried using Twin, Equal, and some other one) and I always disliked the aftertaste so much I had to throw my drink out. I now just take good 'ol sugar - three teaspoons at least per cup - and ignore the calorie/tooth-rotting thing.

The mice thing is what happened to cyclamates (SP?). That is what was in Tab. It left no after taste and tasted pretty close to sugar in soft drinks or tea. I loved it. In the study they gave large amounts to the mice - like a human drinking 5 gallons of soda a day or something for 20 years. That's not the actual amount. I just remember when it gotten taken off the market that people were furious because they said that the amount was so high as to be nearly impossible if not impossible for a human to ingest in a day.

I've come to the conclusion that just about anything in large doses will give you cancer. Hell, we use to think fresh air and sunshine was good for you. Well most air is now polluted and lots of sunshine will give you skin cancer that leads to other cancers. We just can't win.

They all have some sort of after-taste if you take a lot, so the trick is to cut down and take less sweetener than you would sugar, so that you're thinking "this isn't quite as sweet as I like," rather than "this tastes odd."

I went through this years ago, now ordinary Coke etc. tastes way too sweet, and I rarely put any sweetener in coffee at all. Still overweight, but I'd be a LOT worse if I was taking loads of sugar.

From what I understand (and therefore use) is that Splenda is more like sugar and therefore can easily be exchanged (equal part Splenda to equal part sugar) in a recipe without leaving a bitter or after taste. This makes a huge difference in baking.

Paul, am I right?

gerry

Splenda basically is sugar. It's a modified sugar molecule. The same as olestra, basically, but with sugar instead of fat.

So, yes. It can be good for baking in that sense.

And nutrasweet is very bad for baking. Even though it measures similarly to sugar, it has a tendency to break down in high heat, leaving more bitter aftertaste and less sweetness.

Personally, I like saccharin (Sweet'N Low). You do have to do some conversions (it's about 4 times sweeter than sugar, I find), but you don't have to use much of it. They even give you suggested conversions right on the box. There's much less aftertaste than with aspartame, too. At least, for me. Aftertaste is something of an individual experience.

There's also sorbitol, a common industrial sweetener which is conveniently available as an over-the-counter laxative in most pharmacies. In my mid-teens, I adapted a carrot cake recipe, replacing the huge pile of sugar with a combination of sorbitol, saccharin, and I think a small amount of something else (actual sugar, maybe? ... It's been a while). The sorbo makes a good sweetener in small quantities (much less than the laxative dose) and the saccharin fills in nicely for the rest. The cake comes out sugar-free, and even a little extra moist thanks to the liquid sorbo (I did reduce the amount of water in the recipe slightly).

Anyway... yeah. Splenda has its uses, but what sweetener you use is really a matter of, well... taste.

Paul