Does Anyone Use Stevia? Is it good/bad/ok for you?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

and yes i did google it before i asked

[warrior1]

1. It's better

than the fake stuff and a little goes a long way. I've been using to sweeten coffee for years, and I'm still here.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. thanks. so i read that the advice is to use in small quantities.

[flvegan]

3. I do.

It's a natural sweetener, much less processed than most sugar and nothing like the chemical crap known as SweetnLow, Splenda, etc.

Do use it sparingly. It's VERY potent.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. can i ask you another question? is ephedra/ma huang bad for you?

[flvegan]

5. That's a pretty broad question. Define "bad" and "you" as

it can be quite bad for some, and in large doses, bad for all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. bad=terrible side effects, you= one/me!

[flvegan]

9. The best I can say is this

You're a young and healthy looking woman. If you don't have any sort of heart problems, nor blood pressure issues nor a high resting heart rate, it's something that you could consider after speaking with a doctor. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone without concern, not knowing what type/brand/standardization they would be using.

Side effects can be (in an otherwise healthy person, depending upon brand, purity and delivery) fairly obvious and considerable.

On the new-user plus side, it's banned in anything over (as I recall) 10 mg/serving. That's much lower than the previously recommended 25mg/serving method.

Downside is that someone that's "at risk" could ultimately kill themselves with it. Also, someone not "at risk" that would abuse it, could also kill themselves.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. sounds like something i shouldnt take because of my inability to read warnings

thanks.

[flvegan]

17. But you CAN follow directions and be responsible, right?

Someone studying statistics, and who makes quite educated posts time and again could surely do that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. errr

only if i am responsible for someone other than myself,

ie if rockit were about to try it, i would read directions and be responsible

just for myself...errr...

[flvegan]

21. Heh heh

then let Rockit dispense it. See?

I kid. If you don't think you should, then you shouldn't.

[warrior1]

6. That question I can't answer

sorry hon.

[Honeycombe8]

20. I don't think it's potent. It takes more stevia to sweeten my coffee than Equal. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

8. I don't like the aftertaste of stevia.

As for ephedra, it is the base of meds like sudafed, fen fen, etc. It can raise your BP and heartrate, thus the problems with the diet
aspect, fenfen was outlawed. I'm not sure if it's a big deal in the herbal teas that include it.

[Dangerously Amused]

22. I've found only two brands that don't have a bitter taste/aftertaste.

I've been sweetening with stevia for years. I have tried (I think) almost all of the major brands. Most of them have an unpleasant taste or aftertaste. The two I found that did not are NuNaturals (you can go to their website here and order a free sample):

http://www.nunaturals.com/


And also the SweetLeaf brand.


Of the two I think NuNaturals is better, but I have a difficult time finding it so I usually order it online.

[mtnester]

10. Stevia can be bitter if you use too much

and it is pricey here locally...I grew some one year and just did not do enough homework on what to DO with it.

We are SLOWLY working our way toward the vegetarian life....baby steps....hubby just decided he likes hummus (he thought it was garlic spread and used it as suck on some bread)

[Honeycombe8]

18. Yep...I found that out! n/t

[jberryhill]

11. I drank a case of this...

...that was sent to me by one of the folks who makes it in exchange for some legal work:

http://www.zevia.com/

I'm still alive.

I wasn't too thrilled by the cola or orange. The lemon-lime was okay.

[Hekate]

12. I use it; I get it from Trader Joe's.I don't cook with it, however, as it's chemically too different

Cooking is alchemy, and it's very hard to make recipes work without certain ingredients.

It's okay for cold liquids, but an incredibly tiny amount is sufficient.

I saw the article that cast doubt on its safety, but it didn't provide enough information for me to stop using it.

As for your ma huang/ephedra question -- yes, it can be dangerous. Ephedra is in cold medicine, and as such is in measured doses. The label tells you how much to use and how often, and warns of certain side effects, such as heart palpitations.

But when people see "herbal" (as in "Ma Huang is this great all-natural herbal supplement, dude") they think "harmless" and are inclined to take too much in a heedless manner. Herbal supplements aren't regulated by the FDA. That doesn't mean they are safe, it just means they often don't come in standard doses or have labels that warn you clearly about side effects. Such as heart palpitations.

I like to remind people that hemlock and deadly nightshade are all-natural herbs that grow wild, too.

I grow herbs in my own garden, and use them for tisanes and cooking; I buy herbal teas and supplements ... but some things I steer clear of. I think you can tell ma huang is one of them. Approach with caution, is all.

Hekate

[flvegan]

14. Your ephedra statement is incorrect.

Pseudoephedrine is in "cold medicine" and is quite, quite different than ma huang/ephedra.

You are correct about regulation, safety and warnings, though.

[Hekate]

29. Thanks for the correction if so. I don't like to pass on misinformation.

[Kutjara]

13. I've been using it for about a year.

I like it in coffee (which is about the only thing I sweeten). I've been avoiding High Fructose Corn Syrup and aspartame/saccharine for awhile, so I was glad to find a sweetner that doesn't either make you fat or give you cancer.

Two Stevias in a medium latte is about as sweet as four sugars.

[Honeycombe8]

16. It's discussed in a nutrition book I own, and I've read about it off and on for some time.

Supposedly, it is better for you than Equal or Sweet N'Low IF YOU ARE FEMALE. However, I've used it in coffee, and I thought it had an odd taste. Not bad, really. Not a bitter aftertaste like Sweet N'Low, exactly. It was okay. But I like the taste of Equal the best.

As for its downsides, I read that there is some issue about stevia as regards men. I forget if it's sperm related or prostate related. Since I'm female, I didn't pay much attention to those warnings.

These three choices are discussed in the book, "You, On A Diet" (which is really a healthy living book rather than a diet book). I think it recommends Equal as the least damaging, for men, and stevia for women.

I'm sticking with Equal, for now. Who knows...maybe I'll go back to sugar.

[Kutjara]

27. The reports of negative health effects are false.

One study conducted in 2002 showed that rats who were given massive amounts of stevia had slightly lower sperm counts. A Hong Kong doctor (who had no connection with the study) speculated that the reduced sperm count might be attributable to a damaged reproductive system, which could conceivably lead to cancer.

Even though the doctor's speculation was pretty wild, his comment was picked up by a number of Far Eastern media outlets who began trumpeting the "stevia causes cancer" story. The hysteria rose to such a pitch that several governments raided stevia warehouses and confiscated the product. After awhile, things died down, however, and stevia is back on the shelves in Japan (where it accounts for 40% of the sweetener market) and the rest of the Far East.

The official FDA line is that "it has not been proven to be safe," which is their catchall for "vested interests have let us know they don't want this stuff approved." Who those vested interests may be I couldn't possibly say, but a quick google of the words "Rumsfeld" and "Nutrasweet" may prove enlightening.

In short, stevia has been used in Brazil for thousands of years and in the Far East for decades, and there is little evidence to indicate it is harmful in any way. The same can't be said for the toxic waste that comes in little bags labeled "Sweet & Low," "Nutrasweet," "Equal," and "Splenda."

[Honeycombe8]

30. Here's what my "You, On A Diet" health book by Drs. Roizn & Oz says;

Okay, I went a got my book, so I could be more precise. These drs. also wrote, "You, The Maintenance Manual." Great common-sense health book.

Here's the rundown of what they say about artificial sweeteners (the book was published in 2006):

Sucralose (Splenda) - The research is least complete on this sweetener, but keep it in the cupboard. Its widespread use is too new for us to know any of the long-term effects, but it appears the most promising. Plus, it's the best one for cooking.

Aspartame (Nutrasweet, Equal) - It's come under a lot of scrutiny and has stood the test of time. But it's the sweetener than hangs around the longest in your body. Also, it can't be heated (for cooking) because it turns into formaldehyde. It's also rumored to interfere with absorption of some vitamins, antioxidants, and the mineral magnesium.

Saccharin (Sweet N'Low) - It seems to be one of the safest sweeteners, and the only one with real long-term data, even if some of the data isn't positive. If you consume more than 80 12-oz diet sodas a day, you're at increased risk of bladder cancer (ha!).

Stevia - For taste and potential side effects, no thanks, the book says. No diet drink is worth the potential of sterility. (Stevia seems to lower sperm count in some studies.)

Sucralose (sugar) - High amts of sugar cause inflammation. Foods containing a lot of sugar convert to fat because of high calorie content, if not burned off. Also, sugar causes spikes in blood sugar.

So.....pick your poison!

Looking back over these statements, I now remember why I was giving Splenda a try. It's pretty expensive and not as potent as aspartame, so it takes more of it to get the sweetness, but there's nothing harmful out there about it (yet), as far as I know. I just didn't care for the taste of Stevia, and it's expensive, so I think I'll pass on that one (unless I find it on sale).

[Kutjara]

31. Hmmm, I'm not sure how accurate those assessments are.

They look a bit too close to the FDA "party line" and don't mention the empirical and ancedotal evidence against artificial sweeteners.

For example, here's an article I randomly googled about how Splenda has more in common with pesticides than with sugar; how the Sugar Association is suing the makers of Splenda to stop them from saying the product is "made from sugar;" and how numerous side effects of Splenda use have been observed. http://www.womentowomen.com/nutritionandweightloss/splenda.asp

There's a huge political element to this debate, as well. The artificial sweetener industry is worth billions of dollars a year. Products like Nutrasweet, saccharine and Splenda have been OKed by the FDA with little or no evidence of their safety, while stevia, which is a natural product that has been in continual use for thousands of years, is continually refused approval. The FDA won't say it's unsafe, because that's patently untrue, so they just label it with the mealey-mouthed "not proven to be safe," which sounds to the layman like, "it's unsafe" but really means, "we haven't even bothered to look at it because the sweetener industry would get mad at us if we did."

Even the book you quote repeats the misinformation about stevia. As I mentioned in my previous post, there was ONE study that showed SOME evidence of a reduction in sperm count in RATS who were fed ENORMOUS AMOUNTS of stevia. Yet, by the time this story reaches the pages of "You on a Diet" it's become, "no diet drink is worth the possibility of sterility." Sounds like someone's been drinking the FDA Koolade. Nobody involved in the study even hinted that stevia causes sterility.

Here's another article on Splenda (sucralose). http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page9.htm. The main article also contains interesting information about the other major artificial sweeteners on the market.

I particularly like this quote, which puts Splenda's "natural" credentials into context:

sucralose is made when sugar is treated with trityl chloride, acetic anhydride, hydrogen chlorine, thionyl chloride, and methanol in the presence of dimethylformamide, 4-methylmorpholine, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, acetic acid, benzyltriethlyammonium chloride, and sodium methoxide, making it unlike anything found in nature."

The biggest concern from a health standpoint is that Splenda contains chlorine, a potent carcinogen.

What's far more disturbing is that every article you read on artificial sweeteners usually begins with "there is very little information concerning the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners." The reason why this is so is because the artificial sweetener industry has been very successful at lobbying to keep pertinent information out of public hands.

[Honeycombe8]

34. I don't go by anecdotal stories, usu. I try to stick with studies, preferably..

those NOT done by the government (NHA).

Splenda hasn't been around long enough for long-term studies is all the book said. That is apparently the truth. That does NOT mean that it's safe for long-term use.

The book also did not state that Splenda was "natural," although, as an avid reader of health articles, I can tell you that "natural" really means nothing. Arsenic is made of "natural" ingredients. Snake poison is "natural."

I will read any official study you have on the effects of long-term Splenda use, if you have links to any. I don't care about anecdotal articles against it. There are so many of those health articles out there on the Internet against nutrasweet, Splenda, and all sorts of commercial products.

Did you notice that the book did not recommend nutrasweet? It also warned that Splenda has not been studied for long-term effects? Clearly, these guys haven't taken any FDA stance on these products.

You also have to be on the lookout for the organic and health-foods industry anti-commercial products articles. They have a stake in consumers not using their products.

That's why I like independent scientific studies, preferably not funded by the govt.

[Kutjara]

35. The preapproval study for sucralose found that it...

...caused the thymus gland of rats to shrink by 40%. It also caused enlargement of the liver and kidneys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose
http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p40d.htm

While its true that "natural" doesn't necessarily mean "good," I think the fact that stevia has been in widespread use around the world for a long time without noticeable ill effect argues in its favor. The same can't be said for recently-developed products like sucralose.

There's an interesting take on stevia on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

<snip>

In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) performed a thorough evaluation of recent experimental studies of stevioside and steviols conducted on animals and humans, and concluded that "stevioside and rebaudioside A are not genotoxic in vitro or in vivo and that the genotoxicity of steviol and some of its oxidative derivatives in vitro is not expressed in vivo."<28> The report also found no evidence of carcinogenic activity. Furthermore, the report noted that "stevioside has shown some evidence of pharmacological effects in patients with hypertension or with type-2 diabetes"<28> but concluded that further study was required to determine proper dosage.

Indeed, millions of Japanese people have been using stevia for over thirty years with no reported or known harmful effects.<29> Similarly, stevia leaves have been used for centuries in South America spanning multiple generations in ethnomedical tradition as a treatment of type II diabetes.<30>

<snip>

The article also references the controversial FDA decision to label stevia as an "unsafe food additive" in violation of it's own guidelines, at the behest of an "anonymous" complainant:

<snip>

In 1991, at the request of an anonymous complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."<31> This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which any natural substance used prior to 1958 with no reported adverse effects should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

<snip>

In the end, because the real facts about artificial sweeteners are either unavailable or are suppressed, the matter ends up being one of trust. Personally, I trust a product that has ben in safe use for centuries over one that was recently cooked up and in which a lot of corporations have a vested interest. The manner in which the FDA was pressured to ban stevia stinks of undue influence, and the way that the early indications about the health effects of sucralose were swept under the carpet smells no better.

Splenda may well be fine. Or it may not. The problem is that it will probably be several decades before we know one way or the other, which isn't much comfort for those of us living in the here and now.

It also raises a bigger issue: of the 100,000+ man-made chemicals in regular use, only 15,000 have ever been tested for toxicity in humans, and only 5,000 have been tested for long-term toxicity. The truth is, we simply don't have the technology or resources to test the stuff that we so blithely apply to our crops, our homes and our persons.

[IndianaJones]

23. after taste is nasty. splenda tastes better. nt.

[seemunkee]

24. tried it but didn't like it. I'm using agave nectar as a sweetener

Agave is low glycemic but not 0 calorie. Try erythritol usualy found in stores under the brand name Zsweet. Its a non-caloric sugar alcohol and for me has a better flavor.

[grace0418]

33. The nice part about agave nectar is that it's quite potent. I have a total sweet tooth

but don't need very much at all to sweeten my tea, yogurt, etc. So the calories may be the same as sugar teaspoon for teaspoon, but you use much less. At least in my experience.

[UTUSN]

25. Skipping all the expert posts - moseying right along to my own experience

It didn't dissolve well. It was expensive. It just didn't do it for me.

[Shine]

26. Yes, I use it everyday in either my tea or coffee.

much better for you than sugar. :thumbsup: I don't use it when baking, however. There ARE limits. :D

:hi:

[Zephyrbird]

28. And grown it, too

It's easier than heck to grow, gets big, you can harvest and dry it easily. I've found it in every greenhouse I visit now, so it should be relatively easy to find. Stick in it the ground or in a pot, and you've got your own handy.

Why pay for it when you can grow it so easily. I've grown herbs for years and years, and stevia is one of the easiest.

Pick it in the afternoon on a good hot day, stick it on paper towels or a screen to dry, and there ya go.

I find the stuff I grow tastes better than commercial preparations. It does have a slightly "green" aftertaste, but one I find palatable in exchange for its benefits, especially if you have diabetic concerns.

Other sugar substitues? bleck!!!! :puke:

Zeph

[grace0418]

32. I prefer agave nectar. No aftertaste.

And it's okay for diabetics to use. Plus it dissolves in drinks more easily because it's like thin honey. I've used it in cooking and baking with excellent results.

[Kali]

36. what does that cost per quart?

I'm thinking "homebrew" tequila!!!:think:

[grace0418]

37. LOL! My guess is that it would be pretty expensive tequila.

I don't buy by the quart, but it's a bit pricey for the bottle. I buy a bunch when it goes on sale. It's worth the extra price for me.

[Bryn]

38. I have been using Stevia

for approx. 3 years now. :)

[astral]

39. I use Stevia

The Sweetleaf brand is good for me. I like the dark extract (non-alcoholic extract, simply water-based) and a $12 eyedropper bottle lasts me several months sweetening my coffee with four to six drops per cup. DROPS!

They also make a powder packet, and now I can't remember if I got the green leaf from Sweetleaf or not, but I got a bag of green dried leaves which works great as a spaghetti sauce enhancer or added to the loose tea you are steeping for sweetening rather than adding something else to sweeten it.

I tried a brand off the store shelf once which, for some Un-Godly reason (!!!) had grapeseed extract added. Of course this tasted terrible.

NOTE: STEVIA IS NOT AN "ARTIFICIAL" SWEETENER. It is a natural herb with great medicinal qualities as 'side effects' to being a sweetener. It does not need a preservative as it **IS** a natural preservative, and it is healthy for the teeth and gums and does not promote tooth decay as it is not an acidifying presence in the body, as is regular sugar. Some studies have shown that it can 'regulate' blood pressure, as in raising and lowering it to optimal levels. It does not raise blood sugar levels and therefore is great for diabetics, once they realize they do not have to compensate insulin intake based on the sweet taste.

Maybe I have some good links stashed away here:

Many Benefits of Stevia
http://www.asktom-naturally.com/naturally/stevia3.html

Stevia Natural Sweetener: Alternative to Aspartame
http://www.befreetech.com/stevia_better_choice.htm

FDA: Automatic Detention of Stevia Leaves, Extract of Stevia Leaves, and Food Containing Stevia
http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia4506.html

Stevia Dot Net -- A Tale of Incredible Sweetness and Intrigue
http://www.stevia.net/

______________________________________________________________

I encourage people to check it out more, and if you tried a weird brand of stevia, try Sweetleaf next time. They also make a clear extract, and several flavored clear extracts. I just prefer the dark -- in fact I think their vanilla was a dark, but anyways, I got a sample of it and it was wonderful in my coffee.

It's fun to add a few drops of stevia to cooking, to enhance sweetness without adding sugar, but be careful, it would be very easy to add too much!

There's a dark side to aspartame, too, but I won't go there in this thread. Lots of good information in the previous posts on the topic, too!