what is the difference between "Splenda", "Sweet n Low," Equal"? Which one is the best to use and why?

Answer 1

They all use different chemicals as sweeteners. I use Splenda which is supposed to actually be a modified sugar.

Sweet and Low is saccharin.
Equal is aspartame.
Splenda is sucrose.

Answer 2

Yay Splenda

Answer 3

Splenda is a combination of real sugar and a chemical ingredient. Sweet and Low and Equal have aspertame in them and I feel they are not good for you. Sweet and Low and Equal have killed rats in lab tests, remember that. If I were you, if you want a cup of coffee and like a little sugar, use raw sugar and it only has 16 calories per tsp. Better than putting all that chemical in your body. 16 calories is not going to make you fat. French fries make you fat and all junk food. I feel all sugar substitutes should be banned but I am a voice out in the wilderness.

Answer 4

They are different types of artificial sweetener. I think Sweet and Low is too sweet Splenda not sweet enough I prefer Equal it tastes just right.

Answer 5

They are all bad! Use honey or Stevia the plant!

If you are using Splenda (the brand name for sucralose) because you think it is a safe alternative to sugar or other artificial sweeteners, then you may be in for a surprise. Splenda is not healthy and it can cause many problems in the body.

Over three years ago I posted an article describing the dangers of Splenda, and, fortunately, it appears that more and more people are finally realizing the hazards that this "healthy" sweetener poses. There is still a long way to go toward educating the public about the health complications this sweetener is capable of causing, however.

Splenda is far from healthy and I do not recommend using it in any form. Why not use Splenda? Well, research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems such as:

*

Reduced growth rate in newborns and adults at levels above 500 mg/kg.day
*

Decreased red blood cells - - sign of anemia (at levels abofe 1500 mg/kd/day
*

Decreased thyroxine levels (thyroid function) (According to McNeil, since this only occurred on male rats and no abnormalities were observed with the thyroid tissue, this was considered insignificant.)
*

Mineral losses (magnesium and phosphorus) McNeil stated that these patterns were variable and at times not dose related so they were not significant.
*

Decreased urination
*

Enlarged colon (The FDA Final Rule states cecal enlargement is often seen with poorly absorbed substances and is not significant.)
*

Enlarged liver and brain (McNeil stated these were insignificant due to a lack of a dose response.)
*

Shrunken ovaries
*

Shrunken thymus aboe 3 grams per day
*

Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance. The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in aged female rats and are not significant.)
*

Increased adrenal cortical hemorrhagic degeneration (McNeil stated that this is a variable finding common in aged rats and not toxicologically significant.)
*

Increased cataracts (McNeil stated that cataracts were discovered upon microscopic sections of the eye tissue and that this was not as accurate as in-life ophthalmological examinations and did not reveal any treatment- related ocular findings.
*

Abnormal liver cells (The FDA Final Rule states that this was only marginal and probably not treatment related due to the severity of the lesion was not contaminant with the dosage.)

McNeil concluded that all of these findings could be explained by reasons other than sucralose toxicity and were insignificant. This seems to be a pattern in all of McNeil's study conclusions. I find it suspect that for every single adverse finding in the animal studies, McNeil always has some rationale that renders it "insignificant." Their downplaying every harmful finding makes it seem as if they are more interested in making sucralose appear safe than making sure that the people are not harmed.

The FDA concluded that most of these findings had no toxicological significance and those that did such as the decrease in thymus weight and the decreased red blood cells, would not be a problem because they occurred at doses of sucralose much higher than what people would consume.. As a physician, I beg to differ. I believe that these findings are not of no significance." Many of these are symptoms of serious pathology.

But perhaps the most revealing and powerful way to learn the dangerous truth about Splenda is to read someone's personal experience with it.

Nearly every month we receive a report from someone who has had an adverse reaction to Splenda, and after you read through the story below you can read the many others posted on our site.

Aspertame is just as bad too

Answer 6

Each one is made from a different type of sweetener. Splenda is made from sucralose, a sugar derivitive. Sweet n Low is made from aspartame, and Equal from saccharine (those may be switched, I'm not entirely sure.)

Each one has its own set of warnings and "side effects". However, there is no risk in using them in moderation. Keep in mind that one packet of each is equal to two teaspoons of sugar. So if you only take one sugar in your coffee, you only need half of a package.

Answer 7

They are all "chemical" so, none of them are actually "good" for you. Recent studies show that artificial sweeteners may actually make you fat (or fatter). They trick the body into expecting a bunch of calories, but when it doesn't get them, it sends a signal to the brain to keep eating. Plus, I remember an article a few years ago about Equal that said it can make women extra cranky around "that time of month". I don't know about most women, but I'm cranky enough, thank you.
Pure sugar really is your best bet, just limit your intake. If that's just not possible, I guess Slenda is your best option among artificial sweeteners - just keep in mind that it is new to the market and no one knows what potential side-effects may show up in a few years from now.

Answer 8

im not sure of the difference but i do know that splenda tastes the most like sugar and sweet n low is just gross!

Answer 9

splenda is make from natural sugar and the other two are aspartame, I don't know which is better but I like to believe splenda would be the best and it seems to taste the best it is what they put in the coke and sprite zero sodas to make them taste more like the originals.

Answer 10

None of those are good for you because they are artifical.
Stevia is better. It is an all natural herbal product that grows as a small green shrub in Paraguay. Zero calories and loads of fiber.