Stevia vs Splenda: What’s the difference?

Stevia is the newest no calorie sweetener on the market. Fans of the white powder claim it to be a great alternative to the host of artificial sweeteners available. But is it truly safer than market heavy weight Splenda?
Splenda, a trademarked product owned by Johnson & Johnson, is one of the most popular artificial sweeteners holding approximately 45% of the market share. Splenda, or its chemical name sucralose, is produced by the chlorination of sucrose (natural sugar molecule). In essence, chlorine atoms replace hydrogen-oxygen atoms in the natural sugar molecule.
The chlorine replacement has two costly effects on the body. The first being its perceived inability to be absorbed in the body, and thus its “no calorie” profile. In the FAQ section of the official Splenda website, the company elaborates on the process of digestion. “After it [Splenda] is ingested, most (about 85%) is not absorbed and passes through the body unchanged in the stool. Of the small amount that is absorbed, most leaves the body unchanged in the urine within 24 hours.”
To speak the obvious, chlorine atoms left in the gut or blood stream for 24 hours at a time are not a good thing. Most studies suggest this only causes a problem when massive qualities are consumed. Ponder the scenario of a person consuming five to 10 packets of Splenda per day, every single day. The massive quantity suggested in most studies is in reality not that great. Buildup of these toxic chlorine atoms in gut is linked to gas, bloating, DNA damage, and increased cancer risk.
The second effect of chlorination is the intense sweetness–3,200 to 10,000x as sweet as table sugar. On the surface, this issue is the goal of the product and should not be problematic. However, when examining why the brain and tongue perceive something as sweet, the problem comes to light. The brain craves the sensation of sweet when energy is needed in the body. When a person consumes sugar, say in the form of fruit, the GI tract breaks the sugar down and releases energy for the body. The brain is satisfied. When consuming something that is extremely sweet but non-caloric, such as sucralose, the brain does not receive its reward in the form of energy. Thus, sugar cravings continue to flood the thoughts and the eventual effect is weight gain. This phenomenon has been largely studied with diet soda.
And in the opposite corner…
One of the fastest newcomers in the sugar substitute marketplace is stevia. The all-natural stevia is derived from the South American stevia leaf. Stevia (in the raw) has been consumed for 1500 years by the Guarani people. Glycosides, including stevioside and rebaudioside A, are the two compounds that contribute to its sweet profile.
When considering stevia products, one question is imperative: Is this product an extracted glycoside, usually rebaudioside A, combined with other chemically altered compounds? Or is this a whole-leaf stevia product with no other additives?
Due to increasing popularity, food manufactures have engineered the natural extract with harmful additives such as a chemically altered erythritol or more ubiquitous components as natural flavorings. These additives have much of the same harmful effects on the gut as Splenda. In contrast, whole-leaf stevia has been shown to have no negative impact on gut health.
One issue remains with whole-leaf stevia: intense sweetness. The same problematic cycle occurs as does with Splenda. The brain reads the body taking in sugar but does not receive the corresponding energy. And so, the hunger pains continue.
Ultimately, Splenda is a chemically-altered sugar that has been proven to have negative effects on the gut, brain, and waist-line. Stevia is a great alternative for the consumer when in the whole-leaf form and acknowledged for its potential candy crush.
—–
Feature Image: Thinkstock