Imo stevia is one of the best of the no calorie sweeteners, but since that entire category is absolutely abhorrent that’s sort of like being called the fastest snail.
I think we have to allow that when you’re raised on sugar like we all were, substitutes are never going to live up.
However lots of people throughout history didn’t have refined sugar. The ancient Egyptians for example. What would they have thought of stevia?
I once went on a strict no-carb diet for a few months and a stevia tea at the end of the day was a very enjoyable treat that I looked forward to. Now, having gone back to a normal diet, it doesn’t taste as good.
I mean of course, yes, but since I can’t change my environment or context all I can do is speak on my own perspective informed my own context and experiences.
Like I’m not sure what your point is here, just that this obviously subjective topic is subjective? Yes, of course it is. And yes of course my response was likewise subjective, but given the inherent nature of the topic the idea of addending “in my opinion” to the end feels extremely unnecessary.
So again, I don’t disagree with you, but this feels entirely non-sequitur to me.
I’m saying it’s even more than just subjective from one person to the next. I described how I changed my environment and context and how that had an effect. Your opinion can change.
I think you’re upsetting yourself trying to figure out if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with you but It’s a discussion. People chip in different bits.
You disparaged the entire category. Which is a fairly common take. I’m saying that the moment we frame that category as sugar substitutes, in a highly sugar-driven world, the category is bound to compare poorly. It’s more than just subjective, it’s very slanted in one direction - for all of us.
But there are other frames of reference we could consider. Such as a world that isn’t saturated with sugar. Or even a personal diet that removes sugar as the frame of reference. “The examined life” that’s supposedly so worth living consists of trying not to just automatically react to the context we are in, but also consider alternatives, right?
You’re more than entitled to your opinion, and most share it. I’m just pointing out built-in biases that we all have on this question. If it was hard to figure out how my reply followed from your comment, it might be because I was trying to offer it without invalidating your opinion in any way.
Added sugar is considerably worse for you than any zero calorie sweetener. Don’t give me that IT’S CHEMICALS bullshit either. Aspartame is one of the most tested food additive world wide and it’s not found to be unsafe.
It is all really terrible for you in the long run. There are phycological impacts of sweetness.
Also drinking anything heavily flavored is problematic for your kidneys and heart. A little coffee or tea isn’t a problem but if you start drinking Soda as a water replacement it will come back to bite you.
I do agree that terms “artificial”, “chemicals”, “non GMO” and “organic” are BS. Ultimately it is more phycological than anything.
“its all bad in the long run” doesnt mean that one isnt significantly worse. If youre smoking, why not just do meth instead? Both will kill you.
I dont use sweeteners because of the aftertaste but I wont deny that sugar is much worse for my health. I dont consume enough to make it an actual problem though.
Stevia is DISGUSTING and by far the worst non-sugar sweetener. Aspartame is good in my opinion.
It’s interesting to read people’s reactions to stevia. I don’t seem to have the same reactions/aftertaste others point out.
I much prefer stevia over other sweeteners. I wonder if there is some sort of cilantro type thing going on.
Edit: Turns out stevia can taste different to other people!
Imo stevia is one of the best of the no calorie sweeteners, but since that entire category is absolutely abhorrent that’s sort of like being called the fastest snail.
I think we have to allow that when you’re raised on sugar like we all were, substitutes are never going to live up.
However lots of people throughout history didn’t have refined sugar. The ancient Egyptians for example. What would they have thought of stevia?
I once went on a strict no-carb diet for a few months and a stevia tea at the end of the day was a very enjoyable treat that I looked forward to. Now, having gone back to a normal diet, it doesn’t taste as good.
So I think habituation is a big part of it.
I mean of course, yes, but since I can’t change my environment or context all I can do is speak on my own perspective informed my own context and experiences.
Like I’m not sure what your point is here, just that this obviously subjective topic is subjective? Yes, of course it is. And yes of course my response was likewise subjective, but given the inherent nature of the topic the idea of addending “in my opinion” to the end feels extremely unnecessary.
So again, I don’t disagree with you, but this feels entirely non-sequitur to me.
I’m saying it’s even more than just subjective from one person to the next. I described how I changed my environment and context and how that had an effect. Your opinion can change.
I think you’re upsetting yourself trying to figure out if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with you but It’s a discussion. People chip in different bits.
Not upset, just confused. No ire anywhere, I assure you. Cheers.
You disparaged the entire category. Which is a fairly common take. I’m saying that the moment we frame that category as sugar substitutes, in a highly sugar-driven world, the category is bound to compare poorly. It’s more than just subjective, it’s very slanted in one direction - for all of us.
But there are other frames of reference we could consider. Such as a world that isn’t saturated with sugar. Or even a personal diet that removes sugar as the frame of reference. “The examined life” that’s supposedly so worth living consists of trying not to just automatically react to the context we are in, but also consider alternatives, right?
You’re more than entitled to your opinion, and most share it. I’m just pointing out built-in biases that we all have on this question. If it was hard to figure out how my reply followed from your comment, it might be because I was trying to offer it without invalidating your opinion in any way.
And none of us can ever really know what anything actually tastes like to anyone else.
You do realize manufactures have to wear gas masks when pouring in that junk right?
OH MY GOD!!! MASKS!?! It must be rat poison!
People working with powders should be wearing masks.
Why wouldn’t you just use sugar
If you are going to mistreat your body then go big or go home.
Added sugar is considerably worse for you than any zero calorie sweetener. Don’t give me that IT’S CHEMICALS bullshit either. Aspartame is one of the most tested food additive world wide and it’s not found to be unsafe.
It is all really terrible for you in the long run. There are phycological impacts of sweetness.
Also drinking anything heavily flavored is problematic for your kidneys and heart. A little coffee or tea isn’t a problem but if you start drinking Soda as a water replacement it will come back to bite you.
I do agree that terms “artificial”, “chemicals”, “non GMO” and “organic” are BS. Ultimately it is more phycological than anything.
“its all bad in the long run” doesnt mean that one isnt significantly worse. If youre smoking, why not just do meth instead? Both will kill you.
I dont use sweeteners because of the aftertaste but I wont deny that sugar is much worse for my health. I dont consume enough to make it an actual problem though.