• 
• 1 answer

which commercial?

The one called sugar suger by the archies

• 
• 1 answer

There are about 192 grams of carbohydrate in 1 cup of Splenda Brown Sugar.

That's about the same as regular sugar, but you only use half as much of the Splenda Brown Sugar for the same amount of sweetening in your recipe.

• 
• 1 answer

it takes a longer time to boil than just water and sugar, because of the other chemicals added to splenda. The splenda reacts slower than the sugar.

• 
• 1 answer

Yes.....i think.

• 
• 1 answer

It is better for your weight because it has lesser calories. But it has many side effects. There is sucralose in it, and it's really not good for your body once you've been absorbing it for a really long time. Here are the possible side effects: Self-reported adverse reactions to Splenda or sucralose collected by the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center include skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, swelling, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain.

• 
• 1 answer

what distrbution channels does Splenda use

• 
• 1 answer

It is unlikely for the dog to get sick.He'll be fine!

• 
• 1 answer

No, the artificial sugar used in splenda is sucralose.

• 
• 1 answer

cancer The long term affects of using substitue sugar can cause cancer.Answer Generally, sugar substitutes have been shown to be safe in moderation. Whether they actually promote weight loss is questionable- one study followed subjects who either switched to diet soda or remained drinking the caloric version. After a year, no difference was observed in the subject's weights, despite the fact that the diet soda group would have been consuming fewer calories. The author's suggested that subjects compensated and would choose high fat foods and other high calorie foods to compensate for the lack of calories in the soda. So yes, if you were to replace all sugar with splenda in your diet, eat the same foods and maintain the same level of activity, you would lose calories. But chances are you'd end up eating more elsewhere and not see any change.

• 
• 1 answer

• 
• 1 answer

I don't know which beer you are referring to, but I believe splenda is the brand name for sucralose. Low/no calorie, high alochol beer would be a million dollar professional product, but I don't think any of the over the counter sugar subsitutes are suitable. The sugar (or malt) in making the beer reacts with the yeast to form alcohol.

The sugar molecules hand off the calorie potential to the alcohol molecules in the process. The calories are inextricable from the alcohol. With some hand waving, sucralose is different than sugar in that many of the 'alcohol' components of the sugar (the parts of the sugar molecular that would react with the yeast to make alcohol) have been chlorinated. This means that there are chlorine components where there were some OH or HO components. (You retain some sweet, you lose some calories, you lose the ability to form alcohol)

The sugar is no longer 'attractive' to the yeast, and I'd imagine you'd get non or extremely low alcohol glop instead of beer if you used a great deal of splenda instead of sugar (watch out for side effects, you could make somewhat poisonous glop). Splenda is good for sweetening but not for making alcohol.

I'm not a chemistry expert and no longer work in analytical chemistry, so I think getting actual sugar to make no to no calorie beer is currently beyond my ability. However, some master chemist or molecular biologist might come up with something that tastes like beer and mimics the physiological effects of alcohol on the human body - one day in the future...

However, the short answer for right now is "no". If you want the alcohol, you have to take the calories that come with it. If you try to add splenda to beer (after it's been made), then you might get sweet beer - you might have meant that. But, really what's the point?

• 
• 1 answer

One splenda packet contains 0.035 oz or 1 gram.

• 
• 1 answer

There are about 4 calories in a packet of Splenda. The FDA allows for anything under 5 calories to be listed as zero. So, it's absolutely not a "zero calorie sweetener" except by the FDA's definition.

• 
• 1 answer

No...Splenda has terrible side affects. Try 'Stevia', an all-natural substitute/

• 
• 3 answers

That’s what I want to know

• 
• 1 answer

After many hours of research on both sides of the fence I've come to conclude that Splenda is no more harmful to your body than any other food product on the market that has been chemically, genetically, or metabolically altered. (90% of what we consume without question.)

The only way that this product might be of overwhelming importance is to someone that absolutely refuses to ingest any food product that is not 100% natural.

It is true that three of the hydroxyl groups and the sugar molecules have been replaced by three chlorine atoms, and seems to be the primary basis for it's demise.

Our body, however actually needs chlorine a.k.a. chloride, a.k.a. sodium chloride, a.k.a. salt, in maintaining water balance, and is an essential component of gastric juice.

However it should also be noted that our chlorine intake should not be excessive. (5100 milligrams a day for an average adult.) No more so then our daily intake of sugars, carbs, calorie's, starches, ect, ect... "Everything in moderation" (if your health allows it.) Too much of anything can be hazardous to your health, likewise not enough of the right things can be hazardous to your health.

For the most part Splenda is largely unrecognized by the body. By most accounts only some 15% is absorbed by the body.

The claims of all the adverse affects of Splenda appear to be based on the adverse effects relating to the abundance of chlorine in the body and not Splenda itself, or the fact that it is just plainly "A man made" or "Altered" substance. Additionally all claims against Splenda are very vague and general using terms like "appears to be" or "thought to have been" or "categorized with other" unhealthy food products.

You can find something unhealthy with ANY food product known to man no matter how significant or insignificant it may be, because of the individual effects our bodies have on different foods.

My advise is to use research from all sides, balance and wisdom and see if it's right for you.

• 
• 1 answer

Yes. People have reported bladder problems while using it and once they have stopped using it the problems are gone. It has also been said to cause depression.

I disagree. "People have reported" and "It has been said" are not exactly scientific evidence. And the last I heard, infections of any kind were still caused by microbes.

• 
• 1 answer

Read the label on the Splenda package. I would use it if the child is a diabetic. Use natural sweetners like Truvia or Stevia instead. Many people have had problems with Splenda, such as headaches, muscular and nerve problems or other oddball problems.

If you are still concerned speak to the child's pediatrician.

• 
• 1 answer

Many artificial sweeteners, including Splenda, contain some sugar as a bulking agent, so there is possibly some affect on blood glucose. The amount is much less than if you were using straight sugar. A 1g Splenda packet is 99% sugar, so about 1g of sugar. This could possibly raise your blood glucose by as much as 25 mg/dL (based on a rough calculation: 1g in 4L of blood), so if you are using ten packets on your cereal and coffee in the morning, that could be a cause of rising blood sugar. There are some available without sugar, but you have to read the label; dextrose is D-glucose.

• 
• 1 answer

no

• 
• 1 answer

No, it is not.

• 
• 1 answer

24 packets.

• 
• 1 answer

Splenda's chemical formula is 1,6-dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside

• 
• 1 answer

Personally I would not. Powdered sugar and Splenda have two unique and different textures and tastes, meaning that you should follow the recipe; if it calls for using powdered sugar to make something and not to dust or to top it with. However instead of topping something in powdered sugar I would use Splenda, even though I believe it is not the best thing for you, instead of powdered sugar since it has no calories-I mean why should you make something that is weighed down in saturated fat and calories even worse for you by adding more sugar that is just finer? I would always add Splenda since it has 0 calories and fat.

EDIT: There are easons other than calories to use Splenda-- ever hear of diabetes?

You can make your own powdered Splenda-- For every 3/4 cup of Splenda, add 2 TBSP corn starch. Put into a blender and pulse until you have the correct consistency.

• 
• 1 answer

Though the FDA approved the use of Splenda as a sweetener in foods and some claim it is the perfect sugar substitute, others claim it is unsafe and has more in common with pesicides than table sugar. Though it is considered "natural," the term natural has no meaning when used on food labels, so that is misleading. Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a synthetic (man made) compound discovered in 1976 by scientists in Britain who were seeking a new pesticide formulation. While it is true that the Splenda molecule starts out as sucrose, three of its hydroxyl groups have been replaced by three chlorine atoms.

The truth is, the safety of Spenda (sucralose) is not yet known. More studies are needed to determine its safety, especially long-term safety.

For more information, please visit the Related Link below.