PureVia vs. Truvia

Good morning! Husband is sick in bed -- I think I might've brought something home from work on Friday. Though, I am currently asymptomatic. Good thing with back-to-back hockey games this evening. On an unrelated note, let me re-visit stevia-based sweeteners: Truvia and PureVia.

If you read yesterday's blog, I deemed Truvia #1 to my taste-buds. Someone helpfully pointed out that they're made from the same plant -- the stevia plant. Stevia is native to Paraguay and Peru (depending on which source you reference). It is approximately 30 times sweeter than natural sugar, and is calorie free! Stevia-based sweeteners were approved for use by the FDA in December of 2008. Though they are 2-3x more expensive than saccharin (Sweet'n Low), aspartame (Equal) and sucralose (Splenda), they are gaining popularity quickly. "Truvia" is Coke's version of the stevia-based sweetener, while "PureVia" is Pepsi's version [1].

Both Truvia and PureVia are calorie-free, kosher products. One packet of commercially sold Truvia equates to the sweetness of 2 teaspoons of sugar. On the Truvia website there is a Q&A section and one of the questions is: What makes Truvia natural sweetener better than other stevia-based sweeteners? So, the research goes on [1].

The stevia plant has over 200 varieties. The quality of the "sweetness" depends on the extracted sweet compound that the leaves yield [2]. To me this reads "some parts of the plant are sweeter than others." We move on to PureVia's site where they give away the answer.

The sweeteners are made from Reb A (or Rebiana) -- the SWEETEST part of the plant. PureVia is ethanol-purified and the Reb A is blended with other "natural ingredients" for flavor. The bulking agents in PureVia include erythritol and isomaltulose [3]. Truvia does not purify with ethanol, according to what I've found thus far. Truvia also mentions no use of isomaltulose as a bulking agent [4]. Erythritol sounds bad, but it is a natural sweetener. It's found in fruits such as grapes and pears and is extracted naturally [4].

So in a nut shell, the stevia plant's sweetness varies a lot. Though both products are derived from the Reb A portion of the plant, the bulking agents and proportions of stevia vary...creating a different taste. There ya have it. Is there ANYTHING more anyone could ever want to know about stevia? : )

Last night I used some of my new calorie-containing sweeteners and made crock pot oatmeal. It was delicious. I threw into my crock pot:

2 cups of old fashioned oats
6 cups water
3 Tbsp cinnamon (I like a lot!)
2 Tbsp turbinado
1 Tbsp agave nectar
1/3 cup dates, diced

Cook on low 8-9 hours and enjoy! It was creamy and delicious! It needed no more sugar and has leftovers ready for 3 breakfasts this week! If you think I'm crock pot obsessed, you are correct!

On a completely unrelated note...no more football-less Saturdays! It should be a good year for the Fighting Illini (#25) and Oklahoma Sooners (#2). The two teams play back-to-back next weekend on ESPN and I couldn't be more excited! I'm saving my first hoodie reveal for Saturday. Crock pot vegetarian chili will be involved, as well. What college football team are you a #1 fan of?

Lily and I are off to the dog park...have a wonderful day!

[1]. McCay, Betsy. FDA Clears Use of Herb as Sweetener. The Wall Street Journal. December 18, 2008.
[2]. Stevia-based Sweetener Truvia Gets FDA Nod. Stevia Cafe.
[3]. PureVia website.
[4]. Truvia website.

Which sweet for me?

THANK YOU readers for all of your sugar insight! Turns out the real deal is taking a back seat to all that's out there. Between Splenda, Truvia, PureVia, turbinado, agave, etc...I do wonder how much granular sugar sales have been affected.

Anyways, while my husband (who still won't read my blog...) was napping...I went grocery shopping. While I typically avoid the grocery store like the PLAGUE on Saturday afternoons, I was interested in picking up some of your suggested sugar "substitutes" (be them calorie-free or not). So, here's what I ended up with: PureVia, Truvia, agave nectar, and turbinado -- all per your recommendations! And here's my cart:


I also picked up dates based of Gina's recommendation. I'm hoping to make some old fashioned crock pot oatmeal with the dates. Also in there was ingredients for my taste test #2 at work this week with my co-workers. I digress...

When I got home, I figured "Why not try them all and compare!?" So I did. And I took notes.

The contestants...

The set-up


The results!

Here's what I came up with...

1. Truvia: silky texture, heavier than Splenda; slightly bitter at first; granular - not powdery, if melted on tongue...tastes like room temperature vanilla ice cream : )
2. turbinado: large, sweet granules; less bold than brown sugar; maple-y
3. agave nectar: prune/date flavored; medium viscosity syrup; no after-taste
4. PureVia: sweeter and more bitter than Truvia; similar in flavor to Sweet'n Low; bitterness subsides

I have to confess that as I was leaving the store with all my new, healthy sugar alternatives...Sonic (which SHARES the parking lot with the grocery store, in my defense!) was having Happy Hour -- half-priced fountain drinks and limeades for those of you up north. Sooooooo I might've...probably...got a diet cherry limeade. While I know I won't ever be fully aspartame-free, I do think it's important to decrease the bad and increase the good in our lives. And for me, that includes diet cherry limeade. I HAVE, however, abstained from diet soda for over 3 weeks! This is huge for me...even though my habit was never more than 12 ounces a day, on average.

Have a wonderful rest of your weekend and enjoy the last football-less Saturday of the year! WOOT!

Study says: saccharin's alright.

After the soda tax poll, writing on this study seemed only appropriate. I am NOT justifying the partaking of ANY carbonated beverage, but for my one-a-day diet soda habit, I'll take the Splenda and leave the 160 calories for another waistline. I digress....

A study published by the Journal of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention published a study claiming no cancer-causing effects of artificial sweeteners such as saccharin and aspartame. The study assessed the risk of stomach and pancreatic cancer incidences in 3,000+ Italians with "regular" intakes of artificial sweeteners. This particular study follows a previous study performed on rats in 2007 published in Environmental Health Perspectives, which showed cancer-causing effects of artificial sweeteners [1].

Artificial sweeteners such as saccharin and aspartame are used world-wide and they produced industry amounting $1.83 billion dollars in 2007 alone. The most common artificial sweetener world-wide is saccharin with aspartame coming in second [1].

In Milan, Christina Boselli conducted case-controlled studies between 1991 and 2004 among "users" and "non-users" of artificial sweeteners. Among the data included there were 230 people were diagnosed with stomach cancer and 547 were healthy controls. Another 326 diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were included, with another 652 health controls. And yet another 454 persons diagnosed with edometrial cancer were included with another 908 healthy controls. The results were adjusted for confounding factors. None of the data produced results showing cancer-causing effects of cancer and nor did one artificial sweetener over the others [1].

Limitations of the study should be noted. Firstly, the included data was that of Italians only. Secondly, only three types of cancer were studied [1].

Another study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute showed no significant difference between groups consuming asparatme and incidences of leukemia, lymphoma, or brain tumors. This large-scale study included 285,079 men and 188,905 women, all aged 50 to 69 years [1].

Yet another study review published in 2007 in Critical Reviews in Toxicology showed that adverse effects of artificial sweeteners had "no credible scientific basis". This particular review included a panel of 8 experts over the course of 11 months. Over 500 studies, articles, and reports completed over the 25 years prior were included. Some of the included data was unpublished, but submitted to government bodies for regulatory process approvals [1].

My take: if you have to choose one...choose diet. Artificial sweeteners, no matter how they are chemically modified to be calorie-free are NOT natural products. Just my $0.02 on soda -- anyone care to share theirs?

TGIF!!! Have a great weekend!

[1]. Daniells, Stephen. Artificial Sweeteners Not Linked to Cancer: Study. Food Navigator. August 12, 2009.