3 ms·

The opposite, actually. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc12-2221 http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc... Be

• DrScump 10y ago
  No. that study used sucralose ("Splenda" et al) -- a completely unrelated, artificial sweetener. Stevia is a naturally occurring plant extract which has steviol glycosides, having 150x the sweetness of sucrose (according to Wikipedia).
  • apathy 10y ago
    I'd edit the original, but some sort of a time limit has passed and I can't. Maybe it's better for people to see that I can't keep the two straight. This is particularly sad since I used to put Splenda in my coffee (since stopped, it's either sugar or nothing for me now) and had a stevia plant on my porch that a neighbor gave me. I couldn't ever get past the "off" taste of stevia, no matter how many times I tried, so eventually I gave up on that too. Now I'm a little curious what happens to blood insulin when athletes fire down a stevia-flavored source of short chain carbohydrates prior to exercise vs. unflavored. When I have time I'll look it up. The nice thing about this (stevia vs. sugar or vs. artificial sweeteners) is that it lends itself naturally to a two factor design, "natural" vs. not and "real sugar" vs. not, orthogonally. Anyways, yes, I was wrong about that and will probably fuck it up again in the future, although at least now I'm aware of the problem.