DiningBuzz! - Whats Wrong with Water with Stevia?

I have only recently discovered flavored water made with the Stevia artificial sweetener. I absolutely love the no-calorie Sobe Lifewater, and convinced my self that because it's no calorie I can drink as much as I want.

So what's the truth? How much or how little of this stuff should I drink? Can I expect problems later on in life due to the "natural" Stevia sweetener?

I'm neither a scientist nor a doctor, but it's my understanding that stevia is just an herb, so the long term health effects are likely about the same as any other herb like basil, mint or parsley.

I'm neither a scientist nor a doctor, but it's my understanding that stevia is just an herb, so the long term health effects are likely about the same as any other herb like basil, mint or parsley.

Really? Herbs and plants contain potent chemicals which have effects on the body. Some are tasty. Some are medicinal. Some are toxic.

Some plants with medicinal effects have a wide therapeutic range. That is, a little bit is tasty. More is perhaps therapeutic -- like Basil is said to be for gastric distress. For these, it's hard to overdose -- you cant really eat enough to hurt yourself.

Heart failure patients take digitalis. It comes from a flower. Too much and you die. A very narrow therpeutic range. I'm not sure if the flower is even tasty.

The fact that stuff comes from a plant does not mean it is healthy or safe. Would you eat poison ivy? Amanita Phalloides?

Really? Herbs and plants contain potent chemicals which have effects on the body. Some are tasty. Some are medicinal. Some are toxic.

Some plants with medicinal effects have a wide therapeutic range. That is, a little bit is tasty. More is perhaps therapeutic -- like Basil is said to be for gastric distress. For these, it's hard to overdose -- you cant really eat enough to hurt yourself.

Heart failure patients take digitalis. It comes from a flower. Too much and you die. A very narrow therpeutic range. I'm not sure if the flower is even tasty.

The fact that stuff comes from a plant does not mean it is healthy or safe. Would you eat poison ivy? Amanita Phalloides?

I certainly would not eat poison ivy. I had to google Amanita Phalloides, and after discovering what it was i can say for sure I would not knowingly eat it. Then again I am not aware of any cultures that have been eating those plants for hundreds of years without any apparent side affect. On the other hand herbs like stevia, basil, and mint HAVE been used consumed by many cultures for centuries without any apparent side effects.

I eat mango it has the same chemicals that cause irritation as poison ivy....

some interesting info about it on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Health_and_safety

sounds like most things -- in moderation it's fine.

i remember reading somewhere that the FDA has really crazy guidelines for artificial sweeteners because some people drink vast quantities of soda every day...

i remember reading somewhere that the FDA has really crazy guidelines for artificial sweeteners because some people drink vast quantities of soda every day...

I resemble that remark.

Really? Herbs and plants contain potent chemicals which have effects on the body. Some are tasty. Some are medicinal. Some are toxic.

Some plants with medicinal effects have a wide therapeutic range. That is, a little bit is tasty. More is perhaps therapeutic -- like Basil is said to be for gastric distress. For these, it's hard to overdose -- you cant really eat enough to hurt yourself.

Heart failure patients take digitalis. It comes from a flower. Too much and you die. A very narrow therpeutic range. I'm not sure if the flower is even tasty.

The fact that stuff comes from a plant does not mean it is healthy or safe. Would you eat poison ivy? Amanita Phalloides?

I'm always a little bit perplexed when I hear people saying that this or that product is "natural" and, as such, could do no harm to you (as if there is something "supernatural" in this world), or that they don't drink or eat something as "they are full of chemicals" as if there is something material that is not composed of chemicals . . .

I'm of the same mind as you. There has to be a catch somewhere. I think the problem is that there is a lack of sufficient long term studies.

I do question how "healthy" and "good for you" ANY product is that is so refined that the original ingredient is unrecognizable. Stevia is not found in nature as a fine, white powder. How much of it's usefullness is destroyed in the refining process.

As for herbs, I could get my mom on here. We'll never hear the end of the purported benefits of herbs and spices such as parsley, cumin, anise etc.

The "catch" for me is the strong licorice aftertaste. Ick.

I drink club soda (I have one of those CO2 soda makers) with a squeeze of lemon or lime or in a 4:1 soda:fruit juice ratio (my favorites are cranberry cocktail and orange-pineapple juice).

I have only recently discovered flavored water made with the Stevia artificial sweetener. I absolutely love the no-calorie Sobe Lifewater, and convinced my self that because it's no calorie I can drink as much as I want.

So what's the truth? How much or how little of this stuff should I drink? Can I expect problems later on in life due to the "natural" Stevia sweetener?

The main problem with artificial sweeteners is that they can trick the body into thinking that it is getting sweets. When it isn't it kinda gets upset, so when you get actual sugars it hoards them, which can actually add weight on.

So like everything that is enjoyable in life. Moderation is key.

We have discoverd the joys of distilled water at home and we wouldn't revert to any bottled or simple filtered water. It is joyfully sweet and pure tasting - as it should be. It's made it's way into our tea, Gaggia, Zoji ... and even into our humidifier.

We have discoverd the joys of distilled water at home and we wouldn't revert to any bottled or simple filtered water. It is joyfully sweet and pure tasting - as it should be. It's made it's way into our tea, Gaggia, Zoji ... and even into our humidifier.

Do you take mineral supplements?

Distilled water can totally flush your body of salt and nutrients it NEEDS, and drinking distilled water is quite bad for you if you have no other supplementals.

Do you take mineral supplements?

Distilled water can totally flush your body of salt and nutrients it NEEDS, and drinking distilled water is quite bad for you if you have no other supplementals.

I was genuinely waiting for that ......:)

You would be right .... or more accurately you might have been right ... if you believe half of the rubbish written ... AND if all we drunk was distilled water. But do you really think anyone knows?

I drink a lot of beer. I drink a lot of wine. I drink diet Coke. I drink milk. Most of the vegetables I eat is 90% water. I am out quite a lot so drink whatever I'm given. My wife makes tea from the tap when unsupervised - and she makes most tea. I also take some supplements for other reasons. And where in the equation is the taking into account all of the rubbish that I would hve been drinking but is on the side of the distillery? So when I choose to drink water - if I choose distilled rather than bottled or the smelly stuff from the tap - do you really think I'm at risk?! Do you really think the fear that has been instilled by a couple of article seeking doctors is really worthy of serious concern?

When I die, I promise it it won't be because I drink some distilled water. Many more people will die from drinking water over 80 years when the contents of which are impure rather than the odd person like me who enjoys distilled water. Trust me. Everything you read that warns you about almost everything is always contradicted.

My BIL lives on diet soda because he thinks it's better for him, otherwise consumes not too much food or fat calories. Weighs more than 300lbs. I think ingredients in diet sodas make people just as fat as "real" sugar.

I assume Stevia at least biodegrades, I hard that splenda has started to pop up in the water supply over the world.

http://naturalsociety.com/sucralose-contaminating-nations-drinking-water/

I assume Stevia at least biodegrades, I hard that splenda has started to pop up in the water supply over the world.

http://naturalsociety.com/sucralose-contaminating-nations-drinking-water/

Two sources there. One of them,"Mercola.com" is not well-sourced and is a nutrition site which appears to have axes to grind. The other links to a legitimate source (an abstract from Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Aug 31. Epub 2011 Aug 31. PMID: 21879743) which indicates that a few hundred PPB (parts per billion) have been found at some US drinking water treatment plants (not "all over the world") without any support for claims of it being unhealthful.

Here's a hint: if you can't digest it, it goes through you. Like anything else.

My BIL lives on diet soda because he thinks it's better for him, otherwise consumes not too much food or fat calories. Weighs more than 300lbs. I think ingredients in diet sodas make people just as fat as "real" sugar.

Diet soda is far, far, far worse than regular soda.

I had a morbidly obese co-worker who justifed her 6 packets of Stevia in her Mcdonalds unsweetened jumbo sized iced tea by saying it is "natural." Around other people she didn't eat much, but I once caught her glimpse of the backseat of her car covered in Mcdonalds bags.

Diet soda is far, far, far worse than regular soda.

Got any peer-reviewed science to support that?

At 120-200 calories per 12oz serving, pretty much all from HFCS in one case is a known bad both for caloric and glycemic reasons.

The amount of artificial, non-nutritive sweetener is roughly 1/250th-1/1000th as large to produce the same sweetness, and the caloric impact is negligible. The understanding of the glycemic impact is less clear, but even there being merely "as bad as" the 30+ grams of sugars per serving is a relatively high bar.

Meanwhile, there has been plenty of research done on the pharmacology of aspartame, the weakest of the common artificial sweeteners (eg with 125mg in a 12 oz diet coke or about 1/250th of the amount of HFCS) and it is pharmacologically inactive at the levels of normal consumption:
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/4-artificial-sweeteners-their-fda-safe-levels.html
The newer sweeteners (Sucralose -- not commonly used in diet soda -- and Acesulfame Potassium -- which is typically used in MUCH lower quantities as a second sweetener to block aftertaste, along with a Aspartame) have much shorter track records, and less biomedical research on their safety, but they are also much stronger sweeteners and are used in lower doses.

Meanwhile, your coworker's other eating habits (or alleged eating habits) offer a much better explanation for their obesity.

Got any peer-reviewed science to support that?

At 120-200 calories per 12oz serving, pretty much all from HFCS in one case is a known bad both for caloric and glycemic reasons.

The amount of artificial, non-nutritive sweetener is roughly 1/250th-1/1000th as large to produce the same sweetness, and the caloric impact is negligible. The understanding of the glycemic impact is less clear, but even there being merely "as bad as" the 30+ grams of sugars per serving is a relatively high bar.

Meanwhile, there has been plenty of research done on the pharmacology of aspartame, the weakest of the common artificial sweeteners (eg with 125mg in a 12 oz diet coke or about 1/250th of the amount of HFCS) and it is pharmacologically inactive at the levels of normal consumption:
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/4-artificial-sweeteners-their-fda-safe-levels.html
The newer sweeteners (Sucralose -- not commonly used in diet soda -- and Acesulfame Potassium -- which is typically used in MUCH lower quantities as a second sweetener to block aftertaste, along with a Aspartame) have much shorter track records, and less biomedical research on their safety, but they are also much stronger sweeteners and are used in lower doses.

Meanwhile, your coworker's other eating habits (or alleged eating habits) offer a much better explanation for their obesity.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033110_diet_soda_weight_gain.html
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/29/studies-why-diet-sodas-are-no-boon-to-dieters/

http://www.naturalnews.com/033110_diet_soda_weight_gain.html
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/29/studies-why-diet-sodas-are-no-boon-to-dieters/

Both of those articles point to the same study.

While that study does raise a good deal of concern about the limited value of diet sodas in weight loss, it does NOT support the claim that they're WORSE than normal, sugar-containing soda as CBear attested.

The inferences made based on that study support the concern that diet sodas are bad for you in glycemic terms (and perhaps behavioral terms as well); on the other hand, the bad glycemic impact of sugar-containing soda is already well-established, and they present no evidence that diet sodas are in any way worse (they don't appear to compare to sugar-containing soda at all.)

The only sugar-vs-fake sugar comparison given in either article is an off-hand reference to a study referring to saccharine in rats, which then links to an article that doesn't mention that study -- not very helpful.