Splenda Vs Sweet'N Low

There is much controversy surrounding the use of artificial sweeteners. Both Splenda and Sweet'N Low are major competitors in this artificial sweetener market, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. While I do not believe that it is possible to give an unequivocal answer to the question of which product is the better product overall, what follows is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each brand of artificial sweetener. I have used both products extensively and I feel that each has strengths over the other in some areas and weakness in other areas. I will leave it up to the individual to decide which factors are more important when faced with the decision to use Splenda or Sweet'N Low.

I shall begin with Splenda. An immediate advantage of Splenda, which is primarily a sucralose based product, is its relationship to genuine sugar. My understanding is that sucralose is essentially a sugar model that has a chlorine atom bonded to the molecule. This allows the sucralose molecule to pass through one's digestive system without being digested as easily as regular sugar. The chemistry aside, the Splenda packaging proudly boasts that Splenda "is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." While the reasoning behind this statement may not hold up in court, Splenda is at least correct in claiming that it is the most like actual sugar of any of the artificial sweeteners, including Sweet'N Low or Equal.

Splenda also has advantages in baking, and one is able to use Splenda in the majority of recipe that call for sugar without too much trouble. My wife bakes with Splenda quite regularly, and while it is obvious that the end result is not equivalent to a product made with actual sugar, it is a close enough approximation that still has acceptable flavor.