I was looking at the labels on sugar and on Splenda:
Sugar per 100g: 400cal 99.9g carbohydrate 99.9g sugar
Splenda per 100g: 391cal 97.7g carbohydrate 6.9g sugar
When I look at labels I usually look at the carbohydrates not the sugars and these products have very similar carbs (and calories).
If Splenda is a better choice, then that must be because of the low sugar figures. So am I incorrect in looking at the carbohydrate figures on labels? Should I by looking at the sugars?
I was looking at the labels on sugar and on Splenda:
Sugar per 100g: 400cal 99.9g carbohydrate 99.9g sugar
Splenda per 100g: 391cal 97.7g carbohydrate 6.9g sugar
When I look at labels I usually look at the carbohydrates not the sugars and these products have very similar carbs (and calories).
If Splenda is a better choice, then that must be because of the low sugar figures. So am I incorrect in looking at the carbohydrate figures on labels? Should I by looking at the sugars?
I had the same problem originally.
I can't remember the figure, but by volume they are about as sweet, but splenda is about 100 times lighter, so 100g of sugar is equivalent to 1g of splenda. (other ratios may be actually correct, it does say so on the packet somewhere, but I stopped using sweetener a while ago)