There is no consensus on taste—you give the same non-sugar sweetener to different people and they’ll have different reactions to how they taste.

The health effects are largely the same—your body doesn’t do much with these sweeteners, and they’re used in small quantities to begin with. Saccharine was thought to be unsafe after experiments in the 1970s, but the modern consensus post 2000 is that it is, in fact, safe.

Xylitol is the odd one out because it has calories, just 40% less than ordinary sugar. It’s being sold as something with all sorts of amazing health effects—fewer calories, lower glycemic index, etc. Some of these are overstated. I think most of these are overstated. IMO it is more convenient to just eat less sugar. Unlike most sweeteners, you can bake with xylitol, more or less. Some people find it irritates their stomach.

Stuff like sucralose and stevia are convenient and easy to source. YMMV, the only reason I’m having an artificial sweetener to begin with is because it’s in a factory product like soda or chewing gum, so I’m stuck with whatever the choice is off the shelf. If I’m cooking or baking, I look for recipes that use less sugar to begin with or I just eat less of the final product.

it's important to note that xylitol is a laxative. (and it is harmful or fatal to dogs)

My relatives found this out the hard way last week, they made a low-calorie cake which was sweetened with xylitol, which their dog got into -- they left it on the kitchen table for a few minutes to cool and he managed to jump on and gavone half of it before they saw him.

They had to take him to the vet where they fed him charcoal and pumped his stomach. =-/

The risk there wasn't diarrhea, but life-threatening toxicity. See: https://www.merckvetmanual.com/toxicology/food-hazards/xylit...

Xylitol is also found in nasal sprays. It was even tested to see if it helped with covid in that form. I could not find the study but I think it helped a bit.

Allulose I feel is the most interesting one as it can be used to get closer to the texture of regular sugar.

on taste. I find all sugar substitutes to taste like poison. Wondering if there's reason for that?

My main concern is their effect on the gut microbiome: https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/10/suppl_1/S31/530...

I don't think monk fruit and stevia are considered artificial sweeteners. I think they fall under the "alternative (to sugar)" sweeteners category. As opposed to artificial sweeteners like saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, sucralose, etc.

Yes, sugar and stevia are equally artificial. Both are extracted from a plant with some industrial processing.

I think, patent is talking about stevia the plant, whose leaves are quite sweet with a licorice taste when eaten raw or dried. When powdered, you can use those to sweeten i.e tea. You are talking about steviol glycosides that can be extracted, like sugar, from that same plant.

No. What I mean is that processing of stevia plant to obtain sweetener powder is conceptually the same as processing of plants to obtain sugar powder. So either both are artificial, or neither are. FWIW I wouldn't call either artificial.

I'm not talking about synthetic stevia as I haven't encountered such.

Artificial usually refers to synthetic

Then neither is. So, equally.

My experience with monk fruit is it's not really that expensive, so long as you go with the 25% or better mogroside-v concentration. The sticker price of $25 for something measured in ounces doesn't seem great, but you really don't need much of it. Erythritol, which I use when the bulkiness of sugar is helpful, is way more expensive sweet-for-sweet in comparison.

As far as taste goes, I have no complaints, but I'm also pretty easy to please. I tend to use dissolved sucralose in things that don't get mechanically mixed, and I don't mind that taste at all.

I don't think any of the ones that people still use today have any sort of health problems. Not like maltitol, the famous sugar-free gummy bear sweetener which made everyone crap (or whatever sweetener was in those fat-free chips that was the real culprit behind people's digestive trouble, not the olestra).

Xylitol and many of the sugar alcohols have fantastic health benefits.

And they prevent cavities so well the California Dental Association did this report where they recommend and explain how it works:

https://www.cda.org/portals/0/pdfs/fact_sheets/xylitol_engli...

TL;DR: Bad bacteria “choke” on xylitol and are greatly reduced.

> Dutch-ovening your girlfriend?

Is this level is discourse really necessary here? I'm pretty sure it breaks the site guidelines.

Look out people, the Propriety Police are raiding the party!

Erythritol is absorbed by the body before it reaches the large intestine and therefore does not make you farty. (It is subsequently excreted unmodified.)

Great, that's a nice option.

There's many different sweeteners each of them has its own lifecycle in our body.

In general you can eat them safely, most of the studies showing their negative effects are poorly conducted inconclusive experiments (asparthame especially). The other half shows adverse reactions in mice, which have a very different digestion.

The point of sweeteners is that you do not digest them, they leave your body with the same structure they had when they entered.

I would avoid stevia though, I think it's the one more controversial and it's only pumped because it's extracted from a natural plant rather than sythesized.