Truvia Review

In my ideal world, there would be an endless supply of Japanese sweet potatoes, almond butter, and Broadway's Yirgacheffe. I would have a VO2 max of 90, David Rudisha's stride mechanics, and Killian Jornet's climbing legs. I would work in a shop where everyone tipped, appreciated espresso, and didn't demand sweeteners. 

But that is utopia, and utopia is not reality. In reality, I have to pay for groceries, my stride is awkwardly loopy, and people do want to sweeten their coffee. Those first two things are neither here nor there (I've devoted too many words to my legs flailing already), however - this is about sweetness. 

Or rather, it's about a certain sweetener: Truvia, which sent me some of its product to try. 

Although, to be honest, I'm not trying Truvia for the first time. It and I actually go back several years, to a time I cynically refer to as my "get ripped or die trying" period. I pounded weights, treadmills (how this whole running thing got started, actually), protein shakes, and all sorts of pills with dubious claims. 

I also sweetened a great deal of my food (never my coffee, however), to make up for the fact that much of what I was eating barely deserved the title. My sweetener of choice was Truvia, because unlike most other (Splenda, Sweet 'n Low, Purevia, etc.) packets, it contained no dextrose or maltodextrin, two starches processed to the point that they're metabolized like sugar. 

This is, to me, still a decided positive. Truvia's ingredient list reads as follows: Erythritol, Rebiana, Natural Flavors. Erythritol is a sugar alcohol, and passes through the body, unabsorbed. (This means that Truvia, despite what the box says, is basically non caloric.) Interestingly, there is also evidence that it might be good for dental health. Rebiana is stevia extract, which gives Truvia its name. There is a rather massive body of research on the health effects of stevia, and its safety, but I won't go in to it. Suffice it to say, unlike sucralose and aspartame - which are, at best, not actively dangerous - stevia might do some good things for you. Natural flavors are... something. 

On taste, it's important to note that, since both erythritol and stevia exist naturally, they've not been created to simulate the taste of sugar. Some find erythritol to have a slight mint taste to it, and stevia has been compared to licorice, and called slightly metallic by its detractors. Together (and along with "natural flavors"), the blend masks those stronger flavor notes, and the taste reads as rather directly sweet, with only a tiny hint of mintiness left over. 

In coffee, I'd been told that the resulting flavor is similar to sugar, and all other assorted artificial choices. Still, I had to investigate, and so I recruited some people I know, and a decent amount of customers. Some could tell a difference, but with the exception of one Splenda fanatic, no one found the difference substantial. That is, no one thought Truvia tasted significantly better or worse than the other options. It sweetened the coffee, and not much else. 

That, I think, is what people wanted, provided they wanted their coffee sweet at all. Since I don't, my tasting impressions were tempered somewhat. I found it similar in sweetness and flavor (not much besides sweet) to other packets, although not the sort of thing I'd use myself. 

To be axiomatic, this is the sort of thing that people who like this sort of thing will like. If they're looking to avoid calories, don't trust artificial sweeteners, and still want to sweeten their coffee, this is probably the best choice out there. 

Goodnight, Sweet Prince: A Farewell to Splenda

My history with artificial sweeteners is a sordid one. Several years ago, my quest for a certain aesthetic led to the frequent consumption of things that were not quite food, intended to mask the unpalatability of my diet at the time. These things were sprinkled on my oatmeal, consumed from shaker cups both pre and post workout. They filled in myriad blanks, stimulating my taste buds where food was lacking.

Those days are past, and happily so. Rather than chase that ghostly artifice, I now know the sweetness of yams, carrots, and fuji apples. Indeed, these are the sorts of things that now fill my (organic cotton, if that tells you anything) grocery bag. There was nothing purchased on my last trip which was not a nearly unaltered plant - unless you consider tofu and rolled oats heavily processed. (And no, paleo crowd, I have not become fat or diabetic in the last few years.)

I should confess here that, quite shamefully, I still fall victim to the odd diet soda. There is a local, organic coop that carries only stevia and erythritol sweetened varieties, of which I try to exclusively partake. But I am not as fastidious as I'd like, and both coke and sprite zero have crossed my lips at least once in the last several months. I do plan on changing that, however, if for no other reason than to deprive the Coca Cola Corporation of my meager funds. Thankfully, I have nearly unlimited access to coffee, a beverage more rich in caffeine and health promoting compounds - not to mention, much tastier.

But that's me. There are those for whom coffee and artificial sweeteners are not separate entities, but in fact go hand in hand. Coffee, sans skim milk and a pink, blue, or yellow packet, is nigh undrinkable. And these people may well be disappointed in my coffee shop's restocked condiment bar, which lacks that artificial rainbow.

To be clear, this was not my choice, but that of my owner. For the sake of consistency, I will not carry these things, because the breakfast cafe he owns doesn't either. While my taste dictates doing away with all of them, so too would it banish the real sugar, and probably all the syrups too. Still, I'm happy to defend my owner's call.

I could point out that these packets contain dextrose and maltodextrin, both simple carbohydrates with a glycemic index similar to white sugar. I could note that all of them seem to kill rats - albeit in monster doses. Assuming that my customers are not rats, I could cite a study which shows aspartame consumption to alter postprandial insulin levels and glucose regulation - in humans. (If this makes you wonder why I drink this stuff at all, well, me too.)

Furthermore, it's not as if we're lacking for sweeteners. We still have local honey, raw and white sugar, and now carry stevia packets as well. The brand we carry lacks any additives, and thus doesn't perfectly mimic the taste of sugar, nor the immense sweetness of the chemical creations. But it does come from a plant, not a lab, and has actually healed damaged beta cells in diabetic rats, increasing both insulin production and sensitivity. Also, it doesn't affect serum glucose or insulin levels in humans. Because of this, it's recommended by a number of European and Asian governments for diabetics. (But not ours, suspiciously. Another tangent for another time, and probably a different blog.)

Finally, I could suggest that, just this once, they try their coffee black. But let's not get carried away.

Coffee's Advocate

Another day, another study suggest that - more than make life worth living - coffee might well save it. This is not particularly noteworthy, in and of itself. The study only notes a correlation, which proves little to nothing. What's more, the mechanism is unclear, and the gap in consumption is massive. So what we've learned, really, is that people who drink a lot of coffee tend to have once type of cancer less than people who drink almost none. As such, there is no call to action, and it's said that people shouldn't start drinking coffee if they don't already enjoy it.

Were this one isolated case, I'd agree. Taken by itself, this one study isn't significant enough to support advocacy. But taken on the whole, there's a massive (and growing) body of evidence that suggests coffee deserves to be considered alongside fruits and veggies as potent natural medicine. And those, of course, are advocated for (however ineffectually).

Fruits and veggies are justifiably considered nutritional necessities, containing vitamins and phytonutrients that do innumerable good things inside the human body. But for all of the studies that suggest this, there are precious few that provide a causative link. And like the above study, taken on an individual basis, one might not think an apple a day worth eating. But we know better. We can take the cumulative knowledge, and glean from it that people should eat colorful plants, often at the exclusion of less nutritive things.

Thus, increase consumption of fruits and veggies; decrease consumption of less nutrient dense pseudo-food is considered sound advice.

In that same vein, I offer the following: Increase consumption of coffee, tea, and water; decrease consumption of sweetened liquids.

That, I think, is reasonable advocacy. No one needs to like coffee. But no one needs to like kale, either. You'd still be better off eating a side of that than french fries. So too can people make wise choices in their quest to hydrate and caffeinate. Coffee is a good one. So is tea, and of course, water. Anything sweetened, on the other hand, is probably not a good decision - whether it's sugar or sucralose/asparatame/neotame/etc. doing the sweetening.

Fake Poison

I state a lot of things unequivocally on this blog. But reality, of course, rarely lends itself to stark dichotomies. And so, often enough, I am left making statements that, though rather bold, may not be altogether substantial.

Of course, this is the internet. This is the land of ambiguity, faceless braggadocio, and virulent rage. I try and avoid that sort of thing. In part, because there is plenty of it already. But also because I am not anonymous. Which is not to say that I'm any kind of noteworthy, of course; only that I have my true identity posted to your immediate right.

But I'll get to the point now. And I have to say, getting to the point in only a couple paragraphs is pretty good for me.

Artificial sweeteners. Aspartame. Sucralose. The pink, blue and yellow "sugars", which are, of course, anything but. They are, in and of themselves, non-caloric. Although, it is worth noting, most are packed with maltodextrin and dextrose, carbohydrates which are actually more high glycemic than sugar itself. People sprinkle them on anything and everything, because what tastes good must taste sweet. And sugar, of course, will make you fat and diabetic. So load up the Splenda and down another low-fat turkey sandwich dear, that fat is practically melting off.

If it sounds like I'm veering towards internet rage, well, you're not too far off. It's not that I ahve any problem with people trying to lose weight. And I certainly don't fault anyone for avoiding sugar.

But here's the deal. I know I stated, from the get-go, that unequivocal statements are dubious. I believe this to be true. But I'm also a hypocrite. That is, I used to down artificial sweeteners like... well... candy. Which is appropriate in a sense. But now I sit, quite unsure of whether that is good, bad, or benign. After all, sugar is the stuff I've called metabolic poison before. Which, frankly, is too strong. A decent pancreas and insulin sensitivity can handle quite a bit of the stuff, in truth. And didn't I JUST WRITE about putting sugar in my coffee, pre-workout? But didn't I also just drink a Sprite Zero two days ago?

*Sigh*

The truth is, I have no idea what the truth is. I don't know if fake sugar makes you fat, by triggering craving and wrecking your metabolism. I don't know if fake sugar gives you cancer, is to blame for world hunger. There is too much debate, too much evidence on every side, for me to pretend at being an expert.

But I do know this, unequivocally. If you drink your coffee black, you don't need to sweeten it with anything.