Artificial sweetener question

If I use one of those little packets of artificial sweetener in my tea, what is the equivalent sweetness level to real sugar?

I am just asking for tea or coffee, I know it’s not a sugar substitute in cooking or baking.

They’re equivalent to 1-2 teaspoons of sucrose.

I think that the manufacturers try to formulate and portion those to be roughly equivalent in sweetening power to a packet of sugar.

Keep in mind that most of what is in the packet is filler. Artificial sweeteners are so sweeter than sugar that only a tiny amount in the packet is active ingredient.

Thanks for the responses!

I use Splenda (or generic sucralose) and each packet is supposed to be the equivalent of two teaspoons of sugar.

the active ingredient in splenda is supposed to be 100 times as sweet as sugar. And by weight the same number of calories. So I have been told, I don’t have a cite.

As has been mentioned by weight and volume the vast bulk of a sweetener packet is filler.

And the filler they use is… sugar. If you put one packet of artificial sweetener in your tea, you’re adding as much sugar as if you had put in one packet of the same size of pure sugar. You’re probably getting about twice that much sweetness, because of the tiny speck of high-sweetness artificial sweetener in addition to the sugar filler.

Not really.

A packet of sucralose has far fewer calories because it uses far less sugar…

Actually, since a packet of sucralose is equivalent to two packets of sugar, it’s only 16% of the calories otherwise used.

And almost all of that sweetness comes from the sucralose, since the bulkers used are dextrose and maltodextrins. On a scale where sucrose (table sugar) is 100, dextrose (glucose) is 74 and the various maltodextrins are only 6 to 21.

But a packet of sucralose has the same amount of Calories as a packet of sugar of the same size. It’s just that most packets of sucralose are smaller than most packets of sugar.

The packets (and larger quantities meant for baking) contain a fair amount of calories because of the filler – they’re meant to be a 1:1 replacement for sugar by volume, not weight. It’s hard to tell with the small packets, but the larger size bags are easy: a cup of Splenda is noticably lighter than one of sugar.

At that size, it’s easy: a cup of Splenda contains 95 calories, a cup of sugar contains 770. They’re formulated to be of “equivalent” sweetness, your taste buds may differ somewhat. With a little rounding, it’s reasonable to call Splenda 1/8 the number of calories by volume.

Note that this is specifically for the sugar-replacement branded as Splenda. Other brands will differ in their fillers slightly, and Splenda is also sold in “blends” with white or brown sugars. These have more calories (roughly half that of the base sugars).

The OP asked specifically about the packets, but there are other options now: you can get liquid sucralose in small squirt bottles – these use water as their filler. The calorie content of the sucralose in these is infinitesimal, but some brands have slightly-caloric additives in the filler, so they range from zero to a fraction of a calorie per serving.

Note that this is NOT the same liquid sucralose that manufacturers use. That’s pure sucralose, but it’s so strong (a single drop can sweeten gallons of liquid) that it’s not useful (or sold) for home use. But diet colas, for example, really are calorie-free because they use the industrial stuff.

I don’t see the point of this observation. ALL packets of sucralose are smaller than ALL packets of sugar that I’ve ever seen. The point of sucralose is that a) you don’t use as much volume and b) you get far fewer calories for the same “sweetness.” I put that in quotes because, to my taste, 1 packet of sucralose is not equal to 2 packets of sugar for sweetness.

You’re contradicting yourself. The proper way to phrase it is that a packet of sucralose would have the same amount of calories if it was the same size as a packet of sugar. It’s not, deliberately. In actuality, a real-world packet of sucralose does not have the same amount of calories as a real-world packet of sugar.

I’d use “weight” instead of “size.” “Size,” to me, implies volume, and by volume, this is incorrect.

I’m pretty sure that size does not imply volume to most people.

Spatial dimensions are certainly volume. Proportions, probably. Magnitude could be either. Bulk is more likely to be mass.

I agree that “spatial dimensions” does not imply volume. Rather, volume follows directly from spatial dimensions.

And contrary to Chronos, I’d argue that “bulk” refers to volume without specifying a shape. Grain and ore, cargos of bulk carriers, have an essentially fixed volume but no particular shape.

It’s easiest to refer to quantities of bulk goods by mass, but “bulk” often refers to volume directly. E.g., “Can you help me move this sofa? It’s not heavy; just bulky.”

It really wasn’t that important a point…

The next time someone tells me that size doesn’t matter I will direct them to this thread.

Length or width or height are spatial dimensions that aren’t volume. So is length times width or area.

When talking about a city’s size, we have to specify whether we mean area or population, and neither of those are volume. The size of a dress or pair of pants is not its volume. The size of a hard disc isn’t either.

We can even speak of the size of a post.

Size is used a zillion ways in colloquial speech, which is what we’re properly using right now.

A zillion is a large size. Not a volume, though.