Sugar is a honest product from sugarbeets.
Sugar substitutes, isn’t it all chemical?
Everything is just chemicals … the only difference is the source of the chemicals. For me, splenda is the safer choice - I am diabetic. For my husband who is not diabetic, he goes for sugar.
Believe me, there is nothing wrong with artificial sweeteners or ‘natural’ sweeteners in moderation. Unless you have a sensitivity to the chemicals in question, you can use whichever tastes better.
[FWIW, I am sensitive to high fructose corn syrup, it triggers migraines in me so I personally avoid it. My husband doesn’t have problems with it so he can eat junk foods that has it in the formulary. His mileage differs from mine =) ]
Not all sugar is from sugar beets, but all sugar is “just chemicals.” Glucose, sucrose, dextrose, fructose – these are all chemicals, and they are all sugars.
Moved to IMHO since there is no definitive “GQ” answer to this question.
Sugar substitute, particularly if you’re fat. Good and well-presented information: Artificial Sweeteners - YouTube
I used to put artifical sweetener in my coffee every morning. Then my wife started getting anxious about potential health risks from it. She wanted me to switch to sugar, but I don’t want the calories or tooth decay risk associated with it. So I’ve learned to enjoy my coffee without any sweetener.
This is my overall fear of diet sodas and artificial sweeteners altogether. I’ve actually served a family in a restaurant once, they all had diet soda’s, then, after the meal, each had cake (these people didn’t need any cake, that’s for sure), even after going on about how they wanted to make sure it was diet 'cause they were trying to lose weight. Whatever weight they lost or didn’t gain from drinking the diet soda and using artificial sweeteners, they were more than made up for in that one round of dessert.
Calories or artificial chemicals. Artificial chemicals, or calories. On the one hand, on the other.
Me, I’ll take calories. I can go for a walk/have sex/run up and down the stairs/etc. and burn off a little sugar. I have no idea how carcinogenic or toxic or whatever the factory-created stuff is. However, I don’t have diabetes (if anything, I tend to be slightly hypoglycemic) and don’t have weight problems, so YMMV and all that.
I’m moving it to Cafe Society. Sweet! 
I thought the majority of sugar came from sugar cane? 
So just don’t eat the cake.
It’s not just the calories in real sugar that are (is?) the problem, it’s the impact that real sugar has on your blood sugar. Most sugar substitutes have either minimal or no impact on your blood sugar, which makes them a much better choice for anyone trying to maintain stable blood sugar/insulin levels. You should also avoid the sugar substitutes that do impact your blood sugar and/or cause digestive distress (maltitol and sorbitol).
Aw, come on! Let them eat cake!
I’m 85, old enough to know better. 
But I use Splenda instead of sugar since I am also a diabetic. I use it in moderation, which I think is the key for using sugar substitutes.
Sugar has calories, too, which I am also trying to avoid.
Not the point, the point is that the diet stuff made them want to eat the cake more than someone not using artificial sweeteners and diet drinks. The article I posted clearly suggests that this could be a threat. Besides, you’re body is not supposed to crave sweets at all, or at least not much. I haven’t eaten dessert for 10+ years, I enjoy the food on the table far more than any cake, this is also because until I started cooking myself, the food at home tasted like crap, and who has money to eat out. Now I enjoy a good home cooked meal and look at restaurant food like its crap (which it is, it’s often times a lot more unhealthy, unless you just eat a salad :D)
How do you know these people would not have craved the cake without the diet sodas?
Cite?
I’ll grant that common sense says, to me anyway, a well-nourished body shouldn’t be craving anything, but I’m not aware of any sound nutritional plan that claims sweet foods are in and of themselves bad or in any way unnatural to include.
Hell, breast milk (I’m told) is sweet.
My thought too, and Gary’s. 65-70% is sugar cane, which suggests 30-35% is beets (or other).
To the OP, artificial is not necessarily worse than natural. But if you’re into the latter, there are plenty of those, such as xylitol.
You’re citing to oprah.com, known to promote nonsense like Deepak Chopra and Dr. Oz. Not a good cite here. (I’m not calling Oprah stupid because, obviously, she isn’t. She is, however, either gullible or cynical enough to give a platform to the serious loons/frauds out there.)
Ok… let me get this straight: A bunch of fat people ate cake even though they know they’re fat. That is due to the malign influence of chemistry now? No, it’s due to low self-control and a possible unhealthy relationship with food.
Nonsense. We evolved to crave sweets for the same reason we evolved to crave fats: High-calorie foods are good for people on the brink of starvation, which is how we lived through most of our history as humans. Why else would the ancient version of heaven be the land of milk and honey?