Allulose is NOT “natural”. It’s manipulated molecules of fructose.
Fructose is largely derived from corn…which is mostly GMO’d, with a high probability it carries agricultural chemical residues (like Glyphosate).
Industries have rapidly corrupted language used to market products, using terms they know public will buy, but, which industries routinely figure ways to stretch the truth of.
Like, “organic” has traditionally been used in conjunction with “chemistry”…so, if you invent a new combo of molecules in the lab, that’s “organic chemistry”…it has nothing to do with “organically grown” foods!
“Natural” can be used in a very wide variety of ways, but some of those do Not mean it’s found in nature, or that it is good for you.
The FDA allows any ingredient named on a label, to contain “up to 90%” items the company wants to hide (they call it “proprietary”), and the remaining 10% is to be something the company is willing to divulge. In practice, though, I discovered that many food makers become extremely defensive, refuse to divulge even that 10%, and worse, aggressively demand consumers tell them what they are concerned about in the ingredients, what their health issues are, etc., then still refuse or deny (as in the case with MSG, for instance).
Words matter. Corrupt industries + human behaviors, are the premature death of us all.

Thank you! Very astute!

You are correct, about artificial sugars…they fool the taste buds, but, cannot fool the body, simply put. The body will keep seeking nutrients it knows are supposed to come with certain flavors. Real sugar grows with certain other nutrients…but industries refined/purified it…first, because that’s what royalty did, so if you wanted to put on “airs” & climb the social ladder, you ate what they ate. (Bad idea, but that’s the crux of it). Paupers who ate field veggies and whole foods, were healthier than the royals eating refined grains and sugars, the same as the story in Daniel 1:12. Then, industry on a pervasive scale, took over, increasingly manipulating foods, in the last 100 years. We’ve essentially been reaping the whirlwind.
The gut bacteria are largely what send out signals that goad creatures to find certain foods to eat, to get the nutrients the body needs to survive. “Food” contains large numbers/varieties of nutrients (not just the “macros”!). But the way the body recognizes it, is “flavors”…it searches for the flavors, to get nutrients it needs. If the minerals are refined-out, the calories become “empty”. Empty calories in sugar substitutes, are not so different from refined sugar, refines grains, etc…only the macro-nutrients are being considered.
Short-sighted!
There are chemical messengers from the brain, too…and, science now understands (barely) that every part of a living body has some kind of biome, and that various biota do different jobs…
Which begs the question: how much chemical signaling in the body is the various biomes talking amongst themselves, vs. how much is messages from body (the body is actually made up of cells of many kinds, which collaborated to live synergistically; the cells look very like bacteria with viruses or retroviruses inside!)…does one triggers the other? Or, are they really kinda the same thing?
And, science now has a clue, that certain gut biota are good at keeping bodies normal-weight, but, other biota make us get fat. Fast.
Frankly, it’s Armageddon-catastrophically short-sighted, for industrial science to keep believing they can “out-god God”, by manipulating superficial bits, by ignoring or failing to consider the long-term collateral damages their new toys might cause.

It’s my understanding that it’s then eliminated in urine without really being metabolized.

I can’t stand stevia

Thanks for the head’s up. That one must be new. I’ve added it to the post.

In the main, natural substances not already proven to sicken or kill us are at least as good as, if not better than, manufactured substances not already proven to sicken or kill us. Building a machine to produce a substance that nature already produces is inefficient as hell. And we don’t know nearly as much about the human body as we think we do, whereas human bodies are part of nature and have evolved to exist within nature for thousands and thousands of years. (If you count our predecessor species as human, and I do, we’ve been around a million years or more!) I’m not even going to argue with you about whether nature is perfect. That’s a stupid question, and there’s so much out there I still don’t understand, and you don’t either. All I know is, we’re here, and our bodies already know what works best even if our brains don’t always go along for the ride. No need to re-invent the wheel. That said, one of the ways we re-invented the wheel is deciding to base our diets on sugar and birdseed. For those of us who refuse to give up having 24/7/365 access to sugar, even if we give up the birdseed, it’s nice to have options. I don’t personally find Splenda threatening, but a lot of people do and they’ve actually chosen to continue consuming sugar even though they know damned well it’ll kill them. So their having a natural option that works the way they would want it to work is a good thing, no matter what you personally think of it.

Really? Where’s the scientific fact? How was it proven?

I know of a rat study, vaguely, where they found that a rat that had had 0-cal-sweetened water and nothing else got hungrier when they fed the rat food. Stop and think very hard about why that might be happening. I suspect you’d get the same result feeding a rat nothing but water when you were supposed to give them food.

You find fat people using 0-cal sweeteners not because those make us fat but because we’re trying to cut carbs, calories, or both. Someone without a weight problem is much less likely to use those sweeteners because they think they don’t have a problem yet.