Slickdeals is community-supported.  We may get paid by brands for deals, including promoted items.
Heads up, this deal has expired. Want to create a deal alert for this item?
expired Posted by Turtile • May 18, 2022
expired Posted by Turtile • May 18, 2022

10-Oz Skinnygirl Sugar Free Preserves (Apricot Mimosa)

$3.00

$6.79

55% off
Amazon
28 Comments 12,087 Views
Visit Amazon
Good Deal
Save
Share
Deal Details
Amazon has 10-Oz Skinnygirl Sugar Free Preserves (Apricot Mimosa) on sale for $2.97. Shipping is free with Prime or orders $25 or more.

Note: Usually ships within 2 to 5 weeks.

Thanks to Deal Hunter Turtile for finding this deal.


Editor's Notes

Written by Corwin | Staff
  • About this deal:
    • This 10-Oz Skinnygirl Sugar Free Preserves (Apricot Mimosa) is priced $3 lower (50% savings) than the listed "was" price.
    • Refer to the forum thread for additional details and discussion.
  • About this store:

Original Post

Written by Turtile
Community Notes
About the Poster
Deal Details
Community Notes
About the Poster
Amazon has 10-Oz Skinnygirl Sugar Free Preserves (Apricot Mimosa) on sale for $2.97. Shipping is free with Prime or orders $25 or more.

Note: Usually ships within 2 to 5 weeks.

Thanks to Deal Hunter Turtile for finding this deal.


Editor's Notes

Written by Corwin | Staff
  • About this deal:
    • This 10-Oz Skinnygirl Sugar Free Preserves (Apricot Mimosa) is priced $3 lower (50% savings) than the listed "was" price.
    • Refer to the forum thread for additional details and discussion.
  • About this store:

Original Post

Written by Turtile

Community Voting

Deal Score
+15
Good Deal
Visit Amazon

Price Intelligence

Model: Skinnygirl Sugar Free Preserves, Apricot Mimosa, 10 Ounce

Deal History 

Sort: Most Recent
Post Date Sold By Sale Price Activity
04/26/25Amazon$2.82
6
08/15/23Amazon$2.80 frontpage
59
05/01/23Amazon$2.80 frontpage
57
02/03/23Amazon$2.80 frontpage
41

Current Prices

Sort: Lowest to Highest | Last Updated 5/6/2025, 11:52 PM
Sold By Sale Price
Amazon$4.99
Leave a Comment
To participate in the comments, please log in.

Top Comments

Sweetened with sucralose, for those looking for the answer. I don't have a problem with sucralose, personally.
The single study referenced here was done via in vitro high concentration exposure, which does not occur in the human diet. Unfortunately, the study does not offer any conclusive insight on shorter and lower exposure within a metabolic environment.

There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.

Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.

Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
Current science does not support the implication or claim that these ingredients have a negative impact on health. To suggest people who care about their health should care about these ingredients is just suggesting people should have fear or concern for something because they were told to, not because it is true.

So no, people should not be made to worry about sweeteners at this time. There is no scientific consensus against them whatsoever. Sweeteners are studied internationally by many independent research teams and markets. Aspartame itself is arguably the most studied food subject ever at this point - it has been shown to be safe in dietary form for many many decades.

Someone could come in here and say "there's bad stuff in this" and someone could post any flawed basis for their belief. And that's just not at all rational to be concerned by or planned around for your diet.

28 Comments

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

May 18, 2022
4,004 Posts
Joined Jan 2010
May 18, 2022
jiggyblau
May 18, 2022
4,004 Posts
I don't know about others, but I had a 25% coupon to clip for the first S&S order. I got it for $2.08. It'll be even lower once I hit my 5 order threshold.
May 18, 2022
1,334 Posts
Joined Nov 2008
May 18, 2022
bsdc
May 18, 2022
1,334 Posts

Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank bsdc

Sweetened with sucralose, for those looking for the answer. I don't have a problem with sucralose, personally.
3
May 18, 2022
209 Posts
Joined May 2022
May 18, 2022
givemeonemorechance
May 18, 2022
209 Posts
Quote from bsdc :
Sweetened with sucralose, for those looking for the answer. I don't have a problem with sucralose, personally.
thx. Wish it was stevia or erythritol etc.

will still try at this price..
May 18, 2022
49 Posts
Joined Aug 2017
May 18, 2022
sicariusaevita
May 18, 2022
49 Posts
in for one, hope it's good
May 18, 2022
60 Posts
Joined Mar 2019
May 18, 2022
Mr.Dewalt
May 18, 2022
60 Posts
some other flavors have 6 pack for similar price, I.e. 6 pack blackberry priced at $16.83 = $2.8 * 6. Yet you need to order 6 of them
May 18, 2022
951 Posts
Joined Oct 2010
May 18, 2022
roni2010
May 18, 2022
951 Posts
Quote from jiggyblau :
I don't know about others, but I had a 25% coupon to clip for the first S&S order. I got it for $2.08. It'll be even lower once I hit my 5 order threshold.
no coupon for me, but i'm already at 15% in sub/save
May 18, 2022
249 Posts
Joined Jul 2021
May 18, 2022
SharpDesk9865
May 18, 2022
249 Posts
A long list of bad-for-you ingredients.
5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

May 18, 2022
1,187 Posts
Joined Oct 2014
May 18, 2022
cannono
May 18, 2022
1,187 Posts
Quote from SharpDesk9865 :
A long list of bad-for-you ingredients.
Which ones are bad for you? Please explain.
May 18, 2022
10,196 Posts
Joined Jun 2004
May 18, 2022
rly723
May 18, 2022
10,196 Posts
I usually buy smuckers sugar free but those have increased to $4-5. Just ordered Walmart great value strawberry sugar free for $2.44 each. Only because I have Walmart+ 90 day trial and free shipping. For the longest time, I didn't eat much toast jam and peanut butter, but it's been my snack alternative or quick breakfast the past month or so. Plus i have multiple loaves of bread taking up space in freezer that needs to be eaten. The apricot smuckers sugar free is pretty good so hopefully this is comparable. That said, these sugar free preserves in general, texture wise aren't like regular ones but for no sugar and only 10 calories per serving it's good enough. I do use natural peanut butter in moderation, using only 1 tbsp at a time and just account for those 95 calories
Last edited by rly723 May 18, 2022 at 04:41 PM.
May 19, 2022
26,135 Posts
Joined May 2006
May 19, 2022
namlook
May 19, 2022
26,135 Posts
Quote from cannono :
Which ones are bad for you? Please explain.
New Research Uncovers Dangers of Artificial Sweeteners – Potentially Leading to Serious Health Iss... [scitechdaily.com]

New research has discovered that common artificial sweeteners can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall, potentially leading to serious health issues.

Reference: "Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis" by Aparna Shil and Havovi Chichger, 15 May 2021, International Journal of Molecular Sciences.
Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis [mdpi.com]
Last edited by namlook May 18, 2022 at 05:15 PM.
3
May 19, 2022
447 Posts
Joined Nov 2011

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users.

May 19, 2022
18 Posts
Joined Nov 2015
May 19, 2022
amba
May 19, 2022
18 Posts
The ingredients are a joke at best if you care about your health.
4
May 19, 2022
1,187 Posts
Joined Oct 2014
May 19, 2022
cannono
May 19, 2022
1,187 Posts
Quote from namlook :
New Research Uncovers Dangers of Artificial Sweeteners – Potentially Leading to Serious Health Iss... [scitechdaily.com]

New research has discovered that common artificial sweeteners can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall, potentially leading to serious health issues.

Reference: "Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis" by Aparna Shil and Havovi Chichger, 15 May 2021, International Journal of Molecular Sciences.
Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis [mdpi.com]
The single study referenced here was done via in vitro high concentration exposure, which does not occur in the human diet. Unfortunately, the study does not offer any conclusive insight on shorter and lower exposure within a metabolic environment.

There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.

Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.

Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
1
May 19, 2022
26,135 Posts
Joined May 2006
May 19, 2022
namlook
May 19, 2022
26,135 Posts
Quote from cannono :
The single study referenced here was done via in vitro high concentration exposure, which does not occur in the human diet. Unfortunately, the study does not offer any conclusive insight on shorter and lower exposure within a metabolic environment.

There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.

Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.

Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
I agree this one study is not the final or conclusive word on the subject. The title of the first linked article does say "potentially,,," But it also shouldn't just be dismissed either by any prudent person who has an interest in optimizing their health and reducing suffering from health ailments as they age. Many other people don't care at all about any of it and that's perfectly fine too. Everyone's got to live their life how they choose.
Last edited by namlook May 18, 2022 at 05:53 PM.
5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

May 19, 2022
1,187 Posts
Joined Oct 2014
May 19, 2022
cannono
May 19, 2022
1,187 Posts
Quote from namlook :
I agree this one study is not the final or conclusive word on the subject. The title of the first linked article does say "potentially,,," But it also shouldn't just be dismissed either by any prudent person who has an interest in optimizing their health and reducing suffering from health ailments as they age. Many other people don't care at all about any of it and that's perfectly fine too. Everyone's got to live their life how they choose.
Current science does not support the implication or claim that these ingredients have a negative impact on health. To suggest people who care about their health should care about these ingredients is just suggesting people should have fear or concern for something because they were told to, not because it is true.

So no, people should not be made to worry about sweeteners at this time. There is no scientific consensus against them whatsoever. Sweeteners are studied internationally by many independent research teams and markets. Aspartame itself is arguably the most studied food subject ever at this point - it has been shown to be safe in dietary form for many many decades.

Someone could come in here and say "there's bad stuff in this" and someone could post any flawed basis for their belief. And that's just not at all rational to be concerned by or planned around for your diet.

Popular Deals

View All

Trending Deals

View All