Artificial Sweeteners

Stevia (Steviol Glycosides) is one of the sweeteners so it isn’t completely misleading to call it “Stevia Sweet”.

Other carbohydrates (that may or may not be some kind of sugar) are often added to diet sweeteners to make up the bulk so that the product can be used as a drop-in replacement for common sugar (sucrose) without having to measure tiny amounts. You wouldn’t want to put a teaspoon of stevia in your tea.

The use of other carbohydrates that are not the common sugars sucrose, glucose and fructose is common in diet products for the above and for other reasons. The effect that these substitutes have on the calorific content or on glycemic index varies so if you are watching your diet carefully or a diabetic you should always read the fine print beforehand and not assume that the product is non-sugar or has any particular suitability for your diet.

2 Likes

Their website indicates that…

One tiny (included) measuring spoon (1/35 tsp) of Nirvana Organics® Pure Stevia Extract Powder is the same sweetness as 1 teaspoon of sugar – so a little goes a long way.

$12.95 for 30g means $432/kg (240 times the cost of white sugar). I am in the wrong business.

3 Likes

Paying for a lot of air per that tiny teaspoon then as well, Reb A is the most common component and it is at least 200 X as sweet as sugar. Thus a teaspoon only 1/35 as small as a teaspoon must either be much more than a teaspoon’s worth or they have bulked the product with something. As they state the product is pure Steviosides then it must be air.

That really does inflate the price of air.

3 Likes

Thank you for your comments.
A diabetic should be made aware that the product is dominantly maltodextrin. That product presents a health issue for them. We should not leave it to the ability of every diabetic to read labels and comprehend the dangers to them.
The second major ingredient is listed as “Fructofibres”. I am no chemist but the term “fructo” raises alarm bells in me, given the serious issues that the liver has with fructose (that is the “evil” component of sugar).
If a sweet product is difficult to manage, then learn to do without sweetening. The liver will appreciate the relief.
I gave up fructose and I limit carbs, losing 32 kilos in the process – and I am keeping it off.
Doug

4 Likes

Fructofibres are inulin and oligofructose or Fructooligosaccharide.

‘Fructo’ or Fructus is latin for fruit. Fructose is sugar of fruit. Fructofibres broadly means fruit fibres and isn’t fructose but the above compounds.

There is some that believe fructose is “evil”, but in reality any foods or ingredients consumed in excess (even water) poses potential health risks. Fructose is naturally occurring and has been consumed by humans for 10000s years. There are other threads if you search which discuss fructose and some of the ‘theories’ about its consumption and alleged health risks.

Most diabetics hopefully would read labels rather than making assumptions about a product.

3 Likes

If sufferers cannot be expected to read in order to consider their own health how should this knowledge be taken in? Doctors do attempt to describe broadly what diabetics should do or not do, eat or not eat but they cannot cover every product on the market. Maybe the next system of social media will be information suppositories.

“Fructo” just means related to fruit or substances derived from fruit. If I did a ScoMo and held up an apple in parliament who would be afraid of it as much as the members were of a lump of coal?

I can’t find a definition of the term fructofibres but I think it means oligosacharide. There are lots in normal food.
There is another thread Fructose - A Debate which goes into the value or horrors of fructose.

One question though. If fructose is so inimical to the liver how is it that it has been a significant part of human diet for hundreds of thousands of years? If it is so evil our ancestors would never have lasted long enough to bear our grandparents.

1 Like

I don’t see much discussion on Splenda - major ingredients Lactose (from milk) and Sucralose. Mr Z has a tablet (zero calories) to replace his two teaspoons of white cane sugar (32 cal). I don’t have the granular version because hardly any shops stock it, but I remember the ingredients were different - it contained maltodextrin.

He also uses Hermesetas granulated sweetener, which I remember telling him was the same as Splenda granular, but had more maltodextrin - 55%; the sweetener is also Sucralose.

He needs routine, so when he decided to lose weight he replaced his sugar with these two alternatives three years ago and reduced his weetbix from 4 to 3 (he had a tablespoon of sugar on each), and has steadily lost weight. He does not appear to have any ill effects.

Initially I was told Splenda was Cane sugar, modified to remove most of the calories. Compared with sugar (equivalent to one teaspoon) it is 0.1kj vs 67kj.

Hermesetas is formulated as “cup for cup” with sugar for sweetness, so I am assuming some bulking agent because the two teaspoon equivalent tablet is so small. It is 6.3kj per teaspoon.

I definitely use sweeteners other than the sweeteners known as glucose, sucrose, fructose, maltose, etc
I aim for sweeteners that

  • my body will not use to create energy nor fat, and
  • will taste pleasant.

I have found zylitol the most pleasant tasting of the non-sugar choices.
There is monkfruit waiting for me to try next, but I don’t use these so much now as I have lost the weight.

Xylitol is deadly for dogs, and it also has carbs. Erythritol is the one favoured by followers of the Keto diet as it has zero carbs and zero effect on blood glucose. All the sugar alcohols can cause gastric issues for some people.
Allulose is the best tasting, recently it was approved in NZ but us Aussies are still waiting…

1 Like

That doesn’t mean much as a dog’s digestive system and tolerance for compounds is quite different to the human body.

Each animal has tolerances for different things. An example say is rhubarb which is unpalatable and poses risks to humans due to its high oxalic acid…but will be happily eaten by possums. Another example is koala and gum trees. The leaves are highly toxic to humans.

1 Like

You misunderstand, people must never mention Xylitol without adding a warning as some people may take it up without realizing they could kill their own dog. I use it in ice cream as it does not re-crystalize on cooling as Erythritol does. and I do not own a dog. The poster who mentioned Xylitol has puppy in his username so there is a possibility that he has a dog.

2 Likes

UQ researchers study whether artificial sweetners contribute to antibiotic resistance.

1 Like

An article regarding low GI sugar production in Australia.

I want to try that. I don’t have sugar on/in anything except cereals, and currently use Hermesetas, being aware that it does raise my BG but not as much as “real” sugar.

When a product is marketed as low GI do we really know what ‘low’ means?

I read somewhere a low GI product qualifies if it has 25% less …. than the typical everyday product. IE low GI sugar to be certified could be 75% sugar, and only marginally better than everyday sugar?

This sounds a bit like the salt reduced spin, where the labelled product is still very high in salt compared to recommended dietary needs. The news report was a little light on.

1 Like

What it doesnt mean is that theres less sugar (or whatever). The GI is about how quickly its absorbed. So processed sugar is going to give you a hit. A carrot will not. Watermelon will, its very high on the index… milk chocolate is down somewhere around 70%. I have a GI book somewhere, I can dig it out if you like.

2 Likes

Ok, so how much slower is the low GI sugar - sugars released?

Dunno. Its pretty new and likely has not yet been tested

This is a great example of the ambiguities in food labelling. Yes steviol glycosides are extracted from a plant but when you look at the the Food Standard Code, you will see that many of the enzymes used in the extraction process are genetically modified. Since they are non-allergenic processing aids they won’t appear on label. I think it is extremely unlikely that novel protein or DNA is in the final product but I think it is arguable that steviol glycosides are a not natural product.