Shrek uses the agave, to me it has an astringent aftertaste I am not happy with. The coconut sugar noted on a different thread is working well for my coffee in the morning.
Using Stevia in Baking
- Thread starter Arky
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
GLC
Head Chef
After thorough research into sweeteners, I settled on palm sugar and organic cane sugar. They are very close to each other. The key word in cane sugar is "organic," which. less importantly indicating what wasn't used, pretty much insures that it is produced by evaporation with no other processing. But I thin palm sugar is maybe a bit better for you. I was using agave and still have some, but there were some things about it I didn't like.
Both are slightly tan or off white, but neither tastes (to me) strongly of molasses as "brown" sugar does. I combined the change with cutting the quantity of sugar in half in routine daily used.
I have no medical necessity for using non-caloric sugar substitutes, and I have tentatively concluded that there's an off dynamic at work in which, when I use a substitute, my body expects sugar and, when it doesn't find it, turns on an urge for it. I looked at the number of calories I was consuming each day from added sugars and found it wasn't enough to make a big difference.
Both are slightly tan or off white, but neither tastes (to me) strongly of molasses as "brown" sugar does. I combined the change with cutting the quantity of sugar in half in routine daily used.
I have no medical necessity for using non-caloric sugar substitutes, and I have tentatively concluded that there's an off dynamic at work in which, when I use a substitute, my body expects sugar and, when it doesn't find it, turns on an urge for it. I looked at the number of calories I was consuming each day from added sugars and found it wasn't enough to make a big difference.
There has been some research on artificial sweeteners and the body's feedback mechanisms for sugar. Apparently the artificial sweeteners confuse the body. The taste of sweet starts the insulin production and then there is no sugar for the insulin to deal with, so the body gets confused. It turns out that people who use artificial sweeteners don't lose weight as quickly as people who eat sugar.
bakechef
Executive Chef
I have a tendency to low blood sugar. I crash when I drink soda with HFCS in it. It's funny how you mention never getting enough, I could drink cup after cup in a restaurant and never get enough. I can buy a small bottle of sugar sweetened Mexican coke and be satisfied.
I also find that when I consume artificial, no calorie sweeteners I crave sugar more. I wonder if when people consume artificial sweeteners, their body releases at least a little insulin? I have had only one or two episodes where I have felt my blood sugar start to drop since giving up artificial sweeteners at the beginning of the year. I go for real sugar or nothing. I am also saving a ton of money drinking water in restaurants, and not buying soda (diet or otherwise) at work.
Last edited:
merstar
Head Chef
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 2,002
The best I've found is Whey Low - it's 100% natural, tastes like sugar, is used as a 1 to 1 replacement, has no harmful ingredients, and can be used successfully in baking. I use it in baking all the time, and it works perfectly. The only downside is it's very expensive.
Sugar Made Healthy! Whey Low Natural Sweetener
Sugar Made Healthy! Whey Low Natural Sweetener
Last edited:
Do you buy it in a store or online?
GLC
Head Chef
Sounds like a bunch of hand waving and tangent talking. On their web site, they make much of this:
3. Is Whey Low® safe for diabetics?
Yes. Whey Low® Type D has been tested in type 2 diabetics in the clinic and has been found to have no more than 20% of the glycemic index of glucose.
Well, sure. Whey Low is sucrose, lactose, and fructose. I presume heavy on the fructose, which has a GI of 17. By comparison, table sugar is 80, and that should be the benchmark, because no one eats glucose directly. Organic cane sugar's GI is 47. Raw honey's GI is 30. But there is a great deal more with regard to diabetics than GI.
And fructose is as much as 1.8 times sweeter than sucrose, so less is needed for the same effect. And that's where they suppose to get the lower calorie count. But without going into the well known and easily found problem with HFCS, which is exactly and simply the problem with fructose being metabolized differently from sucrose, the product seems to me merely fructose for sweet, sucrose likely for table sugar taste, and lactose for the cutsey product name.
There's some hand waving about using three sugars together and one or another blocking others in the intestines. Wait, though. All these sugars are available and are regularly consumed by most people daily. The web site talks about why the fructose isn't so bad because of how little of the daily energy intake is represented by typical user amounts of Whey Low. So which is it? Those amounts are so significant that the blocking effect (if that's even accurate) is important, or these amounts are insignificant, and any such effect is trivial considering the rest of the energy diet?
Palm sugar is dramatically cheaper (Whey Low is four times the price), has a very attractive GI, and and doesn't have the potential problems of fructose. And diabetics should refer to the The American Diabetes Association materials on fructose and diabetes, which would be enough to put me off this product. For that matter, people who aren't diabetic and would like to stay that way should look into it, also.
3. Is Whey Low® safe for diabetics?
Yes. Whey Low® Type D has been tested in type 2 diabetics in the clinic and has been found to have no more than 20% of the glycemic index of glucose.
Well, sure. Whey Low is sucrose, lactose, and fructose. I presume heavy on the fructose, which has a GI of 17. By comparison, table sugar is 80, and that should be the benchmark, because no one eats glucose directly. Organic cane sugar's GI is 47. Raw honey's GI is 30. But there is a great deal more with regard to diabetics than GI.
And fructose is as much as 1.8 times sweeter than sucrose, so less is needed for the same effect. And that's where they suppose to get the lower calorie count. But without going into the well known and easily found problem with HFCS, which is exactly and simply the problem with fructose being metabolized differently from sucrose, the product seems to me merely fructose for sweet, sucrose likely for table sugar taste, and lactose for the cutsey product name.
There's some hand waving about using three sugars together and one or another blocking others in the intestines. Wait, though. All these sugars are available and are regularly consumed by most people daily. The web site talks about why the fructose isn't so bad because of how little of the daily energy intake is represented by typical user amounts of Whey Low. So which is it? Those amounts are so significant that the blocking effect (if that's even accurate) is important, or these amounts are insignificant, and any such effect is trivial considering the rest of the energy diet?
Palm sugar is dramatically cheaper (Whey Low is four times the price), has a very attractive GI, and and doesn't have the potential problems of fructose. And diabetics should refer to the The American Diabetes Association materials on fructose and diabetes, which would be enough to put me off this product. For that matter, people who aren't diabetic and would like to stay that way should look into it, also.
Addie
Chef Extraordinaire
I am with you on the can sugar. When I was diagnosed as a diabetic, I tried all the artificial sweeteners, and they left a metalic taste in my mouth. So I decided it was cane sugar for me. I would give up all sweet desserts and other foods that were sweetened with sugar. I wanted to have the cane sugar sweetness in my life. My coffee is very happy with me. And so is my doctor.
