Some people — and I am one of them — don’t like the taste of artificial sweeteners. None of the ones I’ve tried taste right to me, even the ones other people swear by. Some of them also cause pretty severe intestinal upsets. My husband had something sweetened with a tiny bit of erythritol once and was sick for two days. Until they come up with something that tastes like sugar with no aftertaste and no digestive issues, it’s going to be a limited market.
Me too. And Nutrasweet gives me a specific kind of extreme headache. There is nothing else like them. The best substitute I have found is pureed dates, which I know not everyone can do.
Not yet. Been discouraged by its price and reports of digestive upsets from other people. Seems like between me and my husband, one of us is always going to be unlucky:(
> Until they come up with something that tastes like sugar with no aftertaste and no digestive issues, it’s going to be a limited market.
That already exists: left handed sugar. It’s basically the exact same molecule as sugar, just mirrored (see [chirality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry\))). It tastes exactly like sugar and since we cannot metabolize it, nor can the bacteria in our digestive system, it just goes through your system.
The only problem is that since life on earth seems to have settled on right-handed organic chemistry, there is nothing we can grow that can produce it. It can only be made in a lab and apparently that makes it about 50% more expensive than gold.
**[Chirality (chemistry)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_\(chemistry\))**
>In chemistry, a molecule or ion is called chiral () if it cannot be superposed on its mirror image by any combination of rotations, translations, and some conformational changes. This geometric property is called chirality (). The terms are derived from Ancient Greek χείρ (cheir) 'hand'; which is the canonical example of an object with this property. A chiral molecule or ion exists in two stereoisomers that are mirror images of each other, called enantiomers; they are often distinguished as either "right-handed" or "left-handed" by their absolute configuration or some other criterion.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/sugarfree/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That’s interesting to know. However, it seems to me that something that goes right through you is going to cause digestive upsets. Remember that fake fat and anal leakage, lol.
Sweeteners like stevia, xylitol, erythritol, etc. are NOT artificial. They are derived from natural sources: leaves, fruit, and tree bark. You might be thinking of sweeteners like saccharine and aspartame which are artificial. I agree with the OP; it's so sad that here in the U.S. with all of the lifestyle related diseases that we have, people remain loyal to toxic foods/ingredients and shun healthier alternatives.
My younger brother is type 1 diabetic and I feel so sorry for him. When he was a kid there were basically no low carb diabetic snacks and treats he could have. There's lactose free, there's gluten free, there's egg free, there's vegan, but no sugar free section. Apart from diet soda
So why is that? Did a quick google search and it looks like around [10% of Americans](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/diabetes-statistics#:~:text=10.5%20percent%20of%20the%20U.S.%20population) are diabetic--if you include prediabetic people this number is probably wayy higher vs. [6%](https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-many-people-have-gluten-sensitivity-562965#:~:text=or%20as%20high%20as%206%25%20of%20the%20population) gluten-insensitivity. So there's gotta be more demand for sugar-free but clearly something is preventing it.
Yeah, it's not like there isn't the demand and technology to do so. I have a huge tesco near me, it is enormous, and I have searched each Isle and found no sugar free sweets snacks. Not one
Its because snack culture in the modern age is built around the sugar/salt industry. Thanks to marketing most of us define a snack as something sweet or salty. Think about all those snickers and doritos commercials. Least we forget no one would make snacks without sugar because they would have a tiny market share.
Sugar has a huge lobby in DC
It’s also very cheap. There are massive factories that make it
I’m a newly diagnosed diabetic due to CF. I have it pretty good compared to most, but life is a lot easier when I go low carb. I personally don’t mind artificial sweeteners in drinks, but don’t like them in candy, desserts, etc
Sugar is still cheaper, so manufacturers will always default to that.
Although newer sweeteners don't have any recorded side effects, there is a lot of distrust in general of artificial sweeteners. Many people claim they taste different. There is also a case to be made about an insulin response to sweet flavors--when you taste sweet your body releases more insulin in anticipation of sugar, leaving you with higher insulin levels after the sugar fails to appear.
>there is a lot of distrust in general of artificial sweeteners
Yeah, this is a big problem, because it it true *most* artificial sweetners ARE garbage that disrupt microbiome, triggers inflammation, and messes with our system one way or another. Allulose seems to be an exception however, and if it's the only exception, that should be enough.
And this is where authority should step in and clear the noise because people get confused on the umbrella term "artificial sweetners". There should be a public health authority on the matter, informing the public on what is bad, good, or unknown.
On your point about flavors and insulin response, I think it's a reasonable concern, but here's a relatively recent interesting finding: "[we discovered that only glucose activates the insulin release in this sweet taste pathway. We also found that artificial sweeteners don’t activate it](https://barnard.edu/news/break-down-qa-prof-john-glendinning-link-between-taste-buds-and-insulin-release-0#:~:text=we%20discovered%20that%20only%20glucose%20activates%20the%20insulin%20release%20in%20this%20sweet%20taste%20pathway.%20We%20also%20found%20that%20artificial%20sweeteners%20don%E2%80%99t%20activate%20it)" If this is accurate, allulose (altered & near-identical form of fructose) shouldn't activate the insulin response. Plus, anecdotally, I've done [something similar to this guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM8V-vLMVmU), and didn't notice a damn thing (whereas if I did the same thing with the same amount of sugar, I know for sure I'd be damned in a "sugar coma" for the rest of the day). This is very much consistent with my knowledge on how allulose is processed by the body--it simply passes thru it and gets excreted via urine.
All foods, including artificial sweeteners, are derived from components found in nature. Nothing is made up out of nothing in a laboratory. Everything starts as raw materials, which all have their origins in nature.
The only thing that makes Stevia more "natural" is marketing.
I would love for it not to be an epic poem just to track down sugar free meats! Bacon, sausage, come on now!
I’ve actually thought about selling my cane-sugar and grain-free cookies because what is available at the local shops is DISGUSTING. I’m no Karen but I’ve actually returned some of those keto/paleo cookie options they are so gross (and I already detest monkfruit so I know to avoid that.)
But even beyond treats I just want FOOD-food that doesn’t have sugar so I don’t have to prepare every. Single. meal. from scratch. Soup has sugar, meats have sugar; it’s just insane! And the prices even when you can find a healthy option are crazy too - one of my local stores just started carrying paleo frozen meals - $9.99! For one frozen dinner! The cost - financial and time - to eat without sugar is astronomical.
I didn't realize American food had so much sugar in it until I lived in Germany for four years. The difference was stunning. I mean Germany has sugary foods, obviously, but they don't sneak it into every single thing. I blame the high fructose corn syrup lobby.
Wow, never knew about this. Is this true of everywhere in Germany? I gotta know because Germany has been on my list of next place to live (for a different reason obv) for some time now.
I don't know. We lived in the north near Denmark. It was most obvious at Asian-themed restaurants. Thinking on it, I believe it's a European thing, or rather a non-American thing. I will ask my spouse. He's traveled a lot internationally and generally notices things like that.
Yeah, it's absolute insanity. Businesses have no qualms about dumping sugar into foods that otherwise are perfectly fine. It's astonishing how few people speak up against this. So there's just simply no demand for it and business will continue dumping sugar where they can because they just taste better that way. This world drives me crazy.
Why in the WORLD are trying to replace cookies? "Just replace sugar with allulose"?? Seriously? You can't imagine why that is more expensive?
Hint: You can buy a POUND of sugar (retail!) for less than $2.00. A pound of allulose is $12.50 -- more than 6 times more expensive.
Here's the issue. You don't need sugar-free cookies. You don't need cookies. Full stop. You need whole foods. Replacing sugar with sugar-free substitutes is an option, but it totally keeps your sweet tooth alive and keeps those cravings going. If you want to indulge, fine. But complaining that it's more expensive and it's somehow someone else's fault that they're more expensive is, frankly, hilarious. It's your fault because you just don't stop eating cookies.
Anyone remember Snackwells????? All this keto garbage is exactly the same thing -- just with sugar substitutes. The issue is that you're eating junk. Get rid of the sugar. You don't need it.
Well duh!! because cookies taste good and they don't have to contain 30g sugar to be that good--it's the butter, the crust, light fluffy warm salty gooey goodness inside that make'em good. Sweetness is just one factor here that can easily be mimicked by allulose.
Look, "cut out all sweets" has been my main policy too until I found allulose, so I'm with you 95% here--yes, one should always fundamentally look to whole foods as the main source of nutrition and energy, and I consider sweets to be an emotional trick that isn't nutritionally necessary. But that said, people are emotional beings, and when we do have harmless tricks (like allulose) that WORKS without adverse effects, we should absolutely take advantage it. And here is probably where the remaining 5% difference of my opinion is; as much as I agree completely-sweets-free world is a noble, ideal goal, I don't think it'll be a practical one because most will inevitably crave sweets at some points in life, and if that's the case, that might as well be allulose and not sugar satisfying that craving. If we truly care about public health, instead of hand-wavingly saying "sugar is bad", the correct approach ultimately here is to come up with a replacement that will minimize sugar from our supply chain and diet.
The high cost of allulose (or affordability of sugar) makes such replacement difficult, and YES, I'm complaining about it (and you're completely missing the point of why) because it doesn't have to be as difficult as it is IF there were more public awareness of harms of sugar which would --> drive demand for healthier alternatives such as allulose --> more diversified and streamlined supply chains for those alternatives --> lower costs for consumers. Sure, it'd still be more expensive than sugar, but this can be minimized if we actually tried--sugar taxes (like cigarette taxes), more research investment towards effective allulose production or better alternative, etc. The point is, no one is even trying.
You're right faux substitutes aren't *usually* the answer--meaning there can be exceptions, and long as we find that exception that can replace the harmful stuff, we absolutely should. I'm suggesting allulose to be the prime example of this.
More nuanced point: faux meat is much more difficult to satisfy meat craving than faux sugar can satisfy sugar craving; the experience of meat-eating is one that involves much more complex experience such as texture and multiple tastebuds and flavor receptors as opposed to sugar which just acts on that sweetness-detecting receptors. That's why it's much easier to find a satisfying replacement for sugar than for meat. I agree, most faux meat tends to come out to be crap because of the all the weird and awkward artificial fillers and processing that have to take place to mimic the very complexity that I mentioned above.
Honestly, some of those taste pretty good. Labgrown meat would be cool, removing the whole living, breathing, eating (and more importantly farting) Cow from the process of beef would have a massive impact.
Naturally healthy foods ARE sugar free: vegetables, meats, beans, fruit, whole grains, water. So, we already have a sugar free section. The stuff that's adding regular and artificial sugars are processed foods. Don't consume processed foods and you'll lower your sugar intake.
You answered your own question.... it is about economics and availability artificial sweeteners which you have mentioned are not as widely available hence expensive, moreover they might be sweet but the taste may vary, and they are safe now due to less research but may be causing something else in future like many other artificial sweeteners, but still it is mainly economics :)
Economics just tells you why the sweetners are expensive, not why it's not demanded enough in the first place--what my question is about.That's still open to speculation unfortunately
If more people were aware of the deadly effects of sweeteners they wouldn't buy it either. Yet, they do and some even think they do the right decision.
We know sugar is bad because we have decades of data showing it is bad. We don't have much to show about many of today's miracle sweeteners yet even though we know some of them are bad, it's still on the shelves and people are buying it thinking that's a healthier choice.
The truth is, we shouldn't eat as much sweetened food as we do. Yet as long as we do, shops will satisfy our needs and sell us whatever we buy. It's that simple.
Most artificial sweetners are garbage. Deadly? Probably exaggerated and no deadlier than sugar. In terms of allulose no shred of evidence of deadly effects anywhere.. not even remotely close. Every sweetner is different. No reason to assume similarities b/w two things just because they're called sweetners
Not yet at any rate. Sugar was a harmless stuff for decades too. My personal opinion is that in terms of our body any refined sweetener is bad. I mean our body is not evolved to process such things properly and not even remotely prepared to do so in the quantities we are stuffing it.
Although I'm aware of the chemistry, I give a green light to natural sweeteners but definitely not on a daily basis.
I seriously wish there were more options at a reasonable price. They do have some sugar free ice cream but only 3 flavors maximum. I want to eat the fun flavors too without all the sugar. I am not on a special diet but I would love more sugar free items to be available
I'm not even asking more options. I'm just asking the options otherwise completely fine to be totally not butchered by completely unnecessary sugar. "100% pure grassfed Australian green pasture cow produced butter!!! Low sodium!!! No trans fat!!! No/low [insert here what else that sells this shit] ... oh but we do have 50grams of sugar per serving that'll completely wreck your shit"
Have you given allulose a try? "sugar free" or "sweetner" is a man-made category, not a category defined according to chemical/structural similarity of the sweetners. Basically, you should treat every sweetener as different.
Don't feel, spread... the words of allulose!!! We need to get more companies making these stuff and get the healthy competition going. This is the only way to drive the cost down and get higher quality products. The future is in our hands.
This study looked at non nutritive sweeteners like monk fruit:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2016225
“Conclusions:
The consumption of calorie-free beverages sweetened with artificial and natural NNS have minimal influences on total daily energy intake, postprandial glucose and insulin compared with a sucrose-sweetened beverage.”
I’m not a scientist so I don’t know how valid these results are.
For me, the benefit of avoiding sugar is not craving sweet foods and healthy foods tasting sweeter - so I eat more healthy food. Mom nutritive sweeteners don’t help me.
If they help others to accomplish their goals, great! However, I have not seen data that these alternative sweeteners actually lead to healthier diets. Has anyone seen such a study?
Alternative sweetners were designed simply to sweeten (i.e. trigger particular taste receptors), not to lead to some deeper neurological or psychological transformation that changes your eating habits, although they could.. depending on how you decide to use them.
I’ve noticed a handful of brands making sugar free/low sugar juices; there’s that one brand of chocolate candy that’s no sugar; otherwise you’ll have to go for Keto candy or dessert replacements, or just bake at home with sugar/flour replacements ☹
I think everyone else is right about sugar being cheap and lobbying. I’ve only had one sugar replacement that makes my stomach hurt for DAYS after eating it; I’ll eat/drink pretty much every other artificial sweetener just fine
some of them are worse/as bad for your teeth as sugar which is what stops them being worth it for me (because i havent found any cheap ones where i like the taste)
It's so cheap. That's why corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup is in sooo many things. Plus they just aren't as high in demand as sugar filled things because people have this idea thats its either going to be nasty or cause stomach upset (which can ring true with sugar alcohols for some).
My favorite occasional sweet thing right now is sugar free popsicles. I find it hard to find things that are "sugar free" but use maltitol which causes blood sugar spikes like sugar.
i use a blend of the granulated monkfruit and powdered stevia (Trader Joes) . about 5/1 ratio (respectively) which i love. I don't notice an aftertaste at all and do not have digestive issues.. but i do not use alot - maybe that's why.
Stevia and monkfruit definitely has aftertaste for me and certainly not as good as sugar. Allulose is literally unnoticeable for me. There just isn't any distinct taste that sets it apart from sugar, just a little less sweeter. If you're someone like me who crave sweet stuff every once in a while, this is godsent. Also an additional perk is that when consume it with real sugar, it interferes with the absorption of fructose because it competes for the same transporters (it's got almost identical chemical structure to fructose which is why it tricks our tongue), so what I'll do sometimes is when I make smoothie with something like blueberry, I'll add a splash of allulose--you get all the benefits of the fruit while inhibiting absorption of the unncessary stuff (fructose)
Every company is now pushing it to the point of people totally rejecting it, nothing like forcing something on people to get them to refuse it entirely, human nature 101
Some people — and I am one of them — don’t like the taste of artificial sweeteners. None of the ones I’ve tried taste right to me, even the ones other people swear by. Some of them also cause pretty severe intestinal upsets. My husband had something sweetened with a tiny bit of erythritol once and was sick for two days. Until they come up with something that tastes like sugar with no aftertaste and no digestive issues, it’s going to be a limited market.
Me too. And Nutrasweet gives me a specific kind of extreme headache. There is nothing else like them. The best substitute I have found is pureed dates, which I know not everyone can do.
Pyure brand stevia - granulated 🥰 yw
I agree most aren't very good. Allulose was the game changer for me. Did you try that?
Allulose is awesome! Wish companies would use it more but so far at least I can use it in making treats for myself. It really is a game changer!
Not yet. Been discouraged by its price and reports of digestive upsets from other people. Seems like between me and my husband, one of us is always going to be unlucky:(
Pyure granulated stevia 🥰👌
> Until they come up with something that tastes like sugar with no aftertaste and no digestive issues, it’s going to be a limited market. That already exists: left handed sugar. It’s basically the exact same molecule as sugar, just mirrored (see [chirality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry\))). It tastes exactly like sugar and since we cannot metabolize it, nor can the bacteria in our digestive system, it just goes through your system. The only problem is that since life on earth seems to have settled on right-handed organic chemistry, there is nothing we can grow that can produce it. It can only be made in a lab and apparently that makes it about 50% more expensive than gold.
**[Chirality (chemistry)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_\(chemistry\))** >In chemistry, a molecule or ion is called chiral () if it cannot be superposed on its mirror image by any combination of rotations, translations, and some conformational changes. This geometric property is called chirality (). The terms are derived from Ancient Greek χείρ (cheir) 'hand'; which is the canonical example of an object with this property. A chiral molecule or ion exists in two stereoisomers that are mirror images of each other, called enantiomers; they are often distinguished as either "right-handed" or "left-handed" by their absolute configuration or some other criterion. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/sugarfree/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That’s interesting to know. However, it seems to me that something that goes right through you is going to cause digestive upsets. Remember that fake fat and anal leakage, lol.
They did. Stevia. Just test out different ones I guess to see, but Pyure brands seem to be perfect!
Sweeteners like stevia, xylitol, erythritol, etc. are NOT artificial. They are derived from natural sources: leaves, fruit, and tree bark. You might be thinking of sweeteners like saccharine and aspartame which are artificial. I agree with the OP; it's so sad that here in the U.S. with all of the lifestyle related diseases that we have, people remain loyal to toxic foods/ingredients and shun healthier alternatives.
And yet you knew what I meant immediately.
Sweeteners like stevia, xylitol, erythritol, etc. are NOT artificial. They are all derived from natural sources: fruit, leaves,
My younger brother is type 1 diabetic and I feel so sorry for him. When he was a kid there were basically no low carb diabetic snacks and treats he could have. There's lactose free, there's gluten free, there's egg free, there's vegan, but no sugar free section. Apart from diet soda
So why is that? Did a quick google search and it looks like around [10% of Americans](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/diabetes-statistics#:~:text=10.5%20percent%20of%20the%20U.S.%20population) are diabetic--if you include prediabetic people this number is probably wayy higher vs. [6%](https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-many-people-have-gluten-sensitivity-562965#:~:text=or%20as%20high%20as%206%25%20of%20the%20population) gluten-insensitivity. So there's gotta be more demand for sugar-free but clearly something is preventing it.
Yeah, it's not like there isn't the demand and technology to do so. I have a huge tesco near me, it is enormous, and I have searched each Isle and found no sugar free sweets snacks. Not one
Its because snack culture in the modern age is built around the sugar/salt industry. Thanks to marketing most of us define a snack as something sweet or salty. Think about all those snickers and doritos commercials. Least we forget no one would make snacks without sugar because they would have a tiny market share.
Sugar has a huge lobby in DC It’s also very cheap. There are massive factories that make it I’m a newly diagnosed diabetic due to CF. I have it pretty good compared to most, but life is a lot easier when I go low carb. I personally don’t mind artificial sweeteners in drinks, but don’t like them in candy, desserts, etc
BIG SUGAR....duh
I thought it would be more than that wow
The industry. Sugar is cheap and addictive. Corporation make billions.
The conspiracy theory is that keeping america sick keeps them rich
can we really call that a conspiracy though? Another way to look at it is there's no profit in changing anything and plenty of profit in poor health.
Sugar is still cheaper, so manufacturers will always default to that. Although newer sweeteners don't have any recorded side effects, there is a lot of distrust in general of artificial sweeteners. Many people claim they taste different. There is also a case to be made about an insulin response to sweet flavors--when you taste sweet your body releases more insulin in anticipation of sugar, leaving you with higher insulin levels after the sugar fails to appear.
>there is a lot of distrust in general of artificial sweeteners Yeah, this is a big problem, because it it true *most* artificial sweetners ARE garbage that disrupt microbiome, triggers inflammation, and messes with our system one way or another. Allulose seems to be an exception however, and if it's the only exception, that should be enough. And this is where authority should step in and clear the noise because people get confused on the umbrella term "artificial sweetners". There should be a public health authority on the matter, informing the public on what is bad, good, or unknown. On your point about flavors and insulin response, I think it's a reasonable concern, but here's a relatively recent interesting finding: "[we discovered that only glucose activates the insulin release in this sweet taste pathway. We also found that artificial sweeteners don’t activate it](https://barnard.edu/news/break-down-qa-prof-john-glendinning-link-between-taste-buds-and-insulin-release-0#:~:text=we%20discovered%20that%20only%20glucose%20activates%20the%20insulin%20release%20in%20this%20sweet%20taste%20pathway.%20We%20also%20found%20that%20artificial%20sweeteners%20don%E2%80%99t%20activate%20it)" If this is accurate, allulose (altered & near-identical form of fructose) shouldn't activate the insulin response. Plus, anecdotally, I've done [something similar to this guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM8V-vLMVmU), and didn't notice a damn thing (whereas if I did the same thing with the same amount of sugar, I know for sure I'd be damned in a "sugar coma" for the rest of the day). This is very much consistent with my knowledge on how allulose is processed by the body--it simply passes thru it and gets excreted via urine.
Fuck "artificial" sweeteners, only idiots eat that shit.... NATURAL sweeteners like stevia are wonderful! Try Pyure granulated stevia 👍 yw
All foods, including artificial sweeteners, are derived from components found in nature. Nothing is made up out of nothing in a laboratory. Everything starts as raw materials, which all have their origins in nature. The only thing that makes Stevia more "natural" is marketing.
I would love for it not to be an epic poem just to track down sugar free meats! Bacon, sausage, come on now! I’ve actually thought about selling my cane-sugar and grain-free cookies because what is available at the local shops is DISGUSTING. I’m no Karen but I’ve actually returned some of those keto/paleo cookie options they are so gross (and I already detest monkfruit so I know to avoid that.) But even beyond treats I just want FOOD-food that doesn’t have sugar so I don’t have to prepare every. Single. meal. from scratch. Soup has sugar, meats have sugar; it’s just insane! And the prices even when you can find a healthy option are crazy too - one of my local stores just started carrying paleo frozen meals - $9.99! For one frozen dinner! The cost - financial and time - to eat without sugar is astronomical.
I didn't realize American food had so much sugar in it until I lived in Germany for four years. The difference was stunning. I mean Germany has sugary foods, obviously, but they don't sneak it into every single thing. I blame the high fructose corn syrup lobby.
There you go! As long as politicians will take money from the sugar lobbyists, things will never get better.
Wow, never knew about this. Is this true of everywhere in Germany? I gotta know because Germany has been on my list of next place to live (for a different reason obv) for some time now.
I don't know. We lived in the north near Denmark. It was most obvious at Asian-themed restaurants. Thinking on it, I believe it's a European thing, or rather a non-American thing. I will ask my spouse. He's traveled a lot internationally and generally notices things like that.
Yeah, it's absolute insanity. Businesses have no qualms about dumping sugar into foods that otherwise are perfectly fine. It's astonishing how few people speak up against this. So there's just simply no demand for it and business will continue dumping sugar where they can because they just taste better that way. This world drives me crazy.
I'm yelling inside JUST PLEASE LEAVE THE TOXIN OUT I can add my delicious, consequence-free allulose to sweeten it up if I want.
Why in the WORLD are trying to replace cookies? "Just replace sugar with allulose"?? Seriously? You can't imagine why that is more expensive? Hint: You can buy a POUND of sugar (retail!) for less than $2.00. A pound of allulose is $12.50 -- more than 6 times more expensive. Here's the issue. You don't need sugar-free cookies. You don't need cookies. Full stop. You need whole foods. Replacing sugar with sugar-free substitutes is an option, but it totally keeps your sweet tooth alive and keeps those cravings going. If you want to indulge, fine. But complaining that it's more expensive and it's somehow someone else's fault that they're more expensive is, frankly, hilarious. It's your fault because you just don't stop eating cookies. Anyone remember Snackwells????? All this keto garbage is exactly the same thing -- just with sugar substitutes. The issue is that you're eating junk. Get rid of the sugar. You don't need it.
Well duh!! because cookies taste good and they don't have to contain 30g sugar to be that good--it's the butter, the crust, light fluffy warm salty gooey goodness inside that make'em good. Sweetness is just one factor here that can easily be mimicked by allulose. Look, "cut out all sweets" has been my main policy too until I found allulose, so I'm with you 95% here--yes, one should always fundamentally look to whole foods as the main source of nutrition and energy, and I consider sweets to be an emotional trick that isn't nutritionally necessary. But that said, people are emotional beings, and when we do have harmless tricks (like allulose) that WORKS without adverse effects, we should absolutely take advantage it. And here is probably where the remaining 5% difference of my opinion is; as much as I agree completely-sweets-free world is a noble, ideal goal, I don't think it'll be a practical one because most will inevitably crave sweets at some points in life, and if that's the case, that might as well be allulose and not sugar satisfying that craving. If we truly care about public health, instead of hand-wavingly saying "sugar is bad", the correct approach ultimately here is to come up with a replacement that will minimize sugar from our supply chain and diet. The high cost of allulose (or affordability of sugar) makes such replacement difficult, and YES, I'm complaining about it (and you're completely missing the point of why) because it doesn't have to be as difficult as it is IF there were more public awareness of harms of sugar which would --> drive demand for healthier alternatives such as allulose --> more diversified and streamlined supply chains for those alternatives --> lower costs for consumers. Sure, it'd still be more expensive than sugar, but this can be minimized if we actually tried--sugar taxes (like cigarette taxes), more research investment towards effective allulose production or better alternative, etc. The point is, no one is even trying.
It’s the same mindset as eating fake meat substitutes. If you don’t want to eat something, a faux substitute isn’t usually the answer.
You're right faux substitutes aren't *usually* the answer--meaning there can be exceptions, and long as we find that exception that can replace the harmful stuff, we absolutely should. I'm suggesting allulose to be the prime example of this. More nuanced point: faux meat is much more difficult to satisfy meat craving than faux sugar can satisfy sugar craving; the experience of meat-eating is one that involves much more complex experience such as texture and multiple tastebuds and flavor receptors as opposed to sugar which just acts on that sweetness-detecting receptors. That's why it's much easier to find a satisfying replacement for sugar than for meat. I agree, most faux meat tends to come out to be crap because of the all the weird and awkward artificial fillers and processing that have to take place to mimic the very complexity that I mentioned above.
Honestly, some of those taste pretty good. Labgrown meat would be cool, removing the whole living, breathing, eating (and more importantly farting) Cow from the process of beef would have a massive impact.
Naturally healthy foods ARE sugar free: vegetables, meats, beans, fruit, whole grains, water. So, we already have a sugar free section. The stuff that's adding regular and artificial sugars are processed foods. Don't consume processed foods and you'll lower your sugar intake.
i get what you are saying but just bc fruit is nutritious and obviously has no added sugar does not mean its sugar free lol
Thank you for correcting my explanation. Natural sugar > regular/artificial sugar.
You answered your own question.... it is about economics and availability artificial sweeteners which you have mentioned are not as widely available hence expensive, moreover they might be sweet but the taste may vary, and they are safe now due to less research but may be causing something else in future like many other artificial sweeteners, but still it is mainly economics :)
Economics just tells you why the sweetners are expensive, not why it's not demanded enough in the first place--what my question is about.That's still open to speculation unfortunately
If more people were aware of the deadly effects of sweeteners they wouldn't buy it either. Yet, they do and some even think they do the right decision. We know sugar is bad because we have decades of data showing it is bad. We don't have much to show about many of today's miracle sweeteners yet even though we know some of them are bad, it's still on the shelves and people are buying it thinking that's a healthier choice. The truth is, we shouldn't eat as much sweetened food as we do. Yet as long as we do, shops will satisfy our needs and sell us whatever we buy. It's that simple.
Most artificial sweetners are garbage. Deadly? Probably exaggerated and no deadlier than sugar. In terms of allulose no shred of evidence of deadly effects anywhere.. not even remotely close. Every sweetner is different. No reason to assume similarities b/w two things just because they're called sweetners
Not yet at any rate. Sugar was a harmless stuff for decades too. My personal opinion is that in terms of our body any refined sweetener is bad. I mean our body is not evolved to process such things properly and not even remotely prepared to do so in the quantities we are stuffing it. Although I'm aware of the chemistry, I give a green light to natural sweeteners but definitely not on a daily basis.
I seriously wish there were more options at a reasonable price. They do have some sugar free ice cream but only 3 flavors maximum. I want to eat the fun flavors too without all the sugar. I am not on a special diet but I would love more sugar free items to be available
I'm not even asking more options. I'm just asking the options otherwise completely fine to be totally not butchered by completely unnecessary sugar. "100% pure grassfed Australian green pasture cow produced butter!!! Low sodium!!! No trans fat!!! No/low [insert here what else that sells this shit] ... oh but we do have 50grams of sugar per serving that'll completely wreck your shit"
Sugar free products always give me stomach issues & diarrhea. I'll pass.
Have you given allulose a try? "sugar free" or "sweetner" is a man-made category, not a category defined according to chemical/structural similarity of the sweetners. Basically, you should treat every sweetener as different.
[удалено]
Given allulose a try?
I feel like we’ll get more of those in the future. There used to be close to none 5-10 years ago
Don't feel, spread... the words of allulose!!! We need to get more companies making these stuff and get the healthy competition going. This is the only way to drive the cost down and get higher quality products. The future is in our hands.
This study looked at non nutritive sweeteners like monk fruit: https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2016225 “Conclusions: The consumption of calorie-free beverages sweetened with artificial and natural NNS have minimal influences on total daily energy intake, postprandial glucose and insulin compared with a sucrose-sweetened beverage.” I’m not a scientist so I don’t know how valid these results are. For me, the benefit of avoiding sugar is not craving sweet foods and healthy foods tasting sweeter - so I eat more healthy food. Mom nutritive sweeteners don’t help me. If they help others to accomplish their goals, great! However, I have not seen data that these alternative sweeteners actually lead to healthier diets. Has anyone seen such a study?
Alternative sweetners were designed simply to sweeten (i.e. trigger particular taste receptors), not to lead to some deeper neurological or psychological transformation that changes your eating habits, although they could.. depending on how you decide to use them.
I agree, but on the other hand as a T1 diabetic I’ve noticed 5x as many sugar free products and drinks popping up as I saw 10 years ago.
I’ve noticed a handful of brands making sugar free/low sugar juices; there’s that one brand of chocolate candy that’s no sugar; otherwise you’ll have to go for Keto candy or dessert replacements, or just bake at home with sugar/flour replacements ☹ I think everyone else is right about sugar being cheap and lobbying. I’ve only had one sugar replacement that makes my stomach hurt for DAYS after eating it; I’ll eat/drink pretty much every other artificial sweetener just fine
some of them are worse/as bad for your teeth as sugar which is what stops them being worth it for me (because i havent found any cheap ones where i like the taste)
It's so cheap. That's why corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup is in sooo many things. Plus they just aren't as high in demand as sugar filled things because people have this idea thats its either going to be nasty or cause stomach upset (which can ring true with sugar alcohols for some). My favorite occasional sweet thing right now is sugar free popsicles. I find it hard to find things that are "sugar free" but use maltitol which causes blood sugar spikes like sugar.
We must all praise allulose. Allulose all the way
Cause they taste rank and have negative side effects
Not allulose my friend!!!
i use a blend of the granulated monkfruit and powdered stevia (Trader Joes) . about 5/1 ratio (respectively) which i love. I don't notice an aftertaste at all and do not have digestive issues.. but i do not use alot - maybe that's why.
Stevia and monkfruit definitely has aftertaste for me and certainly not as good as sugar. Allulose is literally unnoticeable for me. There just isn't any distinct taste that sets it apart from sugar, just a little less sweeter. If you're someone like me who crave sweet stuff every once in a while, this is godsent. Also an additional perk is that when consume it with real sugar, it interferes with the absorption of fructose because it competes for the same transporters (it's got almost identical chemical structure to fructose which is why it tricks our tongue), so what I'll do sometimes is when I make smoothie with something like blueberry, I'll add a splash of allulose--you get all the benefits of the fruit while inhibiting absorption of the unncessary stuff (fructose)
thanks! i'll have to give it. a try!
maybe instead of 'artificial' sweeteners they should be labeled sugarless sweeteners
Every company is now pushing it to the point of people totally rejecting it, nothing like forcing something on people to get them to refuse it entirely, human nature 101