Sugar Alcohol Suspicion

The only BS about sugar alcohol's is the claim that they don't raise blood
sugar which is true for some but false for many others.

I've written up the low carb diet scams at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/products.htm

-- Jenny - Low Carbing for 5 years. Below goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.7 .
Cut the carbs to respond to my email address!

Jenny's new site: What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've lost over 60 lbs by cutting out sugar, potatos, rice and getting
my heart rate going in the mornings for 15 minutes.

Last night I had snickers chocolate bar after almost one year and it
was damn good. 🙂

Feeling guilty and wondering where science has taken us lately I ran
over to publixs and picked three popular low carb chocolate bars which
are still in the wrappers.

One thing I noticed is how they are cleverly packaged to conceal the
the Nutritional Facts.

Dumb question number one. Does a normal chocalate bar have
normal/natural sugar acohols that are not reported?

Is there a real science to creating and using sugar acohols or this is
BS diet science?

: I've lost over 60 lbs by cutting out sugar, potatos, rice and getting
: my heart rate going in the mornings for 15 minutes.

Good work. And, I know it was work.
:
: Last night I had snickers chocolate bar after almost one year and it
: was damn good. 🙂

This part, I don't understand. My personal experience has been that being so
long without sugary products, I find I have lost all satisfaction from them
when I do eat them. I tried a Snickers bar in October and my first
impression was not "damn good" but "way too sugary".

:
: Feeling guilty and wondering where science has taken us lately I ran
: over to publixs and picked three popular low carb chocolate bars which
: are still in the wrappers.

You would be wise to return them if your store will let you.

:
: One thing I noticed is how they are cleverly packaged to conceal the
: the Nutritional Facts.
:
: Dumb question number one. Does a normal chocalate bar have
: normal/natural sugar acohols that are not reported?
:
: Is there a real science to creating and using sugar acohols or this is
: BS diet science?

I don't know about the science involved, but I do know the bars will give
you a certain amount of gastric distress. Don't stray from home after eating
one. You'll need to use the facilities, if you know what I mean.

Pat in TX

Quoted message said:

I've lost over 60 lbs by cutting out sugar, potatos, rice and getting
my heart rate going in the mornings for 15 minutes.

Last night I had snickers chocolate bar after almost one year and it
was damn good. 🙂

Feeling guilty and wondering where science has taken us lately I ran
over to publixs and picked three popular low carb chocolate bars which
are still in the wrappers.

One thing I noticed is how they are cleverly packaged to conceal the
the Nutritional Facts.

Dumb question number one. Does a normal chocalate bar have
normal/natural sugar acohols that are not reported?

Is there a real science to creating and using sugar acohols or this is
BS diet science?

Pat is right. A lot of people do have problems depending upon the
quantity they eat. SA's have never affected me like that but certain
SA products give me an embarassing amount of flatulence for about 24
hours afterwards. Like Pat, I don't want to leave the house when that
happens. Inulin does it too.

SAs have their place. I think making foods forbideen and evil is a
psychological trap because we all know about "forbidden fruit" and
once we give in (and we will at times throughout the rest of our
lives) it will only make us feel worse for each "horrible"
transgression. That's not a healthy way to deal with temptation.
Especially with something so basic as foods. I use SA products to
satisfy cravings and limit their effects on blood sugar/chemistry.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/269/Nov-262/225
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint. not counting (CCLL=50-60)

DigitalVinyl wrote:
|| SAs have their place. I think making foods forbideen and evil is a
|| psychological trap because we all know about "forbidden fruit" and
|| once we give in (and we will at times throughout the rest of our
|| lives) it will only make us feel worse for each "horrible"
|| transgression. That's not a healthy way to deal with temptation.

Just wondering: why not? If we have weight problems and slip up from time
to time, why is feeling badly about it such a problem? If we feel good
about it, then we'll likely to continue the activity. A certain amount of
guilt ain't so bad. Of course, if you're ready to produce some extreme
reaction, that can be bad.

|| Especially with something so basic as foods. I use SA products to
|| satisfy cravings and limit their effects on blood sugar/chemistry.

If you were referring to eating broccoli or a piece of meat, I'd agree.
However, eating a peice of SA candy (or any kind of candy) is not really
very basic.

I do agree that it is silly to label any food "evil". But certainly there
may be problems for some of us if we eat certain foods. The act of a
diabetic or a person will strong carb addiction eating certain foods can be
considered a "bad" activity for that person.

Roger Zoul said:

DigitalVinyl wrote:
|| SAs have their place. I think making foods forbideen and evil is a
|| psychological trap because we all know about "forbidden fruit" and
|| once we give in (and we will at times throughout the rest of our
|| lives) it will only make us feel worse for each "horrible"
|| transgression. That's not a healthy way to deal with temptation.

Just wondering: why not? If we have weight problems and slip up from time
to time, why is feeling badly about it such a problem? If we feel good
about it, then we'll likely to continue the activity. A certain amount of
guilt ain't so bad. Of course, if you're ready to produce some extreme
reaction, that can be bad.

That's where I was going with that. Often we make food out as the
enemy, when often it is just a coping method for other problems.
Making yourself feel guilty over eating something... anything in a day
in your life is probably the least healthy way of dealing. No matter
how much you over indulge it is one meal in one day out of over 10,000
days in your life. Guilt usually doesn't result in constructive
behavior, more superficial ones IMHO. Recognizing the cost of that
meal, how hard it will take to work that off, recognizing and
attaching consequence to the indulgence is constructive. Feeling
guilty over being "bad" is just a feeling, and often feelings don't
follow logic, facts, or common sense.

Quoted message said:

|| Especially with something so basic as foods. I use SA products to
|| satisfy cravings and limit their effects on blood sugar/chemistry.

If you were referring to eating broccoli or a piece of meat, I'd agree.
However, eating a peice of SA candy (or any kind of candy) is not really
very basic.

I consider Chocolate to be amongst the basic food groups. :-)

Quoted message said:

I do agree that it is silly to label any food "evil". But certainly there
may be problems for some of us if we eat certain foods. The act of a
diabetic or a person will strong carb addiction eating certain foods can be
considered a "bad" activity for that person.

It is an unhealthy thing, it is an action with consequences. However
"bad" too often is attached to a moral judgement. I don't think you
have to look far for examples of overweight people being looked down
on as slovenly, lazy, unmotivated, weak, gluttonous, and more. I think
"bad" can easily tap into that cultural stigma and make us identify
too closely with that stereotype. Suddenly an overindulgence makes us
guilty of being all those bad things. Looking at it that way I can see
why people give up and put lots of weight back on. The indulgence
becomes a great failure.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/269/Nov-262/225
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Maint. not counting (CCLL=50-60)

"Jenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The only BS about sugar alcohol's is the claim that they don't raise blood
sugar which is true for some but false for many others.

I've written up the low carb diet scams at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/products.htm

-- Jenny - Low Carbing for 5 years. Below goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.7 .
Cut the carbs to respond to my email address!

Jenny's new site: What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've lost over 60 lbs by cutting out sugar, potatos, rice and getting
my heart rate going in the mornings for 15 minutes.

Last night I had snickers chocolate bar after almost one year and it
was damn good. 🙂

Feeling guilty and wondering where science has taken us lately I ran
over to publixs and picked three popular low carb chocolate bars which
are still in the wrappers.

One thing I noticed is how they are cleverly packaged to conceal the
the Nutritional Facts.

Dumb question number one. Does a normal chocalate bar have
normal/natural sugar acohols that are not reported?

Is there a real science to creating and using sugar acohols or this is
BS diet science?

The real BS is mostly on Jenny's webpage. There self reported
"scientific" findings on newsgroups by diabetics get substituted for
controlled studies of normal subjects and extrapolated to everyone on
LC. And we get to listen to a rant about all the calories contained
in sugar alcohols, as if that were a big problem, when only a small
fraction of the total calories in typical LC products come from the
SA's. And when did calories suddenly become so important on LC?
Doesn't seem they matter when they come from fat that has over twice
the calories per gram does it?

The fact is a study at Ohio State found that the very Atkins Advantage
bars Jenny like to accuse of being a scam performed exactly as
claimed. The blood glucose levels of test subjects in the study rose
only slightly more after eating an Atkins bar than after eating a
similar piece of chicken breast.

Here's a prime example of the junk science I'm talking about:

"But hundreds of people who have stopped by the
alt.support.diet.low-carb news group to ask why their weight loss has
stopped cold, discover that it is these sugar alcohol-laden low carb
junk foods that have caused their long-term stalls"

First, I've been on this group for years and I doubt that there is
anywhere near that number of people who have come here and stated that
they believed the SAs were responsible for stalling them. People
stall for various reasons, many of them unknown. I've seen lots of
people report stalls when they haven't eaten any products with SA's.
Yet, as soon as someone reports they ate even a single product serving
with SA's during the week, well that's conclusive proof for Jenny that
the SA's are the cause of the stall. So they get added to the list of
people who were stalled by these evil products. Never mind that they
may very well have stalled anyway or that lots of folks, myself
included, have used these products in moderation without negative
effects.

I encourage people to do some real research and reach their own
conclusions.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:59:40 GMT, DigitalVinyl wrote:
/snip/

Quoted message said:

I consider Chocolate to be amongst the basic food groups. :-)

Well, caffeine goodies, anyway. 🙂 Really, these things have been used for
so many centuries....

The main constant in how I function, seems to be whether I have chocolate
(unsweetened) for breakfast. 🙂

Skinny

'Sugar alcohols' vary, and their effects are different on different people.
I find them useful, so does Hannah Gruen and others here.

Here is some info and leads to more.

http://www.lowcarb.ca/tips/tips010.html
balanced article on sugar alcohols

http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm
Dr. Atkins and the vendors of low-carb products are correct that not only
fiber but also glycerin and polydextrose have little or no effect on blood
glucose. The story with sugar alcohols, however, is different. One of the
most commonly used sugar alcohols, maltitol and its syrups, does have a
considerable effect on blood glucose. Two sugar alcohols, erythritol and
mannitol, have no effect, and four others have some effect.

Calorie comparison

4.3 calories per gram glycerol/glycerine
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=calories+per+gram+of+glycerine&btnG=Search

4.0 calories per gram white sugar
http://www.google.com/search?q=calories+per+gram+of+white+sugar&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

3.0 calories per gram hydrogenated starch hydrolysates
2.6 calories per gram sorbitol
2.4 calories per gram xylitol
2.1 calories per gram maltitol
2.0 calories per gram isomalt
2.0 calories per gram lactitol
1.6 calories per gram mannitol
0.2 calories per gram erythritol
http://www.psha-inc.com/guai-support/sf/FAQ-HypoglycemiaAndLow-carbDieting.htms

Glycemic Load (ie, effect on BG level soon after eating)

18 for Honey (Canada)[GR]
11 for Maltose[GR]
10 for Glucose/Dextrose/normal sugar[GR]
7 for 99% Malitol product[GR]
5 for Lactose[GR]
2 for Fructose[GR]
1 for Xylitol[GR]

0 for Glycerol/Gylcerine[M]
0 for Polydextrose[M]

Sources:
[GR] GI /GL tables in THE NEW GLUCOSE REVOLUTION, p. 319
[M] http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:56:47 -0600, Pat wrote:
/someone wrote/

Quoted message said:

: One thing I noticed is how they are cleverly packaged to conceal the
: the Nutritional Facts.

Some are, some aren't. Makes choosing easy. 🙂

/snip/

Quoted message said:

I don't know about the science involved, but I do know the bars will give
you a certain amount of gastric distress. Don't stray from home after

eating

Quoted message said:

one. You'll need to use the facilities, if you know what I mean.

How do you know they will affect him that way? Will he eat too many? If they
affected everyone that way, in recommended quantity, the manufacturers would
have no repeat sales!

Skinny

"Jenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The only BS about sugar alcohol's is the claim that they don't raise blood
sugar which is true for some but false for many others.

I've written up the low carb diet scams at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/products.htm

Your reference to "diet scams" is a little excessive.

The need to invent the term "net carbs" arises out of the bizzare
decision by the US FDA to list indigestible food fiber as a
"carbohydrate" thus for those individuals in the early stages of a
very low carbohydrate diet the necessity to perform subtractions or
look up books to work out the true carbohydrate content. Here in
Australia we don't have to problem: the law seperates completely fiber
from carbohydrate.

Excluding polyols from the carb count and listing them seperately by
specific type is the best solution.

There are a variety of sugar alcaholes or polyols as they are known.
Xylitol is one with a calorific value of 2.4 calories per gram (sugar
4.2) with a glycemic index of 13. (sugar 68) It is a natural product
found in strawberries, rasberries at about 1% by weight and indeed
many other berries. It is even synthesised by the body. It looks
like sugar, has no after taste and is equaly sweet. It stops bacteria
adhering to the membranes of the body and has been found to recalcify
adult teeth and prevent chronic ear infections in children. It has
been in use for decades.

" Sorbitol, lactitol and xylitol do not raise PG (plasma glucose)
(17,19,21); however, maltitol and HSHs have demonstrated
a modest effect on PG (2,22). In fact, chocolate sweetened
with maltitol elicited the same PG response in normal subjects
as did chocolate sweetened with sucrose (40). "

Indeed we can add the newer commercialy available isomalt, erithritol,
manitol to the sugar alcaholes that do not appreciably effect blood
sugars.

http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm

Here in Australia I occaisionally indulge in Cadbury "Lite" which is
sweetened with isomalt and a little nutrasweet. I buy xylitol from
the internet and use it in ice cream recipes instead of sucrose.
(using traditional double cream egg custard based icecream recipes)

(hint if you like dark chockolate then Lindt 85% is very low in carbs
even if id doesn't cantain sugar alcaholes or artificial sweetners)

So basically Atkins need to start removing malitol from their products
and start substituting more of the other polyols.

Incidently the fact that polyols are digested in the large intestine
is sometimes the cause of dihorrea in cases of excessive consumption.
It has its up side it is also a superb stool softener and can help to
get things going.

Enjoy!

Thank you "Eunometic" for a well written summary of a confusing area. I
really appreciate getting some documented information. And thanks to
Australia for determining the glycemic index and load for a large variety of
foods. Too bad we in the USA do not have equivalent efforts.

"Eunometic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The only BS about sugar alcohol's is the claim that they don't raise
blood
sugar which is true for some but false for many others.

I've written up the low carb diet scams at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/products.htm

Your reference to "diet scams" is a little excessive.

The need to invent the term "net carbs" arises out of the bizzare
decision by the US FDA to list indigestible food fiber as a
"carbohydrate" thus for those individuals in the early stages of a
very low carbohydrate diet the necessity to perform subtractions or
look up books to work out the true carbohydrate content. Here in
Australia we don't have to problem: the law seperates completely fiber
from carbohydrate.

Excluding polyols from the carb count and listing them seperately by
specific type is the best solution.

There are a variety of sugar alcaholes or polyols as they are known.
Xylitol is one with a calorific value of 2.4 calories per gram (sugar
4.2) with a glycemic index of 13. (sugar 68) It is a natural product
found in strawberries, rasberries at about 1% by weight and indeed
many other berries. It is even synthesised by the body. It looks
like sugar, has no after taste and is equaly sweet. It stops bacteria
adhering to the membranes of the body and has been found to recalcify
adult teeth and prevent chronic ear infections in children. It has
been in use for decades.

" Sorbitol, lactitol and xylitol do not raise PG (plasma glucose)
(17,19,21); however, maltitol and HSHs have demonstrated
a modest effect on PG (2,22). In fact, chocolate sweetened
with maltitol elicited the same PG response in normal subjects
as did chocolate sweetened with sucrose (40). "

Indeed we can add the newer commercialy available isomalt, erithritol,
manitol to the sugar alcaholes that do not appreciably effect blood
sugars.

http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm

Here in Australia I occaisionally indulge in Cadbury "Lite" which is
sweetened with isomalt and a little nutrasweet. I buy xylitol from
the internet and use it in ice cream recipes instead of sucrose.
(using traditional double cream egg custard based icecream recipes)

(hint if you like dark chockolate then Lindt 85% is very low in carbs
even if id doesn't cantain sugar alcaholes or artificial sweetners)

So basically Atkins need to start removing malitol from their products
and start substituting more of the other polyols.

Incidently the fact that polyols are digested in the large intestine
is sometimes the cause of dihorrea in cases of excessive consumption.
It has its up side it is also a superb stool softener and can help to
get things going.

Enjoy!