Sebastian

I've read that 95% of consumers will eat 2x the RACC (reference amount customarily consumed), but can't find any data supporting that. Have any of you heard similiar numbers, and if so - don't suppose you'd have a reference validating those, would you 8-) -Sebastian

I've got 4 8.8lb (1 gallon) containers that are a 25% solution of sucralose that I don't need anymore. Let me know what interests you and I'm sure we can work something out. sebvad@mail.ru

At least on an industrial scale, I know it exists - I have a few gallons of it. No idea if they market such a beast in the consumer world, however..

yup - pretty much. anything you consume at 0.00x% isn't going to give you any measurable calories 8-) as for the texture issue, it could be a few things. the most likely is that you're supersensitive to solids soluability - ie, sucrose (table sugar) has a very distincitive soluability pattern that's attractive to most folks. Erythritol and inulin have different soluabilities, and it could be that you're picking up on that. The chocolates you're eating have much higher fat content than typical chocolates, and even higher than some premium mainstream chocolates - the higher the fat content the more satisfying the mouthfeel. It could be that american customers simply aren't accustomed to very high end chocolate (most of us grew up on Hershey's), and react to that difference with dislike. The two are somewhat related, as the solids are going to be dispersed throughout the cocoa butter, and a good many of them will simply be swallowed in the cocoa butter w/o ever having a chance to dissolve in the moisture of your mouth. Normally, mouthfeel is more greatly associated with the fat used than the solids bulking the product, and in this case, the cocoa butter being used in all of these products is the same as the cocoa butter being used in the high end sugar containing products as well. To address Fendels points - Splenda uses maltodextrin because it's a cheap carrier - fibers will cut into their margins. I've not seen the Elite sf products, but if they're using milk powder, they're likely not sugar free products, but no sugar added (the milk powder will contribute lactose..). A NSA product will almost always be preferable to a SF product - sugars are desireable.

Sucralose is simply chlorinated sucrose - doing this makes it 600x sweeter than sugar. It's still digestible, however it's used in such small amounts that there's really no measureable impact nutritionally. If you were to use it as the same levels as sucrose, not only would it taste really, really awful - but it probably would have some pretty nasty health issues as a result of consuming something at levels way, way past it's intended use. At it's intended use level, it's benign - if you abuse it, you're in trouble (the same can be said of anything - too much water will kill you too). Bulking agents refer to the fact that, because sucralose is 600x as sweet as sugar, you're not using any sugar, and have a rather large physical void to make up for in your formula. Think what would happen if you tried making cookies and simply left out the sugar and put a pinch of sucralose in to substitute - you'd have awfully runny cookie batter, because the sugars add 'bulk' to it. If you take sugars out of something, you need to replace it with something of comparable solids value or bulkiness.

Actually, none of these products (sugar free or not ) are low carb products - all sugar alcohols are still carbohydrates. Turbinado is simply sugar that hasn't been refined - ie it has more impurities in it and hasn't been bleached, but it's still mainly sucrose (sugar), and essentially is equal to refined sugar in terms of glycemic/insulinemic responses, which is important for those who have to watch their blood sugar levels.

You did take note that I denied the tasting of ass like quality of this chocolate, right? I think I just said slimy or something, but not bad for what it is. Where's the halo smilie? Well, maybe a bit more that slimy.... 8-) I did note that on more than one occassion folks said positive things about it - and I do honestly believe it's an improvement over the last generation of products (large scale consumer testing has provided similiar results). The sliminess you mention is in all liklihood not a function of the product itself, but more of how it was stored. It is by all standards a premium product (very fine particle size, higher in cocoa butter than your average bear), and the cocoa butter is what gives it the majority of it's melt profile. It will have the same melt profile as any premium sucrose containing milk chocolate because the same chocolate liquor and same cocoa butter is used in both. There will be slight differences because of the type of bulking agents used (sucrose vs erythritol/inulin), but in both cases those are basically encapsulated in the cocoa butter anyway, and most of them don't dissolve in the saliva in your mouth before you've sent it down to your tummy. If it's been stored improperly (ie, in high moisture areas, brought from cold storage into a high relative humidity area, or allowed to heat to the point of untemper), you may be noticing the results of that as being slimy 8-) All things considered, I think it's a good product, but it's still a sugar free product. The line is blurring between sugar free products and 'traditional' products, but there's still a difference (albiet not nearly as great as there was 10 years ago..). This is just one more step inthe evolution - this isn't the end of history, and I'm sure someone like me at some point will be able to improve upon it once more 8-)

Stevia is not approved for use in foods as a high intensity sweetener (it's not GRAS). It is, however, approved for use in flavor systems, but not if it's purpose is to impart sweetening. Thaumatin, Lo Han Guo, and other natural high intensity sweeteners are similarly not approved for use in food applications (though for dietary suppliments, they are fine). That's one of the reasons you don't see mainstreaming of the natural HIS's in food items. There are also technical difficulties associated with what is essentially a small spice industry - many of them are very hydroscopic (absorb water readily) and all of them have strong off flavor notes associated with them, especially at the use levels that would be required to impart a significant sweetening punch.

I'm actually the individual who invented the chocolate in the majority of the bars you're discussing, and happened to stumble across this board and this topic while doing a bit of market research. Of course I'm interested in seeing your comments, and would be willing to answer some questions if you have them. Remember, this is sugar free chocolate, and it will never (probably) be at the same textural/flavor level as pure real, standard of identity chocolate (what is??). Sugar free chocolate has come a *long* way from the days of sorbitol or mannitol based products, and now the next generation of chocolate is an erythritol:inulin blend that offers significant advantages over previous generations in the realm of flavor, tolerance, and glycemic/insulinemic responses. I've got thick skin, so I don't mind hearing it tastes like "ass" - but my guess is that if you're saying that, you're probably not accustomed to eating sugar free chocolates and given your druthers would rather eat good ol' fashioned milk or dark sucrose containing chocolate - remember, not everyone is able to do that, and this is for whom this product was created - to give people who can't eat mainstream products an alternative that represents an improvement over the previous generation of products that was given to them. So anyway, if there's any questions, I'll try to answer.