Felchlin Sugar free

[RWood]

Anyone tried this? I don't have any experience with sugar free chocolate, and I have a couple of friends that are diabetic. They keep asking me to make sugar free bonbons. Does it mold ok? Ganache the same? I'm willing to give it a shot, and was gonna order some from AUI when I order regular chocolate. Thanks!

[pastrygirl]

I haven't worked with it, but i tasted the Supremo 62% at a demo recently and thought it was good enough that I'd use it if demand was there.  The brochure says 40.3% cacao fat, which ought to be plenty fluid for molding but I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of sugar affected ganache texture.  Please let us know how it works for you, I do always feel a little bad having nothing sugar-free to offer.

[RWood]

8 minutes ago, pastrygirl said:

I haven't worked with it, but i tasted the Supremo 62% at a demo recently and thought it was good enough that I'd use it if demand was there.  The brochure says 40.3% cacao fat, which ought to be plenty fluid for molding but I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of sugar affected ganache texture.  Please let us know how it works for you, I do always feel a little bad having nothing sugar-free to offer.

 

Thanks for the info.  I'll probably get a couple of pounds of it to try.  I have used a maltitol sweetener for a chocolate pie for my friend, and the taste wasn't terrible.  She also uses it in her coffee. I figured that the sugar substitute taste was my biggest issue. 

I'll let ya know!

[teonzo]

I don't have direct experience with Felchlin, but I worked with sugar-free (maltitol) dark chocolates made by other producers, never got any issue about tempering and molding, they worked just the same.

Remember you need to make sugar-free ganaches too, vast majority of recipes need to be re-formulated.

 

 

 

Teo

 

[Kerry Beal]

I have also found that most sugar free chocolate tempers well, acts as chocolate should. The issue I've found - folks ask if you have sugar free, you go out of your way to obtain it, pay for it, make things with it - then they don't buy it! But doing it for a friend wouldn't be so much of an issue. 

[RWood]

Good to know, thanks.  I completely understand about the not buying.  The one friend I'm making it for, I told her I would try it if I could. The other, he always comments about sugar free when I have made normal chocolates. If he wants some, he can pay for them. I don't see him too often anyway, so he doesn't warrant free 🤑.

11 minutes ago, Kerry Beal said:

I have also found that most sugar free chocolate tempers well, acts as chocolate should. The issue I've found - folks ask if you have sugar free, you go out of your way to obtain it, pay for it, make things with it - then they don't buy it! But doing it for a friend wouldn't be so much of an issue. 

 

[scott123]

One thing to consider regarding maltitol.  Out of all the sugar substitutes, maltitol acts the most like sugar, which is great if you're working with a maltitol based chocolate.  Unfortunately, though, maltitol has a glycemic index that's very close to sugar, and it can be laxating. Out of all the alternatives to sugar, it's the absolute best to work with, but it's also the absolute worst to eat (if you're watching your blood sugar, eating low carb, or avoiding sugar for other reasons).

 

Now, not everyone knows the evils of maltitol, so if someone asks you to make something sugar free for them, and you use maltitol based chocolate, they might be perfectly content.  But you won't be doing them any favors- and, if they do end up being laxated- or eventually figure out how horrible maltitol really is, it could damage your reputation- professionally or personally.

 

There is no free lunch when it comes to replacing sugar.  You either have easy to work with substitutes like maltitol that spike blood sugar and/or laxate or you have the high intensity sweeteners that are nutritionally sound, but are exceptionally difficult to have to work with because of their lack of bulk/sugary texture.

 

Polysaccharides like polydextrose and inulin don't spike blood sugar, but they can be laxating.  Combined with high intensity sweeteners, they're far preferable to maltitol, though, especially in conjunction with erythritol, a sugar alcohol, that, unlike maltitol, is neither laxating nor does it spike blood sugar- but can only be used in small amounts because of it's cooling effect.

 

Other than the stevia, which is an especially horrible sweetener for chocolate, these are fairly well formulated sugar free chocolates:

 

https://www4.netrition.com/kiss-my-keto-ketogenic-chocolate.html

 

but, even with the bulking properties of the inulin, the texture is going to be way off. 

[Kerry Beal]

Erythritol and monk fruit makes a very tolerable sugar free. Less laxation effect than other sugar alcohols.

 

 

[akonsu]

6 hours ago, scott123 said:

stevia, which is an especially horrible sweetener for chocolate

Why is stevia horrible for chocolate?

[scott123]

On 6/13/2019 at 1:19 AM, akonsu said:

Why is stevia horrible for chocolate?

 

The inherent bitterness of chocolate requires a great deal of sugar to balance it. Because of this substantial requirement, It's a confection that, from a perspective of quality of sweetening, separates the wheat from the chaff.  Stevia tends to work well when very little is required of it- tea, cheesecake, vanilla confections, etc., but as you use more of it, even high quality extracts, you're going to see an aftertaste that impairs the quality of sweetening.  For true sugar free chocolate, not this maltitol silliness, you need a sweetener combination that's indistinguishable from sugar- even in large amounts.  This is why you see splenda combined so frequently with acesulfame potassium- and not just in chocolate.

 

Carbsmart is very far from the best ice cream, and the overrun in this recent decade has been downright criminal, but they, for the most part, get the sweetening right:

 

http://smartlabel.breyers.com/product/4019261/ingredients?locale=en-US

 

Sorbitol (bad, but not quite as bad as maltitol), splenda and acesulfame potassium.  For years, it was polydextrose, but I'm guessing sorbitol is cheaper.

 

The beverage companies have figured it out as well.  Any time you find splenda, you'll see acesulfame potassium and anything with aspartame is going to have acesulfame potassium as well.  Synergy (more than one sweetener) = far better quality of sweetness and less overall sweetener used (cost savings).