Splenda(id) Chocolate

[bluemystic1983]

hello, see now I tried the Zcarb bar and I thought it was awesome !!! see I cant have sugar or carbs , I have fibromyalgia and the diet my doc has me on I cant have those things so I saw the zcarb bar the peanut butter one and I thought it was just wonderful !

[jhlurie]

Really?  Wow I love the smooth texture but of course everyone has their own opinions.  What part of the texture didn't you like? 

Fat Guy had a more complex explanation I think, but to me the issue was that chocolate, containing sugar, isn't actually all that smooth. Sugar adds some kind of barely perceptible graininess, I think, which I suppose many of us are used to.

The overwhelming complaint I got from anybody who tried the low-carb chocolate were charges that it seemed "waxy". To me, the better stuff resembled the Luker unsweetened stuff I've got sitting in a closet which I will probably never use in anything, but that doesn't really make it suitable for a snack. That said, the Z-Carb didn't disgust me. It simply won't be my choice unless I'm forced onto some law-carb/low-sugar routine at some point in my life (I've got diabetes in my family, so its possible).

[elyse]

I'm still being bugged for low carb/sugar stuff at the farmer's market.

[Jason Perlow]

Its amazing what eGullet thread will end up in a internationally distributed magazine:

For its sweetener, Hershey settled on a sugar alcohol called lactitol, which happens to be the brand name of a British laxative. "I had one — ONE — of the mini Reese's, and was not fit for human or feline companionship for the next six hours," a user confided on eGullet.com, a website for food fans.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-474562,00.html

If its to be beleived, according to the author, the Z-Carb bar has been selling as hot as the Butterfinger in 7-11 stores.

[elyse]

Seriously?

[Jason Perlow]

Seriously.

[elyse]

Poor coastcat!

[Jinmyo]

Its amazing what eGullet thread will end up in a internationally distributed magazine:

For its sweetener, Hershey settled on a sugar alcohol called lactitol, which happens to be the brand name of a British laxative. "I had one — ONE — of the mini Reese's, and was not fit for human or feline companionship for the next six hours," a user confided on eGullet.com, a website for food fans.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-474562,00.html

If its to be beleived, according to the author, the Z-Carb bar has been selling as hot as the Butterfinger in 7-11 stores.

There's thread on the Time article here in Media.

[Sebastian]

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.

[tryska]

have you tried using stevia as a sweetener?

i honestly would like to see more artifically sweetened products using stevia.

[Jason Perlow]

Welcome to eGullet, Sebastian. I hope you'll find us to be an indispensable asset when researching for your new products.

[elyse]

I've got thick skin, so I don't mind hearing it tastes like "ass"

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....

Edited August 19, 2003 by elyse (log)

[Sebastian]

have you tried using stevia as a sweetener?

i honestly would like to see more artifically sweetened products using stevia.

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.

[Sebastian]

I've got thick skin, so I don't mind hearing it tastes like "ass"

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-)

[elyse]

Are you saying the chocolate would feel slimy in my fingers? It seemed perfectly dry and chocolate like before I put it in my mouth. While I was chewing, it felt slimy on my tongue and palate. Cheeks. Gums. Under-tongue. Uvula.

[tryska]

have you tried using stevia as a sweetener?

i honestly would like to see more artifically sweetened products using stevia.

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.

thanks sebastian - that's a shame really. tho i guess of all of the artifical ones, sucralose is probably the best. i can't stand nutasweet or ace-K - they both give me a wierd reaction in too large of an amount. and i'm over glycerols and the other sugar alcohols after workign my way thru a box of labrada leanbody lemon chiffon bars. ook.

[erraticninja]

i have tried several refined sugar free chocolates and my feelings are: the artificals (nutrasweet and sacherrine) are horrible. the sugar alcohols are a step just above and have the laxative effect talked about earlier. my favorites are the less refined sugars (turbanado cane juice rapadura) as these have a good consistancy and are actual chocolate and actual sugars. not sure how much this would benifit low carb diet types. but being a diagnosed hypoglycemic it works for me (need to stay away from SIMPLE carbs) if anyone needs some brand/type recommendations i would be happy to help out.

as far as the splenda stuff....i would think taste would be like a sugar alcohol without the laxative effect. as i've cooked with splenda and the natural unrefined sugars and perfer the raw sugars.

just my .02$

[Sebastian]

i have tried several refined sugar free chocolates and my feelings are: the artificals (nutrasweet and sacherrine) are horrible. the sugar alcohols are a step just above and have the laxative effect talked about earlier. my favorites are the less refined sugars (turbanado cane juice rapadura) as these have a good consistancy and are actual chocolate and actual sugars. not sure how much this would benifit low carb diet types. but being a diagnosed hypoglycemic it works for me (need to stay away from SIMPLE carbs) if anyone needs some brand/type recommendations i would be happy to help out.

as far as the splenda stuff....i would think taste would be like a sugar alcohol without the laxative effect. as i've cooked with splenda and the natural unrefined sugars and perfer the raw sugars.

just my .02$

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.

[mbthorpe]

I'm another lowcarber (pre-diabetic and trying to stop the problem there) so I'm all too familiar with these mockolates. Carbolite is the devil. Just awful, both in taste and mouth-feel. Pure Delite is tolerable (Dark Chocolate is infinitely better than the Milk variety). Ross is not bad. Ethel M and See's sugar-free varieties are disappointing. There is a brand called Daskalides that is supposed to be excellent, but I haven't tried it yet.

The downside of all these chocolates is the laxative effect alluded to by other posters. If you've ever had to prep for a colonoscopy, the effect is the same ('nuff said).

There are other chocolates (like Z-Carb) that use Splenda and erythritol which do not have the same effect.

Given a world with nothing chocolate, I'd take some Pure Delite dark, but these are sure not Valrhona or Callebaut (I still bake with these but I can't take more than a little taste- my own version of Purgatory).

[fendel]

The "At Last" bars are tolerable. I discovered the almond kind is a lot better with a handful of salted almonds. These bars are missing something, and maybe a little salt helps... At least they're made with erythritol instead of maltitol or (cringe) lactitol.

The best SF chocolate I've had has been "Elite" sugar-free chocolate, from Israel. It's a dead ringer for Lindt bars, in my opinion. (The only place I've ever found them has been the One-Stop Sugarless Shop. I'm waiting until cooler weather before ordering some more.)

Would I rather eat "real" chocolate? Sure, but sugar makes me fat and tired. Not worth it.

Lately I've been dodging the whole chocolate issue by working on recipes for desserts that can be made sugar-free without sacrificing anything. (I make a mean marble cheesecake and homemade SF ice cream, and my molten chocolate cakes are getting pretty good too.)

[mags]

have you tried using stevia as a sweetener?

i honestly would like to see more artifically sweetened products using stevia.

Lord almightly, I wouldn't! Stevia has a vile, licorice taste -- at least for those of us who think licorice tastes vile.

Besides which, as far as "natural" goes....eh. Sure, I wish I could eat good old regular chocolate sweetened with "natural" sugar (though the extent to which sugar is refined in the process of turning it into your standard spoonable white granules kinda begs the "natural" question, to my mind). It tastes better. But the whole "natural is better" argument strikes me as kinda boneheaded. No processed food -- and that includes the yummiest, highest-end chocolate -- is in its natural state. If you're going to eat processed products of any kind, you're eating something that's not "natural." And of course, the assumption that "natural" stuff is inherently good for you is an easy one to shoot down: Arsenic and cyanide are both "natural" products.

I don't at all mean to do an apologia number for Big Food -- I have no doubt that companies like ADM are inherently just as evil as the tobacco boys. And as it happens, I tend, by preference, to eat very little processed food -- though I guesss we could stretch a point and call cheese and coffee "processed" products.

[jhlurie]

as far as the splenda stuff....i would think taste would be like a sugar alcohol without the laxative effect. as i've cooked with splenda and the natural unrefined sugars and perfer the raw sugars.

The way I understand it... Splenda (real name sucralose) is sugar (sucrose), pretty much--or at least very close. It's just bonded somehow with chlorine, and that changes enough of its properties to make it undigestible. Somehow this same change also makes it sweeter by a factor of a few hundred.

The upswing is that it tastes more like sugar than most sugar substitutes, has a lot of the properties of sugar, but can't quite be used as a direct substitute. That's not necessarily a good thing, in my opinion, because as I think has been discussed here, sugar has other qualities besides sweetness--texture for one. I'm guessing what Sebastian has referred to as "bulking agents" are what's trying to "fix" that, and that may still be the weakness.

Of course, if sucralose WAS present at the same quantity as sugar, it might indeed have a laxitive effect, it being undigestible.

[mags]

Splenda also doesn't taste like sugar. It's a big step up from Equal and Sweet n Low, but it still has a kind of flat, metallic edge....at least to me.

[fendel]

Splenda also doesn't taste like sugar.  It's a big step up from Equal and Sweet n Low, but it still has a kind of flat, metallic edge....at least to me.

Funny, to me it tastes like sugar. At least, it tastes like what I vaguely remember sugar tasting like. Ever since I was first doing low-carb I've been using Splenda--even when I fell off the wagon in most ways, I stuck to the Splenda (hey, save a few carbs where you can...).

I really would like to see some better chocolate made with Splenda and erythritol. Carbolite gets points for effort and innovation, but the At Last bars just aren't as good as some of the other SF chocolate I've had. The problem with a lot of low-carb foods is that they settle for being "not bad, for low-carb." I want stuff that is actually good. I'm contradicting myself--earlier I said sorta positive things about At Last. But my significant other--he who is not really on a low-carb diet but eats whatever sweets are around the house, sugar-free or whatever--reminded me tonight that I had half an Elite bar hidden away in a drawer, wrapped only in its foil inner wrapper. He swore it was "real" chocolate and was surprised when I said it was sugarless. Was. ~snif~ Gotta order more...

[Sebastian]

The way I understand it... Splenda (real name sucralose) is sugar (sucrose), pretty much--or at least very close.  It's just bonded somehow with chlorine, and that changes enough of its properties to make it undigestible.  Somehow this same change also makes it sweeter by a factor of a few hundred.

The upswing is that it tastes more like sugar than most sugar substitutes, has a lot of the properties of sugar, but can't quite be used as a direct substitute.  That's not necessarily a good thing, in my opinion, because as I think has been discussed here, sugar has other qualities besides sweetness--texture for one.  I'm guessing what Sebastian has referred to as "bulking agents" are what's trying to "fix" that, and that may still be the weakness.

Of course, if sucralose WAS present at the same quantity as sugar, it might indeed have a laxitive effect, it being undigestible.

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.