Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Kalaro — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:26:20 GMT

Dr. Mercola; I have to tell you with out the information you share with all of us, we would be in the dark. I was reading the "Sweet Deceptions" page you have posted. I am in a Principles of Nutrition Class at K.U. and my professor is telling the class that Splenda is the way to go... of course I called her on it & shared 5 different pages, 4 of them being yours on false sugars. Lastly she told me how important artificial sweeteners are to diabetics. She has no clue but she has many credentials. So I sent her the sweet deceptions page in hopes that she will take it to heart. I just want to say thank you. I know she is not the only professional that hasn't been informed. With all you do to broaden our horizons, I cant imagine not being able to use your research for our own personal use & to teach others. Thank You! ~Kim

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Koty — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:33:41 GMT

I want to hear Dr. Mercoloa's feedback on erythritol and agave. I'm all ears and taste buds. Thanks...Koty

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Cwell — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:18:46 GMT

I am still interested in more information about Lakanto Sugar, more research anyone?

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Cyndellatr — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:44:55 GMT

Rmedell I was also interested to see what others said about Lakanto. I am interested but it sounds too good to be true. Any thoughts?

shop.bodyecology.com/prodinfo.asp

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Burkey — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:27:23 GMT

Russ, what is your opinion of the sweetener "Flora Sweet?"

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

gratdeals — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:59:51 GMT

What about "LoHan" the natural sweetner from Africa?

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Cuba — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:54:48 GMT

Totally agree with Islander. been using the liquid Now for a year now. yummy and no aftertaste

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

jw.mitchell — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:40:06 GMT

(More on Saccharin). Saccharin is not metabolized (it passes through the body unchanged) and does not react with DNA (nucleic acid present in all living cells. Extensive research on human populations has established no association between saccharin and cancer. More than 30 human studies have been completed and indicate saccharin's safety at human levels of consumption.

In summary, the case against saccharin was based primarily on controversial high-dose rat studies in which a sensitive strain was fed the human equivalent of the sodium saccharin in hundreds of cans of diet soft drink a day for a lifetime.

Research conducted over the past 25 years has overwhelmingly demonstrated that saccharin does not cause cancer in humans. Saccharin's effects on the rat bladder relate to the salt form (sodium saccharin), diet, urine pH and sodium levels, protein concentrations and types of proteins, and the sex, age and strain of the rats fed sodium saccharin.

Other research indicates that the bladder tumors developed by male rats fed high doses of sodium saccharin are related to very high doses of the sodium salt and not saccharin per se. Sodium ascorbate (vitamin C) and sodium citrate, found in many foods and beverages, demonstrate similar effects.

I include this because, as old as it is, saccharin seems to have just gotten a really bad rep when actually it's not too bad when one looks at the current mainstream alternatives, sucralose and aspartame.

Saccharin, high-grade xylitol, stevia, D-Tagatose?, and other NATURAL sweeteners (many of which I've not included, due merely to lack of time) seem, to ME, to be ok when used in moderation. Aspartame might even be ok IF eaten with a whole protein (such as in a protein powder).

Just my thoughts.

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

jw.mitchell — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:33:33 GMT

www.mercola.com/.../product_review_all_natural_whey_healthier_whey_protein.htm

Xylitol is a high-grade (and high-cost) sweetener that comes from trees, has a very low glycemic index, and is also anti-bacterial. The only downside with xylitol is that it can produce digestive problems such as gas or bloating. Important - There are various grades of xylitol, and low-grade is often not pure.

Low-grade xylitol is typically contaminated with other sugar alcohols (typically sorbitol). Sorbitol is the culprit of this gastrointestinal distress. Saccharin is 200-700 times as sweet at sugar and provides no calories. D-Tagatose, hydrolyzed from lactose into glucose and galactose and then isomerized by calcium hydroxide, is a low carbohydrate functional sweetener, very similar to fructose in structure, is 96% as sweet as sugar, and contains 1.5 calories per gram. However, it is metabolized differently, has a minimal effect on blood glucose and insulin levels, and furthermore provides a prebiotic effect.

Now, with all that said, let me point out something very important. The sugars from NATURAL sources seem to cause little problem with the body. Gastrointestinal problems, when they occur, can be solved by using a smaller amounts or a higher quality product (aka, use xylitol over sorbitol or mannitol).

Sucralose and aspartame have a host of problems, and neither are true 'extracts'. They are extracts that have been MODIFIED substantially to create an entirely different compound. (D-Tagatose I've heard less about.) Because Sucralose is not digested, it builds up in the body AND is fat-soluable. delightfulhealth.com/.../artificial-sweetener-explodes-internally-avoid-it-in-2007 Aspartame causes a host of nerve problems by over-exciting the neurons like MSG. (However, combining aspartame with a whole protein will neutralize any negative effect by providing the necessary other proteins/amino acids meant to complement it.)

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

jw.mitchell — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:07:53 GMT

I just wanted to point out some things.

1. Yes, Stevia HAS been shown to enhance insulin sensitivity in addition to being very low in calories.

2. Stevia is sold as the leaf or leaf EXTRACT. Remember that word, EXTRACT.

3. Stevia is an herb, low calorie, and 300 times sweeter than sugar. Sucralose (Splenda) is chlorinated, refined sugar, has no calories, and 600 times sweeter than sugar. Aspartame provides 4 calories per gram and is about 180 times as sweet as sugar; it is an artificially concentrated combination of amino acids aspartic acid and the methyl ester of phenylalaninephenylalanine. It is metabolized in the body to its components: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. Acesulfame K has no calories and is 180-200 times sweeter than sugar. It's made by the combination of acetoacetic acid and potassium. Xylitol, erythritol, sorbitol, isomalt, lactitol, and xylitol are all sugar alcohols. Erythritol, extracted from fruit, is 60-70% as sweet as table sugar, mostly non-caloric, and does not affect blood sugar. Sorbitol, extracted from corn syrup, is 60-70% as sweet as table sugar, contains 2.6 calories per gram, and does not significantly affect blood sugar. It is sometimes used as a laxative and has been implicated in gastrointestianl problems. Mannitol, extracted from seaweed, is 60% as sweet as sugar and has no affect on blood glucose. Tends to have more of a diarrhetic effect than Sorbitol. Lactitol, extracted from milk, is 35% as sweet as table sugar, contains 2 calories per gram, and does not significantly affect blood sugar. Isomalt, extracted from bunt sugar, is 55% as sweet as table sugar, contains 2.1 calories per gram, and has very low affect on blood sugar. Maltitol, extracted from corn syrup, is 75% as sweet as table sugar, contains 2.7 calories per gram, and scores 36 out of 100 on the GI scale.

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Sponge — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:24:28 GMT

I was thinking that maple syrup and agave were two sweeteners that were healthy alternatives to white sugar. Am I mistaken?

Thanks!

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

cptdano — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:16:32 GMT

Why do you continue to slander products when you have no real specific information or science to report? While your comparison to Splenda may be correct, you fail to cite anything to validate your claims. I know I'm not the only reader who tires of your weak stories and hype oriented headlines. Please get back to your roots and post valid research.

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

glenn s — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:55:16 GMT

Just knowing we are not getting any calories with this Brazzien I can let my son eat 3 times as much unsweetened Captian Cruch. This will give him a chance to catch up on all those foritfied carbs he has been missing. You cant fool your pancreas by concentrating the sweetener with eating the berry.

gms

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

PeteG — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:43:52 GMT

Dr Mercola's comments on Stevia (following) do not appear to correspond with various research - which suggests Stevia IMPROVES insulin sensitivity :

''I want to emphasize, however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners altogether (including stevia and raw honey), as they all can decrease your sensitivity to insulin.''

Dr Mercola

According to Wikipedia,

''Stevia has a negligible effect on blood glucose, even enhancing glucose tolerance;[4]

therefore, it is attractive as a natural sweetener to diabetics and others on carbohydrate-controlled diets.[5]

Other studies have shown stevia improves insulin sensitivity in rats[21] and may even promote additional insulin production,[22] helping to reverse diabetes and metabolic syndrome.[23

en.wikipedia.org/.../Stevia

re: Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener?

Rick Burgess — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:02:22 GMT

Please take a look at agave syrup. One of the truly "natural" sweetners that has the least effect on your glycemic level of any natural sweetner!

Thanks,

Rick