Sugar-free chocolates

[Sachishah]

I want ask that where sugar-free chocolates are available in market? One of my friend's mother has diabetes. And she loved chocolates very much.

 

[Yorksman]

Thorntons do a range including a sort of variety box mix. I found the chocolates quite good, the sweets unfortunately, not so good.

https://www.thorntons.co.uk/thumbnail/C ... t=diabetic

 

[gemma486]

Just be careful with sugar free chocolates if over eaten they have an effect much like a laxative


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Dennis]

Hi Sachishah,

In addition to Gemma's comment, the so-called diabetic chocolates can actually be bad for diabetics because people believe they can eat more. Its true they don't contain sugar, but instead they are sweetened with sugar-alcohol - usually maltitol or sorbitol. Its not just sugar that raises blood glucose - its all carbohydrates, and sugar is simply the quickest acting carb. Sugar alcohols (also called polyols) contain almost as many carbs per 100g as sugar so will increase blood glucose almost as much as sugar does.

Dennis

 

[anna29]

Just be careful with sugar free chocolates if over eaten they have an effect much like a laxative


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

I bought some sugar free devon toffee sweets [advertised as diabetic friendly]
I was ill for 2 days after trying them.
The laxative effect was extreme - never again for 'me' .
I had only had about 4 of them too :shock:

Anna.

 

[Diddly]

I happened upon a store selling DIABETIC FRIENDLY sweets on Ebay and so messaged them explaining the downside of them and that hcp advise is to stay well clear of them. The response I received was that they were not hcp's and they would bow to the knowledge of the manufacturers, why was I so concerned and that they would not enter into any more communication on the matter! In other words DIABETIC FRIENDLY sells so tough!!

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Dennis]

Hi diddly,

Diabetic sweets is a billion dollar industry so the fact that they happen to be good for no-one ain't going to stop it rolling.
Nice try though!!

Dennis

 

[Diddly]

Hi Dennis
Know what you mean, have messaged Ebay though giving the nhs stance and so on so, worth a try?

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Yorksman]

Sugar alcohols (also called polyols) contain almost as many carbs per 100g as sugar so will increase blood glucose almost as much as sugar does.

These sort of sweeteners are non or low digestible carbohydrates and don't raise BG levels even though they do contain lots of carbs. This is why they can upset the digestive system.

"Low-digestible carbohydrates are carbohydrates that are incompletely or not absorbed in the small intestine but are at least partly fermented by bacteria in the large intestine. Fiber, resistant starch, and sugar alcohols are types of low-digestible carbohydrates. Given potential health benefits (including a reduced caloric content, reduced or no effect on blood glucose levels, non-cariogenic effect), the prevalence of low-digestible carbohydrates in processed foods is increasing. Low-digestible carbohy-drate fermentation in the gut causes gastrointestinal effects, especially at higher intakes. We review the wide range of low-digestible carbohydrates in food products, offer advice on identifying low-digestible carbohydrates in foods and beverages, and make suggestions for intakes of low-digestible carbohydrates."

Low-Digestible Carbohydrates in Practice http://www.polyol.org/pdf/Slavin%20article.pdf

 

[Paul_c]

some diabetic products such as Frank's Diabetic Ice-Cream are sweetened with Fructose as well as polyols...

OK, it has a low-GI and doesn't affect your blood sugar levels very much at all, but Fructose is only handled by your liver and can cause damage.

 

[phoenix]

I think the effect on your glucose depends upon what polyol is actually used. All of them are incompletely absorbed by'normal' digestion but there are differences in the amount.
Some forms of Malitol yield 3 calories (as compared with 4 for 'norma'l' carbs) , with a GI of 53 then it most certainly would affect glucose if eaten in any quantity. At the other end of the spectrum, Erythritol yields 0 calories and has a GI of 0.2 so shouldn't have any noticeable effect at all.
Full list in an article by David Mendosa (2004).
http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm
( Thinking about it I've no idea how they were actually tested . I tried to find out but could only get hold of the abstract of the paper the figures came from. I don't think that you could test using the normal GI methods ... how can you test something with 0g of digestible carb when you normally require 50g of digestible carb to test ?)

I also found an interesting blog post by a T1 diabetic. She does some taste tests, looks at ingredients and calculates the amount of polyols in the various products.
so for one toffee
"Worryingly about this product is the amount of Polyol. In 25g there is 14.5g of the sweetener, almost 3/4 of the recommended daily allowance. "
http://www.positivehealth.com/article/d ... ed-produce

 

[EllisB]

Don't forget, chocolate is high in fat, including saturates. While sugar free may be better for your BG, it will still be calorie dense and bad for your Cholesterol levels.

 

[Yorksman]

"Worryingly about this product is the amount of Polyol. In 25g there is 14.5g of the sweetener, almost 3/4 of the recommended daily allowance. "

Tests for non digestibility are somewhat arbitary. Before the genetics were understood, non digestibility of the sugar found in milk known a lactose was termed lactose intolerance, as if there was some sort of metabolic disorder in those who suffered from it. Moreover, some people could drink a glass of milk before falling ill whilst others got sick at the lick of an ice cream. There were 'degrees of intolerance' but the condition was assessed by asking the subject to drink a certain amount of milk and recording the after effects. One was either lactose tolerant or lactose intolerant depending on which side on this rather arbitary line one fell. A similar condition exists with fructose malabsorbtion and another known as hereditary fructose intolerance.

As research has started to throw light on these matters, lactase persistence in adulthood has become the focus. That is, several human population groups continue to produce the enzyme lactase in adulthood. Production is normally switched off after puberty. Moreover, 4 separate and independent genes have been identified, meaning that at various times in [recent] human evolutionary history, different genetic mutations have occured in some population groups independently which have led to the production of the lactase enzyme not being switched off.

What we can and cannot eat is probably very much dependent on our genetic history. Humans are still evolving and although the vermiform appendix is widely seen as a genetic throwback to our leaf eating days, we still produce this fully developed organ. Why does it persist? The latest research suggests that the appendix is still of some [new] use in some humans.

Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 930700416X

Whilst we understand the basics of food sources and the digestive system and the role of enzymes and hormones within the metabolism, the devil is in the detail which is probably going to be rather more important to the individual than it is to the human population in general.