If it's 3000 times sweeter, you still have to modify your usage of it in a recipe, even if the texture is the same. So your end product might have a different texture because of that quantity difference during the substitution.
As someone else with an unusually strong sense of smell, I offer my condolences. I'm lucky that I don't really mind the smell of mold, or other natural scents like body odor.
For me the gross smells are artificial fragrances like soap, deodorant, cologne/perfume, and dish soap. I don't love car exhaust. Dish soap especially smells _so gross_. It's just so chemically and strong. I do find dish sponges left out start to smell like mold to the extent that it makes it hard to use. That's why washing dishes is rough, I get mold from the sponge and chemicals from the soap.
I do think though it's just genetic. Also I think dogs don't smell bitter scents as strongly as we do (it's how they can eat feces). So mold might not be as gross for them.
> For me the gross smells are artificial fragrances like soap, deodorant, cologne/perfume, and dish soap.
Its meta data on peoples health. Look at long covid and the loss of smell. Symptoms indicating what people are missing out on dietary wise in order to improve their health. Thats why I say Covid was a biological weapon, and there are plenty of people who know what they know, but they dont know what they know...
> I think dogs don't smell bitter scents as strongly as we do (it's how they can eat feces)
Coprophagy and bacterial analysis studies suggest there may be a need for certain vitamins, namely vit K.
It seems a coke-sized can, requires only 13mg of this protein, compared to 200mg of aspartame.
If brands see that increasing the amount also increase sales without increasing the risk - they're likely to do that - which could numb the sweetness of anything else.
These are both very small amounts of a substance, relative to the size of a Coke can. I think if Coke wanted a sweeter formula, bumping up to 250-300mg of aspartame or using a blend of existing additives or something would not be a problem for them.
Given how sensitive consumers are to changes in its taste, I think the overriding concern for Coke would be not changing the flavor of the formula.
If what you say is true, wouldn't we already be seeing incredibly sweet things being sold? I don't see why companies would hold back from producing very sweet products with high sugar content; they do so already.
I'm not sure anyone's clamoring for sweeter drinks. Non-diet drinks like Coke have an established recipe, and diet sodas approximate the same balance of flavors.
I think there is some level of hardwiring limiting the palatability of sweetness, at least in some people.
Anecdotally, even as a kid, I found Skittles to be unpleasantly sweet. To this day, I avoid most sweet soda drinks and seldom drink even those I can tolerate.
It is not discipline for me. It is not even taste. It is tolerance.
Moldy sticks are the best because they come apart when chewing on them!
My brother has a young (but large) dog who is still trying to taste everything. Yesterday he was excavating and devouring(?) some tree roots with great enthusiasm.
At least it distracted him from wanting to chase moles and deers.
Also his treats smell abysmal, but obviously he likes them.
A lot of the time when I crave sweet things its not for the sweet taste itself that I’m after, but for the sugar itself - e.g. after / during a long day with lots of learning new things / making decisions / tough algorithmic work etc.
I’m after the mood boost that sugar itself provide, the quickening of thinking that you get from it. Eating substitutions for me kinda misses the point, like if they replaced 50% of it, I’ll just need to consume twice the amount to get the same effect.
Also I’ve noticed that at least for me if I live active enough life (cycle to the office) and eat sweets during the day when I actually need it most, I can eat them every day and it will not negatively affect my body. Though I still try to make sure not to do that of course :)
Its just that I honestly don’t get the whole search for sugar replacements. I guess the idea would be that if you’re addicted to sugar, having a substitute would allow you to wane off of it more easily, kinda like a nicotine patch?
But still I would use sugar for its other properties not the sweetness itself, so what would I replace it with?
The average American consumes 17 teaspoons of sugar per day. Because the average American doesn’t like the taste of most processed foods unless it is sweetened significantly.
Look at savory snacks like crackers - even those are loaded with sugar.
Take something like Wheat Thins Tomato and Basil flavor. Sounds savory? A 30g serving has 4g sugar. Yes, a savory snack consisting of 13.3% sugar.
I feel like there is a significant demographic who (for example) drinks coca cola as a “pick me up” (aka energy boost/mood regulation if they’re addicted).
In my own case, I’m much more likely to get on the sugar train if I have not slept properly and I’m trying to claw my way through the day.
I don't quite get what is the deal with sugar. Those 17 teaspoon are around 50-100g, making around 10-20% of an adults daily caloric intake.
That doesn't sound too crazy. Can't you just eat less starchy stuff, after all, that gets broken down to sugar anyway. Or is it that food gets so tasty that people generally eat too much?
I know the statistics point to sugar as being evil incarnate, but I feel there's more wrong with the American cuisine and now sugar gets the blame for all of it.
Personally I eat around 5 teaspoons of sugar a day, mostly in the form of marmalade and ketchup and don't seam to have any adverse effects.
Also I guess you'd have to drink sweetened beverages to get to 17 teaspoons, cause at 10 teaspoons a day all my food would be unbearably sweet.
It‘s not “American cuisine”, it‘s overly processed foods. Which exist everywhere. In fact quite a large amount of countries in Western Europe fall squarely 2x over the WHO’s 2015 recommendations at over 100g per day.
I do agree that sugar is taking the blame for the companies selling us these sugary treats. I mean its literally JUST yummy carbs, it’s not like its a carcinogen. And the average person has been so completely numbed by a life of excess sugar that it makes the already predatory food companies push even more sugar in to compete.
It was remarkable to me when I switched to unsweetened, unsalted peanut butter that after about 5 days of it tasting bland, it started tasting amazing.
Since then I've been cutting the sugar in every recipe down to 1/3 to 1/4 of what's specified. You just plain don't need it: at least provided you've largely dropped sugar out of your regular diet (so very limited off the shelf food - which now tastes incredibly sweet to me these days).
> I’m after the mood boost that sugar itself provide, the quickening of thinking that you get from it.
This is a myth, studies show "sugar rush" is just a placebo. Unless you are diabetic and have low blood sugar, eating sugar will not affect your mood, energy levels, or behavior any more than a placebo
Reminds me of a discussion I had with someone who also ran a 10 miles just like me. He said: "Yeah, at the midpoint I had low energy, but then I ate some dextrose and instantly had energy again".
I thought to myself "You probably should have taken it at the start of the race".
But hey, placebos do work of course, so I didn't want to crush his dream :D.
Can you point to the studies please? Would be curious to check them out.
I have experimented quite a lot during the years and sugar (sucrose) for me definitely has positive effect.
I’ve tried tea, other things to eat, even gluten stuff, and sugar sweets was the only thing that made me retain my decision making focus state at the 16:00 lul ours where you still have a few hours to work, but don’t “feel” like it.
When I care more about me than the company’s well being I just accept that I will not be very productive then, but if there is a crunch and I really do care about the project, I can hack it with some sweets.
Maybe it is a placebo, but as long as its not too unhealthy… there are worse ways to live one’s life.
I mean most of the time I would be able to hack it if I really wanted to without sweets. Its just focusing on things gets a lot easier with the sugar. But I do not get overly active if I’m in a stable state, just get more to “normal” when I’ve exhausted my mind with mental work.
Can confirm. I am (was) really, really addicted to sweets. I thought I couldn't function without them. Coke Zero/Pepsi Max are doing wonders for me. I'm 40+ years of age, drinking about 2-4 cans a day and went down from 101 kg obese BMI to 79 kg normal BMI in a few months just by removing excess sugar and a little calorie counting. No effort whatsoever, and the zero-free sodas cover most of my "sugar" requirements.
Sugar is energy to the body, or at least it metabolizes into something that is. It may not affect mood or behavior, but it surely affects energy levels.
Countries are having huge costs, financial and societal, by having people with diabetes, obesity and dental decay. The concern is not with Bob bringing a banana on a bike ride.
Fascinating!
I consume zero sugar (not even from fruit) and if I occasionally do, I don't feel different in any way.
When I used to eat sugar I did a few weird things (like drinking squash raw, without mixing it with water, I had no idea I was supposed to do that) but never felt different because of it.
When I was going to sugar was to cope with life / depression. It was kind of an addiction, not unlike alcohol.
Fructose is not just in fruit. Table sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
In extreme moderation nothing is unhealthy. One drink a week, one cigarette a weak, a teaspoon of sugar a day or one fruit a day are all perfectly fine.
Overconsumption is unhealthy.
Fructose is more unhealthy than glucose because glucose is absorbed by your whole body and fructose by your liver.
Liver is small so it's easier to over tax it. Just like a car engine will fail faster if you drive at max speed all the time, your liver will stop working well if you constantly overload it with processing fructose.
Fructose turns into fat which is deposited in your belly (you get fat / overweight) and in your liver, which is worse.
It leads to fatty liver disease i.e. the fat prevents optimal liver functions which leads to insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and other metabolism / autoimmune issues. You're more likely to catch a flu or die from covid.
> A lot of the time when I crave sweet things its not for the sweet taste itself that I’m after, but for the sugar itself
Now I’m curious (though HN is not the platform for getting closure on this): Have you experimented with consuming the same amount of sugar in capsule form so that you get the dosage with absolutely no mouth sensation?
They won’t necessarily eat fewer calories though. Not least because they will become accustomed to eating very sweet food.
My prediction is that this is likely to worsen the obesity epidemic rather than help it. The solutions to overweight are fairly clear at this point. They involve removing the financial incentives for multinational firms to sell us processed food.
There is no reliable definition of processed or ultra-processed food though. Not one you'd recognise: for example under the NOVA system[1] you can get a lot of weird outcomes. For example pasta is a processed food (though also, bad for you - calorie dense).
The problem really is overconsumption of glucose which creates overproduction of insulin which over time (years) make you fat (overweight or obese), insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes is basically a state of elevated levels of glucose and insulin in your body which fucks up your metabolism.
So addiction to sugar is bad mostly because it causes overconsumption of glucose (sugar is 50% glucose, 50% fructose).
And almost everything you buy in grocery store is loaded with sugar: coke, red bull, cereal, all the sweets, cakes, pastries even things like yogurt or ketchup.
So in theory if if replaced all the sugar in all the products with this thing and it didn't have harmful effects on the body by itself, then we would greatly reduce the consumption of glucose so it stands to reason we would greatly reduce diabetes.
You can still get too much glucose by over consuming carbs (bread, pasta, pizza, rice, tomato, anything with flower) but it's much harder to eat 5 pizzas than to drink 5 liters of coke loaded with sugar.
Sugar is glucose and carbs are converted to glucose. Glucose leads to production of insulin. Too much glucose leads to too much insulin production which leads to diabetes. Diabetes is basically "you have too much insulin in your body" disease.
This is the nutrition intuition equivalent of someone wearing a continuous glucose monitor and thinking that any time it goes up, it's a horrible thing that must be minimized, even when they're eating a round meal of broccoli, quinoa, and tofu.
While we wait for the inevitable news about how this sweetener is harmful, I can't help but think why we don't have a non-controversial sweetener yet. There are hundreds and hundreds of food additives available in the market which are used everywhere. Many of these are compounds not found naturally and new to the human diet. You would expect any safety concerns arising to be sort of uniformly distributed across different classes of additives, purely from a statistical point of view. And yet sweeteners seem to take the brunt of it. What gives?
Isn't stevia non controversial? It's essentially a plant extract.
Personally my problem with sweeteners is twofold. First, they are massively overused (especially in drinks). Second sugar adds more than just sweetness. It thickens the texture a little. I've never encountered this being replicated properly in products that use sweeteners instead.
It's non-controversial but it does not taste like cane sugar, although it is sweet. I wouldn't replace a recipe calling for cane sugar with stevia in most cases. The taste is not the same.
Perhaps these are larger volume additives so get better studied. Perhaps a similarly high fraction of all additives would be found harmful if they were more studied, or the studies were easier to run?
>The company has tested sweelin in a range of foods, achieving a 70% reduction in the sugar content of ketchup and a 50% reduction in that of chocolate, for example, without changing palatability.
Why can they not replace 100% of the sugar? For their top line advertisement, feels like there is some gotcha that prevents total sugar substitution.
Probably because even though it tastes like sugar, it doesn't behave like sugar, which has a more active role in baked goods than as a simple flavoring agent.
Seems like we have like 800 natural and artificial gums, flours, emulsifiers, etc, some of which are even occasionally considered health food ingredients, and most almost all of which seems healthier than sugar, why not use those for the baking texture if you're going to use the fake sugar for sweetness?
I suspect you slightly under-appreciate how ubiquitous sugars are in nature. Glucose and its close relatives are everywhere in plants. Cellulose, the main building material of plants, is polymerized glucose. A ton of various substances of plant origin are all pre-built to interact with sugars, and may have trouble interacting nicely with severely different kinds of molecules.
Does Maillard actually do anything aside from the crust? Why couldn't we just put a tiny but of real sugar in the top few mm, by spraying sugar water or just sprinkling on wet batter or dough?
Seems like there are commercial sugar free stuff with an ok texture, but then again maybe I just haven't noticed because the taste of most artificial sweeteners is so bad that it masks it, and I only try them if I accidentally buy something with it...
Because those don't give you the same outcome as sugar baked goods.
I urge you to try and bake with any any of those 800 and get a baked good that has a texture like a sugar based good (and doesn't totally crumble apart)
In addition to health and digestive issue, artificial sweateners normally have 2 significant issues:
1) Taste is about how molecules bind to taste receptors on yhe tongue. Just because a sweatener binds to the sweet receptors, doesn't mean it won't also bind to other receptors. This gives them a different flavor profile than sugar, which needs to be balanced in the overall recipe.
2) Sugar does more than just bind to receptors on your tongue. Mix confectioner's sugar into water and you a glaze. It is still just sugar, but has a distinct look and feel. Or, just coat your confection with powdered sugar directly. It is the same surgar, but produces a completely different sensation in your mouth.
In baking, sugar tends to make food softer. In sauces, it acts as a thickener.
According to this article[1] from 2022 at higher concentrations it has a reduced sweetness response and leaves a lingering sweet taste. Supplementing it with real sugar means they don’t need to go to higher concentrations.
Sugar substitutes can differ from actual sugar in several ways. The sweetness may take longer to be detected, it may stick around longer (aftertaste), and there may be other, bitter flavors in addition to the sweetness. As others have mentioned, sugar also has various technical roles in food, such as softening baked goods and acting as a preservative.
Probably has to do with palatability. Like how full sugar Coke tastes great and zero calorie Coke tastes terrible. The half sugar half stevia Coke tastes better than zero calorie but worse than full sugar. They probably tested each food and detected the inflection point where taste scores started suffering.
Maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome of some type after years on the stuff, but I've come to love the taste of zero calorie drinks, and find the originals odd and unpalatable. Hard to explain, it's like they are thicker/syrupy? Even Mexican Coke.
I belive it's that syrupy thickness people that prefer sugary version like, more than just the sweetness.
Personally, after a long brake from drinking coke/pepsi I can't stand either the original or the zero. I seem to crave the taste sometimes, then I buy one(zero) and it's like "what is this? Why sweetness is literally the only thing that I can taste here?" It feels like they are doubling the sugar in comparison to how I remember it. Most likely it's the same drink, I was just used to the massive sweetener/sugar content before.
Agreed on zero being better than diet. They actually use the same sweeteners, but a different flavor profile.
FWIW, in the US at least, Pepsi Max also became Pepsi Zero.
I suspect both are getting away from the 'diet' moniker because of the fact that people not on an active weight loss diet prefer them, ruining the played out joke of 'haha he ordered 2 burgers and a diet coke.'
Turns out Diet Coke is actually a different drink. When they made it way back when with the previous genesis artificial sugars it tasted terrible. So they actually re-created the recipe for the fake sugar.
Coke Zero is the same as Coke but with newer generation Artifical sweeteners. That’s why many who like Coke end up not liking Diet but like Zero much better.
I'd like to see more studying on this. I thought all sweet tasting things impacted your body's release of insulin in some regard because of your taste buds in your intestine? There is a lot of conflicting information on this topic overall. Also they told us aspartame was safe because it's just two amino acids, but look at what they're saying now. The production process and purity of the final product matters in some cases more than the actual chemical at hand.
Based on reading comments here, it seems the general overuse of sugar has made people forget that sugar in adequate amounts at appropriate times is good for you. If you have low blood sugar because you just ran five miles, eating sugar — and thus inducing an insulin response which replenishes the energy of your muscle cells — is a good thing.
Sitting on your ass all day eating sugar, however, is not.
This is cool, but I've been using Allulose as sugar has some specific properties (such as rising dough, preservative, etc.) that are pretty important and lost with other properties, and it's low-carb. What's the advantages?
Wouldn't this have the same problem as other non-sugar sweeteners? I think one of the main arguments against Aspartame is that it still invokes an insulin response, so still has a lot of the negative side effects of sugar intake, even if it doesn't have calories.
I'm not sure artificial sweeteners are good for anything.
A 2019 meta analysis published in the British Medical Journal said, "Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS (Non-sugar sweeteners) exposed and unexposed groups." - https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718
My guess is that things tasting sweet is part of the problem. For example:
"Ingestion of these artificial sweeteners (AS) results in the release of insulin from pancreas which is mistaken for glucose (due to their sweet taste). This increases the levels of insulin in blood eventually leading to decreased receptor activity due to insulin resistance." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/
Respectfully, overstated conclusions you’re drawing from these limited studies.
Ref[1]: Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited.
Ref[2] only states NSS should not be used in weight control due to a lack of long term evidence (I.e. if trying to achieve weight control there are better strategies, not necessarily a condemnation) as well as: Because the link observed in the evidence between NSS and disease outcomes might be confounded by baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as conditional, following WHO processes for developing guidelines. This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups.
Ref[2]’s full WHO review article[5] is even more damning on the methodology. Pertinent to your arguments: The results suggest that, in the short term, NSS use may lead to small reductions in adiposity without any significant impact on cardiometabolic risk. There is suggestion of negative health effects with long-term use, but the evidence is ultimately inconclusive.
Ref[3] is obviated by ref[2] and meaningless in isolation, reasons described in the 200 page WHO report.
Ref[4] is theoretical about mechanisms and provides no empiric evidence of anything. Contrary to this hypothesis the WHO study elaborates on why the long-term observational studies are discordant with short-term RCTs and the gist is bias.
I guess the way I presented thoughts looked like I was saying NSS are bad for you. I don't have the evidence for that claim. But I don't think the balance of evidence is in favour of NSS either.
I know you can cherry pick health studies to support any argument you like but I don't feel like I've done that. The WHO guidelines/study that we linked to is supposed to be a broad summary of the whole research area. The guidelines document doesn't recommend NSS for anything. It only recommends _against_ using them for things.
> Ref[3] is obviated by ref[2] and meaningless in isolation, reasons described in the 200 page WHO report.
Whereabouts? I couldn't find what you're referring to.
> I guess the way I presented thoughts looked like I was saying NSS are bad for you. I don't have the evidence for that claim. But I don't think the balance of evidence is in favour of NSS either.
Thanks for the clarification, my interpretation of your comment was that you were suggesting that NSS have harmful effects given the insulin discussion.
I agree the evidence is neither for or against NSS harms.
> I know you can cherry pick health studies to support any argument you like but I don't feel like I've done that. The WHO guidelines/study that we linked to is supposed to be a broad summary of the whole research area. The guidelines document doesn't recommend NSS for anything. It only recommends _against_ using them for things.
Agree the WHO review is great and well done. The recommendation against use stems from conflicting evidence and a lack of evidence showing it has the beneficial effects thought to exist. Recommendations like this are generally made to avoid delaying positive interventions rather than a negative statement regarding said intervention.
An analogy would be a position statement to not use bananas for the prevention of breast cancer. It doesn’t mean one shouldn’t eat bananas or that they’re bad for you, it’s just irrelevant and potentially harmful for this indication. Bananas may also still be good for you.
> Whereabouts? I couldn't find what you're referring to.
Apologies I was vague. What I mean is you went backwards down the levels of evidence pyramid.
Once a good quality systematic review is cited it becomes unnecessary to cite substantially weaker evidence (retrospective observational study with self reporting) unless it presents new and compelling information that was not included in the study. Given the study type it’s low-quality and is non-contributory to the conclusions stated in the review.
With respects to reasons described by WHO, I’m referring to the discussion and risks of bias sections. They quite extensively elaborate on the reasons observational studies are poor quality for this question and talks about reasons for conflicting findings between RCTs and observational studies.
Folks with inherited diabetes do not have the option of moderation. You don't need to see this through such a narrow political lens. Some fermented nut-based vegan cheeses are healthier for the heart. Should we moan about that invention and insist on dairy based cheese, moderation, and less choice? No one is forcing you to use these new things.
Oh please. You know well this thing, if it works, is going to end up in addictive carbonated sugar water drinks. Except it's not even sugar. Aspartame is a great example. It didn't help with the amount of land whales.
Accusing me of looking through a narrow political lense. How about you look in the mirror.
Yes but we've seen added sugar to be quite an addictive substance. People want to quit and it's difficult. You will feel the void of sugar.
So if there's a healthy alternative that can reduce sugar. It is a highly valuable stepping stone where the success of it would be to make itself unnecessary (although still fun to use!)
I think if it's natural and doesn't pose health risks that it sounds great.
Why does a new and possibly healthier ingredient need to imply overconsumption?
And what exactly is overconsumption? Isn't it eating more than our body needs? If I eat more of an ingredient that provides fewer nutrients then there is no overconsumption, correct? Or are you looking for a world where we should only eat the most nutrient dense food because of ?
yeah good point! although maybe diversity in addiction helps? E.g., instead of being addicted strongly to one substance, you get the desired pleasure from 2 substances... don't know, just a thought
Protein isn't a magical satiation macronutrient, else protein shakes would be at the top of the satiety index and potatoes wouldn't be #1.
You're using the word "carbs" as a euphemism for refined grain and sugar. When you say we eat too many carbs, presumably you aren't talking about broccoli. Why not just say refined gains and sugar?
It's like throwing around the word protein when you're talking about wheat gluten.
I think you're confusing proteins and carbs. Dietary fiber yes a carb is not a problem as the body typically does not process dietary fiber. You need some carbs in the diet, but have you ever checked the nutritional label? Sugar is a carb. You really only need so much carbs in your diet and that is about 100g to 200g.
Note that the reason fruits nowadays are so sweet is because of artificial selection done over millenia - fruits thousands of years ago barely resembled the fruits that we eat today. [0] "Natural" fruit was originally absolute shit for human consumption, so humans have cultivated it until it became abnormally large and rich with sugars. (And orange juice is no more healthier than other competing sugar-fueled junk foods - they all have the dangerously high diabetes-inducing sugar content, and it's not good for your health!)
Don't care if we're using the good-old "manual pollination" technique or high-tech genetic modification - the fact that the crops we eat has been modified extensively until it doesn't resemble the original has been true for the whole existence of human civilization. Nowadays what people call natural "real" food is just a simulacra - a copy of a real thing that doesn't exist anymore. I think people should be more willing to accept this reality if we're going to survive the Anthropocene (with all that climate change jazz) - we as a species have always changed and terraformed Earth and its various flora/fauna throughout millenia, and there is no going back to its original "real" state anymore.
Sugar is where the body gets energy. Obviously people growing crops for food favor crops that provide the same amount of energy for less work and land.
After humanity dies off or is moribund from the catastrophic effects of global warming, Earth, and its various remaining flora/fauna will revert back to a more natural state, until, after a millennia of healing, it gets unperverted by humanity's touch, and grain and fruit is once again, terrible for human consumption. Which would matter, if there were humans left.
How do they come with these quantifications that something is 3000 sweeter than sugar. What does that even mean? Cool find though, I hope it works - in the past it's seemed that while you may be able to fool your tongue, your stomach and brain are not so easily fooled.
I imagine it's the same way they measure scoville units.
It's sensitivity.
How much of the substance is required for a group of people to consistently correctly guess which of two identical water glasses have been spiked with the substance.
If it's like this then 1/3000 is required compared to sugar.
Could be the size of the molecule that will activate the relevant taste receptors, or the number of active molecules in a given volume of product, or given weight.
"could put a dent in the global metabolic disease and obesity epidemic"
We've had artificial sweeteners for decades, a better one won't make the difference.
Fact that such a statement is still made in a publication in nature and goes unchallenged means that even the scientific community has a fundamentally wrong view on the obesity crisis.
It's not about safeness, it's about taste, cheapness, metabolism and gut. A protein is by far better than a synthetic one on all accounts (apparently).
The point is, why do we think going heavier on the sugar-free product strategy is going to provide any solutions when it's clearly not made a dent in the last 20 years since light products became prevalent?
The sugar-free alternatives do not taste like sugar, which is evident from a multitude of blind-studies over the years, this is the first sweetener of this kind that is indistinguishable from sugar in taste and texture.
No one here is making the claim that it should be used for weight loss, that's more of a carbs issue in general - to which we have no substitute yet.
That's the whole point of my comment, and a large part of the article: "could put a dent in the global metabolic disease and obesity epidemic".
So yeah that is what's everyone is claiming.
It might not taste exactly like it, but nothing will. Regardless. Zero alternatives have become a massive market, and im sure many prefer it after while, knowing how human taste develops.
Don't follow your line of arguing, Im pointing to the arguments made by the authors of an article published in Nature. Neither this Article or my comment referred to the motivation of the manufacturer.
- Sweet protein, 3000x sweeter than sugar
- Same texture/consistency as sugar.
- Can be baked (modified to be temperature stable)
- Unlikely to affect insulin and gut flora.
- Breaks down into common amino acids.
- Produced through fermentation (cheap & scalable).
- Indistinguishable taste profile compared to sugar (according to taste experts)
- May be on the market 2023 (if approved)
Here, take all my money!!