Replicating Shugr - Scott123?

[madamos]

I originally posted this in the "Main Lowcarb Lobby"...

Hi everyone!

I'm excited about the implications of Shugr (the new sugar substitute) and its component tagatose. I'm equally as concerned, however, over the price of Shugr and the lack of availability of bulk/tabletop tagatose.

My question is this - since poly-d and E are its primary ingredients, is there a magic formula/ratio that will net us a low-calorie, low-GI sweetener using these same ingredients (i.e. match Shugr's performance) but by using sucrose instead of tagatose?

Thanks in advance!

[LowCarbConvert]

If you don't mind, I'd like to repeat my post, and I still would like to know why you'd want to use sucrose?

Looks like an interesting product.

"My question is this - since poly-d and E are its primary ingredients, is there a magic formula/ratio that will net us a low-calorie, low-GI sweetener using these same ingredients (i.e. match Shugr's performance) but by using sucrose instead of tagatose?"


I don't see Poly D listed as an ingredient of Shugr. The site I visited says it's made with Erythritol, maltodextrin, and sucralose.
I haven't tried tagatose, but I don't think I'd replace anything with sucrose, as sucrose is table sugar.

I like using Scott123's "Poly D, Erithritol, and Splenda" combination, it works very well.

Oh wait, I was just reading another discussion from a while back, and someone said they started out making Shugr using Poly D, but changed to maltodextrin. That's too bad, because the Poly D/erythritol/splenda combo that Scott made up is the best. Hummm... maybe they stole the idea from Scott!

[shawneesioux]

Thanks for bringing this product to our attention.

Shugr will cause some major discussions, which is a GOOD thing...we all need to do our own research, ask questions.. and make individual decisions...

Their home site declares it tastes and cooks like sugar...interesting claim...

Unless/until its $$$ price drops dramatically, it will remain financially out of reach for most folk, especially anyone interested in using it for cooking/baking.

Here's their pricing info:

3.04 oz costs $9.95 for 50 Servings (plus Shipping, add on $7.95)



Shawnee

[Charski]

I first got wind of this product about a year ago I think - and it was so expensive even *I* wouldn't part with the $$ to try it out! LOL!

And I wonder why you'd want to use sucrose (table sugar) in ANY event? Unless you aren't low-carbing and/or have insulin issues?

Char

[madamos]

Thanks so much for the replies AND the warm welcomes !

Now to the question about my mention of sucrose...

As I am not a strict low-carber per se, I don't mind a little sugar here and there. My primary goal when using alternative sweeteners is reducing glycemic load and overall caloric impact.

Having said that, I'm not averse to using just enough sugar to balance the sweetening synergy equation. My question is how much or, better put, how little real sugar can I use in conjunction with E and Poly-D and still achieve the sweetening and baking performance claimed by Shugr?

Scott123 once mentioned that, in his opinion, it is worth eating half-a-brownie daily for a week if it meant ultimately that he would be able to eat real brownies for the rest of his life. This is how I feel about the above proposition. It's worth - in my estimation - the few calories supplied by sugar if using it means a sweetener that is second only to a full quantity of the real thing.

[LowCarbConvert]

Ohhhh- I got ya!

Sugar is kind of foreign to us folks over here.

Poly D is pretty expensive, and it's best use is to provide the bulk and mouth feel of sugar, so if you used equal amounts of sugar, erythritol, and Splenda- you'd probably get really good results without the need for the Poly D.
That would be easy to measure, too- 1/3 cup of each for every 1 C of sugar replaced. You could start there and then tweak the amounts for your own taste.

Or no. Wait a minute- you'd have to back down on the sweeteners because of that synergy. 2 T Erythritol?

[scott123]

Okay, I crunched some of the numbers for shugr and came up with some interesting observations.

According to the packaging, 1 t. of shugr:

Weighs 1.4 grams
Contains .0005 g sucralose (.2 g sugar equivalent)

Now, with this in mind, I tried coming up with a combination of erythritol, maltodextrin, tagatose and sucralose that weighs in at 1.4 g but has a post synergy sweetening equivalent of 4 g (1 teaspoon). You know what? It can't be done. No matter what numbers I plug in, the highest amount of pre-synergy sweetening comes to about 1/3 of a teaspoon. My experience with synergy has always ranged from 130% to 175%. I wouldn't be skeptical of a 200% boost given the number of sweeteners. But 300%... No, that's not possible.

Does this prevent me from creating a suitable clone? No. I can still do that. But it does raise some questions regarding the companies claims. Some further questions. I already have them down for a big strike in my book with their "bakes like sugar claim." It's a physical impossibility for 1.4 grams of erythritol, maltodextrin and tagatose to provide the same texture as 4 grams of sugar. It'll create a little more moisture/gooeyness than the .5 grams of maltodextrin in splenda, but not much.

I'm also a little miffed at the manfacturers for playing up the new sweetener tagatose, when in reality, there's very little tagatose in this.

My qualms aren't that large but when you put them all together and combine them with an utterly outrageous price tag, it underlines the fact that I don't ever plan on doing business with this company.

Regardless of my personal issues, one nice thing about the tight sweetening formulation is that it makes replicating it fairly easy. Erythritol is the least sweet of the three sweeteners (70% as sweet as sugar), so the less erythritol the mix contains the sweeter it will be. As erythritol is the first ingredient, in order to contain the least possible amount, the mix has to have almost equal proportions of erythritol, maltodextin and tagatose by weight.

Madamos, what I'm finding is that the people who are the most enamored by shugr are those low carbers that have never combined sweeteners before. Shugr tastes wonderful not because of some proprietary process or because the tagatose is super duper but because of the combining involved. As I have said many times, erythritol, splenda and a third sweetener make for a phenomenal sweetening mix. Tagatose does have a good synergy with splenda, but no better than ace k or stevia. The only thing tagatose brings to the table is superior caramelization/browning qualities. With this in mind, I'd recommend two mixes. Polyd/erythritol/splenda/ace k for when you don't require browning, polyd/eryhtritol/fructose/splenda for when you do.

Why fructose... well... I have railed quite a bit about the dangers of fructose, especially in conversations regarding whey low, but in this context, the amount of fructose would be small enough to mitigate it's long term health concerns while at the same time, provide a similar amount of browning as tagatose. In other words, in whey low, first ingredient listed type formulations, fructose is public enemy number 1. In the third position, small quantity/infrequent use formulations such as I'm recommending here, fructose could be the lesser of two evils when compared with sucrose. I also think it's the logical choice because of it's molecular similarity to tagatose. The two are very closely related.

Ideally, you'll use the non browning mix almost all the time and break out the fructose tainted version only for those rare occasions when you require color.

Now, this all being said, if your heart is set on sugar as a replacement for the tagatose and nothing I've said here changes it, I'll be more than happy to work within your paradigm and come up with a sugar based formula.

It's up to you.

[madamos]

Scott,

Thanks a MILLION for your reply!

I can't say I'm really all that surprised about the Shugr labeling tomfoolery; after all, the health food industry is rife with wolves in sheep's clothing. It's funny that you mentioned Whey Low. When Vivalac first came on the scene I admit I quickly signed on with the product, even though my better judgment kept screaming "HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU EXPECT TO GET A LOW-CALORIE SWEETENER OUT OF SOMETHING MADE ENTIRELY OF SUGAR?!!!".
Ah well...



I'm not married to the idea of Shugr itself (and I'm actually rather pleased to hear about tagatose's relatively lackluster performance, given its scarcity) but rather to the formulation of a sweetening blend with functions similar to what Shugr's manufacturers claimed for their product (i.e. Maillard reactivity, hygroscopic performance, etc.). In short, I want to whip up something that will function like sugar without leaving me with hyperinsulinemia and my wallet with anorexia.

Since you've made the terrible mistake of giving me a choice () I'd like to see what can be accomplished using both the sucrose and the fructose platforms. I'm wary of fructose because, as you stated, it is certainly not health-smart, particularly in the way the liver loves to churn out triglycerides given an ample supply of it. I also hold a bit of ambivalence toward acesulfame potassium, due largely in part to its panning by the nutritional industry watchdog CSPI (see the reference here).

Now sucrose is no darling by any stretch of the imagination, but at the very least:

1.) It's CHEAP.
2.) Its glycemic-related evils can be mitigated in the context of a balanced meal.

The major detriment to sucrose, at least in my mind, is its caloric impact, but I'm confident that this (and point #2 above) can be controlled provided the amount used isn't overly significant.

Also, with regard (again) to tagatose: you mentioned it possesses superior caramelization properties. Is this in comparison to polydextrose as well, or sucralose alone?

Looking forward to hearing from you again!

[aloise]

Originally Posted by LowCarbConvert

I like using Scott123's "Poly D, Erithritol, and Splenda" combination, it works very well.

can you explain what this combination is? (or maybe Scott123 can ?)

[LowCarbConvert]

aloise,
Yes:

For 1 cup sugar, use:
1/3 C. splenda equivalent
1/3 C. erythritol
1 packet Sweet One ace K (2 t. equivalent)
2/3 C. polyd


This is subject to change, of course. I don't know if Scott123 has upped the amount of poly d, but remember him mentioning something to that effect.
There are a lot of posts on the polydextrose thread... it's a long thread! But there are some substitutions for folks using stevia, etc.
Sometimes, I have to back down on the Splenda because it seems too sweet in certain things.

[madamos]

*BUMP* for Scott123's continued guidance

[scott123]

*in my deepest voice*

You rang?

Regarding ace k... Although I've learned quite a bit from CSPI over the years, I don't consider them completely infallible. I definitely don't take everything they say at face value. Besides being anti-ace k, they're also anti-stevia, a stance that I also don't agree with 100%. When it comes to the long-term safety of alternative sweeteners, none of them give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Can anyone really say that splenda is safe for long-term use? Who is to say what knowledge 10 or 20 years will bring to surface about these chemicals? Could ace k use more testing? Absolutely. Stevia? By all means. Splenda? You betcha. Everything deserves harsh scrutiny. The only sweeteners to get a completely clean bill of health for long-term use are sugar alcohols. They may laxate you, but they won't give you cancer.

By using ace k in small amounts, I'm able to decrease my splenda usage dramatically. By decreasing my overall sweetener intake AND spreading the risk over a variety of sweeteners, I feel safer. Besides, a cup of my sweetener contains only 1/100 of a teaspoon of pure ace k. Within that context, I'm not lying awake at night.

Okay, enough about ace k. Let's get formulating!

You asked for two forms of a shugr clone and I've decided to give you four. At no extra cost I might add Why four? Well, as I was formulating, it occurred to me shugr's mass problem could be solved, creating a 'better than shugr.' Since a 'better than shugr' isn't the same thing as a shugr replica, I'm giving you both. It's two for one day at Scott's Sweetener Emporium

All formulas add up to one cup sweetening equivalent.

Shugr Clone - Fructose

2 1/2 t. Splenda equivalent
2 T. Erythritol
2 T. Fructose
2 T. + 1/2 t. Polyd

This is pretty close to shugr (subbing fructose for the tagatose and polyd for the maltodextrin), complete with shugr's outrageously optimistic 300% synergy forecast.

'Better than Shugr' - Fructose

4 T. Splenda equivalent
3 T. Erythritol
2 T. Fructose
2/3 C. Polyd

This is, imo, a more truthful accounting for synergy. I have also taken the liberty of scaling down the fructose to a more reasonable dose. In addition, I've corrected the mass to match the weight of 1 cup. The amount of polyd in this will give you assimilation issues, but, at the same time, it will go a long way in preventing erythritol crystallization and provide true sugary texture to baked goods. Because of the truthful synergy and the appropriate mass, I'd use this for subbing for sugar rather than the version above.

Shugr Clone - Sucrose

1 T. 2 t. Splenda equivalent
2 T. Erythritol
2 T. Fructose
2 T. + 1/2 t. Polyd

Same as above, except using sucrose. The extra splenda is here to compensate for the missing sweetness from the fructose (which, in turn, compensated for the disparity between maltodextrin and polyd). This will brown, but not as well as the fructose version.

'Better than Shugr' - Sucrose

5 T. Splenda equivalent
3 T. Erythritol
2 T. Sucrose
2/3 C. Polyd

Same tweaks as above, sucrose style.

As I type this, the words fructose and sucrose keep reminding me of my arch nemesis, Whey Low. As much as I hate the stuff/hate the people that sell it, I think you might do well utilizing whey low as the sucrose component. Something like this:

'Better than Shugr' - Whey Low

5 T. Splenda equivalent
3 T. Erythritol
2 T. Whey Low
2/3 C. Polyd

The whey low will drive up the cost a bit, but it'll give you good browning (better than sucrose) and may (a big may) be healthier than pure fructose. You could also follow their lead and use half fructose/half sucrose on your own.

In response to your question regarding tagatose and browning, tagatose has superior browning abilities in relation to sugar, which, in turn browns quite a bit easier than polyd. Sucralose doesn't brown at all.

Note, because of the substitutions involved, these formulas will not measure like shugr (or sugar). You'll have to get the quantities of shugr (or sugar) from the recipe and use my formula for conversion. In theory, you probably could grind the mix into a fine enough powder so that it did measure like sugar, but that would probably be more trouble than it's worth.

[madamos]

Not only do I appreciate - and vastly more than I can quantify with a simple post - your wonderfully detailed response, but I think you've assauged my concerns over ace-k as well. Have you seriously considered a career in politics ?

So now I have the secret formulas using sucrose, fructose, and a combination of the two. Does anything necessarily change if I use ace-k? IOW, do you simply halve the amount of Splenda called for and substitute ace-k, or is there a better ratio?

I'm also going to infer from your reply that erythritol and poly-d provide no browning capability on their own (but I believe they do caramelize to some extent?), so that if I were to altogether drop sucrose/fructose from the mix and go with the ace-k formulation I would have no "response" in that area when baking, correct?

Now I have to go lie down on a bed of nails with a light bulb in my mouth .

[aloise]

Wow, Scott.. thank you so much for this detailed answer. well, I use stevia most of the time, but there are a couple of things that I do not like stevia for, so I will try this.

I really like lo han kuo (magic fruit).. but it is expensive. Have you tried this? it is great on some things.

[scott123]

Originally Posted by madamos

So now I have the secret formulas using sucrose, fructose, and a combination of the two. Does anything necessarily change if I use ace-k? IOW, do you simply halve the amount of Splenda called for and substitute ace-k, or is there a better ratio?

When you add ace-k, synergy comes into the picture, so you have to lower the overall sweetener to compensate for the boost.

If you're open to using a little ace k, then I'd bag the whole fructose/sucrose angle and go with the formula Karen posted above:

For 1 cup sugar, use:
1/3 C. splenda equivalent
1/3 C. erythritol
1 packet Sweet One ace K (2 t. equivalent)
2/3 C. polyd

I tweak this a little bit for every recipe that I do, but this is pretty much what I've been using for quite some time now. It's low ace k (1/100 t pure ace k/cup), has the same mass/textural qualities as sugar, the ratio of polyd/e is good for preventing erythritol crystallization/coolness, the carbs/calories are extremely low, the potential for gastric distress is minimal and, most importantly, it tastes phenomenal. Not to mention the price. Per cup it comes to about $1.75, which translates into $3.50 per pound. The only thing that tastes better than this mix is maltitol and, besides the obvious laxation/glycemic issues, you can't get maltitol for $3.50/lb.

Polyd browns, just not quite as well as sugar does. Erythritol doesn't brown. None of the sugar alcohols are capable of browning. You hear stories about someone 'caramelizing' erythritol or isomalt- I think it stems from a lack of understanding of what 'caramelizing' means. Caramelizing and browning are synonomous. Sugar alcohols will glass, i.e. turn to candy (at least some will) but they will not brown. It's a chemical impossibility.

I would use the formula above for everyday use, and for when you need browning, I'd add ace k to the 'better than shugr' fructose version, since fructose browns better than sugar. Here's how I'd approach it:

'Better than Shugr' - Fructose/Ace K

2 T. Splenda equivalent
3 T. Erythritol
2 T. Fructose
1/8 t. Sweet One ace k (less than half a packet)
2/3 C. Polyd

[scott123]

Originally Posted by aloise

Wow, Scott.. thank you so much for this detailed answer. well, I use stevia most of the time, but there are a couple of things that I do not like stevia for, so I will try this.

I really like lo han kuo (magic fruit).. but it is expensive. Have you tried this? it is great on some things.

Aloise, give the formula Karen posted a shot, I think you'll like it.

I picked up a dried lo han fruit from my Asian grocer. It tasted great when I ground it into a powder, but I have yet to add it to any baked goods. What are you baking that you like lo han in?

[magnamater]

Okay, you guys, just start on the floor to ROFL. . .but, I am hoping I am reading the advice above correctly, the sucrose You are talking about is what we refer to as sugar?

I'm sure some other poor soul is just afraid to ask, feeling really stupid, so let me be stupid for all of us who WANT TO KNOW!!

[madamos]

Yep - sucrose is just plain 'ol table sugar, or at least that's what the kids are calling it these days

[CRosie]

Thanks Scott!

1/3 c. splenda equivalent - is that granular splenda w/ the maltodextrin?

Anxious to try your combo - is it possible that the bulk of this combo will exceed that of 1 cup sugar and create problems depending on the recipe?


Thanks, Rosie

[binki]

Can you make these recipes up in quantity, do you think?

I'm specifically talking about the ones without sucrose/fructose/whey low--it'd be nice to have a big ol' canister on the counter just ready to go but I wonder if there would be any issues with homogeneity or clumping/crystallizing weirdness.

(This would assume the use of granular Splenda, so you'd need to scoop a cup and a third of this mixture to equal a cup of sugar, yes?)

[Kelleygirl2]

I have found polydextrose and erythritol at very good prices at
www.honeyvillegrain.com

The shipping cost is under $5 no matter how much you buy.

If when ordering you use the code AATW you will receive a 10% discount!
By the way, the AATW stands for "Atkins all the way".

Kay

[scott123]

Originally Posted by CRosie

1/3 c. splenda equivalent - is that granular splenda w/ the maltodextrin?

Anxious to try your combo - is it possible that the bulk of this combo will exceed that of 1 cup sugar and create problems depending on the recipe?

Rosie, it's either 1/3 C. of granular splenda or 1/3 C. equivalent of liquid splenda.

The bulk on this is close to sugar. Although granular splenda has the same volume as sugar, it has very little substance. When it hits water it shrinks to nothing. When you remove the splenda from the picture, it's just 2/3 C. polyd and 1/3 C erythritol. Right on the money for 1 cup sugar.

[scott123]

Originally Posted by binki

Can you make these recipes up in quantity, do you think?

I'm specifically talking about the ones without sucrose/fructose/whey low--it'd be nice to have a big ol' canister on the counter just ready to go but I wonder if there would be any issues with homogeneity or clumping/crystallizing weirdness.

(This would assume the use of granular Splenda, so you'd need to scoop a cup and a third of this mixture to equal a cup of sugar, yes?)

I think you could probably mix this stuff beforehand. As long as it's in an air tight container, it should last indefinitely. The granular splenda will increase the carbs as well as the price, though.

As far as measuring... I can't say for sure. Probably a cup and a third will work, but there's a slight chance the different particles could fit in with each other better (with less air), or maybe not fit in with each other as well (and create more air). I would recommend making up a batch up and measuring the total volume and see if it adds up to the components.

I spend quite a lot of time dispensing sweeteners so I can see where you're coming from. As convenient as it would be to have a mix already put together, I like the freedom of being able to fine tune the sweetener formula for each recipe. I don't think this mix is quite in the realm of a one size fits all solution. It's good, but I'd like to get some more feedback and monitor it a little longer.

If you do make a mix, I wouldn't recommend making a huge amount of it. We've learned a lot about these sweeteners, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. This mix may not change all that much or that soon, but it will change.

[aloise]

Originally Posted by scott123

Aloise, give the formula Karen posted a shot, I think you'll like it.

I picked up a dried lo han fruit from my Asian grocer. It tasted great when I ground it into a powder, but I have yet to add it to any baked goods. What are you baking that you like lo han in?

I don't do a lot of baking.. I have a black baking thumb however, since we are all carbon based life forms, so it can't be that bad if some carbon appears in my food sometimes, right? (my son doesn't agree either)

I use the liquid stevia for most things, but there are some things that I like a 'granular" type sweetener. Like with berries. the flavor of lo han is wonderful with fruits (perhaps because it comes from a fruit).

I've read up on erythritol, and it seems to be safe.

actually, I have seen some mixtures sold as lo han that are actually very much like the mixtures you have come up with, only they use lo han, instead of splenda. Here is the description of one of them:

Luo han guo is a very sweet fruit found in China. Extracts of luo han guo (also spelled Lo han guo, Luo han kuo, or lo han kuo) are now being marketed as a sweetener. Lo Han Kuo is the fruit of Momordica grosvenori, a plant cultivated in the mountains of southern China. Mogrosides, which are water extracted from the Lo Han fruit, offer a pleasant, sweet taste without elevating blood sugar. Lo Han Kuo Mogrosides are up to 200 times sweeter than sugar.

Xylitol, a naturally occurring polyol, is sweet with a distinct cooling sensation in the mouth. Xylitol is metabolized differently from a conventional sugar and does not cause or contribute to tooth decay. Xylitol is as sweet as sugar, having 40% less calories.

Inulin-FOS (FructoOligoSaccharide) is a soluble fiber and promotes beneficial intestinal bacterial growth.

Lo Han Sweet advantages:
• Low Glycemic Index: Does not cause extreme fluctuations in blood sugar.
• Heat Stable: Very stable under high temperature and can be added to both hot as well as cold foods. Suitable for cooking and baking.
• Low Calorie: 2 calories per serving of 2g (about 1/2 teaspoon).

they don't mention proportions.. but it wouldn't be that much to start with something based on your formulas.

I can't remember the brand I tried, but I found it at whole foods. It was good, but expensive.

Thank you for posting your formulas.

[madamos]

Here's the $1,000,000 question, Scott...

If erythritol doesn't brown or caramelize but poly-d does, why include erythritol at all, especially given the fact that our sweetening needs are more than aptly handled by the tag-team of ace-K and sucralose?

Just wonderin' is all.

[scott123]

Madamos, the erythritol is there for the synergy/quality of taste. If you've ever had splenda sweetened diet soda, you've tasted splenda and ace k together. The combination is pretty good/far better than splenda alone but it's not as good as when you add erythritol to the mix. That third sweetener (polyd isn't considered a sweetener but a bulking agent) really 'kicks things up a notch' With three good sweeteners, it becomes almost impossible to detect any aftertaste. With three good sweeteners, you're talking the real taste of sugar- clean, pure sweetness. You can't do that with splenda or splenda/ace k.