Why is sugar alcohol counted out?

[texastigerlily]

So my Schwan's man comes. I said, "I wish you had low carb ice cream" (in jest. He said, "We have butter pecan now." Really. It says 4 net carbs for 1/2 a cup on the brochure and on the front of the ice cream package. It's not of course. They subtracted the sugar alcohol.
IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO COUNT OUT SUGAR ALCOHOL!!!
It's such a stinking lie! Think of all of the diabetics in the world who never turn the package over and read the carb contents because on the front of the package it says, "Low # Net Carbs" or "Sugar Free." I don't get it. Why is this allowed? It's out and out fraud.

[SecondTimeAround]

It's even done on the Atkins products.

[gharkness]

Well, it IS illegal to count "out" the sugar alcohols. That's why (in the U.S.) the nutrition label, which is the official count of fat, protein and carbs, lists the sugar alcohols as carbohydrates. All the splashy advertising on the front of the package is just that - advertising - and is meaningless.

Or as one book told it: read the small print. The bigger the print, the less important the information.

[shecan1]

I know there is alot of debate about wether or not to count sugar alcohols as carbs or not - I never have. They have never sent me out of Ketosis and sometimes I just have to have chocolate. I love the Butter pecan low carb ice cream with 4-net carbs. I hate the sugar free ice cream with 6-carbs.
Sugar Alcohols do have problems - they make things very sweet which can cause cravings to eat more; and they can cause gastric distress if over used.

[ozdancer]

Originally Posted by shecan1

and they can cause gastric distress if over used.

'over used' is definitely a YMMV as a single serving of anything with sugar alcohols gives me terrible gas. Yes I need to consume quite a bit for the other digestive issues, but there are reactions to any level of sugar alcohol.

[quiet_observer]

Originally Posted by shecan1

I know there is alot of debate about wether or not to count sugar alcohols as carbs or not - I never have. They have never sent me out of Ketosis and sometimes I just have to have chocolate. I love the Butter pecan low carb ice cream with 4-net carbs. I hate the sugar free ice cream with 6-carbs.
Sugar Alcohols do have problems - they make things very sweet which can cause cravings to eat more; and they can cause gastric distress if over used.

Same result here. The only bad result (at least for me, I'm sure other people have issues as documented all over the web) is you don't want to eat too much of the SA's though; they cause much distress indeed . Especially if your body isn't used to them at all.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by texastigerlily

So my Schwan's man comes. I said, "I wish you had low carb ice cream" (in jest. He said, "We have butter pecan now." Really. It says 4 net carbs for 1/2 a cup on the brochure and on the front of the ice cream package. It's not of course. They subtracted the sugar alcohol.
IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO COUNT OUT SUGAR ALCOHOL!!!
It's such a stinking lie! Think of all of the diabetics in the world who never turn the package over and read the carb contents because on the front of the package it says, "Low # Net Carbs" or "Sugar Free." I don't get it. Why is this allowed? It's out and out fraud.

I totally agree! Just a piece or two of sf candy, and I'm out of ketosis!

[flatferenghi]

i paid the penalty for over-indulging in low carb Frankenfoods. Although, if limited to a per portion occassional treat, no harm is done. However, eating the whole package in one sitting, can leave one sitting in the commode an awful long time. Also, it is possible, with some diabetics, that even 1 portion can cause a blood sugar spike. with some people, 1 portion can create a stall. I choose to steer clear of the FRANKENFOOD experience on a regular basis, leaving it for once in a while, especially if the alternative is going off plan. In the ATKINS bars, there is glycerin and polydextrose, which is not figured into the Nutrition grid. this is why the numbers don't crunch. But I believe them when they say 2 grams net, or 3 grams net. They must know that some of us will get our lawyers after them, or the Better Business Bureau if the info is false. Love & Profits: FLAT YMMV FERENGHI.

[JuliaL]

Here's a great article about sugar alcohols. I've never been able to eat them and lose weight, even though they don't cause me any gastric distress.

Marketing Tricks: Net Carbs, Sugar Alcohols, Tricky Portion Sizes

[gharkness]

To my mind, the whole point is not about SA's but about responsibility.

It is up to the individual to make sure that what they put in their bodies is right for them, whatever that may be. Obviously, it is different for one person than for another.

The information is on the label. Forget the splashy advertising and read the nutrition label. (This is a generic recommendation for this thread, not a mandate to any one person.) If you know SA's don't work for you, then it doesn't matter what the label says. I learned about SA's at the ripe old age of 11, when I learned the hard way :-) No amount of fancy advertising will remove the memory of that day :-)

[Blood Sugar 101]

Sugar is counted out because the FDA is too understaffed and too busy trying to keep you from dying from e. coli to deal with lying label claims as long as the black print label tells the truth.

One half of every maltitol molecule turns into glucose. The same is pretty much true of Lacitol. Only erythritol is not metabolized into glucose in any significant amount.

You can tell very easily if you aren't turning maltitol or lacitol into glucose. If you get a huge attack of diarrhea after eating them, they didn't convert. If they did, you're fine.

[chiody]

So that's a quick way of flushing out the truth?

[SecondTimeAround]

Originally Posted by Blood Sugar 101

You can tell very easily if you aren't turning maltitol or lacitol into glucose. If you get a huge attack of diarrhea after eating them, they didn't convert. If they did, you're fine.

But you wouldn't want them to turn into glucose, right?

[Blood Sugar 101]

If I were trying to stay in a ketogenic state, I would NOT want them to turn into glucose.

Years ago in the interests of promoting Scientific knowledge I ran a comparison between Russell Stover Low carb (with Maltitol) and the same pieces from the regular box. Since I produce little or no insulin at meal times I can see a fairly linear spike from anything I eat (though I still produce "basal" insulin which will mop up very slow carbs.)

I found that the blood sugar rise from the "low carb" version was almost identical to that from the regular stuff except that it showed up on my blood sugar meter an hour or so later.

The old Atkins bars did horrible things to my blood sugar too, which wasn't surprising as they contained 20+ grams of carbs, each, not the 3 listed on the label. I haven't tried the more recent ones and don't intend to.

[SecondTimeAround]

Sugar alcohols don't appear to have any effect on ketosis for me, nor do they create stalls. However, they do taste very good and I have had portion control issues with SA items in the past. In that way, they CAN end up affecting my weight loss.

[texastigerlily]

I'm convinced SA raises BG, which stands to reason that it should NOT be counted.

[jamistar77]

The Atkins bars and shakes with the sugar alcohols, were created after Dr Atkins sold out to the Nutritionals. I think the label are miss leading. I read on package and on the front of the box it said 4 net carbs, On the back of the box, there were no SA listed, and if you subtracted the fiber from the carb, it turned out to be 12 net carbs??? I just dont trust low carb products. I think natural is the best to go.

[Blood Sugar 101]

The Atkins bars in the period 1998-2000 had labels that were an outright lie. The company was sued and came to a settlement that admitted guilt, but was just a slap on the wrist because to claim you had to be able to present proof you'd bought the productr--4 or 5 years before. And we know how many people can do that.

Oddly, the settlement document used to be online, but it has been removed and I can't find it. I wonder if the removal had something to do with the terms of the suit. Old low carbers from the very early 2000s will probably remember this.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by shecan1

I know there is alot of debate about wether or not to count sugar alcohols as carbs or not - I never have. They have never sent me out of Ketosis and sometimes I just have to have chocolate. I love the Butter pecan low carb ice cream with 4-net carbs. I hate the sugar free ice cream with 6-carbs.

Hi SheCan…
Yes, we like them too, and are frankly thankful for the body's inability to absorb/convert/burn (however one chooses to term it) these sugar alcohol thingys...

We don't count them in the net carb count.

Like everything, sugar alcohol uses could be abused, and a person could misapply it's uses...and those who do usually pay the price with diarrhea-ic consequences...

We love the treats, desserts, sweetening options and other uses Sugar Alcohol and it's offspring (Erythritol, maltitol, Xylitol etc) make possible, and the pleasure they to add to our eating.

[SLynnB]

For me, it boils down to which sugar alcohols. If it is maltitol, sorbitol, and isomalt, then it will raise my blood sugar as if I ate sugar. It it is xylitol or erythritol, then I'm OK.

sheryl