SHUGR tastes, cooks and bakes just like sugar

What would the perfect sweetener be? It would be natural. It would taste just like sugar. It would cook and bake just like sugar. It would have no calories at all. And it would be healthy: tooth-friendly and diabetic safe. Sounds impossible? Meet Shugr.

Shugr tastes like cane sugar, feels like cane sugar in the mouth, and has no aftertaste. It also has no calories -- zero. Shugr cooks and bakes like cane sugar -- it rises, it browns, and it caramelizes. There's no need for complex measurement conversions. A teaspoon of Shugr equals a teaspoon of sugar. A cup of Shugr equals a cup of sugar.

Shugr is 99.5 percent natural. It is not a synthetic chemistry lab creation. Rather, it is made from sugars that occur naturally in such good-tasting, healthy foods as fruits, vegetables, corn and dairy products. Called erythritol, maltodextrin and tagatose, these natural sugars provide a clean and delicious sweet taste.

Erythritol is commonly found in melon, grapes, mushrooms and soy. Maltodextrin is derived from corn sugar, which is non-GMO and gluten-free. Tagatose comes from dairy products, but does not affect people who are lactose intolerant. Tagatose also provides an added health benefit -- prebiotic fiber that promotes intestinal health, similar to the way yogurt does.

All of these ingredients carry a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) designation for food safety from the US Food & Drug Administration. The one-half of one percent? A trace amount of sucralose, less than .005 gram per teaspoon, which adds a final high note to the extraordinary sweet taste of Shugr.

Perhaps equally important is what Shugr does NOT contain. It is not made from any aspartame, cane sugar, acesulfame-K, saccharin, high fructose corn syrup, neotame, fructose, honey or stevia. "ShugrTM is truly the next generation of sweetener," says Loren Miles, CEO of Swiss Research, Inc. in Los Angeles, the maker of Swiss Diet and Shugr. "Obesity is arguably the greatest health threat of our time, leading a whole generation toward heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Tooth decay is a huge problem. Americans consume 20 teaspoons of sugar a day on average, 100 percent more that the recommended amount. Teens consume even more. For the first time in our history, obesity is now a serious disease in children as well as adults."

"Health-conscious people want to avoid sugar. But until now, all available sweeteners represented compromise. Some have no calories, but they taste bitter. Some have no calories until you cook with them -- then the calorie count goes way up. All were synthetics. Until now, there has been no natural, zero-calorie sweetener on the market that tastes and cooks just like sugar, has no aftertaste, is tooth-friendly, and is safe for diabetics and those who are lactose intolerant. Shugr represents a new milestone in America's quest for a sweetener we can both savor and trust."

Miles said Shugr is expected to be available in 3,000 retail outlets, including health food and other natural product stores, as well as in mass drug and food stores, during the second quarter of 2005.

Since publicly introducing Shugr to the world on Valentine's Day, Swiss Research Inc. has received dozens of inquiries from major food manufacturers who want to explore substituting Shugr for other sweeteners in their products. The company expects to announce a distribution arrangement with a major premium coffee house and a licensing agreement with a notable beverage in the next few months.

"There have also been calls from gourmet chefs, leading restaurants, and even from schools that train chefs," said Miles. "The concept of a natural, zero calorie sweetener that tastes like sugar and really cooks and bakes like sugar is proving especially intriguing to good cooks." For more information, visit www.shugr.com or www.swissdiet.com.

http://sheknows.com/about/look/5701.htm

I just automatically distrust something that's made to fool your body into thinking it's something else -- especially here, when the product seems too good to be true. Humans aren't made to consume sugar in large amounts, we are only now discovering that, so instead of backing off and focusing on the foods we are meant to eat, we are constantly trying to get around the limitations of our bodies with chemical tricks. It could work, and in the long run probably will, but there are going to be some hits and misses on the way, especially now while the research is still in its nascent stages.

I suppose what it comes down to is, I have no desire to gamble with my (already compromised) health on unproven stuff like this in exchange for tasting something I'm really not supposed to. There's too much misinformation out there, and the stakes for the companies pumping this stuff out are high enough for them to fudge research and cut corners to get around government regulations and agencies that are being weakened every day. In such an environment, by consuming this stuff I get a fleeting taste of sweetness in exchange for what, an increased risk of cancer or heart disease? Worse? Everyone has to make up their own minds on this stuff, and I know what the public will do, but I'm enough of an economist to still believe in the adage, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Or a risk-free sweetener.

Hehe, they refer people to the Mercola Site to read about aspartame!

And I see it is "made with a trace amount of sucralose [Splenda] for enhanced sweetener effect". Interesting.

Also, isn't it the maltodextrin in granular Splenda that gives it its carbs? I'd say, based on this press release and the websites, that there will be some carbs in Shugr that will need to be counted towards your total on a low carb diet. Just how many remains to be seen as they don't seem to have a proper nutritional breakdown (say for 100g rather than a "serving") anywhere in the publicity.

Interesting to see a producer finally taking advantage of the erythritol + other sweetener synergistic effect. Thanks for posting this, Karen, very interesting stuff!

Em

I've consumed all 3, and there's nothing wrong with them (other than Maltodextrin being a 105 GI, 4 kcal/g Carbohydrate - i.e. the rough equivelant of pixie stix sugar - 100 GI) that I can tell. Maltodextrin is the same Carbohydrate filler found in Granular/Packet Splenda. I would definitely limit it (count 1g CHO per packet) as you do Splenda.

As for the other two ingredients, Erythritol is a unique Sugar Alcohol. It is unique in that unlike Maltitol, Lactitol, and the like it doesn't seem to cause stomach problems in most folks and it is 0 GI (0.2 kcal/g = < 5% Absorbed) versus 7-50 GI (1.5-3.0 kcal/g or 30-75% Absorbed) This is because unlike how Lactitol, etc...are fermented in the large (?) intestine, Erythritol is primarily excreted through the urine. It is used as a filler for some brands of Stevia.

Tagatose is a sugar derived from Dairy. Its a 6 Carbon (C6H12O6) Sugar like Glucose, Fructose, Galactose, etc...But, in its specific configuration, the body in only able to absorb about 0-30% of it, giving it a caloric value of I believe <1.5 kcal/g [versus 4 kcal/g for regular sugar] and a GI of something like 3.

Basically, what it appears is that these folks have simply taken Tagatose and cut it with Erythritol and Maltodextrin. Don't ask me why since Tagatose doesn't need to be cut as it measures nearly cup-for-cup as is.

A Blend of Tagatose, Erythritol, and Sucralose (unfillered Splenda) is used in 7-11's Diet Pepsi Slurpee which they introduced 1-1/2 years ago (I get one whenever I visit family - and the machine is working or I have time to freeze it myself). But, even where they have 7-11s (the nearest ones to here are Tampa and Houston, both about 400-500 miles away), they're getting hard to find because the machines don't work 99% of the time and clerks are replacing them (presumably because they aren't selling well, because the machines don't work [freeze] 99% of the time) with the higher carb (<40g NET/<40g Total versus 0g NET/12g Total) Crystal Light Slurpees.

Personally, I'd like to be able to buy uncut/unfillered Tagatose...

I don't eat any of it; I simply don't trust the rigor of the science that goes into demonstrating the safety of these things. Saccharine was supposed to be safe, then it wasn't, now there seems to be doubt. I drink an occasional diet drink with aspartame (after years of drinking gallons of the crap every day to wash down all the really bad stuff I ate ), and wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if tomorrow it turns out aspartame causes birth defects, or is linked to Alzheimer's or some other ghastly negative thing.

Saturated fats were bad, margarine was good, and before eating butter, you should make sure your will is up to date, then get a horse syringe full of cholesterol and inject it directly into your heart. Now, we all know that's nonsense, but there are still people out there, scientists in fact, pushing it. As late as the 1950s, tobacco companies were running commercials claiming smoking was good for your health, and few scientists claimed they knew better (those who definitely did know better were generally employed by the tobacco companies, and kept their traps shut).


In light of the kind of ... checkered history food additives have (especially when there's big money involved), and the increasingly loose regulatory climate in this country, I'm taking a pass on this stuff. I don't want to be a part of some class action lawsuit in the year 2040 claiming erythritol caused my cancer, or diabetes, or whatever it might be. Again, the payoff -- one sweet treat that I will have forgotten by tomorrow except to want it again -- isn't worth it to me.

If erythritol has such a low absorption rate, how does it get to the kidneys in order to be excreted in urine?


Doreen

I wish I could remember where I read this...

I read that erythritol's molecules are so small they are absorbed directly into the bloodstream while in the stomach...hence it's lack of intestinal distress because it never reaches the intestines. Anything absorbed into the bloodstream will, of course, reach the kidneys.

Sorry I have no reference for this info...hopefully someone else here will remember it.

OK, I did a bit of searching .. and it appears that erythritol is very rapidly and almost completely absorbed from the small intestine; only a small amount (<5%) reaches the colon which is where the typical digestive problems of other sugar alcohols are likely to occur. However, it's not metabolized by liver ... therefore it circulates in the bloodstream unchanged and is ultimately filtered by the kidneys into the urine to be excreted .. unchanged. http://www.caloriecontrol.org/erythritol.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmm ... I wonder what these new sugar substitutes do to blood cells while circulating unmetabolized or unchanged. We know what glucose damages hemoglobin and other blood proteins through glycation .. and fructose, which is widely touted as ideal for diabetics because it doesn't impact blood sugar or insulin, will glycate blood proteins at a rate nearly 10x that of glucose. From what I can tell .. it looks like only short-term studies have been done, max. 14 days.


Doreen

Sounds like it has promise although it could be all hipe. I will be first in line to get it as soon as I know where. I think it has to be better than sugar and an ever expanding waist line.

Ouch! It is 9.95 for a "shaker bottle". Doesn't sound like it'll be the sort of thing you can use in quantity for baking unless the price comes way down. I've been real excited about Tagatose for a long time.

Not sure I want strange chemicals floating about my bloodstream just so I can indulge in a sweet taste. I rather control my taste for sweetness.

Maybe it will cause kidney problem down the line.

I think we would do well to remember the old adage "If it sound too good to be true, it problably is".

Great news, Karen. Thanks for sharing.

Until Splenda every NN Sweetener gave me problems (migraine, bladder infections etc.) So I'll need to be careful with any new product.

Remember Olestra? Uh, let's just say I'd rather not talk about it.

Hope all is well.

Well I would like to try it. It would have to traste better then Splenda for it to be worthwhile, cost less and have fewer carbs. Unless it can beat splenda it won't sell.

Actually, there's a market for sweeteners that can replicate the baking/cooking qualities of sugar. Which the only things that come close are sugar alcohols. There are things Splenda just can't do. But as far as sweetening drinks, coffee, simple sorts of tasks, Splenda does a fine job. But try to make a custard, creme brulee, syrup, chocolate with splenda and you'll see how it just can't cut the... butter.

Since it has a low absorption rate it has to be excreted. The kidneys are the excreters.