Shugr...new Gf Alternative To Other Sweeteners

[celiac3270]

DNP International to distribute Shugr

Apr 22,2005-Shugr is made from sugars that occur naturally in such good-tasting, healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, corn and dairy products.

22/04/05 Health Sciences Group, Inc., provider of innovative nutritional products and functional food ingredients derived from natural sources, has announced that it has signed a non-exclusive distribution agreement with DNP International Co., Inc. to distribute its Swiss Diet® Shugr sweetener as a raw material ingredient to manufacturers nationwide and globally. DNP International is a leading importer and distributor of raw materials to manufacturers in the food, beverage and nutritional supplement industries, among others.

Shugr is made from sugars that occur naturally in such good-tasting, healthy foods such 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, much 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.

Shugr does not contain any aspartame, neotame, saccharin, fructose, high fructose corn syrup, acesulfame-K, cane sugar, honey or stevia.

Health Sciences Group identifies, develops and commercializes innovative nutritional products derived from natural sources to provide consumers and medical professionals with preventative healthcare alternatives. The company markets its own line of proprietary products based on novel technologies with clinically-supported, GRAS-certified ingredients under its Swiss Research and Swiss Diet brand names.

Swiss Research, Inc. markets and sells branded nutraceutical products addressing major wellness categories, including weight management, arthritis support, cholesterol reduction and diabetes management. SwissDiet®, its line of weight-loss products, includes Shugr®, the world's first natural, diabetes-friendly, zero-calorie sweetener that looks, tastes and cooks like sugar; proprietary diet capsules, SlimSupport capsules for craving control, CalorieMinus peppermint wafers for fat absorption, MealSource meal replacement powdered drink mix, and SlimSource nutritional energy drink mix. Other unique and innovative products, marketed under the Swiss Research® brand name, include Sequestrol, a natural proprietary nutritional supplement and functional ingredient which is clinically proven to assist in the reduction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglyceride levels; and CellSource for joint relief and flexibility. Swiss Research distributes its products through national retail channels as well as online.

DNP International, Inc. imports and distributes raw material ingredients to manufacturers in the food, beverage, dietary supplement, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. Founded in 1994, DNP is one of the largest suppliers of raw materials in the United States sourcing over two thousand different ingredients. Headquartered in Irvine, California, DNP has locations in Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey.

Open Original Shared Link

[Lisa Ann]

Since I'm new I have read anything re. Splenda, Nutrasweet and Sweet and Low are they gluten-free?

[KaitiUSA]

Yeah they are but they are really bad for you...I stick with the natural stuff like Xylitol and Stevia...they taste just as good but don't mess with blood sugars or cause side effects.

[celiac3270]

Since I'm new I have read anything re. Splenda, Nutrasweet and Sweet and Low are they gluten-free?

The ones I know are gluten-free are: Stevia, Splenda, Natrataste, Sweetnlow, and Equal. Try to avoid Splenda, as it causes gastro. symptoms in many people (celiac or not) ...not that Equal or Sweet n low are good either, but they're not as likely to cause symptoms as Splenda.

[AmberSki]

Not so sure about this product. It doesn't look any better than Splenda which I refuse to use since it's chemically made. Check out www.shugr.com the ingredients include maltodextrin & sucralose. Sucralose is made from the chemical compound derived from chlorine used for Splenda. Maltodextrin is not good for most people as it causes spikes in blood sugar. I don't know if that makes sense I'm not the best spokesperson on this subject but the info is out there on the web if you search for any of these ingredients. I don't think I'll be rushing out to buy any Shugr!

[tarnalberry]

BTW, Splenda is not derived from chlorine. It's regular sugar, with one of the two cyclics flipped over and an OH group replaced with a chlorine. While some people don't do great with it, studies have not shown it to be dangerous to your health. Of course, if your body doesn't do well with it, don't use it. (FWIW, there have been studies done on stevia, showing a negative effect on the reproductive glads of male rats. Of course, there's still plenty of debate as to whether or not the study means anything in humans! :-) )

[celiac3270]

(FWIW, there have been studies done on stevia, showing a negative effect on the reproductive glads of male rats. Of course, there's still plenty of debate as to whether or not the study means anything in humans! :-) )

Eiew....I use regular sugar whenever possible, anyway, and have never used Stevia, but I don't think I will in the future. If you can use it (and aren't diabetic, for example), I think you're better off with plain old sugar.

[KaitiUSA]

Even though I am not diabetic or hypoglycemic I do have to watch my blood sugar because I notice problems arise about an hour after I have excessive amounts of sugar. I do eat regular sugar for some things but when I can I try to use a natural kind that will not mess with blood sugar.

This is an article I found about why sugar is bad

The white crystalline substance we know of as sugar is an unnatural substance produced by industrial processes (mostly from sugar cane or sugar beets) by refining it down to pure sucrose, after stripping away all the vitamins, minerals, proteins, enzymes and other beneficial nutrients. What is left is a concentrated unnatural substance which the human body is not able to handle, at least not in anywhere near the quantities that is now ingested in today's accepted lifestyle. Sugar is addictive. The average American now consumes approximately 115 lbs. of sugar per year. This is per man, woman and child.

The biggest reason sugar does more damage than any other poison, drug or narcotic is twofold:

a- It is considered a "food" and ingested in such massive quantities, and

b- The damaging effects begin early, from the day a baby is born and is fed sugar in its formula. Even mothers milk is contaminated with it if the mother eats sugar, and

c- Practically 95% of people are addicted to it to some degree or other. Sugar is eaten to excess It has been said that the criteria as to whether a substance (any substance) is harmful or medically beneficial is the quantity in which it is used in the human body. To point to a dramatic illustration: we all know that the venom of a rattlesnake, a cobra, water moccasin, coral, and other venomous snakes is deadly to the human system. There are some snakes whose bite is so deadly it can cause death within a matter of seconds. Nevertheless, even snake venom, deadly as it is, has been used for therapeutic, medical purposes when used in minute quantities.

History of sugar. Whereas sugar had been around in minute quantities for several thousand years, it was practically unknown and formed an insignificant part of the average diet in the Classical civilizations of Egypt, Greece and Rome. The Greeks (who had a word for nearly everything!) did not even have a word for it. Even in medieval Europe it was practically unknown and then only a rare delicacy in the royal courts. During the last major Crusade that ended in 1204 some of the Christian Crusaders were introduced to sugar freely used by the Saracens. The Moors when invading and colonizing the southern part of Spain grew sugar cane on Spanish soil and refined sugar.

When Spain drove out the Moors, it inherited some of the cane plantations. It was during this time that Christendom took its first big bite of the forbidden fruit and liked it. Sugar is addictive A second reason that sugar is so harmful is that like heroin it is addictive, and being delectable and seductive to the taste, it is also habit forming. Starting with sugar in the baby's formula, people not only develop a strong taste for sugar but an insatiable craving for it so that they never seem to get enough of this poison. Sugar is an unnatural chemical Why is sugar so devastating to our health? One reason is it is pure chemical and (like heroin) through refining has been stripped of all the natural food nutrition that it originally had in the plant itself. Heroin and sugar are arrived at by very similar processes of refinement. In producing heroin, the opium is first extracted from the poppy: The opium is then refined into morphine. The chemists then went to work on morphine and further refined it into heroin, proclaiming they had "discovered" a wonderful new pain-killer that was non-addictive. So they said.

Similarly, sugar is first pressed as a juice from the cane (or beet) and refined into molasses. Then it is refined into brown sugar, and finally into strange white crystals C12H22O, that are an alien chemical to the human system. Slow but insidious A third reason is that the damage sugar does is slow and insidious. It takes years before it ruins your pancreas, your adrenal glands, throws your whole endocrine system out of kilter and produces a huge list of damage. Foods are loaded with sugar A fourth reason is the outrageous amounts of sugar civilized nations consume. Americans in particular are told how they are the best fed and best nourished people on the face of the earth. If we are talking about processed junk food - this is true. If you examine the "foods" in any supermarket more closely and start reading labels, you will find just about everything contains sugar. Most of the foods are loaded with it - from cereals, to soups, to ketchup, to hotdogs. Even flue-cured tobacco can contain as much as 20% sugar by weight. Some cereals are as much as 50% sugar. List of Damages We have stated that sugar is deleterious to your health: that it is more damaging than all other narcotics combined; that it is a long term chemical poison. Just what damage does sugar do to the human body? The list is endless.

When we talk about sugar, we are including bad nutrition as a whole, since anyone who indulges in sugar has bad dietary habits per se. 1. Sugar is by far the leading cause of dental deterioration - cavities in teeth, bleeding gums, failure of bone structure, and loss of teeth.

2. Sugar is the main cause of diabetes, hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia.

3. It is either a significant or contributory cause of heart disease, arteriosclerosis, mental illness, depression, senility, hypertension, cancer.

4. It has an extremely harmful effect in unbalancing the endocrine system and injuring its component glands such as the adrenal glands, pancreas and liver, causing the blood sugar level to fluctuate widely. It has a number of other extremely damaging effects on the human body.

Some of the other effects of sugar on the body are: *Increases overgrowth of candida yeast organism *Increases chronic fatigue *Can trigger binge eating in those with bulima *Increases PMS symptoms *Increases hyperactivity in about 50% of children *Increases tooth decay *Increases anxiety and irritability *Can increase or intensify symptoms of anxiety and panic in susceptible women *Can make it difficult to lose weight because of constantly high insulin levels, which causes the body to store excess carbs as fat.

[KaitiUSA]

About Stevia:

Based on over 500 years of historical use in South America, extensive use in Japan, one controlled clinical trial in humans and myriad animal tests, stevia does not seem to produce any significant adverse effects. One in vitro study suggesting a potential negative effect of stevia on male fertility in rats was later debunked based on in vivo research on the topic

[tarnalberry]

Lol... the "why sugar is bad" article... classic! Sugar is not inherently bad. Period. It's in the vast majority of the foods we eat - and our body does exactly the same thing, strips it and simplifies it out of the foods we eat. The article does correctly state that it's the amount of sugar we consume that's the problem, and then later says "sugar is the main cause of" a whole bunch of ailments. No, sugar isn't the main cause - excessive sugar is. There's a difference. Sugar is not inherently bad, and actually is vital for human survival - the brain primarily runs off of glucose.

If one wants to argue that large quantities of *ADDED* sugar, or even habitually *ADDING* sugar to a diet is bad, then I'll join in, just let me put on my marching shoes! But to blanket statement say that any particular substance is bad... The article itself points out that it's the DOSE that determines the damage, and the dose of sugar one gets is ENTIRELY up to the person doing the eating.

(And don't get me started on the hysterical connection to heroin. Good grief. Most chemicals derived from any natural source are produced by refinement! And a lot of them, as they relate to food, actually use a process nearly identical to what the body does internally.)

(BTW, the C12H22O reference... bogus. Well, such a chemical exists - it's isomers appear to all be pheromones of various species of pine moth. That sort of chemical structure, however, can't make a sugar.)

Kaiti, I'm not trying to pick on you, which I know someone might get the impression since I've responded twice to things you've posted, but rather the article you posted and the attitude that it has. I don't disagree that excess added sugar is bad, but the fear-mongering tactic the article chooses does so at the cost of its credibility as it makes erroneous conclusions, uses irrelevant data in misleading ways, and presents a lack of logical flow of thought.

[ianm]

The general problem with the American diet is NOT WHAT we eat but HOW MUCH we eat. Americans eat portions that are way too big. Sugar, fat and carbs themselves are not bad it is when you eat TOO MUCH of them is when you become overweight, Type II diabetes, high blood pressure etc. Also if you do not engage in any physical activity that only compounds the problem.

[KaitiUSA]

Yes I do think excess sugar is bad and sugar does cause problems. Is it the main cause...no but it does contribute alot. what do you call excess sugar? I call the regular american diet excessive sugar.

The point is though just about everything we eat though has sugar and the amount sugar people are getting today in food is pretty much excessive..so that does cause alot of problems...even kids at a young age are getting diabetes now...look at the diets and the amount of sugar people are getting

I'm not saying all sugar is bad so don't get me wrong. I'm not anti sugar and I didn't mean to come across that way...I am against excessive sugar which has become a big problem in america today. I do eat sugar I just limit my intake and use the natural kind whenever I can.

[tarnalberry]

"The point is though just about everything we eat though has sugar and the amount sugar people are getting today in food is pretty much excessive."

And there's reason number two I'm so pedantic about not buying preprocessed stuff and doing the cooking at home from whole ingredients. :-)

I definitely agree with you that most mainstream products have too much sugar, but ... companies produce what sells, and until the general public starts paying attention to their ingredient labels, their waistlines, and how they feel, they're going to keep pumping sugar onto the shelves. It's sad, really, that so many people care so much for the instant gratification of the sweet/salty/fatty food (whatever it is, sugar isn't the only problem in this kettle), that they fail to consider the long term consequences of their actions. (Bunch of selfish, instant-gratification seeking, lack of will power... oh, wait, was I going off on a nasty rant there?! Maybe there's sugar somewhere down that rant, 'cause I felt like I couldn't stop myself! ;-) J/K, of course.)

It frustrates me when people write those sorts of articles (and when I googled the chemical compound, I found a reference to a longer version of that article, in addition to the chemical database references... let me tell you, I was definitely not expecting insect pheromones out of that search! ;-) ), and try to warp something that has some truth in it into something that is fear mongering because either people throw themselves into it completely and whole-heartedly, or dismiss it out of hand. And that does a disservice to the bits of truth that are buried in there. (Not saying you in particular, Kaiti. I've noticed an above average tendency of people on this board to do more critical thinking about information presented to them. Probably because of the hassels so many have had with their doctors and needing to find things out for themselves! Another silver-lining, perhaps?)

Anyway... What's excess sugar? Anything not a part of a normal diet - and a normal diet, to me, is whole foods. So the honey I put in my tea and millet grits is excess sugar, but I think is ok in small quantities. (Let's say less than four tablespoons a day.) I'm curious, since we're mostly on the same wavelength on the added sugar thing, what you would say your criteria for excess sugar is. (Just curious what the range is - I'm sure it depends on how much each of us feels our blood sugar reacting to ingested sugars.)

[KaitiUSA]

Anyway... What's excess sugar?  Anything not a part of a normal diet - and a normal diet, to me, is whole foods.  So the honey I put in my tea and millet grits is excess sugar, but I think is ok in small quantities.  (Let's say less than four tablespoons a day.)  I'm curious, since we're mostly on the same wavelength on the added sugar thing, what you would say your criteria for excess sugar is.  (Just curious what the range is - I'm sure it depends on how much each of us feels our blood sugar reacting to ingested sugars.)

On average I have about 1-2 tablespoons a day of sugar. I use liquid stevia for my tea.(thats not including some that may be in the foods I eat..which I do eat ice cream and do have some things with sugar)

Occasionally when cooking I will use regular sugar and sometimes i do have regular then half natural.

I am with you on eating the whole foods...we usually get alot of organic and whole foods. I try to stay away from processed foods as much as possible but I do get a treat for myself sometimes which I don't think is bad if it's in moderation.

Very interesting when you googled that The sad thing is alot of the articles I read contained the same thing so I wonder how much was actually accurate. I googled it and found something weird to I also found something about it with sugar too...needless to say I'm definitely confused about that

I do think people are starting to get more health conscience and the healthier foods are starting to get noticed...Frito Lay now has a natural line out so I think it may be starting to get better but there still is a problem with sugar and other crappy foods out there.

[ianm]

The type of sugar that is a problem is the refined white sugar. Because of the molecular complexity of refined white sugar it takes a larger amount of insulin for your body to break down so your body can digest it. Honey is a natural sugar and therefore does not require as much insulin to digest.

Not only is too much refined white sugar added into processed foods there is also too much salt added. Salt is a mineral and if you don't eat a small amount on a regular basis you will die. However too much is just as bad as not enough. The salt and sugar makes the food taste better so that you will crave it and buy more of it.

After more than a year of not eating prcoessed garbage I just cannot stand to eat anything that is really sweet or salty.

[KaitiUSA]

They meant this compound: C12H22O11....I was wondering how they got the other one connected to sugar and searched a but more and found this.

This is the article I found with this compound... Open Original Shared Link

[tarnalberry]

Kaiti, if you want to reduce sugar further, you may find that some of your baked recipes will simply take less sugar. When I make banana bread these days, I use half the sugar called for, and sub half of that with honey, and the other half-equivalent of that fructose. (I prefer fructose over sucrose because you can use less of it for the same sweetness. Of course, the fructose intolerant wouldn't like it so much. :-) Sometimes I'll use agave instead of the combination; it's particular combination of sugars raises blood sugar levels more slowly than honey.) I've found that - by trying - I've been able to really reduce the amount of sweeteners in the stuff I make. (One of the reasons I love the raw brownies so much... no need for sugar, as the dates carry all the sweetness you need to counter the bitterness of the cocoa.) Of course, my husband has no interest in the less sweet stuff or adjusting his sweet tooth. It'll catch up with him someday, I predict!

I'm just not a fan of stevia - the taste. It's subtle, and it's not awful, but... it doesn't please me. :-) But I can taste a non-sugar sweetener from a mile away.

[KaitiUSA]

Hmm thanks for that idea...my mom gets agave I think I will try that. I probably have more sugar than I think too so the more I can sub out the better. We have tried a few brands of stevia and some brands are better then others in my opinion.

My dad is the same way as your husband...he loves sweets...although I do give him credit because when he found out he had high cholesterol he cut back majorly and his cholesterol cut back 30 points in about 3 months.

I really like sweet stuff too but for me I can deal with the natural sweeteners but some people can't and that's fine...it may fit some people and not others...and sounds like you have a good handle on the sugar intake ...so that's pretty much what matters is if people can keep the intake inline... then it would be fine(IMO)

[skbird]

I have gone around on many different artificial, natural, lower glycemic, alternative sweeteners and am currently having a lot of success mixing xylitol, stevia and agave nectar in things I make. I have been making brownies every weekend as my big treat (not perfected yet, I'll post when I do) and using that combo - it's great. Plus I'm using a lot less sugar than I would otherwise.

I have read that one of the big problems with refined sugar is that you are getting none of the trace minerals that come naturally in sugar, and some of those help your body stabilize while processing the sugar. I do get this dark brown molassas sugar at Whole Foods and use that on my hot cereal at times, it tastes like it's chock full of other stuff than just sugar for sure. Certainly iron. Xylitol is great, too, as it helps fight the bacteria in your mouth that lead to gum disease and cavities, plus is supposed to help with some internal bacterias as well.

I am happy that I can have some sugars now - before going gluten free I couldn't tolerate them any more, not even from fruit. Artificial sweeteners and I will never agree again - I got really sick from both aspertame/Nutra Sweet and sucralose/Splenda. Blech!

Stephanie