When you're overcome with a hunger for sweets, you have to satisfy it with something sweet. Of course, you could also reach for an apple or a banana, but let's be honest, if we already crave sugar, then we also want to enjoy the satisfying feeling of sugar. The only thing is that our guilty conscience always gets in the way and reminds us that sugar not only makes you fat, but also damages your teeth and is actually not good for your body at all. We wouldn't be NEOH if we didn't have a solution to this problem. Sugar substitutes! Now most people will think, "Hm, yeah, sounds cool. But what is it?" Sugar substitutes are substitutes for sugar that taste the same as commercial white refined sugar, yet have only a fraction of its calories. In addition, they are not recognized by the body as sugar and thus are not metabolized like it. They remain unrecognized. This is how the low calorie count comes about. In addition to other great properties such as a very low glycemic index and tooth-friendliness, as well as positive effects on the mineral content of the body. So sugar substitutes are real heroes and exactly what makes our NEOH bar so sweet. True to our motto: Fight sugar - unleash taste!
Right off the bat, sucralose is super in small amounts and 100% safe.
With sucralose the amount makes the difference and with NEOH it is 100% safe. In the quantities that are in a bar, you would have to eat 120 bars per day, and that over several years to even suspect negative effects of sucralose. Only at 380 bars per day over several years would sucralose have negative effects on your intestinal health.
Sucralose is a sugar alcohol and belongs to the sugar substitutes. Its special feature is that it has almost the same sweetening power as sucrose but only half the calories or none at all. For this reason, sucralose is being used more and more frequently in the food industry to reduce the calorie density in foods while maintaining the same sweetness and taste.
Sucralose has a sweetening power 600 times higher than granulated sugar. Nevertheless, it has no calories and its taste is confusingly similar to that of sugar. Although sucralose was successfully produced for the first time in 1976 by the company Tate & Layle in collaboration with Queen Elisabeth College in London, it is a very young substance, which was only approved in Germany in 2005 by the Additive Approval Ordinance. In the USA, it was already approved in 1999.
The sweetener mentioned is all used in the food industry to reduce or replace the sugar content. Thus, the number of calories in processed foods is reduced to make them accessible even for people with diabetes. In addition, they all have in common that there is no unpleasant aftertaste when consumed, which makes them even more attractive.
Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sucrose in a process in which the three hydroxyl groups are exchanged for chlorine atoms.
· Sweetening power is almost the same as sugar
· Only half as many calories as sugar
· Little influence on blood sugar levels
· Sucralose has 600 times the sweetness of granulated sugar with zero calories
Worth a read
GREMBECKA, MAŁGORZATA. „Sugar alcohols—their role in the modern world of sweeteners: a review.“ European Food Research and Technology 241.1 (2015): 1-14.
KURT ROSENPLENTER, U. NÖHLE (Hrsg.): Handbuch Süßungsmittel. 2. Auflage, Behr‘s Verlag, 2007, ISBN 978-3-89947-262-2, S. 431.
A. BUYKEN ET. AL. (2001): Gylcemic index in the diet of European outpatients with type 1 diabetes: relations to gylcated hemoglobin and serum lipids. In: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 73, Nr. 3, S. 574-581
POSCHWATTA-RUPP S. Von Abführstoff bis Zauberkraut: Aktuelle Übersicht der Süßungsmittel. VFEDaktuell (2013). Vol. 134: 8-15
K. FOSTER-POWELL,S.H. HOLT, J.C. BRAND-MILLER (2002): International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002. In: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, Nr. 1, S. 5-56
D.S. LUDWIG (2002): The glycemic index: Physiological mechamisms relating to obesity diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 287, Nr. 18, S. 2414-2423
S. LIU,W.C. WILLETT (2002): Dietary glycemic load and atherothrombotic risk. In: Current Atherosclerosis Reports, Vol. 4, Nr. 6, S. 454-461
E. M. SÖDERLING: Xylitol, mutans streptococci, and dental plaque. In: Advances in dental research. Band 21, Nummer 1, 2009, S. 74–78, doi:10.1177/0895937409335642. PMID 19717413. (Review)
C. HAYES: The effect of non-cariogenic sweeteners on the prevention of dental caries: a review of the evidence. In: J Dent Educ. Band 65, 2001, S. 1106–1109. PMID 11699985. jdentaled.org (PDF)
LAURA E. BERK: Entwicklungspsychologie. Pearson Studium, 2005, S. 288–289
KAUKO K. MÄKINEN: Der Einsatz von Xylit in der Kariesprophylaxe. pdv Praxis-Dienste und Verlag, Heidelberg 2003, ISBN 3-935802-09-9. xylismile.de (PDF)
WOLFGANG STRÜBIG: Xylit und Kaugummi – eine ideale kariespräventive Kombination? In: Dentalhygiene Journal. Nr. 4, 2005, S. 33–37
Z. GINTNER, J. SZÖKE, A. PATTHY, E. SÖDERLING, J. BANOCZY: Wirkung von Xylit-Pastillen auf Zahnplaque und Streptococcus mutans. In: Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde. Band 26, 2004, S. 93–95. zahnheilkunde.de
SIMS J, ET AL. The metabolic fate of sucralose in rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38(2):115-21
BROWN AW, ET AL. Short-term consumption of sucralose, a nonnutritive sweetener, is similar to water with regard to select markers of hunger signaling and short-term glucose homeostasis in women. Nutr Res. 2011;31(12):882-8
BAIRD IM, et al. Repeated dose study of sucralose tolerance in human subjects. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38(2):123–9
ABOU-DONIA MB, ET AL. Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats. J Tox Environ Health. 2008;71(21):1415-29
SCHIFFMAN SS, ROTHER KI.: Sucralose, A Synthetic Organochlorine Sweetener: Overview of Biological Issues. J Toxicol Environ Health B. 2013;16(7):399–451
SOFFRITTI M ET AL. The Ramazzini Institute: Sucralose administered in feed, beginning prenatally through lifespan, induces hematopoietic neoplasias in male swiss mice. Int J Occ & Environ Health. 2016; 22(1)
BRACKEN MB. Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2009; 102(3):120-2
Mann SW, et al. A combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study of sucralose in Sprague-Dawley rats.Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38(2):71-89
Your message was successfully sent.