Journalists eat sugar substitutes so you don’t have to
by Jess Zimmerman.
So
maybe Tom Philpott convinced you to wean yourself off aspartame, or
maybe you just think chemical-based sweeteners taste oogy. (Okay, ALL sweeteners are chemical-based, but you know what I mean.) Well, the folks at Salon have taken one for the team, eating a lot of gross cookies so you can know which sugar substitute is best.
Agave syrup
Stacks
up to sugar: Barely any point to substituting. It has a low glycemic
index—meaning it won’t give you a “sugar crash”—but requires so
much processing that some forms might as well be corn syrup. And it has
just as many calories as sugar for just as few nutrients.
Cookies tasted: “Chewy” and “raisin-like.” Nice if you like that sort of thing!
Brown rice syrup
Stacks
up to sugar: A bit more nutritious. Even after processing, it has a
vitamin or two, plus you won’t get the sugar crash because it’s full of
complex carbs.
Cookies tasted: “Unpleasantly gummy.” One tester compared them to a bad dream.
Stevia
Stacks
up to sugar: Better for the sugar-sensitive (and much, much sweeter per
volume). Stevia doesn’t raise blood sugar, and it has no calories.
Cookies
tasted: Crumbly, with an “odd chemical aftertaste.” Sugar doesn’t just
sweeten things, it also serves a structural function in baked goods, so
sugar-free treats can’t always hold it together.
Date sugar
Stacks
up to sugar: It’s like sugar-plus. You still can’t have it if you’re
sugar-sensitive (diabetic, for instance), but in addition to sucrose
it’s full of yummy nutrients.
Cookies tasted: “Very crumbly” but “nutty, not super-sweet.” Salon declared this one the pick of the litter.
Read more:
“How do ‘natural’ non-sugar sweeteners stack up?,” Salon
Related Links:
Journalists eat sugar substitutes so you don’t have to
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ruins everything, including wind power
Batteries are not the future of green cars, says smartest guy in room
View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist