Engineered healthier sugar that tastes good

I think part of the problem with an approach like this is it seems sweetness itself triggers a whole path of biochemical processes that are unhelpful [1].

[1] https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/biomedres/28/2/28_2_79/...

Fun fact: there exists a chiral mirror of sugar called L-sucrose which tastes and cooks exactly like sugar but is not bioavailable. It's the ultimate 0 calorie sugar. The only issue is it costs like 200 bucks a gram to produce.

Sugar. It's so addictive that we're trying to figure out a way to engineer healthier versions.

There's truth behind the phrase "sweet tooth". I indulged in a lot of cookies, cakes and sweet and savory foods. My peak weight was 103kg/230lbs and my height is 178cm or 5'10". I decided to make a big shift in my eating habits few years back and cut out any foods with added sugar. It was not easy in the sense that sugar really is addictive. I found myself buying a lot of fruit to curtail the cravings. Felt like rehab. It took me almost two years to fully discipline myself and lose weight.

Though every now and then I still splurge because I feel like I must in order to keep the cravings at bay. My all time favorite is a baskin robbins peanut butter and chocolate malted. Even talking about it is making my mouth water. What a delicious dilemma sugar presents us humans.

Better way would be to engineer yourself to not need sweet taste. This works remarkable well, with some discipline.

I like testing this stuff as a hobby. Hands down the best (current) alternative to sugar I've found is Lakanto.

They also have a maple syrup that tastes amazing. I don't find myself missing sugar with it.

Is it true that there is a genetic disposition to altered taste of low-calorie sweeteners? If it's real, I have it - most of them taste terrible to me, and leave an unpleasant aftertaste on top of that.

It would be nice if the trope of the "mad scientist" would die.

Even if sugar itself causes the fast majority of the harm, I wouldn't be surprised if weaning oneself from the subjective experience of sweetness had some benefits. Have the studies on artificial sweeteners investigated it?

The FDA should re-evaluate their opinion on sodium cyclamate. The ban is highly dubious as the study that lead to its ban was funded by the sugar lobby and 130 other countries have deemed it safe for human consumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_cyclamate

Aren't we already pretty much there with Sucralose and Xylitol?

This seems like marketing hype. Lt's create some new food thing which allows us to put some flash claim on the wrapper.

This seems to be aimed at a health concience crowd, maybe the sort of thing which would be in special displays with overpriced products which people most in need won't even look at. Would this invention make its way to products in dollar stores? Walmart?

Cutting sugar in half likely won't help most people who are obese. They're still going to be eating too much of the wrong food. Much of this food isn't even sweet.

At least drinking the Koolaid might involve less sugar. ;)

I got a healthy sugar that tastes good: fresh fruit.

I was a kid once, too young to know better, and liked sweet. Now nothing beats fresh fruit. Even many vegetables are sweet. This stuff sounds like engineered garbage and I will bet anyone that we will uncover serious health concerns from it.

> His team also started out by giving them to potential clients, only to routinely hear it didn’t work. “Rarely is our ingredient properly used,”

it sounds like it needs some other ingredients. possibly it makes starch break down to sugar quicker? like what saliva does to starch?

You could lessen the sugar even further by combining this with stevia to cover the bitterness that can happen with Stevia. More choices for the win

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I have these insects that engineer a healthier sugar.

It's called honey. Due to the different balance of sugars in it you can use less of it than regular sugar and still have it taste just as sweet. It also contains potentially beneficial enzymes, pollen, antioxidants, and minerals. There are a variety of flavors, including some very light ones that would not impart much flavor, similar to sugar. The only downside can be can be cost.

“Artificial sweetener” is often used misleadingly. Natural sweeteners, the most common being sucralose, are not healthier. I had an unpleasant realization from eating a low-calorie yogurt which advertised “no artificial sweeteners!” only to read sucralose on its ingredients list. I’d guess that >90% of protein bars/drinks contain sucralose (which is ironic because carbs from sugar would be more useful to athletes than the emptiness of sucralose).

Instead of artificial sweeteners, people have to avoid low-calorie sweeteners in general. This is difficult - there are dozens of different low-calories sweeteners besides sucralose. They are often low on the ingredients list because a small amount packs a ton of sweetness (which is why they’re low calorie. E.g. sucralose is 1000 times sweeter than sugar in the same amount).

To the point - low-calorie sweeteners do not help with weight loss, and do not have any added health benefits. [1] Mere sweetness has a profound effect on body functions.

I’m not sure whether DouxMatok would be classified as a low-calorie sweetener, since it just extends the sweetness of real sugar. However, it definitely creates the same problem - it emulates the sweet taste of sugar when there is none (or less).

There is no shortcuts, no magic pill for health. Eat a balanced diet, with fruits and vegetables, and moderate consumption of sweets.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313893/