Personally, I *need* more calories. And my BG all day usually seems to
be under 100. I'm low-carbing to keep my energy, memory etc from
bouncing every time I eat or go 2 hours without eating. Glycerol has
been a big help, no side effects on digestion, so now I'm looking for
candy made with it, and considering trying the other -ol's* also
(glycerol/glycerine is not quite in the same chemical category).

I'm looking for an alternative to organic 'chocolate chips' for driving,
meetings, etc. (Had a little 'trail mix' yesterday, unsweetened nuts and
very few raisins, and crashed.) Over the years chocolate has been the
best stimulant, but even the organic 'malt' sugar kind spikes too
quickly and steeply for my needs. Even an hour's difference in timing of
release would make a big difference for me.

I'd rather make my own chocolates, using glycerine/glycol and maybe
lecithin (which I like); searching for recipies. Alternatively, I'm
going to at least research the ingredient list on the Stover kind. If
they're using a real low one like xylitol, comparable to glycerol, I'll
sure try it. Even malitol might be some improvement vs regular candies
or 'malt sweetened'.

Couldn't find the official ingredient list for Stover's on the net, nor
their products in local stores.

*Not familiar with the other -ols, tho I notice from Mendosa's
'net-carb' page that the one most used, Malitol, has much higher numbers
than the others, which are very low.

How steep a spike was this? Did it very suddenly start up after 3 hours,
or climb steadily? How many points did it change from eating to top?

That could really help me, if it's a steady rise. I get spikes faster
than most people.

Average of the sugar alcohols? I suppose you're talking about amount
here, rather than speed? The speed is certainly different between
malitol and xylitol; malitol doesn't seem to be typical or average of
the group.

When I need candy, is when I'm out somewhere burning more calories than
I've got.:-)

/snip/

Glad to hear that.

Are you diabetic? Hypoglycemic? What effects do you notice from RS on
your BG?

Skinny --
pre-diab hypo

Jenny  please remember that NOT all diabetics respond to sugar alcohols the
same..
Sugar Alcohols have NO affect on MY blood glucose levels.. However regular
chocolate candy sends my levels thru the roof.
Yes I test frequently, and especially when I introduce new foods or treats..
On the 1 hour, 2 hour and 3 hour..  
As always YMMV and this is JMO
Jeanne Type 2  Diagnosed 05/28/02
194/164/120

This is very much a YMMV thing. I do not spike after eating sugar alcohols. At
most I get 5 or 10 point rise. Maybe its because I don't eat big servings of
them or maybe its just my metabolism. Starch is where I have to be very careful
such as flour products or potatoes. Anyway until I had to start taking
treatments for cancer a few months ago my A1C remained in the range of 5.1 to
5.4 for years and my highest meter reading was usually my morning FBG at 125.
Now they are all over the place but I have been told its my meds and right now
the need for them outweighs the risks of diabetes.

Apparently, you haven't had the joy of not knowing what a sugar alcohol
is, then buying some low carb candy bars, then eating one and saying,
"Wow, that was good, I think I'll have another," then eating the other
one, then staying on the pot all night long and having severe GI
distress.

I for one , am glad when people mention new foods.. Many times it is the only
way new foods come to my attention.
As always YMMV and this is JMO
Jeanne Type 2  Diagnosed 05/28/02
194/164/120

First off if you are going to chastise someone get your facts straight. I
wasn't the person who did mention it here. I only responded to the uproar.
Second why shouldn't new low carb foods be mentioned here? This is a low carb
board. Its entirely appropriate and on topic.

That said its absurd that every mention of a processed low carb food results in
the same responses. The poster was simply sharing something they had found.
They weren't debating net carbs. It was unnecessary for them to have to get a
lecture on sugar alcohols especially since those lectures leave out the fact
that it isn't true for everyone.

And before anyone else gets bent out of shape I am NOT referring to anyone who
acknowledges that SA's don't cause problems in all people. I am referring to
people who state it as if its in stone that it WILL cause diarrhea, that it
WILL cause a stall, that it WILL raise your BG. I wish is if they must post
this stuff that kind of response everytime someone mentions a food with SA's in
it, please change their spiel to say it MAY cause these symptoms or to say in
SOME people it does cause these symptoms.

Debra

So that's why you haven't lost any weight.

Me? Depending on what it is, I'd probably choose the one without
sugar.

Sugar gives me intense carb cravings -- and I'm rarely satisfied with
one small portion of whatever sugary thing it is I'm eating. If I'm
out at a nice restaurant, I may very well order a dessert ... creme
brulee, for example, because I love it and it's a rare pleasure. It's
small, it's portion-controlled -- but it still costs me in calories,
weight loss and in the fact that it'll make me battle cravings until
well into the next day. That's a choice I make sometimes, but more and
more I'm finding that the pleasure isn't worth the cost.

On the other hand, I can have a bag of sugar-free mint patties lying
around the house and not even remember that they're there. Same with
Splenda-sweetened ice cream. And I can eat the recommended portion --
or less! -- of these things, have a occasional sweet indulgence, and
not be out of control. But, conversely, I couldn't have a bag of York
Peppermint Patties or a carton of full-sugar ice cream in the house
without going overboard, any more than a crack addict could have
several ounces of coke lying around and not smoke it up ... I have
that much of a problem with sugar.

I can appreciate that some people feel the need to go all evangelical
and puritan with their diet. They've found something that works for
them and they're convinced that the God of Diets has shined a holy
light of true understanding and illuminated the One True Way. I can
even understand people being so scared of tripping themselves up that
they see the devil in every SF peanut butter cup and Endulge bar --
I've been through 12-step programs, I know that "every pleasure is a
sure-fire addiction" mindset well.  I think it's just human nature ...
but not everyone views things that way.

Where some may see my use of sugar-free chocolates as a moral failing,
a terrible weakness and a sign of Certain Diet Doom!, I see it as a
huge triumph. Because nobody -- NOBODY -- knows how tough it's been
for me to struggle with overeating, bulemia and carb addiction my
*entire life*. So no one can possibly know what a miracle it is for me
to be able to enjoy one scoop of CarbSmart ice cream or two pieces of
candy, two or three times a week, and be _happy with that_. Not feel
like I'm settling, or dieting, or sublimating -- actually be happy
with it.

I'm working at finding a way of life that's healthy and happy for me,
and that means doing what works for _me_. I need to control my sugar
monkey but, at the same time, I will never be someone who can
completely give up the pleasures of chocolate without feeling like I'm
punishing myself, any more than I could give up sex or movies. It's
not a "splurge" for me -- it's part of my lifestyle. Sure, it's
POSSIBLE for me to go without entirely, but I'd be depriving myself --
and I'm done done DONE, for the rest of my life, with feeling like I
have to be unhappy to maintain a proper weight. I used to be a pastry
chef, for God's sake -- I'm a libertine and a sensualist and denying
that part of my nature will only make me depressed ... which is a
sure-fire way to drive myself back to overeating, by the way.

Long answer to a short question, I realize. But I've been getting
pretty bugged lately by people who insist on laying down their own
personal rules and ethics on everyone else, whether it's religion,
politics or food. It's pissing me off, it is.

Dawn