|
Post by noirhammer on Jul 17, 2006 16:28:49 GMT -5
Hello,
I'm new here and new to chocolate making--as in never having done it before. I wanted to make chocolate using a sugar alcohol. I see so much cane sugar in chocolate and I know it's not good.
I was thinking about using Erythritol but I've read something about it being too cold. I don't know what that's about. I hear xylitol is supposed to be great but I've only seen it in gums or candies.
Who has practical expericence with these polyols? Share.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by sugaralchemy on Jul 18, 2006 11:52:20 GMT -5
Please read the thread "Any suggestions regarding maltitol" where sebastian and myself have turned the idea over and over and over! We have several suggestions for combinations that would probably work fairly well at home but lack the traditional blood sugar response - isomalt and high intensity (sebastian suggests a touch of polydextrose in there as well), or erythritol (I suggest using a smaller amount with a touch of a high intensity sweetener.)
|
|
|
Post by noirhammer on Jul 18, 2006 12:00:20 GMT -5
Thanks. I'll look that up.
|
|
|
Post by vivachoco on Jul 18, 2006 23:23:53 GMT -5
i am working on my first erythritol trial. the chocolate is conching as we speak. so i will give you my 0.0002 cents worth of exact thoughts on its 'choco-fit' in a day or so when the chocolate is actually ready in the meanwhile - what i can say about erythritol at this stage: when you taste erythritol itself, you can FEEL the coolness on your tongue. the feeling is immediate. it is not the warm enveloping feeling of sugar. that said, what i look for the sugar/sweetener/erythritol to do, is to keep the cocoa taste but 'round' the edges of the sharpnes - without making chocolate into some other artificial tasting entity. against my doubts, i am trying to keep an open mind (and mouth, hee hee) in order to avoid the blood sugar response of other sugars. my theory (a humble theory of a chocolate lover, sugar intolerant, all things synthetic despiser) is that if you like dark chocolate you are better off already because you will need less sweetness / erythritol and that the most important thing is to find the type of bean you like and type of roast you like. if you are more of a milk chocolate lover - instead of using high intensity sweetener (synthetic = bad), to fill the 30% gap - erythritol is supposed to have the 70% sweetness of sugar - use more cocoa butter (unless you are opposed to additional fats) because it will mellow the cocoa 'edgyness' significantly. in my experience excessive cocoa butter does not make tempering more difficult at all (it just makes chocolate 'sweeter' tasting and more fattening . the formula i have in the santha right now is 900g cocoa liquor made of super smooth lightly roasted Venezuelan Cuyagua, 120g cocoa butter, 200g erythritol, some vanilla and lecithin. i am hoping it will result nice dark chocolate...
|
|
|
Post by noirhammer on Jul 19, 2006 18:31:26 GMT -5
Wow. I was only going to melt a block of chocolate and add Erythritol to it with some nuts. I didn't realize it was so involved. I just assumed melting was enough. I see I still have a ways to go. Let me know how it all turns out.
|
|
|
Post by vivachoco on Jul 19, 2006 18:56:07 GMT -5
ofcourse you can do exactly what you planned. perhaps it is the easiest, fastest and most affordable way to test for yourself if you would like the effect of erythritol.
i have not molded my chocolate yet, but what i can tell by now is that erythritol is 'pretty ok.' there is a slight annoying coolness when you taste the chocolate. but if you are used to it / like it - then no problem. and for those who cannot handle sugar at all, it is a great alternative. i think i will use it only occasionally in the future. i will be testing chrystalized stevia next.
|
|
|
Post by sugaralchemy on Jul 20, 2006 15:42:22 GMT -5
Stevia has no substantial volume, nor does Splenda. Chocolate does not taste very good and have the right texture if you have no volume. Perhaps it will meet you needs, but it is not anything widely enjoyed. I wish you the best, but I doubt you'll be pleased with the results using stevia alone. I also suggest you consider that synthetic does not necessarily mean bad. There are tons of "scare sites" out there, but it all boils down to science. Many "natural" things are deadly or harmful, even some things that are part of the food supply! (Sassafras causing cancer, cyanide in cassava and some other raw plant foods, lead, arsenic, radioactive uranium, etc. are all 100% natural and 100% harmful in quantity!) You need to look at the health consequences and the quantities consumed for everything in your diet. For anybody googling for sites and finding "scare sites" for various ingredients, I have a site for you to check out: dhmo.org/Now, read it over. I am serious. DHMO sounds like seriously bad stuff and everything on that site is 100% true and factual - I have checked it over! There's only one problem... DHMO is just another name for 100% pure water... they have just manipulated things (even though it is all true) to be very scary sounding.
|
|