Any suggestions regarding Maltitol?

[mightysparrow]

Hey ChocoLovers
I miss the old email list but have just registered here. Nice to have some expert information on this. Here is my experience.
A few months back, I ate half of a delicious maltitol chcocolate bar. And within an hour, I got the laxative effect.
I've made several batches of chocolate with erithrytol which my diabetic friend says is very good. YEs, it does have a cold effect whilst melting in the mouth. And it is indeed only 70% as sweet as sucrose; I used 30% in my last batch, and 40% would be better. And it is NOT laxative, though it is another poorly digested sugar alcohol.

Any words on stevia?

[Sebastian]

Stevia would fall into the natural high intensity sweetener camp. it's too sweet to use as a bulking agent, you'd need to use it in conjunction with something like erythritol or maltitol. Also, for what it's worth, it's not approved for use in food in the US..

[sugaralchemy]

Erythritol, from a nutritional perspective, is about the most perfect sugar substitute. It's basically not metabolized, but fully absorbed, so the risk of laxation is low. Do note that if you consumed an extremely, extremely large amount of erythritol, you could induce a laxative effect, but that's fairly unlikely when we're talking about erythritol alone.

The problems with erythritol are that it's not as sweet as sugar, it has a serious cooling effect, and it is quite harsh tasting when very much is used. The greater percentage you use, the greater the cooling effect and harshness. I find that the cooling effect tends to increase waxiness by decreasing the melt rate in your mouth, which usually masks the full rich chocolate taste and texture. I also find the harshness distracting.

If you are working with erythritol only, I suggest you add a touch of a high intensity sweetener - sucralose (Splenda), stevia, acesulfame potassium (Sunnet SweetOne) in addition to the erythritol. (Stevia isn't federally approved for food in the US, but widely available as a "dietary supplement" in the US and approved for food use in many other countries.) Only a little is required to bring it up to about full sugar sweetness, and low levels of those high intensities won't put off the sweetness profile much - no "diet soda" taste.

Using lower levels of erythritol (hence higher levels of cocoa butter, milk powder, or chocolate liquor) is generally a good thing, in that it reduces the harshness and cooling side effects of erythritol. Using a high intensity sweetener as described above will help enable you to use a little less erythritol. In general, lower sugar chocolates tend to come out better.

On the upside, mint chocolate with erythritol can be very potent. It can be a touch harsh, but the cooling effect really enhances the mint flavors. It's also intriguing with some citrus flavors.

Hopefully this helps you out. I don't normally work with solely erythritol in sugar free type chocolates, but it's not a bad place to start - it's certainly the most perfect ingredient from a nutritional standpoint.

[scott123]

One important aspect regarding erythritol is that it only has a negative heat of solution (cooling effect) in it's crystallized state. Dissolved/glassed erythritol has no cooling effect whatsoever. Achieving a stable glassed state with erythritol is no mean feat, however, and requires copious amounts of crystallization inhibitors.

Two of the better known erythritol based commercial chocolates, both of which are no longer being manufactured are Zcarb and Hershey's 1 carb:

Here are the ingredients for Hershey's 1 carb:

Erythritol , Inulin Fiber , Chocolate , Cocoa Butter , Polyglycitol Syrup , Almonds , Cream , Soy Lecithin 2% or Less , Artificial Flavor 2% or Less , Sucralose 2% or Less

These are the ingredients for Zcarb:

REAL CHOCOLATE (CHOCOLATE LIQUOR, COCOA BUTTER, INULIN, ERYTHRITOL, MILK FAT, ACESULFAME-K, SOYA LECHTHIN, VANILLIN), SUCRALOSE.

Both contain inulin, a crystallization inhibitor (with a similar molecular structure to polydextrose, also a crystalllization inhibitor), but more importantly, the Hershey's contains polyglycitol syrup. This leads me to believe that the erythritol in the Hershey's is in either a fully or a partially glassed state, and that there is a trace amount of water in the final product. Water in chocolate, as we all know, is a very bad thing, but I think with the restricted water activity from the inulin, erythritol and polyglycitol syrup, the cocoa solids can't hydrate.

[sugaralchemy]

Just a few random thoughts...

Unfortunately, inulin is not available to the average consumer in a suitable form and quantity as far as I know.

I find it interesting that they use polyglycitol syrup in the Hershey's 1Carb chocolate - it's a syrup. I'm quite familiar with that product but it clearly has not been a market success. The average consumer perceives it as being too waxy and a little weak in my experience.

Another interesting producer of erythritol/inulin chocolate is Wilbur Chocolate who is still producing it as far as I know. They do an erythritol/inulin chocolate and an erythritol/inulin/isomalt chocolate in addition to a standard lineup of maltitol chocolate. Their milk-type chocolate contains a fairly significant amount of added calcium carbonate - around 4.8% in the erythritol/inulin blend according to my analysis. It's has a typical maximum fineness of about 20 microns. They have chosen not to incorporate it into their dark erythritol/inulin chocolate, which is a little less fine around 25 microns.

You can see the sugar free section of Wilbur's site here:
www.wilburchocolate.com/docs/applications/product_listings/sugarfree.html

[Sebastian]

Actually, erythritol's Tg is about -42C, so most of what you've got at room temperature is a glass..there's no more moisture present in these products than in any other chocolate product, and the inulin is present for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with crystalline inhibition (everything's embedded in a fat matrix with an Aw of < 0.2...)...The hershey's product actually uses a HSH (polyglycitol) powder, not a syrup - if the label you're reading from says syrup, it's a misprint.

[sugaralchemy]

Hmm interesting. I was really scratching my head at why/how they'd use a syrup in their products - but I've seen that on many of their labels to the point where I stopped looking. I suspect they may be using polyglycitol powder because of the fairly high positive heat of solution - around 11 kcal/kg if I recall.

As for erythritol, I've seen chocolate made with purely erythritol and it's sorta half decent. At least from a nutritional perspective, it's superb. I take a lot of taste issues with it versus what you can do with a nearly unlimited supply of ingredients, but as I've said, it's probably not a bad place to start for a maximally healthy homemade chocolate. Most people don't have dozens upon dozens of sugar substitutes on hand or any knowledge of how to use them.

I wonder if scott123 is thinking of erythritol in water? Erythritol is not nearly as soluble as many other sugar alcohols and sugars, so it can form quite a crystallized mess. But without water, not much is going to happen.

[islandgirl]

Greetings, new here and fascinated at the discussion.

Sebastian, in an early post you said:
" The spelnda [sic] you see in the store is actually a blend of sucralose and maltodextrins, or a 25% solution in water (there's two consumer products out). "

Please correct me if I'm wrong (and tell me where I could buy it) but I'm almost positive that the 25% Splenda brand sucralose solution is strictly (under license) commercial use. Certainly not available to your average consumer...

Thanks for the engrossing information, y'all!


sig: Jude

[sugaralchemy]

Splenda is not available in liquid form as a "consumer" product within the US. A few brands make products that are Splenda sweetened and liquid, but not technically liquid Splenda.

Some non-US countries have Splenda in liquid form, but I don't know that they are a 25% solution. At 25%, you have a pretty dang potently sweet liquid. It also tends to crystallize annoyingly through the process of typical "consumer" handling.

[Sebastian]

The 25% liquid blend is sold to to small(er) shoppes - bakers, etc - in 1 gallon containers. It has been available via distributor suppliers to anyone who would purchase it. It may not be the case today, I haven't checked, but would assume that it's still the case...

[sugaralchemy]

You are correct, the 25% aqueous form can be purchased through any number of distributors. I don't consider this a "consumer" product and I don't think these resources are accessible to most people on thee forums. A gallon of 25% sucralose is an incredible amount of sweetness and going to cost quite a bit, from the perspective of most people on these forums.

[Sebastian]

Yup, a gallon goes a long way. Certainly any consumer can walk into a distributor and purchase their wares - likely the larger issues is that the average consumer simply doesn't even know distributors exist, much less where to find them Tate & Lyle would certainly like to see this, as the demand for sucralose isn't anywhere near where it was 2 years ago; hence the supply is much more readily available. I just sent 4 gallons of the stuff to another person on another board - i didn't have any use for it, if i'd not given it away, i'd have simply thrown it out...

[bob1520]

Wow - this was /has been / will be an incredible thread. Best technical reading I've encountered since my days at P&G and Nabisco many years ago.

[betticus]

Fascinating subject. I have zero idea how this product would work with chocolate, it's made from stevia and inulin fiber but it is supposedly good for diabetics with a glycemic index of zero. I'll toss in a link to a faq that I found. I've only used it in tea and find that it requires a lot of mixing or high temperature to dissolve well.

www.sweetleaf.com/category.php?subcat=whats_stevia&subpage=steviaplusfaq

[sugaralchemy]

I have been hands-on with that product. While I have not tested it for chocolate, I can tell you that it is basically a high intensity sweetener. The mixture of inulin and stevia is many times sweeter than sugar. It does not have enough volume to add any significant mass.

I also personally think it tastes like crap when compared to sugar. It even loses out versus other mainstream sweeteners - e.g. Splenda (sucralose) and Equal (aspartame.)