# Using Stevia in Baking



## Arky (Aug 6, 2009)

I've been using stevia now for just over a year and I really like it as a substitute for table sugar. I use it in my coffee and iced tea, in cereal, hot and cold, but I have no experience in baking with it.

For those who are just discovering it (the stevia brand Truvia has recently been promoted in a national ad campaign.) It is a natural substance derived from the leaves of the stevia plant found in Central America. Ounce for ounce it is 300 times sweeter than table sugar (1 cup of sugar equals 1 teaspoon of stevia), has 0 calories and 0 harmful effects. It is perfect for diabetics!

I use the KAL brand and comes with a tiny scoop in the container (the size of a salt shaker yet has 990 servings!) The down side of baking with stevia, so I hear, is that is does not caramelize (turn brown), but has anyone had any bad baking experiences with it?

I do know that is has no aftertaste - as long as you don't use too much! With stevia, when in doubt, less is better.


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2009)

If you do not use MSG because there is a chance it is harmful to your health then you may want to rethink using stevia as it has had similar complaints that it is very bad for you. The FDA even labeled it as an unsafe food additive in 1991.

I personally do not have a problem with it. I have never used it, but I would have no problem trying it.


----------



## Arky (Aug 6, 2009)

GB said:


> If you do not use MSG because there is a chance it is harmful to your health then you may want to rethink using stevia as it has had similar complaints that it is very bad for you. The FDA even labeled it as an unsafe food additive in 1991.
> 
> I personally do not have a problem with it. I have never used it, but I would have no problem trying it.



December, 2008

"FDA Approves Stevia"

Good News! The    FDA has finally approved Stevia for use as a sugar substitute. 
 After over a decade of economic special interests seeming to block the way (i.e., NutraSweet), the FDA has finally approved the healthy herb Stevia as a natural sweetener to add to foods and sodas.
 In fact, the first    Stevia-sweetened soft drink, "Sprite Green" by Coca-Cola, is on its way to stores.
 Pepsi said its first Stevia product, SoBe Lifewater, should hit store shelves next week, and Trop50, a Stevia-sweetened light orange juice product, is due out in January.
 Dr. Pepper Snapple,    the No. 3 soft drink company, said on Thursday it will market Stevia within    a few weeks.
 We have recommended Stevia as a safe and healthy natural sweetener for decades — even as the FDA, seemingly driven by someone heavily on the Nutrasweet payroll (though this is simply my impression, of course, without definite evidence) required the first and only book burning demanded by the U.S. government — which just happened to be books recommending Stevia. Till now, the FDA would not allow Stevia to be added as a food sweetener. Instead, it could only be added as a "nutrient."
 Stevia is a safe, healthy and calorie free natural sweetener. Expect the media to jump all over bizarre stories raising questions of its safety (which will be fed to the media by publicists for the sugar, Splenda and Nutrasweet trade groups trying to protect their market share). In the middle of their trying to scare you away from this healthy sweetener and back to their toxic ones, let yourself enjoy watching an example of American marketing hype in action. And indulge your sweet tooth ;-)"


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2009)

I never said they did not eventually approve it. I stand by what I said. They did label it as an unsafe food additive. I am just saying that based on what you said in the MSG thread 





			
				Arky said:
			
		

> I still prefer to err on the side of caution when possible and not play Russian Roulette with my health or the health of my guests


you may want to reconsider stevia. Not trying to pick a fight here. Just pointing out that you were vehemently against one substance because there was questions over whether it is safe, but you have no problem using another whose safety is also in question. By all means use what you are comfortable with though.


----------



## Arky (Aug 6, 2009)

No, there is no question about it being safe, being one of the most closely studied foods in the history of the world. There are even more studies concerning stevia than there are MSG. Europe has been using stevia for decades. It comes out squeeky clean for any harmful effects! And an important point is that it is a "natural" sweetner as opposed to a man made additive. It is a Godsend for us diabetics!


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2009)

1. There is plenty of question as to its safety. For the record, I think it is safe, but there is controversy surrounding it the same way there is controversy surrounding MSG.

2. I am not sure how you can be so sure there are more studies on stevia than MSG. I doubt your counted up the thousands of studies on each and compared the numbers.

3. Just as stevia has been used in Europe for decades, MSG has been used in Asia for decades, and I would presume by many more people, not to mention it has been used in America for decades too.

4. Just because something is natural does not mean it is harmless. Try sitting out in the sun for a few hours without sunscreen.

Again, I have no problem with people using stevia. I am happy there is something for diabetics to use.


----------



## Arky (Aug 6, 2009)

GB said:


> Just because something is natural does not mean it is harmless. Try sitting out in the sun for a few hours without sunscreen.]
> 
> That's interesting that you should mention sitting out in the sun. I'm assuming you are referring to getting skin cancer due to excess sun exposure without protection. Well, it turns out that is exactly what doctors are now recommending, in moderation of course. Particularly for children!
> 
> ...


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2009)

Arky said:


> I guess it all boils down to use all things in moderation.


Which is exactly the point that multiple people tried making about MSG. Yes, in moderation all of these things are essentially harmless.


----------



## Wyogal (Aug 6, 2009)

So, in the meantime, check this out:
using stevia in baking - Google Search


----------



## KatieFrank (Oct 13, 2009)

Always wanted to try this! Stevia is great.


----------



## GB (Oct 13, 2009)

I bought Stevia to try because of this thread. My conclusion is that for me it is not worth it. Even though Stevia is supposed to be much sweeter than sugar, my wife and I did not find that to be the case. The first time she used it in her coffee she put package after package in and could not get to the desired sweetness. When she tried it in her tea her results were much better. I did not have the same luck though. When I tried it in my tea it got close to sweet, but never over that threshold. 

As far as sugar substitutes go, I would rack it as the one that tastes the best and if I HAD to use a sugar sub then this is what I would use, but since I am luckily not in that situation I will continue to use real sugar.


----------



## jawnn (Feb 25, 2012)

if you use the plant leaf is it less intense?


----------



## taxlady (Feb 25, 2012)

GB said:


> Which is exactly the point that multiple people tried making about MSG. Yes, in moderation all of these things are essentially harmless.



MSG in moderation isn't good enough for me. I get the weird "headache".


----------



## GLC (Feb 25, 2012)

Truvia is not stevia. It's leading ingredient by weight is an alcohol sugar. And there's no unmodified stevia in it. Now the alcohol is added in an attempt to give it a more natural sugar taste, sugar taste being different from sweetness. And it also help in the process of creating a granular state similar to table sugar. Like all flavors, the sensation can be different for different individuals. And no matter how sweet, the sensation that's expect from a sweetened cup of coffee can seem to be lacking if the flavor isn't right. 

Stevia extract powders often contain considerable maltodextrin to try to bring the sweetening power down to equivalent volumes of sugar. But there's another taste factor. No sugar substitute is going to taste like sugar to everyone, and their guess as to how to balance sweetness with the particular flavor of the concoction will be close to right or far from it, depending on the individual. 

It's kind of like the recent chicken stock thing. Some are completely happy with a largely chemical composition that emulates to some degree the flavor. They will happily use the fake. Others will gag on it and will accept the flavor of nothing but actual stock. It's the curse of the fake food engineer's existence to be forever trying for balance.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 25, 2012)

GLC, that reminds me of high fructose corn syrup. Some people can't taste that it isn't sugar. I can't stand the Coca Cola we get in Quebec, because of the HFCS. I have a friend who used to stock up on kosher for passover Coca Cola, because it isn't made with grain.


----------



## GLC (Feb 25, 2012)

I don't know. I'd like to see those people play "Pick the Cane Sugar" with the corn syrup and "throwback" versions of Pepsi and Coke. Human perception is such that even they can't be sure themselves if they're reacting to the ingredients or the label. And I have no faith at all in the judgment when it's a matter of claiming "it tasted better when I was a kid." Everything tasted better when we were kids, from charred marshmallows to blackened wieners. It's not that there's not a difference in flavor. It's whether anyone can detect the difference in the drink. It's all pretty much sugared battery acid, anyway.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 25, 2012)

GLC said:


> I don't know. I'd like to see those people play "Pick the Cane Sugar" with the corn syrup and "throwback" versions of Pepsi and Coke. Human perception is such that even they can't be sure themselves if they're reacting to the ingredients or the label. And I have no faith at all in the judgment when it's a matter of claiming "it tasted better when I was a kid." Everything tasted better when we were kids, from charred marshmallows to blackened wieners. It's not that there's not a difference in flavor. It's whether anyone can detect the difference in the drink. It's all pretty much sugared battery acid, anyway.



I usually would agree with your point of view. But, in this case, I noticed because I wasn't much of a Coke drinker. They brought out "New Coke" and everyone complained, so they brought back "Coke Classic". I tasted each of them and concurred. Then I didn't drink any Coke for about half a year. When I did, much to my surprise, my reaction was bleh! That's just like the new stuff. They had switched the "Coke Classic" by increments so people didn't notice. Since I hadn't had it for a while, I noticed.


----------



## bakechef (Feb 25, 2012)

Since I rarely consume HFCS anymore, I can detect it in things like soft drinks where there is a lot of it.  To me it has a distinct flavor and mouthfeel that real sugar doesn't have.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 25, 2012)

I can tell the difference between Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback, tastes different.  Regular Pepsi with HFCS I drink and drink and drink and never get enough.  Pepsi Throwback can take me three days to finish one bottle.  My body is looking for the glucose.

The difference also shows up in my blood sugars, my body uses the sugar in Throwback, it stores the HFCS in Regular Pepsi...throws my bloodwork completely off. Cane Sugar or I won't eat/drink it.


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Feb 25, 2012)

I have a great big 275g bag of Stevia in the Raw that I will give to anyone who stops by to pick it up. It tastes funny! Everything I've tried using it in ended up tasting funny, too!  It also has a terrible aftertaste.

I will stick with my Agave nectar. It tastes good and has a low glysemic index so it won't spike your blood sugar. The only problem is it is a bit expensive in the groshree store, but I can get twice the amount for about the same price at TJ Maxx.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 25, 2012)

Shrek uses the agave, to me it has an astringent aftertaste I am not happy with.  The coconut sugar noted on a different thread is working well for my coffee in the morning.


----------



## GLC (Feb 25, 2012)

After thorough research into sweeteners, I settled on palm sugar and organic cane sugar. They are very close to each other. The key word in cane sugar is "organic," which. less importantly indicating what wasn't used, pretty much insures that it is produced by evaporation with no other processing. But I thin palm sugar is maybe a bit better for you. I was using agave and still have some, but there were some things about it I didn't like. 

Both are slightly tan or off white, but neither tastes (to me) strongly of molasses as "brown" sugar does. I combined the change with cutting the quantity of sugar in half in routine daily used. 

I have no medical necessity for using non-caloric sugar substitutes, and I have tentatively concluded that there's an off dynamic at work in which, when I use a substitute, my body expects sugar and, when it doesn't find it, turns on an urge for it. I looked at the number of calories I was consuming each day from added sugars and found it wasn't enough to make a big difference.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 25, 2012)

GLC said:


> After thorough research into sweeteners, I settled on palm sugar and organic cane sugar. They are very close to each other. The key word in cane sugar is "organic," which. less importantly indicating what wasn't used, pretty much insures that it is produced by evaporation with no other processing. But I thin palm sugar is maybe a bit better for you. I was using agave and still have some, but there were some things about it I didn't like.
> 
> Both are slightly tan or off white, but neither tastes (to me) strongly of molasses as "brown" sugar does. I combined the change with cutting the quantity of sugar in half in routine daily used.
> 
> I have no medical necessity for using non-caloric sugar substitutes, and I have tentatively concluded that there's an off dynamic at work in which, when I use a substitute, my body expects sugar and, when it doesn't find it, turns on an urge for it. I looked at the number of calories I was consuming each day from added sugars and found it wasn't enough to make a big difference.



There has been some research on artificial sweeteners and the body's feedback mechanisms for sugar. Apparently the artificial sweeteners confuse the body. The taste of sweet starts the insulin production and then there is no sugar for the insulin to deal with, so the body gets confused. It turns out that people who use artificial sweeteners don't lose weight as quickly as people who eat sugar.


----------



## bakechef (Feb 25, 2012)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I can tell the difference between Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback, tastes different.  Regular Pepsi with HFCS I drink and drink and drink and never get enough.  Pepsi Throwback can take me three days to finish one bottle.  My body is looking for the glucose.
> 
> The difference also shows up in my blood sugars, my body uses the sugar in Throwback, it stores the HFCS in Regular Pepsi...throws my bloodwork completely off. Cane Sugar or I won't eat/drink it.



I have a tendency to low blood sugar.  I crash when I drink soda with HFCS in it.  It's funny how you mention never getting enough, I could drink cup after cup in a restaurant and never get enough.  I can buy a small bottle of sugar sweetened Mexican coke and be satisfied.

I also find that when I consume artificial, no calorie sweeteners I crave sugar more.  I wonder if when people consume artificial sweeteners, their body releases at least a little insulin?  I have had only one or two episodes where I have felt my blood sugar start to drop since giving up artificial sweeteners at the beginning of the year.  I go for real sugar or nothing.  I am also saving a ton of money drinking water in restaurants, and not buying soda (diet or otherwise) at work.


----------



## merstar (Feb 25, 2012)

The best I've found is Whey Low - it's 100% natural, tastes like sugar, is used as a 1 to 1 replacement, has no harmful ingredients, and can be used successfully in baking. I use it in baking all the time, and it works perfectly. The only downside is it's very expensive.
Sugar Made Healthy! Whey Low Natural Sweetener


----------



## taxlady (Feb 25, 2012)

merstar said:


> The best I've found is Whey Low - it's 100% natural, tastes like sugar, is used as a 1 to 1 replacement, has no harmful ingredients, and can be used successfully in baking. I use it in baking all the time, and it works perfectly. The only downside is it's very expensive.
> Sugar Made Healthy! Whey Low Natural Sweetener



Do you buy it in a store or online?


----------



## GLC (Feb 25, 2012)

Sounds like a bunch of hand waving and tangent talking. On their web site, they make much of this:

_3. Is Whey Low® safe for diabetics? 

Yes. Whey Low® Type D has been tested in type 2 diabetics in the clinic and has been found to have no more than 20% of the glycemic index of glucose._

Well, sure. Whey Low is sucrose, lactose, and fructose. I presume heavy on the fructose, which has a GI of 17. By comparison, table sugar is 80, and that should be the benchmark, because no one eats glucose directly. Organic cane sugar's GI is 47. Raw honey's GI is 30. But there is a great deal more with regard to diabetics than GI. 

And fructose is as much as 1.8 times sweeter than sucrose, so less is needed for the same effect. And that's where they suppose to get the lower calorie count. But without going into the well known and easily found problem with HFCS, which is exactly and simply the problem with fructose being metabolized differently from sucrose, the product seems to me merely fructose for sweet, sucrose likely for table sugar taste, and lactose for the cutsey product name. 

There's some hand waving about using three sugars together and one or another blocking others in the intestines. Wait, though. All these sugars are available and are regularly consumed by most people daily. The web site talks about why the fructose isn't so bad because of how little of the daily energy intake is represented by typical user amounts of Whey Low. So which is it? Those amounts are so significant that the blocking effect (if that's even accurate) is important, or these amounts are insignificant, and any such effect is trivial considering the rest of the energy diet?

Palm sugar is dramatically cheaper (Whey Low is four times the price), has a very attractive GI, and and doesn't have the potential problems of fructose. And diabetics should refer to the The American Diabetes Association materials on fructose and diabetes, which would be enough to put me off this product. For that matter, people who aren't diabetic and would like to stay that way should look into it, also.


----------



## Addie (Feb 26, 2012)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I can tell the difference between Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback, tastes different. Regular Pepsi with HFCS I drink and drink and drink and never get enough. Pepsi Throwback can take me three days to finish one bottle. My body is looking for the glucose.
> 
> The difference also shows up in my blood sugars, my body uses the sugar in Throwback, it stores the HFCS in Regular Pepsi...throws my bloodwork completely off. Cane Sugar or I won't eat/drink it.


 
I am with you on the can sugar. When I was diagnosed as a diabetic, I tried all the artificial sweeteners, and they left a metalic taste in my mouth. So I decided it was cane sugar for me. I would give up all sweet desserts and other foods that were sweetened with sugar. I wanted to have the cane sugar sweetness in my life. My coffee is very happy with me. And so is my doctor.


----------

