Skip

"Niagara Falls through a coffee straw...."
October 12, 2013 8:01 PM   Subscribe

I have posted links to Amazon reviews before. But the reviews for the sugarless Haribo Gummy Candy.....well, I just couldn't deprive you all of what is surely the most...well....just see for yourself.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies (74 comments total) 39 users marked this as a favorite

 
Here's a correct link.

People talking about farting is pretty much always funny.
posted by carsonb at 8:11 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


Kinda funny reviews of mildly poisonous "food".
posted by IAmBroom at 8:13 PM on October 12, 2013


Ideal Gift For Your Congressional Representatives

heh
posted by Drinky Die at 8:13 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: I felt violated when it was over
posted by poe at 8:18 PM on October 12, 2013 [5 favorites]


Delicious Cleanse.

Hilarious.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:19 PM on October 12, 2013


It doesn't count as a cleanse unless there are fingernail scrapes in the wallpaper.

I'll be here all evening.
posted by datawrangler at 8:27 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sometimes I am astounded at the creativity that goes into Amazon reviews.

Do these people not have jobs?
posted by BlueHorse at 8:31 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


Not according to the recent employment numbers no.
posted by The Whelk at 8:34 PM on October 12, 2013 [25 favorites]


Haribo (made with real sugar) is popular across Europe, leading to an array of Haribo advertising jingles, some of which take on a darker tone in light of these Haribo:

Dutch: Onbegrijpelijk lekker (Incomprehensibly good)
Danish: Luk op for noget godt, luk op for Haribo – den er go' (Open up for something good, open up for Haribo – it's good)
posted by dhens at 8:34 PM on October 12, 2013


What a great passive aggressive gift idea!
posted by oceanjesse at 8:35 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


Have you looked around lately? That probably _is_ their job.

Quarter of a cent per review via Mechanical Turk
posted by Naberius at 8:35 PM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]


I don't even have to read this to know what happens.

I tried some of the sugar-free gummi bears at Candy Factory and know what happened.

Which is why, at work, when someone kept eating the contents of people of candy's snacks (dishes on desks, or in drawers), I filled mine with them before going away. I almost got assassinated when I got back, but it was worth it.
posted by mephron at 8:37 PM on October 12, 2013 [47 favorites]


Well, now I feel driven to try these. But I don't want to spend $25 for a five-pound bag. Where might I find smaller quantities, I wonder?
posted by kafziel at 8:38 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Why eat sugar-free gummi candy when you could just eat the foam out of your backpack straps?
posted by planetesimal at 8:44 PM on October 12, 2013 [22 favorites]


Oh those good old fashion sugar alcohols (in this case maltitol).

Always good for wacky fun colon times!
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:51 PM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]


kafziel: they carry it at a lot of places. Where I am they have it in the candy aisle in 4 oz bags, and there's also Candy Factory that has them.
posted by mephron at 8:53 PM on October 12, 2013


"A crime scene where the blood is brown"

I am so happy right now.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 8:53 PM on October 12, 2013 [9 favorites]


The Wikipedia page on Lycasin currently cites these very Amazon reviews as "a study in the extreme gastrointestinal distress that the Lycasin-containing candies cause."
posted by Western Infidels at 8:55 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


...bouncing here, and there, and everywhere! High adventure that's beyond compare!
posted by blue_beetle at 8:59 PM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]


Pooooooooooooooooooooooooop
posted by nathancaswell at 9:09 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm amazed that it is legal to sell these.
posted by NoraReed at 9:12 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


I don't often eat gummis. But when I do? I prefer Haribo bears cause they're more chewy and the clear ones aren't fake pineapple and the other colors lend themselves to better flavors and I should probably pick up a pack right now BRB.

:the least interesting man in the world, but he's got gummis so it evens out:
posted by fishmasta at 9:17 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


At least Amazon owns up to the intestinal distress up front without having to read through the reviews.

Good to know those people weren't exaggerating.
posted by BishopFistwick at 9:23 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Space Ship Me.
posted by amanda at 9:32 PM on October 12, 2013 [7 favorites]


C'mon, people, what's with the shitty post?
posted by Samizdata at 9:35 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


And the whole thing pretty much covers my experience with olestra.
posted by Samizdata at 9:36 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


planetesimal: "Why eat sugar-free gummi candy when you could just eat the foam out of your backpack straps"

Well, in the case of gummy candy made with sugar alcohols, like these, because they actually taste very much like the ones with sugar (as several of the reviews note). If you eat just a few pieces, that's fine, and a great substitute for the ones with sugar. If you're like me and you can't stop when you've opened a bag, well, let's say I've had experiences similar to the ones in these reviews. But I have nothing but good things to say about the taste!
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:37 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


I am really tempted to give these to people at work. I used to think I was a good person, but I now realize that was just a hollow shell hiding a man who wanted to make people poop themselves for his amusement.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 9:39 PM on October 12, 2013 [27 favorites]


The company that makes lycasin, Roquette, recently opened an R&D facility near my office in the western suburbs of Chicago. It's plastered with posters of corn on the outside, but now I wonder if the building is just filled with scientists trying to figure out the gas problem.

Its proximity to half a dozen food major processing plants does give me reason to pause...
posted by JoeZydeco at 9:48 PM on October 12, 2013


It's plastered with posters of corn on the outside...

For texture?
posted by Pudhoho at 9:55 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


Olestra doesn't mess with my digestive system, wish more products were available with it but I can understand the marketing issues.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:05 PM on October 12, 2013


Which is why, at work, when someone kept eating the contents of people of candy's snacks…

People of candy!
posted by Nomyte at 10:07 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


let me fart you the song of my people
posted by desjardins at 10:28 PM on October 12, 2013 [14 favorites]


Ah yes, Olestra (you f*cking Pringle bastards)...
posted by jim in austin at 10:38 PM on October 12, 2013


There is some nasal mucus on my keyboard now, thank you for that. But at least my tear ducts got a thorough cleanse.
posted by nostrada at 11:12 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


At first I thought this would be one of those ironic parody review type things.


But no, no. That is an entirely accurate description of what many sugar free candies will do to you if you eat more than a very modest amount. In fact some of them have a warning label that hints at these effects in a roundabout and euphemistic sort of way.

If those labels were accurate they would read:

WARNING: OVERCONSUMPTION OF THIS NOVELTY FOOD PRODUCT MAY TURN YOU INTO A SCREAMING SHITHOSE. BOY I SURE HOPE YOU HAVE LOTS OF TOILET PAPER AND THE ENTIRE HOUSE TO YOURSELF.
posted by louche mustachio at 11:14 PM on October 12, 2013 [19 favorites]



It doesn't count as a cleanse unless there are fingernail scrapes in the wallpaper.


I SEE YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. Have a bag of delicious candy!

I'll be here all evening.

Oh yes. Yes you will be.
posted by louche mustachio at 11:18 PM on October 12, 2013 [7 favorites]


OH MY GOD. This is a perfect revenge product, thank you, I shall have to remember these for next time someone pisses me off. I know that I have this reaction to maltitol, but I didn't realise that it was more widespread than just myself!

I once Instagrammed a local supermarket brand's sugarfree chocolate--which I bought because it was also vegan--and labelled it as not for consumption on trams without quick exit to a toilet, because this was the unfortunate way that I found out that excessive consumption of maltitol was a bad thing. (Excessive consumption: 6 squares.)

The supermarket apologised for this having occurred to me -- I was in stitches for days.
posted by owlrigh at 11:27 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'd be thrilled if some Actual Scientist came along to correct me or fill in the gaps, but basically this is going to be the problem with any sweetener that is basically a sugar but is "reduced calories" because human metabolism doesn't digest it very effectively (or at all).

And that's because we have a whole bunch of gut bacteria that exist on the sugars (mostly carbohydrates) that we can't/don't digest, which is to say fermentation, and which is normally a pretty good arrangement for everyone because we can often digest the products. But when they get a veritable feast of sugars then (fermentation) things go out of control and (fermentation) there's large amounts of gas produced (fermentation) and, oh, all that sugar causes an osmotic imbalance and a lot of water is drawn into the intestine.

Hilarity ensues.

If viewed from a great distance.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:35 PM on October 12, 2013 [6 favorites]


but basically this is going to be the problem with any sweetener that is basically a sugar but is "reduced calories" because human metabolism doesn't digest it very effectively

No, that is not the case. The candies contain a specific class of artificial sweetener that causes "digestive distress" in some people. (Apparently most people.) Other sweeteners don't, probably because they're not very chemically similar. I've never heard of the same level of gastrointestinal problems caused by saccharin (pink stuff) or sucralose (yellow stuff); if they had the same sort of issues you'd certainly not see Diet Coke or Coke Zero stocked in convenience stores next to the bottled water.

It's not a general characteristic of all artificial sweeteners just by virtue of being artificial sweeteners.

Presumably they are using this particular sweetener in the candy because it works in the candymaking process in some way, while others would be more difficult. I've never tried to make candy with artificial sugar, but I have tried to bake with it and some work much better than others, and candy is another step in difficulty above baking in terms of reliance on the behavior of the sugar. It wouldn't surprise me if sweetening options are pretty limited.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:18 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


"No, that is not the case. "

Yes, it is. You actually quoted me where I made this explicit: "the problem with any sweetener that is basically a sugar but is 'reduced calories'"

"It's not a general characteristic of all artificial sweeteners just by virtue of being artificial sweeteners."

Right. I said it was a general characteristic of sweeteners that are basically sugars.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:28 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


Could we put aside the Epic Food Science Battle and get back to the main point here, which is LOL Poop Vesuvius.
posted by KingEdRa at 1:06 AM on October 13, 2013 [15 favorites]


I think the issue is that aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose (Splenda) are all hundreds of times sweeter than normal table sugar, so people generally don't go around ingesting large amounts of them. Maltitol is slightly less sweet than table sugar, so much more is needed to get the desired sweetness.
posted by exogenous at 1:06 AM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


"I think the issue is that aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose (Splenda) are all hundreds of times sweeter than normal table sugar, so people generally don't go around ingesting large amounts of them."

No, that's not really the problem. Aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose are not sugars. Sucralose is close, but has chlorine in place of some hydrogen. None of those three are digested by gut bacteria. The gas doesn't come from nowhere. Flatulence is almost entirely the product of bacterial fermentation.

Maltitol is a sugar and it is digested by gut bacteria. Like the other sugar alcohols are. Many of the natural sugar substitutes are alcohol sugars and most of them have the same problem as maltitol has, for the same reasons. And so does tagatose, which isn't a sugar alcohol but is a saccharide, is almost as sweet as sucrose, but will cause the same symptoms when consumed in large quantities. There's a few sugars that don't have quite as high a caloric content as sucrose and fructose, but don't cause these problems ... because they end up being metabolized anyway, via a different pathway.

And that's the problem, because metabolizing them means taking up their calories; not metabolizing them means that if they're sugars and can be metabolized by gut bacteria, you'll get the problems with gas and some will cause osmotic diarrhea.

Maltitol's problems have everything to do with its being a sugar. In being fermented by gut bacteria, and because it has the osmotic characteristics in the intestine that these sugars have.

As I originally wrote, the basic problem here is that this is in a class of sugar substitutes that are still sugars, just not metabolized (or metabolized as well) by humans, and thus even in amounts similar to that when using sucrose can cause distress.

This is precisely what's going on with lactose intolerance. People without the gene to retard the deactivation of the production of lactate in early childhood cannot digest lactose, which is a sugar. It's (mildly) sweet. When someone can't digest it, their gut bacteria does. While that's happening, you have the osmotic pressure of this undigested sugar causing the intestine to flood itself with water. As the bacteria digest the lactose, they produce gas. This reaction to maltitol is the exact same thing that happens with lactose intolerance.

The tricky thing about lactose intolerance is that the lactate production isn't generally entirely switched off. And lactose tolerance seems to originate in a couple of different genes. The result is that people have varying levels of ability to digest lactose, in both the lactose tolerant and lactose intolerant populations. Which is to say, most of those of us with northern European ancestry still produce lactate as we age, but how much still varies. Some of us can digest more lactose than others. And those of us without that ancestry and are lactose intolerant, also vary in that intolerance because most still produce some small amount of lactate.

That's a bit of a digression, but lactose intolerance is, as you can see, extremely relevant. Because it's the same thing. Almost exactly the same thing.

By the way, that one sentence of yours was weird: "maltitol is slightly less sweet than table sugar, so much more is needed to get the desired sweetness", which doesn't make sense. If it's slightly less sweet than sugar, it would take slightly more to get the same sweetness, not much more.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:13 AM on October 13, 2013 [23 favorites]


Huh. So any idea if malitol or other sugar alcohols can be used to start yeast for bread dough, or for other fermentation purposes?
posted by XMLicious at 3:06 AM on October 13, 2013


"so much more [than aspartame et al] is needed", perhaps.
posted by one weird trick at 3:27 AM on October 13, 2013


No, that's not really the problem.

Fine, but my point is that if maltitol had the sweetness of the other sugar substitutes, this wouldn't be a problem. It's the difference between eating one gummy bear and a whole bag full. So it is the problem, actually, because people aren't having digestive issues after eating one gummy bear. Strange that you seemed to miss that.
posted by exogenous at 5:11 AM on October 13, 2013


"This rocket fuel has low specific impulse" gets my vote as the greatest euphemism of all time.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:28 AM on October 13, 2013 [6 favorites]


Gummi candy is disgusting in any version.
posted by spitbull at 5:34 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


As I type this review, I'm on the toilet, surrounded by my dearest family and friends and a priest. I'm not exactly sure whether this is an exorcism or if I'm getting my last rites read to me.
posted by biscotti at 6:14 AM on October 13, 2013


Individual tolerance will vary.
posted by R. Mutt at 6:21 AM on October 13, 2013


The comparative gastrointestinal responses of children and adults following consumption of sweets formulated with sucrose, isomalt and lycasin HBC

Consumption of 25 g lycasin HBC significantly increased borborygml in children and adults but no other gastrointestinal responses. Consumption of 40 g lycasin HBC or isomalt by adults significantly increased the mean frequency of bowel movements and the number of subjects passing watery faeces. In adults, 40 g isomalt and lycasin HBC provoked significantly more gastrointestinal responses compared to 25 g of either product.

[borborygml: stomach rumbles]
posted by needled at 6:46 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ooooooh, so this is why those Ice Cubes "sugar free" gum makes my stomach inflate like a balloon a few minutes after I chew a piece. Third ingredient: maltitol syrup. Must be also why the same thing happens with the sugar free Jello pudding cups.

Thanks Metafilter for teaching me a new thing today. I don't respond well to sugar free stuff that says alcohol sugars somewhere on the package.
posted by CrazyLemonade at 7:03 AM on October 13, 2013


This kind of diarrhea made me think of a new invention.... seat belts for the toilet.
posted by porn in the woods at 7:10 AM on October 13, 2013 [4 favorites]


Just for the record, the Kool-Aid Liquid will do this to you, too. Goddamned Kool Aid Liquid.
posted by headspace at 7:21 AM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


Huh, this really makes me reframe my younger daughter's entire childhood.
posted by thinkpiece at 8:42 AM on October 13, 2013


For me, sorbitol has that same effect. It took useless trips to the doctor, and about a year, for me to figure it out.
posted by annsunny at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2013


The key thing is that fake food doesn't magically disappear, while real food actually does. Nearly all of the bulk of what we eat consists of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and a relatively minor fraction of fiber. Other than the fiber, nearly all of what doesn't get stored as fat gets exhaled after we burn it to make metabolic energy and CO2. If we replace those real foods with similarly bulky equivalents like olestra (an artificial fat we can't metabolize) or sugar alcohols (taste like sugar but we can't metabolize), then that stuff doesn't get burned and exhaled. This generally means it will end up in our intestines since there's nowhere else for it to go, and the results are probably not going to be anything like what nature ever intended.

The thing is, you can't make artificial gummi bears out of sorbitol or saccharine because you'd still need something to provide the food's bulk, and that will either get metabolized or come out on the toilet. If the goal is to pick something that can't be metabolized that only leaves one option.
posted by localroger at 11:17 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


Fiber Bears. They play rough because they're made of roughage.
posted by Nomyte at 12:40 PM on October 13, 2013 [7 favorites]


So I just showed these to my wife and I'm fairly certain that I have never seen her laugh that hard. It was glorious and painful
posted by drewbage1847 at 2:28 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


So any idea if malitol or other sugar alcohols can be used to start yeast for bread dough, or for other fermentation purposes?

Maltitol and other sugar alcohols are considered non-fermentable for brewing purposes, meaning by yeasts that produce alcohol. They can be metabolized by some bacteria, but I've never heard of someone losing a batch that way. (My suspicion is that the bacteria that metabolize sugar alcohols must not tolerate the alcohol levels found in most brewed beverages very well, or else it would be a more serious issue.) The non-fermentability makes them useful, but they are not hugely popular IMO.

Some people will use sugar alcohols for "back sweetening", which is the addition of sweeteners after fermentation is done in order to make the finished product (esp. cider) more sweet. The two main ways of doing this are by adding specifically non-fermentable sweeteners, or by inactivating all the yeast in the beverage and then adding regular fermentable sugar. The latter can be done either chemically (generally with a combination of potassium sorbate and sulfites) or thermally (pasteurization). But if you kill the yeast, then you can't naturally carbonate the beverage in the bottle by adding a controlled amount of fermentable sugar before bottling, plus some people dislike the taste or additional work involved in chemically killing the yeast. So adding a non-fermentable sweetener in addition to the carbonation sugar (priming sugar) is fairly popular.

If you are OK with lactose, that makes a great non-fermentable sweetener. Yeast can't eat it, but it tastes sweet to humans -- perfect, as long as you can digest it. But if you can't, then artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols start to look tempting.

Xylitol seems to be more popular with homebrewers than maltitol, presumably because it's sweeter and thus less of it is required. Maltitol, being less sweet, would result in more of a change in consistency / mouthfeel in the final product (not to mention possible digestive issues) for a given level of sweetness.

I've never back-sweetened with xylitol/maltitol myself, although I have a batch of hard cider going right now and I've been considering my options and doing a bunch of reading on the subject. There are downsides to basically every sweetening option, to the point where I'm thinking of just bottling the stuff dry and letting people mix in packets of Splenda as desired, like iced tea.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:57 PM on October 13, 2013


I just found myself laughing til I wheezed like a bronchial old man. Much appreciated!

Gummi candy is disgusting in any version.

That's just crazy talk.
posted by billiebee at 4:04 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's lucky most low-calorie sugar replacements taste funny to me AND now obvious why I was so violently ill a few weeks ago! I only had a few (3-5) before the funny taste warned me it was a "diet" product. My diabetic friend apparently gets no trouble from them but post-illness has left me sensitive to a lot of things these days (lettuce. seriously). It's too much to imagine the horror had I ingested many more. The relationship between my terrible distress and those few, seemingly harmless, gummis is now apparent.

I don't have wallpaper but did consider I might install hand grips.
posted by _paegan_ at 4:08 PM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]


This is hilarious, and I laughed till my eyes watered. But, seriously, why do we permit this stuff to be sold? At least without giant red warnings?

I too came to grief with sugar-free candy. In my case, it was the Werther's Originals and the Dove chocolates, which really are quite good. It's just that the limit for me is one single candy within 24 hours. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect that the consequences of overconsumption after that would be so dramatic. It's not like eating an enormous amount of, say, burritos, in which case the body gives warning signs to stop eating because of the bulk and fat in the food. (We may ignore them, of course, but we can't say we didn't get them.) The sugar alcohols are, one might venture to say, silent but deadly.

After I bought those candies, I felt guilty letting other people take them out of my dish on my desk at the office, as if I were playing a cruel prank. Eventually I took them out of there and hid them, not to be stingy but because I felt responsible. The FDA should have stepped in before that point.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:08 PM on October 13, 2013 [4 favorites]


This is hilarious, and I laughed till my eyes watered. But, seriously, why do we permit this stuff to be sold? At least without giant red warnings?

Because far from everyone gets the crazy-go-nuts extreme experience the Amazon reviews describe. On a lark, I sweetened everything with xylitol for a year, instead of sugar or honey. Although it wasn't completely without consequences, I never had problems with stratospheric diarrhea.
posted by Nomyte at 5:07 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Excess consumption may have a laxative effect."

Learn those words, fear them, as I have learned to. I knew all about maltitol from that time I got type 1 diabetes at age 19 and some well-meaning relatives bought me a big ass tub of sugarless hard-tacks. I put two and two together on the sugar alcohols after deciding to treat myself one night to a sugar-free root beer float. Between the carbonation and the isotol in the diet ice cream I literally learned old school levitation. God as my witness both cheeks were off the chair a few times. I can only imagine the three way that would have occurred in my guts were I also lactose intolerant.

My understanding is that the sugar alcohols are preferred for food manufacturers where using other sweeteners would screw up the texture or consistency of the product. Every time I see that warning on a package I just put whatever it is right back on the shelf and keep going.

In short- fuck you to anything in my food ending in "ol".
posted by mcrandello at 6:59 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


p.s. A free tip to anyone who finds themselves in this predicament and opening the windows isn't clearing the air fast enough or it's winter/summer out: A scented dryer fabric softener sheet taped to the output side of a fan is the fastest way to make the room habitable again. As long as we're all sharing...
posted by mcrandello at 7:06 PM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]


Several months ago my wife and I learned about the incredible gastrointestinal distress sugar-free gummy bears can cause. I ate a few handfuls before bed and woke several hours later in so much pain I was convinced I had appendicitis. Absolutely the worse stomach cramps I've ever had accompanied by some of the most fowl-smelling gas. I was in agony. My wife thought I was being a baby.

The next day my wife ate a handful of the evil little bears and she suffered the same agony. We put two and two together and decided to google sugar-free gummy bears and low and behold we ended up on the amazon reviews page laughing our asses off.

We now joke about pranking friends with weaponized gummy bears. I'd do it except no one deserves that much pain and suffering. Well, maybe Ted Cruz but we don't hang out much.
posted by photoslob at 7:49 PM on October 13, 2013


Nomyte: "Which is why, at work, when someone kept eating the contents of people of candy's snacks…

People of candy!
"

A kinder way of dealing with that is the Harry Potter themed Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans. Once they hit a sardine or black pepper bean, they stop raiding. Although, I find the "grass" flavor beans strangely appealing.
posted by Samizdata at 11:05 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's lucky most low-calorie sugar replacements taste funny to me AND now obvious why I was so violently ill a few weeks ago! I only had a few (3-5) before the funny taste warned me it was a "diet" product.

Sugar alcohol products usually aren't low-calorie or diet or anything like that and have the same amount of carbs and calories as the equivalent food made with sugar. They just don't spike up blood glucose levels as much for those of us who are diabetic.
posted by XMLicious at 12:35 AM on October 14, 2013


Thank you for clarifying, XMLicious. I need a better replacement phrase for "things that aren't cane, agave, honey, or other simple sugars" or whatever it is that encompasses the groups of sugars and sugar replacements that taste weird to me.
posted by _paegan_ at 7:56 AM on October 14, 2013


Indeed, I believe that some sugar alcohols are used as baby laxatives because the result is (comparatively) gentle.

I recall visiting a gourmet chocolate store and finding that they had a good variety of sugarless chocolates. I commented on this and picked up an assortment for a friend of mine with diabetes. The salesgirl very delicately alerted me to the risks of the sugar alcohols. I assured her that my friend was well aware and knew to pace herself. Once she knew I wouldn't be offended, the salesgirl confided that they would get models in who would buy several bars at once, apparently for the purpose of one-step binging and purging.
posted by Karmakaze at 7:56 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Dollywood sells sugar-free candy.

This is worth knowing. So you can avoid it.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 9:18 AM on October 14, 2013


I have to.

Metafilter: LOL Poop Vesuvius
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:41 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


« Older Apple Cabin Blue   |   Is it humerus? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post