“Sugar-Free” May Not Mean “Low Calorie” Either

Posted By elissa on Jun 14, 2010 | 3 comments

 As noted by this article in the LA Times:

But consumers who reach for sugarless or reduced-sugar versions of their favorite treats in the hopes of consuming fewer calories and shedding a few pounds should read product labels carefully, says Mary Ann Johnson, professor of foods and nutrition at the University of Georgia in Athens and a spokeswoman for the American Society for Nutrition. “Just because you take the sugar out of something doesn’t mean it won’t have flour, protein and fat — and provide lots of calories,” she says.

Take the sugar-free Hershey Special Dark bar. A 40-gram serving (about one full-sized bar) provides 160 calories; the full-sugar version provides 180 calories. In some instances, the caloric difference between standard and sugar-free versions is even more negligible. Compare, for instance, the 107 calories in two regular Oreos with the 100 calories in two sugar-free Oreos.

“Sugar-free” foods may still contain plenty of cals from added fat or starches.  And even when they don’t – they still can’t be eaten with impunity… particularly the ones that contain significant amounts of sugar alcohols.

Because the body can’t fully digest or metabolize sugar alcohols, they provide fewer calories: about 1.5 to 3 calories per gram, compared with the 4 calories per gram from sucrose, or table sugar.

The reduced calorie content in sugar alcohols has a flip side, however: “Because we can’t absorb them, they can cause diarrhea,” Johnson says. (Indeed, many sugar-free food labels warn that excessive consumption “may have a laxative effect.”)

Indeed they do.  The moral is always, always read labels – never assume. 😉