I see several protein bars that have a high proportion of polyols. For example, one has 26g of carbs (per 100g), but 24g of which are polyols, and 1.7g are sugars (50g of protein and 7.3g of fat).
The question is: of the 20g of net carbs, which is the usual limit for keto, should I take into account 26g, 1.7g or something in between?
Personal choice @Arbre
Some count sugar alcohols, other don’t. See how they affect you personally.
Some sugar alcohols have net carbs, I am not even sure if it’s visible on the label, I guess not…
But some people count them all. I do the common things, some for xylitol, none for erythritol, it doesn’t seem to matter if I eat a ton of poliols - but why would I do that? I am glad to get off my decades long sweets addiction.
26% seems super sweet to me but modest for a normal person…
I agree with @Shortstuff, see how your own body likes it. I have heard very various things from people regarding sugar alcohols.
And of course, don’t eat too many of such things. Eat proper food, this is like candy just without all the sugar, not for eating galore as some people seem to do.
and just a side note…watch your guts. Many of us don’t do well on any fake stuff and it can wonky up the guts to the max 
So just see how you do on them and if bad, ditch fast LOL You will know if they don’t set right with ya!!
I think the primary issue with so-called ‘non-sugar’ sweeteners is not the ‘non-sugar’ part. It’s the ‘sweetener’ part. It’s true that specific products have different effects on glucose and insulin in different folks. But they stimulate the ‘sweet’ response in everyone. One ‘sweet’ response (of multiples):
It remains my strong opinion that sweet serves no useful purpose and the sooner lost the better.
“Non-nutritive sweeteners,” as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration calls them, are required to show that they do not increase serum glucose, before they are allowed to be sold in the U.S., so having a glucose spike from eating one of them would be a big deal. However, insulin spikes are not of concern to the FDA, so there are no data about that. There is, however, anecdotal evidence to suggest that such sweeteners can cause an insulin spike in certain people.
I don’t have time to do a proper lit search as I’m on my way to work for the day. But I suspect it’s a range of ‘very low’ values - not zero. Unless someone else beats me to it, I’ll try later. Regardless, I still say the bigger issue is pandering to sweet - although some pandering results in worse outcomes than others.
Well, I am the exception that makes the rule, I guess. Never got too excited about sweets. Salty, fried, and crispy were my weakness. And I was a raging alcoholic. Hah! I’ve never said “raging” before, but I guess it fits. My dad was a recovering alcoholic. But…… maybe they get hooked on the sweet alcoholic drinks. I was more hard core, like my dad… scotch. So…. Who knows. I take most research with a grain of salt. And a dash of potassium for good measure… lol.
Don’t be surprised if your story gets worse, the longer you stay sober!
That depends, you said it has 26g (per 100g), which is meaningless if the bar you’re eating isn’t 100g. Whats the serving size of the bar? How many are you actually eating? Me personally I wouldn’t care if only 1.7g is actually sugar. Unless you’ve identified an actual problem with polyols when you consume them… why care? You don’t want a solution in search of a problem.
@robintemplin @Shortstuff Read the article I linked above before jumping to conclusions from the title. To be clear, it the does not say that a liking for sweet is a prerequisite for alcoholism. Just that liking sweet is an indication of proclivity. You can become alcoholic all on its lonesome without liking sweet.
Alcohol and sugar are chemically related, and alcoholics early in sobriety are encouraged to substitute sugar for alcohol when they crave a drink.
ETA: In light of what I know now, that may not be the best strategy. Although the toxic effects of ethanol are a lot greater in the short-term, so it might still be a worthwhile tradeoff.
What is the difference between nutritive and non-nutritive high-intensity sweeteners?
Nutritive sweeteners add caloric value to the foods that contain them, while non-nutritive sweeteners are very low in calories or contain no calories at all. Specifically, aspartame, the only approved nutritive high-intensity sweetener, contains more than two percent of the calories in an equivalent amount of sugar, as opposed to non-nutritive sweeteners that contain less than two percent of the calories in an equivalent amount of sugar.
Since those calories are coming from carbs they’re glucose. So my initial guess is correct - very low range but not zero. I think that opens enough wiggle room for different individual responses to various products, which is typically what we see.
Response to sweets is extended to all refined carbs?
Me, even though I am asking for polyols, I am not too enthusiastic about sugar. Sure, I like it, but what really hooks me is wheat (bread, pasta …).
Yeah, I see that. It’s always interesting to hear new studies related to addiction and how our dna, diet, lifestyle etc can play a role.
Carbohydrate is just another name for sugar. The only differences between them is how long it takes the glucose (and in some cases fructose as well) to get to your blood stream.
Salty, fried, crunchy, sour and sweet 
And soft, spongy, jelly-like and creamy too
I want everything! (Sometimes it must happen right away or very soon at least. This caused some hardship on carnivore but I can be very creative and I am fine with straying a bit from it…)
I always drank very rarely and little, though, it’s something! I ate sweets for every meal or almost and I drank, like, a few times a year, always little.
Carnivore stops both completely as sweets are booze aren’t carnivore, there is no way around that Even the desire towards sweets tend to go away. I never desire booze, I just drink it for fun and joy. I never feel it as my portion is way too tiny for that. So it’s mostly the taste and keeping my rebellious inner self at bay, maybe. I drink because I can and because it’s nice. Both are tiny reasons so I barely drink.
I always found it interesting that I like sweets (the right ones, at least. I am choosy) but usually dislike sweet drinks… And I very much hate sweetness in my meat dishes. Sweets should be sweet, savory food usually shouldn’t. It’s not super clean as almost everything is sweet to some extent but I don’t talk about a little cream, I talk about deliberately used sugar or sweeteners.
I don’t use salt in any desserts either. Recipes always do that… (I know one that needs it but that’s very carby and I never do that.)
I would never put sugar into a not sweet bread either, my pheasant anchestors didn’t do that. The bread didn’t need it, the yeast is happy without so why? No idea, whatever, it must be some lil nuance I just can’t perceive. It’s fine for me
Yes, I understand that theoretically. But for example, I do not like Coke much. I can drink a bit one day, and I can enjoy, but never ever I have the wish to drink it, it has to be somebody offering it to me.
Instead, bread and pasta: I just love them!
Then, there has to be something that differentiates both, in a very strong way.
Also, I can enjoy candies, but I will not choose them to eat, never ever. Instead, a cake (with wheat): I can die for it!
So, I like sweet taste, but if it is without wheat, it is just another taste, nothing special. Put wheat to it: everything changes.