(Marcus) #1

Hello there…
I’m a bit surprised no one has talked about this slow release carb source…
It was developed by a German company, and it allows the body to get energy from glucose, yet with no insulin response and without getting off the anaerobic cycle. Anyone heard of this?
This would be a far better solution as opposed to sugar alcohols or sucralose/aspartame/acesulfame potassium.
Here’s some info…

Curious new low GI sugar replacement

No harm intended, but these words scare me.

(Marcus) #3

I used to use this stuff in my protein shakes and I’d have energy to burn for 7-8 hours.


From the Wikipedia article:

"The products of isomaltulose digestion are glucose and fructose, which enter blood. Once absorbed, the glucose and fructose follow the same metabolic routes through the body as if they were derived from sucrose.[4] "

I’m not sure how this is beneficial? It sounds like it’s no better than table sugar to me.

(Marcus) #5

It’s a slow release carb…


" In comparison with sucrose, the rise in blood glucose concentration following the ingestion of isomaltulose appears slower and attenuated, with a lower amplitude that is sustained over a longer period of time. "

I’m still not seeing the benefit of a slow release. I suppose for people who are not IR this may work like a low glycemic index diet. For people on the IR spectrum, minimizing the length of insulin response to short pulses is better than long background levels.

(Richard Morris) #7

Yeah I think you nailed it. For someone who is insulin sensitive an insulin spike quickly resolves although chronic exposure can reduce insulin sensitivity. For someone who is insulin resistant, we normally make more insulin and clear it much more slowly. I apparently make roughly 1.8 times the insulin of a normal insulin sensitive 35 year old, and I take around 4 hours to clear a brief surge of insulin. So a slow release carbohydrate means we make more insulin for much longer. High insulin shuts off the ability to burn fats.

Once your metabolism has become profoundly deranged you have a lot fewer options for messing about with dietary glucose.

(Larry Lustig) #8

So, lower glycemic index but equal glycemic load over a longer time?

As a general principal, the ketogenic diet is based on eliminating carbohydrates, not finding “good” and “bad” ones.

I use neither protein shakes nor carbohydrates and generally don’t have energy problems. When I do, a coffee with cream is generally sufficient.


So, you can spread the damage over a longer period of time? Why do so many people try find ways to sabotage what works? How is it a far better solution? Because it’s “natural”? Tobacco is natural, but I’m not adding it to my diet.


@erdoke found a study: “Metabolic Effects of Replacing Sucrose by Isomaltulose in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes”

TL;DR: HbA1C was the same.

(Gabor Erdosi) #11

In this more recent study lower insulin load was also found. I just smell the sweat in how they try to explain the findings…


How would it affect ketosis? What amount would restart the Krebs cycle and kill ketone production?

(Gabor Erdosi) #13

It’s the same amount of sugar after (slower) digestion, so I expect not much difference based on the drop in insulin load. It’s a bit better, but less sweet sugar. Most likely all benefit is lost if you add enough to achieve the same sweetness.