Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This product tries to lead you to believe it is better for you than sugar. This is misleading if not outright false. What good does it do to remove almost all sugar only to replace it with something that masquerades as being good for you, but is no better than, and probably worse than regular sugar? There was a report by Thanh Vo, MSc, in March 21, 2019 entitled "Tapioca Fiber or Soluble Corn Fiber: Which one is worse than sugar?" in which Prebiotic Tapioca Fiber was identified as none other than than the known culprit IMO: Isomaltooligosaccharide. As you may note from above, this compound is a saccharide, and saccharides are sugars! Do you wonder why these products taste so sweet, and you don't taste the stevia? IMO is a SUGAR FIBER, not a true dietary fiber! It is listed as a SWEETENER. One can find it listed in the 'All Sweetener List' at the Sugar-Sweetener-Guide which can be found online. The article by Thanh notes that in n 2013, Quest Nutrition came under litigation for representing IMO as dietary fiber on the nutrional labels for their bars. They ended up removing IMO from their products. Equating prebiotic tapioca fiber with IMO is uncovered by looking at the labeling of other products. An example given in the article is Primal Kitchen's Macadamia Sea Salt bars which list isomaltooligosaccharides (from Tapioca) (IMO) as the first ingredient on their website. However, the package label lists "Prebiotic Tapioca Fiber" in its place. But it is not listed as a carbohydrate or a sugar as this substance seems to fall through the cracks of current labeling requirements. They go on to show another label where "Prebiotic Tapioca Fiber" is directly identified as "IMO from Non GMO Tapioca starch" on the same label. What is notable, according to the article, is that IMO is NOT included in the current Final FDA Guidelines for Dietary Fiber. This would appear to indicate that this is not a true dietary fiber, and Tapioca Fiber is simply another name for IMO. However it seems that, for a few more years yet while the FDA allows further submissions in dietary fibers, companies can do what this company is doing. I look for that to change. The evidence presented in the article goes on to show that IMO (tapioca fiber) is actually worse than table sugar. Recent studies have shown IMO to generate blood sugar levels similar to glucose and dextrose. These have a glycemic index of 100! For a comparison of the glycemic index of various sugars: Table 1: GI of sugars Maltose GI= 105 Glucose/dextrose GI=100 Rice syrup GI=98 Sucrose GI=65 Lactose GI=46 Fructose GI=19 As you can see, IMO has one of highest as its glycemic index is similar to that of glucose/dextrose. It's higher than regular table sugar. In this article they described running two tests to specifically see how a SmartSweet product impacted blood sugar starting from fasting. In one they ate a package of gummie bears. In the other they drank sugar water containg 28 grams pure sugar, and compared the results on fasting blood sugar. The results were virtually identical. Both spiked blood sugar into the160's within an hour, and took over 2 hours to return to normal. Imagine now the effect on a diabetic, and how this would kick someone on a ketogenic diet out of ketosis. Tapioca fiber has also been listed as: Prebiotic Tapioca Fiber Soluble Tapioca Fiber Prebiotic Fiber from Tapioca Starch Prebiotic Soluble Fiber from Tapioca Non-GMO Tapioca Fiber Organic Tapioca Fiber Prebiotic Soluble Fiber from Cassava So buyer beware. This product appears to be is no better than sugar. You can find people on YouTube showing what it does to their blood glucose levels as well. That this product suggests it is better for you than sugar is greatly misleading if not outright false. As noted elsewhere, I feel I have been greatly deceived.