As far as I can tell, those packets of raw sugar have the same calories as refined sugar, with 1/10th the ability to sweeten. So if you wish to sweeten your coffee, for example, you end up consuming about 5x the sugar, than if your stupid coffee shop just offered regular damn white sugar. Why? Why does this stuff exist? Who prefers it?

  • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    My first thought was that maybe the Sugar in the Raw packets have less product in them, since turbinado sugar is more expensive than white sugar, but a quick googling tells me that Sugar in the Raw packets are 5 grams and standard sugar packets are in the 2.3- 3 gram range. So if you use a comparable number of packets out of habit, you really are doubling your sugar intake.

    So I think it must just be a solubility thing, as suggested below. The big crystals do end up sunk to the bottom of a cold drink undissolved. If it’s a hot drink… 🤷‍♀️

  • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s Turbinado sugar. Essentially brown sugar but bigger crystals.

    People want it because it’s less refined compared to white sugar and still contains molasses.

    I assume the fact that the crystals are bigger means you require more.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I assume the fact that the crystals are bigger means you require more.

      OP seems to be using it to sweeten a drink, so the crystal size should only affect how long it takes to dissolve, not how sweet it tastes. The additional flavor from the molasses might make it seem a little less sweet than white sugar, but only a little.

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        the crystal size should only affect how long it takes to dissolve, not how sweet it tastes

        Unless OP isn’t giving the crystals sufficient time to dissolve, which would give it the appearance of having less sweetening power

        • blackbrook@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Which is pretty much guaranteed with a cold drink. Any other brand of “natural” cane sugar has normal sized crystals, its really annoying getting these stupid big crystals in a coffee shop.

  • khepri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s just sugar with a teensy bit of the natural brown color from unrefined molasses left in it. I don’t find your observation that it takes 5 or 10 times as much of it to sweeten something to be true for me whatsoever, it’s almost exactly the same, and leaves me wondering if perhaps you also find that today’s low-flow toilets need to be flushed dozens of times to work, or that you turn on modern showers and just a tiny trickle comes out :)

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Health wise they’re the same thing. Flavor wise Sugar in the Raw (turbinado sugar) has a little bit of molasses in it so the flavor is slightly different. I think using it in coffee and tea is a waste personally, but it’s very good on top of baked goods.

    • Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I use it in coffee specifically because I don’t want the hyper sweetness that white sugar provides. I think that the molasses takes the edge out of the coffee which allows me to use less of it. It could also be a mental thing but I’m still using less sugar so…

  • Mellow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I suspect marketing bullshittery. I’ve bought “sugar in the raw” a few years ago to try, and it reminded me of back in In high school chemistry II in which I did an experiment where I took a brand name sugar and a lower budget brand sugar and examined it under a microscope. The budget brand sugars’ crystal structure was larger but hollow. Weighing the two by volume showed less mass for the budget brand. Putting the same volume of the two in a mortar and grinding with a pestle yielded less volume for the budget brand which means for the same volume you’re getting less sugar.

    I believe that “sugar in the raw” does the same thing to give you less for more price, but compounds it’s marketing by telling you it’s unprocessed and more natural. Maybe that’s true but you’re certainly getting less product for the price. One would think less processing would cost less. The only difference from the experiment was that you were paying less for less. Kind of interesting how business ethics have changed over the years.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, that is why the whole argument is a fallacy. I am all for eating the rich and taking down the corporations, but this one is off base. The “in the raw” generally means it is A. Made from sugarcane not sugar beats, and B. Unbleached.