300 is the aprox number of calories 1/4 cup of glycerin has.

56 was just a made up number off the top of my head. I did not know the specific gravity of glycerin nor did I do any calculations.

After I calculated it I got 74.5g of carbs per 1/4 cup and that would be 321.84 calories per 1/4 cup of glycerin.

If you noticed Dodger multiplied it by 4.32 which is the number of calories per gram of carbohydrates.

well like I said I guess I'll have to ask a bio-chemist

But I guess the real point is here that glycerine is not a viable LC ingredient seeing how much controversy is created by asking a simple question like how many carbs are in a 1/4 cup.

The question is simple. But, unfortunately, the answer isn't. You've simply been told the number of potential carbs, not the number of carbs that the body actually uses from glycerine. It's like saying there are 300 calories in Splenda because it isn't a fat, or protein, therefore it is a carb.

Actually 1 gram of pure sucralose would be 1 gram of carbohydrate. The problem is that 1 gram of sucralose is 600 times sweeter than 1 gram of sugar and couldn't possibly be consumed. Even with the liquid splenda, it is heavily diluted with water to make 1 drop equal to 1.5 tsp in terms of sweetness. If it wasn't that diluted it would be impossible to use because 1 drop would be waaaay to sweet for many manufacturers to use. 1 gram of pure sucralose would be about as sweet as over 6 cups of sugar. The reason why they say it is carb free, calorie free etc is because the amount you are getting is so minute that statistically its really too little to count.


The answer to the question how many carbs are in 1/4 cup of glycerin is very simple if you know the specific gravity of the glycerin you are using. The answer is 74.5g (as a general standard assuming the specific gravity is correct). Its very very simple physics.

The answer to the question what will it do in the body is something that no one can give you an answer to and that is because everyone's body reacts differently to things and the body is very complex. There are many debates over this. The general consensus seems to be that it does not really impact blood sugar. Just like some people prefer to count sugar alcohols and some do not, it is up to each individual to decide what they want to do with that. I am pretty sure I remember glycerin having a low glycemic index though I am not sure of the exact number.

Either way, the calories for the glycerin still count. Even if it doesn't raise your blood sugar (which varies on a person to person basis, since some diabetics for example will have a bad reaction to glycerin) and you count it as 0 carbs, that doesn't change the number of carbohydrates that a manufacturer has to list on their product that contains glycerin.


I hope I didnt just cause more confusion with this post.

You're assuming that it will be digested and used, by the body, as fuel. Its like Erythritol or Malitol. One can be digested more than the other. The rest of it goes to the intestines where microbes work on it (or don't). Like fiber and weird things like polydextrose and resistant starches. They don't really fit the model of 4.32 calories per gram.

True. From what I understand glycerin is metabolized in the liver to glucose but does not cause an insulin spike which is why they advise not to count it as a carbohydrate.

Now it can vary from person to person but I would still imagine all the calories for it would count since it is metabolized. I suppose if your body didnt metabolize it (like fiber isnt metabolized) then it wouldnt count.

Here is something I found on glycerol metabolism



http://www.med.unibs.it/~marchesi/f...l.html#glycerol


Now... if the bodys primary source of energy is ketones and not glucose I am not sure if it would have a different reaction in the body. All I know is that when it is metabolized into glucose in the blood it isnt supposed to raise blood sugar for most people.

Did you hear that whooshing sound? It was the sound of your explanation flying right over my head! But it sounds almost like it hangs out in the liver if it is needed. Like how the body stores glucogen?

Something I've never understood. Does your body produce glucose via gluconeogenesis if you don't need it, simply because the it has the what it needs on hand?

Here's another article, from the PDR: http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/.../gly_0304.shtml

This mentions glycerine getting excreted via urine.

That's not the sound of it flying overhead nancy. It's the sound of digesting all the Glycerine info...........I heard a distinct growl

Okay.. Glucose (broken down) can be used to provide a quick efficient energy source for the body. Now, ketone bodies can serve as a source of acetate in all tissues that have mitochondria, including brain, but all these tissue still require some glucose to form oxaloacetate which cannot be made from fats or ketone bodies. Red blood cells do not have mitochondria so the fermentation of glucose is the only source of ATP.

Glycogen is a long chain of glucose stored primarily in the liver. When you eat a very carby meal and your body doesn't need all that glucose right away, it creates these long chains of glucose that are very easy to mobilize if needed.

I am sure you know how insulin and glucagon work, so I dont have to explain that.

Now, the body always needs some glucose in it in order to function. If we eat a low carb diet (I have even read some sources that state that you need as many as 120g of carbs a day) then you can pretty much guarantee that the body is always going to be creating glucose through gluconeogenesis.

I do not think the body is going to make excess glucose to store as glycogen. From what I understand the body would only create what is needed. (My friend who is a biologist just confirmed this, but I dont always trust what he says lol)

Well, your body is perfectly capable of creating glucose out of proteins too, otherwise we'd die after a day or so of fasting. Not stated but I'm guessing you know that.

So if glycerine tends to be stored in the liver then it doesn't get stored as fat, right?

Yeah when I said making glucose via gluconeogenesis I meant through amino acids.



Well... fatty acids all have esters of glycerol like tri-GLYCERIDE. That means that it has 3 fatty acid molecules and a glycerol molecule.

Either way, I wouldnt worry about getting fat off of glycerin. :-)

Not that I exactly use it. But it is actually allowed on the SCD diet. I might use it in some ice cream.

If your liver stores are maxed out, then any further glucose has to be stored as fat. I have never figured out how to determine what the status of my liver glycogen stores.

I've been at this for many years (since 1998, ouch!) and long ago decided to count the carbs on all "weird" ingredients, based consistently on calorie value.

To answer Kevin's original question, polyols and glycerol and even fructose get counted based on this approach.

Hence, this entry in my MasterCook software, dating back years (and the Total Carbs is equal to the total weight in grams, therefore 16g of carbs, 0g dietary fiber)...and of particular note, that's 1 Tbsp or 15mL...




I used the straightforward expedient of weighing (to 1g accuracy, close enough for me without a pharmaceutical scale) 1 Tablespoon ~15mL of pharm grade vegetable source glycerine (it CAN be made from veg oils, no surprise there, it's the molecular backbone of fatty acids) to get the 16g weight. If 1/4 Cup contains 4 Tbsp, well, take it from there...

Heck, there are probably posts in this very forum somewhere back in winter of 2000 or thereabouts, but it's probably time to repost this judging from the heated discussion, eh? Bwaaaa haaaaaa!