Probably because even though it tastes like sugar, it doesn't behave like sugar, which has a more active role in baked goods than as a simple flavoring agent.

https://bakerbettie.com/function-of-sugar-in-baking/

Seems like we have like 800 natural and artificial gums, flours, emulsifiers, etc, some of which are even occasionally considered health food ingredients, and most almost all of which seems healthier than sugar, why not use those for the baking texture if you're going to use the fake sugar for sweetness?

I suspect you slightly under-appreciate how ubiquitous sugars are in nature. Glucose and its close relatives are everywhere in plants. Cellulose, the main building material of plants, is polymerized glucose. A ton of various substances of plant origin are all pre-built to interact with sugars, and may have trouble interacting nicely with severely different kinds of molecules.

With relation to baking and frying, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction works with sugars, and likely can't work adequately with something materially different.

Does Maillard actually do anything aside from the crust? Why couldn't we just put a tiny but of real sugar in the top few mm, by spraying sugar water or just sprinkling on wet batter or dough?

Seems like there are commercial sugar free stuff with an ok texture, but then again maybe I just haven't noticed because the taste of most artificial sweeteners is so bad that it masks it, and I only try them if I accidentally buy something with it...

Because those don't give you the same outcome as sugar baked goods.

I urge you to try and bake with any any of those 800 and get a baked good that has a texture like a sugar based good (and doesn't totally crumble apart)

In addition to health and digestive issue, artificial sweateners normally have 2 significant issues:

1) Taste is about how molecules bind to taste receptors on yhe tongue. Just because a sweatener binds to the sweet receptors, doesn't mean it won't also bind to other receptors. This gives them a different flavor profile than sugar, which needs to be balanced in the overall recipe.

2) Sugar does more than just bind to receptors on your tongue. Mix confectioner's sugar into water and you a glaze. It is still just sugar, but has a distinct look and feel. Or, just coat your confection with powdered sugar directly. It is the same surgar, but produces a completely different sensation in your mouth.

In baking, sugar tends to make food softer. In sauces, it acts as a thickener.

According to this article[1] from 2022 at higher concentrations it has a reduced sweetness response and leaves a lingering sweet taste. Supplementing it with real sugar means they don’t need to go to higher concentrations.

[1] https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2022/12/02/Amai-Pr...

Sugar substitutes can differ from actual sugar in several ways. The sweetness may take longer to be detected, it may stick around longer (aftertaste), and there may be other, bitter flavors in addition to the sweetness. As others have mentioned, sugar also has various technical roles in food, such as softening baked goods and acting as a preservative.

You often need the chemical properties of sugar to maintain texture. It’s not just a question of flavor or sweetness.

You can get ketchup and chocolate without any sugar at all.

No added sugar, you mean? Tomatoes and cacao both contain natural sugars.

You don’t need sugar for textural reasons for either chocolate or ketchup. It almost surely has to do with taste.

Probably has to do with palatability. Like how full sugar Coke tastes great and zero calorie Coke tastes terrible. The half sugar half stevia Coke tastes better than zero calorie but worse than full sugar. They probably tested each food and detected the inflection point where taste scores started suffering.

Maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome of some type after years on the stuff, but I've come to love the taste of zero calorie drinks, and find the originals odd and unpalatable. Hard to explain, it's like they are thicker/syrupy? Even Mexican Coke.

Same here. After years of drinking Coke Zero, I find regular Coke undrinkable.

I belive it's that syrupy thickness people that prefer sugary version like, more than just the sweetness.

Personally, after a long brake from drinking coke/pepsi I can't stand either the original or the zero. I seem to crave the taste sometimes, then I buy one(zero) and it's like "what is this? Why sweetness is literally the only thing that I can taste here?" It feels like they are doubling the sugar in comparison to how I remember it. Most likely it's the same drink, I was just used to the massive sweetener/sugar content before.

FWIW, I prefer the taste of Coke Zero and Pepsi Max to regular Coke/Pepsi.

My wife had never tried Coke Zero before we met and she also prefers it now.

Not sure what they use in these alternatives but Diet Coke/Pepsi taste pretty bad so it must be a starkly different artificial sweetener.

Agreed on zero being better than diet. They actually use the same sweeteners, but a different flavor profile.

FWIW, in the US at least, Pepsi Max also became Pepsi Zero.

I suspect both are getting away from the 'diet' moniker because of the fact that people not on an active weight loss diet prefer them, ruining the played out joke of 'haha he ordered 2 burgers and a diet coke.'

Turns out Diet Coke is actually a different drink. When they made it way back when with the previous genesis artificial sugars it tasted terrible. So they actually re-created the recipe for the fake sugar.

Coke Zero is the same as Coke but with newer generation Artifical sweeteners. That’s why many who like Coke end up not liking Diet but like Zero much better.