[at-l] Sugar Substitutes

[thornel at attglobal.net (W F Thorneloe)]

I have casually followed this thread, wondering how
food is OT. Early in the thread was a comment on sugar
cones. If one goes to a Hispanic grocer, you can find
hard brown sugar cones, which are a convenient way to
carry dense calories. Honey is almost as good for a
dense sweet and non-spoiling calorie source. 

There is little need for a low calorie sweetener in
hiking. One of the few is a means of getting
electrolyes down. If you have a packet of electrolyte
replacment powder (needed for rehydration, diarrhea,
hypothermia and such), tape a packet of your favorite
sweetener to it. You need it to get potassium and salt
down past your gullet without gagging.

The list's Garry Buffington markets Conquest, a sports
drink. (1 800 WE SWEAT). It has Aspartame and it works
surprisingly well. It would be much heavier with
sugar. I like it and a few others on the list have. I
am worried that my URL's for it seem broken. I am well
thru the bottom half of my last canister.

The general safety of Aspartame, Sucrulose,
Saccharine, cyclamates and others have been well
demonstrated. Certain lab animals given diets very
heavy in certain chemicals get ill. No one knows how
well that translates into human risks. The tendency in
a product liability culture is to take the opportunity
to exploit minor risk for marketing. The list explores
this trend in other areas from time to time. Let the
buyer beware, but it would be nice for the buyer to be
informed and not just cynically wary.

If you don't like to use XYZ-sweetener, it is a free
country. You can even tell people that "XYZ makes my
third eye go all blurry after 2 swallows. ABC gives me
larger body parts." But there is no good reason to
suggest a plot by the FDA to poison our good citizens
by allowing XYZ to be marketed. Demand proof of claims
of superiority of any food or food additive.

OrangeBug