T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
3165.1 | just a thought but | POWDML::SIMARD | | Thu Aug 01 1991 14:13 | 7 |
| I was under the impression that you couldn't use an artificial sweetner
in things that are cooked because the sweet doesn't stay, it cooks out
when things get a certain temp. I even notice it in my hot coffee, if
it's too hot then it's not as sweet.
|
3165.2 | try water, then give up | ENABLE::GLANTZ | Mike 227-4299 DECtp TAY Littleton MA | Thu Aug 01 1991 14:20 | 25 |
| This is a very difficult thing to do.
First of all, the substitution ratios given on the packages of many
sugar substitutes mainly handle matching sweetness. They generally
fail in matching sugar's other properties, especially in baking. And
if you're not baking, the ratio isn't critical, anyway, and it's
usually not hard to find some rate of substitution which will render
your final results the desired sweetness, and avoid possible
off-flavors (such as saccherine has).
The real problem is the other properties of sugar. When added to
recipes in the presence of liquid, it usually increases the liquid's
effect of making the recipe more runny. The strength of this effect
depends on the ratio of liquid to other ingredients, such as starch,
fat, and leavening. Baking recipes are sensitive to proportions of
these ingredients. Sugar substitutes have very little "liquid
enhancing" effect, so recipes which depend on this property of sugar
will often fail, no matter how much or how little substitute you use.
I'm not aware, offhand, of any other ingredient you could add, in
addition to the sugar substitute, which works well in baking. If
you're willing to lose a couple of batches of ingredients to
education, you could try adding water, milk, small amounts of fat,
etc, in addition to your sugar substitute, to see what happens, but
you should expect frequent disappointment.
|
3165.3 | Dibetic Cookbook
| KERNEL::SIMA | | Fri Aug 02 1991 10:17 | 7 |
| I have a friend who's diabetic who has to use sweeteners when she
bakes. The results can be a bit mixed, but at least the recipies are
designed for sweeteners in the first place. Why not get a diabatic cookery book
and start from there?
Aly
|
3165.4 | | BROKE::THATTE | Nisha Thatte | Fri Aug 02 1991 17:36 | 5 |
|
thanks for the replies. I was hoping to modify recipes that I have to make them
less calories but it doesn't look easy.
-- Nisha
|
3165.5 | no sugar usually translates to boring :^( | CSSE32::GRAEME | Only elephants should wear ivory | Tue Aug 06 1991 12:27 | 8 |
| A lot of diabetic cookbooks seem to use apple juice and other juices
rather than sugar. The recipes we have tried are just ok. Check out
your local library - they usually have a very large selection of
cookbooks, including "no sugar" books and "special dietary needs".
Keep in mind that most recipes can be made with 1/3 less sugar without
a noticeable difference. While this doesn't eliminate sugar, it does
help reduce calories a bit...
|
3165.6 | | CNTROL::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Aug 15 1991 13:50 | 12 |
| In some cases you can replace sugar with fructose. Fructose is much
sweeter than sugar so you can use less. The difference in sweetness is
reduced upon cooking, however. Fructose comes in both liquid and
granulated forms. The product labels have recommended amounts for
replacing sugar in various recipes. You can find it in grocery and
health food stores.
Isn't NutraSweet coming out with a version that can be cooked? I read
an article quite a few years ago that said there is work going on for
FDA approval of left-handed sugar. The molecular form of this material
is a mirror image of regular sugar. The tastebuds can't tell the
difference, but the body can't metabolize it.
|
3165.7 | | PSW::WINALSKI | Careful with that VAX, Eugene | Fri Aug 16 1991 19:19 | 15 |
| RE: .6
> I read
> an article quite a few years ago that said there is work going on for
> FDA approval of left-handed sugar. The molecular form of this material
> is a mirror image of regular sugar. The tastebuds can't tell the
> difference, but the body can't metabolize it.
This is a phony rumor on two accounts. First, L-glucose (as opposed to the
usual D-glucose isomer) would taste different--the tastebuds and indeed most
biological processes are highly sensitive to isomeric configuration.
Secondly, the body *can* metabolize L-glucose. Just not on the preferred
metabolic paths. The caloric value of L-glucose and D-glucose are the same.
--PSW
|
3165.8 | Sunnett brand artifical sweetner | REFINE::HUGHES | | Fri Aug 23 1991 16:35 | 14 |
| There is a sugar substitute that has been on the market for a few
years, it's brand name is Sunnett, and you can bake with it. I first
ran into it at a Sugar-Free bakery in Salem NH on Rt 28. I thought I
was dreaming, Sugar-Free bakery! I stopped in and tried lots of their
sweets. Mt favorite was their chocolate chip cookies, they used
unsweetened chocolate bits and this Sunnett brand sweetner. I forget
the name of the chemical but I can get it, I have a package of it at
home. Anyways, in these cookies it tasted fantastic, it had no after
taste. I am not used to eating sugar so I'm not the best judge. Other
people I know have tried it and liked it very much. It really does not
have an after taste.
Linda
|
3165.9 | Sunnet artificial sweetner | AIMHI::JUTRAS | | Fri Aug 23 1991 17:09 | 5 |
| Where did you find this Sunnett. I live in the Nashua area but
frequent the Salem area also. Please let me know. My wife is a
diabetic with a sweet tooth and this would be a Godsend.
|
3165.10 | | CNTROL::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Fri Aug 23 1991 17:18 | 4 |
| �This is a phony rumor on two accounts.
Maybe this is why I haven't heard anything about it since. I guess
Omni should check their stories a little more thoroughly.
|
3165.11 | | RANGER::PESENTI | Only messages can be dragged | Wed Aug 28 1991 11:22 | 3 |
| Interesting. I just got the latest issue of American Health, and noticed an
article on sweeteners, incuding sunnett. I'm going to have to read more about
it.
|
3165.12 | info from label on Sunnette Brand Sweetner | REFINE::HUGHES | | Thu Aug 29 1991 16:33 | 27 |
| Here's the information printed on the packaging of Sweet One.
Low Calorie Sugar Substitute, Sweet One tm
4 Calories per packet
Each packet as sweet at 2 teaspoons of sugar
Sodium Free
with Sunnette tm Brand Sweetner
Sweet One can be used just like sugar, only you use less. Each
premeasured packet has the sweeting equivalence of 2 teaspoons
of sugar and contains approxiametely one gram of carbohydrate
equivalent to about 4 calories. This should be taken into account
by diabetics.
INGREDIENTS: Dextrose, Acesulfame-K (Sunnette tm brand sweetner), cream
of tartar, calcium silicate (anticaking agent) and natural flavors.
What is Sunnette tm ?
Sunnette tm is a new sweetner with a clean, sweet taste which, unlike
some sweetners, stays sweet even in baked goods.
For information and comments:
1-800-544-8610
Sweet One tm is a trademark of Stadt Corp
Sunnette tm is a trademark of Hoechst AG
US Patent 3,689,486
|
3165.13 | | ENABLE::glantz | Mike 227-4299 DECtp TAY Littleton MA | Thu Aug 29 1991 16:45 | 4 |
| Sounds pretty much like many other sweeteners. Nothing in the list of
ingredients leads me to believe that you won't get unpredictable
results (with respect to consistency) in baking or other recipes where
the other properties of sugar are important.
|
3165.14 | Any health risks? | TNPUBS::STEINHART | Pixillated | Fri Aug 30 1991 16:03 | 21 |
| Here's the spanner in the works:
Are there any health risks to the new sweeteners, for pregnant women
and young children as well as everybody else?
No problem with any sweetener ending with "ose" - sucrose,
fructose, lactose, etc. Those are all nature's own sweeteners.
Sucrose - sugar cane. Fructose - fruit. Lactose - milk.
I am concerned with the others. There have been quite a few on the
market, and each has come under a cloud of suspicion, usually with
inconclusive results.
Does anyone have any scientific information? Possible sources are the
Center for Science in the Public Interest (Washington, DC) or Consumer
Reports.
I'd appreciate any information.
Thanks,
Laura
|