SC - Feast Themes/ginge

[Marisa Herzog]

ysabeau wrote:
  > I have recently been looking for recipes that use apple juice or
  > apple juice concentrate instead of sugar. I first go the idea from a
  > book with healthy toddler recipes. Does anyone have any evidence of
  > apple juice being used as a sweetener or any other recipes? I have
  > been having a lot of trouble substituting the apple juice into
  > regular recipes because of the liquid content. Any suggestions?
  
Adamantius opined....
  This sounds a bit more like a Tibor question ;  ), but I'll have a go at
  it. The only instance I've encountered where apple juice was used as a
  sweetener is in the production of apple butter, which probably goes back
  to the 17th century, if you can go by what's usually written on the jar
  label.

I guess I am the expert on how to take a perfectly good recipe, and ruin
them.  (:-)

Adamantius pretty much covered the bases: I'd suggest that you use frozen
apple juice concentrate (as many alternative cookbooks recommend) and reduce
the amount of liquid in the recipe accordingly.

Heretics corner.  Sugar is sugar, and no one form is healthier than others.
Unless you are on a reduced sugar diet for some reason.  In which case none
of them are healthier.

Chemistry lesson: Simple sugars are made of 6 carbon atoms, 12 hydrogen
atoms and 6 oxygen atoms.  There are two common variant shapes of those
simple sugars: Fructose and Glucose, aka simple sugars.  (You can also
sucrosethink" of sugar as 6 carbon atoms and 6 "water" atoms.  This will lead you
to remember that they are "Carbohydrates".)  These are the "monosaccharides"
(one sugar).

Sugar atoms form chains very easily.  The most common forms of commercial
sugars are 2 sugar chains: sucrose, maltose and lactose.  (If I recall
correctly, sucrose is made of 2 glucose molecules, lactose is one of each, and
maltose is two fructose.  I could be wrong about the last two, especially).
The chemical bond between the two costs one "water", and so the result is
C6-H22-O11.  These are disaccharides (two sugars).  There are many more
complex compounds than these, made of carbohydrates, such as starch and
cellulose.

Your body will burn sugar, no matter what the form.  First it will convert
the disaccharides into monosaccharides (requiring some extra water to break
them up).  Then it will convert the monosaccharides to glucose forms.
Finally, it will burn them in the Krebs Cycle you may have studied in HS
Biology, and convert them to tons of energy, plus CO2 and H2O, when combined
with oxygen.  (I eat so little sugar, I can tell when I have: my urination
needs go up.)

All this longwinded stuff to come back to: sugar is sugar, and the
substitution isn't necessarily healthier.  Some metabolic illnesses may be
affected by the form of sugar you intake, but most normal healthy bodies
would be far better off by reducing the sugar intake, or eating it in forms
that reduce the speed of sugar intake.  (For example, your body will absorb
the sugar in a piece of fruit slowly into the bloodstream, even though there
is lots of sugar in it.)

I know a number of so-called (and usually self diagnosed) hypo-glycemics,
who assure me they cannot eat sugar.  When I see them, I tend to see people
who don't eat well, and whose blood sugar levels are usually depressed when
they start eating: and the body sucks that sugar in fast, and causes an
energy burst.  They misinterpret their depressed energy level as "normal",
and the normal energy level as somehow "hyper" or "bad".  More frequent
meals, with a good mix of short and long term energy foods, would resolve
most of those problems.

Back to the cookery advice.  Check some of the diabetic textbooks on
cooking, that will have some fruit juice substitution suggestions.  Better
yet, cut the sugar and sweets out of your diet altogether, except for
moderation.  You will be much healthier for it.

	Tibor (Whose doctor allows him about a tablespoon of sugar a day)
	(And who eats a little bit more than that, if you count the fruit)