Sometimes sugar is used as a thickening agent as well as sweetneter.
For example, several recipes call for a mixture of one egg and 1 cup
sugar. Mix these together and you get this icky gooey mess. ( By
itself the icky gooey mess is not very good, but add some
flavorings...) The point is that the sugar does not just provide
sweetness, it provides a sort of bulk which using something which
takes about a tenth of the volume just doesn't replace.

I could try flour, but I don't think that would be a good substitute.
The sweetness I have plenty of substitutes for, but how can I
substitute for the bulk of sugars in a "low cal" way?
--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
Think twice, code once.

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:45:55 GMT, Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
>
>> Sometimes sugar is used as a thickening agent as well as sweetneter.
>> For example, several recipes call for a mixture of one egg and 1 cup
>> sugar. Mix these together and you get this icky gooey mess. ( By
>> itself the icky gooey mess is not very good, but add some
>> flavorings...) The point is that the sugar does not just provide
>> sweetness, it provides a sort of bulk which using something which
>> takes about a tenth of the volume just doesn't replace.
>>
>> I could try flour, but I don't think that would be a good substitute.
>> The sweetness I have plenty of substitutes for, but how can I
>> substitute for the bulk of sugars in a "low cal" way?
>
> ???
>
> Maybe you should state exactly what you're trying to do with what
> recipe.
>
> -sw

Steve - he's got a PhD. :-) Who are we to question his question?

In article >,
Thaddeus L Olczyk > wrote:

> Sometimes sugar is used as a thickening agent as well as sweetneter.
> For example, several recipes call for a mixture of one egg and 1 cup
> sugar. Mix these together and you get this icky gooey mess. ( By
> itself the icky gooey mess is not very good, but add some
> flavorings...) The point is that the sugar does not just provide
> sweetness, it provides a sort of bulk which using something which
> takes about a tenth of the volume just doesn't replace.
>
> I could try flour, but I don't think that would be a good substitute.
> The sweetness I have plenty of substitutes for, but how can I
> substitute for the bulk of sugars in a "low cal" way?
> --------------------------------------------------
> Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
> Think twice, code once.

Are you baking? You can try Splenda. Even if you're not baking. See
what their website has to say about it.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller - Winter pic and a snow pic
http://jamlady.eboard.com
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor

In article >,
Thaddeus L Olczyk > wrote:

> I could try flour, but I don't think that would be a good substitute.
> The sweetness I have plenty of substitutes for, but how can I
> substitute for the bulk of sugars in a "low cal" way?

Cornstarch.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:45:55 GMT, Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> >
> >> Sometimes sugar is used as a thickening agent as well as sweetneter.
> >> For example, several recipes call for a mixture of one egg and 1 cup
> >> sugar. Mix these together and you get this icky gooey mess. ( By
> >> itself the icky gooey mess is not very good, but add some
> >> flavorings...) The point is that the sugar does not just provide
> >> sweetness, it provides a sort of bulk which using something which
> >> takes about a tenth of the volume just doesn't replace.
> >>
> >> I could try flour, but I don't think that would be a good substitute.
> >> The sweetness I have plenty of substitutes for, but how can I
> >> substitute for the bulk of sugars in a "low cal" way?
> >
> > ???
> >
> > Maybe you should state exactly what you're trying to do with what
> > recipe.
> >
> > -sw
>
> Steve - he's got a PhD. :-) Who are we to question his question?

Yes, but the coding comment makes it sound like software engineering,
so abuse is expected.

Tell him he needs to post an executable code snippet or script, which
in this case would be a recipe.

Dean G.

P.S. Why would anyone think that substituting flour for sugar (both of
which are about 4 calories/gr) would be a way to reduce calories ?

Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> In article >,
> Thaddeus L Olczyk > wrote:
>
> > I could try flour, but I don't think that would be a good substitute.
> > The sweetness I have plenty of substitutes for, but how can I
> > substitute for the bulk of sugars in a "low cal" way?
>
> Cornstarch.

Did you miss the low cal part ? Cornstarch, a carbohydrate, has the
same amount of calories per gram as any other carbohydrate, such a
sugar. It is a more complex carbohydrate, and possibly "healthier", but
it has just as many calories as sugar.

Dean G.

P.S., They actually make high fructose corn syrup (America's "favorite"
sweetener) from cornstarch.

In article . com>,
"Dean G." > wrote:

> Did you miss the low cal part ? Cornstarch, a carbohydrate, has the
> same amount of calories per gram as any other carbohydrate, such a
> sugar. It is a more complex carbohydrate, and possibly "healthier", but
> it has just as many calories as sugar.

Actually, no I didn't. My can of Clabber Girl cornstarch has thirty
calories per tablespoon. The hints on the can say that one tablespoon of
CG cornstarch equals two tablespoons of flour. Four tablespoons of
cornstarch will thicken a couple of quarts of water for about 120
calories. And by the way to the OP, cornstarch doesn't cloud as it
thickens.
Furthermore, a tablespoon of sugar is 45 calories. Do an experiment and
find out how many tablespoons of sugar will thicken a given volume of
liquid to a 4 tbsp. cornstarch equivalent amount.
I read the OP as looking for body instead of sweetness. He'd already
solved the sweetness part of the equation. The thickening ability of
both flour and cornstarch are in a different league than sugar.
Here's another experiment. Add a half cup of water and a half cup of
sugar together and heat. You get a simple syrup. Add a half cup of water
and a half cup of corn starch together and heat. Good luck on cleaning
the pan.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:00:40 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article . com>,
> "Dean G." > wrote:
>
>> Did you miss the low cal part ? Cornstarch, a carbohydrate, has the
>> same amount of calories per gram as any other carbohydrate, such a
>> sugar. It is a more complex carbohydrate, and possibly "healthier", but
>> it has just as many calories as sugar.
>
>Actually, no I didn't. My can of Clabber Girl cornstarch has thirty
>calories per tablespoon. The hints on the can say that one tablespoon of
>CG cornstarch equals two tablespoons of flour. Four tablespoons of
>cornstarch will thicken a couple of quarts of water for about 120
>calories. And by the way to the OP, cornstarch doesn't cloud as it
>thickens.
>Furthermore, a tablespoon of sugar is 45 calories. Do an experiment and
>find out how many tablespoons of sugar will thicken a given volume of
>liquid to a 4 tbsp. cornstarch equivalent amount.
>I read the OP as looking for body instead of sweetness.
That's about half of it. I am also looking for the added "volumne".
For the most part I don't use much sugar in my cooking ( not much
sugar added to ground beef, or a chicken breast), but recently I
encountered two recipes that require a lot ( brownies and fudge ).
I would also like to do another one this summer --granitas ( though
calling it cooking seems like overkill ). Lets look at a basic recipe
for fudge as an example ( OK not a good recipe but one to illustrate
the point ).

Two cups milk reduced to one cup, one cup sugar, one cup melted
chocolate+ butter mixture. Usually condensed milk is used instead of
milk and sugar, but that's basically skipping a step and avoiding the
ability to use a sugar substitute. In the end you will end up with
slightly less fudge then three cups, but if you replace the sugar with
a sugar substitute you will lose body that the sugar gives ( which
cornstarch might help ) and you will wind up with two cups of fudge
not three ( because most sweetners have very little volume ).

What I am looking for is some sort of filler to replace the volume
of the sugar as well as body.






--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
Think twice, code once.

In article >,
Thaddeus L Olczyk > wrote:

> What I am looking for is some sort of filler to replace the volume
> of the sugar as well as body.

I have to punt. I'm out of ideas. Have you googled for "diet fudge" for
inspiration? There's over a million hits, but I'd look in the first
forty. Good luck.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

Thaddeus L Olczyk <none> wrote:
>Sometimes sugar is used as a thickening agent as well as sweetneter.
>For example, several recipes call for a mixture of one egg and 1 cup
>sugar. Mix these together and you get this icky gooey mess. ( By
>itself the icky gooey mess is not very good, but add some
>flavorings...) The point is that the sugar does not just provide
>sweetness, it provides a sort of bulk which using something which
>takes about a tenth of the volume just doesn't replace.

There it's the egg that's doing most of the binding.

>I could try flour, but I don't think that would be a good substitute.
>The sweetness I have plenty of substitutes for, but how can I
>substitute for the bulk of sugars in a "low cal" way?

What are you trying to make?

Most things have low-sugar versions, though not all use
the same methods to get their results.

--Blair