On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Mary wrote:

> I read recently that most sugar has dextrose added to it,
> thereby adding sugar.

You meant to write "salt" in the first instance of "sugar", I
take it.

> Do pork rinds have sugar in them, due to the salt content????

Probably.

I want to express again a view that I have expressed before on
this list.

While I think it is correct to be concerned about sugar in the
diet, it really seems to me that the focus of that concern should
be the *amount* of sugar, not its absolute presence or absence.

Dextrose is another name for glucose, which is certainly not
foreign to the human body.  Sucrose, or table sugar, is a mixture
of glucose and fructose.  The natural sugar in fruits is also a
mixture of glucose and fructose.  There is no doubt that our
bodies can accept and use these substances.

When sugar cane sap is made into refined sugar, it becomes
available in unprecedented amounts, and when we consume dairy and
grain based foods that are impregnated with the stuff, and we
consume them every day, we are doing something new and
destructive to our bodies.  Eliminating these foods from the diet
is a huge step away from that destruction.  I am not convinced,
however, that the tiny amounts of sugar that might be present in
some other foods represents a meaningful threat.  How much salt
would you have to consume to ingest the amount of dextrose that
is contained in a single orange?  I suspect it would be a rather
large amount.  So, if we don't fret over oranges, and even orange
juice in the NeanderThin diet, what is the reason for fretting
over the trace amounts of dextrose in salt, which in large
quantities is itself as unnatural an additive as sugar?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]