The main trouble with this kind of sugar is that it is not sweet enough to
satisfy us and we are apt to use too much, thus endangering our digestions
by sheer concentration of what would be, in smaller quantities, most
wholesome. Once more we see that nutrition is largely a question of _how
much_; how much glucose or other sugar our stomachs can stand we find out
by experience; few stomachs can stand when empty the quantity represented
by a lollipop, and yet we frequently see children allowed to suck these
between meals. The same amount of sugar diluted with water, as in a glass
of lemonade, would do less harm; it might be combined with flour in a
cooky with more impunity; better yet, it might be made a part of a whole
meal, taking it in several dishes (sauce, dessert, etc.), or, if we must
have it as candy, at the end of the meal. Used in this way, the advantages
of sugar as a food may be had with relatively little disadvantage.

Honey, "the distilled sweetness of the flower," commands a price
commensurate with the exquisiteness of its production, but is not quite as
easy of digestion as some other forms of sugar. Because of its intense
sweetness it may be combined with advantage with less sweet syrups, such
as corn syrup. The cook estimates that by measure it will take one and a
half times as much corn syrup as cane sugar to get the customary effects
in sweet dishes. By using one part of honey to three of corn syrup a
sweeter product is obtained, which is free from several of the
disadvantages of honey in cookery.

Maple syrup and sugar are not only prized for their sweetness, due to the
presence of ordinary cane sugar, but for the delicate "maple" flavor so
difficult to duplicate. Nutritionally a tablespoon of maple sugar is
equivalent in fuel value to about four-fifths of a tablespoon of cane
sugar, while equal volumes of cane molasses, corn syrup, and maple syrup
are interchangeable as fuel, though not of equal sweetening power.