Jun 30, 2009 at 4:26 pm #1237451
@drdystopiaLocale: Upstate NY
Anyone seen/tried this yet?Jun 30, 2009 at 4:37 pm #1511396
@arichardson6Locale: North East
I had never heard of it before seeing this post, but it seems pretty cool. I don't quite understand exactly what it is. It seems like it is just electrolytes without any sugar or cards or anything like that mixed in. I found this link which says they cost $2.70 each! That's a bit too expensive for me…
Edit: Here is the HomepageJun 30, 2009 at 4:45 pm #1511397
Not cheap. I wonder how much a packet makes.Jun 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm #1511405
@halfturboLocale: Northernish California
Hmmm, three bucks for one pint of drink. I get about the same deal at the local pub :-)
I guess it's some sort of public-private partnership thing, because if NASA actually developed this itself it would be public domain. They're good at telling you what's not in it, but I'm missing an actual listing of ingredients.
Well, cheers anyway,
RickJun 30, 2009 at 5:30 pm #1511407
@redmonkLocale: Greater California Ecosystem
No idea on the amounts, but it doesn't seem that different from NUUN, except it has a higher price tag, perhaps due to all the lawyers that patents require.
Q: What's in The Right Stuff?
A:The Right Stuff ingredients include:
Filtered Water to liquefy the solids
Sea Salt – Electrolytes (Sodium & Chloride) – NASA patented blend
Sodium Citrate – Electrolytes (Sodium & Citrate) – NASA patented blend
Citric Acid – For flavor, to help offset saltiness and also natural preservative
(used in soft drinks, beer and seltzer water)
Sucralose – Zero carbohydrate sweetener derived from sugar
Flavors – Natural varieties used for taste
Potassium Sorbate and Sodium Citrate – Small quantities for preservatives
NOTE: Future production runs will eliminate preservatives
(manufacturing is done on aseptic packaging line)
Jun 30, 2009 at 5:33 pm #1511409
@ouzelLocale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
"They're good at telling you what's not in it, but I'm missing an actual listing of ingredients."
In one of the links, can't remember which for all the hype, reference was made to an isotonic blend of sodium chloride and sodium citrate with Sucralose and natural flavors added for palatability. Pretty pricey for a few sodium ions, Id say. Not to mention a complete lack of any reference to potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Also, their examples of its use were 30 and 70 minute bouts of intense exercise. That would at least partially explain the absence of carbs in the product-and absence of relevance to endurance activities such as backpacking. I'll be taking a pass on this one, pending enlightenment by someone who can explain the physiological basis of the claims made for this product.Jun 30, 2009 at 10:06 pm #1511449
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Come in sucker.
CheersJul 7, 2009 at 7:13 pm #1512577
I'll stick with Tang!Jul 7, 2009 at 9:18 pm #1512593
To clarify a common misconception about Tang: "Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959." from: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.