From my personal experience of doing triathlons, I don't think there is much difference in the products. Some people, however, do seem to have trouble digesting certain types, but it never bothered me. I just drank whatever sports drink the race offered and ate whatever food was available, which was usually bananas and other fruits. Sometimes cookies and other "regular food" Longer races (i.e., Ironman distance) usually have a feed station on the bike (can't remember if they had one on the run) where you can pre-pack whatever 'special needs' you think you might need. Sometimes I put in some food that I wanted, but it really only served to break up the tedium of eating bananas all day.

Anyway, I didn't say I hated electrolyte supplements. I said I was going to rely on regular food for electrolyte replacement. I don't do any long distance racing anymore, so the only time I consume an electrolyte replacement is on a long bike ride, but I'm primarily drinking a gatorade for the energy. I also usually drink a Propel after cycling, mostly because I have a case of it that I am trying to use up. It seems to help, but I don't know if it's the electrolytes or the shot of B6. Not knowing what is happening, but feeling like there is a positive effect, is what has prompted my questions.

As far as saying any particular sports drink is bad, I never said that or intended that to be the point. My point is that sports drinks have for a long time marketed themselves as a value-added energy source for athletes, with the value-added component being electrolytes and vitamins. A quick look at the label shows that they actually offer very little in the form of electrolyte replacement and significantly less than eating a piece of fruit. As I said above, that doesn't mean I don't still use them. I just want to know what exactly is going on.