A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
Ugh, I should read more before asking questions, but now that I'm in the fray, is DNL different than gaining body fat? I'm curious about the topic because large excesses of carbohydrates are usually involved in my weight gain (although fats are in there too).0
-
goldthistime wrote: »Ugh, I should read more before asking questions, but now that I'm in the fray, is DNL different than gaining body fat? I'm curious about the topic because this large excesses of carbohydrates are usually involved in my weight gain (although fats are in there too).
Yes and no. DNL = De Novo Lipogenesis which is the process by which carbs eventually convert to body fat.
I posted a link as an edit you may find useful. Posting again here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Ugh, I should read more before asking questions, but now that I'm in the fray, is DNL different than gaining body fat? I'm curious about the topic because this large excesses of carbohydrates are usually involved in my weight gain (although fats are in their too).
The way carbs work is they get burned first. They don't get burned? Off they go to muscle and the liver to be stored as glycogen. Oh those stores are full? Time to be triglycerides, lipogenesis. Fat is burned if there is no readily available carbs to burn, first from the food you eat. Oh you're at a deficit? We'll pull it from your muscles and liver, the glycogen. None there? Time to pull it from fat cells. Protein is last and your body does this as a last resort.0 -
Thanks.goldthistime wrote: »Ugh, I should read more before asking questions, but now that I'm in the fray, is DNL different than gaining body fat? I'm curious about the topic because this large excesses of carbohydrates are usually involved in my weight gain (although fats are in there too).
Yes and no. DNL = De Novo Lipogenesis which is the process by which carbs eventually convert to body fat.
I posted a link as an edit you may find useful. Posting again here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I must say, I have to agree with you on this, particularly the parts I bolded. While it's pretty much hypothetical, in theory I could get a PHD in biology or chemistry, teach college level biology, chemistry, or nutrition for decades, but if I don't have my name on a peer reviewed study, whatever I claim as a "fact" would have zero value to these discussions.GaleHawkins wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Just a quick edit to say to Zhost, whose links I haven't read, that this was written prior to your posting and has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My post is just a general rant.
***************************************************************************
I don't understand why it is necessary for the average person to have to come up with a "peer reviewed study" every time they post an opinion. And if they do post a study, it is never good enough. I had the Australian Government and Health Department supporting one of my claims, but nah, corrupt government, not good enough.
Give me strength! What about a bit of free speech, light discussion and a community working together to help others understand issues instead of ridicule and dictatorship.
If people want to reduce and moderate their sugar, I say "good for them" and believe me there will be no stupid study to back up my statement.
well said! I agree 100%.
I think we know the call for a peer review study is valid if one is making a case to a certified board supporting their actions with patients. On this forum the call for such is nothing more than a smoke screen in my view. Heck there are some on this site that think they should be giving dieting advice to others under medical care at the time. No one on this site should be giving any such advice for several reasons.
One does not have to hold a terminal degree to be able to read research papers and gather some info even if it is from the summary. Some people will try to discredit anything they do not understand but that is not the mind of a true investigator.
Some understand for new concepts and practices to go main stream can take 20 years because the generation in charge often must first pass from the scene and their text books be discontinued.
"A question about Sugar?" should not require name calling in a reply. I see so many people asking very serious (therefore good) questions to only be blown away by people in fear of something in the back of their minds in my view. The terms used in the world of dieting often is confusing for even the trained professionals.
If we can just reply with facts and/or our personal options even in a civil manner life will be better for all. Being defensive does not show strength in an debate.
MFP is an awesome site that can help point new people in the right direction in my personal view.
You are correct, whatever you claim as "fact" would have zero value, because it's not about having an opinion, it's about what you can argue. Everyone has an opinion, that does not mean that everyone's opinion should be given the same amount of weight in a discussion. You don't have to be an expert on a topic in the forums, but if you are going to make a claim, you should at least be able to support that claim with some sort of evidence. If you cannot find adequate support for your argument, the logical thing to do would be to reassess your position based on the evidence, rather than trying to make ad hominem attacks on the other party in an attempt to discredit their argument.
(I'm speaking in general here, not directing this at you or anyone else specifically and not accusing you or anyone else of anything)0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Tell that to my blood glucose meter. My glucose goes up when I eat carbs. It does not matter if they are sugar or starches. What does matter is the mix. If I eat carbs with other nutrients (especially fiber), my glucose goes up, stays up for about 2 hours, then goes down. When I eat carbs without other nutrients, my glucose goes up (generally to a higher number) and starts coming back down within 30 minutes. Both scenarios give me the same average. It is all about the averages which is why diabetics rely on the a1c test, not glucose meter readings, to determine how effective the treatment is. It measures the average blood sugar level over the previous 3 months.
BTW: some of my higher readings have been after a long workout so even exercise can raise blood sugar levels. Should I stop exercising because it raises my blood sugar?
You just validated what I said. If you eat "sugar" that contains fiber, then it's not possible for your glucose meter to register a spike. Anything like that would have to be like a banana, apple, pear, orange... see my point?0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.0 -
tigersword wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Storing fat is most definitely not called "inflammation." Please, if you don't understand the basic concepts, please stop trying to make things up just to try and sound smart.
Fat is inflammation. It depends on what kind of inflammation it is - visceral or subcutaneous.0 -
But, that's irrelevant to calories in/calories out. It's the overall consumption that matters.
Reread the quote where he was claiming fat is inflamation from carbs.
I'm going off of my own posts with links, though excess sugar does get stored in fat.
Nope. Excess calories get stored as fat. If all you ate was chicken, but ate 3500 more calories of chicken than you burned, you would still gain weight.
And sugar has calories. And carbs are usually more rampant in a person's diet, carbs get turned into sugar and if it's excess, into fat it goes. So where I might be wrong, I'm also right.
Nope. Any excess calories get stored as fat, and it doesn't matter which food that excess comes from.
Yep I replied to that already, again, the average diet takes in way more carbs than protein and fat.
0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Tell that to my blood glucose meter. My glucose goes up when I eat carbs. It does not matter if they are sugar or starches. What does matter is the mix. If I eat carbs with other nutrients (especially fiber), my glucose goes up, stays up for about 2 hours, then goes down. When I eat carbs without other nutrients, my glucose goes up (generally to a higher number) and starts coming back down within 30 minutes. Both scenarios give me the same average. It is all about the averages which is why diabetics rely on the a1c test, not glucose meter readings, to determine how effective the treatment is. It measures the average blood sugar level over the previous 3 months.
BTW: some of my higher readings have been after a long workout so even exercise can raise blood sugar levels. Should I stop exercising because it raises my blood sugar?
You just validated what I said. If you eat "sugar" that contains fiber, then it's not possible for your glucose meter to register a spike. Anything like that would have to be like a banana, apple, pear, orange... see my point?
This is always what I've gone by. I don't get spikes or cravings when I eat a ton of fruit. Whereas i do when I have chocolate
0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Wiki? Seriously? Anybody can submit anything to Wiki.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Ugh, I should read more before asking questions, but now that I'm in the fray, is DNL different than gaining body fat? I'm curious about the topic because this large excesses of carbohydrates are usually involved in my weight gain (although fats are in their too).
The way carbs work is they get burned first. They don't get burned? Off they go to muscle and the liver to be stored as glycogen. Oh those stores are full? Time to be triglycerides, lipogenesis. Fat is burned if there is no readily available carbs to burn, first from the food you eat. Oh you're at a deficit? We'll pull it from your muscles and liver, the glycogen. None there? Time to pull it from fat cells. Protein is last and your body does this as a last resort.
I would suggest that you read the link I gave to get the 'ease' of DNL happening into perspective.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Ugh, I should read more before asking questions, but now that I'm in the fray, is DNL different than gaining body fat? I'm curious about the topic because this large excesses of carbohydrates are usually involved in my weight gain (although fats are in their too).
The way carbs work is they get burned first. They don't get burned? Off they go to muscle and the liver to be stored as glycogen. Oh those stores are full? Time to be triglycerides, lipogenesis. Fat is burned if there is no readily available carbs to burn, first from the food you eat. Oh you're at a deficit? We'll pull it from your muscles and liver, the glycogen. None there? Time to pull it from fat cells. Protein is last and your body does this as a last resort.
I would suggest that you read the link I gave to get the 'ease' of DNL happening into perspective.
I didn't say it was easy. But that's how it works.0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
Strong evidence.
You're not very good at this eh?
0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Odd that it was not in the symptoms list - maybe because its a correlation or mimic (which I am not saying is not real to the individual).
What I am still confused about with your argument, is that you agree that insulin spikes suppresses appetite, but are arguing that BG levels increase it. Seems a bit of a push/pull to me - which is probably why its very individual (and does not impact everyone), which comes back to the other question - about supporting the claim that a majority of people suffer from increased appetite due to carbs.
You're correct its not in the symptom list. And while the saying goes causation=/=correlation, it should be noted that sometimes people do in fact eat again, otherwise the wiki wouldn't even have it there.
Yes I agree insulin can suppress appetite. And yes blood glucose is affected more by carb intake, which in general is eaten more than protein. The average American's protein intake is far less than their carb intake. And while it's individual, most individuals aren't special snowflakes when it comes to bodily functions.
Have never disagreed that some people do in fact eat again (even though wikipedia is not the best source to use tbh).
You seem to be hung up on the average American's protein intake - its a theme. First of all, we are not 'average American' not tracking intake on here. Secondly, blanket statements are, well, blanket statements and should not be assumed to be relevant for everyone.
And what has special snowflake and not having sugar crashes got to do with anything? Not having a sugar crash does not make one a special snowflake and has nothing to do with 'bodily functions'.
Also, still waiting for that support.
Go look at your average American. That's the support you need. Seriously, they're not fat because of a high protein low carb diet or even keto. It's because they eat of mix of processed *kitten* that usually ends up being high carb junk.
Eat too many carbs? Insulin spike and then blood glucose levels go crazy. And I guarantee the average american is gonna grab more carbs to settle it.
No. It doesn't matter why type diet you eat when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that counts is calories in/calories out. Someone can live off "processed *kitten*," as you call it, and still lose weight. Likewise, a person can eat no processed foods and gain weight.
You can eat carbs all day long and still lose weight. You might not have a whole lot of energy due to an unbalanced diet, but if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Ugh, I should read more before asking questions, but now that I'm in the fray, is DNL different than gaining body fat? I'm curious about the topic because this large excesses of carbohydrates are usually involved in my weight gain (although fats are in their too).
The way carbs work is they get burned first. They don't get burned? Off they go to muscle and the liver to be stored as glycogen. Oh those stores are full? Time to be triglycerides, lipogenesis. Fat is burned if there is no readily available carbs to burn, first from the food you eat. Oh you're at a deficit? We'll pull it from your muscles and liver, the glycogen. None there? Time to pull it from fat cells. Protein is last and your body does this as a last resort.
I would suggest that you read the link I gave to get the 'ease' of DNL happening into perspective.
I didn't say it was easy. But that's how it works.
Well, its a pretty big factor in the scheme of things to not mention tbh.0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Also, Zhost, I have read your comments and really appreciate your links. I did not know that protein consumption stimulated insulin production. As I read the article I realised that I have a great deal more to learn about blood sugar levels and the assumptions I have bought into regarding carbohydrates. Thank you.
Insulin spikes are not inherently bad, it's the blood glucose levels after that cause the crash.
For some people....
For some people? Definitely not a minority.
Care to support that claim?
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts - where in that wiki link you gave does it show that a 'sugar crash' causes increased appetite as you claimed earlier?
From the wiki -
The majority of these symptoms, often correlated with feelings of hunger, mimic the effect of inadequate sugar intake as the biology of a crash is similar in itself to the body’s response to low blood sugar levels following periods of glucose deficiency.
And it even tells you to eat more sugar to fix it, just to start the cycle anew.
And a sugar crash, for your average person occurs after overeating any kind of carb, heck even protein (but that's a lot of protein). It's a blood glucose thing.
Wiki? Seriously? Anybody can submit anything to Wiki.
http://www.drugs.com/cg/non-diabetic-hypoglycemia.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/350740-how-to-quickly-reverse-a-sugar-crash/0 -
christinev297 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Tell that to my blood glucose meter. My glucose goes up when I eat carbs. It does not matter if they are sugar or starches. What does matter is the mix. If I eat carbs with other nutrients (especially fiber), my glucose goes up, stays up for about 2 hours, then goes down. When I eat carbs without other nutrients, my glucose goes up (generally to a higher number) and starts coming back down within 30 minutes. Both scenarios give me the same average. It is all about the averages which is why diabetics rely on the a1c test, not glucose meter readings, to determine how effective the treatment is. It measures the average blood sugar level over the previous 3 months.
BTW: some of my higher readings have been after a long workout so even exercise can raise blood sugar levels. Should I stop exercising because it raises my blood sugar?
You just validated what I said. If you eat "sugar" that contains fiber, then it's not possible for your glucose meter to register a spike. Anything like that would have to be like a banana, apple, pear, orange... see my point?
This is always what I've gone by. I don't get spikes or cravings when I eat a ton of fruit. Whereas i do when I have chocolate
But....carbs...and sugar... j/k..0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Storing fat is most definitely not called "inflammation." Please, if you don't understand the basic concepts, please stop trying to make things up just to try and sound smart.
Fat is inflammation. It depends on what kind of inflammation it is - visceral or subcutaneous.
Just no. Fat is not inflamation.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions