A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
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..
oh good God woman! Lol
This thread has to come to end soon....
Has anyone managed to resolve anything yet??
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.
Yes it is.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/
Have not looked - but if you are using livestrong as a source, make sure you check the studies they site (assuming they site them) - the site is really bad for making statements that cannot be supported.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »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.
Yes it is.
Oh please show me one scientific journal that states fat is inflamation. Go ahead, I'll wait. (Hint: you won't).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.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!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.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.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/
Have not looked - but if you are using livestrong as a source, make sure you check the studies they site (assuming they site them) - the site is really bad for making statements that cannot be supported.
Joslin and 2 Uni's. Why are you so skeptical of people having sugar crashes? Have you not heard of this term before today?-1 -
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/
Have not looked - but if you are using livestrong as a source, make sure you check the studies they site (assuming they site them) - the site is really bad for making statements that cannot be supported.
Joslin and 2 Uni's. Why are you so skeptical of people having sugar crashes? Have you not heard of this term before today?
Lol....where have I indicated I am. And lol at the patronizing comment - read my posts please...and still waiting.....0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »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.
Yes it is.
Do you have a source for this claim?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.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.0 -
I understand now. I was getting the idea that the max glycogen level thingy might trump CICO, but it does not.
From your link Sarah "That exception is when dietary fat is below about 10% of total daily calories. Under that condition, the body ramps up de novo lipogenesis." So yes, a rare event.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »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.
Wrong. What matters is what you eat. You are what you eat. I ate more than what was "required" to lose 50 pounds and I lost it. Why??? Well, I didn't eat things that cause fat to be stored very easily. I eat consistently day after day - and I am active. If I do those two things, I cannot fail.
You are speaking in terms of failure. At some point, you stop depriving yourself of calories and then you gain. Why??? Cause you go back to the very method by which you would've retained the very weight you lost in the first place.
The human body cannot process and keep what is not possible - eating the right foods consistently with physical activity renders your point moot.
BOOM!!!
What things that you eat cause fat to be stored easily? As in, more easily than others?0 -
christinev297 wrote: »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..
oh good God woman! Lol This thread has to come to end soon....
Has anyone managed to resolve anything yet??
I doubt it
And unlikely lol0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I understand now. I was getting the idea that the max glycogen level thingy might trump CICO, but it does not.
From your link Sarah "That exception is when dietary fat is below about 10% of total daily calories. Under that condition, the body ramps up de novo lipogenesis." So yes, a rare event.
When you take into account the whole low fat craze and people still overeating their TDEE, 10% is actually a lot higher than you think.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I understand now. I was getting the idea that the max glycogen level thingy might trump CICO, but it does not.
From your link Sarah "That exception is when dietary fat is below about 10% of total daily calories. Under that condition, the body ramps up de novo lipogenesis." So yes, a rare event.
When you take into account the whole low fat craze and people still overeating their TDEE, 10% is actually a lot higher than you think.
wut? the 'average' american eats less than 10% fats?
also, what low fat craze.
Its low carb and gluten free right now.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I understand now. I was getting the idea that the max glycogen level thingy might trump CICO, but it does not.
From your link Sarah "That exception is when dietary fat is below about 10% of total daily calories. Under that condition, the body ramps up de novo lipogenesis." So yes, a rare event.
When you take into account the whole low fat craze and people still overeating their TDEE, 10% is actually a lot higher than you think.
wut? the 'average' american eats less than 10% fats?
Considering most are drinking a low fat latte with a bagel that has low fat cream cheese to go with it, yes.0 -
OMG. I'm starting to realize that reading these unbearable, never ending, insufferably boring, pathologically tenacious, academically tedious, and laughably obstinate sugar threads is making me not like sugar that much anymore. By virtue alone of its association with these threads. It's making me not want to see, hear about or taste sugar ever again. Sometimes I'm glad I joined this site.
Then my crusade on sugar is going along nicely.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.
ok...so, not able to actually support your claim...good to know.
Also, errr...back to dat dere insulin spike again...I thought it was not an issue...now it is...we come full circle...and still using the same MO.
And here I a go explaining, again.
Insulin spike, not so big deal, helps deal with satiety, in which protein actually helps better than carbs.
BG spike, not so good. Might cause issues, ie sugar crash.
That's it.
You may be explaining, but you have still not supported your claim that I requested and also, insulin spike does not necessarily mean BG go wild, which is not what you inferred in your prior post.
At least you are saying might cause BG spike now.0 -
The last time I looked (Wiki), SAD was 50% carbs, 15% protein, 35% fat. Plus 25% too high in calories. Normalized for caloric intake, then, SAD is (effectively) something like...
...63% carbs, 44% fat, 19% protein.
EDIT: Second source has SAD at 47/18/35...calling it close enough.
0 -
When that book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease came out a few years ago, we tried to follow less than 10% fat. Very difficult.
Meaning I don't think just low fat cream cheese and lattes would get you there. We cooked everything in broth or wine and had zero meat/nuts/avocado etc.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions