On the topic of Sugar....
Replies
-
BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes, juice and fruit do affect bg differently.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.
Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.0 -
Gee, maybe the fact that both have different non-sugar components could be the difference. Sweet tea and cake sound kind of different even if they have the exact same kind of sugar in them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.
Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Gee, maybe the fact that both have different non-sugar components could be the difference. Sweet tea and cake sound kind of different even if they have the exact same kind of sugar in them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.
Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.
Maybe so. Though sweet tea and cake usually have a similar effect on bg.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.
If they ate peanut M&Ms it would go up a lot less than grapes.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Yet when they eat grapes the little meter does not show the same result as if they eat an equal amount of sugar from candy. That kind of sounds different.
If they ate peanut M&Ms it would go up a lot less than grapes.
All of that sort of thing is explained by the glycemic index. Peanuts rock! And their effect on the food eaten is in combination, yep. That can be so handy if you need to watch your BG levels (like I do).
Fruit juice makes the sugar more quickly available than the whole fruit, etc, etc. It's about digestion usually.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »For people who have to watch their sugar number, it does not matter if the sugars are so called "healthy" or not. Sugar is still sugar.
This isn't true. For diabetics fructose usually doesn't have the same impact on blood sugar levels. Grapes, for example, are a high sugar fruit but they are also high in fructose and usually don't spike blood glucose levels like candy will.
Yes it is true that sugar is sugar. A diabetic's pancreas does not work properly, therefore they must watch the overall carbs according to their doctor's instructions.
The (original) impact on BS levels is not related to a non-working pancreas, though. It really is related to the food itself, with different foods spiking those levels differently for normal folks, too. It's just that the sugar metabolism problems with insulin resistant (or no insulin!) folks are really important, whereas the spikes for normal folks don't go out of range, so they aren't considered a problem*.
*Except, perhaps or perhaps not, for satiety and cravings. That theory is talked about in the other thread linked here earlier It's interesting, too. 0 -
It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.0 -
anichole2679 wrote: »It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.
Wait, sugar IS a carb - right?0 -
It's a simple carb not a complex carb. Sorry I didn't clarify.0
-
As a non-diabetic, why would I care about my relative bg response to various individual foods?0
-
As a non-diabetic, why would I care about my relative bg response to various individual foods, especially since I don't eat each of them individually in a fasted state?
____________________
Access to Beachbody products
Access to ItWorks! products
Access to Plexus products
Been in fitness for numerous years and have studied anatomy, physiology, and nutrition
0 -
^^^ I'm not sure why you would if you get A1C blood tests at your doctor, have no family history, etc, etc.
Unless you do find personally that they make you feel fuller or crave less things, maybe? Upping fiber intake? The low GI foods can usually help with that, and with so many nutrients, too. But then again, the fiber and nutrients are listed on the packages of other things
But the discussion of how a donut is the same as an apple as far as sugars does bring up how their digestion is different in the availability of those sugars. Sugar is sugar, but the availability means that the foods aren't equal in how they are delivering it to your system. I'm sure folks here mean 'when I eat this sugar...' and not 'if I were in a lab studying the chemical makeup of the individual components of this food...'.0 -
*sigh*
The reason there is a recommendation about added sugars is that most people don't track calories. If you are tracking calories, hitting your macros, eating with diversity then there is no need to track sugar.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »*sigh*
The reason there is a recommendation about added sugars is that most people don't track calories. If you are tracking calories, hitting your macros, eating with diversity then there is no need to track sugar.
But how do you figure a percentage of something you don't track? That sounds difficult
I think the WHO said it was about cavities? I'm not going to look it up, but I know I at least heard that somewhere, fwiw. Not that I think added sugar has much value except absolute yumminess. Yumminess works nicely for what it is (except I do have to watch my BG like a hawk, dammit).0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »*sigh*
The reason there is a recommendation about added sugars is that most people don't track calories. If you are tracking calories, hitting your macros, eating with diversity then there is no need to track sugar.
But how do you figure a percentage of something you don't track? That sounds difficult
I think the WHO said it was about cavities? I'm not going to look it up, but I know I at least heard that somewhere, fwiw. Not that I think added sugar has much value except absolute yumminess. Yumminess works nicely for what it is (except I do have to watch my BG like a hawk, dammit).
only the recommendation to further limit free sugars intake to less than 5% (while the general 10% limit is aimed at preventing obesity and non communicable diseases)0 -
First of all, you can turn those notifications off in your settings.
Now, the USDA is considering a recommendation of 10% max for sugar intake and well as better labeling that will distinguish between natural (i.e., containing nutrients) and empty sugars.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »*sigh*
The reason there is a recommendation about added sugars is that most people don't track calories. If you are tracking calories, hitting your macros, eating with diversity then there is no need to track sugar.
But how do you figure a percentage of something you don't track? That sounds difficult
I think the WHO said it was about cavities? I'm not going to look it up, but I know I at least heard that somewhere, fwiw. Not that I think added sugar has much value except absolute yumminess. Yumminess works nicely for what it is (except I do have to watch my BG like a hawk, dammit).
Ok, to be clear - no need to track additional sugars on MFP other than the general carbs setting... if you meet protein and fat goals and eat a variety of greens in your diet, it is reasonably difficult to exceed that 10% free sugars limit.
All the research data on restricting additional sugars comes from population studies not generally following a calorie tracked regimen. They just do not apply.
0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »I think the WHO said it was about cavities?
yep, the only solid science about sugar and health is the fermentable carbohydrate and dental caries connection (which can be fixed by dental hygiene etc anyway).
0 -
anichole2679 wrote: »It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.
Instead of writing all of that, you could have just written about caloric deficit because that's what's needed to lose fat. Not what your sugar sources are.anichole2679 wrote: »It's a simple carb not a complex carb. Sorry I didn't clarify.
So you said not to choose simple carbs but in the first post you said to choose green apples, but an apple is a simple carb. You seem confused.0 -
anichole2679 wrote: »It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.
Instead of writing all of that, you could have just written about caloric deficit because that's what's needed to lose fat. Not what your sugar sources are.anichole2679 wrote: »It's a simple carb not a complex carb. Sorry I didn't clarify.
So you said not to choose simple carbs but in the first post you said to choose green apples, but an apple is a simple carb. You seem confused.
The whole "fruit is a complex/simple carb" debate is silly.
The sugars in fruit are primarily 'simple' carbohydrates in terms of their structure fructose and glucose are are simple as it get. Table sugar is (sucrose) is more 'complex' and requires one additional step for breakdown into glucose. However, this is basically a moot point.
Apples also have complex carbs - a little starch and a medium amount of dietary fiber. 'Complex'.
However in terms of general absorption the simple/complex does NOT really matter - because of the composition and biological structure, the sugars in an apple are less rapidly absorbed than those in a glass of sugar water. complex/simple therefore don't make much sense.
An attempt to address that was the development of Glycemic Index - an attempt to look at the relative ranking of carbohydrate in foods according to how they affect blood glucose levels. It's a nice idea in the lab.
The Glycemic Index is pretty much a useless tool, simply because it is not relevant for how we eat. We do not eat a meal consisting of one sole food, and the moment foods are combined then the GI of the individual foods just don't matter but rather it is more about the combined LOAD of the meal.
If we only looked at simple carbs or GI we should avoid foods such as grapes, bananas and cooked carrots. But bacon and blue cheese (and many other foods high in nitrites, score low on the Glycemic Index) would then be perfect staples all the time. Not true. Now I love bacon, I love blue cheese but there is nothing wrong with having apples, bananas, etc. rich in potassium, vitamins, and even a bit of selenium... Variety matters - not GI.
Upstream there is a link to a good blog on dropping the use of GI - the same can be said about the whole complex/simple carbs.
Just eat. Eat nutritious food, lower in processing, high in natural vitamins (bioavailable), with variety and for the taste you prefer. Worry less and leave the pseudo science of food classification for the 'fitness' blogs and magazines. It's all BS.0 -
Natural sugars don't contain any more nutrients than added sugars.47Jacqueline wrote: »First of all, you can turn those notifications off in your settings.
Now, the USDA is considering a recommendation of 10% max for sugar intake and well as better labeling that will distinguish between natural (i.e., containing nutrients) and empty sugars.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anichole2679 wrote: »It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.
Instead of writing all of that, you could have just written about caloric deficit because that's what's needed to lose fat. Not what your sugar sources are.anichole2679 wrote: »It's a simple carb not a complex carb. Sorry I didn't clarify.
So you said not to choose simple carbs but in the first post you said to choose green apples, but an apple is a simple carb. You seem confused.
The whole "fruit is a complex/simple carb" debate is silly.
The sugars in fruit are primarily 'simple' carbohydrates in terms of their structure fructose and glucose are are simple as it get. Table sugar is (sucrose) is more 'complex' and requires one additional step for breakdown into glucose. However, this is basically a moot point.
Apples also have complex carbs - a little starch and a medium amount of dietary fiber. 'Complex'.
However in terms of general absorption the simple/complex does NOT really matter - because of the composition and biological structure, the sugars in an apple are less rapidly absorbed than those in a glass of sugar water. complex/simple therefore don't make much sense.
An attempt to address that was the development of Glycemic Index - an attempt to look at the relative ranking of carbohydrate in foods according to how they affect blood glucose levels. It's a nice idea in the lab.
The Glycemic Index is pretty much a useless tool, simply because it is not relevant for how we eat. We do not eat a meal consisting of one sole food, and the moment foods are combined then the GI of the individual foods just don't matter but rather it is more about the combined LOAD of the meal.
If we only looked at simple carbs or GI we should avoid foods such as grapes, bananas and cooked carrots. But bacon and blue cheese (and many other foods high in nitrites, score low on the Glycemic Index) would then be perfect staples all the time. Not true. Now I love bacon, I love blue cheese but there is nothing wrong with having apples, bananas, etc. rich in potassium, vitamins, and even a bit of selenium... Variety matters - not GI.
Upstream there is a link to a good blog on dropping the use of GI - the same can be said about the whole complex/simple carbs.
Just eat. Eat nutritious food, lower in processing, high in natural vitamins (bioavailable), with variety and for the taste you prefer. Worry less and leave the pseudo science of food classification for the 'fitness' blogs and magazines. It's all BS.
Glycemic Load (I say Index half the time because people recognize that better, but there are GL tables, too) helps a lot with some people's blood sugar with conditions like diabetes, so I wouldn't scrap it for that at all. I do eat apples alone How do you feel about it for that use?
I'll give an example for folks. I ate a very yummy tomato bacon cheese soup recently for lunch. My sugar got highish, and I figured it was the concentrated sugars from all the tomatoes. The next day I ate it after adding white beans to it. That did the trick as far as my glucose monitor could tell me. I have very good results with other similar uses of GL and my monitor.
Scrapping GL for people who don't need to watch their BG might make sense (like in that post here someone linked with lots of research), but it still has good uses. I'd hate for people to get the impression that it's complete bunk in itself.
0 -
GI is not useful, but agreed that glycemic load iscafeaulait7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anichole2679 wrote: »It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.
Instead of writing all of that, you could have just written about caloric deficit because that's what's needed to lose fat. Not what your sugar sources are.anichole2679 wrote: »It's a simple carb not a complex carb. Sorry I didn't clarify.
So you said not to choose simple carbs but in the first post you said to choose green apples, but an apple is a simple carb. You seem confused.
The whole "fruit is a complex/simple carb" debate is silly.
The sugars in fruit are primarily 'simple' carbohydrates in terms of their structure fructose and glucose are are simple as it get. Table sugar is (sucrose) is more 'complex' and requires one additional step for breakdown into glucose. However, this is basically a moot point.
Apples also have complex carbs - a little starch and a medium amount of dietary fiber. 'Complex'.
However in terms of general absorption the simple/complex does NOT really matter - because of the composition and biological structure, the sugars in an apple are less rapidly absorbed than those in a glass of sugar water. complex/simple therefore don't make much sense.
An attempt to address that was the development of Glycemic Index - an attempt to look at the relative ranking of carbohydrate in foods according to how they affect blood glucose levels. It's a nice idea in the lab.
The Glycemic Index is pretty much a useless tool, simply because it is not relevant for how we eat. We do not eat a meal consisting of one sole food, and the moment foods are combined then the GI of the individual foods just don't matter but rather it is more about the combined LOAD of the meal.
If we only looked at simple carbs or GI we should avoid foods such as grapes, bananas and cooked carrots. But bacon and blue cheese (and many other foods high in nitrites, score low on the Glycemic Index) would then be perfect staples all the time. Not true. Now I love bacon, I love blue cheese but there is nothing wrong with having apples, bananas, etc. rich in potassium, vitamins, and even a bit of selenium... Variety matters - not GI.
Upstream there is a link to a good blog on dropping the use of GI - the same can be said about the whole complex/simple carbs.
Just eat. Eat nutritious food, lower in processing, high in natural vitamins (bioavailable), with variety and for the taste you prefer. Worry less and leave the pseudo science of food classification for the 'fitness' blogs and magazines. It's all BS.
Glycemic Load (I say Index half the time because people recognize that better, but there are GL tables, too) helps a lot with some people's blood sugar with conditions like diabetes, so I wouldn't scrap it for that at all. I do eat apples alone How do you feel about it for that use?
I'll give an example for folks. I ate a very yummy tomato bacon cheese soup recently for lunch. My sugar got highish, and I figured it was the concentrated sugars from all the tomatoes. The next day I ate it after adding white beans to it. That did the trick as far as my glucose monitor could tell me. I have very good results with other similar uses of GL and my monitor.
Scrapping GL for people who don't need to watch their BG might make sense (like in that post here someone linked with lots of research), but it still has good uses. I'd hate for people to get the impression that it's complete bunk in itself.
Agree on this, if you have a medical condition that impacts your blood sugar regulation, glycemic load (not glycemic index) is a useful concept.
I don't have the citation, but there was an interesting study that found optimal weight loss for people with insulin resistance on a diet that moderated carbs, whereas people without insulin resistance actually had optimal weight loss on a normal carb ratio.
0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anichole2679 wrote: »It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.
Instead of writing all of that, you could have just written about caloric deficit because that's what's needed to lose fat. Not what your sugar sources are.anichole2679 wrote: »It's a simple carb not a complex carb. Sorry I didn't clarify.
So you said not to choose simple carbs but in the first post you said to choose green apples, but an apple is a simple carb. You seem confused.
The whole "fruit is a complex/simple carb" debate is silly.
The sugars in fruit are primarily 'simple' carbohydrates in terms of their structure fructose and glucose are are simple as it get. Table sugar is (sucrose) is more 'complex' and requires one additional step for breakdown into glucose. However, this is basically a moot point.
Apples also have complex carbs - a little starch and a medium amount of dietary fiber. 'Complex'.
However in terms of general absorption the simple/complex does NOT really matter - because of the composition and biological structure, the sugars in an apple are less rapidly absorbed than those in a glass of sugar water. complex/simple therefore don't make much sense.
An attempt to address that was the development of Glycemic Index - an attempt to look at the relative ranking of carbohydrate in foods according to how they affect blood glucose levels. It's a nice idea in the lab.
The Glycemic Index is pretty much a useless tool, simply because it is not relevant for how we eat. We do not eat a meal consisting of one sole food, and the moment foods are combined then the GI of the individual foods just don't matter but rather it is more about the combined LOAD of the meal.
If we only looked at simple carbs or GI we should avoid foods such as grapes, bananas and cooked carrots. But bacon and blue cheese (and many other foods high in nitrites, score low on the Glycemic Index) would then be perfect staples all the time. Not true. Now I love bacon, I love blue cheese but there is nothing wrong with having apples, bananas, etc. rich in potassium, vitamins, and even a bit of selenium... Variety matters - not GI.
Upstream there is a link to a good blog on dropping the use of GI - the same can be said about the whole complex/simple carbs.
Just eat. Eat nutritious food, lower in processing, high in natural vitamins (bioavailable), with variety and for the taste you prefer. Worry less and leave the pseudo science of food classification for the 'fitness' blogs and magazines. It's all BS.
Glycemic Load (I say Index half the time because people recognize that better, but there are GL tables, too) helps a lot with some people's blood sugar with conditions like diabetes, so I wouldn't scrap it for that at all. I do eat apples alone How do you feel about it for that use?
I'll give an example for folks. I ate a very yummy tomato bacon cheese soup recently for lunch. My sugar got highish, and I figured it was the concentrated sugars from all the tomatoes. The next day I ate it after adding white beans to it. That did the trick as far as my glucose monitor could tell me. I have very good results with other similar uses of GL and my monitor.
Scrapping GL for people who don't need to watch their BG might make sense (like in that post here someone linked with lots of research), but it still has good uses. I'd hate for people to get the impression that it's complete bunk in itself.
For certain groups of individuals that need to watch BG and particularly those that have difficult maintaining homeostasis - it certainly is a tool to try. I've also worked with diabetics that found it ... not that useful given personal variabilities. Total load certainly seems to make more sense - if and when those table work for you.
But for someone without disease and just trying to figure out fruit and added sugars I wouldn't suggest using them.0 -
Also keep in mind the true glycemic effect will be based on what foods are eaten in combination. So even if something is high on glycemic load it will not necessarily raise blood sugar problematic when eaten in appropriate portion and combined with lower glycemic load options. I think standard diabetic care is focusing more on regularizing meals and moderating starchy/sugary carb intake, and ideally you are tracking what happens to sugars after meals to gain an individualized understanding of how things affect you. As someone with insulin resistance, I have found benefit to generally understaning the concept of glycemic load, but primarily my dietary focus is on calorie deficit to lose weight, and limiting to 30g starchy/sugary carb per eating occasion, and getting plenty of protein, healthy fats, and fiber.0
-
girlviernes wrote: »GI is not useful, but agreed that glycemic load iscafeaulait7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anichole2679 wrote: »It all depends on your goal. Fruit is great but if you are looking to reduce your body fat percentage, then fruit should be looked at a little closer.
**if your not looking to reduce bf% the rest of my response is useless to you bc fruit is not harmful to you if just barely going over the mfp calculations.
*if your goal is more intense then for month do the following and then bring more fruits back gradually**
Check the glycemic index on the fruit your choosing to eat. Your body uses sugar as its first and easiest source to burn. The more you limit sugar, the more your body will go to its next source to burn which is carbs. Then after that is fat burn. Your body needs sugar...obviously but by giving a closer look at glycemic index you might reach fat burn easier. (Maybe choose green apples for now bc they have the lowest glycemic Index). Visceral fat is the hardest to get rid of and is the thicker more dense fat surrounding your organs (midsection). If you are looking to reduce this area, then yes watching fruit will matter. Again, if your not looking to lower your body fat percentage then of course fruit is a much healthier source of sugar than other and very enjoyable.
Instead of writing all of that, you could have just written about caloric deficit because that's what's needed to lose fat. Not what your sugar sources are.anichole2679 wrote: »It's a simple carb not a complex carb. Sorry I didn't clarify.
So you said not to choose simple carbs but in the first post you said to choose green apples, but an apple is a simple carb. You seem confused.
The whole "fruit is a complex/simple carb" debate is silly.
The sugars in fruit are primarily 'simple' carbohydrates in terms of their structure fructose and glucose are are simple as it get. Table sugar is (sucrose) is more 'complex' and requires one additional step for breakdown into glucose. However, this is basically a moot point.
Apples also have complex carbs - a little starch and a medium amount of dietary fiber. 'Complex'.
However in terms of general absorption the simple/complex does NOT really matter - because of the composition and biological structure, the sugars in an apple are less rapidly absorbed than those in a glass of sugar water. complex/simple therefore don't make much sense.
An attempt to address that was the development of Glycemic Index - an attempt to look at the relative ranking of carbohydrate in foods according to how they affect blood glucose levels. It's a nice idea in the lab.
The Glycemic Index is pretty much a useless tool, simply because it is not relevant for how we eat. We do not eat a meal consisting of one sole food, and the moment foods are combined then the GI of the individual foods just don't matter but rather it is more about the combined LOAD of the meal.
If we only looked at simple carbs or GI we should avoid foods such as grapes, bananas and cooked carrots. But bacon and blue cheese (and many other foods high in nitrites, score low on the Glycemic Index) would then be perfect staples all the time. Not true. Now I love bacon, I love blue cheese but there is nothing wrong with having apples, bananas, etc. rich in potassium, vitamins, and even a bit of selenium... Variety matters - not GI.
Upstream there is a link to a good blog on dropping the use of GI - the same can be said about the whole complex/simple carbs.
Just eat. Eat nutritious food, lower in processing, high in natural vitamins (bioavailable), with variety and for the taste you prefer. Worry less and leave the pseudo science of food classification for the 'fitness' blogs and magazines. It's all BS.
Glycemic Load (I say Index half the time because people recognize that better, but there are GL tables, too) helps a lot with some people's blood sugar with conditions like diabetes, so I wouldn't scrap it for that at all. I do eat apples alone How do you feel about it for that use?
I'll give an example for folks. I ate a very yummy tomato bacon cheese soup recently for lunch. My sugar got highish, and I figured it was the concentrated sugars from all the tomatoes. The next day I ate it after adding white beans to it. That did the trick as far as my glucose monitor could tell me. I have very good results with other similar uses of GL and my monitor.
Scrapping GL for people who don't need to watch their BG might make sense (like in that post here someone linked with lots of research), but it still has good uses. I'd hate for people to get the impression that it's complete bunk in itself.
Agree on this, if you have a medical condition that impacts your blood sugar regulation, glycemic load (not glycemic index) is a useful concept.
This is likely true, but there was a thread recently discussing how there's quite a bit of personal variation in how people respond to foods -- so no hard and fast GL. And, of course, as others said, it matters what you eat together.
So rather than worrying about the numbers -- especially for those of us who don't have medical conditions -- I think it makes more sense to simply be mindful about your response to foods. If eating something isn't satisfying you, try adding something else (as cafeaulait7 said she did -- you don't need to know about GL to do that). For example, I know higher fiber and protein foods tend to be more satisfying for me, that unlike some others higher fat foods aren't (unless they also happen to be high protein), and that certain kinds of carbs (like potatoes and sweet potatoes and fruit) typically are, whereas bread isn't. Knowing my own reaction seems more important than worrying about the GL scores.0 -
Upstream someone was disturbed about the government and the ADA communication about sugar. I'm not sure what is disturbing.
Diabetes.org speaks about sugar in context with all carbs here, and I think it is a balanced approach.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html
Again, when eating for diabetes control I did not worry about my fruit intake and I averaged at least two servings a day.0 -
There is precious little difference how the body responds to carbs, glucose, sucrose, or fructose.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9881888/
Wrap any of these in a fiber sandwich and the response is much improved. So munch on your apple. Toast your wholemeal bread.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions