Is fruit unhealthy to eat ??
Options
Replies
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »I Personally think that natural sugar is different than processed sugar, and your body responds to fruit differently.
I disagree. I get a painful physical reaction to high carb intake (my whole body feels like it's bruised).
One day, I went apple picking. I ate nothing that day but apples. I got the same pain the next day as eating sweets, bread, tortilla chips, heavy carby sauces, etc.
I get that! You're the first person I've found who says the same and now I feel less crazy. After a huge sugary carby day, I wak up feeling like I've been beaten - bra straps hurt, loose clothing is a must. Thank you for making me less crazy!
(although, call me crazy (again) but have we connected over this before? I feel like we may have had this discussion)
What?!?!? You haven't seen me post about this before? I wish I would have known. I feel so lonely. I don't remember us connecting over this!
Yes. It's so bad it hurts to pull up my pants over my legs and put a bra on.
I want to tell you some of the things I've found out about it. Let's chat on private messages sometime.
I'll message you, coz I'd love to know what you've discovered!0 -
5 million people die every year worldwide simply because they don't have enough fruit...6
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
Thanks for clarifying - but is does depend on what you eat along with the refined/processed/natural sugars.
If it's along with a meal then zero difference.
Remember insulin rising in response to food is actually normal and not to be feared in healthy people.
If on the other hand you squeeze down a carb gel while cycling for example (glucose/fructose mix perhaps) then the idea and also the benefit is that it does get digested remarkably quickly to be used for energy.
Context is important.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
So you avoid protein too because insulin spikes?
Also, if i add sugar to Metamucil is it good because fiber or bad because added sugar? What if I get fiber from somewhere else and eat ice cream??
The point is what matters is your overall diet not individual macros.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
Your last sentence is correct. The claim that the sugars are different was not.
But still it's not about so called processed sugar. I've asked this question before, but say I make a rhubarb sauce and add a little sugar. I make an apple sauce out of only apples. The rhubarb sauce has more fiber per sugar gram. Does the item with the processed sugar have a worse effect?
To use a more common example, it's not uncommon to have a little (say a tsp) sugar in some steel cut oats. Say you do that, and also eat raspberries with it. Is that going to have a different effect than eating an apple (the oats have as much fiber as the apple)? What about having the oats with a banana but no added sugar?
It's important to understand that processed sugar doesn't magically cause some bad effect; it's about dosage and what you eat it with. Yes, some eat lots of added sugar in soda or combined with fat in sweets (i.e., a pastry). But demonizing sugar because it can be overeaten or saying it's different than glucose, fructose, and sucrose in fruit makes no sense to me.3 -
This is an interesting question. For me at least, it does make a difference, and I don't know why - I mean I have done exactly this, eaten steel cut oats with maple syrup, or with apples - and with apples it has almost zero effect on my blood glucose, while with (on paper) the same amount of sugar added as maple syrup spikes it severely. I can't explain the science behind it but I do know from repeated observation of my actual blood sugar - a real test, which is how you really should do science anyway - that it happens. And before you ask, I do weigh the syrup.lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
Your last sentence is correct. The claim that the sugars are different was not.
But still it's not about so called processed sugar. I've asked this question before, but say I may a rhubarb sauce and add a little sugar. I make an apple sauce out of only apples. The rhubarb sauce has more fiber per sugar gram still. Does the item with the processed sugar has a worse effect?
To use a more common example, it's not uncommon to have a little (say a tsp) sugar in some steel cut oats. Say you do that, and also eat raspberries with it. Is that going to have a different effect than eating an apple (the oats have as much fiber as the apple)? What about having the oats with a banana but no added sugar?
It's important to understand that processed sugar doesn't magically cause some bad effect; it's about dosage and what you eat it with. Yes, some eat lots of added sugar in soda or combined with fat in sweets (i.e., a pastry). But demonizing sugar because it can be overeaten or saying it's different than glucose, fructose, and sucrose in fruit makes no sense to me.
Interestingly enough, the oats themselves, which are high carb, cooked in milk, also has carbs, have a negligable effect on my glucose. I mean by that, that it causes a lower raise in glucose than just the same amount of milk drunk as a glass of milk would. I don't know if it's the fiber from the oats, or cooking it, or what, but it is consistent.
2 -
sugar is sugar. I'm sure it's better with some fibre, plus micronutrients and vitamins found in fruit vs the same amount in your coffee but you're really majoring in the minors if you aren't diabetic.2
-
rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
Your last sentence is correct. The claim that the sugars are different was not.
But still it's not about so called processed sugar. I've asked this question before, but say I may a rhubarb sauce and add a little sugar. I make an apple sauce out of only apples. The rhubarb sauce has more fiber per sugar gram still. Does the item with the processed sugar has a worse effect?
To use a more common example, it's not uncommon to have a little (say a tsp) sugar in some steel cut oats. Say you do that, and also eat raspberries with it. Is that going to have a different effect than eating an apple (the oats have as much fiber as the apple)? What about having the oats with a banana but no added sugar?
It's important to understand that processed sugar doesn't magically cause some bad effect; it's about dosage and what you eat it with. Yes, some eat lots of added sugar in soda or combined with fat in sweets (i.e., a pastry). But demonizing sugar because it can be overeaten or saying it's different than glucose, fructose, and sucrose in fruit makes no sense to me.
This is an interesting question. For me at least, it does make a difference, and I don't know why - I mean I have done exactly this, eaten steel cut oats with maple syrup, or with apples - and with apples it has almost zero effect on my blood glucose, while with (on paper) the same amount of sugar added as maple syrup spikes it severely.
I would expect that, because the apples have fiber (not tons, but some) and the syrup does not.
The syrup is natural/inherent sugar, so that kills the idea that it's all about processing, at least. ;-)
I also wonder if syrup has more glucose? My understanding is that glucose spikes blood sugar, fructose does not, but that high levels of fructose (which I am not worried about with fruit or consuming sugar in true moderation) can be bad for the liver.
I'd suggest a comparison where you keep the sugar and fiber equal (or even less in the evil processed sugar product), which was the point of the two comparisons I set up. Oats with raspberries and a little sugar would have the same sugar/fiber ratio as oats with a banana. The rhubarb+sugar would have more fiber/less sugar than the apple sauce (no added sugar).
Main point was that it's NOT true that all foods containing added sugar are fiber-free or low nutrient or whatever.Interestingly enough, the oats themselves, which are high carb, cooked in milk, also has carbs, have a negligable effect on my glucose. I mean by that, that it causes a lower raise in glucose than just the same amount of milk drunk as a glass of milk would. I don't know if it's the fiber from the oats, or cooking it, or what, but it is consistent.
My understanding is that there are individual differences in how foods, specifically higher carb foods, spike blood sugar or how we individually experience their GI. I've considered testing this (got interested by Robb Wolf's latest book and the study it's inspired by), but am not IR so haven't really bothered yet.
I think this is important on an individual level if one is IR, of course, but I think it contradicts the claim that processed sugar in ANYTHING is always worse than inherent sugar, which was the point I was arguing against. It comes down to the other aspects of the food (or if one is really so focused on blood sugar, which I don't think needs to be the main issue for most people -- not everything is about being IR -- it may come down to percentage of glucose vs. fructose which varies between different fruits).3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
Your last sentence is correct. The claim that the sugars are different was not.
But still it's not about so called processed sugar. I've asked this question before, but say I may a rhubarb sauce and add a little sugar. I make an apple sauce out of only apples. The rhubarb sauce has more fiber per sugar gram still. Does the item with the processed sugar has a worse effect?
To use a more common example, it's not uncommon to have a little (say a tsp) sugar in some steel cut oats. Say you do that, and also eat raspberries with it. Is that going to have a different effect than eating an apple (the oats have as much fiber as the apple)? What about having the oats with a banana but no added sugar?
It's important to understand that processed sugar doesn't magically cause some bad effect; it's about dosage and what you eat it with. Yes, some eat lots of added sugar in soda or combined with fat in sweets (i.e., a pastry). But demonizing sugar because it can be overeaten or saying it's different than glucose, fructose, and sucrose in fruit makes no sense to me.
This is an interesting question. For me at least, it does make a difference, and I don't know why - I mean I have done exactly this, eaten steel cut oats with maple syrup, or with apples - and with apples it has almost zero effect on my blood glucose, while with (on paper) the same amount of sugar added as maple syrup spikes it severely.
I would expect that, because the apples have fiber (not tons, but some) and the syrup does not.
The syrup is natural/inherent sugar, so that kills the idea that it's all about processing, at least. ;-)
I also wonder if syrup has more glucose? My understanding is that glucose spikes blood sugar, fructose does not, but that high levels of fructose (which I am not worried about with fruit or consuming sugar in true moderation) can be bad for the liver.
I'd suggest a comparison where you keep the sugar and fiber equal (or even less in the evil processed sugar product), which was the point of the two comparisons I set up. Oats with raspberries and a little sugar would have the same sugar/fiber ratio as oats with a banana. The rhubarb+sugar would have more fiber/less sugar than the apple sauce (no added sugar).
Main point was that it's NOT true that all foods containing added sugar are fiber-free or low nutrient or whatever.Interestingly enough, the oats themselves, which are high carb, cooked in milk, also has carbs, have a negligable effect on my glucose. I mean by that, that it causes a lower raise in glucose than just the same amount of milk drunk as a glass of milk would. I don't know if it's the fiber from the oats, or cooking it, or what, but it is consistent.
My understanding is that there are individual differences in how foods, specifically higher carb foods, spike blood sugar or how we individually experience their GI. I've considered testing this (got interested by Robb Wolf's latest book and the study it's inspired by), but am not IR so haven't really bothered yet.
I think this is important on an individual level if one is IR, of course, but I think it contradicts the claim that processed sugar in ANYTHING is always worse than inherent sugar, which was the point I was arguing against. It comes down to the other aspects of the food (or if one is really so focused on blood sugar, which I don't think needs to be the main issue for most people -- not everything is about being IR -- it may come down to percentage of glucose vs. fructose which varies between different fruits).
Sure, we agree that processing has little to do with it, and sugar per se is just one of many factors. Honey is not processed but is almost pure sugar. White rice isn't sugar at all but spikes my glucose faster than smarties, which is what I eat when I have no access to food and my sugars are low. Potatoes, equally demonized with rice by those who avoid "white foods", barely spike me at all.
It is very individual, which is one reason that sweeping generalizations don't give the whole picture.
If you are not insulin resistant, a testing kit probably wouldn't tell you much. As I understand it, it takes a really big carb load to make a normal person break 100 - your insulin should be keeping up with food almost as fast as you can eat it. But you can get a cheap kit and strips at Walmart for twenty bucks, if you're curious. Knowing how much fuel you have on hand for workouts is incredibly useful. It's like I was driving a car without a gas gauge and just guessing what to put in the tank, and now I have a gauge.3 -
It is not accurate to say that an average persons blood sugar doesn't normally surpass 100. An average persons FASTING blood sugar shouldn't be above 100. The fiber in unrefined products does in fact slow down the metabolism of sugar/carbs and therefor does not cause the same spike in refined sugar/carbs.3
-
I think it would be hard to get the same spike in blood sugar from apples as apple juice. Apples have fiber to slow down the metabolism of the sugar. Apple juice is much easier to consume. A person can easily down a 16 ounce glass of juice but can't easily eat 3 apples. Just to throw it out there I don't actually know how many apples it takes to make a 16 ounce of juice. I have only made it in mass quantities on a press0
-
MichelleLaree13 wrote: »It is not accurate to say that an average persons blood sugar doesn't normally surpass 100. An average persons FASTING blood sugar shouldn't be above 100. The fiber in unrefined products does in fact slow down the metabolism of sugar/carbs and therefor does not cause the same spike in refined sugar/carbs.
A healthy person's post prandial sugars can go up to 140. But usually do not. The average fasting glucose for a healthy person is significantly below 100. 100 is the high end cutoff.
Also, as mentioned before, honey and maple syrup are not refined. Yet do not contain fiber, and have exactly the same effect as refined sugars.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
Your last sentence is correct. The claim that the sugars are different was not.
But still it's not about so called processed sugar. I've asked this question before, but say I may a rhubarb sauce and add a little sugar. I make an apple sauce out of only apples. The rhubarb sauce has more fiber per sugar gram still. Does the item with the processed sugar has a worse effect?
To use a more common example, it's not uncommon to have a little (say a tsp) sugar in some steel cut oats. Say you do that, and also eat raspberries with it. Is that going to have a different effect than eating an apple (the oats have as much fiber as the apple)? What about having the oats with a banana but no added sugar?
It's important to understand that processed sugar doesn't magically cause some bad effect; it's about dosage and what you eat it with. Yes, some eat lots of added sugar in soda or combined with fat in sweets (i.e., a pastry). But demonizing sugar because it can be overeaten or saying it's different than glucose, fructose, and sucrose in fruit makes no sense to me.
This is an interesting question. For me at least, it does make a difference, and I don't know why - I mean I have done exactly this, eaten steel cut oats with maple syrup, or with apples - and with apples it has almost zero effect on my blood glucose, while with (on paper) the same amount of sugar added as maple syrup spikes it severely.
I would expect that, because the apples have fiber (not tons, but some) and the syrup does not.
The syrup is natural/inherent sugar, so that kills the idea that it's all about processing, at least. ;-)
I also wonder if syrup has more glucose? My understanding is that glucose spikes blood sugar, fructose does not, but that high levels of fructose (which I am not worried about with fruit or consuming sugar in true moderation) can be bad for the liver.
I'd suggest a comparison where you keep the sugar and fiber equal (or even less in the evil processed sugar product), which was the point of the two comparisons I set up. Oats with raspberries and a little sugar would have the same sugar/fiber ratio as oats with a banana. The rhubarb+sugar would have more fiber/less sugar than the apple sauce (no added sugar).
Main point was that it's NOT true that all foods containing added sugar are fiber-free or low nutrient or whatever.Interestingly enough, the oats themselves, which are high carb, cooked in milk, also has carbs, have a negligable effect on my glucose. I mean by that, that it causes a lower raise in glucose than just the same amount of milk drunk as a glass of milk would. I don't know if it's the fiber from the oats, or cooking it, or what, but it is consistent.
My understanding is that there are individual differences in how foods, specifically higher carb foods, spike blood sugar or how we individually experience their GI. I've considered testing this (got interested by Robb Wolf's latest book and the study it's inspired by), but am not IR so haven't really bothered yet.
I think this is important on an individual level if one is IR, of course, but I think it contradicts the claim that processed sugar in ANYTHING is always worse than inherent sugar, which was the point I was arguing against. It comes down to the other aspects of the food (or if one is really so focused on blood sugar, which I don't think needs to be the main issue for most people -- not everything is about being IR -- it may come down to percentage of glucose vs. fructose which varies between different fruits).
Sure, we agree that processing has little to do with it, and sugar per se is just one of many factors. Honey is not processed but is almost pure sugar. White rice isn't sugar at all but spikes my glucose faster than smarties, which is what I eat when I have no access to food and my sugars are low. Potatoes, equally demonized with rice by those who avoid "white foods", barely spike me at all.
Yeah, we agree. The person I was discussing this with had asserted initially that it was about "fruit sugar" vs. "processed sugar" and that was what I was disagreeing with. You and I agree that different foods have different effects on the body, and that the particular effect can be personal. (I don't think this means calories are not calories, but we don't have to go there.)It is very individual, which is one reason that sweeping generalizations don't give the whole picture.
Yes, we agree here too.If you are not insulin resistant, a testing kit probably wouldn't tell you much.
I think you could still see differences, the same way they determine the GI for foods (which is not identical for everyone, and irrelevant if you eat the foods with other foods anyway, but for amusing oneself it might be of interest).But you can get a cheap kit and strips at Walmart for twenty bucks, if you're curious. Knowing how much fuel you have on hand for workouts is incredibly useful. It's like I was driving a car without a gas gauge and just guessing what to put in the tank, and now I have a gauge.
I was at one point thinking of getting a ketone tester and figured that I could run the glucose test with the same kit, different strips, was one way I was trying to talk myself into it. So far the desire to run a personal science experiment has not outweighed the cost/my dislike of making myself bleed, but I may eventually do it.
I've never had an issue with fuel for workouts, even before I was fat adapted. I could feel some differences (for example, morning workouts after having starchy carbs with dinner were usually extra good -- I normally do morning runs fasted), but I don't specifically fuel for workouts. I've read a lot about fueling plans for endurance stuff and played around with that some.
What does it tell you that helps workouts? How much glucose you have on hand? It wouldn't test glycogen stores, would it? (If I can find anything justification for this purchase I wouldn't mind!) ;-)2 -
MichelleLaree13 wrote: »I think it would be hard to get the same spike in blood sugar from apples as apple juice. Apples have fiber to slow down the metabolism of the sugar. Apple juice is much easier to consume. A person can easily down a 16 ounce glass of juice but can't easily eat 3 apples. Just to throw it out there I don't actually know how many apples it takes to make a 16 ounce of juice. I have only made it in mass quantities on a press
Yes, this is not inconsistent with what rheddmobile and I are saying. We are saying it's not about processed vs. not, but other things including fiber -- other factors are that there are unexplained differences that vary by person based on source of carbs (rice vs. potatoes) and as I understand it, percentage that's glucose vs. fructose (glucose will have an effect on blood sugar that fructose does not, although there are other reasons not to overconsume it).
The juice from an apple + some fiber from an "unnatural" source, like Metamucil would perhaps have the same effect as a smoothie made from an apple. I'd predict that it would, in fact.
Here's a report on the study I was talking about ( @rheddmobile , you may be interested in this): http://www.cbsnews.com/news/huge-differences-even-when-people-ate-the-same-foods/
They measured immediately after eating (well, every 5 minutes) so could see differences in responses even where people are not IR.1 -
everyone that says insulin spikes are bad because sugar, should read this..
http://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/5 -
Just popping in to point out that maple sap is not refined. The sap is boiled down (refined) to remove much of the water to get syrup.2
-
everyone that says insulin spikes are bad because sugar, should read this..
http://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Insulin spikes aren't bad.
Having high blood glucose, which happens if one is IR, can certainly be bad, but doesn't support demonizing sugar in general (or added sugar in general).1 -
Fruit is delicious and is very nutritious. Eat reasonable portions and enjoy.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Well processed sugar is metabolized more quickly, than sugar from fruit, which causes insulin spikes.
Because fruit has fiber, and most fruit expand in the gut, the metabolization is slower, and people feel more full on less sugar--from fruit.
I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. Sugar is sugar, but the delivery mechanism is different, and produce different results.
Your last sentence is correct. The claim that the sugars are different was not.
But still it's not about so called processed sugar. I've asked this question before, but say I may a rhubarb sauce and add a little sugar. I make an apple sauce out of only apples. The rhubarb sauce has more fiber per sugar gram still. Does the item with the processed sugar has a worse effect?
To use a more common example, it's not uncommon to have a little (say a tsp) sugar in some steel cut oats. Say you do that, and also eat raspberries with it. Is that going to have a different effect than eating an apple (the oats have as much fiber as the apple)? What about having the oats with a banana but no added sugar?
It's important to understand that processed sugar doesn't magically cause some bad effect; it's about dosage and what you eat it with. Yes, some eat lots of added sugar in soda or combined with fat in sweets (i.e., a pastry). But demonizing sugar because it can be overeaten or saying it's different than glucose, fructose, and sucrose in fruit makes no sense to me.
This is an interesting question. For me at least, it does make a difference, and I don't know why - I mean I have done exactly this, eaten steel cut oats with maple syrup, or with apples - and with apples it has almost zero effect on my blood glucose, while with (on paper) the same amount of sugar added as maple syrup spikes it severely.
I would expect that, because the apples have fiber (not tons, but some) and the syrup does not.
The syrup is natural/inherent sugar, so that kills the idea that it's all about processing, at least. ;-)
I also wonder if syrup has more glucose? My understanding is that glucose spikes blood sugar, fructose does not, but that high levels of fructose (which I am not worried about with fruit or consuming sugar in true moderation) can be bad for the liver.
I'd suggest a comparison where you keep the sugar and fiber equal (or even less in the evil processed sugar product), which was the point of the two comparisons I set up. Oats with raspberries and a little sugar would have the same sugar/fiber ratio as oats with a banana. The rhubarb+sugar would have more fiber/less sugar than the apple sauce (no added sugar).
Main point was that it's NOT true that all foods containing added sugar are fiber-free or low nutrient or whatever.Interestingly enough, the oats themselves, which are high carb, cooked in milk, also has carbs, have a negligable effect on my glucose. I mean by that, that it causes a lower raise in glucose than just the same amount of milk drunk as a glass of milk would. I don't know if it's the fiber from the oats, or cooking it, or what, but it is consistent.
My understanding is that there are individual differences in how foods, specifically higher carb foods, spike blood sugar or how we individually experience their GI. I've considered testing this (got interested by Robb Wolf's latest book and the study it's inspired by), but am not IR so haven't really bothered yet.
I think this is important on an individual level if one is IR, of course, but I think it contradicts the claim that processed sugar in ANYTHING is always worse than inherent sugar, which was the point I was arguing against. It comes down to the other aspects of the food (or if one is really so focused on blood sugar, which I don't think needs to be the main issue for most people -- not everything is about being IR -- it may come down to percentage of glucose vs. fructose which varies between different fruits).
Sure, we agree that processing has little to do with it, and sugar per se is just one of many factors. Honey is not processed but is almost pure sugar. White rice isn't sugar at all but spikes my glucose faster than smarties, which is what I eat when I have no access to food and my sugars are low. Potatoes, equally demonized with rice by those who avoid "white foods", barely spike me at all.
Yeah, we agree. The person I was discussing this with had asserted initially that it was about "fruit sugar" vs. "processed sugar" and that was what I was disagreeing with. You and I agree that different foods have different effects on the body, and that the particular effect can be personal. (I don't think this means calories are not calories, but we don't have to go there.)It is very individual, which is one reason that sweeping generalizations don't give the whole picture.
Yes, we agree here too.If you are not insulin resistant, a testing kit probably wouldn't tell you much.
I think you could still see differences, the same way they determine the GI for foods (which is not identical for everyone, and irrelevant if you eat the foods with other foods anyway, but for amusing oneself it might be of interest).But you can get a cheap kit and strips at Walmart for twenty bucks, if you're curious. Knowing how much fuel you have on hand for workouts is incredibly useful. It's like I was driving a car without a gas gauge and just guessing what to put in the tank, and now I have a gauge.
I was at one point thinking of getting a ketone tester and figured that I could run the glucose test with the same kit, different strips, was one way I was trying to talk myself into it. So far the desire to run a personal science experiment has not outweighed the cost/my dislike of making myself bleed, but I may eventually do it.
I've never had an issue with fuel for workouts, even before I was fat adapted. I could feel some differences (for example, morning workouts after having starchy carbs with dinner were usually extra good -- I normally do morning runs fasted), but I don't specifically fuel for workouts. I've read a lot about fueling plans for endurance stuff and played around with that some.
What does it tell you that helps workouts? How much glucose you have on hand? It wouldn't test glycogen stores, would it? (If I can find anything justification for this purchase I wouldn't mind!) ;-)
To give a specific example, I know from experience that if my glucose is high, I can rapidly bring it down using HIIT cycling. 15 minutes consisting of 5 intervals of two minutes at 20 mph and 1 minute at 25 mph will drop me from 140 to somewhere around 80. This workout varies but burns about 300 calories.
I also know that if my glucose starting is 100, I am not going to be comfortable doing this workout - metformin is a glucagon inhibitor, which keeps my liver from going haywire and producing a bunch of glucose for no good reason, but it also tends to prevent it from producing glucose quickly in response to low blood sugar, and if I do hard exercise fasted, my glucose winds up in the low 70s or high 60s which is uncomfortable, and on the border of being dangerous. So I eat a piece of fruit before I start.
Again, I'm not sure how helpful this would be for normal people. I try to keep my glucose tightly controlled through diet and exercise, and because I work from home, I can easily schedule my exercise around my highs and lows. For me, testing means I can look at my glucose and say, "Huh, now would be a great time to work out!" or, as happened this morning, "Interesting, an hour after breakfast my glucose is already below 100, I think I'll work out this afternoon after lunch instead." Testing wouldn't really help with endurance, since elevated blood sugar in response to meals comes down ordinarily within two hours.3
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