SUGAR

IrishAutumn77

I find, no matter how hard I watch or how hard I try, I'm over my sugar EVERY SINGLE DAY. Even if I'm under on everything else, including carbs, I'm always at least -25 to -35 on my sugar. Is this just a glitch in the system. It's not like I'm eating cookies and candy, either. I'm drinking milk and eating fruit and those two things send my sugar skyrocketing!

I'm not diabetic, so I'm not going to worry about too much I guess. But I wondered if anyone else was running into this issue. Just frustrating when all my other numbers are in the "green" and that one pesky sugar number is "red"!! Boo!

chefswife67

Bump..

Leanne1795

It will be the fruit. I am diabetic and I know any fruit will just send my blood sugar sky high. Natural sugars DO count.

MikeSEA

The sugar recommendation is just low. if you're staying away from processed sugars and still within your carb allowance, pay it no mind.

EDIT: unless you're diabetic, of course, then your sugars might need some additional monitoring.

ibbray04

I stopped tracking sugar. Most of mine comes from fruit, as I eat a lot of it. I don't count sugar from fruit/veggies in the same category as refined sugar.

bcattoes

If you are not insulin resistant or diabetic, the overage is not large, and it's mostly from fruit, I wouldn't worry about it.

cheeksv

Sugar is my downfall and it is hard to watch. I literally do everything I can to stay under. Measure your milk and use skim, look for lower sugar fruits. Things like grapes are higher in sugar then lets say watermelon I think.. Do some research and try to stay away from artificial sweeteners as well. Cut sugar out in a lot of other ways, soy milk in coffee instead of regular milk and a smaller size, No sugar cereals and sugar free protein shakes. It is really hard and takes some patience but i,f you aren't eating junk then try not to loose sleep over it and keep looking for little ways to reduce your intake.

fitsaxon

This topic is posted often & I always click to see how people cope--
Some say -- sugar is sugar.

Am pretty sure that the glycemic index for fruit sugar is low relative to cane sugar -- this means that relatively, fruits' sugar has a less immeadiate effect on blood sugar ---> fewer insulin spikes with fruit. Better (maybe not ideal) for people with diabetes.

Wouldn't worry about the fruit too much - one or two a day is fine

Sill, I wish the system would allow sugar to be broken down into subcatagories.

tigersword

I stopped tracking sugar. Most of mine comes from fruit, as I eat a lot of it. I don't count sugar from fruit/veggies in the same category as refined sugar.

It's the same sugar. "Refined sugar" is sucrose, which is glucose and fructose, and fruits contain various combinations of sucrose, glucose, and fructose. It's all the same, as far as your body is concerned.

tigersword

Measure your milk and use skim

Actually whole milk has less sugar in it than skim. Manufacturers add sugar to skim milk to make up for removing the fat.

MikeSEA

I stopped tracking sugar. Most of mine comes from fruit, as I eat a lot of it. I don't count sugar from fruit/veggies in the same category as refined sugar.

It's the same sugar. "Refined sugar" is sucrose, which is glucose and fructose, and fruits contain various combinations of sucrose, glucose, and fructose. It's all the same, as far as your body is concerned.

Different sugars do affect one's body in different ways. There are literally thousands of different kinds of sugars and some are broken down by the body more slowly than others. Any biochemist can confirm this.

tigersword

This topic is posted often & I always click to see how people cope--
Some say -- sugar is sugar.

Am pretty sure that the glycemic index for fruit sugar is low relative to cane sugar -- this means that relatively, fruits' sugar has a less immeadiate effect on blood sugar ---> fewer insulin spikes with fruit. Better (maybe not ideal) for people with diabetes.

Wouldn't worry about the fruit too much - one or two a day is fine

Sill, I wish the system would allow sugar to be broken down into subcatagories.

Not quite true. Fructose effects insulin almost as much as glucose does. Also, while they call fructose "fruit sugar" most fruit has just as much sucrose and free glucose in it as fructose.

Saying fructose is better for diabetics is an old, outdated theory that has been disproven many times.

tigersword

I stopped tracking sugar. Most of mine comes from fruit, as I eat a lot of it. I don't count sugar from fruit/veggies in the same category as refined sugar.

It's the same sugar. "Refined sugar" is sucrose, which is glucose and fructose, and fruits contain various combinations of sucrose, glucose, and fructose. It's all the same, as far as your body is concerned.

Different sugars do affect one's body in different ways. There are literally thousands of different kinds of sugars and some are broken down by the body more slowly than others. Any biochemist can confirm this.

Yes, but sucrose is glucose and fructose. My point is that eating sucrose, glucose, and fructose is the same, no matter what the source of fructose, glucose, and sucrose.

MSDRIZZ

Measure your milk and use skim

Actually whole milk has less sugar in it than skim. Manufacturers add sugar to skim milk to make up for removing the fat.

You're correct that skim has more sugar, but it is not because anybody is ADDING sugar. This is a misconception. If you have a cup of milk and you take out the cream you have less milk. Then you have to add more milk to make a cup. More milk equals more sugar.

MSDRIZZ

This topic is posted often & I always click to see how people cope--
Some say -- sugar is sugar.

Am pretty sure that the glycemic index for fruit sugar is low relative to cane sugar -- this means that relatively, fruits' sugar has a less immeadiate effect on blood sugar ---> fewer insulin spikes with fruit. Better (maybe not ideal) for people with diabetes.

Wouldn't worry about the fruit too much - one or two a day is fine

Sill, I wish the system would allow sugar to be broken down into subcatagories.

Not quite true. Fructose effects insulin almost as much as glucose does. Also, while they call fructose "fruit sugar" most fruit has just as much sucrose and free glucose in it as fructose.

Saying fructose is better for diabetics is an old, outdated theory that has been disproven many times.

Where is this research?

Where has this been disproven?

theginnyray

This happens to me daily.
As with anything in life, I've got to pick and choose my battles. Like you, I'm not stuffing my face with cookies and sugary treats, it's from fruit. I like fruit, and it's good for me. I consider fruits and veggies to be "free" in the sense that I will eat as much as I want and not feel bad about it - and I'll count every bit of it. If I'm over on my calories for the day because I had a banana with breakfast, strawberries for a snack and an apple after my run, well, I think I still did a good job!

tigersword

This topic is posted often & I always click to see how people cope--
Some say -- sugar is sugar.

Am pretty sure that the glycemic index for fruit sugar is low relative to cane sugar -- this means that relatively, fruits' sugar has a less immeadiate effect on blood sugar ---> fewer insulin spikes with fruit. Better (maybe not ideal) for people with diabetes.

Wouldn't worry about the fruit too much - one or two a day is fine

Sill, I wish the system would allow sugar to be broken down into subcatagories.

Not quite true. Fructose effects insulin almost as much as glucose does. Also, while they call fructose "fruit sugar" most fruit has just as much sucrose and free glucose in it as fructose.

Saying fructose is better for diabetics is an old, outdated theory that has been disproven many times.

Where is this research?

Where has this been disproven?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=^ Hughes TA, Atchison J, Hazelrig JB, Boshell BR (1989). "Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic patients: effect of food composition". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 49 (4): 658–66.%20PMID%202929488.

Here's one study. Fructose alone causes almost the same response as glucose alone.

123456654321

I stopped tracking sugar. Most of mine comes from fruit, as I eat a lot of it. I don't count sugar from fruit/veggies in the same category as refined sugar.

It's the same sugar. "Refined sugar" is sucrose, which is glucose and fructose, and fruits contain various combinations of sucrose, glucose, and fructose. It's all the same, as far as your body is concerned.

Different sugars do affect one's body in different ways. There are literally thousands of different kinds of sugars and some are broken down by the body more slowly than others. Any biochemist can confirm this.

Not to mention the other properties in fruit that you take in with it that actually help regulate blood sugar levels.

123456654321

This topic is posted often & I always click to see how people cope--
Some say -- sugar is sugar.

Am pretty sure that the glycemic index for fruit sugar is low relative to cane sugar -- this means that relatively, fruits' sugar has a less immeadiate effect on blood sugar ---> fewer insulin spikes with fruit. Better (maybe not ideal) for people with diabetes.

Wouldn't worry about the fruit too much - one or two a day is fine

Sill, I wish the system would allow sugar to be broken down into subcatagories.

Not quite true. Fructose effects insulin almost as much as glucose does. Also, while they call fructose "fruit sugar" most fruit has just as much sucrose and free glucose in it as fructose.

Saying fructose is better for diabetics is an old, outdated theory that has been disproven many times.

Where is this research?

Where has this been disproven?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=^ Hughes TA, Atchison J, Hazelrig JB, Boshell BR (1989). "Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic patients: effect of food composition". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 49 (4): 658–66.%20PMID%202929488.

Here's one study. Fructose alone causes almost the same response as glucose alone.

Key word here being "alone" ....when you eat a piece of fruit you are never eating fructose alone. From what I've gathered, I was under the impression that all the properties in a single food we are eating will make a difference in the way our bodies react to the single compounds in it.

fitsaxon

This topic is posted often & I always click to see how people cope--
Some say -- sugar is sugar.

Am pretty sure that the glycemic index for fruit sugar is low relative to cane sugar -- this means that relatively, fruits' sugar has a less immeadiate effect on blood sugar ---> fewer insulin spikes with fruit. Better (maybe not ideal) for people with diabetes.

Wouldn't worry about the fruit too much - one or two a day is fine

Sill, I wish the system would allow sugar to be broken down into subcatagories.

Not quite true. Fructose effects insulin almost as much as glucose does. Also, while they call fructose "fruit sugar" most fruit has just as much sucrose and free glucose in it as fructose.

Saying fructose is better for diabetics is an old, outdated theory that has been disproven many times.

Where is this research?

Where has this been disproven?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=^ Hughes TA, Atchison J, Hazelrig JB, Boshell BR (1989). "Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic patients: effect of food composition". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 49 (4): 658–66.%20PMID%202929488.

Here's one study. Fructose alone causes almost the same response as glucose alone.

With as many qualifiers (pretty sure, relative to . . ) as I had in my responce to Irish - I am amazed that you felt this strongly about sugar.
Are you a resident at Alabama? If so, way to promote your study.

If not, I hope your day gets better & I hope that Irish feels OK about fuit . . and that she never finds out how many oranges it takes to aquire late onset diabetes.

tigersword

This topic is posted often & I always click to see how people cope--
Some say -- sugar is sugar.

Am pretty sure that the glycemic index for fruit sugar is low relative to cane sugar -- this means that relatively, fruits' sugar has a less immeadiate effect on blood sugar ---> fewer insulin spikes with fruit. Better (maybe not ideal) for people with diabetes.

Wouldn't worry about the fruit too much - one or two a day is fine

Sill, I wish the system would allow sugar to be broken down into subcatagories.

Not quite true. Fructose effects insulin almost as much as glucose does. Also, while they call fructose "fruit sugar" most fruit has just as much sucrose and free glucose in it as fructose.

Saying fructose is better for diabetics is an old, outdated theory that has been disproven many times.

Where is this research?

Where has this been disproven?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=^ Hughes TA, Atchison J, Hazelrig JB, Boshell BR (1989). "Glycemic responses in insulin-dependent diabetic patients: effect of food composition". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 49 (4): 658–66.%20PMID%202929488.

Here's one study. Fructose alone causes almost the same response as glucose alone.

Key word here being "alone" ....when you eat a piece of fruit you are never eating fructose alone. From what I've gathered, I was under the impression that all the properties in a single food we are eating will make a difference in the way our bodies react to the single compounds in it.

This is true, but that applies to everything you eat. Unless you just eat bowls of sugar, you aren't even eating "refined" sugar alone. Which is again, my entire point, the body processes sugar as sugar, regardless of it's source. A piece of fruit with fiber in it, or a piece of whole grain bread (with fiber) with table sugar on it are both essentially the same, from a sugar digestion standpoint.

Besides, the point of the study I linked to was to show that fructose is not a good substitute for glucose in a diabetic's diet. I'm not questioning whether fructose is digested differently when eaten with other compounds.