help with sugar intake, please!!

tragicpixie

also the glycemic index is very innaccurate and irrelevant in most cases.

I don't think it's irrelevant, sugar definitely does affect everyone. Everyone's sensitivity will vary however some people really are sensitive enough to notice a difference between the kinds of sugar - especially in regard to energy levels and mood. Because some sugars leave the system more quickly, someone who eats a lot of highly processed foods, with their easily accessible carbs and processed sugar, will be noticing a lot more variation in mood and energy level than someone who is eating more whole grains and complex sugars. All the molecules are used in your body the same, but it takes time to get to them - which means your body doesn't need them again as quickly. Some people never notice, some people will: but just because something is the same chemical in your body doesn't mean their differences are irrelevant.

CyberEd312

Lol at this thread

Agreed!!

I have lost 311 lbs. tracking Calories, Protein, Carbs, and Fats.... I live by the motto "Keep it simple stupid" I do not track anything past that... My diet is of such now (fruits,veggies, multi-grains, lean meats, etc) that I do not worry about sugar grams, sodium grams, etc.... I hit my macro's (50% carbs, 25% protein, 25% fats) and hit my caloric intake daily.. I drink 1/2 my body weight in ounces of water daily (125 oz. minimum) beyond that a get moving everyday.... Not saying this will work for all but I have lost a few pounds doing this method...

PayneAS

I've been trying to make myself like Stevia, but in stuff like coffee it's just not working for me.

I couldn't make myself like Stevia in my coffee either. So for that one thing I'll add regular sugar to. I figure 3 teaspoons a day of sugar aren't going to kill me.

EccentricDad

This is not even close to accurate. For one, several of those are toxic, like aspartame. HFCS is under fire for a reason. Fiber has a completely different effect than sugar. Sugar alcohols do not effect blood sugar, and what's more are not fully metabolized, you can actually subtract a percentage of the carbs from the nutrition label if they are made of sugar alcohols.

The facts:
1) All chemically created sweeteners are toxic.
2) Sugar alcohol is created by taking a starch (like corn) and hydrogenating them to a 3rd of the original molecule. So essentially they are starchs but 1/3 the calories. They are still carbs and they still affect the blood sugar like a normal starch would (aka complex carb).
3) Nothing allows you subtract calories. NOTHING.
4) HFCS is under fire because molecularly it is the EXACT same as sucrose. The body doesn't care if it's sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS, they both send blood sugar levels to spike, and they both cause an insulin response. The only major difference? The FDA doesn't require HFCS to be logged as sugar.

1. I'm inclined to agree with that, but I didn't say otherwise to begin with.

2. "There is less of an effect from sugar alcohols than either sugar or starch."- American Diabetes Association (and all other organizations)

3. I didn't say calories, I said carbs. From the American Diabetes Association again:

If a food has more than 5 grams of sugar alcohols:

Subtract ½ the grams of sugar alcohol from the amount of total carbohydrate
Count the remaining grams of carbohydrate in your meal plan

4. HFCS is under fire for a variety of things, including potentially causing increased fat deposits in the abdomen. Most of that is unproven. But that's a whole other thread.

5. Starting your post by calling it "The Facts" doesn't strengthen an argument.

LMAO! All I have to say is "Last word"