 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / August 2007For T2, are all sugars bad or just glucose?
I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, maltose, etc. However, the diabetic narrative is full of glucose and nothing else. Never heard of a "blood fructose meter". :-) So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose? Thanks. >I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods > contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks. I think you are confused. When we talk of blood glucose, we mean blood sugar. This has nothing to do with sugar that we eat. There is no such thing as a fructose meter, but there is a fructosamine test. This is like the glycoslated hemoglobin AKA A1c but it doesn't track the cells back as far. In terms of eating, some would say a carb is a carb is a carb. Meaning that say...a slice of white bread is no worse for your blood sugar than the equivalent in spoonfuls of that white powder we call sugar. Some people find that certain foods affect them badly and they must either never eat these things or eat them in really small quantities. Potatoes are one such food. I personally have no problem with them, provided I watch my portion size. Sugars in their natural states do not present a problem to the body, other than perhaps raising BG (blood glucose). But when they are extracted from foods and used as a concentrated source, they can present a problem. For instance, high fructose corn syrup. It has been linked to all sorts of bad things. This is not to be confused with corn syrup, which AFAIK has not been linked to anything bad. For the diabetic, fructose can be bad. However, that is in and of itself. By that, I mean that honey-like stuff you buy in a jar that is labeled fructose. It can lead to heart problems. Nature intended it to be combined with other natural sugars like sorbitol. If you eat a piece of fruit, there will be fructose in it but also sorbitol and other natural sugars. When you eat them in relatively small amounts like that and combined the way nature intended them, they do not harm the body. Might spike your BG, but won't cause other damage like heart problems. Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but so are fructose, maltose etc. Now, calories are calories. If we consume more than we spend, we'd gain wait. They could come from sugars to be sure, but the phenomenon is not "sugar" specific, it would be the saame with proteins or fats. The second issue is extra "sugar" in the blood, whose presence above certain levels causes organ damage and other complications. AKA diabetes. AFAIK, only glucose appears to be mentioned in this context. Although lay people use the term "sugar" informally, it has always been emphasized to me in every professional setting that we are talking about and testing for glucose, not any other kind of sugar. We don't seem to test for or worry about other sugars. So, my question, why skip other sugars? Would an excess of fructose or maltose in the body not cause organ damage like glucose does? >Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in >chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >So, my question, why skip other sugars? Would an excess of fructose or >maltose in the body not cause organ damage like glucose does? As Julie explained, you are confusing ingested sugar and blood glucose. And weight and calories are tangential to this; they have nothing to do with the effect on blood glucose in this sense. Sugar, in any form, whether lactose, sucrose, fructose, glucose or some other -ose, is one of many foods which will cause a rise in your blood glucose levels after your eat (ingest) them. Other foods, particularly carbohydrates will also raise your blood glucose levels. If you eat sucrose or fructose or starch, your blood glucose rises, you don't get sucrose or fructose or starch in your blood. You test for blood glucose - but the cause of that glucose in your blood can be any of a wide range of carbohydrates or even, to a lesser degree, proteins. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ latest: Self-Testing and Type 2 Management : As Julie explained, you are confusing ingested sugar and : blood glucose... For whatever reason, it is you and Julie who are confusing OP's question. Not sure if either of you actually bothered to read it. :) : Sugar, in any form, whether lactose, sucrose, fructose, : glucose or some other -ose, is one of many foods which will : cause a rise in your blood glucose levels after your eat : (ingest) them... I can see starches breaking down into constituent sugars, but one kind of sugar turning into another seems a stretch. I am not sure, but are you? Sideways moves are MUCH harder in Nature: it is far easier to extract oxygen from water than to convert nitrogen into oxygen! Anyway, let's look it up, if body actually converts fructose into glucose. > Anyway, let's look it up, if body actually converts fructose > into glucose. It does unless you have fructose intolerance, which is a genetic disorder in which you don't make the appropriate enzymes for digesting fructose. You want to get a basic biochemistry textbook to get all this stuff straight. Monosaccharides are sugars that contain one "unit" of sugar. Glucose is the one we're concerned about in diabetes because glucose is the basic sugar that your body uses. However, you're correct that there are monosaccharides other than glucose. And yes, the body converts them to glucose. Glucose is sort of the "base" sugar in biochemistry. Most of your monosaccharides are 6-ring structures, and yes, the body converts them to glucose. The case of fructose is a bit different because it's a 5-ring structure and therefore a bit harder to convert. It is more likely to be converted to fat than the other monosaccharides. Most of the things we think of as sugars are disaccharides. Sucrose, common table sugar, is a molecule made up of one unit of glucose and one unit of fructose chemically bonded together. Lactose, the sugar found in milk, is made up of one molecule of glucose and one molecule of galactose (galactose is another monosaccharide). Starch and fibers are polysaccharides (also called "complex carbohydrates"), which are big molecules containing lots and lots of chains of monosaccharides (mostly glucose). Starch is broken down in the body very easily, which is why it causes a rise in bg almost as fast as dissacharides. Soluble fiber is broken down minimally and insoluble fiber pretty much hardly at all, hence the notion of "net carbs" where fiber largely doesn't count. The reason we "count" glucose is because the body primarily uses glucose; all the polymers are broken down by the body into the unit monosaccharides and the monosaccharides other than glucose are converted to glucose before use. > I can see starches breaking down into constituent sugars, > but one kind of sugar turning into another seems a stretch. > I am not sure, but are you? Sideways moves are MUCH harder > in Nature: it is far easier to extract oxygen from water than > to convert nitrogen into oxygen! This is a *very* different thing. Nitrogen to oxygen would be a change from one element to another. The change from one monosaccharide to another is a change in the rearrangement of atoms in a molecule. The empirical formula for glucose is C6 H12 O6 - most of the monosaccharides have the same empirical formula. Just they are put together in a different order. >: As Julie explained, you are confusing ingested sugar and >: blood glucose... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Anyway, let's look it up, if body actually converts fructose >into glucose. Jackie answered far better than I could. I don't really think I misunderstood the question. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ latest: Self-Testing and Type 2 Management > >Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in > >chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - To add one more clarification to Alan and Julie's explanation...the reason that all of these various types of sugar and other carbohydrates are a problem for your blood glucose is because the body ultimately breaks all of these things down into glucose. Doesn't matter what form it starts out as, the body breaks it down to glucose. Best regards, Michelle C., T2 diet & exercise > Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in > chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but > so are fructose, maltose etc. Glucose is the sugar your body uses. The sugars and other carbs you eat are converted to glucose by the body. > Now, calories are calories. If we consume more than we spend, we'd gain > wait. They could come from sugars to be sure, but the phenomenon is not > "sugar" specific, it would be the saame with proteins or fats. Calories have nothing to do with blood glucose. > The second issue is extra "sugar" in the blood, whose presence above > certain levels causes organ damage and other complications. AKA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about and testing for glucose, not any other kind of sugar. We don't > seem to test for or worry about other sugars. There are no other sugars in your blood. Only glucose. > So, my question, why skip other sugars? Would an excess of fructose or > maltose in the body not cause organ damage like glucose does? There are no other sugars in your blood. Only glucose. It's not necessary to crosspost your messages to all the diabetes newsgroups. Most here read them all. Vicki > > Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in > > chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Vicki Cellular respiration...If I remember correctly, the sugars are interchangeable and can all be converted into glucose by the cell, because that is the easiest form to use to begin the process of phosphorylating ATP ! > Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in > chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So, my question, why skip other sugars? Would an excess of fructose or > maltose in the body not cause organ damage like glucose does? A type 2 diabetic is insulin resistant. The means the body has trouble metabolising 'sugar' in the blood. The culprit is sugar in the blood. Sugar in the blood comes from any carbohydrate. You should avoid glucose, other sugars, in fact - other carbs. Eating a load of wheat flour will raise you blood glucose level as surely as eating a load of glucose. >Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in >chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but >so are fructose, maltose etc. >Now, calories are calories. If we consume more than we spend, we'd gain >wait. They could come from sugars to be sure, but the phenomenon is not >"sugar" specific, it would be the saame with proteins or fats. >The second issue is extra "sugar" in the blood, whose presence above >certain levels causes organ damage and other complications. AKA >diabetes. >AFAIK, only glucose appears to be mentioned in this context. Although >lay people use the term "sugar" informally, it has always been >emphasized to me in every professional setting that we are talking >about and testing for glucose, not any other kind of sugar. We don't >seem to test for or worry about other sugars. >So, my question, why skip other sugars? Would an excess of fructose or >maltose in the body not cause organ damage like glucose does? Diabetes is the difficulty or inability to handle blood glucose. There are two aspects to carbohydrates; what quick effect do they have, and what total effect do they have. What the carbohydrates are, and how they are combined in food with other things, affects the first, but not the second, with few exceptions. There are simple sugars, double sugars, and compound carbohydrates, which are primarily starches. How fast they are handled depends on how accessible they are to digestive enzymes; glucose needs none. Finely divided starch, as in cooked potatoes "plain", is almost entirely converted to glucose before it reaches the stomach. Fats, proteins, and mechanical problems (whole grains) can slow the accessibility. This is what the glycemic index measures. Glucose is quickly absorbed. Sucrose (table sugar) quickly breaks down to glucose and fructose; maltose is just two glucose molecules stuck together with a molecule of water removed, so it has an even higher glycemic index than glucose. Fructose has to go through a process before it affect blood glucose. Lactose (milk sugar) has to go through a digestive process which separates it into glucose and galactose. Many adults, a majority of the world's population of adults, do not have much of the enzyme, and consequently it goes into the large intestine undigested. I do not know how quickly galactose is handled.  SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods >contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thanks. Forget sugars, think carbs. My meter doesn't differentiate. It shows equally high readings if I over-indulge - whether it's glucose, sucrose, fructose or plain old starch. For example, I get much the same peak post-prandial result from a snack of one slice of multigrain bread (starch), or an apple (fructose), or a glass of milk (lactose), or a few jelly beans (glucose). They are all about 15 gms of carbohydrate. The only thing that may vary slightly is the timing of the post-prandial spike. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ latest: Self-Testing and Type 2 Management : Forget sugars, think carbs. What's that supposed to mean? Sugars are part of carbs. > : Forget sugars, think carbs. > > What's that supposed to mean? It's the centerpiece of the mantra. You know - Diabetes II: the religion (not to be confused with the cult of L. Ron!) And Alan wants to be pope and a saint: patron saint of diabetics, of course! > Sugars are part of carbs. Why do you have to be so...so...so...secular :-( Bob >> : Forget sugars, think carbs. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Bob As an atheist, I may have some difficulty meeting your perceptions of my need for beatification:-) What's the centrepiece of your mantra? What advice would you like to offer RPS to assist in management of their diabetes? Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:50:16 -0700, anothascreen...@aol.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > As an atheist, I may have some difficulty meeting your > perceptions of my need for beatification:-) Nope. I don't discriminate against folks who believe anti-religion religion is more believable than belief in other religions. > What's the centrepiece of your mantra? What advice would you > like to offer RPS to assist in management of their diabetes? Get the best professional help and the best tools you can afford, take a primer in search engine logic if needed and learn how to use everything efficiently. Do it all in less than two hours a day. Ah, yes, and DON'T spend half your waking hours in the company of sick people who spend most their waking hours telling others how to live healthy lives. Unless of course you are trying to cash in on them. Otherwise - if you DO have the urge to dedicate half your life on your condition, go to medical school. BTW - is your first check from Google still in the mail? Bob anothascreen...@aol.com wrote: > > anothascreen...@aol.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Bob What you have observed simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict dear neighbor Alan S: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/dc679971831b5431? Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist >BTW - is your first check from Google still in the mail? > >Bob Not even in the envelope. Maybe Christmas. Sad, bob. Nothing better to do? Alan, T2, Australia. In alt.support.diabetes on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:28:53 +1000 in Msg.# <cm2ub3hu6bmpi82dq3fepr2n8ktkib3ubb@4ax.com>, Alan S <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote: > >BTW - is your first check from Google still in the mail? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sad, bob. Nothing better to do? What does this mean? SignatureDonnaB shallotpeel "The world is not divided into sheep & goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories & tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each & every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex." - Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948 On Aug 12, 7:04 am, DonnaB shallotpeel <shallotp...@comcast.net> wrote: > In alt.support.diabetes on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:28:53 +1000 in Msg.# > <cm2ub3hu6bmpi82dq3fepr2n8ktkib3...@4ax.com>, Alan S [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What does this mean? It means that Alan is sad his diabetes blog hasn't yet had enough hits to generate a paycheck. After all, he tries so hard trying to get newbies and other unsuspecting souls to click on the link to help enhance his cash flow. Not to mention his untiring efforts to chase other hustlers out of asd. Bob >In alt.support.diabetes on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:28:53 +1000 in Msg.# ><cm2ub3hu6bmpi82dq3fepr2n8ktkib3ubb@4ax.com>, Alan S [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >What does this mean? It means that Bob is on a mission. Apparently I exceed his quota for posts to asd and it is his self-appointed task to remind me. Now he seems to have decided that my blog is about personal gain - hence the cheque reference. A cheque I have yet to see:-) I've no idea how I initially upset him, but it certainly seems to have got his knickers in an almighty twist. He rarely posts on any other subject. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. "Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> a écrit ... >>> >BTW - is your first check from Google still in the mail? >>> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. Think of it this way, Alan ... It has a certain "cachet", having your very own, first stalker in asd ... ;))) >"Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> a écrit ... >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >It has a certain "cachet", having your very own, first stalker in asd ... >;))) Not my first, sadly. Not even the best:-) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ latest: Self-Testing and Type 2 Management My hero ! "Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> a écrit ... >>"Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> a écrit ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ > latest: Self-Testing and Type 2 Management Frank t2 wrote in message <46bf9a5e$0$29381$79c14f64@nan-newsreader- >Think of it this way, Alan ... > >It has a certain "cachet", having your very own, first stalker in asd ... >;))) Nah, it wouldn't be the first one he's had. :-) Cheri > "Alan S" <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> a écrit ... >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It has a certain "cachet", having your very own, first stalker in asd ... > ;))) Stalker he is. Got too much time on his hands I suppose. > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:32:11 -0700, anothascreen...@aol.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sad, bob. Yes, it is. Given the gargantuan effort. Nothing better to do? Plenty. Just not here, so you'll never know. Bob >> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:32:11 -0700, anothascreen...@aol.com >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Plenty. Just not here, so you'll never know. You been around the world a few times lately Bob? Take an annual 8 week trip to visit family? I know Alan has plenty of time away from the computer to do such exciting things. Wonder what you do with your time besides bitch and moan.You make yourself look more stupid every day. > : Forget sugars, think carbs. > > What's that supposed to mean? Sugars are part of carbs. Yes they are. But people tend to think if they eat sugar their blood sugar will go up. If they don't eat sugar, it won't. But it is the carbs that raise blood sugar. So it is the carbs we have to watch, no matter the source. >: Forget sugars, think carbs. > >What's that supposed to mean? Sugars are part of carbs. For a diabetic, carbs have the greatest direct impact on Blood Glucose. Controlling carb intake is the first step in controlling blood glucose levels. SignatureMåck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . >: Forget sugars, think carbs. > >What's that supposed to mean? Sugars are part of carbs. That's exactly what I mean. Concentrating on sugars is only seeing part of the problem. Too many newly diagnosed diabetics miss the point that all carbs raise blood glucose if eaten to excess, not just sugar. To define "excess" the individual needs to use their blood glucose meter after meals. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ latest: Self-Testing and Type 2 Management AFAIKC, any oses are to be watched carefully , even those that are sugar alcohols, cause they bring on the trots. but fructose and the like are sugars. Loretta > I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods > contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose? Neither. VAT (visceral adipose tissue) is bad because it causes the insulin resistance that disrupts euglycemia. Glucose is good because it is the exclusive fuel of the brain. It is the dysregulation that occurs because of the VAT (from overeating) that is bad: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Healing > Thanks. Thanks be to GOD. Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/press.asp Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist In alt.support.diabetes on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:49:33 GMT in Msg.# > I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods > contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose? One's blood glucose meter measures the results of all kinds of food on one's blood plus the results of physical exercise, plus the results of stress, etc. You're confusing 'blood glucose' with food sugars & leaving out a whole array of other factors. SignatureDonnaB 06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 hbA1C 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg ..................09-11-06 hbA1C 5.0 ..................12-20-06 hbA1C 5.2 ..................05-18-07 hbA1C 5.3 "If sleep is the new sex, then everyone can get a little." - William Q. Johnson, journalist and humorist (1955- ) > I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods > contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks. The body turns all the other sugars into glucose. Fructose, in particular, isn't the best for diabetics because it is a pre-cursor to the polyol pathway which produces sugars, such as sorbitol, which are responsible for cell damage in the blood vessels and eyes. Jim >I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods >contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thanks. Ultimately, various enzyme systems in the body convert almost all carbohydrates (including all kinds of sugars) to glucose. So ultimately 10 grams of carbohydrates is going to be essentially 10 grams of glucose. >I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods > contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose? Hi RPS , very good question if you ask me :) Yes you remember that correctly , food contains all kinds of sugars and sugars are chemically related substances of course. However in the design of the human body glucose got a very special function : it is used as an energy carrier.This is by design , you can do nothing about it.To use an analogy : in a powerplant a fuel , an energy source , coal , oil , natural gas , wind etc is converted to electricity.In your body carbohydrates , bread , potatoes , vegetables , fat , meat etc is converted to glucose.The glucose is than transported in your blood stream to where ever it is needed. Both for the same reason : logistic problems.The transport of electricity and glucose is easier.So there are all kinds of sytems in your body to convert things to glucose , to store glucose , to do the glucose bookkeeping : how much do we have and do we need more of it at the moment. There is a problem : free glucose is a bit of agressive chemical.It reacts with all kinds of proteins.So the transport of glucose takes place in your blood stream at an unbelieveble low concentration which is very tightly regulated by hormones like insulin and glucagon. Some parts of these sytems are impaired if you have T2D , the glucose concentration in your blood may become too high giving rise to all kind of medical complications : neuropathy ( which I have) , heart- and kidney problems.So a good thing is to keep your blood glucose levels in check yourselve now your body does nolonger do that for you fully automatically :( Oneway to do it is to keep track of the carbohydrates you eat and check with a bg meter to see what effect they have on you personal. The checking is of course only effective if you know what to with the outcome.Measuring your bg in itself is just useless.So your second question : where are the manuals ? is an even better question.Do not limit yourselve to the low-carb books.If you want a good book than here is are a few free ones : http://www.endotext.org/diabetes/index.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=diabetes and take a look at the science behind it all at : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez hth Gys > >I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods > > contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > carbohydrates , bread , potatoes , vegetables , fat , meat etc is converted > to glucose. Most polysaccharides, disaccharides, and monosacharides can be converted to glucose. Some amino acids can also be converted to glucose. Very little fat can be converted to glucose. Glucose is absolutely required for the brain to function normally while the rest of the body can use alternative fuels (ketones). Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Cardiologist |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.