Re: A question about carbs (fats/proteins etc)

[Guest guest]

Jeannine wrote:

<< every bite we take into our bodies is converted into glucose...I

have heard at least two of you say fat doesn't affect the sugar

readings, but that can't be true...maybe not the ones taken at 1 and

a half or 2 hours, but I was told the fat converts to sugar at about

5 hours >>

Oh, Jeannine, someone has badly misinformed you. Fat doesn't spike

the glucose at all. In fact, it blunts it, turning a tepee-shaped

glucose spike into a breadloaf shape.

Susie

[Guest guest]

<< BUT...Heidi and I cannot EAT that way...we have to keep our fat

grams in the 30 gms or fewer ballpark >>

I was told basically the same thing when I was diagnosed with

diabetes, many years ago. The dietitians basically said I was

diabetic because I had gotten fat, and I had gotten fat by eating

fat, so the only way to go was LOW-fat. I'm not asking you to become

experimental guinea pigs, but I would be most interested to see what

would happen if you did actually low-carb.

Our bodies are so complicated ... You mention elevated cholesterol

and triglycerides. Those are the very hallmarks of diabetes that so

many of us have experienced! I have lowered my triglycerides from 650

to 99, and increased my (healthy) HDL from 30 to 78, by lowering my

carbohydrate intake, with no medicines.

Yes, I have heard that elevated triglycerides can " cause "

pancreatitis, but I have to wonder ... maybe elevated triglycerides

and pancreatitis and diabetes are just all part of the same package:

an intolerance of high carbohydrate intake. Why do fats and proteins

aggravate pancreatitis? From what I know about diabetes, our

pancreases are stressed when we eat carbohydrates.

Susie

[Guest guest]

Bruce Alan wrote:

<< Right. Sugar sends the glucose way up, and then it drops down;

starch sends it way up, keeps it up, and then drops down; protean and

fat sends it up gradually and then lowers it gradually. >>

I have to clarify that, because I don't want new members to be

confused. When Bruce wrote " sugar, " he meant to say " carbohydrates. "

Protein spikes our glucose only half as much, gram for gram, as

carbohydrates (on average) ... and then it does it only half as fast.

Generally, only type 1's need to factor in protein intake when

computing their units of insulin (R, in the case of protein). And I

repeat ... fat does not spike our glucose readings at all! In fact,

fat blunts the effect of carbohydrates on our glucose readings. Let's

get rid of this myth, once and for all.

Susie

[Guest guest]

Bruce Alan wrote:

<< No, I didn't. Notice I make a distinction between 'sugar'

and 'starch'--both are carbohydrates, but they are two types of

carbohydrate. >>

Nutrition labels break out sugars into a subcategory of

carbohydrates, but they don't deal with starches. We are mostly

talking to the newcomers, so we need to give them terms they can deal

with. I have heard many newbies (incorrectly) say that potatoes are

composed of simple carbohydrates (sugars). If " sugars " spike worse

than " starches " (not defined), explain the following:

Various varieties of rice have a Glycemic Load of up to 47 (60, in

the case of low-amylose rice, in Turkey). Here are some Glycemic Load

numbers for the " sugars " you refer to:

Fructose = 2, glucose = 10, honey = 10, lactose = 5, sucrose = 7.

I don't often get cranky, but we really must get our facts straight!

Susie

[Guest guest]

Kay, you brought up a complicated issue. You wrote:

<< My dietician told me never to just drink juice for breakfast -- to

eat the fruit -- she said to have some protein -- I used to just

drink a quarter cup of juice and run out the door. Now I try to have

a tablespoon of peanut butter on a slice of toast but she always said

to have the reduced fat peanut butter on the lite bread. I get so

confused. >>

I will send a separate post about the net carbohydrate counts of

fruits. Your dietitian falsely believes that we're diabetic because

we got fat, and we got fat by eating fat, so the secret is to eat a

low-fat diet. What actually works for us is a low-carbohydrate diet.

Before you buy any peanut butter, check out the carbohydrate counts.

It is so strange ... sometimes the full-fat varieties have MORE carbs

than other brands, and I honestly don't know if it's just because

they're fibbing on their labels! Lately, we've been buying nut

butters (Cashew-Macadamia and Almond) from Trader Joe's (also the

BEST place to buy inexpensive wine ... check out their

Shaw ... $1.99 a bottle in CA; $2.99 in other States).

Susie

[Guest guest]

Jacky wrote:

<< if someone eats a high fat item and a carb in the same meal, not

only will you get the high spike from the carb, but a prolonged high

spike because of the time it takes the body to break down the fat.

For example: If you have a slice of pizza, the carb raises your sugar

and the fat keeps it high longer then if you just ate the carb alone.

>>

That's an incorrect interpretation. If you look at the AUK (area

under the curve), it would probably work out the same. If you eat

nothing but carbs, you'll have a high spike, but it will drop faster

than if you add fat to that meal. The fat actually blunts the effect

of the carbs, but spreads it out over a longer time period. (See my

previous description of turning a tepee-shaped spike into a

breadloaf.)

The reason people have erroneously blamed fats for " spiking " them is

because, with the breadloaf-shaped glucose increase, they are more

likely to witness it, when they check at 1, 2, 3 or 4 hours following

a meal.

Nevertheless, the worst possible food combo for us is to eat both

high-carb and high-fat. If we eat high-carb but low-calorie, that

will probably work out fine, because we'll burn the carbs for energy.

But if we also eat high-calorie, the excess calories will be stored

as belly fat, and will likely spike our triglycerides and

cholesterol. The problem with high-carb/low-calorie is that it makes

us feel we're STARVING.

Susie

[Guest guest]

Dear Bruce,

I trust the intelligence of listmates to realize that what you wrote

doesn't hold water. We have to look at net carbohydrate counts and

Glycemic Loads for the facts, and not just one person's anecdotal

comments. We have an obligation to new members to provide them with

the facts, and I don't hesitate to speak up when I read something

that looks to me like hooey.

Susie

[Guest guest]

Bruce Alan wrote:

<< Hey, you are entitled to your opinion >>

It's not my opinion; it's a recitation of the facts. Please recognize

that, while your intentions are the best, you have made assumptions

that simply aren't correct. I produced the numbers to back myself up.

We are talking to newcomers. " Starches " isn't something that can be

located on a food label. And, as I demonstrated, there are many

foods, formerly (and incorrectly) thought of as " healthy complex

carbohydrates " that are actually much worse for us than sugars.

<<winnowing out the wheat from the chaff is sometimes difficult. >>

But I persist nevertheless ... have been doing so for eight years now.

Susie

[Guest guest]

Bruce Alan :

<< I know that quite well. Potato=poison. >>

When I dug into the numbers, I was stunned by how truly BAD some of

these " innocent " " healthy " foods are for us! I keep offering the

Numbers because I want to help all diabetics, especially those newly

diagnosed (as I know you do, Bruce), and also because I don't want

diabetics to get intimidated and discouraged when they are told that

the *only* way to determine which foods are okay for them is become

human pincushions. Here are some numbers:

Pancakes (Australia) have a Glycemic Load of 39

Jasmine rice (Thailand) has a GL of 46

various rices (Australia) have GL's of 36-40

instant rice (Australia) has a GL of 36

dried dates (Australia) have a GL of 42

People give personal anecdotal comments, or they make general

statements (such-and-such a food is " high " or " okay " ) because they

don't have access to the numbers, or they are too busy to look them

up. Often, the response is to tell the inquirer to test and test, and

record and record. That may work for the folks who are admittedly

obsessive, and who have great insurance, and cooperative doctors, and

numb fingers. But my fingers are very sensitive, and so my approach

is to trust the experience of a large number of diabetics, in a

controlled environment. I think offering actual test results is

helpful.

Susie

P.S. low-fat vanilla ice cream (Australia) has a GL of 3

premium French vanilla ice cream (Australia) has a GL of 3

full-fat ice cream (Italy, Sweden, Italy, Australia, Canada, USA) has

a GL of 3

grapefruits (Canada) have a GL of 3

oranges (Denmark, South Africa) have a GL of 3

peaches (canned, in natural juice, Australia) have a GL of 3

pears (Canada) have a GL of 3

plums (Canada) have a GL of 3

strawberries (Australia) have a GL of 1!!

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Thanks for posting. Could there be any other sources of sweeteners in

your diet, such as coffee " creamers " (which are sugary), or lots of

fruit? Fructose is known to spike triglycerides. Some people are just

triglycerides producers, it seems. My husband and I eat a pretty

similar diet, and yet his triglycerides approach 2000 if he doesn't

stay on liver-pummeling medicines.

Susie (with family in Hastings)

<< My triglceride level is high (over 400) and i can't figure out

why.. I haven't used alcohol in over 20 years and never eat candy. >>

[Guest guest]

my favorite food, too ! But I don't have to give up anything !?

> I know that quite well. Potato=poison.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: ottercritterx

>

>

> And, as I demonstrated, there are many

> foods, formerly (and incorrectly) thought of as " healthy complex

> carbohydrates " that are actually much worse for us than sugars.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I said it facetiously..... repeating the words of advice from

other diabetics I know...knowing they couldn't be truthful.

> > I know that quite well. Potato=poison.