Re: Fruit

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 6/21/2005 10:07:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>

> Your explanation is a great example of how to apply the carb counting

> strategy. I was wondering about the type and amount of insulin you

used? Also, I

> assume that your BG is relatively steady at the two hour mark.

>

I use an insulin pump and novolog insulin. Lots of testing has allowed

me to determine that novolog has run its course in my system in 2

hours, so my 2 hour PP will be my reading going forward barring other

events to change it. My insulin resistance is at its lowest in the

late afternoon and the middle of the night, and I generally eat lunch

at 1-1:30 pm. Since I eat this approximate meal approximately 4-5 days

out of 7, I have a lot of experience with it.

The quick action time of novolog in me is both good and bad. It does

well with meals that fit within the time of action, but poorly for

higher fat meals. The typical lunch appears to be the right mix of

things to work with the novolog. But then when I was on pills and then

on shots, the same was relatively true, but not a consistantly true.

For other types of meals - especially dinners out where I'm more likely

to encounter things that are going to keep BG higher longer, I use a

dual wave bolus on the pump, taking some of the total insulin bolus up

front as an immediate bolus and some of it delivered stretched out over

time, between 1 and however many hours make sense. I've only just

started using this feature. Previously, I'd just test at 2 hours and

correct and test at 4 hours and correct, etc. The dual wave is an

easier way to deal with this and keeps BG in a good range for that

longer period.

I think it's Bernstein, and certainly Ron, who both say that some meals

might require 2 shots, one for immediate digestion and 1 for the rest.

The pump dual wave allows me to do this without the trouble of

injections. It also has a square wave which is the entire bolus over

time. Bernstein even says to use a fast acting and regular for this

situation.

Stacey

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 6/21/2005 10:07:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> >

>

> Your explanation is a great example of how to apply the carb counting

> strategy. I was wondering about the type and amount of insulin you

used? Also, I

> assume that your BG is relatively steady at the two hour mark.

> >>>>>>>>>>>

I use novolog, and my insulin to carb ration is 1 unit of insulin for 3

grams of carbs. I may switch over to humalog in the future to see if

there's any difference.

I don't, as a general rule, measure any food item more than a few

times. That information will give me a good idea of what I need to do

insulin wise. Fruit, I will measure, as it varies so much. Sauces and

dressings get estimates, veggies get estimates unless we're talking

corn or something higher in carbs.

Stacey

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:50:50 -0000 " Rotramel "

writes:

> I have found that " northern " fruit is better for you than " tropical

> fruit.' Try an apple or a pear instead of a banana.

Before you do that:

A small apple with skin 4. ounces

has 17.2g total carbs, 14.2g of those carbs comes from sugar

A small pear 4.8 ozs

has 21.0g carbs, 17.5g of those carbs comes from sugar.

Oh and the banana? A small banana 4 ozs

has 17.3g carbs, 15.6g of those carbs comes from sugar.

Right now do you want to waste all those carbs on approx 4 + oza of any

of these fruits?

If nothing else, there goes the northern fruit vs tropical fruit theory.

[Guest guest]

I stand corrected, but have to wonder about the glycemic index of each

of these. Are the " northern " fruits at a higher index than the

" tropical " fruits. I will look it up and get back with you.

>

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:50:50 -0000 " Rotramel "

> <andrew@r...> writes:

> > I have found that " northern " fruit is better for you than

" tropical

> > fruit.' Try an apple or a pear instead of a banana.

>

> Before you do that:

>

> A small apple with skin 4. ounces

> has 17.2g total carbs, 14.2g of those carbs comes from sugar

>

> A small pear 4.8 ozs

> has 21.0g carbs, 17.5g of those carbs comes from sugar.

>

> Oh and the banana? A small banana 4 ozs

> has 17.3g carbs, 15.6g of those carbs comes from sugar.

>

> Right now do you want to waste all those carbs on approx 4 + oza of

any

> of these fruits?

>

> If nothing else, there goes the northern fruit vs tropical fruit

theory.

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:08:42 -0000 " Rotramel "

writes:

> I stand corrected, but have to wonder about the glycemic index of

> each

> of these. Are the " northern " fruits at a higher index than the

> " tropical " fruits. I will look it up and get back with you.

>

>

It would be nice if you called each fruit by it's name rather than

catagorizing a group of fruits, especially since it seems that like all

carbs are not the same, all fruit that fits into your catagories are not

the same.

[Guest guest]

I think the problem with fruit is that we've bred fruits to be sweeter than

they used to be, so even apples, which used to be tart, are now quite sweet.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:39:46 -0000 " SulaBlue "

writes:

> , before you go tanking on yet again...

>

> Glycemic Index of an Apple: ranges around the 30-40s depending on

> type.

> Glycemic Index of a Pear: again, 30-40s, depending on type.

> Glycemic Index of a Banana: 45-70, depending on type.

>

> So, generally speaking, one can expect a greater glucose response to

> a banana than an

> apple or a pear.

>

> SulaBlue

>

I know that I cannot handle apples or pears. Another YMMV thing. I never

liked bananas so I never tested them. According to your data the low end

banana would be as OK then?

[Guest guest]

> Glycemic Index of an Apple: ranges around the 30-40s depending on

type.

> Glycemic Index of a Pear: again, 30-40s, depending on type.

> Glycemic Index of a Banana: 45-70, depending on type.

For this purpose, I think that we should consider the glycemic load

(GL) of the food rather its glycemic index (GI). The GL is the GI

times the active carbs per serving. See

<http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm>. There, you'll find the following

GL values:

Apple : 4-6 (low)

Pear : 3-5 (low)

Banana: 11-16 (moderate, Note: this summary excludes one outlier

reported value of 6.)

So, there is some reasonable basis for preferring apples and pears to

bananas on the basis of glycemic effect. The carbs of apples and

bananas may not be substantially less glycemic than those of pears,

but there are fewer of them per single-fruit serving.

Cheers,

[Guest guest]

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:08:42 -0000 " Rotramel "

> <andrew@r...> writes:

> > I stand corrected, but have to wonder about the glycemic index of

> > each

> > of these. Are the " northern " fruits at a higher index than the

> > " tropical " fruits. I will look it up and get back with you.

> >

> It would be nice if you called each fruit by it's name rather than

> catagorizing a group of fruits, especially since it seems that like

all

> carbs are not the same, all fruit that fits into your catagories are

not

> the same.

>

>

I understand that they are not the same to you, or to many people. It

is starting to look like my system is unique. I had a 42 one night,

and it took 4 bananas, 3 pears, and 2 apples to get me up to 80 or so.

(while typing that, the song 12 Days of Christmas came to mind. Think

of that song and re-read that last part).

One of my doctors made the distintinction between types of fruits, and

since it does not make any difference to me, I have not had reason to

check his information.

I just made a quick check on Mendosa's site, and he lists these

as low glycemic:

apples

grampes

carrots (not a fruit)

peaches

oranges (would have fooled me)

pears

He lists these as medium glycemic:

pinapple

bananas

I did not go any further to check the exact values. Especially since

it can vary from person to person. If you don't find the distinction

of use, and it appears that you don't, then by all means don't use it.

[Guest guest]

I don't know--I have never bothered with the glycemic index or load. I

know in a general way which foods are high/low on that list but, to me,

exact numbers are so much quibbling about nothing. I suppose if I were

on insulin I'd feel differently but I'm not. I don't count exact

calories or carbs either. I have a good notion of what I can eat to do

what I want to do & I let it go at that.

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 5/05 A1c: 5.3 = 111 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, ALC, Vit C, Calc/mag,

low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 40 mg/coQ10 100mg, Enalapril 10 mg

5/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309)

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...

[Guest guest]

That is the best that any of us can do. Use whatever guidelines we

have (even expensive ones, LOL), and then see how WE react to them. If

a guideline food is bad for us, don't eat it.

> I don't know--I have never bothered with the glycemic index or load.

I

> know in a general way which foods are high/low on that list but, to

me,

> exact numbers are so much quibbling about nothing. I suppose if I

were

> on insulin I'd feel differently but I'm not. I don't count exact

> calories or carbs either. I have a good notion of what I can eat to

do

> what I want to do & I let it go at that.

>

>

> cappie

[Guest guest]

I had a lot more leeway in what I could eat when I was controlling with

diet and exercise. On the ADA diet, btw, with four servings of fruit a

day. But that was more than 20 years ago, with a much better pancreas.

Now, since I cover my food with insulin, I have to know my food load so I

can match my insulin dose. Even so, as a type 2 with some pancreatic (I

think) function, I don't have to be as exact as a type 1.

I like math, but I do not want to do calculations for everything I eat.

With a linux operating system, some tools are not open to me. So I try

to keep my carbs within a certain glycemic level and just weigh food and

count the carbs. If a meal contains a somewhat higher GI/GL food

element, I count it differently, but somewhat intuitively.

Helen

[Guest guest]

Helen, have you had a C Peptide test to see what level of pancreatic

function yo have?

> Even so, as a type 2 with some pancreatic (I think) function,

> Helen

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/24/2005 9:25:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,

whimsy2@... writes:

> It's also one of the reasons to take glucose tabs for a low: they raise

> your BG a set, constant amount (which is usually 20 points per tab).

I agree with the use of glucose tabs to raise a low. They give a predictable,

rapid increase in BG. Presumably, the 20 mg/dL rise you mention is due to a

four gram tablet. The actual number will vary from person to person. Once

again, let your meter be your guide!

[Guest guest]

At 03:32 AM 6/24/05, cappie@... wrote:

>I don't know--I have never bothered with the glycemic index or load. I

>know in a general way which foods are high/low on that list but, to me,

>exact numbers are so much quibbling about nothing. I suppose if I were

>on insulin I'd feel differently but I'm not. I don't count exact

>calories or carbs either. I have a good notion of what I can eat to do

>what I want to do & I let it go at that.

That's pretty much my method, too, though I keep thinking that perhaps I

should understand more about glycemic load and how to calculate it.

sky

[Guest guest]

Possibly. As you said, YMMV.

SulaBlue

--- In diabetes_int , Samante

> I know that I cannot handle apples or pears. Another YMMV

thing. I never

> liked bananas so I never tested them. According to your data

the low end

> banana would be as OK then?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Excuse me for doubting you, -- but 4 bananas, 3 pears and 2

apples to go from 42 to 80??? That sounds REALLY weird to me.

It's also one of the reasons to take glucose tabs for a low: they raise

your BG a set, constant amount (which is usually 20 points per tab).

I've been at 42 once or twice in my diabetic life and one certainly does

become a fuzzy thinker at that point. Maybe it just SEEMED that you ate

that much fruit. All I know is, if I ate that much fruit - no matter

HOW low I started -- I'd be in the stratosphere within a half hour.

Then I'd be on the proverbial BG rollercoaster -- way down, then way up

again then down, etc. VERY hard to control.

Maybe that's what happened to you.

Vicki

Re: Fruit

>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:08:42 -0000 " Rotramel "

>> <andrew@r...> writes:

>> > I stand corrected, but have to wonder about the glycemic index of

>> > each

>> > of these. Are the " northern " fruits at a higher index than the

>> > " tropical " fruits. I will look it up and get back with you.

>> >

>

>

>> It would be nice if you called each fruit by it's name rather than

>> catagorizing a group of fruits, especially since it seems that like

> all

>> carbs are not the same, all fruit that fits into your catagories are

> not

>> the same.

>>

>>

>

> I understand that they are not the same to you, or to many people. It

> is starting to look like my system is unique. I had a 42 one night,

> and it took 4 bananas, 3 pears, and 2 apples to get me up to 80 or so.

> (while typing that, the song 12 Days of Christmas came to mind. Think

> of that song and re-read that last part).

>

> One of my doctors made the distintinction between types of fruits, and

> since it does not make any difference to me, I have not had reason to

> check his information.

>

> I just made a quick check on Mendosa's site, and he lists these

> as low glycemic:

> apples

> grampes

> carrots (not a fruit)

> peaches

> oranges (would have fooled me)

> pears

>

> He lists these as medium glycemic:

> pinapple

> bananas

>

> I did not go any further to check the exact values. Especially since

> it can vary from person to person. If you don't find the distinction

> of use, and it appears that you don't, then by all means don't use it.

>

[Guest guest]

The couple of times I have been that low, or in the 50s or 60s, I have

remained very clear headed. At that time I may have overcompensated by

eating so much fruit, but I don't know because I went back to bed not

long after and did not check at 2 hours or 3 hours or whatever.

I definately did eat that much fruit, plus had two cups of herbal tea,

and 45 minutes later had just seen a 40 point raise. But it is OK with

me if you continue to doubt.

> Excuse me for doubting you, -- but 4 bananas, 3 pears and 2

> apples to go from 42 to 80??? That sounds REALLY weird to me.

>

> It's also one of the reasons to take glucose tabs for a low: they

raise

> your BG a set, constant amount (which is usually 20 points per tab).

>

> I've been at 42 once or twice in my diabetic life and one certainly

does

> become a fuzzy thinker at that point. Maybe it just SEEMED that you

ate

> that much fruit. All I know is, if I ate that much fruit - no

matter

> HOW low I started -- I'd be in the stratosphere within a half hour.

> Then I'd be on the proverbial BG rollercoaster -- way down, then way

up

> again then down, etc. VERY hard to control.

>

> Maybe that's what happened to you.

> Vicki

posted

> > I understand that they are not the same to you, or to many people.

It

> > is starting to look like my system is unique. I had a 42 one

night,

> > and it took 4 bananas, 3 pears, and 2 apples to get me up to 80 or

so.

> > (while typing that, the song 12 Days of Christmas came to mind.

Think

> > of that song and re-read that last part).

> >

> > One of my doctors made the distintinction between types of fruits,

and

> > since it does not make any difference to me, I have not had reason

to

> > check his information.

> >

> > I just made a quick check on Mendosa's site, and he lists

these

> > as low glycemic:

> > apples

> > grampes

> > carrots (not a fruit)

> > peaches

> > oranges (would have fooled me)

> > pears

> >

> > He lists these as medium glycemic:

> > pinapple

> > bananas

> >

> > I did not go any further to check the exact values. Especially

since

> > it can vary from person to person. If you don't find the

distinction

> > of use, and it appears that you don't, then by all means don't use

it.

> >

[Guest guest]

> For this purpose, I think that we should consider the glycemic load

> (GL) of the food rather its glycemic index (GI). The GL is the GI

> times the active carbs per serving.

One problem I have with the GL is that it's based on a " serving. " You could

double the GL of a food by doubling the serving size, and the sizes they

choose are sometimes arbitrary.

I remember looking at some GL lists and one kind of bread had a much higher

GL than the others. It turned out they were using a much higher serving

size.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

> One problem I have with the GL is that it's based on a " serving. "

I agree that this is sometimes a problem. But, to the extent serving

sizes are appropriate to the question at hand, the GL is useful. And,

the GL appropriately encourages use of foods that have high-GI carbs

but few of them. So, I tend to use the GL rather than GI. But, I also

do a reality check on the serving size before I'm done with my

analysis. In most cases, I find that the serving size fits. But, as

you point out, sometimes it does not.

When we're talking about eating an apple, pear, or banana, the serving

size in each case is one piece of fruit. There, the GL seems to me to

serve nicely. YMMV, of course.

Cheers,

[Guest guest]

>

> >I don't know--I have never bothered with the glycemic index or

load. I

> >know in a general way which foods are high/low on that list but, to

me,

> >exact numbers are so much quibbling about nothing. I suppose if I

were

> >on insulin I'd feel differently but I'm not. I don't count exact

> >calories or carbs either. I have a good notion of what I can eat

to do

> >what I want to do & I let it go at that.

> That's pretty much my method, too, though I keep thinking that

perhaps I

> should understand more about glycemic load and how to calculate it.

>

> sky

If you know what you can eat, why bother? Use that time to read a good

book or something.

[Guest guest]

, my c-peptide was 1.0 fasting, no insulin. Then she decided to do

a challenged test, where I was to eat a high carb meal and take no

insulin. That came out to about 2.2 (I don't remember exactly, but know

it was the low 2s, I would have to find it).

We interpreted this differently. Fasting of 1.0 showed my pancreas was

not handling my morning rise, I go up from 20 to 30 points after I get

out of bed. I handle this with insulin. Low 2s meant to me that even

with the challenge of spaghetti, sauce and a breadstick, I did not have a

large surge of insulin. The meal was to be taken two to three hours

before the test, which should have given time for a pancreatic response.

To my doctor, it showed that my pancreas was capable of producing insulin

and if I took sulfs, or prandin, I could get off insulin and lose some

weight, thereby decreasing insulin resistance.

This would be in addition to the other orals I am already taking.

I declined.

Helen

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:09:02 -0400 Sky writes:

> At 03:32 AM 6/24/05, cappie@... wrote:

>

> >I don't know--I have never bothered with the glycemic index or

> >load. I know in a general way which foods are high/low on that list

but, to

> >me, exact numbers are so much quibbling about nothing. I suppose if I

> >were on insulin I'd feel differently but I'm not. I don't count

exact

> >calories or carbs either. I have a good notion of what I can eat

> to do

> >what I want to do & I let it go at that.

>

> That's pretty much my method, too, though I keep thinking that

> perhaps I

> should understand more about glycemic load and how to calculate it.

>

> sky

>

Well Cappie I am on insulin and while I am aware of what foods are low

GI, I am not as aware of the GL of the same foods. I don't count calories

or protein but because of using novolog I do pay attention to carb

counts. I think, for me, counting carbs and using insulin for those

carbs makes me pay more attention to portion control. It also makes me

judge each food individually and not assume that all of any group of

foods are good or bad. Or all components of a product are as low carb as

they say. I don't handle all sugar substitutes well and separating them

one at a time determined which were my friend and which were not. I think

it was Sky who mentioned that Ben and Jerry's carb Karma might not work

for everyone, not necessarily because of the sugar substitute but because

of the skin milk they used. One thing I also do not do is subtract fiber

from the total carb count. YMMV

Somehow I have a feeling that the GL is not as accurate for all DMers

because each person reacts differently to the same carb. Some can handle

rice or potatoes and some cannot so I question whether the GL can be

universally determined. Could it be different for DMers vs non DMers?

Could it be different for DMers who are insulin resistant vs those who

are not? What about a different GL depending on whether one is type I or

II?

With all that said and the questions unanswered, I still think that

definitely the GI and possibly the GL are valuable tools, especially for

DMers who are striving for tight control or beginning a weight loss

program. It would be nice if more dietitians took the GI/GL seriously,

instead of discounting it as too confusing to understand so don't worry

about it. The GI/GL is not a fad and if dietitions took the time to

update their education they could be more helpful to their clients. IMHO

YMMV.

[Guest guest]

> When we're talking about eating an apple, pear, or banana, the serving

> size in each case is one piece of fruit.

But there are tiny apples and HUGE apples.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

& I like the HUGE Bosc pears best <VBG>!

cappie

Greater Boston Area

T-2 10/02 5/05 A1c: 5.3 = 111 mean glu

50-100 carb diet, walking, Metformin

ALA/EPO, ALC, Vit C, Calc/mag,

low dose Biotin, full spectrum E,

Policosanol, fish oil cap,

fresh flax seed, multi vitamin,

Lovastatin 40 mg/coQ10 100mg, Enalapril 10 mg

5/05:140 lbs (highest weight 309)

5' tall /age 67,

cappie@...