Steady blood sugar ?..?

[Pura Vida]

 

[Kristin251]

Lol. Not for me!!! Wish it were true

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

Woman's World have several articles which speak about similar topics. Some might have an element of truth which might be backed up by the observations by some people. For most of us the truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what you do with carbs, cook it twice, eat it cold, low GI, whatever, there will be a noticeable change in BG.

 

[Lamont D]

In my experience carbs are carbs, they are all baddies!

But for some portion size is more important than how you cook or eat them!

 

[JohnEGreen]

Which is best a relatively short lived spike where BG raises to point and falls back to normal in a short time or a rise to that point over a longer period and a longer time to recover to normal levels?

 

[Kristin251]

I always prefer lower and slower. I don't like any fast or large ups and downs.

 

[Bluetit1802]

Which is best a relatively short lived spike where BG raises to point and falls back to normal in a short time or a rise to that point over a longer period and a longer time to recover to normal levels?

It's the area under the curve that matters most.

 

[bulkbiker]

Which is best a relatively short lived spike where BG raises to point and falls back to normal in a short time or a rise to that point over a longer period and a longer time to recover to normal levels?

neither? or do you mean which is less harmful?

 

[Brunneria]

That whole Resistant Starch Thing seems to work much better for some of us than for others.
Inevitably i am in the group where it doesn't make the slightest difference.

So i suggest that everyone does some very careful self testing before they let rip with potato and pasta salad.
I can remember someone once posting that toast was the perfect resistant starch food - baked as bread, cooled, then reheated as toast, then cooled again on the plate.
Yeah, right. Dream on.

 

[JohnEGreen]

neither? or do you mean which is less harmful?

I mean as a comparison between two scenarios which of the two would be preferred as with consuming carbs you are going in all probability to get one or the other And yes which would do the less harm

 

[Bluetit1802]

I mean as a comparison between two scenarios which of the two would be preferred as with consuming carbs you are going in all probability to get one or the other And yes which would do the less harm

The one with the biggest area under the curve is likely to have more glucose.

 

[dbr10]

View attachment 23202

I beg to differ.

 

[dbr10]

Which is best a relatively short lived spike where BG raises to point and falls back to normal in a short time or a rise to that point over a longer period and a longer time to recover to normal levels?

If it's the same point, higher for longer has to be worse. More particularly for us to consider is what happens in the body if you compare a short peak and a reasonably rapid fall back, with a shallower peak which takes longer to fall back to normal - in a situation where the area under both curves was the same. Are we equally screwed in either senerio?
As already mentioned by @Bluetit1802

 

[dbr10]

It's the area under the curve that matters most.

Oops sorry.

 

[Bluetit1802]

Oops sorry.

I'm just glad someone agrees with me.

 

[Kristin251]

I'm just glad someone agrees with me.

I agree with you on LOADS of things.

That whole Resistant Starch Thing seems to work much better for some of us than for others.
Inevitably i am in the group where it doesn't make the slightest difference.

So i suggest that everyone does some very careful self testing before they let rip with potato and pasta salad.
I can remember someone once posting that toast was the perfect resistant starch food - baked as bread, cooled, then reheated as toast, then cooled again on the plate.
Yeah, right. Dream on.

Wouldn't that just be awesome!!!

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Breaking news: eating less (fewer?) carbs results in lower blood glucose levels!

 

[Robbity]

I mean as a comparison between two scenarios which of the two would be preferred as with consuming carbs you are going in all probability to get one or the other And yes which would do the less harm

Soon after I first joined the forum I remember seeing a post from someone about an example their their doctor gave regarding this: look at graph of your glucose levels, and imagine this as a kinked piece of string which is then stretched out flat - this way strings with longish lower spikes are likely to be "shorter" in length than those with short sharp high ones, so overall they're liable to have less impact This made sense to me so is what I tend to work with -for what it's worth!

Robbity