Carbs Versus Sugar

meoman said:

...but low carbs DOESNT spike my blood sugars

Click to expand...

Precisely ! So many have found this to be true ! :thumbup:

meoman said:

anything that explains the scenario?.. web page?

Click to expand...

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/10/02/diab ... ore-carbs/

he word carbohydratee means an organic molecule made up of carbon, Hydrogen and oxygen. usually in the raion 1:2:1 Sugars are carbohydrates.
most sugar molecules are pretty small. Starches are polymers of sugars and the molecules can be very large.
So strictly starches and sugars AND cellulose [insoluble fibre] are ALL carbohydrates or carbs.
I know I'm picky about the use of chemical terminology, but I had a professor 45 years ago who was very strict about the matter.
Hana

meoman said:

hana
did you have a look at the link paul posted above?... your first thoughts?.. im divided 50/50 because of fat concern..
be great to hear your valued view ;-) .. thx

wouldnt it be great if there was something sort of between the high carb and the atkins (which the link is similar to)... maybe someone devised one that includes pulses and nuts etc etc.... great to hear if so...

Click to expand...

"Breakfast is typically a one-egg omelette and with a small amount of bacon, smoked salmon or Parma ham. I have spinach or other leafy greens and tomatoes. Lunch is often not taken as I do not feel hungry until 6.00 pm when I have my evening meal. Another small portion of meat and plenty of veggies. The only fruit that I have are a few blueberries, wild strawberries (when they are available) and raspberries – and I mean a few."

So, a small breakfast, one egg, and a small amount of processed meat, with a healthy veg.
No lunch.
Small amount of meat and veggies for tea.
A few berries.

That's a diet and a half.

And a very low calorie diet to boot.
And a classic healthy diet.

But I would suggest that is not enough to live on, for a prolonged period, as there is a daily net deficit of calories. But a very good weight loss diet for a shorter term.

Hello Meoman. Blood sugar isn't blood sugar, it's blood glucose, to be more precise. I'd suggest ignoring what the nutritional analysis on food packaging says about sugar: just look at the total carb figure (assuming you're in the UK; in the US you would look at the net carb figure). The body turns the carbs into glucose that circulates in the blood. A product containing white flour would probably spike your blood glucose more than a spoonful of sugar.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

meoman said:

you mean its no more than a normal restrictive diet doug... whats your punchline/footnote?

Click to expand...

I think any camp could claim that as their own diet.

low calorie
low carb
healthy diet

not sure about primal/paleo strictly, (despite the heading in the link) as I thought paleo tended towards uncooked meat in the extreme, not smoked as in the salmon, or parma, or preserved, as with the bacon.


It does show we all mix and match though, and all seem to agree weight loss is a good driver.

meoman said:

weight loss key douglas.. plus exercise

Click to expand...

Depends on the exercise. Gentle or cardio?

I was advised a gentle regime, to give a build up to some cardio.

Now it's cardio and resistance, but I do find I can get in low 4's when I test at the end, so I usually eat first.

meoman said:

In a food type....With high carbs (simple or complex) but lowish sugar DOES spike my blood sugars bad (after testing 90 mins later)

In a food type....With lowish (but not low) sugar but low carbs DOESNT spike my blood sugars (after testing 90 mins later)

the science?

Click to expand...

The more useful terms are monosaccharide (one sugar); disaccharide (two sugars) and polysaccharide (many sugars).

The sugars in disaccharides and polysaccharides are joined by what are called "glycosidic bond". Making each of these bonds produces a molecule of water. Breaking them requires a molecule of water.

This means that 100g of any disaccharide is actually made up of 105.3g of sugars. With 100g of a polysaccharide being made up of about 111.1g of sugars.

In the language of the food industry "sugars" are monosaccharides and disaccharides.

These are galactose, fructose, glucose, maltose, lactose and sucrose.
Maltose comprises two glucose molecules, thus is 105.3% glucose.
Lactose comprises one glucose and one galactose molecule, thus is 52.7% glucose.
Sucrose comprises one glucose and one fructose molecule. thus is (also) 52.7% glucose.

The food industry calls polysaccharides either "carbohydrates" or "complex carbohydrates".

Those which humans can digest are galactan, amylose and amylopectin.
Galactan is made up of lots of galactose molecules.
Both amylose and amylopectin are made up of lots of glucose molecules, thus are 111.1g glucose. A mixture of amylose and amylopectin is known as "starch". (Amylopectin is both more "complex" and more rapidly digested than amylose.)

Finally there is "fibre" which comprises any carbohydrates which humans cannot digest.

Adding "sugar" (even maltose) to "high carb" foods often tends to reduce the total sugar content (and the GI). This being most easily demonstrated with breakfast cereals. Whoever came up with the "eatwell plate" really appears to have misunderstood the chemistry of dietary carbohydrates. Not only is there more sugar in carbohydrates which aren't called "sugar" on the label it's most likely to be the sugar (glucose) diabetics can't handle well.

If you were to eat 19g of sucrose/lactose; 10g of glucose; 9.5g of maltose or 9g of amylopectin/amylose you'd be putting exactly the same amount of glucose (10g) into your body...

Care to say what the two foods actually are...

You can make exercising fun. This is an ideal workout and better than anything Jane Fonda ever did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Pgxu4M6io