Little bit confused!

There is a lot of controversy about this so I will say that what I say here is just what I have read or learned by punting around the internet.

Less sugar is good since it goes directly into the vein and gives high readings. It is also the most easily identifiable food and therefore the easiest one to give up if you do not take account of the craving that some people have for it.

If you eat low fat refined carbohydrates then you might just as well be eating sugar. Lots of prepared foodstuffs say Low Fat on the package and some of them have added sugar as well to give them some taste. If you ask many type 2's if they can eat bread, for example, they will say they can't.

Fat is removed from prepared food since it is thought to be harmful for cholesterol levels but no-one has yet discovered who said that. There is a WHO study of 168 countries which seems to show that far more people die with (not necessarily of) low cholesterol than high cholesterol.

A relatively small amount of fat lowers the glyacemic index of foodstuffs so there could be an argument for removing the sugar from food and putting the fat back. There are one or two papers suggesting that providing the fat is not hydrogenated or polyunsaturated then that would be a good thing

I wish to point out that the link in my posting above is nothing to do with me and it arrived there unbidden.

OK, it seems to have gone away on its own now.

Is a personal choice but myself needs carbs. I hasn't got alot of.meaty on me so need them and enjoy them. However if my sugars were.out of control I would reduce carbs for better readings. Since I got my pump having great numbers eating 200~300 carbs a day. 6ft 3 and weigh 12 1/2 stone. I try to shop for wholemeal, wholegrain versions. If you check carb content and sugar content of which sugars I always aim for at least as third of which sugar content. So if I are 50g carbs total, I would check that the of which sugar content was no higher than 15g (3o% of 50). This is where the gi index comes in. I've found that anything with of which sugar content equates to 40% plus would result in quite a high sugar spike. Less and it matches the duration of insulin. Everyone is different though and also depend on weight activity etc. trial, error and testing to see what effect different carb amounts have on you.

The higher the % of sugar in comparison to overall carbs the quicker the body will turn the carbs into sugar on your blood.

hope that makes sense.

Sent from my GT-S5360 using DCUK Forum mobile app

Squire Fulwood said:

If you eat low fat refined carbohydrates then you might just as well be eating sugar. Lots of prepared foodstuffs say Low Fat on the package and some of them have added sugar as well to give them some taste. If you ask many type 2's if they can eat bread, for example, they will say they can't.

Click to expand...

Processed forms of starch are also common as "thickeners". e.g. low fat dairy products. (Even including baby milk.)
Even "unrefined" carbohydrates can be very easily and quickly digested. Most obviously those in rice and potatoes.

Note that due to a quirk of chemistry disaccharides (sucrose, lactose and maltose) are 105% sugar. With polysaccharides (amylose, amylopectin and galactan) being 111% sugar.

Sucrose is what we usually call "sugar", consisting of glucose and fructose.
Lactose is also called "milk sugar", consisting of glucose and galactose.
Maltose consists of two glucose molecules.
What is called "starch" is a mixture of amylose and amylopectin. Both are poly-glucose.
Galacan is a form of poly-galactose present in plant cell walls.

Fat is removed from prepared food since it is thought to be harmful for cholesterol levels but no-one has yet discovered who said that.

Click to expand...

The only real connection between fats and cholesterol is that both are transported in the blood via lipoproteins. Sterols haver a very different chemical structure from fats.

A relatively small amount of fat lowers the glyacemic index of foodstuffs so there could be an argument for removing the sugar from food and putting the fat back. There are one or two papers suggesting that providing the fat is not hydrogenated or polyunsaturated then that would be a good thing

Click to expand...

The real issue appears to be partially-hydrogenated fats. Since this can produce unsaturated fatty acids with trans bonds, which do not occur in nature. (Totally hydrogenated fais for be entirely saturated fatty acids.)

Fat dosn't appear to help much with the glycaemic index of chips and crisps however.

I just went to the library today and I picked up a great book. It's called "Living the Low Carb Life" by Jonny Bowden. It's not directly aimed at diabetics but I thought that some of the explanations behind insulin function in the body were very insightful, especially for those of us who have issues with weight.

Recently I've been having a bit of a topsy turvy time myself but by reducing my carb intake dramatically and substituting the carbs for protein (like having eggs, fish, chicken etcetera). I must say, it's really helped!

I try and eat things like a slice of salmon on low sugar brown bread for a snack (John MacCambridge's brown bread is wonderful). For dinner today I had one chicken fillet with carrots and broccoli, with parsley sauce-- no potatoes. And do you know what, I'm still full after it, because chicken makes you feel so full! It was really tasty too.

When you're shopping just look at the carbs and sugar content on the back of the pack. Dieticians and books etc will give you a general view on how many carbs are in a certain food but it's best to check the packet itself so that you can give yourself a more precise dose of insulin.

And you'll learn too that certain foods just don't work for you. White scones are terrible for me (even when made with Splenda), I figure it must be the shear amount of butter in the mix. Also, porridge is a no-go area :crazy: especially at night :thumbdown:
But monkey nuts are the best for cravings!