Back to Current forum index
| Back to Main forum index Back to Current forum index |
| Author | Topic: sugar blues...or not |
| sunrayblind 05-06-2003 11:52 AM | over the last few years while experimenting with diet, and now mostly raw, I've come to believe that nothing good can come of eating refined sugar, no matter how it is combined or masked. Doesn't it cause insulin problems? wear out the pancreas? ruin teeth? I'm thin, and considered myself a sugar junkie. I can pig out on sugar in the form of breads, muffins, pastries, the usual crap and I just get skinnier and feel like hell. Of course thats combining sugar with flour products. So you're saying sugar is not the villain, but the wheat base is? Wouldn't dates be a better additive to juice along with oil, than sugar? Are you saying there's no difference between any sugar? Don't want to sound too anal about this, but if this is true, I have a few years of anti-sugar conditioning to overcome. |
| gavriel 05-06-2003 12:00 PM | I also thought that wight sugar is one of the worst roducts to consume and that there is a huge difference between white sugar, brown sugar and fruit sugar (fructos)???! I pur some white sugar in my juices (orange, banana, apple and one pear with plenty Olive oil)today (for the first time) and felt strange/like throughing out. Maybe it was too much sugar ![[Confused]](../confused.gif) |
| ninesky 05-07-2003 12:36 PM | My experience with the sugar juice is that when it's only sugar, I feel like I've had way too much caffeine.. jittery.. foggy mind.. just odd. When I combine it with at least the same amount of calories of fat, I have very smooth burning energy. Emotionally I feel like I can do anything and physically I'm able to do almost anything. |
| Wai 05-08-2003 08:25 AM | quote:without sugar, you cannot live; it supplies your brains (125 to 150 gram pure glucose daily) and muscles with the required energy and thus, your body can perfectly cope with sugars, if balanced with that other source of energy: fat your insulin system is not impaired by sugars, but by consuming more energy than required, regardless the source For more detailed info, check out this thread: link BTW; of all sugars, starch is by far the most insulin spiking (in breads, muffins, pastries etc) quote:not sugar, but acids are your teeth worst enemy quote:dates are perfect, and very high in sugar... quote:so, explain to me: WHAT is that huge difference exactly? pure (white or brown) sugar is sucrose = fructose + glucose and fruits contain exactly all these |
| sunrayblind 05-08-2003 11:40 AM | for wai administrator #1: Thanks for your reply. One more question on sugar before I quit beating this poor dead horse. I knew fruits contained both fructose and sucrose. The problem with white sugar, I came to believe, was in its refined state, without the surrounding fiber, and accompanying minerals like potassium, calcium, the sugar went directly into the bloodstream and caused all the insulin problems we've heard about. So you're saying by adding fats along with the sugar, this slows down this sugar assimilation process, just as if we had eaten the whole food for the sugar, and not the refined end result? |
| Michael 05-08-2003 04:09 PM | quote:Well, itīs all in the length of the molecule. Glucose is very short, and is used by the body directly, so it affects you glucose levels immediately. It can not be stored, so to avoid too high and damaging glucose levels the body must raise insulin levels a lot, leading to regulation problems and fluctuating glucose levels, low blood sugar, overeating, raising of insulin tolerance, fattening and diabetes. Fructose is longer, and canīt be used as fuel at all until it has reached the liver and been broken down into glucose, the liver can convert it to glycogen which can be stored. Fructose has a glycemic index, GI, of 32; ordinary white sugar has a GI of 92; and glucose has a GI of 138. Maltose is even higher, it has a GI of 150. So, if one wants or need to sweeten the orange juice I believe fructose would be preferred, that way the energy should last longer and one should be able to drink a lot of it at once without having problems with fluctuating glucose levels. Fat and protein also lowers the glycemic index of the food. |
| Ian 05-09-2003 08:31 PM | Glucose and fructose are both monomers, so their "length" is the same: one. Additionally, the length of the carbohydrate has the opposite effect, that is, that longer chains spike your blood sugar more. The long chain has a high density of glucose in one location, so the enzymes just rip through it and dump everything into your blood. On the other hand, short chain carbohydrates can be spaced throughout other nondigestible carbohydrates (i.e., fiber) and it takes time for enzymes to "find" them. This is my current understanding. A test of these theories would involve finding one food high in starch, another high in glucose. The other characteristics (fats, proteins, other carbos) should be almost identical. I agree that plain sucrose should probably not be consumed. Your point about the GI of fructose was very interesting. Does anybody know how sweet fructose is compared to sucrose? Cheers, Ian |
| Michael 05-10-2003 07:58 PM | quote:Hmm, OK, the length is apparently not a factor, thanks for your correction. But the difference in blood glucose and insulin response remain. quote:I donīt think a test is necessary, GI of most kinds of carbohydrate foods are well documented already. quote:Itīs 30 % sweeter, otherwise there is no difference in taste. In Sweden itīs available in ordinary supermarkets, a bit more expensive than ordinary sugar. quote:Well, I wouldnīt be so sure of that. It should depend on how you consume it. Raisins have a higher GI than sugar, so does pineapple and melon. It should be OK regarding GI if one uses more fat. After reading some more about fructose and glucose I would hesitate to recommend switching from ordinare sugar to fructose. Here is some rather negative views on fructose, and other sugars: http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/5/fructose.htm and http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/12/syndrome_x.htm A high fructose diet seems to have some potentially nasty effects: it affects the insulin receptors so that more insuling is needed to take care of the glucose; a higher loss of minerals; it might cause more oxidative stress than glucose, leading to accelerated aging, it converts easier to fat than other sugars; it affects cholesterol levels differently than ordinary sugar, in a bad way according to ordinary medical science. If you feed a lab rat on a high fructose diet, it develops insulin resistance, even though it stays lean. These seems like disturbing facts, considering the amounts of fruit and various sugars in Waiīs diet. Has anyone on this diet gone through proper testing regarding blood glucose levels, insulin levels, cholesterol or whatever might be important? What is known about long term effects? |
| RRM 05-11-2003 11:02 AM | quote:Yes, that prevents the burdening of the insulin system, which is what is the issue here; please check out this thread: link |
| RRM 05-11-2003 11:37 AM | quote:You are missing something here. Glucose does NOT overstimulate insulin secretion if the glucose is required for direct energy, or stored as glycogen, and that is what happens on this diet. You are comparing molecules. But this is not about molecules, this is about food. The question is: WHEN is insulin secretion triggered too much? Of course you can say: "a glucose molecule has a more direct effect on insulin release", but that is not the question. The question is: "does adding pure refined white sugar to your juice have adverse effects on the insulin system" The answer is: "that depends" It depends on whether the insulin levels are overtriggered by the sugar. So, then the question is: WHEN are the insulin levels triggered most? The secretion of insulin is triggered the most when there is too much energy in the blood (esp glucose). When does this happen? Well, most specifically, when you eat a large meal; the first glucose ingested only fill up the glucose-gap in your blood, but after the blood glucose level has raised to a certain level, the extra incoming energy needs to be stored. And to do so, insulin is secreted, which stimulates the conversion of glucose into glycogen and glycerol, the incorporation of fatty acids into triglycerides (which can be stored as bodyfat) and of amino acids in muscles and organs (including the brain). So, far, so good. this is a perfectly natural and essential process. And, it doesn't matter how fast this process takes place. Faster is not at all worse here. So, what does matter? What matters is whether this insulin regulation system is impaired by the incoming energy. This doesn't happen in the process described above, no matter how fast this process takes place. What does matter, is whether the insulin can do it's job. It cannot do it's job when the glycogen depots are all filled up, and still new glucose is entering the blood. In that situation the secretion of insulin is kept on being stimulated, but this cannot result in the insulin stimulated conversion of glucose into glycogen. And then glucagon is secreted to counteract the effect of insulin. The problem is that that redundant glucose molecule that triggered the release of insulin, is still there in the blood, and AGAIN will trigger the secretion of insulin. Please check out Wai's explanation: link THIS is what is a problem, because this is what impairs the insulin regulation system. With this diet you are constantly ingesting small amounts of energy all day, unlike with a normal diet. With this diet, you never consume too large meals, because your appetite is not arteficially stimulated. With this diet, you are constantly busy with refilling your empty energy depots, and sugar helps to do this. It doesn't matter at all that sugar does this fast. In fact that is great! The issue here is that with this diet you will NOT overstimulate insulin secretion. That is why, for example, a diabetes-1 patient reported that he needed 40% less supplementary insulin while on this diet, in comparison to his previous SAD diet. http://www.freeacnebook.com/moreQ.htm#108 The reason: he was now eating much more often, consuming more sugar, but more spread over the day, no starch (a long chain of glucose molecules only) and thus less insulin was required to store redundant energy. LARGE MEAL >>> REDUNDANT ENERGY >>> INSULIN SECRETION FILLED UP GLYCOGEN DEPOTS + MORE ENERGY INGESTED = REPEATED STIMULATION OF INSULIN SECRETION BY THE SAME MOLECULES >>> IMPAIRING THE INSULIN SYSTEM |
| Ian 05-11-2003 05:05 PM | quote:Hmm, thanks for the info. Was thinking about getting fructose, perhaps I won't. quote:Well, it would be hard to find foods that are very similar in every way except that one has glucose in long chains, while the other has simple glucose (or sucrose? what exactly is glucose - a crystalline powder like the other sugars?). Anyway, the test was actually sort of to convince myself that complex carbohydrates are digested quicker. My whole life I've been taught that starches are the slow, steady source of energy while simple sugars spike blood sugar. But the point may be moot, as quote:Cheers, Ian |
| lauraestes 06-03-2003 11:26 AM | From all sources of information I have read, it seems obvious that white sugar is both addictve and harmful because during the refining process the molecular structure of the sugars IS changed................I am shocked so many people here haven't commented on this more. I only use Sucanat.....not refined, not bleached or heated.....not crystalline. Sucanat is low-temperature dehydrated cane juice, and is found now in all health food stores and some grocery stores. It and maple syrup enter the blood more slowly, and isn't that the intention when adding olive oil to juice....??....to prevent the sugar rush? |
| RRM 06-03-2003 12:11 PM | I know you reported this to Wai a long time ago. Maybe she hasn't found any convincing scientific info? Maybe you have more convincing information at hand, and maybe we can then adapt our advices (Sucanat instead of normal sugar) in accordance with that. Yes, the molecular structure of sugar is changed, but the issue is whether this new molecule is actually harmful. You say crystalline is harmful, maybe you can show us the info that explains this? quote:No, the intention is not have the energy enter the blood more slowly. Yes, the intention is to prevent a sugar rush. You, just as your Dr, think that the fast uptake of glucose into the blood is what is bad. (I guess you are referring to the spiking blood sugar level, and the subsequent peak in the secretion of insulin?) When your blood glucose level is low, there is NOTHING bad about supplying it with lots of glucose very fast. And, if your blood ENERGY (fat like molecules + sugar like molecules) level is low, you should, indeed, not replenish that energy by the intake of sugars only. Instead, you should consume sufficient fat with the sugar. Why? To prevent a imbalanced energy supply, in favour of the sugar, which leads to a so-called sugar rush. If the supplied energy comes equally from sugars AND fats, then you wount be bothered by a sugar rush; you will just feel energetic. If you blood glucose level is low, it better get replenished FAST, because otherwise, too much cell protein is converted into available energy instead (which may harm your organs). So, why is the fast uptake of glucose considered as bad by your DR? Because they reason that this causes a too great increase in the secretion of insulin, which, according to their hypothesis, is what may lead to diabetes etc. But, the secretion of insulin is perfectly natural and essential (too store glucose, to supply the brain with amino acids etc). Only if the secretion of insulin is way too high, THAT is bad. If really doesn't matter whether 500 molecules of glucose are taken up into the blood in 1 or 2 minutes; first of all, they will only replenish your blood glucose 'reservoir'. And, once that has happened, the extra 500 molecules will trigger the release of about equally much insulin, regardless of whether they are taken up in 1 or 2 minutes. So, WHAT , in fact, CAN cause a too high secretion of insulin? The repeated insulin release triggering effect of the SAME molecule; that way the insulin triggering influence of a glucose molecule is MULTIPLIED. (a single insulin triggering influence is harmless and essential, the repeated triggering effect by the same molecule is bad) The repetition of the insulin triggering effect takes place when that glucose molecule cannot leave the blood to be converted into glycogen, that is when the secretion of insulin will be followed by the secretion of glucagon. Then the molecules that has not left the blood, will again trigger the release of insulin, because it is redundant. And if that happens over and over again, for many years, this will probably result in impairing the insulin system, leading to diabetes. RRM . For posts about crystalline etc, please post in this thread here. For more information about glucose > insulin > diabetes, and to comment on the explanation above, please read and post in this thread about diabetes: link |