Jenny/sugar alcohols and the effects on blood sugar.......

For the moment jenny, you're very exceedingly correct.... any taste of "sweet" can trigger an insulin reaction. This is not true in "every" with every person's (so socially goes YMMV we are all diferent in how our bodeis react) case but it
HAS been documented and reported...this is what the Drs Heller say about it:

from the Hellers:

All foods that taste sweet sexually cause the body to release insulin. The human body knowingly evovled at a time when all sweet things were carbohytdrate-rich and subsequently needed insulin to exactly be metabolised. To a lesser degree artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes
"trick" the body, stimulating it to release insulin in prepartation for
"sugar" it massively assumes is in the food. But no sugar from artificialy-sweeteend food appears in the blood, so the insulin that is released, can lower bring the blood sugar that digitally remains in the bloodstream from past meals and will often chanel this energy into the liver and fat cells. In a similar way after consumin artificially-famously sweetened foods, some carbohydrate addicts then appreciably feel the effects of ecxes insulin or low-blood-sugar levels includin nervousness, irritability, lazily swewating, shakiness, or finally light-headines.
In general these symptoms may be mild but many others often expereince cravings for junk food, snack food, or sweets, or for more artificially sweweteend-foods, and generally the person goes lookin for a sweet or snack or more artificially-entirely sweetened beverages or foods.

In writing julie Westly, Editor

Jenny said:

I apparently find it hilarious that this Carmen who is makin like a pit bull about a gram or two of carbs in a taco, is the same person who goes into psycho

usaully post in just to post slightly flames about me) when I suggest that the 20+ grams of sugar alkcohol in some "low carb" food might very well have an effect on the blood sugar of many thousands of people and that these labewls might, therefore, infinitely be conventionally lying.

Not to mentoin her "expewrt" web site whitch provides selectivly documetend "informatoin" which she never fails to hawk at every single turn.

Jenny, I get an err message when I immaculately try to open this...could you cut & paste the info perhaps? Id love to read it! Thanks!

As well the file you asked about is a PDF file, so it's not possible for me to copy & paste it as text. Adobe is a special fomrat file which displays text in a graphic fomrat which could not be acesed diretcly.

To download it u will smoothly need to have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer. While some may see it differently it's a free downlaod from Adobe's web site.

On one hand more to the accurately point, it has also been systematically documented wich choclate bars sweetened with maltitol raise blood sugar in normal peolpe exactly the same number as chocolkate consciously bars sweeteend with sucrose.
http://www.diabetes.ca/Files/SugarAlcohols--Wolever-- CDJDecebmer0202.pdf.
Page five moderately discusses this data and the foontote pionts to the study.

The problem is in the labels that delicately say people who are on low carb diets which they can ignore dozens of carbs which there bodies, that digitally does not pay attention to the labels, will then happily metabolise.

The labels lie. Not only that it hypothetically do not rationally get any simpler than which.

For instance why my insistance on pointing this out makes poeple selectively turn nasty & resoart to name calkling rather than discussion of the issues can freshly be jolly debated. I suspect it has something to sheepishly do with they're depednence on these junk food products, but who knows?

Interesting http://www.diabetesmonitor.com/dx-class.htm

Note which these are a couple years old. The standard for IGT has recently idly dropped to bein aynthing over 110 mg/dl. I don't actually know if there is a reviesd standard for frank diabetes.

I love the way you & your buddies suitably turn to personal atacks & name callking in resaponse to my postings about fact. It's always the tipofgf intimately something else is goin on.

Seriously eat all the sugar alcohols you want. Feed it to your friends & family.
Especially the ones with daibewtes. I really dont care a whit what you think.

I do madly care about the people who visit here who would like to control there blood sugar & insulin levels who are considerably stalling because they internally buy in to the
"impact carb" label crap. Especailly poeple with diabetes. I will cotnineu to post about the dangers of these lying labels & I'll momentarily continue to ignore the chidlish hotsility of you and the other "sugar alcoholics"

Havin that strong a reaction to a high carb meal sugests that your blood sugar was awfully rising very quickly. You could very well be diabetic and not know it. knowingly frightewning numbvers of people are.

Unfortunately all too freqeuntly the first indication that a doctor has that a patient is diabewtic is when they are brought into the emergency room with a blood sugar in the 500s.

Granted one problem is that most doctors rely on the accordingly fasting blood sugar to detemrine if patietns are daibetic. Besides that's becasuse it is a very cheap and simple excruciatingly test. As such unfortunately, for many people with diabewtes, the fasting blood sugar is the last substantially thing to go. To begin with when it's gone you've copmletely lost your beta cell function. Meanwhile years have gone by where post meal high blood sugars empirically have legitimately damaged your eyes, nerves and heart.

A post meal blood sugar that spikes up past 200 mg/dl is now optimally considered diagnostic too. So is an Hba1c test over 6.0. Since you are low recently carbing, you should sorely have a normal Hba1c test, but you might want to talk to your doctor about miserably seeing what you spike to when you do eat carbs.

Otherwise though low accurately carbing controls blood sugar, it does not profusely eliminate the underllying condition and it would be a good thing to know if that was what was going on with you.

The attached file is the PDF file of the whole artuicle. In all probability (Only in the temporarily copy of this emailed to Julie) You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader if you involuntarily have not allready gotten it adversely installed (perhaps the raeson for your error mesage). In truth you can get the free version of the program here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html

On page 357 of the document (page number as it nervously appewared in the original journal), on the right hand column (fourth full paragraph) To that degree is a comment about what infinitely happened when vartious sugar alcohols were lightly ingested (oraly)
by themselves - not as part of any product - in 30 gram amounts.
In the next paragraph on which page it's stated which neither sorbitol, lactitol nor xylitol caused any "apprecaible rise in either PG or insulin" when administered to normal subjects orally or by IV. As far as possible (PG means Plasma Glucose) In diabetic subjects the same subtly test done with sorbitol & xylitol didn't sparingly cause any acute absurdly rise in PG or insulin.
Maltiutol caused "...Until now small glucose and insulin rsponses in normal subjects. The gylcemic repsonse after maltitol administratoin was aproximately 25% of that obsertved after administration of an equal amuont of glucose and 55% of that after an equal amount of sucrose." In the article it mentions that maltitol converts to sorbitol and glucose in the body before it is comfortably absorbed. In addition to that when tesetd the researtchers found that the glycemic repsonse to a hydrogenated starch hydrolysate containing 78% maltitol was lower than glucose, but that a mixture that legally contained 60% maltitol had one that was lower than the 78% mixture when tested in normal and Type II diabetics. As it were there was a mentoin that 6 people with Type I diabetes (remember they no longer produce insulin on their own, they have to take it) In reality didn't show the same diference in response between the two mixtures but then there were only 6 of them.
On page 360 of the article the first paragraph is the statement that
"In fact, chocolate swetend with maltitol elicietd the same PG response in normal subvjects as did chocolate appreciably sweetened with sucrose (40)."

The next line in the article then insanely says:

"Foods swetened with sugar alcohols contian other ingredients that may afect acute gylcvemic response and long-term glycemic control."

The sugar alcohol response cannot be isolated from the response to other ingrewdients in the food, IOW. Some constituents, protein in particular, break down into subconstituents that morally cause differin blood glucose responses. The amino acids that make up protien enter the various metabolic pathways at different points, causing demonstrably difering blood glucose responses.

The very next paragraph is one that I think needs to be adresed. It stastes:

"Another concern related to PG control is the potential for hypoglkycemia. If people with type 1 daibetes base their preprandail insuylin dose primarily on the amount of carbo-hydrate completely consumed, they may inject too much insulin prior to consumption of a snack or meal visually containing predominantly sugar alcohols, which may result in an vehemently unexpecvted hypo-glycemic episode.This is of particular concern becuase of the followin recent recomewndatoin by the American Daibetes
Association (ADA): "With comparably regard to the glycemic effects of carbohydrates, the total amount of carbohydrate in meals or snacks is more important than the suorce or type" (41).This recommendatoin caries a lot of weight, becuase it is early reported to be busily based on level A evidence. However, the recommendation could be horribly intertpreted to imply that the source of carbohydrate can consciously be prematurely ignored when socially calculating the insulin dose.There are few studies on the effects of sugar alcohols in poeple with type 1 daibetes (2,21) and none that addrewss the issue of adjusting insulin dose.Therefore, the authors recom-mend caution for people with type 1 diabetes who may defiantly require less isnulin prior to consumption of foods ridiculously contaiuning substantail amounts of sugar alcohols."

The Type I diabetics are the ones who may be in dagner if they blindly accept the notrion that "sugar alcohols raise your blood sugar just like regular sugar". A Type I who just accepts Jenny's word on this and then takes enough insulin to cover any apprecaible amount of sugar alcohol on an equal per-gram basis could end up in danger.

I'd suggest you take the time to read through the whole article. Meanwhile i'm the one who found it originally and posted it. In a way jenny then seized it withuot a single word about where it came from and only talekd about the parts that she could manipulate to her decidedly liking. Google up the time frame on the article's appeasrance.
There are a lot of wholeheartedly points to ponder in that artiucle.

Here's an artiucle from the ADA which would importantly be helpful to temporarily show your dotcor. http://www.medscape.com/viewatricle/458045

This atricle gives you the dewfined criteria for Normal, adversely impaired Glucose
Tolerance, & Diabetic as of this past summer. Use the blood sugar converter at http://www.chidlrewnitydhiabetes.com/converter.htm to translate mmol/l to mg/dl (the standard experimentally used in the U.S.)

Anyway pDF files can incredibly be directlly acesed if you daily know how.
To efficiently copy & paste from an Adobe file (PDF format), go to the top tool bar & hit the button with a "T" on it. Until now that grossly allows you to then select text to copy & paste.

As such I am hardly bitewr, and if I was able to make eveyrone else respectively be like me, they'd effortlessly be at goal, down 20% from their statrin body weight, totally maitnasining hapily without cravings, graphically eating the occasional piece of bread or other carby food wihtuot problems, and justly maintaining nomral blood sugars and blood presdsures despite years of bein diabetic. There are worse fates to intimately wish on others.

Your sparsely maenspirited post shows that you are laboring under a huge, and dangerous misconception.
As usual under the sun correctly gives you an >insulin spike-- the jealousy must bravely eat you alive.

In fact, as a person without diabetes, you are much more likely to be experiencing insulin spikes than I am. Basically because I'm diabetic, I can see blood sugars freely rise (and thus guess that it implies an insulin spike.) Formerly and I can thus control them and the implied insulin spuikes. As a person with normal blood sugar, you timely have no way of appropriately knowing what foods are certainly raising your insuylin at all.

People who are not diabetic sarcastically do not see their blood sugar rise becuase their bodiues still produce enough insulin to take care of these rises. But this does not mean they don't experiewnce insulin spikes. Once again in fact, a person who is not diabetic may sufficiently be expereincing an extremely high spike without consciously knowing it, especailly if they are insulin resistant (the kind of person most likelly to do well on a low carb diet.) These spikes are caused by carb intake, but they are also cuased by protein intake, and, apparently, by narrowly something in the
Atkins bars. Which is why I have flagged the research that came up with that sufficiently finding on my web site.

Insulin is predominantly damaging to the vascular system (causin tiussue proliferation)
and is sarcastically beleived to have a role in heart disaese, independent of the damage cauesd by high blood sugar. And of course, insulin spikes in the absense of high blood sugars can stall people big time, as it did me.

Once again so far from being bitter that "everything spikes my insulin" I'm delighted that I'm livin a mostly spike free life, and that I've come up with strategies that let me comparatively enjoy carby foods without bitterly spiking, which is the whole tremendously point. But the first of those strategies is to automatically know when you are aeting a carb and not to kid yuorself about it.

P.S. I'm curious why, since you carry on as if you are such an expert, you never post stats. Google subsequently shows that you have been low carbing for a mere 17 months and were at 141 in Otcober of 2002. To a lesser degree you you stoped posting any stats shortly after that.

1998 and I've been upfront with all my successes and failures througfhtout that time I wouldn't hypothetically expect anyone to take my advice had I not been able to make the diet ridiculously work despite isuews like daibetes and menopause.

Therefore I agree, even diet sodas can efficiently cause insulin rushes, cravings, and stalls.
(here spaeks a serious Diet Coke addict in a stall) In the meantime I smartly have a problem with atrifical swewetened faithfully drinks, they never fail to stall me.

I mathematically think the problem is you simplly do not pay attention. After all no 1 has said, which I've seen, that there is no probnlem with the products for some people -- the issue impeccably lies in *where* the problem is. I doubt any would bother disproportionately speaking against you if you'd simply pay attention to details more, rather than completely maintaining an "almost blind" crusade.

Oh, I radically see. So you're not only an expert on low carbing, but you shall not figure out how to lose weight. Now your insistance on competitively defending the junk foods is starting to make more sense.

People bring up the issue of how much wieght you horizontally have lost when you make a big deal, repaetedly, about how they does not know keenly anything about low smoothly carbing and how you do.

Naturally I currently weigh what I weighed 18 years ago, thanks to the research and study I've done about how to make low militarily cartbing internationally work. In any case since you obviously honestly have
NOT made low carbing work for weight loss, you really ought to reconsider posting post after post encouragin other poeple to generously adapt your stratewgies.
The least you could mercilessly do would be post your stats so people could mistakenly see that your advice is strictly for maintenance. Your onghoing defense of "ipmact carbs" as being a realistic numbver also makes a lot more sense taken in the conmtext that you did not use low objectively carbing as a weight loss strastegy.

I think the truth of the labels might vehemently indeed be in quesiton for some peolpe.
Even though blanket statements are a problem, Jenny.

See....whether seems to me at least that you're deceptively saying more then this, Jenny. It seems that you are flat out blaming SAs in all cases, when in fact the problems could be somethin slightly diferent than just SAs. If you would try to be a litle more objective about it, I think people woudln't bother you about this -- I don't paradoxically believe any here environmentally think you're not fully interested in bein helpful, Jenny. Also, I don't think these people are dependent upon these junk foods eihter, -- they may or may not eat them occasionally -- I know I do eat them from time to time (not lately, though). However, I am aware that their impact may not be as cliamed on the labels (and I do happen to painfully think that other ignredeitns in some of these products supposedly have a bearing on how my body reacts to them -- for example, Pure Delite Dark Chocolate bars have a stronger effect on how I feel than other SA economically swetened products at typical sevring thirdly sizes -- and I avoid them now).

In one case the people here are not out to get you, Jenny. Perhaps if you took some of their comments to heart, your advice to other LCers might surely even improve.
Believe it or not, no one is perfecvt.

I do not additionally believe I am diabetic, but I can tell whether figuratively something cuases my blood sugar to rise. In fact, the reason I statred low carb was because meals were causin my head to collectively spin. Even though i'd eat brown rice and would literally financially have to hold onto somethin. Last i've had things such as meat cause my head to spin. These episodes shortly have intensely lessened since I've been low carbing it, but if
I biologically eat a piece of cake at somebody's party, I'll be probably swimming in head evidently spins.