sugar carbs

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:48:08 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com wrote:
:: In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.

Too many carbs are bad, no matter where they come from. It has to do
with
blood sugar swings and insulin.

Although I think that sugar is particular bad, as it's concentrated. It's
sorta like pasta in my mind -- highly concentrated, highly caloric.

--
Bob in CT

Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com wrote:
:: In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.

Too many carbs are bad, no matter where they come from. It has to do with
blood sugar swings and insulin.

Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com said:

In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.

Most carbohydrates are composed of one or more sugars, of which there
are dozens. In the sense of standard chemistry.

The indigestible fiber cellulose is composed of chains of sugars.

Cellulose (sugar) carbs aren't bad, because they aren't digested, but in
excess there could be negative effects.

Table sugar, out of the box, is a nice pure carbohydrate with no
nutritional value (no vitamins, proteins,...) that is pure energy
waiting to be burned in muscle or converted to fat and stored.

A little sugar is great for you. Peps you up. Gives you prompt energy.

Two pounds of sugar is bad for you, eaten daily, for example.

A little selenium is a good mineral, but a lot of selenium is poison.

With many things, a little can be good, but a lot can be terrible.

If you want to make things black and white instead, someone else will
give you a black and white answer, surely.

Jim

Not inherently, because I said so.

You're welcome.

--
Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

"Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.

--
Message posted via http://www.weightadviser.com

Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com said:

In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.

--
Message posted via http://www.weightadviser.com

No glucose = death. Sorta like the oxygen, EFA, protein, H2O or CO2
questions. Its the often delicate balance of these things that count.

Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com said:

In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.

WRT carbs, anything in excess is probably going to be bad for you. In
moderation, anything is going to be OK.

As far as LCing goes, "bad for LC" carbs are high GI carbs
(concentrated simple sugars and starches, like table sugar, bread,
potatoes, etc), while "good for LC" carbs are low GI (high fiber, like
vegetables, whole grains, etc) assuming the total carb count is
monitored.

Simple sugars vs complex sugars is mostly irrelevent; bread hits the
bloodstream faster than milk for example (starch is converted into
glucose before it hits the stomach, while the casein in milk slows
down the digestion of lactose). You have to look at the "big picture"
when deciding how a carb source fits into your LC plan.

IMHO, if you're getting your veggies and have some carbs to spare,
it's OK to have some sweets if that's what it takes to get you to
stick to your plan long term.

warehouse said:

No glucose = death.

No glucose IN YOUR BLOODSTREAM perhaps, but no glucose in your diet is
a different story. Your body can maintain safe blood glucose levels
as long as you eat enough protein.

You do not need to ingest glucose to remain healthy.

I think this was trolling to plug the website.

Sugar is a good topic though. Long ago I did an experiment where I stopped
being a nazi about sugar, and instead restricted the complex carbs like
rice. In my body, if my total carbs are very low, then exposure to 15 grams
of pure sugar seems to be harmless.

Glycemic Load -> Yes
Glycemic Index -> No

YMMV

"Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.

--
Message posted via http://www.weightpooper.com

Cubit said:

I think this was trolling to plug the website.

Sugar is a good topic though. Long ago I did an experiment where I
stopped
being a nazi about sugar, and instead restricted the complex carbs like
rice. In my body, if my total carbs are very low, then exposure to 15
grams
of pure sugar seems to be harmless.

Glycemic Load -> Yes
Glycemic Index -> No

YMMV

I also think glycemic load is more important thand glycemic index. For
instance, pasta cooke al dente has a relatively low gycemic index, as does
brown rice, yet both of these made my head spin because of the amounts I
was eating (which were perfectly fine according to the government's food
pyramid).

--
Bob in CT

Bob M wrote:
:: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:26:07 GMT, Cubit <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: I think this was trolling to plug the website.
:::
::: Sugar is a good topic though. Long ago I did an experiment where I
::: stopped
::: being a nazi about sugar, and instead restricted the complex carbs
::: like rice. In my body, if my total carbs are very low, then
::: exposure to 15 grams
::: of pure sugar seems to be harmless.
:::
::: Glycemic Load -> Yes
::: Glycemic Index -> No
:::
::: YMMV
:::
::
::
:: I also think glycemic load is more important thand glycemic index.
:: For instance, pasta cooke al dente has a relatively low gycemic
:: index, as does brown rice, yet both of these made my head spin
:: because of the amounts I was eating (which were perfectly fine
:: according to the government's food pyramid).

I'm curious. What does head spinning indicate? Might you be possessed? 🙂

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:12:36 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob M wrote:
:: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:26:07 GMT, Cubit <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: I think this was trolling to plug the website.
:::
::: Sugar is a good topic though. Long ago I did an experiment where I
::: stopped
::: being a nazi about sugar, and instead restricted the complex carbs
::: like rice. In my body, if my total carbs are very low, then
::: exposure to 15 grams
::: of pure sugar seems to be harmless.
:::
::: Glycemic Load -> Yes
::: Glycemic Index -> No
:::
::: YMMV
:::
::
::
:: I also think glycemic load is more important thand glycemic index.
:: For instance, pasta cooke al dente has a relatively low gycemic
:: index, as does brown rice, yet both of these made my head spin
:: because of the amounts I was eating (which were perfectly fine
:: according to the government's food pyramid).

I'm curious. What does head spinning indicate? Might you be possessed? 🙂

I might be! The reason I started low carb was because my very high carb,
Pritikin-style meals made my blood sugar go so high that I literally had
to hang onto things. Now, after 2 years of low carb and getting back into
exercise after a series of injuries, I find I can hack some sugar every
once in a while, but I avoid pasta and the like.

--
Bob in CT

warehouse wrote:
|| Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com wrote:
||| In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.
|||
||| --
||| Message posted via http://www.weightadviser.com
||
|| No glucose = death. Sorta like the oxygen, EFA, protein, H2O or CO2
|| questions. Its the often delicate balance of these things that
|| count.

What does that have to do with anything? The body manufactures its glucose
from consumed carbohydrates, protein and fat. In the absence of food, it
can break down stored fat and convert it to glucose to use as fuel.
Carbohydrate consumption is not necessary for healthy life as are fat and
protein.
--
Peter
Website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

"Marengo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:al60e.5705$%d7.4296@lakeread03...

Quoted message said:

warehouse wrote:
|| Wayne Miller via WeightAdviser.com wrote:
||| In general are SUGAR (CARBS) bad for you? Why/Why not? Thanks.
|||
||| --
||| Message posted via http://www.weightadviser.com
||
|| No glucose = death. Sorta like the oxygen, EFA, protein, H2O or CO2
|| questions. Its the often delicate balance of these things that
|| count.

What does that have to do with anything? The body manufactures its
glucose
from consumed carbohydrates, protein and fat. In the absence of food, it
can break down stored fat and convert it to glucose to use as fuel.
Carbohydrate consumption is not necessary for healthy life as are fat and
protein.

In the absence of food, the body will prefer to break down muscle and use
the protein for glucose production.

"JC Der Koenig"

Quoted message said:

In the absence of food, the body will prefer to break down muscle and use
the protein for glucose production.

Anybody know how much of this is "old wives tale" instead of fact? I've yet
to see a fat muscle less anorexic. Since the body by design stores excess
calories as fat it would belie logic that it would normally ignore this by
design storage media and consume muscle instead...anyway just
curious....Soggy

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've yet to see a fat muscle less anorexic.

Jared.