In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>
>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>
>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>
>To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into
>thinking it is somehow better than sugar.

There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
now patented that was supported by the mill.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Phred wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." > wrote:
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into
>> thinking it is somehow better than sugar.
>
> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
> is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
> sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
> now patented that was supported by the mill.
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index sugar.
Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.

George Shirley wrote:
> Phred wrote:
>> In article >, "Jean B."
>> > wrote:
>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking
>>> it is somehow better than sugar.
>>
>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
>> is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
>> sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
>> now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>
>> Cheers, Phred.
>>
> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index sugar.
> Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.

Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There is
no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no science
behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO, it's just
another gimmick made up by some diet guru.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder > wrote in news:4867c361$0$5007
:

> George Shirley wrote:
>> Phred wrote:
>>> In article >, "Jean B."
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking
>>>> it is somehow better than sugar.
>>>
>>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
>>> is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
>>> sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
>>> now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>
>> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index sugar.
>> Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
>
> Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There is
> no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no science
> behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO, it's just
> another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
>

The initial research was all done in a Canadian University not by a diet
Guru....I believe back in the late 60's early 70's. Read up on it don't
be taken in by the hype.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

hahabogus wrote:
> Janet Wilder > wrote in news:4867c361$0$5007
> :
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> Phred wrote:
>>>> In article >, "Jean B."
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking
>>>>> it is somehow better than sugar.
>>>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
>>>> is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
>>>> sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
>>>> now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>>
>>> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index sugar.
>>> Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
>> Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There is
>> no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no science
>> behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO, it's just
>> another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
>>
>
> The initial research was all done in a Canadian University not by a diet
> Guru....I believe back in the late 60's early 70's. Read up on it don't
> be taken in by the hype.
>

I participate on several diabetic groups and my DH is a diabetic. He's
tried the GI index and it makes no difference to his blood glucose
levels. Many of the other diabetics on the groups I follow have the same
reaction.

If you follow up on the Canadian university's GI index project, you will
see that it did not have much science behind it. That's why no one
hardly heard of it until the diet industry got a hold of it a few years
ago. JMTCW and YMMV

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Phred wrote:
>>> In article >, "Jean B."
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking
>>>> it is somehow better than sugar.
>>>
>>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
>>> is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
>>> sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
>>> now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>
>> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index sugar.
>> Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
>
> Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There is
> no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no science
> behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO, it's just
> another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
>
Maybe so, but I've been diagnosed as a diabetic for over fourteen years
now. I can't eat white rice, drives my blood sugar straight up, can eat
brown rice, only affects me mildly. No pasta made with white flour for
same reason, so I eat whole wheat pasta. I can eat a small amount of
sugar sweetened desserts without a big problem. The glycemic index does
help some of us to determine what we can eat and what we probably
shouldn't. Basically it all boils down to the amount of carbs we eat in
a day and what types.

George Shirley wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> Phred wrote:
>>>> In article >, "Jean B."
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking
>>>>> it is somehow better than sugar.
>>>>
>>>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
>>>> is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
>>>> sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research
>>>> (presumably now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>>
>>> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index sugar.
>>> Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
>>
>> Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There is
>> no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no science
>> behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO, it's just
>> another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
>>
> Maybe so, but I've been diagnosed as a diabetic for over fourteen years
> now. I can't eat white rice, drives my blood sugar straight up, can eat
> brown rice, only affects me mildly. No pasta made with white flour for
> same reason, so I eat whole wheat pasta. I can eat a small amount of
> sugar sweetened desserts without a big problem. The glycemic index does
> help some of us to determine what we can eat and what we probably
> shouldn't. Basically it all boils down to the amount of carbs we eat in
> a day and what types.

It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
portion control --- a lot.

You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
each meal.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>> Phred wrote:
>>>>> In article >, "Jean B."
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into
>>>>>> thinking it is somehow better than sugar.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns
>>>>> that is producing (or about to produce) some new product called
>>>>> "Low GI sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research
>>>>> (presumably now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>>>
>>>> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index
>>>> sugar. Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There
>>> is no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no
>>> science behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO,
>>> it's just another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
>>>
>> Maybe so, but I've been diagnosed as a diabetic for over fourteen
>> years now. I can't eat white rice, drives my blood sugar straight up,
>> can eat brown rice, only affects me mildly. No pasta made with white
>> flour for same reason, so I eat whole wheat pasta. I can eat a small
>> amount of sugar sweetened desserts without a big problem. The glycemic
>> index does help some of us to determine what we can eat and what we
>> probably shouldn't. Basically it all boils down to the amount of carbs
>> we eat in a day and what types.
>
> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
> portion control --- a lot.
>
> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
> Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
> each meal.
>
Most of them I know do the same thing I do, learn what you can and can't
eat. I'm what is typically known as a Type II with an apple shape (read
pot belly) and over fifty yo, way over fifty if the truth is known.

I shoot Lantus once a day and Novalog three times a day, about ten
minutes before a meal for Novalog, early morning for Lantus. Seems to
control me in the normal mode if I don't get crazy with the sweets. I
can even eat chocolate bars in moderation without a rise in BG's. Docs
tell me there's probably a couple of hundred types of diabetes versus
just I and II.

Janet Wilder wrote:

> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
> portion control --- a lot.
>
> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
> Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
> each meal.
>

My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)

Serene

--
"I think I have an umami receptor that has developed sentience." -- Stef

George Shirley wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>>> Phred wrote:
>>>>>> In article >, "Jean B."
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>>>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>>>>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into
>>>>>>> thinking it is somehow better than sugar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns
>>>>>> that is producing (or about to produce) some new product called
>>>>>> "Low GI sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research
>>>>>> (presumably now patented that was supported by the mill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers, Phred.
>>>>>>
>>>>> From what I've seen this is supposed to be Low Glycemic Index
>>>>> sugar. Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There
>>>> is no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no
>>>> science behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO,
>>>> it's just another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
>>>>
>>> Maybe so, but I've been diagnosed as a diabetic for over fourteen
>>> years now. I can't eat white rice, drives my blood sugar straight up,
>>> can eat brown rice, only affects me mildly. No pasta made with white
>>> flour for same reason, so I eat whole wheat pasta. I can eat a small
>>> amount of sugar sweetened desserts without a big problem. The
>>> glycemic index does help some of us to determine what we can eat and
>>> what we probably shouldn't. Basically it all boils down to the amount
>>> of carbs we eat in a day and what types.
>>
>> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
>> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We
>> practice portion control --- a lot.
>>
>> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are
>> lucky. Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of
>> carbs in each meal.
>>
> Most of them I know do the same thing I do, learn what you can and can't
> eat. I'm what is typically known as a Type II with an apple shape (read
> pot belly) and over fifty yo, way over fifty if the truth is known.
>
> I shoot Lantus once a day and Novalog three times a day, about ten
> minutes before a meal for Novalog, early morning for Lantus. Seems to
> control me in the normal mode if I don't get crazy with the sweets. I
> can even eat chocolate bars in moderation without a rise in BG's. Docs
> tell me there's probably a couple of hundred types of diabetes versus
> just I and II.

He's probably right. They told my late mom that she was type II but she
never did well on pills and they put her on insulin where she managed
well. She had had a bad bout of pancreatitis when she was younger and it
probably killed a lot of cells so she was more than likely a type I, but
in those days anyone over 50 had to be a II.

DH got himself a pump about two years ago and it has been absolutely
wonderful in helping him to control his BGs. His A1Cs are 6.0 and
sometimes lower. His Endo doesn't like them under 6.0 so she adjusts his
pump numbers. Medicare pays for the pump, BTW. DH thinks it's much
easier than having to carry syringes. He did the basal and bolus
injections for a while, too.

Have you considered a pump, George? If you have any questions, we'll be
happy to answer them.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Nina wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:55:33 -0700, Serene Vannoy
> > wrote:
>
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>>> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
>>> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
>>> portion control --- a lot.
>>>
>>> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
>>> Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
>>> each meal.
>>>
>> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
>> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
>> grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
>> of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
>> 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>
> Well, relative to average American carb consumption, which is in about
> the 250-300 gram range, supposedly, that IS limiting carbs.
>
> That's what we do, actually... my husband is a diabetic, and we eat
> lots of protein and minimal carbs... but we eat no refined sugar at
> all, or grains (because he's gluten intolerant), and we don't worry
> too much about the fat.
>
> I do think that there is huge variation from person to person, both in
> the amount of carb limitation necessary and in what sort of carbs are
> a problem. A lot of it is just trial and error.
>
> Nina
>
Exactly, I kept accurate records for three years to see what was
affecting me the most. Once I knew what white rice and other grains
would do I knew what I could eat and when. It just became part of my
meal plan for each day.

We seldom eat out but when we do I know almost to the exact number what
foods will raise my blood glucose level to a level I would rather not
see it reach. I eat a lot of meats including red meat, I eat beans,
peas, greens, seafood - fried, grilled, or boiled. Pretty much what I
want to eat with major exceptions. Just like your husband Nina.

Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
>> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We
>> practice portion control --- a lot.
>>
>> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are
>> lucky. Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of
>> carbs in each meal.
>>
>
> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
> grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
> of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
> 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>
Your partner must be making and using insulin pretty well. Sometimes
just starting to exercise more and cutting down on empty calories makes
a person who's been diagnosed a diabetic more insulin responsive. So
many Type II diabetics just want to rely on pills and not change their
lifestyles. I think your partner is great for taking responsibility.


--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Nina wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:55:33 -0700, Serene Vannoy
> > wrote:
>
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>>> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
>>> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
>>> portion control --- a lot.
>>>
>>> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
>>> Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
>>> each meal.
>>>
>> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
>> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
>> grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
>> of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
>> 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>
> Well, relative to average American carb consumption, which is in about
> the 250-300 gram range, supposedly, that IS limiting carbs.

Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.

Serene

--
"I think I have an umami receptor that has developed sentience." -- Stef

Janet Wilder wrote:
> Serene Vannoy wrote:

>> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
>> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs"
>> (whole grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and
>> 10-20 grams of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily
>> exercise. (Walking 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>>
> Your partner must be making and using insulin pretty well. Sometimes
> just starting to exercise more and cutting down on empty calories makes
> a person who's been diagnosed a diabetic more insulin responsive. So
> many Type II diabetics just want to rely on pills and not change their
> lifestyles. I think your partner is great for taking responsibility.

Yeah, he's totally an inspiration.

Serene
--
"I think I have an umami receptor that has developed sentience." -- Stef

"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>
>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>
>>
>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking it is
> somehow better than sugar.
>
> --
> Jean B.

I think the biggest reason would be to differentiate between the cane syrup
and table sugar, which goes through a more extensive refining than the
dessicated cane syrup does.

kimberly

In article >, "Nexis" > wrote:
>
>"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>
>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking it is
>> somehow better than sugar.
>
>I think the biggest reason would be to differentiate between the cane syrup
>and table sugar, which goes through a more extensive refining than the
>dessicated cane syrup does.

Good point Kim. Takes me back to my childhood running around in the
local mill during the crushing. There was a small tap that the
chemists used to sample the syrup that came from the evaporators
before it went up to the crystalisers, and that syrup was finger
lickin' good! We never passed by without doing a spot of
sampling ourselves! :-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Nexis wrote:
> "Jean B." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>
>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>> To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into thinking it is
>> somehow better than sugar.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
> I think the biggest reason would be to differentiate between the cane syrup
> and table sugar, which goes through a more extensive refining than the
> dessicated cane syrup does.
>
> kimberly
>
>
Point taken!

--
Jean B.

Serene Vannoy wrote:


> Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
> and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
> American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.

I don't doubt that there are many Americans who eat 3,000 or more
calories in a day.

The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
and obesity are rampant in the United States?

It's a published fact that the chemical that prohibits the proper
performance of insulin is stored in adipose tissue. Overweight people
are naturally more prone to type II diabetes. Many people "get better"
after they lose 40 or 50 pounds.


--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

"Janet Wilder" > wrote in message
...
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>
>
>> Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
>> and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
>> American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.
>
> I don't doubt that there are many Americans who eat 3,000 or more calories
> in a day.
>
> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
>
> It's a published fact that the chemical that prohibits the proper
> performance of insulin is stored in adipose tissue. Overweight people are
> naturally more prone to type II diabetes. Many people "get better" after
> they lose 40 or 50 pounds.
>
>
> --
> Janet Wilder
> Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
> Good Friends. Good Life

Coming back to the HFCS, I just received an article
that might be of interest to those living in the Seattle area.
Here is the link: http://www.NaturalNews.com/023536.html

Hope more chain grocery stores will follow in their footsteps.
Elly

Janet Wilder wrote:
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>
>
>> Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
>> and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
>> American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.
>
> I don't doubt that there are many Americans who eat 3,000 or more
> calories in a day.

But per meal? On a regular basis?

>
> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
> and obesity are rampant in the United States?

I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
it ****es me off.

ObFood: About to make tuna-salad sandwiches for lunch; planning on
tortilla (the Spanish version, not the bread product) and a big salad
for dinner. It's the teenager's favorite food.

Serene
--
"I think I have an umami receptor that has developed sentience." -- Stef

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:16:33 -0700, Serene Vannoy
> wrote:

>Janet Wilder wrote:
>> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
>>> and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
>>> American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.
>>
>> I don't doubt that there are many Americans who eat 3,000 or more
>> calories in a day.
>
>But per meal? On a regular basis?
>
>>
>> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
>> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
>> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
>
>I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
>it ****es me off.

Why is it off topic? And why does it **** you off?

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:

>>> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
>>> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
>>> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
>> I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
>> it ****es me off.
>
> Why is it off topic? And why does it **** you off?
>
> Lou
>
I find the diabetes growth rate as well as obesity issues to be very on
topic to a food group.
I'm lucky in that no one in my family (immediate or extended, to include
elderly) has ever been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Good genes, I
know, but also just the way we eat perhaps? We all know certain
populations particularly in the US are affected greater than others.
I'm curious about the type 2 diabetes rates in other countries with the
greatly different diets than our Western (or American) diet.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:40:35 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>>>> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
>>>> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
>>>> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
>>> I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
>>> it ****es me off.
>>
>> Why is it off topic? And why does it **** you off?
>>
>> Lou
>>
>I find the diabetes growth rate as well as obesity issues to be very on
>topic to a food group.

As do I. That's why I asked.

>I'm lucky in that no one in my family (immediate or extended, to include
> elderly) has ever been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Good genes, I
>know, but also just the way we eat perhaps? We all know certain
>populations particularly in the US are affected greater than others.
>I'm curious about the type 2 diabetes rates in other countries with the
>greatly different diets than our Western (or American) diet.

I agree with you on all counts. I also think you know why I asked my
question. <wink-wink>

Lou

Goomba >

> I'm lucky in that no one in my family (immediate or extended,
> to include elderly) has ever been diagnosed with type 2
> diabetes. Good genes, I know, but also just the way we eat
> perhaps? We all know certain populations particularly in the US
> are affected greater than others. I'm curious about the type
> 2 diabetes rates in other countries with the greatly different
> diets than our Western (or American) diet.

It's very hard to pin something like a diabetes epidemic
on a set of causes since there are so many things that cause
diabetes.

My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a
large volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are
behind it.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a
> large volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are
> behind it.


Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?


--Lia

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a large
>> volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are behind it.
>
>
> Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
>
>
> --Lia
>
Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
healing progress.

Julia Altshuler > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a
>> large volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are
>> behind it.

>Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?

Prednisone, or any other steroids.

Steve

Goomba wrote:
>
> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
> healing progress.


Thanks for the info.
Other than poison ivy, what are steroids used to treat?


--Lia

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:33:14 -0400, Julia Altshuler
> wrote:


>Thanks for the info.
>Other than poison ivy, what are steroids used to treat?
>
>
>--Lia

Asthma. I had to do a steroid "burst" earlier this year, as my
asthma flared up really bad. It was a short term course of steroids.

Christine

Julia Altshuler wrote:
> Goomba wrote:
>>
>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin
>> anyway as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection
>> and help healing progress.
>
>
> Thanks for the info.
> Other than poison ivy, what are steroids used to treat?

bronchial and other breathing problems, joint pains, severe allergic
reactions...

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder > wrote:

>Julia Altshuler wrote:

>> Goomba wrote:

>>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin
>>> anyway as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection
>>> and help healing progress.

>> Thanks for the info.
>> Other than poison ivy, what are steroids used to treat?

>bronchial and other breathing problems, joint pains, severe allergic
>reactions...

Gout.

The induced diabetes may or may not be temporary. It may
be a small risk, but given the huge volume of steroid prescriptions
(and non-prescriptions) it is not beyond the realm of belief
that they are adding to diabetes incidence.

Steve

On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:49:20a, Goomba told us...

> Julia Altshuler wrote:
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>>
>>> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a large
>>> volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are behind it.
>>
>>
>> Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
>>
>>
>> --Lia
>>
> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
> healing progress.
>

Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
Women! Can't live with 'em and no
resale value.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

>On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:49:20a, Goomba told us...

>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
>> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
>> healing progress.

>Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?

As I understand it, gestational and steroid-induced diabetes
are very similar processes and both are more likely than not
to be temporary. But they are both considered actual diabetes.

Steve

On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:54:48a, Steve Pope told us...

> Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>
>>Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a
>>> large volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are
>>> behind it.
>
>>Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
>
> Prednisone, or any other steroids.
>
> Steve
>

One of my first cats was put on prednisone and vintamin B12 injections when
she developed liver failure. The disease was terminal, but the prednisone
both helped reduce inflamation and increased her appetite. She lived
another 3 years beyond the length of time the vet predicted. In some cases
the weight gain caused by steroids can be beneficial.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
This tagline is umop apisdn
-------------------------------------------

On Tue 01 Jul 2008 01:25:33p, Steve Pope told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:49:20a, Goomba told us...
>
>>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
>>> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
>>> healing progress.
>
>>Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>
> As I understand it, gestational and steroid-induced diabetes
> are very similar processes and both are more likely than not
> to be temporary. But they are both considered actual diabetes.
>
> Steve

Thanks, Steve.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
MURPHY'S LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS -
Things get worse under pressure.
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

>One of my first cats was put on prednisone and vintamin B12 injections when
>she developed liver failure. The disease was terminal, but the prednisone
>both helped reduce inflamation and increased her appetite. She lived
>another 3 years beyond the length of time the vet predicted. In some cases
>the weight gain caused by steroids can be beneficial.

Yes, one of our first cats did pretty well for his last year
after kidney failure, and prednisone was one of the treatments.
(Anabolic steroids were also used.)

It falls into the category of a wonder drug with many
serious side effects...

S.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>
> Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>


Is that an announcement, Wayne? If so, congratulations!

;-)
gloria p
in a silly mood

On Tue 01 Jul 2008 02:40:32p, Gloria P told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>>
>> Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>>
>
>
> Is that an announcement, Wayne? If so, congratulations!
>
> ;-)
> gloria p
> in a silly mood
>

Good Gawd No! (just curious) :-)))

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
SENILE.COM found: out of memory...
-------------------------------------------

Goomba wrote:
>
> Julia Altshuler wrote:
> > Steve Pope wrote:
> >>
> >> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a large
> >> volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are behind it.
> >
> >
> > Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
> >
> >
> > --Lia
> >
> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
> healing progress.

Aha...that makes sense. While I was in hospital in 2007, I was being
given insulin (in tiny doses). Never having had high blood sugar in my
life (and still don't), assumed it was because of all the
glucose-containg drips administered. But there may have been other
medicines administered that raised the blood glucose too. There was
never a suggestion that diabetes was in the picture.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:49:20a, Goomba told us...
>
> > Julia Altshuler wrote:
> >> Steve Pope wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a large
> >>> volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are behind it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
> >>
> >>
> >> --Lia
> >>
> > Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
> > temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
> > se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
> > as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
> > healing progress.
> >
>
> Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>


In the women I knew who had it, it was temporary. However it occurred
during *each* pregnancy, so after the first one the medical team was
forewarned.