Comment by crpatino
9 years ago
> Why's that any different from eating say table sugar + celery?
In principle it's not, except perhaps for a glass of water. Most sweet fruits tend to have much more moisture than celery.
An unstated assumption that may come with your question is that just like eating fruit is equivalent to eating sugar + celery, it would also be the same to eat sugar, then celery. This is not the case. The fiber and water in the fruit make for phisical barriers that slow down digestive enzimes from reaching the sugar molecules in it. This makes for a steadier release of energy over a longer period of time; the exact opposite of the well known 'sugar rush' phenomenon. [1]
Then there is the issue that most people, left to their own devices, will eat too much of sugar and too little of the other two.
[1] I don't have the appropriate literature at hand, but this was explained to me by a really close person who's been a Diabetes-I survivor for 21 years and counting. His report is that foodstuffs with identical glycemic indexes do cause different, noticeable physiologic responses based on the amount of fiber in them.
I've had type 1 diabetes since I was 12, I'm 21 now. Food with identical glycemic indexes do cause different responses. Bread and food with fibers keep the blood sugar levels sustained.
When I have to skip a meal, I've learned that it's best to eat oatmeal crackers. They keep you full and you don't experience hypoglysemia. When I eat candy-bars/chocolate as a substitute for a meal, my blood sugar drops immensely after a couple of hours. I feel exhausted, my hands start to tremble and I forget words/things.
On the other hand, fruits also have the same effect on me as candy-bars. Fructose is no different for me.
For diabetics at least, sugar is poison. But I can't seem to live without it.
Sorry about your condition. Please do take care of yourself.
I am not going to pontificate about morals, but perhaps you should address sugar as if it was a drug (legal or otherwise). It is very easy to advocate for a "just say no" position, specially for the people that do not face themselves with the problem on a day to day basis. But once you have found that this is not an option for you, it'd be a good idea to manage your habit in such a way that it minimizes associated risks. i.e. Alcohol != Driving-under-influence.
So, definitively not skipping meals. And limit your dessert indulgences to occasions where you will expect to remain in a safe environment for a reasonable time.
Best regards
I understand () about dietary fibre and glycemic indices.
Celery has more water than pretty much all fruits (www.herefordshireccg.nhs.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n7467.pdf)
Celery also has more fibre than honeydew melon - 1.6% vs 0.8% (the source this time was just googling "fibre celery" and "fibre honeydew melon", the data is on the results page and credited USDA).
I guess the sugars in melon are inside cells and therefore a little harder to get out and into my blood stream. However, I'm pretty sure chewing frees enough to make almost no difference by the time I swallow it (I can't find any data on that).
So, it seems that table sugar + celery is better for me than melon.
I'm sure I have a lot more to learn though.
>Then there is the issue that most people, left to their own devices, will eat too much of sugar and too little of the other two.
Yep. I'm pretty sure the reason low carb diets work is because they eliminate most of the processed junk that people like to binge on. It doesn't really have anything to do with carbs.
It is more nuanced than that, but you've got the right idea.
Some years ago I tried the Zone Diet(TM), and was able to loose in the ballpark of 20 lbs. For the first month, all carb-rich food was strictly banned, and that did have physiological effects. Later, once the process had been kickstarted, non-junky carbs were gradually reintroduced with little effect on my pace of weight loss.
So... I tend to agree with you. People evolved to eat carbs, but not necessarily highly concentrated, processed carbs.