On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:41:52 GMT, RPS wrote:

Let me try to clarify my question. I am using the term sugar in
chemical sense: a family of compounds of which glucose is a member but
so are fructose, maltose etc.

Now, calories are calories. If we consume more than we spend, we'd gain
wait. They could come from sugars to be sure, but the phenomenon is not
"sugar" specific, it would be the saame with proteins or fats.

The second issue is extra "sugar" in the blood, whose presence above
certain levels causes organ damage and other complications. AKA
diabetes.

AFAIK, only glucose appears to be mentioned in this context. Although
lay people use the term "sugar" informally, it has always been
emphasized to me in every professional setting that we are talking
about and testing for glucose, not any other kind of sugar. We don't
seem to test for or worry about other sugars.

So, my question, why skip other sugars? Would an excess of fructose or
maltose in the body not cause organ damage like glucose does?

As Julie explained, you are confusing ingested sugar and
blood glucose. And weight and calories are tangential to
this; they have nothing to do with the effect on blood
glucose in this sense.

Sugar, in any form, whether lactose, sucrose, fructose,
glucose or some other -ose, is one of many foods which will
cause a rise in your blood glucose levels after your eat
(ingest) them. Other foods, particularly carbohydrates will
also raise your blood glucose levels.

If you eat sucrose or fructose or starch, your blood glucose
rises, you don't get sucrose or fructose or starch in your
blood.

You test for blood glucose - but the cause of that glucose
in your blood can be any of a wide range of carbohydrates or
even, to a lesser degree, proteins.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
latest: Self-Testing and Type 2 Management