I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods
contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose,
maltose, etc.

However, the diabetic narrative is full of glucose and nothing else.
Never heard of a "blood fructose meter". :-)

So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose?

Thanks.

"RPS" wrote in message
...
I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods
contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose,
maltose, etc.

However, the diabetic narrative is full of glucose and nothing else.
Never heard of a "blood fructose meter". :-)

So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose?

Thanks.

I think you are confused. When we talk of blood glucose, we mean blood
sugar. This has nothing to do with sugar that we eat.

There is no such thing as a fructose meter, but there is a fructosamine
test. This is like the glycoslated hemoglobin AKA A1c but it doesn't track
the cells back as far.

In terms of eating, some would say a carb is a carb is a carb. Meaning that
say...a slice of white bread is no worse for your blood sugar than the
equivalent in spoonfuls of that white powder we call sugar.

Some people find that certain foods affect them badly and they must either
never eat these things or eat them in really small quantities. Potatoes are
one such food. I personally have no problem with them, provided I watch my
portion size.

Sugars in their natural states do not present a problem to the body, other
than perhaps raising BG (blood glucose). But when they are extracted from
foods and used as a concentrated source, they can present a problem. For
instance, high fructose corn syrup. It has been linked to all sorts of bad
things. This is not to be confused with corn syrup, which AFAIK has not
been linked to anything bad.

For the diabetic, fructose can be bad. However, that is in and of itself.
By that, I mean that honey-like stuff you buy in a jar that is labeled
fructose. It can lead to heart problems. Nature intended it to be combined
with other natural sugars like sorbitol. If you eat a piece of fruit, there
will be fructose in it but also sorbitol and other natural sugars. When you
eat them in relatively small amounts like that and combined the way nature
intended them, they do not harm the body. Might spike your BG, but won't
cause other damage like heart problems.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:49:33 GMT, RPS wrote:

I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods
contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose,
maltose, etc.

However, the diabetic narrative is full of glucose and nothing else.
Never heard of a "blood fructose meter". :-)

So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose?

Thanks.

Forget sugars, think carbs.

My meter doesn't differentiate. It shows equally high
readings if I over-indulge - whether it's glucose, sucrose,
fructose or plain old starch.

For example, I get much the same peak post-prandial result
from a snack of one slice of multigrain bread (starch), or
an apple (fructose), or a glass of milk (lactose), or a few
jelly beans (glucose). They are all about 15 gms of
carbohydrate. The only thing that may vary slightly is the
timing of the post-prandial spike.


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

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?

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

Alan S wrote:

: As Julie explained, you are confusing ingested sugar and
: blood glucose...

For whatever reason, it is you and Julie who are confusing
OP's question. Not sure if either of you actually bothered
to read it.

: 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...

I can see starches breaking down into constituent sugars,
but one kind of sugar turning into another seems a stretch.
I am not sure, but are you? Sideways moves are MUCH harder
in Natu it is far easier to extract oxygen from water than
to convert nitrogen into oxygen!

Anyway, let's look it up, if body actually converts fructose
into glucose.

Alan S wrote:

: Forget sugars, think carbs.

What's that supposed to mean? Sugars are part of carbs.

On Aug 10, 9:03 am, AlexZ wrote:

Anyway, let's look it up, if body actually converts fructose
into glucose.

It does unless you have fructose intolerance, which is a genetic
disorder in which you don't make the appropriate enzymes for digesting
fructose.

You want to get a basic biochemistry textbook to get all this stuff
straight.

Monosaccharides are sugars that contain one "unit" of sugar. Glucose
is the one we're concerned about in diabetes because glucose is the
basic sugar that your body uses. However, you're correct that there
are monosaccharides other than glucose. And yes, the body converts
them to glucose. Glucose is sort of the "base" sugar in
biochemistry.

Most of your monosaccharides are 6-ring structures, and yes, the body
converts them to glucose. The case of fructose is a bit different
because it's a 5-ring structure and therefore a bit harder to
convert. It is more likely to be converted to fat than the other
monosaccharides.

Most of the things we think of as sugars are disaccharides. Sucrose,
common table sugar, is a molecule made up of one unit of glucose and
one unit of fructose chemically bonded together. Lactose, the sugar
found in milk, is made up of one molecule of glucose and one molecule
of galactose (galactose is another monosaccharide).

Starch and fibers are polysaccharides (also called "complex
carbohydrates"), which are big molecules containing lots and lots of
chains of monosaccharides (mostly glucose). Starch is broken down in
the body very easily, which is why it causes a rise in bg almost as
fast as dissacharides. Soluble fiber is broken down minimally and
insoluble fiber pretty much hardly at all, hence the notion of "net
carbs" where fiber largely doesn't count.

The reason we "count" glucose is because the body primarily uses
glucose; all the polymers are broken down by the body into the unit
monosaccharides and the monosaccharides other than glucose are
converted to glucose before use.

On Aug 10, 9:03 am, AlexZ wrote:

I can see starches breaking down into constituent sugars,
but one kind of sugar turning into another seems a stretch.
I am not sure, but are you? Sideways moves are MUCH harder
in Natu it is far easier to extract oxygen from water than
to convert nitrogen into oxygen!

This is a *very* different thing. Nitrogen to oxygen would be a
change from one element to another.

The change from one monosaccharide to another is a change in the
rearrangement of atoms in a molecule. The empirical formula for
glucose is C6 H12 O6 - most of the monosaccharides have the same
empirical formula. Just they are put together in a different order.

On Aug 10, 7:06 am, AlexZ wrote:
Alan S wrote:

: Forget sugars, think carbs.

What's that supposed to mean?

It's the centerpiece of the mantra. You know - Diabetes II: the
religion
(not to be confused with the cult of L. Ron!)

And Alan wants to be pope and a saint: patron saint of diabetics, of
course!

Sugars are part of carbs.

Why do you have to be so...so...so...secular :-(

Bob

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:41:52 +0000, 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?

A type 2 diabetic is insulin resistant. The means the body has trouble
metabolising 'sugar' in the blood. The culprit is sugar in the blood.
Sugar in the blood comes from any carbohydrate.

You should avoid glucose, other sugars, in fact - other carbs. Eating a
load of wheat flour will raise you blood glucose level as surely as eating
a load of glucose.

In article , RPS Nobody 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?

Diabetes is the difficulty or inability to handle blood
glucose. There are two aspects to carbohydrates; what
quick effect do they have, and what total effect do they
have. What the carbohydrates are, and how they are
combined in food with other things, affects the first,
but not the second, with few exceptions.

There are simple sugars, double sugars, and compound
carbohydrates, which are primarily starches. How fast
they are handled depends on how accessible they are to
digestive enzymes; glucose needs none. Finely divided
starch, as in cooked potatoes "plain", is almost entirely
converted to glucose before it reaches the stomach. Fats,
proteins, and mechanical problems (whole grains) can slow
the accessibility. This is what the glycemic index measures.

Glucose is quickly absorbed. Sucrose (table sugar) quickly
breaks down to glucose and fructose; maltose is just two
glucose molecules stuck together with a molecule of water
removed, so it has an even higher glycemic index than
glucose. Fructose has to go through a process before it
affect blood glucose.

Lactose (milk sugar) has to go through a digestive process
which separates it into glucose and galactose. Many adults,
a majority of the world's population of adults, do not have
much of the enzyme, and consequently it goes into the large
intestine undigested. I do not know how quickly galactose
is handled.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

RPS wrote:
I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods
contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose,
maltose, etc.

However, the diabetic narrative is full of glucose and nothing else.
Never heard of a "blood fructose meter". :-)

So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose?

Neither. VAT (visceral adipose tissue) is bad because it causes the
insulin resistance that disrupts euglycemia.

Glucose is good because it is the exclusive fuel of the brain.

It is the dysregulation that occurs because of the VAT (from
overeating) that is bad:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Healing

Thanks.

Thanks be to GOD.

Be hungry... be healthy... be blessed:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/press.asp

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist

"AlexZ" wrote in message
...
Alan S wrote:

: Forget sugars, think carbs.

What's that supposed to mean? Sugars are part of carbs.

Yes they are. But people tend to think if they eat sugar their blood sugar
will go up. If they don't eat sugar, it won't. But it is the carbs that
raise blood sugar. So it is the carbs we have to watch, no matter the
source.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:49:33 GMT, RPS wrote:

I am not the greatest chemist out there, but I do remember that foods
contain several kind of "sugars", among them glucose, fructose,
maltose, etc.

However, the diabetic narrative is full of glucose and nothing else.
Never heard of a "blood fructose meter". :-)

So I am wondering: Are all sugars bad for T2's, or is it just glucose?

Thanks.
Ultimately, various enzyme systems in the body convert almost all
carbohydrates (including all kinds of sugars) to glucose. So
ultimately 10 grams of carbohydrates is going to be essentially 10
grams of glucose.