Beware New DaVinci Chocolate Sauce

"Daisy" wrote in message
.uk...
Ive just started the Atkins and read on their webpage that "
certain sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, do not affect blood sugar and
are
acceptable." I gather from what you are all saying in this thread that
this
is not true?

It's only true if you get the runs from them : ) I don't touch them with a
barge-pole, because they do horrid things to my blood sugar.


Also, im in the UK, so what is a cup equivalent to here?

So are Jane and I : ) A cup is a specific American measurement of volume.
The easiest thing is to buy one - Lakeland Plastics do a couple of sets -
but if it's any help, mine has "25cl" engraved on it!

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/6 Weight 95/78/72Kg
1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004

Thanks!!

"Nicky" wrote in message
...

"Daisy" wrote in message
.uk...
Ive just started the Atkins and read on their webpage that "
certain sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, do not affect blood sugar and
are
acceptable." I gather from what you are all saying in this thread that
this
is not true?

It's only true if you get the runs from them : ) I don't touch them with
a
barge-pole, because they do horrid things to my blood sugar.


Also, im in the UK, so what is a cup equivalent to here?

So are Jane and I : ) A cup is a specific American measurement of volume.
The easiest thing is to buy one - Lakeland Plastics do a couple of sets -
but if it's any help, mine has "25cl" engraved on it!

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/6 Weight 95/78/72Kg
1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004

In article , Nicky
writes

"Daisy" wrote in message
o.uk...
Ive just started the Atkins and read on their webpage that "
certain sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, do not affect blood sugar and
are
acceptable." I gather from what you are all saying in this thread that
this
is not true?

It's often debated, and it varies from one person to another.

Personally, I get the runs, and also astounding wind - apologies for ick
factor! - which is reason enough to steer clear, but I also find they
act on me like carbs, making me get what feels like a sugar spike and
decline.
--
Jane Lumley

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Nicky wrote:


"Daisy" wrote in message
.uk...
Ive just started the Atkins and read on their webpage that "
certain sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, do not affect blood sugar and
are
acceptable." I gather from what you are all saying in this thread that
this
is not true?

It's only true if you get the runs from them : ) I don't touch them with a
barge-pole, because they do horrid things to my blood sugar.

Other than newsgroup speculation, does anyone know whether there's a
documented correlation finding that only people who get the runs from
sugar alcohols can discount the sugar alcohol carbs?

I know it's frequently posited, and it makes sense, but then the idea that
fat makes you fat made sense, too.

Martha


--
Sig pending

Martha Gallagher wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Nicky wrote:


"Daisy" wrote in message
.uk...
Ive just started the Atkins and read on their webpage that "
certain sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, do not affect blood
sugar and are
acceptable." I gather from what you are all saying in this thread
that this
is not true?

It's only true if you get the runs from them : ) I don't touch them
with a barge-pole, because they do horrid things to my blood sugar.

Other than newsgroup speculation, does anyone know whether there's a
documented correlation finding that only people who get the runs from
sugar alcohols can discount the sugar alcohol carbs?

EVen if you could discount the carbs, you can't discount the calories. SAs
give me the runs if I eat enough, but I don't absorb extra water weight
because of them like I do from regular carbs. But foods with SAs can have
plenty of calories.

Also, remember that carbs won't keep a lot of folks from weight loss, though
their may masks it by causing you to hold water weight.


I know it's frequently posited, and it makes sense, but then the idea
that fat makes you fat made sense, too.

Martha

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Roger Zoul wrote:

Martha Gallagher wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Nicky wrote:


"Daisy" wrote in message
.uk...
Ive just started the Atkins and read on their webpage that "
certain sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, do not affect blood
sugar and are
acceptable." I gather from what you are all saying in this thread
that this
is not true?

It's only true if you get the runs from them : ) I don't touch them
with a barge-pole, because they do horrid things to my blood sugar.

Other than newsgroup speculation, does anyone know whether there's a
documented correlation finding that only people who get the runs from
sugar alcohols can discount the sugar alcohol carbs?

EVen if you could discount the carbs, you can't discount the calories. SAs
give me the runs if I eat enough, but I don't absorb extra water weight
because of them like I do from regular carbs. But foods with SAs can have
plenty of calories.


I'm aware of that. In fact, I've noticed that the calories for a small
pure delite candy bar are pretty close to what I'd expect from a
comparable sized full sugar chocolate. Which is why I stopped eating them.
However, a non-trivial difference is that I find it reasonably easy to
stop after one sugar alcoholed chocolate, but not so much after a real
chocolate bar. Although, of course, that may either be a reflection that
the pure delite aren't *that* good, or some psychological factors.


Also, remember that carbs won't keep a lot of folks from weight loss, though
their may masks it by causing you to hold water weight.

That seems to be the case for me. Low carbing makes it easy for me to
maintain portion control, but I can work some fairly carby foods into my
plan as long as I account for the calories.


I know it's frequently posited, and it makes sense, but then the idea
that fat makes you fat made sense, too.


So, I'm taking it that no one has seen a study linking absence of gastric
side-effects with likelihood of BS spikes subsequent to SA ingestion?

Martha


--
Sig pending

Martha Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Roger Zoul wrote:

Martha Gallagher wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Nicky wrote:


"Daisy" wrote in message
.uk...
Ive just started the Atkins and read on their webpage that "
certain sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, do not affect blood
sugar and are
acceptable." I gather from what you are all saying in this
thread that this
is not true?

It's only true if you get the runs from them : ) I don't touch
them with a barge-pole, because they do horrid things to my blood
sugar.

Other than newsgroup speculation, does anyone know whether there's
a documented correlation finding that only people who get the runs
from sugar alcohols can discount the sugar alcohol carbs?

EVen if you could discount the carbs, you can't discount the
calories. SAs give me the runs if I eat enough, but I don't absorb
extra water weight because of them like I do from regular carbs. But
foods with SAs can have plenty of calories.


I'm aware of that. In fact, I've noticed that the calories for a small
pure delite candy bar are pretty close to what I'd expect from a
comparable sized full sugar chocolate. Which is why I stopped eating
them. However, a non-trivial difference is that I find it reasonably
easy to
stop after one sugar alcoholed chocolate, but not so much after a real
chocolate bar. Although, of course, that may either be a reflection
that
the pure delite aren't *that* good, or some psychological factors.


Also, remember that carbs won't keep a lot of folks from weight
loss, though their may masks it by causing you to hold water weight.

That seems to be the case for me. Low carbing makes it easy for me to
maintain portion control, but I can work some fairly carby foods into
my
plan as long as I account for the calories.


I know it's frequently posited, and it makes sense, but then the
idea that fat makes you fat made sense, too.


So, I'm taking it that no one has seen a study linking absence of
gastric side-effects with likelihood of BS spikes subsequent to SA
ingestion?

I can't remember seeing one. Even if one existing, I'd advise doing your
own testing if you're a diabetic.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Roger Zoul wrote:


I can't remember seeing one. Even if one existing, I'd advise doing your
own testing if you're a diabetic.


I'm not, in fact I don't have many of the indicators for insulin
resistance (my HDL levels are a thing to behold), I'm just pointing out
something that seems to get accepted as a known fact without much actual
evidence behind it. I also jump up every time someone says that one *has*
to drink prodigious amounts of water to be healthy or that *everyone*
needs to limit salt consumption in order to keep BP down.

Martha


--
Sig pending

Martha Gallagher wrote:
So, I'm taking it that no one has seen a study linking absence of
gastric side-effects with likelihood of BS spikes subsequent to SA
ingestion?

Huh - I'd love to see the invite : )

Why don't you pop over to alt.support.diabetes and ask how people react? I
don't get gastric hassles but I do get a zooming BG reading on the sugar
alcohols I've tried.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/6 Weight 95/77/72Kg
1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nicky wrote:


Martha Gallagher wrote:
So, I'm taking it that no one has seen a study linking absence of
gastric side-effects with likelihood of BS spikes subsequent to SA
ingestion?

Huh - I'd love to see the invite : )

I doubt it'd be worse than the product testing for olestra. g


Why don't you pop over to alt.support.diabetes and ask how people react? I
don't get gastric hassles but I do get a zooming BG reading on the sugar
alcohols I've tried.


It has been documented in one study that malitol eaten together with
chocolate has a significant effect on BG levels. I'm not aware of studies
finding consistent results for the other SAs, but I haven't looked into it
too much. What I'm questioning is the statement that, as a group, people
who do not get gastric distress from sugar alcohols are metabolizing them
as carbs, or the corrollary that people who do get gastric distress are
not metabolizing them. Yes, certainly one can find individuals for whom
it is true, but that doesn't necessarily prove much about correlation.

Yes, I know there was an informal survey on this group which would tend to
support that conclusion (and it might well be valid), but I don't think it
can be considered really a scientifically rigorous study.

Martha


--
Sig pending