Reeses's Peanutbutter cups

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:32:57 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Dawn Taylor wrote:
:: On 23 Sep 2003 23:57:57 -0400, DJ Delorie announced
:: in front of God and everybody:
::
:::
::: (MEKIESS) writes:
:::: So far I've experienced no laxative effects from any of the sugar
:::: free candies- no cramps, nothing.
:::
::: Unfortunately, that usually means your system is digesting them like
::: carbs,
::
:: ... or so the theory developed here in ASDLC goes.
::
:: Frankly, I'm not sure that's true at all. While I can't eat anything
:: with lactitol due to the laxative effect, I do just fine with
:: maltitol. And the occasional low-carb chocolate bar has had no effect
:: of my weight loss or my blood suga whatsoeverr.
::
:: Be careful about passing on theories batted around in Usenet groups
:: as hard nutritional fact.

You'll note that the poster said "usually means" which is a bit softer than
"hard nutritional fact". Further, I see no evidence that there is any "hard
nutritional fact" as far as sugar alcohols go, so the best anyone can say is
YMMV.

And I'll counter that "YMMV" is very different from "usually means."

Finally, I don't see that your personal experience provides any
contraction. Even if one's system does digest SA as normal carbs, that
doesn't mean one won't lose weight or even that one's BG will rise.

That's true. But there's also absolutely no evidence that not
experiencing a laxative effect "usually means your system is digesting
them like carbs."

Dawn

Reb,

I've occasionally eaten regular Reeses Peanut Butter Cups while low carbing
(usually on special days like Christmas and Easter when I relax a bit.) My
weight loss has continued. BUT, that doesn't mean that the regular peanut
butter cups are low carb!

Many people can lose weight at much higher carb levels than they currently
eat at. A person with a non-trashed metabolism can easily lose weight eating
60 or even 100 gms a day. Lots of guys can lose 20 lbs very quickly just by
cutting out nothing but regular soda. So if an overweight person with a
relatively healthy metabolism eats a bogus "low carb" bar or candy that is
actually 30 grams they will still continue to lose weight--but they would
have continued to lose if they'd eaten a regular Milky Way bar because the
are still eating under 100 grams a day. That doesn't make Milky Ways "low
carb" either.



--
Jenny

168.5/137

Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean
How to calculate your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low Carb Treats *
Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? * Curing Ketobreath * Exercise
Starting from Zero * NEW! Do Starch Blockers Work?


"Reb" wrote in message
et...
"Dawn Taylor" wrote in message
...
Frankly, I'm not sure that's true at all. While I can't eat anything
with lactitol due to the laxative effect, I do just fine with
maltitol. And the occasional low-carb chocolate bar has had no effect
of my weight loss or my blood suga whatsoeverr.

Be careful about passing on theories batted around in Usenet groups as
hard nutritional fact.

I'm a bit concerned about that one, myself. While our little poll did
provide anecdotal evidence that people who don't suffer side effects may
be
more likely to stall from sugar alcohols, it was far from scientific
proof,
and at best could only be a rough generalization.

Further confusing, both maltitol and lactitol products in the past (and
present) have caused me digestive problems, but for some inexplicable
reason, the new Hershey's products don't seem to bother me, AND they don't
seem to cause any weight loss issues. I haven't tested my blood sugar
after
eating them, but they don't make me have cravings or get munchy, so I tend
to think they are not causing me to have a glucose or insulin spike.

Reb

*************************************
Does your photo do you justice?
http://ThePhotoFixer.home.comcast.net

Further confusing, both maltitol and lactitol products in the past (and
present) have caused me digestive problems, but for some inexplicable
reason, the new Hershey's products don't seem to bother me

I have been overruled in the past when I suggested that our bodies may be able
to get used to them. I know in my case I stopped having problems with the 'tols
when I acclimatized myself a little at a time. I started with just a bite every
day or so and gradually and slowly increased it. It worked rather like the
desensitization shots my allergist gave me for my allergies.

Debr

"Jenny" wrote in message
...
I've occasionally eaten regular Reeses Peanut Butter Cups while low
carbing
(usually on special days like Christmas and Easter when I relax a bit.)
My
weight loss has continued. BUT, that doesn't mean that the regular peanut
butter cups are low carb!

When I said I didn't think the sugar-free Reese's raise my blood sugar or
insulin, I was primarily basing that on how I feel after I've eaten it.
Regular candy makes me extremely munchy, but the sugar-free stuff (including
the new Hershey's) doesn't really do that to me. I also find it a lot
easier to just eat a piece or two and leave it at that. Might be
psychological; I don't know.

Very oddly, the Russell Stover's peanut butter cups caused gastric
side-effects for me (which the Reese's don't seem to), didn't taste as good,
and yet were noticeably more difficult for me to limit my consumption.

Reb

*************************************
Does your photo do you justice?
http://ThePhotoFixer.home.comcast.net

Dawn,

Actually there is some evidence that digesting the sugar alcohols can mean
you are metabolising them as carbs: the experience of those of us who use
diabetes glucometers to monitor our blood sugar. Quite a few people who do
this have seen blood sugar rises that follow eating significant doses of
sugar alcohols.

I, for one, get no digestive symptoms from most of the sugar alcohols at
all, and do see the blood sugar rise on my meter. That is definitive proof
that in my body they are being metabolised as sugars.

Obviously if someone is getting intense runs the stuff isn't being
metabolised in that way but taking a much faster path out of the body.

-- Jenny

168.5/137

Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean
How to calculate your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low Carb Treats *
Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? * Curing Ketobreath * Exercise
Starting from Zero * NEW! Do Starch Blockers Work?


"Dawn Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:32:57 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Dawn Taylor wrote:
:: On 23 Sep 2003 23:57:57 -0400, DJ Delorie announced
:: in front of God and everybody:
::
:::
::: (MEKIESS) writes:
:::: So far I've experienced no laxative effects from any of the sugar
:::: free candies- no cramps, nothing.
:::
::: Unfortunately, that usually means your system is digesting them like
::: carbs,
::
:: ... or so the theory developed here in ASDLC goes.
::
:: Frankly, I'm not sure that's true at all. While I can't eat anything
:: with lactitol due to the laxative effect, I do just fine with
:: maltitol. And the occasional low-carb chocolate bar has had no effect
:: of my weight loss or my blood suga whatsoeverr.
::
:: Be careful about passing on theories batted around in Usenet groups
:: as hard nutritional fact.

You'll note that the poster said "usually means" which is a bit softer
than
"hard nutritional fact". Further, I see no evidence that there is any
"hard
nutritional fact" as far as sugar alcohols go, so the best anyone can say
is
YMMV.

And I'll counter that "YMMV" is very different from "usually means."

Finally, I don't see that your personal experience provides any
contraction. Even if one's system does digest SA as normal carbs, that
doesn't mean one won't lose weight or even that one's BG will rise.

That's true. But there's also absolutely no evidence that not
experiencing a laxative effect "usually means your system is digesting
them like carbs."

Dawn

In article , "Jenny"
wrote:

Dawn,

Actually there is some evidence that digesting the sugar alcohols can
mean
you are metabolising them as carbs: the experience of those of us who use
diabetes glucometers to monitor our blood sugar. Quite a few people who
do
this have seen blood sugar rises that follow eating significant doses of
sugar alcohols.

I, for one, get no digestive symptoms from most of the sugar alcohols at
all, and do see the blood sugar rise on my meter. That is definitive
proof
that in my body they are being metabolised as sugars.

Obviously if someone is getting intense runs the stuff isn't being
metabolised in that way but taking a much faster path out of the body.

I think that's right. i have a meter, and don't see a rise in blood
glucose at all with sugar alcohols, but boy-oh-boy do I have the
digestive issues with them.

--
Nancy Howells (don't forget to switch it, and replace the to send mail).

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:08:55 -0400, "Jenny"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Dawn,

Actually there is some evidence that digesting the sugar alcohols can mean
you are metabolising them as carbs: the experience of those of us who use
diabetes glucometers to monitor our blood sugar. Quite a few people who do
this have seen blood sugar rises that follow eating significant doses of
sugar alcohols.

I, for one, get no digestive symptoms from most of the sugar alcohols at
all, and do see the blood sugar rise on my meter. That is definitive proof
that in my body they are being metabolised as sugars.

Obviously if someone is getting intense runs the stuff isn't being
metabolised in that way but taking a much faster path out of the body.

I appreciate what you're saying -- I really do. But I still think it's
best to avoid using words like "definitive proof" and "obviously" when
you're going purely on your own anecdotal evidence and assumptions
made outside of a clinical arena.

Dawn

Dawn,

Since 99% of the medical research being funded today is funded by drug and
food companies, you can forget ever seeing anyone fund clinical trials to
disprove the claims of these companies about their products.

Remember how fructose was touted as "better than sugar" for diabetics for
decades? The replacement of sugar by fructose (product of the same companies
that make sugar alcohols since both are byproducts of corn) is a major
reason for the current obesity epidemic since fructose juices the liver's
production of bad fats and weight gain, though you can game a glucometer
with it.
Very recently there's been a quite spate of articles suggesting that
fructose is bad for you but you certainly never see them reported in the
mainstream press and "diabetic" foods are still full of it.

It's a jungle out there for people with metabolic issues: beware!

-- Jenny

168.5/137

Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean
How to calculate your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low Carb Treats *
Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? * Curing Ketobreath * Exercise
Starting from Zero * NEW! Do Starch Blockers Work?


"Dawn Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:08:55 -0400, "Jenny"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Dawn,

Actually there is some evidence that digesting the sugar alcohols can
mean
you are metabolising them as carbs: the experience of those of us who use
diabetes glucometers to monitor our blood sugar. Quite a few people who
do
this have seen blood sugar rises that follow eating significant doses of
sugar alcohols.

I, for one, get no digestive symptoms from most of the sugar alcohols at
all, and do see the blood sugar rise on my meter. That is definitive
proof
that in my body they are being metabolised as sugars.

Obviously if someone is getting intense runs the stuff isn't being
metabolised in that way but taking a much faster path out of the body.

I appreciate what you're saying -- I really do. But I still think it's
best to avoid using words like "definitive proof" and "obviously" when
you're going purely on your own anecdotal evidence and assumptions
made outside of a clinical arena.

Dawn

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:50:28 -0400, "Jenny"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Dawn,

Since 99% of the medical research being funded today is funded by drug and
food companies, you can forget ever seeing anyone fund clinical trials to
disprove the claims of these companies about their products.

Remember how fructose was touted as "better than sugar" for diabetics for
decades? The replacement of sugar by fructose (product of the same companies
that make sugar alcohols since both are byproducts of corn) is a major
reason for the current obesity epidemic since fructose juices the liver's
production of bad fats and weight gain, though you can game a glucometer
with it.
Very recently there's been a quite spate of articles suggesting that
fructose is bad for you but you certainly never see them reported in the
mainstream press and "diabetic" foods are still full of it.

It's a jungle out there for people with metabolic issues: beware!

-- Jenny

Jenny,

That's all well and good. But it has nothing to do with what I was
talking about.

Dawn

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Dawn Taylor wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:50:28 -0400, "Jenny"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Dawn,

Since 99% of the medical research being funded today is funded by drug and
food companies, you can forget ever seeing anyone fund clinical trials to
disprove the claims of these companies about their products.

Remember how fructose was touted as "better than sugar" for diabetics for
decades? The replacement of sugar by fructose (product of the same companies
that make sugar alcohols since both are byproducts of corn) is a major
reason for the current obesity epidemic since fructose juices the liver's
production of bad fats and weight gain, though you can game a glucometer
with it.
Very recently there's been a quite spate of articles suggesting that
fructose is bad for you but you certainly never see them reported in the
mainstream press and "diabetic" foods are still full of it.


So how did the study which found that Hormone Replacement Therapy did more
harm than good get funded. And how come the premarin people weren't able
to keep the news out the papers?

That's all well and good. But it has nothing to do with what I was
talking about.


Ah, I love the smell of thread drift in the afternoon.

Martha



--
Begin where you are - but don't end there.