Breakfast Carbohydrates - TOP 3 in terms of taste

In article ,
"Cheri" wrote:

"Alice Faber" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Cheri" wrote:

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" wrote in message
. ..
Susan wrote:
NO, it isn't. No starches are okay for diabetics, certainly not rice.

Where's your medical degree to bolster such pronouncements? While
refined
starches and sugars are obviously discouraged, some diabetics can eat
moderate
amounts of high fiber, low glycemic fruits and grains. Where do you get
these
absolutist, ignorant ideas?

Orlando

What kind of meds are these *some diabetics can eat moderate amounts of
high
fiber, low glycemic fruits and grains* on?
I've never known one who could, without meds, at least not for very long,
without running into problems with their numbers. YMMV

I can! Of course, for me, a "moderate amount" is about a tablespoon of
cooked rice, or 1/4 cup of berries, or 1/4 cup of dried barley for 5-6
servings of soup.

That is not a moderate amount. :-)


It's all in the definitions. A moderate amount, by definition (by *my*
definition, anyway), is the amount that I can safely consume. For many
carb-dense foods, that amount is so small that I mostly don't bother.

--
"[xxx] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly.
This, apparently, upsets the fools."
---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest

Cheri wrote:
Do you consider a TBS a moderate amount? Also, your analogy with medications
is just bizarre.

I consider a tablespoon to be a large taste. If a diabetic can feel satisfied
after eating so little rice, then it obviously works for them physiologically
and psychologically.

Orlando

In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

Cheri wrote:
Do you consider a TBS a moderate amount? Also, your analogy with medications
is just bizarre.

I consider a tablespoon to be a large taste. If a diabetic can feel satisfied
after eating so little rice, then it obviously works for them physiologically
and psychologically.


It's not at all satisfying. However, what any larger portion would do to
my blood sugar is far *less* satisfying.

--
"[xxx] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly.
This, apparently, upsets the fools."
---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest

"Scott Hendryx" wrote

3. French Toast
2. Waffles
1. Pancakes (blueberry)


Reverse and OK.

Two words: Adult Onset Diabetes.

--Tedward

Made with soy and rice flour instead of the evil wheat flour. And some
sugar
free surup, like Cain's, and it's ok for diabetics.

Here we are trying to get people killed and you go all
helpful and stuff.

--Tedward

The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
"Scott Hendryx" wrote

3. French Toast
2. Waffles
1. Pancakes (blueberry)


Reverse and OK.

Two words: Adult Onset Diabetes.

--Tedward

Made with soy and rice flour instead of the evil wheat flour. And
some sugar
free surup, like Cain's, and it's ok for diabetics.

Here we are trying to get people killed and you go all
helpful and stuff.

--Tedward

Then when their BS gets close to normal, I'll shoot the *******s with my air
rifle....

(Hows That?)


--
----------MoParMan----------
--SCUD Coordinates 32.61204 North, 96.92989 West—
------Remove Clothes to Reply------

http://www.vroc.org/view_profile.php?user_id=32113

TEDWARD Said:

Eggs are really good for you. They have the nutrition needed to make a
chicken!

On Sep 3, 5:20*pm, "The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy"
wrote:
"James Schrumpf" wrote

3. *French Toast
2. *Waffles
1. *Pancakes (blueberry)

Reverse and OK.

Two words: *Adult Onset Diabetes.



Two other words: Moderation

"Jim Brown" wrote

3. French Toast
2. Waffles
1. Pancakes (blueberry)

Reverse and OK.

Two words: Adult Onset Diabetes.

Two other words: Moderation

Coat it in syrup, why don't you.

--Tedward

"MoParMaN" wrote

3. French Toast
2. Waffles
1. Pancakes (blueberry)


Reverse and OK.

Two words: Adult Onset Diabetes.

--Tedward

Made with soy and rice flour instead of the evil wheat flour. And
some sugar
free surup, like Cain's, and it's ok for diabetics.

Here we are trying to get people killed and you go all
helpful and stuff.

--Tedward

Then when their BS gets close to normal, I'll shoot the *******s with my
air rifle....

(Hows That?)

So long as you give them a sporting head start,
go for it.

--Tedward

In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

Susan wrote:
NO, it isn't. No starches are okay for diabetics, certainly not rice.

Where's your medical degree to bolster such pronouncements? While refined
starches and sugars are obviously discouraged, some diabetics can eat
moderate
amounts of high fiber, low glycemic fruits and grains. Where do you get these
absolutist, ignorant ideas?

Orlando

You can also eat, Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Iron, and Aluminum.
So, what's your point? Where do you get these absolutist, ignorant ideas?
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

Susan wrote:
Because they're not good for diabetics. If they were, we'd be able to
eat normal servings.
Diabetics are a minority, therefore a normal (think bell curve)
breakfast would have no limitations on carbs, be they sugar or white
flour.

Nonsense! Some foods are only good in moderate to small servings.
Good nutritionally, or good aesthetically, or good for the budget, or
good to look at?
That's like
saying a medication is only good if you can take it in what you consider to
be
a normal dose. Normal dosages vary widely between medications, as you well
know.
Your analogies are tiring
Dosages of starch and sugar among T1's don't vary much before problems
begin.
So, a normal serving of rice for a diabetic has to be much lower than
the
same "normal" serving for a non-diabetic. The problem here is in your rigid
definition of normalcy.

Orlando

Do you ever say anything?

If you don't like the characterization of the portions, produce one
yourself, but that of course would make your characterization subject to
analysis, criticism, insight, and facts. Since you don't have an
argument, you build a straw-man. A straw-man where everything is
individual, instead of group.

Health requires us to have the same resources for calories, vitamins and
minerals, and water. These don't vary, too little vitamin C, and you get
sick, too much vitamin A, and you can get sick. There are ranges for the
species, not just diabetics. You can get away with a little lead and
arsenic, a little more and your sick, and a little more and you're dead.
That's normal. Below, 12% oxygen, you pass out (and perhaps die), that's
normal. You probably wouldn't survive on a pint of water a day, that's
normal.

You reduce average to an individual, and say large , moderate, small
serving depend on the individual, but that makes "normal" (average)
impossible for groups.

Carbohydrates don't taste bad to diabetics, but for a diabetic to kick
it with a hamburger, bottle of beer, and a large side of fries (which
any normal person would want to do) would be an insult to their organism
because we aren't normal, and we can't eat normally.

When you speak of normal, it is within a pathological condition, which
is by definition, not normal.

A normal serving is what you would be served at a restaurant.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm