Jenny/sugar alcohols and the effects on blood sugar.......

Jenny, you are very correct.... any taste of "sweet" can trigger an
insulin reaction. This is not true in "every" with every person's (so
goes YMMV we are all different in how our bodies react) case but it
HAS been documented and reported...this is what the Drs Heller say
about it:


from the Hellers:

All foods that taste sweet cause the body to release insulin. The
human body
evolved at a time when all sweet things were carbohydrate-rich and
needed
insulin to be metabolized. Artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes
"trick" the body, stimulating it to release insulin in preparation for
"sugar" it assumes is in the food. But no sugar from
artificially-sweetened food
appears in the blood, so the insulin that is released, can lower take
the blood sugar that remains in the bloodstream from past meals and
will often channel this energy into the liver and fat cells. After
consuming artificially-sweetened foods, some carbohydrate addicts then
feel the effects of excess insulin or low-blood-sugar levels including
nervousness, irritability, sweating, shakiness, or light-headiness.
These symptoms may be mild but many others often experience cravings
for junk food, snack food, or sweets, or for more artificially
sweetened-foods, and generally the person goes looking for a sweet or
snack or more artificially-sweetened beverages or foods.

Julie Westly, Editor
Low Carb RESOURCE Newsletter
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...CE_Newsletter/





Jenny said:


I find it hilarious that this Carmen who is making like a pit bull
about a
gram or two of carbs in a taco, is the same person who goes into
psycho
attack mode (going over to another health newsgroup she doesn't
usually post
in just to post flames about me) when I suggest that the 20+ grams of
sugar
alcohol in some "low carb" food might very well have an effect on the
blood
sugar of many thousands of people and that these labels might,
therefore, be
lying.

--Jenny

Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998
Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

Julie,

More to the point, it has also been documented that chocolate bars sweetened
with maltitol raise blood sugar in normal people exactly the same amount as
chocolate bars sweetened with sucrose.

http://www.diabetes.ca/Files/SugarAl...cember2002.pdf.
Page 5 discusses this data and the footnote points to the study.

-- Jenny

Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998
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?


"JulieW" wrote in message
om...
Jenny, you are very correct.... any taste of "sweet" can trigger an
insulin reaction. This is not true in "every" with every person's (so
goes YMMV we are all different in how our bodies react) case but it
HAS been documented and reported...this is what the Drs Heller say
about it:


from the Hellers:

All foods that taste sweet cause the body to release insulin. The
human body
evolved at a time when all sweet things were carbohydrate-rich and
needed
insulin to be metabolized. Artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes
"trick" the body, stimulating it to release insulin in preparation for
"sugar" it assumes is in the food. But no sugar from
artificially-sweetened food
appears in the blood, so the insulin that is released, can lower take
the blood sugar that remains in the bloodstream from past meals and
will often channel this energy into the liver and fat cells. After
consuming artificially-sweetened foods, some carbohydrate addicts then
feel the effects of excess insulin or low-blood-sugar levels including
nervousness, irritability, sweating, shakiness, or light-headiness.
These symptoms may be mild but many others often experience cravings
for junk food, snack food, or sweets, or for more artificially
sweetened-foods, and generally the person goes looking for a sweet or
snack or more artificially-sweetened beverages or foods.

Julie Westly, Editor
Low Carb RESOURCE Newsletter
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...CE_Newsletter/





Jenny said:


I find it hilarious that this Carmen who is making like a pit bull
about a
gram or two of carbs in a taco, is the same person who goes into
psycho
attack mode (going over to another health newsgroup she doesn't
usually post
in just to post flames about me) when I suggest that the 20+ grams of
sugar
alcohol in some "low carb" food might very well have an effect on the
blood
sugar of many thousands of people and that these labels might,
therefore, be
lying.

--Jenny

Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998
Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

I agree, even diet sodas can cause insulin rushes, cravings, and stalls.
(here speaks a serious Diet Coke addict in a stall) I have a problem with
artifical sweetened drinks, they never fail to stall me.

--
Serena
Still going strong
"JulieW" wrote in message
om...
Jenny, you are very correct.... any taste of "sweet" can trigger an
insulin reaction. This is not true in "every" with every person's (so
goes YMMV we are all different in how our bodies react) case but it
HAS been documented and reported...this is what the Drs Heller say
about it:


from the Hellers:

All foods that taste sweet cause the body to release insulin. The
human body
evolved at a time when all sweet things were carbohydrate-rich and
needed
insulin to be metabolized. Artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes
"trick" the body, stimulating it to release insulin in preparation for
"sugar" it assumes is in the food. But no sugar from
artificially-sweetened food
appears in the blood, so the insulin that is released, can lower take
the blood sugar that remains in the bloodstream from past meals and
will often channel this energy into the liver and fat cells. After
consuming artificially-sweetened foods, some carbohydrate addicts then
feel the effects of excess insulin or low-blood-sugar levels including
nervousness, irritability, sweating, shakiness, or light-headiness.
These symptoms may be mild but many others often experience cravings
for junk food, snack food, or sweets, or for more artificially
sweetened-foods, and generally the person goes looking for a sweet or
snack or more artificially-sweetened beverages or foods.

Julie Westly, Editor
Low Carb RESOURCE Newsletter
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...CE_Newsletter/





Jenny said:


I find it hilarious that this Carmen who is making like a pit bull
about a
gram or two of carbs in a taco, is the same person who goes into
psycho
attack mode (going over to another health newsgroup she doesn't
usually post
in just to post flames about me) when I suggest that the 20+ grams of
sugar
alcohol in some "low carb" food might very well have an effect on the
blood
sugar of many thousands of people and that these labels might,
therefore, be
lying.

--Jenny

Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998
Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

"Jenny" wrote in message
...
Julie,

More to the point, it has also been documented that chocolate bars
sweetened
with maltitol raise blood sugar in normal people exactly the same
amount as
chocolate bars sweetened with sucrose.


http://www.diabetes.ca/Files/SugarAl...December2002.p
df.
Page 5 discusses this data and the footnote points to the study.

Actually Jenny, the "point" you try to make in this thread with your
swipe at Carmen is a shift from your earlier words, and isn't the same
point you claim above at all. It's nice for you that some people have
been deflected away from examining your statements about sugar alcohol
and noticing the facts, namely, that you have a thing about sugar
alcohol and that you tend to gloss over details, if not outright lie
when the subject comes up, but that doesn't change the fact that you
have, and more than once.

1) Maltitol is the *only* sugar alcohol that exhibits a *significant*
bs effect (noted as modest in the report), and the **most
significant** effect is in combination with chocolate bars, but
researchers are not sure which particular ingredient or combination of
ingredients enhances the effect. For you to leave out this important
information would lead an intelligent person to believe you to be
engaging in dishonesty.

2)There are plenty of other sugar alcohols that do *not* exhibit this
effect, nor this effect *to the degree that you claim it does*,
namely, all of the rest. Pulled, by the way, from the same link you
use to support your crusade against all sugar alcohols. For you to
leave out this important information would lead an intelligent person
to believe you to be engaging in dishonesty.

3)You have misrepresented what the studys says, and then backpeddaled
by claiming to only 'suggest' 'some' people 'might' have trouble with
it, here and in that other group that you claim Carmen doesn't post to
unless to flame you on this subject (fascinating that you believe that
2-3 short posts on the subject out of 90some odd posts on that group
constitutes following you to that group to flame you-- especially as
Carmen has been posting to that group since 2001). That is not
nearly as declarative as your original statements, here and in that
other group, which is what Carmen originally objected to, and
continues to object to, as well as your misrepresentation in this and
another group about what was and was not said here in this group.
Which, again, would lead an intelligent person to believe you are
engaging in dishonesty.

revek




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 10/22/2003

In article ,
"revek" wrote:

"Jenny" wrote in message
...
Julie,

More to the point, it has also been documented that chocolate bars
sweetened
with maltitol raise blood sugar in normal people exactly the same
amount as
chocolate bars sweetened with sucrose.


http://www.diabetes.ca/Files/SugarAl...December2002.p
df.
Page 5 discusses this data and the footnote points to the study.

Actually Jenny, the "point" you try to make in this thread with your
swipe at Carmen is a shift from your earlier words, and isn't the same
point you claim above at all. It's nice for you that some people have
been deflected away from examining your statements about sugar alcohol
and noticing the facts, namely, that you have a thing about sugar
alcohol and that you tend to gloss over details, if not outright lie
when the subject comes up, but that doesn't change the fact that you
have, and more than once.

1) Maltitol is the *only* sugar alcohol that exhibits a *significant*
bs effect (noted as modest in the report), and the **most
significant** effect is in combination with chocolate bars, but
researchers are not sure which particular ingredient or combination of
ingredients enhances the effect. For you to leave out this important
information would lead an intelligent person to believe you to be
engaging in dishonesty.

2)There are plenty of other sugar alcohols that do *not* exhibit this
effect, nor this effect *to the degree that you claim it does*,
namely, all of the rest. Pulled, by the way, from the same link you
use to support your crusade against all sugar alcohols. For you to
leave out this important information would lead an intelligent person
to believe you to be engaging in dishonesty.

3)You have misrepresented what the studys says, and then backpeddaled
by claiming to only 'suggest' 'some' people 'might' have trouble with
it, here and in that other group that you claim Carmen doesn't post to
unless to flame you on this subject (fascinating that you believe that
2-3 short posts on the subject out of 90some odd posts on that group
constitutes following you to that group to flame you-- especially as
Carmen has been posting to that group since 2001). That is not
nearly as declarative as your original statements, here and in that
other group, which is what Carmen originally objected to, and
continues to object to, as well as your misrepresentation in this and
another group about what was and was not said here in this group.
Which, again, would lead an intelligent person to believe you are
engaging in dishonesty.

revek

Not to mention her "expert" web site that provides selectively
documented "information" that she never fails to hawk at every turn.

--
Wayne Crannell
Atkins+ 10/27/01
250/139

Revek,

I love the way you and your buddies turn to personal attacks and name
calling in response to my postings about fact. It's always the tipoff
something else is going on.

Eat all the sugar alcohols you want. Feed it to your friends and family.
Especially the ones with diabetes. I really don't care a whit what you
think.

I do care about the people who visit here who would like to control their
blood sugar and insulin levels who are stalling because they buy into the
"impact carb" label crap. Especially people with diabetes. I'll continue to
post about the dangers of these lying labels and I'll continue to ignore the
childish hostility of you and the other "sugar alcoholics"

-- Jenny

Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998
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?


"revek" wrote in message
...
"Jenny" wrote in message
...
Julie,

More to the point, it has also been documented that chocolate bars
sweetened
with maltitol raise blood sugar in normal people exactly the same
amount as
chocolate bars sweetened with sucrose.


http://www.diabetes.ca/Files/SugarAl...December2002.p
df.
Page 5 discusses this data and the footnote points to the study.

Actually Jenny, the "point" you try to make in this thread with your
swipe at Carmen is a shift from your earlier words, and isn't the same
point you claim above at all. It's nice for you that some people have
been deflected away from examining your statements about sugar alcohol
and noticing the facts, namely, that you have a thing about sugar
alcohol and that you tend to gloss over details, if not outright lie
when the subject comes up, but that doesn't change the fact that you
have, and more than once.

1) Maltitol is the *only* sugar alcohol that exhibits a *significant*
bs effect (noted as modest in the report), and the **most
significant** effect is in combination with chocolate bars, but
researchers are not sure which particular ingredient or combination of
ingredients enhances the effect. For you to leave out this important
information would lead an intelligent person to believe you to be
engaging in dishonesty.

2)There are plenty of other sugar alcohols that do *not* exhibit this
effect, nor this effect *to the degree that you claim it does*,
namely, all of the rest. Pulled, by the way, from the same link you
use to support your crusade against all sugar alcohols. For you to
leave out this important information would lead an intelligent person
to believe you to be engaging in dishonesty.

3)You have misrepresented what the studys says, and then backpeddaled
by claiming to only 'suggest' 'some' people 'might' have trouble with
it, here and in that other group that you claim Carmen doesn't post to
unless to flame you on this subject (fascinating that you believe that
2-3 short posts on the subject out of 90some odd posts on that group
constitutes following you to that group to flame you-- especially as
Carmen has been posting to that group since 2001). That is not
nearly as declarative as your original statements, here and in that
other group, which is what Carmen originally objected to, and
continues to object to, as well as your misrepresentation in this and
another group about what was and was not said here in this group.
Which, again, would lead an intelligent person to believe you are
engaging in dishonesty.

revek




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 10/22/2003

Jenny wrote:
:: Revek,
::
:: I love the way you and your buddies turn to personal attacks and name
:: calling in response to my postings about fact. It's always the tipoff
:: something else is going on.

What else is going on?

::
:: Eat all the sugar alcohols you want. Feed it to your friends and
:: family. Especially the ones with diabetes. I really don't care a
:: whit what you think.
::
:: I do care about the people who visit here who would like to control
:: their blood sugar and insulin levels who are stalling because they
:: buy into the "impact carb" label crap. Especially people with
:: diabetes. I'll continue to post about the dangers of these lying
:: labels and I'll continue to ignore the childish hostility of you and
:: the other "sugar alcoholics"

I think the problem is you simply don't pay attention. No one has said,
that I have seen, that there is no problem with the products for some
people -- the issue lies in *where* the problem is. I doubt any would
bother speaking against you if you'd simply pay attention to details more,
rather than maintaining an "almost blind" crusade.

The problem is in the labels which tell people who are on low carb diets
that they can ignore dozens of carbs that their bodies, which don't pay
attention to the labels, will then happily metabolise.

The labels lie. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Why my insistance on pointing this out makes people turn nasty and resort to
name calling rather than discussion of the issues can be debated. I suspect
it has something to do with their dependence on these junk food products,
but who knows?

-- Jenny

Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998
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?


"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Jenny wrote:
:: Revek,
::
:: I love the way you and your buddies turn to personal attacks and name
:: calling in response to my postings about fact. It's always the tipoff
:: something else is going on.

What else is going on?

::
:: Eat all the sugar alcohols you want. Feed it to your friends and
:: family. Especially the ones with diabetes. I really don't care a
:: whit what you think.
::
:: I do care about the people who visit here who would like to control
:: their blood sugar and insulin levels who are stalling because they
:: buy into the "impact carb" label crap. Especially people with
:: diabetes. I'll continue to post about the dangers of these lying
:: labels and I'll continue to ignore the childish hostility of you and
:: the other "sugar alcoholics"

I think the problem is you simply don't pay attention. No one has said,
that I have seen, that there is no problem with the products for some
people -- the issue lies in *where* the problem is. I doubt any would
bother speaking against you if you'd simply pay attention to details more,
rather than maintaining an "almost blind" crusade.

Jenny wrote:
:: The problem is in the labels which tell people who are on low carb
:: diets that they can ignore dozens of carbs that their bodies, which
:: don't pay attention to the labels, will then happily metabolise.
::
:: The labels lie. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

I think the truth of the labels may indeed be in quesiton for some people.
Blanket statements are a problem, Jenny.

::
:: Why my insistance on pointing this out makes people turn nasty and
:: resort to name calling rather than discussion of the issues can be
:: debated. I suspect it has something to do with their dependence on
:: these junk food products, but who knows?

See....if seems to me at least that you're saying more than this, Jenny. It
seems that you are flat out blaming SAs in all cases, when in fact the
problems could be something slightly different than just SAs. If you would
try to be a little more objective about it, I think people wouldn't bother
you about this -- I don't believe any here think you're not fully interested
in being helpful, Jenny. Also, I don't think these people are dependent upon
these junk foods either, -- they may or may not eat them occasionally -- I
know I do eat them from time to time (not lately, though). However, I am
aware that their impact may not be as claimed on the labels (and I do happen
to think that other ingredients in some of these products have a bearing on
how my body reacts to them -- for example, Pure Delite Dark Chocolate bars
have a stronger effect on how I feel than other SA sweetened products at
typical serving sizes -- and I avoid them now).

The people here are not out to get you, Jenny. Perhaps if you took some of
their comments to heart, your advice to other LCers might even improve.
Believe it or not, no one is perfect.

"Jenny" wrote in message
...
Revek,

I love the way you and your buddies turn to personal attacks and
name
calling in response to my postings about fact. It's always the
tipoff
something else is going on.

Jenny Jenny. It must really hurt to not be able to enjoy life when
every damn thing under the sun gives you an insulin spike-- the
jealousy must eat you alive. That must be the main reason why you
want eveyone else to live like you do. You are an ignorant, arrogant,
know-it-all fool who would gladly lead the world into chaos just so
you can be a guru and soothe that hole in your miserable heart so
nobody here should take anything you say about anything whatsoever
seriously.

Now see, *that* is a personal attack. Please people, if you are going
to accuse others of ad homenin attacks, at least know what they are
and are not. I did not do this, however much you claim I have.

What I have done is point out that the broad brush you paint with
regarding sugar alcohol is too damn broad, and you are leaving out
facts that informs and modifies the facts that you do post, and people
will not look kindly on you when they find out that you knew and
didn't say anything to promote your agenda.

What I also point out is your 'defense' is incorrect-- you know that
post that always pops up sooner or later telling others how you've
been picked on unfairly, like the one in this thread. You do not say
that only some people might have trouble. You claim that people *will
have trouble. Period. Your posts imply that all people everywhere
will react the exact same way you do to sugar alcohol. That is not
helpful to anybody. Nor is it true.




Eat all the sugar alcohols you want. Feed it to your friends and
family.
Especially the ones with diabetes. I really don't care a whit what
you
think.

I don't care if you do either. This response is for those people you
claim you want to help. It's always good to have all the sides of the
issue under hand for review.

I do care about the people who visit here who would like to control
their
blood sugar and insulin levels who are stalling because they buy
into the
"impact carb" label crap. Especially people with diabetes. I'll
continue to
post about the dangers of these lying labels

You keep saying that. I want actuall wordage. I haven't bought or
looked at those bars in over a year, but my recollection is that the
label may have implied that there would be no bs impact from sugar
alcohol, but actually **said** the words "insignificant", but I might
concede it's been too long for me to remember correctly, if you
apologized for the insult below.

and I'll continue to ignore the
childish hostility of you and the other "sugar alcoholics"

Jenny you've been told that insult is extreemly insulting to me in
particular. That you continue to use it shows who the childishly
hostile one in this thread is. It won't however get me off your back
on this. It will make it difficult to reach a middle ground with you
without an apology.

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 10/22/2003