Question from a dummy for the gurus out there

First, I apologize if this question has been asked ad nauseum in the
past. I have spent *many* hours perusing
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=AL...oe=UTF-8&hl=en
and will undoubtedly spend many more, since there is so much good info
to be found there, especially for us new low-carbers, but to be
honest, I haven't searched on this particular question of mine. :-/

That being said, here is my question:

If a food item has 'minimal impact on blood sugar,' (e.g., the new
Atkins Pizza, which advises to count only the net effective carbs)
does this necessarily mean it is (generically) more optimal for
weight-loss purposes?

I see this phrase a lot in connection with foods that diabletics, most
of whom are also trying to lose weight, have tried so I'm not certain
whether it's simply a bg control issue or also has a generic role in
weight loss.

I'm curious since, AFAIK, I am not diabetic so I don't test my bg and
have no idea how to tell whether any food effects my bg levels.

However, I am concerned about diabetes also, since my mother and 3 of
my 8 brothers are diabetic. (One of my diabetic brothers probably
weighs close to 500 lbs and another is 300+ and has recently been in
and out of the hospital with acute fluid retention.) None of us 5
girls have been diagnosed with it, although I was (I think)
erroneously diagnosed as prediabetic years ago when I was suffering
with clinical depression. (I say 'erroneous' because no doctor in the
20 yrs since then has even hinted that I may have it.

Thanks!
Sh0rtcircuit (Deb)

IMHO, there are a couple of things that carbs do that we want to
avoid, and depending on which are important to you, "impact carbs" may
be right or wrong.

Limiting total daily carb intake depletes liver glycogen, induces
ketosis, and sets up a range of hormone responses that have quite an
impact on weight loss in some types of folks.

Stabilizing blood glucose levels (and/or insulin levels) can reduce
some types of hunger, resulting in less food being consumed.

Reducing insulin production is, of course, helpful for diabetics.

Now, there's three types of carbs we're concerned about: real carbs,
which affect pretty much everyone (sugar, starch, etc), fiber, which
can safely be discounted by nearly everyone, and "non-impact" carbs
like various sugar alcohols, glycerine, artificial sugars, etc.
Whether these affect you or not is a personal thing - you'll have to
try them and see. For example, SAs may not cause glucose swings, but
might knock you out of ketosis anyway.

My personal advice is to take total carbs and subtract fiber - treat
"non-impact" carbs as regular carbs until you have time to test each
type to see if/how it affects you.

"sh0rtcircuit (Deb)" wrote in message
...

If a food item has 'minimal impact on blood sugar,' (e.g., the new
Atkins Pizza, which advises to count only the net effective carbs)
does this necessarily mean it is (generically) more optimal for
weight-loss purposes?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'more optimal for weight-loss
purposes'.

The way I understand it, foods that have a 'minimal impact on blood sugar'
are less likely to result in cravings and false hunger, though the food
itself may be high-calorie and not necessarily beneficial towards weight
loss.

DJ Delorie wrote:


IMHO, there are a couple of things that carbs do that we want to
avoid, and depending on which are important to you, "impact carbs" may
be right or wrong.

Limiting total daily carb intake depletes liver glycogen, induces
ketosis, and sets up a range of hormone responses that have quite an
impact on weight loss in some types of folks.

Stabilizing blood glucose levels (and/or insulin levels) can reduce
some types of hunger, resulting in less food being consumed.

Reducing insulin production is, of course, helpful for diabetics.

Now, there's three types of carbs we're concerned about: real carbs,
which affect pretty much everyone (sugar, starch, etc), fiber, which
can safely be discounted by nearly everyone, and "non-impact" carbs
like various sugar alcohols, glycerine, artificial sugars, etc.
Whether these affect you or not is a personal thing - you'll have to
try them and see. For example, SAs may not cause glucose swings, but
might knock you out of ketosis anyway.

This is close to what I was looking for, but probably didn't phrase my
question very precisely! I was wondering what effects (ie, 'symptoms')
a non-diabetic would look for after consuming the so-called
'non-impact carbs' in order to determine whether they actually might
have an effect on the individual in question. In my case, after
sampling a small amount (1/3 of suggested serving), I haven't had the
symptoms that many in this ng have reported such as explosive
diarrhea.

I keep reading that if SAs don't send you straight to the bathroom, it
means your body is metabolizing them as carbs. So my conclusion is
that they are probably something I should strictly avoid. Would you
agree?

My personal advice is to take total carbs and subtract fiber - treat
"non-impact" carbs as regular carbs until you have time to test each
type to see if/how it affects you.

Thanks for the excellent explanation, DJ. I agree with your advice
about not deducting SA's. I've eaten about 3 partial servings of foods
that contain SA's in the past month and ensured that I didn't exceed
my daily carb limit. As I said above, those I have eaten seem to have
had no extraordinary effects that I have noticed. I do deduct fiber
grams from my carb counts.

~ ~ ~ ~
Sh0rtcircuit (Deb)
Clean out the junk.

Started LC 04/03/04
Me: 186/157/100 5'0"
Gunny: 280/238/180 5'11"
========
"Keep on keepin' on!"
[My Dad, 8/13/10-12/1/94.
His memory lives on.]

"Jim Bard" wrote:


"sh0rtcircuit (Deb)" wrote in message
.. .

If a food item has 'minimal impact on blood sugar,' (e.g., the new
Atkins Pizza, which advises to count only the net effective carbs)
does this necessarily mean it is (generically) more optimal for
weight-loss purposes?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'more optimal for weight-loss
purposes'.

The way I understand it, foods that have a 'minimal impact on blood sugar'
are less likely to result in cravings and false hunger, though the food
itself may be high-calorie and not necessarily beneficial towards weight
loss.

Jim, what I was really trying to determine is whether I really could
ignore those 'non-impact' carbs that are so eagerly being deducted
from foods by companies that are producing so-called LC versions of
their products and what symptoms I should be looking for to determine
their effect on my body as an individual. I have only tried small
amounts of 2 of these 'frankenfoods' and have noticed no discernable
effect on my body. Since I am not diabetic and can't measure any
potential spikes in my bg, I don't know what I should be using as a
yardstick to measure my body's reaction to them. How do I know if they
have kicked me out of ketosis, for example?

So far, I only have the past 3 weeks of no weight loss (seesawing 2
lbs up then 2 lbs down) which followed a one-week period with a 7-lb
loss as an indication that I may no longer be in ketosis (I don't use
the ketosticks). I haven't really eaten enough of these types of foods
to make any difference to my diet because I eat whole foods almost
exclusively (evidently more than my body needs!).

I was just curious as to what I should look for after ingesting a food
containing SAs so I would know whether I actually *could* count only
'net effective carbs.' (I do always deduct fiber from the count, but
do not take their word for it that my body is only using the smaller
amount of 'net' as they figure it.)

Thanks for your response!

~ ~ ~ ~
Sh0rtcircuit (Deb)
Clean out the junk.

Started LC 04/03/04
Me: 186/157/100 5'0"
Gunny: 280/238/180 5'11"
========
"Keep on keepin' on!"
[My Dad, 8/13/10-12/1/94.
His memory lives on.]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:48:18 -0400, "sh0rtcircuit (Deb)"
wrote:

Jim, what I was really trying to determine is whether I really could
ignore those 'non-impact' carbs that are so eagerly being deducted
from foods by companies that are producing so-called LC versions of
their products and what symptoms I should be looking for to determine
their effect on my body as an individual. I have only tried small
amounts of 2 of these 'frankenfoods' and have noticed no discernable
effect on my body. Since I am not diabetic and can't measure any
potential spikes in my bg, I don't know what I should be using as a
yardstick to measure my body's reaction to them. How do I know if they
have kicked me out of ketosis, for example?

So far, I only have the past 3 weeks of no weight loss (seesawing 2
lbs up then 2 lbs down) which followed a one-week period with a 7-lb
loss as an indication that I may no longer be in ketosis (I don't use
the ketosticks). I haven't really eaten enough of these types of foods
to make any difference to my diet because I eat whole foods almost
exclusively (evidently more than my body needs!).

I was just curious as to what I should look for after ingesting a food
containing SAs so I would know whether I actually *could* count only
'net effective carbs.' (I do always deduct fiber from the count, but
do not take their word for it that my body is only using the smaller
amount of 'net' as they figure it.)

From what I understand, if you don't spend significant time in the bathroom
after injesting them, they're raising your blood sugar. Neither option is
good.

And I can't begin to tell you how many people have discovered that the
bars, even eaten in moderation, cause stalls in their weight loss.

I won't touch one with a ten-foot pole. I tried De-Lite chocolate bars
once,in the very beginning, and my blood sugar went sky-high.

Sugar alcohols are evil. Think of them as poison. G

Carol, playing mother
--
Fasting BG 155
227/223/150 (official weigh-day: Thursday)
Bernstein 5/25/2004
Diabetes Dx 5/15/2001
Diet, Exercise, Oral Medication

Well, the long and short of it is, I don't know. It's a non-issue to me,
because I don't buy those kinds of foods. And if I did, I'd probably count
the 'non-impact' carbs (other than fiber) simply because I don't think
anyone really knows for sure how SAs will be received by each individual.

I know the mantra of "eat only those foods recommended by your diet plan,
exercise, and keep track of your carbs and calories" is probably repeated ad
infinitum, but I don't know of another way to find out what foods and habits
will help you achieve your goals.

"sh0rtcircuit (Deb)" wrote in message

So far, I only have the past 3 weeks of no weight loss (seesawing 2
lbs up then 2 lbs down) which followed a one-week period with a 7-lb
loss as an indication that I may no longer be in ketosis (I don't use
the ketosticks). I haven't really eaten enough of these types of foods
to make any difference to my diet because I eat whole foods almost
exclusively (evidently more than my body needs!).

"sh0rtcircuit (Deb)" writes:
I keep reading that if SAs don't send you straight to the bathroom, it
means your body is metabolizing them as carbs. So my conclusion is
that they are probably something I should strictly avoid. Would you
agree?

I think that's the case. Certainly, if they do give you the runs,
you're probably not metabolizing them - they can't be in two places at
once. But there are other things that would keep them from giving you
the runs, which might hide the truth.

The other key clue is if they make you hungrier, or make you want to
eat more and more and more. If you're monitoring ketosis with
ketostix AND are at your CCLL, you can see if SAs push you out of
ketosis.

As I said above, those I have eaten seem to have had no
extraordinary effects that I have noticed.

If that's true, and you're still losing weight like before, you're
probably OK with the specific SAs you've tested. Note that each SA is
different; you need to test each separately.

Damsel in dis Dress writes:
From what I understand, if you don't spend significant time in the bathroom
after injesting them, they're raising your blood sugar. Neither option is
good.

Erythritol seems to be an exception. It's absorbed but not
metabolized.

On 27 May 2004 15:23:59 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:

Damsel in dis Dress writes:
From what I understand, if you don't spend significant time in the bathroom
after injesting them, they're raising your blood sugar. Neither option is
good.

Erythritol seems to be an exception. It's absorbed but not
metabolized.

Thanks, DJ!

Carol
--
Fasting BG 155
227/223/150 (official weigh-day: Thursday)
Bernstein 5/25/2004
Diabetes Dx 5/15/2001
Diet, Exercise, Oral Medication