4 ms·

You sure about your claims of insulin secretion in response to tasting anything sweet? I just googled up this article, which has references to a number of studi

by ehsanu1 13y ago

You sure about your claims of insulin secretion in response to tasting anything sweet? I just googled up this article, which has references to a number of studies that generally disagrees with this notion: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin/#axzz2e7LXNPx5 http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin... The difference between these simple sugars and more complex carbohydrates is that (1) simple sugars are burnt really, really fast by our body, giving us an immediate fuel boost and (2) our body ends up generating insulin in excess. Nitpicking, simple carbs can burn slower than complex ones. Eg some fruits vs white bread. Fruits will release fructose into your blood stream slowly due to fiber (and perhaps other reasons) compared to how quickly white bread will release glucose. What you really want is to know the glycemic index (GI) of the food you're eating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index White bread, and many other "complex carbs" which are devoid of fiber etc due to processing have very high GI, and are worth avoiding as much as simple sugars. And many fruits/vegetables have much lower GI's despite being packed with fructose, and so may be fine for you even if you want to avoid sugar due to insulin response.

bad_user 13y ago
> You sure about your claims of insulin secretion in response to tasting anything sweet? I read a study about it a year or so ago, can't find it now. Of course that study might have been flawed, this notion can be a myth and we only scratched the surface of how our metabolism works. We should be wary of claims based on various studies, no matter the side they are arguing for, as most studies are flawed. Especially in regards to nutrition and dieting, it's next to impossible to do these studies double-blind, or to monitor the daily routine of subjects, or to trust what they declare (most people lie about their diet). It does make some sense. I also read about a study on a dog, being kept in a dark room and fed at regular hours. After some time, his saliva glands started generating saliva at feeding time, even though he had no noise, no smell, no eyesight, nothing to indicate that feeding time is coming. The autonomous nervous system can be trained to do things out of reflex. If external stimuli work on the pancreas, I don't know, but it does make some sense, so that's why the idea is gaining traction. > Nitpicking, simple carbs can burn slower than complex ones. Eg some fruits vs white bread. Fruits will release fructose into your blood stream slowly due to fiber Of course, what I wrote is an over-simplification. I was speaking about sweetened foods and beverages, most of which are lacking in fiber. Also, white bread is dangerous, but it's not really the problem or maybe you could say that our usage of white flour in general is, but I think the effects of white bread are negligible. Think of your acquaintances or even your family - how many of them consume at least a half a gallon of beverages sweetened with corn syrup daily? How many of them put two spoons of sugar in their coffee? How many eat cookies daily? If you look around, you'll discovered enormous amounts of sugar being consumed by people. And that was my point. EDIT; RE: What you really want is to know the glycemic index (GI) of the food you're eating The glycemic index is slightly inadequate. It provides a useful clue, but it was shown to be inadequate in regards to the insulin response. For example, if you take a look at "beer" it is off the charts, but paradoxically maybe, beer was shown to not generate much of a response from the pancreas, as the GI would led you to believe. And this may be because beer can't be tested properly OR because the secretion of insulin may not be fully in response to the real glucose levels in the blood. That's why we now also have the insulinemic index for example (and round and round we go :))

by ehsanu1 13y ago

bad_user 13y ago

> You sure about your claims of insulin secretion in response to tasting anything sweet? I read a study about it a year or so ago, can't find it now. Of course that study might have been flawed, this notion can be a myth and we only scratched the surface of how our metabolism works. We should be wary of claims based on various studies, no matter the side they are arguing for, as most studies are flawed. Especially in regards to nutrition and dieting, it's next to impossible to do these studies double-blind, or to monitor the daily routine of subjects, or to trust what they declare (most people lie about their diet). It does make some sense. I also read about a study on a dog, being kept in a dark room and fed at regular hours. After some time, his saliva glands started generating saliva at feeding time, even though he had no noise, no smell, no eyesight, nothing to indicate that feeding time is coming. The autonomous nervous system can be trained to do things out of reflex. If external stimuli work on the pancreas, I don't know, but it does make some sense, so that's why the idea is gaining traction. > Nitpicking, simple carbs can burn slower than complex ones. Eg some fruits vs white bread. Fruits will release fructose into your blood stream slowly due to fiber Of course, what I wrote is an over-simplification. I was speaking about sweetened foods and beverages, most of which are lacking in fiber. Also, white bread is dangerous, but it's not really the problem or maybe you could say that our usage of white flour in general is, but I think the effects of white bread are negligible. Think of your acquaintances or even your family - how many of them consume at least a half a gallon of beverages sweetened with corn syrup daily? How many of them put two spoons of sugar in their coffee? How many eat cookies daily? If you look around, you'll discovered enormous amounts of sugar being consumed by people. And that was my point. EDIT; RE: What you really want is to know the glycemic index (GI) of the food you're eating The glycemic index is slightly inadequate. It provides a useful clue, but it was shown to be inadequate in regards to the insulin response. For example, if you take a look at "beer" it is off the charts, but paradoxically maybe, beer was shown to not generate much of a response from the pancreas, as the GI would led you to believe. And this may be because beer can't be tested properly OR because the secretion of insulin may not be fully in response to the real glucose levels in the blood. That's why we now also have the insulinemic index for example (and round and round we go :))