High Fructose Corn Syrup free products
Paul McNoob
supermarket are HFCS free.
Bull's Eye BBQ Sauce - even has HFCS on the packaging
http://www.kraftfoods.com/bullseyebbq/flavors.html
"Organic" or "Organics" ketchup, apple juice, applesauce... The brand/
company on the label is just called "Organic(s)". Their applesauce is
basically apples and I think added water, but i don't even think there
is any sugar at all, nor salt. I'm not sure who they are, can't find
their website either. Maybe it's the local supmarket's organic brand,
I dunno.
Bush's Baked Beans - the "Homestyle" (or whatever it's called).
Haven't looked to see if any of their other styles are but they might
be.
While these products still might have more sugar and salt than I or
any of us would like, at least they don't have HFCS or other junk
(from what I can recall reading on the labels) compared to their
competitors.
And I'm not on some kind of anti-HFCS kick, I just "try" to avoid it
if i can, and other unnecessary stuff in order to "try" and eat
healthier. I don't eat as many candy bars, bags of sour cream & onion
potato chips or drink soda like I used to either. Though I'm still
stuck on iced tea. Hopefully cutting back on some HFCS products helps
a little.
Andy
I think we're all pretty smart consumers here. There's much more than just
HFCS to be concerned with when it comes to processed foods AND drinks.
Dietary restrictions included.
I wouldn't call Bullseye bbq sauce or Bush's beans to be minimally
processed.
I've never seen an "Organics" brand name line of food and would consider it
highly misleading.
Now WHERE'S my box o' blue!!!
Andy
Paul McNoob
> I think we're all pretty smart consumers here. There's much more than just
I'm sure there are plenty of visitors that aren't.
> HFCS to be concerned with when it comes to processed foods AND drinks.
> Dietary restrictions included.
But that's not the purpose of THIS thread ;) I'm sharing what I
found. Not here to preach to the world about everything that exists
that is this-free and that-free.
>
> I wouldn't call Bullseye bbq sauce or Bush's beans to be minimally
> processed.
It's better than what's on the shelves next to it.
>
> I've never seen an "Organics" brand name line of food and would consider it
> highly misleading.
Not misleading at all. ingredients are right there on the label.
Dan Goodman
Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
"dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
If there's a significant Hispanic population in your area, look for
Mexican soda -- made with sugar cane.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Goomba
> Just wanted to say I found the following products at the local
> supermarket are HFCS free.
>
> Bull's Eye BBQ Sauce - even has HFCS on the packaging
> http://www.kraftfoods.com/bullseyebbq/flavors.html
>
> "Organic" or "Organics" ketchup, apple juice, applesauce... The brand/
> company on the label is just called "Organic(s)". Their applesauce is
> basically apples and I think added water, but i don't even think there
> is any sugar at all, nor salt. I'm not sure who they are, can't find
> their website either. Maybe it's the local supmarket's organic brand,
> I dunno.
Hmmmmm... can't HFCS by organic tooooooooooooooo? Organic implies how
something is grown, not what happens to it after it is picked.
Jean B.
> On Jun 26, 10:50 am, Paul McNoob <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But that's not the purpose of THIS thread ;) I'm sharing what I
>> found. Not here to preach to the world about everything that exists
>> that is this-free and that-free.
>
> sugar, but I do find the use of HFCS to be a good indicator that
> whatever the product is will be too sweet-tasting for me. So if I see
> HFCS on the label of, say, a tomato product or canned fruit I know to
> avoid it. Likewise, given a choice between a soda or fruit juice with
> or without HFCS I'll always go for the one without. Whoever that
> hypothetical average consumer is that the food manufacturers are
> aiming at, I like things less sweet...... -aem
Doesn't anyone else find the sweetness of HFCS is dull? That is
the only word I can come up with. It isn't quite the same as
sugar, and I don't like it--and I like its appearance in
everything even more of a turn-off.
I also continue to be shocked that Whole Foods now carries foods
that contain this (and various other substances). IMO, that store
has lost a large portion of its roots.
--
Jean B.
Goomba
> Doesn't anyone else find the sweetness of HFCS is dull? That is the
> only word I can come up with. It isn't quite the same as sugar, and I
> don't like it--and I like its appearance in everything even more of a
> turn-off.
>
> I also continue to be shocked that Whole Foods now carries foods that
> contain this (and various other substances). IMO, that store has lost a
> large portion of its roots.
>
I do believe that old coke used to have more of a "bite" before going to
corn syrup.
I also believe that people have encouraged the over sweetening of all
processed foods (*where they weren't even traditionally sweetened when
made by scratch) by continued purchase of them.
Have we lost our appreciation of flavors except for sweet?? I don't
know? I don't blame this entirely on HFCS, but on any sweetener placed
where it isn't needed.
The Cook
wrote:
>On Jun 26, 10:50 am, Paul McNoob <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But that's not the purpose of THIS thread ;) I'm sharing what I
>> found. Not here to preach to the world about everything that exists
>> that is this-free and that-free.
>
>I don't know that HFCS is more or less healthy than other forms of
>sugar, but I do find the use of HFCS to be a good indicator that
>whatever the product is will be too sweet-tasting for me. So if I see
>HFCS on the label of, say, a tomato product or canned fruit I know to
>avoid it. Likewise, given a choice between a soda or fruit juice with
>or without HFCS I'll always go for the one without. Whoever that
>hypothetical average consumer is that the food manufacturers are
>aiming at, I like things less sweet...... -aem
From what I has seen, HFCS is sweet but does not satisfy like regular
sugar.
James Silverton
>> On Jun 26, 10:50 am, Paul McNoob <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But that's not the purpose of THIS thread ;) I'm sharing
>>> what I found. Not here to preach to the world about
>>> everything that exists that is this-free and that-free.
>>
>> I don't know that HFCS is more or less healthy than other
>> forms of sugar, but I do find the use of HFCS to be a good
>> indicator that whatever the product is will be too
>> sweet-tasting for me. So if I see HFCS on the label of, say,
>> a tomato product or canned fruit I know to avoid it.
>> Likewise, given a choice between a soda or fruit juice
>> with or without HFCS I'll always go for the one without.
>> Whoever that hypothetical average consumer is that the food
>> manufacturers are aiming at, I like things less sweet......
>> -aem
Let's be honest, I cannot detect any difference in "satisfaction",
whatever that is, or sweetness with HFCS. I know no reason to consider
it unhealthy and the only thing is that it may appeal to manufacturers
as cheaper than sucrose.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
enigma
> I've never seen an "Organics" brand name line of food and
> would consider it highly misleading.
it's Shaw's/Star Market's house brand organic foods. since
they are owned by Albertson's, perhaps it's Albertson's brand?
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.
Nexis
"Goomba" <Goom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6cia5pF...@mid.individual.net...
I'm pretty sure he's refering to the Organics brand, not just organic food
in general...and according to the literature Von's keeps sending me, there's
no HFCS in the Organics *brand*.
kimberly
Nexis
"Andy" <q> wrote in message news:Xns9AC9771...@216.196.97.136...
The thread is about HFCS, so that was what he talked about. Not too hard to
get :) There's been plenty of threads on which items have the latest bad for
you stuff...this one happens to be about HFCS, so there's no reason to
expect him to talk about the fat content, for example.
>
> I wouldn't call Bullseye bbq sauce or Bush's beans to be minimally
> processed.
And apparently, unless I missed something, neither did he. He merely
mentioned that they have no HFCS. Again, you're rambling off on your own
topic, Andy! :-) Not to say there's a problem with that, but that is your
topic, and not *this* topic.
>
> I've never seen an "Organics" brand name line of food and would consider
> it
> highly misleading.
What's misleading about it? The ingredients and information are there on the
label of the Organics brand for all to see. You take it with a grain of
salt, and try to make an informed decision, no? :-)
>
> Now WHERE'S my box o' blue!!!
>
> Andy
In the cupboard?? hehe
kimberly
enigma
news:6cia5pF...@mid.individual.net:
no, because HFCS can only be produced in a lab. it is not a
natural product.
George
HFCS is "Frankensugar" made through an industrial process.
Dan Abel
George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Hopefully you don't do anything *evil* like drink beer, which is also
made through an industrial process.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Zeppo
> I've never seen an "Organics" brand name line of food and would consider
> it
> highly misleading.
>
> Now WHERE'S my box o' blue!!!
>
> Andy
Genuardi's was carrying "Organics" labeled products until last year. Then
they moved into a different label called (I think) "365".
Jon
Cindy Hamilton
> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>
Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
Cindy Hamilton
Phred
Cindy, don't be such a Luddite! Next you'll be complaining about
claims of "cholesterol-free avocados". ;-)
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Andy
Cindy,
Probably for the same reason they don't label gin, vodka, rum, whiskey and
wine "booze". Granted, it's called that, just not on the labels.
Andy
Andy
Phred,
There's no cholesterol in avocados!!! Don't go startin' rumors!!! ;)
Andy
Nexis
"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dabel-05EF97....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
evil? didn't see any mention of evil. HFCS is insidious, and does terrible
things for ones health, though.
And no, I don't drink beer (even though you didn't address that to me).
kimberly
Nexis
>"aem" <aem_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:f7435ff3-ad67-4306-92b6->6c4347...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> found. Not here to preach to the world about everything that exists
>> that is this-free and that-free.
>I don't know that HFCS is more or less healthy than other forms of
>sugar, but I do find the use of HFCS to be a good indicator that
>whatever the product is will be too sweet-tasting for me. So if I see
>HFCS on the label of, say, a tomato product or canned fruit I know to
>avoid it. Likewise, given a choice between a soda or fruit juice with
>or without HFCS I'll always go for the one without. Whoever that
>hypothetical average consumer is that the food manufacturers are
>aiming at, I like things less sweet...... -aem
Funny thing is, I don't know anyone personally who is big on the overly
sweet choices now left to us in the grocery stores. Most everyone I know is
disappointed, if not disgusted, with the changes HFCS has wrought on
groceries these days. Not only does it oversweeten, but the sweetening has
no complexity, so it detracts from the flavors of the product.
HFCS is not only less healthy, it is unhealthy. High fructose corn syrup, on
the other hand, is hydrolyzed corn starch. Basically, corn starch that is
treated with enzymes. It's name is a misnomer, actually. It is
only 14% fructose, which is hardly "high fructose"...it's just higher than
other corn
products. It's highly refined and processed. It's much sweeter than sugar,
which is
why it's so popular in the food industry, since it is far less expensive to
use than
cane sugar. HFCS has been linked to diabetes and insulin resistance (in
fact, one
Harvard study shows HFCS to be the single highest contributor to type II
diabetes,
diet-wise). It's also been shown to increase triglyceride levels, increasing
your
risk for coronary heart disease. It is also metabolized almost entirely in
the liver,
which means that because the liver essentially has to stop everything else
to
metabolize it, it effects production of insulin. It also lowers your bodies
production of leptin, which is involved in our internal appetite control.
Eating more
HFCS means you're more likely to eat more in general. Because the fructose
in it is
not bound in sucrose (as it would be in fruits and vegetables), more of it
gets into
your system faster. It also depletes your body of minerals faster, causing
exhaustion
instead of relieving it.
kimberly
Nancy Young
Thank You! kimberly. I appreciate this explanation. I know
when I eat stuff with HFCS, I get thirstier, so I have taken to
avoiding it. With nothing to back it up, I have thought maybe
this ingredient is not going to help our diabetes rate.
nancy
Andy
hidden agenda. It tricks brain receptors to make you think you're not full,
when you are, so you eat more, get fatter and buy more product more often. A
very devious food additive.
Andy
blake murphy
<mea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just wanted to say I found the following products at the local
>supermarket are HFCS free.
>
>
>Bush's Baked Beans - the "Homestyle" (or whatever it's called).
>Haven't looked to see if any of their other styles are but they might
>be.
>
i never noticed bush's doesn't have h.f.c.s., but i do like their
products. not too expensive, either.
your pal,
blake
Dan Abel
wrote:
> "Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:dabel-05EF97....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> > In article <g415n6$9dg$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> HFCS is "Frankensugar" made through an industrial process.
> >
> > Hopefully you don't do anything *evil* like drink beer, which is also
> > made through an industrial process.
> evil? didn't see any mention of evil.
My dictionary says that "frankenfood" is a derogatory word.
Frankensugar, although not in my dictionary, would be made up of
Frankenstein + sugar. Sounds like evil to me.
> And no, I don't drink beer (even though you didn't address that to me).
Beer is made through a process that is similar to HFCS, namely the
breaking down of starch into sugar using enzymes.
Dan Abel
wrote:
A lot of your points (but certainly not all) don't agree with this
Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
While Wiki isn't always accurate, some things seem clear.
1. Concentrated sugar is unhealthy in large amounts. HFCS and sucrose
are both sugars. There are some differences, but they are still sugar.
2. Corn sugar, or corn syrup, has very little fructose. It's not a
good thing for food, because it has all the calories but doesn't "taste"
very sweet.
3. Adding the enzymes produces HFCS 90, which is 90% fructose and isn't
used for anything except making HFCS 55 and HFCS 42, by adding back corn
syrup to dilute the fructose.
4. Some HFCS (like 90) is sweeter than sucrose, 42 is less sweet and 55
is considered comparable.
5. HFCS is cheaper in the US because the price of sucrose (often
referred to just as "sugar") in the US is double the world price, due to
tariffs and trade restrictions. Other countries in the world use less
HFCS than the US because of this price difference.
Nexis
"Nancy Young" <rjy...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nfidnd72pY8SYPnV...@comcast.com...
You're most welcome, Nancy :-)
I did alot of reading about it when I was diagnosed, and have tried to keep
up with new developments, just because the food supply in the nation scares
me these days and I like to make informed decisions on what I'm eating! :-)
I knew right away that anything containing HFCS raised my BG levels faster
and higher than the same item with sugar...which makes it all the more
frustrating when it's become so hard to find certain things (like salad
dressings, tomato soup, etc) that don't contain it.
Luckily for me, it's not an issue with beverages, since I drink coffee, tea,
and water... hehe. I had a rootbeer float the other night, and it was the
first time in I can't remember how long that I had a soda.
kimberly
James Silverton
>> HFCS is not only less healthy, it is unhealthy. High fructose
>> corn syrup, on the other hand, is hydrolyzed corn starch.
> A lot of your points (but certainly not all) don't agree with
> this Wikipedia entry:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
> While Wiki isn't always accurate, some things seem clear.
> 1. Concentrated sugar is unhealthy in large amounts. HFCS
> and sucrose are both sugars. There are some differences, but
> they are still sugar.
> 2. Corn sugar, or corn syrup, has very little fructose. It's
> not a good thing for food, because it has all the calories but
> doesn't "taste" very sweet.
> 3. Adding the enzymes produces HFCS 90, which is 90% fructose
> and isn't used for anything except making HFCS 55 and HFCS 42,
> by adding back corn syrup to dilute the fructose.
> 4. Some HFCS (like 90) is sweeter than sucrose, 42 is less
> sweet and 55 is considered comparable.
> 5. HFCS is cheaper in the US because the price of sucrose
> (often referred to just as "sugar") in the US is double the
> world price, due to tariffs and trade restrictions. Other
> countries in the world use less HFCS than the US because of
> this price difference.
I think I tend to agree with you that excessive amounts of sugars have
the potentiality to initiate diabetes but I am not totally convinced. I
gather that triglycerides are now the fashionable heart risk factor.
After much experimentation on me by my physicians, with varying levels
of statins and developing reactions to practically all of them, my
LDL/HDL ratio is fine with an extremely low dose of Crestor but now they
criticize my Triglygeride levels You just can't win!
Cindy Hamilton
> In article <04a82f59-3c8d-4508-a7c3-09db48fc4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 26, 2:45=A0pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
> >> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>
> >Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>
> Cindy, don't be such a Luddite! Next you'll be complaining about
> claims of "cholesterol-free avocados". ;-)
Was that you standing next to me in the produce aisle?
Cindy Hamilton
George
does good stuff so all bacteria found in food such as C. botulinum must
be good too.
Marquis Hodes
wrote:
>Jean B. wrote:
>
>> Doesn't anyone else find the sweetness of HFCS is dull? That is the
>> only word I can come up with. It isn't quite the same as sugar, and I
>> don't like it--and I like its appearance in everything even more of a
>> turn-off.
>>
>> I also continue to be shocked that Whole Foods now carries foods that
>> contain this (and various other substances). IMO, that store has lost a
>> large portion of its roots.
>>
>I do believe that old coke used to have more of a "bite" before going to
>corn syrup.
>I also believe that people have encouraged the over sweetening of all
>processed foods (*where they weren't even traditionally sweetened when
>made by scratch) by continued purchase of them.
>Have we lost our appreciation of flavors except for sweet?? I don't
>know? I don't blame this entirely on HFCS, but on any sweetener placed
>where it isn't needed.
If you want a quick comparison, and to my mind there is a BIG
difference - compare Kosher for Passover Coke (available around Easter
Time) or Coca Cola with a Spanish-Language label (made in Mexico) from
an Hispanic market to the crud on the shelves in your local
supermarket. (The locally available stuff tastes like diet Coke, only
slightly less sweet).
Phred
>Phred said...
>
>> In article
>> <04a82f59-3c8d-4508...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>> Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Jun 26, 2:45=A0pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>
>>>Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>
>> Cindy, don't be such a Luddite! Next you'll be complaining about
>> claims of "cholesterol-free avocados". ;-)
>
>
>There's no cholesterol in avocados!!! Don't go startin' rumors!!! ;)
In similar vein, I was looking for some icing sugar in the local
supermarket today and noted the claim that it was "gluten free"!
I mean, really... Some sugar has gluten in it? :-)
[However, to be fair to the marketing droids, it *is* true that
something called "icing sugar mix" contains flour from undefined and
probably variable sources (no doubt depending on price) and that stuff
very likely *does* contain gluten. But to an old bugger like me, that
contaminated stuff is *not* "icing sugar". Icing sugar is *sugar*,
pure and simple.]
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
The Cook
You are correct, the Cokes from the Mexican market do taste much
better. They are more expensive but I do splurge from time to time
since I do not drink soft drinks often.
Andy
Morning, Phred!
The term "mix" can have questionable implications.
Like the difference between juice and nectar. Where juice means no added
sugar while nectar can be some percentage of added sugar, as I remember,
anyway.
That, recalled from my senior class high school project on food additives.
Geez... brain cells DO last after all!!! :D
Best,
Andy
Beware the 'Dew!!!
Jean B.
Unfortunately, almost all B&B beans do contain HFCS, so I mostly
bush Bush's now. I did recently find one B&M that is HFCS-free:
Granny's recipe or something like that. It irks me no end that a
label will claim it''s the original product, which dates back to
quite a while ago, and it contains HFCS. I only wish I had been
foresighted enough to save the labels from the cans and jars mom's
pantry.
--
Jean B.
Jean B.
To me, it seems like a blatant attempt to trick folks into
thinking it is somehow better than sugar.
--
Jean B.
enigma
news:6cn6i1F...@mid.individual.net:
> Unfortunately, almost all B&B beans do contain HFCS, so I
> mostly bush Bush's now. I did recently find one B&M that
> is HFCS-free: Granny's recipe or something like that. It
> irks me no end that a label will claim it''s the original
> product, which dates back to quite a while ago, and it
> contains HFCS. I only wish I had been foresighted enough
> to save the labels from the cans and jars mom's pantry.
high fructose corn syrup was invented in the mid-70s
(accidentally. they were trying to make something else), &
didn't become a popular food additive until after the mid-80s.
it's been downhill from there.
Phred
>Phred said...
>
>> In article <Xns9ACA63F...@216.196.97.136>, Andy <q> wrote:
>>>Phred said...
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <04a82f59-3c8d-4508...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Jun 26, 2:45=A0pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy, don't be such a Luddite! Next you'll be complaining about
>>>> claims of "cholesterol-free avocados". ;-)
>>>
>>>Phred,
>>>
>>>There's no cholesterol in avocados!!! Don't go startin' rumors!!! ;)
>>
>> In similar vein, I was looking for some icing sugar in the local
>> supermarket today and noted the claim that it was "gluten free"!
>> I mean, really... Some sugar has gluten in it? :-)
>>
>> [However, to be fair to the marketing droids, it *is* true that
>> something called "icing sugar mix" contains flour from undefined and
>> probably variable sources (no doubt depending on price) and that stuff
>> very likely *does* contain gluten. But to an old bugger like me, that
>> contaminated stuff is *not* "icing sugar". Icing sugar is *sugar*,
>> pure and simple.]
>
>
>The term "mix" can have questionable implications.
>
>Like the difference between juice and nectar. Where juice means no added
>sugar while nectar can be some percentage of added sugar, as I remember,
>anyway.
>
>That, recalled from my senior class high school project on food additives.
>Geez... brain cells DO last after all!!! :D
You're not drinking enough. ;-)
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Phred
>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>
>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>
>thinking it is somehow better than sugar.
There's a small sugar mill near the Oz tourist ghetto of Cairns that
is producing (or about to produce) some new product called "Low GI
sugar". I'm told it's the result of some recent research (presumably
now patented :) that was supported by the mill.
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
George Shirley
Supposedly that makes it better for diabetics.
Janet Wilder
Not necessarily. To many diabetics, the GI is just a fiction. There is
no scientific proof that the GI means anything and there is no science
behind how the index numbers are allocated to foods. IMHO, it's just
another gimmick made up by some diet guru.
--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life
hahabogus
$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
The initial research was all done in a Canadian University not by a diet
Guru....I believe back in the late 60's early 70's. Read up on it don't
be taken in by the hype.
--
The house of the burning beet-Alan
Janet Wilder
I participate on several diabetic groups and my DH is a diabetic. He's
tried the GI index and it makes no difference to his blood glucose
levels. Many of the other diabetics on the groups I follow have the same
reaction.
If you follow up on the Canadian university's GI index project, you will
see that it did not have much science behind it. That's why no one
hardly heard of it until the diet industry got a hold of it a few years
ago. JMTCW and YMMV
George Shirley
now. I can't eat white rice, drives my blood sugar straight up, can eat
brown rice, only affects me mildly. No pasta made with white flour for
same reason, so I eat whole wheat pasta. I can eat a small amount of
sugar sweetened desserts without a big problem. The glycemic index does
help some of us to determine what we can eat and what we probably
shouldn't. Basically it all boils down to the amount of carbs we eat in
a day and what types.
Janet Wilder
It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
portion control --- a lot.
You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
each meal.
George Shirley
eat. I'm what is typically known as a Type II with an apple shape (read
pot belly) and over fifty yo, way over fifty if the truth is known.
I shoot Lantus once a day and Novalog three times a day, about ten
minutes before a meal for Novalog, early morning for Lantus. Seems to
control me in the normal mode if I don't get crazy with the sweets. I
can even eat chocolate bars in moderation without a rise in BG's. Docs
tell me there's probably a couple of hundred types of diabetes versus
just I and II.
Serene Vannoy
> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
> portion control --- a lot.
>
> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
> Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
> each meal.
>
My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
Serene
--
"I think I have an umami receptor that has developed sentience." -- Stef
Janet Wilder
He's probably right. They told my late mom that she was type II but she
never did well on pills and they put her on insulin where she managed
well. She had had a bad bout of pancreatitis when she was younger and it
probably killed a lot of cells so she was more than likely a type I, but
in those days anyone over 50 had to be a II.
DH got himself a pump about two years ago and it has been absolutely
wonderful in helping him to control his BGs. His A1Cs are 6.0 and
sometimes lower. His Endo doesn't like them under 6.0 so she adjusts his
pump numbers. Medicare pays for the pump, BTW. DH thinks it's much
easier than having to carry syringes. He did the basal and bolus
injections for a while, too.
Have you considered a pump, George? If you have any questions, we'll be
happy to answer them.
George Shirley
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:55:33 -0700, Serene Vannoy
> <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>>> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
>>> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
>>> portion control --- a lot.
>>>
>>> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
>>> Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
>>> each meal.
>>>
>> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
>> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
>> grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
>> of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
>> 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>
> the 250-300 gram range, supposedly, that IS limiting carbs.
>
> That's what we do, actually... my husband is a diabetic, and we eat
> lots of protein and minimal carbs... but we eat no refined sugar at
> all, or grains (because he's gluten intolerant), and we don't worry
> too much about the fat.
>
> I do think that there is huge variation from person to person, both in
> the amount of carb limitation necessary and in what sort of carbs are
> a problem. A lot of it is just trial and error.
>
> Nina
>
Exactly, I kept accurate records for three years to see what was
affecting me the most. Once I knew what white rice and other grains
would do I knew what I could eat and when. It just became part of my
meal plan for each day.
We seldom eat out but when we do I know almost to the exact number what
foods will raise my blood glucose level to a level I would rather not
see it reach. I eat a lot of meats including red meat, I eat beans,
peas, greens, seafood - fried, grilled, or boiled. Pretty much what I
want to eat with major exceptions. Just like your husband Nina.
Janet Wilder
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
>> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We
>> practice portion control --- a lot.
>>
>> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are
>> lucky. Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of
>> carbs in each meal.
>>
>
> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
> grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
> of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
> 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>
just starting to exercise more and cutting down on empty calories makes
a person who's been diagnosed a diabetic more insulin responsive. So
many Type II diabetics just want to rely on pills and not change their
lifestyles. I think your partner is great for taking responsibility.
Serene Vannoy
>>
>>> It's the carbs. DH's been diabetic for 27 years. whole wheat and white
>>> wheat, white rice and brown rice do exactly the same thing. We practice
>>> portion control --- a lot.
>>>
>>> You can get away with the number of carbs in a day? Wow! You are lucky.
>>> Most people I know with diabetes have to watch the number of carbs in
>>> each meal.
>>>
>> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
>> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs" (whole
>> grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and 10-20 grams
>> of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily exercise. (Walking
>> 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>
> the 250-300 gram range, supposedly, that IS limiting carbs.
Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>> My partner took his numbers to non-diabetic levels without limiting
>> carbs. He limits fat and refined sugar, eats mostly "good carbs"
>> (whole grains, etc.), eats something like 60-100 grams of carbs and
>> 10-20 grams of protein per meal, roughly, and does lots of daily
>> exercise. (Walking 3-5 miles per day, free weights, calisthenics.)
>>
> Your partner must be making and using insulin pretty well. Sometimes
> just starting to exercise more and cutting down on empty calories makes
> a person who's been diagnosed a diabetic more insulin responsive. So
> many Type II diabetics just want to rely on pills and not change their
> lifestyles. I think your partner is great for taking responsibility.
Yeah, he's totally an inspiration.
Nexis
"Jean B." <jb...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:6cn6j1F...@mid.individual.net...
I think the biggest reason would be to differentiate between the cane syrup
and table sugar, which goes through a more extensive refining than the
dessicated cane syrup does.
kimberly
Phred
>
>"Jean B." <jb...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:6cn6j1F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Jun 26, 2:45 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Organic products tend to be made with "dessicated cane syrup" or
>>>> "dehydrated cane syrup" rather than HFCS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why the hell can't they just call it "sugar". That's what it is.
>>
>> somehow better than sugar.
>
>and table sugar, which goes through a more extensive refining than the
>dessicated cane syrup does.
Good point Kim. Takes me back to my childhood running around in the
local mill during the crushing. There was a small tap that the
chemists used to sample the syrup that came from the evaporators
before it went up to the crystalisers, and that syrup was finger
lickin' good! We never passed by without doing a spot of
sampling ourselves! :-)
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Jean B.
--
Jean B.
Janet Wilder
> Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
> and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
> American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.
I don't doubt that there are many Americans who eat 3,000 or more
calories in a day.
The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
and obesity are rampant in the United States?
It's a published fact that the chemical that prohibits the proper
performance of insulin is stored in adipose tissue. Overweight people
are naturally more prone to type II diabetes. Many people "get better"
after they lose 40 or 50 pounds.
Elly
"Janet Wilder" <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48692dd0$0$15589$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Coming back to the HFCS, I just received an article
that might be of interest to those living in the Seattle area.
Here is the link: http://www.NaturalNews.com/023536.html
Hope more chain grocery stores will follow in their footsteps.
Elly
Serene Vannoy
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>
>
>> Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
>> and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
>> American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.
>
> I don't doubt that there are many Americans who eat 3,000 or more
> calories in a day.
But per meal? On a regular basis?
>
> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
it pisses me off.
ObFood: About to make tuna-salad sandwiches for lunch; planning on
tortilla (the Spanish version, not the bread product) and a big salad
for dinner. It's the teenager's favorite food.
Lou Decruss
<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>Janet Wilder wrote:
>> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Per meal? I kind of doubt that. 300 grams of carbs is 1,200 calories,
>>> and that's not counting protein and fat. By your numbers, the average
>>> American eats something like 3,000 calories at a single meal.
>>
>> I don't doubt that there are many Americans who eat 3,000 or more
>> calories in a day.
>
>But per meal? On a regular basis?
>
>>
>> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
>> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
>> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
>
>I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
>it pisses me off.
Why is it off topic? And why does it piss you off?
Lou
Goomba
>>> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
>>> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
>>> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
>> I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
>> it pisses me off.
>
> Why is it off topic? And why does it piss you off?
>
> Lou
>
I find the diabetes growth rate as well as obesity issues to be very on
topic to a food group.
I'm lucky in that no one in my family (immediate or extended, to include
elderly) has ever been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Good genes, I
know, but also just the way we eat perhaps? We all know certain
populations particularly in the US are affected greater than others.
I'm curious about the type 2 diabetes rates in other countries with the
greatly different diets than our Western (or American) diet.
Lou Decruss
wrote:
>Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>>>> The fast food places sell sandwiches that are higher in calories than an
>>>> entire daily requirement for most people. Is it any wonder why diabetes
>>>> and obesity are rampant in the United States?
>>> I am SO not getting into this discussion here. Not only is it off topic,
>>> it pisses me off.
>>
>> Why is it off topic? And why does it piss you off?
>>
>> Lou
>>
>I find the diabetes growth rate as well as obesity issues to be very on
>topic to a food group.
As do I. That's why I asked.
>I'm lucky in that no one in my family (immediate or extended, to include
> elderly) has ever been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Good genes, I
>know, but also just the way we eat perhaps? We all know certain
>populations particularly in the US are affected greater than others.
>I'm curious about the type 2 diabetes rates in other countries with the
>greatly different diets than our Western (or American) diet.
I agree with you on all counts. I also think you know why I asked my
question. <wink-wink>
Lou
Steve Pope
> I'm lucky in that no one in my family (immediate or extended,
> to include elderly) has ever been diagnosed with type 2
> diabetes. Good genes, I know, but also just the way we eat
> perhaps? We all know certain populations particularly in the US
> are affected greater than others. I'm curious about the type
> 2 diabetes rates in other countries with the greatly different
> diets than our Western (or American) diet.
It's very hard to pin something like a diabetes epidemic
on a set of causes since there are so many things that cause
diabetes.
My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a
large volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are
behind it.
Steve
Julia Altshuler
>
> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a
> large volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are
> behind it.
Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
--Lia
Goomba
temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
healing progress.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
Prednisone, or any other steroids.
Steve
Julia Altshuler
>
> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
> healing progress.
Thanks for the info.
Other than poison ivy, what are steroids used to treat?
--Lia
Christine Dabney
<jalts...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the info.
>Other than poison ivy, what are steroids used to treat?
>
>
>--Lia
Asthma. I had to do a steroid "burst" earlier this year, as my
asthma flared up really bad. It was a short term course of steroids.
Christine
Janet Wilder
bronchial and other breathing problems, joint pains, severe allergic
reactions...
Steve Pope
>Julia Altshuler wrote:
>> Goomba wrote:
>>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin
>>> anyway as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection
>>> and help healing progress.
>> Thanks for the info.
>> Other than poison ivy, what are steroids used to treat?
>bronchial and other breathing problems, joint pains, severe allergic
>reactions...
Gout.
The induced diabetes may or may not be temporary. It may
be a small risk, but given the huge volume of steroid prescriptions
(and non-prescriptions) it is not beyond the realm of belief
that they are adding to diabetes incidence.
Steve
Wayne Boatwright
Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
Women! Can't live with 'em and no
resale value.
-------------------------------------------
Steve Pope
>On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:49:20a, Goomba told us...
>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
>> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
>> healing progress.
>Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
As I understand it, gestational and steroid-induced diabetes
are very similar processes and both are more likely than not
to be temporary. But they are both considered actual diabetes.
Steve
Wayne Boatwright
One of my first cats was put on prednisone and vintamin B12 injections when
she developed liver failure. The disease was terminal, but the prednisone
both helped reduce inflamation and increased her appetite. She lived
another 3 years beyond the length of time the vet predicted. In some cases
the weight gain caused by steroids can be beneficial.
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
This tagline is umop apisdn
-------------------------------------------
Wayne Boatwright
Thanks, Steve.
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
MURPHY'S LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS -
Things get worse under pressure.
-------------------------------------------
Steve Pope
>One of my first cats was put on prednisone and vintamin B12 injections when
>she developed liver failure. The disease was terminal, but the prednisone
>both helped reduce inflamation and increased her appetite. She lived
>another 3 years beyond the length of time the vet predicted. In some cases
>the weight gain caused by steroids can be beneficial.
Yes, one of our first cats did pretty well for his last year
after kidney failure, and prednisone was one of the treatments.
(Anabolic steroids were also used.)
It falls into the category of a wonder drug with many
serious side effects...
S.
Gloria P
>
> Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>
Is that an announcement, Wayne? If so, congratulations!
;-)
gloria p
in a silly mood
Wayne Boatwright
Good Gawd No! (just curious) :-)))
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
SENILE.COM found: out of memory...
-------------------------------------------
Arri London
Aha...that makes sense. While I was in hospital in 2007, I was being
given insulin (in tiny doses). Never having had high blood sugar in my
life (and still don't), assumed it was because of all the
glucose-containg drips administered. But there may have been other
medicines administered that raised the blood glucose too. There was
never a suggestion that diabetes was in the picture.
Arri London
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:49:20a, Goomba told us...
>
> > Julia Altshuler wrote:
> >> Steve Pope wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a large
> >>> volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are behind it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
> >>
> >>
> >> --Lia
> >>
> > Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
> > temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
> > se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
> > as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
> > healing progress.
> >
>
> Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>
In the women I knew who had it, it was temporary. However it occurred
during *each* pregnancy, so after the first one the medical team was
forewarned.
Blinky the Shark
>
>
> Goomba wrote:
>>
>> Julia Altshuler wrote:
>> > Steve Pope wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a large
>> >> volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are behind it.
>> >
>> >
>> > Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
>> >
>> >
>> > --Lia
>> >
>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
>> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
>> healing progress.
>
> Aha...that makes sense. While I was in hospital in 2007, I was being
> given insulin (in tiny doses). Never having had high blood sugar in my
> life (and still don't), assumed it was because of all the
Happened to me in 2001. During a three-week hospital stay I was getting
Prednisone. I saw a workup with 350 blood glucose. I asked what they
hell they were doing. "Oh, that's just the Prednisone; it'll come back
down when you go off it." Right. I had them take me off it right then.
--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
Wayne Boatwright
Thanks, Arri.
What prompted me to ask was that Mary Tyler Moore developed what was
thought to be gestational diabetes when she was pregnant, but after
pregnancy it became permanent Type I. I wondered how often it occurred.
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
Common sense can't be all that common
since so many people claim to not have any.
-------------------------------------------
Janet Wilder
> On Tue 01 Jul 2008 09:49:20a, Goomba told us...
>
>> Julia Altshuler wrote:
>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My own guess is that general obesity, HFCS in particular, and a large
>>>> volume of prescription drugs that can cause diabetes are behind it.
>>>
>>> Which prescription drugs cause diabetes?
>>>
>>>
>>> --Lia
>>>
>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
>> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
>> healing progress.
>>
>
> Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>
Usually temporaray.
Janet Wilder
Right after I had the surgery for the ruptured colon, they were giving
me insulin, too. My blood glucose levels were over 300 and that is scary
for a person who has never had any problems with blood glucose numbers.
They said that often the trauma of severe illness or difficult surgery
will raise blood glucose levels.
Janet Wilder
when she was carrying.
Wayne Boatwright
Thanks, Janet.
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
It's always easier to just fall than
to try to climb.
-------------------------------------------
Wayne Boatwright
Aha! Hadn't thought of that.
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
Goomba
Asthma, allergic reactions, organ rejection, skin conditions, loss of
appetite, swelling from injury (spinal cord, for example)...
Goomba
>
> Is gestational diabetes more often temporary than permanent?
>
Usually temporary during the pregnancy but women who have experienced it
have a higher rate of having it reappear later in life.
Goomba
> As I understand it, gestational and steroid-induced diabetes
> are very similar processes and both are more likely than not
> to be temporary. But they are both considered actual diabetes.
>
> Steve
No, we don't consider raised blood sugars from steroids to be diabetes.
Wayne Boatwright
Thanks, Goomba...
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
The meek will inherit the earth; the
rest of us will go to the stars.
-------------------------------------------
Goomba
>> Steroids raise the blood sugar, but with *most* folks it is just
>> temporary as they don't take them routinely. This isn't "diabetes" per
>> se, but in the hospital we'll often treat them with some insulin anyway
>> as evidence is that controlled blood sugars lessen infection and help
>> healing progress.
>
> Aha...that makes sense. While I was in hospital in 2007, I was being
> given insulin (in tiny doses). Never having had high blood sugar in my
> life (and still don't), assumed it was because of all the
> glucose-containg drips administered. But there may have been other
> medicines administered that raised the blood glucose too. There was
> never a suggestion that diabetes was in the picture.
It could have been given to help lower your serum potassium level!
Insulin carries potassium into the cells and we often use it for this
aspect. Or the constant dextrose containing IV fluids some folks are
getting, certain drugs, or the unusual (unnatural) way some folks
require feeding just causes their blood levels to remain elevated more
than normal so we treat it. I have a lot more fun titrating continuous
insulin infusions (tweaking) than injecting it in folks and waiting for
the response.
We like to keep folks between 70-110 for optimum healing.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> As I understand it, gestational and steroid-induced diabetes
>> are very similar processes and both are more likely than not
>> to be temporary. But they are both considered actual diabetes.
>No, we don't consider raised blood sugars from steroids to be diabetes.
Interesting. Thanks.
Steve
Goomba
> What prompted me to ask was that Mary Tyler Moore developed what was
> thought to be gestational diabetes when she was pregnant, but after
> pregnancy it became permanent Type I. I wondered how often it occurred.
>
Remember that in the past, up to about age 35, developing full blown
diabetes was called "Juvenile Diabetes". She was young when she had her
baby and her body obviously reacted by halting ALL insulin production,
I'm assuming?
Most adults (particularly obese) get type 2 diabetes whch means they
still make insulin but either not enough or their body has lost its
receptiveness to it.
For some losing weight increases insulin receptors on the cells, so you
can use more of the insulin you still make. Others need drugs to help
the pancreas kick out more insulin.
Wayne Boatwright
I didn't know those details about "Juvenile Diabetes". I have type 2
myself. When my weight was down to almost normal, I was off all
medications. Now that I've gained some back, I'm on low doses of glyburide
and metformin. Working to get that weight back down. :-)
--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07(VII)/01(I)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Today is: Canada Day
-------------------------------------------
Everyone out there is someone else's
lunch. --Mike Niebuhr
-------------------------------------------
Goomba
Let me add the addendum that I mean the "temporary" raised blood sugars
from short term steroid use.
Julia Altshuler
>
> bronchial and other breathing problems, joint pains, severe allergic
> reactions...
Joint pains like arthritis, bone spurs, sciatica?
--Lia