|
|
|
|
|
by crpatino
3570 days ago
|
|
> Why's that any different from eating say table sugar + celery? In principle it's not, except perhaps for a glass of water. Most sweet fruits tend to have much more moisture than celery. An unstated assumption that may come with your question is that just like eating fruit is equivalent to eating sugar + celery, it would also be the same to eat sugar, then celery. This is not the case. The fiber and water in the fruit make for phisical barriers that slow down digestive enzimes from reaching the sugar molecules in it. This makes for a steadier release of energy over a longer period of time; the exact opposite of the well known 'sugar rush' phenomenon. [1] Then there is the issue that most people, left to their own devices, will eat too much of sugar and too little of the other two. [1] I don't have the appropriate literature at hand, but this was explained to me by a really close person who's been a Diabetes-I survivor for 21 years and counting. His report is that foodstuffs with identical glycemic indexes do cause different, noticeable physiologic responses based on the amount of fiber in them. |
|
When I have to skip a meal, I've learned that it's best to eat oatmeal crackers. They keep you full and you don't experience hypoglysemia. When I eat candy-bars/chocolate as a substitute for a meal, my blood sugar drops immensely after a couple of hours. I feel exhausted, my hands start to tremble and I forget words/things.
On the other hand, fruits also have the same effect on me as candy-bars. Fructose is no different for me.
For diabetics at least, sugar is poison. But I can't seem to live without it.