|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kirby64
650 days ago
|
|
|
Pray tell, besides satiety, what exactly is the difference between carbs from a sweet potato and carbs from glucose syrup, or just plain sugar? You’re missing the other good stuff in a sweet potato (vitamins, fiber, some protein even), but carbs for carbs it’s all gonna do the same thing. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that it’s much easier to eat a liter of glucose syrup than a few pounds of sweet potatos. If you could resist and turn off your body’s hunger response, you’d be equivalently overweight. That’s basically why GLP1 antagonists work. It turns that hunger response and makes it easier to say no to that extra slice of pizza. |
|
|
Reasoning by analogy, most would accept that some people are better suited to extended release medication versus instant. A drug is defined as something that has an effect upon the body when it's ingested, especially in the context of the central nervous system.
Carbohydrates are the preferred fuel source of the body, the brain included. Glucose syrup is simple (C6H12O6). A simple carbohydrate like glucose needs minimal processing to become "active," and it tends to be provided without fiber which would ordinarily buffer the overall glycemic index (impact upon the body). As a result, a spike in blood sugar and insulin occurs.
The subsequent drop in blood sugar can lead to craving and excess consumption, and eventually insulin resistance over the long term. The reason why my initial comment seemed dismissive of "calories in calories out" is because it takes a myopic view of a complex system.
If we view insulin sensitivity (among other factors) as either a positive or negative multiplier of the "calories in calories out" metric, I believe we'd be closer to an accurate view of metabolism and its impact on human health. Sure, we can just take GLP-1 antagonists to curb that appetite, but we could curtail it at the source as well.
Just eat the damn sweet potato!