[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[IP] Re: cotton candy, nutrition, glycemic indexes-(long/sorry)
First of all, I could use the help of some dieticians here. Secondly, for
those of you with "Pumping Insulin", now might be a good time to review
"Pumping Insulin" pages 43-45. In it they talK about how glycemic indexes
affect you, how to adjust for it by the timing of the insulin bolus, adding
fiber to the "offending food", or by eating less of the food with the high
glycemic index. Appendix B gives some examples of glycemic indexes ( note
that mashed potates are 72, sweet corn is 58, table sugar is 64, Bannana is
While these experts do not advocate a constant diet of junk food, they see no
problem with the occasional treats of "previously forbidden food" and
that"...blood sugar testing has shown that it's possible to retain glycemic
control when eating some "splurge foods" if we know how to account for their
sometimes hefty carbohydrate content.
Now lets visit this concern on total carbohydrate content of one's diet.
All calories from foods are broken down to either fatty acids (from fats),
amino acids (from protein) or glucose (from starch/carbohydrates). And
that's it. And diabetics are advised to go low on the fats, cautiously on
the protein (kidney concerns..some controversy here) which leaves , guess
Best carbos? Of couse those grown and umprocessed things that have little
salt and high fiber content like beans, bran cereal, etc. , what is advocated
is a nutrient rich, low fat, low protein diet. But also mentioned is how
"junk foods" (my word for it) "....can add flavor to a diet and, if chosen
wisely, can allow fattier foods to be avoided."
Yes, we all do "GET IT!!!" Being scathing of others who are following modern
trends in diabetes management is detrimental and serves only to create
unnescessary and unwarrented guilt on the part of one's fellow diabetics, (or
parents thereof) who are in fact following up to date reccomendations. If
someone isn't capable of managing to cover the occasional sweets in a way
that doesn't impair thier control, by all means, avoid them. Just don't tell
the rest of us that these occasional treats, even if well controlled by our
insulin, are going to lead down the path to renal failure, etc. That is not
what the DCCT showed. It was all about diabetic control, not what you eat.
Having your own opinion and expressing it as ...."I belive that I have no
complications because I do the following..." is certainly welcome. However
any individual case is just that, an individual case. Large studies, like
the DCCT, are where the actual data is generated that allows us to take home
real advice. I can state that my dear, unique grandmother died at the age of
93 after about 40 plus years of diabetes. Her eyes and kidneys were fine.
She developed a little neuropathy in her last years is all. She lived a long
and quality life, despite terribly poor control. Oh, and she smoked until
age 85. I would not advocate smoking, nor poor control, but using this ONE
example, one might conclude that diabetic control makes little difference to
duration and quality of life. You can't extrapolate ONE experience to
develop a mangement plan for all diabetics.
Overly long, (sorry), and this thread has gone on way too long, and "the OLD
diet ways" have been ingrained into sooooo many of us for sssooooooo many
years that some of us will never change. However if it works for you, more
power to you.
G'night folks. Linda
Insulin Pumpers website http://www.insulin-pumpers.org/
for mail subscription assistance, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org