Elevated glucose and insulin levels = bad

[zoedragon]

I've been reading this book called "Syndrome X". It sounds a bit like a sci-fi disease epidemic book like Andromeda Strain, doesn't it? It's actually referring to a collective of symptoms -- insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and probably a few others I'm missing -- who all have a common denominator... which is the predominance of refined carbohydrates and sugar in the diet.

Sugar and refined carbs make your blood sugar levels shoot up very quickly, so your insulin levels increase accordingly. According to this group of doctors/authors, high levels of glucose and insulin cause you to age faster. The reasoning is that they cause your cells to undergo cell division more quickly. This, in conjunction with the theory that each cell has a finite number of times that it divides before perishing, means the body's aging process is accelerated. This is, of course, an abbreviated summary of what I've read so far. There are many other conditions caused by high glucose and insulin levels, but I don't want to make this post too lengthy.

I don't have a medical background myself so I can't substantiate these theories, but they seem to make sense to me. Do you believe it, and will your eating habits change at all with this new information?

[PandaMoOo]

Very interesting. The most interesting thing about it to me is the idea that cells divide a finite number of times before dieing. If this were the case, it seems relatively easy with the use of stem cells and the like to undo/reverse the aging process. I imagine it's more complex... but thats a new concept to me.

As far as changing my diet... well... probably not. It would take a bit more evidence before I am willing to give up my sugars... I would sit down and weigh the pros and cons of either. Living over 80 really doesn't appeal to me at the moment, so... maybe as more is known about sugars/insulin. A very interesting theory... I hope more study gets put into it so we can reach a more definite answer!

[Steven]

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

Very interesting. The most interesting thing about it to me is the idea that cells divide a finite number of times before dieing. If this were the case, it seems relatively easy with the use of stem cells and the like to undo/reverse the aging process. I imagine it's more complex... but thats a new concept to me.

As far as changing my diet... well... probably not. It would take a bit more evidence before I am willing to give up my sugars... I would sit down and weigh the pros and cons of either. Living over 80 really doesn't appeal to me at the moment, so... maybe as more is known about sugars/insulin. A very interesting theory... I hope more study gets put into it so we can reach a more definite answer!

Why don't you want to live over 80?

[zoedragon]

Development of type 2 diabetes is probably the most easily observable effect of too much sugar/refined carbs in the diet. Some people are more genetically predisposed than others, but anyone can contract it (from what I understand). When you have very high levels of glucose in your blood, your pancreas pumps out more insulin to compensate. Your cells start to develop a resistance to it. Why this is, I'm not sure, perhaps due in part to lack of certain nutrients from consuming these empty calories. (Sugar and refined carbs provide energy, but no or very few nutrients.) Your system pumps out more insulin to get the cells to respond, and the cycle continues until your pancreas poops out.

Type 2 diabetes used to be known as a "rich person's disease" because only the rich were able to afford the sweet treats. Sugar and finely ground flour were very labor-intensive and expensive before industrialization came along.

But I think so long you take all things in moderation you'll be ok. Those who need to watch their diet more closely are those who have diabetic relatives, especially a parent.

[PandaMoOo]

Originally Posted by Steven

Why don't you want to live over 80?

Life over 80 is not so happy of a time. At least it does not seem like it'd be much fun for now.

Maybe if i had enough money where i wasen't a burden and my kids/grandkids cared a lot about me it'd be good times... but i mean really... how many 80 year olds do you think really enjoy being alive?

[PandaMoOo]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Type 2 diabetes used to be known as a "rich person's disease" because only the rich were able to afford the sweet treats. Sugar and finely ground flour were very labor-intensive and expensive before industrialization came along.

How about splenda? That is some good tasting sugar... apparently it's identical to sugar except it has a double bond in the molecule so your body can't digest it. It tastes exactly like sugar to me, but 0 carbs, 0 calories... just passes out, in theory. It is a little more fine... somewhere between sugar and powered sugar. (but heavier and not fluffy like powered sugar... just really really small.)

Too bad its expensive... its good stuff.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

Life over 80 is not so happy of a time. At least it does not seem like it'd be much fun for now.

Maybe if i had enough money where i wasen't a burden and my kids/grandkids cared a lot about me it'd be good times... but i mean really... how many 80 year olds do you think really enjoy being alive?

You seem to be assuming that at 80, you will be helpless. But what Zoe was talking about was the possibility of slowing down the aging process. So at 80, perhaps you could be the equivalent of a 60 year old in terms of vitality.

Even if I was helpless at 80, I would still want to live. Much of the enjoyment I get from life comes from learning about everything there is to learn. Hopefully, in the future humans will be able to completely understand the universe. I can't think of much better than being alive to see such an achievement.

[PandaMoOo]

Aye. Excellent correction of me Steven. Type 2 Diabetes would probably signifigently lower my health... hmm... hmm... but to give up sugar? Eesh. Thanks for the info zoe! thanks for correcting me steven!

[Steven]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Do you believe it, and will your eating habits change at all with this new information?

If it is proven, then yes. I don't eat much sugar or refined carbs, so I won't have to change much anyway.

I haven't read much about what Zoe is talking about, but it seems somewhat related to C. elegans. C. elegans is a roundworm who's lifespan is doubled when a specific set of its genes are mutated. It would be great if a technique is discovered that will do something similar for humans through genetic engineering.

[zoedragon]

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

How about splenda? That is some good tasting sugar... apparently it's identical to sugar except it has a double bond in the molecule so your body can't digest it. It tastes exactly like sugar to me, but 0 carbs, 0 calories... just passes out, in theory. It is a little more fine... somewhere between sugar and powered sugar. (but heavier and not fluffy like powered sugar... just really really small.)

I know what you mean about not wanting to give up the sweets. But many doctors believe that sugar is addictive, much like a drug (only the side effects aren't as immediately noticeable). I find myself craving something sweet after lunch and dinner. According to the authors, once we wean ourselves off our sugar/refined carb dependence, we won't crave dessert anymore.

But anyway, back to Splenda. It's supposed to be more natural than aspertame or saccharin because it's made by converting sugar, however I've been reading that it's closer to being a chemical pesticide than a food. Splenda is, at this point, where Equal was several years ago. There wasn't much research and it was emerging as the "more healthful" replacement for Sweet-N-Low. However emerging research is showing that it has its own crop of side-effects much like the first 2 popular sugar-replacements.

Here are some different resources if you're interested in reading about it yourself:

http://www.mercola.com/2003/aug/23/splenda.htm
http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/
http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm


So now us sugar addicts are throwing our hands up in the air wondering what we can have instead that won't kill us! Well I was continuing to read the book over breakfast this morning, and it suggests something called "stevia". (Note that it stands by its claim that you should cut out the sweets, but if you have to have it, it says to try stevia.) It's supposed to be an herbal sweetner. I've never tried it, nor have I researched it, but I'll be sure to post my findings when I do.

[zoedragon]

Originally Posted by Steven

You seem to be assuming that at 80, you will be helpless. But what Zoe was talking about was the possibility of slowing down the aging process. So at 80, perhaps you could be the equivalent of a 60 year old in terms of vitality.

Yes, I think that is the general idea. I know I personally want to be as active as possible when I'm older. I want to be one of those white-haired, smiling elderly people who still walk straight with a brisk spring in their step. I see a lot of elderly who are stooped over and can barely shuffle one foot in front of the other while leaning heavily on a walker. I do NOT want to turn into that, I'd rather be hit by a bus and put immediately out of my misery.

The Syndrome X book is making 3 main points, the first of which was regarding the sugar and carbs. The second point is kind of the flipside of that coin, which is nutrition. Most grains are high in omega-6 fatty acid, which competes with the less-common omega-3. The vast majority of people are omega-3 deficient, which means cell walls are less flexible and nutrients have a harder time getting through. The final point is exercise, but I haven't gotten to that chapter yet. I think most of us already knew how important exercise is to human health.

I have a "tale of two grandmas" to share. I knew an elderly lady who was about 74, she lived in the States. She had an older sister living in Guatemala, who was about 80. The younger sister was diabetic and spent most of her day sitting around the house. The older sister was not diabetic and walked every day to the market and on various errands. The older sister came to visit and I took them both to go sightseeing. The younger sister shuffled a lot and was winded and tired within a couple hours. The older sister walked with a robust stride and was eager to continue the tour.

I didn't know the older sister very well so I don't know what her diet was like, but I do know that the younger loved her sugar/carbs to the point of becoming diabetic. Couple that with her lack exercise and you have the kind of elderly person you never want to become.

[PandaMoOo]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Here are some different resources if you're interested in reading about it yourself:

http://www.mercola.com/2003/aug/23/splenda.htm
http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/
http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm

I should have read up on it before I restated what my sister read. It's not a simple double bond increase like she said. It is made from sugar, but it's vastly different. Its got some clorine added and other stuff... to the point where it's nothing like sugar. As the articles suggest... no current evidence is showing splenda as being much safer then most other sweeteners... there is some evidence its worse. Like you said Zoe, better to leave splenda alone for now, until we get more research done on it.

Damn. sugar out. splenda out. What to eat for lunch? Sad Panda.

[zoedragon]

Aww don't be sad, Panda. Fruit is a nice sweet choice for when you're having cravings. Grapes can even give you the feeling like you're popping candies or something.

Diabetics are the ones who need to cut the carbs and sugars completely. The rest of us just need to balance it out with plenty of protien and fibrous foods, so our blood sugar doesn't spike so suddenly.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Aww don't be sad, Panda. Fruit is a nice sweet choice for when you're having cravings. Grapes can even give you the feeling like you're popping candies or something.

Yes, but that is because grapes have a lot of sugar in them.

[zoedragon]

Heh, true, but I was referring to the bite-sized pieces you get from a bunch of grapes. A bit like a bag of skittles or something, only healthier.

[Mike]

Can you give me some example of refined carb?

[zoedragon]

Refined carbohydrates are anything made with white flour or a finely ground grain. Things like white bread, crackers, cake, tortillas, chips, and most breakfast cereals. Processed grains like white rice also fall into this category because they've had all the fiber removed. Refined carbs have had most of their original nutrition and fiber stripped from them, so they are just empty calories that will provide some energy, but none of the nutrition that your body needs for health.

To make the best choices at the supermarket, try to pick items that are closest to their natural origins. For example you're looking at a loaf of generic wheat bread (it's brown, but has no whole grains in it) and a loaf containing 12 different whole grains, the whole grains are the better choice.

I read that a slice of white bread will elevate your blood glucose even higher than an equal amount of sugar! I was surprised, but it makes sense. Carbohydrates are basically densely packaged sugars, and without the fiber to help "dillute" their effects, your blood glucose levels will skyrocket.

[PandaMoOo]

Thanks Zoe for all the information about white breads and such. Perhaps I should do some reading.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

I read that a slice of white bread will elevate your blood glucose even higher than an equal amount of sugar! I was surprised, but it makes sense. Carbohydrates are basically densely packaged sugars, and without the fiber to help "dillute" their effects, your blood glucose levels will skyrocket.

I don't quite follow you on why you think it makes sense. No matter how little fiber white bread has, it is still not sugar. The carbohydrates in white bread still need to be converted before they become glucose.

[zoedragon]

Qu