Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
My Other Mother
In a parallel universe I could eat whatever I wanted and not be unhealthy. However, I'm learning that my body is pretty freakish about what goes in. For some reason I didn't know this. I think I forgot to read the manual.
This part of the post is where I spout stuff I've heard or read and hope it's correct without actually knowing.
I've heard that there are two fundamental sugars that we intake; glucose and fructose. Glucose is the one diabetics don't like because it engages the pancreas and requires insulin. Fructose is allegedly better for diabetics because it engages the liver instead of the pancreas. Sucrose, which is made of 1 glucose and 1 fructose, engages both systems. As a result, many think that fructose is the only safe sugar to consume.
Given that ground-breaking science, it is interesting that diabetic dietetics (ha, got you illiteration geniuses on the ground for a ground pound!) is so focused on lowering the Glycemic Index (GI). One way to lower the GI is to intake fiber with sugars to reduce the blood-sugar spike. I've also heard (but it could be a "beef it's what's for dinner" propaganda (sp?) ploy), protein intake with sugars can also lower the GI. Now we think we know how to eat sugar without spiking the GI (if that even matters to anyone who is not diabetic).
Here's the catch. Evidently, the body, while not having a pancreas freakout session at fructose, has a mechanism for instantly recognizing fructose, assessing the body's immediate need for fructose, and then either using it or instantly turning it into triglycerides (aka fat). Now we know there is a bit of a problem with all these basic sugars.
I've heard sugar called empty calories. I buy that idea in that the sugars, particularly in the case of sucrose, don't often come with critical vitamin or mineral content. If we assume that eating glucose will spike GI and eating fructose will force office-boys into making fat, we need to look for ways to simplify and reduce our sugar intake. Or, at worst, eat more natural fiber with the glucose and fructose we eat. We also have to pump up our activity level so the body doesn't automatically assume that it needs to turn sugars into fat.
This bit is my parting shot. It is more of a footnote than a wrap-up. But it is worth some thought. I read a book some time back (maybe not even finishing it) called the Omnivore's Dilemma that convinced me I should try an experiment where I would simply stop eating anything with Corn Syrup or any kind of corn-based sweetener. I didn't do this, initially, to lose weight. I did this as a way to get off of processed foods. It was, kind of, a political protest. However, in doing so, I lost a bunch of weight and found myself feeling more satisfied (particularly with breakfast) with less food. I started losing weight quite soon after that. Another thing I read is that the body doesn't get the, "that's enough", signal from corn sweeteners as it does from real sugars. I don't know if that's true but it kind of fits with my breakfast cereal experience.
Now it's your turn to tell me what is really happening to me. In the meantime, here's to a 3/4 cup of home-aggregated, rolled, multi-grain muesli with bits of blueberry, dates, toasted almond slices, sour cherries, apples, oat bran and some other magic that mi esposa put in.
This part of the post is where I spout stuff I've heard or read and hope it's correct without actually knowing.
I've heard that there are two fundamental sugars that we intake; glucose and fructose. Glucose is the one diabetics don't like because it engages the pancreas and requires insulin. Fructose is allegedly better for diabetics because it engages the liver instead of the pancreas. Sucrose, which is made of 1 glucose and 1 fructose, engages both systems. As a result, many think that fructose is the only safe sugar to consume.
Given that ground-breaking science, it is interesting that diabetic dietetics (ha, got you illiteration geniuses on the ground for a ground pound!) is so focused on lowering the Glycemic Index (GI). One way to lower the GI is to intake fiber with sugars to reduce the blood-sugar spike. I've also heard (but it could be a "beef it's what's for dinner" propaganda (sp?) ploy), protein intake with sugars can also lower the GI. Now we think we know how to eat sugar without spiking the GI (if that even matters to anyone who is not diabetic).
Here's the catch. Evidently, the body, while not having a pancreas freakout session at fructose, has a mechanism for instantly recognizing fructose, assessing the body's immediate need for fructose, and then either using it or instantly turning it into triglycerides (aka fat). Now we know there is a bit of a problem with all these basic sugars.
I've heard sugar called empty calories. I buy that idea in that the sugars, particularly in the case of sucrose, don't often come with critical vitamin or mineral content. If we assume that eating glucose will spike GI and eating fructose will force office-boys into making fat, we need to look for ways to simplify and reduce our sugar intake. Or, at worst, eat more natural fiber with the glucose and fructose we eat. We also have to pump up our activity level so the body doesn't automatically assume that it needs to turn sugars into fat.
This bit is my parting shot. It is more of a footnote than a wrap-up. But it is worth some thought. I read a book some time back (maybe not even finishing it) called the Omnivore's Dilemma that convinced me I should try an experiment where I would simply stop eating anything with Corn Syrup or any kind of corn-based sweetener. I didn't do this, initially, to lose weight. I did this as a way to get off of processed foods. It was, kind of, a political protest. However, in doing so, I lost a bunch of weight and found myself feeling more satisfied (particularly with breakfast) with less food. I started losing weight quite soon after that. Another thing I read is that the body doesn't get the, "that's enough", signal from corn sweeteners as it does from real sugars. I don't know if that's true but it kind of fits with my breakfast cereal experience.
Now it's your turn to tell me what is really happening to me. In the meantime, here's to a 3/4 cup of home-aggregated, rolled, multi-grain muesli with bits of blueberry, dates, toasted almond slices, sour cherries, apples, oat bran and some other magic that mi esposa put in.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
This is Your Frustrated Brain Resting in Your Hands
For a guy reading so many books (which already slows progress) (for an already slow reader) (and frustrates) (like crazy), I have to say that I'm really plodding through the Brain on Music book. It sounded so promising but it is very dry. The writing actually goes a long way toward convincing me that in order to feel compelled to write such a book, the author's work as a sound engineer must have a similar pace and mentality. For the book's sake, I'm glad I didn't get into the sound engineering work I thought I craved as a youth.
It is enough for me to proudly say I've attempted to dupe my friends into thinking they were getting phone calls from famous producers. Additionally, I've dropped names of acquaintences who have temporarily acted as promoters for such headliners as Big Head Todd and the Monsters (an almost-made-it band) (which is like saying an almost-sold-out band in some ways). By the way, the skin on my left elbow seems to be folding over on itself and pinching me more easily than it did when I was 30 pounds heavier. What is up with that?
It is enough for me to proudly say I've attempted to dupe my friends into thinking they were getting phone calls from famous producers. Additionally, I've dropped names of acquaintences who have temporarily acted as promoters for such headliners as Big Head Todd and the Monsters (an almost-made-it band) (which is like saying an almost-sold-out band in some ways). By the way, the skin on my left elbow seems to be folding over on itself and pinching me more easily than it did when I was 30 pounds heavier. What is up with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
