# Balance magazine drivel



## mikeyB (Mar 10, 2019)

Here’s a quote from the section on p54 headed “Five a day the easy way”. Indeed, it’s the first sentence:

“The sugar in fruit is natural, so it’s not the type we need to cut down on” 

That’ll be fructose, will it? Thanks DUK, pass the bananas. 

It goes on to say, “Instead, avoid ‘added sugar’ in drinks, confectionary, fruit juices and honey’ “

Oh good, I’ll ladle honey on to my toast. No added sugar. Just the amount bees need to live on.  And I’ll drink this no added sugar orange juice with it.

Who writes this rubbish? And is this advice endorsed by DUK?


----------



## nonethewiser (Mar 10, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> Here’s a quote from the section on p54 headed “Five a day the easy way”. Indeed, it’s the first sentence:
> 
> “The sugar in fruit is natural, so it’s not the type we need to cut down on”




Not read it but just had a banana for breakfast and will have another piece of fruit later today, not forgetting there is lower carb fruits for those on lower carb diets, strawberries raspberries blackberries  blueberries are examples,  wouldn't  have thought the message is we gorge on fruit surely, can't see no harm in eating fruit if your bg levels behave so not sure what your beef is here.


----------



## Docb (Mar 10, 2019)

Agree with you Mike.  That sort of stuff leads people to believe that just because something is "natural", "local", "organic" and whatever it is safe from any sort of scrutiny.  I'm reminded of the well meaning person who fed people her lettuces which met those criteria.  She poisoned them with e-coli from her "natural", "low milage" fertiliser.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 10, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> Here’s a quote from the section on p54 headed “Five a day the easy way”. Indeed, it’s the first sentence:
> 
> “The sugar in fruit is natural, so it’s not the type we need to cut down on”
> 
> ...



As general advice, it's about a zillion times better than the messages I see all over the Internet saying stuff like "Avoid all fruit except you can have two strawberries as long as you make sure to feel really guilty afterwards" etc etc etc.


----------



## Lanny (Mar 10, 2019)

I think after 17 years of being left on my own, most of the time, & the info I was given, I learnt the best & most useful advice this year! From all of you lot on this forum:- eat to your meter! Yes, I tested in those 17 years but, as @trophywench put it, in some posts of her’s I’ve read, so have shedloads of people, especially T2’s, have done & not known what to do with the results! I discovered, from these forums, the Test, Review & Adjust article about what to do with meter readings!

Another BIG thing I’ve learnt, this past year, is how to adjust my insulin doses to what I eat. Because I’m not a saint & I’m bad at times. Also, sometimes things can go out of control due to outside influences I CANNOT control: bereavement, illness & injury!

Also, with a lot of help from @Northerner in particular & the waking blood sugars thread, when to adjust basal & bolus insulin, how they work & what they do!

The 2 most relevant, & quoted by members, pieces of advice is finding what’s right for YOU & it’s a marathon & not a sprint. In the first instance:- you may hear, or read, about this that & the other working for people but, DOES it work for YOU?: only your meter will tell you that! In the second instance:- diabetes is a lifelong condition & I have to be able to sustain any changes I make, accepting there’ll be ups & downs, some of my own making not being a Saint, & some outside influences I can’t control! The key is to be able to roll with the punches! It’s good to have a plan but, sometimes plans go out of the window! And sometimes, on the otherside of the coin as it were, nice surprises can happen when blood sugar figures aren’t are as bad, as maybe I deserve, when I’ve been bad!


----------



## Sally71 (Mar 10, 2019)

The bit that jars with me is the "sugar in fruit is natural, therefore not the type we have to cut down on" bit.  I'm sorry, but I thought that sugar is sugar and as far as your body goes it can't tell the difference between where it came from?! If you are type 1 on insulin you have to count all of it, therefore all of it must make your blood sugar rise.

That said, diabetes is very individual, maybe some people can get away with eating lots of fruit.  The advice "eat to your meter" should certainly be followed.


----------



## travellor (Mar 10, 2019)

Sally71 said:


> The bit that jars with me is the "sugar in fruit is natural, therefore not the type we have to cut down on" bit.  I'm sorry, but I thought that sugar is sugar and as far as your body goes it can't tell the difference between where it came from?! If you are type 1 on insulin you have to count all of it, therefore all of it must make your blood sugar rise.
> 
> That said, diabetes is very individual, maybe some people can get away with eating lots of fruit.  The advice "eat to your meter" should certainly be followed.



No, sugar is very, very, different to type 2's.
(I believe even type 1's need to consider how fast sugar is digested, and alter times and types of insulin accordingly?)
The majority of us still produce insulin, albeit at different rates, and with different levels of insulin resistance.
So the majority have no issue with a slow release carb, which won't cause a spike, unlike a fast release carb that overloads our system.
All carbs aren't equal, and avoiding processed carbs is an excellent start.


----------



## Drummer (Mar 10, 2019)

The fructose and glucose in fruit is the same as the fructose and fructose in table sugar, sucrose. It might not be combined into a dual molecule - but the sucrose is split, by hydrolysis, as soon as it encounters the enzyme in saliva so no difference at all.
Slow release carbs do not exist, according to my digestive system.


----------



## trophywench (Mar 10, 2019)

I have only flicked through it the day it arrived but whilst dong so to make sure I got rid of all the advertising er, crap to bin before I walked to the bin with it, always infuriating to find this detritus interleaved between the pages of any magazines only to clutter up wherever I sit down to read it - why not keep it on the outside with whatever else is there so people can leaf through and chuck out everything they have no interest in immediately?  Grrr.  I do appreciate the need to try and keep the cost down of course, DUK's a flippin charity after all so NB I'm not moaning about it being there at all!

Anyway in the quick flick I spotted an ambiguous statement and I swear one of the recipes stated 92g carb per serving!  When I read it I'll elaborate if the first skim is true.


----------



## Sally71 (Mar 10, 2019)

Drummer said:


> The fructose and glucose in fruit is the same as the fructose and fructose in table sugar, sucrose. .


That's what I understood.  I know not all carbs are equal, but I thought by definition that "sugars" are the fast-burn ones, because they are made of simpler molecules, and "starches" are the slower ones.  It's things like porridge, pasta etc which are more likely to cause problems with insulin timing due to slow digestion, not fruit. I certainly wouldn't want to give my daughter a ripe banana without some insulin quickly!


----------



## travellor (Mar 10, 2019)

I find a vaste difference between, say, drinking a Lucozade on an empty stomach, and digesting the sugar mixed with fibre from fruit after a meal.
And as you say, chopping a banana into porridge is different again.


----------



## travellor (Mar 10, 2019)

Drummer said:


> The fructose and glucose in fruit is the same as the fructose and fructose in table sugar, sucrose. It might not be combined into a dual molecule - but the sucrose is split, by hydrolysis, as soon as it encounters the enzyme in saliva so no difference at all.
> Slow release carbs do not exist, according to my digestive system.



The small intestine actually  makes the enzyme,  which then has to break down  the sucrose, so a lot of digestive effort is needed first. That's why sucrose is nothing at all like glucose which is digested without breaking down. The process is  started  by enzymes in the mouth, as is any food, which is occasionally incorrectly used to vilify sucrose on certain other sites. Fructose needs to be converted by the liver, so an even different process again.


----------



## Drummer (Mar 10, 2019)

travellor said:


> I find a vaste difference between, say, drinking a Lucozade on an empty stomach, and digesting the sugar mixed with fibre from fruit after a meal.
> And as you say, chopping a banana into porridge is different again.


You actually drink Lucozade and eat banana and porridge?
My jaw is well and truly dropped here - my daily intake is under 40 gm of carbs a day and all from low carb foods - otherwise, I have high blood glucose.


----------



## Drummer (Mar 11, 2019)

travellor said:


> The small intestine actually  makes the enzyme,  which then has to break down  the sucrose, so a lot of digestive effort is needed first. That's why sucrose is nothing at all like glucose which is digested without breaking down. The process is  started  by enzymes in the mouth, as is any food, which is occasionally incorrectly used to vilify sucrose on certain other sites. Fructose needs to be converted by the liver, so an even different process again.


Yes the small intestine also breaks down carbs - and fructose is dealt with in the liver - but hydrolysing sucrose releases the glucose and fructose at once, and with very little effort. I am not vilifying the stuff - it is what it is, and for many people it is a very swiftly and easily digested carb which causes huge spikes in blood glucose.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 11, 2019)

You’re right, Drummer. So what if fructose needs to be converted by the liver. So does heroin, converted to morphine. Works either way. And saying things need to be converted in the liver so that slows things down shows an ignorance of how quickly the liver works. It’s not an industrial process, it starts straight away. And there’s a heck of a lot of liver to do it.


----------



## Drummer (Mar 11, 2019)

What rather concerns me is that the first experiment I did in the Biology lab, aged eleven, was to see how spitting into a test tube containing starches caused glucose to appear - we tested before and after chemically - then we held the remaining portion of the solution in our mouths to experience the change in taste.
We can't have been the only pupils to have done such a test, and then have the process of digestion explained to us - so why is there - apparently - such a lack of understanding?
That would have been in 1962.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

So, we all agree there are even three different sugars, and all three have different digestive processes then.

That's why it's not as easy as "all carbs are the same" to most of us.


----------



## trophywench (Mar 11, 2019)

Drummer said:


> What rather concerns me is that the first experiment I did in the Biology lab, aged eleven, was to see how spitting into a test tube containing starches caused glucose to appear - we tested before and after chemically - then we held the remaining portion of the solution in our mouths to experience the change in taste.
> We can't have been the only pupils to have done such a test, and then have the process of digestion explained to us - so why is there - apparently - such a lack of understanding?
> That would have been in 1962.



I remember that ! - though think it was 1963 for me.  And Mr Willetts producing a Mothers Pride bag with a crust in it, and we were all mesmerized as he plonked a retort stand in the middle of his bench and inserting said crust into the clamp then walking into the room the chemicals were kept in, bringing a bottle of Iodine out, instructing us to watch carefully, and poured some onto the crust.  Wow! - it started turning the most fantastic deep purple immediately.  (Very fashionable colour in 60s fashion!)

As I sat on my bed in Ward C of Kidderminster General some 6 years after gaining my O level - I had cause to remember those Biology lessons funnily enough.  For whatever reason I also remember Percy Potter Runs Across The Lawn Every Morning - by then they'd discovered Enterokinase at the end of that, so we reduced his daily constitutional to a weekly one and said he only did it every Monday evening !!


----------



## robert@fm (Mar 11, 2019)

Arsenic is natural. Deadly nightshade is gluten-free. Hemlock is organic.

I recently came across "gluten-free" pigs in blankets, and it occurred to me that if  the cocktail sausages are made with honest meat, there's no reason for them to contain gluten in the first place.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

trophywench said:


> I remember that ! - though think it was 1963 for me.  And Mr Willetts producing a Mothers Pride bag with a crust in it, and we were all mesmerized as he plonked a retort stand in the middle of his bench and inserting said crust into the clamp then walking into the room the chemicals were kept in, bringing a bottle of Iodine out, instructing us to watch carefully, and poured some onto the crust.  Wow! - it started turning the most fantastic deep purple immediately.  (Very fashionable colour in 60s fashion!)
> 
> As I sat on my bed in Ward C of Kidderminster General some 6 years after gaining my O level - I had cause to remember those Biology lessons funnily enough.  For whatever reason I also remember Percy Potter Runs Across The Lawn Every Morning - by then they'd discovered Enterokinase at the end of that, so we reduced his daily constitutional to a weekly one and said he only did it every Monday evening !!



Finally, someone that remembers the real experiment.
Iodine is a test for Amylose.
And no reaction at all to glucose, as they are different chemical formulas.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

robert@fm said:


> Arsenic is natural. Deadly nightshade is gluten-free. Hemlock is organic.
> 
> I recently came across "gluten-free" pigs in blankets, and it occurred to me that if  the cocktail sausages are made with honest meat, there's no reason for them to contain gluten in the first place.



How do you make "Pigs in Blankets"?
Mine are wrapped in a pastry, or cheese pastry?
That certainly contains gluten, regardless of the meat?








Are you thinking of chipolatas in bacon?


----------



## robert@fm (Mar 11, 2019)

Pigs in blankets are usually cocktail sausages wrapped in strips of bacon.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 11, 2019)

Science: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4644

But the whole debate is just dismal nonsense.  Like anything else, individual glycemic response to different sources of fructose will be highly variable and without testing there's no way of predicting what anybody's will be.  People formulating pathetic a priori rules should be bunged up in a barrel and tossed overboard. Yes, I can eat grapes, otherwise known to Internet posters as "sugar bombs". Yes, I can eat bananas, on the rare occasions politeness prevents me from avoiding the loathsome squishy objects. No, that doesn't give me a warrant to make up rules for anybody else.

And more ... Every piece of credible evidence says that eating fruit is good for you, compared to, say, bacon.  If you need to restrict fruit because you have a very large glycemic response to it, it's a misfortune. If on the other hand you have a bit of a spike from some reasonable portion size, then eating, say, bacon instead is just stupid. Once your HbA1c is down below say 8%, other CV risks will be become increasingly more important than blood glucose & focusing just on blood glucose is, once again, just stupid.

That's a level which the majority of T2's manage to achieve, one way or another, according to the data, at least in the US, the UK, Oz etc.  Telling this population to avoid fruit, and not advising this population that nutrition-dense fruit is a better source of calories than SSB's etc etc, would both be exceptionally inappropriate moves.


----------



## nonethewiser (Mar 11, 2019)

travellor said:


> How do you make "Pigs in Blankets"?
> Mine are wrapped in a pastry, or cheese pastry?
> That certainly contains gluten, regardless of the meat?
> 
> ...



That's a sausage roll mate.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

nonethewiser said:


> That's a sausage roll mate.






That's a sausage roll!


----------



## Drummer (Mar 11, 2019)

travellor said:


> Finally, someone that remembers the real experiment.
> Iodine is a test for Amylose.
> And no reaction at all to glucose, as they are different chemical formulas.


Not unless the test was for glucose - I think you are remembering a different experiment to the one we did.
We were using Benedict's reagent and showed that there was no response to the starch solution, but after adding saliva to a second sample and waiting there was a strong reaction, a brick red precipitate.
It is the same test used to detect glucose in urine, the reagent is on the pads of the test sticks.


----------



## The_petal (Mar 11, 2019)

Yes don't worry about the 'natural' sugar in fruit ~ just eat a honey dew melon and what your BG go through the roof.


----------



## Deleted member 22730 (Mar 11, 2019)

Hi everyone, I hope you're all well.

I've just read your feedback on the latest Balance article and I've passed on some comments to our content team who puts together the Balance magazine.  If anybody has any other feedback they would like me to pass on (doesn't have to be about Balance, any feedback is welcome!) then please do feel free to drop me a message!

Thanks everyone 

Gwen


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

Drummer said:


> Not unless the test was for glucose - I think you are remembering a different experiment to the one we did.
> We were using Benedict's reagent and showed that there was no response to the starch solution, but after adding saliva to a second sample and waiting there was a strong reaction, a brick red precipitate.
> It is the same test used to detect glucose in urine, the reagent is on the pads of the test sticks.



That's correct. 
A different reagent, as the two aren't the same.
And yes, saliva will start any food digesting, I don't that was disputed? 
But if you simply hold starch in your mouth, it won't really affect your BG until you swallow, and it reaches the lower intestine, where the real digestion with the enzyme in your intestine starts the real breakdown.

If you remember the lesson, you had to heat the sample for the reaction to occur, it's actually an enzyme on the test strips, no heating required for them.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

The_petal said:


> Yes don't worry about the 'natural' sugar in fruit ~ just eat a honey dew melon and what your BG go through the roof.



I think that proves the ultimate fact very clearly.
Individual glycemic response is personal, and there is no correlation.

HoneyDew has exactly the same carbs as say, an avocado, or strawberries.

All fruit, both 8 or 9g carb per 100g.

To many in this thread, these should be exactly the same response in BG, all carbs being equal.

Now, we all know many are fans of avacodos, many are fans of berries.
So clearly not.

Funny old thing, diabetes.


----------



## trophywench (Mar 11, 2019)

ROFLMAO - I started off (so did everyone else then) boiling my diluted pee (5 drops of urine plus 10 drops of water, using dinky little dropper provided in your Clintest 'starter' kit) up in a dinky little test tube that you placed in a dinky little test tube rack and added a Clinitest tablet from a tub now on your repeat prescription list (which you never knew existed either a week ago) and observed what colour the liquid was after all the bubbling had died down.  Some people referred to these tablets as 'Boiling tablets' - well - OK I agree it looks as if it's boiling but surely it isn't really?  I know, I'll hold the test tube in my hand instead of putting it in the rack before I add the tablet, Here I go, ta te ta - Oh SHEET!  

Yes - it does actually boil!


----------



## Robin (Mar 11, 2019)

travellor said:


> I think that proves the ultimate fact very clearly.
> Individual glycemic response is personal, and there is no correlation.
> 
> HoneyDew has exactly the same carbs as say, an avocado, or strawberries.
> ...


Avocado is about 1.9g of carb per 100g, unless you accidentally look up an American site (9g per 100)and forget to deduct the fibre (7g per 100). Had to double check that, as I often have avocado as a low carb breakfast.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

Robin said:


> Avocado is about 1.9g of carb per 100g, unless you accidentally look up an American site (9g per 100)and forget to deduct the fibre (7g per 100). Had to double check that, as I often have avocado as a low carb breakfast.



I carried it over all the foods.
Even at 7.2g per 100g for the honeydew, I doubt that would give many people a BG that goes through the roof.
One teaspoon full of sugar equivalent?
Obviously, I can't speak for you as type 1, I can only say as a type 2, I wouldn't even notice that difference in a meal.

As I said, if that amount of that specific fruit does for you, I'll still take it as proving individual metabolisms are unique, I'm sure you would agree.


----------



## Robin (Mar 11, 2019)

travellor said:


> I carried it over all the foods.
> Even at 7.2g per 100g for the honeydew, I doubt that would give many people a BG that goes through the roof.
> One teaspoon full of sugar equivalent?
> Obviously, I can't speak for you as type 1, I can only say as a type 2, I wouldn't even notice that difference in a meal.
> ...


I’m sorry, I wasn’t entering into the debate about what fruit does or doesn’t do for anyone. I just thought that your post read as though avocado was 8-9g of carb per 100g, which I thought might confuse people who had looked it up and seen that it was 1.9g.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

Robin said:


> I’m sorry, I wasn’t entering into the debate about what fruit does or doesn’t do for anyone. I just thought that your post read as though avocado was 8-9g of carb per 100g, which I thought might confuse people who had looked it up and seen that it was 1.9g.



That's fine.
I was saying I went overboard on all the carbs, so Honey Dew is even better for low carb than I stated.
I agree, it is confusing.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 11, 2019)

The_petal said:


> Yes don't worry about the 'natural' sugar in fruit ~ just eat a honey dew melon and what your BG go through the roof.



I've been eating honeydew and rock melon (cantaloupe to you Brits, I s'pose) practically every day for years & years. After my DX I cut down on portion sizes, as part of cutting back on carbs generally, but I never ditched it completely. With BG regulation more sorted now, I eat as much of it as I ever did, and things are just fine. In any case, it never impacted me nearly as much as grains.

But that's just me.


----------



## travellor (Mar 11, 2019)

Eddy Edson said:


> I've been eating honeydew and rock melon (cantaloupe to you Brits, I s'pose) practically every day for years & years. After my DX I cut down on portion sizes, as part of cutting back on carbs generally, but I never ditched it completely. With BG regulation more sorted now, I eat as much of it as I ever did, and things are just fine. In any case, it never impacted me nearly as much as grains.
> 
> But that's just me.



No it's not just you.

It's a hell of a lot of us.


----------

