A grape has maybe 0.5 grams of fructose, plus some water, that's really all it is. So those 12 grapes only have about 6 grams of digestible carb. If you're trying to match a 15 gram candy bar, we're either talking about much bigger grapes or more of them. And most candy bars have much more sugar, e.g. a Snickers *miniature* has 22 grams, a regular Snickers has 33 grams.
So I think the differential effect you're observing is a matter of portion size, not the "processing" of the sugars. And the candy bar will almost certainly have fat and protein, depending on the specific bar obviously, that will *slow* your blood sugar rise as compared to the grapes. If the candy bar is sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, the sugars should act the same as those in the grape, if sucrose, then I believe they'll actually hit you a touch slower.
The idea that "natural" sugars don't require insulin is, sorry, incoherent. This reminds me of a Type 1 diabetic whom I met alpine climbing some years ago. He claimed he only needed insulin to cover actual sugar, while other carbs like bread, potatoes, rice, and the like didn't need any insulin because they weren't "sugar." I don't know the specifics of his case, e.g. what his A1Cs or post-prandial excursions were, but there's no plausible biological explanation. Heck, starch from potatoes is already beginning to be converted into glucose by the saliva in the mouth before we even swallow! Part of the reason toasted bread tastes good to us is because the heat breaks down some of those starches into sugars, so toast literally tastes sweeter than untoasted bread.
You've mentioned correcting your blood sugar with raisins (which are just grapes from which most of the water has been removed). Does that dehydration count as "processing" in your book? Assuming not, isn't there a contradiction between saying you can eat grapes/raisins without needing insulin, and at the same time saying grapes/raisins will raise your blood sugar when it's low?
Ultimately we each have to find what works for us. I'm reacting strongly because you remind me of the anti-science of some folks I care a lot about (who are into things like homeopathy and faith healing and vaccine skepticism), and because we're sharing information with a broader audience, so this isn't analogous to a conversation the two of us might have in private.
@niccolo, Sweetheart, I think it is kinda a stretch to call nutritional health, 'science.' I guess it depends on your definition. Its, maybe, one part arithmetic, three parts art, and 6 parts witchcraft. Relax, man.
Is it a stretch to observe that the fructose in grapes is the same fructose that's in "processed" raisins is the same fructose that makes up half of table sugar (sucrose, a disaccharide molecule that breaks down into fructose and glucose)? Nutrition is absolutely both an art and a science, but starting with bad science almost necessarily will lead you astray.
Anyway, as Lana observed, this is pretty tangential to the topic of the thread. And Lana has found a system that (mostly) works for her, and that's both lowered her BGs and given her a sense of control, so as long as she's happy with the results, I suppose the rest of it doesn't matter much. So don't worry, I'm not going to keep banging my head on the wall here, I'll let you guys get back to discussing whether people with diabetes are fit to have relationships. :)
Break it up, you two! LOL. I know sometimes we gotta fight this stuff out or emotionally vent. I shouldn't be baiting. Its a good, overall post with a lot of interesting responses. Getting sidetracked!
I don't eat fruit at all for that very reason, it raises my BG just as easily and quickly and much as any candy or starchy food. I watch my serving sizes and check my BG religiously and I can tell with out a doubt that there is no difference between fructose and table sugar..for my BG at least.
Everybody who is serious about their health does what works for them. Like me, for instance, the best diet I have found to work for me is Bernstein's. I'm not as strict as he suggests but I am working on it. I do, however, tend to eat fewer carbs than he suggests in his book, but that is because I have trouble resiting eating too many once I get started...so I just cut them out as much as possible.
My diet consists of primarily non-starchy vegetables,and secondly meats, lactose free cheeses, and lots of yummy herbs and spices.
This is the only diet I've ever found that is both easy to stick to and that actually works to keep my BG in line. :)
This highlights a critical fact: each physiology is individual and responds differently to a given set of inputs. I know people for whom (just to use the current example) n grams of carbohydrate from fruit behaves differently than n grams from oh, say, rice or potatoes. This is a well documented phenomenon experienced by numerous people.
However: for me, it doesn't matter where the carbs come from. I'll repeat that. It makes absolutely no difference. 10 carbs will raise me about 50 points no matter what kind of carbs they are. That is not opinion or belief; it's what my meter reports.
It's just not valid to generalize one's own experience because two different body chemistries may (or may not) respond similarly to a given input. We have an acronym for it: YDMV ("Your Diabetes May Vary"). Or, to paraphrase another TuD member, if you want to treat diabetes by the book, you need a separate book for each diabetic.
I found out that I had T1D around Sept. 10, 1982. I got married on Sept. 18, 1982 to my wife of 32 years and going strong. She is not a diabetic but she keeps me "in line" concerning my T1D. If not for her, I think I would not have the control that I live with daily and I am grateful for that!
I suppose the mature response is that Lana's wildly inappropriate comment (seriously, can we make an effort to keep the forum family friendly?) says much more about her than me.
I'm sorely tempted to be less mature--this is, after all, a thread where Lana attempts to generalize her inability to maintain a relationship into the preposterous notion that maybe people with diabetes aren't relationship material--but I'll bite my tongue. Okay, I didn't really bite my tongue, but sometimes crummy sentiments need to be called out.
I responded the other day but kept thinking about your question, and another thought hit me. Could this be a projection on yourself, meaning are you wondering why someone would want to be with you as a T1D? I hope you understand that you are much more than your diabetes, but it makes you the person you are. I know people always say "I am not defined by my diabetes", but I've got to say it is a huge part of who I am, even though there are other elements to me. So I have to know the person I'm with is strong enough to accept my disease, but also see me as a whole person. And believe me, it's not for everyone. Your mate will need to be strong, intelligent, and brave. At least 9 out of 10 people aren't going to even make the cut. My first spouse was someone I thought I could count on, but ultimately the fear took over and bailed. My husband of 7 years has his fears, but I know he also has the integrity to hang in there and support me, while allowing me the independence I need to manage things as best I can. Don't count yourself out for romance, but romance in our world can look a little different. We don't need a knight on a white horse, we need a partner in the truest sense. And that my dear, is romantic!
No worries, actually not particularly offended, it'd be insane if I were, we're almost complete strangers, and likely to stay that way. And I think there's lots of interesting stuff to discuss around relationships and diabetes.
For what it's worth, I appreciate your frank, unfiltered style. I may not like everything that comes out, but I like that you call it as you see it.
I took the time to read you r post and the thread that followed and I had a few thoughts to share. I think that people with D tend to lead pretty productive and reasonably healthy lives.
Main reason being that the majority of us know what the consequences of neglect can be.
I tend to think that people who have something that they need to overcome on a daily basis have a tendency to be much more apt to have structure in their lives as a result.
They also usually tend to be logical in their decision making processes since they understand the value of well reasoned decision making.
Of course this is not always true, but if we are speaking in generalities, I think it holds water and the exceptions do not disprove the rule.
For myself,I think it is difficult enough to find a person in our lives that will care enough to get to know us on a deeper personal or even intimate level without putting additional restraints and criteria on whether or not something that could be beneficial is allowed to progress due to a condition for which that person is not responsible.
I do think however, that if someone with D is a potential love interest, that it is of utmost importance that they take care of themselves to the best of their ability.
This shows that they have enough of a sense of self worth that they will maintain what they have and that they will want to preserve it as long as possible.
This is true for anyone though.
I take care of my own D and even though my lady understands the issues I deal with, she is not particularly supportive. The times when my sugar drops to 30 and I ask for juice because I am having trouble I get told to "just go get it". Which in and of itself is fine and an understandable statement, but once in a while it would be nice to see that she actually understood the severity of it and how it leaves a person in a vulnerable state. She has never had to do this because I have always been completely self reliant and taken my care firmly into my own hands. I don't have any complications and I go to my appointments regularly and keep myself in check.
Point being, I think at times it would be great to have a partner that had a true understanding of what was happening since they would be able to help and support on a couple levels. It could be a nice thing if you allow for that. It all comes down to the person though in the end. If you are incompatible, then that is it. Whether or not they have D should be of no import.
I am so puzzled by your question. I guess I don't look at my diabetes as a albatross around my neck. I don't allow it to rule my life, sure it's a priority, but not in charge of whatever I do, when I do, now how I do it. My life is mine, and I live it as "normally" as possible within the limits of what I allow my diabetes to be in charge of. I am married for 37 years --- 15 years ago I was diagnosed with "D"....my husband stuck by me, he even does our cooking. Now three years ago, he was diagnosed with "D" and we take care of each other.....I do the education and teaching him, he does the cooking and keeps track of our exercise time and routines. Should I divorce him? Not on your life. If he had already had "D" when I met him, or I had it, would we not be married? I doubt that would have changed our minds. Yes it's expensive, yes it can be time consuming, but sometimes these things done with a partner can be part of your relationship. He has nursed me through hi's and lows. and I the same with him. We are not lepers. We are told and encouraged to live happy, healthy, normal lives....and sometimes that means finding out the "man or woman" of your dreams has a disease that is chronic. For good ness sakes, educate me why you would turn someone away or dump them because they had "D". What if they came back from war without a limb? Divorce immediately....you have puzzled me here,
