<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Men's Health Blog &#187; Diabetes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://edpillblog.com/category/diabetes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://edpillblog.com</link>
	<description>Articles and Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:51:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>THE G.I. FACTOR: ANSWERED QUESTIONS</title>
		<link>http://edpillblog.com/2009/05/the-gi-factor-answered-questions/</link>
		<comments>http://edpillblog.com/2009/05/the-gi-factor-answered-questions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 13:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Diabetes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edpillblog.com/2009/05/the-gi-factor-answered-questions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does the area under the curve give a true picture of the blood sugar responses? Why not use just the peak value? The area under the curve is thought to reflect the sum total of the glycaemic response, not just the one time point given by the peak. Statisticians recommend use of the area under [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">Does the area under the curve give a true picture of the blood sugar responses? Why not use just the peak value?<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">The area under the curve is thought to reflect the sum total of the glycaemic response, not just the one time point given by the peak. Statisticians recommend use of the area under the curve. There is a very close relationship between the area under the curve and the peak response. That is, if one is high, the other is high and vice versa.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">What about resistant starch? What effect does it have on the G.I. factor of a food?<br />
</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.d-store.net/?product=amaryl" title="Generic Amaryl"><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">Resistant starch is the starch which completely resists digestion in the small intestine.</span></a><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt"> It cannot contribute to the glycaemic effect of the food because it is not absorbed. Resistant starch should not be included in the 50 gram carbohydrate helping which is the standard for G.I. testing because all of this 50 grams should be available carbohydrate, that is available for absorption in the small intestine.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">Resistant starch is not viscous like some forms of soluble fibre that delay absorption in the small intestine and flatten the blood glucose curve. Hence the mere presence of resistant starch in the food will not affect the G.I. factor of a food. Bananas and potato salad both have relatively high amounts of resistant starch but the G.L factors of these two foods are very different. Potatoes have a high G.L factor and bananas an intermediate one.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">The difficulty that arises in testing is determining the true available carbohydrate content of food which is high in resistant starch. If the amount of resistant starch is underestimated, it will produce a falsely low G.L factor.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">*95\42\4*<br />
</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://edpillblog.com/2009/05/the-gi-factor-answered-questions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DIABETES: WHAT ARE THE SWEETENING AGENTS?</title>
		<link>http://edpillblog.com/2009/04/diabetes-what-are-the-sweetening-agents/</link>
		<comments>http://edpillblog.com/2009/04/diabetes-what-are-the-sweetening-agents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Diabetes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edpillblog.com/2009/04/diabetes-what-are-the-sweetening-agents/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sugar is a sweetening agent, and as such has always been used as a food. Whether it is really safe for anybody to have unlimited sugar is not known, though the harmful effects of tooth decay and obesity are well recognized. What is certain, however, is that unlimited sugar is dangerous for persons with diabetes, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.pharma-c.net/buy_metaglip.html" title="GLIPIZIDE; METFORMIN helps to treat type 2 diabetes."><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">Sugar is a sweetening agent, and as such has always been used as a food.</span></a><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt"> Whether it is really safe for anybody to have unlimited sugar is not known, though the harmful effects of tooth decay and obesity are well recognized. What is certain, however, is that unlimited sugar is dangerous for persons with diabetes, so that they must either severely limit the sugar they take or find another alternative. There have been several alternative chemical substances used as substitutes for sugar. They taste sweet, are apparently quite safe to take, and do not have any energy food value. The first of these is saccharin, which has been used since the beginning of this century. It is, by weight, 400 times as sweet as sugar, so that very little is needed to give food a sweet taste. Its main disadvantage is that it is destroyed by heat, so it cannot be added to food before cooking. There are no harmful effects from using this substance, it is excreted in the urine so is not used by the body and does not accumulate there. Another sweetening agent is cyclamate. This has been widely used in the USA and elsewhere since 1950 and was used to sweeten a wide variety of foods and drinks. There has never been any evidence that it has harmful effects on humans. There is another sweet substance called sorbitol. This is related chemically to ordinary sugar but is not as sweet. It is absorbed very slowly when it is eaten, so that it enters the bloodstream so slowly that it does not have the same harmful effects as ordinary sugar for a person with diabetes. It is often used in making jams and confectionery. On the other hand it is eventually used in the body as sugar, so that foods containing sorbitol should be taken only in moderation. Taken in excess it can cause diarrhea, but apart from this it has no harmful effects and is a naturally occurring substance.<br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Courier New; font-size:10pt">*103/54/5*<br />
</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://edpillblog.com/2009/04/diabetes-what-are-the-sweetening-agents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
