most recent 30 from http://paleohacks.com 2013-05-25T22:07:33Z http://paleohacks.com/feeds/question/18742 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://paleohacks.com/questions/18742/what-do-you-think-about-counting-grams-of-sugars-instead-of-carbs Travis Culp 2011-01-12T21:24:15Z 2011-01-13T02:26:57Z

<p>If we decide to eat 100g of carbs, we could be eating 50g of sugars (20g of fructose) if we choose bananas or 16g of sugars (4g of fructose) if we choose sweet potato. Maybe the carb-count metric is defunct and needs to be replaced by a count of sugars. If we replace an upper limit of 100g of carbs with an upper limit of 20g of sugars we might have a much greater success rate. Couched within that new limit could be another limit of 5g of fructose. </p> <p>I know a lot of you are already doing this in practice, but I hardly ever see people talking about grams of sugars, whereas I see grams of carbs mentioned all the time. Just seems more informative with regard to actual metabolic consequences. Instead of allowing people to describe us as "low-carb" and attach those connotations, we should instead call it a "low-sugars" diet. </p> <p>Edit: I guess there's a way in which starches could sneak into the diet and obviously get converted to glucose during mastication and digestion, but my assumption is that people are adhering to the overarching precepts already. </p>

http://paleohacks.com/questions/18742/what-do-you-think-about-counting-grams-of-sugars-instead-of-carbs/18756#18756 Eric S 2011-01-12T22:27:28Z 2011-01-12T22:27:28Z

<p>I think you nailed it in your edit: the difference between sugar and non-sugar carbs is somewhat undermined because all carbs eventually turn into sugar (that's a gross simplification, of course). </p> <p>However, the differences lie in how quickly this conversion occurs, and its consequent affect on your blood sugar levels, and their consequent affect on your insulin sensitivity/hunger. When the total number of carbs is relatively low -- i.e., when you eat mostly paleo -- you don't have to worry about this. </p> <p>You may instead focus on the other features of your carbs -- e.g., blueberries are more nutritious and less harmful than Sour Patch Kids. I'll note that going for the latter can make for a nicely controlled and monitored cheat, though its not a strategy that I use.</p>

http://paleohacks.com/questions/18742/what-do-you-think-about-counting-grams-of-sugars-instead-of-carbs/18771#18771 Domer88 2011-01-12T23:33:11Z 2011-01-12T23:33:11Z

<p>Fatsecret.com, which I use when I want to track my daily macronutrients, will calculate net carbs (total carbs minus fiber carbs). As far as I'm concerned, every carb that gets digested enters the bloodstream as either glucose or fructose. Some do so quickly, some slowly, but they all end up as one or both of those simple sugars.</p>

http://paleohacks.com/questions/18742/what-do-you-think-about-counting-grams-of-sugars-instead-of-carbs/18782#18782 Stephen-Aegis 2011-01-13T00:24:20Z 2011-01-13T00:24:20Z

<p>Aha! 42, The answer!</p> <p>The Ultimate question must be how many grams to limit yourself to per day!</p> <p>That's my story(or Douglas Adams) and I'm sticking to it.</p> <hr> <p>As to your question, yes I think sugars are the carbs to count. And in all seriousness, under 42 is a good # IMHO </p>

http://paleohacks.com/questions/18742/what-do-you-think-about-counting-grams-of-sugars-instead-of-carbs/18800#18800 Vivalapaleo 2011-01-13T02:26:57Z 2011-01-13T02:26:57Z

<p>I suppose it depends on what you are counting food for in the first place? If you are scared of Fructose - or are you trying to lose weight or are you doing your best to keep your insulin levels down??</p> <p>In the end of the day - as soon as carbs hit your stomach - they turn to sugar ! Carbs are sugar - some more complex structures than simple sugars but all break down to -- sugar-- </p>