okay is it true, that some fruits are simple carbs and some are complex carbs? The lower the gi value would make it a complex carb right?? The more I read up on this topic the more it gets confusing..thanks again
Thats right on the money.Simple/complex refers to the carbohydrate molecular structure. Unfortunately this has little to do with where a particular carb lies on the glycemic index.
Fructose is the main carbohydrate that is found in fruit. It is a simple carb (aka a sugar) but it one of the lowest on the GI. Maltodextrin is a complex carb but is very high on the GI.
People who use complex/simple to define good/bad carbs are using obsolete information.
The glycemic index by itself does not tell the whole picture but is far from being useless. It is a measure for how carbohydrate affects blood sugar which then can trigger an insulin response. Since protein and fat are not carbs, the GI does not apply to them however, both can also increase blood sugar and insulin levels by alternate mechanisms. Insulin response testing is more involved so insulin index data is more limited.i thought that glycemic index was not necisarily important, and that the insulin response was what was important in carbs. there are a few posts by alan aragorn on bodybuilding.com that i believe support this. (for example milk has other stuff that raises insulin)
also, i believe the type of sugar is important (glucose is better than fructose or lactose because it is best absorbed by muscle)
please correct if wrong
I'm pretty sure fructose doesn't use insulin as a transporter, so most of it is transported with a different carrier protein(GLUT5?) and metabolized in the liver into liver glycogen as opposed to muscle glycogen.This doesn't make sense to me. I can personally attest that fructose and lactose do increase blood sugar levels - they just take longer than straight glucose but the energy will be available to muscle tissue.
Then why, as a diabetic, do I have to take insulin even when I eat fruit?I'm pretty sure fructose doesn't use insulin as a transporter, so most of it is transported with a different carrier protein(GLUT5?) and metabolized in the liver into liver glycogen as opposed to muscle glycogen.
I'm not saying that it doesn't at all elevate blood glucose, I'm just saying I believe that the reason it isn't primarily stored as skeletal muscle glycogen is because it doesn't use insulin as a transporter.Then why, as a diabetic, do I have to take insulin even when I eat fruit?
Just because fructose is metabolized in the liver it does not mean that it is locked in there. If glycogen stores are full or if the body is energy deficient, it will be released in to the blood stream (energy hub) and stored elsewhere (muscle glycogen, fat, etc.) or used for energy.
First you call them fruits, now you call them simple. Methinks some whoopass be comin. :bruce3:i thought this was questions about gixxer,nycste,tripdog,and trauma....
i didnt read the thread but arent fruits simple carbs?
by fruits?.....or by fairies? :icon_lol:First you call them fruits, now you call them simple. Methinks some whoopass be comin. :bruce3:
Several things can contribute to why you see a rise in BG after consuming fructose. 1. It's one of the most adequate carb sources for replenishing liver glycogen stores, allowing for increase rates of glycogenolysis and thus adequate release of glucose into the bloodstream. 2. In the liver fructose is rapidly acted upon by the fructase and F1P enzymes which converts the simple sugar into intermediates of both the glycolytic, and gluconeogenic pathways. Which sets up yet another path for increasing glucose levels via gluconeogeneisis and yet more glycogenesis.Then why, as a diabetic, do I have to take insulin even when I eat fruit?
Just because fructose is metabolized in the liver it does not mean that it is locked in there. If glycogen stores are full or if the body is energy deficient, it will be released in to the blood stream (energy hub) and stored elsewhere (muscle glycogen, fat, etc.) or used for energy.