Here is an article found after Quentin pointed to one that says fructose
has its positive points. In short, a small amount of fructose improved
overall bg control by restoring one carbo related digestive responce
missing in t2 diabetics. See:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

After years of eating almost no fruit at all, I have
recently added fresh oranges to my diet. I eat a small
orange, about 15g carbs, with my breakfast. I was presently
surprised when I found that these 15g carbs didn't raise my
BG near as much as expected. In fact, it only raised it by
the amount I would expect 7-8g carbs.

Is this is because oranges contain fructose?

TerryR

<markd@toad-net.com> wrote in message
news:3fe651b1$0$35836$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...

This post not CC'd by email
On 22 Dec 2003 02:06:41 GMT, markd@toad-net.com wrote:

G'day G'day Mark,

I really do admire the way you actually go and find research
papers. There is such an abundance of research material out there
that collectively we can give ourselves a chance of beating the odds.

As I see it we evolved to include some fructose in our diets. Our
colour vision and binocular vision seem well adapted to selecting and
picking ripe fruit. Fructose doesn't have a sweet taste until it is
tasted. Somehow we evolved to find it desirable. If it were bad for
us in some absolute sense and considering our long experience of it,
chances are we would find its taste bitter or fetid or something else
equally undesirable.

The problems with fructose arise, IMHO, because we have mechanized
mastication. We can crush the sugar cane and sugar beet without
moving a jaw muscle. Fructose from fruit is today contributing only
about 3 or 4% of our carb intake. Fructose from refined sugar
contributes about 20% of the carb intake for the general populace.
That means typically people are getting five times as much fructose
from industrialized sources as from hunter gatherer sources.

Perhaps without refined sugar we would eat more fruit but fruit is
highly seasonal. My cherry tree had ripe fruit for a week. My apricot
tree about the same.

If one follows a strategy as a T2 diabetic of largely eliminating
refined sugar from one's diet, then IMHO the amounts contained in
berries and some other fruit aren't likely to be problematic.

What the paper you have brought to our attention sets out to show is
that SMALL amounts of fructose down regulate endogenous blood glucose
production, which should give better fasting blood glucose levels in
the morning.

Of course I am of the opinion that using large amounts of refined
fructose is twice as foolish as refined sucrose.

Best wishes,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

This post not CC'd by email
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:45:42 -0800, "TerryR" <terryR619@yahoo.com>
wrote:

G'day G'day Terry,

Does the fructose content give oranges a low GI?


Glucose Fructose Sucrose
Oranges: raw 2.2 2.5 4.2

Firstly the main sugar in oranges is sucrose, common table sugar.
Secondly the free fructose is barely more than the free glucose.

On the glucose = 100 scale,


Glucose = 100
Fructose= 23
Sucrose = 65

Orange = 44

Weighted average = (2.2x100 + 2.5x23 + 4.2x65)/(2.2 + 2.5 + 4.2) = 62

The idea that glycemic indices can be calculated or guessed at from
the indices of the component sugars is nice ... except that it doesn't
work.

62 is only equal to 44 for large values of 44 and small values of 62

Orange is like buying time release sugar capsules.
They are called cells. Food was meant to be cellular.

Best wishes,

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:8ogduv80fvh0nisjpbutugct50h8nsfds1@4ax.com...

ROTFL!!!!

Annette



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.554 / Virus Database: 346 - Release Date: 20/12/03