For all those of you cutting out sugar from your diets altogether (or even partially) but still eating fruit, I just read that "studies" show your body doesn't know the difference between natural sugars found in fruits, and refined sugars.

What say ye all? I would be interested to hear the answer (I know that Atkins himself, said there was no difference), yet MM and many like-minded diets (like SS and Sugar-busters) seem to say it IS okay to have "natural" sugar in fruit, because that is different, but NOT okay to have refined sugar or sugar in honey or molasses.

(Of course this article didn't have any links to these "studies", so I'm not sure how authentic they are.)

Which is why artificial sweetners are just as bad as natural sugars as well. You are tricking your body and it doesn't know the difference.... according to Montiganc

It is all the difference between the sugar structures, molecule lengths etc, and how the different types of sugar affect the blood glucose levels. New Glucose Revolution explains it. Why do you think that SOME fruits are ok on Montignac and SOME fruits aren't? Why do you think that SOME chocolate is ok on Montignac and others aren't?!

Plus Montignac is all about natural, unrefined foods, not so much as they are better on the diet plan and to lose weight, but it is about what is overall healthier diet.

Organic vs non organic
non processed vs processed.
Eating something that is naturally occuring, rather than something that a long time ago was natural, but after a lot of work and processing bears very little resemblance to anything ever found in nature....

Does Mr Atkins or the "studies" say anything about this?

Heck - you could probably argue that Twinkies are natural, but common sense would tell you they won't make you lose weight.

What is the source you are refering too? I'm naturally skeptical about studies. They are like polls - you can twist any facts to say exactly what you want.

Thanks for explaining all that Spang. Very interesting. I was actually hoping you would debunk the stuff I read, and you did.

The queries I mentioned above came from this website: http://www.foodcombiningtips.com (read the "New Articles" section on the bottom on the page for it's criticisms of the Suzanne Somers & Montignac diets.)

Actually all this GI stuff makes a lot of sense to me and I want it to work real bad! That's why I'm asking a lot of questions and trying to sort out "seeming" contradictions, which once you read up on it and understand how it works a lot better, aren't really contradictions at all.

I suppose it's good to follow the guidelines as close to the letter as possible, but at the same time realise we all have different bodies so there will be room for slight modifications/restrictions to certain foods when we need to.

Thanks again Spang - you're a wealth of information on this subject.

The big difference between sugar contained in fruits and that in refined sugar does not lie in its molecular structure. Rather it's what has been taken out of fruit to MAKE it refined....

Refined sugar is bad because it's concentrated. How many sugar cane do you reckon it takes to make a cup of white sugar, or molasse. It would be physically impossible to eat that much sugar cane in one sitting. Our bodies were not designed to eat that much concentrated sugar.

Refining sugar also removes all fiber content which has a big impact on it's GI, as well as removing all nutrients.

It's for the same reason Montignac discourages the drinking of fruit juices. You loose a lot of the nutrients from the fruit, as well as the important fibers. You might be satisfied with eating one orange, but it will take 3-4 oranges to make one glass of juice.

Also one last point on fruits. Did you ever see those little tiny dogs and wonder how the hell they managed to turn them into something so different from their original wolf-like shape. Well keep in mind the same was done to fruits in order to make them sweeter. So fruits now are very different from what they originally where.

If you buy the idea of the G.I. index then the studies must be suspect.

My body certainly can distinguise between fructose and sugar in my experience. Sugar makes me crazyy but fructose doesn't

Hi there
I am a new low carber. I am enjoying this way of eating a great deal. Lots of foods that I previously would avoid while counting calories are now on my yes yes list instead of the no no list. So this is fun for me.
Would you all say that eating something like Splenda could stall weight loss? I do realize that it simply is not real good for me. But I am trying to encourage my husband to low carb and the way to do that for him may be to have available food alternatives to those that he is used to. Like ice cream made with Splenda ot Somer Sweet. And honestly I would eat a bit as well. (but not if it is going to get in the way of losing weight)
For me right now I have even cut out fruits temporarily so that I can move this process along. Not forever but just maybe for my first month . Does this sound reasonable? thanks every one for reading and I look forward to hearing your ideas and info!
And one last newbie question? Should I be thinking about calories at all? This getting to eat cheese and eggs and all the other low carb goodies just seems to good to be true!

This is sure a great place!

Kacey,

ANYTHING can cause a stall you just have to experiement. Montignac recommends fructose as a sugar substite because of it's low G.I. I don't have a problem with it.

This is an interesting question.

I have read all these books:
POTATOES NOT PROZAC

Sugar Busters

The Sugar Addict's Total Recovery Program

Get the Sugar Out: 501 Simple Ways to Cut the Sugar in Any Diet

Sugar Blues

Sugar Busters for Kids

The Carbohydrate, Fiber, and Sugar Counter

I am currently reading Eat Yourself Slim
by Michel Montignac,

I have been following Sugar Busters since last July. I have lost a total of 32 pounds, gone from a size 24 to a 16/14 all without exercise or starving.

I have recently started going to the gym because I want to.

Anyway, all the books I've read about sugar have one thing in common. They talk about sugar in natural foods like fruit, is ok. They all mostly refer back to the days when food was natural and not processed.

Sugar Blues is a great book to see how the procession of sugar spread across the "civilized" world and how peoples health has gone down the tubes since.

As far as no sugar sweeteners are concerned, if you can live without them that is really awesome. But for most of us we want, or need them. I use Agave which is a zero carb no sugar natural cactus sweetener.

I use it in my coffee and to bake with. Well actually I give it to my mother-in-law so she can bake things for me.

I don't believe everything I read. I read it, if it sounds correct I'll try it. If I find I'm not losing or feel crappy doing it I figure it's not right for me and stop doing it.