then how does it make sense that some carbohydrates affect the body differently and can be eaten in excess without causing problems?
Where did I ever say they can be eaten in excess? I'm pointing out that "excess" is different for a diabetic than it is a healthy person.
And yes, a high carbohydrate diet will lead to diabetes, but you need to distinguish between types of diabetes, and you have yet to actually qualify the statement that the recommended daily intake of 50% of your caloric intake from carbs, is "too high." Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.
Either type of diabetic respond to a reduced or no carbohydrate diet the same way. Whether your body does not naturally produce enough or you are insulin resistant, eating food that does not raise your blood sugar at all literally reverses the damage done and returns normally sensitive diabetics into normal and functioning people without insulin or medication.
Sorry, I had a brain fart and wrote types of diabetes, and meant types of carbohydrates.
Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.
The problem is that when you try to compartmentalize carbohydrates like you are doing now, you make it harder for people to understand the danger of high blood sugar in itself. So yeah pasta scores better on the glycemic index than a candy bar because it has little fat, medium levels of protein, and a small amount of fiber. On the flip side, a candy bar and a bowl of pasta produce the same or comparable blood sugar levels an hour after a meal is eaten. Whether you are full or satisfied is irrelevant. The damage is done and if you repeat the process over and over again you will become diabetic.
Soo, I'm wrong because some people may be not be able to follow it?
And whether you are full or satisfied
is relevant. I don't know why you keep thinking this. If you aren't full or satisfied, you go back for more; and more very often means
more carbohydrates. The cycle you talk about is much more vicious with sweets and other concentrated sources of carbohydrates. Furthermore, a lack of nutrients, found with processed/refined carbohydrates, helps make you fatter and more prone to insulin resistance.
So I will say again, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Sugar raises blood glucose. until you provide me a study that conclusively proves processed sugar any differently affects the body than normal sugar I am going to not respond to this anymore. The reason I am such a stickler on this is because even organizations that agree with your line of reasoning agree that sugar as a whole is the danger, not specifically hfcs or other processed sweeteners.
You're narrowing the parameters too much (which has been my argument the entire time). Yes, on one level, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. But you for some reason don't want to look at the overall picture of how carbohydrates affect a person in different ways. I've pointed to studies, I've pointed to common medical practices, I've pointed to evolutionary biology, I've pointed to simple common sense. In many of these area's, we agree, you just stubbornly want to disagree. You keep thinking I'm saying "you're wrong," when all I'm saying is "yes, but there's also this to consider."
Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. Perform an experiment with yourself. Drink a 12 oz can of soda, see if you feel full and for how long. Then, go eat the equivelant amount of carbohydrates from a banana (I don't care to compute how many banana's that is), and see how full you feel and for how long. Or, eat a lot of pasta, and tell me how long that stays with you.
And I'm noticing your changing what you say a little. Best to avoid "concentrated sources of any carbohydrate." But that's exactly what refined and processed sugars are. Bread's and pasta's are more concentrated than fruit, but the question is whether the human body can handle the load.
Maybe we just misunderstood each other on this part. I agree eating pure sugar as in candy is much worse than eating its equivalent in bananas, but for the wrong reasons. A candy bar will lack any type of nutrition that would keep you full whereas a bannana has a lot of things going for it nutrition wise, still contains a lot of sugar which causes the same problem the candy bar will, on top of not satisfying you. Where we disagree is how dangerous it is to your long term well being. Your body can handle high doses of sugar for a little while, but you made my point. The body cannot handle the load and eventually you develop diabetes because of it.
Last time I checked, we don't know
exactly what kind of load the body can handle. Nor do we know how this holds true for everybody. Either way, the human body evolved to handle carbohydrates, and their complete demonization by you is ridiculous. You can't just lump a candy bar and a banana together based upon the fact that your body will process sugar out of it. I also wasn't aware that doctors had actually diagnosed what actually
causes a person to stop producing enough insulin. Therefor, you can't say that high blood sugar alone is responsible for diabetes, though you can say it is a necessary component. For all you know, the nutrients that come along with a balanced diet prevent the body from breaking down and not be able to produce insulin (please correct me here if you have evidence to the contrary), meaning the spike in blood sugar caused by eating fruits, vegetables, starches, etc, are able to be handled by the body in a more or less safe manner (you can still gain weight, but that's why you moderate yourself).