Post by charlie on Jun 9, 2012 5:01:16 GMT -5
WARNING. : THIS THREAD MAY SERIOUSLY UPSET SOME MEMBERS BLOOD PRESSURE ;DThis has emerged a few times and is being toyed with again recently.
Now we have alot more confirmed diagnosed as members maybe we can come to a sensible conclusion to this constant debate. I have a few theories so I will put those forward here.
NOT TO GLUCOSE: Now we all know Bill is very anti glucose and we all know why..........
Yes - it is safer to avoid sweet foods so there is less likelihood of contamination or something slipping through. There is a risk that the glucose is contaminated. And the less you crave sweet foods the safer and healthier you will be.
Now Bill has such a highly polished halo on his ability to not want glucose that you can probably see it over the pond!!!
But what about those that arent' so lucky to have this high level of self control? Modern society promotes sweets, chocolate, cakes, puddings, fast food as being a treat we must all have. It is advertised everywhere all the time and is a high priority on everyones shopping list. I can guarantee if I watch television with adverts on it in every advert break there will be at least one advert about something with sugar in it, and it always (obviously) promoted as something you can't do without......... and the whole nation is unhealthier as a result....... but until the whold nation is educated otherwise this will never stop.
So we have to start with damage limitation with kids with HFI or other fructose related problems. And this is where the confusion starts.
TO GLUCOSE: If we can simulate the safest sweet options to satisy a childs craving are they less likely to sneak sweet foods in other ways. Sometimes it is just a case of curiosity, they want to know what all the fuss is about, so allowing them to have a little of what is safest eg a homemade cake with glucose in it, a pudding or drink they get to be included and usually realise that it ain't all its cracked up to be. If we can control the portions and slowly teach them what it is all about, what is safe and what isn't then surely that is better than total denial. If they have a reaction (which is often delayed so they don't initially match it up to what they ate) they can slowly start to understand what it does to them and then make the choice if they want to risk it.
My personal experience with Megs: I used to polish my halo that Meg wouldn't have any sweets or in fact anything on the no list, and that was easy while she was small enough to not be able to raid the cupboard. But my halo exploded when Megs was 8 with the famous chocolate smeared all over her face - the dog ate it and licked it all over her mouth - story and since then there have been alot of sneaks. Now she never sneaks veg and fruit, that part is easy to avoid. But next door have alot of sweets and flavoured drinks and that is the hardest for her to understand. But if I make a safe version for her with the lowest glucose content possible she feels satisfied and I have better control over everything else. I try to hide anything unsafe and try not to buy too much that is unsafe which is easier for me as it is only the two of us and I don't have a sweet tooth anyway but some families that have multiple members can't do this as easily so careful education and control is surely better than total denial. After all we all know what happens to teenagers denied cigarettes, booze and sex education - they get very crafty.........
Over to others experience on this one...................
And onto my other theory I have toyed with a few times now....
MUTATIONS OF HFI: it would appear there are 2 very clear groups on here, those that just don't like the sweet taste and those that do but all have diagnosed HFI, I can't include Megs in this a we are still waiting for her results. But it looks like there are several mutations and what would be interesting would be to start finding out what particular mutations people have and if that shows any pattern to whether they want sweet or unsafe HFI foods or not.
