On Apr 6, 6:59*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Steve B" wrote:

Many medical studies have shown that some people do not process the
sugars in alcohol in the same way as others. The sugars actually cause
a craving for more alcohol instead of triggering the mechanisms where
the body tells the brain "I've had enough".

Most people call that "self-control."

And others call it complete and utter nonsense: there are no "sugars" in
alcohol.

I won't claim to know much about carbohydrates and simple sugars, but
I am able to find many references that say things like this...

"Each type of alcohol has different amounts of carbohydrates. The
carbohydrates in alcohol are derived from simple sugars and are
therefore, high in calories. The simple sugars in alcohol are
typically higher in some kinds of alcohol than others ..."

However, the chemical makeup of an alcoholic drink wasn't the point of
my comments, so let's not get hung up on that.

Perhaps I worded my earlier post incorrectly, but you can find
numerous articles on many medical websites that discuss the
connections between alcoholism and sugar cravings, hypoglycemia, etc.

My only point is that "alcoholism is a disease" and "alcoholism is a
lack of self-control" can coexist in the same discussion.

Sugars and carbs not withstanding, the "disease" causes alcoholics to
process (and therefore crave) alcohol differently than others. Enter
the "self control" portion: It takes a huge amount of self control for
the alcoholic to mentally overcome the craving for the first drink
that sets up the subsequent diseased based cravings.

I'm not arguing against the relationship between self-control or will-
power and alcoholism - in fact I agree 100% that no one can stop
drinking without it. One has to *choose* not to take that first drink
each day, just like the heart disease patient has to *choose* to
change their life style and just like the cancer patient has to
*choose* to go to chemo sessions. Making the choice to fight the
disease every day takes will-power and self control.

My simple claim is that "alcoholism is a disease" and "alcoholism is a
lack of self-control" are not mutually exclusive. They are both
correct.

In article , DerbyDad03 wrote:
I won't claim to know much about carbohydrates and simple sugars, but
I am able to find many references that say things like this...

I'm sure you can. There's a lot of nonsense masquerading as fact on the 'net.

"Each type of alcohol has different amounts of carbohydrates. The
carbohydrates in alcohol are derived from simple sugars and are
therefore, high in calories. The simple sugars in alcohol are
typically higher in some kinds of alcohol than others ..."

Almost completely bull****.

"Derived from simple sugars" is not the same as *contains* simple sugars.

All carbohydrates have the same calorie content, gram for gram, regardless of
what they're derived from.

And there are *no* sugars in alcohol. The simplest sugar, glucose, has six
carbon atoms per molecule. Ethyl alcohol has only two.

However, the chemical makeup of an alcoholic drink wasn't the point of
my comments, so let's not get hung up on that.

Perhaps I worded my earlier post incorrectly, but you can find
numerous articles on many medical websites that discuss the
connections between alcoholism and sugar cravings, hypoglycemia, etc.

My only point is that "alcoholism is a disease" and "alcoholism is a
lack of self-control" can coexist in the same discussion.

Sugars and carbs not withstanding, the "disease" causes alcoholics to
process (and therefore crave) alcohol differently than others. Enter
the "self control" portion: It takes a huge amount of self control for
the alcoholic to mentally overcome the craving for the first drink
that sets up the subsequent diseased based cravings.

I'm not arguing that -- I'm just saying that it has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with sugar in any way.

On Apr 6, 1:40*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , DerbyDad03 wrote:

I won't claim to know much about carbohydrates and simple sugars, but
I am able to find many references that say things like this...

I'm sure you can. There's a lot of nonsense masquerading as fact on the 'net.



"Each type of alcohol has different amounts of carbohydrates. The
carbohydrates in alcohol are derived from simple sugars and are
therefore, high in calories. The simple sugars in alcohol are
typically higher in some kinds of alcohol than others ..."

Almost completely bull****.

"Derived from simple sugars" is not the same as *contains* simple sugars.

All carbohydrates have the same calorie content, gram for gram, regardless of
what they're derived from.

And there are *no* sugars in alcohol. The simplest sugar, glucose, has six
carbon atoms per molecule. Ethyl alcohol has only two.







However, the chemical makeup of an alcoholic drink wasn't the point of
my comments, so let's not get hung up on that.

Perhaps I worded my earlier post incorrectly, but you can find
numerous articles on many medical websites that discuss the
connections between alcoholism and sugar cravings, hypoglycemia, etc.

My only point is that "alcoholism is a disease" and "alcoholism is a
lack of self-control" can coexist in the same discussion.

Sugars and carbs not withstanding, the "disease" causes alcoholics to
process (and therefore crave) alcohol differently than others. Enter
the "self control" portion: It takes a huge amount of self control for
the alcoholic to mentally overcome the craving for the first drink
that sets up the subsequent diseased based cravings.


I'm not arguing that -- I'm just saying that it has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with sugar in any way.


Then we're good!

(Although I don't think others will be...)

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:40:05 GMT, in alt.home.repair,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

"Derived from simple sugars" is not the same as *contains* simple sugars.

All carbohydrates have the same calorie content, gram for gram, regardless of
what they're derived from.

And there are *no* sugars in alcohol. The simplest sugar, glucose, has six
carbon atoms per molecule. Ethyl alcohol has only two.

Then why does alcohol make you fat? It's not a protein, and it's not a fat,
therefore it must be a carbohydrate of some form. But it's not a sugar, and
it's too simple to be a starch. So what is it? How does it convey calories
to the body?

--
Due to Usenet spam, emailed replies must pass an intelligence test: if
you want me to read your reply, be sure to include this line of text in
your email, but remove this line before sending, otherwise my filters
will delete your email with all due prejudice. Thanks!

In article 4bbbdc6d.37157281@localhost, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:40:05 GMT, in alt.home.repair,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

"Derived from simple sugars" is not the same as *contains* simple sugars.

All carbohydrates have the same calorie content, gram for gram, regardless of
what they're derived from.

And there are *no* sugars in alcohol. The simplest sugar, glucose, has six
carbon atoms per molecule. Ethyl alcohol has only two.

Then why does alcohol make you fat?

What, you think you can get fat only from eating too much sugar?? News flash,
pal: you can get fat from eating whole wheat bread. All you need to do to get
fat is to eat a lot more calories than you burn up. Doesn't matter what form
those calories come in.

It's not a protein, and it's not a fat,
therefore it must be a carbohydrate of some form. But it's not a sugar, and
it's too simple to be a starch. So what is it? How does it convey calories
to the body?

It's metabolized as a carbohydrate.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:15:56 GMT, in alt.home.repair,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article 4bbbdc6d.37157281@localhost, wrote:
Then why does alcohol make you fat?

What, you think you can get fat only from eating too much sugar?? News flash,
pal: you can get fat from eating whole wheat bread.

You know there's more simple sugar in a slice of bread than in a spoonful of
fruit jam, don't you? And all that starch! All complex carbs are built up
from chains of simple sugars, and digestion converts them back to simple
sugars. The whole grains aren't that bad, but your typical store-bought
bread contains plenty of flour that isn't whole-grain.

All you need to do to get
fat is to eat a lot more calories than you burn up. Doesn't matter what form
those calories come in.

It's easier, far easier, to pack on weight by eating carbs. Try it. Try
eating *nothing* but fat and protein for a month, in unlimited quantities,
and tell me how much weight you gain. Won't be much, I guarantee.

It's metabolized as a carbohydrate.

It sets off many of the same metabolic processes as carboyhdrates, including
the insulin process that gives you the feelings of a "sugar rush" and the
ensuing "sugar crash", and leads to craving more of the same....

--
Due to Usenet spam, emailed replies must pass an intelligence test: if
you want me to read your reply, be sure to include this line of text in
your email, but remove this line before sending, otherwise my filters
will delete your email with all due prejudice. Thanks!

In article 4bbcaa9f.89943078@localhost, wrote:


It sets off many of the same metabolic processes as carboyhdrates, including
the insulin process that gives you the feelings of a "sugar rush" and the
ensuing "sugar crash", and leads to craving more of the same....

To put it charitably, you don't have the least idea what you're talking about.
Insulin is not involved in any way in the metabolism of alcohol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_metabolism

On Apr 7, 12:06*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:15:56 GMT, in alt.home.repair,

(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article 4bbbdc6d.37157281@localhost, wrote:
Then why does alcohol make you fat?

What, you think you can get fat only from eating too much sugar?? News flash,
pal: you can get fat from eating whole wheat bread.

You know there's more simple sugar in a slice of bread than in a spoonful of
fruit jam, don't you? *And all that starch! *All complex carbs are built up
from chains of simple sugars, and digestion converts them back to simple
sugars. *The whole grains aren't that bad, but your typical store-bought
bread contains plenty of flour that isn't whole-grain.

All you need to do to get
fat is to eat a lot more calories than you burn up. Doesn't matter what form
those calories come in.

It's easier, far easier, to pack on weight by eating carbs. *Try it. *Try
eating *nothing* but fat and protein for a month, in unlimited quantities,
and tell me how much weight you gain. *Won't be much, I guarantee.

It's metabolized as a carbohydrate.


"It sets off many of the same metabolic processes as
carboyhdrates, including the insulin process that gives you the
feelings of a "sugar rush" and the ensuing "sugar crash", and leads to
craving more of the same...."


I *think* that's what I was trying to explain earlier in this thread
when I was so soundly beaten about the head and shoulders regarding my
poorly-worded comments about alcohol containing sugar.

If not, let the beating continue...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:40:24 GMT, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:40:05 GMT, in alt.home.repair,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

"Derived from simple sugars" is not the same as *contains* simple sugars.

All carbohydrates have the same calorie content, gram for gram, regardless of
what they're derived from.

And there are *no* sugars in alcohol. The simplest sugar, glucose, has six
carbon atoms per molecule. Ethyl alcohol has only two.

Then why does alcohol make you fat? It's not a protein, and it's not a fat,
therefore it must be a carbohydrate of some form. But it's not a sugar, and
it's too simple to be a starch. So what is it? How does it convey calories
to the body?

Know any fat vodka alkies? All the fat alkies I've know were beer
drinkers.