Sugar Free Candies and other things

These Reese's zero sugar cups are great.  Let me explain why and tell you about my experiences with sugar free foods. 

 But first, some background.

I got diagnosed as type 2 diabetic last year.  I've always been hyper sensitive to sugar.  I hate that they call this insulin resistance, because I didn't understand the problem at all and the term didn't make sense to me. I had plenty of insulin. I would spike, insulin would kick in and then I'd drop precipitately. If anything, I had too much insulin.  

Seriously - I suffered from hypoglycemia a LOT which is not something diagnosed in USA. But on a 3 hour test - I dropped 100 points from 170 to 70. In one hour!  

When I was diagnosed as gestationally diabetic I dutifully went on a diabetic diet and my blood sugar never rose about 80 and I felt miserable. Like - seriously horrible. I started drinking sodas, which I rarely do because - I hated the drops in blood sugar so much. I actually wonder if the reason my first child was still born was because of this diet. I gave up after about a week and found information on the hypoglycemic diet out of Australia and that is what I followed up until recently. And it kept me pretty even and my blood work always looked good. Even my fasting numbers were good. 

Menopaused changed everything

All that changed after menopause and suddenly - I was spiking but not dropping and I had weight gain.  Exercise more. Ok. Did that, nothing changed.  Eat better. I was already eating pretty healthy actually.

So after getting a really bad blood result back - I asked my doctor for a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). I was too scared to do a diabetic diet because, it turns out I have unprocessed trauma from the last time I did the diabetic diet. I wasn't adverse to finding out my metabolism had changed, but I had to know for sure what was going on before I committed to anything.

It really helped. Yes, my blood sugar was high. No I no longer needed to worry about dropping super duper low like I used to. Yay. 

So I started experimenting with foods and figuring out what worked and what didn't. I also tried to learn the science. For this I highly recommended Nourished by Science. https://www.youtube.com/@nourishedbyscience  He explains the science and provides actionable information. All of the changes I've made - were recommended by him. The most important bit of philosophy imparted is - don't engage in self harm! 

Changes Made

I wanted easy changes that would be easy to stick to. So - I started walking after meals (as suggested by nourished by science), and I cut out all sugary drinks. I did not drink a lot - but what I did - like icees at the movie theater, I cut out. 

To my surprise, I started dropping weight rapidly.  One year later, I'm down 50 lbs and I do not feel like I've radically changed anything. I just walk when I should (after meals to help use up the sugar) and reduced my sugar intake.

I wear a CGM every other month. This helps me keep on track and not fall into bad habits. You know - cheating and thinking it's ok. Nope it is not.  I also use these sessions to experiment with things.  

Want to know if cooking then freezing then reheating your starches like bread, pasta or rice makes a difference? According to my personal experiments it does.  Yesterday I had lasagna made by my hubby using pasta sheets he had cooked then stuck in the fridge and instead of my blood sugar spiking into the 200s, it crested at 149. Walking after the meal helps, but even if I walk, if I eat something that spikes my blood sugar - walking 15 minutes doesn't really do much. I would need to walk for 1 hour to use up all that sugar in my system. 

I can also verify that stress, raises your blood sugar. I watched Jaws last night and my blood sugar spiked 3 different times during the movie - times with jump scares and rising tension. 

Food Experiments

Anyway - I'm currently wearing a monitor and have several experiments planned.  I've already completed a couple. The first - sugar free candies.

My go dark chocolate which barely moves my blood sugar. I can eat an entire bag of Skinny Dipped dark chocolate almonds with very little effect on my blood sugar. It's my go to movie theater snack. With my water of course. Or - if I am buying a drink - I'll mix a sugar free powerade with water. 

Which brings me to my current experiments.  Any sugar free candy I wanted to try - would need to be tastier than my go to snacks.

The first one I tried was an Unreal product. A type of mounds bar. Coconut covered by dark chocolate. They use Cassava syrup instead of sugar. I didn't walk after, I just sat and read. It raised my blood sugar 30 points. Which is better than a regular mounds would impact me. But - I didn't really care for the taste. My son is eating them and likes them.  For me - I'd rather have my dove square even before taking into account the relatively high blood sugar impact.  10 points vs 30 points. 

The 2nd one I tried was the Reese's sugar free mini cups. They use maltitol for the sweetener. Which, apparently (according to the tiny bit of research I looked up on it), is protective against colon cancer in rats and has a mild laxative effect in rats (which would be good for me).   It tasted EXACTLY like a regular Reeses, but - it only raised my blood sugar by 10 points. This is a keeper. But - with sugars - it's not just about how much sugar, it's also about portions. I will need to be careful to only have them occasionally, when I'm really craving a Reeses (which is my all time favorite type).  I will be getting their mixed bag that uses Maltitol and try out their other offerings. But - I'm very excited about this.

Another experiment had to do with frozen tator tots.  They raised my blood sugar by 50 (just ate the tots - no ketchup). Which means - yeah - I could occasionally have them if I walk afterwards, but it's probably best to stick to my current practice of only having 1 or 2 instead of say - 10. 

I just had some sourdough pretzels as a snack. I spiked 100 points and that was with only 5 pretzels! NOT a good snack for me. At all. I was hoping given they are sour dough - they'd be ok. Nope, they are not. Bummer. Back to carrots to dip in my hummus. But this is why you don't cheat! Find out if something is ok using the tools we now have at our disposal. Don't just assume a few will be ok. 5 sourdough pretzels isn't filling and - 100 points. I can easily dip carrots in my hummus instead. 

Next I'm going to experiment with Makhana (puffed lotus seeds). And revisit my popcorn experiment. I do need something easy and salty and crunchy and while I love roasted seaweed, it's not - toothy if that makes sense. 

Hope this helps. It is stuff I like. 

Movie Reivew: Ek Villian

This movie is better than the South Korean original. But that's not saying a lot. I honestly have no idea why anyone would want to remake that movie. At. All.

This movie is a remake of I Saw the Devil. A South Korean "thriller." It's actually better to describe that movie as gore porn. I saw it ONLY because I was excited about Ek Villain. I love Ritesh Deshmukh and the idea of seeing him in a villain's role was enticing.   To say I hated I Saw the Devil is an understatement. It was disgusting and the evil in it had no point. At all. In fact, it was so bad I put off seeing Ek Villain until the woman who runs my local Indian Bazaar assured me it was a really good movie and didn't involve any violent rapes, dismemberment or cannibalism. She was right. It didn't include any of that, but it still was an absolutely horrid story.

What amazes me is that someone in India saw I Saw the Devil and thought - that's a great movie. We should remake it. I can't imagine anyone thinking that. Anywhere. It had no plot. It was disgusting. There was no point to it. There was no story to retell. Only thinly veiled opportunities to rip off women's clothes before dismembering them. Yet, someone in India thought - let's remake it - so they did. With a star studded cast.

What was good about Ek Villain was the acting. It was superb.  Ritesh and Siddhartha are amazing in their respective roles The directing was excellent too. The plot was helped along by providing a back story for the "hero" who is more of an anti-hero. This helped us understand his motivation for not killing the villain when he has the chance!

This movie is basically a cat and mouse game. The hero gets the serial killer, beats him up, lets him go, allows him to assault and batter another woman intervening before the killer can kill his victim. The villain, having been caught in the act is then beaten up again and let go again. That's the whole plot of this movie.  Knowing WHY the hero is playing this game and allowing other people to be injured by the villain helps provide motivation for the cat and mouse game even if it doesn't excuse the collateral damage and unnecessary suffering this "game" causes. At least in the Indian version, we know why this is happening. In the South Korean version it's just insane. The only reason the serial killer is allowed to survive to stalk other women in the South Korean version is because the director needed more screen time for the serial killer to rape women before brutally killing them and dismembering them. The Indian version is better because the hero has motivation for playing the cat and mouse game. It is also better because the women who are assaulted by the serial killer are not be raped and dismembered as a result of the "hero's" insane reluctance to kill the killer.

The other change that was nice was that the friend of the villain who clues him in to who is chasing him, is merely a violent philanderer in Ek Villain. For that change, I am eternally grateful because I seriously never want to see a cannibal hacking off the limbs of a live naked woman to eat her flesh raw - ever again. (Did I mention the original South Korean movie is basically gore porn without a plot? Yeah ....)

One of the things I didn't really like about the Indian remake was that they gave the serial killer a back story. They gave him a reason WHY he was killing women. They made him sympathetic. Which is fine. Him having motivation is comforting. But the South Korean killer has no motivation beyond just liking to do it. He's a violent psychopath.  He's really terrifying. Ritesh's character is sympathetic and not nearly as scary. Of course, the full horror of what the original South Korean character is like is not something that would have gotten past the Indian censors (again - the original was a gore porn movie that presents gore porn for the sake of gore porn).

Finally - I did like the ending in Ek Villain. It was nice that the serial killer's son is introduced earlier and that our "hero" interacts with him and develops a relationship with him before ultimately killing his father so that he can "adopt" and raise the kid after he's orphaned. The sadistic ending in the South Korean movie is not worth mentioning.

So - should you see this movie?  ummmmmm, I can't recommend it. It may have liked it more if I hadn't seen the South Korean original. This movie triggered up the images of the original because it does copy the plot so closely - just without the gore porn and with characters that actually have a reason to do what they are doing.  All the Indian's I know really like the movie. I didn't. About all I can say is that it was better than the original - but it's still not a story worth retelling.

Movie Review: Sholay

They even do spaghetti westerns better than we do!!!

Sholay is an excellent move. Despite a couple of sloppy visual mistakes (you can see the coupling towing a motorcycle and towards the end an assistant peeks his head up behind a bush behind a very pivotal scene), this is an excellent movie.

The acting is fabulous. The plot line engaging. The horse chases are amazing. There is a horse chase with a train, horse chasing carriages, bridges being destroyed. A guy taking a horse down with his bare hands!

It is filmed in a location with large rock formations - like the Vasquez rocks where so many US westerns were filmed so that the shootouts have that same western feel. It even has an Ennio Morricone style soundtrack! But I don't ever remember being this emotionally engaged - on the edge of my seat biting my fingernails with tension engaged - watching a Sergio Leone movie. And I love Sergio Leone.

The bad guy is crazy bad. The good guy is crazy too - his final scene where he fights the bad guy unarmed - you would NEVER see that in a US movie.

The story is heartbreaking at the end - I cried. Not as much as I do when reading a Zane Grey novel - but still - it's pretty heartbreaking and so well acted!!!

My one request is for someone good, like Vinod Chopra, to remake this movie starring Abhishek and Faran Akhtar. And I know this movie is so good no one wants to remake it, but ... the remake of Don with SRK is excellent and even better than the original. And I hear the remake of Agneepath is excellent too. With the right director and cast - yeah - I totally want to see what Abhishek does with the role!! And Faran - yeah- him too! What would make my fantasy remake of this movie complete? Amitabh in the role of Thukar.

This movie is a perfect example of why I've pretty much stopped watching western movies. Indian movies are better. Even their westerns are better!

This movie is available for purchase and rental through Amazon instant video.

Book Review - Positive Humanism

Bo Bennett's Positive Humanism

I just finished reading Bo Bennett's new book - Positive Humanism: A Primer .  I enjoyed it. It's a short read - just 32 pages in pdf form and consists of several short essays - that take us through the basics of Positive Humanism.

This is an academically oriented book. It is meant to be a sequel to Gerard Larue's The Way of Positive Humanism . What is Positive Humanism?  Is the focus of Humanism on all that is positive - how to live life better and be a better person and flourish - and a downplaying of the - what we are against approach that a lot of the modern Humanist movement seems to find itself stuck in.

Now, for a Humanist, like me, some of this was a bit redundant, known and obvious. I wouldn't necessarily call his version of Humanism, Positive Humanism as something separate from what I know Humanism to be - but at the same time, I understand why it might be necessary given the current movement's penchant to focus on - rights of non-belief - as if that is the sum total of what we Humanists are concerned about.

Back to the book, For someone new to the concept of Humanism, or who is coming out of the self-help and success guru world, or who - like the author, spent time as an angry atheist and is trying to rid themselves of their "anger" – this is a really good book and a really needed book.

I kind of wish I had read his bio (which is at the back) first as it would have made the rest of the book – and how he approached the subject make more sense. But again, that may be because I'm well versed in the subject and so understanding WHY Bo wrote this book and his background would have helped me appreciate his approach better.  His background by the way is self help guru turned self help skeptic turned angry atheist, turned social psychologist PhD, turned advocate for Positive Humanism, as a way to combat the many "success" myths that permeate the self help word..

As for the specific content. I liked how he laid out the scientific case for rationalism and morality without religion.  I also liked how he dealt with the problem of free will. This may seem esoteric - but it does matter to the practice of Humanism because if we don't have free will (and the scientific jury is still out on that), then how can we choose to be good.  His answer is - it doesn't matter if we have free will or not. I love that. That's kind of how I approach it to.

 However, his conclusion on the topic of free will left me feeling a little icky.  His conclusion is about how we are part of the causal chain for others.  We can change others.  This bothered me a bit because my own Humanist practice is so inward looking. Yeah – I’m dedicated to making the world a better place. But intentionally trying to change someone – that makes me uncomfortable. It seems disrespectful. I think of Humanism as a personal practice. That is what works for me. I share it because I think others could be helped by it as well. But they are free to chose a different path. Intentionally trying to change other people who don’t want to be changed bothers me. I got what he was saying. It's a way to deal with the free will problem and not devolve into victim blaming by taking an optimistic and positive and compassionate approach to people who believe and behave differently – but it still smacked of privilege and ego.

All in all - it's a good addition to the written world of Humanism. Now – if I can just talk him into turning his Many Myths of Success presentation into an online course for Humanist Learning System.