On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Mary wrote:

> Look at the book BREAKING THE VICIOUS CYCLE, the author talks about
> disaccharides such as sucrose, apparently these are much harder to break
> down in the intestines than fructose and in her view, "nourish" candida and
> bacteria because of this.

Individuals may have acquired problems with the digestion of
disaccharides, as with any other nutrient.  That is, individuals
may or may not have conditions that interfere with the production
and operation of the enzymes needed to digest disaccharides. The
original question, however, was whether small amounts of sugar --
sucrose in particular -- can be part of a paleodiet.  In my view,
the answer to this question is clearly yes, for the simple reason
that sucrose is found in many foods that prehistoric people could
have commonly eaten.

An orange, for example, contains about 5.5g of sucrose, and only
3.3g of fructose.  The sucrose itself yields more fructose, of
course, when it is broken down by the enzyme sucrase.  The very
fact that our intestines, when functioning properly, produce
sucrase, strongly implies that our bodies "expect" some sucrose
in the diet.  Note that some vegetables, such as tomatoes, are
also significant sources of sucrose.  Our intestines also secrete
maltase, the enzyme for breaking down maltose, the disaccharide
in starches.

None of this should be construed as an argument for making
*liberal* use of sugar and starch in a paleodiet.  It does mean,
however, that these substances cannot be classified as "foreign."
There's less sucrose in a serving of bacon than there is in an
orange.  There may be other reasons, such as nitrites, to object
to the bacon, but then it is easier to find nitrite-free bacon
than sugar-free bacon.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]