Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: technosmith on October 21, 2010, 05:33:09 pm
-
Ok, I know I have asked a few members of this forum (Tyler/PaleoPhil) this question already, but I would like to start a discussion on this to get everyone's take on it.
This question keeps on inhabiting my thoughts, and I'm sick of it. Hehe.
Right, my adrenals are not at 100%. To ease adrenal stress it is suggested to 1)make digestion as easy as possible, and 2)to reduce blood sugar fluctuations.
Ok, so when eating fruit it is ideal to eat it on its own (optimum digestion), however this spikes blood sugar. On the other hand eating it with a protein/fat source buffers the blood sugar spike, but has a negative effect on digestion.
Tyler says that everyone is different, however in his case he opted for the optimum digestion of eating fruit on its own, and had success this way. His blood sugar issues corrected themselves once his digestion was sorted.
PaleoPhil, again thinks everyone is different, but for him he was able to tolerate fruits better when combined with a fat source.
I think AV believes fruits are best combined with a fat source to buffer the blood sugar spike, although I am not 100% if this is his current stance.
The normal advice given tends to be for people with adrenal burnout to combine carbs with a protein/fat source.
Any other thoughts on this? Which way is the best way to go? Or is it all individual?
Or could Bitter Melon Fruit intake be the answer? Or perhaps only eating fruits with a low glycemic impact?
I defo feel I need the carbs, and don't really want to go ZC.
I know I am probably over analysing this, but when something is in your brain its hard to get rid of it!
Cheers guys,
Phil
-
Well I believe everyone is a little different regarding digestion, lately I have fruit only once a day... or twice a day maximum.
And everyone is going to hate me for saying this...but I personally like to eat fruit with a little nuts, because I don't like to mix fruit with animal products (that makes me feel sluggish), and if I am eating a sweet fruit alone it will make me feel "sugared"...So I crack open a few walnuts and munch them before I eat the fruit, or after. Again probably no one does this, but I seem to digest it well that way for some strange reason.
-
As GS suggests a bitter melon could be helpful.
And everyone is going to hate me for saying this...but I personally like to eat fruit with a little nuts, because I don't like to mix fruit with animal products (that makes me feel sluggish)
I'm not going to kill you, yuli :)
It's definitely better to mix fruits with nuts than with animal products.
Though I prefer eating fruits alone.
-
Many rawpalaeos eventually realise they need to experiment on themselves in order to find out what works for them. In my own case, I actually felt far higher anxiety levels if I ate too much and my digestive system was so badly wrecked due to past SAD diets etc. that combining fruit and meat was a bad idea. If your digestion is fine, then combining seems fine , otherwise not.
-
Almost a month ago, I started to add carbs back to my diet. It seems to be an easy task, but it's not. I'm aiming 50g of carbs a day. At first I decided my source of carbs to be fruits. On further reasoning I came to the conclusion that 50g of sugar (fructose and glucose) every day is not worth it. I've been struggling to find raw sources of starch. I'm now starting to think cooked starches are a better idea. For instance white or sweet potatoes.
-
Almost a month ago, I started to add carbs back to my diet. It seems to be an easy task, but it's not. I'm aiming 50g of carbs a day. At first I decided my source of carbs to be fruits. On further reasoning I came to the conclusion that 50g of sugar (fructose and glucose) every day is not worth it. I've been struggling to find raw sources of starch. I'm now starting to think cooked starches are a better idea. For instance white or sweet potatoes.
Aren't u kinda leary about consumming lectins? why not eat fat instead, as starch blockes absorbsion through the small intest (im prty sure, plz correct if wrong)
-
What species of fruits are you thinking of consuming? Please be specific.
What caused your adrenal burnout? Drugs? Steroids?
-
Aren't u kinda leary about consumming lectins? why not eat fat instead, as starch blockes absorbsion through the small intest (im prty sure, plz correct if wrong)
I'm eating more than 200g of fat a day isn't it enough? o.O
My intentions with starch is solely to provide glucose. One meal of some raw vegetables plus a little cooked starch(50g). Then several hours later a second meal of my usual raw meat and fat. So you can see I'm not planning to mix them, so by the time I eat the nutritious organ and muscle meats the carbs will have been digested already. Re lectins, in the case of potatoes (nightshades) most of the natural toxins is in the skin, so I just have to eat peeled potatoes. In my opinion there are many options of safe cooked starches. It doesn't mean I won't eat fruits, I just don't want to rely entirely on it as my source of carbs.
-
Hey Goodsamaritan,
What species of fruits are you thinking of consuming? Please be specific.
What caused your adrenal burnout? Drugs? Steroids?
I am open to suggestions with regards to fruit, however, I was thinking apples, plums, blueberries, maybe pears and papaya? And of course Bitter Melon Fruit.
What would you recommend?
Yes, I was on steroids (Hydrocortisone) for about a year and a half! Shocking I know!! But I have been off them for a couple of years.
-
I am open to suggestions with regards to fruit, however, I was thinking apples, plums, blueberries, maybe pears and papaya?
For some reason apples have become very sugary to me, I hardly crave them anymore, maybe its a phase, however white grapefruits are amazing, I seem to handle those very well. If you get pairs then try the Bosc pears, they have the best taste.
I'm eating more than 200g of fat a day isn't it enough? o.O
My intentions with starch is solely to provide glucose.
If you want to solely provide glucose or fructose then why not just eat a little unrefined raw sugar or raw honey - thats an easy way to get it. lol
Vegetables and fruits are excellent sources of carbs and they pack lots of nutrients and antioxidants, I don't know why you would choose those over cooked starches ???
If there a reason you want starch so bad in your diet? Just curious...
-
I think the whole premise is mostly nonsense. Our ancenstors didn't measure their blood glucose levels before deciding what to eat. Neither did they agonize over whether they should combine fruits with fat, fat with protein, protein with fruit or eat all three together. They ate what was available to them when they were hungry and they ate until either the food ran out or their hunger was satisfied. To the best of my knowledge, no other animal agonizes over BG levels or food combining issues and all seem to do rather well when living their natural lifestyle.
Leave it to humans to overly complicate that which every other lifeform can do without giving a second thought - eat. Makes one wonder how our species has survived this long.
Lex
-
As GS suggests a bitter melon could be helpful. I'm not going to kill you, yuli :)
It's definitely better to mix fruits with nuts than with animal products.
Though I prefer eating fruits alone.
I do better mixing fruit with meat than with nuts.
I do the best mixing semi sweet or acidic fruits.
Mixing sweet fruit like bananas or dried fruits give me the most problems when mixing.
-
For some reason apples have become very sugary to me, I hardly crave them anymore, maybe its a phase
It depends on the kind of the apples.
I've been eating mainly apples from my orchards as the carbs' source for two months now. I feel great after eating them. No chemicals, clean environment.
-
I think the whole premise is mostly nonsense. Our ancenstors didn't measure their blood glucose levels before deciding what to eat. Neither did they agonize over whether they should combine fruits with fat, fat with protein, protein with fruit or eat all three together. They ate what was available to them when they were hungry and they ate until either the food ran out or their hunger was satisfied. To the best of my knowledge, no other animal agonizes over BG levels or food combining issues and all seem to do rather well when living their natural lifestyle.
Leave it to humans to overly complicate that which every other lifeform can do without giving a second thought - eat. Makes one wonder how our species has survived this long.
Lex
Thats a great point Lex, but people who are not living in the wild have everything available to them in any quantity they want, I can even purchase wild foods at any quantity, amount and combination I please, thats why people get a little confused - most have never even lived in the wild, and have to try and conceptualize what would best mimic it. After they figure it out properly things go more smoothly.
I also don't measure daily carbs, proteins, fats or ever weigh or measure food, but do initially try to learn a food's nutritional value before I add it to my diet. If I survived in the wild, I could care less... I would only think about where can a obtain my next meal and thats it.
-
Thanks for the interesting discussion thus far.
I think the whole premise is mostly nonsense. Our ancenstors didn't measure their blood glucose levels before deciding what to eat. Neither did they agonize over whether they should combine fruits with fat, fat with protein, protein with fruit or eat all three together. They ate what was available to them when they were hungry and they ate until either the food ran out or their hunger was satisfied. To the best of my knowledge, no other animal agonizes over BG levels or food combining issues and all seem to do rather well when living their natural lifestyle.
Leave it to humans to overly complicate that which every other lifeform can do without giving a second thought - eat. Makes one wonder how our species has survived this long.
Lex
Yer Lex, I agree that I am over complicating the issue somewhat, but that is probably due to the perfectionism in myself, and also due to my desire to recover from adrenal burnout.
Yuli makes a good point about the vast array of food options that are available to us humans compared to what is available to animals living in their natural habitat. Makes things a little more complex, especially when trying to recover your health. Such a massive percentage of what is being sold as food is less than ideal, and this requires more thought when making food choices, rather than just acting on instinct, like those in their wild natural environment.
Cheers for all the tips from everyone.
Phil
-
If your worried then just eat lower GI fruits. Heres a short list
http://www.the-gi-diet.org/lowgifoods/
There are lists with much more fruit Im just to lazy so just google it. But i do know watermelon is like 95-105 and same with dates.
-
Every animal has every natural food option available to it. The are limited by instict and their physical limitaions as to what they can profitablty consume in any quantity. Humans, on the other hand, have technology. They can create grains and other foods that wouldn't exist without their intervention. They can harvest them using mechanized techology, and then they can make them edible through grinding and cooking. Animals can't do this. My guess is that we shouldn't either.
If you strip away and avoid foods that would require high levels of chemical, mechanical, or hybridizing techology (including long distance transprotation like shipping fruits from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere in the winter months.) to make them a viable food source, then you simplify the problem greatly. As Raymond Audette said if it isn't available to you in the natural world naked, with a rock and/or a sharp stick as your only tools, then you probably shouldn't be eating it. This takes about 99.99% of what is in your local supermarket off the diet list and vastly reduces the choices you must worry about. It's not whether we currently use techology to produce the food item, it's if technology is required for it to be available as a food source at all.
I'm leaving for the next 5 days and will not have access to the internet so I won't be able to respond to any comments until I return. Not running away. I will be co-instructing a beginning antique clock repair class.
Lex
-
Have a good time, Lex.
Phil's right about my personal experience. I handle fruits the worst when I eat them alone, a little better with meat, and best of all with plentiful animal fat, though fruit still spikes my BG even with fat. Luckily my BG usually returns to normal within 2 hours. I figure that much of the benefit of mixing other foods with fruits/honey is probably just from diluting the sugars. However, even if my BG returns to normal, more than a 1/2 cup or so of fruit tends to trigger annoying little zit outbreaks, dry skin, white crud on my teeth, poor sleep, yawning and other issues, with more and more issues as I overdo it more, so I try to avoid the temptation to eat a lot at one sitting, which is hard because I find sweet fruits and sweets in general to be generally addictive for me. I'm apparently not alone, because I've witnessed traditional people gorging on honeycomb and grubcomb in videos.
Lex has a good point about our evolutionary history. How would we ever have become biologically adapted to not eating different macronutrients together when there's no evidence that any humans, hominins in general, or any wild animal went/goes to such trouble? And it makes no intuitive sense to me. I can't imagine a hunter-gatherer of any era getting honeycomb and grubcomb from a tree, and starting to eat some of both, only to have another HG tell him, "Stop! :o Don't eat the grubcomb with the honeycomb! It will ruin your digestion!"
Do the food combining rules mean we should try to process out coconut fat from coconut sugar or fish oil from fish? Is akutaq (http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/2009/03/eskimo-ice-crea.html)--which means "mix them together" and is a combination of fat plus one or more of berries, meat/fish, and plant foods gathered by a mouse (notice that fat is the sole consistent element?) and is therefore pretty much the antithesis of the Natural Hygiene food combining /sequential eating rules (correct me if I'm wrong)--therefore supposed to be one of the worst possible foods? I don't know why, but I find I digest a mixture of coconut oil and berries better than coconut oil alone and can eat more of both with less of the negative effects that both give usually me (though it doesn't prevent them completely). When it comes to weighing thousands of years of experience by every observed traditional people vs. a modern food fad that has only been around for less than two centuries, I tend to put more credence in the former.
Check out this story of gorging on honeycomb with grubcomb and then eating meat soon after, for instance:
Kebe smiles as he bites into a piece of new, crumbly white comb filled with clear, sweet honey. Bokande descends easily and stuffs a lump of grub comb, the texture of loose scrambled eggs, into his mouth. The men eat prodigious quantities of comb -- clear new honey, pungent orange pollen, or the dark and fragrant honey that develops over time as the moisture evaporates. As the men head back to camp, their combined leaf packages of honey weigh no more than one or two kilos. They always binge on honey at the start of the season and only gradually take more back to camp. Energized by the honey, the men encourage the dogs to rough -course through the forest in an impromptu hunt. They are lucky today. The dogs find a sleeping bay duiker between the buttresses of a ndau (Irvingia gabonensis). Kebe shoots it in the side and it lurches off, wrenching out the arrow and a meter of so of intestine. The stricken animal doesn't make it far before the dogs corner it, and Kebe dispatches it with a couple of whacks of the honey ax.
The mood in camp that night is exuberant, and the men playfully compete to tell the best story of the day's hunt. Kebe pops a piece of boiled meat into his mouth and joins the fun. He lopes around camp making the bleating sound of a duiker, magnificently recreating the sights and sounds of the hunt. http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/forest-foragers-the-life-efe-pygmies-democratic-republic-congo-part-two
-
For the fruit sensitive people here.
Even sensitive to organic / wild fruits local and in season.
Did you ever consider that you may have been damaged, injured, need healing or need nutritional fixing to be able to function as a normal human being and able to consume real natural fruit?
Being able to consume fruits is a NORMAL human trait.
I mean, you may be fruit or plant sensitive now, but that's not normal. A normal human being is a survivor. Has access to all the means necessary to survive. If he needs fruit or herbs because he is sick, you just cut off that option for yourself.
Find ways to restore your ability to consume REAL FRUIT. You are human.
That cucumber isn't going to kill you. It will hydrate you.
-
If you want to solely provide glucose or fructose then why not just eat a little unrefined raw sugar or raw honey - thats an easy way to get it. lol
Vegetables and fruits are excellent sources of carbs and they pack lots of nutrients and antioxidants, I don't know why you would choose those over cooked starches ???
If there a reason you want starch so bad in your diet? Just curious...
Sorry I'm not an English native speaker, but I was under the impression "solely" means only, purely... When I said "solely glucose", I meant solely glucose. So I'll try to put it simply, I don't want much fructose in my diet. Also I feel the need for some glucose, as I don't have enough energy to run more than 2 minutes on a ZC diet(even eating a kilo of meat/day and 200g of fat). My target is 50g of glucose. These past weeks I've been eating sugary fruits in small quantities. To get these 50g from fruit, i would also get 50g of fructose (assuming it's 50/50). This is the same as 100g of sucrose :o. I want to keep my fructose intake to a maximum of 10g a day, which is close to 350g of papaya and that's what I'm eating. It's still missing 40g of glucose though. Honey is a waste of time in my opinion. Why get pure sugar, if I can get lots of nutrition from fruits? I know honey has some nutrients, but nothing compared to fruits. If honey were just glucose, I would give it a shot, but the fructose screws it. So you see, it's hard to get glucose and not get fructose at the same time if your not eating starches(which, in case you don't know, will become glucose once metabolized). Even if I had a source of pure glucose, i would still prefer starch, as it wont pike insulin as much. Regarding vegetables, I'm not against them at all. Since I started adding carbs back, I've been eating lots of peeled cucumbers and some lettuce. But they are not good sources of carbs but rather good sources of fiber and nutrients.
-
@Edwin
Your right, were meant to eat wild fruits. But some people are not totally adapted to certain fruits.
I don't do well with wild grapes. If I eat too much I get a head ache, and they can make my corners of my mouth itchy.
However, I do very well with the wild black raspberries here.
I do fine with the grapes if I only eat a little.
Are there some raw fruits that you don't do well with edwin?
Pineapple is another for me, similar itchyness that the wild grapes give me.
-
every single wild fruits go with me... absolutely no problem there. only pineapples are troublesome and give me that itchiness on my mouth. the smell and taste of a ripe pineapple is the best.
i don't do well with nuts and seeds.
-
@Edwin
Your right, were meant to eat wild fruits. But some people are not totally adapted to certain fruits.
I don't do well with wild grapes. If I eat too much I get a head ache, and they can make my corners of my mouth itchy.
However, I do very well with the wild black raspberries here.
I do fine with the grapes if I only eat a little.
Are there some raw fruits that you don't do well with edwin?
Pineapple is another for me, similar itchyness that the wild grapes give me.
Right on.
It's the same with animal foods.
Many people are allergic to shrimp or chicken or eggs.
-
For the fruit sensitive people here.
Even sensitive to organic / wild fruits local and in season.
Did you ever consider that you may have been damaged, injured, need healing or need nutritional fixing to be able to function as a normal human being and able to consume real natural fruit?
Yes, that's part of my hypothesis, actually, and has been from the start, why do you ask, GS?
Being able to consume fruits is a NORMAL human trait.
If you mean wild heirloom fruits in season, I'd have to agree--and don't forget raw honeycomb/grubcomb in season--Yay!--or at least I hope. :P Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I'm hoping that some day in the future I'll be able to eat more fruits and raw honey than I can now without the side effects. My guess is that the sources of the problems come from a combination of:
> systems damaged by SAD and other unhealthy diets,
> the combined negative effects of Neolithic selection for large size, sugar content (measured in laboratories, BTW), durability and shelf life rather than nutrition, less tree ripening and freshness, petrochemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, etc.
> individual genetic and epigenetic variation
> and probably other factors
For any who may get irritated by mention of poor response to fruits, please remember that I LOVE fruits and raw honey and would LOVE to be able to eat more of them. I envy your superior ability to tolerate them. So we agree that fruits are delicious, our bodies just respond differently to them, that's all. Please be happy with your superior ability and don't let my handicap bother you.
Find ways to restore your ability to consume REAL FRUIT.
Yes, that's what I've been talking about since I first joined here. Katelyn has even taken me to task for it. Did you see her posts on that, GS?
You are human.
Really? :P
That cucumber isn't going to kill you. It will hydrate you.
Meh, you can have the cucumbers, thanks. Give me wild Maine blueberries or raw honey any day. Nyum yum!
I hope the folks who thrive on fruits will consider applying the same points they make about fruits being natural for humans to those who thrive on lots of animal fat, meat and organs. Then we can all get along splendidly. Way cool! O0 Just because some folks don't thrive on high meat/fat also doesn't mean it's not also natural for humans. One of humanity's greatest advantages may be its dietary adaptability. We didn't choose to be the way we are, it just happened that way. As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?" ;D
For anyone who thinks I've been trying to imply that my experience applies to all human beings, please see the explanatory points in my signature. I NEVER EVER mean to imply that.
-
For any who may get irritated by mention of poor response to fruits, please remember that I LOVE fruits and raw honey and would LOVE to be able to eat more of them. I envy your superior ability to tolerate them. So we agree that fruits are delicious, our bodies just respond differently to them, that's all. Please be happy with your superior ability and don't let my handicap bother you.
No one is irritated with you.
We know your pain.
You can begin by listing the fruit that do agree with you.
I'm pretty sure at least one of them will agree with you.
-
I handle fruits the worst when I eat them alone, a little better with meat, and best of all with plentiful animal fat, though fruit still spikes my BG even with fat.
Eating fruits with plentiful animal fat is definitely not good for me (esp. for my digestion).
Only when the fruits are eaten separately they're digested perfectly, quickly and not burdening one's body.
For any who may get irritated by mention of poor response to fruits, please remember that I LOVE fruits and raw honey and would LOVE to be able to eat more of them. I envy your superior ability to tolerate them. So we agree that fruits are delicious, our bodies just respond differently to them, that's all. Please be happy with your superior ability and don't let my handicap bother you.
That's very nice to hear that, Phill, really :)
-
Hi mate. Well these are my thoughts. I don't have in depth knowledge of adrenal issues, but you want to avoid blood sugar spikes.
Well if you eat a bit of fruit on a paleo diet these spikes will be much less than any kind of standard western diet.
Say if you went for 70g of carb a day or even 100...this would be a low carb diet by most peoples standards, and you're still getting some ketogenic activity so you may see improvement over time despite the carbs.
If you went for a fruit with a low GI like berries it might help, although personally I scoff melon which has a high gi.
I like to eat fruit on it's own as it doesn't feel right with meat...so try it and see what you think.
Basically, I'd guess don't overthink the blood sugar spike issue as you'll probably be much better than most sufferers and hopefully recover.
-
Well if you eat a bit of fruit on a paleo diet these spikes will be much less than any kind of standard western diet.
But who has proved that these spikes are always harmful? They can be very beneficial.
Eating a lot of meat at the end of the day can generate even greater spike.
-
But who has proved that these spikes are always harmful? They can be very beneficial.
Eating a lot of meat at the end of the day can generate even greater spike.
I think the spike is only an issue for someone with adrenal burnout. Requires more cortisol production, or so I am led to believe.
So eating large amounts of meat later in the day can generate a large blood sugar spike?
Cheers for the advice by the way folks. Always amazes me the depth of knowledge amongst you guys. Immense.
-
Instead of finding a way to tolerate fruit, maybe you just shouldn't eat it at all.
-
Instead of finding a way to tolerate fruit, maybe you just shouldn't eat it at all.
+1.
-
blood sugar spikes when pancreas cannot produce enough insulin to break down the sugar molecules into single molecules from the food we eat. Another way of looking at it is when single molecule sugar enters the the damage part of the liver. These sugar will be thrown out to the bloodstream and causes the spike in blood sugar
To avoid this scenario avoid foods with 3 or more sugar molecules or the polysaccharides.
-
blood sugar spikes when pancreas cannot produce enough insulin to break down the sugar molecules into single molecules from the food we eat. Another way of looking at it is when single molecule sugar enters the the damage part of the liver. These sugar will be thrown out to the bloodstream and causes the spike in blood sugar
To avoid this scenario avoid foods with 3 or more sugar molecules or the polysaccharides.
Do you know examples of fruits/starches which are below this threshold?
-
blood sugar spikes when pancreas cannot produce enough insulin to break down the sugar molecules into single molecules from the food we eat. Another way of looking at it is when single molecule sugar enters the the damage part of the liver. These sugar will be thrown out to the bloodstream and causes the spike in blood sugar
To avoid this scenario avoid foods with 3 or more sugar molecules or the polysaccharides.
Insulin doesn't break down sugar molecules, enzymes do. Insulin transports sugar and protien into muscles and cells.
Avoiding polysaccharides isn't gonna help, in general the main thing you want to avoid is overeating on fruit because around 80% of fructose you eat is stored in the liver and the liver can only store about 90grams or so. Starch containing foods are pure glucose which goes to the skeletal muscles to be stored as glycogen, since the skeletal muscles system is so big it is pretty much impossible to overeat starch or pure glucose.
-
No one is irritated with you.
We know your pain.
You can begin by listing the fruit that do agree with you.
I'm pretty sure at least one of them will agree with you.
That's great, GS. I don't mean this as a complaint or a criticism, just as a request--if no one is irritated by my experiences with fruit and honey then maybe no one will mind if I ask that people not tell me repeatedly things like how fruits are natural, normal to eat, or tell me to restore my ability to consume REAL FRUIT, etc.? I would really appreciate it, as I understand all these things already and did even before I was first told about them (I even posted a video months ago showing wolves eating berries, which would be heresy at ZIOH). That's why I put caveats in my signature, to try to eliminate any reason folks might perceive to make these responses. No doubt they're meant to be helpful rather than lectures, but they do have a lecture-like tone that's unpleasant. Getting that once or twice wouldn't be noteworthy, but after repeated occurrences I realized it was time to start speaking up about it.
I try not to lecture raw omnivores or even fruitarians about what they eat or what they should eat and I hope they will return the favor. I think it's OK to debate theories about what the normal diet of human beings is, but when people report personal experiences they should be treated as just that, unless they claim or imply that their experience is proof of what's natural for all. I agree that the latter is annoying and far too common in this forum. I go to great pains to avoid doing that and if I ever do it I hope someone will remind me of my goal. I didn't greatly reduce my intake of fruit and greatly increase my intake of fat out of choice, I did so out of necessity, as it's the only thing that has worked for me.
Consumers of plentiful fruit have posited that those of us who don't handle fruit well may have systemic problems and I agree. One possibility is insulin resistance. Another is carbohydrate and/or fructose intolerance. If they wish to be fair, those who do poorly on high fat diets would also acknowledge that it's possible that they also have systemic issues behind their inability to handle large amounts of raw animal fat, such as bile deficiency and/or insufficient stomach acid, perhaps.
Thanks
Eating fruits with plentiful animal fat is definitely not good for me (esp. for my digestion).
Only when the fruits are eaten separately they're digested perfectly, quickly and not burdening one's body.
Yes, I know that some folks do better when eating foods separately and thanks for sharing your experience, as it reveals the wide variations in experiences. When I question the claims that sequential eating is best for all humanity I don't mean to imply that it helps no one--I'm just not convinced that the claim is true for everyone, as it certainly isn't for me. I hope it's clear that my skepticism re: the absolute claim of SE being good for all doesn't imply that I'm suggesting the antithesis of it being bad for all.
That's very nice to hear that, Phill, really :)
Thanks, I hope this puts to rest any misunderstandings about my intent. I'm a very laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kind of guy. Unfortunately, this is hard to convey in text.
But who has proved that these spikes are always harmful? They can be very beneficial.
Eating a lot of meat at the end of the day can generate even greater spike.
This is my hypothesis also, and apparently that of KGH:
"Insulin or glucose "spikes" do not kill you - chronically elevated levels do that.
KEY CONCEPT: You have a reservoir of 300 g glucose in the form of glycogen in your liver and muscles. Glucose can go sky high in an instant without any glucose or protein consumption whatsoever, even in the fasting state with whole body glucose deficit running for many hours at a time. Transient changes in insulin resistance, including hormone mediated effects on the various glucose transporter molecules, can raise blood sugar and so can increases in glycolysis in the liver. It is erroneous to [attribute] what is happening to consumed macronutrients based on blood glucose measurements." --Kurt Harris, MD, "How you make glucose from protein," http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/8/25/on-zero-carbs-can-you-make-your-glucose-from-fat.html
Chronically elevated levels are supposedly indicated by HbA1c figures over 5.9% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycated_hemoglobin), though that's based on lab averages, so my guess is that the high end of the optimal range is actually below that.
Since the HbA1c test is not practical to do at home, KGH recommended the OGTT, but not for VLCers and ZCers, who naturally develop peripheral insulin resistance, according to both him and Loren Cordain (http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/6/diabetes-i-vs-ii-and-diet.html). Interestingly, neither Cordain nor Harris see this peripheral IR as a problem. According to Cordain, it may even be an asset among VLCers:
It has been hypothesized that insulin resistance in hunter-gatherer populations perhaps is an asset, as it may facilitate consumption of high-animal-based diets [Miller and Colagiuri 1994]; whereas when high-carbohydrate, agrarian-based diets replace traditional hunter-gatherer diets, it (insulin resistance) becomes a liability [Miller and Colagiuri 1994] and promotes NIDDM." (The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence of their Evolutionary Discordance, by Loren Cordain, Ph.D., 1999, www.beyondveg.com/cat/paleodiet/index.shtml)
On the other hand, Dr. William Davis seems to argue almost the opposite from KGH, claiming that coronary risk increases whenever the BG spikes above 126 mg/dl (maybe as little as 100 mg/dl!, which I highly doubt) and that the OGTT is effectively useless:
Blood sugar: Fasting vs. postprandial, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2010
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/blood-sugar-fasting-vs-postprandial.html
Peter's fasting blood glucose: 89 mg/dl--perfect.
After one whole wheat bagel, apple, black coffee: 157 mg/dl--diabetic-range.
How common is this: Normal fasting blood sugar with diabetic range postprandial (after-eating) blood sugar?
It is shockingly common.
The endocrinologists have known this for some years, since a number of studies using oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) have demonstrated that fasting glucose is not a good method of screening people for diabetes or pre-diabetes, nor does it predict the magnitude of postprandial glucose. (In an OGTT, you usually drink 75 grams of glucose as a cola drink, followed by blood sugar checks. The conventional cut off for "impaired glucose tolerance" is 140-200 mg/dl; diabetes is 200 mg/dl or greater.) People with glucose levels during OGTT as high as 200 mg/dl may have normal fasting values below 100 mg/dl.
High postprandial glucose values are a coronary risk factor. While conventional guidelines say that a postprandial glucose (i.e., during OGTT) of 140 mg/dl or greater is a concern, coronary risk starts well below this. Risk is increased approximately 50% at 126 mg/dl. Risk may begin with postprandial glucoses as low as 100 mg/dl.
For this reason, postprandial (not OGTT) glucose checks are becoming an integral part of the Track Your Plaque program. We encourage postprandial blood glucose checks, followed by efforts to reduce postprandial glucose if they are high. More on this in future.
Comments:
Jenny said...
Dr. Davis,
157 one hour after eating is NOT the diabetic range by any standard.
To be considered diabetic a person must go over 200 mg/dl.
The data collected by Dr. Christensen's CGMS studies suggest that 160 at one hour is the top of the normal range if the blood sugar drops back in the next hour.
That 157 is "prediabetic" though the term is a misnomer because most people with "prediabetic" blood sugars will NEVER become diabetic since they lack the necessary genetic flaws that produce true diabetes.
I mention this not to discourage people from lowering their carb intake and blood sugar--that's a very good tack to take, but because I hear from hundreds of people who obsess about being diabetic when they are not some of whom end up spending a lot of unnecessary money on doctor appointments that produce nothing useful.
The latest research suggests that keeping blood sugar under 155 mg/dl at all times will control the blood sugar related component of heart disease. But to diagnose even "pre-diabetes" you have to look at the 2 hour reading. It is the inability to reduce a spike within 2 hours that appears to be associated with most diabetic complications.
As of now I'd say I lean more toward believing KGH and Cordain over Davis on this one. I have viewed what look like healthy HGs gorging on honey comb and no HG people concern themselves with BG spikes, as Lex pointed out. They don't even have the tools to measure it. So I think the real problem is chronic BG spikes, rather than occasional ones. Therefore, HbA1c is probably much more important than FBG or even occasional post-prandial BG measures. However, if Dr. Davis and Jenny are right, then maybe the BG of HG's never exceeds 155 mg/dl, even when they eat wild honeycomb?
If anyone has any evidence one way or another on this subject, I'd appreciate it.
-
When I question the claims that sequential eating is best for all humanity I don't mean to imply that it helps no one--I'm just not convinced that the claim is true for everyone, as it certainly isn't for me. I hope it's clear that my skepticism re: the absolute claim of SE being good for all doesn't imply that I'm suggesting the antithesis of it being bad for all.
So you don't follow SE?
You eat mainly animal products so you're practically eating them separately from plant foods, which you eat very little. That's how it looks like to me.
Mono-diet means perfect SE. ;)
-
Nice try, Miles. ;) When I do eat fruits I find I handle them better, not worse, when I eat plentiful fat with them. Your experience is different and I don't have any quarrel with that, I just don't find that your experience applies to me in this case.
-
My fruit intake is limited, all kinds cause some degree of irritation to my stomach. I avoid all acidic fruits, including pineapple, sour apple varieties, most berries, etc. as they instantly give me first degree burns on my tongue, I imagine what they could do further down. Hopefully I'll be able to better tolerate fruits, such delicious food that's actually supposed to be "healthy".
That cucumber isn't going to kill you. It will hydrate you.
Fruits, including cucumbers, do the opposite of hydration to me.. All that potassium dehydrates me.