Matt Stone HED - Insulin spikes do NOT cause insulin resistance??

[Paleo Donk]

Whats interesting about low-carb and especially zero-carb diets is that from many of the people who have taken time to measure their blood glucose levels (Lex obviously being the greatest example) have reported for the most part fasted bg levels around 100 mg/dl which is higher than the 85-90 level which is supposedly the standard for a healthy western dieter. Lex has gone into great detail in his journal about what he thinks is happening to his bg levels for different levels of his fat/protein diet. IIRC, when he was eating a 'normal' (as compared to his high-fat experiment) fat/protein mix, 100 mg/dl is around the level of glucose in the blood where insulin begins to get released and starts to store glucose out of the blood. His bg never really varied much more than 10 points in either direction.

So, whats interesting is that since cancer necessarily feeds on sugar, it is possible that a zero-carb diet promotes cancer more so than an American heart association diet for those who able to keep their fasting bg in a normal range. Obviously, things are much more complicated than this but still it is likely that low-carbers do have total blood glucose levels (calculated from area under the curve) at higher levels than other dieters.

What was also very interesting of note with Lex's experiments was when he experimented with a higher fat percentage (and I believe lower protein amounts). His blood glucose levels began to exhibit a more normal patter - they fell before meals and were slightly elevated after and during the fasted state were lower than 100.

What I can guess from the above is that its possible that since all excess protein is eventually converted to glucose that those who intake extra protein will have have trouble getting blood glucose levels to more normal ranges. This could have been the reason that Lex's bg levels remained high. There was always a supply of amino acids that were more than what the body needed for repair and thus were converted to glucose in at a fairly regular interval and slow enough so that bg levels were so constant and barely varied.  

Basically what I am saying is that its possible that any diet with excess protein will always keep bg levels slightly elevated, since storing protein is hardest on the body and most taxing - It uses the most calories to process protein (thermal effect of food). Also Lex has lowered his protein intake to about 90g per day and has fasting bg levels around 90 last I checked.

Anyways this is just lots of random guessing but I tend to want to believe that lower fasting bg levels are optimal and that chronically elevated bg could be potentially dangerous in the long run. It would interesting to see what fasting bg levels are for those who eat lots of carbs and lots of protein - like athletes or bodybuilders. Is it ever possible to have normal bg levels with a high protein intake?

I also want to assume that since protein conversion to energy is metabolically expensive that the body never 'wants' to make this conversion and must decide whether its better to keep the amino acids in the blood or convert them. Perhaps once the body deems excess amino acids in the blood to be interrupting other processes it makes the conversion.

[pioneer]

I think what your saying is true. However I dont know about the Bg levels. Before I was ZC my fasting blood glucose was 110, now its 90. You could say that some times SAD dieters have real low BG because the insulin spikes store fat so quick that soon after a high glycemic meal your blood sugar would drop much lower than normal. I basically just assume that any BG level on a RPD must not be bad.

[Guittarman03]

Hey guys, been awhile since I've been on, glad to see some new faces.  So this is slightly off topic, but I was reading this thread and suddenly realized that a lot of our opinions on implementing RPD are probably shaped by something we rarely take in to account...

Time of year and climate in which we live.  Allow me to explain:

In colder temperatures your blood thickens up to store heat, in the summer it thins out to accomplish the opposite.  Not only that, you loose salts and electrolytes more readily in dry arid environments than in cooler wetter ones.  Thus, you have greater need for replacement of salts, potassium, and the like. 

Now one of the coolest things I have enjoyed about low carb diet (ketosis in particular), is the ridiculous heat output, and how it could be cold outside but I always feel warm (touched on by Paleo Donk).  Conversely, one of the coolest things about eating watery fruit (doesn't even have to be alot) is how I'm never thirsty, even if drinking less than 8oz of water in a day [disclaimer:  that is true only if I'm not in the desert where it's 5-10% humidity].

So putting this all together, it seems reasonable to suggest that during summer time, you should up your intake of watery fruit, and during the winter time, you should lower your intake of carbs.  If you're experimenting with low carb in 100+ degrees, you might find it unsuitable, whereas if it's 30 degrees, you're more likely to think it's great.

So what I'm saying is there are often factors which affect our experiences and experiments which are overlooked: opinions formed, conclusions drawn, arguments debated, all the while not realizing that there are additional factors that explain the differing results. 

[KD]

There's always sugar though, whether you eat it or not..?
But... In inflammation, the body is quarantining an area, stopping the flow of blood cells and thus oxygen...? People can certainly get inflammation in their muscles can't they? So if they get inflammation in their muscles there would be no oxygen. Inflammation hurts, because your cells are not getting oxygen and so are dying, right?

my best understanding is that there are multiple 'functions' of cancer in addition to its obvious causes:inflammation  either naturally or from irritating pollutants (direct like asbestos or indirect like power lines). depending on the source it can cause impact on direct organs or distort already faulty misfiring cellular mutation that is fueled by fermentation of both natural and corrupt sugars including excessive glucose. By 'functions' I mean it is apparent that one reason tumors occur in various locations is because they are dispensable and not because that area is affected by organ specific toxins or stress in that area. An obvious example is the reproductive organs which can become storehouse of toxic buildup. Its also important to point out that mood and attitude are some of the most closely linked of all factors with cancer, especially considering that most in the population eat varying degrees of the same improper diets and are exposed to most of the same (again except for direct causes like asbestos and smoking).

so while a proper raw low carb diet might indeed be the best for defeating cancer, the whole point in referencing cancer was to promote a low carb diet, which is inaccurate, especially since the OP was already specifically addressing HGs who largely avoid most disease despite their cooked moderate carb intake. People might be able to counter cancer in a variety of therapies (ironically I think oxygen therapy has merit), but many of these have sources in the medical model of suppressing disease rather than facilitating its progression and healing, so it makes little sense to quote therapies that slam high fat/high protein and use them to promote a low carb diet. The simplest points are that done appropriately, there is overwhelming evidence that a raw diet that is low in carbs, is the proper protocol for the sick to get proper rest and to rebuild tissue with the proper materials without the stress of insulin cooking and natural fermentation. Likely this make it possibly an ideal one for the well, but as the OP points out, is all fairly irrelevant if ones own empirical evidence are showing that their vitals are effected negatively at least by the particular version that they are doing.

[pioneer]

I totally agree with what you just said. I should have never explained it in a way to promote a low carb diet, but rather a raw diet in general because surely a moderate carb raw diet would probable heal too as the carbs are better carbs than general SAD carbs. I just wonder, would a low carb or ZC cooked diet cease cancer as well? If so, it would be at least a good start to help people.

[JaredBond]

Hi guys, me again.  Sorry for the last post-- I was kinda just being a smart alec with the "glucose conflict" thing (even though KD did defend me).  I know that blood glucose on a LC/ZC will not spike as much as eating carbs, and that is the proposed difference.  However, you guys did bring up an interesting point about fasting glucose levels on a LC/ZC diet often being higher than normal, as with Lex Rooker.  This reminds me of this blog post I came across a while ago:  http://sharingthemagic.blogspot.com/2009/07/zero-carb-and-blood-sugar-elevation.html.  This lady was going nuts because her fasting blood glucose was rising past 100 mg/dl on a completely zero carb diet.  At the time, I thought it had to be an anomoly or hoax; but when Matt Stone, after a month of high carb eating (and no substantial exercise) reported lowering his fasting glucose to 67 mg/dl, and had a 1-hour postprandial reading of 75 mg/dl after eating a 100g carb baked potato, I became aware that it might not be as simple as eat carbs>>blood glucose.

So to take pioneer's question seriously, as to whether or not a cancer patient should be on a low carb diet, (which does make some sense on the surface, even though glucose is present at all times), we should consider this point.  Is it better to have glucose spikes, or chronically elevated glucose?  Also, pioneer, I'm glad you recognize other factors in cancer, such as estrogen.  I currently believe Ray Peat on this (raypeat.com).

[JaredBond]

the fructose spikes insulin

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this.  Fructose doesn't affect blood glucose, and therefore doesn't provoke insulin.  That's why they recommend it for diabetics.  Fructose is thought to be involved in insulin resistance however, in the long term, though I am skeptical of that.

On another note: many people visualize our brains just consuming endless amounts of glucose so everyone goes "oh no, if I dont consume enough carbs, my brain wont have any energy and I wont be able to think." This is also one of the most bogus theories around as well. Truth is, science knows and has known for decades that our brains run 2/3 on fat in the form of ketone bodies, and only 1/3 on glucose.

Yes, this is a good point to remember.  "There is no necessary (dietary) carbohydrate" is the championing phrase of the low carbers.  However, almost every cell can still use glucose, and there may be a point to using calories that aren't protein or fat (or ketone).  I'm sorry that I haven't a clue as to why that might be, but evidence of my own experience, and what I posted above, suggests there's something more to the story.

[pioneer]

Check out this video on fructose. It all goes to the liver whereas glucose only 20% goes there. Fructose is more toxic.
IMO fructose is just as bad as any other sugar. And what exactly do you mean when you say it doesnt affect blood glucose and provoke insulin? Because banana and watermelon are both high GI and will spike your insulin fast. And insulin resistance comes from a long term diet of high GI carbohydrates. In nature, we couldnt even become insulin resistant if we tried, there would never be enough fruit to consume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXCvduiAbs

[carnivore]

Check out this video on fructose. It all goes to the liver whereas glucose only 20% goes there. Fructose is more toxic.

IMO fructose is just as bad as any other sugar. And what exactly do you mean when you say it doesnt affect blood glucose and provoke insulin? Because banana and watermelon are both high GI and will spike your insulin fast. And insulin resistance comes from a long term diet of high GI carbohydrates. In nature, we couldnt even become insulin resistant if we tried, there would never be enough fruit to consume.

Protein also all goes to the liver, that does not make them automatically toxic.
If you don't eat too much carbs in one sitting, then they will be used for energy and/or to replenish glycogen stores. No problem.
The trouble begins when you eat too much carbs for your current needs : insuline spikes, conversion to glycerol and triglycerids, etc. That's what happened systematically with starch (SAD), and can also happened if you indulge in fruits.
But you'll have also BIG troubles if you eat too much meat or fat in one sitting.

So there is no good or bad macronutrients. It is just a question of energy requirement management!

[carnivore]

As for the archeology and anthropology supporting paleo, consider this: It is entirely plausible that humans have at least been eating various potato-like root vegetables and cooking them around the world since the dawn of time.  It's not that hard to believe that we naturally have eaten starch, as hominids probably got calories from whatever source they could.  There are plenty of observed hunter-gather tribes that have eaten up to 80% or so carbs and were in fabulous health.  (Those are the ones you don't hear about from low carb sources.)  Matt Stone gives these examples in his free ebook and blog.

In my opinion, it doesnt even matter if we dont know whether we used fire or not because of this: We know by modern science that heating foods creates many toxins that are harmful to the body such as AGES, Acrylamides, Arsenic, and much more so that right there tells you to not cook food. Also, we know that heating foods destroys enzymes, bacteria, oxidises fat, and denatures protein all either harmful to the body, or renders nutrients un-utilizable. We know that the growth of cancer cannot cease or reverse without pancreatin and many other important enzymes found in raw food. We know that if one stops consuming sugar, cancer cannot grow at all because it needs the presence of glucose. What more modern scientific info do you need to understand that this RAW diet is the best either high or low carb.




 I'm taken away my acne by merely avoiding omega 6 and polyunsaturates in general, which does not require much willpower at all.

I agree that omega 6 are bad as science has confirmed that over 60% of plaque is oxidised vegetable oils (mostly omega 6 acids). Truth be told, cooking, sugar, and omega 6 are mostly the culprits.

Sugar and omega 6 (and 3...) are part of a healthy diet, as long as they are not eaten in excess (according to the body requirements).

[klowcarb]

Sugar and omega 6 (and 3...) are part of a healthy diet, as long as they are not eaten in excess (according to the body requirements).

We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?  Never.

[pioneer]

I obviously didnt mean we dont need omega 6. But instead of the ratio of 6 & 3 being 20:1 like today, it would be a lot healthier to be 2:1 like in paleo days and in nature. Also, how is it bad to consume a lot of fat in one sitting? Clearly every macro has their limits, but how much is too much?

[carnivore]

We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?   Never.

Sugar is as important as fat. Sugars (especially glucose) are a fast but short lasting energy, while fat is a slow but long lasting energy. That's basic biochemistry!!

[pioneer]

Sugar is as important as fat. Sugars (especially glucose) are a fast but short lasting energy, while fat is a slow but long lasting energy. That's basic biochemistry!!

Yeah, I get that, but you know what she really meant, Dietary Sugar, not sugar in general. We need glucose no matter what source it comes from, and that includes protein. Therefore, we have no dietary need for food with carbohydrates or sugar as we can get it through protein.

[carnivore]

Also, how is it bad to consume a lot of fat in one sitting? Clearly every macro has their limits, but how much is too much?

Because you can't precisely manage your energy requirement in one or 2 big meals per day, whatever your diet.
We are not carnivore, we live longer than them, and we don't sleep one entire day (or more) after the meal to proceed all the protein (that comes with the fat).
So gorging cannot be healthy!

[carnivore]

Yeah, I get that, but you know what she really meant, Dietary Sugar, not sugar in general. We need glucose no matter what source it comes from, and that includes protein. Therefore, we have no dietary need for food with carbohydrates or sugar as we can get it through protein.

Protein digestion is very hard on the body (especially liver) because of the nitrogen load. So it is clearly not healthy to rely on neoglucogenesis to meet our glucose requirement.
It is much better to use directly the nutrients from the food we eat than to make our body works to convert some nutrients into others (like protein into glucose or fructose into fatty acids, etc.). Protein should be used only to meet our amino acids requirements.
 

[dsohei]

we are not carnivore, although you are named carnivore!
haha!

lately, i agree. i used to be able to eat 1 or 2 large meals a day, now i have to eat more smaller lighter meals in order to break down the protein without overtaxing my system. true story

[pioneer]

IMO, I dont think that protein is hard on the liver at all. That nitrogen hypothesis has no validity and is shouted out by dietary nutritionists who want people to eat more whole grains and less meat. The inuit, lived 97% on an animal diet full of protein and no one ever had liver problems, many live/ lived to over 100 years old eating almost 100% animal. The Maasai ate a high protein diet as well consisting of meat, milk and blood. Many of us humans were genetically adapted to eat much protein, and others were not. Many african tribes are mainly vegetarian, and that is fine because they have been that way throughout evolution. I am of scandinavian descent up north where there would have never been enough fruit or veggies to supply even 10% of my calories from carbs, so my ancestors ate a high protein diet. On another note, I dont think it is that simple to say that just because nitrogen in the liver is high it is bad to eat a lot of protein. I just dont think humans evolved to have liver problems by eating the main food in our evolutionary diet, just like god didnt put saturated fat on animals to give us a heart attack.

[carnivore]

IMO, I dont think that protein is hard on the liver at all. That nitrogen hypothesis has no validity and is shouted out by dietary nutritionists who want people to eat more whole grains and less meat. The inuit, lived 97% on an animal diet full of protein and no one ever had liver problems, many live/ lived to over 100 years old eating almost 100% animal. The Maasai ate a high protein diet as well consisting of meat, milk and blood. Many of us humans were genetically adapted to eat much protein, and others were not. Many african tribes are mainly vegetarian, and that is fine because they have been that way throughout evolution. I am of scandinavian descent up north where there would have never been enough fruit or veggies to supply even 10% of my calories from carbs, so my ancestors ate a high protein diet. On another note, I dont think it is that simple to say that just because nitrogen in the liver is high it is bad to eat a lot of protein. I just dont think humans evolved to have liver problems by eating the main food in our evolutionary diet, just like god didnt put saturated fat on animals to give us a heart attack.

Almost all our ancestors (including the 'healthiest") during neolithic cooked their food, that does not make cooking a healthy habit, I think you will agree with me on this point.
By the same token, the fact that human have recently spread all over the globe does not mean that they have totally adapted to the (lack of) food they have found locally, especially in extreme situations like the inuits. And cooking is just a way to compensate for the lack of appropriate raw food. The human body has evolved many metabolic mechanisms to cope with different food situations, shortage or excess, but that does not imply that we should artificially reproduce these situations!

Biochemistry is much more reliable that speculations on our recent hunter gatherer ancestors.

If you are not convinced by the toxicity of nitrogen wastes (ammonia and uric acid), search for urea cycle on the web.
Also look at Lex's journal and his kidney stones episode. 

[alphagruis]

We need omega 6s and omega 3s, but sugar?  Never.

Once you will have prolonged your present strict "ZC" diet over many generations and your kids and kids of your kids demontrate that they remain  healthy with comparable lifespans as people on less restrictive RP diets your daring arrogant claim will be mine

 I cannot definitely exclude this possibility but for many reasons as pointed out by carnivore it's fairly unlikely.   

[Nation]

I would like to know how it is possible to get 25% of your calories from carbs when you're in the wild. Apparently, there are african tribes with a diet of 75% carbs, how is that possible?  I live next to a produce market and i'd find it very difficult to live all my life on a 75% plant diet (excluding grains), it requires eating serious amount of fruit, at least a dozen of pieces of high-calorie fruit everyday, wild edibles/leaves/etc contain pretty much no calories so what do these tribes actually eat? Common sense tells me every tribe in the world eats 95% + animal food.

[klowcarb]

I eat one big meal a day and my digestion is great on ZC. Somehow I manage to lift weights, hike and do cardio and maintain 13-15% bodyfat. Hmm, guess it is working.

I am not having children, but plenty of ZCers are. 

[carnivore]

I eat one big meal a day and my digestion is great on ZC. Somehow I manage to lift weights, hike and do cardio and maintain 13-15% bodyfat. Hmm, guess it is working.

I am not having children, but plenty of ZCers are.  

You look nice klowcarb, that's great!  
Go on with your diet!
But don't forget that even on a ZC diet, your body runs on glucose (and fatty acids)...

[miles]

Because you can't precisely manage your energy requirement in one or 2 big meals per day, whatever your diet.
We are not carnivore, we live longer than them, and we don't sleep one entire day (or more) after the meal to proceed all the protein (that comes with the fat).
So gorging cannot be healthy!

We don't sleep an entire day or more... Because our lives are based on a diet of grains(or other starchy), even if we don't eat them... I could eat a massive amount of beef, and then sleep for a day, happily... But then we would become reclusive, because it's not how other people are... Shame though. Whenever I eat beef, I can feel that I could eat many kilos of it. I never eat quite enough to sleep on though, but I can feel that I could if I ever ate enough =/

[JaredBond]

I would like to know how it is possible to get 25% of your calories from carbs when you're in the wild.

Root vegetables/tubers.  I've heard of many HG cultures that have this as their main source of calories.

Also, the very first European explorers in North America reported huge Native American agricultural societies.  One said that there were such large networks of crops that one could walk through them for "days on end" with no interruption.  This lifestyle got abandoned when plagues swept through North America faster than it was explored.  I don't know about the validity of this figure, but it is estimated that 80% to 90% of the people on the North American continent were wiped out by disease before any explorers ever reached them.  Of course, there is evidence of terrible malnutrition, such as with the Hardin Villagers;  but my point is, agriculture is certainly possible with very little technology.