RE: Re: Early Morning Waking

[Guest guest]

I don't see the point of using table sugar for sleeping, since there is an

abundance of sources of carbs that actually have nutrition in them, but the

basic logic is sound. Carbs are necessary for the proper production and use of

seratonin-- how is it anything but perfectly logical that one would use them for

sound sleep?

I agree with Katja. What's the problem with waking up 6-7 hrs after sleep?

The blood sugar issue sounds like one that needs fixing, but is it necessarily

connected to the waking up problem? I wouldn't mind at all if I woke up 6

hours after sleep, full of energy. Jitters could be a problem obviously though.

Personally, I think that exercise is the key to blood sugar problems. Since

I've been lifting weights, my blood sugar has stabilized dramatically;

moreover, I am basically free to eat whatever I want (I keep it healthy of

course)

without having blood sugar problems, now.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Carbohydrates do help one to sleep. That's why people eating the politically

correct (PC) high carb diet " die " about two hours after eating.

Some years ago I had a book called the " Food Pharmacy. " All the correct info

in favor of the PC diet. It recommended two heaping tablespoons of sugar in

a glass of warm water to help one sleep. Imagine!

It also insisted that the only damage done by sugar was to the teeth. Even

way back then I new better.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

A lot of this year, I have done the same thing. I thought it was a

sign of perimenopause. Or perhaps low blood sugar. Or just plain

stress, which we've had plenty of this year. A few times, I got up

and made a bowl of old fashioned oatmeal (not soaked,

though...sorry!), thinking the starch would help make me sleepy again.

I eat a lot less flour and sugar than I used to. However, 2

Christmases ago, we all felt like a batch of toll house cookies. My

dh has practically no self-control in the presence of toll house

cookies. I had plenty myself...had to " taste test " them, don'cha

know?

The next morning, dh mentioned that he slept real good the night

before. So did I.

Besides the cookies, the only other thing that's seemed to help me

sleep at least 8 hours without waking up for more than a few minutes

has been lots of physical activity (fence building, etc.), especially

in the cold.

I'm wondering if it's not something to do with production of cortisol

and/or blood sugar level fluctuation.

Can a person just up and buy a glucometer without arousing the

curiousity of any nearby medical professionals?

One more thing I've noticed is that I tend to wake up and worry, when

I wake up too early like this. And the worrying tends to linger

until I've had my eggy breakfast. The world always seems brighter

after eating.

[Guest guest]

When you buy the glucose meter, it should come with some test strips. Mine

came with ten, which was enough to test my blood sugar in relation to

certain foods of which I was suspicious. It also allowed me to verify that

certain physical symptoms I get are from high blood sugar. The meter was 15$

at Eckerds. No frills. Most drugstores should have a generic brand.

take care

Michele

>From: " Joe " <jzbozzi@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: Early Morning Waking

>Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:32:49 -0000

>

>Hi

>

>You are not the first person with the problem that I have heard

>eating some starch right before sleeping helps. Some eat rice,

>bread, potato, you are the first I heard of toll house cookies

>

>The theory here is that the blood sugar is dropping and the body if

>firing off hormones to try to get it back up. Now I am a 30 year old

>male, so it seems to be across age groups and sex.

>

>I eat very little to now grain, and the starch before bed has not

>seemed to help me very much, which seems to be proved by my blood

>sugar results.

>

>The glucose meters are available in just about any supermarket now

>because of the prevalence of diabetes. I just picked one up and its

>pretty cool. I can do my own fasting test, or glucose tolerance

>test. I can see my blood sugar at different parts of the day, I can

>see my reactions to different foods. The machine itself can be

>gotten almost free, it seems like selling the test strips is where

>they make their money.

>

>It's a pain in the but because most of the time I don't get enough

>sleep and I am a tired cranky SOB the next day. I have felt that

>being able to change my attitude does help like you say, but

>sometimes that hard when you are so tired and cranky.

>

>Thanks, Joe

>

>

>

>

>-- In , " "

><toyotaokiec@y...> wrote:

> > A lot of this year, I have done the same thing. I thought it was a

> > sign of perimenopause. Or perhaps low blood sugar. Or just plain

> > stress, which we've had plenty of this year. A few times, I got up

> > and made a bowl of old fashioned oatmeal (not soaked,

> > though...sorry!), thinking the starch would help make me sleepy

>again.

> >

> > I eat a lot less flour and sugar than I used to. However, 2

> > Christmases ago, we all felt like a batch of toll house cookies.

>My

> > dh has practically no self-control in the presence of toll house

> > cookies. I had plenty myself...had to " taste test " them, don'cha

> > know?

> >

> > The next morning, dh mentioned that he slept real good the night

> > before. So did I.

> >

> > Besides the cookies, the only other thing that's seemed to help me

> > sleep at least 8 hours without waking up for more than a few

>minutes

> > has been lots of physical activity (fence building, etc.),

>especially

> > in the cold.

> >

> > I'm wondering if it's not something to do with production of

>cortisol

> > and/or blood sugar level fluctuation.

> >

> > Can a person just up and buy a glucometer without arousing the

> > curiousity of any nearby medical professionals?

> >

> > One more thing I've noticed is that I tend to wake up and worry,

>when

> > I wake up too early like this. And the worrying tends to linger

> > until I've had my eggy breakfast. The world always seems brighter

> > after eating.

> >

> >

> >

>

_________________________________________________________________

Have fun customizing MSN Messenger — learn how here!

http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

[Guest guest]

and anyone who thinks sugar helps sleep,

Let's try rethinking logic here. I know there is a lot out there promoting

carbs for sleep - but bear in mind, sleep problems have been on a drastic

increase right in line with other insulin resistant problems caused by the

over consumption of carbs.

Carbs main function is to provide energy. Obviously, exercise helps burn up

that energy. So if you are eating too many carbs - increasing your exercise

is going to burn up that excess energy but it is not the only solution. The

other is to decrease your carb intake making it more appropriate to what you

are burning. This is actually the basis to Atkin's theories on how many

carbs you should eat. Athletes typically increase their consumption prior

to rigorous exercise so to sustain their energy levels as I am sure you are

aware. Now the jump in logic is to say that carbs help sleep. Is there

sense in saying that what helps in running a marathon is going to help

sleeping where energy needs drastically drop?

Actually carbs are the worse thing to eat for sleep and are the cause of

most sleep problems.The following is an except from one of Atkins books

explaining insulin resistance problems (blood sugar) and their connection to

sleep problems.

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm

The best thing to eat at night to improve sleep is higher protein and fats,

less carbs, and to eat your last no later than 8:00, and do not exercise at

night. Do it earlier in the day.

In sleep medicine, they actually call what we are talking about here

premature awakenings. You have 5 phases to the sleep cycle that repeat over

and over again during the night. At the end of the cycle, there is an

instant moment of awakening that occurs so quickly, most are not aware of

it. At that point, the cycle repeats itself. In premature awakenings, that

instantaneous moment is too long, thus the person wakes up before sufficient

cycles have been completed. There will be a degree of partial sleep

deprivation that sleep researchers believe accumulates over time.

As to producing seratonin, the main nutrients used in that neurotransmitter

are the same as all the other transmitters - amino acids, the building

blocks of proteins. These nutrients are found predominantly in animal

products - not carbohydrates. In the case of seratonin, the main ones are

trytophan, B-6, B-12 and magnesium. Again, carbs main function is energy

which means they are involved in the intake and uptake of seratonin in and

out of cells via insulin - the transporter hormone. Eating too many carbs

in relation to insufficient protein consumption can theoritically result in

seratonin deficiencies making one a good candidate for seratonin uptake

inhibitor drugs.

Also important to understand is the sleep-wake rhythmn - the body is always

in a state of one or the other. Seratonin is produced in the wake state

starting with morning light. When dark comes, the body begins shutting down

production of it and instead, begins producing melatonin. Thus, melatonin

is for inducing and sustaining sleep, not seratonin.

Re: Re: Early Morning Waking

I don't see the point of using table sugar for sleeping, since there is an

abundance of sources of carbs that actually have nutrition in them, but

the

basic logic is sound. Carbs are necessary for the proper production and

use of

seratonin-- how is it anything but perfectly logical that one would use

them for

sound sleep?

I agree with Katja. What's the problem with waking up 6-7 hrs after

sleep?

The blood sugar issue sounds like one that needs fixing, but is it

necessarily

connected to the waking up problem? I wouldn't mind at all if I woke up 6

hours after sleep, full of energy. Jitters could be a problem obviously

though.

Personally, I think that exercise is the key to blood sugar problems.

Since

I've been lifting weights, my blood sugar has stabilized dramatically;

moreover, I am basically free to eat whatever I want (I keep it healthy of

course)

without having blood sugar problems, now.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

Thanks much for your explanation of carbs and sugar. I hope no one thought

I was promoting sugar as a sedative.

Also, there is no requirement in the human body for carbohydrates. All that

are needed can be produced from meat. On the other hand I know several

people who claim they cannot live without some carbs. Knowing their eating

habits I strongly suspect that they are carb addicts and their discomfort

when they do not eat carbs is withdrawal.

And is right. There is no point to using sugar for a sedative, as the

disadvantages far outweigh any supposed advantages.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

and anyone who thinks sugar helps sleep,

Let's try rethinking logic here. I know there is a lot out there promoting

carbs for sleep - but bear in mind, sleep problems have been on a drastic

increase right in line with other insulin resistant problems caused by the

over consumption of carbs.

Carbs main function is to provide energy. Obviously, exercise helps burn up

that energy. So if you are eating too many carbs - increasing your exercise

is going to burn up that excess energy but it is not the only solution. The

other is to decrease your carb intake making it more appropriate to what you

are burning. This is actually the basis to Atkin's theories on how many

carbs you should eat. Athletes typically increase their consumption prior

to rigorous exercise so to sustain their energy levels as I am sure you are

aware. Now the jump in logic is to say that carbs help sleep. Is there

sense in saying that what helps in running a marathon is going to help

sleeping where energy needs drastically drop?

Actually carbs are the worse thing to eat for sleep and are the cause of

most sleep problems.The following is an except from one of Atkins books

explaining insulin resistance problems (blood sugar) and their connection to

sleep problems.

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm

The best thing to eat at night to improve sleep is higher protein and fats,

less carbs, and to eat your last no later than 8:00, and do not exercise at

night. Do it earlier in the day.

In sleep medicine, they actually call what we are talking about here

premature awakenings. You have 5 phases to the sleep cycle that repeat over

and over again during the night. At the end of the cycle, there is an

instant moment of awakening that occurs so quickly, most are not aware of

it. At that point, the cycle repeats itself. In premature awakenings, that

instantaneous moment is too long, thus the person wakes up before sufficient

cycles have been completed. There will be a degree of partial sleep

deprivation that sleep researchers believe accumulates over time.

As to producing seratonin, the main nutrients used in that neurotransmitter

are the same as all the other transmitters - amino acids, the building

blocks of proteins. These nutrients are found predominantly in animal

products - not carbohydrates. In the case of seratonin, the main ones are

trytophan, B-6, B-12 and magnesium. Again, carbs main function is energy

which means they are involved in the intake and uptake of seratonin in and

out of cells via insulin - the transporter hormone. Eating too many carbs

in relation to insufficient protein consumption can theoritically result in

seratonin deficiencies making one a good candidate for seratonin uptake

inhibitor drugs.

Also important to understand is the sleep-wake rhythmn - the body is always

in a state of one or the other. Seratonin is produced in the wake state

starting with morning light. When dark comes, the body begins shutting down

production of it and instead, begins producing melatonin. Thus, melatonin

is for inducing and sustaining sleep, not seratonin.

[Guest guest]

Interesting, you found cookies helped you sleep. Too many cookies at

night woke me up just after 4AM after 4 hrs. sleep 14 years ago. Was 33

then. Couldn't fall asleep till midnight and alarm went off at 5AM. Didn't

link the cookies till it had gone on to make a big mess out of my health

physically and mentally. Few weeks is all it took, was the end of winter,

had a very sedentary job and we'd moved so I couldn't walk to work anymore.

Doctors found nothing. I chalked it up to hypoglycemia. Awoke fearful, not

hungry. Did take l-trytophan and cut out a lot of sugar. Was a lot else too

but I've only felt like I'm coming out of it over the last year with what

I've learned here about protein and fat. Also found few years after that

when I had acupuncture for a different problem that in acupuncture they

divide the day into 12-2hr. increments, each increment concerns a body organ

and its activeness if I understood it correctly. 4-6AM is the liver. Milk

thistle is a good liver cleanser.

Wanita

> A lot of this year, I have done the same thing. I thought it was a

> sign of perimenopause. Or perhaps low blood sugar. Or just plain

> stress, which we've had plenty of this year. A few times, I got up

> and made a bowl of old fashioned oatmeal (not soaked,

> though...sorry!), thinking the starch would help make me sleepy again.

>

> I eat a lot less flour and sugar than I used to. However, 2

> Christmases ago, we all felt like a batch of toll house cookies. My

> dh has practically no self-control in the presence of toll house

> cookies. I had plenty myself...had to " taste test " them, don'cha

> know?

>

> The next morning, dh mentioned that he slept real good the night

> before. So did I.

>

> Besides the cookies, the only other thing that's seemed to help me

> sleep at least 8 hours without waking up for more than a few minutes

> has been lots of physical activity (fence building, etc.), especially

> in the cold.

>

> I'm wondering if it's not something to do with production of cortisol

> and/or blood sugar level fluctuation.

>

> Can a person just up and buy a glucometer without arousing the

> curiousity of any nearby medical professionals?

>

> One more thing I've noticed is that I tend to wake up and worry, when

> I wake up too early like this. And the worrying tends to linger

> until I've had my eggy breakfast. The world always seems brighter

> after eating.

>

>

>

>

> > Hi all

> >

> > I have developed this problem of always waking up about 6-7 hours

> > after going to sleep. I wake up extremely tense and jumpy, not

> able

> > to fall back asleep. The funny thing is I took my blood sugar when

> I

> > woke up and it was sky high off the charts. I am not diabetic, I

> > just bought the meter for the fun of it. I have heard this has

> been

> > an increasing problem since the 80s, but I have not heard that

> anyone

> > really knows why. I am sure a doctor wuld just give a sleeping

> pill

> > or somethin, not an option. Has anyone here had or have this

> > problem? Are their any diet or other changes that helped.

> >

> > Thanks, Joe

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Actually carbs are the worse thing to eat for sleep and are the cause of

> most sleep problems.The following is an except from one of Atkins books

> explaining insulin resistance problems (blood sugar) and their connection to

> sleep problems.

> http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm

, your entire post to this point is a non-sequitor. You are equating

" carbohydrate " with " insulin resistance, " when the two are not in any way

equivalent. Carbohydrates do not cause insulin resistance.

> The best thing to eat at night to improve sleep is higher protein and fats,

> less carbs, and to eat your last no later than 8:00, and do not exercise at

> night. Do it earlier in the day.

Then how do you explain the fact that many or most people respond well to

carbohydrates as a sleep inducer?

> As to producing seratonin, the main nutrients used in that neurotransmitter

> are the same as all the other transmitters - amino acids, the building

> blocks of proteins. These nutrients are found predominantly in animal

> products - not carbohydrates. In the case of seratonin, the main ones are

> trytophan, B-6, B-12 and magnesium. Again, carbs main function is energy

> which means they are involved in the intake and uptake of seratonin in and

> out of cells via insulin - the transporter hormone.

That is the point-- that carbs are involved in the proper use of seratonin.

Eating too many carbs

> in relation to insufficient protein consumption can theoritically result in

> seratonin deficiencies making one a good candidate for seratonin uptake

> inhibitor drugs.

But no one is advocating replacing protein with carbs, thereby inducing

protein deficiency.

> Also important to understand is the sleep-wake rhythmn - the body is always

> in a state of one or the other. Seratonin is produced in the wake state

> starting with morning light. When dark comes, the body begins shutting down

> production of it and instead, begins producing melatonin. Thus, melatonin

> is for inducing and sustaining sleep, not seratonin.

" Serotonin, also known as 5-hydroxytrytamine (5-HT), is concentrated in the

neurons in a part of the brain called the raphe nucleus. It is thought to be

involved in sensory perception, temperature regulation, control of mood,

appetite, and the induction of sleep. " Grabowski, Principles of Anatomy and

Physiology, Tenth Edition, p 409

" Serotonin . . . is a precursor of melotonin. " Dorland's Illustrated Medical

Dictionary

Judith wrote:

>Also, there is no requirement in the human body for carbohydrates.

Neither for saturated fats.

> All that

>are needed can be produced from meat. On the other hand I know several

>people who claim they cannot live without some carbs.  Knowing their eating

>habits I strongly suspect that they are carb addicts and their discomfort

>when they do not eat carbs is withdrawal.

I have and had what you would probably consider impeccable eating habits, but

gave myself a physiological nightmare when I tried extreme low-carbing. My

body has a physiological " need " for carbs, despite their lack of

" essentiality " -- in other words, I will not die without carbs, but will not live

at optimal

health.

>And is right. There is no point to using sugar for a sedative, as the

>disadvantages far outweigh any supposed advantages.

That's not really what I said. The advantages-- putting you to sleep--

probably outweigh the disadvantages, if you were to go without sleep otherwise.

But I was simply suggesting one use, say, raw honey, which has many other

benefits, rather than table sugar.

My main point was I think the idea of using carbs as a sedative is entirely lo

gical, and so far no one has offered a reason why it wouldn't be, except to

equate carbs with insulin resistance, which is a false equation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> Actually carbs are the worse thing to eat for sleep and are the cause of

>> most sleep problems.The following is an except from one of Atkins books

>> explaining insulin resistance problems (blood sugar) and their connection to

>> sleep problems.

>>

<http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm>http://www\

..positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm

>

>, your entire post to this point is a non-sequitor. You are equating

> " carbohydrate " with " insulin resistance, " when the two are not in any way

>equivalent. Carbohydrates do not cause insulin resistance

I'd second that. Price found a lot of peoples that ate rather

high carb diets, and did just fine. The whole " insulin resistance "

bit is very, very recent. There is no evidence that a high carb

diet, in and of itself, causes insulin resistance. Otherwise

most of Asia would be diabetic, and much of Africa, for

that matter.

Now a person can react to *some* carbs very badly

for one reason or another (such as food allergies) and

if you are insulin-resistant, eating carbs without protein

or fat can make you very shakey and jittery. If I eat carbs

without the rest of the meal, I do not sleep well at all, regardless

of seratonin and all the rest.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/8/04 2:00:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> .Beg to differ, but insulin and carbohydrates go hand in hand, as does

> carbohydrates and insulin resistance problems.

No, they don't. Heidi's post essentially proved this-- the world is full of

people on high-carb diets that aren't diabetic. Many of the people Price

found ate plenty of carbs, lots of carbs, and some ate mostly carbs, despite

fantastic health. Some of the semi-vegetarians he found like the Bantu had more

tooth decay than others, but they certainly had no evidence of diabetes, and

their general health have been vindicated by other researchers.

Sleep disorders and obesity

> also go hand in hand, as does diabetes and obesity, as does sleep disorders

> and diabetes. Go sit in a sleep clinic and observe who most of the cliental

> are. It does all come down to carbs. But I actually was not equating carbs

> to insulin resistance in terms of premature awakenings - rather to the

> energy produced by carbs that will wake you up to get moving and burn it

> because that is carbs main function - providing energy needed for physical

> activity, the opposite of sleep.

, to see whether the above makes any sense at all, eat a giant bowl of

pasta with no protein or fat, save the canola oil in the tomato sauce, then sit

in front of the tv for a half hour, and see whether you are jumping off the

walls with energy, or whether you can barely keep your eyes open.

>

>

> >The best thing to eat at night to improve sleep is higher protein and

> fats,

> >less carbs, and to eat your last no later than 8:00, and do not exercise

> at

> >night. Do it earlier in the day.

>

> Then how do you explain the fact that many or most people respond well to

> carbohydrates as a sleep inducer?

>

> It is the digestive cycle, not the sleep cycle at work here. Food is a

> sleep inducer of sorts. When you eat, body resources are directed towards

> the stomach and digestion, leaving the brain in drain for a short period of

> time. So you feel tired.

I agree with that.

Siestas come after that big lunch time meal - no

> matter what it was. Ever observe pets, they always go for naps after

> eating, even if it is 100% protein or fats that they ate. Once digestion is

> complete, they are ready to do their business and play.

I agree again.

That is the catch

> to using food for nighttime sleep. As I said, do not eat after 8 if you

> are

> seeking a full nights sleep, and do not load the carbs at night.

I disagree. The parasympathetic and relaxation-related hormones are

insulin-dependent.

>

> You know alcohol works wonders in inducing sleep - drink enough and one

> passes out.

Actually, alcohol tends to give me insomnia.

That is because alcohol induces the first phase of sleep.

> Sounds good so lots of people fall in the trap and use it thinking it is

> helping sleep problems. The catch though is that it prohibits the REM stages

> of sleep from occurring so the person feels tired the next morning and grabs

> caffiene, nicotine, and carbs to get going. The disruption caused to the

> sleep-wake rhythm are felt for days on out in insominia and premature

> awakenings. It can lead to a cycle known as alcoholism.

Sure, and I don't think drinking alcohol is a good way to induce sleep at

all. Carbs, on the other hand, are important for regulating proper growth

hormone and IGF-1 cycles, which are critical for producing proper REM sleep.

> Yes carbs are involved in seratonin but the point is that you can get too

> much of a good thing.

I don't think anyone would argue with this. Of course you can get too much

of anything.

Carbs produce energy - not what you want for full

> nights sleep when energy requirements are very low.

Again, eat a big giant bowl of pasta and see how much energy you have an hour

later.

> > But no one is advocating replacing protein with carbs, thereby inducing

> > protein deficiency.

>

> When one fills the stomach with carbs, they tend to eat less protein and

> fats. That stomach is just so big you know.

That's not true at all. One can quite easily eat protein, fat, and carbs

every time one eats. I do every day.

> All the transmitters involved in inducing sleep are not well understood,

> but sleep doctors more frequently prescribe benzodiazepams to improve sleep

> which work on the GABA and dopamine systems, not the seratonin. The most

> popular over the counter drugs to help sleep are antihistamines.

Anithistamines knock me out, but I've never noticed getting any kind of

quality sleep from it. It's my understanding most people who rely on sleeping

pills tend to get low-quality sleep.

> The idea with seratonin uptake inhibitors is that there is a deficiency of

> seratonin causing bad moods such as depression. I think the number is around

> 85% of the people who present to therapists with depression also complain of

> insominia or other sleep problems. Thus the antidepressant drugs block the

> process of uptake, leaving seratonin in the cells longer for use. This does

> induce better moods but worse insominia is frequently a side affect. Carbs

> cause the uptake thus when they designed the drugs, they took a carb

> molecule and reversed its genetic instruction. (Take the hint here) One

> common side affect of the drugs is carbohydrate cravings because the body is

> wanting to get rid of that seratonin. Another common side affect is weight

> gain and insulin resistance problems. One might speculate from that that

> increased seratonin levels actually do not help much with sleep anyway.

Taking tryptophan helps people with sleep, and carbs help people with sleep.

I don't know anything about seratonin-related drugs, but I'm not advocating

them either. Why is tryptophan and B6 so helpful with sleep if not because of

serotonin?

>

> There is less known in all this than there is known as I am sure you will

> agree, especially in neuroscience. With the dramatic increases in diabetes,

> there is a lot of research going on implicating insulin in a host of

> problems including central nervous system functioning. But above that, what

> works talks louder than anything. My whole family had sleep problems I

> battled for some years - I learned the hard way about what works and what

> doesn't. Carbs at night and late eating don't work.

If they don't work for your family, your family shouldn't use them, and I'm

glad you've found something else that does. Carbs do help lots of other people

though.

> I agree with you. When I first started low carbing, I did not consume

> many carbs and in a matter of months, really felt a drag. Increasing my

> carb intake worked wonders but too much of a good thing really can be too

> much.

Everyone needs to eat in a way that works for them, but what works for an

individual is individual to her or him.

> the issue actually was not about inducing sleep anyway. The issue

> was about maintaining sleep once it had already been induced. Again , the

> reason not to use carbs is about excess energy from them. Use them to run a

> marathon instead of sleeping.

I doubt that's very good advice for a marathon runner.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Early Morning Waking

wrote:

> Actually carbs are the worse thing to eat for sleep and are the cause of

> most sleep problems.The following is an except from one of Atkins books

> explaining insulin resistance problems (blood sugar) and their

connection to

> sleep problems.

> http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm

, your entire post to this point is a non-sequitor. You are equating

" carbohydrate " with " insulin resistance, " when the two are not in any way

equivalent. Carbohydrates do not cause insulin resistance.

Beg to differ, but insulin and carbohydrates go hand in hand, as does

carbohydrates and insulin resistance problems. Sleep disorders and obesity

also go hand in hand, as does diabetes and obesity, as does sleep disorders

and diabetes. Go sit in a sleep clinic and observe who most of the cliental

are. It does all come down to carbs. But I actually was not equating carbs

to insulin resistance in terms of premature awakenings - rather to the

energy produced by carbs that will wake you up to get moving and burn it

because that is carbs main function - providing energy needed for physical

activity, the opposite of sleep.

> The best thing to eat at night to improve sleep is higher protein and

fats,

> less carbs, and to eat your last no later than 8:00, and do not exercise

at

> night. Do it earlier in the day.

Then how do you explain the fact that many or most people respond well to

carbohydrates as a sleep inducer?

It is the digestive cycle, not the sleep cycle at work here. Food is a

sleep inducer of sorts. When you eat, body resources are directed towards

the stomach and digestion, leaving the brain in drain for a short period of

time. So you feel tired. Siestas come after that big lunch time meal - no

matter what it was. Ever observe pets, they always go for naps after

eating, even if it is 100% protein or fats that they ate. Once digestion is

complete, they are ready to do their business and play. That is the catch

to using food for nighttime sleep. As I said, do not eat after 8 if you are

seeking a full nights sleep, and do not load the carbs at night.

You know alcohol works wonders in inducing sleep - drink enough and one

passes out. That is because alcohol induces the first phase of sleep.

Sounds good so lots of people fall in the trap and use it thinking it is

helping sleep problems. The catch though is that it prohibits the REM stages

of sleep from occurring so the person feels tired the next morning and grabs

caffiene, nicotine, and carbs to get going. The disruption caused to the

sleep-wake rhythm are felt for days on out in insominia and premature

awakenings. It can lead to a cycle known as alcoholism.

> As to producing seratonin, the main nutrients used in that

neurotransmitter

> are the same as all the other transmitters - amino acids, the building

> blocks of proteins. These nutrients are found predominantly in animal

> products - not carbohydrates. In the case of seratonin, the main ones

are

> trytophan, B-6, B-12 and magnesium. Again, carbs main function is energy

> which means they are involved in the intake and uptake of seratonin in

and

> out of cells via insulin - the transporter hormone.

That is the point-- that carbs are involved in the proper use of

seratonin.

Yes carbs are involved in seratonin but the point is that you can get too

much of a good thing. Carbs produce energy - not what you want for full

nights sleep when energy requirements are very low.

Eating too many carbs

> in relation to insufficient protein consumption can theoritically result

in

> seratonin deficiencies making one a good candidate for seratonin uptake

> inhibitor drugs.

But no one is advocating replacing protein with carbs, thereby inducing

protein deficiency.

When one fills the stomach with carbs, they tend to eat less protein and

fats. That stomach is just so big you know.

> Also important to understand is the sleep-wake rhythmn - the body is

always

> in a state of one or the other. Seratonin is produced in the wake state

> starting with morning light. When dark comes, the body begins shutting

down

> production of it and instead, begins producing melatonin. Thus,

melatonin

> is for inducing and sustaining sleep, not seratonin.

" Serotonin, also known as 5-hydroxytrytamine (5-HT), is concentrated in

the

neurons in a part of the brain called the raphe nucleus. It is thought to

be

involved in sensory perception, temperature regulation, control of mood,

appetite, and the induction of sleep. " Grabowski, Principles of Anatomy

and

Physiology, Tenth Edition, p 409

" Serotonin . . . is a precursor of melotonin. " Dorland's Illustrated

Medical

Dictionary

All the transmitters involved in inducing sleep are not well understood,

but sleep doctors more frequently prescribe benzodiazepams to improve sleep

which work on the GABA and dopamine systems, not the seratonin. The most

popular over the counter drugs to help sleep are antihistamines.

The idea with seratonin uptake inhibitors is that there is a deficiency of

seratonin causing bad moods such as depression. I think the number is around

85% of the people who present to therapists with depression also complain of

insominia or other sleep problems. Thus the antidepressant drugs block the

process of uptake, leaving seratonin in the cells longer for use. This does

induce better moods but worse insominia is frequently a side affect. Carbs

cause the uptake thus when they designed the drugs, they took a carb

molecule and reversed its genetic instruction. (Take the hint here) One

common side affect of the drugs is carbohydrate cravings because the body is

wanting to get rid of that seratonin. Another common side affect is weight

gain and insulin resistance problems. One might speculate from that that

increased seratonin levels actually do not help much with sleep anyway.

There is less known in all this than there is known as I am sure you will

agree, especially in neuroscience. With the dramatic increases in diabetes,

there is a lot of research going on implicating insulin in a host of

problems including central nervous system functioning. But above that, what

works talks louder than anything. My whole family had sleep problems I

battled for some years - I learned the hard way about what works and what

doesn't. Carbs at night and late eating don't work.

Judith wrote:

>Also, there is no requirement in the human body for carbohydrates.

Neither for saturated fats.

> All that

>are needed can be produced from meat. On the other hand I know several

>people who claim they cannot live without some carbs. Knowing their

eating

>habits I strongly suspect that they are carb addicts and their discomfort

>when they do not eat carbs is withdrawal.

I have and had what you would probably consider impeccable eating habits,

but

gave myself a physiological nightmare when I tried extreme low-carbing.

My

body has a physiological " need " for carbs, despite their lack of

" essentiality " -- in other words, I will not die without carbs, but will

not live at optimal health.

I agree with you. When I first started low carbing, I did not consume

many carbs and in a matter of months, really felt a drag. Increasing my

carb intake worked wonders but too much of a good thing really can be too

much.

>And is right. There is no point to using sugar for a sedative, as

the

>disadvantages far outweigh any supposed advantages.

That's not really what I said. The advantages-- putting you to sleep--

probably outweigh the disadvantages, if you were to go without sleep

otherwise.

But I was simply suggesting one use, say, raw honey, which has many other

benefits, rather than table sugar.

My main point was I think the idea of using carbs as a sedative is

entirely lo

gical, and so far no one has offered a reason why it wouldn't be, except

to

equate carbs with insulin resistance, which is a false equation.

the issue actually was not about inducing sleep anyway. The issue

was about maintaining sleep once it had already been induced. Again , the

reason not to use carbs is about excess energy from them. Use them to run a

marathon instead of sleeping.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Joe,

You might want to read Lights Out! Sleep, Sugar and Survival by T.S. Wiley

to get a good rundown on the daily, seasonal hormonal cycles and human

history instincts behind them. Other than saying soy is ok its an excellent

read.

Wanita

> in a flight or fight response your body is going to release

> adrenaline, which will among other things raise blood sugar. right?

> This would go along with feeling jittery, short of breath, etc. I

> don't think I am insulin resistant, I have no blood sugar problems

> any other time, and after the initial high blood sugar, it rapidly

> drops. maybe a stress thing.

>

> thanks, Joe

>

>

>

> > In a message dated 1/7/04 3:01:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> > heidis@t... writes:

> >

> > > I think cortisol can cause the body to release sugar

> > > from glycogen stores, so maybe it's just releasing too much.

> > >

> >

> > No, but close. I just looked it up-- glucocorticoids such as

> cortisol lead

> > to in gluconeogenesis, the formation of glucose from lactic acid

> and amino

> > acids.

> >

> > Glucogon is responsible for the breakdown of glycogen into

> glucose. I

> > believe both hormones are responsible for lypolysis.

> >

> > If your system is working properly, a rise in blood sugar from

> either hormone

> > should stimulate a release of insulin to lower the blood sugar. It

> sounds

> > like the problem would be a deficiency in insulin, or, more likely,

> insulin

> > resistance.

> >

> > Chris

>

[Guest guest]

> >> Actually carbs are the worse thing to eat for sleep and are the cause

of

> >> most sleep problems.The following is an except from one of Atkins books

> >> explaining insulin resistance problems (blood sugar) and their

connection to

> >> sleep problems.

> >>

<http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm>http:/

/www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm

> >

> >, your entire post to this point is a non-sequitor. You are equating

> > " carbohydrate " with " insulin resistance, " when the two are not in any way

> >equivalent. Carbohydrates do not cause insulin resistance

>

> I'd second that. Price found a lot of peoples that ate rather

> high carb diets, and did just fine. The whole " insulin resistance "

> bit is very, very recent. There is no evidence that a high carb

> diet, in and of itself, causes insulin resistance. Otherwise

> most of Asia would be diabetic, and much of Africa, for

> that matter.

>

> Now a person can react to *some* carbs very badly

> for one reason or another (such as food allergies) and

> if you are insulin-resistant, eating carbs without protein

> or fat can make you very shakey and jittery. If I eat carbs

> without the rest of the meal, I do not sleep well at all, regardless

> of seratonin and all the rest.

>

> -- Heidi

The book I just recommended to Joe, Lights Out! Sleep, Sugar and Survival

links increased sugar use, carb craving, addiction, increased insulin

resistance, diabetes in Europe to the same time as they were electrified

with the light bulb, extending light and daylength in winter, decreasing

sleep in the natural human hibernation time and reeking havoc on hormone

production, their cycles and our immunity. Same with U.S. Also finds Native

Americans here most vulnerable to the same effects because they've had

extended days with the light bulb for the shortest time. That from NIH

(National Institute of Health) records.

Never thought of Africa, Asia or any other southern hemisphere continental

people before they come to the U.S. or Europe. Many are third world or near

third world countries without entire light bulb use so that would be

protective against insulin resistance of extended days in winter along with

their traditional diets. Don't have the U.S. or European busy life and may

have feast famine. Depending if they're in a city with light or in country

without light before coming here might have some bearing, other than food

change on their adaptability to not become diabetics. India has more

diabetics than any other culture. The country is not entirely electrified so

I see their high carbohydrate diet as suspect. All people not of European

origin are more likely to become insulin resistant or diabetic in both

Europe and North America but thats changing with no U.S. populations without

diabetes now. Definitely got me thinking about the implications to human

health of electrifying the world. Author puts it as the second major change

in human history. First was agriculture and the change from hunter gatherers

to a more sedentary lifestyle.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>The book I just recommended to Joe, Lights Out! Sleep, Sugar and Survival

>links increased sugar use, carb craving, addiction, increased insulin

>resistance, diabetes in Europe to the same time as they were electrified

>with the light bulb, extending light and daylength in winter, decreasing

>sleep in the natural human hibernation time and reeking havoc on hormone

>production, their cycles and our immunity. Same with U.S. Also finds Native

>Americans here most vulnerable to the same effects because they've had

>extended days with the light bulb for the shortest time. That from NIH

>(National Institute of Health) records.

The effect of lights would make a lot of sense. Actually the best

sleep we've gotten is when there is a power outage. The whole

evening is different ... we read or play games by candlelight,

and everyone gets sleepy earlier.

Now if you want chickens to lay during the winter, you

put a light in the chicken coop. So yeah, it must affect hormones!

I think a lot of the insulin-resistance question comes down to

cyclic feeding too though. Which also relates to electric light.

If you don't have electricity, it's darn hard to cook all day and

half the night! I think the constant light also makes one more

" nibbly " , esp. if the TV is on ...

As far as carbs and diabetes go, I think there are a lot

of variables. The fact that insulin resistance gets so much

better with merely one day of semi-fasting per week (and no

other dietary changes) probably says something ... humans

aren't supposed to eat constantly.

Now like said, it's hard to get T2 if you are eating a fat/protein

diet. But, it's also hard to eat constantly on that diet, and your

glycogen stores wouldn't be overflowing (which seems to be

the root of the problem -- eating carbs when the glycogen

stores are already full and can't hold more).

I think wheat fits in there somehow too ... Price found over

and over that the tribes got sick when they got " white flour

and sugar " -- but modern tribes get sick even when they

get whole unground wheat. Parts of India are now using

a lot of wheat. Also, there is the difference in the FORM

of the carb ... modern food relies on very finely ground

flour that is made from a grain that is very high glycemic.

Finely ground grains make most animals sick more so than

say, gruel or course ground grain.

The last part I don't quite understand ... white rice is

high glycemic, but doesn't seem to cause a lot of problems

(except that it is non-nutritious). Potatoes are high glycemic

too, but don't seem to cause problems. But baked goods

(even my non-wheat ones) just seem to digest differently

and I just don't get along with them as well, and when I

measure my blood sugar, it will actually go up some (which

it doesn't from a potato meal).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/8/04 8:24:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Sugar is a carbohydrate by the way - derived from

> plants. Or should I say that carbohydrates are sugars.

You should say that sugars are carbohydrates-- most aren't sugars, and some

are not even meant to be converted to sugars.

>

> If you read what I stated (or go to a basic nutrition book), carbs primary

> function is energy.

Well, if you want to get technical with this, that isn't true. Carbohydrates

play all sorts of structural roles. That's particularly true if you are,

say, an insect or a plant, but sticking to the issue, in humans, carbohydrates

are abundant in cell membranes as identification markers, forming the glycocalyx

of the cell, are frequently attached to proteins, and play very important

structural roles in cartilage.

Sure, the lion's share you eat probably winds up as " energy, " but the same is

true of fat or protein if you eat more fat or protein in the diet. If you

ate a low-carb diet, obviously you would use mostly fat for energy, and if you

had a high protein content in it you would mostly use protein for energy, which

can readily be turned into glucose much of the time.

The more energy one burns, the more one can eat.

> Cultures in Asia and Africa in Weston Price's day were not driving

> everywhere in cars, nor spending a substantial part of their day sitting at

> a computer desk. Many of them still are not doing so today. Thus they

> could/can consume more because they burned more.

So how can you blame carbs any more than lack of physical activity?

And when you lay out what

> those cultures are actually consuming in total carb count, I bet you are

> not

> talking the 250-300+ carb intake a day that people who get insulin

> resistance problems in this country have been consuming.

I doubt that, but I don't have any figures. I don't consider 250-300 grams

of anything a significant amount of food.

It's actually

> pretty hard to consume that many carbs if you are not eating processed

> foods

> and sugar.

Actually it's really easy if you're an active male.

> Yes, there are differences in " some " carbs versus others, most particularly

> relevant are fibers which are not digested and so do not affect insulin. So

> when you compare what another culture eats in terms of carb #, you must

> factor for that.

But fiber does not comprise a large percentage of carbs in most foods.

Oatmeal is considered high-fiber, but only contains 15% of it's carb grams from

fiber.

I also understood reading Price that these cultures

> processed grains differently - theirs were not as refined as what we have,

> nor have the nutrients and fiber been removed, nor is refined sugar added as

> is done here in the US. That means they are not as high in absorbable carb

> count.

Not if they eat more of them. Come on, if someone is eating, say, 250 g

instead of 275 g of carbohydrates that's not going to make the difference in

insulin resistance simply by the amount alone. If the fiber that's removed or

the

sugar that's added represents 10-15% of the carbs, it's much more logical to

believe that the primary operative effect is on the quality, not the quantity of

the carbohyrate food, especially if the diet is overall based on

carbohydrates.

Another difference is in how quickly " some " carbs are digested and

> the insulin needed at one time to handle them. Obviously, sugar requires

> hardly any digestion. Modern cultures have been eating more refined foods

> that require less digestion - thus even when eating equivalent numbers of

> carbs, the over stimulation of insulin can still be greater. There is also a

> pancreas involved in this that is actually producing that insulin. It can

> be overworked, become inflamed, begin to dysfunction, and develop tumors but

> lets just ignore that.

But the pancreas gets overworked from insulin resistance. Someone who is not

insulin resistant has low fasting insulin, and can eat enormous amount of

carbs and require relatively little insulin to process it, putting no

significant

stress on the pancreas. Animal studies and human studies show that periods

of fasting will greatly increase insulin sensitivity with no overall

restriction in carbs or calories. And everything your pointing out about the

quality of

carbs and how they are eaten combines with that to show that there is much

more at work in insulin resistance than absolute values of carb intakes.

> As far as allergies, which are you talking about? Lactose intolerant?

> Lactose is a sugar, a bad one. Or maybe you are talking about gluten

> intolerance. From what I understand that is about phytic acid which is

> toxic to everyone, not really an allergy.

Phytic acid is toxic?

> One interesting point he makes as to cultures who

> eat high carb, is that carbs are plants and as plants, are seasonal.

He must have missed the " out of Africa " theory?

Thus,

> before refrigeration, they were not consumed in high quantity during

> seasons

> when they are not producing, and in even smaller amounts before agriculture

> developed - which was maybe 15,000 years ago.

Sure, in non-tropical climates. It's my understanding humans have been

living in tropical climates for some time.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/8/04 8:59:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Both my Type II diabetic mother and father in law fall asleep after all

> their still carb filled meals. Pasta used to incapaticate me to the point

> I'd have to force myself to do dishes an hour later, fighting sleep. Had my

> worst sleep problems with that many carbs. Its not healthy. Blood sugar has

> got to be affected. Its just like the 3PM barely stay awake, brain fogged

> crash I'd get from my food and body run out that I'd relieve with a candy

> bar before I knew better. No more than a half hour of sitting to digest,

> usually less and if I don't have the will to do the dishes I've eaten

> something wrong.

A good experiment would be to eat a jar of honey and see if the same happens.

It would be best performed with someone who does not suffer from any blood

sugar fluctuations.

Honey doesn't require any digestions, so that would settle how much of the

sleepiness is due to digestion robbing energy, and how much is due to insulin's

stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system, cGMP, etc.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> The effect of lights would make a lot of sense. Actually the best

> sleep we've gotten is when there is a power outage. The whole

> evening is different ... we read or play games by candlelight,

> and everyone gets sleepy earlier.

With lights in winter melatonin, a potent antioxidant is reduced, white cell

immune function reduces, less prolactin at night where more and stronger NK

and T cells are produced ,and too much prolactin in daytime creating

autoimmunity and carbohydrate cravings.

> Now if you want chickens to lay during the winter, you

> put a light in the chicken coop. So yeah, it must affect hormones!

That's cortisol as you likely knew and melatonin above.

>

> I think a lot of the insulin-resistance question comes down to

> cyclic feeding too though. Which also relates to electric light.

> If you don't have electricity, it's darn hard to cook all day and

> half the night! I think the constant light also makes one more

> " nibbly " , esp. if the TV is on ...

Watched Nanook of the North other night made in 1922. Was b & w, no talking

with description of what they were filming. Only showed Inuit cooking just

after dark once they were in igloo on hunting trip for night. That was after

success.Was a tiny fire as the inside couldn't get above freezing. Insulin

should be flat after dark but it stays high with the light, cortisol falls

too late and doesn't come up normally in the morning with the sun.

>

> As far as carbs and diabetes go, I think there are a lot

> of variables. The fact that insulin resistance gets so much

> better with merely one day of semi-fasting per week (and no

> other dietary changes) probably says something ... humans

> aren't supposed to eat constantly.

Book does say we should wake up with elevated cortisol for day's stresses,

should be hungry with low insulin if cortisol has elevated. If not cortisol

is low and insulin still up.

>

> Now like said, it's hard to get T2 if you are eating a fat/protein

> diet. But, it's also hard to eat constantly on that diet, and your

> glycogen stores wouldn't be overflowing (which seems to be

> the root of the problem -- eating carbs when the glycogen

> stores are already full and can't hold more).

Both six small meals a day and three meals a day left me tired.Was eating

way too many carbs which means hard work to my system. Have to believe

Schwarzbein there and gut brain signalling. Grain carbs never told my

stomach it was full, only that it wanted more if there wasn't sufficient

protein and fat to signal it full. Potatoes or squash satiate me with more

than enough carbs.

>

> I think wheat fits in there somehow too ... Price found over

> and over that the tribes got sick when they got " white flour

> and sugar " -- but modern tribes get sick even when they

> get whole unground wheat. Parts of India are now using

> a lot of wheat. Also, there is the difference in the FORM

> of the carb ... modern food relies on very finely ground

> flour that is made from a grain that is very high glycemic.

> Finely ground grains make most animals sick more so than

> say, gruel or course ground grain.

> The last part I don't quite understand ... white rice is

> high glycemic, but doesn't seem to cause a lot of problems

> (except that it is non-nutritious). Potatoes are high glycemic

> too, but don't seem to cause problems. But baked goods

> (even my non-wheat ones) just seem to digest differently

> and I just don't get along with them as well, and when I

> measure my blood sugar, it will actually go up some (which

> it doesn't from a potato meal).

Funny, pretty much said that above. Had a link to Pima Indian diet that

associated potatoes to satiety index despite its GI. Think its because

potatoes are more whole carb than processed carbs of grains. If a culture

was used to rice unprocessed, adapted their bodies to eating rice or high

carbohydrates like Asian longer intestines then it seems a less nutritious

rice would affect their vitamin levels not their ability to process it.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

I am sorry but insulin resistance does have direct correlation to

overconsumption of carbohydrates and it's hardly new news. Back during the

Vietnam War, a common way guys avoided the draft who didn't want to go to

Canada was to eat nothing but carbs, especially sugar, for weeks before the

physical so they would test out as hypoglycemic and be rejected. It worked

then, it still works today if you want to give it a try. That was maybe 40

years ago when the USDA food pryamid was the reverse of what it is today and

carbs were considered something you should not eat tons of because of such

problems. While diabetes was not as prevalent, it predates the last century

before transfats, preservatives, pollution, or even bread manufacturers.

It's rates of occurrence have the strongest correlation with the consumption

of refined sugar which started around 1500 in Europe, too strong in fact to

really argue. My grandfather died of type II in 1930, my mother would not

allow us to eat sweets, bread and starches were minimized, because of

doctors recommendations that eating such increased our chances of developing

diabetes. That dates back to the 1940's. Again, the ideas are no more

recent than Price's. Sugar is a carbohydrate by the way - derived from

plants. Or should I say that carbohydrates are sugars.

If you read what I stated (or go to a basic nutrition book), carbs primary

function is energy. The more energy one burns, the more one can eat.

Cultures in Asia and Africa in Weston Price's day were not driving

everywhere in cars, nor spending a substantial part of their day sitting at

a computer desk. Many of them still are not doing so today. Thus they

could/can consume more because they burned more. And when you lay out what

those cultures are actually consuming in total carb count, I bet you are not

talking the 250-300+ carb intake a day that people who get insulin

resistance problems in this country have been consuming. It's actually

pretty hard to consume that many carbs if you are not eating processed foods

and sugar.

Yes, there are differences in " some " carbs versus others, most particularly

relevant are fibers which are not digested and so do not affect insulin. So

when you compare what another culture eats in terms of carb #, you must

factor for that. I also understood reading Price that these cultures

processed grains differently - theirs were not as refined as what we have,

nor have the nutrients and fiber been removed, nor is refined sugar added as

is done here in the US. That means they are not as high in absorbable carb

count. Another difference is in how quickly " some " carbs are digested and

the insulin needed at one time to handle them. Obviously, sugar requires

hardly any digestion. Modern cultures have been eating more refined foods

that require less digestion - thus even when eating equivalent numbers of

carbs, the over stimulation of insulin can still be greater. There is also a

pancreas involved in this that is actually producing that insulin. It can

be overworked, become inflamed, begin to dysfunction, and develop tumors but

lets just ignore that. I can appreciate the logic in saying that fats will

slow the digestion of carbs, thus reducing the insulin requirements. But

the people advocating this also advocate something around 16% of daily

intake be from carbs, the rest protein and fat. That is not that many carbs

when you lay it out - it would have to be under 100 a day.

As far as allergies, which are you talking about? Lactose intolerant?

Lactose is a sugar, a bad one. Or maybe you are talking about gluten

intolerance. From what I understand that is about phytic acid which is

toxic to everyone, not really an allergy.

Carbs are not only implicated in insulin resistance problems, they are

implicated in cancer, strokes, heart attacks, sleep disorders - a host of

problems. Someone mentioned Brent Formby's book - Lights Out. Highlights

on the front cover are - Sleep, Sugar, and Survival. Get 9 plus hours of

sleep a night and: lose weight, Curb cravings for carbs, eradicate

depression, lower blood pressure and stress, reverse type II diabetes,

minimize risk of heart disease, prevent cancer. It's a perspective from a

molecular biologist (doctorates in biochemistry, biophysics, and molecular

biology) who has researched and published in diabetes, cancer, and heart

disease. He is not alone in the scientific community pointing the finger at

excessive carb intake. One interesting point he makes as to cultures who

eat high carb, is that carbs are plants and as plants, are seasonal. Thus,

before refrigeration, they were not consumed in high quantity during seasons

when they are not producing, and in even smaller amounts before agriculture

developed - which was maybe 15,000 years ago.

Re: Re: Early Morning Waking

>> Actually carbs are the worse thing to eat for sleep and are the cause

of

>> most sleep problems.The following is an except from one of Atkins books

>> explaining insulin resistance problems (blood sugar) and their

connection to

>> sleep problems.

>>

<http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm>http:/

/www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/atkins40.htm

>

>, your entire post to this point is a non-sequitor. You are equating

> " carbohydrate " with " insulin resistance, " when the two are not in any way

>equivalent. Carbohydrates do not cause insulin resistance

I'd second that. Price found a lot of peoples that ate rather

high carb diets, and did just fine. The whole " insulin resistance "

bit is very, very recent. There is no evidence that a high carb

diet, in and of itself, causes insulin resistance. Otherwise

most of Asia would be diabetic, and much of Africa, for

that matter.

Now a person can react to *some* carbs very badly

for one reason or another (such as food allergies) and

if you are insulin-resistant, eating carbs without protein

or fat can make you very shakey and jittery. If I eat carbs

without the rest of the meal, I do not sleep well at all, regardless

of seratonin and all the rest.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Both my Type II diabetic mother and father in law fall asleep after all

their still carb filled meals. Pasta used to incapaticate me to the point

I'd have to force myself to do dishes an hour later, fighting sleep. Had my

worst sleep problems with that many carbs. Its not healthy. Blood sugar has

got to be affected. Its just like the 3PM barely stay awake, brain fogged

crash I'd get from my food and body run out that I'd relieve with a candy

bar before I knew better. No more than a half hour of sitting to digest,

usually less and if I don't have the will to do the dishes I've eaten

something wrong.

> , to see whether the above makes any sense at all, eat a giant bowl of

> pasta with no protein or fat, save the canola oil in the tomato sauce,

then sit

> in front of the tv for a half hour, and see whether you are jumping off

the

> walls with energy, or whether you can barely keep your eyes open.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Once in the body all carbohydrates turn into sugars, and are handled the

same as table sugar.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

In a message dated 1/8/04 8:24:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Sugar is a carbohydrate by the way - derived from

> plants. Or should I say that carbohydrates are sugars.

You should say that sugars are carbohydrates-- most aren't sugars, and some

are not even meant to be converted to sugars.

>

> If you read what I stated (or go to a basic nutrition book), carbs primary

> function is energy.

Well, if you want to get technical with this, that isn't true.

Carbohydrates

play all sorts of structural roles. That's particularly true if you are,

say, an insect or a plant, but sticking to the issue, in humans,

carbohydrates

are abundant in cell membranes as identification markers, forming the

glycocalyx

of the cell, are frequently attached to proteins, and play very important

structural roles in cartilage.

Sure, the lion's share you eat probably winds up as " energy, " but the same

is

true of fat or protein if you eat more fat or protein in the diet. If you

ate a low-carb diet, obviously you would use mostly fat for energy, and if

you

had a high protein content in it you would mostly use protein for energy,

which

can readily be turned into glucose much of the time.

The more energy one burns, the more one can eat.

> Cultures in Asia and Africa in Weston Price's day were not driving

> everywhere in cars, nor spending a substantial part of their day sitting

at

> a computer desk. Many of them still are not doing so today. Thus they

> could/can consume more because they burned more.

So how can you blame carbs any more than lack of physical activity?

And when you lay out what

> those cultures are actually consuming in total carb count, I bet you are

> not

> talking the 250-300+ carb intake a day that people who get insulin

> resistance problems in this country have been consuming.

I doubt that, but I don't have any figures. I don't consider 250-300 grams

of anything a significant amount of food.

It's actually

> pretty hard to consume that many carbs if you are not eating processed

> foods

> and sugar.

Actually it's really easy if you're an active male.

> Yes, there are differences in " some " carbs versus others, most

particularly

> relevant are fibers which are not digested and so do not affect insulin.

So

> when you compare what another culture eats in terms of carb #, you must

> factor for that.

But fiber does not comprise a large percentage of carbs in most foods.

Oatmeal is considered high-fiber, but only contains 15% of it's carb grams

from

fiber.

I also understood reading Price that these cultures

> processed grains differently - theirs were not as refined as what we have,

> nor have the nutrients and fiber been removed, nor is refined sugar added

as

> is done here in the US. That means they are not as high in absorbable

carb

> count.

Not if they eat more of them. Come on, if someone is eating, say, 250 g

instead of 275 g of carbohydrates that's not going to make the difference in

insulin resistance simply by the amount alone. If the fiber that's removed

or the

sugar that's added represents 10-15% of the carbs, it's much more logical to

believe that the primary operative effect is on the quality, not the

quantity of

the carbohyrate food, especially if the diet is overall based on

carbohydrates.

Another difference is in how quickly " some " carbs are digested and

> the insulin needed at one time to handle them. Obviously, sugar requires

> hardly any digestion. Modern cultures have been eating more refined foods

> that require less digestion - thus even when eating equivalent numbers of

> carbs, the over stimulation of insulin can still be greater. There is also

a

> pancreas involved in this that is actually producing that insulin. It can

> be overworked, become inflamed, begin to dysfunction, and develop tumors

but

> lets just ignore that.

But the pancreas gets overworked from insulin resistance. Someone who is

not

insulin resistant has low fasting insulin, and can eat enormous amount of

carbs and require relatively little insulin to process it, putting no

significant

stress on the pancreas. Animal studies and human studies show that periods

of fasting will greatly increase insulin sensitivity with no overall

restriction in carbs or calories. And everything your pointing out about

the quality of

carbs and how they are eaten combines with that to show that there is much

more at work in insulin resistance than absolute values of carb intakes.

> As far as allergies, which are you talking about? Lactose intolerant?

> Lactose is a sugar, a bad one. Or maybe you are talking about gluten

> intolerance. From what I understand that is about phytic acid which is

> toxic to everyone, not really an allergy.

Phytic acid is toxic?

> One interesting point he makes as to cultures who

> eat high carb, is that carbs are plants and as plants, are seasonal.

He must have missed the " out of Africa " theory?

Thus,

> before refrigeration, they were not consumed in high quantity during

> seasons

> when they are not producing, and in even smaller amounts before

agriculture

> developed - which was maybe 15,000 years ago.

Sure, in non-tropical climates. It's my understanding humans have been

living in tropical climates for some time.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris

> Sugar is a carbohydrate by the way - derived from

> plants. Or should I say that carbohydrates are sugars.

You should say that sugars are carbohydrates-- most aren't sugars, and

some

are not even meant to be converted to sugars.

***Are you saying that carbohydrates are not sugars? If so, that's news

to me. Any chemical compound ending with " ose " means it is a sugar. The

only thing I am aware of in carbs that is not converted to glucose (blood

sugar) is cellulose which is not digested and passed out the body. Is there

something else?

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/207.html#pagetop

[The National Acadamies Press

Classification of Dietary Carbohydrates

Carbohydrates can be subdivided into several categories, based on the

number of sugar units present. A monosaccharide consists of one sugar unit

such as glucose or fructose. A disaccharide consists of two sugar units.

Oligosaccharides such as raffinose and stachyose are found in small amounts

in legumes. Examples of polysaccharides include starch and glycogen, which

are the storage forms of carbohydrates in plants and animals, respectively.

Finally, sugar alcohols, such as sorbitol and mannitol, are alcohol forms of

glucose and fructose, respectively.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/carbohyd.html

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

carbohydrate

any member of a large class of chemical compounds that includes

sugars, starches, cellulose, and related compounds. These compounds are

produced naturally by green plants from carbon dioxide and water (see

photosynthesis). Carbohydrates are important as foods; they supply energy

and are used in the production of fats. They are also used in various forms

in industry and commerce. There are three main classes of carbohydrates.

Monosaccharides are the simple sugars, e.g., fructose and glucose; they have

the general formula (CH2O)n, in which n is an integer larger than 2.

Disaccharides include lactose, maltose, and sucrose. Upon hydrolysis, a

disaccharide molecule yields two monosaccharide molecules. Most

disaccharides have the general formula Cn(H2O)n-1, with n larger than 5.

Polysaccharides include such substances as cellulose, dextrin, glycogen, and

starch; they are polymeric compounds made up of the simple sugars and can be

hydrolyzed to yield simple sugars. The disaccharides are sometimes grouped

with the simpler polysaccharides (usually those made up of three or four

simple sugar units) to form a class of carbohydrates called the

oligosaccharides.

>

> If you read what I stated (or go to a basic nutrition book), carbs

primary

> function is energy.

Well, if you want to get technical with this, that isn't true.

Carbohydrates

play all sorts of structural roles. That's particularly true if you are,

say, an insect or a plant, but sticking to the issue, in humans,

carbohydrates

are abundant in cell membranes as identification markers, forming the

glycocalyx

of the cell, are frequently attached to proteins, and play very important

structural roles in cartilage.

Sure, the lion's share you eat probably winds up as " energy, " but the same

is

true of fat or protein if you eat more fat or protein in the diet. If you

ate a low-carb diet, obviously you would use mostly fat for energy, and if

you

had a high protein content in it you would mostly use protein for energy,

which

can readily be turned into glucose much of the time.

The more energy one burns, the more one can eat.

> Cultures in Asia and Africa in Weston Price's day were not driving

> everywhere in cars, nor spending a substantial part of their day sitting

at

> a computer desk. Many of them still are not doing so today. Thus they

> could/can consume more because they burned more.

So how can you blame carbs any more than lack of physical activity?

And when you lay out what

> those cultures are actually consuming in total carb count, I bet you are

> not

> talking the 250-300+ carb intake a day that people who get insulin

> resistance problems in this country have been consuming.

I doubt that, but I don't have any figures. I don't consider 250-300

grams

of anything a significant amount of food.

It's actually

> pretty hard to consume that many carbs if you are not eating processed

> foods

> and sugar.

Actually it's really easy if you're an active male.

> Yes, there are differences in " some " carbs versus others, most

particularly

> relevant are fibers which are not digested and so do not affect insulin.

So

> when you compare what another culture eats in terms of carb #, you must

> factor for that.

But fiber does not comprise a large percentage of carbs in most foods.

Oatmeal is considered high-fiber, but only contains 15% of it's carb grams

from

fiber.

I also understood reading Price that these cultures

> processed grains differently - theirs were not as refined as what we

have,

> nor have the nutrients and fiber been removed, nor is refined sugar

added as

> is done here in the US. That means they are not as high in absorbable

carb

> count.

Not if they eat more of them. Come on, if someone is eating, say, 250 g

instead of 275 g of carbohydrates that's not going to make the difference

in

insulin resistance simply by the amount alone. If the fiber that's removed

or the

sugar that's added represents 10-15% of the carbs, it's much more logical

to

believe that the primary operative effect is on the quality, not the

quantity of

the carbohyrate food, especially if the diet is overall based on

carbohydrates.

Another difference is in how quickly " some " carbs are digested and

> the insulin needed at one time to handle them. Obviously, sugar requires

> hardly any digestion. Modern cultures have been eating more refined

foods

> that require less digestion - thus even when eating equivalent numbers

of

> carbs, the over stimulation of insulin can still be greater. There is

also a

> pancreas involved in this that is actually producing that insulin. It

can

> be overworked, become inflamed, begin to dysfunction, and develop tumors

but

> lets just ignore that.

But the pancreas gets overworked from insulin resistance. Someone who is

not

insulin resistant has low fasting insulin, and can eat enormous amount of

carbs and require relatively little insulin to process it, putting no

significant

stress on the pancreas. Animal studies and human studies show that

periods

of fasting will greatly increase insulin sensitivity with no overall

restriction in carbs or calories. And everything your pointing out about

the quality of

carbs and how they are eaten combines with that to show that there is much

more at work in insulin resistance than absolute values of carb intakes.

> As far as allergies, which are you talking about? Lactose intolerant?

> Lactose is a sugar, a bad one. Or maybe you are talking about gluten

> intolerance. From what I understand that is about phytic acid which is

> toxic to everyone, not really an allergy.

Phytic acid is toxic?

> One interesting point he makes as to cultures who

> eat high carb, is that carbs are plants and as plants, are seasonal.

He must have missed the " out of Africa " theory?

Thus,

> before refrigeration, they were not consumed in high quantity during

> seasons

> when they are not producing, and in even smaller amounts before

agriculture

> developed - which was maybe 15,000 years ago.

Sure, in non-tropical climates. It's my understanding humans have been

living in tropical climates for some time.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I joined a board back pursuing such a diet - the diet is called Radiant

diet. I just couldn't connect because everyone was having depression

problems. That didn't speak well for the idea of eating potatoes instead of

prozac.

The point is that carbs via insulin cause the uptake of tryptophan - too

many carbs and too much uptake out. It all comes from the thinking that if

a little is good, a whole lot is better which is really not always true.

Re: Early Morning Waking

wrote:

>>My main point was I think the idea of using carbs as a sedative is

entirely lo

gical, and so far no one has offered a reason why it wouldn't be, except

to

equate carbs with insulin resistance, which is a false equation.

Agreed.. and the key may be that the tryptophan (precursor to serotonin)

from protein eaten during the day can't (or in real life doesn't) cross

the

blood-brain barrier until some carbs are present. That's the rationale

behind " Potatoes Not Prozac " (have a potato in the evening, or some

non-starchy carb if preferred).

-

[Guest guest]

>Carbs produce energy - not what you want for full

>> nights sleep when energy requirements are very low.

>

>Again, eat a big giant bowl of pasta and see how much energy you have an hour

>later.

This must REALLY depend on the person! If I eat carbs

without protein, I'm climbing the walls (not sleepy). Carbs plus

protein (chicken soup) will put me to sleep in the afternoon.

A glass of wine knocks me out (which is why I drink it

before sleep, which works fine).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>I am sorry but insulin resistance does have direct correlation to

>overconsumption of carbohydrates and it's hardly new news. Back during the

>Vietnam War, a common way guys avoided the draft who didn't want to go to

>Canada was to eat nothing but carbs, especially sugar, for weeks before the

>physical so they would test out as hypoglycemic and be rejected. It worked

>then, it still works today if you want to give it a try.

Sure -- OVER consumption of carbs will produce high blood sugar.

What *doesn't* follow is: therefore you must eat a low carb diet.

I went on at length on this in a previous post. There are issues

with the OVER consumption of carbs that are very complicated.

But ... I spent 30 years of my life eating every 3 hours to avoid

hypoglycemic attacks. They were bad, really. I'd get migraines from

a lot of them, and I gained weight like mad. I avoided carbs. I measured

portions. I did all the stuff you are supposed to do. I even did Atkins once.

Now I don't do ANY of that stuff and I'm FINE. I ate a whole sushi roll

with sweet vinegar for " dinner " (after a mess of jerky I ate while driving,

because driving makes me nervous, esp. in snow).

I bought a blood sugar meter, and while I was having a " hypoglycemic "

attack, my blood sugar was actually HIGH, not low. I did research that said

high cortisol could cause this. I tried the WD because it seems to control

cortisol. Now I'm ok. Now I feel like I wasted 30 years of my life.

I tend not to like the food pyramid because it relies on grains,

and grains have lots of complications. But I eat sugar, and so

does my family, and guess what? No one eats much of it. It's

too sweet now, no one wants it much. So no one " overeats "

it, without me nagging or a food pyramid. I think table sugar

and rice have about the same glycemic index ... but neither

is a big issue if the " system " is working correctly.

>If you read what I stated (or go to a basic nutrition book), carbs primary

>function is energy. The more energy one burns, the more one can eat.

>Cultures in Asia and Africa in Weston Price's day were not driving

>everywhere in cars, nor spending a substantial part of their day sitting at

>a computer desk. Many of them still are not doing so today. Thus they

>could/can consume more because they burned more. And when you lay out what

>those cultures are actually consuming in total carb count, I bet you are not

>talking the 250-300+ carb intake a day that people who get insulin

>resistance problems in this country have been consuming. It's actually

>pretty hard to consume that many carbs if you are not eating processed foods

>and sugar.

Sure ... but this also ignores the " appestat " and the issue of eating all day

long.

Healthy cultures that eat carbs are NOT eating potato chips out of a bag.

They are eating stuff like oatmeal gruel.

I don't get any more exercise now than I used to, and the blood sugar

issues are GONE. A lot of exercise might help, and I do think it is

good for you (esp. out in the sun), but I see a lot of fat people

working out too.

>Yes, there are differences in " some " carbs versus others, most particularly

>relevant are fibers which are not digested and so do not affect insulin. So

>when you compare what another culture eats in terms of carb #, you must

>factor for that. I also understood reading Price that these cultures

>processed grains differently - theirs were not as refined as what we have,

>nor have the nutrients and fiber been removed, nor is refined sugar added as

>is done here in the US. That means they are not as high in absorbable carb

>count. Another difference is in how quickly " some " carbs are digested and

>the insulin needed at one time to handle them. Obviously, sugar requires

>hardly any digestion. Modern cultures have been eating more refined foods

>that require less digestion - thus even when eating equivalent numbers of

>carbs, the over stimulation of insulin can still be greater.

I agree. Another issue though, is the appetite. TRY sometime eating a huge bowl

of oatmeal.

It just doesn't happen. Potatoes are high on the glycemic index, but most people

just

can't eat all that many baked potatoes. Sweet potatoes are even worse ... I can

only make

it thru half a sweet potato, even though I like the taste.

> There is also a

>pancreas involved in this that is actually producing that insulin. It can

>be overworked, become inflamed, begin to dysfunction, and develop tumors but

>lets just ignore that. I can appreciate the logic in saying that fats will

>slow the digestion of carbs, thus reducing the insulin requirements. But

>the people advocating this also advocate something around 16% of daily

>intake be from carbs, the rest protein and fat. That is not that many carbs

>when you lay it out - it would have to be under 100 a day.

You CAN be healthy with an 70% carb diet. But that is not saying all

carbs are created equal. That is my main point. Carbs are NOT all the

same. Meat digests more or less the same, whether it is from a cow

or a pig. But a rice cake is not the same as gruel which is not the same

as a cookie.

>As far as allergies, which are you talking about? Lactose intolerant?

>Lactose is a sugar, a bad one. Or maybe you are talking about gluten

>intolerance. From what I understand that is about phytic acid which is

>toxic to everyone, not really an allergy.

Gluten intolerance is a HUGE deal in America, albeit not really advertised

yet. A recent medical artical called it " the looming iceberg " . People who

are truly gluten intolerant overproduce certain antibodies when they

eat gluten (which is in MOST American foods). Those antibodies do the

following:

1. Make the gut and brain barriers porous

2. Cause autoimmune diseases of many sorts.

3. Cause the pancreas and thyroid to not work right

4. Cause the immune system to malfunction (causing increases in certain

cancers).

5. Cause the person to live a much shorter period of time.

Anyway, the NIH is having an meeting about this in June. About 1 person in 100

is REALLY gluten intolerant to the point where their gut is visibly damaged,

and about 1 in 5 is intolerant to the point where it shows up on a blood test.

Since " wheat " and " carbs " are synonymous in the SAD, this throws a huge

monkeywrench into any discussion of " carbs " being harmful. For at least 1/5 of

the

population, carbs with wheat are deadly.

For that 1/5 of the population, wheat carbs will also really damage

the pancreas, connective tissues, and other organs. That is why I say

grains get complicated. Wheat might have an effect on glucose metabolism

that isn't really connected to the fact that it has " carbs " . The gluten issue

is related to the gliadin part of the wheat though, and gliadin is a protein.

This isn't really in the news yet, but it will be. It's going to have a huge

impact on the food industry. Gluten is also something of a drug, and

seems to be addictive, it is really hard to break " the habit " .

> excessive carb intake. One interesting point he makes as to cultures who

>eat high carb, is that carbs are plants and as plants, are seasonal. Thus,

>before refrigeration, they were not consumed in high quantity during seasons

>when they are not producing, and in even smaller amounts before agriculture

>developed - which was maybe 15,000 years ago.

I'm not sure that is true. Potatoes, for one, keep really well in buried

" vaults "

and most indigenous cultures seem to rely on tubers of one sort

or another. Also a lot of them live in the tropics, where it is not so seasonal.

Folks like the Koreans who have a lot of seasonality rely on rice, which

stores well enough, and kimchi, which isn't a carb but helps regulate

insulin somehow, and is available year round.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

e:

>With lights in winter melatonin, a potent antioxidant is reduced, white cell

>immune function reduces, less prolactin at night where more and stronger NK

>and T cells are produced ,and too much prolactin in daytime creating

>autoimmunity and carbohydrate cravings.

It would be an interesting experiment .. a winter with no electricity.

Of course, I wouldn't be answering this, in that case!

>

>Watched Nanook of the North other night made in 1922. Was b & w, no talking

>with description of what they were filming. Only showed Inuit cooking just

>after dark once they were in igloo on hunting trip for night. That was after

>success.Was a tiny fire as the inside couldn't get above freezing. Insulin

>should be flat after dark but it stays high with the light, cortisol falls

>too late and doesn't come up normally in the morning with the sun.

I think people must have cooked a lot in the dark ... well,

we did camping too. It wasn't the same though. You cooked

dinner, you ate it. Then you put stuff away and sat around

playing Yahtzee and drinking wine til you wanted to sleep.

Much different than: eat dinner. Then decide to have some

ice cream. Then some chips and salsa while you watch TV.

All of which works on the WD, though I find I really don't

have as much appetite as I used to.

Book does say we should wake up with elevated cortisol for day's stresses,

>should be hungry with low insulin if cortisol has elevated. If not cortisol

>is low and insulin still up.

I'm not sure how that all works now ... I wake up not hungry,

though I usually have a banana.

Both six small meals a day and three meals a day left me tired.Was eating

>way too many carbs which means hard work to my system. Have to believe

>Schwarzbein there and gut brain signalling. Grain carbs never told my

>stomach it was full, only that it wanted more if there wasn't sufficient

>protein and fat to signal it full. Potatoes or squash satiate me with more

>than enough carbs.

Small meals worked for me if I really regulated them. But if I

missed one I really crashed.

> Funny, pretty much said that above. Had a link to Pima Indian diet that

>associated potatoes to satiety index despite its GI. Think its because

>potatoes are more whole carb than processed carbs of grains. If a culture

>was used to rice unprocessed, adapted their bodies to eating rice or high

>carbohydrates like Asian longer intestines then it seems a less nutritious

>rice would affect their vitamin levels not their ability to process it.

Thing is: when I eat fries at, say, Mcs, I can eat them forever.

Even though they have more fat than my average baked potato. And

I can't eat a lot of rice anymore, though I used to overindulge on that

too. There must be other factors, I'm not sure what they are. I'm sure

nutrients are part of it, but not the whole picture.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/8/04 11:33:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Once in the body all carbohydrates turn into sugars, and are handled the

> same as table sugar.

No they aren't. Cellulose would be one example. Since phrased her

statement, " Or should I say that carbohydrates are sugars " as a question, I

answered it-- carbohydrates are not considered a form of sugar, but sugar is

considered a form of carbohydrate.

Chris

_______

wrote:

>***Are you saying that carbohydrates are not sugars?  If so, that's news

>to me.  Any chemical compound ending with " ose " means it is a sugar.  The

>only thing I am aware of in carbs that is not converted to glucose (blood

>sugar) is cellulose which is not digested and passed out the body.  Is there

>something else?

,

I understand it's nit-picky, but I just answered with the accepted

categorization since you asked. Sugars are considered a form of carbohydrate,

not the

reverse. " Starch " does not

end in " -ose " and is not considered a sugar. It is broken down into sugars,

yes, but in itself it is not considered a sugar.

If we were to classify the molecule by that into which it is converted, then

we could consider proteins and fats sugars as well.

There are structural carbs besides cellulose. Chitin, for example, makes up

an insect's exoskeleton, and, afaik, we don't break that down into glucose

either. (I suppose it would be discarded when eating insects?)

Technically a carbohydrate is anything with a 1:2:1 ratio of C:H:O. This is

a semantic point, and doesn't detract from the points you were trying to make,

I was just throwing out what is considered the proper categorization FYI.

Chris

_____

Heidi wrote:

>I agree. Another issue though, is the appetite. TRY sometime eating a huge

bowl of >oatmeal.

>It just doesn't happen.

Sorry to keep bursting everyone's bubble about what is possible to eat, but

last night as one of my side dishes I had about 4.5 bowls of oatmeal, which was

2 cups dry, soaked, simmered, and with a stick of butter melted in.

Potatoes are high on the glycemic index, but most people >just

>can't eat all that many baked potatoes. Sweet potatoes are even worse ... I

can >only make

>it thru half a sweet potato, even though I like the taste.

I ate three baked potatoes with dinner the night before :-)

Chris

_____

Heidi wrote:

>This must REALLY depend on the person! If I eat carbs

>without protein, I'm climbing the walls (not sleepy). Carbs plus

>protein (chicken soup) will put me to sleep in the afternoon.

>A glass of wine knocks me out (which is why I drink it

>before sleep, which works fine).

Interesting. What happens if you eat protein with no carbs?

Chris

________

Heidi wrote:

>Thing is: when I eat fries at, say, Mcs, I can eat them forever.

>Even though they have more fat than my average baked potato. And

>I can't eat a lot of rice anymore, though I used to overindulge on that

>too. There must be other factors, I'm not sure what they are. I'm sure

>nutrients are part of it, but not the whole picture.

Could it be one of the additives in their " formula " ?

Chris

_______

wrote:

>It is a stage of a

>progressive disease called diabetes which at the worst, the body completely

>loses it's ability to produce insulin.  At that worst stage, a person is in

>deep trouble - you are talking potential insulin coma and death.

,

If the body is not producing insulin, this is T1 diabetes, not T2, which is

fundamentally different from the insulin resistance phenomenon. It can be

induced with gluten, but I don't see how it could be induced with carbohydrates,

even an excess.

 Chris

______