RE: Re: Early Morning Waking

January 9, 2004

Heidi,

First, define low and high carb intake. How many carbs are you talking

about? I think my point was that ones intake of carbs should match what

they burn in energy and be portional to their intake of fats and proteins.

I have not read the WD, but there is a lot more going on then simply

cortisol if you in fact, have hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia means you will

have dramatic fluctuations from high blood sugar levels to very low so I do

not understand your point on that. It means the insulin system is not

working correctly and there are problems with insulin regulating blood sugar

levels - beyond simply diet. Storage of weight when food intake is not

excessive can be a sign of insulin malfunction. 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. By then,

the person needs insulin medication, but even with that, they are subject to

a host of other health problems developing. Switching diet may correct the

problem if it is not that bad and depending on other problems. But simply

switching the diet is frequently not sufficient if the stage is progressed

enough. Changing diet may enable the body over time to heal and restore

itself to functioning, thus the person can decrease medication, sometimes

stop it completely. The same with hypoglycemia. I don't know if you are

talking about making changes that more properly balanced your intake of

carbs/fats/proteins. Or if you are talking about actually healing insulin

resistant problems over time as you tried various diets.

RE: Re: Early Morning Waking

>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

January 9, 2004

No matter what it is called cellulose is not really a carbohydrate. For

reasons known only to themselves the government requires fiber in foods to

be listed as carbohydrates. This does not make them carbohydrates and they

should be subtracted from the carb count.

The amount of carbohydrates allotted to fiber is so small that they make

little difference in the total count.

Everything I have read to date says that all other carbohydrates are turned

to sugar in the body.

Judith Alta

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

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

______

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 10:24:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> No matter what it is called cellulose is not really a carbohydrate. For

> reasons known only to themselves the government requires fiber in foods to

> be listed as carbohydrates. This does not make them carbohydrates and they

> should be subtracted from the carb count.

Judith,

Cellulose *is* a carbohydrate, by the definition that any scientists uses of

carbohydrate. What I think you *mean* to say, is that cellulose does not act

in the way that most other carbohydrates do in the body, and one should

subtract the value if one is a carb-counter. I agree with that. But to say

that

cellulose is " not a carbohydrate " based on that is a non-sequitor. The

definition of carbohydrate is not determined for carb-counters, or for your or

my

personal use.

Chris

_______

wrote:

>I'm sorry - I did not design the categorizations used in chemistry of

>various molecular stuctures. Carbohydrates are sugars as both of those web

>cuts I posted explain. Read further for your own improved awareness. It's

>really just not my idea but rather the way it is. All carbs that your body

>digests are turned into glucose - a form of sugar with its own molecular

>structure, but carbs are already in various other forms of sugars.

>Cellulose is also a sugar - at least to a biochemist because of its

>molecular structure which is why the name ends in " ose " . Cellulose (also

>called fiber), gets substracted from the carb count you intake because the

>body does not recognize that form of sugar as a nutrient and so, does not

>digest it. But it is still a sugar.

, I know that you didn't make these categorizations, but I believe you

have it backwards.

" Sugar: Any of a class of sweet, water-soluble, crystallizable carbohydrates

[ right here you see that sugar is a form of carb, not the reverse], which are

the monosaccharides and smaller oligosacharrides [here you see that only

specific forms of carbs are classified as sugars]; often used specifically for

sucrose. In animals they are the chief source of energy and their derivatives

are universal constituents of structural materials (e.g. glycosaminoglycans,

cellulose) " -- Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Edition 28

" Carbohydrate: Any of a class of aldehyde or ketone derivatives of polyhydric

alcohols, particularly of the pentahydric and hexahydric alcohols. They are

so named because the hydrogen and oxygen are usually in the proportion to form

water, Cn(H2O)n; the most important inlcude the small sugars as well as the

large starches, glycogens, celluloses, and gums. " ibid

Here you see that carbohydrate is a much wider class of compounds than sugar,

and that cellulose is included as a carbohydrate, but not a sugar.

I absolutely guarantee you that this classification will be found in any

General Biology or introductory Anatomy and Physiology textbook. This is used

universally.

By the way, that brings to mind some more carbohydrates that aren't broken

down into sugar: gums, and I believe pentose sugars in the form of purines and

pyramidines are also not used as glucose. Heck, the pentose sugars are even a

*sugar* that's not broken into glucose!

Chris

January 9, 2004

>Heidi,

>

>First, define low and high carb intake. How many carbs are you talking

>about? I think my point was that ones intake of carbs should match what

>they burn in energy and be portional to their intake of fats and proteins.

I know that right now people are stressing the macronutrient

levels (fats vs. carbs) but I'm not sure it matters that much

to the body. If you intake more carbs, then the body will

turn them into nice saturated fat. On an hourly basis, your

body " lives " off stored fat and glycogen -- you aren't really

designed to live off food as you are digesting it.

Awhile back we had some posts about exactly the nutrient levels

of various indigenous tribes, but I can't recall the exact amounts.

Like summarized though, " Carbs, carbs, and more carbs "

is a fair summary for some folk. Some folk live of more or less

nothing but sweet potatoes, with a little meat and bugs for

protein.

And yes, the carb intake should match energy. That IS the point.

Normally, people eat the amount they need, regardless of

what they are eating. A whole lot of Asians eat practically

nothing but rice, and even if they have access to all the

rice they can eat, they don't eat more than they need. However,

when they get " Westernized " , suddenly they start overeating

and get all our problems. Sooooo ... what is it about

" Westernization " that makes people overeat????

THAT is the million dollar question!

Given a choice, most people seem to prefer a higher-meat

diet, with more fat than carbs ... and I think that is likely

more what we are designed for. But there is plenty of

evidence that one doesn't need a high meat/fat diet

to avoid diabetes.

The high carb/low fat diet as practiced in the US has

a LOT more wrong with it though, than just low fat.

I'd guess if you put the average American on

a traditional Japanese diet they would lose

weight even with all that white rice.

>I have not read the WD, but there is a lot more going on then simply

>cortisol if you in fact, have hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia means you will

>have dramatic fluctuations from high blood sugar levels to very low so I do

>not understand your point on that. It means the insulin system is not

>working correctly and there are problems with insulin regulating blood sugar

>levels - beyond simply diet. Storage of weight when food intake is not

>excessive can be a sign of insulin malfunction. It is a stage of a

>progressive disease called diabetes which at the worst, the body completely

>loses it's ability to produce insulin.

Right. And fasting seems to solve it rather miraculously. There was a good

article in Health magazine in November about that. Insulin resistance

goes down after excercise, and it also goes away after 2 days of fasting.

A semi-fast once a week lowers insulin resistance a lot, without other

dietary changes.

Trust me, I REALLY did not think the WD could cure hypoglycemia, much

less high blood sugar. I tried it because I figured it would be easy enough

to disprove (anything that crazy is worth a try ...). I was told my body

just was hypoglycemic and that was that, and I was at risk for T2D.

The bottom line seems to be: humans are not designed to eat constantly.

They are designed to find food, gorge, and then not eat for awhile.

Ditto for mice. Eating constantly lowers a mouse's life span, and seems

to have bad results for humans (which they are studying now).

If the pancreas actually " burns out " then that isn't repairable, likely.

However a lot of the " burn out " issues seem to be because of

an autoimmune problem ... the body is attacking the pancreatic

cells, and they have identified the " attackers " . In at least

part of the cases, the antibodies doing the attacking are

produced because of an IgA allergy (gluten or casein) and

they can replicate this in rats, and they have put kids on

diets that stop the antibodies from being produced. But THAT

is another issue altogether, and not directly related to carbs.

-- Heidi

January 9, 2004

Judith and

I'm sorry - I did not design the categorizations used in chemistry of

various molecular stuctures. Carbohydrates are sugars as both of those web

cuts I posted explain. Read further for your own improved awareness. It's

really just not my idea but rather the way it is. All carbs that your body

digests are turned into glucose - a form of sugar with its own molecular

structure, but carbs are already in various other forms of sugars.

Cellulose is also a sugar - at least to a biochemist because of its

molecular structure which is why the name ends in " ose " . Cellulose (also

called fiber), gets substracted from the carb count you intake because the

body does not recognize that form of sugar as a nutrient and so, does not

digest it. But it is still a sugar.

RE: Re: Early Morning Waking

No matter what it is called cellulose is not really a carbohydrate. For

reasons known only to themselves the government requires fiber in foods to

be listed as carbohydrates. This does not make them carbohydrates and they

should be subtracted from the carb count.

The amount of carbohydrates allotted to fiber is so small that they make

little difference in the total count.

Everything I have read to date says that all other carbohydrates are

turned

to sugar in the body.

Judith Alta

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

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

______

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 6:23:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... 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.

>Actually, that's not always true. There as a recent study done in which

>something like half of the test subjects had bacteria in their guts which

>broke down cellulose, making it calorically available to their

>hosts.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Stil, the fact that it sometimes or most of

the time *isn't* is more relevant here, I think-- see next paragraph.

However, I think it's reasonable to assume that when people speak

>of carbs being digested into sugars, they're referring to those carbs which

>are digestible in the first place, thus excluding (most? some?)

>fiber.

Sure. But Judith had made the statement to back up her definition of

" carbohydrate " and thereby exclude cellulose. So, as it pertains to *that*, it

would

be important to point out that there are carbs that are not broken into

sugars, to show that one cannot define carbs as something broken into sugar, and

thereby exclude carbs that are not from the definition of such.

Since AFAIK there are no complex carb structural elements in the

>human body, it's fair to say that all digested carbs are rendered into

>sugars. (Yes, yes, of course cellulose is a carb; that's not the statement

>I'm talking about.)

What about glycosaminoglycans?

Chris

January 9, 2004

Chris-

Actually, that's not always true. There as a recent study done in which

something like half of the test subjects had bacteria in their guts which

broke down cellulose, making it calorically available to their

hosts. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that when people speak

of carbs being digested into sugars, they're referring to those carbs which

are digestible in the first place, thus excluding (most? some?)

fiber. Since AFAIK there are no complex carb structural elements in the

human body, it's fair to say that all digested carbs are rendered into

sugars. (Yes, yes, of course cellulose is a carb; that's not the statement

I'm talking about.)

> > 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.

-

January 9, 2004

You are correct.

Judith Alta

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

In a message dated 1/9/04 10:24:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> No matter what it is called cellulose is not really a carbohydrate. For

> reasons known only to themselves the government requires fiber in foods to

> be listed as carbohydrates. This does not make them carbohydrates and they

> should be subtracted from the carb count.

Judith,

Cellulose *is* a carbohydrate, by the definition that any scientists uses of

carbohydrate. What I think you *mean* to say, is that cellulose does not

act

in the way that most other carbohydrates do in the body, and one should

subtract the value if one is a carb-counter. I agree with that. But to say

that

cellulose is " not a carbohydrate " based on that is a non-sequitor. The

definition of carbohydrate is not determined for carb-counters, or for your

or my

personal use.

Chris

_______

January 9, 2004

Hi Joe

I had this problem a while back - but it happened at

3.20am every morning! I increased my starchy foods

at night with little effect. I eventually realised it

was a stress thing, and was actually creating a

viscious circle. I would get all wound up before

going to bed just in case I woke up in the early

morning, becuase I really suffered from the lack of

sleep - the stress made me wake up!

So I took steps to unwind at night: came off my PC an

hour before bed (soooo many emails!!), had a bath

(with epsom salts) and read in the bath for half an

hour. A drink of hot water or other soothing relaxing

drink. Things also got less stressful at work. I

have to say I didn't actually show my usual stress

symptoms, but the fact that I slept well on holiday

(in France during a heat wave, 43deg at night with no

aircon, with thin curtains letting the light in at

5am) indicated there was a problem....

HTH

Jo

--- Joe <jzbozzi@...> wrote: > 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

________________________________________________________________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping "

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

January 9, 2004

Try to give it 2 hours off PC, on SAD diet always needed morning shower,

evening kept me awake, now doesn't matter either way. When I do go sit down

to relax its with a cup of herb tea. Celestial Seasonings plain Tension

Tamer, favorite. Have done this for 14 years. Don't really need the stronger

new tea with the fall asleep herbs.

Wanita

> So I took steps to unwind at night: came off my PC an

> hour before bed (soooo many emails!!), had a bath

> (with epsom salts) and read in the bath for half an

> hour. A drink of hot water or other soothing relaxing

> drink. Things also got less stressful at work. I

> have to say I didn't actually show my usual stress

> symptoms, but the fact that I slept well on holiday

> (in France during a heat wave, 43deg at night with no

> aircon, with thin curtains letting the light in at

> 5am) indicated there was a problem....

>

> HTH

>

> Jo

January 9, 2004

>> The high carb/low fat diet as practiced in the US has

a LOT more wrong with it though, than just low fat.

I'd guess if you put the average American on

a traditional Japanese diet they would lose

weight even with all that white rice. <<

True enough, Heidi, but is that the real point? Put me on a diet of loads of

white rice, and lock me in a hospital, and yes, I'd lose weight.

Give me lots of white rice and give me money and a car, and I'll be out feeding

the insatiable beast that carbohydrate consumption unleashes in me, and I will

GAIN weight. You can take that to the bank.

Christie

January 10, 2004

The following is an article on sleep, I've only copied the section on food:

<http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0813/7_26/55669621/p1/article.jhtml?ter

m>=

Most of us are probably convinced that what we eat and when we eat it

affects how well we sleep. Yet there's remarkably little research on the

subject.

Do some foods make us drowsier than others? Does a nighttime snack help or

hurt the odds of getting a good night's sleep? All we have are a few clues

from short-term studies on a small number of people who had no sleep

problems:

* Young men fell asleep just as quickly within a few hours after a

late-afternoon high-fat meal as after a high-carbohydrate meal with the same

number of calories.[1] " There are lots of claims about this or that food, "

says Zammit, director of the Sleep Research Institute in New York. " But

nothing stands out as being better than anything else. "

* A dinner of ordinary solid food put young men to sleep faster than a

liquid dinner with the same number of calories.[1] Interesting; but it's not

exactly proof that a handful of crackers will make you sleepier than a glass

of milk.

* Young men who were deprived of lunch dozed off afterwards just as quickly

as young men who were fed, but those who ate stayed asleep for three times

as long.[2] Does that mean that eating helps you sleep or going to bed

hungry doesn't? It's too early to say.

If eating helps people sleep, Zammit thinks it's because body temperature

rises after a meal. " Changes in body temperature after eating may signal our

bodies to feel sleepy, " he says.

Re: Re: Early Morning Waking

Hi Joe

I had this problem a while back - but it happened at

3.20am every morning! I increased my starchy foods

at night with little effect. I eventually realised it

was a stress thing, and was actually creating a

viscious circle. I would get all wound up before

going to bed just in case I woke up in the early

morning, becuase I really suffered from the lack of

sleep - the stress made me wake up!

So I took steps to unwind at night: came off my PC an

hour before bed (soooo many emails!!), had a bath

(with epsom salts) and read in the bath for half an

hour. A drink of hot water or other soothing relaxing

drink. Things also got less stressful at work. I

have to say I didn't actually show my usual stress

symptoms, but the fact that I slept well on holiday

(in France during a heat wave, 43deg at night with no

aircon, with thin curtains letting the light in at

5am) indicated there was a problem....

HTH

Jo

--- Joe <jzbozzi@...> wrote: > 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

________________________________________________________________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping "

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

January 10, 2004

> 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

Doubt any of Price's peoples gorged on an entire hive of honey. Food was

always shared. Out of all of Price's groups the only two foods I can think

of that are carbs and would create insulin stimulation of the

parasympathetic nervous system to any degree more than others is milk and

oatmeal. That was the Gaelic, Swiss and Masai only.

Wanita

January 10, 2004

Chris-

Since a carbohydrate is technically made of just sugars hooked together in

various ways, I'd have to say it's not really a carb. It's certainly not a

complex-carb structural element (such as a cellulose cell wall, or a starch

energy storage unit) which is what I was talking about. I didn't deny that

_sugars_ play a role in the physical structure of the body.

>What about glycosaminoglycans?

-

January 10, 2004

>True enough, Heidi, but is that the real point? Put me on a diet of loads of

white rice, and lock me in a hospital, and yes, I'd lose weight.

>

>Give me lots of white rice and give me money and a car, and I'll be out feeding

the insatiable beast that carbohydrate consumption unleashes in me, and I will

GAIN weight. You can take that to the bank.

>

>Christie

Well, basically I'll have to second Chris's post. The original

thread was: do high-carb diets cause T2 diabetes? They

don't, they proveably don't, for high numbers of peoples.

Therefore there are other factors.

For you personally ... if low carb works for you, that

is great. I'm all for tailoring a diet to an individual. I don't

know all the factors that exist in your chemistry or your

diet. I used to get " the hungries " a lot and would gorge,

so I CAN relate.

I'm not anti-low-carb. It doesn't work for me, however,

though I eat fewer carbs than I used to. Further, my

favorite foods, jerky and kimchi, are hardly high carb,

and I think grains have lots of issues (as does Mercola).

I DON'T like some of the almost-propaganda that is

coming from the low-carb camp lately though, that low

carb is the ONLY way to go. It's almost like having jumped

from the " low fat " bandwagon, some folks are jumping

to the " low carb " bandwagon.

Also, I do admit to a certain philisophical distaste

for stuffing my body with more than it NEEDS. Most

of my life I was not absorbing food well, nor

processing it well. Hence I was eating probably 2 or 3

times what I NEEDED if I was well. Now I feel more

" adjusted " , everything is working like clockwork,

and I don't need to eat so much. That makes me

feel good on a number of levels ... it's like being

" more efficient " I guess, or not loading myself down

with extra baggage (all that digestive work ...). I wouldn't

tell anyone to starve themselves though ... when I

needed all that food I really did need it.

And, I am very busy and cannot generally " eat out "

whether or not I have a car handy. So here I am, driving

around getting low blood sugar attacks and can't

eat anything because most foods are gluten-contaminated

and will make me rather ill. It is amazingly freeing to be

able to run errands all day, snacking on a little jerky,

and then come home to eat at 9 pm and be basically ok.

Not to mention that I don't have to find restrooms every

half hour!

But my diet during the day isn't that different from

the average low-carber, so again, I'm not trying to

be anti-low-carb. Just saying that the chemistry is more

complex than maybe what is currently known.

-- Heidi

January 10, 2004

--- Judith Alta <jaltak@...> wrote: > > 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.

>

This is an interesting point.... I have also read that

there is no need for carbs (the Inuit being a case in

point).

However, as a long term low carber, I have

experimented with various levels of carbs, and in my

own experience, too low carb (less than 30g per day)

makes me ill over too long a time period. I used to

be able to keep that low for a while, but now I get

dizzy, and my fingernails and lips turn blue when I

get hungry (I don't get the usual hunger pangs), and I

just cannot get warm until I get food. Sometimes, the

blue nails progress to white as the blood seems to

drain from my fingers. I also get pretty moody and

can't think of anything but food. I would guess this

is a hypoglycaemic attack, or possibly my BP gets too

low.

If I keep my carbs at a higher level, say 50g plus per

day, I feel far happier and healthier! To maintain my

weight, I can eat up to 80-90g carbs, to lose weight I

drop to around 30-40g.

Just my own observations on my own experience.

Jo

________________________________________________________________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping "

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

January 11, 2004

It is my opinion and belief that Type 2 diabetes, and many of the other

problems of modern humans, is the low fat, highly processed carbohydrate

diet. The human body cannot maintain a healthy state on nutrient free foods

" fortified " with a few fake vitamins.

Judith Alta

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

>True enough, Heidi, but is that the real point? Put me on a diet of loads

of white rice, and lock me in a hospital, and yes, I'd lose weight.

>

>Give me lots of white rice and give me money and a car, and I'll be out

feeding the insatiable beast that carbohydrate consumption unleashes in me,

and I will GAIN weight. You can take that to the bank.

>

>Christie

Well, basically I'll have to second Chris's post. The original

thread was: do high-carb diets cause T2 diabetes? They

don't, they proveably don't, for high numbers of peoples.

Therefore there are other factors.

For you personally ... if low carb works for you, that

is great. I'm all for tailoring a diet to an individual. I don't

know all the factors that exist in your chemistry or your

diet. I used to get " the hungries " a lot and would gorge,

so I CAN relate.

I'm not anti-low-carb. It doesn't work for me, however,

though I eat fewer carbs than I used to. Further, my

favorite foods, jerky and kimchi, are hardly high carb,

and I think grains have lots of issues (as does Mercola).

I DON'T like some of the almost-propaganda that is

coming from the low-carb camp lately though, that low

carb is the ONLY way to go. It's almost like having jumped

from the " low fat " bandwagon, some folks are jumping

to the " low carb " bandwagon.

Also, I do admit to a certain philisophical distaste

for stuffing my body with more than it NEEDS. Most

of my life I was not absorbing food well, nor

processing it well. Hence I was eating probably 2 or 3

times what I NEEDED if I was well. Now I feel more

" adjusted " , everything is working like clockwork,

and I don't need to eat so much. That makes me

feel good on a number of levels ... it's like being

" more efficient " I guess, or not loading myself down

with extra baggage (all that digestive work ...). I wouldn't

tell anyone to starve themselves though ... when I

needed all that food I really did need it.

And, I am very busy and cannot generally " eat out "

whether or not I have a car handy. So here I am, driving

around getting low blood sugar attacks and can't

eat anything because most foods are gluten-contaminated

and will make me rather ill. It is amazingly freeing to be

able to run errands all day, snacking on a little jerky,

and then come home to eat at 9 pm and be basically ok.

Not to mention that I don't have to find restrooms every

half hour!

But my diet during the day isn't that different from

the average low-carber, so again, I'm not trying to

be anti-low-carb. Just saying that the chemistry is more

complex than maybe what is currently known.

-- Heidi

January 11, 2004

And that is what everyone needs to do. Take stock of their own body and how

it responds to different foods. We are all different . We were not all made

in the same mold and we must learn for ourselves that which works best for

us.

It is possible that previous eating habits, or even the diets of your

parents have changed your body so that it cannot exist comfortably in an

absence of carbohydrates.

I just finished skimming through WA Price's book and it has some interesting

information on diets and reproduction.

Judith Alta

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

--- Judith Alta <jaltak@...> wrote: > > 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.

>

This is an interesting point.... I have also read that

there is no need for carbs (the Inuit being a case in

point).

However, as a long term low carber, I have

experimented with various levels of carbs, and in my

own experience, too low carb (less than 30g per day)

makes me ill over too long a time period. I used to

be able to keep that low for a while, but now I get

dizzy, and my fingernails and lips turn blue when I

get hungry (I don't get the usual hunger pangs), and I

just cannot get warm until I get food. Sometimes, the

blue nails progress to white as the blood seems to

drain from my fingers. I also get pretty moody and

can't think of anything but food. I would guess this

is a hypoglycaemic attack, or possibly my BP gets too

low.

If I keep my carbs at a higher level, say 50g plus per

day, I feel far happier and healthier! To maintain my

weight, I can eat up to 80-90g carbs, to lose weight I

drop to around 30-40g.

Just my own observations on my own experience.

Jo

January 11, 2004

Judith and Bee,

The problem with this thinking is that diabetes existed before the modern

age with its pesticides, additives, transfats, microwaves, radiation,

mercury, synthetic anything, pollution, nutrient depleted soil, even refined

sugar. It was not as prevalent as it is today but it was there none the

less. The first low carb diet (ketogenic) was published by Banting

in 1869. http://www.lowcarb.ca/corpulence/index.html

I was reading earlier today about the Cherokee Indians and the herbal

medicinal practices of their old culture. They had treatments for diabetes.

In reading on the Pima Indians, they were into agriculture when the

Conquistadors arrived so they were consuming carbohydrates before meeting

the white man. The Conquistadors gave them their first grain seeds. Today,

90% of them are obese, over 50% are diabetic. All the Native American

tribes have the highest rates of diabetes at over 50%, three times higher.

I haven't read this book but the author is tracking diabetes back 3500

years. The Philatelic History of Diabetes: In Search for a Cure

http://store.diabetes.org/adabooks/product.asp?pfid=794 & dept_id=2 & mscssid=7U

92L7163QN99L3W2S7LPWFR6MCQ35P7

Re: Early Morning Waking

I agree with you Judith and I would add that it is also all the gunk

the modern age has created, i.e. heavy metals, pesticides, additives,

microwaves, radiation, mercury in teeth, synthetic fibres, acid rain,

etc., etc. But people could probably handle all that " if " they had

good traditional foods with good fats and proteins.

I also think some person can get " too reasonable, " going along with

the certain things as I've seen in a number of posts.

Bee

> It is my opinion and belief that Type 2 diabetes, and many of the

other

> problems of modern humans, is the low fat, highly processed

carbohydrate

> diet. The human body cannot maintain a healthy state on nutrient

free foods

> " fortified " with a few fake vitamins.

>

> Judith Alta

>

> -----Original Message-----

>

> >True enough, Heidi, but is that the real point? Put me on a diet

of loads

> of white rice, and lock me in a hospital, and yes, I'd lose weight.

> >

> >Give me lots of white rice and give me money and a car, and I'll

be out

> feeding the insatiable beast that carbohydrate consumption

unleashes in me,

> and I will GAIN weight. You can take that to the bank.

> >

> >Christie

>

> Well, basically I'll have to second Chris's post. The original

> thread was: do high-carb diets cause T2 diabetes? They

> don't, they proveably don't, for high numbers of peoples.

> Therefore there are other factors.

>

> For you personally ... if low carb works for you, that

> is great. I'm all for tailoring a diet to an individual. I don't

> know all the factors that exist in your chemistry or your

> diet. I used to get " the hungries " a lot and would gorge,

> so I CAN relate.

>

> I'm not anti-low-carb. It doesn't work for me, however,

> though I eat fewer carbs than I used to. Further, my

> favorite foods, jerky and kimchi, are hardly high carb,

> and I think grains have lots of issues (as does Mercola).

> I DON'T like some of the almost-propaganda that is

> coming from the low-carb camp lately though, that low

> carb is the ONLY way to go. It's almost like having jumped

> from the " low fat " bandwagon, some folks are jumping

> to the " low carb " bandwagon.

>

> Also, I do admit to a certain philisophical distaste

> for stuffing my body with more than it NEEDS. Most

> of my life I was not absorbing food well, nor

> processing it well. Hence I was eating probably 2 or 3

> times what I NEEDED if I was well. Now I feel more

> " adjusted " , everything is working like clockwork,

> and I don't need to eat so much. That makes me

> feel good on a number of levels ... it's like being

> " more efficient " I guess, or not loading myself down

> with extra baggage (all that digestive work ...). I wouldn't

> tell anyone to starve themselves though ... when I

> needed all that food I really did need it.

>

> And, I am very busy and cannot generally " eat out "

> whether or not I have a car handy. So here I am, driving

> around getting low blood sugar attacks and can't

> eat anything because most foods are gluten-contaminated

> and will make me rather ill. It is amazingly freeing to be

> able to run errands all day, snacking on a little jerky,

> and then come home to eat at 9 pm and be basically ok.

>

> Not to mention that I don't have to find restrooms every

> half hour!

>

> But my diet during the day isn't that different from

> the average low-carber, so again, I'm not trying to

> be anti-low-carb. Just saying that the chemistry is more

> complex than maybe what is currently known.

>

> -- Heidi

January 12, 2004

In a message dated 1/10/04 12:44:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> >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

>

> Doubt any of Price's peoples gorged on an entire hive of honey. Food was

> always shared. Out of all of Price's groups the only two foods I can think

> of that are carbs and would create insulin stimulation of the

> parasympathetic nervous system to any degree more than others is milk and

> oatmeal. That was the Gaelic, Swiss and Masai only.

Wanita,

I wasn't suggesting anyone should eat a jar of honey on a daily basis. I

meant it purely as a one-time experiment. The point would be to dissociate the

fogginess that comes from digestion from the relaxation that comes from

insulin.

Chris

_______

wrote:

>The problem with this thinking is that diabetes existed before the modern

>age with its pesticides, additives, transfats, microwaves, radiation,

>mercury, synthetic anything, pollution, nutrient depleted soil, even refined

>sugar. It was not as prevalent as it is today but it was there none the

>less. The first low carb diet (ketogenic) was published by Banting

>in 1869. http://www.lowcarb.ca/corpulence/index.html

Egypt has the first evidence of diabetes. Iirc, it is some archeological

remnant whose residue indicated ketoacidosis. They considered grains to be the

most important food, and red meat to be the least valuable. They may have been

overconsuming carbs, but I suspect wheat was part of their diet? I suppose

Heidi would know.

Chris

______

January 12, 2004

In a message dated 1/12/04 12:02:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

toyotaokiec@... writes:

> Fascinating! Where can I learn more about this? I am intrigued

> about ancient Egypt and other cultures that put a lot of effort into

> developing medical treatments. I figure they had a lot of health

> problems if they spent a lot of time and effort developing medical

> treatments.

Hi ,

My A & P teacher told me about diabetes; the values of grain I read from some

historical documents. When I get a chance I'll try to find out from him where

more info can be found, but I doubt he checks his voice mail from the school

during semester break and he's said he doesn't check his email often.

Chris

January 12, 2004

,

I am well aware that diabetes has been with us for a long time. But it is

only recently that it has reached epidemic proportions.