Re: carbs, diabetes and common sense

[Guest guest]

>

>I'm inherantly skeptical of all the claims on nutrition made on

>insulin response or glycemic (blood sugar) response. A lot of the

>alternative nutrition theories are leaping on these because carbs

>tend to do poorly on these measures.

>

>But Weston Price tells us that diabetes is really only found in

>societies that eat the " displacing foods of modern commerce. " While

>its true that the nearly vegetarian primitives did have higher rates

>of cavities and obesity than the heavier meat eaters, they had a

>level of health that dwarfs the average westerner.

>

>So how can carbs play a central and causal role in causing diabetes?

>The answer is they don't. Its far more likely that our current de-

>vitalized foods cause it (see my post on " fructose (was: healthy

>sports drink) " for my pet theory: endothelial dysfunction). And

>blaming carbs has another problem: the mechanism. Usually spiking

>blood sugar or stimulating insulin is blamed.

The people who don't like the glycemic index often point to it's major

flaw: which is we don't eat food by itself, and the preparation varies

wildly. I know that I am extremely sensitive to blood sugar fluctuations

(as are a lot of women, I think, more so than men), and I use a simple

test: after I eat a meal, when do I get hungry again? and how hungry?

Now if I eat some obviously high glycemic food, it is usually something

like pancakes with syrup, and I'll get really hungry, grouchy later. The

pancakes are made with carbs, oil, and eggs. Now I make another meal, fried

eggs with tortillas. Also made with carbs, oil, and eggs. But the second

meal will not make me 'crash' later (and coincidentally is a more

'traditional' food than the first). And a nice steak and potato meal will

let me go for hours with no crash at all.

I don't know all the factors that go into this 'crash'. Carbs are part of

it, sugar is part of it, how the food is prepared is part of it, how much

oil is in the meal. Probably both insulin and high blood sugar are part of

it. It also depends, for me, on what I ate the day BEFORE (keeping a food

log to track this sort of thing), probably because the food is still being

digested elsewhere.

It's a synergistic process, and very difficult to 'tease apart' into which

part is 'worst'. And it might vary between males and females (I'm pretty

sure it does) and between individuals. Taken as a process though, I'm

pretty sure that if I kept eating the first sort of meal a lot I'd end up

with Type 2 diabetes, which runs in our family.

So I guess I take the 'glycemic index' as an interesting piece of

information, but not complete enough to make any good eating decisions on.

There was one researcher (who and where I read it I can't recall, I think

it was in Discover), who started the idea of a 'satiation index' --

figuring out how long n calories of a given food will keep a person

satisfied. I'd expand that into a 'given meal', and say that meals with a

longer satiation index are less likely to cause diabetes and other problems.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

> I don't know all the factors that go into this 'crash'. Carbs are part of

> it, sugar is part of it, how the food is prepared is part of it, how much

> oil is in the meal. Probably both insulin and high blood sugar are part of

> it. It also depends, for me, on what I ate the day BEFORE (keeping a food

> log to track this sort of thing), probably because the food is still being

> digested elsewhere.

That observation actually makes a great hypothetical case for the notion

that it's also heavily dependent on what's *not* in certain foods. In other

words, perhaps the effect is dependent on what you ate the day before not

because of vestigial digestion but because it gave you a better supply of

the vitamins, minerals, aminos, etc. In other words, your state of

nutrition may have enabled you to better regulate the way your body handled

the blast of carbs later on.

[Guest guest]

At 01:39 PM 3/29/2002 -0600, you wrote:

>Heidi wrote:

> > I don't know all the factors that go into this 'crash'. Carbs are part of

> > it, sugar is part of it, how the food is prepared is part of it, how much

> > oil is in the meal. Probably both insulin and high blood sugar are part of

>

> > it. It also depends, for me, on what I ate the day BEFORE (keeping a food

> > log to track this sort of thing), probably because the food is still being

>

> > digested elsewhere.

>

>That observation actually makes a great hypothetical case for the notion

>that it's also heavily dependent on what's *not* in certain foods. In other

>words, perhaps the effect is dependent on what you ate the day before not

>because of vestigial digestion but because it gave you a better supply of

>the vitamins, minerals, aminos, etc. In other words, your state of

>nutrition may have enabled you to better regulate the way your body handled

>the blast of carbs later on.

>

>

I agree. Since I've been eating 'better' (and not eating wheat which make

me absorb nutrients better) my tastes have changed, I don't eat near as

much or as often. It's way to complicated to break down into a simple formula!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

-

>But Weston Price tells us that diabetes is really only found in

>societies that eat the " displacing foods of modern commerce. " While

>its true that the nearly vegetarian primitives did have higher rates

>of cavities and obesity than the heavier meat eaters, they had a

>level of health that dwarfs the average westerner.

Perhaps I haven't been sufficiently clear. I'm not talking about all

carbs, but about REFINED carbs. I don't think grains (which, BTW, are

essentially refined plants due to the massive changes that have been made

to them over thousands of years by selective breeding) and other extremely

starchy foods from the vegetable kingdom (which are likewise refined before

they're even harvested) are any good either.

The glycemic index isn't the one true tool for optimum health, it's just

one measure, not perfect, but very useful.

And those agrarian primitives who weren't all that healthy didn't eat ANY

refined sugar! IIRC they didn't eat any white flour either!

Furthermore, while I'm resolutely opposed to starchy foods and all refined

carbs, don't take that to mean I'm discounting the importance of avoiding

PUFAs (except small amounts naturally occurring in certain whole foods,

like some meats and vegetables) and eating plenty of saturated

fat! Low-carb diets generally emphasize eating plenty of meat and meat

fat, and I have no use for the ones which don't.

>But are we as WAP-ers prepared to accept soy as being healthy because

>its extremly low on the glycemic index?

Now I'm starting to get irritated. I think I've been on this list and

posted enough that my nutritional views are, in general, fairly clear. So

if in one post I say " refined carbs are very bad and are a major causative

factor of diabetes " , why would you say " so does that mean you'd advocate

soy because it's lower on the glycemic index? " when you know perfectly well

(or should, unless you forgot) that I'd never advocate soy consumption and

that I DON'T (that is DO NOT) believe overall health is single-factor?

-

[Guest guest]

,

The reason I bring these issues up is because you attributing causal

relationship between diabetes and high glycemic as well high

insulinogenic foods.

I don't think there is such a causal relationship. Chronically high

blood sugar and chronically high insulin may worsen the existing

condition, but they do not cause diabetes.

> -

>

> >But Weston Price tells us that diabetes is really only found in

> >societies that eat the " displacing foods of modern commerce. " While

> >its true that the nearly vegetarian primitives did have higher

rates

> >of cavities and obesity than the heavier meat eaters, they had a

> >level of health that dwarfs the average westerner.

>

> Perhaps I haven't been sufficiently clear. I'm not talking about

all

> carbs, but about REFINED carbs. I don't think grains (which, BTW,

are

> essentially refined plants due to the massive changes that have

been made

> to them over thousands of years by selective breeding) and other

extremely

> starchy foods from the vegetable kingdom (which are likewise

refined before

> they're even harvested) are any good either.

>

> The glycemic index isn't the one true tool for optimum health, it's

just

> one measure, not perfect, but very useful.

>

> And those agrarian primitives who weren't all that healthy didn't

eat ANY

> refined sugar! IIRC they didn't eat any white flour either!

>

> Furthermore, while I'm resolutely opposed to starchy foods and all

refined

> carbs, don't take that to mean I'm discounting the importance of

avoiding

> PUFAs (except small amounts naturally occurring in certain whole

foods,

> like some meats and vegetables) and eating plenty of saturated

> fat! Low-carb diets generally emphasize eating plenty of meat and

meat

> fat, and I have no use for the ones which don't.

>

> >But are we as WAP-ers prepared to accept soy as being healthy

because

> >its extremly low on the glycemic index?

>

> Now I'm starting to get irritated. I think I've been on this list

and

> posted enough that my nutritional views are, in general, fairly

clear. So

> if in one post I say " refined carbs are very bad and are a major

causative

> factor of diabetes " , why would you say " so does that mean you'd

advocate

> soy because it's lower on the glycemic index? " when you know

perfectly well

> (or should, unless you forgot) that I'd never advocate soy

consumption and

> that I DON'T (that is DO NOT) believe overall health is single-

factor?

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

Two points. First, your use of soy is a bogus argument technique. Second,

widespread consumption of large amounts of refined vegetable oils is a very

modern phenomenon, whereas diabetes was first observed and diagnosed in

ancient Egypt, where refined sugar consumption was high.

I don't disagree that high PUFA consumption contributes to most or all the

modern degenerative diseases, but from what I can tell, sugar is the

primary cause of diabetes.

>The reason I bring these issues up is because you attributing causal

>relationship between diabetes and high glycemic as well high

>insulinogenic foods.

>

>I don't think there is such a causal relationship. Chronically high

>blood sugar and chronically high insulin may worsen the existing

>condition, but they do not cause diabetes.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> Two points. First, your use of soy is a bogus argument technique.

No its not. So what if its unhealthy in other ways, its very low

glycemic and should prevent diabetes if high blood sugar causes it.

Second,

> widespread consumption of large amounts of refined vegetable oils

is a very

> modern phenomenon, whereas diabetes was first observed and

diagnosed in

> ancient Egypt, where refined sugar consumption was high.

True, as with nobility in western societies. Also, exercise plays an

important role in maintaining the health of the endothelium, and the

nobility were also indulging in sedentary lifestyles. However, no

society has rates of diabetes as high as ours. Furthermore, sugar

consumption has only slightly more than doubled over the last 100

years, but rates of diabetes have skyrocketed in that time.

> I don't disagree that high PUFA consumption contributes to most or

all the

> modern degenerative diseases, but from what I can tell, sugar is

the

> primary cause of diabetes.

If sugar causes diabetes, how does it do so? We know from the

glycemic index that its not by raising blood sugar. This whole series

of postings was kicked off by me wondering how fructose might cause

diabetes since its low on the glycemic index. Another mechanism is

needed.

[Guest guest]

-

>No its not. So what if its unhealthy in other ways, its very low

>glycemic and should prevent diabetes if high blood sugar causes it.

Before I can even address this point, which form of soy are we talking

about? Plain soybeans? Tofu? Soy sauce? Soy protein extract? Soy milk?

However, generally speaking, of course not! It's a carby food, for one,

that's been bred for starch content, among other characteristics. Just as

importantly, it's extremely rich in isoflavones which mimic human hormones

and cause all kinds of metabolic problems. And it's also rich in

unsaturated oils, which as I've said, contribute to and worsen modern

degenerative diseases including diabetes.

Furthermore, as consumption of one substance will tend to result in the

reduction or elimination of consumption of other substances, what will this

soy be replacing? Saturated fat? Well, as we know, saturated fat is very

helpful for regulating blood sugar levels, not to mention for preventing

oxidation and aiding with many other functions.

>True, as with nobility in western societies.

So since high consumption of refined sugar was accompanied by the advent of

diabetes, BEFORE modern levels of polyunsaturated vegetable oil consumption

were approached, how do you defend your position that sugar consumption is

unrelated to diabetes, or only worsens it once it develops?

>Furthermore, sugar

>consumption has only slightly more than doubled over the last 100

>years, but rates of diabetes have skyrocketed in that time.

First, damage doesn't necessarily scale linearly with dosage, and second,

I'm not sure it's only doubled. There are many, many forms of sugar, but

not all of them are counted as sugar, so it wouldn't surprise me if the

official story on sugar consumption isn't entirely accurate.

>We know from the

>glycemic index that its not by raising blood sugar.

We don't know any such thing. The high end of the index is dominated by

refined and starchy carbs -- exactly the kind of foods I and other low-carb

advocates recommend avoiding. The bottom end is dominated by low-starch

vegetables and animal foods, particularly fatty animal foods, exactly the

kinds of foods I and other low-carb advocates recommend eating. (And BTW,

I don't recommend lean muscle meats, but meals with plenty of animal fat.)

> This whole series

>of postings was kicked off by me wondering how fructose might cause

>diabetes since its low on the glycemic index. Another mechanism is

>needed.

The glycemic index doesn't cause diabetes. It's not even a perfect tool

for assessing the causes of diabetes. However, fructose gets converted to

glucose by the liver and does put a sugar burden on the body, even though

it takes longer to percolate through the system because of the liver

conversion. As such, fruitarians are certainly at high risk for diabetes

and other modern degenerative diseases.

At any rate, here's an article on that very subject:

http://www.lowcarb.ca/articles/article106.html

-

[Guest guest]

Let me try to back up since I'm not doing a good job of making my

point, which is:

***high blood sugar does not cause diabetes (although it does worsen

an already existing case of diabetes)***

Here's some highlights of a website that has the glycemic indexes of

many foods, with white bread being the baseline of 100.

Baked Potatoes: 83

Carrots: 71

Sucrose: 65

Fructose: 23

Soy Beans: 18

http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dds8ubc/info/nutrition/glyindex1.htm

If high blood sugar *causes* diabetes then carrots and potatoes are

bad for you, while sugar (particularly high fructose corn syrup) are

good for you. Indeed, if that were true we should immediately advise

all diabetics to consume as much of their daily carbohydrates from

high fructose corn syrup as possible.

Furthermore, we know that diabetes started to appear as sugar was

introduced into the diet. This alone should nullify the 'high blood

sugar causes diabetes' argument.

Instead, I think sugar somehow damages the body. A consequence of

that damage is that the body can no longer regulate blood sugar.

Suppose I were to break my leg. A consequence of that would be that I

couldn't walk very well. A low " walking index " exercise regimine

would manage my broken bone better than a high " walking index "

exercise regimine. But that does not mean that walking causes broken

bones. Indeed, walking is preventative since its a weight bearing

activity.

I have no idea what the mechanism by which sugar damages the body

might be. I think it has something to do with endothelial

dysfunction. But the 'carbs stimulate blood sugar with stimulates

insulin which burns out beta cells' does not fit the data that the

glycemic index provides.

[Guest guest]

-

>***high blood sugar does not cause diabetes (although it does worsen

>an already existing case of diabetes)***

I'm not sure whether there's any point in continuing this discussion. It

seems to me you're rebutting points I'm not making and we're talking

different languages. But maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, so I'll

do my best to make my point as plainly and succinctly as possible:

***excess carbohydrate consumption, particularly excess consumption of

refined carbohydrates, causes diabetes***.

The basic mechanism is simple. Carbohydrate digestion ends with sugar

absorption, which stimulates insulin production. Consumption of

carbohydrates at modern levels, particularly consumption of refined

carbohydrates, causes excess production of insulin, which after a time

causes insulin resistance. Continued over-consumption of carbohydrates,

particularly of refined carbohydrates, feeds a vicious cycle of greater

insulin resistance, higher blood sugar levels, and further degeneration.

Of course there are branches and complexities to the process, like the

various effects of fatness and obesity caused by excess carbohydrate

consumption, but I'll stand by my description as an overview.

You're focusing narrowly on high blood sugar. It's true that high blood

sugar itself isn't the root cause of diabetes, though I suppose you could

artificially create diabetes by feeding subjects a lower-carb diet and

repeatedly injecting them with large amounts of glucose over a long period

of time (maybe more or less as long as it takes to develop diabetes in the

real world) to mimic the effect of a modern high-carb diet. The root of

the problem is that over time the body becomes less and less able to deal

with carbohydrates in the quantities people consume nowadays. One symptom

of that is rising and abnormally high blood sugar -- a symptom which causes

many other problems too.

The glycemic index isn't a perfect tool for measuring this impact of foods

(and there are various versions indexed to different base points -- just

one of several complications) but it does help indicate which ones tend to

stress the body the most in this way.

A calculation of glycemic load is another potentially useful metric, though

the glycemic load charts I've seen to date are deceptive because they

assume small servings of grains, potatoes, etc., and pretend that someone

would choose between equal weights of potato and sugar. An individual's

glycemic load, however, calculated from actual food consumption, looks

quite promising as a predictor of diabetes and other modern degenerative

conditions.

There's an interesting article in yesterday's Guardian correlating bread

and cereal consumption with the development of myopia in children --

specifically because of the resulting insulin overproduction. Here are a

couple excerpts:

>>Diets high in refined starches, such as breads and cereals, increase

>>insulin levels which affect the development of the eyeball, say

>>scientists.

and

>>Jennie Brand , a nutrition scientist at the University of Sydney,

>>said modern processed breads and cereals made the rate of starch

>>digestion faster. In response, the pancreas pumped out more insulin.

>>

>>Fellow expert Bill Stell, from the University of Calgary in Canada, said

>>the idea was plausible.

>>

>> " It wouldn't surprise me at all, " he said. " Those of us who work with

>>local growth factors [proteins that promote growth] within the eye would

>>have no problem with that - in fact we would expect it. "

and

>>Evidence of the trend may be seen in Inuit and Pacific islanders. While

>>less than 1% of these people had myopia in the past century, their rates

>>have since rocketed, in some cases to 50%.

and

>>Loren Cordain, one of the researchers from Colorado State University at

>>Fort , said: " In the islands of Vanuatu they have eight hours of

>>compulsory schooling a day, yet the rate of myopia in these children is

>>only 2%. "

>>

>>She said the reason was probably that the Vanuatuans eat fish, yam and

>>coconut rather than white bread and cereals.

>>

>>The theory is also consistent with observations that people are more

>>likely to develop myopia if they are overweight or have adult-onset

>>diabetes. Both conditions involve elevated insulin levels.

Back to you:

>If high blood sugar *causes* diabetes then carrots and potatoes are

>bad for you, while sugar (particularly high fructose corn syrup) are

>good for you.

First of all, YES! Carrots and potatoes ARE bad for you! Different people

can tolerate different amounts to different degrees, but basically yes,

they're bad for you. They've been bred to be extremely sugary and starchy,

so they don't resemble any naturally occurring foods people might have

evolved on.

Second, I can't believe you're suggesting that based on that index, sugar

would be considered good for you. That... well, look at what you're

saying: carrots are 71 on that index, sucrose is 65. They're separated by

6 points. That's a distinction without much difference, and it's absurd.

And third, as to high-fructose corn syrup and fructose generally, it yields

a slower release of glucose into the bloodstream because it has to be

converted to glucose in the liver, which is a slower process than direct

absorption from the intestinal tract, but the end result, just the same, is

absorption of sugar.

>Furthermore, we know that diabetes started to appear as sugar was

>introduced into the diet. This alone should nullify the 'high blood

>sugar causes diabetes' argument.

I'm not really sure how to say this politely, but that's one of the most

bizarre statements I've come across recently. Earlier in this discussion

you disagreed that sugar causes diabetes, yes? (IIRC, your theory seemed

to be more along PUFA lines, with sugar being uninvolved in the genesis of

the disease, just in the later progress.) But now you seem to be agreeing

that history almost certainly proves that sugar consumption causes

diabetes, as the appearance of diabetes coincided with the introduction of

sugar to the diet. Yet in the very next sentence you seem to be dismissing

the theory that sugar causes diabetes on the grounds that sugar consumption

doesn't raise blood sugar? While sucrose is lower on the index than white

bread, that doesn't mean it's good for you, or that it doesn't spike your

blood sugar level too much!

>Instead, I think sugar somehow damages the body. A consequence of

>that damage is that the body can no longer regulate blood sugar.

>Suppose I were to break my leg. A consequence of that would be that I

>couldn't walk very well. A low " walking index " exercise regimine

>would manage my broken bone better than a high " walking index "

>exercise regimine. But that does not mean that walking causes broken

>bones. Indeed, walking is preventative since its a weight bearing

>activity.

As walking is preventative and sugar is causative, this is a very poor

analogy. However, I'd agree, at least up to a point -- sugar damages the

body. In many ways, in fact, but the issue at hand is its role in causing

the onset of insulin resistance and then diabetes.

>But the 'carbs stimulate blood sugar with stimulates

>insulin which burns out beta cells' does not fit the data that the

>glycemic index provides.

Once again, your paraphrase doesn't resemble what I've actually

said. Perhaps you've read that elsewhere, but don't put single quotes

around something and suggest that I'm saying it when I'm not. I haven't

mentioned beta cells once in this entire discussion. My focus is on

insulin RESISTANCE. Hyperinsulinemia. Hypoglycemia. The death of beta

cells is merely part of the tail end of the disease condition.

-