RE: The glycemic index myth

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:53:48 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@...>

writes:

1. Fiber. This is the biggie. The more fiber, the less digestible a

food is, and the lower on the glycemic index. We take this to mean

that fiber is good, but I don't think so.

*****At the risk of being flamed by a few folks, , I would have to

agree with you here. Fiber is highly overrated, even when properly

prepared. I learned this quite by accident when I first ate a largely raw

diet that contained very little fiber. Hmmm...from what I have read the

Eskimos and Masai were not suffering from constipation, which is usually

a precursor to the " diseases of civilization " . Good point. Thanks for

bringing it up.

<snip>

4. lactose. Milk is low glycemic also, because we don't digest

lactose very efficiently. Its also why milk is so frequently consumed

in cultured forms, as the culturing process digests the lactose for

us.

****Another good point. And what usually goes unnoticed is that the milk

from the animal is placed immediately in the culturing medium. Now I'm

guessing here, but just as milk directly from an animal is much more

effective in treating disease (and I have been given tons of reasons as

to why this is), I would imagine that milk which is immediately

transferred to the culturing medium retains some of these valuable

properties. Your earlier link on the Masai clearly illustrated how the

milk goes straight from the animal into the gourd.

<snip>

6. Gelatinization. When foods are cooked the starches gelatinize and

this makes them more digestible because the enzymes have easier

access.

****This is true of starches, it is not true of cooked animal foods,

where the opposite effect occurs.

<snip>

Here's a point that has nothing to do with digestion: we all

generally suspect that refined sugars cause diabetes, but sugars are

pretty low on the glycemic index - about the same as oatmeal

(presumably unsoaked) and pineapples. And high-fructose corn syrup is

even lower on the glycemic index. High blood sugar cannot cause

diabetes if sugars do indeed cause it.

*****I have been following your interaction with with some interest,

and now I see the distinction you are making (actually i saw it a little

earlier but you have made it very clear in this post). Sugars and high

blood sugar are not necessarily synonymous, therefore if sugars (which

don't cause high blood sugar) cause diabetes, it does not *necessarily*

follow that high blood sugar causes diabetes. Would that be a correct

assessment of your position?

Bianca

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:53:48 -0000 " justinbond " <justin_bond@h...>

> writes:

>

> 1. Fiber. This is the biggie. The more fiber, the less digestible a

> food is, and the lower on the glycemic index. We take this to mean

> that fiber is good, but I don't think so.

>

> *****At the risk of being flamed by a few folks, , I would

have to

> agree with you here. Fiber is highly overrated, even when properly

> prepared. I learned this quite by accident when I first ate a

largely raw

> diet that contained very little fiber. Hmmm...from what I have read

the

> Eskimos and Masai were not suffering from constipation, which is

usually

> a precursor to the " diseases of civilization " . Good point. Thanks

for

> bringing it up.

well thanks for the support. I know most of the glycemic index people

are on " our side " (i.e. that fat is good), so I'm kind of loathe to

bring these points up. Just talking about glycemic index frames

nutritional debates around carbs not being inherantly wonderful.

> <snip>

>

>

> ****Another good point. And what usually goes unnoticed is that the

milk

> from the animal is placed immediately in the culturing medium. Now

I'm

> guessing here, but just as milk directly from an animal is much more

> effective in treating disease (and I have been given tons of

reasons as

> to why this is), I would imagine that milk which is immediately

> transferred to the culturing medium retains some of these valuable

> properties. Your earlier link on the Masai clearly illustrated how

the

> milk goes straight from the animal into the gourd.

I'm getting very curious about differant cultures cultures

(*groans*). How do the Masai's cultures differ from kefir etc...

> 6. Gelatinization. When foods are cooked the starches gelatinize

and

> this makes them more digestible because the enzymes have easier

> access.

>

>

> ****This is true of starches, it is not true of cooked animal foods,

> where the opposite effect occurs.

I'd be interested to do some reading about that. Does heat denature

proteins in a way that makes them harder to digest, or is it just

that some of the enzymes like the lipases are being destroyed?

> Here's a point that has nothing to do with digestion: we all

> generally suspect that refined sugars cause diabetes, but sugars

are

> pretty low on the glycemic index - about the same as oatmeal

> (presumably unsoaked) and pineapples. And high-fructose corn syrup

is

> even lower on the glycemic index. High blood sugar cannot cause

> diabetes if sugars do indeed cause it.

>

>

>

>

> *****I have been following your interaction with with some

interest,

> and now I see the distinction you are making (actually i saw it a

little

> earlier but you have made it very clear in this post). Sugars and

high

> blood sugar are not necessarily synonymous, therefore if sugars

(which

> don't cause high blood sugar) cause diabetes, it does not

*necessarily*

> follow that high blood sugar causes diabetes. Would that be a

correct

> assessment of your position?

Yup that's exactly right. However, since a result of being diabetic

is that you can't regulate blood sugar, using an external device like

the glycemic index can be valuable. And of course, many americans are

insulin resistant! But to repeat my old analogy, people with broken

legs shouldn't perform weight bearing exercises. But if you haven't

broken your leg its a good idea to get regular weight bearing

exercise.

[Guest guest]

>>>>*****I have been following your interaction with with some

interest,

and now I see the distinction you are making (actually i saw it a little

earlier but you have made it very clear in this post). Sugars and high

blood sugar are not necessarily synonymous, therefore if sugars (which

don't cause high blood sugar) cause diabetes, it does not *necessarily*

follow that high blood sugar causes diabetes. Would that be a correct

assessment of your position?

****I'm following this thread with great interest, but find it challenging

to totally grasp 's ideas because I don't know a heck of a lot about

the mechanisms of what goes on at a cellular level with diabetes and

insulin.

This is my understanding. Could someone please correct errors, if there are

any?

1. When glucose enters the bloodstream, insulin is produced and released by

the pancreas, and it's function is to 'unlock' the cellular 'door' to let

the glucose in.

2. If a lot of glucose enters the blood stream, then the pancreas must work

very hard to produce enough insulin to move the glucose into cells.

Sometimes the pancreas does not produce adequate insulin to handle the load

of glucose in the blood stream. This can result in Type 1 (insulin

dependent) diabetes.

3. Some people (as well as carnivores) are insulin resistant, which means

that cells don't allow the normal amount of insulin to unlock their 'doors'

which results in the glucose staying in the blood (hyperglycemia), even when

the person is not 'over' consuming high glycemic foods. This can result in

type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes accounts for over 90% of diabetes cases.

Here is an interesting article on the carnivore connection from the beyond

veg site: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7k.shtml

Has anyone read this? Does the selection for insulin resistant genes during

the ice age make sense to anyone?

For some reason I've been under the impression that insulin resistance as a

result of natural selection in our history (as discussed in the beyondveg

article) is the most likely suspect. Probably because I've been reading

about the same mechanism in carnivores. Consider that it's theorized that

cats, which are obligate carnivores, are naturally insulin resistant due to

their historical carnivorous diet.

From " Canine and Feline Nutrition " (2000):

<snip>

" A lack of insulin activity leads to elevated blood glucose levels

(hyperglycemia) and an inability of tissue to receive the glucose that they

need (glucoprivation). " (p. 397)

<snip>

" Insulin resistance primarily manifests itself after insulin binds to its

cellular receptors, resulting in a decreased conversion of circulating

glucose to glycogen or fat. In addition to being a characteristic of type II

diabetes, insulin resistance also occurs as an adaptive response to low

carbohydrate intake, allowing blood glucose levels to be conserved and

maintained immediately after eating a low-carbohydrate meal. It has been

hypothesized that, as a species, the domestic cat is naturally insulin

resistant when compared with other more omnivorous or herbivorous species.

Insulin resistance would be expected to confer an adaptive advantage for a

species that evolved as an obligate carnivore, consuming a diet that was

high in protein and fat, but low in carbohydrate. Therefore, peripheral

resistance to insulin may represent an adaptive mechanism that allows the

delivery of protein and fat to tissue while conserving blood glucose

levels. " (pp.398-99)

I've seen a change in one of my dog's blood glucose levels when I switched

her from kibble to a raw/no grain diet. Her level went from well-below

normal range (hypoglycemic) up to the middle of normal 8 months later. Then

when I added a small amount of grains for a few months, it went down a

little. It inversly corresponds with the amount of carbs in her diet, it

seems. Although I should mention that when I adopted her, she had just

weaned a litter and had numerous health problems, so the initial very low

blood glucose *might* have had something to do with some of her health

issues - not necessarily the high grain diet she was on.

Is it possible that insulin resistance can be *turned on and off* (in so

many words) in response to the amount of glucose that enters the blood

stream? So, if an animal or human has eaten a lot of starchy foods for x

amount of years, then suddenly switches to a low or no carb diet, insulin

resistance might " kick in " ?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>4. this relates to #1. One theory on how refined carbs cuase diabetes

is because diabetes is caused by a nutritional deficiency. For

example, copper is a required catalyst for an enzyme called

superoxide dimuntase, which is a potent freeradical scrounger.

***So are zinc or manganese!

>>>It may

be that free radical damage from excess superoxide molecules causes

the endothelial dysfunction that leads to diabetes.

***I just wanted to mention that two other antioxidant enzymes work together

with SOD to neutralize free radicals (specifically the super oxide

radical) - glutathione peroxidase and catalase. So, all would be needed to

effectively reduce superoxide damage to endothelial cells. In fact, if there

is too much SOD ingested and not enough of the other two present, then SOD

could potentially become a *pro* oxidant. SOD works as part of a 'network'

to do what it does.

Here's how it works: SOD neutralizes ROS (reactive oxygen species a.k.a.

free radicals) turns it into hydrogen peroxide (and oxygen). Catalase

destroys the hydrogen peroxide. Cellular glutathione peroxidase also

transforms hydrogen peroxide to water and 'organic peroxides'. Glutathione

peroxidase has 4 selenium atoms, so that, too would be needed for this

network collaboration to neutralize superoxide radicals.

See:

http://www.thedoctorslounge.net/education/tutorials/antioxidants/antioxidant

s4.htm

So, just to expand on what you said about a nutritional deficiency possibly

causing damage to endothelial cells (as well as others) - a deficiency in

copper, zinc, glutathione, selenium or any of the other nutrients that work

together in the ROS (reactive oxygen species, aka free radicals) scavenging

network could cause ROS damage (indirectly). Imagine how many Americans on

the SAD diet might be deficient in not only one of these, but more than

one...

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>

>1. When glucose enters the bloodstream, insulin is produced and released by

>the pancreas, and it's function is to 'unlock' the cellular 'door' to let

>the glucose in.

It gets even more complicated when you factor in oils and excercise. MCT

(in coconut oil) opens those cell doors too, allowing the fats in fat cells

to be used for energy more readily: which is one reason it's used by

athletes. If I understand it right, those doors work both ways: when they

are open it's easier for fat to be used for energy.

Weightlifting causes the cells to be much less insulin resistant after only

a few weeks of weights too, which may be one reason weightlifting help slim

people down. Industrial people are somewhat more sedentary also.

The more I think about it, the more I like the epethelial theory.

But the nurses study did show that nurses who at whole wheat bread had much

less chance of becoming diabetic than those that ate white bread (notice

they were talking bread, not sugar) which is part of the reason the

glycemic table people think the glycemic reaction has something to do with

diabetes. Seems like there would be other factors in there too (like the

aforementioned vitamines!) comparing white and whole wheat bread though.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Insulin resistance would be expected to confer an

> adaptive advantage for a

> species that evolved as an obligate carnivore,

> consuming a diet that was

> high in protein and fat, but low in carbohydrate.

> Therefore, peripheral

> resistance to insulin may represent an adaptive

> mechanism that allows the

> delivery of protein and fat to tissue while

> conserving blood glucose

> levels. " (pp.398-99)

Hmmm... I used to be able to tolerate fruits pretty

well, I think. But when I went off an anticandida diet

(fruitless, starchless, etc.) after being on it for

about 2 or 3 months, I noticed an increased

intolerance to carbs. Even apples started giving me

problems that I didn't used to notice before. It seems

to support the statement above. Or perhaps, I was able

to notice more subtle changes as I was reintroducing

foods to my diet.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

-

>For the most part, low glycemic foods are ones that

>are frequent sources of allergies. That's because low glycemic foods

>are less digestible than high glycemic foods!

Well, of course CARB foods that are low on the index are less

digestible! That's hardly an argument for eating carb foods (like sugars

and starches) that are higher on the index, though. Indigestible carbs do

a great deal of damage, a phenomenon which is explored and explained best,

to my knowledge, in _Breaking The Vicious Cycle_.

>The more fiber, the less digestible a

>food is, and the lower on the glycemic index. We take this to mean

>that fiber is good, but I don't think so.

Neither do I. IMO the high-fiber propaganda we get is a giant scam.

>I've actually come across nutrition websites that are aware of these

>issues, and recommend eating the difficult to digest foods! Now if

>you're diabetic that makes sense, your insulin system is broken.

Exchanging one problem for another doesn't make any sense at all.

-

[Guest guest]

-

Sorry about the dual-post reply.

>I'd be interested to do some reading about that. Does heat denature

>proteins in a way that makes them harder to digest, or is it just

>that some of the enzymes like the lipases are being destroyed?

Enzyme destruction is one of the main reasons, but cooking animal foods

renders them hydrophobic, preventing stomach acid from properly mixing with

the food and digesting it.

>But to repeat my old analogy, people with broken

>legs shouldn't perform weight bearing exercises. But if you haven't

>broken your leg its a good idea to get regular weight bearing

>exercise.

Your analogy would hold that healthy people should regularly eat sugar,

maybe plenty of it. Is that what you're saying? How do you square this

with the fact that diabetes appeared and spread with the consumption of

refined sugar?

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> Sorry about the dual-post reply.

>

> >I'd be interested to do some reading about that. Does heat denature

> >proteins in a way that makes them harder to digest, or is it just

> >that some of the enzymes like the lipases are being destroyed?

>

> Enzyme destruction is one of the main reasons, but cooking animal

foods

> renders them hydrophobic, preventing stomach acid from properly

mixing with

> the food and digesting it.

>

> >But to repeat my old analogy, people with broken

> >legs shouldn't perform weight bearing exercises. But if you haven't

> >broken your leg its a good idea to get regular weight bearing

> >exercise.

>

> Your analogy would hold that healthy people should regularly eat

sugar,

> maybe plenty of it. Is that what you're saying? How do you square

this

> with the fact that diabetes appeared and spread with the

consumption of

> refined sugar?

I think this is the reason why we've been talking past each other in

the 'carbs, diabetes and common sense thread'.

To anser your first question: NO! People should not eat sugar because

it causes diabetes. Furthermore, sugar does *not* spike blood sugar.

This means that high blood sugar does not cause diabetes. So we need

to find the true mechanism. I think its endothelial dysfunction.

I think people should eat easily digested carbs like potatoes and

carrots. I think that properly soaked grains can be a part of healthy

diet, but not because they are low on the glycemic index, but because

they are a whole food.

[Guest guest]

> >

> This is my understanding. Could someone please correct errors...

On this list?

I think that's a great post you wrote about nutritional deficiencies

and superoxide dimuntase So don't think I'm nitpicking you, I'm

just blaming the messenger

> 1. When glucose enters the bloodstream, insulin is produced and

released by

> the pancreas, and it's function is to 'unlock' the cellular 'door'

to let

> the glucose in.

Insulin also drives amino acids and creatine and other good stuff

into cells. That's why bodybuilders take insulin - to pack more amino

acids into their muscles, which ultimately results in faster muscle

growth. This is also why weight training has such a strong and

beneficial impact on insulin sensitivity - those burgeoning muscles

want to be fed!

> 2. If a lot of glucose enters the blood stream, then the pancreas

must work

> very hard to produce enough insulin to move the glucose into cells.

> Sometimes the pancreas does not produce adequate insulin to handle

the load

> of glucose in the blood stream. This can result in Type 1 (insulin

> dependent) diabetes.

I have some criticisms at this point:

1. My old fructose criticism - according to the glycemic theory,

fructose doesn't cause diabetes because it doesn't cause a lot of

glucose to enter the bloodstream. But of course high fructose corn

syrup is not ok, I think we can all agree that fructose does cause

diabetes.

2. We have a tool called the insulin index. Its exactly like the

glycemic index except that it measure the insulin response to

consuming differant foods. And white pasta is lower on the insulin

index than beef and fish.

3. We know from WAP that healthy primitives did eat high carbohydrate

diets. So we know that high carb diets do not cause diabetes. Of

course, that says nothing about where those carbs lie on the glycemic

and insulin indexes.

> 3. Some people (as well as carnivores) are insulin resistant, which

means

> that cells don't allow the normal amount of insulin to unlock

their 'doors'

> which results in the glucose staying in the blood (hyperglycemia),

even when

> the person is not 'over' consuming high glycemic foods. This can

result in

> type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes accounts for over 90% of diabetes

cases.

> Here is an interesting article on the carnivore connection from the

beyond

> veg site: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-

7k.shtml

> Has anyone read this? Does the selection for insulin resistant

genes during

> the ice age make sense to anyone?

I don't get much into paleodiet research, because its an inherantly

unrigorous form of science. You can't do studies, and unlike WAP who

lived with real, honest to goodness hunter gatherers and observed

their diet, you can only speculate about what and how they ate from

scattered remains. These studies let you see what you want to see.

The mainstream paleodiet types think their diet was low-fat. I've

seen people present studies making the case that root vegetables

fueled our evolutionary brain growth. While I am sympathic to the

general idea, and sometimes wonder if a hunter-gatherer diet (WAP

style, not paleo style) is the ideal diet, I hate the paleo stuff.

But that does not mean I'm going to dodge the question. Knowing what

we know about insulin, being insulin resistant would also result in a

less muscular and therefore less healthy physique. I'm skeptical. I

think its more likely that, as WAP observed, healthy primitives are

very insulin sensitive, and modern diets ruin that.

> Is it possible that insulin resistance can be *turned on and off*

(in so

> many words) in response to the amount of glucose that enters the

blood

> stream? So, if an animal or human has eaten a lot of starchy foods

for x

> amount of years, then suddenly switches to a low or no carb diet,

insulin

> resistance might " kick in " ?

Once you suffer from diabetes (preclinical or not), then it becomes

important to find an alternative way to keep your blood sugars low,

and I think low-carbing is the best option. But healthy people have

an even better option - insulin. Take a glucose challenge test and

see how you do! hmm, I should make a glucose challenge test results

poll and we can all have them done!

[Guest guest]

-

>No, it doesn't. The jury is in. The science is done.

Then, to borrow a page from your book, provide some sort of proof, please,

unless you're relying on your glycemic index figures.

Here's a table of index values for several sugars. The first column gives

the value on the white bread index, the second on the glucose index.

SUGARS

Fructose 32 22

Lactose 65 46

Honey 83 58

High fructose corn syrup 89 62

Sucrose 92 64

Glucose 137 96

Glucose tablets 146 102

Maltodextrin 150 105

Maltose 150 105

This is taken from http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

As previously noted, fructose is pretty low on the index, though if you'd

like I can post a pile of references documenting the many reasons not to

use fructose as a sweetener. However, your suggestion that putting some

value on the glycemic index would indicate high fructose corn syrup as a

healthy food and sweetener for diabetics is obviously wrong. Perhaps you

think otherwise, but 89/62 is not a low value at all.

>Sucruse has the same glycemic response as oatmeal.

Not so:

Porridge (oatmeal) 70 49

Sucrose 92 64

Furthermore, plain sucrose is a completely devitalized food, whereas

oatmeal is merely partially devitalized by extensive breeding.

But just look into glucose tolerance tests -- their very purpose is to

determine just how much sugar spikes a given individual's blood sugar!

>The only way I can see you maintaining your position is if you

>are full blown Dr. Atkins and think that any carb other than leafy

>green vegetables is evil. And that means you have to throw out what

>WAP found - that there are healthy primitives on high carb diets with

>glycemic indexes at least as high as sucrose and plenty higher than

>fructose.

There are several issues here. First of all, on the matter of carb

consumption I do agree with Atkins, at least in the broad outlines. (For

example, I believe he advocates millet, a food rich in phytoestrogens, for

people who have no weight problems, and AFAIK he's also gung-ho in favor of

soy, both foods I'd never touch with a ten-foot pole.) Second, none of the

peoples WAP found ate diets that even remotely resemble today's high-carb

regimen. The SAD includes far more sugar than any of those peoples

consumed and carbs that were far more refined than any those peoples were

capable of creating. There's simply no comparison. Furthermore, those

peoples were careful to get as much fat as they could, eating insects, for

example, and carefully combined their carbs in such a way to optimize their

protein intake as best as possible on a low-animal food diet. Finally,

it's clear that the more a people relied on grains, the less healthy they

were, even with pre-soaking and whatnot. A healthy people eating plenty of

fat, avoiding refined carbohydrates and getting enough protein can

certainly eat a moderate amount of grains, without much or any noticeable

ill effect, but the higher grain consumption rises and the more generations

it persists, the unhealthier the people.

>Furthermore, as I point in my response to Suze playing devils

>advocate, the next stage of the 'carbs are evil' theory is the

>resulting insulin production. But white pasta stimulates less insulin

>production than fish and beef.

As you noted elsewhere, insulin serves many functions. Refined carb and

sugar consumption do cause blood sugar surges and insulin surges as well,

and in the presence of an excess of sugar, cells respond to insulin by

trying to handle the excess glucose. Over time, this system wears out,

leading to insulin resistance. (In fact, this is one reason that refined

sugar is so harmful even in conjunction with some relatively whole foods --

the flood of sugar, whether coming all at once with something like pure

glucose or stretched out over time with tons of fruit or refined fructose,

distorts the body's response to insulin.)

Anyway, you keep saying that sugar consumption doesn't lead to a surge in

blood sugar, but if not, where does the sugar go?

Furthermore, I find it telling that you picked white pasta as your

example. On the table of the 38 tested foods at

http://www.low-carbdiet.co.uk/insulin.htm

white pasta is the sole exception among refined carb foods in causing less

of an insulin surge, probably due to the indigestibility of wheat starch,

though it must be noted that beef has just about the lowest effect on blood

sugar of all foods. On that chart, beef's glucose score comes in at about

20, compared to pasta's 45.

Jellybeans are the most alarming, 120 for glucose and 160 for insulin, but

potatoes, which I take it you defend, come in at 140 for glucose and 120

for insulin. Based on this, I can't imagine how anyone could defend either

food as a staple.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Your not really claiming that the glycemic index is unreferenced

>science, are you?

No, I wasn't sure what you were basing your assertion that refined sugar

doesn't cause blood sugar levels to rise substantially on. Since your

basis is the glycemic index, then my disagreement with you is on your

interpretation of the index.

At what point would you say a food *doesn't* boost blood sugar levels?

>, for 8 millionth time, I think fructose is unhealthy and causes

>diabetes. That's my whole point - a low GI food causes diabetes.

And for the 8 millionth time, I'm not arguing that the glycemic index is

the be-all and end-all of diabetes causation! I've said otherwise

countless times now! My argument is that EXCESS CARBOHYDRATE CONSUMPTION,

particularly REFINED carbohydrate consumption, particularly SUGAR, causes

diabetes. The GI is a useful tool for examining this phenomenon, but it's

not perfect and it has to be considered together with other factors.

>So what is a low value? And I notice that you always discuss sucrose.

>I take it you think fructose doesn't cause diabetes? That high

>fructose corn syrup doesn't cause diabetes?

If I wasted my time writing those other posts, just tell me. It certainly

seems that way, because you keep coming back at me with the same statements

and questions which don't resemble what I've been saying.

As I've said before, I consider fructose very harmful because regardless of

the fact that it's lower on the GI (which is essentially a measure of

rapidity of glucose release into the bloodstream) glucose IS released, and

furthermore, fructose is preferentially converted to fat -- and as we all

know, obesity IS bad for diabetes. (Furthermore, HFCS is much higher on

the GI than fructose due to its mixture of sugars -- it's not all fructose

-- so it's inaccurate to equate it with pure fructose.) The quantity of

sugar consumed is also an issue. 25 million Americans get a fifth of their

total calories from fructose! That's insane!

There's an excellent article on the dangers of fructose on Mercola's site at

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/5/fructose.htm

Among the information to be found there: fructose reduces the affinity of

insulin for its receptor.

Undigested fructose can also cause dysbiosis in the bowels, which causes

many health problems and exacerbates existing ones.

>You're nitpicking.

A 22-percent difference isn't nitpicking.

>The point still stands - sucrose has the same GI as healthy

>whole foods (and is lower than some like potatoes and carrots).

Potatoes and carrots are not healthy whole foods for many reasons, not just

their carb content. Would you like some references from _Breaking The

Vicious Cycle_ and other sources?

>What does that have to do with diabetes? If high blood sugar and

>insulin causes diabetes, this has nothing to do with the issue.

If you're going to continue to mischaracterize my positions I'm not going

to discuss the issue further with you. I've stated more than enough times

to be clear that high blood sugar is an intermediate step in the

development of diabetes, not the root cause, and I never said anything

remotely resembling " insulin causes diabetes " , which is patently absurd.

Furthermore, the ability of the body to handle any food is obviously

dependent on the presence of all the necessary nutrients and cofactors, so

all else being equal, a sugar with a given GI will obviously be more

harmful than a whole food with the same GI. (Exceptions being foods that

are harmful for other reasons, such as being poisonous.)

>A glucose tolerance test is a measure of how diabetic someone is.

Not so. It's a measure of how well they handle glucose. Some years ago I

was given a GTT even though both I and my then-doctor knew I wasn't

diabetic or even particularly close. It's used to indicate hypoglycemia,

for example, and he wanted to demonstrate how hypoglycemic I was -- and

therefore that I should be wary of diabetes at some time in the

future. (At the time he was in the fat-is-bad camp, but for all that he's

a bastard, I have to give him credit for being open-minded and changing his

views on that.) I suppose you could argue that hypoglycemic people are

pre-diabetic, but the purpose of the test is to determine how rapidly an

individual's blood sugar level spikes in response to sugar.

>They don't do fructose tolerance tests because fructose doesn't

>spike blood sugar.

They could just as well do HFCS tolerance tests (3 times the GI of

fructose, 62% that of glucose) or maltose tolerance tests (105% the GI of

glucose). (BTW, the GI of sucrose is virtually identical to that of HFCS.)

Since the GI is a relative measure, I'm not sure how you can demonstrate

that any sugar -- including glucose -- doesn't cause blood sugar to spike

based simply on the index. The inception of the index, though, is

revealing: scientists wanted to measure how fast various foods and food

ingredients caused blood sugar to spike relative to glucose (and then later

relative to white bread).

Here's an excerpt from an excellent article on Mercola's site:

>>The term glycemic index, (GI) (a qualitative indicator of carbohydrate's

>>ability to raise blood glucose levels), has seen a lot of mileage among

>>the many non-ketogenic low carbohydrate diets. Most of these diets

>>attribute the rise in obesity to the over consumption of high glycemic

>>carbohydrates, and the subsequent over production of insulin.

>>

>>While this may be an oversimplification, there is growing evidence to

>>support a relationship between GI and non- insulin dependent diabetes

>>(NIDDM), and obesity. In a prospective study of 65,000 US women,

>>researchers were able to demonstrate that the dietary GI was positively

>>associated with the risk of NIDDM.

>>

>>The authors concluded that diets with a high GI increase insulin demand

>>and thus cause hyperinsulinemia among patients with NIDDM, as well as in

>>normal subjects. If chronic, this hyperinsulinemia can increase the risk

>>for, as well as exacerbate NIDDM.

It's a two-parter starting on

http://www.mercola.com/article/Diet/carbohydrates/scientific_evidence_low_grains\

..htm

with the references on a third page. Highly recommended.

>Then you disagree with WAP

Not the way you're suggesting, but it's a complicated issue. You and I are

apparently in agreement that diabetics should go on low-carb diets, at

least provided the diet is otherwise in accordance with WAP/NT principles

(grassfed, raw dairy, nutrient-dense, high-fat, etc.). However, I'd argue

that virtually everyone in America has some degree of difficulty handling

dietary sugar and other dietary carbs. The vast majority of Americans

could do with reducing their carb intake, particularly their refined carb

intake, and these Americans, with their disturbed metabolisms, do not

resemble the healthy natives WAP examined.

Furthermore, the FOODS they (and we) eat don't resemble the foods those

healthy natives ate -- and this, IMO, is one of the most important points

to be made. On the GI, there's an entry for wheat bread, but modern wheat

bread is made with modern wheat -- which is VERY DIFFERENT from the wheat

eaten by those healthy natives. Those natives had bred their wheat for

higher starch content and whatnot, but we've taken that process much, much

further. So even aside from all the many other issues to be considered

(soil fertility, for example, as well as sugar consumption) a loaf of wheat

bread made by those natives would not be identical to a loaf of wheat bread

made today with modern hybrid altered-to-the-point-of-ridiculousness

wheat. To some extent we can address this problem by preferring heirloom

varieties, but even so, given that virtually everyone has a disturbed

metabolism that needs adjustment, virtually everyone needs to cut their

carb (and particularly refined carb) intake below that sustainable by

healthy natives.

>Except for how they score on the glycemic index! WAP found people

>with higher glycemic loads than sucrose and way, way, way higher than

>fructose.

Do you have any data to support this? I seriously doubt any of the very

healthy natives' diets came close to the glycemic load (not the same as the

GI) of the modern diet. They ate more fat, more protein -- and therefore

less carb.

>The same place as from soybeans. Into the body, just slowly over a

>long period of time.

And though that sugar might not be as damaging as sugar that's released all

at once (absent other considerations) the body still has to deal with it.

>So? If high insulin causes diabetes, then meat causes diabetes more

>than the other foods.

That statement isn't supported by the graph. Most of the foods are higher

than beef.

>That's the point. A theory must fit all the

>data, not most of the data.

Of course, but no single-factor theory exists in a vacuum, and FOR THE LAST

TIME, my theory is NOT that the glycemic index is the sole determinant of

diabetes causation. Not even close.

>I would never defend a refined food as being healthy because I

>believe that the nutritional deficiencies caused by eating them

>causes diabetes. Potatoes are a healthy food because high glycemic

>foods do not causes diabetes.

My apologies -- I didn't mean to suggest you would advise eating jelly

beans, I meant to compare potatoes to jelly beans.

Anyway, do you believe that diabetes could occur on an extremely low-carb

diet due solely to nutritional deficiencies? This doesn't square with the

available evidence. Many people eat low-carb diets that are nonetheless

not very nutritious (lean meat, fake foods, etc.) but which nonetheless

roll back and prevent diabetes. Malnutrition definitely contributes to the

body's difficulties in handling excess carbohydrate, but it's not the sole

factor, and none of the available science (that I know of) supports the

idea that it is.

-