http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com...s-sunshine.html

I'm very interested to see where his experiment leads.

Yeah, I'm following him too.

Patrick

Why is it surprising that people on high carb diets can have lower fasting BG than someone who's adapted to low-carb? Hypoglycemia is a sign of incipient diabetes.

I'd be a lot more interested in comparing insulin levels, triglycerides and stability of both BG and insulin. A few points of glucose within normal range doesn't seem much to hang a judgement on.

Honestly, since he is merely reading other people and has zero medical qualifications I don't think he should be putting out books on anything related to diabetes.

This is a good point. GCBC has a section where he talks about how the diabetic community got all excited about studies that show good blood sugar control with high carbs - it can be done, but at the cost of excessive high insulin all day long for some people.

If you can keep total energy in line, no fat gain. But you have to toe the line with sat fat (pure energy) and excess carb for your activity. If you have too much fat or carb, fat gain.

But because there is no way to measure the insulin damage easily, it is not measured.

See what Peter from Hyperlipid says about higher BG readings in low carbers and how they mean something different than from diabetics.

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot....resistance.html



It's a bit technical (understatement!) but this here is key:

So, we're insulin resistant because we have so little glucose in our blood and very little insulin too. As soon as we break our fast, then those numbers will drop lower a couple hours later. So a highish FBG for a low carber means, they're just a low carber who hasn't had breakfast yet.

A SAD eater, pre-diabetic, will have high blood glucose AND high insulin. His muscles and liver are permanently insulin resistant, not temporarily like a LCer.

So if you're LC, rely on an A1C test, not necessarily a FBG test.

Let me see if I understand correctly.

Two undiabetic people are going to follow opposing diabetic diets for two weeks and measure their blood sugar every morning while doing it.

I wonder what it is they hope to learn?

http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com...of-sunny-d.html

Humm I'd like to know how this works exactly.

Patrick

I fail to see where any conclusions, inferences, possibilities, or hypotheses whatsoever could come from the experiment.

I think maybe his eating is frying his brain.

What makes him qualified to go on about medical opinions?

The man is READING OTHER PEOPLE and from this, deciding he is an expert.

I understand he is young, and that is part of his charm, but arrogance+immaturity when it comes to serious medical issues is not a small thing.

It's one thing and bad enough to really just be a loud wannabe when it comes to weight loss. It's completely inappropriate to be getting directly into areas of life-threatening disease. Like he has any clue, like he has any way of getting any clue. He can just read other people and have an opinion. Better to point people at whomever he is reading in his weekly change of mind, frankly, since he personally has no qualifications for talking about treatment of disease.

PJ

Yeah, it doesn't. Sometimes I think Matt Stone is not too smart and doesn't quite understand all he reads.

As Peter at Hyperlipid wrote recently

Taken like this, high carb looks better, doesn't it? Until we learn that the blood glucose measurement is done two hours after eating. If it was done immediately after eating, or even during the meal, not only would the numbers be reversed, it would look really bad for high carb.

When eating zero carb, or very little carb, blood glucose barely rises immediately after the meal. This is due to insulin's action on blood glucose combined with the lack of incoming carbohydrate, which in turn fails to make blood glucose rises. If anything, eating zero carb will cause blood glucose to drop during and after a meal. Some time after that, oh let's say two hours, hormones will kick in and slowly return blood glucose to normal range. That's quite different from what a high carb meal does, isn't it? We eat carbs, blood glucose rises above normal, insulin kicks in, and blood glucose slowly drops back down to normal range. But all this time before it happens, blood glucose was artificially (i.e. from the meal and not the body itself) maintained above normal range.

Two-hour-post-meal measurement is about as reliable as looking at somebody from ten feet away. It only gives us a glimpse of what's really going on. It doesn't tell us, for instance, how much and how long blood glucose stays above normal over the entire day. In other words, it doesn't tell us how big the area is under the curve.

There is a way to measure this curve. Test blood glucose as often as possible once the meal starts until two hours post meal. But that would be too simple. It would teach us too much about blood glucose.

The quote from Peter of HyperLipid is very interesting. Particularly the part about IGF increasing risk of cancer.

But because I have an inquiring mind, I have to ask myself...if carbs = insulin = IGF = increased cell division = cancer....then why the heck do 7th Day Adventists on their HIGH carb diets have such LOW cancer rates?

No matter how "logical" an argument may sound, I simply cannot ignore common-sense observations like that.

Well said Jeff. Observations cannot be ignored. All observations must be explained by an hypothesis, otherwise said hypothesis is invalid and not even worthy of being tested.

Patrick