Log In
Register
Home
Add Reply
Topic RSS
Read the original blog post
3:30 pm
Quotefrom richard nickoley:
"So anyway, that was my breakfast and Bea had just a little less starch, with one egg. Nothing else, we both drank water. At the 1hr point, I measured 149 and at the 2hr point, 129, and at 3 hours: 95. When I first got a meter and began paying attention, I'd sometimes see 160s."
he is putting up organ-damaging numbers, but is claiming that he is improving because his numbers used to be worse. how long has he been at this and he still isn
't putting up healthy numbers?! meanwhile i went from pre diabetic to normal numbers with LC. he is a big proponent of the PHD, but not a very good example if you ask me. how long do you predict it will take him to put up health bg numbers (i.e. below 140 at all times)? he is following the PHD. do you think it will take a year? two years?
8:44 pm
V
AGREE, AGREE, AGREE. Tried the PHD recommendations of " safe starches". White rice is a straight ass bolus of glucose directly into the the veins. Dextrose is also recommended if you can't eat starch. Why eat the rice. Dextrose is a rush of glucose without any nutrients exactly like the rice. 1/4 cup of white rice and 120 BS readings faster than I could ready the meter . 1/2 cup I would have been white knuckling it while the BS was crashing back down. Give me an apple or berries any day. I am not diabetic but probably have a lower tolerance since being low Carb so long. I'm good with that. When I had a high tolerance for the CR@p food I was 40 lbs heavier and not living the full active life I am now. I bought into the " if you don't eat starch your gonna dry up from the inside out" and messed with my way of eating that has been working well. That said I eat Paul's recommended 3 eggs a day guilt free.
9:00 pm
V
Just to be clear I am not RN's Bea:-). I would never be with a man that calls women c*nts . Never liked men with foul mouths or ask you to pull their finger. Call me old fashion but my man has never called me a derogatory word in 22 years. He's my Marlboro Man on his steed sans the cigs .
11:19 pm
Presented well and very informative. I would like to overlay the same concepts with job fulfillment or life fulfillment, possibly a satiety of job. I could see those with a feeling of economic security making decisions to educate theirself and consume foods that are rich in both macronutrients and micronutrients, along with supplements.
2:32 am
Bea, Jaminet is speaking at an online event called 'the Diabetes Summit'. thank god jenny ruhl will also be speaking to balance out his theories with her real life experience helping many many diabetics, people with impaired glucose tolerance, of many different causes.
9:10 am
V
I was really interested in all the PS/RS hacking going on. But RN has been at it for about a year and only brought his post # down 10 points and only with certain foods. Still in the damaging range. Sometimes you have to accept the damage done and adjust. Or just say I dig this food and I want to eat rice, beans, biscuits, tortillas. I enjoy it and will except the consequences. Don't tell people to drink potato starch and eat high gi foods now. He said he likes the food of his wife's Mexican Heritage. He also said the Father in law has diabetes. My Mexican stepfather has diabetes. Loves rice, beans, tortillas. He has had 2 major heart attacks. He refuses to eat eggs when I offer it to him. His cholesteral is kept low with satins after the first. Just had the second. My mom and me have high cholesterol. She is in her 80' s. No heart issues. She has normal blood sugar. That is the key.
2:17 pm
bea,
if you look at RN's post called sunday starch breakfast, you'll see two posters ann and adrienne keep asking him about how to tell if they have hyperinsulemia. they seem to be worried that they may be showing good bg numbers on their meter with starch, but at the expense of producing lots of insulin and burning out their beta cells. look carefully at RN's response- he has none. his latest stance is for people to stop testing and weighing themselves. this guy is dangerous- not least of all to himself. people with family members who suffered from diabetes and the complications that come with high blood sugar no that this is straight out serious stuff. i left a comment asking him how many years it would take him to reach normal blood sugars and he deleted it. this guy can't even help himself. maybe his friends tatertot and dr. bg can actually help people with their knowledge. but it would be nice if they tried to help their friend and number one cheer leader first.
8:30 pm
V
I have posed the question to Dr. G if she thinks those #s are healthy. Her and Tim seem like great people. But I too think that it is dangerous to make people feel that the rs will allow them to eat foods that spike your blood sugar beyond 120. As a therapy to nurture your gut bugs .YES. You can't unbreak yourself with rs. A little better Numbers maybe. Rice, beans, potatoes for breakfast and post BS # of 150 NO. He is to old and broken. Takes one to know one. Did 1 tsp of PS. Racing heart, stiff neck most of the day and no sleep. J. Staton is right . Over 120 no bueno.
2:22 am
steve cooksey seems to have integrity-the diabetes warrior guy. i looked at his site and his last RS post was in February. i wonder what's happened with that.
3:44 pm
oops! steve cooksey put up a recipe recently using potato starch. i asked him whether he gets better numbers pre or post RS. Waiting for reply.
4:30 pm
posted this at freetheanimal because commenters were asking about RS and insulin secretion. wonder if it will be deleted as some on my other comments have been.
RN said: “Re insulin, I’ll try to sort my ideas out in the upcoming post, probably tomorrow at this point.”
still waiting. in the meantime:
From Bill Lagakos at caloriesproper.com
“As to the Raben study you cited: I have no doubt that PS ALONE won’t cause a spike in glucose, similar to your experience and that of the T1 you mentioned, especially because Raben showed the digestible starch in their raw PS to be only ~27% (w/w) and people aren’t taking 200 grams of PS at a time.
There’s also no effect of type IV RS alone on blood glucose as per Haub’s study (PMID: 22655177).
As to the effects PS has on insulin LONG-term: one of the ways RS is thought to improve glucose control is by enhancing the incretin response, which will IMPROVE insulin secretion. This is kind of like what they saw in the Bodinham study (PMID: 22815837) and in the one by MacNeil (PMID: 24195618). Also, in this rodent study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu….”
“improve insulin secretion” means you will feel insulin levels increase- that is how you get lower blood glucose numbers. except i don’t secrete enough insulin as it is, so i don’t want to ingest anything that pushes my beta cells to secrete. that is a recipe for beta cell burn out.
6:15 pm
V
Potato starch did not raise my blood sugar but gave me weird side effects. Won't do that again. It was just a lark anyway. Have good control with lc paleo type eating. Which is why I enjoy this blog. J.S doesn't flip flop with the latest fads. If you have mood issues it could be worse with PS . I had very unsettling dreams the 1 or 2 hours sleep I got that night. Haunting and creepy.
2:24 am
the thing that is scary for people who run high blood sugar but who don't take insulin is will RS force your pancreas to work harder, thus giving you good bg numbers, but burning out the pancreas faster. as for me, i seem to be insulin deficient, so i will never get good bg numbers with starch- the glucose will just hang out in my blood until my second phase insulin response weakly kicks in.
1:36 pm
February 22, 2010
Offline
Lots of conversation, so I'll reply collectively here.
v:
I can't answer for the Jaminets -- and I know you've asked Paul yourself.
Bea:
Yes, 150 after a small meal is not so hot. And everyone who reports positive effects from RS seems to see the same minor change: perhaps -7 points in FBG (e.g. Steve Cooksey), perhaps -10 in peak BG.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this is the average improvement seen from vinegar in controlled studies. (Vinegar, acetic acid, is the shortest SCFA.) And I would be interested to see someone who has seen success with one try both: is the effect additive? Synergistic? Or does one not help if you're doing the other, because they're doing the same thing (supplying the intestine with energy substrate)? I suspect the latter, but I'm very interested to see what actually happens.
(And I'll need more than one piece of self-reported data, from someone heavily invested in their own success, before I call the question settled.)
Mick:
"I would like to overlay the same concepts with job fulfillment or life fulfillment, possibly a satiety of job."
That's not unreasonable. As I pointed out in Part VIII of the original article series which led to this presentation:
- Any time we experience pleasure—any time we “like” something—that’s hedonic impact. (And it doesn’t require conscious appreciation of the fact.)
- Any experience we “like” is capable of producing a “want” for more—incentive salience.
Organizing the refrigerator. Petting a dog. A long shower after hard physical work. Greeting a friend or a lover. Being complimented. Successfully finishing a long, difficult task. Seeing wildlife outside your window. It doesn’t matter whether that pleasure is from a physical thrill, positive social interaction, the satisfaction of a job well done, or direct chemical stimulation...
People want some amount of positive experiences -- hedonic impact -- in their life. And while the concept that food has an intrinsic property called "reward" is obviously bankrupt, it's plausible that a difficult life, low in rewarding experiences, makes one more vulnerable to overconsuming whatever foods they subjectively find to have high hedonic impact, coupled with low nutritional value that does not produce satiation or satiety.
Bea:
"I was really interested in all the PS/RS hacking going on. But RN has been at it for about a year and only brought his post # down 10 points and only with certain foods. Still in the damaging range. Sometimes you have to accept the damage done and adjust."
As I mentioned above, that's the most anyone is getting from RS...and it's about what people get from vinegar in controlled studies. I agree that there's a component of denial going on: carbs taste really darn good -- particularly if your metabolic flexibility is poor and you've got high obligate demand for them at rest.
I like Paul Jaminet's argument that carbs were probably rare in evolutionary time because we don't really have an "off switch" for their consumption, whereas we very much have an "off switch" for meat. Finding a bit of starch stuck in a dead guy's teeth only proves that they chewed on a few plants in the days before they died -- meanwhile, one must overlook the giant piles of stone scrapers and cutmarked animal bones found nearby.
v:
As for myself, I don't get concerned about post-prandial numbers of 140 or less, and I don't yet see any evidence that they're harmful for healthy people.
But then again, I am a slim, healthy person who has never been fat or had (to my knowledge) glycemic control issues. Someone with a history of T2D or insulin resistance should probably be more cautious.
Bea:
I will still take a small amount of PS (1 tbs) occasionally, because it's like a sleeping pill. However, if I take it consistently for several days, that effect wears off, and it seems to have bad effects on my mood. I believe this to be serotonin excess, though that's just plausible speculation. (Note: no less plausible than most of what's written as if it were "fact" about this stuff.)
As I've said elsewhere:
Yes, you can certainly experiment with the potato starch hack, because it's cheap and easy: I did, too! But don't be surprised if it makes you fart, makes you fat, destroys your motivation (too much serotonin is just as bad as too little), stops working after days or weeks, or does nothing at all: these results have all been reported. The flip side of "more gut bugs than cells in your body" is that the response of your gut biome to dietary changes is at least as individual, possibly more, than the response of your body to dietary changes.
"J.S doesn't flip flop with the latest fads."
Thank you for noticing! Humans have survived for millions of years without the benefit of the latest dietary rumors: I figure I can somehow survive for a few months more, or even a year or two, until I figure out whether there's anything substantial to them.
And no, anonymous blog comments from someone who calls themselves "DuckDodger", making completely unsubstantiated claims that all of Dr. Bernstein's patients are dying of autoimmune disease, are not sufficient evidence on which to base any sane argument.
v:
AFAIK, no one is sure exactly how RS -- or vinegar, for that matter -- improves BG numbers.
JS
4:24 pm
JS
Very interesting about the vinegar. My new found delight is a cold vege medley with 2 tbsp of acv. and topped with some raw cashews. So convenient just cook for the week and eat cold out of the fridge. Glad to have found your site. Where sanity is still alive and well. Could care less what RN does but to tell people to Carb up to 200 grams and quit checking is crazy town. I know you like PHD but as I said on another site where someone started giving me the "Safe Starch" speech. That I must have unresolved issues if I can't consume the "Safe Starch". It's starting to sound like Paul Jaminet has landed in his mother ship and is taking you away to a planet where all the starches are only "Safe". It's sounding like brainwashing. Its STARCH. He can't declare it safe for all. Who gave him that power. And thank you for the duckdodger comment. Please! If this is what a glucose deficit state feels like. Bring it on!
Bea:
It's important to understand the context of Paul's concept of "safe starches".
Most starches in the modern diet come from grains, and are accompanied by a substantial load of antinutrients that disrupt either digestion, absorption, or some other biological process in our bodies. Paul's concept of "safe starches" refers to starch sources that are either very low in antinutrients, or can be easily processed to remove them (e.g. cassava), and therefore are not intrinsically biologically disruptive to consume.
From the original Perfect Health Diet, page 154: "Starchy foods, attractive to insects and herbivores due to their calorie content, often generate toxins. However, some -- the ones we call "safe starches" -- become nearly toxin-free after proper preparation."
However, if you are insulin resistant, and your blood sugar consequently spikes to 150 after a small breakfast (let alone a large meal), starches are not "safe" for you even if they contain no antinutrients!
Furthermore, I agree that advising diabetics to eat 200g+ of starch per day and not check their meters is dangerous and irresponsible.
JS
5:23 pm
bea, i will be headed off to spend more time at the forum tudiabetes. it was nice talking to you, and i will pop back in here occasionally to see what js puts out. thx js!
9:41 am
I very much like individual replies, as it makes understanding your response to other peoples questions much easier as their is no loss of context where I have to search back to see the question.
WalterB:
It's easier to track individual replies, but it's harder to reply to a collective conversation. I'm still trying to decide how to proceed going forward.
JS
9:25 am
I'm glad you've given us the text to your presentation, J. In the book The Stone Age Diet, the author said that it's because of hunger we have restaurants. But it's because of appetite, restaurants have menus. (paraphrased)
I do have a problem with you posting pictures of Oreos, however. 😉 It always reminds me of the 'goood old days' when I would sit down with a bag of sandwich cream cookies and a glass of milk… I just wish I had used a BG meter back then.
Speaking of which, V's comments are quite good. It doesn't matter which health guru says what. Always do testing and use critical thinking skills. And be careful of personal biases. If all we ever do is search for that which confirms our beliefs, then we're likely to go through life with blinders on.
On the matter (in the comments above) of diabetes and insulin resistance, I am reminded of an observation made by Peter at Hyperlipid: Weight gain is a protection against elevated blood glucose because it indicates that at least the lipid storage cells are still insulin sensitive. The pathology comes when even the fat cells become insulin resistant (on a standard diet). Woe be unto the person who becomes insulin resistant in all tissues while still thin. The thin diabetics often have little clue that major damage is being done. The flip side for low carbers is physiological insulin resistance, which is a necessary adaptation to preserve glucose.
I've been testing my BG during the past month and it can vary between 70 and 120 depending on what I've eaten. The last few days have been 'zero carb' days, and this morning's BG was 80. This is physiological IR at work. If I had that bag of Oreos with some milk, I would probably see something like 180-200, two hours post prandial. Now someone living on a starch-based diet could become very insulin sensitive, and I believe that this is how McDougall's diet works for some people. Personally, I'm not convinced that this is optimal, and I know that low fat diets don't agree with my personality.
This ability to turn insulin sensitivity on and off is probably what PHD (safe starches) counts on, but it may not be possible for many people with damaged metabolisms. And it may be that some people who have been on a ketogenic diet for a while may recover metabolic flexibility to a degree, at least compared to the damaged state that the standard American diet put them in, and be able to reintroduce carbohydrate to some extent.
Dave:
I like that Voegtlin quote! And yes, blithely following the advice of some random person on the Internet is usually not a good idea, even if they have a degree in a theoretically-related field. (I think back to my own education, and how little it meant once I had a few years of real-world work experience...)
Yes, I invite my readers to test, verify, and double-check my work! I'm not in this to promote myself or the career of my (nonexistent) employer. I'm in this to increase my own understanding, and perhaps that of my readers.
Re: Petro, the key observation is "Getting fat is bad when you stop." Fat tissue accumulation is your body's defense against unmetabolizable energy. Metabolic damage occurs when your fat cells are no longer able to dispose of the surplus.
And the key observation about diabetic diets is this: All foods cure diabetes, so long as you don't eat very much of them. You can "cure" Type 2 Diabetes with that silly macrobiotic diet as long as you're losing several pounds a week...but just as the graphs show, once weight loss slows down (let alone stops), your insulin and blood sugar start climbing back up.
That's because insulin sensitivity isn't a magical property: it's your cells saying "I can metabolize glucose at this time, so I'll express some GLUT4s."
JS
2:26 pm
thanks for kind words, dave. another wrinkle. some diabetics do not qualify as type 1, they still produce some insulin, just not at normal levels. sugar just likes to hang out in my veins for a while.
7:52 pm
This is incredibly interesting. I've been much more aware of my diet and exercise since I moved to Florida and started living on my own. I'm really going to keep this article in mind next time I have a craving for something that have 0 nutritional value to my body.
Most Users Ever Online: 183
Currently Online:
5 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1763
Members: 5338
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 2
Topics: 250
Posts: 7101
Newest Members:
EddieIcofe, RobertSteld, JaneFog, JamNub, Jamesunelo, CarmelajemAdministrators: J. Stanton: 2045
