Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

8

4

I've recently asked a related question, and I don't mean to belabor the point, but I am curious to dive into this topic.

On the recent PH question (link) about the Taubes live Q&A on huffpo, I saw this response to a question about Taubes' purposes for LC and insulin management:

"The whole point of the low carb diet would be to reverse insulin resistance. Do you have some other mechanism by which you might accomplish this?"

My question is: Is this true? Is the whole point of LC to manage insulin? If yes, then that implies there are no benefits of LC for someone without any history of insulin problems. You can eat Paleo-ish (whole foods only, avoid gluten, fat okay, etc) but still not eat LC, true? If you present no insulin problems and are able to maintain good nutrition on high carb, then eating high carb should be okay? Potatoes, rice, veg, fruit.. all good, right?

Or am I wrong? I'm truly curious to hear what the community thinks. Cited sources appreciated.

flag	asked Apr 21 2011 at 18:44 BaleoNub 849●3●11

I would agree that if you present no insulin problems and are able to maintain good nutrition on high carb, then eating high carb should be okay: Potatoes, rice, veg, fruit. Yes, i eat them all with no problems. – ben61820 Apr 21 2011 at 18:47

2

I think Dr. Eades is one who believe ketosis does more than just manage insulin problems, though I can't say off the top of my head what the details are... autophagy, for instance? proteinpower.com/drmike – Gazelle Apr 21 2011 at 19:25

The Quilt · Answer 1 · 2011-04-21 19:48:38Z UTC

This is an iceberg question......but a good one. My profession treats the part of the iceberg they see......insulin resistance. But they never think about treating the root cause. That is leptin resistance. Much harder to do but it completely will reverse all insulin issues. Your point about paleo is this.......why do I low carb really? Is there a limit or boundary? Yes there is. If you metcon to death paleo dieting can actually degrade your performance. It wont kill you. But you wont be able to do some of the things a glycolytic high performer can.

It will however allow you to maintain significant muscle bulk and definition and in my opinion allow you to live longer because of its effects on telomeres. High glycolytic performers dont live long lives contrary to what people think. There is a biological reason and we are beginning to find out why now.

Oranges13 · Answer 2 · 2011-04-21 18:59:48Z UTC

Ketogenic diets were developed because of their efficiency at treating "untreatable" conditions, and the correlation to insulin resistance has come out of that research. Initially it's only purpose may have been to treat something, but now, considering what passes as "food"... its just a good idea to go with regardless.

Dexter · Answer 3 · 2011-04-21 19:47:12Z UTC

4

Anything one can do to lessen the load on the pancreas that secrets insulin the better.

All carbs are simply sugars strung together to look like carbs. Then in the gut, they are converted to sugar which off course the body sees and it secretes insulin out of the pancreas.

You do that day after day, year after year, and perhaps your pancreas will poop out and start not secreting enough insulin and voila, you are a diabetic type II.

Best advice, eat paleo and limit carbs and avoid wheat products and sugar and dairy...as dairy also contains sugars that need to be controlled by insulin.

http://www.heartscanblog.org/search?q=Insulin+secretagogue+

There are lots of people that think they can handle the excess carb/sugar load now...but will they be able to in their later years?

Only their telomeres know for sure.

edited Apr 21 2011 at 19:47

answered Apr 21 2011 at 19:21

Dexter
10.9k●1●12●31

	I agree with this, but also, other than startchy veggies, whole food carb sources(fruit), are typically a lot more expensive per pound, and a lot less energy/nutritionally dense compared to animal products. So, economically, meat and veggies make the most sense for me. – ryan Apr 21 2011 at 19:43
	And they don't spike your insulin to boot. – Dexter Apr 21 2011 at 19:48
	Unless I am mistaken, the "pooped out pancreas" theory has never been proven. – bsunde Apr 21 2011 at 21:31
	It is my understanding that eating neolithic foods like flour, cornstarch, sugar. etc can trigger an autoimmune response that over time attacks the mechanism of the pancreas to make Beta cells. It is a slow dimunition of the production of Beta cells down to the point the amount of insulin secreted is not enough to offset the rise in blood sugar. Of course, the AI response doesn't happen in everyone but I think I prefer to not overuse my pancreas. God knows I have abused my pancreas enough over the last 50 years with 40oz cokes. No more abuse for me. My mortality is slapping up aside my head – Dexter Apr 21 2011 at 23:26
	bsunde...any Type 2 who ,transitions over to Type 1 because they burned out their betas, is proof of the "pooped out pancreas" theory. That last statement defines means me and millions of other Type 2s who now must shoot insulin. How do we poop out our pancreas? Killing off betas with elevated blood sugar from too much carbs. Go ahead...at your own risk. I wish I had known then what I know now...now you do. – Andre Chimene Jul 9 2011 at 21:13

Travis Culp · Answer 4 · 2011-04-21 20:35:05Z UTC

I suppose that it's all relative and that one person's low carb is another's high carb. I eat more carbs than most here, and I feel great doing so. I'm currently in the midst of a plyometric leg workout and shoveling rice into my mouth between jump squat sets. I'll probably eat 300-something grams of carbs today, but on average I'm likely below the carb intake of the average person, and I'm definitely WAY below the fructose intake. The average American consumes something like 73g of fructose a day, which is ridiculous. I stay between 5-10g a day. I'm of the opinion that fructose restriction is far more important than carb restriction.

I also believe that insulin resistance can be corrected simply with a removal of fructose and a marked increase in activity, with weight lifting being far more effective than, say, only walking. If someone wasn't just prediabetic and actually had full blown type 2 diabetes, VLC would likely be a therapeutic technique, and I've certainly read accounts of it being completely reversed.

It just seems to me that most here could do quite well with much more starch than they think.

Jeff · Answer 5 · 2011-04-21 19:22:25Z UTC

There's also the debate of what "normal" blood glucose levels are. What the government recommendations suggest as 'ok' fasting levels (under 100 I believe?) and what other people suggest (under 80) would lead to different conclusions about pre-diabetes and insulin resistance.

But I agree that we shouldn't fear (good) carbs the way some people suggest.

Tim Rangitsch · Answer 6 · 2011-04-22 02:07:37Z UTC

LC is not necessarily Paleo, and Paleo is not necessarily LC. My Paleo is LC. Degradation of connective tissues, bone loss, eye health, neurological health and myriad issues are mitigated got me via Paleo LC. AGE formation is lessened. Immune issues, mood, sleep, community, family life all improves with Paleo living.

Melodie · Answer 7 · 2011-07-09 14:19:34Z UTC

Again, I think that it's best to go with what you're comfortable with. I think many people probably could do with more (safe) carbs than they think, provided fructose is low. I think for people with serious metabolic issues of course should go the ketogenic route, same with those with neurological issues. For me, I enjoy more on the ketogenic side of things. I feel good on it. Like Peter of Hyperlipid says: (not exact wording) I like to stay in mild ketosis or drift in and out of ketosis. Sounds comfy to me!

Enjoy!

What is the point of LC/Paleo?

7 Answers