Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

8

As a follow-up to the recent question about Guyenet's views, I am curious about Namby Pamby's insight into the difference in the BG spiking duration of safe starches as opposed to gluten grains and sugar.

Does anyone have a chart from their own records or from a scientific study comparing the length of time BG is raised for different sources of carbohydrate? For example, is rice a safe starch by this definition? Does pairing the carbohydrate with fat or protein effect them all in the same way? It would be interesting to have another quantitative measure besides toxin load for what constitutes a safe starch.

Further, it sounded from Namby Pamby's comments that in his/her experience the BG levels that the safe starches induce are more rapidly and profoundly reduced. Does this imply their ingestion is more likely to be followed by hypoglycemic periods? This would seem to be a disadvantage.

flag	asked Jul 7 2011 at 8:59 Ambimorph 19.6k●18●66

3

I think the answer also needs to take into account impact on the liver - a lower GI carb may have more fructose, and may be having negative impacts on health even though its effects on blood glucose seem benign. – esque Jul 7 2011 at 12:39

Good point esque. There are many ways in which carbs are not a unified animal. – Ambimorph Jul 7 2011 at 13:26

Chris and I are going to do an experiment when we have time. – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Jul 7 2011 at 15:41

i think it would be determining the glycemic index vs the glycemic load... one will have prolonged elevation one wont, i think – Mallory Jul 7 2011 at 16:42

Ambimorph, in a couple of Dr. Richard Bernstein's internet broadcasts, he has said that how quickly the blood glucose level rises, and how high, how long it takes to go down, and how low, depends on the person, as well as the type of carb. There isn't a chart of exact amounts on his websites or in his books, but he might have one he would send you. Name: Richard K. Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.E., F.A.C.N, F.A.C.C.W.S Phone: 914 - 698 - 7525 Hours: Mon-Thurs 9:30 AM - 2:30 PM, Eastern USA Time Fax: 914 - 698 - 7523 Address: 1160 Graecon Point Road Mamaroneck, NY 10543 – PaleoGran Jul 7 2011 at 18:11

show 2 more comments

GeishaGirl · Answer 1 · 2011-07-07 11:44:47Z UTC

I can give you what I know as a type 1 diabetic because I'm constantly testing my sugar. And you're going to hate the answer.

"It depends."

Seriously -- 50g of wheat will send my sugar soaring and leave it there for HOURS, unable to come down no matter how much insulin I give myself. 50g of rice will send me up there, but I can force it down. Surprisingly, 50g of flat-out candy will cause a blip on the blood sugar radar.

And those numbers are contingent on whether or not I've exercised that day. And how much. And whether or not I slept well, or got a full night's sleep. (For the record -- bad quality sleep makes my sugars go up easier and be harder to control -- quality sleep, but less of it (less than 6 hours) makes them a little difficult, and only on good quality sleep, 7+ hours, are my sugars reasonable. And if I sleep more than 10 hours withotu being sick, I'm in trouble!)

Your body is unique. The only way to know how you handle particular carbs, and for how long, is to invest in a blood testing meter and test yourself right before you eat, and at the 1 and 2 hour marks. And maybe add in 3 hours just to make sure you don't dip low afterwards for some reason.

Oh, and if you pair starch with fat, test at 5 and 6 hours as well, because fat slows the absorption rate of the carbs and you have to adjust for it. (Seen when I used to eat pizza --1 and 2 hours were fine.... 6 hours later.....)

luckybastard · Answer 2 · 2011-07-07 15:23:30Z UTC

i think if we back up and look at it from "there's no such thing as a macronutrient" view of kurt harris, then things get a little clearer. once i started looking at carbs as glucose and fructose instead of just "carbs" and looked at glucose as being more benign and being a bit more suspicious of frutose, my choices became inherently better and my health improved.

having said that, if you're already type 2 diabetic then glucose is possibly no longer benign- however, it was the fructose that got you there. if you are obese, then you quite possibly need to do some metabolic rehab and reteaching yourself how to handle glucose better- probably by instituting a bit of strenght training and strategic starch refeeds.

from the studies i've seen, the relationship between leptin and insulin is one where leptin trumps all. however, for the layperson who is just trying to lose weight, that doesn't even matter being that the process for reestablishing the sensitivity in both hormones are damn near identical. i didn't know anything about leptin when i lost my weight but the process i went through to regain insulin sensitivity is the same i would tell someone to combat leptin sensitivity issues.

cliff · Answer 3 · 2011-07-07 12:29:45Z UTC

1

Like the person above said you're unique. No one knows how your insulin will react to different stimulus.

A healthy person should be able to eat all the above carbs and spike insulin without going hypoglycemic.

Insulin spikes make healthy people satiated, insulin spikes in glucose deranged people can lead to hypoglycemia since the insulin won't work than more will pump out than it will work too good making blood glucose drop too low which leads to hunger, weight gain, even more metabolic disturbances.

answered Jul 7 2011 at 12:29

cliff
13.4k●1●9●28

2

very well summarized answer. I wish I had something to add but you've nailed it, Cliff. Default healthy humans can eat starch with no ill-effects. Metabolically damaged people are the exception to the rule, and may have issues with starch-consumption. The issue lies not with the carbohydrate but with the sick individual. Analyzing the starch and the insulin over analyzing the derangement of the individual is mistaking cause and effect. – ben61820 Jul 7 2011 at 12:34

I know there is individual variation, and I know what the theoretical answer among paleos is. I want hard data. – Ambimorph Jul 7 2011 at 13:28

1

Healthy people can tolerate this for sure...but the real issue is that our country and doctors offices are stuffed with people who can't do these things. That is why we need to know the context of the issue. Moreover, is there a time when someone who is normal keeps doing the same things and then something radically changes as they age or exercise too aggressively? The answer is yes. I have seen too many people who think they are fit only to find out they are metabolically problematic. The only hard data I know of ambi is all on diabetics. You clearly want it on normal folks. Tough call – The Quilt Jul 7 2011 at 15:11

Yeah, good point, Quilt. We don't always take an interest in the healthy. – Ambimorph Jul 8 2011 at 2:32

I think most of us on this site do. Where is there cven evidence that says people can;t eat carbs once they become healthy or even to help them in there journey to become healthier? Many people use carbohydrate rich diets to cure all sorts of ailements so I don;t really get the problem?? What is the mechanism that suddenly causes tubers and fruit to become problematic? You have seen people who follow a high starch paleo diet become metabolically damaged?? You do realize its entirley possible to cure diabetes on extremly high carb diets ala ornish? – cliff Jul 8 2011 at 11:29

Postprandial vs. Fasting Insulin: comparing carbohydrate sources

3 Answers