Why Fat is the Preferred Fuel for Human Metabolism

[resinate]

Quote from PO:

running_bare, what sugar level do you think is normal 1/2 hour after eating and 1 hour after. thanks.

I think sugar=all carbs argument didn't get much attention and reply on this thread.

Can anybody disprove these claims by running_bare:
1. all carbs, including complex carbs, increase blood sugar levels? to a different degree, but still by a lot, even brown rice, quinoa, millet, etc.
2. elevated blood sugar is bad for your health.

thanks for interesting discussion everybody.

I have read into this topic somewhat, but haven't bothered addressing the "high carb diet leads to diabetes" worry on this thread. It sounds logical on the face, but there is just about zero population data backing it. Asians, for example, eating rice centered diets have much lower rates of diabetes that most western populations.

Research points to intracellular fat as causing the progressive insulin dysfunction that running_bare is afraid carbs will cause.

quote from Dr. Neil Barnard:

Normally, insulin attaches to receptors on the cell’s surface amd signals the cell membrane to allow glucose to enter. However, if fat, called intramyocellular lipid, accumulates inside the cell, it interferes with insulin’s intracellular signalling process. Tiny organelles, called mitochondria, are supposed to burn fat, and their failure to keep up with the accumulating fat may be the origin of type 2 diabetes. Luckily, evidence shows that diet changes can reduce the amount of fat inside the cell.’

Source: http://www.saladmunchers.com/the-big-fat-truth-about-diabetes/

Lots of research and documentation on low fat, high carb diets curing and preventing, not causing diabetes here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47650838/barnard-vegan-and-diabetes

 

[PO]

Quote from resinate:

I have read into this topic somewhat, but haven't bothered addressing the "high carb diet leads to diabetes" worry on this thread. It sounds logical on the face, but there is just about zero population data backing it. Asians, for example, eating rice centered diets have much lower rates of diabetes that most western populations.

Research points to intracellular fat as causing the progressive insulin dysfunction that running_bare is afraid carbs will cause.

quote from Dr. Neil Barnard:

Normally, insulin attaches to receptors on the cell’s surface amd signals the cell membrane to allow glucose to enter. However, if fat, called intramyocellular lipid, accumulates inside the cell, it interferes with insulin’s intracellular signalling process. Tiny organelles, called mitochondria, are supposed to burn fat, and their failure to keep up with the accumulating fat may be the origin of type 2 diabetes. Luckily, evidence shows that diet changes can reduce the amount of fat inside the cell.’

Source: http://www.saladmunchers.com/the-big-fat-truth-about-diabetes/

Lots of research and documentation on low fat, high carb diets curing and preventing, not causing diabetes here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47650838/barnard-vegan-and-diabetes

I think the problem with most studies is that they don't differentiate fats. There are good fats and there are bad fats, but most people in US eat "bad" fats, highly processed, hydrogenated, etc. so eliminating them from the diet does show beneficial results.

Is there any population study that grass-fed butter and meat is bad for you?
Or not-hydroginated coconut oil?
Or Raw grass-fed milk?

I'd be interested to see these.

I think nutrition should be studied on a more granular level, then just all fats are bad. All meat is bad.

If anybody is interested to learn more about fats:
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/526-the-skinny-on-fats

As for asian population eating rice and having lower levels of diabetes then americans, it's because americans eat rice and then eat a slice of chocolate cake after it, and drink a glass of coke, so americans end up with much more calories in general, that doesn't prove carbs are safe.


Also, it's not just diabetes we are talking about, but other illnesses.

So let' me restate my questions:
1. Is elevated blood sugar even for some short amount of time like an hour or two bad for your health, meaning it reduces your life span?

2. Is your blood sugar much higher 1/2 hour or 1 hour after consuming a bowl of wholesome carbs, like brown rice, or some other "good" grains then after consuming a peace of fatty chicken or beef

thanks.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from PO:

I think the problem with most studies is that they don't differentiate fats. There are good fats and there are bad fats, but most people in US eat "bad" fats, highly processed, hydrogenated, etc. so eliminating them from the diet does show beneficial results.

Is there any population study that grass-fed butter and meat is bad for you?
Or not-hydroginated coconut oil?
Or Raw grass-fed milk?

I'd be interested to see these.

I think nutrition should be studied on a more granular level, then just all fats are bad. All meat is bad.

If anybody is interested to learn more about fats:
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/526-the-skinny-on-fats

As for asian population eating rice and having lower levels of diabetes then americans, it's because americans eat rice and then eat a slice of chocolate cake after it, and drink a glass of coke, so americans end up with much more calories in general, that doesn't prove carbs are safe.


Also, it's not just diabetes we are talking about, but other illnesses.

So let' me restate my questions:
1. Is elevated blood sugar even for some short amount of time like an hour or two bad for your health, meaning it reduces your life span?

2. Is your blood sugar much higher 1/2 hour or 1 hour after consuming a bowl of wholesome carbs, like brown rice, or some other "good" grains then after consuming a peace of fatty chicken or beef

thanks.

"All large populations of trim, healthy people, throughout verifiable human history, have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch"

Dr. John McDougall

 

[macho grande]

Quote from Free Thinker:

"All large populations of trim, healthy people, throughout verifiable human history, have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch"

Dr. John McDougall

Who died and made him omniscient?

 

[macho grande]

Quote from PO:


So let' me restate my questions:
1. Is elevated blood sugar even for some short amount of time like an hour or two bad for your health, meaning it reduces your life span?

2. Is your blood sugar much higher 1/2 hour or 1 hour after consuming a bowl of wholesome carbs, like brown rice, or some other "good" grains then after consuming a peace of fatty chicken or beef

thanks.

1) Check your A1C for level of glycation.

2) Glycemic response to food is highly variable and capricious depending on (among other things) how much of the food is eaten in a meal, how that food is prepared, what other foods are eaten in same meal (most everyone eats mixed meals rather than individual foods), amount of fiber (refined carbs much worse),; some "protein" foods will spike insulin more than "carb" foods. etc.

For these reasons and others, glycemic index is almost useless for a meal planning

 

[PO]

Quote from running_bare:


Denise Minger showing that the raw data of the chinese study doesn’t show what Campbell claims it shows.
http://rawfoodsos.com/category/china-study/
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/#comments

Ned Kock who has collaborated with Denise on the stats
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/search/label/China Study

Chris Masterjohn demonstrating brillantly that Campbell lies even about the results of his own studies (they don’t show what he claims they show)
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2...-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/

Dr.Eades himself had a take on it
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.

Here's one to chew on:
Wheat intake was strongly associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), the quintessential modern cardiovascular disease.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/

very interesting information, thanks for posting the links, everybody needs to read that before making their dietary decision. It's a lot of information, but worthwhile reading for the open minded.

 

[froluis]

Can somebody comment on beans and lectins. I have always eaten beans and now i am reading that beans are unhealthy because of the lectins.. Are they not destroyed during the cooking?

 

[bmwhendrix]

I'm a bit lost in this thread. However there was a chart I saw somewhere and have also read in a couple of places realated to total serum cholesterol levels in heart attack victims. Simply put, 2/3's of them had levels above 200, 1/3 had levels between 150 and 200, and below 150 it was very rare.

Given that, does it matter what the intake is, if the end results are lower total cholesterol? I'm just talking about heart attacks, not cancer, high blood pressure, etc.

So, someone tell me that a higher intake ratio of saturated fats to unsaturated fats does not increase total serum cholesterol.

or that a simple reduction in all fats does not lower total serum cholesterol levels

I would be thankful.

BMW

 

[Rehoboth]

Quote from froluis:

Can somebody comment on beans and lectins. I have always eaten beans and now i am reading that beans are unhealthy because of the lectins.. Are they not destroyed during the cooking?

If you soak and cook the beans you will diminish the level of lectins greatly.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from PO:

very interesting information, thanks for posting the links, everybody needs to read that before making their dietary decision. It's a lot of information, but worthwhile reading for the open minded.

if you fall for that line of bull open minded isnt what i would call it. gullible might be more accurate.