In a message dated 1/17/2007 7:14:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

60's? That certainly brings into question the alleged effect of saturated
fat on raising fasting glucose, at least for some people, but isn't a FBG in
the 60's considered suboptimal (hypoglycemia)? Do you have a reference that
disputes the alleged claim by Dr. Bernstein that 70-85 is the optimal range
(I currently can't even find Bernstein himself mentioning the 70
figure--only the 85)? 
Fasting blood glucose varies for non-diabetics.  I do not have hypoglycemia 
and do not maintain mid 60s throughout the day -- nor do I experience wide 
blood sugar fluctuations.   Hypoglycemics get low bloods sugar because their sugar 
spikes too high and then drops too low -- symptoms like sweatiness, 
dizziness, nausea etc.    Bernstein mentions much of the target ranges to be maintained 
throughout the day (not just a single morning glucose test)  in the context 
of diabetics whose blood sugar can suddenly drop despite perfect diet and 
exercise -- hence if one is too low to begin with -- a sudden drop can be 
life-threatening.  In any event, I do not have diabetes nor the start of it if one 
believes the multi-hour glucose tolerance tests -- you drink sweek gunk and your 
blood is drawn repeatedly etc.   Also, the lab reference ranges are created 
from non-diabetics eating a mixed diet. One other factor to consider is how long 
a person fasts before the test -- some labs say no food after 9:00PM the 
previous day; others midnight.  Certainly if appointment scheduling requires one to 
fast over 14 hours versus 9 -- there may be a difference in fasting blood 
glucose.  For those worried about the beginnings of diabetes, I would say that 
fasting insulin and HA1C (measures average blood glucose over number of weaks)  
and triglyceride readings would be more valuable than relying on a fasting 
glucose test.  Also, buy a glucose meter and see how your sugar reacts after your 
meals and several hours later.  

Regarding saturated fat and Dr. Bernstein -- he does not recommend that 
diabetics purposely minimize it.  I also think that the results people get when 
switching to a paleo type regime or a low carb regime can vary depending upon a 
variety of factors ie age, severity of obesity and other health issues at the 
start of beginning a new way of eating.  Dr. Lutz (Life Without Bread) points 
out that frankly, for some people, the body reaches a point of no return.  Not 
all problems can be corrected through diet and exercise and some damage simply 
cannot be undone.  There may also be strong genetic predisposition and/or 
autoimmune components to diseases whose expression can be minimized through diet 
and exercise but not necessarily completely erradicated. Certainly, if one has 
been wallowing in saturated fat and not seeing the results they want or 
worsening -- by all means I think one should tweak their regime. But that to me 
doesn't prove that saturated fat is inherently good or bad.  I've posted on 
metabolic typing theory before and don't want to get too off topic -- but I feel 
that different metabolic types require different diets to thrive.  It explains 
why a skinless chicken breast with nuts or olive oil does not give me anywhere 
near the energy or feelings of wellbeing that I get from a bloody-rare, fatty 
lamb rib chop...It's also why I fiber rich whole grains trigger massive 
cravings or fatigue -- yet others find such food filling and energy 
giving...different metabolic strokes.