Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 26 May 2004 12:15:17 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<003301c4431b$cf20ae60$e989be3f@hppav> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Paleogal wrote:
>>You mentioned about 2 weeks ago that your fasting
>>glucose levels are consistently in the 90's. Mine
>>were consistently in the 80's until I went off all
>>liquid oils and increased the saturated fat in my
>>diet. Now my fasting glucose levels are up in the
>>90's as well, confirmed after two separate tests.
>>
>>
>
>This is the same for me. When I lowered the sat fat in my diet my morning
>bg levels were in the 70's and low 80's so there's something to this.....
>With sat fat it was in the upper 80's. Surprisingly, beef gives a higher bg
>level than pork or chicken. Thats grass fed, don't know about
>commercial..... For some reason, fish is up there with beef. Any ideas on
>this? Oliva
>
>
The received view is that sat fat increases IR by altering cell
membranes. But skeptics say that this is a temporary effect that shows
up in short-term studies. For example, Wolfgang Lutz claims that after
months on a low-carb, high sat fat diet, insulin sensitivity actually
improves. So who knows? IR is also said to increase with age, one of
the "inevitable" changes that go with the aging process. I tend to be
highly skeptical of such claims, because much of what is considered
inevitable may simply be the common signs of metabolic difficulties
caused by wrong diet and sedentism. I have no clue why fish and beef
should result in higher BG scores, and I haven't really tested my own
response.
Yesterday morning, my BG was 96. I ate one meal yesterday: It was a
chicken pesto, with an olive oil base, and a generous helping of
kalamata olives. On the whole, it was a very oily meal. And that was
it for the day. I got to bed fairly early and slept well. This morning
my BG was 99.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|