On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:37:34 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Yes, and the insulin response will depend on the composition and
>quantity of the meal.  And even that gives only a rough
>indication.  Jenny Brand Miller has done some research on the
>actual "insulin index" of various foods.  This, as oppoed to
>insulin index, is what we are really interested in, and some of
>the results are surprising.  For instance, the insulin index of
>beef was measured to be higher than that of pasta.  I'll post the
>summary at the end of this note.

Protein and fat together with carbs,
both seem to increase the insulin response in length.
So the composition is important, that we have short
insulin peaks per day (necessary) and don't end in one gigantic insulin
elevation the whole day (the latter seems possible,
even common and i think can explain, that damage can occur to the glands).
If test results from various food compositions are available, it can give
us hints, how to avoid neverending insulin elevations.

You forgot to include your summary.. could you post it?

>> - Eat as much calories as possible in form of fat
>>   (e.g. 500 kcal as carbs for the brain needed anyway and 1800 kcal from
>>   fat).
>
>But the brain can adapt to less.  Again, see Lyle McDonald's
>comments at http://www.cyberpump.com/nutrimuscle/lyle007.html

Ok, I've read it and also Lyle's posting on the LC list which you
referenced to on your posting under the "40g..." heading.
I see, that Lyle downestimates my 80g computation to about 40g
(involving even higher maximum fat-fuel percentages in ketosis for the brain
as Dr.Walsh did - 73% as opposed to 40-60% ).

You already discussed about this, so I don't wat to get too much into
depth here.
I see, that you already had the idea to include 150g carbs (abt. 500kcal)
directly for the brain requirement. Lyle's arguments just tell that
it will end your ketosis, and that not all will be available to the brain,
because other tissues will also use the carbs preferentially.
Ok, but only in the time when insulin is up, this means only after a meal.
In glucagon times when blood sugar comes from the glycogen-reserves
(or neo..) only the brain dishes on it.
Out of thes,the 150g should have to be increased a bit, to equal out the
additional usage of other tissues after a meal. (~600kcal minimum then).

He mentiones, than then "less fat will be burnt"
(and that is what we want??). But i think it doesn't matter if energy is
burnt as fat or as carb. Unburnt fats or carbs will end as body fat anyway.

BTW ketosis doesn't mean (you may correct me soon)
that only now fat is used.
It is burnt as the main fuel *anyway* also without ketosis and in average
humans. But (smellable or detectable) ketone bodies are produced
if fat is burnt *together* with gluconeogenesis.
(very technical at http://www.zonehome.com/met/metlipid.htm
under header: "6. Ketone Body Production and Utilization" )

Fats are burnt all day long normally predominately because
"Approximately 180 grams of glucose are oxidized per day,
mostly by those tissues for which it is essential "
And this is only 720 kcal. The rest must be from fats, then.
So even prodominating carbs in the (average) diet are converted to fat
before burning(!).
IMO this is because of insufficient thiamin (and related vitamins)
available to burn them directely.

I think this also matches very well what Lyle writes on
*high* carb diets in you second reference:
>Overemphasis on the wrong types of carbs: we live in a carbohydrate crazy
>society. I read a lot of papers
>that say things like "Chinese and other cultures eat high carbohydrate
>diets all the time and don't gain fat,
>therefore carbs are not the culprit." Yeah, but they don't have fat free
>everything made out of sugar. Or more accurately, they don't eat it.
>
>There's a big difference in eating a diet of 60% carbs primarily from
>veggies and eating a diet of refined, sugary garbage.
Note: the latter lacks thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, ascorbate.

>> As may heavy thinking ;-) (joke intended)
>
>Always read Wittgenstein with a candy bar nearby. Wovon man nicht
>reden kann, davon muss man schweigen.
:-)
I like this Wittgenstein citation.
Among other things, it tells
that there *are* some things it is not possible to speak about.

Makes a whole new feeling to read some german words, also from Thomas.

Thomas, I haven't any reference how much energy the brain uses when
"heavily" active. The resting consume i read about was 25 watts.
(25*60*60*24 = 2160000 WattSeconds = kjoule per day) (=516kcal).
Probably Wittgenstein reading neads a lot more, seriously.

Amadeus S.