Adrienne Smith:
> I am aware of Dr. Bernstein's views and those of others who believe 99
> is not
> an optimal BFG -- but differing minds and experts differ on this.
Yep, that was my point--not everyone agrees that 85-100 FBG is
"healthy"/optimal, with Dr. Bernstein, Todd and myself being some of the
minority who do not. What I consider "normal"/optimal for all human beings,
diabetic or otherwise, are the health data ranges found among traditional
hunter gatherer groups and human neonates. Those ranges could expand or
contract a little as new data is added, but my guess is there is enough data
on many of the stats to serve as pretty good indicators. If anyone has
information as to why the ranges used by labs based on averages of "healthy"
Americans on the SAD should be considered more optimal than the ranges of
people whose systems have not yet been hammered by inflammatory foods and
sedentary lifestyle, I'd love to hear it. I'm assuming that Dr. Bernstein's
suggested range is about the same as that of H-G's and neonates. That
assumption could be wrong, but Bernstein's explanation for the range, as
reported by Todd, sounds like a natural optimal range.
> I
> tend to
> agree with Dr. Bernstein within the context of diabetes -- but Mr.
> Stanley says
> he is not a diabetic and that his fasting glucose has been the same for
> years.
Stanley's simply saying that he is not a diabetic does not mean his FBG is
within an optimal range. Todd is trying to get his FBG down not because he
is a diabetic, but because his numbers have been above the optimal range.
Therefore, I still maintain that there is far too much missing
> information
> with Mr. Stanley's bloodwork to draw any firm conclusions without
> repeated
> fasting insulin and HBA1C to see what the blood glucose is averaging
> over a
> period of weeks
I think Todd's posts have explained rather well why Stanley's FBG #'s that
are consistently above the optimal range is not good, regardless of what
Stanley himself thinks. Sure, it would be good to know what his fasting
insulin and HBA1C are also, but we don't have that information. So we have
to go on what we have and Todd was simply responding to Stanley's comments
on Stanley's FBG.
> -- not just on a single blood draw day.
I think your assumption of a single blood draw may be incorrect. Todd can
correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed that when Todd was reporting
Stanley's FBG in the 90's it was based on a pattern of test results, not a
single blood draw.
> We also do not
> know how
> long he fasted before the blood draw.
We could imagine all sorts of excuses, but Stanley didn't make any of these
excuses, he just insisted that FBG in the 90's is not unhealthy. Todd, Dr.
Bernstein and I happen to be some of the minority of people who don't agree
with that assumption. My guess is that Dr. Cordain, Ray Audette, S. Boyd
Eaton and other Paleo experts would agree with us.
> I also think you are oversimplifying Dr. B's
> words. I
> have read his books and participated in one of his telephone conference
> calls
> (highly recommended!) -- he speaks of varying ranges and different
> ranges
> apply to different types of diabetes. For example Dr. B. gives
> slightly higher
> ranges for his Type 1s -- for those that don't have his books -- much
> info can
> be found on his website. He specifically mentions in a Q&A on his site
> that
> he generally targets FBG of 90 for insulin-dependent Type 1s.
I appreciate the additional info, but since you yourself said that Stanley
claims he is not diabetic, that particular range would seem to be irrelevant
in Stanley's case.
> He
> mentions that
> he assigns his patients a target FBG level -- I did not get the
> impression
> that it is a one size fits all approach.
And I hope I didn't give that impression either--I gave a range of data
which are considered optimal for humans, not a single target that is
achievable for every individual, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Todd
is trying to get into that range to try to optimize his health as best he
can. That range is a little rough on the edges and could change as data is
accumulated, but it is the best we have to go on currently. I wish we had
some H-G data here on FBG myself. If anyone has any, I hope they'll share it
with us.
> Also, targets for diabetics
> are not
> necessarily the same as for non-diabetics.
Yes, I think confusion occurred because the optimal ranges I quoted were not
meant to be interpreted as achievable short-term "targets" for diabetics.
They are what I said they are--optimal ranges--meaning that people who eat
biologically appropriate food and exercise their whole lives will tend to
fall into this range. Achieving this optimal range is a different matter.
> Example: Dr. B explains
> that too low
> a fasting glucose can be dangerous for DIABETICS because a few points
> of a
> drop could produce grave results.
Yes, not everyone whose systems have already been damaged will be able to
achieve the optimal range, and diabetics who ignore Dr. Bernstein's advice
by trying to take a shortcut straight into the optimal range are acting
unwisely, as you say. However, neither Bear Stanley nor Todd Moody claim to
be full-fledged diabetics, so your concern doesn't appear to apply to them,
if what they are saying is true. I don't see anyone making the case that you
are refuting.
> his website. Anyway, I would agree that if someone is truly
> concerned
> about their FBG -- they should get thoroughly checked out ie glucose
> tolerance
> test, fasting insulin, HBA1C...AND buy Dr. B's books.
I'm no expert in this, but my guess is that FBG may be a sufficient measure
for Todd to use if he is not experiencing any other symptoms of pre-diabetes
or insulin resistance, but the other measures couldn't hurt. Todd explained
that it is not feasible for him to get these other measures.
> ... Point is -- no physician or person
> should just
> rely on a purported "optimal" reference range to determine health
> status.
And no one has made the claim that the reference range for a single health
statistic is all one needs to rely on. Todd never said anything like that in
his past posts. He's just trying to optimize his health as best he can and
one of the figures he uses to measure his progress is FBG. He is just not
convinced that a NONdiabetic like himself should accept Stanley's claim that
FBG consistently in the 90's is good for a nondiabetic just because Stanley
says it is. And based on what you've written about Dr. Bernstein's views, it
would appear that Bernstein would agree with Todd that FBG in the 90's is
not within the optimal LONG-TERM target RANGE that he personally should
shoot for.
> I never said that only carbs contribute to insulin resistance.
And I didn't say that you said that. I was referring to the specific case of
Bear Stanley, who eats very little carbs but does eat cheese. I was
responding to something you wrote about Stanley and to Todd's previous
comment that started the discussion, which stated that he was surprised that
a meat-and-dairy eater like Stanley would have chronically high FBG. Here
again is my quote preceded by your quote that I was responding to, to
illustrate this:
------------------
Adrienne:
> I believe
> Mr. Stanley made that point on another forum - that his FBG is
> neither diabetic nor pre-diabetic. Also, perhaps the reference ranges
> should differ for someone following such a unique diet.
Phil:
> ... The point is that it's not just carbs that contribute to insulin
resistance and diabetes. The studies
> are showing that it's the *casein* protein (and perhaps other factors) in
dairy foods as well. This could
> easily explain why Stanley has higher FBG than is optimal, given that
cheese is one of his staple foods.
------------------
I hope that clears up the confusion. Sorry for not writing more clearly.
Adrienne:
> I think
> inactivity, genetics, excessive calories may all contribute as well.
I agree, though Bear Stanley didn't attribute his FBG levels to any of
these, according to what Todd reported.
Adrienne:
> Maybe dairy
> does in some people -- but Dr. Bernstein absolutely recommends full-
> fat dairy
> products so long as one counts the carbs in them.
That's too bad. Dr. Michael Eades has started to reconsider his advocacy of
dairy products (which he promoted in his books) given the latest evidence.
Perhaps Dr. Bernstein will reconsider as well, or maybe someone will come up
with effective arguments and studies to counter the recent research that
finds dairy to be unhealthful. The fact that the research on the negative
effects of multiple components of dairy products fits with the evolutionary
model gives it added credibility, in my view.
Adrienne:
> He, unlike Cordain,
> has
> specific experience treating actual patients with diabetes, insulin
> resistance,
> etc. over a number of years.
Yet Cordain likely agrees with Bernstein that FBG should optimally be lower
than the 90's in healthy adults. Also, Cordain is not the only scientist who
is finding evidence of a connection between dairy and insulin disorders, as
you will note if you look at the studies I cited in my earlier post.
> Also, Wolfgang Lutz MD who has treated
> thousands
> of patients - many diabetics -- also recommends full fat dairy
> products.
I agree that full fat dairy has been found in some studies to have less of a
negative effect on insulin phenomena than low fat dairy. [DOUBLE CHECK THIS]
I know there are many people who advocate dairy products, some rather
zealously. I happen to disagree with those people. There are also even more
people who advocate whole grains. I disagree with them as well (and more
strongly).
> Indeed, his book emphasizes the unique benefits of butter. Another
> example --
> Barry Groves' website contains all kinds of studies where type 2
> diabetics
> normalized on diets containing predominantly saturated fat with the
> inclusion of
> full fat dairy. Does this mean that dairy is a necessary or healthy
> food for
> everyone? Of course not - but neither does it mean that it's dangerous
> for
> everyone either.
Those studies didn't find a danger, I agree, but others did, and those other
studies fit better with the evolutionary theory of nutrition that is the
best model we currently have, so they are more plausible. Also, the studies
that Groves' cites compare a diet containing dairy to SAD. I believe the
Groves' diets are superior to SAD, so I am not surprised by the results and
do not see them as contradicting the studies that find deleterious effects
from dairy.
I agree with you completely however that no way can
> dairy be
> considered a paleolithic food. I also found it strange that Mr. Stanley
> would
> quote Stefansson's year-long experiment when Stefansson specifically
> requested
> that dairy and eggs NOT BE ALLOWED.
Yes, I also find that to be a major point re: Stefansson that is ignored or
minimized by other dairy advocates like Fallon and Enig.
> I also do not agree with Mr.
> Stanley's
> contention that his unique diet is that of a carnivore -- dairy is NOT
> meat/flesh
> in my view.
Quite correct.
> I think it's no accident that eggs and dairy always appear
> on
> lists of most allergenic foods.
Also true.
|
