Adrienne Smith wrote:
> In a message dated 2/13/2007 10:36:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> Todd Moody
>   
>> metabolic effects of our diet.  I know that I was surprised to learn 
>> that Owsley "Bear" Stanley's FBG is 99 after 40+ years of a 
>> meat-only diet.
>>     
> 1) How relevant is FBG without knowing one's Fasting Insulin and HBA1C?  
> Also, despite the fact that many of us on this board believe that 99 is not ideal 
> -- it certainly is not considered diabetic or even pre-diabetic.  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. 
>   
FBG should be roughly correlated with HBa1c--probably a bit lower.  
Ideally, I'd want to monitor insulin levels directly, but this isn't 
something you can do at home.  I do think, however, that FBG is 
relevant.  According to Bernstein, whom I tend to regard as 
authoritative on these things, when BG goes above about 83 mg/dl, the 
pancreas begins to put out more insulin than baseline, which means that 
the pancreas "thinks" BG should be at 83 or below.  To my way of 
thinking, that fact is conclusive evidence that if FBG is above 83 or 
so, and one has functioning beta cells, then insulin levels are higher 
than they should be.  As for what's considered diabetic or pre-diabetic, 
that judgment is based on norms that Bernstein doesn't accept, and 
neither do I.  While this website, http://www.rajeun.net/glucose.html, 
is somewhat bombastic, it's consistent with Bernstein's observations, 
and I accept the general principles.
> 2) Any thoughts on whether excessive calories could cause a rise in FBG?? I'm 
> not sure how one would determine what is "excessive" -- because caloric needs 
> vary from person to person for a variety of reasons.  But I know that for 
> myself -- dairy products are a "trigger" food and it's easier for me to avoid 
> them than it is to eat small/reasonable portions.  (My hubby will eat 1-2 oz and 
> be satisfied -- I on the other hand could eat 8 oz and still want more... 
> weird.  Nuts are almost as bad for me...) So I am wondering if it's possible that 
> someone who is active and following a virtually zero carb diet such as Mr. 
> Stanley (only meat, eggs and dairy) -- could take in "excessive" calories in 
> terms of overall health yet remain slim.  I guess I'm beginning to believe that 
> just because a person can eat tons of food and not get fat doesn't mean it's a 
> good idea. I've been experimenting with intermittant fasting and some calorie 
> restriction and am amazed at how much extra food I've shoveled in over the 
> decades just because of habit  (ie it's noon, time to eat regardless of hunger; or 
> eating certain amounts just because I always have in the past regardless of 
> hunger cues) or boredom, to alleviate depression, as inappropriate reward and 
> because I could, without gaining weight -- not because of real need or hunger.  
>   Maybe in terms of food, "less is more" as we age. Thoughts?
>   

I'd bet the farm that calories do play a role in FBG.  It's coming up on 
a month since I started IF, with very low carbs, and my typical FBG has 
dropped below 90 for the first time ever.  I've been experimenting for 
years, and no diminution in carbs alone was able to yield this result; 
not even zero carbs.  I don't think my net caloric restriction is huge, 
since my weight loss is quite slow, but the effect on my FBG is 
unmistakable.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]