PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Adrienne Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:05:35 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
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. 

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?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2