Adrienne Smith:
> 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 it is considered pre-diabetic by Dr. Bernstein. Todd Moody also
considers it problematic and he appears to have researched this topic
thoroughly.

> 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. 

That would be an easy copout for any diet--if your stats are suboptimal,
just increase the reference range because of your "unique diet." If a
carnivorous dieter could use that excuse then a vegetarian could as well.

For anyone who believes the evolutionary theory of nutrition has some basis,
the best health reference ranges for all humans are those of the traditional
hunter-gatherer groups and human neonates (infants to adolescants). Dr.
Bernstein found that a FBG range of 70-85 was optimal for his patients. I
don't know what the hunter-gatherer or neonate data is, but my guess is it
would be similar. Maybe Todd can provide some info on that.

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. 

All-animal-food diets are NOT the same as Paleo diets. Paleolithic people
did NOT eat significant amounts of dairy foods. Someone who eats meats,
organs, eggs and dairy foods is essentially eating a pastoral, rather than a
Paleolithic diet.