There used to be a scheme in towns in the UK whereby police would hand out lollipops to people leaving clubs. Many clubs kick out at the same time (2am), mixing large numbers of drunken people in a small area. Drinking means blood sugar levels drop, which means people get hungry and competitive, and the end result is more often than not a large and violent brawl in the nearest kebab shop. The reasons given for the lollipops were threefold: 1) it helps to return their blood sugar levels, reducing stress; 2) it gives them something to do with their hands (unwrap the lollipop, hold it), other than smashing them into the nearest face; 3) it keeps the noise levels down for the sake of the residents in the area, as your are less likely to yak incessantly at high volume with a delicious ball of sugar in your gob. I'm not sure whether they still have this scheme (maybe there are legal risks? choking? diabetes?) but for a while it existed in several trouble spots in the country.
Well I didn't know the provenance of the writers, but I'd consider the lollipop article mention as some form of corroboration.
I don't care if it saves a thousand drunk/not-drunk women or Eddie Izzard breaking their ankles, it simply is not the job of the police. I much prefer the way things are done in the States, for example in Des Moines, Iowa there's the party bus that takes pub-goers bar-hopping. It's not a cop-initiative.
Oh, hang on, I do care about Eddie Izzard after all!
true, though there's a difference between candy sugar and whole wheat sugar. eating a slice of whole wheat bread versus a lollipop will probably provide the same benefit (if not better, being more sustained) without the desire to consume more and convert the sucrose directly to fat.
(afaik. i'm kind of speaking off of intuition here.)
You might try caffeine as a replacement for sugar. Some of my reading claims that part of the effect of caffeine is from its boosting blood sugar levels.
Somewhere I read that around the beginning of last century they used to prescribe heroin to get people off morphin addiction. Sure it works, but it defeats the purpose.
Caffeine has most averse effects of sugar, plus increased rebound effect, tolerance, and addiction.
Also, if you had a sugar crave to start with, caffeine will only augment it.
I suggest first introducing high fiber foods in your diet (mainly vegetables), and start using fruit to get your sugar fixes. Fiber will help stabilize your sugar levels, taking you out of the glucose roller coaster and the insulin/glucose vicious cycle. Then it will be easier to gradually reduce your intake of sweets.
I've read Chromium supplements help with this stabilization, but I've tried it and I couldn't tell for sure.
Professor Martin Wiseman, Medical and Scientific Advisor for World Cancer Research Fund, gives his top five tips on How To Maintain Healthy Blood Sugar Levels: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67006.php
1. Lift. Muscle suck up glucose, improve (long term) sensitivity.
2. Eat fat/protein with sugary foods. Helps blunt the effect. [1]
3. Don't eat too many carbs. Even the AHA recommends below 60% because of other negatives. [2]
4. Eat the right carb sources. Starchy tubers are best: potatoes, yam/sweet potatoes, cassava and rice. And fruits like bananas, plantains and grapefruit.
5. Eat high GI foods unless your blood sugar is chronically elevated. The body likes glucose, particularly the brain. If your active and sensitive, you'll quickly use it for energy. When you're insensitive you need to cut back.
Isn't the claim of the parent article that _lower_ blood glucose and insulin levels decrease self control? So wouldn't all of those work in the wrong direction?
Eating too much or only carbs will spike your blood glucose and insulin production. After the carbs are gone your glucose level starts to decline pretty fast since there is too much insulin.
It's better to eat more fat/protein and keep the glucose levels more stable than ride a rollercoaster.
Yes it's counterintuitive. Chronically high insulin (insensitivity) is bad. But chronically low is bad also. Many (probably most) people have the former. So in the blood they have free floating insulin chasing nonexistent glucose, screwing their metabolism.
I recommended fewer carbs (and other measures) would lead to higher sensitivity; better blood glucose control.
He did offer solutions to lower blood sugar, but he also provided solutions to increase blood sugar sensitivity and told you to eat much better carbs. Tubers, Rice, etc etc.
The GI is narrow we need a holistic view of food. What we're really after is long term glucose/insulin sensitivity. The GI too focused on one aspect of food. We know of cultures (e.g Chinese, Kitavans) who thrive on high GI foods [1]. I don't follow the glycemic index much.
That said, it is relevant. Eating low GI and low carb generally is good for the obese and overweight. It'll do wonders against prediabetes and metabolic syndrome because they're insulin insensitive.
I think 'ramen profitable' is a great pithy phrase, but to work long hours effectively (and stay healthy) it always struck me as a false economy to live on rice & beans. Good to see some data on the topic.
I can't figure out if you're saying your expectations were confirmed or undermined.
I don't know much about nutrition, but I was under the impression that noodles, rice, and beans are all high in starch, which the body turns into significant amounts of glucose in a healthy way (sustained blood glucose over time, instead of short spikes like with simple sugars). I'm sure surviving on Ramen is bad for you, but as far as this article is concerned, it will help you have self-control.
I always thought the long-term blood glucose levels were the reason that runners traditionally have a spaghetti dinner the night before a big race. Am I confused, or is there just bad science behind this practice?
Bad science, I'm afraid. Or rather, junk science, since science itself is simply unbiased experimentation and hypthosesis-testing.
In the absence of carbo-loading there is no lactic acid "wall" and hence no sainted feeling. Perhaps that's why the runners magazines don't talk about it ;-)
What did all those kenyan runners eat for fifteen years before blowing past their fellow marathoners? Did they drink beer and carbo-load on pasta the night before?
In other news, running barefoot is better than trainers, omega-6 fats are more susceptible to free-radical damage than lard, essential fatty acids doesn't mean what you think, nor does "omnivore", margarine and omega-3 butter spreads kill, &c. &c.
Omega-9 is more susceptible to free-radical damage, that's just basic chemistry. Lipid hypothesis is well worth looking up, link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-9_fatty_acid -- the lipid hypothesis is what most people take to be gospel truth, despite, for example, well known bad-science (throwing out non-conforming data) shenanigans on the part of Keys. (A summary forthcoming in a "popular" movie called fathead).
If you are more interested, Mary Enig is worth looking up, she has an in-depth explanation of competing n-3 and n-6 pathways that is touched upon here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid
Lastly Gary Taubes is a great guide to the debate.
Omnivore is descriptive, not prescriptive.
For the rest, try going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and searching for MRFIT, or googling Rotterdam study or the Lyon study. I believe paper summaries are not enough and that one needs to read the study, understand the methodology etc.
e.g. http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/11/3100 is a link that turns up. They found countervailing evidence, basically, that fat-intake was inversely associated with CHD (bets are on fat-soluble vitamins like K2 being the agents).
This whole thing is very OT for HN, so I'll stop here, if you don't mind. cheers.
I'm unsure of what you mean with "long term glucose levels". But runners carb-load. And bodybuilders eat "spikey" carbs after lifting to get the best recovery.
While not the greatest thing to do (carbo-load), they burn it off so it doesn't matter much.
Muscles have their own glycogen (polymerized glucose) reserves, independant of blood glucose, and impossible to mobilize directly for anything but muscular activity.
I'm not sure, but I think that's the point of these high carb meals.
If I'not mistaken, they also eat pasta for breakfast, delaying the use of these reserves.
Pasta are easy to eat in large quantities, and require little energy to digest.
Replying to several others here, including this one. (Short version: use fat and starchy/tuberous food to have sustainable/stable blood sugar levels).
There is no way
to turn any carbohydrate into "significant amounts of glucose in a
healthy way" unless you are talking about digestion or metabolism of
fat.
One slice of "whole wheat" bread is worse for you than a teaspoon of
sugar (Glycemic load versus Glycemic index), not to mention the wheat
germ agglutinin and other insulin/hormone mimetics that come with the
bread, nor the gut-tearing action of insoluble fiber.
Glycogen is touted as being your energy source, but it is not. How
long can your muscles function on stored glycogen? Do you think humans
would have survived (on an evolutionary timescale) if they'd had to
eat pasta every 6 hours?
In any case, any carbohydrate/starch is converted to a fatty
substance, stored subcutaneously and used as fuel in lean times (even
rabbits and cows do this via rumen fermentation). If you keep eating
carbohydrates, you turn on the "storage-mode" and accumulate
fat. Repeated turning on of storage mode robs your body of
insulin-sensitivity. You become a non-symptomatic diabetic (if you're
lucky you'll skip Type 2 diabetes and go straight to Type 3 --
a.k.a. Alzheimer's disease).
Lastly, your body can easily convert (with hardly any usage of
vitamins and other trace elements) fat into glucose (this process is
done by the liver and is called gluconeogenesis). In contrast,
digesting/utilizing carbohydrate has a high requirement in terms of
vitamins etc., and even if it didn't, eating wheat blocks the
absorption of most of these elements (especially zinc, vitamin C and
calcium).
Your liver does gluconeogenesis because a very few organs in your body
(primarily some regions of the brain) need glucose to function. The
rest work just fine on free fatty acids in your blood (aka
lipids/cholesterol/ketones). In contrast, sugar causes a rise in
triglycerides, which are the molecules used to transport sugar.
While I don't have references right now, most of this can be found
substantiated on pubmed/medline. An easily digestible summary can be
found at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
And a disclaimer: a year ago I would have thought all this very
kooky. It is not. I think the news.yc folk can "handle the truth", as
it were, and so I've written this comment. I hope it helps
someone. If you're of an experimentalist bent, you can try it for yourself, it takes less than 2 weeks to adapt.
Yesterday I was on a 24-hour intermittent fast (I didn't expect it to
get so long, I just wasn't hungry) and I was programming no worse at
the end of it ;-) in fact, I'd say that free of sugar-highs I now
program much better and can concentrate more consistently. That implies more self-control, does it not? YMMV.
As I've pointed out before on this site, the people who get the largest ratio of their food from carbohydrates live longer, weigh less and have fewer cardiovascular problems than those who eat more proteins and fats.
It doesn't matter if you're looking at wealthy countries (Japan vs the US), developing countries (China vs Mexico) or poor countries (Kenya vs Guatemala). In each case, the people getting 75% + of their diets from complex carbohydrates are much better off than those who eat a more animal-based diet.
The China study was certainly interesting, far greater caloric intake (and output, presumably), but more than the diversity of plant food I found the lack of processed food very interesting. Processed food implies omega-6 fats in great quantity, hexane/heat-processed oils, soybean and wheat as food substrates, and artificial flavorings (aka soy isoflavones).
The China study was interesting. The rice-eating south and wheat-eating north did about equally well, but the meat-eating upper class did not.
As for that link about Japan, it contains a pretty serious error. My guess is that the authors may have confused the caloric density of dry rice vs prepared rice.
Though fish intake has been pretty stable and the intake of rice has drastically declined in the past generation, people in Japan still get several times more calories from rice than from fish. It's also worth pointing out that as meat consumption has gone up, so have the rates lifestyle diseases. I've lived most my adult life in Taiwan, and the same thing is happening here.
>"there were a number of changes in the Japanese food supply: in 1961, 90% of the caloric supply per capita per day consisted of 90% vegetable products, and 10% animal products. In 2002, the ratio changed to 79% vegetable products, and 21% animal products. Rice appears to have given way to other grains (such as wheat) as well as increased intake in meat products. However, fish products appear to have maintained their standing as a constant in the Japanese food supply.
While the daily total calorie supply increased through much of the 1960s, it then stabilized, and then rose again in the 1980s. The supply of calories from rice declined from over to 1000 calories per capita in the early 1960s, and then declined to 618 calories per person. Calories from fish rose, and then largely stabilized. Fish accounted for just over 173 calories of per capita calorie supply in 2002, rising from 112 calories per capita in 1961."
http://www.japanreview.net/essays_fish_and_rice.htm
My take on it is that we'd all be healthier if we were eating as if we were on WWII-era rations, but few people have the will power to live like that voluntarily. It's much easier to try to convince ourselves we need to eat in a way few of our ancestors could have afforded to.
You sound down on carbohydrate-heavy diets--So, is your recommendation an isocaloric diet, a ketogenic diet, or eating only when you actually feel hungry, and only enough to assuage the hunger?
Carb-diets are not bad per se. Western ones certainly are, as evidenced by Dr. Weston Price, Vilhjalmur Stefansson &c. In my own experience, daily arizona green teas and mochas add up, and are loaded with sugar. So is food at every restaurant, from Denny's to the poshest, including steak.
>So, is your recommendation an isocaloric diet, a ketogenic diet, or eating only when you actually feel hungry, and only enough to assuage the hunger?
Others are better qualified to make recommendations: Dr. Eades and Stephan at wholehealthsource.
My protocol: no omega-6, eat 1/day within 5 hour period, eat if hungry, eat till full, overeat if I feel like it [0]. No wheat at all[1], limit sugar to once/wk.
I est. 1.5-2.5 kcal/meal, but because of tabata/kettle-bells etc. my calorie needs are quite a bit higher, so I'll punt and call it iso-caloric.
It is ketogenic, only because I prefer to eat coppa, proscuitto, butter, cream, yogurt, eggs and cheese, rather than spend time to bake sourdough, soak oats etc. Sugar (honey) and carbs (mostly sauerkraut) 1/wk.
I started intermittent fasting based on an article by Dr. Eades, and stuck with it only because it was really easy to do, and lets me program pretty much from 7am to 8pm (a single meal saves time as well as assoc. post-prandial sleepiness). Also Frederick Burnham-Russell[2] is a big hero of mine, and he IF-ed his way through awesomeness.
Other than the above, I don't consider it a diet in the "dieter" sense at all, although it is very Banting[3].
I haven't read the entire paper yet, but the summary has me downloading the PDF.
I've definitely noticed a relationship like this in my own behavior, and desired ways to manage it effectively. It will be interesting to see if the complete text sheds light on this and provides tools to do so.
I had previously posted skepticism at the article. I have reread it more thoroughly and thought about it at length, and now I feel that it could be highly accurate and applicable. The research is important.
Of course, that depends on what you eat when you eat out. If you eat a bunch of noodles, rice, or potatoes, the starches will give you a solid boost of blood glucose over a number of hours.
I'm a type 1 diabetic. My when my glueclose levels are low from taking too much insulin and/or not eating enough I can certainly feel the effects in not being able to concentrate, being iritable, and often confused.
But when my blood gluclose levels are elevated it does not necessarily mean there is an abundance of sugar to serve as fuel for my mind. It just means I have eaten too much food for my injected insulin to counteract. My body will not automatically respond by producing more insulin and a subsequent dip in blood sugar. If I do nothing, my blood sugars will stay higher than is healthy for the rest of my bodily functions but as far as self control is concerned my blood gluclose will stay in a range that is constantly providing enough fuel for optimal self control.
From the perspective of self control, I can have higher blood gluclose levels without the negative lash-back normal insulin producing people get when their bodies react by producing more insulin. So... In this case... Being diabetic is an advantage?