No one is irritated with you.
We know your pain.
You can begin by listing the fruit that do agree with you.
I'm pretty sure at least one of them will agree with you.
That's great, GS. I don't mean this as a complaint or a criticism, just as a request--if no one is irritated by my experiences with fruit and honey then maybe no one will mind if I ask that people not tell me repeatedly things like how fruits are natural, normal to eat, or tell me to restore my ability to consume REAL FRUIT, etc.? I would really appreciate it, as I understand all these things already and did even before I was first told about them (I even posted a video months ago showing wolves eating berries, which would be heresy at ZIOH). That's why I put caveats in my signature, to try to eliminate any reason folks might perceive to make these responses. No doubt they're meant to be helpful rather than lectures, but they do have a lecture-like tone that's unpleasant. Getting that once or twice wouldn't be noteworthy, but after repeated occurrences I realized it was time to start speaking up about it.
I try not to lecture raw omnivores or even fruitarians about what they eat or what they should eat and I hope they will return the favor. I think it's OK to debate theories about what the normal diet of human beings is, but when people report personal experiences they should be treated as just that, unless they claim or imply that their experience is proof of what's natural for all. I agree that the latter is annoying and far too common in this forum. I go to great pains to avoid doing that and if I ever do it I hope someone will remind me of my goal. I didn't greatly reduce my intake of fruit and greatly increase my intake of fat out of choice, I did so out of necessity, as it's the only thing that has worked for me.
Consumers of plentiful fruit have posited that those of us who don't handle fruit well may have systemic problems and I agree. One possibility is insulin resistance. Another is carbohydrate and/or fructose intolerance. If they wish to be fair, those who do poorly on high fat diets would also acknowledge that it's possible that they also have systemic issues behind their inability to handle large amounts of raw animal fat, such as bile deficiency and/or insufficient stomach acid, perhaps.
Thanks
Eating fruits with plentiful animal fat is definitely not good for me (esp. for my digestion).
Only when the fruits are eaten separately they're digested perfectly, quickly and not burdening one's body.
Yes, I know that some folks do better when eating foods separately and thanks for sharing your experience, as it reveals the wide variations in experiences. When I question the claims that sequential eating is best for all humanity I don't mean to imply that it helps no one--I'm just not convinced that the claim is true for everyone, as it certainly isn't for me. I hope it's clear that my skepticism re: the absolute claim of SE being good for all doesn't imply that I'm suggesting the antithesis of it being bad for all.
That's very nice to hear that, Phill, really 
Thanks, I hope this puts to rest any misunderstandings about my intent. I'm a very laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kind of guy. Unfortunately, this is hard to convey in text.
But who has proved that these spikes are always harmful? They can be very beneficial.
Eating a lot of meat at the end of the day can generate even greater spike.
This is my hypothesis also, and apparently that of KGH:
"Insulin or glucose "spikes" do not kill you - chronically elevated levels do that.
KEY CONCEPT: You have a reservoir of 300 g glucose in the form of glycogen in your liver and muscles. Glucose can go sky high in an instant without any glucose or protein consumption whatsoever, even in the fasting state with whole body glucose deficit running for many hours at a time. Transient changes in insulin resistance, including hormone mediated effects on the various glucose transporter molecules, can raise blood sugar and so can increases in glycolysis in the liver. It is erroneous to [attribute] what is happening to consumed macronutrients based on blood glucose measurements." --Kurt Harris, MD, "How you make glucose from protein," http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/8/25/on-zero-carbs-can-you-make-your-glucose-from-fat.html
Chronically elevated levels are supposedly indicated by HbA1c figures over 5.9% (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycated_hemoglobin), though that's based on lab averages, so my guess is that the high end of the
optimal range is actually below that.
Since the HbA1c test is not practical to do at home, KGH recommended the OGTT, but not for VLCers and ZCers, who naturally develop peripheral insulin resistance, according to both him and Loren Cordain (
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/6/diabetes-i-vs-ii-and-diet.html). Interestingly, neither Cordain nor Harris see this peripheral IR as a problem. According to Cordain, it may even be an asset among VLCers:
It has been hypothesized that insulin resistance in hunter-gatherer populations perhaps is an asset, as it may facilitate consumption of high-animal-based diets [Miller and Colagiuri 1994]; whereas when high-carbohydrate, agrarian-based diets replace traditional hunter-gatherer diets, it (insulin resistance) becomes a liability [Miller and Colagiuri 1994] and promotes NIDDM." (The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence of their Evolutionary Discordance, by Loren Cordain, Ph.D., 1999, www.beyondveg.com/cat/paleodiet/index.shtml)
On the other hand, Dr. William Davis seems to argue almost the opposite from KGH, claiming that coronary risk increases whenever the BG spikes above 126 mg/dl (maybe as little as 100 mg/dl!, which I highly doubt) and that the OGTT is effectively useless:
Blood sugar: Fasting vs. postprandial, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2010
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/blood-sugar-fasting-vs-postprandial.html
Peter's fasting blood glucose: 89 mg/dl--perfect.
After one whole wheat bagel, apple, black coffee: 157 mg/dl--diabetic-range.
How common is this: Normal fasting blood sugar with diabetic range postprandial (after-eating) blood sugar?
It is shockingly common.
The endocrinologists have known this for some years, since a number of studies using oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) have demonstrated that fasting glucose is not a good method of screening people for diabetes or pre-diabetes, nor does it predict the magnitude of postprandial glucose. (In an OGTT, you usually drink 75 grams of glucose as a cola drink, followed by blood sugar checks. The conventional cut off for "impaired glucose tolerance" is 140-200 mg/dl; diabetes is 200 mg/dl or greater.) People with glucose levels during OGTT as high as 200 mg/dl may have normal fasting values below 100 mg/dl.
High postprandial glucose values are a coronary risk factor. While conventional guidelines say that a postprandial glucose (i.e., during OGTT) of 140 mg/dl or greater is a concern, coronary risk starts well below this. Risk is increased approximately 50% at 126 mg/dl. Risk may begin with postprandial glucoses as low as 100 mg/dl.
For this reason, postprandial (not OGTT) glucose checks are becoming an integral part of the Track Your Plaque program. We encourage postprandial blood glucose checks, followed by efforts to reduce postprandial glucose if they are high. More on this in future.
Comments:
Jenny said...
Dr. Davis,
157 one hour after eating is NOT the diabetic range by any standard.
To be considered diabetic a person must go over 200 mg/dl.
The data collected by Dr. Christensen's CGMS studies suggest that 160 at one hour is the top of the normal range if the blood sugar drops back in the next hour.
That 157 is "prediabetic" though the term is a misnomer because most people with "prediabetic" blood sugars will NEVER become diabetic since they lack the necessary genetic flaws that produce true diabetes.
I mention this not to discourage people from lowering their carb intake and blood sugar--that's a very good tack to take, but because I hear from hundreds of people who obsess about being diabetic when they are not some of whom end up spending a lot of unnecessary money on doctor appointments that produce nothing useful.
The latest research suggests that keeping blood sugar under 155 mg/dl at all times will control the blood sugar related component of heart disease. But to diagnose even "pre-diabetes" you have to look at the 2 hour reading. It is the inability to reduce a spike within 2 hours that appears to be associated with most diabetic complications.
As of now I'd say I lean more toward believing KGH and Cordain over Davis on this one. I have viewed what look like healthy HGs gorging on honey comb and no HG people concern themselves with BG spikes, as Lex pointed out. They don't even have the tools to measure it. So I think the real problem is chronic BG spikes, rather than occasional ones. Therefore, HbA1c is probably much more important than FBG or even occasional post-prandial BG measures. However, if Dr. Davis and Jenny are right, then maybe the BG of HG's never exceeds 155 mg/dl, even when they eat wild honeycomb?
If anyone has any evidence one way or another on this subject, I'd appreciate it.
Topic: My Fruit Dilema - Anyone with any thoughts on this please input with explanation (Read 18234 times)