Glucose readings experiment

[baardmk]

I thought astro23 had some interesting findings and it has prompted me to do some self-experimentation.

I'm advertising my experiment prior to starting any readings, and I would like your suggestions/experience or interpretations. I'll start a thread with my findings in the journal section tomorrow.

Here's my situation. I'm male 32, BMI of 20, quite fit, cycling and running, some swimming. Maybe 15-17% body fat - it's just a guess - not strong or muscular except for legs.

My activity levels varies widely maybe very active one day, sedentary the next 2-3 days. It depends on season and lots of other things.

My triglycerides are 150 mg/dL, and TC about 130 mg/dL.

If I eat non-MWL, like flour-products and baked goods I sometimes will get very drowsy after meals, also with potatoes - so I eat them cold now. Prefer them like that now. Generally low fat.

I did have these problems of drowsiness after meals before this WOE as well, often just much worse. I don't know what my lipid numbers were previously. I'll have carbohydrate cravings after waking up from mid-day naps. I suppose that I may have been pre-diabetic at some time in my childhood and youth. Maybe I still am, though I hardly think so. The numbers will tell. My father's family has some history of heart problems.

I eat mostly MWL, lots of starch, very few fruits and few vegetables. I usually don't eat legumes.

I plan to test post-prandial glucose at 1hr and 2hr after certain meals, like after potatoes or barley or rice. And of course also fasting glucose in the morning.

[eXtremE]

Subject: Glucose readings experiment

I thought astro23 had some interesting findings and it has prompted me to do some self-experimentation.

I'm advertising my experiment prior to starting any readings, and I would like your suggestions/experience or interpretations. I'll start a thread with my findings in the journal section tomorrow.

Here's my situation. I'm male 32, BMI of 20, quite fit, cycling and running, some swimming. Maybe 15-17% body fat - it's just a guess - not strong or muscular except for legs.

My activity levels varies widely maybe very active one day, sedentary the next 2-3 days. It depends on season and lots of other things.

My triglycerides are 150 mg/dL, and TC about 130 mg/dL.

If I eat non-MWL, like flour-products and baked goods I sometimes will get very drowsy after meals, also with potatoes - so I eat them cold now. Prefer them like that now. Generally low fat.

I did have these problems of drowsiness after meals before this WOE as well, often just much worse. I don't know what my lipid numbers were previously. I'll have carbohydrate cravings after waking up from mid-day naps. I suppose that I may have been pre-diabetic at some time in my childhood and youth. Maybe I still am, though I hardly think so. The numbers will tell. My father's family has some history of heart problems.

I eat mostly MWL, lots of starch, very few fruits and few vegetables. I usually don't eat legumes.

I plan to test post-prandial glucose at 1hr and 2hr after certain meals, like after potatoes or barley or rice. And of course also fasting glucose in the morning.

You seem to be in great shape at age 32. I will be watching this thread bc I am interested in your experiment and how things turn out. I have been testing myself since an A1C told me I was in the prediabetic range since I began eating like this but my TC was 126 (65 LDL) and triglycerides are only 70. Really weird but even the steel cut oats are causing my postprandial BS levels to skyrocket like the problem astronaut was having with rice and potatoes which is not good. Even in ppl who have not been DX with T2D, levels over about 160 post meals will cause sugar to start to stick on cells and slowly cause damage over time. They say even in healthy ppl who are not diabetic who still eat SAD, the BS levels never usually rise above 120 give or take no matter what they eat. You are a lot younger than I am but I am interested in if anything you eat (complex carbs) cause BS to rise above 140.

Hopefully, didi responds. She seems to be quite the expert and can often offer some unique and interesting insights. I don't have any family history of t2D. I sat down and talked to my mother yesterday about my biological dad's side of the family since my real dad abandoned me and my mother at a very young age so I know very little about that side of my family except my real dad is almost 80 and as far as I know, no diabetes or heart disease yet. Cancers seem to kill most members of my family, both on mother's side and father's. Like all SAD eaters, CAD was probably present to varying degrees like it is in everyone but not enough yet to cause SX bf the cancers took hold and cause death. Anyway, I will be watching your experiment from the sidelines. I wonder now if I should quit eating oatmeal and it is my favorite thing to eat. I was eating it since 2008 even bf I began this WOE but never worried (or tested) about BS levels until now. I also wonder how much my stress is playing into this since I have struggled with severe anxiety and panic for 30 years and that has been really bad for me for the last 2-3 years despite my best efforts to control and there is nothing stressing me out. Maybe, the constant stress and anxiety I feel daily is just wearing things out, IDK.

My fasting Blood glucose levels are all about 80 so I guess my PCP was never concerned bf. Even the one I had was 80 that told my my HBA1C was up.

[eXtremE]

Baard, I was thinking about starting a thread like this one bf you created this one. I hope you don't mind me attaching to your thread and sharing some of my results instead of starting a new thread.

Fasting BG this morning (3/20/2014) when I awoke was 81 mg/Dl so that seems to be ok. I always seem to test about 80 here. I purchased a ReliOn BG meter like didi uses here from Walmart yesterday. That freestyle meter I was using I purchased from Amazon is a great meter but those test strips are just too high and I can not afford.

I am really curious about the oatmeal tho. I read many posts all over the internet yesterday by ppl saying that oatmeal, even the steel cut oats cause BS levels to spike in most ppl. Even if you are not diabetic, it can shoot some ppl in the 180-190 ranges....much higher if you are a T2D. This can't be good happening over a long period of time even if the sugars come back down to normal. I've heard that when this happens to ppl even when you are not diabetic, sugar can stick to cells instead of going inside like it should and slowly cause damage over a long period of time. Also, many ppl who have symptomatic heart disease are not diabetic at all so I think foods that really spike the BS levels like this must be a slow source of inflammation in the body but I am only guessing since I know or understand very little about all the nutrition science tech. stuff. I think didi here says oatmeal does not cause her to spike right after meals but I think she eats it a little differently with greens and other things. I quit adding in the teaspoon of honey and raisins yesterday, cut way back on the banana, and increased the green apple slices. I also started adding cinnamon to see if that will have any effect on the BG spikes.

[Spiral]

I am really curious about the oatmeal tho. I read many posts all over the internet yesterday by ppl saying that oatmeal, even the steel cut oats cause BS levels to spike in most ppl. Even if you are not diabetic, it can shoot some ppl in the 180-190 ranges....much higher if you are a T2D. This can't be good happening over a long period of time even if the sugars come back down to normal. I've heard that when this happens to ppl even when you are not diabetic, sugar can stick to cells instead of going inside like it should and slowly cause damage over a long period of time. Also, many ppl who have symptomatic heart disease are not diabetic at all so I think foods that really spike the BS levels like this must be a slow source of inflammation in the body but I am only guessing since I know or understand very little about all the nutrition science tech. stuff.

This is very interesting. Reading some of these threads about post-meal glucose spikes, one gets the sense that everyone, not just those who are pre-diabetic or diabetic, need to test their glucose levels every hour on the hour. Maybe I should invest in some stock in corporations that sell those testing strips. Soon we could have several hundred million Americans using a half dozen glucose testing strips each on a daily basis.

But something tells me that there is something missing here. The long lived Okinawans, for example, didn't spend a lot of time screwing around testing their glucose levels after they ate their sweet potatoes. And let's remember that sweet potatoes represented 69 percent of their caloric intake.

I think it's smart to avoid eating foods that will cause one inflammation and artery damage and if that means I have to stop eating my oatmeal each morning, I will. But is the scientific evidence truly clear that, in an otherwise healthy non-diabetic consuming a healthy diet, eating a food that causes his or her glucose levels to go up to 160 to 180 after a meal is unhealthy?

Here's the problem I see. Fat and protein consumption do not cause immediate glucose spikes. But too much fat and protein is bad for the human body. So, if someone stops eating potatoes and replaces these potatoes with beans, isn't this person going to end up consuming excessive protein, increasing ones risk of cancer and kidney disease?

And in the medium to long term, too much fat and protein will result in higher, not lower average glucose levels because insulin resistance will be increased.

I guess what I am getting at is this: Isn't testing ones glucose levels one hour after a meal and two hours after a meal and three hours after a meal, worse than stepping on the bathroom scale 3 times a day?

I just wonder if the train is off the track when it comes to all of this glucose micromanagement. What does the scientific evidence say about this?

[GeoffreyLevens]

Isn't testing ones glucose levels one hour after a meal and two hours after a meal and three hours after a meal, worse than stepping on the bathroom scale 3 times a day?

I think only a problem if you keep doing it long term and do not need close management for meds. But it is the only way to really know what your body is doing in terms of blood sugar and insulin in response to what you are eating. It seems to me that there is enough research evidence linking high levels of both or either long term, to all sorts of horrible problems.

That said, I used to have similar drowsiness issues but it did not seem to be really related to blood sugar but more to food allergies. After several years of eating this way, and avoiding the foods that caused it, I can now eat those foods without problems.

[bridgetohealth]

I agree with Spiral that some of the testing talked about here doesn't seem warranted. Extreme, have you had more than one A1C test showing pre-diabetes? Nothing can be diagnosed with only one test, and there are certain conditions that can cause someone to have an elevated A1C (since your fasting numbers are normal, something to look into if a second A1C is abnormal). Also, like Spiral said, I haven't read anything about a spike being that harmful as long as it comes down to normal by two hours. How are your two-hour tests? If your fasting is normal and your two-hour is normal, I'm not sure you need to worry?

That said, I also get fatigue, sometimes extreme, after eating, and have considered getting the A1C or do some post prandial testing. But I'm not going to worry about it if the two-hour test is normal and if two tests don't show abnormal A1C.

[eXtremE]

The only reason I became interested is bc of an oddball inverse relationship I got after an A1C test showed eAG was almost in the pre-diabetic range, yet total cholesterol numbers and triglycerides absolutely plummeted. There is virtually no fat in my diet now except for the plants I am eating.

Even if you are not diabetic and getting these BS spikes from certain complex carbs, is this healthy and nothing to be concerned about? I have to wonder. Astronaut was eating a perfect PB diet, all blood lipid biomarkers for disease like CAD were excellent, yet some things were causing his BG levels to skyrocket.

Sweet potatoes don't seem to spike me but the oatmeal does and I have been eating it for a very long time even when I was eating SAD. My SAD meals was unhealthy then (2008) but I have always eaten the oatmeal healthy (using nothing but water and a little brown sugar sometimes). I wonder also about the damage already done from eating SAD when one decides to switch to a healthy PB diet. Maybe, had I started eating like this when I was 20s, this would not be a concern but I ate SAD until my 50s bf I decided to make a change in my diet.

The thing is I love the oatmeal too and would hate to quit eating it but I am still getting the spikes so should I just ignore? I added no honey today, no raisins...just a tsp of walnuts and one whole green apple and a little cinnamon. I also exercised (20 minutes on a stationary bike) right after I ate and tested 141.....not nearly as high as bf but still not good. My fasting is still normal now. It is always 80.

The long lived Okinawans, for example, didn't spend a lot of time screwing around testing their glucose levels after they ate their sweet potatoes. And let's remember that sweet potatoes represented 69 percent of their caloric intake.

Good point but these ppl have eaten like this from birth. My thinking is perhaps I burned up my engine pretty good during the first 5 decades of my life and now I am trying to rebuild that engine.

[eXtremE]

I agree with Spiral that some of the testing talked about here doesn't seem warranted. Extreme, have you had more than one A1C test showing pre-diabetes? Nothing can be diagnosed with only one test, and there are certain conditions that can cause someone to have an elevated A1C (since your fasting numbers are normal, something to look into if a second A1C is abnormal). Also, like Spiral said, I haven't read anything about a spike being that harmful as long as it comes down to normal by two hours. How are your two-hour tests? If your fasting is normal and your two-hour is normal, I'm not sure you need to worry?

That said, I also get fatigue, sometimes extreme, after eating, and have considered getting the A1C or do some post prandial testing. But I'm not going to worry about it if the two-hour test is normal and if two tests don't show abnormal A1C.

Thanks for responding Bridge. To answer your question, fasting was normal this morning (80). I did have one A1C back in 2008. I see my doctor every 3 months for anxiety/panic management. I have been doing this for almost 30 years. Often, we simply sit and talk for 10-15 minutes about how my life is going. He knows I hate taking meds.

In 2008, I asked him to test my A1C bc I was just curious since I was not eating good then. He said I don't think you have a problem but he agreed to include the test in with my blood lipid panel. I can't exactly recall but it was 5.3 back in 2008 I think but my cholesterol numbers back then were ranging in the 170-190 ranges. Now cholesterol is still mid 120's after switching to the PB eating but A1C is 5.7. My doctor did not do the second test. I actually went to a Request a Test site for the blood draw and had another lipid panel and included the A1C and I just paid out of pocket. Cholesterol levels are still excellent but A1C said 5.7. I will also admit I suffer with many health anxieties. This is where my anxiety and panic stem from but it is just how my brain is wired I suppose. Everything seems fine except for the oatmeal. I even added two tsp's of wheat dextrin fiber to see if I could avoid the spike. It did help a lot but there was still some spiking. Everything that I have read says that it should really never go above 126 after meals no matter what you eat if you are normal. I am not gonna obsess over it (at least try not too) but it was something that i needed to investigate I think.

[eXtremE]

Isn't testing ones glucose levels one hour after a meal and two hours after a meal and three hours after a meal, worse than stepping on the bathroom scale 3 times a day?

I think only a problem if you keep doing it long term and do not need close management for meds. But it is the only way to really know what your body is doing in terms of blood sugar and insulin in response to what you are eating. It seems to me that there is enough research evidence linking high levels of both or either long term, to all sorts of horrible problems.

That said, I used to have similar drowsiness issues but it did not seem to be really related to blood sugar but more to food allergies. After several years of eating this way, and avoiding the foods that caused it, I can now eat those foods without problems.

Really 2-3 days data should be plenty to tell the tale.

Just for reference, my fasting at that time was mid 80's to mid 90's.

Now my fasting bg is right around 70 and my post prandials don't go over about 120 unless I really gorge or eat a LOT of sweet sweet fruit all at once.

Geoffrey, do you eat oatmeal? You also said in another thread>>>

For me what it took was adding significant amount of heavy resistance exercise (I was already doing 45-60 minutes/day of Nordic Walking. That is a great calorie burner and endurance builder but not really a muscle builder. When I cut way back on that, added in kettlebells and body weight exercises (in the 5-10 rep range for 3-5 sets several times per week) and fine tuned my calorie density a little bit downwards. The problem was solved.

...this caught my attention. I am really slender in the stomach area but have some extra fat on buttocks after looking in the mirror naked after showering. I still exercise aerobically 2X a day again at 20 minutes each session but I have not been really doing my weight training. I am going to start back doing this daily after reading what you wrote. I really don't wanna stop eating the oatmeal.

[GeoffreyLevens]

I did not eat oatmeal almost ever for the last almost 5 years because it used to shoot my blood sugar up to about 225 after a smallish bowl with nothing at all added. Since I lost the last 5 or so pounds of visceral fat and got rid of residual insulin resistance it now seems it is not a problem. The last 3 months or so I have been eating some "raw" almost every morning mixed w/ a bowl of chopped fruit. I put raw in quotes because is instant rolled oats which are not truly raw and really pretty processed. But that is what is available where I am living for breakfast so if I want to take advantage of what little they offer that I can eat, that's about it. (The rest is fried eggs, fried potatoes, and cow yoghurt.) I did just have a very high A1c reading BUT low fasting bg and low postprandial bg so I suspect it was from needing to adjust my thyroid meds (levothyroxine). Retesting at new dose in a couple more weeks so I will know the good or bad news...

[eXtremE]

Very interesting.....thanks! What is your height and weight now?

[GeoffreyLevens]

Height about 5' 3" have not even seen a scale for 6 months but I would guess 108-110 lbs

[colonyofcells]

What I heard is the body will excrete sugar via urine if the blood sugar reaches around 180 and the urine test was the old way of detecting diabetes. If the mcdougall diet don't seem to be working, my guess is it is time to increase exercise and or reduce starch. Some prefer more experimental approaches like replacing starch with legumes or going on high fat diets. Based on traditional lifestyles, it seems like it is possible to get normal blood sugar levels even if eating tons of cheap starch staples as long as there is some activity. I am pretty sure starch is a good fuel and the fuel just needs to be used on some activity. Fat is also a good fuel and if fat fuel is not used on some activity, it will probably also harm the body same as the excess starch fuel, even if fat does not seem to raise post prandial blood sugars immediately. Not many examples from traditional diets but using legumes, nuts and seeds might be safer since part of their effect maybe comes from fiber or other micronutrients or unknown mechanisms that help spread out the rise in blood sugar levels. Some diabetics use barley to help spread out the rise in blood sugar levels over multiple hours. Hopefully, on a mcdougall diet, diabetes can be reversed and can allow patients to eat more starches which are the best fuel it seems and be free from forever micro managing blood sugar levels. Some functional foods are suspected of helping lower blood sugar levels via unknown mechanisms such as the bitter melon eaten in okinawa or nopal cactus eaten by hispanics, and maybe even cooked mushrooms. So far, my prediabetes is only barely under control and I currently eat as much starch, fruits, seaweed, vegetables, cooked mushrooms, functional foods, etc. as I want and I don't monitor my blood sugar daily.

[GeoffreyLevens]

I just have to insert here that I have not been able to understand why legumes are not considered "starch" since that is exactly where most of their calories come from. Just one example, 1 cup cooked pinto beans perhaps my #1 favorite--
From CRONoMeter

Energy: 244.5 kcal total
Protein: 15.4 g
Carbs: 44.8 g
Fat: 1.1 g

vs 1 cup cooked long grain brown rice

Energy: 216.5 kcal
Protein: 5.0 g
Carbs: 44.8 g
Fat: 1.8 g

Yes, quite a bit more protein but still mostly starch, yes? no?

[colonyofcells]

In the traditional diets, legumes are not considered a starch staple. In traditional diets, people will buy sacks and sacks of the cheap starch staple for the whole family and only a small amount of legumes if legumes are being used in the traditional diet. I am not sure why the traditional diets did not overeat on legumes since legumes does have some starch also and is very high in protein so maybe too high in protein, or maybe too high in fat and too little starch? Maybe legumes used to be more expensive ? or maybe the traditional diets found the cheap starches a better source of starches to support their heavy work which they could not get from the less starch found in legumes ? The traditional diets evolved towards high amounts of the cheap starch staples probably for some good reasons which might still be true in our current situation. Many of the traditional starches are quite low in micronutrients such as sago palm stem starch, cassava, etc. but they were a good source of fuel for sure but had to be complemented by vegetables, legumes, etc. I have heard that the starches in legumes are less digestible which might be another reason why highly active traditional cultures all prefer the more digestible starch from the cheap starch staples, or maybe legumes have more toxins compared to the cheap starch staples.