Dr. McDougall says he doesn't worry about high sugars when he takes patients off blood sugar meds. I am sure he means temporarily. You have to worry about long term high blood sugars, right?
I have read many places that blood sugars over 140 cause cell damage. I thought this meant fasting sugars but apparently the consensus is that any blood sugar over 140 causes sugar to stick to the cells, including post prandial blood sugars.
Yet, I cannot find any information proving this. I remember reading about the area under the curve of blood sugar plotted against time being more important than the height of a spike but can not longer find any info on this.
Does anyone have and references to this?
I run into this objection against a starch based diet all of the time. I am told, "Your diet might be good for preventing heart disease, but it is not the right diet for diabetes because all of those starches make their blood sugars skyrocket, causing all kinds of problems."
I respond saying that Dr. McDougall, Jeff Novick, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Barnard have all shown that a high carbohydrate-high starch diet reverses type 2 diabetes. But I get nowhere.
There is always this mentality, "Be careful about those after meal blood sugar spikes." I have read that it is fasting blood sugar and the H1c levels that really matter. So, there!!