A few days ago I posted about hungry kids on a paleo diet. At the time of this Saturday posting, the comment thread stands at 211 comments. There were 212 a few minutes ago before I deleted one and hit the ban button.
From the time the post went up, many people with actual experience with kids advised one, the other or both of a couple of things: plenty of, or more fat, and more carbohydrate in the form of starch—such as sweet potatoes. Enter Kevin Geary, who started off well enough with questions or objections; but soon enough, evolved into basically claiming that everyone who replied to him was exercising “flawed logic” …and oh, yea, they were misrepresenting him.
Of the 211 comments, somewhere between 35-40 of them are from him alone, a rather high percentage. At any rate, I don’t recall ever doing a post before about banning someone from comments and moreover, I rarely ban anyone except for spam or obvious trolling. I don’t like to moderate and I don’t like to ban, but in this case I think it’s rather instructive and mostly so, because I’m so damn tired of a few things:
- The notion that “Paleo” is a particular diet with predictable ratios of macronutrients that apply to one & all in all times and places. That’s the “Cordain Paleo Diet,” not the Paleo Diet, which is very wide open, with vast possibilities in terms of food sources and how they work out in ratios by environment and season (equator to arctic, sea level to 16,000 feet…summer, spring, fall, winter…and everything in-between).
- That because humans have an evolutionary adaptation that protects them from brain glucose starvation in times of famine, winter—or otherwise restricted or zero access to carbohydrate—that it’s somehow optimal to exercise that emergency safety line as SOP all the time, for everyone. Or, that because we have this adaptation it implies the necessity of at least a low level of carbohydrate intake, or even very low.
It’s all unmitigated bullshit; the Paleosphere becoming replete with testimonial after testimonial and anecdote after anecdote of people with relatively healthy metabolisms getting only so far with low carb, finding that that they get leaner and stronger when they add in a few potatoes a day, or even more.
There’s one more thing, too. Based on the assumption that low-carb is “optimal” for most-to-all, it’s that most-to-all just ought to stop their sinful ways so that the Gates of Heaven will be open to them, with no other factors pertaining or in evidence—such as culture, expense, enjoyment, satiation, et cetera, et cetera. This is illustrated by a comment I put up this morning.
“And what do they need carbohydrates for exactly?
“No one has answered this question yet.”
Who’s “they?”
The reason “no one has answered this question yet” is because everyone is smart enough to see it as loaded and impossible to answer, in the same vein as asking, “why do ‘they’ need more than 7-10% of protein?” or, “why do ‘they’ need more than 20% fat?” or any number of other variables.
You can’t look at carbohydrate / starch in a vacuum. There are three variables and above all, everyone requires sufficient energy. And there are vast differences in the way individuals respond to varying combinations of these three variables, rendering blanket assertions for everyone a fool’s errand.
If you decrease carbs, you have to up fat, protein, or both. You don’t change a single variable, but two or more, and even more when you consider micronutrients (sweet potatoes, for example, are reasonably nutritious and even have quality protein). So good luck on that one diet, one list of foods, one macronutrient profile for one & all.
The other reason I wanted to put this all in a post of its own is to highlight a great comment that takes Kevin to task for his behavior in the thread. Incidentally, throughout, he has complained that other commenters have not answered his questions, misrepresented him, and on and on. This comment went up yesterday afternoon and went unanswered.
jocelyn357 // Feb 24, 2012 at 16:26
Kevin,
No one here has accused you of saying VLC is the “only” way. You’ve made it clear from your posts that you believe a low carbohydrate diet is “suitable”, “enough”, and will “get the job done”, for the “majority” of people. These are your words, not mine. You also emphasized that some do well on what most would agree is a very low carb diet.
In contrast, you’ve been antagonistic when anyone suggests that these children may benefit from added carbohydrates in the form of starch. You say that Paleo may not be low-carb by definition, but “for most, it should be”. When someone says “Paleo is NOT low carb”, they don’t mean that it can’t be low carb, but should not be defined as exclusively low carb. For some it will consist of very few carbohydrates, for others the carbohydrate content may be much higher – many will fall somewhere on the spectrum between the two. You claim a paleo style, carbohydrate rich diet is “not a good description of how the body is designed to function”. I would like to see your sources for this statement please. I am very well read on this subject, and one thing is certain: people much more well educated than either you or I in biology or physiology do not agree on an ideal macronutrient ratio in the human diet. On the other hand, there is good evidence that humans with wide varieties in macro contents have lived very healthy lives for thousands of years. More recently, the research of Dr. Weston Price has shown that traditional societies with quite significant portions of diet as carbohydrate have shown to be examples of excellent health.
You don’t want to be tied to numbers, but you did in fact give numbers. You said 50-70 is “enough” for “most people”, but later qualified that by saying you “never claimed it was optimal”. Huh? Are you saying the children in question may, in fact, have a higher carbohydrate requirement for “optimal” health? Or will you back track on this too?
You say, “If people who are lean consume carbohydrates, it doesn’t mean that carbohydrates make you lean.” Can we agree that if people who are lean consume carbohydrate, it didn’t make them fat? We know that overweight certainly isn’t the only marker of poor health, but it is an important and pervasive one, no? We are in a time in history when obesity and its related diseases are so prevalent (particularly in children, which is what this post is about). If we can look to other societies who remain nearly exempt from these illnesses and have a history of excellent health in contrast to our own, and they can consume an abundance of carbohydrate, why would we conclude that carbs past a very “limited point” are detrimental? The point is, research has shown primitive and traditional societies with a wide range of macronutrient profiles who’ve exhibited fantastic health. Many people find they thrive on very few carbohydrates, and many are finding they experience a decline in health if the lack of carbs persists much beyond reaching an optimal weight. If they add in starchy carbohydrates, and their health returns as a result, why should they not conclude they function more optimally with higher carb content? Is it really that hard to comprehend?
I’m also interested in the following statement: “The body is able to create all of the glucose it needs for day to day operation from fat”. Do you think the body is very efficient at making glucose from fatty acids or are you confusing this with gluconeogenesis or ketosis?
I am not a regular poster here and have no reason to “bandwagon” with other commenters as you have suggested, but I could hardly help myself because your string of posts lacks coherent thought and is very disjointed. That coupled with your know-it-all attitude and conviction that you’ve stumbled upon a better understanding for “how the body is designed to function”, and supposedly suitable (yet admittedly very vague and not necessarily optimal) macronutrient profile for “most” people without a single reference for your claims is really underwhelming.
Stick to photography and kids karate, and keep eating your low carb diet if you find it keeps you healthy. You should refrain from spreading your gospel throughout the web where someone just embarking on a health journey might be confused with this nonsense.
Amen.
Alright. Time for a bit of self experimentation. Today is Saturday, 2/25 and as providence would have it, I’m recording another podacst with the great low-carb diet advocate Jimmy Moore next Friday, 3/2 (rather than the usual months, it will air a few days later, like the 5th or 6th, I believe). Jimmy believes in the health and benefits of low-carb, but so far as I can tell, unlike many others, never prescribes it for everyone and is always open to the possibility that an individual might do better otherwise.
So as soon as I publish this I’m heading off to the market to get myself a load of white sweet potatoes and regular white potatoes, and for the next week and perhaps beyond, will make them a staple of my diet. So, for example, breakfast might be a sweet with a little butter and a couple of fried eggs. Lunch, one or two potatoes with some meat, maybe some fruit. Dinner, likewise. And rather than track any numbers I’ll eat to satiation and hunger, just that it’ll always include a potato, with lesser portions of fat & meat.
So next Friday I’ll get to report to Jimmy how it’s going in terms of energy levels, sleep, feelings of well being, satiety, weight and body composition. Anyone else up for the challenge?
Update: Well, I guess the hundreds of comments in the MDA forum threads Kevin Geary created once he got banned here (they are no more friendly towards him than here, and it’s basically the same shit from him) wasn’t enough. Got this email last night:
From: Kevin Geary <[email protected]>
Subject: coward
Date: February 27, 2012 8:44:30 PM PST
To: Richard NikoleyYou’re a coward and a punk. You ban people, take them out of context (in the title of your post even), and then write about them publicly so they can’t respond. That’s cowardly. You’re like a 3 year old child
Grow up.
And he’s right. I am a coward for being able to put up with only about 40 comments of 200, the last 35 of which echoed the same thing, so I punkishly banned him.
I admit it. He totally exhausted my capacity for tolerance and open debate.
consuelo werner from healthyguts 
Conrad 
Peggy Holloway 
Andrew 
Matt
I’m having a sweet potatoe a la mantequilla just to cheer for this post!
Ok, so they tested all manner of carb ratios for glygocen restoration, but they didn’t test any zero carb ratios to see how that would work? Did I miss something?
I’d love to know the effect of just fat or fat and protein on the glycogen window.
The above studies are aimed at, what I would call, professional athletes. It defines a “short workout” as anything less than “6 hours”. Then goes on to make recommendations, in terms of carb consumption immediately after the workout, for maximizing the restoration of glycogen stores in short and long recovery periods.
I am interested in knowing the rate of glycogen restoration when zero carbs are consumed in a more typical person with a typical lifestyle in addition to a professional athlete. However, I am not surprised that this article does not address the issue since they are studying athletes. And by most standards an athlete is abnormally physically active and for this reason may not be the best to study when concerned with longevity and well-being(which is the main concern of this blog).
I’d like to point out that the major bodybuilding competitions today feature FREAKS like Jay Cutler and not people concerned with their long term physical health.
Richard,
Are you at all concerned that at over 200g of carbs spread throughout the day your body will stop making ketones?
Relating to children: Is it a good idea for kids to be kicked out of ketosis? Or the opposite?
Forgot to ask,
What happens to our bodies when faced with an ice age? Assuming very little farming possible if any. I imagine this would be a time where it is most difficult to acquire carbs but when our bodies might need to be the most physically fit to hunt?
Yes , Conrad, the Ice Age is the whole basic point. So, follow the implications. Does it mean we ought to behave as though we are living in one?
Complete broscience here – but I’d say you can calculate *relatively* well how many carbs are best to replenish glycogen quickly without having them cause havoc in an otherwise VLC environment.
But yeah, for an average schmoe who works out a couple times a week, I’d like to know the effectiveness of protein/fat. AFAIK protein is about 50-60 effective in being able to be converted to glucose, but it’s a much more roundabout process than carbs, so it wouldn’t be replenished as quickly (ideally within the 20-30 min glycogen window). However dietary protein is far more ideal as a source rather than lean bodymass.
Either way, I’d love to read some studies on this.
Conrad.
To your questions, it’s my understanding that our bodies always make ketones, because they are always turning over fat. It’s a range, and ketosis is a definition of ketone level, not a thin blue line of no ketones vs ketones.
Other than that, don’t really know. That’s why I try things out for myself, so that I can know, which is the Gold Standard because that’s all anyone can know and everyone who suggests otherwise is just another fucking liar. Nothing new. Dime a dozen.
Ketosis just means *excess* ketones, having them present in breath/urine is just an indicator that your body is now protecting glucose reserves only for high-energy/emergency needs and is burning fat instead.
Great post Richard! I just recently wrote a similar one myself! (see link below.)
I’ve been upping the carb intake and honestly, I feel a lot better – less anxious, sleeping better, more mental clarity (as a grad student, that’s an important one!).
Maybe my body fat percentage won’t win me any prizes, but fortunately that’s not something I’m worried about. :)
Thanks so much for bringing this issue to attention. It’s way too easy to fall into the low-carb trap, even if unintentional. And it seems like there are a fair number of people who become LESS healthy on low carb than before, myself included. I think carbohydrate consumption is definitely a huge issue that needs to be tackled in the Paleo community. Sometimes I think the pro-LC people drown out other opinions a bit too much.
-Laura from “Ancestralize Me”
http://ancestralizeme.com/2012/02/20/taking-on-carbophobia/
lol … brother, am i glad i missed that argument — people who love to dominate others’ blogs make me want to throttle something! thank you for doing all your readers a favor, Richard!
I must say I agree with Kevin to a great extent. I don’t think we need carbohydrates in any form. I decided to try a different breakfast from my usual bacon and eggs this morning in the form of hot cereal made from flax seed, unsweetened coconut, walnuts, and coconut milk. Even with the addition of some ghee and coconut oil, I have found myself feeling jumpy and shaky like I do from blood sugar/insulin swings. I have to believe that even though it was very low-carb, my “cereal” had too much carbohydrate for me. I suspect I’d have the same effect from a sweet potato. So, for many of us, the lower our carb intake, the better.
As for children, have you read Dr. Jay Wortman’s blog about his “Low-carb baby?” They are raising their daughter on a VLC diet and she is thriving.
Wish I’d known what I know now when my kids were born – I would have saved them years of ADHD, depression, insomnia, morbid obesity, and bulemia. And thank God we discovered low-carb and my kids and I are now happy and healthy and “cured” of the above the issues along with a myriad of other health problems that I had before cutting carbs to around 20 gr./day.
“I don’t think we need carbohydrates in any form.”
Who’s “we?”
Nice of you to take so much stock in your own experience, yet totally discount the experience of the billions of relatively healthy people who include significant carbohydrate in their diet, especially Asians, some groups of which are the longest living on Earth.
Ever been to Okinawa? I have, about a half dozen times. Healthy, active, lean, vibrant and rugged people. They eat rice, almost pure glucose.
Who is “we”? Lazy fucks like you whose only exercise is posting stupid comments on blog posts? The vast majority of people who do anything remotely resembling real exercise need carbs to function optimally.
Ketotic people can’t work out? Do you mean like Dr. Attia? http://waroninsulin.com/nutrition/my-pet-peeve
After being adopted to exercising in ketosis, I found out that my endurance dramatically increased. I would never thought it may happen with me at 51 years old.
Yes, if you’re doing exercise where you’re moving very, very slowly for a long time, ketosis can actually be beneficial. However, I have no idea why anyone would want to do that.
How about you take this post as an example of how NOT to act like Kevin Geary, because you are. Just because you can’t do it yourself doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.
Oh fer fuck’s sake. Antecedents, do you know what they are? Because I can’t do what? Work out without carbs? Yes, yes I can. However, I do not perform OPTIMALLY without some amount of carbs. Nobody has OPTIMAL strength on VLC. Because I can’t do endurance exercise? Yes, yes I can. But it’s boring as shit and doesn’t do anything for health.
I did intervals rollerskating and because it was a cardio exercise I monitored pulse more than speed. It was amazing to feel I was not particularly tired after 2 hours of a high cardio. In order to get a good speed you have to be adopted to an exercise in ketosis and in a fasted state. When you are adopted, you blood sugar stays on the same level, so there is no “bonking”.
Just for the records, Peggy Holloway is not a lazy ass, she is a long-distance bicyclist, and it doesn’t mean she is pedaling a beach cruiser at leisure speed.
It’s almost like people don’t know what endurance exercise means. Do you think she’s doing anaerobic endurance exercise? Is that what you think you were doing? If you’re doing it for two hours, it’s low intensity. It has to be.
Sure, I would not be able to do high-cardio for two hours straight. I said I was doing intervals. More details – 85% – 90% from max short 6 -8 intervals with short rest in-between, then one long interval 20 min or so then repeat.
As far as I familiar with bicyclists routine, when they ride in pack and change places, one in the front really works at the max of his effort, then another is taking the front place.
I actually disagree in general about such statement that there is no reason to do something slowly for a long time. It is a good thing to be able to walk for hours without getting tired, even country skiing being done in the forest covered with snow for 2 – 3 hours could feat the description of not particularly exhausting but not very slow exercise, many experience a running high while jogging lightly. I think non-sedentary activity has its own important value different than the value of an endurance exercise.
You have to train to be able to walk for hours? Wow. That is sad.
No, I didn’t have to train myself to walk, of course, I actually never said I had to go through a special training to do so. I think there are reasons to do slow sedentary activity for personal enjoyment. Many people are either in training or resting (like my husband), they avoid “meaningless” physical activity. I also noticed(during my visit to my native country) that many people I knew since being young lost the ability to walk comfortably for many hours, it saddened and surprised me.
What on earth are you babbling about? If you have somewhere to go, it makes sense to walk. But that is not “exercise” and has nothing to do with anything else being discussed. But LOL, you think you can do HIIT for two hours, so I don’t think you have a clue about anything.
Sarah:
Your antagonism with virtually every comment is getting a bit annoying, y’know?
Sarah you just might be one the most unfriendly, and least tolerant people I’ve read online in a while. Aren’t we all here to learn from each other? Geez.
You keep misrepresenting what I said, so in such case I think it is better to stop conversation.
Galina – I have a learned appreciation for doing something “slowly for a long time” as well. I don’t think it replaces other forms of exercise, but my great aunt and great uncle have been taking daily, brisk walks my whole life and they also eat as close to paleo as possible (with the exception of modest amounts of Cuban bread, as we are Cuban). They are in their middle eighties and their health is quite good and they remain active. This is out of context of Ketosis, because their intake of fresh fruit is quite high, but hey, they were born on an island! Who can blame them?! ;) My grandparents on the American side of my family were VERY sedentary and diet was poor. They died in their early 70’s. I think there is much benefit to be had from a good bit of “low and slow”.
In the context of the ketosis I wanted to say that all my physical activities – cardio and long slow ones got less tiring after adaptation to ketosis, especially to the exercising in a fasted state. Adaptation took months, at the beginning cardio-activities got worse, I got migraines couple time after cardio intervals back then.
I also don’t think that walking belong to the category of exercise, but to a very important category of non-sedentary activities.
Sedentary behavior it unhealthy even if person do relatively short cardio session most days of the week. After moving to Florida , I came to a realization how much I under appreciated a possibility to walk a lot during day or on evenings. During many months it is too hot here, we mostly drive, and I try to find more possibilities to move more besides going to my sport club for exercising.
Did you see the word “optimally”? Do you understand what it means?
Sarah, the tack you’ve taken isn’t really justified in light of the recent literature on fasted training and carb-restricted training. You concede it’s beneficial for long slow distance, but advantages have been demonstrated in other contexts (including HIIT). Jamie of thatpaleoguy.com covers this topic thoroughly and regularly. See: all of these posts.
Everyone seems to benefit from ketosis, total carb restriction, or fasted training sometimes. The only real questions are how much and how often. For most people, it’s probably required to train “optimally”.
I’m not sure you having “no idea why anyone would want to do [long slow distance]” should compel us to acquiesce to your personal definition of “real exercise”. The Crossfit connection to paleo fosters this kind of thinking, but I’d argue that it represents a profound inconsistency between paleo input (food) and paleo output (activity). Suffice it to say, others have myriad reasons for doing long slow distance. Our many ancestors who undertook massive migrations in short amounts of time apparently did okay, and shaped what our genotype ‘views’ as optimal in the process. I’d rather not get into Born to Run, but… there is also Born to Run.
Optimal humanity requires nature and variety. Optimal exercise as a phenotypic band-aid for modern boxed humans can only ever be a shadowed abstraction of optimal life.
I don’t know what fasted training has to do with the statement that people don’t need carbs. Are you getting that Peggy was saying that people don’t need carbs at all, ever? I often do fasted training, but I don’t restrict carbs, so even when I’m fasted, I usually still have sufficient muscle glycogen. Also, I don’t benefit from total carb restriction or ketosis, ever. Believe me, I spent years trying to get some benefit from them.
Real exercise is at least sometimes anaerobic. Doing only endurance exercise is an idiotic waste of time.
Between the delightful mix of unsupported proclamations, judgmental declarations, and anecdotes of uncommon potential for bias and confounds, I’m somehow lacking the motivation to engage further. I realize that puts me at risk of being labeled a lazy fuck stupid idiotic time waster incapable of understanding the impenetrable depths of this conversation’s grammaticality, but I’ll endure… however long and slowly.
“Optimal humanity requires nature and variety. Optimal exercise as a phenotypic band-aid for modern boxed humans can only ever be a shadowed abstraction of optimal life.”
Brilliant
Are you serious? This is not one bit complicated. Lazy fuck Peggy thinks nobody needs carbs at all ever for any reason. I think that if you want to do any type of real exercise and be as good at it possible (i.e. you want to get faster or stronger) you need carbs. I am not making any proclamations about amounts or frequency, beyond saying that it’s a non-zero amount. (Note that I said that I) don’t benefit from carb restriction, not that nobody ever does.)
If you think 50 grams of carbs/day is optimal, you disagree with Peggy. If you think a TKD or CKD is optimal, you also disagree with Peggy. If you think any amount of carbs at some time is better than zero carbs all the time, you disagree with her idiotic statement.
Again, “fasted training” has nothing to do with any of that, and I still don’t understand why you brought it up. It is possible to fast for 24 hours and still be eating carbs (obviously not during those particular 24 hours.) That is not an “unsupported proclamation” nor is it an “anecdote of uncommon potential for bias and confounds.” It is a simple fact.
And if you think doing nothing but endurance exercise is sensible, congratulations, you’re either exercise bulimic (BTDT) or some blowhard who likes to brag about his mileage. You’re not interested in either health or enjoyment.
Exactly! Above 85% intensity, muscles get 100% of their energy from carbohydrates (glycogen, or blood glucose in emergencies). See http://nigeepoo.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-all-in-days-work-as-measured-in.html
” Even with the addition of some ghee and coconut oil, I have found myself feeling jumpy and shaky like I do from blood sugar/insulin swings.”
Another delicate flower formed by the consumption of a diet that makes you insulin resistant. Your kids are going to get old enough to go to school and then they are going to be exposed to carbs…and because VLC doesn’t cultivate resilience, the results might not be pretty.
Delicate flower is absolutely correct. And Peggy Holloway already knows this!!!
I feel sorry for her kids due to the crazy very low carb experimentation. I have seen the above commenter, Peggy, comment elsewhere. Read here about the poor health Peggy’s own sister is in after “12 years on a very low carbohydrate diet.”
http://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb-explained#comment-4797
Peggy Holloway Says:
December 2, 2011 at 3:48
“couldn’t seem to understand that my sister had been strict low-carbing for many years and still was having fasting blood sugars over 200 on occasion.”
“Still, in spite of a very strict Atkins-style diet that has even eliminated nuts and cheese, her fasting blood sugar is regularly around 140.”
So it fails her sister but it’s OK to experiment with on her kids? Eek!
Gluconeaogenesis and sundry pathways really work. Don’t doubt it. It’s pure survival, and 140 is better than 6 feet under. One could speculate as to why it’s so crude in terms of normal regulation, but we’re talking survival.
Some people view bare survival adaptations as optimal, I guess.
Highish fasting BG is hugely common among LC dieters, including myself and my dad.
Ah, Melissa’s here, so it’s extra snark, hold the science.
I do better on VLC myself but I have had metabolic syndrome and my metabolism is damaged. Those who have damaged adrenals have a harder time using fat for energy. If we had all started from a clean slate, I bet most everyone could handle any macronutrient ratio but many of us have been damaged in one way or another. So, just as I wouldn’t want people telling me that lots of starch is best for me, I wouldn’t tell anyone that VLC is best for them.
thank you, Craig!!!
why do some people seem to think that everyone has to eat and exercise exactly like them, or they’re either a lazy fuck or a menace to society? bodies are different, and the longer a “past” it has, the less likely it is to perform right, so “optimal” is going to be a very individual thing.
Great post, Richard. Thanks for featuring my comment. I wasn’t sure anyone would read it. LOL It’s the kind of dogma that Kevin promotes that makes me crazy, but more importantly is really unhelpful.
@Jocelyn- I second that great comment u made on the other thread. U nailed that 1. I figured he wouldn’t respond back to that lol
Jocelyn – your comment was awesome – really well said. And – an excellent post Richard.
I too have been getting really frustrated with the paleo = very low carb dogma.
I spun out a quick post a couple of weeks ago too, as I get frustrated with the number of times I’ve had to tell paleo people to eat more carbs. http://paleozonenutrition.com/2012/02/02/okay-paleo-people-carbs-do-not-kill/
Saying that – I posted the story a couple of days ago about a woman with type 1 diabetes who was able to achieve normal blood sugars and lose excess fat on a very low carb paleo diet.
Context matters!
I heard this in another context (pertaining to software development organizations being complex adaptive systems), but I think it applies very well to your body and how it reacts to different foods:
“We can’t control systems or figure them out. But we can dance with them!”
– Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems
http://www.noop.nl/2011/06/dance-with-the-system.html
I was VLC for an entire year, with great result aside from pretty intense emotional ups and downs. After a while I broke Paleo dogma and added starches to my diet, which resulted in immediate mental and emotional benefit. Other Paleo friends did the same, and achieved the same effect.
It has been 8 months now and I have experienced little to no anxiety and what I feel is a constant state of mental relaxation. I have not lost any of my leanness either.
The lesson is obvious: I was glucose deprived due to bad beliefs about carbs.
Richard,
I know you said you did not want to track any numbers, but I am really curious what all those potatoes will do to your blood glucose numbers. Whether you think post-prandial spikes are detrimental or not is beside the point. Potatoes of all sorts spike my blood sugar. It would be nice to see what eating lots of potatoes does to someone who’s metabolism isn’t broken. (Besides the guy who ate only potatoes for a month). Thanks for your consideration.
I might, but I really, really hate pricking my finger. :) Plus, I think all my testy strips are way out of date, though I have no idea if that matters in terms of accuracy.