Monday, March 23, 2009

More Thoughts on the Glycemic Index

In the last post, I reviewed the controlled trials on the effect of the glycemic index (GI) of carbohydrate foods on health. I concluded that there is not much evidence that a low GI diet is better for health than a high GI diet.

It is true that for the "average" individual the GI of carbohydrate foods can affect the glucose and insulin response somewhat, even in the context of an actual meal. If you compare two meals of very different GI, the low GI meal will cause less insulin secretion and cause less total blood glucose in the plasma over the course of the day (although the differences in blood glucose may not be large in all individuals).

But is that biologically significant? In other words, do those differences matter when it comes to health? I would argue probably not, and here's why: there's a difference between post-meal glucose and insulin surges within the normal range, and those that occur in pathological conditions such as diabetes and insulin resistance. Chronically elevated insulin is a marker of metabolic dysfunction, while post-meal insulin surges are not (although glucose surges in excess of 140 mg/dL indicate glucose intolerance). Despite what you may hear from some sectors of the low-carbohydrate community, insulin surges do not necessarily lead to insulin resistance. Just ask a Kitavan. They get 69% of their 2,200 calories per day from high-glycemic starchy tubers and fruit (380 g carbohydrate), with not much fat to slow down digestion. Yet they have low fasting insulin, very little body fat and an undetectable incidence of diabetes, heart attack and stroke. That's despite a significant elderly population on the island.

Furthermore, in the 4-month GI intervention trial I mentioned last time, they measured something called glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). HbA1c is a measure of the amount of blood glucose that has "stuck to" hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells. It's used to determine a person's average blood glucose concentration over the course of the past few weeks. The higher your HbA1c, the poorer your blood glucose control, the higher your likelihood of having diabetes, and the higher your cardiovascular risk. The low GI group had a statistically significant drop in their HbA1c value compared to the high GI group. But the difference was only 0.06%, a change that is biologically meaningless.

OK, let's take a step back. The goal of thinking about all this is to understand what's healthy, right? Let's take a look at how carbohydrate foods are consumed by cultures that rarely suffer from obesity or metabolic disease. Cultures that rely heavily on carbohydrate generally fall into three categories: they eat cooked starchy tubers, they grind and cook their grains, or they rely on grains that become very soft when cooked. In the first category, we have Africans, South Americans, Polynesians and Melanesians (including the Kitavans). In the second, we have various Africans, Europeans (including the villagers of the Loetschental valley), Middle Easterners and South Americans. In the third category, we have Asians, Europeans (the oat-eating residents of the outer Hebrides) and South Americans (quinoa-eating Peruvians).

The pattern here is one of maximizing GI, not minimizing it. That's not because high GI foods are inherently superior, but because traditional processing techniques that maximize the digestibility of carbohydrate foods also tend to increase their GI. I believe healthy cultures around the world didn't care about the glycemic index of foods, they cared about digestibility and nutritional value.

The reason we grind grains is simple. Ground grains are digested more easily and completely (hence the higher GI).  Furthermore, ground grains are more effective than intact grains at breaking down their own phytic acid when soaked, particularly if they're allowed to ferment. This further increases their nutritional value.

The human digestive system is delicate. Cows can eat whole grass seeds and digest them using their giant four-compartment stomach that acts as a fermentation tank. Humans that eat intact grains end up donating them to the waste treatment plant. We just don't have the hardware to efficiently extract the nutrients from cooked whole rye berries, unless you're willing to chew each bite 47 times. Oats, quinoa, rice, beans and certain other starchy seeds are exceptions because they're softened sufficiently by cooking.

Grain consumption and grinding implements appear simultaneously in the archaeological record. Grinding has always been used to increase the digestibility of tough grains, even before the invention of agriculture when hunter-gatherers were gathering wild grains in the fertile crescent. Some archaeologists consider grinding implements one of the diagnostic features of a grain-based culture. Carbohydrate-based cultures have always prioritized digestibility and nutritional value over GI.

Finally, I'd like to emphasize that some people don't have a good relationship with carbohydrate. Diabetics and others with glucose intolerance should be very cautious with carbohydrate foods. The best way to know how you deal with carbohydrate is to get a blood glucose meter and use it after meals. For $70 or less, you can get a cheap meter and 50 test strips that will give you a very good idea of your glucose response to typical meals (as opposed to a glucose bomb at the doctor's office). Jenny Ruhl has a tutorial that explains the process. It's also useful to pay attention to how you feel and look with different amounts of carbohydrate in your diet.


Bryan - oz4caster said...

Very compelling as usual. Looks like fructose is the main carb to avoid in excess. Although, I've heard that fruitarians are often quite skinny. Perhaps it takes excess fructose in conjunction with excess omega-6 fat to cause obesity.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for another great post Stephan.

It seems like a great amount of nutritional anaysis focuses on what happens when the nutrients get into the blood stream - what it does to insulin, cholesterol, etc. While that is certainly an interesting and important issue, I see less discussion about what happens first - the quality of digestion. Some of your recent posts on digestion have been very thought provoking. Maybe one can explain quite a lot about who's healthy and who's not by looking at just digestion. I suppose that many foods that can be blamed for poor health start doing most of their damage right in the gut. Does anyone know of any good books or resources that provide useful discussion on digestion?

Walter said...


Its my understanding that fructose is called fructose because it was first found in fruit, but that many fruits are low in fructose content.

Unknown said...

Stephan, I love your blog and the questions you raise.

In your lit review, you mentioned that you "excluded studies using subjects with metabolic disorders such as diabetes". Would you draw the same conclusion (let go of the GI) for diabetics? (E.g., supposing we can't persuade a diabetic friend to reduce carbs substantially, are they better off eating low-GI or high-GI carbs?)

I came across this study in the news a few months ago but am not sure what to make of it.


Stephan Guyenet said...


I agree with everything you just said. Excess fructose is a problem, but it doesn't seem to cause weight gain without other factors. My theory is that fructose + linoleic acid = liver destruction, insulin resistance etc.


True, the more I learn about digestion, the more important I think it is. We look at nutrition info and think we know what vitamins and minerals we're getting, but it all depends on absorption. Bran contains negative minerals because of all the phytic acid, but you would think it's a good source of minerals reading its nutrition info. Likewise, we can only absorb so much K1, convert so much carotene to vitamin A, etc. And nutrient absorption depends on adequate stomach acidity, having normal villi (as opposed to the flattened villi of a Celiac patient), secreting enough enzymes etc. So there's a lot more going on than just the micronutrient content of food.


The simple sugars in fruit are generally about 50% fructose, if you count the fructose in the sucrose disaccharide. The same goes for honey, table sugar and HFCS. There is variation, but it's in that ballpark. I think the reason there's less fructose in fruit is simply because you tend to eat less of it than in a 64 oz Pepsi.

Alina said...

Thanks for another thought-provoking post! I have to say, this idea conflicts with what I've been trying to do to my diet recently. For instance, I've tried to stay away from foods like oatmeal and potatoes.

Would you say that rolled oats and potatoes can be a part of a healthy diet? If so, is avoiding the excess omega-6 in vegetable oils the key to eating them safely?

Robert Andrew Brown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...


I know your question was directed to Stephan, but I suspect the best answer to your question is that properly prepared oats and potatoes are fine (subject to constraints on minimum necessary essential fats, proteins, vitamins & minerals) once you are healthy and at a good body weight. Getting healthy and at the correct body weight (if you're not there already) may require a stricter Paleolithic approach for a while though.

Robert Andrew Brown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Andrew Brown said...

Thanks for another thought provoking post Stephan.


I found this to be a good and thought-provoking book on digestion. Elaine Gottschall’s Breaking the Viscous Cycle, Intestinal Health Through Diet

I believe the bit that is left out it is that an excess of plant-based Omega 6 and a lack of plant-based Omega 3 increases the sensitivity of the body to inflammatory responses. There are bits of the book that I struggle with in terms of understanding why but the generality that the problem is undigested food and inflammation seems to me to make a great deal of sense.

Poor digestion fuels inflammatory responses and the creation of a lining of mucus in the gut which prevents contact between food and the gut lining. Inflammation is caused by poor digestion. Putrid undigested food leads to damaging bacteria. Undigested food and particularly sugars is food for bacteria.

There are also some good articles on the Weston Price site.


An imbalance in the omega 3 and 6 plant fats is arguably at the root of inflammation in the body. Most vegetable oils are very high in Omega 6. Grain fed livestock have distorted Omega 3:6 ratios. Omega 3 is deliberately taken out of the food chain to prevent spoilage. Processing of vegetable oils removes omega 3s. The level of intake of long chain omega 3s is desperately low in many Western populations. A fairly recent trial looking at intake in Australia found that the median intake of DHA was 20 mg a day.

Omega six as well as promoting inflammation also contributes to obesity by reducing the metabolism and instructing the fat cells to go into store mode.

I apologise for the deletions. I am trying dragon dictate 10 as a previous user of version 9 and am having problems with it.


Omega Six The Devil’s Fat

(I am currently finishing rewriting retitling and improving the book)

Mark said...

As usual, great stuff. You are one of the very few out there that look at things with a top down approach. This enables you to come to conclusions that never surface with those that are analyzing the insulin response of whole milk vs skim milk for example.
So once again, it seems like the answer to good health is to eat a diet of: Meat and vegetables (starchy tubers too), nuts and seeds, fruit, oatmeal/oat bran, quinoa, white rice, and properly soaked beans. EAT REAL FOOD. The two areas I'm still not crystal on are peanuts and dairy (the stuff you can buy in Stop & Shop, not raw dairy). Any opinions are welcomed! Thanks.

Mark said...

Forgot to click the box to e-mail me when someone responds. Thanks!

Robert M. said...


Paleo excludes:
gluten grains (rye, barley, wheat, corn, oats, roughly in that order with rye being the worst and oats the best)
legumes (including peanuts and soy)
dairy (casein protein and lactose)

for the simple reason that these three groups are responsible for the vast majority of auto-immune disorders which are so ruinous to health. Everyone's their own individual, and you may or may not tolerate certain items on the above list. The only way to tell is to self-experiment. Exclude them for six months to allow the gut to heal, and then test the body with a single food. If you get bloated, gassy, or poorly formed stool, it's probably not for you.

Of course, how you prepare the food effects its digestibility. We go back to, "soak, sprout, and ferment." Avoid fibre and bran since it both feeds the same bacteria in your gut that cause ulcers in your stomach and it absorbs minerals such as calcium/magnesium/iron/phosphorous so that you cannot.

Is it simply the gluten grains that are the problem, or do we simply have inadequate research on quinoa, for example?

Now, quinoa is probably the easiest grain to sprout in the world, so everyone who eats it should at least do that, but there simply isn't a significant body of research out there to say it's not causing an autoimmune reaction. Searching for "quinoa celiac" on PubMed gives 4 hits.

Daniel said...

Great post, as usual.

Previously I had believed in the perhaps simplistic logic that high-GI foods resulted in an increase in insulin levels, followed by an increase in IGF-1, which, in turn, caused inflammation.

You're casting some doubt on that logic, or at least the biological significance of it, correct?

Under your view, what's wrong with sugar/white flour? Is it as simple as the old-adage that they are "empty calories?"

dan said...

"Excess fructose is a problem, but it doesn't seem to cause weight gain without other factors. My theory is that fructose + linoleic acid = liver destruction, insulin resistance etc."

Stephan, I eat fruit for breakfast (generally an orange or a banana) along with foods that contain linoleic acid (eggs w/ yolk, olive oil). How much fructose would cause a problem? Also, does eating it together matter? Do the nutrients linger in your system so that if you eat something for breakfast, it can combine with foods you eat for lunch to cause problems? Great post by the way. Always enjoy your blog.

Aaron said...

Stephan, I think more clarification has to be had before we label fructose and polyunsaturates as the main offenders in diets.

I would actually assume that small amounts of fructose are beneficial to the liver. (not to mention that large population studies are usually positive concerning fruit intake)

I'm still waiting for someone to really swing me to believe that low polyunsaturate diets are the way to go. When i've consumed 5-6 grams of omega 3 in the form of chia seeds in conjunction with around 15-20 grams of omega 6 (various sources)- my wound healing seems to be faster. Not to mention my gums seem healthier (less bleeding) (Seth roberts,experimenter, has also found this to be true, and others too!!). It's really possible that most of our problems with omega 6 occur because they oxidize really easily (as do omega 3s)-- we just need to have a good un-oxidzed source. As soon as I tried to minimize polyunsaturates and include sardines twice a week (for a little omega 3), my gums started to bleed easier again- and experienced more body pains in general). It took about a week for the mal-adaptive change to occur. I still had some intake in omega 6s, 5-6 grams daily at that time.

My question is-- how can someone like Udo erasmus consume 4 tbsps of his high polyunsaturated oil per day and achieve what he calls the best health of his life (diet with 20-25% polyunsaturates <--- when he already has damaged his liver in the past. And he has been doing this for years! And his skin actually does look pritty good <----- considering his past poisoning was dioxin based!!

And WAP people say to get around 4-5% of your fats as polunsaturates.

How can we resolve these kinds of differences between people? Are un-oxidized polyunsaturates really going to age as faster-- if so, how fast, a couple of years??? And if they promote would healing and faster recovery, shouldn't we try to figure out optimal amounts?

Robert Andrew Brown said...


Dan re your comments on fructose. I think we are talking excess fructose here in terms of canned drinks, sweetened food products etc. It is also question of calorie intake. If you're not eating and excess calories neither excess Omega six nor fructose are likely to be significant issues in weight gain.

Both fructose and are Omega 6 switch on fat storage, but you have to have sufficient calories for the process to start take place.


There are several trials suggesting that periodontal disease is improved by long chain omega-3 intake.

The biology says excess Omega six will increase inflammation. The natural food chain is not capable of supplying more than 2-3% of calories as Omega six linoleic acid. The omega 3 and 6 plant fats need to be in balance what ever the intake level is. Even if Omega six intake is very low inflammation will still take place if the omega-3 intake is significantly lower.

Nobody is talking about removing polyunsaturates from the diet, simply substituting more of the long chain omega 3s for plant-based Omega 6s, and balancing moderate intake of the omega 3 plant-based intake with Omega six plant-based intake.

Author; Omega Six The Devils Fat

pooti said...

What do you make of this study? (psst. I know it's about rats lol. But beyond that, I found it very confusing...)

Stephan Guyenet said...


I didn't look at the trials involving diabetics in any systematic way but from the few I glanced at it looked like thinking about GI might be helpful for them.


I do think potatoes and rolled oats can be part of a healthy diet for people with good glucose control. Oats are high in phytic acid though, so it's a good idea to soak them with whey, miso or a little yogurt overnight before cooking.


I haven't read that book but I do resonate with some of the things I've read of hers, particularly her focus on the importance of digestion. But I think her diet is unnecessarily restrictive for most people.


I'm with you on everything but the oat bran. I think supplementing oat bran is bad news. Peanuts are high in omega-6 but I'm not convinced they're so problematic otherwise. I know Dr. Loren Cordain advises against them because of their lectins, but are those heat-resistant or does toasting break them down? I don't know, I haven't looked into it yet. Dairy protein and/or lactose are a problem for some people. Then again, it's nutritious and there are healthy cultures that ate a lot of it. So I think that's an individual call. Except butter and ghee, which are well-tolerated by nearly everyone.

Stephan Guyenet said...


I wouldn't worry about the fructose in a piece of fruit or the LA in eggs and olive oil. I'm talking about overconsumption of both on the order of two donuts and sweetened coffee for breakfast.

Robert M,

You're right to be suspicious about quinoa, I don't really have any healthy cultures to point to that I'm certain ate it as a staple (anyone know of one??). It's definitely possible that it has its own negative effects that just haven't been identified yet.


I do doubt that the GI has any significant biological effects for someone with a normal glucose tolerance, based on my reading. I will remain open-minded but at this point it doesn't make sense with the data I've seen.

The main thing wrong with white flour and sugar is that cultures who adopted them around the world went downhill fast. All the mechanisms I discuss on this blog are secondary to that empirical fact. The fact that they're empty calories is part of it but I believe there's more to it than that. Sugar causes digestive and metabolic damage (bacterial overgrowth, insulin resistance, leptin resistance) when overconsumed. My theory is that white flour causes metabolic and digestive damage as well, and that the two are synergistic.


I'm not worried about small amounts of fructose or linoleic acid. The problem lies in overconsuming sugar and LA. In the modern US, we eat grotesque amounts of sugar and linoleic acid by historical standards, and insufficient omega-3.

I'm not going to downplay your personal experiences because I think it's important to pay attention to what your body is telling you. But I do feel there's a large body of evidence incriminating the overconsumption of LA in everything from cardiovascular disease to depression to cancer. I'll be posting one on cancer in the next few days if you're interested.

I'm sensitive to the oxidation issue you mentioned. In my mind, it's not clear exactly which effects are coming from the LA itself and which come from the oxidized fatty acids. I'd like to look into that someday but I haven't yet. But there are certainly plenty of mechanisms around that don't require LA oxidation for toxicity.

I suspect Udo Erasmus is doing more for his health than just eating oil. He probably eats real food, avoids sugar, etc.


Quinoa is a seed but not technically a grain because it comes from a broad-leaved plant. People commonly refer to is as a grain because it's easier than making the distinction.


I don't know! That's surprising, because feeding rats a diet high in LA causes fatty liver while saturated fats don't. I suspect it's a peculiarity of their protein-depletion model that causes the effect. LA certainly hasn't protected modern Americans from developing fatty liver on a high-fructose diet.

pooti said...

Stephan so I'm right to be confused? I seem to remember some studies about the combination of LA with fructose and the culmination of NAFLD, but I can't find them anymore.

Do you have the studies by any chance? I'd like to send them to a friend of mine presently taking a supplement that has LA in it and who is obese.

Stan Bleszynski said...

Look at this:

New Thinking on How to Protect the Heart
Published: January 12, 2009

I could not believe it!

Jane Brody is in the process of changing her views and hopefully just about to admit she was totally wrong, after years of Atkins bashing and worshiping the low fat high carbohydrate diet!

Stan (Heretic)

Anonymous said...

Stan - re Jane Brody - wow - although now she's pitching canola oil instead of high carb. And she's still, after all this time, promoting that Ancel Keys 'study'.

Interesting quote from her - fascinating how one youthful experience or exposure can color our thinking for decades:

"Jane Brody: When I became a health and science writer, way back in 1963,
heart disease was something that just happened to Americans. It was epidemic
in this country, but very, very few people had any idea as to why we had such a
high rate of heart disease. I think it’s basically the Seven Countries Study that
really turned my head and helped me, as a reporter and as a public health
oriented person, to convey the message to Americans that they can do
something about heart disease."

A book of hers from the eighties:
"Living the High Carbohydrate Way"

It's interesting, but awful in that the NY Times coverage in this area has been heavily, heavily influenced by her for many years. And she really has no expertise or training whatsoever in the field.

A real failure on the part of the NY Times, I think.

R K @ Health Matters To Me said...

I've long thought that the low-GI theory was poor science at its best. You deconstructed it quite well.

Koreans and Japanese would be having quite a hard time of it if high-GI foods led to ill health -- all that white rice they eat!

Like you say, Stephan, it's all about making foods more digestible, as traditonal cultures have done for thousands of years. The fact is that white rice is more digestible than brown rice; baked tubers more digestible than raw; etc. And then insulin does its thing and waits for the next meal.

P.S. I haven't forgotten our discussion. Fructose and wheat are a gruesome twosome for sure!

Stan Bleszynski said...

Re: A real failure on the part of the NY Times, I think

Totally agree! I have seen that phenomenon everywhere I lived: intellectuals have a knack of falling under a spell of various theories or belief systems that may seem superficially true at the time and then refusing to acknowledge that they were wrong. NYT is probably an anachronism of that 19-20-th century paradigm, but I have to give them a credit that they were probably more tolerant and diverse (see G.Taubes) than their European equivalents.

Stan Bleszynski said...

Re: "US Food Trends" website

Fantastic graphs! Add sugar, cancer and heart disease graphs as well!

LeelaRocks said...

Great read. I agree about the digestion issue....also, as our immune system is mostly in our gut, this could theoretically impact our susceptability to disease, especially diabetes? hence the dairy connection? The Kitavans in your study don't appear to eat any dairy as is true of most eastern cultures. What's your feeling about dairy? thanks :)

Stephan Guyenet said...


I'm not familiar with any tightly controlled studies that looked at the interaction between LA and fructose on fatty liver. However, there are NAFLD models that involve sugar and LA that require less than you would need if you used sugar and LA alone. For example:

They used a "high-fat diet", which was actually a junk food diet, to produce fatty liver among other things. I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that the diet is high in LA and sugar, and high-saturated fat diets don't cause NAFLD in rats. It's been accepted but they haven't published it yet.


I find that very surprising. Those NYT health writers are so locked in by their books I thought they'd have to die before they changed their minds. At least Brody looks fairly healthy. Tara Parker-Pope, one of their other health writers, is not exactly the picture of health.


Exactly, Asians are another example of people who don't get obesity and diabetes from high GI carbs.


That's correct, the Kitavans don't eat dairy. Dairy is very nutritious and there are a number of healthy cultures that seem to do well on it. I do recognize that some people do better without it though, so it's an individual thing in my opinion.

homertobias said...

Stephan, Ryan,

I beg to differ. Asians, especially the Japanese, have a very high incidence of diabetes. It starts later >55, the japanese diabetics are usually skinny and relatively long lived. But they do suffer the unfortunate complications of diabetes to their eyes, kidneys, and limbs. I do blame the rice and praise the fish, seaweed and green tea.

Anonymous said...

Stan: thanks. I will post sugar etc soon.

Can anyone suggest a source for rates of heart disease, cancer, etc over the last 100 years? I think it would be fascinating, but haven't found a good source.

Death from heart disease is available, but I'm not sure those numbers reflect actual heart disease - we manage it much more effectively now with bypass surgery/drugs/etc so I'm not sure death rates are meaningful.

Same for cancer - can't find any good historic sources for US specifically.

R K @ Health Matters To Me said...


There's no doubt that diabetes is increasing dramatically in pretty much every industrialized country in the world. Present-day Asian cultures are certainly not exceptions to this rule. I agree that the incidence of diabetes and other diseases is much higher in these places now than in the past.

Asians are also not exceptions to the rule of increasing wheat & fructose consumption, which are undoubtably implicated in the diseases of civilization.

So, we have to consider the dietary changes along with the health changes. White rice has been around for a long time in Japan, for example, but fructose and wheat are culinary newcomers.

Also, Asians by and large are far healthier than many Western wheat-based cultures -- at least from my general observations.

When considering all of this, can we really blame white rice?

Stephan Guyenet said...


You're right, I looked it up and their diabetes rate is high (although not as high as the US). I wouldn't be too quick to blame it on the rice though, because as Ryan mentioned the prevalence rate has been increasing dramatically in Japan in the last few decades, while rice consumption hasn't changed much. They're eating more sugar, wheat and vegetable oils.

Aaron Blaisdell said...

Having visited both Tokyo and Hong Kong in the past few years, I can personally attest to the fascination both cultures have with sweats and baked goods. The Japanese, in particular, are extremely good at making the packaging of their sweats and confections very colorful and attractive. I guess presentation has always been a very important part of the dining and consumption experience for them. Hong Kong has been influenced, I believe, by the Brits' consumption of sugar and refined flower baked goods. My wife who grew up in Hong Kong had gestational diabetes with both pregnancies (as did many of her Chinese friends during their pregnancies), and her father (still lives in HK) has T2 diabetes. He still faithfully eats his rice, though!

robrob said...

high fructose corn syrup, when did corn become a fruit?

I think people are confusing this with natural fruit fructose that God meant us to eat, believe me adam and eve didn't eat small barly sweet fruit in the garden. it was so desirable the name was appropriate eden, garden of pleasure.

only the liver can manage fructose, it converts it also to glycogen for itself. it prevents competition for the glucose in the blood. it only converts, from my understanding, fructose to fat in enviroment of insulin resistance.

sure if you give a rabbit or rat abundance of hfc with little else it will develope insulin resistance and high fats, not because of the fructose (but who knows it is man made after all)but because of the insulin resistance caused by malnutrtion.

what person who eats fruit and corn in natural state is malnorished if they are eating enough fruit and corn to make the liver convert fructose to fat instead of glycogen. impossible?.

I find it funny that our natural foods are blamed for a variety of ills when the fact is it poor nutrtion and man made chemicals and processing and the dieting people do in this country that is the culprit.

everyone is always trying to lose weight, reducing caloires, overeating when they can't stand the artifcial diet anymore, and then overeating on the wrong foods. I mean who can binge on fruits veggies and real whole grains or meats and fish?

naturally your body will veer you to quick fat producing foods high gi processed easily digested foods like carbs (junk foods sweets,)and fatty foods like ice cream with it's sugar and fat combo that the body just adores when it is trying to recover from a weight loss diet or people who only medicate their hunger for whatever reason who one day wonder why they can't stop eating the foods they are supposed to avoid. they don't see the connection between their undereating and overeating.

grains might be more of the problem then fruit, it seems alot of stuff is made from them even so called healthy products like dreamfields or whole grain pasta. if one is glucose intolerant grains probably should be reduced considerably.

eat all the fruit and veggies you want, high quality meats (whatever that is) and olive oils or some other good oil, nuts and seeds. these things are just to healthy ot avoid. esp fresh fruit.

they are jammed packed with nutrients that heal a fatty liver, heal the cells that are insulin resistant due to inflmmation or damage or improper fat/protein ratio. sooth the adrenals.

even if one believes man came from cro magnum man, it must be rememberd during their time, if they existed, was during dinosaurs at least when the mammath was around, and the earth would of be quite different then that conveyed on tv and textbooks. the climate was one of greenhouse with a water expanse, the dinosaurs didn't live off the tiny grasses and trees we see today. they would of ate these things to extinction.

they were huge and so were the plant and trees they fed on. so cromagnum man would of ate fruits and veggies and starches all year long, and it would of been large and sweet, as opposed to the idea of small and barly tasty fruits advocated in artists imaginations.

dinos were cold intolerant. they were found in the northern regions so those areas were warm. so much for the cartoon ice age.


Malindabunner said...

I thought quinoa was a seed, but it seems like everyone else here is saying it's a grain. I'm confused...