Type 2 Diabetes, a Dietary Disease #321: "Energy In" at the Cellular Level

Sometimes I can be pretty dense, or at least slow to comprehend something I have read or been told. A recent example is my understanding of the definition of Macronutrient Ratios and their application to “energy in.”

I first became interested in my “intake” ratios, that is, in the ratios of carbohydrate, fat and protein that I took into my body via mouth, i.e. what I ate – about 10 years ago. I was a pretty naïve “kid” at the time and created my initial ratio using a flawed model. Miraculously, it worked. Somehow, I lost 170 pounds altogether, and I did it without getting sick. In fact, there is not a doubt in the world about it: I got healthier and healthier!

Over the years the ratios changed somewhat, more from what I would call fine tuning than a conscious understanding of the model I was employing. I was just lucky, I guess, because the model was faulty. Anyhow, all of my ratio compositions had 3 things in common: a goal of being close to or in a mild state of ketosis most of the time. They were all very low carb, moderate protein and high fat. I gave special attention to the protein amount, ensuring it was adequate but not so much as to engender unwanted gluconeogenesis. And I was taking 500mg Metformin once a day for that. From the start I ate 3 small meals a day, equally spaced about 5 hours apart.

(One of the early errors I made was how to figure the amount of protein to eat at each meal. I erroneously based it on an amount in grams per pound (or kilogram) of total body weight. That is not correct. It should be calculated on grams of lean body weight (LBW), or “ideal body weight,” not total body weight. You don’t need to eat protein to support fat. Your requirement is based on muscle mass, and other bodily needs for protein.)

Nevertheless, the ratios changed from 7% carbs, 28% protein, and 65% fat to more recently 5% carbs, 20% protein, and 75% fat. All my ratios were based on “intake,” i.e. food by mouth. They did not take into account any energy that my body consumed when it was burning its own fat – the fat stores in my body. And whenever I was losing weight, my body fat was part of the equation and therefore a component of the ratio at the cellular level.

This error in my thinking was brought to my attention three times before it stuck. The first was by my editor. I have a vague recollection that when I first began writing this blog about five years ago, she mentioned it to me in an aside or comment on my writing. I glossed over it, but apparently it stuck somewhere in the back of my brain.

The second was in a chapter in Volek and Phinney’s, “The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living,” in my opinion the best book on the subject for a popular readership. And the third was recently in a very good column, “Don’t Force the Fat,” by the blogger and nutrition consultant, Kelley Pounds, at Low Carb RN (CDE). She uses bar graphs from Volek and Phinney and pie charts from another source to explain the contribution of body fat to the fat portion of the macronutrient ratio during the fat loss phase. As Kelley puts it succinctly, “My formula is low carb + moderate protein + moderate DIETARY fat + BODY FAT = LCHF.” I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Kelley came to this insightful conclusion after some rather blunt introspection: “For a while I wondered how I could be in nutritional ketosis, and either not lose…or sometimes actually gain weight. How can that be if I’m burning body fat?  Then I realized, I was just taking my old overeating habits and changing the source. So while I was keeping my carbs very low, and my protein moderate, I was overeating dietary fat. I was overeating period. I wasn’t listening to my body’s satiation signals…” This is good stuff! You should open the link above and read it.

Kelly concludes, “So while fat is not something to be feared, it is also not something to be gorged on…unless you need to STOP losing weight. That sounds like a good problem to have…I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it,” she says. I know where she’s coming from. “How many of us out there have already reached the point where we need to STOP losing body fat?” Ruefully, I agree. Not many. And now I understand, finally, that my macronutrient ratios were more “extreme” than I’d thought. All I have to remember now (from #319 here) is to 1) strictly follow a low carb diet, 2) eat only when hungry and 3) “listen to my body’s satiation signals.” Simple enough, right?

Type 2 Diabetes, a Dietary Disease #320: “Total Fasting Reduces or Eliminates Hunger”

As related in #319 here, to jump start weight loss I began a major change in my lifelong eating pattern. If successful, I am prepared to continue this new routine until I achieve my goal, then reassess. However, it is unlikely that I will transition at that point to “maintenance;” it is more likely that I will set a new goal and continue the weight loss. After all, why mess with success? I will still have a lot of weight to lose.

The modified plan basically incorporates a daily fast (7 days/week) from supper to lunch. That entails skipping my (our) traditional breakfast of eggs (mine was 3, any style). The plan also requires me to only eat when hungry, and only until I am sated. So, to work these parameters into my plan, I have prepared my lunch in advance: a covered container of hard boiled eggs in the refrigerator. That provides portion control and allows me to eat just enough to “satisfy.” As an alternate lunch, I also have a tin of Brisling sardines in EVOO, another portion controlled meal.

Here’s where it gets interesting. I decided to skip breakfast because I observed that after an overnight fast I was never hungry at breakfast. So from the standpoint of adhering to the new “plan” to incorporate a longer fast and eat only when hungry, skipping breakfast makes sense. But because I’m married and try to maintain an eating pattern compatible with a “family” lifestyle, I make a cup of coffee every day when I rise and then save some to “eat breakfast” (take my pills) with my wife. The coffee contains a little cream, but not enough to break my fast.

Then lunch time rolls around. My wife told me long ago (right after we retired) that she “married me for better or worse, but not for lunch.” So, not eating lunch with her was not a problem. Before my new eating pattern, lunch was usually a can of Brisling sardines packed in EVOO. (Omega 3s, MUFAs, portion control and no dishes.) This lunch, together with 2g of fish oil a day, has produced fabulous triglycerides for over a decade (all <50mg/dl).

Now, with the new dictum to “eat only when hungry,” around lunch time (1-3PM), I usually eat just 1, sometimes 2, hard-boiled eggs. Why? I am still not hungry at lunch, ‘cause I have become keto adapted. So, 1 or 2 eggs is a token, a “protein-sparing” offering to my body: 6 or 12 grams of protein, and some good fats to go along with it.

Naturally, I am now getting a little concerned about my total calorie intake. No conventional Registered Dietician (RD) or Certified Diabetes Educator (CDE), or clinician (MD), would counsel someone of my gender, age, weight and activity level to eat as little as 1,200kcal/day (which is how I achieved most of my 170 pound weight loss), much less as little as 800kcal/day. But that’s where it looks like I’m going. My “3-small-meals-a-day” plan had been 375 + 375 + 450 = 1,200kcal. My predicament was a bit of a conundrum, until I considered total energy expenditure. Fasting “reduces or eliminates hunger” because the body is happily feeding on its own fat reserves.

Total energy expenditure, at the cellular level, is what your body is oxidizing, or burning, to supply all your body’s energy needs. If you are eating a balanced diet that includes beaucoup carbs, it will burn the carbs (and protein and fat) you eat and then tell you that you are hungry for more. It does this because 1) it assumes you have access to more carbs and, therefore, 2) it does not (i.e. cannot) burn fat that it has conserved in your body, for this very purpose, because access to it is blocked. You are, in fact, quite literally starving. Your body does this “dirty trick” on you with hormone signaling between the gut and the brain. The hormone insulin is the switch.

But when you become ketoadapted, by abstaining from eating carbs for 1-3 days, your blood insulin level drops, opening the switch to your body’s fat reserves. From this point on, so long as you abstain from eating more than incidental carbs, your body burns whatever you eat first and then effortlessly (without hunger) switches over to burning fat, your body fat. Body fat breaks down into free fatty acids (FFAs) and ketone bodies, excellent sources of fuel for both brain and heart. You are in a blissful state called “ketosis.”

As the NIH’s Richard L. Veech told Gary Taubes here, “Doctors are scared of ketosis. They're always worried about diabetic ketoacidosis. But ketosis is a normal physiologic state. I would argue it is the normal state of man.” 

Type 2 Diabetes, a Dietary Disease #319: Losing Weight and Keeping It Off

As anyone who has ever tried it knows, losing weight and keeping it off is the proverbial double-edged sword. When my doctor suggested I try Atkins Induction in 2002, I lost 60 pounds in 40 weeks. A few years later, I re-gained 12. Then, by browsing the web, I found Dr. Richard K. Bernstein’s diet. I had been a Type 2 Diabetic for about 18 years so I tried it and lost 100 pounds in 50 weeks. Eventually I lost another 20 or so (170 total); over the ensuing years I re-gained almost 70. Net lost after 14 years: still well over 100 pounds, but disappointing.

From the beginning my efforts have been challenged by “compliance issues”and always somewhat constrained by culture, tradition, and habits. They die hard. Because I’m married and try to maintain an eating pattern compatible with a “family” lifestyle, I have settled into a Way of Eating (WOE) consisting of 3 small meals a day. We always eat breakfast together, eat separate lunches (she married me for better or worse, not for lunch, she says), and a small supper together. Our meals are spaced 5 hours apart, leaving a 14-hour fast after supper. My snack, if I eat one, is before supper. These days it’s sliced radishes with salt – I forego the butter – with a drink.

Last summer, with renewed resolve, I decided to deal with the “compliance issue” and began to lose weight again. However, after losing about 20 pounds, my weight loss stalled. We moved to Florida for the winter, and some old habits began to kick in. So, I decided a more radical approach was required to kick start my weight loss again. Andreas Eenfeldt, M.D., "The Diet Doctor," came to my rescue. As part of a bonus for being an email subscriber (not a “member”), I was entitled to watch two videos. The 2nd one did the trick for me. 

In his podcast Andreas advised a 5-step approach to weight loss, and I have adopted it. If you’re not a subscriber to his blog, you may not be able to view it, so I’ll summarize it here succinctly, as I have interpreted it:

1.  Follow strictly a low carb diet.

2.  Eat only when hungry.  

3.  Sleep 8 hours a night.

4.  Weigh yourself daily.

5.  Exercise (“No! Just kidding,” he says; LOL) Intermittent Fasting

The two forms of Intermittent Fasting (IF) that The Diet Doctor “prescribes” are: 

   a. 5:2, in which you eat “normally” for 5 days a week, and then no more than 500-600 calories a day on the 2 fasting days. I don’t really consider that fasting; to me, that’s a big meal and just an invitation to stall!

   b. 16:8, in which you fast 16 hours, and then eat all your food within an 8 hour window. I can do that easily. In fact, I can do better. I am never hungry in the morning. I am usually up and working or reading for 3 hours before we eat breakfast together, and I’m still not hungry then. So, I’ve started to skip breakfast. I make a cup of coffee when I rise, and I save some to take my pills at the table with my wife. Then, I eat a late lunch, my first solid food for the day, and our usual small supper, sometimes with radishes, salt, and diet tonic or vodka tonic beforehand.

Lunch is usually just one or two hard boiled eggs. If I’m not hungry, it’s one or none. Alternatively, I sometimes eat my old standby lunch: a can of Brisling sardines in olive oil. (Good for Omega 3s – I also supplement with 1 gram of fish oil twice a day.) And I plan to start supplementing with ketones. A lot more to come on that shortly.

Supper is just a small serving of protein and a low-carb vegetable roasted in olive oil or tossed in grass-fed butter, or a salad tossed in my homemade vinaigrette dressing. Some examples of other light suppers can be foundhere.

My goal now is to lose another 10 pounds before leaving Florida, and 20 more by the 1-year anniversary of this, my latest weight loss odyssey. That’s fifty total, and 150 from the start. I hope my marriage survives.

Type 2 Diabetes, a Dietary Disease #318: The Mystery of Antonin Scalia’s Sudden Death

The headline in the LA Times/AP story:“Scalia's death probably linked to obesity, diabetes and coronary artery disease, physician says.” The lede in the story was, “Antonin Scalia suffered from coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes, among other ailments that probably contributed to the justice's sudden death, according to a letter from the Supreme Court's doctor. He said the long list of health problems made an autopsy unnecessary.”

According to a letter from his attending physician, “significant medical conditions led to his death.” The AP said that the letter “listed more than a half-dozen ailments, including sleep apnea, degenerative joint disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high blood pressure. Scalia also was a smoker, the letter said.” That’s quite a list. So mainstream medicine comfortably reached a consensus that he was a very sick guy.

Antonin Scalia died peacefully and suddenly in his sleep at age 79. Given his multiple medical conditions, that was neither a surprising nor a premature outcome. But it didn’t have to be – premature, that is. He might have been expected to live well into his 80s or even longer. Given his multiple conditions, however, it is in fact somewhat surprising that he lived as long as he did. It’s a credit to modern medicine and to the medical care he received.

I have neither a prurient interest in his cause of death, nor do I suggest or support any conspiracy theories. Rather, I wish to use Scalia’s death to emphasize, as Jenny Ruhl (at “Blood Sugar 101”) points out here with more than a dozen links, “Heart attack risk more than doubles at blood sugar levels considered to be ‘PREDIABETIC.’”

As the LA Times headline shouts, blood sugar levels and obesity and cardiovascular risk are all related; and the risk of heart attack, or a fatal heart arrhythmia (the probable cause of Scalia’s death), can be reduced by losing weight and controlling blood sugar levels…as I have said here ad nauseam. More easily said than done, you say?

Well, consider this related Associated Press story, filed by David Warren in Dallas, TX, that included an interview with a physician of internal and emergency medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago. He said, “The justice's many ailments, taken together, were ‘quite dangerous,’” and “he would advise a patient with those conditions who was still smoking to stop smoking first and then lose weight.” Okay, that’s fair, but so facile.

“Those are the main two things someone in his position can do himself,” the doctor said, without suggesting how to lose weight. He knew full well that most patients who follow medical advice on how to lose weight will fail, but that’s on the patient. (The doctor simply notes in the patient’s medical record, “patient non-compliant.) “The rest falls on the physician,” he said, “to medically manage blood pressure and make sure their blood sugar levels are controlled well.” But all of these things are related, and all of them are things someone can do himself. The effect on the body is synergistic. And the catalyst that gets them all to work together is a Very Low Carbohydrate diet.

The body can heal itself, can achieve homeostasis at a new, much lower set point: a “happy,” balanced, healthy body. As you eat Very Low Carb, 1) you lose weight (without hunger), 2) your blood sugar levels and your bloods lipids (cholesterol) improve; and 3) as you lose weight, your blood pressure improves and your cardiovascular risk declines. You feel good. You’re not hungry all the time. You’re not lethargic or sleepy after a meal. You have lots of energy.

You don’t need to rely on your doctor to over medicate you for blood sugar control or maybe even blood pressure. (I still take blood pressure meds, but after a large weight loss my BP went from 130/90 to 110/70 on the same meds.) And after eating Very Low Carb consistently, my HDL-C doubled and my triglycerides dropped by two-thirds; my doctor took me off the statin I had taken for five years. And all those oral meds for type 2 diabetes? Within days of starting to eat Very Low Carb, I had to give them up to avoid hypos!

Of course, after living a relatively long life, dying suddenly and peacefully in your sleep isn’t such a bad outcome.

Type 2 Diabetes, a Dietary Disease #317: Patient, heal thyself.

“Physician, heal thyself” is a familiar proverb attributed to Luke the Evangelist (4:23). It was made famous, and is often quoted from the Latin translation of the Bible, as Cura te ipsum, or simply “cure thyself.” According to a citation in Wikipedia, “The moral of the proverb is counsel to attend to one's own defects rather than criticizing defects in others.” I prefer to think of it in a more positive and proactive way; I say: Take control of your own life.

I say, don’t blame one’s condition in life on others, or even look back at one’s own mistakes. Instead, think of your life in the present and make wise choices. A former co-worker once referred to my outlook on life as Jungian. I trace its origin in my psyche to a program I took many years ago called “the est Training .” It was, as promised, transformational.

A knowledgeable reader of this blog, whose views I respect, related this philosophical view to the current Dietary Guidelines debate. In a recent comment he said, “It's been pretty well documented…that T2D is a self-inflicted malady. You might not have been pointing the gun (‘guidelines’ do that for you), but you pulled the trigger.” I replied, “I like that. You have to accept responsibility first, if you are going to do something about it.” Right?

The relevance to Type 2 Diabetes, which I have coined “a dietary disease,” is that you control pretty much every thing you put into your mouth…and thus you could control your Type 2 Diabetes from this bite forward. Thus, you can “cure thyself.” You just have to believe in this Way of Eating and have the strength to follow it religiously. It’s not easy to “give up” so many foods to which you have become habituated, but this much I can tell you: You won’t have to wait for the hereafter to see results (LOL). You will see results almost overnight. You will lose weight without hunger, and your doctor will be astounded at your improved health markers every time you visit.

Luckily, for me, I started eating Very Low Carb on the advice of my doctor. I weighed 375 pounds, and my doctor had been trying for years to get me to lose weight. It was summer of 2002, and he had just read the New York Times Sunday magazine cover story, “What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie,” by Gary Taubes, an award-winning science writer.  When my doctor next saw me, he said, “Have I got a diet for you!” I tried it, strictly following the original Atkins Induction plan (20g of carbs/day). Over the course of time, I lost 170 pounds.

My doctor’s heresy in recommending such an “extreme” diet in 2002 wasn’t as irresponsible as the mainstream medical establishment would have you believe. Low Carb – even Very Low Carb – dieting has been around for a long time. It just went out of fashion about the time older doctors practicing today got their training. Saturated fat and cholesterol were declared verboten for heart health, and all fats were targeted for reduction in the diet. As a result, carbohydrates were ascendant, achieving and maintaining to this day 60% (300g/day) of the calories recommended on a 2,000kcal diet. As a result, we as a nation have gotten fatter and sicker.

Now, in the face of advancements in the science of healthy eating, and in the absence of good science to support the dangers of saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, and salt, the worm is turning. The 2015 “Guidelines” have totally banned trans fats and eliminated the limit on total fat. In addition, it has dropped the limitation on dietary cholesterol. The DGAC states “cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”

And in the opinion of many who follow these developments, as the multitude of dangers from highly processed, oxidized and rancid polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils such as corn and soy beans are exposed, we will eventually return to eating healthy, natural, saturated fats like butter, coconut oil, lard and tallow.

I was lucky. My doctor suggested Very Low Carb for me. But if your doctor doesn’t suggest you try eating Low Carb, I hope he/she will at least support your decision to try it. Let him/her see you at frequent intervals, if they want to, to check on your progress. I benefitted from my doctor’s monitoring of key blood markers monthly for the first year, and he learned a lot too. Why don’t you suggest yours do the same? I warrant it will work….

Type 2 Diabetes, a Dietary Disease #316: With so much carb restriction, what can I eat?

If you’re newly diagnosed and you’ve investigated your choice of “treatment plans,” and you are willing to consider treating your condition as a “dietary disease,” you next need to know how to choose what to eat! Most folks faced with this challenge ask, “With so much carb restriction, what can I eat?!!”

Most of us have lived our lives eating a surprisingly limited variety of foods. Culture, convenience and habit play a big role, so the answer will be different for everyone. Generally, in recent times that limited variety has consisted largely of carbohydrates. That’s how we got into this mess!! So the foods we have eaten for most of our lives are necessarily going to have to change. And that change will be a process of elimination, which will, for most people, further reduce the variety of foods going forward.

Naturally, most people have come to think of carb restriction as deprivation. And, in the sense that you will need to forego many of the things that got you into trouble, that’s fair. But another way to think of it is to ask yourself if what you ate gave you intestinal distress (cramping and diarrhea), as it does to gluten or lactose intolerant people, wouldn’t you readily and speedily give it up? By this way of thinking, foregoing excessive carbohydrates in the diet is a more moderate (if similarly life-long) change; you are restricting eating excess carbs to avoid future blindness, lower extremity amputations, and end-stage kidney disease! Plus, you are avoiding a much higher risk of heart disease, stroke, sexual dysfunction and certain cancers! This motivates a lot of people.

Under these circumstances, I think you’ll agree that learning what you can safely eat takes on a much more positive aspect. And you have a lot of good choices. Let’s start with the basics: There are three “macronutrients”: protein, fat and carbohydrates. Most animal protein is “complete protein” (contains the essential amino acids), and also contains some fat (mostly saturated). That’s okay. Even dietary cholesterol is okay. In 2014 the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee said “cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”

So, every meal should contain some animal protein and fat. After that, a small amount of carbohydrate is okay, but entirely optional. We need to eat protein and fat, but there is no minimum dietary requirement for carbs. But, if we’re going to consume carbs, let them be 1) unprocessed, whole foods, 2) non-starchy vegetables such as greens, and 3) low in “sugar.” I avoid peas, beets, carrots and corn (except for locally grown ears in summer: LOL).

Good advice I gleaned from Dr. Richard K. Bernstein’s book, “The Diabetes Diet” (Little, Brown, 2005), was to eat the same food every day for one or even two meals each day. For him, an 81yo Type 1 Diabetic, this eliminates the food variable from his insulin regimen, but I find that I am perfectly content to just eat eggs (any style), and coffee with cream, for breakfast. No juice. No bread. This meal is very filling and carries me way past lunch. Five hours after breakfast I usually eat a can of sardines in EVOO. Just one small can. And a small bottle of water.

Five hours later I eat another small meal for supper: a small serving of animal protein with fat, and a moderately sized serving of low carb vegetables prepared with fat. Examples are: asparagus spears or cauliflower florets tossed in olive oil and roasted; steamed broccoli finished with garlic butter; young green beans tossed in melted grass-fed butter; a salad of romaine, endive, mushrooms, and chopped hazelnuts or slivered almonds, tossed in a homemade (not store bought) vinaigrette dressing, with grated Romano or Parmesan.

The meat course is always small and always enough: one roasted chicken thigh (skin on); two small lamb chops (a rack of 8 is enough for two people for two meals!); one 8 ounce filet mignon, cut in half to serve two; ¾ pound of cod (for 2), poached stovetop with celery and fennel; stove-top shrimp with mushrooms and broccoli; veal stew baked with bacon, mushrooms, onions and sour cream. The choices are endless, if you think about it.

If these seem like small meals, they are. But because they have lots of satiating protein and fat, they are filling. Animal protein is expensive, you say. True, but you eat so much less of it when you limit carbohydrates. All the food on this menu plan is unprocessed and nutrient dense. They satisfy the body’s nutritional needs, so you will eat less. These small meals, with very limited carbs, will allow you to go without snacking between meals and without feeling hungry. It will also quickly lead to weight loss, if that is a parallel goal to blood sugar control.

It’s really pretty amazing. Use your meter and the measuring tape (waist - hip ratio) or scale to check your progress. You will soon be convinced that Type 2 Diabetes is a Dietary Disease, and you have all the tools you need to control it and put it in remission.

Type 2 Diabetes, a Dietary Disease #315: “Carbohydrates and Sugars” Redux

In “The Nutrition Debate,” the precursor blog to this series, column #31 (out of 305), “Carbohydrates and Sugars,” had many thousands of hits. And since my new emphasis is on the recently diagnosed Pre-Diabetic and Type 2 Diabetic, demystifying carbohydrates and sugars is a good place to start. So, let’s get down to basics.

The premise for educating the reader about carbohydrates, including sugars, is that you have independently researched the medical condition, T2DM, and its precursors, Pre-Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome, and the “history” of how these conditions develop, and have concluded, that all of these conditions are dietary diseases. It is still something of a mystery that not everyone who eats the Standard American Diet (SAD) develops them, but it is widely accepted that 1) a genetic predisposition is required and 2) that the SAD triggers a metabolic “expression” in those who eat it and are so predisposed. Today, this affects about a third of the U.S. population.

One “expression” of this metabolic dysfunction is the associated development of obesity. In fact, they are so closely related that the word “diabesity” has been coined to link them. Most medical sites actually cite obesity as a “cause” of diabetes. That is simply wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The principal cause of obesity is Insulin Resistance (IR), a medical condition that develops and underlies Type 2 Diabetes and its precursor conditions. The actual mechanism is described in #308 here and again in #313 here.

So, what is the SAD? According to Wikipedia, “The typical American diet is about 50% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 35% fat. Are you surprised? You shouldn’t be. For over 35 years our government has been urging us to eat a diet that is 60% carbohydrate, 30% fat and 10% protein! And it still does! Check out the Nutrition Facts panel on processed food packages and do the math yourself. Your government has been leading you down this primrose path. And these guidelines, including the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans released last month, still lead us on this misguided path. You, I presume, have concluded that it is no longer in your best interests to follow them.

So, if you’re going to eat fewer carbohydrates, it’s necessary to know something about the nutrient composition of food. All foods are composed of protein, fat and carbohydrates. Period. (Alcohol is not a “nutrient.” LOL)

1) All carbohydrates are saccharides; that’s Latin for “sugars.” For nutritional purposes, they are divided into two broad classes: simple sugars and so-called “complex” carbohydrates. In the blood, they are all called glucose.

2) Simple sugars are further divided into compounds of one or two molecules (monosaccharides and disaccharides). Examples include sucrose (table or cane sugar, a disaccharide composed of one molecule each of glucose and fructose). It is the same disaccharide sucrose found in fruit, together with the monosaccharides free glucose and free fructose. Sugar in fruit has the exact same effect on your blood sugar as table (cane) sugar.

3) Disaccharides break down quickly and easily into glucose and another monosaccharide. The glucose circulates in the bloodstream until it is absorbed by receptor cells. Excess glucose is returned to the liver for storage. When the liver stores are full, these sugars are converted by lipogenesis to fat. Repeated slugs of liquid sugar hitting a full liver can ultimately lead to “fatty liver disease.” All fruit juices and soft drinks are such “slugs.”

4) Complex carbohydrates are comprised of longer chains of just glucose molecules. They are divided into two classes: oligosaccharides comprised of 3 to 10 glucose molecules linked together, and polysaccharides, comprised of more than 10 molecules of just glucose. Examples are all starches (breads, cereals, potatoes, rice and pasta).

5) The so-called complex carbohydrates are commonly (and erroneously) thought to be better dietary choices than simple sugars. In my view, that’s like saying arsenic is better for you than cyanide because it works more slowly. Remember, bread is how the glycemic index is defined. It has an “index” of 100. After highly processed and “refined” (more aptly “stripped”) white flour, and water, the third ingredient in every loaf of bread is some form of added sugar. And sprouted (malted) grains only mean that the process of breaking down those grains to glucose and other “sugars” began at the bakery. By processing, the “complex” food becomes “simple” sugars.

6) While some chains of glucose in whole, unprocessed foods take a little longer than processed ones to be digested by enzymes, remember a) they are all glucose molecules and b) all glucose in your blood will raise your blood sugar. And if you have Insulin Resistance, your blood sugar will remain elevated and be harmful to your health. Just remember: If you are IR, you are Carbohydrate Intolerant. Type 2 Diabetes is a Dietary Disease.