Glycemic Load of Steve's raw food diet may be too high

[Vantage72]

I've been reading up on Glycemic Index and Load research lately.
AboutGI

It seems like more and more health problems are linked to eating too high GI & GL. Among them heart problems, diabetis and more.

I was quite shocked to see that Steve sometimes eats 11 banana's in the morning. That would be a GL of 110 for only the banana's. A food expert I trust recommends taking no more than 100 GL for all foods on one full day.

So not surprisingly Steve reports: "After all this sweet fruit in the morning, I started feeling nauseous around 11:30am." That makes sense to me.

I also sent a comment about this to Steve, it might be beneficial for him to watch his GL intake, I think.

[Michelle]

Indeed. I guess we can expect him to drop dead any day now!

[Steve Pavlina]

Glycemic index/load is more important when you're eating a high-fat diet, since if your blood is too fatty, it will interfere with the uptake of sugar by your cells. This can cause blood sugar problems and exacerbate diabetes symtoms. That's why I don't recommend adding fruit to a high-fat diet (which is what the average American eats by default -- about 42% of calories from fat). If you get 30%+ of calories from fat, your bloodstream will constantly be filled with excess fat.

But when your diet is low-fat, your body shouldn't have a problem with lots of fresh fruit. Most fruits are low-GI foods, including bananas, and they come packaged with plenty of water and fiber to help your body process the sugar at just the right rate.

Be careful not to confuse the initial adaptation period with the long-term effect of this diet. It's normal to feel lousy for the first week or two as your body adjusts.

[Vantage72]

Well everyone will have his own opinion and I respect that.

My opinion:
-Banana's have a GI of 51 and a GL of 10, I would not call that low.
-11 banana's in relatively short time will cause big blood sugar spikes and drops no matter what the rest of your diet looks like. Anyway, that's my belief from experimenting with it.

Good luck on the rest of your trial, I'm enjoying reading about it very much.

[Joeschmoe]

You may be right but short blood sugar "spikes" are part of what satiate hunger. the problem is how long the blood sugar stays high. It is fact, not opinion, that excess dietary fat keeps your blood sugar higher for longer. Actually bananas come in at a medium GI and GL which puts them well below a lot of whole grain foods.

So what I'm saying is that you are right bananas will increase your blood sugar, but if you have a very low fat diet that isn't a problem.

[Vantage72]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

It is fact, not opinion, that excess dietary fat keeps your blood sugar higher for longer.

I understand that and I am not disagreeing wih that.

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

So what I'm saying is that you are right bananas will increase your blood sugar , but if you have a very low fat diet that isn't a problem.

This is where we have a different opinion or experience.

If i eat a meal with a GL of 110 it leads (after about 2 hours) to a decrease in energy and mental clarity. If I go for a low GI meal, I feel clear and equanimity for hours. (I am on a low fat diet and in healthy shape).

[Joeschmoe]

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to argue with you. There are reason's that Steve is eating the way he's eating. He hasn't neglected GI/GL. If you really want to know why, it is worth Reading "The 80/10/10 diet" by Dr. Douglas Graham. All you are going to get here are bits and pieces.

[Verenice]

Vantage72,

I agree with you.

[Vantage72]

Hi Verenice,

I would suggest to calculate it for yourself, these are good resources:
http://www.shaklee.com/pws/library/p..._gl_tables.pdf
Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load
http://www.mendosa.com/GI_GL_Carb_data1.xls

I like to keep a GL of max. 100 on a day, but that could be different for everyone. I've read some research that linked a daily GL of >175 to some problems. (can't remember exactky what problems, from reading so much)

Further on, I really believe in doing what feels right for you.

Good luck!

[Vantage72]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

If you really want to know why, it is worth Reading "The 80/10/10 diet" by Dr. Douglas Graham. All you are going to get here are bits and pieces.

Thanks for the tip Joe. At the moment I've had enough to read but who knows what happens in the future.

On a sidenote, I tried to find some background on Dr. Graham but could not find if he is a real doctor. I suspect not. I am always very sceptical of people who pose as "Dr." without actually being a doctor. In some states in US this is considered illegal.

[Vantage72]

Originally Posted by Verenice

When you say you keep your GI around 100, are you raw vagan and do you eat a reasonable amount of fruit? (I am asking that because my thought was if 100 is at all achievable on raw, high fruit diet)

No I am not a raw vegan and yes I eat quite a lot of fruit. My diet consists mainly of vegetables, fruit, nuts, grains, some fish, some dairy.

Fruits like kiwi's, pears, apples are only 5 GL. Most vegetables are very low on GI and GL. So I think it would be possible.

But maybe you feel fine on a daily GL of 150. I have not found many online resources on recommend daily GL. Just this one of dutch food expert that I trust who recommends 100 (not for a raw vegan diet). If finds good online resources, I would like to know.

One thing about your diet: I personally prefer to eat 7 times on a day. I believe in eating many small meals/snacks.

[Joeschmoe]

He is a Doctor of Chiropractic. I don't necessarily think that this is worthy of a Dr status, but i was giving you the Dr because that's what he uses. Beyond that he has been following and researching "his" diet for 20 or so years. I don't remember if he has other credentials, but i know that many MD's have had no classes on nutrition. I don't tend to be someone who goes for what a Dr says simply because they are a doctor.

The menu suggested earlier in the post would be far to high in fat for the plan steve is doing. The ides is to get your calories from fat down to about 10%. In a 2000 Kcal diet that would be about 1/2 an avocado or an ounce of nuts, considering most fruits and vegetables already have about 5% calories from fat.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Vantage72

Well everyone will have his own opinion and I respect that.

My opinion:
-Banana's have a GI of 51 and a GL of 10, I would not call that low.
-11 banana's in relatively short time will cause big blood sugar spikes and drops no matter what the rest of your diet looks like. Anyway, that's my belief from experimenting with it.

Good luck on the rest of your trial, I'm enjoying reading about it very much.

Testing I've done with a blood sugar monitoring device hasn't shown any spikes or plunges from eating lots of fruit whatsoever -- not even once. In fact, my blood sugar has been remarkably stable, holding to a fairly narrow range. The only thing that seems to cause it to change much is vigorous weight training, where it can dip low if I train before eating, but then it rebounds shortly thereafter.

This theory just doesn't seem to reflect my actual results.

If you are eating a high-fat diet (>10% of calories from fat), which is pretty much guaranteed to be the case if you're consuming fish and dairy as you mentioned, then you'll run into problems with sugar metabolism due to excess fat in your bloodstream, in which case your theory would likely be a better match for reality. But the sugar itself isn't the problem. It's that your arteries and veins are filled with fat. Pouring more sugar into the blood without addressing the fat problem only makes things worse. You can try to eat lower GI foods, which may help a little, but then you're merely engaged in symptom management instead of systemic correction. As long as you continue eating a high-fat diet, you'll always have this problem.

I'd suggest trying a low-fat diet, even one that isn't raw, where you're getting 10% of calories from fat or less, for at least a week or two. Then see what happens when you eat higher GI foods.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Testing I've done with a blood sugar monitoring device hasn't shown any spikes or plunges from eating lots of fruit whatsoever -- not even once. In fact, my blood sugar has been remarkably stable, holding to a fairly narrow range.

Steve, I posted why this is earlier. Fructose does not affect blood sugar significantly.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If you are eating a high-fat diet (>10% of calories from fat), which is pretty much guaranteed to be the case if you're consuming fish and dairy as you mentioned, then you'll run into problems with sugar metabolism due to excess fat in your bloodstream, in which case your theory would likely be a better match for reality. But the sugar itself isn't the problem. It's that your arteries and veins are filled with fat. Pouring more sugar into the blood without addressing the fat problem only makes things worse. You can try to eat lower GI foods, which may help a little, but then you're merely engaged in symptom management instead of systemic correction. As long as you continue eating a high-fat diet, you'll always have this problem.

That is just not true Steve. Where are you getting your information? Credible research indicates that fats do not effect the circulating blood glucose concentration in normal non-diabetic people. It even shows that it has opposite effect. For research facts see: Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition

[Dan.Linehan]

@ Tek

Your conclusion in your linked post was this:

"So it seems you should be watching your cholesterol not your blood sugar levels."

But Steve is vegan, meaning he's been on a zero cholesterol diet for over a decade..

Yet, you still think his cholesterol is going to be an issue??

[nownow]

Does anyone else besides Dr. Graham argue that circulating fat effects GI or GL. I have never heard of this in any book I have read about nutrition. Is this a fact or a hypothesis? Have studies being done to prove this? Steve may be lucky and can handle a high GL, at least for now, but I bet most people can't.

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Steve, I posted why this is earlier. Fructose does not affect blood sugar significantly.



That is just not true Steve. Where are you getting your information? Credible research indicates that fats do not effect the circulating blood glucose concentration in normal non-diabetic people. It even shows that it has opposite effect. For research facts see: Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition

I don't see a low fat diet in here. they start at a baseline of 30% which is far higher than low fat diet advocates suggest. So all it compares is how people react to sugar on 3 times the amount of fat recommended and 5 times the amount recommended. I'm not suprised there is no difference.

Here is some research for people with diabetes on a 10% fat diet.

Here is one from a school in my town

Here is one about people who don't have diabetes.

I mean we can fire back and forth with studies all day. I don't think it's fair to say Steve is wrong.

Also Bananas have more sugar in the form of glucose than fructose, so that's now why they don't have an effect on blood sugar.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by tekomino

For research facts see: Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition

That report says they tested diets ranging from 30% to 50% of calories from fat. Those are all high-fat options. Why didn't they include a low-fat diet as one of their test options?

They probably used the 30-50% range because the American dietary average is about 40% fat, but it's no surprise to me they didn't see much difference in results from using such a narrow range at the high-fat end of the scale. They should have tested a diet with <10% of calories from fat.

This was a very poorly designed test. I didn't check to see who funded this testing behind the scenes, but it smells of the kind of sham research often funded and encouraged by the meat and dairy interests. In similar tests they frequently use 30% of calories from fat as a minimum baseline because once you go below that level, you usually have to start reducing meat and dairy from your diet, and that's a big no-no for their pocketbooks. I'm not saying that's true for this test, but the design certainly fits the pattern.

Another possibility is that they used 30% because it's in line with USDA recommendations, which are also heavily corrupted by the meat and dairy lobbies. 30% is most definitely not a low-fat option. It's high fat to begin with.

Can you find a similar test where they went down to 10% of calories from fat or less? At least that test would have a credible design.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Here is some research for people with diabetes on a 10% fat diet.

Here is one from a school in my town

Here is one about people who don't have diabetes.

Take a look at the study posted... The findings are different for people with diabetes thus what you quote here does not negate that...

Without scientific studies all we have are opinions...

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That report says they tested diets ranging from 30% to 50% of calories from fat. Those are all high-fat options. Why didn't they include a low-fat diet as one of their test options?

They probably used the 30-50% range because the American dietary average is about 40% fat, but it's no surprise to me they didn't see much difference in results from using such a narrow range at the high-fat end of the scale. They should have tested a diet with <10% of calories from fat.

When I have more time I will look for it, but what leads you to believe different? Did you read any studies that confirm your statements? What are your statements based on aside from anecdotal evidence?

To me all this makes sense. Diet that is prevalent in any single thing cannot be healthy. Getting as much sugar as you are getting in your diet cannot be healthy either... I hold same opinion for other type of diets like Atkins crap...

While you can certanly do to your body what you please, I think other people should be aware of risks...

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

30% is most definitely not a low-fat option. It's high fat to begin with.

What fat content did you regularly consume on your vegan diet previous to this RAW diet? Were you 10% beforehand too? Or is staying at 10% something new?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by tekomino

To me all this makes sense. Diet that is prevalent in any single thing cannot be healthy. Getting as much sugar as you are getting in your diet cannot be healthy either...

Why? Our cells run on sugar. Why make it harder to give them what they need by forcing them to convert a less efficient energy source?

The notion of balance in this case isn't consistent with reality. It's a concept used by marketers when they want to convince people to "balance in" their superfluous products to generate more sales.

We don't need to balance breathing air with sucking up cigarette smoke, nor do we need to balance whole natural fruits with the output of factories.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by seeker5

What fat content did you regularly consume on your vegan diet previous to this RAW diet? Were you 10% beforehand too? Or is staying at 10% something new?

I don't know for certain since I didn't measure it. I'm sure it varied a lot from day to day as well as from year to year. Before starting this raw trial, I got most of my calories from grain products like oatmeal, brown rice, pasta, cereal, and sandwiches made with Ezekiel sprouted bread. I included some higher fat foods like tofu (14g of fat per block) and hummus, but the vast majority of my calories were from complex carbs. I didn't eat a lot of nuts or indulge in fatty desserts regularly. I would often snack on fruit between meals, especially bananas.

If I had to guess, it was probably around 15-25% on average. Dropping the fat below 10% is something new I'm doing for this trial. So far I like the results.

[Steve Pavlina]

Actually I found an old food log from March 28, 2007 where I recorded the exact ratios I was eating. At least on that day, I was getting 22% of calories from fat, 10% from protein, and 68% from carbs. I had a muffin and some cereal and fruit for breakfast and brown rice for lunch and dinner. That's pretty typical of how I was eating back then -- lots of grains.

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Take a look at the study posted... The findings are different for people with diabetes thus what you quote here does not negate that...

Without scientific studies all we have are opinions...

I don't know which study you are talking about? I didn't see anything about a difference. There is only one which has subjects that aren't diabetic and it doesn't mention diabetes.

[Vantage72]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Why? Our cells run on sugar. Why make it harder to give them what they need by forcing them to convert a less efficient energy source?

But don't our bodies need protein too?

I see in your raw food diet on some days 32 grams or protein. Especially when you're doing a lot of exercise, that seems like not enough.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Vantage72

But don't our bodies need protein too?

I see in your raw food diet on some days 32 grams or protein. Especially when you're doing a lot of exercise, that seems like not enough.

No you are wrong! Steve says all we need is sugar.

[bdp]

Originally Posted by Vantage72

But don't our bodies need protein too?

I see in your raw food diet on some days 32 grams or protein. Especially when you're doing a lot of exercise, that seems like not enough.

32 grams is likely far more than required for normal body function. Some studies have concluded that the human body requires about 2.5% of calories from protein, and the World Health Organization has doubled that recommendation just to be safe (see this article.)

Steve is getting twice the WHO's recommendation, which is twice the measured requirement. If he had an amino acid deficiency he would feel "a clear increase in nervous irritability, extreme fatigue, and a profound failure of appetite" as described in the above link. But instead he claims to be getting stronger and experiencing less fatigue when exercising, which would suggest that he's building muscle, or at least maintaining.

[Jacko Green]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

@ Tek

Your conclusion in your linked post was this:

"So it seems you should be watching your cholesterol not your blood sugar levels."

But Steve is vegan, meaning he's been on a zero cholesterol diet for over a decade..

Yet, you still think his cholesterol is going to be an issue??

Certainly with all that fructose. Fructose has to be processed by the liver. Once your hepatic glycogen levels are maxed out, your body will convert that fructose to fat. Plenty of studies out there confirm that a diet high in fructose creates an abundnace of LDL cholesterol.

when five volunteers ate a diet with 20 percent fructose, their total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol shot up. But the combination of suppressed copper and high fructose also increased the number of free radicals, damaged molecules that contribute to cancer and aging.

Fruit needs to be consumed in moderation.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

@ Tek

Your conclusion in your linked post was this:

"So it seems you should be watching your cholesterol not your blood sugar levels."

But Steve is vegan, meaning he's been on a zero cholesterol diet for over a decade..

Yet, you still think his cholesterol is going to be an issue??

I know someone who has been eating a vegetarian diet for years and has high cholesterol. Just not consuming cholesterol doesn't guarantee not having high cholesterol. THe majority of cholesterol is manufactured by the body itself.