Ron Rosedale-Blood Glucose ExcursionsBlood Glucose Excursions

I recently read an excellent blog post by Dr. Ron Rosedale – Blood Glucose Excursions. I am including some excerpts from it below that I believe are well worth reading, and are well-aligned with the #RomanDiet and Health-e-Solutions lifestyle.

“…all sugars, and foods that convert into sugar will have a detrimental effect if eaten, and therefore the fewer non-fiber carbohydrates that a person has, the better, and that the difference should be made up by consuming more beneficial fats and oils.  My view is considered extreme by some who do not believe that glucose should be looked upon as that detrimental. I also realize that not eating any foods that can convert into glucose is, from a practical sense, impossible. I recommend that people have all the vegetables that they want, except for the overly sugary ones such as corn and beets.

“…One may think that a bowl of rice difference in carbohydrate per day in a diet is a small difference, and perhaps it is, but I also believe that that small difference can make a big difference, especially in those with overt diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.  Furthermore, I believe that we all have, at least some degree, corruption in insulin and leptin signaling, that lie at  the heart of the chronic diseases of aging such as (type 2) diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, obesity, and even many cancers, and therefore everyone can and should benefit from an optimal, not just better, diet.

“…I feel that what a person eats is instrumental in determining health. Secondly, I feel that it is extremely important for people to know the truth in science, whether or not it is “politically correct”, or, as Al Gore has stated “inconvenient”.  This way they can make their own educated decisions about what to eat and whether it is “worth it”. If one wants to deviate from (what I believe is an optimal diet) and have a few more likely subclinical ramifications such as glycated molecules, or resistant receptors, to enjoy a bowl of rice, that is up to them. I just do not want that person to think it is healthy to do so. It should be looked upon as we view a piece of chocolate cream pie; unhealthy, but we want it now anyway, and not that we are biologically better off for having eaten it. The point is that there is no such thing as a glucose deficiency or a healthy need to eat starches. If one wants to endure a bit of tolerable biological harm for some momentary pleasure, that’s great, but the person should know what he/she is doing.

“…The third reason is less philosophical and more basic scientifically.  I believe that many venues of science, from basic physiology to the biology and genetics of aging point to a simple, but very powerful statement concerning health that I have stated for many years and has yet to be disproven. That is; one’s health and lifespan will be determined by the proportion of fat versus sugar that one burns over a lifetime. The more fatty acids and ketones from fat that you burn, the healthier you will be and the longer you will likely live.  The more glucose that is burned as fuel, the more unhealthy you will be, the faster you will age, and the sooner you will likely die. This, of course, is predicated on not getting hit by a semi truck. There are no absolutes.  It is the chance of disease or health that I want to swing in our favor.

“This brings us back to that bowl of rice. That rice consumption spread throughout the day may, at least for a significant part of that day, prevent one from burning fat.  Also, the biochemical and hormonal basis of the extreme health and longevity advantages of calorie restriction that has been shown for over 80 years is being uncovered, and it appears we can use that knowledge applied to diet without calorie restricting to experience the same or similar benefits. Once again, eating that bowl of rice may undo that powerful effect.

There appears to me to be, not a point of diminishing returns by further reducing carbohydrate consumption (without increasing protein consumption, but by increasing beneficial fats and oils), but a point of accelerating returns the lower one goes below that 100 g of glucose consumption.”

  • Blood glucose spikes
  • Many studies are now showing a correlation between glucose and insulin levels and cancer risk.
  • What higher carb intake does to insulin and leptin is even more important; it raises them promoting insulin and leptin resistance.
  • Spikes in glucose may be even worse than a high but steady BG, and spikes in glucose and insulin may bring about insulin and leptin resistance, and therefore a whole new realm of metabolic devastation.
  • There is no such thing as a glucose deficiency.
  • Any excursion of glucose above baseline will result in some increment of damage and/or mortality. There is no threshold.
  • Repeated excursions of glucose above baseline cause excursions of insulin and leptin, and repeated excursions of these contribute to, if not cause insulin and leptin resistance, and this results in a significant acceleration of the chronic diseases of aging and aging itself. This is the major significance and detriment of eating a food that raises blood glucose.

“…We all have some degree of metabolic derangements including insulin and leptin resistance, and this really should be considered the hallmark of diabetes. We should therefore all be treated as such, especially with a diet known to improve those parameters as much as possible.”