Trying To Understand The Nuances Of Blood Sugar Regulation

[Cirion]

I like to learn, and use it to understand how to better my own health.

Ray Peat is a very knowledgeable individual, so much so that a lot of it admittedly goes over my head lol.

Anyway, I guess my question is (and I know there are articles on it, I've read a few), how is it that myself (and most other people) get "sugar crashes", but not so much from starch, if sucrose has a lower glycemic index than starches?

It's a little frustrating to me, because I want to see this diet through, but I really dislike the yo-yo'ing in my mood/blood sugar from eating fruit - I'll feel amazing while eating it usually, and then crash soon after / go into mild depression etc. I don't get big highs or big lows from starch usually. If starch results in higher insulin response than fructose, how is this possible? It continues to confuse me! lol

Is it not the large insulin spike and thus cortisol spike that causes stress/depression etc? If that's the case, then for me, fruit does indeed cause an insulin spike much greater than starch... or am I missing something?

 

[Wagner83]

Do you have any reason to avoid starches?

 

[Cirion]

Do you have any reason to avoid starches?

A couple main reasons... one is while the energy is often more stable on the starches, fullness factor etc, I don't really get a good mood / good boost to libido from starches, so I know they're not ideal for my health, and Peat has said on more than one occasion that sugar is always superior to starch given a choice (All other things being equal, we're assuming high quality sugar choices, not allergenic/pesticide heavy fruits for example).

The whole point to Peat is sugar. Besides PUFA, that's like the big dogma of Peat, and the key to health.

I am a long term thinker. It might suck now, but I guess as I stay the course, eventually I'll have a better sugar metabolism. I'm not willing to just throw in the towel and go back to starch just because I feel uncomfortable now, because starch really didn't do it for me optimal health wise either. Nothing worth having comes without effort.

At any rate, all that is actually slightly off-tangent from my question. What is it that makes sugar do this to you (when your sugar metabolism is compromised at least)? I believe peat claims that starch is absorbed really quickly, and spikes insulin fast. If that's the case, why do the majority of people stay full on starch (implying that the starch is NOT absorbed quickly)? Is it because of compromised digestive systems?

I'm just a thinker type, and like to have positive reinforcement that yay verily, my sugar metabolism will indeed improve and it's worth sticking through the growing pains.

 

[Wagner83]

WHat were your meals like with starch and same question but for fruits? What was in the plate? A lot of people on the forum do better with some or a lot of starch in their diet, others do muc better without it so there may not be a definitive answer.

 

[Cirion]

WHat were your meals like with starch and same question but for fruits? What was in the plate? A lot of people on the forum do better with some or a lot of starch in their diet, others do muc better without it so there may not be a definitive answer.

It really varied by day, but one day I might have had grass fed beef with sweet potatoes and broccoli, another day I might have had some eggs with rice and cauliflower. Basically, I would try to have a decent mix of protein, carb (from starch), and fat. This was all before finding PEAT. Now that I actually think back to it, with this way of eating I did actually often have energy crises, but not immediately after the meal - it'd be slower onset, maybe a couple of hours after the meal. I basically ate no/very limited sugar.

I bet the anti-metabolic properties of too much egg (I'd have like 12 a day), and beef probably weren't doing me any favors either.

Since going PEAT, I've been primarily limiting protein intake to morning/evening, and having most or all of my fat in the evening. I've done that to help me satiety throughout the night. The rest of the day is where I get most of my carbs (mostly through sugar). So all the food I intake between morning-evening is strictly carbohydrate (sugar).

I am thinking that part of my problems my merely be needing to be smarter about food choices (Lower tryptophan foods, lower allergenic foods, etc). I seem to react quite negatively to tryptophan/serotonin (which lends me to think I need to stop eating dairy too, but that's concerning, as I'm not sure how I can get calcium otherwise). This is another reason I save fat (cheese, in my case) until almost bedtime, the serotonin puts me out like a light.

I had been having milk every morning and found my energy was garbage. I did an experiment and today I had OJ in the morning instead... wouldn't you know, my energy seemed better. Really does seem like the dairy is gonna have to go

I have another related question... the liver only holds 100g of glucose (~400 calories), correct? How is it that even a healthy individual can last 8 hours on this? That would mean said individual burns only 1200 calories a day, or am I missing something? I know muscles also store glucose, so does the liver just draw from these stores instead after exhausting its own supplies?

 

[Wagner83]

There are a lot of posts that may be interesting, member tyw has a lot (search function, posted by). Timing of the meals, ratio of various macro-nutrients nad nutrients themselves all play a part in energy, physical activity as well (what did you do the previous day etc..). A lot of people have issues with liquids as their diet.