Can’t figure out blood sugar reactions

[Leadinglights]

I’ll have a look - in general, the ‘glucose goddess’ is broadly considered a charlatan, so I’m reticent to throw her any money, even if only a quid (I put her in the same category as Tim Spector, who I also distrust). It may well be this bit is more or less correct, but she’s a biochemist, not a nutritionist or endocrinologist, so I’d be personally wary of her work.

I think that is a bit unfair on biochemists, much of nutrition involves understanding of biochemistry.

 

[Amyfaith]

It does, but I wouldn’t consider it enough to be a specialist. The fact she’s hawking a book does make me suspect her *specifically*.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

I’ll have a look - in general, the ‘glucose goddess’ is broadly considered a charlatan, so I’m reticent to throw her any money, even if only a quid (I put her in the same category as Tim Spector, who I also distrust). It may well be this bit is more or less correct, but she’s a biochemist, not a nutritionist or endocrinologist, so I’d be personally wary of her work.

Well I started with a possible "charlatan" perspective and was very reluctant. But (and I've not finished reading her book) I have learnt things from her book that I haven't encountered elsewhere. There are statements that "jarred" because they were too simplistic - but there is often a need to keep things simple rather than overwhelming people new to their health issues with an excess of detail.

I also think many authors end up as victims of their publishers, who control the final content and promote those authors ruthlessly: the publishers goal is to maximise sales and profits. The authors do or can have a reasonably philanthropic desire to tell their story. And if I'm honest with myself nowadays not a single day goes by without my remarking that "nothing anymore is what it purports to be; everything is embedded within a level of dishonesty". Alas that obvious dishonesty is enmeshed with apparent legality. Politicians lie and try to shrug it off; warranties turn out to be not deliverable because of small print exemptions; badges and packaging on the exterior of new goods (even cars) are not what they claim; AI is the current method of cheating you on the Internet; the BBC's charter prohibits advertising - you wouldn't know that from watching Breakfast news for an hour. I could go on (and on, and on!).

So I'm concluding that my original perspective about Helen Inchauspé was wrong, influenced by other people's comments. I've allowed media comments to malign someone who seems, from my own reading, to have some useful things to say. At the end of the day I am making my judgement using my brain and instincts AND I don't have to spend more than that first £1 to make that judgement. I might even buy a printed copy to make the reading and cross-referencing easier than I find it to be from within the kindle app! Meanwhile:

I successfully deflected being conned to pay over £600 for my car insurance when it transpired I could get it for less than £300 by having a new email address and searching from a (previously unused by me) web browser.​

​

I've spent hours on the phone and waiting in my GP's Surgery Reception trying to get the NHS to deliver the core bits of their medical promises, which have got "lost" in their appalling administration. I had a TIA exactly 28 days ago - and still my Surgery haven't found it possible to renew my changed repeat prescriptions. But I've only been to Reception in person 4 times so far to prove my identity and to show them the digital copy of a letter from the Stroke Consultant to them that they apparently haven't seen.​

​

Like so many others I'm struggling with household costs, in the face of Tesco's proud boast this morning about their multi-billion pound profits so far this year.​

​

I'm now having to diligently check my email account and contacts list as a result of a friend having his account hacked and I unwisely replied to an email that turned to not be from him; even if no long term damage has been done I still confirmed to someone associated with that hacker that my email address was genuine and I can now be marked as a future person to be conned.​

Rant over; but you might sense that this last month my cup has been almost empty - rather than an optimistic half-full. I don't like the descriptor of Glucose Godess but am prepared to see beyond that media driven promotion.

 

[rebrascora]

I too am working my way through Jesse Inchauspe's book as it was bought as a gift for me and I find there are quite a few things which resonate with me from my own experience of trialing different foods and doing lots of testing. I also see merit in what Tim Spectre is doing and I am certain that gut biome is an important but neglected factor in many, many ailments and conditions. I know from changing my diet, how long term serious issues have resolved or improved. Sadly, it took diabetes to make me change my diet but it needed to happen.

 

[Amyfaith]

@rebrascora and @Proud to be erratic - I totally get what you’re both saying. There is precious little support and accessible research on diabetes, and science is annoyingly slow for institutional and funding reasons. Both GG and Spector may have elements of their approaches that are correct - I’m positive of it - but as a trained academic who believes in peer reviewed research with minimal conflicts of interest as the gold standard, I find them deeply suspicious as a whole. In time they may be proven correct, but at the moment, having done a fairly thorough investigation into their claims and the rebuttals of them, I prefer to wait to see how the claims shake out. I see their claims to understand nutrition about as accurate as me (a trained history and literature PhD) saying I understand political science. There’s crossover, but it’s not remotely the same.

 

[nonethewiser]

@rebrascora and @Proud to be erratic - I totally get what you’re both saying. There is precious little support and accessible research on diabetes, and science is annoyingly slow for institutional and funding reasons. Both GG and Spector may have elements of their approaches that are correct - I’m positive of it - but as a trained academic who believes in peer reviewed research with minimal conflicts of interest as the gold standard, I find them deeply suspicious as a whole. In time they may be proven correct, but at the moment, having done a fairly thorough investigation into their claims and the rebuttals of them, I prefer to wait to see how the claims shake out. I see their claims to understand nutrition about as accurate as me (a trained history and literature PhD) saying I understand political science. There’s crossover, but it’s not remotely the same.

Find array of books on health in libraries & book shops bewildering if honest, all promising this & that so tend not to bother with any of them, find same with recipe books on offer.

Kinda think your body is the best judge at deciding what is good & bad for you, maybe simplistic view but that's my opinion anyway.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

Find array of books on health in libraries & book shops bewildering if honest, all promising this & that so tend not to bother with any of them, find same with recipe books on offer.

Kinda think your body is the best judge at deciding what is good & bad for you, maybe simplistic view but that's my opinion anyway.

@nonethewiser, I can't disagree with your finding that it's bewildering. It makes me retreat back to my opening premise (different post and many days ago) that just about everything is, if not outright dishonest, then it is at least invariably intentionally misleading. Sad really.

Also I can't disagree that my body (and sometimes my brain or my instinct) is the best judge. But I don't always get that right!

However sometimes I just don't have the knowledge / training / expertise - particularly when it comes to pure medical issues. As a now retired Chartered Civil Engineer I had a reasonable background of knowledge and experience in that world to authoratively provide a Client with my opinion and quietly expect them to accept that I'm offering my best, safe view. When necessary I accept certain levels of medical advice on that basis of it being their best, safe, view; and I'm alive thanks to some amazing surgical precision while removing my pancreas.

@Amyfaith, at the start of this post you sought help in making sense of blood sugar readings; an admirable question and most of us can't answer that satisfactorily.

You also sought:

.... sort of a rudimentary food pairing thing ....... somewhere that can explain it to me properly .... more sustainable for me long term ..... let me enjoy some things on occasion that are currently off limits ...... without losing all sense of joy.

I still think you might get a step closer to an answer by looking at what Inchauspé has to say and make your own mind up. I understand the peer review process with least confrontation perspective as a gold standard. However Inchauspé is not so much subject to uninvested peer review, rather as vulnerable to commercial pressures from others feeling threatened in case she is too close to a better explanation! The reviews and comments that I've seen don't remotely equate to the peer review process you anticipate; equally I suspect the glowing reviews from Google books or Amazon are also highly selective.

I don't think she needs to be a nutritionist or Endocrinologist to answer your questions; I've had 4 nutritionists of which two were helpful and 2 useless (regurgitating nonsense). I dumped my first 2 endos who clearly hadn't understood the complexities of having absolutely no pancreas. Personally, I seem to have found some resonance with what Inchauspé has to say in respect of better understanding my blood sugar behaviour. I still haven't got full resolution from that understanding; but I have to find my balance between fitting in with the family I live amidst (until they move out mid-summer) as well as "not losing all sense of joy" from all food encounters!

Managing one's D is a marathon and while running that (ultra long) marathon the course keeps changing with the season's and my getting older. I have to accept the constant moving of the goal posts, no matter how frustrating I find it. I also have to learn how to recognise when I'm just wearing the wrong colour socks. And I am lucky - I can fall back on extra insulin if the other mansgement techniques aren't working or I'm desperate for a generous slice of fruit cake with a generous glass of port!

 

[rebrascora]

@rebrascora and @Proud to be erratic - I totally get what you’re both saying. There is precious little support and accessible research on diabetes, and science is annoyingly slow for institutional and funding reasons. Both GG and Spector may have elements of their approaches that are correct - I’m positive of it - but as a trained academic who believes in peer reviewed research with minimal conflicts of interest as the gold standard, I find them deeply suspicious as a whole. In time they may be proven correct, but at the moment, having done a fairly thorough investigation into their claims and the rebuttals of them, I prefer to wait to see how the claims shake out. I see their claims to understand nutrition about as accurate as me (a trained history and literature PhD) saying I understand political science. There’s crossover, but it’s not remotely the same.

The way I see it, I have learned far more in terms of understanding and managing diabetes from "lay people" on this forum than I have from academics or medical professionals.... and quite a bit of what works for me is contrary to what the medical professionals would have me do, so I have much less faith in people's qualifications and more faith in tried and tested practical solutions. I don't need to know why they work particularly either, I just need to try them out for myself and see what results I get. If it works for me I adopt it (when convenient.... obviously not always possible, if it doesn't I don't. Things like acidity buffering BG was something that I had noticed before I started the book. Pickles like beetroot, onions and gherkins with meals work well for me or balsamic vinegar on my salad which I absolutely love, or a mild vinegar drink (usually ACV and balsamic) before my meal, which I add psyllium husk and chia seeds to to increase soluble fibre in my diet have a very beneficial effect on my levels and gut health. I am only interested in my N=1 experiment, not some research conducted on other people.... This is my main gripe with the concept of Low GI, because what is low GI for some people is not for others.
I think a lot of research narrows things down too much and doesn't look at the bigger picture/real world. That was the case with the study of dietary controlled Type 2 diabetics using BG meters. The meters did not improve outcomes because people were not allowed to change their diet or encouraged to test around meals to see what spiked them and what didn't and modify their diet accordingly. The result was that there was no improvement in HbA1c from using meters because people were not able to make use of the information it gave them and therefore provision of meters and test strips to Type 2s was stopped except in certain situations where there was a significant risk, like with Glic/insulin etc.
Most people here on this forum feel that BG meters are an invaluable tool in adjusting their diet and helping them to push diabetes into remission, given the correct advice on testing strategy and how to benefit from the info the meter gives them.

 

[JITR]

Typical lunch: 2x medium ww bread, chicken, mayo, cheese, huge handful of leaves, half an avocado (about 40 carbs) - usually 7ish. But if I leave out the leaves, goes upwards of 8. If I leave out the avocado, often doesn’t crack 7, which seems *wrong*

Why does it seem wrong?

GIs (Harvard) are:
- Bread: 65
- Avocado: 40
- Leaves: 15

When you work out the GLs you'll find:
- Bread + Leaves: <= 7
- Bread + Avocado + Leaves: 7ish
- Bread + Avocado: > 8
- Bread: even higher

Just what the Green Goddess and everyone else says about combining foods.

What's going on? The body takes longer to digest the bread, filling and avocado when it has to deal with a huge handful of leaves at the same time.

 

[Maz2]

I’ll have a look - in general, the ‘glucose goddess’ is broadly considered a charlatan, so I’m reticent to throw her any money, even if only a quid (I put her in the same category as Tim Spector, who I also distrust). It may well be this bit is more or less correct, but she’s a biochemist, not a nutritionist or endocrinologist, so I’d be personally wary of her work.

I feel the same about Tim Spector now. I used to trust him when I was taking part in the Zoe study during the Covid crisis but became disillusioned.

@rebrascora and @Proud to be erratic - I totally get what you’re both saying. There is precious little support and accessible research on diabetes, and science is annoyingly slow for institutional and funding reasons. Both GG and Spector may have elements of their approaches that are correct - I’m positive of it - but as a trained academic who believes in peer reviewed research with minimal conflicts of interest as the gold standard, I find them deeply suspicious as a whole. In time they may be proven correct, but at the moment, having done a fairly thorough investigation into their claims and the rebuttals of them, I prefer to wait to see how the claims shake out. I see their claims to understand nutrition about as accurate as me (a trained history and literature PhD) saying I understand political science. There’s crossover, but it’s not remotely the same.

I feel the same as you Amyfaith. Having worked in the NHS for most of my working life, the final 21 of them for surgeons and anaesthetists I also only tend to have any faith in peer reviewed work.

Someone I do trust is Michael Moseley and I have a lot of his books. You may find them interesting and there are some nice recipes in them. Another book is Dr David Cavan "Reverse Your Diabetes." He means gaining better control rather than literally stating everyone can reverse it. You may already know of these people but, if not, just a thought.