127 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

(Note: I wrote this for another private forum, no references, just keeping it simple. Posting here without modification. A good reference for much of what I refer to below is the Whole Heath Source blog.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sure a lot of people are looking to drop a little weight this year. No one likes to be deformed by fat, after all. But I will not offer advice on how to do this. Instead, here's advice on how to keep gaining weight, building up to one of many exciting chronic illnesses, like diabetes, cancer, vascular plaque build-up, brain fog, and even one of many forms of dementia. Getting illness is much easier than avoiding it, so might as well take the easy path. After all, we have a medical system in place that cures people, right!

Three easy steps:

[1] Eat grains. Who cares that they have practically no nutritional value (whole grains included), they spike insulin levels, and most grains (like wheat), contain a trash protein called gluten that is inflammatory to 95% of all humans, leading to chronic, systemic (body wide) inflammation. (Inflammation, btw, is a leading root cause of cancer and heart disease.) Grains, potatoes and rice have become the cheap-as-dirt filler ingredient found within most American meals. All three are pro-aging, anti-health, cheap filler foods that taste delicious, and will help you grow fat while singing, "I'm luvin' it!"

The fact is, very few people have the will-power to cut grains from their diet. Grains are everywhere. And the USDA -- a source we can trust! -- says they should be our number one source of calories. So why even try? We lived for nearly two million years without grains, but don't let that stop anyone from thinking they're absolute vital to our diet.

[2] Consume processed fructose. Fructose that's had from fruits likely won't make you noticeably fatter, so don't worry about fructose food in whole foods. Instead, shoot for the motherlode: fructose that's added to practically all processed foods, including those yummy grain-based foods like most bread. Or, go for the quick fix flavored liquid fructose, sometimes given brand names like Coke, Dr. Pepper, Gator-Ade, Snapple, Jones Cola, Arizona Tea. Really, practically all sweetened drinks are loaded with this fattening sugar, a sugar that does three wonderfully fattening things: First it converts quickly to triglyceride which is then stored as bodyfat. Second, it shuts down your liver's natural fat burning function for several hours. And third, it leads to leptin resistance, the necessary precursor to insulin resistance. (Leptin is the hormone that tells your body to burn more fat -- fructose consumption causes this hormone to become ineffective, so that your body holds on tighter to its fat stores. And who doesn't want to hang ont their fat!)

Butcha know what, who doesn't love sweet foods! Certainly we Americans love 'em! Our consumption of sugar has gone from virtually nothing in 1850, to 84 pounds per year in 1909, to 119 pounds in 1970, to 142 pounds in 2005. So bottoms-up to fructose.

[3] Consume omega-6 rich vegetable oils. Like sugar consumption, vegetable oils weren't really a part of the average American's diet 100 years ago. Now, like sugar, vegetable oil is ubiquitous is our food supply, from salad dressings, practically all packaged foods, fried foods, and even in health foods (like Atkins shakes, containing soy oil). There's only a handful of vegetable oils that are not omega-6 rich: primarily olive oil, avocado oil, and macadamia nut oil. All the rest, like corn, soy, safflower, canola, peanut and sunflower oil, are all packed with high-inflammatory omega-6 oils.

What's fun about these oils is that they integrate themselves within practically every cell of our body, and have a half-life of two years -- so they get to stick around and do their thing: chronic inflammation. Animal models show that compared to a low intake of vegetable oils, higher intake leads to a correlated increase in cancer rate and arterial plaque, and a correlated increase in fat retention. Human studies confirm this. Unlike saturated fat, it's vegetable oil that makes people fat and leads to heart disease. So, seek out fried foods, salad dressings, artificial butters, cakes/donuts/cookies. It's easy to find this oil. Pretty much anything unnatural has it!

There ya go. No one plans to stick to a healthy diet anyway, so why even try. Now you know exactly what leads to "Western disease" (a.k.a. metabolic syndrome) and a fat-deformed body. And best of all, fast food restaurants like McDonald's specialize in all three of these! I couldn't be easier.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Made edit: should have said "Posting here without modification."

Edited by DukeNukem, 29 December 2008 - 02:23 AM.

[Ben]

Great post! I'm going to get started right away. Can't wait to get these silly arteries calcified! That'll teach the buggers!

On a serious note I have been thinking about the grains question. I've all but eliminated them except in the morning. I still don't know what to replace my oats with. :(

Edited by Ben - Aus, 29 December 2008 - 12:26 AM.

[zoolander]

[1] Eat grains. Who cares that they have practically no nutritional value (whole grains included), they spike insulin levels, and most grains (like wheat), contain a trash protein called gluten that is inflammatory to 95% of all humans, leading to chronic, systemic (body wide) inflammation. (Inflammation, btw, is a leading root cause of cancer and heart disease.) Grains, potatoes and rice have become the cheap-as-dirt filler ingredient found within most American meals. All three are pro-aging, anti-health, cheap filler foods that taste delicious, and will help you grow fat while singing, "I'm luvin' it!"

The fact is, very few people have the will-power to cut grains from their diet. Grains are everywhere. And the USDA -- a source we can trust! -- says they should be our number one source of calories. So why even try? We lived for nearly two million years without grains, but don't let that stop anyone from thinking they're absolute vital to our diet.

Define grain please.

Oats are a cereal grain. Brown rice is a grain. Some refer to quinoa as a grain. If these are grains, which I believe them to be, then they have nutritional value. What about the beta-glucan in oats? What about the fibre? What about the amino acids? Speaking of amino acids, anabolic amino acids such as leucine spike insulin. Whilst I really like your writing style for it's simplicity, it's a shame that you don't use references. Where did you get that 95% figure for imflammatory reactions to gluten?

Not everyone will become fat by eating carefully chosen grains. I for one eat grains and am far from fat or unhealthy. In fact, I'm a great example of a healthy 37 year old.

We lived for nearly two million years without grains, but don't let that stop anyone from thinking they're absolute vital to our diet

Survive to what age and in what health? Unfortunately we don't have any figures on how healthy these earlier humans were. I've heard many people use evolutionary arguments to justify food choice but we simply don't know if their cholesterol was through the roof as the result of a high protein diet with high levels of saturated fat or if they died at a fairly young age as a result. We don't know the flip side either.

Edited by zoolander, 29 December 2008 - 12:53 AM.

[Mind]

Duke considers oats a tolerable grain.

I look at the three on the list as good for human society (the development of agriculture and calorie rich low nutrient foods allowed for more focus on progress/technology and less on preventing starvation on a day-to-day basis) but bad for the individual. I think we have the correct knowledge and capability to drop most of the bad things from the diet, or alternatively to develop cures for the diseases caused by the bad diet.

[Prometheus]

Why would cholesterol go sky high on a protein/SF diet? Think of the eskimos.

Nice post, duke. You forgot to mention habitual lack of activity.

[DukeNukem]

[1] Eat grains. Who cares that they have practically no nutritional value (whole grains included), they spike insulin levels, and most grains (like wheat), contain a trash protein called gluten that is inflammatory to 95% of all humans, leading to chronic, systemic (body wide) inflammation. (Inflammation, btw, is a leading root cause of cancer and heart disease.) Grains, potatoes and rice have become the cheap-as-dirt filler ingredient found within most American meals. All three are pro-aging, anti-health, cheap filler foods that taste delicious, and will help you grow fat while singing, "I'm luvin' it!"

The fact is, very few people have the will-power to cut grains from their diet. Grains are everywhere. And the USDA -- a source we can trust! -- says they should be our number one source of calories. So why even try? We lived for nearly two million years without grains, but don't let that stop anyone from thinking they're absolute vital to our diet.

Define grain please.

Oats are a cereal grain. Brown rice is a grain. Some refer to quinoa as a grain. If these are grains, which I believe them to be, then they have nutritional value. What about the beta-glucan in oats? What about the fibre? What about the amino acids? Speaking of amino acids, anabolic amino acids such as leucine spike insulin. Whilst I really like your writing style for it's simplicity, it's a shame that you don't use references. Where did you get that 95% figure for imflammatory reactions to gluten?

Not everyone will become fat by eating carefully chosen grains. I for one eat grains and am far from fat or unhealthy. In fact, I'm a great example of a healthy 37 year old.

We lived for nearly two million years without grains, but don't let that stop anyone from thinking they're absolute vital to our diet

Survive to what age and in what health? Unfortunately we don't have any figures on how healthy these earlier humans were. I've heard many people use evolutionary arguments to justify food choice but we simply don't know if their cholesterol was through the roof as the result of a high protein diet with high levels of saturated fat or if they died at a fairly young age as a result. We don't know the flip side either.

As Mind said, I tolerate oats -- basically the one exception because oats is gluten-free, high in fiber, and has beta-glucan, known to lower blood sugar. When I eat oats, it's only with a lot of fat and protein (to slow digestion), and I eat less than 20 grams.

Quinoa is a seed, not a grain. It's gluten free. Still, it's a post-agricultural food that has little nutritional value (like a grain), while sharply affecting insulin (versus high-water-volume vegetables, the preferred carbs).

I agree that playing your grains right (in very low volume, and mixed with proteins and fats), you can avoid their negative effects. However, I'd definitely completely avoid all gluten-containing grains, period. Wheat, for example, is right out. Never an exception.

I was at Sam's today, which appears to attract the less discriminate among the public, and certainly the less healthy, looking to bulk up on cheap (and nutritionally bankrupt) foods. I noticed a great many 30-40-50-yr-old overweight men and women, nearly all of them with puffy red inflamed faces, almost surely the cause of grains, sugars and vegetable oils. Their metabolically compromised bodies must be similarly inflamed, chronically, setting up just the right environment to breed cancer and plaster on thicker vascular plaque by the week. Walking time-bombs. Merrily enjoying their industrial diet even as it kills them slowly.

Not many of us escape this madness and get to look down upon it with understanding minds.

[DukeNukem]

Where did you get that 95% figure for inflammatory reactions to gluten?

Zoolander, check this link for where I got this particular figure:
http://wholehealthso...disease-is.html

Note that the blog author, based on his research, says that at least 99.6% of us are sensitive to gluten:

Gluten sensitivity is determined in large part by genetics. A gene called HLA-DQ is intimately involved. It encodes a protein that is expressed on the surface of cells, that serves to activate immune cells when certain foreign substances are present. Different versions of the gene are activated by different substances. HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 are classically associated with celiac disease. Roughly 42% of the US population carries DQ2 or DQ8. According to Dr. Fine, every allele except DQ4 has some association with gluten-related problems! Only 0.4% of the U.S. population carries HLA-DQ4 and no other allele.

Edited by DukeNukem, 29 December 2008 - 02:56 AM.

[Forever21]

very very very helpful. thanks Duke.

how do you make sure that the meat you eat are free of bad stuff?
no marinade, no sauce, no gravy? or cook them yourself?

it leads to leptin resistance, the necessary precursor to insulin resistance. (Leptin is the hormone that tells your body to burn more fat -- fructose consumption causes this hormone to become ineffective

how do you turn it back on? and how soon will start working again?

Edited by Forever21, 29 December 2008 - 02:56 AM.

[Prometheus]

I was at Sam's today, which appears to attract the less discriminate among the public, and certainly the less healthy, looking to bulk up on cheap (and nutritionally bankrupt) foods. I noticed a great many 30-40-50-yr-old overweight men and women, nearly all of them with puffy red inflamed faces, almost surely the cause of grains, sugars and vegetable oils. Their metabolically compromised bodies must be similarly inflamed, chronically, setting up just the right environment to breed cancer and plaster on thicker vascular plaque by the week. Walking time-bombs. Merrily enjoying their industrial diet even as it kills them slowly.

Poetry. You should be writing a book, man.

[VictorBjoerk]

50% of all heart attacks occur in people with a BMI of 20-25 so the inflammation has not a lot to do with fat tissue itself. There are many thin people that apparently are in a inflammatory state suffering from plaque in their arteries. Half of the people getting a heart attack in Sweden have normal cholesterol too according to studies. Nearly all heart attack victims have had a problem with the sugar metabolism long before.
High insulin contributes to alzheimers through blocking the natural removal system of junk such as amyloids in the brain.

Canola oil isn't particularly rich in omega6 as far as I've heard.

Anyhow aging is the problem, I mean fat 20-year olds never get heart attacks.

[zoolander]

Why would cholesterol go sky high on a protein/SF diet? Think of the eskimos.

You know the answer to that.

Quinoa is a seed, not a grain. It's gluten free. Still, it's a post-agricultural food that has little nutritional value (like a grain), while sharply affecting insulin (versus high-water-volume vegetables, the preferred carbs).

Quinoa has value as a 1) food compound with an exceptional amino acid profile (1), and 2) it's ability to control eating behaviour by increasing post-meal satiety (2).

I agree that playing your grains right (in very low volume, and mixed with proteins and fats), you can avoid their negative effects. However, I'd definitely completely avoid all gluten-containing grains, period. Wheat, for example, is right out. Never an exception.

I totally agree.

I was at Sam's today, which appears to attract the less discriminate among the public, and certainly the less healthy, looking to bulk up on cheap (and nutritionally bankrupt) foods. I noticed a great many 30-40-50-yr-old overweight men and women, nearly all of them with puffy red inflamed faces, almost surely the cause of grains, sugars and vegetable oils. Their metabolically compromised bodies must be similarly inflamed, chronically, setting up just the right environment to breed cancer and plaster on thicker vascular plaque by the week. Walking time-bombs. Merrily enjoying their industrial diet even as it kills them slowly.

Not many of us escape this madness and get to look down upon it with understanding minds

.

You are the one of the few that can escape the madness because you have taken the time to educate yourself about something should be first and foremost in most people's lives and that is their health. Unfortunately, even thought people like ride around on their moral high horses stating that this behavior and that behaviour is wrong, they fail to lead by example by leading healthy lives.

Zoolander, check this link for where I got this particular figure:
http://wholehealthso...disease-is.html

Thanks for that link Duke. I agree in that a large percentage, perhaps the majority, of people who eat wheat or gluten containing products may have an inflammatory response to the protein but it's still early days re. the precise genetic origin of gluten intolerance as well as the genetic contribution of gluten intolerances.

I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, that you consider sub-clinical low grade inflammation as unacceptable and therefore reason to remove wheat from the diet.

[FunkOdyssey]

"I don't care if the villi in my small intestine are trashed, you'll have to tear these triscuits out of my cold, dead hands!" -America

[DukeNukem]

I agree in that a large percentage, perhaps the majority, of people who eat wheat or gluten containing products may have an inflammatory response to the protein but it's still early days re. the precise genetic origin of gluten intolerance as well as the genetic contribution of gluten intolerances.

I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, that you consider sub-clinical low grade inflammation as unacceptable and therefore reason to remove wheat from the diet.

Two parts to my answer:

[1] Grains are low-water-volume carbs, and relatively high GI foods (therefore abnormally raising blood sugar and insulin, both unhealthy states).

[2] I want to avoid gluten altogether and I believe most people who have this option (unlike poor people in under-developed areas) should do the same, just for the sake of not risking any level of inflammation from gluten.

Remember, I'm not anti-carb. I'm only against high GI and processed carbs. Whole vegetables are perfectly fine, in my book. I eat a big salad practically every day.

50% of all heart attacks occur in people with a BMI of 20-25 so the inflammation has not a lot to do with fat tissue itself. There are many thin people that apparently are in a inflammatory state suffering from plaque in their arteries. Half of the people getting a heart attack in Sweden have normal cholesterol too according to studies. Nearly all heart attack victims have had a problem with the sugar metabolism long before.
High insulin contributes to alzheimers through blocking the natural removal system of junk such as amyloids in the brain.

Canola oil isn't particularly rich in omega6 as far as I've heard.

Anyhow aging is the problem, I mean fat 20-year olds never get heart attacks.

[zoolander]

apart from the saturated fats, my diet would be very similar to yours Duke. I'm still researching the saturated fats side of things and understand that they have their purpose. My HDL levels were quite low a little while back and this more than likely due to the low levels of saturated fat in my diet

[DukeNukem]

50% of all heart attacks occur in people with a BMI of 20-25 so the inflammation has not a lot to do with fat tissue itself. There are many thin people that apparently are in a inflammatory state suffering from plaque in their arteries. Half of the people getting a heart attack in Sweden have normal cholesterol too according to studies. Nearly all heart attack victims have had a problem with the sugar metabolism long before.
High insulin contributes to alzheimers through blocking the natural removal system of junk such as amyloids in the brain.

Canola oil isn't particularly rich in omega6 as far as I've heard.

Anyhow aging is the problem, I mean fat 20-year olds never get heart attacks.

I suspect that these outwardly healthy people are inwardly suffering from inflammation, with vegetable oils and grains still likely the root cause. Dr. Davis (a cardiologist) is strongly opposed to wheat and has written considerably about its plaque building effects.

As for canola, examine this color chart. You'll note that Monsanto's bias is clearly against saturated fat, falling right in line with most American brainwashing. But, you'll see that canola is the sixth highest in linoliec acid, the most inflammatory and fattening of the PUFAs. My preferred oils/fats are among the lowest: butter, lard, palm and coconut oil. Olive oil is considerably better than canola, but still no panacea. Finally, note that olive oil, often touted as the healthiest choice, is practically identical to lard as far as LA and ALA go, and the only difference is that lard is more balanced with the saturated and monounsaturated fats. (Given a choice, cook with lard, exactly as they do in most European countries, like France and Italy.)

Edited by DukeNukem, 29 December 2008 - 04:10 AM.

[Prometheus]

Why would cholesterol go sky high on a protein/SF diet? Think of the eskimos.

You know the answer to that.

What about your readers?

[Luna]

Thank you for the information! ^^

[senseix]

Duke thanks alot for sharing that, though alot of it i already know, learned from your various posts and this fine site, i do appreciate you taking the time, and really laying it out for everyone to discuss.

[nameless]

Would brown rice, in moderation, be considered healthy or unhealthy? I think there is no gluten in brown rice, and the fiber/minerals/amino acids might be of some benefit. They are carbs, of course, but if eaten with a high protein meal, is that a problem?

[DukeNukem]

Would brown rice, in moderation, be considered healthy or unhealthy? I think there is no gluten in brown rice, and the fiber/minerals/amino acids might be of some benefit. They are carbs, of course, but if eaten with a high protein meal, is that a problem?

I've dropped all rice from my diet, because I see rice as only slightly more nutritious than pure glucose -- which is basically what rice becomes in our bodies. If I'm going to eat carbs, I only want top-tier carbs, like the Okinawans mostly eat. This means phytonutrient packed, dark colored, high-water-volume carbs. Pretty much all salad-type carbs qualify.

Now then, as a personal choice, eating brown rice now and then probably won't set you back too many days on your potential lifespan. Me, I don't want to risk even one day.

[Mind]

Related (how not to get fat and get "Western disease")

Effects of lifestyle modification on central artery stiffness in metabolic syndrome subjects with pre-hypertension and/or pre-diabetes.

Exercise + Mediterranean Diet helps the heart - duh!

[zoolander]

I've dropped all rice from my diet, because I see rice as only slightly more nutritious than pure glucose -- which is basically what rice becomes in our bodies.

Most carbohydrates will be digested and absorbed into the blood in it's simplest form, glucose. Some of the non-digestible carbs/polysaccharides will even be broken down by firmcutes baceria in the large intestine and absorbed as glucose. It's not just the rice. The higher the amylose/amylopectin content of the carbohydrate the slower the release of glucose into the blood and hence the lower the GI. Brown rice has a very similar GI to rolled oats and is in the low/mid GI range (1)

[DukeNukem]

I've dropped all rice from my diet, because I see rice as only slightly more nutritious than pure glucose -- which is basically what rice becomes in our bodies.

Most carbohydrates will be digested and absorbed into the blood in it's simplest form, glucose. Some of the non-digestible carbs/polysaccharides will even be broken down by firmcutes baceria in the large intestine and absorbed as glucose. It's not just the rice. The higher the amylose/amylopectin content of the carbohydrate the slower the release of glucose into the blood and hence the lower the GI. Brown rice has a very similar GI to rolled oats and is in the low/mid GI range (1)

I've argued in other threads that all energy carbs = glucose. With rice and potatoes and grains, the ratio of nutritional benefit to glucose is too much in favor of glucose.

Glucose, whether it's in a low- or high-GI, is still a negative. Therefore, if I'm going to eat glucose (in whatever form), I want it to be surrounded by ample nutrition so that I get a net positive out of the transaction. Starchy vegetables and grains fall short (even without gluten as another important issue).

Other people may decide for themselves that brown rice is a net positive. I'm on the fence with oats now (leaning toward net negative), and will only eat in limited amounts.

Exercise + Mediterranean Diet helps the heart - duh!

A Mediterranean/tropical diet, with a lot more coconut oil, would have helped even more. And a Mediterranean/tropical/paleo diet would help the most.

[davidd]

Duke,

Given what you said about wheat, if you had to pick between whole wheat bread and white bread for a child, what would you pick? Assume that you have to pick one or the other. And if you could choose any bread, but had to pick at least one, what would you pick?

Thanks,
David

[zoolander]

I've argued in other threads that all energy carbs = glucose. With rice and potatoes and grains, the ratio of nutritional benefit to glucose is too much in favor of glucose.

Definitely no argument there matey. Carbs are just glucose polymers + the add-ons. Add-ons being the beneficial and not so beneficial associated macro- and micronutrients associated with the carb source. Of course some carb sources are non-glucose monosaccharide polymers like inulin for example, which is a polymer of fructose.

Glucose, whether it's in a low- or high-GI, is still a negative. Therefore, if I'm going to eat glucose (in whatever form), I want it to be surrounded by ample nutrition so that I get a net positive out of the transaction. Starchy vegetables and grains fall short (even without gluten as another important issue).

I could argue this point from a few angles but I won't. Arguing the point here is not the issue. IMO, you approach to diet is highly commendable. If there is one thing I am glad to see with your posts Duke, it's the determined approach and the fact that you have so many followers. Yours posts are easy to understand which is very important. You're contributing to a very important paradigm shift in nutrition in that you do not promote carbohydrates. I know that there quite a bit of stuff out there about low-carb this and low-carb that but no one does it quite like Duke "No-Sugar" Nukem.

[DukeNukem]

Duke,

Given what you said about wheat, if you had to pick between whole wheat bread and white bread for a child, what would you pick? Assume that you have to pick one or the other. And if you could choose any bread, but had to pick at least one, what would you pick?

Thanks,
David

Let's make this easy. Let's say there's a good-to-bad food scale, with the best food being a 100, and the worst food being -100, giving us a 200 point spread to play with. I'd probably put processed wheat around -80. Are you hoping I'll put whole wheat somewhere in the positive numbers? Even if just a low positive?

Not a chance.

Whole wheat gets a -75. Barely any better than processed wheat. There's no escaping gluten (an inflammatory grain protein) in any form of wheat. Most breads contain gluten, but I think buckwheat doesn't (not a type of wheat, despites its name). I know buckwheat pancakes are popular, but not sure if there's a bread made from it.

Here's the bigger question? Does your child really need bread? Or sugary products? Now is the perfect time to start your child on the right track.

[Shepard]

The Whole Heath dude seems to think sourdough is the least of the devils. The Weston Price folks like the sprouted grains. I like IronKids.

[Ghostrider]

Would brown rice, in moderation, be considered healthy or unhealthy? I think there is no gluten in brown rice, and the fiber/minerals/amino acids might be of some benefit. They are carbs, of course, but if eaten with a high protein meal, is that a problem?

I've dropped all rice from my diet, because I see rice as only slightly more nutritious than pure glucose -- which is basically what rice becomes in our bodies. If I'm going to eat carbs, I only want top-tier carbs, like the Okinawans mostly eat. This means phytonutrient packed, dark colored, high-water-volume carbs. Pretty much all salad-type carbs qualify.

Now then, as a personal choice, eating brown rice now and then probably won't set you back too many days on your potential lifespan. Me, I don't want to risk even one day.

Which is worse, brown rice or stir fry noodles?

[edward]

Would brown rice, in moderation, be considered healthy or unhealthy? I think there is no gluten in brown rice, and the fiber/minerals/amino acids might be of some benefit. They are carbs, of course, but if eaten with a high protein meal, is that a problem?

I've dropped all rice from my diet, because I see rice as only slightly more nutritious than pure glucose -- which is basically what rice becomes in our bodies. If I'm going to eat carbs, I only want top-tier carbs, like the Okinawans mostly eat. This means phytonutrient packed, dark colored, high-water-volume carbs. Pretty much all salad-type carbs qualify.

Now then, as a personal choice, eating brown rice now and then probably won't set you back too many days on your potential lifespan. Me, I don't want to risk even one day.

Which is worse, brown rice or stir fry noodles?

the lesser of two evils is... the brown rice especially eaten with some protein and fat.

[nameless]

Very interesting thread... good info here.

Question for Duke -- would you be willing to post your glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value? I'm really curious what the ideal number is, and what people should aim for. With your low sugar/carb diet, I imagine it's super low. And is using HBA1c a decent way to determine if a person's glucose/carb intake is where it should be?