My own personal theory (still in the development stage) on rice and low carb

[Rasputin]

It came to me last night before I went to bed. My thinking was as follows:

1. (Precept) Humans aren't meant to derive the majority of their caloric intake from carbohydrates, which would seem to be the case based on two factors: insulin metabolism and nutrient density.

2. Asians would seem to defy this theory due to the high amount of rice that they consume and have apparently done so for thousands of years, without the attendant obesity which #1 would predict.

3. And then in a burst of insight, I remembered that Asians (and their descendants such as Native Americans) are already known to possess a metabolic mutation: Alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dehydrogenase) Dehydrogenase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction). It causes them to produce less of the enzyme required for the complete breakdown and metabolism of alcohol. What if a similar mechanism is present for the breakdown of the starch in rice?

Starch is a very long molecule composed of a large amount of glucose molecules all strung together. Our bodies cannot absorb starches due to their size; they must first be broken down through the action of amylase in our saliva. It unzips the starch, freeing the glucose molecules which are able to be directly absorbed through the gut.

At first, I pondered, perhaps Asians possess a gene which makes them less likely to develop insulin resistance. But then I realized that, were this the case, they would tend to become obese more readily as their bodies would remain sensitive to insulin even at chronic high levels of blood sugar, which would dump the glucose from their bloodstream into their muscles and liver for storage as glycogen (a form of starch for storage of glucose), and then once that is filled up, into triglycerides for storage as fat.

So, where does that leave us? Perhaps Asians produce less amylase. Were that to be the case, more of the starch would remain undigested and pass through the body without contributing calories to the diet. This would lead to larger consumption of the rice to provide a sensation of being full due to bulking action but limiting its blood sugar spike due to its lack of being absorbed. Amylase content of saliva should be easy to test for.

Should that not prove the culprit, perhaps they possess another deficit along that metabolic pathway which would limit absorption. Harder to check for.


Just thought I would share my thoughts on the matter.

[Jay Bell]

Here's an interesting spin...

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/6/1313.abstract

[DragonMind]

According to Dr. Eades and published studies (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/extract/118/25/2702), the Asian Paradox isn't nearly the paradox one thinks. Asians have problems with strokes in the same numbers as Westerners have heart attacks. Considering that both are examples of embolisms, that makes sense. Asian physiology does differ from Aryan so one should expect deviations without negating the overall pattern.

[Rasputin]

But why don't they succumb to hunger and gorge themselves on rice to the point of obesity? All the pieces are there: carbs in the form of rice are a large part of their caloric intake, so insulin should rise, driving down blood sugar, causing hunger, making them eat more, etc. What is special about an Asian person eating all that rice which makes them not get fat?

We are, after all, discussing the falsifying of the carbs->insulin->obesity theory. It is an awesome theory, whose only hole that I am having trouble filling is those indigenous populations, Kitavans and Asians, who take in a substantial portion of their diet as carbohydrate but don't become obese.

It COULD be the fructose. What we could be left with is this: eliminate all but trace amounts (as found in pre-agriculture fruits) and you can pump your carb intake into the 70%s without causing obesity. I won't attempt to dissect here the other great benefits of a 65/30/5% carb proportion which you would be missing out on.

I just don't know.

[Jeff C.]

Could be your are just trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, David. Instead of trying to come up with some Asian metabolic holy grail that, for some reason, tons of smart people with degrees haven't discovered yet, maybe you should take another look at your diet theories instead. ;)

Jeff Cook

[Rasputin]

Could be your are just trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, David. Instead of trying to come up with some Asian metabolic holy grail that, for some reason, tons of smart people with degrees haven't discovered yet, maybe you should take another look at your diet theories instead. ;)

Jeff Cook

I've looked. I've agonized. I pore over dozens of doctor's and scientists' blogs on a daily basis. My nonfiction section here in my library is approaching the size of my fiction section.

It works. It works REALLY well. It makes fat melt away, without even requiring an increase in exercise, and without making you hungry. It makes type-2 diabetes (http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Bernsteins-Diabetes-Solution-Achieving/dp/0316167169/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268112648&sr=8-1)vanish and lets type-1's lower their insulin intake to a tiny amount in comparison. It sends many types of cancer (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1662484,00.html)into remission. It cures hypoglycemia. It reverses tooth decay (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/preventing-tooth-decay.html) and atherosclerosis. It lowers high blood pressure (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=112679) to normal. It may even help prevent Alzheimer's and epilepsy (http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/ketones_to_the_rescue.html).

The only remaining question is, if carbohydrates above a certain daily amount get stored as fat, why wasn't Asia fat before they began to Westernize?

It is starting to look like more a fructose issue and less a starch (glucose) issue. However, I am not willing to experiment on myself to see if adding rice to my diet puts the pounds back on--I worked too hard to get myself here. I DO notice that eating carbs with a meal (ad libitum) encourages me to eat more--my sensation of satiety is diminished. I have also noticed that if I eat fruit with my meal I am hungry again within an hour or so, but the same meal without fruit satisfies for hours longer.

[Jonathan Randall]

Could be your are just trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, David. Instead of trying to come up with some Asian metabolic holy grail that, for some reason, tons of smart people with degrees haven't discovered yet, maybe you should take another look at your diet theories instead. ;)

Jeff Cook

Given that I'm at the mid-point between David's theories and conventional wisdom, I'd suggest instead that he enroll in some Chemistry (General and then Organic), Biology (Anatomy/Physiology, etc.), Physics (the Calculus based courses, not the softball 2 semester "Allied Health" course) courses at the local JC and then pursue his investigations on a more formal and disciplined level. He obviously, controversies aside, has developed a passion for the subject and I think he could possibly turn that passion into a bit of genius by formal training in the hard sciences. While I do think he's become a bit of a "True Believer" on the no-carbs doctrine, the obvious level of reading and exploration he has done on the matter has earned my respect. However; absent a strong grounding in Basic Sciences (the medical school definition), he has a limited audience, IMHO.

[Cliff Hargrave]

How much does culture play into it? Asians as a whole were notoriously poor farmer types. Work hard, be poor as Jeff B said on here once. The culture wasn't built around the meal as it has been in the west.

I know I can east rice three times a day, with a few small veggies and fish slivers thrown in, and I would be skinny as a rail. Culture, portion size, and daily calorie burn should play a huge part.

Another angle to look at. Their diets have been historically low in animal protein. So low that as western diets crept in, the population grew taller. So maybe you have a food combination issue to explore.

[Jeff C.]

David, I've been doing a bit of my own experimentation over the last month or so, with a glucose meter and the A1C test. You can download this manual here, where a layman did a very extensive test on himself vs various foods, and as Cliff said, he discovered some interesting things regarding food combinations.

I have as well; fat in combination with starches definitely seems to moderate the glucose readings. Here is the link: http://www.acrobatplanet.com/non-fictions-ebook/ebook-diabetes-and-diet-type-2-patient039s-successful-efforts-control.html There is a download link towards the bottom to download the PDF.

My activity level greatly affects how I metabolize the various food groups too. I've learned a ton about myself simply by purchasing a $15 meter, $75 worth of test strips, and carefully tracking types of food, amount of food, time of day, time of test, activity level, and what type of activity. Too much to put in this post.

In four weeks I have dropped my A1C from 7.1 to 5.5, and my weight from 221 to 213 in less than a month.

Jeff Cook

[Rasputin]

Given that I'm at the mid-point between David's theories and conventional wisdom, I'd suggest instead that he enroll in some Chemistry (General and then Organic), Biology (Anatomy/Physiology, etc.), Physics (the Calculus based courses, not the softball 2 semester "Allied Health" course) courses at the local JC and then pursue his investigations on a more formal and disciplined level. He obviously, controversies aside, has developed a passion for the subject and I think he could possibly turn that passion into a bit of genius by formal training in the hard sciences. While I do think he's become a bit of a "True Believer" on the no-carbs doctrine, the obvious level of reading and exploration he has done on the matter has earned my respect. However; absent a strong grounding in Basic Sciences (the medical school definition), he has a limited audience, IMHO.

Thanks, I think. :confused: ;)

Much of my quest for a "formal" education was put on hold in 1992 when I was smashed in my motorcycle wreck. I was working as a computer programmer in the USAF at the time, and working on my computer science degree in night courses. I had already taken Physics, Chemistry, Organic Chem and Biology as AP high school courses, had CLEP'd 22 hours of college credit hours in the sciences and humanities, and had taken college algebra and trig and was signed up for calc 1 when I was turned into a thin red paste.

27 surgeries, 18 years and three children later and I find myself pursuing more of an eclectic blend of self-study in the sciences and other topics, in-between building on my Nidan in jujutsu and being a stay-at-home dad with two to watch and one in 3rd grade.

Computers and technology is still my main pursuit--as a matter of fact, I have chosen as the latest project for my 8-year-old and me to build a media PC for the living room. He will do all the labor, since a hands-on approach is the best and only way for him to actually learn the nitty-gritty of how a computer goes together. It will be the 11th computer I have built, so I am pretty conversant with it.

Nutrition only grabbed me circa 2002 when I found myself at 270 lbs and seeking a knee replacement to further my jujutsu. As a show of good faith that I would bust ass at rehabbing the new knee, I set out to lose weight in prep for the surgery. However, with only basic biology and knowledge of the Food Pyramid to guide me, I set out the entirely wrong way and had a rough time of things until my local pharmacist recommended low-carb dieting. I began to do research on it and liked what I saw.

There is much more to the story but it veers kind of off topic.


Jeff, that is awesome! I am sure we could all learn from your experiences--please, start a new thread and go into as much detail as you are willing!

Your other thoughts are very similar to my own experiences and research re: food pairing and BG levels. If I had to say anything about them in the small amount of time I have to type before I have to get the 3-year-old to preschool for the morning, it would be to remark that the reason I have removed all sources of carbs from grains and starchy vegetables is not as much because I can't find a way to moderate their effect on my blood sugars, more because they represent "empty" calories compared to foods which DON'T need to be moderated as closely and are far more nutrient-dense.

Dr. Davis of the Heart Scan Blog, another cardiologist, talks about the fact that rapidly raising blood sugar is but one problem in regards to vascular damage and atherosclerosis--if the BG is raised less but for longer it can produce as much or even more damage. His solution is to keep BG levels as low as possible as much of the 24 hr period as you can, and the only way to do that is to cut out grains, sugars and starchy veggies 100% and eat as few meals as possible, pretty much the complete opposite of the USDA/AMA recommendations.

So I do.

[Rasputin]

Jeff,

Although I don't have time to do so, I am sitting here reading the PDF you sent me because I love what he has found out. I have myself read the Dr. Bernstein book, and have given my copy away to a type-2 diabetic who was in the hospital to have dead tissue removed from his foot as a complication. It sounds like we are starting to see eye-to-eye here :-D.

I will keep reading and let you know when I finish it.

[Rasputin]

My thoughts on the PDF, collected here as I read for my own ease of remembering:

1. Page 6: the addition of All-Bran to his diet. He mentions here that it had a beneficial effect on his cholesterol levels, signifying to me that he still doesn’t fully understand the relationship between cholesterol and pathology.

2. Page 8: tea with nondairy creamer is used with each test meal. Again, here he is deliberately adding 6g of carbs to his test, ostensibly because he is concerned about watching his saturated fat intake. Were he to use actual heavy cream in his tea, not only would it taste far superior (IMHO) but it would contribute zero carbs, fructose or trans fats (check the label for non-dairy creamer—the primary ingredients are corn syrup solids and hydrogenated oil.)

3. Page 12: the onions in the test were “fried”—in what? The particular fat used and the amount actually ingested with the onions should have been mentioned for completeness, as it may indeed have had an effect on the resulting BG levels. Butter in particular has been shown to moderate the effect of BG levels when taking in conjunction with certain carbohydrates.

4. Page 12: he mentions that there was no “increase in body sensitivity to glucose when a low-carbohydrate diet is in place”, whereas the graph in fact shows the opposite. I think he has the terminology confused. Impaired glucose sensitivity means that the body requires more insulin to get the glucose out of the bloodstream and into the cells, and in that case a higher sensitivity would be better. I will have to watch the rest of his interpreted data to see if this has an effect elsewhere.

5. Page 13: one would have to calculate the Area under the Curve to adequately determine if the result of eating two smaller meals of bread would result in a more favorable outcome than one large meal of bread. Studies are showing that prolonged levels of BG can be worse on glycation than shorter but higher BG levels, hence my 8-hour eating window and 16 hours of intermittent fasting (IF) each day.

6. Page 14: although time and again he obtains experimental results which demonstrate that bread in any form raises his blood sugar levels even in the presence of protein and fats, he continues to add bread to his diet (albeit pumpernickel) for some reason, rather than making what for me seems the obvious choice and removing bread altogether. Another possibility would be to substitute one of the low-carb breads which are commercially available and have a net carb count of 8g per slice, similar to what he is putting in his tea. This must be yet again due to his confusion with “Heart-Healthy Whole Grains” and their purported benefits over saturated fats in the diet.

7. Page 20: he is just SO CLOSE! He talks about how you can eat more if you eat foods which don’t contribute to BG levels, and then continues to add carbohydrate-rich foods with each meal (bread, candy(!), fruits), while eschewing real eggs (he specifies using eggbeaters, presumably to avoid dietary cholesterol which I have addressed elsewhere).

It keeps coming back to this: carbohydrates (except for the most part Fructose and fiber, the latter of which can be ignored) all cause BG to rise many times more than other foods, and raised BG is a poison. Our bodies have evolved a sophisticated response to deal with the raised levels of poison in our bloodstream; the insulin response. However, it was never designed to deal with the chronic levels of BG which our society has made possible, and it burns out in many cases causing Type-2 Diabetes. Before it does, however, those levels of BG can lead to all kinds of other problems which I have covered elsewhere.

So why eat them? Why eat the breads, the high-sugar fruits, the potatoes, the rice, the legumes, the grains, the sugars? Do they taste that amazing that they are worth the almost inevitable health problems they cause?


I really appreciate your contributing this PDF, Jeff, and I hope you write up everything you have on the topic, especially including your own data and experiences generated by your experiments. I will have more questions for you on the topic shortly.

[Erik]

At first, I pondered, perhaps Asians possess a gene which makes them less likely to develop insulin resistance. Huge amounts of diabetes in Asia. Socially (i.e. not scientifically) blamed on the rice diet.

[Rasputin]

Relevant to the topic as it has permutated:

Oatmeal: Good or Bad? (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/oatmeal-good-or-bad.html)

Bad.

[David Craik]

Billions of people eat rice, oatmeal, pasta, potatoes, and bread worldwide without being fat, having hypertension, etc. etc. etc. and yet have no discernable genetic advantage nor have a particularly stellar level of physical activity. Many live to a ripe old age too.

When we figure out the Asian paradox then perhaps we can move on to the human paradox.

[Jonathan Randall]

Much of my quest for a "formal" education was put on hold in 1992 when I was smashed in my motorcycle wreck. I was working as a computer programmer in the USAF at the time, and working on my computer science degree in night courses. I had already taken Physics, Chemistry, Organic Chem and Biology as AP high school courses, had CLEP'd 22 hours of college credit hours in the sciences and humanities, and had taken college algebra and trig and was signed up for calc 1 when I was turned into a thin red paste.

27 surgeries, 18 years and three children later and I find myself pursuing more of an eclectic blend of self-study in the sciences and other topics, in-between building on my Nidan in jujutsu and being a stay-at-home dad with two to watch and one in 3rd grade.


Well, regardless of whether one shares you views on nutrition, one has to respect your accomplishments. You definitely turned your own body around - and with some serious obstacles in your way. I had a karate teacher who had the same experience on a motorcycle and he - at least last I heard - fell below it rather than rise above it. Not judging him as "... there but for the grace of God go I...", but you've done far better.

[Rasputin]

Billions of people eat rice, oatmeal, pasta, potatoes, and bread worldwide without being fat, having hypertension, etc. etc. etc. and yet have no discernable genetic advantage

Sounds like the definition of a genetic advantage to me. :p

Besides, if it is indeed as Erik has mentioned above, they are not doing so hot on their rice or other farinaceous diets. Obesity is the last and most obvious symptom of over-consumption of starches and sugars--the other diseases of civilization show up much sooner, and they are indeed starting to show up in these other countries.

There is still considerable evidence in favor of low-energy-density foods being relatively benign, even those coming from plants. I just am not convinced based on the evidence that, especially in a culture where protein and fats are readily available, avoiding them in favor of grains and sugars is the best way to achieve health.

[David Craik]

The explosion of diabetes in Asia appears a relatively recent phenomenon, however. It would seem to me that if a diet high in rice were to blame this would have manifested itself much sooner. All of the stuff I've read blames the adoption of Western junk food.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101021209/story.html

[Rasputin]

The explosion of diabetes in Asia appears a relatively recent phenomenon, however. It would seem to me that if a diet high in rice were to blame this would have manifested itself much sooner. All of the stuff I've read blames the adoption of Western junk food.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101021209/story.html

Junk food is indeed horrible, and most of what it contains is awful to put in our bodies, but I find myself asking how much easier a target it makes for the media when compared to, say, grains and high-sugar fruits?

I think that there are a few components to the problem, but most of it can be traced to blood sugars and triglycerides. The poor people referenced in that TIME article have never historically had available to them the amount of calories in any form that they can cheaply get today. The lack (or at least the comparatively small amounts) of food in the past meant that their bodies burned off what they took in as fast as it got there, so blood sugars were forced low and carbohydrates never got a chance to spill over into the blood as triglycerides--they were continually replenishing glycogen stocks in the liver.

But as cheap, low-quality food began to become available, and cars replaced walking, the system which functioned acceptably (albeit with less nutrition/energy ratio foods than would provide optimum health) broke down.

This is not to say that the way things used to be (in those impoverished parts) was optimal, just that it was better than it is today.