I'll forgive you guys for modding this up, as the article is quite poorly written - the author uses the terms "high glycemic index" and "high carb" interchangeably, when they are in fact vastly different.
High carb: food that contains a lot of carbs, saying nothing about the effect on blood sugar.
High glycemic index: carbs that cause blood sugar spikes.
High glycemic load: the (very bad) combination of the above 2 factors.
In other words, it's possible for one food with the exact same amount of carbs as another to have a much lower glycemic index.
High-carb is NOT the killer. High GI carbs are. Low GI carbs are good for you. That is the point of the article.
If a graph has a spike, that implies "high rate of change". How high the peak is is all that really counts, as the body produces insulin in accordance to how high your blood sugar currently is - it has no way of knowing what the area under the curve will be in the end. And inevitably it overproduces if the peak is too high, since we are not evolved to deal with modern high GI carbs.
"How high the peak is is all that really counts".
You severely underestimate the bodies predictive capability. There are 21+ pathways feeding into the insulin response system, all of them trying to prepare the internal system to get rid of glucose. Thought, taste, smell etc all contribute to our predictive capability.
The point is that the body tries to predict the amount of glucose ingested to minimise peaks. A long term marker of the bodies success at this is hba1c.
I'd love to see a reference for your last claim. Surely the mechanism of fat storage in periods of high sugar availability would be a desirable trait?
Are low-GI carbohydrate really "good" for you? Or are they not as bad for you as high-GI carbohydrate? Is chronically elevated sugar the problem or chronically elevated insulin? There's good evidence that both are very bad for you. And in that case, GI simply isn't enough.
Elevated insulin levels are the body's natural way of trying to deal with elevated blood sugar levels. They go hand in hand, so your question "is chronically elevated sugar the problem or chronically elevated insulin?" makes no sense.
Low GI carbs are good because they release energy slowly, which means the blood sugar rises less but for a longer period, which doesn't strain your body's insulin production capabilities. Which means none of the complications normally associated with carbs, like weight gain, the need for even more high GI after a crash, diabetes, etc.
Insulin is tied up in fat metabolism and is a necessary molecule to move FFAs into fat cells. Inject a person with insulin and they'll gain weight fast. The rates of the growth of many types of cancer seem to increase in the presence of insulin.
Straining insulin production facilities may not be the real issue, as most people over-produce insulin (in response to all the high-GI carbohydrate they've eaten over their lifetime). A bigger problem is insulin insensitivity, which leads to high insulin levels.
Yes, insulin "natural" but that's no argument. Fever is a natural response of the body too, but high fever can kill you.
Now maybe the problem is what is called "low-GI." Stuff with GIs around 10 aren't that harmful. Green vegetables mainly. But get up to 30-50 (low-GI range) and you're nearly to white bread.
The best advice, in the absence of better studies than we've got is probably: eat like your ancestors evolved to eat. They didn't have any of this crap. They didn't have breads or pastas. They didn't have vegetables like potatoes or corn. They ate a good amount of meat, a reasonable amount of green vegetables, nuts, and berries once or twice a year when they could get them.
How do you think our ancestors ate? Like the Massai and Inuit, isolated cases of peoples forced to eat as carnivores? Anthropology shows that these are exceptions, and that humans have been eating from plants, primarily starches as the bulk of their calories, for over 10,000 years.
> They ate a good amount of meat, a reasonable amount of green vegetables, nuts, and berries once or twice a year when they could get them.
How about fruits, vegetables, tubers, and later, grains?
Do you have commonly accepted references that our ancestors ate mostly meat and a negligble amount of calories from plants? Greens provide little calories, and you claim berries only once or twice a year, so basically you are saying 95%+ of their calories were from meat. A bold assertion - any references?
There was no gene flow from the Americas to the rest of the world during that time period. So unless you're Native American, it doesn't really matter.
More importantly, 10,000 years is enough time to see some evolution, but when we are talking about the "diet we evolved for" the time-scale to look for is probably 100,000 years at least. 10,000 years is enough time to have evolved resistance, but not much more: Europeans get less obesity and diabetes on the "Western diet" than other peoples who have had agriculture for shorter periods of time. But that doesn't make the Western diet great for them. Agriculture was the biggest human health disaster ever recorded (read Jared Diamond's essay on this).
Grains were not a substantial part of the human diet until agriculture. Tubers and vegetables were to some degree. Fruits like anything you'd find in a modern supermarket were simply not available in most climates.
95% of calories from meat is too high for anybody except the Inuit. I think estimates are closer to 60% or so. But the Cambridge world history of food volume one is a good resource. Basically, it's a matter of looking at those hunter-gatherers who are left over and seeing what they eat. Of course, the hunter-gatherers who are left are naturally in the most inhospitable areas of the globe (otherwise the agriculturalists would have killed them all by now). So it's not an exact science by any means.
I was not claiming benefits of the "Western diet", but instead asking for evidence that humans in history ate mostly meat instead of plants.
I came up with the 95% number as an estimate based on what you wrote, as the food sources you listed did not allow for anything besides meat and greens.
I still don't see a reference that humans ate mostly meat and then only later mostly plants.
I did not say you claimed any benefits for the Western diet.
I did not say that I did not know where you came up with your number.
I know you didn't see a reference. For that, you'd have to read my post. 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence. You apparently read and responded to a completely different post.
High carb: food that contains a lot of carbs, saying nothing about the effect on blood sugar.
High glycemic index: carbs that cause blood sugar spikes.
High glycemic load: the (very bad) combination of the above 2 factors.
In other words, it's possible for one food with the exact same amount of carbs as another to have a much lower glycemic index.
High-carb is NOT the killer. High GI carbs are. Low GI carbs are good for you. That is the point of the article.