Why Asian Rice Diets Do Not Cause Degenerative Diseases? page 2

[westes]

Apex, what does macronutrient neutrality mean? If the science is that glucose creates high insulin and high VLDL levels, which in turn promotes heart disease, it shouldn't matter which carbo you take. Sugar is sugar. Some sugar (i.e., wheat) is toxic for additional reasons. But any carbo in excess would be toxic if it promotes high glucose and high VLDL?

Maybe the real issue here is that Asian diets keep total carbohydrates as a percentage of calories consumed at a lower percentage than a Western processed foods diet?

[peril]

You ask a question based on an assumption, then ask for data to back your assumption. Do your own research on the carbohydrate content of pre-western asian diets. Then come back if you still have a question. I suspect you won't

[Apex Predator]

Macro-nutrient neutrality means it's not fat or carbs that are the problem. It's the toxins, whether that is gluten with the bad carbs, or O6 with the bad fat. Or the constantly elevated BG from eating all the time. Etc. Anyway, if you read around the paleosphere enough, the people who eat healthy carbs tend to have lower FBG (often low 70's) than those who are VLC (often high 80's to 90's- though some have gotten way higher). Of course there are exceptions, and there are co-factors. But just eating carbs won't give you high FBG. Toxins which limit your body's ability to regulate your FBG are the issue.

[jakey]

there are a number of assumptions going on here - about what causes degenerative diseases (assumption: carbs), about what paleo prescribes (assumption: no carbs, or at least starch), and about asians being free of dgenerative diesease despite eating white rice (assumption: asians are free of degenerative disease).

back up.

[westes]

You ask a question based on an assumption, then ask for data to back your assumption. Do your own research on the carbohydrate content of pre-western asian diets. Then come back if you still have a question. I suspect you won't

Peril, generally when anyone asks a question, they are looking for benefit of information that other people have that they do not? What's wrong with that?

[westes]

Macro-nutrient neutrality means it's not fat or carbs that are the problem. It's the toxins, whether that is gluten with the bad carbs, or O6 with the bad fat. Or the constantly elevated BG from eating all the time. Etc. Anyway, if you read around the paleosphere enough, the people who eat healthy carbs tend to have lower FBG (often low 70's) than those who are VLC (often high 80's to 90's- though some have gotten way higher). Of course there are exceptions, and there are co-factors. But just eating carbs won't give you high FBG. Toxins which limit your body's ability to regulate your FBG are the issue.

Apex, are you saying people who ingest a meal where rice is a large percentage of the calories don't get a blood glucose above 90? Seems very hard to believe that. My question is pretty specific to Asian rice diets, so I would like to narrow your reference to "healthy carbs" to the ones I am studying.

[Apex Predator]

Apex, are you saying people who ingest a meal where rice is a large percentage of the calories don't get a blood glucose above 90? Seems very hard to believe that. My question is pretty specific to Asian rice diets, so I would like to narrow your reference to "healthy carbs" to the ones I am studying.

If you are talking about "traditional" asian diets, they are just above starvation for the most part, with very high levels of activity. There's also no one traditional asian diet, depending on how far back and where you want to go, they may not have even eaten rice. So your questions is insanely vague and unanswerable if you want it answered "narrowly". So I responded with information on people on whom we have evidence for.

[westes]

If you are talking about "traditional" asian diets, they are just above starvation for the most part, with very high levels of activity. There's also no one traditional asian diet, depending on how far back and where you want to go, they may not have even eaten rice. So your questions is insanely vague and unanswerable if you want it answered "narrowly". So I responded with information on people on whom we have evidence for.

The point on total calories being near a starvation level is a fantastic point. It certainly gives me an idea to research around, thanks.

[js290]

I don't understand your point.

Excuse me, not begging the question, denying the antecedent. Which degenerative western diseases are you referring to? Diabetes, metabolic syndrome, alzheimers, parkinsons, etc? They have it all. Your contraposition of "not seem to suffer from degenerative Western diseases" is simply not true.

[magicmerl]

MagicMerl, I accept that wheat is inflammatory and has autoimmune issues. But I also thought that a major part of Paleo was a low carbohydrate diet, because of the damage caused by high glucose and insulin. The Asian result seems to contradict that.

Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of calories comes from carbohydrates (of all kinds) in a traditional Asian diet that avoids Western processed foods?

I thought that paleo was low carb too when I first got into it. But I've since realised that for me at least it's really not. It's about eating your three macronutrient groups in approximate balance with each other (1/3 fat, 1/3 protein, 1/3 carbs) rather than eating a diet dominated by carbs (i.e. a conventional diet). Insulin isn't the evil enemy. Too much insulin is. You want your insulin to be hormonally balanced by glucagon, not swamping your system with so much insulin you head down the road to diabetes-ville (and all of the other attendant health issues associated with too much insulin).

I recommend you read Denise Minger's most excellent rebuttal of the china study. It takes a while to read it all, but it's worth it. It doesn't explain the 'Why' that you are after in your OP. But I think it provides reasonably good (observational) evidence that rice isn't correlated with increased mortality.