The blood samples were taken two hours after the meal. Dietary carbohydrate is absorbed directly into the blood and makes a pass through the liver where it stimulates the production of triglycerides, the fat you see in the blood.”

Dr. Davis wrote here Blood glucose makes a striking peak at 200 mg/dl after the low-fat breakfast of pasta and rice, in contrast to the low-carb breakfast. Triglycerides behaved very differently from the low-carb experiment: While there was no initial postprandial surge, there was a late surge developing 6-24 hours later.”

Perhaps it is a molehill but the picture I had, e.g. the high carb levels in this meal ABC reported on were what drove the “fat swimming in the test tube” is suddenly not so clear. Now it seems that it was in fact both the fat and the carbs that muddied the test tube, and perhaps the fat even had a more significant effect (though had they done a fasting test next morning, a high TG number there would have been blamed on the carbs).

While fats are the primary determinant of postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides, carbohydrates are the primary determinant of fasting triglycerides.” (and here)

He credits FAT with postprandial triglyceride increases. This seems a pretty fundamental point to be in dispute. What’s your supporting evidence for the lymph path?

My supporting evidence is every medical physiology text in print. Eating fat will increase the triglycerides in the blood after the meal over several hours, but a high intake of carbohydrates keep the fasting triglycerides up. There is nothing I wrote that is in conflict with what Dr. Davis wrote.

I wonder if you could weigh in on a dispute on Jimmy Moore’s forum going on about your assertions about fat from a meal being slow to get into the bloodstream. I cited your ABC post in response to Diane Kress (author, The Metabolism Miracle) saying in interview that sat fat should be restricted on a weight loss program because it goes straight into the blood and therefore the body has to burn it before it can burn stored body fat. In response to that, someone wrote:

“I wonder what Eades would say about this study: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/6/1498 ”

…and pointed out that “at the 2 hour mark the trigs are elevated around 50% above baseline levels. See Fig 1.” (The subjects in this study ate heavy whipping cream and then had their blood checked over an 11-hour period.)

The poster also wrote:
“Eades put his foot in his mouth here. It is he, not the doctors on the show, that should know better. He unequivocally states that the fats have not made it to the bloodstream in 2 hours which is demonstrably false. The study I posted demonstrates otherwise both by the rise in trig levels from JUST fat (e.g. the liver didn’t hurriedly convert carbs injested with the fat because there weren’t any) and the appearance of the radiolabel which confirms the source is from the dietary intake. The fat in the cloudy blood came from the fat in the meal. Indeed this effect is only seen after fat intake except where fat absorption is impaired, and it is not seen after meals that do not contain fat: http://books.google.com/books?id=sxACAAA…q=&f=false ”

Here’s the thread:
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=3813&pid=87220#pid87220

I really would like to hear your take on this. Thanks.

Will admit I laughed a bit though when they mentioned saturated fat going straight to the arteries. It reminds me of those old cartoons we used to watch in school about government. Can just imagine one of them now

“see, you eat saturated fat, and then it magically goes to your heart, and kills you. Eat more grain =D”

Great blog btw, been seeing it a lot lately, will continue reading

-Anthony

Thanks. Glad you’re enjoying it.

Go for it. Great title!

…also, on a side note I appreciated your Vachel Lindsay page and the buffalo poem. I’ve been doing a lot of research on Native Americans so that was an unexpected bonus on this site. And the buffalo were deliberately wiped out to kill the indians as I’m sure you know. I look forward to more insights and sanity from the discovery of your blog. thanks a lot-

I’m glad you’re enjoying the blog. Welcome aboard.

“I very rarely watch TV news so thankfully missed that report but sometimes listen to a relatively small local radio station which lately has been airing an “ad” urging people to adhere to the AHA/ADA approved pyramid – especially for your children! I’m left with a mental picture of children being herded like animals into a pen to be force fed carbs and then handed pharmaceuticals in a vain attempt to correct the damage……”

I got interested in the whole feeding-grain-to-kids thing way back when I first read Peter D’Adamo, and while there may be many reasons his blood type diet is B.S., I would also be interested in seeing more research done on lectins and how they interact with the blood type antigens in the GI tract, just ’cause I’m a huge geek and love to read about that stuff. Be that as it may, my daughter is type O, being that both her father and I are, and supposedly there are some differences in type Os that mean if you eat wheat, it makes your dopamine production all wonky and you get hyper and so on. Don’t know if it’s true, as I said, just sounds interesting.

Well, I don’t know if her dopamine production is involved at all, but I don’t feed much grain to my daughter aside from rice, which seems fairly innocent even with its carb content (I have found that I can eat a moderate amount and stay in ketosis even with being 100 pounds overweight!) and doesn’t seem to mess her up too badly. But wheat? Corn? Forget it. If she eats those she goes nuts. It matters not whether it’s whole-grain, refined, canned, fresh, or whatever. Even popcorn sets her off.

The only form of wheat I find she can tolerate, actually, is Ezekiel bread. But the proteins change in wheat when you sprout it, too, as with any seed.

Don’t even get me started on sugar. Actually, I think sugar makes her less crazy than wheat and corn do, particularly if she hasn’t had a lot of it.

I’m not ready to put her on something Atkins-ish, but I have a feeling she’s going to spend most of her childhood at borderline low carb if not actually there. Her dad and I both have major abdominal fat and she’s cursed with bad genes where type 2 diabetes is concerned on my mom’s side. (You sneeze on the women in that family and they go diabetic.)

And yet it’s hard to shake the notion that she “needs” whole grains because she’s a growing child. I try to mitigate it with the Ezekiel bread and with traditional sourdough where I can, but you know… early conditioning is tough. I wish I’d been more aware of actual human metabolic needs when she was a baby because I’d have never fed her grain at all.

Paleolithic children grew just fine without any grains at all, and they ended up stronger and with greater bone density than we humans have today.