Skip to content


    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place:

    Your new WebMD Message Boards are now open!

    Making the move is as easy as 1-2-3.

    1. Head over to this page:

    2. Choose the tag from the drop-down menu that clicks most with you (and add it to any posts you create so others can easily find and sort through posts)

    3. Start posting

    Have questions? Email us anytime at [email protected]

    1 hr post prandial blood glucose
    jc3737 posted:
    This is from Dr W. Davis.Is he right in saying blood glucose should always remain under 100 to prevent problems like cataracts and glycation?Is that even possible with a diet of crabohydrates?Or is he just setting up impossible criteria that can only be met by a low card diet?The real question..... is there any real evidence of increased disease at blood glucose levels above 100?

    One hour blood sugar: Key to carbohydrate control and reversing diabetes Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dr. William Davis Diabetics are instructed to monitor blood glucose first thing in the morning and two hours after eating. This helps determine whether blood sugar is controlled with medications like metformin, Januvia, Byetta injections, or insulin.
    But that's not how you use blood sugar to use to prevent or reverse diabetes. Two-hour blood sugars are also of no help in deciding whether you have halted glycation , or glucose modification of proteins the process that leads to cataracts, brittle cartilage and arthritis, oxidation of small LDL particles, atherosclerosis, kidney disease, etc.
    So the key is to check one-hour after-eating (postprandial) blood sugars, a time when blood glucose peaks after consumption of carbohydrates. (It may peak somewhat sooner or later, depending on factors such as how much fluid was in the meal; protein, fat, and fiber content; presence of foods like vinegar that slow gastric emptying; the form of carbohydrate such as amylopectin A vs. amylopectin B, amylose, fructose, along with other factors. Once in a while, you might consider constructing your own postprandial glucose curve by doing fingersticks every 15 minutes to determine when your peak occurs.)
    I reject the insane notion that after-eating blood sugars of less than 200 mg/dl are acceptable, the value accepted widely as the cutoff for health. Blood sugars this high occurring with any regularity ensure cataracts, arthritis, and all the other consequences of cumulative glycation. I therefore aim to keep one-hour after-eating glucoses 100 mg/dl or less. If you start in a pre-diabetic or diabetic range of, say, 120 mg/dl, then I advise people to not allow blood glucose to go any higher. A pre-meal blood glucose of 120 mg/dl would therefore be followed by an after-eating blood glucose of no higher than 120 mg/dl.
    No doubt: This is strict. But people who do this:
    —Lose weight from visceral fat
    —Heighten insulin sensitivity
    —Drop blood pressure
    —Drop HbA1c and fasting glucose over time
    —Reduce small LDL and other carbohydrate-sensitive measures
    By the way, if you inadvertently trigger a high blood sugar like I did when I took my kids to the all-you-can-eat Indian buffet , go for a walk, bike, or burn the sugar off with a 30-minute or longer physical effort. Check your blood sugar again and it should be back in desirable range. But then learn from your lesson: Eliminate or reduce portion size of the culprit carbohydrate food.
    DoloresTeresa responded:
    The ACCORD study showed that for older T2 diabetics, extremely tight blood sugar control, with meds, and no matter what the meds, produced a higher mortality rate than a less tight control. The study was even stopped early I believe because of the higher mortality rates which must have been apparent early on. Tight control with diet and exercise doesn't have the same problem.

    It is bad advice to tell people to use meds to keep their blood sugar under 120.

    This higher mortality rate does not apply to type 1 or younger patients. The article I read did not define young. Many type two patients have read either Davis or Bernstein. Bernstein is a type one and he recommends extremely tight control with insulin. Many T2s take Bernstein's advice which I think is a mistake.

    jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
    My 1 hr blood glucose rises to as high as 156 but in two hrs its back around 100 and fasting is around 82.According to Dr Davis that's bad but then I wonder if his glycation theory at levels above 100 is correct.Ability to predict diabetes does not necesarily mean damage happens at levels above 100.

    If he could show correletion between disease and 1 hr levels above 100 that would make me think twice.....but then why do the McDouglers not have health problems if levels above 100(which carb intake guarantees)are so damaging?

    And why do the rural asian cultures live such long healthy lives?....on tons of starch.
    DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
    jc, are you diabetic?

    Yes, why do McDougallers not have health problems. It's because the culprit is fat and animal protein and not starches. Here is what I have found. If I go for a few days on just the greens and raw and cooked vegetables of fuhrman and I add a starch, my blood sugar will be higher than if I added a little starch all along. I have no idea why.

    You can't just say--people in such and such a country eat (whatever) and are healthy therefore if I eat that I will be healthy. It is almost impossible to duplicate all the factors in a specific society that are conducive to long life and good health. In the Okinawan culture, for instance, elders are valued and cherished and the children fight over who gets to have grandma move in with them. And the elderly have wonderful social networks. On the other hand if I forget someone's name, my kids start flipping through the yellow pages looking for nursing homes.

    Having said that, one doesn't need to read a study to know that cultures which base their meals on starches simply do not get the degenerative diseases we get. And we are getting worse.

    The only caveat I would have (and I don't think McDougallers would agree with me) is that people in traditional societies did not sit around in front of a tv or computer all day but performed strenuous physical labor growing their own food, which as you discovered yourself causes the blood sugar to get lower faster, so that I personally wouldn't belly up to the trough with starches but I eat them moderately. Some McDougallers, however, seem to lose weight by eating many more starches than I eat.

    jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
    With other cultures you never really know what the exact reason for longevity is.I may have been diabetic at one time...before I went to doctors...I had all the symptoms and high blood sugar (fasting)(130s).I know about Neal Barnards theory that fat is the real cause of diabetes but i bring up Dr Davis's glycation theory to give us a counter.

    He says the 1 hr is very important because it indicates glycation damage being done and ...almost everyone who eats starches will have elevated 1 hr blood glucose levels.So if he is right damage is being done to those of us who consume starches.......but if the fasting level is down to the 80s by the next morning then that indicates a total lack of insulin resistance and that the insulin is doing its job....otherwise it would remain high..

    So who is right....the only way to find out would be to look at the long term health and longevity of those on a starch based diet.Neal and TC Campbell look fairly healthy to me and both are in their late 70s..i think.
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    I don't think Neal Bernard is in his late 70s but TC campbell is....can anyone think of another good example... Dr Essee?
    DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
    Yes, me. I am 68 yrs old, have been diabetic for more than 20 years, take no meds.. Just took my bp. It was 112/65, fasting blood sugar this morning was 95--but I am losing weight and it is always higher when I am in the process of losing weight. I avoid doctors if I can but I do see a retina specialist twice a year and have no problems except some posterior vitreous detachment which I am told has nothing to do with diabetes.

    However, although I eat starches, I was told by someone on McDougall that I am not on a starch based diet since into a huge lettuce and raw vegetable salad I add 1`/3 to 1/2 cup each of beans and corn or beans and potato. They say that is too many vegetables to be a starch based diet. And I don't always have a starch because I don't always feel like eating a starch. I occasionally eat salmon and on very very rare occasions have a piece of chicken in a restaurant.,

    Remember that Barnard at least has an axe to grind. He is a member of PETA. I on the other hand would eat the family pet if I thought it would bring me good health.

    jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
    You are most definitely on a starch based diet.They told you are McDougall compliant....unless you eat tons of nuts or tons of fruit...

    Now even the occasional piece of chicken and fish(if its regular) might get you kicked out of the McDougall club.Eating animal products is where they are real strict.But since you do it so rarely I don't think it will get you kicked out.Eating the family pet would do it however.

    They don't mind a very small amount of nuts or a few peices of fruit.Having a Fuhrman like salad or lots of vegetables does not get you kicked out of the McDougall club.The main difference is that Fuhrman allows lots of fruit and discourages starches like rice and potatoes.... but only if overdone.McDougall says they can not be overdone and I agree with him(unless you are gaining weight)Fuhrman's main emphasis is on the vegetables and McDougall's is on the rice,potatoes and starches.My diet is a blend of both but the two diets are very similar.

    Fuhrman is stricter on salt which I agree with totally.My own evidence tells me Fuhrman is correct here.But then a vegetables only diet does not give me enough calories to thrive so I agree with McDougall on the starches emphasis.

    McDougall says we can get too much protein from too many beans but gives absolutely no evidence that plant protein needs to be restricted,so I eat 3-4 cups per problem...the more beans I eat the better I do.

    Lets see how healthy you are at 85 and up.That will tell the real story.If I can avoid cancer I hope to join you in good health at that age,but my doctor is 98% convinced I have prostate cancer due to PSA,PSA steady increase,PSA velocity,and Free PSA percentage. He says my PSA is too high to be from just enlargement (which he says is not that enlarged),and there is no inflammation or infection.

    But even if he is right that does not mean I can not be here 25 yrs from now.But I have to avoid the foods like sugar that might cause it to grow fast enough to shorten my life span.

    Lets keep talking right up through our 80s and 90s.
    DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
    I think my diet is very similar to yours, jc, except for the diatomaceous earth. I surely wish eating more vegetables and less starch would keep me from thriving but it doesn't and contrary to what McDougallers say I could easily thrive my way up several pounds if I did not limit starches. Even without starches I continue to thrive if I am not careful. Damn thriving.

    johnnyjj42 replied to jc3737's response:
    I had a PSA of 24 with no cancer, but very large prostate which needed TURP. The reason PSA is falling out of favor is because of the high incidence of false positives. High PSA usually means cancer or large prostate but but is surely not a clincher for cancer.
    jc3737 replied to johnnyjj42's response:
    I agree about the PSA but what if it keeps consistently going up?

    and what about free PSA.

    and even if it is prostate cancer it can take many decades to cause a serious problem if its not agressive....and most are not agressive

    Here is a study that links high levels of omega 3s with pc/
    max9821 replied to jc3737's response:
    I have to ask if anything such as weight loss, absolute avoidance of animal foods and processed foods, exercise and so on can reverse PSA? Has it ever happened? Does it ever go down? Is there no other way to discern the presence of cancer cells in the prostate other than a biopsy? Similar to cancer cells in a scraping during a pap smear? Maybe in sperm.

    If one does have aggressive prostate cancer how effective is whatever treatment available? There is no sense in being overly aggressive as far as seeking a remedy but on the other hand one doesn't want to hide one's head in the sand. People do die from prostate cancer and they probably more often have very dire consequences from the "cure".

    I imagine it is a tough decision.

    jc3737 replied to max9821's response:
    PSA does go down.If it bounces around that indicates a lower probability of cancer but when it goes steadily up cancer is much more likely.

    POM juice can extend the PSA doubling time from 18 to 54 months.(from memory).As PSA gets above 20 the odds for advanced aggressive cancer goes way up especially if it stays above 20.

    Google Dirk Benedict/prostate cancer.He had prostate cancer and beat it with the McDougall diet.He was a star in Battlestar Gallactica and The A Team.

    Spotlight: Member Stories

    Long-time fan of the Diet Debate-though infrequent contributor to the discussion.

    Helpful Tips

    Be the first to post a Tip!

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.