Theory vs Practice

Jake commented on my previous post about how much one is willing to give up for the sake of theoretical health.  I have actually been thinking about this a lot during my recent starch experiment.

First off, I took my insulin test only a week after removing starch, so I don't think it affected it all that much.  Other studies show a starch-free diet takes a while to lower insulin levels.  Therefore, even with some starch in my diet my insulin levels were probably quite low.

Jake's point about dogma is also well-received.  The general theory behind my eating is to eat what our Paleolithic ancestors ate.  In theory, this should lead to maximal health.  But the key is "in theory".  But what if the theory is wrong or incomplete?

For example, one objection that comes to mind is a person's childhood diet.  If a child is fed starch while growing up, is it possible that the person's body will "need" starch (so to speak) when the person is an adult?  I certainly think it's possible. 

For example, this study shows that gluconeogenesis (creating glucose from noncarbohydrate sources - protein and fat) is only minimally affected  by a low-carbohydrate diet in healthy adults.  So if a person drastically cuts their carbohydrate intake by cutting starch, how is the brain to get its glucose? 

I have to admit that this came true for me.  My cravings for starch/sugar did return and did not go away.  I really felt that my body needed it at some point, and that it was not an artificial craving.

Hence, I've been eating a little starch this week, and I'm still mulling the whole experiment over. 

Comments

[jake]

I had the same thing in terms of alittle glucose necessary - for me it was not being afraid to occasionally add those (typically) glucose toppings (think your A1 steak sauce) type stuff in modernation

jake