Well, possibly so, but I think any answer that requires an exception be considered a freak of nature that doesn't apply to the question as a result, is usually not a reasonable answer.

The problem here is three fold I figure. First, as joedoro says, you can't test the hypothesis, since there is a pat answer for any negative; that isn't science, it's religion (but it works really well for that application!). Second, as ceberezin says, issues like insulin resistance are too often evaluated or complicated by the side effects that the issue itself created. But third, and I think this is equally a problem, is that there are just too damned many variables going on.

I mean, it may be that "stand-alone" -- out of context -- that chronic high carb eating is/does/would damage every human being. BUT there may be some OTHER factor that mitigates at least some degree of it. In fact there may be several, and in combination, that might mean that that person could live to be 200, live on cheerios and cigarettes, and never get fat, diabetic, or cancerous.

I think scientifically we're just still at too new a stage of learning in many respects, to be able to test all the zillion possible things in the body that could modify, mitigate or ameliorate the effect of one thing we 'think' we know: that chronic overcarbing causes problems.

PJ

Correct. The problem with the hypothesis that I am trying to articulate is that insulin resistance is cumulative. Over what period do we have to see the relative increase in insulin resistance to be certain we are registering the effect? I suppose that if we can measure elementary particles that exist only for a billionth of a second, we ought to be able to measure small increases in insulin resistance over short periods of time.

I would argue that Cricket's fortunate relatives seemed free from the effects of insulin resistance but were probably not free from insulin resistance itself. The difference is important. We need an absolute measure of insulin resistance, not a measure of its effects, to test the hypothesis. Had they eaten low carb, they probably would have lived to 120. Perhaps we could enlist Cricket's daughter in a study of her insulin resistance at baseline and then check it again 90 years from now, if we could interrupt her tennis game at that time.

LOL!

Is there no way to test for insulin-resistance, other than by its side-effects??

PJ

Surely insulin resistance doesn't start all at once, but is a slow accumulation of markers like slightly elevated insulin coupled with slightly slowed reduction in blood sugar.

.........Lance Armstrong comes to mind.........

I can concede the point if we want to look at inuslin resistance as a cumultive but the problem then gets shifted to clinical effects. Meaning that if insulin resistance is cumulative then some people might live a "normal" lifespan before suffering from the cumulative effects and dying from something else unrelated to insulin resistance. Somewhow I have a problem with that because if sugar was so bad for us then why would evolution allowed sweet receptors on our tongues to persist? I would have thought it would have gotten rid of it early on.

Surely you are not suggesting that in the absence of carbohydrates one would live indefinitely?

I can't tell you how many times when I was in practice that a well meaning child or grandchild would bring in an elderly parent or grandparent and ask me to convince them that their drinking, smoking or terrible diet and lack of exercise was causing them harm.

I mean, I've even seen 85 year olds that the cardiologists have put on a low fat diet!

I remember a program on Nova that looked at the longevity center at the Albert Eisenstein hospital in NY when they were interviewing the elederly that they had studied there. Other than a lack of smoking and a weak association with an elevated HDL, there were no other positive correlations with living to an old age other than genetics. Not diet, not exercise or anything else.

So don't discount genes.

Unless we do really have a vastly larger effect on our experiential reality based on state of mind than most realize. Then again that would probably be attributed to 'genetics' as it would be untrackable. But it would sure complicate investigating genetic lines to find the answer.

PJ

PJ - sorry but what are yo referring to?

The point is not important enough to pursue. Only the Highlander can live forever. Focusing on the fortunate few just seems to me irrelevant. What pains me about this whole subject is that people have been denied information that could have prevented much misery and early death because of unscientific adherence to a never proven dogma. The more minute the argument, the greater the possibility of losing sight of that main point.

Thanks for the welcome. It seems to me as well, that diet was always mandated by what was available, and accessible. If the region was dense in forest and trees, then fruits and berries were more readily eaten and the meat was not primary. I don't know if early humans prefered to wait for carion rather than fruit if available. That would be high carb diet. People adapt to what survival dictates. That's evolution. If we believe in adaptation to the elements, then it seems possible that humans also adapted to high carb diets. The humans in areas of lesser fruit bearing vegetation and with animals, then naturally ate those. They would be more sensitive to the foriegn diet of sugars.
I do not think that everyone has the same genetic makeup to have the same eventual physical problems. Some are predisposed to illnesses and some are not. When I see my parents ( both passed within 13 days of each other )in their late nineties, and their siblings and parents well into 106-110 yrs of age without a problem and eating carbs like crazy, then I think it is heredity based on survival of the fittest. Their systems were evolved to deal with the foods available.That is what makes sense to me. I never gave this any thought before. It is a very thought provoking subject.

If the region is a dense forest with lots fruits and berries, these areas are also dense with edible wildlife like tasty delicious deer!

I agree about the misinformation, but I think this is a very important point because what the natural extension of you concern is that if everyone is eventually harmed by carbs then we need to switch the food supply in this country to one meat or other animal based. And that will have very significant consequences for the environment.

Being here in the midwest of the US, I can only imagine what doubling the meat supply would mean. Already we have bitter fights over large scale hog operations in Iowa. Have you ever been within a few miles of one? It's not very pleasant. And cattle feedlots are not much better. A good sized one produces as much sewerage that needs to be processed as a small city.. Get into Nebraska and eastern Colorado and the size of these are just amazing. Add in the depletion of fish stocks and the potential effects of climate change, and you are betting an awful lot on very little data.

Also, this beef is not the beef of 30 years ago when the low fat paradigm took off. These are cattle fed almost exclusively the same carbs that cause the problems in people. And the same thing that happens to people happens to them. hyperinuslinemia, inflammation,etc. So who knows what the long term effect of consumption of grain fed beef will be. That's why since going LC, we eat grass fed beef.

Now if your hypothesis is true, then we are acting appropriately, but if it isn't then we are guilty of doing exactly what the low fat people did years ago. That's why we need the data.

We simply need to start eating bugs again. I don't think anyone would object to a large scale meal worm operation... except perhaps the people who worked there!

Apropos the evolution thread in this conversation, this article is interesting:



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...f/10222901.html