PDA

View Full Version : calories only matter???



big calvin
07-13-2003, 06:45 PM
ive ben wanting 2 ask this question for a while now but thought id sound 2 noob askin it but here goes anyways.... i watch my glucose level 1-2 times a day and ive ben switchin on diets 2 see which diet keeps my glucose in control and ive always thought low carbs are better and make since for a type 2 because well protein doesnt elavate glucose as much as carbs so it just plain makes since.....but ok for my "testing" i would just eat steak all day..test sugar eat steak for breakfast and steak for lunch and then i tested my sugar and wha happens is like say when i wake up its 180 mid day after i already ate my 2nd steak ill test it again and its around 220 or 205.. but when i ate a high protein shake with skim milk and 6oz. chicken and 1 cup brown rice for my 2nd meal and then another 1 cup brown rice and 6oz. chicken breast for meal 3 my sugar at midday was 118!... so after all this my question is why is it? why didnt my sugar raise? i mean my % of diet was around 55% carbs,35% protein,10% fat which is a high carb diet right? i mean most of my cals are carbs and my BG was still was almost half of when i ate steak alone! and the steak amount is wha i think it has to do wit it cause the steak would be around 12oz....which is around 100g protein and 40g fat...760 calories give or take BUT i didnt test my glucose right after i ate..i would test it around 2 hours after i ate....so wha can it be?????

im sorry for such a long post but its ben bugging me cause i read so much about low carbs and diabetics and carbs increase sugar and all this but ill eat carbs and im better off!!!:help:

Ironman8
07-13-2003, 06:49 PM
Well, I think your blood sugar didn't rise because you didn't have any high GI carbs? I'm sorry if that's not what you're asking, so just wait for Bradley :)

big calvin
07-13-2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Ironman8
Well, I think your blood sugar didn't rise because you didn't have any high GI carbs? I'm sorry if that's not what you're asking, so just wait for Bradley :)

lol...but why did it raise when i ate steak? even if the carbs are low GI wouldnt steak be lower automaticlly? just cause....i mean...its protein and fat and fat doesnt effect glucose..protein does but ...ok i had around 70g of protein in that mean and 70g of carbs in the brown rice meal....how can steak cause higher glucose when its the same amount of grams and protein??? thats wha i dont get....

sorry if im not makin sence lol:D im not sure how 2 write it

bradley
07-14-2003, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by big calvin
but ok for my "testing" i would just eat steak all day..test sugar eat steak for breakfast and steak for lunch and then i tested my sugar and wha happens is like say when i wake up its 180 mid day after i already ate my 2nd steak ill test it again and its around 220 or 205.. but when i ate a high protein shake with skim milk and 6oz. chicken and 1 cup brown rice for my 2nd meal and then another 1 cup brown rice and 6oz. chicken breast for meal 3 my sugar at midday was 118!... so after all this my question is why is it? why didnt my sugar raise?

Could be related to the fact that your body secreted more insulin in response to the mixed meal, which would cause blood sugar to be cleared from your blood stream faster than when you just ate the steak. Although I am not sure about this.

Also are you testing your sugar levels at the same time?

dirty-c
07-14-2003, 06:53 AM
Operating under the ASSUMPTION (so I don't know if this is right) that you can only really use ~40gm protein for muscle building at a time, the other 60gm of protein could have been metabolized into glucose (hence, higher blood sugar). Why it wouldn't have been absorbed, like it was in the balanced meal, is uncertain.

You bring up a very interesting question though, and I'll be sure to follow this thread.

big calvin
07-14-2003, 09:50 AM
i test my sugar first thing when i wake up and 4pm(normally after my lunch but just before imma eat again so like 2 hours after lunch )...

if i did only use 40g protein and the other 60g are turned 2 glucose wouldnt the change of protein to glucose(glucogenisis i think its called) still be alot lower then any carb? cause carbs dont have to change to glucose the way a protein would? thats wha im not gettin how can somethnig thats suppose to turn into sugar take longer or less of an empact then something that wasnt made 2 turn into glucose? the way im picturein it is like if u have a ready 2 drink MRP and a powderd meal replacement...u can start drinkin the RTD shake right now but u have to blend the powder with water and then u can drink it.... lol thats how im lookin at it...so which goes in faster? the one u can start drinkin in 1 sec or the one u have to blend up and all that? lol dumb way of puttin it but thats how im lookin at it and it doesntmake sence

bradley
07-14-2003, 01:48 PM
Well when you eat the mixed meal you already now that your blood sugar is going to go up due to the carbs and protein that the meal contains. The mixed meal contained carbs and protein and not much fat from the sound of things, so that means it will be digested at a faster rate than the steak only meal which contains protein and fat.

Since the mixed meal contained carbs and protein with little fat, therefore your blood sugar probably went up and then back down due to the insulin that was secreted. This could have all happened before you checked your blood sugar the second time.

Where as with the steak only meal you are taking in a large amount of protein and some fat which means that digestion will take longer. Some of the protein will more than likely be converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis in the liver. This glucose will be entering the blood stream at a later time compared to the mixed meal so therefore when you check your glucose levels they could very well be up.

bradley
07-14-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by dirty-c
Operating under the ASSUMPTION (so I don't know if this is right) that you can only really use ~40gm protein for muscle building at a time, the other 60gm of protein could have been metabolized into glucose (hence, higher blood sugar).

The whole 40g per sitting theory does not seem like it has any valid science backing it up. If you have seen anything that would prove otherwise I would be happy to see it. There seems to be too many factors that would come into play.

Just to clarify things, all protein will be used in some way by the body, but the question is how much for muscle recovery and repair?

big calvin
07-14-2003, 03:45 PM
damn......i didnt even think about that lol thanks bradley

but does that mean brown rice and chicken is better for me then steak? or steak is better? blood sugar wise

bradley
07-14-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by big calvin
but does that mean brown rice and chicken is better for me then steak? or steak is better? blood sugar wise

I would imagine that the steak will give you a more balanced blood sugar level in the long run. Might want to check your sugar levels at shorter intervals, instead of 2 hours after your mixed meal and see what kind of reading you get and compare that to the steak meal.

big calvin
07-14-2003, 06:37 PM
sweet, thanks man

dirty-c
07-15-2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by big calvin
if i did only use 40g protein and the other 60g are turned 2 glucose wouldnt the change of protein to glucose(glucogenisis i think its called) still be alot lower then any carb? cause carbs dont have to change to glucose the way a protein would? thats wha im not gettin how can somethnig thats suppose to turn into sugar take longer or less of an empact then something that wasnt made 2 turn into glucose? the way im picturein it is like if u have a ready 2 drink MRP and a powderd meal replacement...u can start drinkin the RTD shake right now but u have to blend the powder with water and then u can drink it.... lol thats how im lookin at it...so which goes in faster? the one u can start drinkin in 1 sec or the one u have to blend up and all that? lol dumb way of puttin it but thats how im lookin at it and it doesntmake sence

I follow you. Your analogy makes perfect sense to me also, that EVEN IF any amount of excess protein was converted to glucose, it STILL wouldn't elicit as large of glucose levels as carbohydrates would. Start testing your blood sugar sooner after the meals, as bradley suggested, and see if his theory is correct. I would guess that he's probably aimed in the right direction.

As for the 40gm per sitting thing, I never have seen anything scientific to back this up, but I wouldn't really know how to look either. Right or wrong, it was one of the first things I was taught when I first started lifting back in high school. I actually hope it is wrong. I would nice and convenient to be able to eat 50gms or more of protein at one time and know that it was mostly being used to rebuild/repair muscle tissue (think 20oz. porterhouse......mmmmmm).

Holto
07-15-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by dirty-c


I follow you. Your analogy makes perfect sense to me also, that EVEN IF any amount of excess protein was converted to glucose, it STILL wouldn't elicit as large of glucose levels as carbohydrates would.

*** why not ? (just curious)

As for the 40gm per sitting thing, I never have seen anything scientific to back this up, but I wouldn't really know how to look either. Right or wrong, it was one of the first things I was taught when I first started lifting back in high school.

*** it's still taught at the University level
*** I trust the info on this site over most Uni material which is outdated in my opinion

I actually hope it is wrong. I would nice and convenient to be able to eat 50gms or more of protein at one time and know that it was mostly being used to rebuild/repair muscle tissue (think 20oz. porterhouse......mmmmmm).

*** think about how many hours that steak is feeding amino's into the circulation for