He did it, he finished his 'diet'.

http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html



In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.


Read mo http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-completes-60-
day-potato-challenge/story-e6frfku0-1225963611024#ixzz16nmIJnLy

--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

The act of feeding someone is an act of beauty,
whether it's a full Sunday roast or a jam sandwich,
but only when done with love.

In article > ,
Aussie > wrote:

> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>
> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>
>
>
> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.

One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:49 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article > ,
> Aussie > wrote:
>
>> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>>
>> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>>
>> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
>> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>
> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.

But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt? And
sour cream, chives, bacon bits, cream, etc...

Not just in America, either.

-sw

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:38:19 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:49 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> In article > ,
>> Aussie > wrote:
>>
>>> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>>>
>>> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>>>
>>> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
>>> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>>
>> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
>> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
>
>But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt? And
>sour cream, chives, bacon bits, cream, etc...

I wonder how many pounds of potatoes go into making one pound of
commercial (Lays, etc.) potato chips, I'd guess close to five pounds.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:49 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> In article > ,
>> Aussie > wrote:
>>
>>> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>>>
>>> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>>>
>>> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
>>> from 214
>>> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>>
>> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
>> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
>
> But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt? And
> sour cream, chives, bacon bits, cream, etc...
>
> Not just in America, either.

I sometimes get a baked potato in a restaurant. I do put salt on it and
also pepper. It is actually good this way. Better of course with butter or
margarine, but sometimes I can't have those. Daughter eats hers with
ketchup...but...yuck!

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:49 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article > ,
> > Aussie > wrote:
> >
> >> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
> >>
> >> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
> >>
> >> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from
> >> 214
> >> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
> >
> > One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> > cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
>
> But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt?

No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt?
>
> No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
> And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.

Well, butter is oil.

Thanks for the correction. I don't click PeterLinks but he did say
that in the subject.

-sw

On Nov 30, 7:16*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> >> But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt? *
>
> > No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. *They weighed 5.3 oz each on average. *
> > And he could have seasonings. *No butter, but some oil.
>
> Well, butter is oil. *
>
> Thanks for the correction. *I don't click PeterLinks but he did say
> that in the subject.
>
> -sw

Chopped onions and a tad olive oil.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
> And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.

I can't imagine eating 20 potatoes a day even if they had everything
on them. I love potatoes, but two would be my limit and certainly not
every day.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
>> And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.
>
> I can't imagine eating 20 potatoes a day even if they had everything
> on them. I love potatoes, but two would be my limit and certainly not
> every day.

I can eat three or four if they're small. And I love potatoes!

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.

Low fat diets work for some people. To claim otherwise is irrational.
Low fat diets cause problems for some people. To claim otherwise is to
follow USDA advice, uhm I mean irrational.

Eating almost nothing but potatoes would eventually cause malnutrition.
It's true of almost any other food as well.

Dan Abel > wrote in
:


>
> Yup. And maybe that's a good thing. Some people whine about how a
> single potato totally wrecks their day's diet. Here's a guy who ate 20
> every day, for two months, without gaining weight, increasing his
> cholesterol or increasing his blood sugar.
>


http://www.20potatoesaday.com/20_potatoes_a_day_002.htm

Diet Facts

"A person my height and weight needs to consume 2200 calories a day just to
maintain my weight. An average potato (5.3 oz) contains 110 calories. I'll
need to eat 20 potatoes a day to maintatin my weight. Below is an example of
the nutrients I'll be getting from my 20 potatoes a day..."

Vitamin C 942%
Vitamin B6 423%
Potassium 345%
Dietary Fiber 252%
Maganese 220%
Magnesium 165%
Phosphorus 164%
Copper 155%
Thiamin 153%
Niacin 151%
Iron 124%
Protein 116%
Folate 115%
Pantothenic Acid 85%
Vitamin K 68%
Zinc 55%
Ribofalvin 54%
Calcium 34%
Selenium 12%
Vitamin E 1%
Vitamin A 1%


--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

The act of feeding someone is an act of beauty,
whether it's a full Sunday roast or a jam sandwich,
but only when done with love.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:05:04 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> I wonder how many pounds of potatoes go into making one pound of
> commercial (Lays, etc.) potato chips, I'd guess close to five pounds.

I suspect the moisture content is taken up by oil saturation. I
would say there's no more than 15-20% loss by weight.

-sw

In article
>,
Ranee at Arabian Knits > wrote:


> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
> >
> > > No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.

> If the potatoes were the size Dan said, I could probably eat five a
> day. Were other vegetables allowed, or just potatoes?

Just potatoes. And five wouldn't be enough for you (by my calculation).
If Mariam is totally breast fed, you would need to eat nine just to
supply enough calories for her. And since you are active, you would
need something less than 20 to supply *your* calorie needs. That's one
of the lessons of this exercise, that potatoes are not really that high
in calories. From the web site:

http://www.20potatoesaday.com/20_potatoes_a_day_002.htm

"A person my height and weight needs to consume 2200 calories a day just
to maintain my weight. An average potato (5.3 oz) contains 110 calories.
I'll need to eat 20 potatoes a day to maintatin my weight.A person my
height and weight needs to consume 2200 calories a day just to maintain
my weight. An average potato (5.3 oz) contains 110 calories. I'll need
to eat 20 potatoes a day to maintatin my weight."

> What was the
> point of this?

To put Moses Lake on the map (the whole thing took place in Moses Lake).
The guy who did this is the Executive Director of the Washington State
Potato Commission.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Aussie > wrote:

>He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>
>http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>
>In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
>to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.

Now the fellow doing this was very biased. There are better before and
after markers that could have been measured. Most importantly CRP and
homocysteine. And only the total cholesterol number is shown. No doubt his
good HDL went down, and the composition of the LDL shifted more to bad
small dense from good large bouyant.

If you want to show that a potato only diet is healthy, it is easy to fudge
the results.

Don <http://paleofood.com/kitchen-equipment.htm> (e-mail at page bottom).

Don Wiss > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Aussie > wrote:
>
>>He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>>
>>http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>>
>>In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
>>from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>
> Now the fellow doing this was very biased. There are better before and
> after markers that could have been measured. Most importantly CRP and
> homocysteine. And only the total cholesterol number is shown. No doubt
> his good HDL went down, and the composition of the LDL shifted more to
> bad small dense from good large bouyant.
>
> If you want to show that a potato only diet is healthy, it is easy to
> fudge the results.
>


And unless you do it and come up with a different set of figures to back up
your suppositions, all you're doing is blowing hot air.



--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

The act of feeding someone is an act of beauty,
whether it's a full Sunday roast or a jam sandwich,
but only when done with love.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:29:06 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:

> Now oddly, I like those. I like them to the point of being addictive. But
> do I think they taste like potato chips? No.

I think baked lays taste like Pringles.

-sw

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:28:21 -0800, Julie Bove wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote
>
>> Some people like them. My personal preference is to skip them. I try
>> to eat fewer of the regular ones, and less often. Sometimes I even
>> succeed!
>
> I like corn chips. Can live without potato chips. Once in a while they're
> okay.

Pork rinds have less fat than all of the above. And Zero Carbs.

-sw

In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Pork rinds have less fat than all of the above. And Zero Carbs.

Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
mild flavored?

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:42:48 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> Pork rinds have less fat than all of the above. And Zero Carbs.
>
> Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
> in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
> mild flavored?

Most of them are. There's two different kinds - with and without
skin. The without are just pork fat pieces rendered of most of
their fat with only the solids left behind. These are always mild
and fluffy (not taking into account any seasonings).

The ones with skin can vary wildly, even within the same package.
Most require some jaw action, and some require teeth made of
diamonds. The hardest one you can buy commercially (possibly the
hardest food on the planet) are Tom's Pork Skin Strips:

http://toms-snacks.com/our-snacks/po...acklin-strips/
(The actual contents pictured are not what are depicted).

Avoid those. They are 4x harder than corn nuts. The rest of the
lineup are pretty good and consistent, though.

-sw

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:11:51 -0500, Paco wrote:

> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
>> out!
>
> HA! I knew it!

I dare you to prove it.

That would be quite a feat, though. "Steve" (whoever he is),
socking sqwertz who's socking Marty complaining about sqwertz
socking Jerry, who's really Paco.

The mind boggles.

-sw

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:42:48 +0000 (UTC) in rec.food.cooking, Doug
Freyburger > wrote,
>Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
>in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
>mild flavored?

Stay away from Baconetts if you want mild flavor.

Sqwertz wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
>> in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
>> mild flavored?
>
> Most of them are. There's two different kinds - with and without
> skin. The without are just pork fat pieces rendered of most of
> their fat with only the solids left behind. These are always mild
> and fluffy (not taking into account any seasonings).

Two posters have now posted ones to avoid.

I've found that the least variable fried pork skins are the ones with
the heavy chemical flavoring. Red chemical dust on good crunchy mild
skins. A strange experience.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:49:17 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:11:51 -0500, Paco wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
>>> out!
>>
>> HA! I knew it!
>
> I dare you to prove it.
>
> That would be quite a feat, though. "Steve" (whoever he is),
> socking sqwertz who's socking Marty complaining about sqwertz
> socking Jerry, who's really Paco.
>
> The mind boggles.
>
> -sw

this calls for dna tests all around.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:16:17 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>> Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
>>> in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
>>> mild flavored?
>>
>> Most of them are. There's two different kinds - with and without
>> skin. The without are just pork fat pieces rendered of most of
>> their fat with only the solids left behind. These are always mild
>> and fluffy (not taking into account any seasonings).
>
> Two posters have now posted ones to avoid.
>
> I've found that the least variable fried pork skins are the ones with
> the heavy chemical flavoring. Red chemical dust on good crunchy mild
> skins. A strange experience.

And make sure you have a glass of water handy. They have a
tendency to stick in your throat and choke you if your mouth is too
dry.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:16:17 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

>> I've found that the least variable fried pork skins are the ones with
>> the heavy chemical flavoring. Red chemical dust on good crunchy mild
>> skins. A strange experience.
>
> And make sure you have a glass of water handy. They have a
> tendency to stick in your throat and choke you if your mouth is too
> dry.
>
> -sw

I had drinks recently at this really nice bar in Charleston where one of
the bar snacks available were "beer & cheddar pork rinds". Never being a
pork rind eater we ordered them to try. Nooooooot bad at all! Of course
they were freshly made and still warm which helps. They went so well
with the drinks and the drinks were wonderfully well prepared and tasty.
(I was drinking gin & tonics)
It was interesting that this very trendy place had some unusual (good!)
snacks-
http://www.mccradysrestaurant.com/pi...ar%20Snack.pdf

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:02:51 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:16:17 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
>>>> in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
>>>> mild flavored?
>>>
>>> Most of them are. There's two different kinds - with and without
>>> skin. The without are just pork fat pieces rendered of most of
>>> their fat with only the solids left behind. These are always mild
>>> and fluffy (not taking into account any seasonings).
>>
>> Two posters have now posted ones to avoid.
>>
>> I've found that the least variable fried pork skins are the ones with
>> the heavy chemical flavoring. Red chemical dust on good crunchy mild
>> skins. A strange experience.
>
>And make sure you have a glass of water handy. They have a
>tendency to stick in your throat and choke you if your mouth is too
>dry.

Idiots are discussing eating shit... for the real deal roast a fresh
ham.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:11:51 -0500, Paco wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
>>> out!
>>
>> HA! I knew it!
>
> I dare you to prove it.
>
> That would be quite a feat, though. "Steve" (whoever he is),
> socking sqwertz who's socking Marty complaining about sqwertz
> socking Jerry, who's really Paco.
>
> The mind boggles.
>
> -sw

I'm so confused! Who am I? Why am I here? Andy, is this what it's like to
be you?

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:49:17 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:11:51 -0500, Paco wrote:
>>
>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
>>>> out!
>>>
>>> HA! I knew it!
>>
>> I dare you to prove it.
>>
>> That would be quite a feat, though. "Steve" (whoever he is),
>> socking sqwertz who's socking Marty complaining about sqwertz
>> socking Jerry, who's really Paco.
>>
>> The mind boggles.
>>
>> -sw
>
> this calls for dna tests all around.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Are you sure you really want to know?

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:57:21 -0500, Goomba wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:16:17 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>>> I've found that the least variable fried pork skins are the ones with
>>> the heavy chemical flavoring. Red chemical dust on good crunchy mild
>>> skins. A strange experience.
>>
>> And make sure you have a glass of water handy. They have a
>> tendency to stick in your throat and choke you if your mouth is too
>> dry.
>>
>> -sw
>
> I had drinks recently at this really nice bar in Charleston where one of
> the bar snacks available were "beer & cheddar pork rinds". Never being a
> pork rind eater we ordered them to try. Nooooooot bad at all! Of course
> they were freshly made and still warm which helps. They went so well
> with the drinks and the drinks were wonderfully well prepared and tasty.
> (I was drinking gin & tonics)
> It was interesting that this very trendy place had some unusual (good!)
> snacks-
> http://www.mccradysrestaurant.com/pi...ar%20Snack.pdf

I'm not sure how a restaurant could make these reliably.
Commercial ones are made in pressurized (or were they vacuum?) deep
fryers and take quite a while to cook and all that fat to render
out. And the smell is not pretty at all.

There is a microwavable version these, but I haven't seen them on
the shelf for a long time. They were made by Lawrys, IIRC.

sw

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:09:06 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> Idiots are discussing eating shit... for the real deal roast a fresh
> ham.

Says the guy who eats canned chopped ham.

-sw

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 23:46:25 -0500, Paco wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:49:17 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:11:51 -0500, Paco wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
>>>>> out!
>>>>
>>>> HA! I knew it!
>>>
>>> I dare you to prove it.
>>>
>>> That would be quite a feat, though. "Steve" (whoever he is),
>>> socking sqwertz who's socking Marty complaining about sqwertz
>>> socking Jerry, who's really Paco.
>>>
>>> The mind boggles.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> this calls for dna tests all around.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Are you sure you really want to know?
>

i'm working on an r.f.c. genealogy.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 23:46:25 -0500, Paco wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:49:17 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:11:51 -0500, Paco wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
>>>>>> out!
>>>>>
>>>>> HA! I knew it!
>>>>
>>>> I dare you to prove it.
>>>>
>>>> That would be quite a feat, though. "Steve" (whoever he is),
>>>> socking sqwertz who's socking Marty complaining about sqwertz
>>>> socking Jerry, who's really Paco.
>>>>
>>>> The mind boggles.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>
>>> this calls for dna tests all around.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> Are you sure you really want to know?
>>
>
> i'm working on an r.f.c. genealogy.
>
> your pal,
> blake

"Our family tree's got no branches, but the roots all interlock..."

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:03:36 +0000, Aussie wrote:

> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>
> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>
>
>
> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
> from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>
>
Interesting but glucose ( by which I presume he meant blood glucose )
would not be a good measurement because blood glucose varies widely over
a period of time. The ten point drop could easily be seen if he measured
the first time 15 minutes after a meal and the second time 3 hours after
a meal.


A better quantity to measure would have been his A1C (30~45 day average
ofhis blood glucose ) or fructosamine levels ( 14 day average ).

In article >,
Handy Gandy > wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:03:36 +0000, Aussie wrote:
>
> > He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
> >
> > http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> > In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
> > from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
> >
> >
> Interesting but glucose ( by which I presume he meant blood glucose )
> would not be a good measurement because blood glucose varies widely over
> a period of time. The ten point drop could easily be seen if he measured
> the first time 15 minutes after a meal and the second time 3 hours after
> a meal.
>
>
> A better quantity to measure would have been his A1C (30~45 day average
> ofhis blood glucose ) or fructosamine levels ( 14 day average ).

That's why serious blood glucose tests are almost always done fasting.
As he had a lipid panel done at exactly the same time, that just
confirms it in my mind. My experience, which is not necessarily that
broad, is that cholesterol tests are always done fasting. The fact that
his glucose tests have the note that "normal" is 70-99 also confirms
that it is fasting. My personal guess is that his drop in fasting blood
sugar was probably mostly due to his 20 pound weight loss (as well as
his lipids).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote:

> Handy Gandy > wrote:

>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:03:36 +0000, Aussie wrote:

>>> his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.

>> Interesting but glucose ( by which I presume he meant blood glucose )
>> would not be a good measurement because blood glucose varies widely over
>> a period of time. The ten point drop could easily be seen if he measured
>> the first time 15 minutes after a meal and the second time 3 hours after
>> a meal.

>> A better quantity to measure would have been his A1C (30~45 day average
>> ofhis blood glucose ) or fructosamine levels ( 14 day average ).

>That's why serious blood glucose tests are almost always done fasting.
>As he had a lipid panel done at exactly the same time, that just
>confirms it in my mind. My experience, which is not necessarily that
>broad, is that cholesterol tests are always done fasting. The fact that
>his glucose tests have the note that "normal" is 70-99 also confirms
>that it is fasting.

I agree. He must have been talking about fasting glucose. But I note the
last time this came up there was no agreement in the group on this point.

Tangentially, I just had my fist HbA1C reading and it was 5.5%. This is
on the high side but not quite prediabetes. My doctor says nothing
to worry about. But I think it's a hint that I need some lifestyle
improvements (fortunately, there is room to make a few of those).

Steve