1

votes

What's worse a postprandial spike or delayed glucose clearance?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 24, 2012 at 1:36 AM

If I eat a high carb, low fat meal my blood sugar spikes above 140, sometimes up to 160, but after the 2 hour mark my blood sugar goes down to fasting levels (80's), then by hour 3 I get painfully hungry. However, when I eat a lot of fat with carbs, my blood sugar never spikes above 125, even when consuming 160 grams of carbs in one sitting, but the problem is that my blood sugar stays at 125 for up to 3 hours. During this whole ordeal I never get any hunger pains at all.

My question than is, which is better or worse? A high postprandial spike or a delayed glucose response? Internet searches have resulted in mixed opinions.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on April 24, 2012
at 06:48 PM

Too much science, my brains hurts. HAHAH, but great answer, although I might need it it dumbed down a bit.

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on April 24, 2012
at 04:30 PM

What don't you get? I'm happy to go into detail if I know where to go.

88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

(803)

on April 24, 2012
at 07:25 AM

I don't get it.

D3f3b91d1dd9ce60865654faeb2ec809

on April 24, 2012
at 05:40 AM

Paleo chemists unite!

  • 742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

    asked by

    (3536)
  • Views
    3.9K
  • Last Activity
    1429D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

1 Answers

best answer

5
510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on April 24, 2012
at 02:13 AM

From a chemical kinetics standpoint, I'm going to say that the spike is worse, or in the best case you come out even.

Here's why, the big problem with sugar in the blood is that it binds to proteins and makes AGEs (Advanced Glycation Endproducts - if you didn't already know this, go searching, there's lots on it). The sugar + protein -> AGE reaction is irreversible and bad. The question is how many AGEs are formed (ruining your bodies proteins in the process). Well, simply stated, it's the rate of AGE formation (#/sec) times the amount of time their forming.

So in the best case, the rate is proportional to the concentration of sugar (kineticists call this a first order reaction). Chemists write "concentration of" as [], so [sugar] is read "concentration of sugar"

Rate = [sugar] and the total amount is Rate * time or [sugar]*time (as the [sugar] goes down, the rate will slow, and you'd have to do full integration to get the exact answer, the that doesn't matter here).

It is possible though, and you'd have to look it up to know for sure, that the reaction is a second, or third, or higher order reaction, and that's written as

Rate = [sugar]*[sugar] (2nd order), Rate = [sugar]*[sugar]*[sugar] (3rd order). As the order of the reaction goes up, the faster and faster it goes as the concentration is higher and you get penalized more for higher concentrations.

So what I'd say is graph the concentration of sugar vs time and if it's a 1st order reaction, the amount of AGEs formed will be proportional to the area under the curve. If it's a 2nd order reaction, graph sugar squared vs time and so on.

I bet the reaction is 1st order, so that's where I'd start.

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on April 24, 2012
at 04:30 PM

What don't you get? I'm happy to go into detail if I know where to go.

D3f3b91d1dd9ce60865654faeb2ec809

on April 24, 2012
at 05:40 AM

Paleo chemists unite!

88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

(803)

on April 24, 2012
at 07:25 AM

I don't get it.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on April 24, 2012
at 06:48 PM

Too much science, my brains hurts. HAHAH, but great answer, although I might need it it dumbed down a bit.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!