Archive for the “Bad Diets” Category
A reader sent me a link to this documentary produced by the CBC in Canada. It’s 45 minutes long, but well worth it.
I only have a few complaints:
1. Despite all the recent research, a couple of the doctors interviewed just can’t help themselves: they still have to lump fat and sugar together, as if they’re equally to blame for bad health. They should know better by now.
2. The narrator mentions fruits, vegetables and grains as part of a healthy diet. Head. Bang. On. Desk. There’s nothing health-promoting about grains.
3. Since there’s a problem, then by gosh, we need a government solution, at least according to the producers. No, we don’t. We just need to educate people about what sugar does to their health. If they still want to eat the stuff, that’s their business. All those fat-free foods that hit the market during the anti-fat hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s were the result of consumer demand, not government regulations.
Let me know what you think.
42 Comments »
Tom is hard at work on that book/DVD project he’s been teasing us with for the last year or so, which is good. But it’s taking a bit more time and effort for this phase than he’d planned, so you all are stuck with me for another week or so. It should be worth it in the end, so let’s all, as Lone Watie said in the classic “The Outlaw Josey Wales” (played by Chief Dan George) –
“endeavor to persevere.”
BTW, if you’re too young to get that reference, you need to watch that movie. If you don’t have that kind of patience, or if Josey has ended up on the non-PC list, or if you’d just like a reminder of one of the great scenes in movies:
Okay, enough about the first Americans put on a government-run welfare program.
Back here in the present day, I’ve pointed out before the adage that “grandchildren are your reward for not strangling your children when they’re teenagers.” The Wife and I got an invitation to go to breakfast with The Oldest Reward (1st grader) yesterday at her school’s Grandparents Day. It was fun, and well attended.
Of course, you knew this had to be there:
You want to indoctrinate kids when they’re young. Otherwise, they may start thinking for themselves and we all know how messy that can get. Here’s something I never saw posted on the wall in the school cafeteria when I was a kid:
I never saw it, because hypoglycemia is associated with diabetes. Type I (juvenile) diabetes is rare and kids with it don’t need a poster to be aware of it. The other is Type II diabetes, but when we were kids, that didn’t exist. The condition did, of course, but it hadn’t been renamed to Type II diabetes. It was called “Adult Onset diabetes,” because almost no one got it until they were well past school age, usually mid-life and later.
It’s no puzzle to any Fatheads on how you create an unprecedented epidemic of insulin resistance in children. It’s simple. You just feed them breakfasts like this:
Didn’t manage to capture the other offerings in the picture, but you could balance your plate out with oatmeal and/or a plastic wrapped muffin, also. Not a drop of the fat kids need for their brains in sight, and the only protein available was a few grams in the milk. Fat Free!, of course. Ugh. The menu was missing one of last year’s offerings:
Thanks a lot, Michelle Obama.
Leah picked out what she thought looked good, and ate about half of it.
The Wife and I passed on the meal and just enjoyed being with her and her multitude of buddies. I was still fuming over the whole raw milk thing (or as the grandkids call it — “creamy milk!”) and took a look at the label on the fat-free chocolate milk:
Interesting that the FDA, USDA, CDC, and the Illinois State Medical Society are conducting a jihad against raw milk, but don’t seem to have anything but praise for the folks who bring our kids milk concocted with alkali, cornstarch, salt, artificial flavors, and carrageennan. Note also that the label does warn the consumer that this product “CONTAINS: MILK.” You know, just in case anyone was worried about there being milk in their milk.
It was fun being with the Oldest Grandkid, and we got to meet her teacher and see some of the school before she blasted off to the playground to squeeze in some playtime with her buddies before the bell started the school day. But the wife and I were a bit hungry so we stopped on the way to work and picked up a much higher quality breakfast to start our own workdays:
(Heh, heh. Just making sure Tom keeps getting those royalty checks from Ronald McDonald!)
Have a great weekend. Like it or not, I’ll have a few more things to say next week.
The Older Brother
44 Comments »
Before I was a programmer, I was a software trainer for Manpower in Chicago. In fact, I started teaching myself programming to pass the time during long stretches when the trainees were busy working away on their tutorials. I was stuck at a desk with a PC, reading books or magazines in front of the paying customers was a no-no, so why not make use of the time?
The training consisted of step-by-step instructions that walked the trainee through the basics of working with, say, Microsoft Word or Excel. I soon noticed that the trainees fell into one of two categories: those who viewed the instructions as gospel that must be followed to the letter, and those who viewed the instructions as a means for learning the software. I thought of them as process-oriented vs. goal-oriented.
The process-oriented people would drive me a little nuts sometimes. We’d have conversations something like this:
“Excuse me, I did something wrong here. The next step shows that I should have a table with six columns, but mine only has five. Should I start over?”
“No, you’ve already typed all that data into the table and I’m sure you don’t want to type it again. Do you understand how to create a table?”
“Yes, I think so.”
“Then just move on.”
“But the picture in the sample shows a table with six columns.”
“That’s okay. You probably just typed the wrong number of columns in the dialog box when you created it. If you understand how to make a table, you can move on.”
“But mine doesn’t look like the instructions say it should. Can I do this exercise again?”
“If you really want to, sure, go ahead.”
These people had learned what they needed to learn. But they hadn’t followed the process to the letter and seemed to think they’d get a black mark on their permanent records if they didn’t go back and successfully complete every instruction.
By contrast, the goal-oriented trainees usually skipped past some of the instructions once they knew they’d grasped the concept. They understood that the point of the training was to learn the software, not to be a slave to training process.
I witnessed a laughable example of the follow-the-instructions mentality when I was working as a contract programmer at Disney. This was 1999, and most of us were busy rewriting database systems to make sure they were Y2K compliant. We had regular meetings to ensure that we met conversion deadlines set by upper management, and some dim-bulb administrative assistant was put in charge of running the meetings and writing progress reports.
At one of those meetings, she announced that we were supposed to certify seven systems that day. I had created one of those systems using Access 2000, which was Y2K compliant. I demonstrated the system’s functions, showed that it would handle four-year dates, and figured that was that. My boss (who unfortunately wasn’t also the dim bulb’s boss) nodded his approval.
Then the dim bulb explained that her Y2K process manual said we should have a document from Microsoft stating that Access 2000 is Y2K compliant. I told her I’d already gone online and checked Microsoft’s technical specs, which stated specifically that Access 2000 is Y2K compliant.
“But we’re supposed to have a document.”
At that point, my boss jumped in.
“Tom just demonstrated that it’s Y2K compliant, and Microsoft has stated that it’s Y2K compliant. It’s Access 2000. They wouldn’t release software called Access 2000 that can’t handle dates starting in the year 2000. Let’s move on.”
“But we don’t have a compliance document from Microsoft. The manual says we should have a compliance document for the files.”
My boss sighed.
“Okay then, Tom will find out how to get a compliance document. Let’s move on and certify the other systems.”
“We can’t do that. We’ll have to reschedule.”
“Reschedule? Why would we reschedule? Everyone’s here and we have the meeting room for another hour.”
The dim bulb referred to her printed meeting agenda.
“It says here we’re going to certify the following seven systems at this meeting. But we can’t, because we don’t have the document for Tom’s system.”
“Yes,” my boss said slowly, as if speaking to a toddler. “So let’s certify the other six and we’ll come back to Tom’s system next time.”
The dim bulb checked her agenda again.
“But it says here we’re going to certify these seven systems. We can’t certify one of them today, so we’ll have to cancel this meeting and reschedule when we’re ready to certify all seven of them.”
For a minute, I’d thought I’d actually see my boss (a very affable man) blow a gasket. Instead, he pointed to her printed agenda and spoke through gritted teeth.
“Well, you see, what you have in front of you there is just some ink on a piece of paper. The goal here is to get systems certified. There’s no reason we can’t certify the other six systems on the list and then come back to Tom’s system next time.”
“But it says here we’re supposed to certify seven systems today.”
“There are seven systems on the list because that’s how many we thought we could demonstrate in the time allotted for this meeting. These systems have nothing to do with each other. They just happen to be on today’s list. So let’s certify the other six.”
The dim bulb looked confused for a moment, then sought clarification in her printed agenda.
“No, it says here we’re supposed to certify seven systems. We can’t do that today. We’ll have to reschedule.”
So the meeting ended with eight of us rolling our eyes and the dim-bulb satisfied she hadn’t violated the dictates of some ink on a piece of paper.
It took me about 10 minutes to find and download the document the dim bulb needed. I forwarded it to my boss and told him I would have found it sooner, but Chareva had called me from the grocery store. She’d gone there with a list of 12 items to purchase but discovered the store was out of one of them. So she had no choice but to put the other 11 items back on the shelves and reschedule the shopping trip. My boss liked that one.
So what does all this have to do with health and nutrition?
Well, I thought about the slave-to-instructions mentality when several readers sent me a link to an article about a mom in Canada who (eek!) violated government nutrition guidelines:
A Manitoba mom was slapped with a $10 fine because the lunches she packed for her kids’ lunches didn’t have any Ritz crackers.
Kristen Bartkiw sent her children Natalie and Logan to daycare with lunches of leftover roast beef, potatoes, carrots, milk, and oranges.
That sounds like a pretty decent lunch for a kid. What could possibly be the problem?
The daycare providers evidently didn’t think the wholesome lunch fit the nutritional bill because Bartkiw was subsequently charged for the Ritz crackers that the lunches had to be ‘supplemented’ with.
According to Metro News, Manitoba laws require that daycares provide children with a nutritious meal as prescribed by the Canadian Food Guide. That means one milk, one meat, one grain, two fruits.
Oh, dear. Mrs. Bartkiw didn’t include a grain product in those lunches. The Canadian Food Guide says each lunch must include a grain product, so by gosh, the rule-followers had to jump and give those kids a Ritz — because we must always obey the process, and because everything (including stupidity) sits better on a Ritz.
Let’s look at the ingredients for Ritz crackers:
Oh, yes, definitely … those are the ingredients that turn a nutritionally deficient meal into a nutrition powerhouse.
This is what I mean by confusing the goal with the process. The goal is for kids to be healthy. Anyone with a brain should recognize that there’s nothing about the meal Mrs. Bartkiw packed – beef, vegetables, fruit and a potato – that’s going to harm her children’s health. And anyone with a brain should recognize that adding Ritz crackers to that meal isn’t going to make her kids any healthier.
That’s why I want governments to get out of the nutrition-advice business. The “advice” becomes a set of rules, and then the rules must be followed. Everyone involved becomes a slave to the process. The original goal that the process was intended to support – helping people become healthier – ends up having nothing to do with any of it.
47 Comments »
Back in June, I wrote a post about Sam Feltham’s n=1 experiment in which he consumed more than 5,000 calories per day of low-carb/high-fat foods for 21 days. In a post on his Smash The Fat blog introducing that experiment, he spelled out exactly what he would eating: lots of meats, eggs, greens and nuts. The macronutrient breakdown on a typical day looked like this:
Feltham estimated his daily calorie expenditure to be around 3,128. (He’s an active cyclist.) So according to the simple calories-in/calories-out theory, he should have gained nearly 13 pounds in 21 days. But he didn’t. As he reported at the end of the 21 days, he gained less than three pounds – while losing an inch around his waist. In other words, he gained a bit of lean mass but apparently didn’t get any fatter.
I wouldn’t suggest people who’ve battled a weight problem repeat that experiment, of course. If you check the pictures on his blog, you’ll see that Feltham looks like a naturally lean guy. His body probably resists gaining fat.
Ahhh, but what if he consumed more than 5,000 calories per day on a diet high in refined carbohydrates? Would the hormonal effects of all those excess carbohydrates overcome his natural resistance to getting fatter?
In a word: Yup.
Feltham recently completed yet another n=1 experiment that lasted 21 days. This time the diet looked like something Morgan Spurlock would try (assuming he could eat all these foods at McDonald’s while pretending to only consume three meals per day) … cereals, breads, jam, pasta, desserts and sodas. Here’s the breakdown:
Wow. My glucose is rising just looking at those figures. Let’s look at Feltham’s results from his blog:
As it was the last day I also weighed myself this evening at 97.3kg, giving me a mean for day 21 at 96.8kg, which is a massive +7.1kg up from the start and +0.1kg above the calorie formula on a 53,872 k/cal surplus.
So he gained almost 16 pounds. And it wasn’t lean tissue this time, either. He also gained three inches around his waist. (He had small waist to begin with, so nobody will be asking him to wear the Santa suit at this year’s holiday party.)
What’s interesting to me is that on the high-carb overeating experiment, the calorie equation held up. Unlike with his LCHF diet, Feltham did, in fact, gain a fraction more than one pound for every 3,500 extra calories he consumed.
I’d say the same about Morgan Spurlock’s sugar-fest month at McDonald’s. Spurlock gained 24 pounds in 30 days, which means he was probably overeating by around 2,800 calories per day. (We of course don’t know for sure, since he won’t show anyone his food log. But his nutritionist cautioned him twice in Super Size Me that he was eating more than 5,000 calories per day. And unlike Feltham, who continued his exercise routine during his experiment, Spurlock intentionally moved as little as possible.)
As I mentioned in my post about Feltham’s first experiment, the calorie freaks immediately tried to explain away his inability to gain more than a few pounds on 5,200 daily calories of LCHF foods by insisting he must have a super-fast metabolism. Funny how that super-fast metabolism didn’t help him when he switched to a diet full of refined carbohydrates.
By the way, Feltham has already gone back to a LCHF diet (which he’s calling his rehab diet) to undo the damage. He’s 10 days into a diet consisting of meats, greens, butter and nuts. His average daily intake is 3,622 calories, 313 grams of fat, 170 grams of protein and 34.38 grams of carbohydrates.
He’s lost just over nine pounds as a result. A good chunk of that is likely water weight, but I suspect he’ll be back to his original weight and body-fat percentage soon enough.
55 Comments »
Before getting into the subject of Burger King’s new “healthier” fries, I’m going to anticipate a common (and incorrect) objection about using the words healthy and healthier to describe foods. The objection, which I’ve seen in comments on a few blogs, goes something like this:
Foods aren’t alive and therefore can’t be healthy! Foods that are good for you are healthful, not healthy!
As Johnny Carson used to say: Wrong, buffalo-breath. If foods aren’t alive and therefore can’t be healthy, how the heck can they be full of health? And how can a person be said to have a healthy attitude? Attitudes aren’t living organisms either … but a positive attitude can be conducive to good health. Foods can also be conducive to good health, which is a definition of healthful. But guess what? That’s also one of the definitions of healthy. Here’s a quote from the TheFreeDictionary.com:
The distinction in meaning between healthy (“possessing good health”) and healthful (“conducive to good health”) was ascribed to the two terms only as late as the 1880s. This distinction, though tenaciously supported by some critics, is belied by citational evidence — healthy has been used to mean “healthful” since the 16th century. Use of healthy in this sense is to be found in the works of many distinguished writers, with this example from John Locke being typical: “Gardening . . . and working in wood, are fit and healthy recreations for a man of study or business.” Therefore, both healthy and healthful are correct in these contexts: a healthy climate, a healthful climate; a healthful diet, a healthy diet.
Okay, just felt the need to get that out of the way so I don’t have to keep using clunky terms like more healthful and less healthful. Now let’s take a peek at an article by a journalist who was invited to try Burger King’s new healthier french fries:
We tasted them, and you may not miss the 40% fat and 30% calories stripped from the spuds.
So the next time you’re at a Burger King and asked ‘Do you want fries with that?’ you might feel a little less guilty about saying yes.
I’d say that depends on what’s in those fries.
Just over half of the the fast food chain’s 100 million monthly customers orders fries. And while most of them aren’t expecting to get a health boost from their meal, heightened awareness about diets and nutrition, and the role that fried foods play in obesity, are starting to weigh on customers’ choices. It’s not entirely realistic to expect a healthy, nutritious meal delivered at a fast food counter, but it does makes sense that their menu developers start listening to what people want.
Have you discussed this with The Guy From CSPI? He thinks McDonald’s should be serving tofu and salads. That’s because he thinks people are mindless idiots who just eat whatever you offer them.
That’s why quick service restaurants are all offering healthier fare. There is a grilled chicken option for nearly every fried item, and salads freshen up the menu boards of all fast food chains now. But it turns out visitors to these restaurants want only one thing — the food that made these chains so popular in the first place — burgers, fries and shakes.
Bingo. This is the basic-economics stuff activists like The Guy From CSPI can’t grasp: people don’t buy burgers and fries because fast-food chains sell them; fast-food chains sell them because that’s what people buy. One of my favorite on-the-street interviews in Fat Head was when I asked a young lady, “If McDonald’s sold broccoli in a nice red container like this, would you order the McBroccoli?” She replied, “Maybe if they fried it or put cheese on it.”
Which is why we see behavior like this:
Getting people to eat healthier food at fast food joints is a major challenge for the industry. Burger King’s market research, for example, showed that people who walk into a restaurant intending to order grilled chicken change their minds at the register and consistently order fried.
People want their fried food. Got it. So what is it exactly that makes Burger King’s new version of fried potatoes healthier?
Satisfries are made with the same oil and equipment as the traditional french fries, and, not surprisingly, Burger King won’t reveal the oil-repelling agent responsible. But we consulted some food science experts who say that lowering fat content in fried food is more an engineering trick than a nutritional one.
That’s what I want when I order food: an engineering trick.
“There are several patents out there now. It’s actually kind of an old technology,” says Mary Ellen Camire, the president-elect of the Institute of Food Technologists of the fat-fighting batter technique.
Adding modified starches to the surface of foods like potato chips, or adding ingredients to wet batters like proteins, gellan gum, methylcellulose and hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose and soy and pea flours, are well known ways to make fried foods less absorbent.
Sounds yummy! And healthier, of course.
Camire says many fast food industry efforts to lower fat content costs them customers because the loss of fat leads to loss of taste or texture or both.
Or it could be that people’s taste buds are warning them they’re about to eat a frankenfood.
I don’t think I’ll be trying the gellan gum, methylcellulose and hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose and soy and pea flours fried in canola oil anytime soon. I suspect readers of this blog won’t either. But if you miss fries and want to indulge in a healthier version now and then, try Chareva’s sweet-potato fries. Here’s the recipe:
- Heat bacon grease in a frying pan
- Toss in some thinly-sliced, peeled sweet potatoes
- Fry the sweet potatoes until they’re crispy
- Dump them on some paper towels and let them cool a bit
- Add salt to taste
No hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose or soy flour required.
63 Comments »
Thank goodness for Health.com. According to an article I read online today, some of my dietary habits are draining me of energy. Let’s take a look:
Who doesn’t wish for more energy at least a few dozen times a day?
I don’t. (I hope I’m not alone in that regard. If most people are wishing they had more energy two to three times every hour they’re awake, those zombie movies aren’t as far-fetched as I thought.)
Of course, you know that a good night’s sleep, regular exercise, and effective stress management can give you a much-needed boost. But to further figure out why you’re slumping, you need to pinpoint the energy-sucks in your diet. (Hint: Those low-carb meals aren’t doing you any favors.)
Dangit! And here I thought my energy level was pretty high for a guy coming up on his 55th birthday. During the daylight hours last weekend, I spent my time sawing logs, tossing the sawed logs aside to saw more logs, and weed-whacking my way through some briar. After the sun went down, I programmed some updates to a software package I sell to law firms. Oh, and I also played 72 holes of disc golf while taking work breaks from the logs. Now that I know I did all that in an energy-depleted state, I feel kind of foolish.
Anyway, here are the energy-draining mistakes Health.com says I may be making:
You go long stretches without eating
Guilty as charged.
Food Fix: Snack early, snack often
Every time you go more than two hours or so without eating, your blood sugar drops — and that’s bad news for your energy.
Hmmm … as I write, it’s been six hours since my last meal. So out of curiosity, I pulled the glucose meter out of my desk drawer and checked my blood sugar. It’s 90 mg/dl. I’m pretty sure that’s not considered low. Once or twice per week, I do a 24-hour intermittent fast – dinner one day to dinner the next. I’ve checked my glucose at the 23-hour mark. It’s always in the 80-90 mg/dl range. So I’m thinking if your blood sugar drops to the point where you feel drained just two hours after a meal, it may have something to do with what you eat.
Food supplies the body with glucose, a type of sugar carried in the bloodstream. Our cells use glucose to make the body’s prime energy transporter, adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Your brain needs it. Your muscles need it. Every cell in your body needs it.
Time to dig out the books on metabolism again. I was under the impression most of the cells in our bodies can also burn fatty acids or ketones for fuel.
But when blood sugar drops, your cells don’t have the raw materials to make ATP. And then? Everything starts to slow down. You get tired, hungry, irritable and unfocused.
Tired, hungry, irritable, unfocused … yes, I remember that feeling. I experienced it rather often when I was on a low-fat diet and depended on regular infusions of carbohydrates to keep my blood sugar up. Back in those days, I would have been a sucker for advice such as:
Grab a bite every two to four hours to keep blood sugar steady.
I had to take a couple of business calls and answer some emails while writing, so now it’s going on seven hours since my last meal. According to Health.com, that means I’m at least three hours overdue for a snack . I’d better check my blood sugar again. Hang on a second …
… Uh-oh. My glucose has plummeted to 89. Anyway, on to the next mistake and fix.
Your breakfast is too “white bread”
Energy, thine enemy is a sugary breakfast: pancakes, white toast, muffins and the like. Instead, start your day with soluble fiber (found in oatmeal, barley and nuts).
“It dissolves in the intestinal tract and creates a filter that slows the absorption of sugars and fats,” explains Dr. David Katz, founder of the Yale Prevention Research Center and author of “Disease Proof.”
In fact, research shows that choosing a breakfast with either soluble fiber or insoluble fiber — the kind in whole-grain breads and waffles — actually protects against blood sugar spikes and crashes later in the day.
Well, there’s my problem. I don’t eat whole-grain breads or waffles for breakfast. If I eat breakfast at all, it’s eggs and some kind of meat. But I often skip breakfast because I’m just not hungry. Part of the reason I’m not hungry is that my glucose is always in the 80-90 range when I wake up. Since Health.com has informed me that going without eating for more than four hours will cause low glucose, I’m considering setting up the video camera in our kitchen so I can catch myself raiding the refrigerator while sleep-walking.
A smart start: cereals with at least 5 grams of fiber a serving and whole-grain breads with 2g per slice.
Yeah, start your day with cereal or bread. Then grab a snack within the next two to four hours, because your blood sugar will be dropping. I wonder if there’s a connection?
The next two mistakes the article lists are eating the wrong kinds of vegetables and avoiding red meat entirely. No complaints there. But here’s the final mistake and suggested fix:
You’ve cut one too many carbs
Food Fix: Hello, whole-wheat pasta and potatoes!
Carbs help your body burn fat without depleting muscle stores for energy.
So if you keep raising your glucose every two to four hours so every cell in your body can burn glucose for energy without even tapping your glycogen stores, your body ends up burning fat. Makes sense.
The ideal diet is 50 to 55% complex carbohydrates, 20 to 25% protein and 25% fat.
In a Tufts University study, women on a carbs-restricted diet did worse on memory-based tasks compared with women who cut calories but not carbs. And when the low-carb group introduced them back into their diet, their cognitive skills leveled out.
I see. So here’s the advice in a nutshell:
- Start your day with cereal, bread or waffles.
- When your blood sugar plummets two hours or so after eating the cereal, bread or waffles, have a snack to raise your blood sugar.
- When your blood sugar drops two hours or so after eating the snack that raised your blood sugar, have another snack to raise your blood sugar. By constantly raising your blood sugar to make sure you burn glucose for fuel, you end up burning fat.
- Repeat steps 2 and 3 until your next meal — which should be 50-55% carbohydrates to make sure your body produces enough blood sugar.
- When your blood sugar drops two hours or so after eating a meal that’s 50-55% carbohydrate (to make sure you produce enough blood sugar), have a snack to raise your blood sugar.
- Research at Tufts University shows that after conditioning yourself to require a carbohydrate snack every two hours or so to keep your blood sugar from plummeting, cutting back on carbohydrates will cause your blood sugar to plummet — which means you’ll do worse on memory-based tasks. So don’t cut back on the carbohydrates.
- If you accidentally forget to eat carbohydrates every two hours or so and your blood sugar plummets and causes you to do worse on memory-based tasks, eat more carbohydrates to raise your blood sugar and level out your cognitive abilities. But don’t forget to have a snack two hours later to raise your blood sugar after it starts dropping, or you’ll become stupid again.
That advice makes no sense to me. But that’s probably because it’s now been seven hours since my last meal, and my glucose has plummeted to 89 mg/dl.
p.s. – After I wrote this post, we had dinner: a chef salad with lettuce, onions, eggs, cauliflower, bacon, bits of cheddar cheese, tomatoes from the garden, Italian sausage chunks and a bacon grease/white wine vinegar dressing. My glucose an hour later is 105 mg/dl. I don’t expect to need a snack two hours from now.
57 Comments »