7/27 - practus interuptus

[Mike the Brit]

Taking a break from the everyone knowing everything thread, congrats to you Joker for the commitment to following through on the changes that were prescribed. Its much easier said than done, and it sounds like it has turned out very well for you.

Yeah that. You had a problem, you took an open-minded stance and were able to find a solution -- one that takes effort, but one that seems to work for you. Congratulations and ... fingers crossed!

 

[Big-T]

Seems weight loss is the topic now, I'll throw my hat into the ring, March 2013 I was 328lbs (I'm 6'8") now I'm 225lbs.

This was done by using the 5:2 diet and on the 5 "normal" days half an hour of stationary bike with the incline set to 8 (16 levels to pick from).

I did that from 328 down to 240 then for the final 15 it was (and still is) 45 minutes of stationary bike every day on incline level 9.

From 2007 to 2013 100lbs were gained, that was due to going from playing sport like 300 days a year to twice a week for 3 months a year without changing any eating habits.

The key is stick to it, give yourself goals and grind through it - sometimes it is tough but when you see the results, either appearance or the numbers on your scales it makes it all worth it.

 

[JR4]

.............
Again, there surely are people with medical issues, but that is rare, and you don't help those who overeat by enabling them with the idea they are destined to be overweight. Especially since it is an emotional issue, and many overweight people are known to binge when they are depressed about their weight.

Please show me your evidence that it is rare. In the book above I mentioned
I have a someone who has treated thousands of people with weight issues and 20 years of research
and practical experience. IT IS NOT RARE!!! Again show me your "rare" evidence.

The only idea I am trying to enable people with is that, diets don't work unless you have a
healthy metabolism. If you struggle with weight and you are eating healthy and exercising
that is a symptom that points to an underlying medical condition.
People are not "destined to be overweight" if they learn why their metabolism is malfunctioning.
But they are destine to have emotional problems and binging after struggling with weight issues
for years.

Go on tell, people they are overweight because they have emotion issues, go on believing that and look down your nose at people with weight issues. Sit there on your high throne and say look at me I eat
healthy and exercise and I don't have a weight problem. Do as I do and you won't have a weight problem.
Andy, It is too bad you have such little knowledge about this topic because you are an influential person
and could be helping people if you only understood the issues.

 

[BradyManny]

A history of being wrong in science is guaranteed until you find the real answer. That's the nature of science and not something you can knock.

This. Very much this.

Not only is it not something you can knock, it's something to be celebrated about science. I've spent a fair amount of time around science & scientists, and I've come to respect that they certainly attract a type - people that just are curious and want to know the truth. You most certainly don't get into science because you want to be right. It doesn't work like that. The truth doesn't come cheap, and at the end of the day, a real scientist would rather know the truth than be right about it.

And it's why I think any person, blog, video, show, whatever offering quick solutions to something as complicated as human health should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Some comments on the comments:.

1. While your analysis of Wilson's problems makes sense on the surface, I think you couldn't be more wrong. Once again you seem to be caught up in the whole FS/SS thing. Wilson was never thought to be a hybrid S/LB. He doesn't come close to fitting the physical profile If he's a hybrid anything, its a hybrid S/CB.

Even more than size BB has clearly been looking for what are essentially CB's who have enough size or tackling skills to play in the middle. McCourty is a good example, and BB hoped Wilson would be one too.

2. Like the overblown and over reported Ridley fumble issues, Wilson's rookie year was actually quite good, given the complexity of the defense and the newness of the position. 4 picks 7 passed defended, and 41 tackles for a guy who started only 4 games is decent production for a rookie.

Yes, he got badly beaten on a couple of play action passes that year. Tom Brady has made Troy Palomalu look just as bad on play action passes for the last 10 years and they are still going to put him in the HOF. I don't know what happened last year. It could have been a collapse of confidence. It could have been injury related. It could have been a lot of things (he did seem to play well on ST's). But the thing is none of you know either. We can only speculate, and what good is speculation if you can't be negative, Right?

The fact is that some players take longer than others to develop. All I do know for certain, that anyone with eyes can tell that so far it looks like all the hand wringing about the S position was over blown. Between McCourty, Wilson, Harmon and Chung we are going to have at least 4 very capable safeties who have both range and cover skills, if not KO power, to compliment are equally deep group of CB's.

No offense to Rodney Harrison, but in today's NFL, I'd rather have safeties with range and coverage skills with decent tackling skills, than safeties who can knock you out but are liabilities in coverage.

3. Joker I know a great lifting system for guys our age. Actually its a great system for any age. I also walk a minimum of 3 miles a day (18minute miles) On the low carbs and fast foods, not so much. I have a pizza and pasta/tomato sauce/cheese jones that would have me turning tricks in parking lots if I didn't satisfy it. I will drive hours for a great pizza. I've never heard of corn silk tea, though I like green tea. I need to lose 20.

4. I find it positively scary thinking about the DB depth we are going to have this season. Revis and Browner might be as good a combo as any in the league, yet there have been many years where if Dennard and Ryan were projected as starters it wouldn't look that bad. Plus having the freedom to keep Arrington committed to situations he can excel at, give us a 5 deep CB group that I wouldn't trade for anyone else's group in the league. What's really scary is that I can't remember a time when that thought ever entered my mind.

I think your analysis is fine, even if we disagree about what we THINK BB was looking for in Safeties, when he drafted Tavon Wilson. Trying to read BB's mind is a thankless task, much like the "Kemlinologists" of old, trying to determine the status of Communists by positions on the reviewing stand.

I still feel that he was trying to create his desired "Big Nickle", and needed a big in-the-box-sized Safety, only with a modicum of more coverage ability. From that perspective, Tavon offered the size, and some proven college CB coverage ability, above a typical SS coverage abilities. In the Big Nickle with three Safeties, not only do you have a deep center-fielder, you also need a pair of in-the-box types good enough against the run that you wouldn't miss the absence of a true LB so much. Hence the SS/LB hybrid, which others in the League have labeled as the $Money or Joker position.

The only other items for observation is that everything is going very well. TheIR Pro bowlers are returning. Even fellows written off as hopeless camp fodder, seem to be stirring somewhat. In addition to Tavon, Chung is playing within himself, DJ Williams is catching passes, and Bequette is even winning some 1 on 1 pass rush battles. There are the positive developing signs in others, that we had higher expectations about.

Hightower seems to be affirming he has pass rush ability, beating both Solder and Vollmer, which will make him more than a one trick pony. Buchanon is more conscious of contain and has developed a second move.

I know many had written off Ryan Mallett and were all for dumping him for whatever we might get including guesses of a bucket of warm spit. He is proving that the 3 camps and going on 4 years of grooming, is paying off in a polished backup QB. Perhaps even more, as he resembles the maturity and POISE that Matt Cassell displayed in his fourth year of grooming; but he has much more innate talent on which to draw.

Garapollo resembles just what you would realistically expect for a spread college QB from a tiny FCS school. He does have a very quick release and an adequate but not great arm. He is having to learn to play under Center, read complex Defenses while retreating into the pocket, and then select and accurately and timely deliver the ball to his selected target.

Garapollo has much further to go than Mallett or Brady. Both of whom were groomed 'Star' products of big time college football athletic programs at Michigan and Arkansas in the Big 10 and SEC respectively. I don't think he will be ready for the NFL for three years. After all, it took a future HOF into his second season before he could excel coming from big time Michigan.

Maybe the next off-season big question will be how to entice/keep Mallett as a backup QB for an additional season.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Very impressive that one day of training camp can produce such a long thread

Back in 2002 I was 6'0", 245. I low carbed is to 185 in about 6 months.

12 years later I'm 192 as of this morning. Low carb 7 days a week is really good for loss. For Maintenance I do low carb M-F and off the diet (within reason) on weekends. I'm up 7 pounds in 12 years that way, I can live with that.

What I've found I like is zero carb (Isopure) protein shakes during the day. Until about 4PM I have a cup of green tea, two cups of black tea, a cup of coffee and a glass of veggie juice. Plus two Isopures. That puts me at 400-500 calories. Then I have at most another 500 calories when I get home, for about 1,000 low carb calories. It's not as bad as it sounds, I don't feel too hungry and, to be honest, I'd much prefer to feel hungry than to feel overstuffed.

 

[Danger Zone]

I think your analysis is fine, even if we disagree about what we THINK BB was looking for in Safeties, when he drafted Tavon Wilson. Trying to read BB's mind is a thankless task, much like the "Kemlinologists" of old, trying to determine the status of Communists by positions on the reviewing stand.

I still feel that he was trying to create his desired "Big Nickle", and needed a big in-the-box-sized Safety, only with a modicum of more coverage ability. From that perspective, Tavon offered the size, and some proven college CB coverage ability, above a typical SS coverage abilities. In the Big Nickle with three Safeties, not only do you have a deep center-fielder, you also need a pair of in-the-box types good enough against the run that you wouldn't miss the absence of a true LB so much. Hence the SS/LB hybrid, which others in the League have labeled as the $Money or Joker position.

The only other items for observation is that everything is going very well. TheIR Pro bowlers are returning. Even fellows written off as hopeless camp fodder, seem to be stirring somewhat. In addition to Tavon, Chung is playing within himself, DJ Williams is catching passes, and Bequette is even winning some 1 on 1 pass rush battles. There are the positive developing signs in others, that we had higher expectations about.

Hightower seems to be affirming he has pass rush ability, beating both Solder and Vollmer, which will make him more than a one trick pony. Buchanon is more conscious of contain and has developed a second move.

I know many had written off Ryan Mallett and were all for dumping him for whatever we might get including guesses of a bucket of warm spit. He is proving that the 3 camps and going on 4 years of grooming, is paying off in a polished backup QB. Perhaps even more, as he resembles the maturity and POISE that Matt Cassell displayed in his fourth year of grooming; but he has much more innate talent on which to draw.

Garapollo resembles just what you would realistically expect for a spread college QB from a tiny FCS school. He does have a very quick release and an adequate but not great arm. He is having to learn to play under Center, read complex Defenses while retreating into the pocket, and then select and accurately and timely deliver the ball to his selected target.

Garapollo has much further to go than Mallett or Brady. Both of whom were groomed 'Star' products of big time college football athletic programs at Michigan and Arkansas in the Big 10 and SEC respectively. I don't think he will be ready for the NFL for three years. After all, it took a future HOF into his second season before he could excel coming from big time Michigan.

Maybe the next off-season big question will be how to entice/keep Mallett as a backup QB for an additional season.

One Like for talking Football..

 

[AzPatsFan]

Seriously you are saying Chung and Tavon Wilson are good at something???

If you keep them within the bounds of where their talents lie, the unequivocal answer is YES. That is nothing new for BB. Other coaches repeatedly place their players in all situations, including those in which they are poor at playing. They get predictably poor results.

BB would prefer to have complete talented players; but if he cannot, he would much rather have two complimentary talents one good at what the other is not, and vice versa. He then endeavors, by coaching, to place the appropriate player in his best position to succeed as much as possible.

Hadn't you noticed that?

Don't forget both of these players were prime selections. Some scouting organization had to believe they had certain talents.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

All calories are not alike. Again, the body does not convert starch carbs to fat. The problem with most carb heavy foods is that they are often filled with fat ( oily sauces, fat in baked goods etc). There are millions of folks who live on staples of starches (Rice, potatoes, corn etc) and their incidence of heart disease, obesity, diabetes is very low. Only when these folks adopt the standard american diet do they take on the related health problems.

Its called Thermogenesis ( from Dr. McDougall Website):

Excess Starch Does Not Turn to Body Fat

A widely held belief is that the sugars in starches are readily converted into fat and then stored unattractively in the abdomen, hips, and buttock. Incorrect! And there is no disagreement about the truth among scientists or their published scientific research.5-13 After eating, the complex carbohydrates found in starches, such as rice, are digested into simple sugars in the intestine and then absorbed into the bloodstream where they are transported to trillions of cells in the body in order to provide for energy. Carbohydrates (sugars) consumed in excess of the body’s daily needs can be stored (invisibly) as glycogen in the muscles and liver. The total storage capacity for glycogen is about two pounds. Carbohydrates consumed in excess of our need and beyond our limited storage capacity are not readily stored as body fat. Instead, these excess carbohydrate calories are burned off as heat (a process known as facultative dietary thermogenesis) or used in physical movements not associated with exercise.9,13

 

[Horace's Ivories]

I have no idea how this thread got to being about weight loss. But I might as well throw in my opinion here. In my opinion portion control is the most important thing coupled with eating good stuff. I'm not talking about only eating salads and ultra healthy stuff. Just keep away from eating fast food every week. I eat pasta almost every day with various sauces. But I only eat 350 grams.

The second thing is working out. I started going to the gym 4-5 times a week. But I lost weight even if I wasn't working out.

By doing this I have lost 58lbs. I have followed no funky diet methods where you only eat soup or stuff like that. I've only started working out more, but most importantly I started controling my portions to 350g.

Makes sense - carbs are satisfying and we crave them. You lost that weight by cutting down on your fat intake. If you use lower fat or fat free sauces you dont have to portion control either.

 

[Ring 6]

Please show me your evidence that it is rare. In the book above I mentioned
I have a someone who has treated thousands of people with weight issues and 20 years of research
and practical experience. IT IS NOT RARE!!! Again show me your "rare" evidence.

The only idea I am trying to enable people with is that, diets don't work unless you have a
healthy metabolism. If you struggle with weight and you are eating healthy and exercising
that is a symptom that points to an underlying medical condition.
People are not "destined to be overweight" if they learn why their metabolism is malfunctioning.
But they are destine to have emotional problems and binging after struggling with weight issues
for years.

Go on tell, people they are overweight because they have emotion issues, go on believing that and look down your nose at people with weight issues. Sit there on your high throne and say look at me I eat
healthy and exercise and I don't have a weight problem. Do as I do and you won't have a weight problem.
Andy, It is too bad you have such little knowledge about this topic because you are an influential person
and could be helping people if you only understood the issues.

I am not looking down my nose at anyone. If I have control of one aspect of my life, that doesn't make me a better person than the one who does not have control of that part of their life.
There is plenty of evidence of the horrendous eating habits that cause Americans to be overweight. You citing one book with one theory does not make you correct.
If I concede you are 100% correct about some people having metabolic disorders it does nothing to help the people who are overweight because they eat poorly and overeat. It is enabling that behavior to give them a scientific excuse that likely does not apply to them. You cite 'thousands' over 20 years to say it is not rare, when the group I am talking about is Millions of obese Americans.
I don't know why we have become a society that thinks it is inconsiderate to look at an overweight person and tell them they should eat less. That is more likely to help with the emotional problems you mention than to tell them don't worry maybe you were born that way.

Of course if someone has a weight issue and eats a healthy diet, exercises regularly and burns more calories than they consume and are gaining weight, that is a medical issue. But that is not what the majority of overweight Americans are doing. Again, just look at the volume of doughnuts, pizza, McDonalds, ice cream, etc, etc that are consumed and its clear that American choose to eat horribly and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tie that and the egregious rate of obesity together.

Finally, yes, overweight people certainly should look to people who are in shape and try to 'do as they do' just as people with heavy credit card debt should look to people who have that under control, or people with relationship problems should turn to friends with strong relationships for advice, and people who are underemployed should look to those who are exceeding their education, etc, etc. Its a shame that you seem to be reducing the value of a person to their weight and feel the best thing to do is to help them abandon responsibility to work hard to correct it.

 

[Nikolai]

6'4" 227

Was 6'4" 295(ish).

From 295-250:
1. Walking everyday (3-5mi)
2. Lifting 3 days a week
3. Cutting calories

From 250-220s:
1. Running program/walking on non-running days
2. Lifting 4 days a week
3. Maintain calorie cut
4. Focus on 40/40/20 macros. 40% protein, 40% carbs, 20% fat.

These days I fluctuate between 40/40/20 and 50/30/20 on the macros, depending on whether I'm cutting or bulking. I do the Crossfit thing and am trying to incorporate more running and endurance activities in prep for the Army.

WARNING: FOOTBALL TALK

It's cool to hear that Wilson is making some strides, but like others, I view it with a healthy dose of skepticism until I see it in a game.

Furthermore, my prediction on LaFell seems to be coming true. I predicted he'd struggle to impress during TC, but he'll still make the roster.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Excess Starch Does Not Turn to Body Fat

A widely held belief is that the sugars in starches are readily converted into fat and then stored unattractively in the abdomen, hips, and buttock. Incorrect! And there is no disagreement about the truth among scientists or their published scientific research.5-13 After eating, the complex carbohydrates found in starches, such as rice, are digested into simple sugars in the intestine and then absorbed into the bloodstream where they are transported to trillions of cells in the body in order to provide for energy. Carbohydrates (sugars) consumed in excess of the body’s daily needs can be stored (invisibly) as glycogen in the muscles and liver. The total storage capacity for glycogen is about two pounds. Carbohydrates consumed in excess of our need and beyond our limited storage capacity are not readily stored as body fat. Instead, these excess carbohydrate calories are burned off as heat (a process known as facultative dietary thermogenesis) or used in physical movements not associated with exercise.9,13

Huh? You mean having excess sugar in the blood doesn't result in insulin being secreted, which stores those sugars into fat cells until they're needed later?

 

[Ring 6]

6'4" 227


WARNING: FOOTBALL TALK

It's cool to hear that Wilson is making some strides, but like others, I view it with a healthy dose of skepticism until I see it in a game.

Furthermore, my prediction on LaFell seems to be coming true. I predicted he'd struggle to impress during TC, but he'll still make the roster.

Wilson's skillset would be a great fit in this secondary.
Some players mature at different rates. Lets hope he makes a big jump, because at the top end of potential, he is the guy we would want out there next to McCourty.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

Huh? You mean having excess sugar in the blood doesn't result in insulin being secreted, which stores those sugars into fat cells until they're needed later?

Its the simple sugars (fruits, flours and alcohol) that stimulate insulin production. Not complex carbs ( starches). That said - "Eating all kinds of fat raises insulin levels (Diabetes Care 16:1459, 1993; Am J Clin Nutr 73:878, 2001)".

So I agree about simple sugars, but carbs are being generally demonized by the dairy and meat industries for no good reason ( well for profit)...

 

[JR4]

I am not looking down my nose at anyone. If I have control of one aspect of my life, that doesn't make me a better person than the one who does not have control of that part of their life.
There is plenty of evidence of the horrendous eating habits that cause Americans to be overweight. You citing one book with one theory does not make you correct.
If I concede you are 100% correct about some people having metabolic disorders it does nothing to help the people who are overweight because they eat poorly and overeat. It is enabling that behavior to give them a scientific excuse that likely does not apply to them. You cite 'thousands' over 20 years to say it is not rare, when the group I am talking about is Millions of obese Americans.
I don't know why we have become a society that thinks it is inconsiderate to look at an overweight person and tell them they should eat less. That is more likely to help with the emotional problems you mention than to tell them don't worry maybe you were born that way.

Of course if someone has a weight issue and eats a healthy diet, exercises regularly and burns more calories than they consume and are gaining weight, that is a medical issue. But that is not what the majority of overweight Americans are doing. Again, just look at the volume of doughnuts, pizza, McDonalds, ice cream, etc, etc that are consumed and its clear that American choose to eat horribly and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tie that and the egregious rate of obesity together.

Finally, yes, overweight people certainly should look to people who are in shape and try to 'do as they do' just as people with heavy credit card debt should look to people who have that under control, or people with relationship problems should turn to friends with strong relationships for advice, and people who are underemployed should look to those who are exceeding their education, etc, etc. Its a shame that you seem to be reducing the value of a person to their weight and feel the best thing to do is to help them abandon responsibility to work hard to correct it.

There can be two classes of overweight people.
1. Those who live on doughnuts and pizza and care nothing about losing weight.
2. Those who care about losing weight and try diets and exercise and try so much
to get a handle on their weight problem.

I am not talking about the first group and the MD who did the research is not addressing
those people also. We are talking about the second group and there are millions and millions
of people in this group as can be attested to by the multi-billion dollar diet industry.
All the Jenny Craig type organizations etc.

Diets upon diets upon diets. People want to loose weight. You don't have to tell these people
to "eat less". They do but still fail. The average American dieter makes 4 attempts per year!
Again diets and exercise will not work long term if there is an underlying metabolic issue.
I would imagine after trying for years many give up and join the group 1 people.

Credit cards are not medical issues.

you say:
"Its a shame that you seem to be reducing the value of a person to their weight and feel the best thing to do is to help them abandon responsibility to work hard to correct it"

This is total bull. People who try dieting and fail are NOT failing to work hard. You want
to throw out a credit card analogy, try this. What you are suggesting is like a 6'9 guy telling
a 5'6 guy to keep jumping and he'll be able to dunk that ball in time.
You just do not have an understanding of the issues here.

By the way, the one book I mentioned is not all the research on this issue. The physiological issue here
was seen and investigated back as far as the 1920's and 30's by some of the best endocrinologist. Only recently has science had the tools to discover the secrets of the complex metabolic path ways which has been able to substantiate theories of these early pioneers.

If people have tried diets and exercise and still can not control their weight they need to see a
endocrinologist that really understands the multiple possibilities of their metabolic processes
being compromised. This is a lot better advice than to say ... keep jumping.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Its the simple sugars (fruits, flours and alcohol) that stimulate insulin production. Not complex carbs ( starches). That said - "Eating all kinds of fat raises insulin levels (Diabetes Care 16:1459, 1993; Am J Clin Nutr 73:878, 2001)".

So I agree about simple sugars, but carbs are being generally demonized by the dairy and meat industries for no good reason ( well for profit)...

Fats don't produce an insulinogenic response.

Also, most starches are just sugars that haven't yet been broken down, take a bite of a white potato or a piece of bread, chew it for a minute, let is stay in your mouth and you'll notice it becomes very sweet, there's a reason for that.

 

[Ring 6]

There can be two classes of overweight people.
1. Those who live on doughnuts and pizza and care nothing about losing weight.
2. Those who care about losing weight and try diets and exercise and try so much
to get a handle on their weight problem.

I am not talking about the first group and the MD who did the research is not addressing
those people also. We are talking about the second group and there are millions and millions
of people in this group as can be attested to by the multi-billion dollar diet industry.
All the Jenny Craig type organizations etc.

Diets upon diets upon diets. People want to loose weight. You don't have to tell these people
to "eat less". They do but still fail. The average American dieter makes 4 attempts per year!
Again diets and exercise will not work long term if there is an underlying metabolic issue.
I would imagine after trying for years many give up and join the group 1 people.

Credit cards are not medical issues.

you say:
"Its a shame that you seem to be reducing the value of a person to their weight and feel the best thing to do is to help them abandon responsibility to work hard to correct it"

This is total bull. People who try dieting and fail are NOT failing to work hard. You want
to throw out a credit card analogy, try this. What you are suggesting is like a 6'9 guy telling
a 5'6 guy to keep jumping and he'll be able to dunk that ball in time.
You just do not have an understanding of the issues here.

By the way, the one book I mentioned is not all the research on this issue. The physiological issue here
was seen and investigated back as far as the 1920's and 30's by some of the best endocrinologist. Only recently has science had the tools to discover the secrets of the complex metabolic path ways which has been able to substantiate theories of these early pioneers.

If people have tried diets and exercise and still can not control their weight they need to see a
endocrinologist that really understands the multiple possibilities of their metabolic processes
being compromised. This is a lot better advice than to say ... keep jumping.

There are more than 2 classes of overweight people, including those that wish they weren't overweight but do not have the discipline and commitment to eat healthy.
Trying a diet and not sticking to it is not a medical issue it is a choice.

You seem to want to assume that people are not overweight because of their choices.
The fact that people try diets and EVENTUALLY fail is more an issue of commitment and willpower than the fact that if they follow it, it still won't work.
Your analogies are terrible. Not eating the Big Mac is not a physical limitation.

But just so I understand, you are saying that the majority of the overweight people in America are overweight because they practice good discipline in dieting, but it fails, not because they choose to eat for pleasure?

 

[JR4]

Its the simple sugars (fruits, flours and alcohol) that stimulate insulin production. Not complex carbs ( starches). That said - "Eating all kinds of fat raises insulin levels (Diabetes Care 16:1459, 1993; Am J Clin Nutr 73:878, 2001)".

So I agree about simple sugars, but carbs are being generally demonized by the dairy and meat industries for no good reason ( well for profit)...

A couple of hundred calories of fruits which have a low glycemic index that are fine to eat slowly such
as RAW(no sugar added) raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, grapefruit etc.
High glycemic index include fruits like watermelon, apricots , dates etc

High glycemic index fruits spike your insulin and cause problems.
Good fruits are needed for a healthy body.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

Fats don't produce an insulinogenic response.

Also, most starches are just sugars that haven't yet been broken down, take a bite of a white potato or a piece of bread, chew it for a minute, let is stay in your mouth and you'll notice it becomes very sweet, there's a reason for that.

yeah I realize that - but a whole food starch such as a potato has other macronutrients like protein, water and fiber - and vitamins - so its extremely beneficial to the body as compared to an extracted simple sugar (empty calorie).

as far as fat goes:

Dietary fat acutely increases glucose concentrations and insulin requirements in patients with type 1 diabetes: Implications for carbohydrate-based bolus dose calculation and intensive diabetes management by Howard A. Wolpert, published November 2012 in the online issue of Diabetes Care, found that “this evidence that dietary fat increases glucose levels and insulin requirements highlights the limitations of the current carbohydrate-based approach to bolus dose calculation…and suggest(s) that dietary fat intake is an important nutritional consideration for glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes.”