Evolutionary primacy of sodium bioenergetics
As the protocell membrane becomes progressively more impermeable to both H+ and OH- then running a Na+/H+ antiporter becomes progressively more difficult. At the same time this makes proton pumping potentially advantageous. This is how I am guessing that proton pumping may have developed.
As the protocell membrane becomes progressively more impermeable to both H+ and OH- then running a Na+/H+ antiporter becomes progressively more difficult. At the same time this makes proton pumping potentially advantageous. This is how I am guessing that proton pumping may have developed.
If we start from that neat doodle from
looking like this:
we can reverse model it back to a simpler NiFe hydrogenase in a proton semi-permeable membrane and need just four images to sum it up:
This has the ocean at pH 6 protonating acidic amino acids in a channel from the ocean to the FeS cluster. There is also a side chain of acidic amino acids in contact with the NiFe cluster which are non-protonated because they are contiguous with the cytoplasmic fluid of pH10.
A molecule of hydrogen arrives at the NiFe cluster and is split in to a pair of electrons and a pair of protons:
which then leaves the complex ready for the next hydrogen molecule to come along after the protons on the cytoplasmic route's amino acids have been deprotonated by the pH10 cytoplasm:
The cost of this manoeuvre being a small fall in the intracellular pH, to be neutralised by the same alkaline vent fluid which supplied the molecular hydrogen.
That seems quite simple.
If we consider what might happen if the availability of hydroxyl ions is curtailed by progressively rising impermeability of the cell membrane to both H+ and OH- then the process must halt. With the evolution of soluble hydrogenases, and especially of electron bifurcation, then Fd2- might become more plentiful but molecular hydrogen less so.
We can consider what the immediate advantage might be to a cell to consume Fd2- and regenerate molecular hydrogen by running this complex in reverse.
So now I've set the intracellular pH to pH7 and left the ocean fixed at pH6. It's a big ocean.
In this scenario all of the amino acids in the complex would be protonated:
If we allow a Fd2- molecule to place a pair of electrons on to the FeS cluster:
these can combine with a pair of protons to form molecular hydrogen. These protons should come from the (very slightly) more acidic ocean channel:
This reaction is exothermic and needs no proton gradient. It leaves us with a deficit of protons in the oceanic pH channel:
which you would expect to be replenished from the bulk ocean. But we have a certain amount of free energy available from the high energy Fd2- molecule used to make the molecular hydrogen. All that is needed is an electrostatic/conformational change comparable to the "Doohickey" function of the last several posts and it becomes simple to take two protons from the cytoplasmic influenced amino acids and put then on to the oceanic side using the energy available from Fd2- oxidation:
What might be the immediate advantage of doing this?
The pH7 environment on the cellular side will allow spontaneous re-protonation of the acidic residues in the complex:
which will clearly leave a very small and very localised area of higher pH, here designated as pH8 for illustrative purposes only:
We have now produced a very localised accentuation of the progressively feebler pH gradient resulting from the cell membrane becoming progressively more opaque to OH- ions.
As cell energetics are highly Na+ dependent, as per the introduction to this post, establishing a small area of accentuated pH gradient will allow the immediate advantage of facilitating the struggling Na+/H+ antiporting process, at the cost of allowing the loss of the newly developed localised area of pH 8 (as shown) back down to pH7 (not shown). Like this:
which is fine except a simple "monogenetic" antiporter is actually pretty useless at low membrane potentials, as in:
So it would be better to have the ancient ancestor of the modern MRP ultra-low proton gradient antiporter instead. Here we have several protons each "kicking" another inward channel to finally
"kick" a Na+ ion out of the cell:
At this point having MRP snuggle up to a membrane bound hydrogenase to access a better pH gradient is starting to look vaguely like a complex I precursor, but not quite. All we have is a small improved localised pH gradient, no gross expulsion of protons, and the sole use is to generate a Na+ ion gradient. But that would be advantageous, immediately.
Now let's worsen matters still further and drop the intracellular pH to 6.5, where even the mighty MRP antiporter is in trouble. We can get extracellular protons to the half way inward mark, and intracellular Na+ to the half way outward mark but there is insufficient pH drive to complete their respective journeys. Stalemate:
Now if we just think about that energy input from "wasting" a Fd2- molecule we can have a conformational/electrostatic change in the green outlined amino acid (modern day aspartate D72 in the original diagram) like this:
giving a "push" to help the struggling MRP antiporter:
by providing a "kick" which the pH gradient can't manage alone. As it stands there need be no outward proton translocation, just a push to the MRP antiporter. In fact the localised pH gradient would be lost on Na+ antiporting but the cell would have bought a better Na+ gradient for ATP synthase in return:
In this last image I've suggested that blocking off access to the ocean would be an incremental advantage too as it might make a conformational change in the "kicking" acidic amino acid more effective at facilitating MRP antiport completion.
None of this is a proton pump. But as the cell membrane become essentially impermeable to protons there develops an advantage to running MRP in reverse. All you have to do is attach the kicking-complex the wrong way round to MRP and you could kick a Na+ in to the cell and two H+ out of the cell, then start of using protons in ATP synthase. Or completely drop the module which translocates Na+ and just use the "kick" to push two protons outwards. Or, given a power source like the NADH:CoQ couple, kick four protons out wards, as in complex I. Notice the "kicker" is on the opposite end of the MRP antiporter derivative here and the Na+ module has been abandoned/replaced:
Given a less potent power source such as the Fd2-/H+ couple you can just drive out one proton, as Ech does:
You can also, if you're Pyrococcus furiousus living at 100degC, still pump Na+ ions (it's not easy to build a proton tight membrane at 100degC, so Na+ energetics are retained) by flipping one proton channel round, pushing a proton outwards and allowing this proton back inwards to antiport a Na+ ion outwards:
which is a proton-neutral technique to establish a Na+ ion gradient.
All you have to do is to develop a "kicker" for MRP and the world is your oyster. There are many derivatives of this type of pump with various subunits arranged in various orders. It's a molecular Lego set. All that is needed is for each step during its development to be continuously advantageous.
The concept that modern derivatives might be the best guide as to where and how life began fascinates me and has been laid out by Nick Lane's group here:
It makes a lot of sense to me.
Peter
41 comments:
I had a comment on Gary Taubes on another post but it seems the internet ate the comment. So posting here again.
Taubes links obsesity and diabetes to increased carbohydrate consumption. I don't know how he resolves this with the fact that in many (most?) countries in recent past combined very high carb consumption with low obesity and diabetes. For instance, East and South Asia, maybe even West Asia and North Africa---essentially everywhere where people descend from long-established agricultural populations. In these populations, obesity and diabetes appear to correlate with increased fat consumption and not increased carbs.
It seems that Dr Kwasniewski's idea meet the facts better than Taubes. It is metabolically safe to eat a high-carb, low-fat diet (as all agricultural populations)-- the "pasture" diet.
It is metabolically safe to eat a low-carb, high-fat diet-- the "table" diet.
But much of the world now consumes a medium-fat medium-carb "Western diet" and it is this diet that is linked with obesity, hyperinsulinemia and diabetes.
So, we see the spread of Western diet in non-Western countries is associated with rising incidence of obesity, diabetes and cancer.
Gyan—two other likely factors are seed oils and fructose. I'm currently listening to an interview Gary did with Michael Shellenberger; only a short way into it but he seems to be placing an emphasis on the fructose component of sucrose, in evolutionarily novel quantities.
I've heard Gary acknowledge in the recent past that he hasn't had time to pay much attention to polyunsaturated oils. Personally, I'm leaning toward a combination of several things, chiefly the polyunsaturated oils.
Taubes... sigh. They all make it sound like a moral failing. I think they're mistaking a symptom for a cause. However true it is that a low-carb diet helps, it's never been clear that high-carbing caused the problem in the first place.
My own experience says: it's not all the same problem anyway. It's a lot of different problems with similar symptoms.
Problems with F=C diet (fat calorie equal to carb calorie) would exist even if fat was all saturated. Indeed, it is the saturated fat that causes greatest increase in insulin among all the fats.
In India in older times, ghee was popularly associated with obesity. The diet were all high-carb but the ghee eaters were somewhat lower carb and somewhat higher fat.
Gyan: " it is the saturated fat that causes greatest increase in insulin among all the fats."
--- Is a backwards way of saying that the insulin system works better with a saturated fat dietary component. If you have a starchy diet to which you add fats the energy situation can be complex. You might not want all the glucose derived from the starches to remain in circulation too long. It needs storing away. The combination of fat plus starch drives insulin hard, sat fat harder than unsat, and if everything is working properly it quickly leads to lower circulating blood sugar. So it is "fattening". And in the presence of previously stored fats the situation escalates as fat cells grow, and grow, until they resist caloric ingress and start to spontaneously release fatty acids, and then you are in metabolic trouble.
I think it is a mistake to directly swap fat calories for carb calories. In fact I think you should not have much fat if you eat a carby meal nor should you have many carbs if you eat a fatty meal taking into consideration some averaging over time.
An old article at Western Price site gives interesting information about macro composition of diets at the turn of 20c.
www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/adventures-in-macro-nutrient-land
The relevant table is from W.O. Atwater, PhD. Principles of Nutrition and Nutritive Value of Food. Farmers’ Bulletin No 142, US Department of Agriculture, 1902.
The American diets are ~35% fat while the Swedish mechanics are with 22% fat (with huge ~700 g carb) and German laborers at 18% fat. The Russian peasants at 9% and Japanese professor at 8%.
Calorie intakes are huge and thus correspondingly carbs are out-of-scale by today's even low-fat levels.
This was the world without obesity and diabetes. Partly we can see that manual work can account for a lot of carbs, But what about Japanese professor with 416 g carbs per day?
The Western Price people, as they are wont, emphasize micronutrients that were present even in the high-carb diet then and are missing in diets now.
Gyan: one factor not mentioned here is polyunsaturated fat/linoleic acid. It was introduced in the mid-to-late 1860s in the form of cottonseed oil used to adulterate lard, but really accelerated in the 1970s. If we're talking correlations.
Another factor is that all carbs are not created equal. Glucose enters the bloodstream and is regulated by insulin. Fructose hits the liver first. The amount of fructose in the average diet also greatly increased about the same time.
Possibly both factors had a lot to do with the increase in obesity.
"Swedish mechanics"? "Japanese Professor"?
Dietary studies are reknowned for their innacuracies but that table seems exceptionally weird. Most of the rest of the article you linked endorses what most people here would think of as a sensible attitude.
A few years back I went on a full-on seafood diet (I mentioned this on this Blog some time back). I lost just under 15kg in about 4 months (I have since put back on about 5 kg). It was not a desperate effort as I am a bit of a seafood nut. I just went overboard on it. It was a bit expensive, but there is a huge variety of seafood to be had. Mostly, I ate a variety of crab and prawns (easily done!). I also tried doing mostly beef later on. That was fun, but it did not move the needle that much after the seafood splurge. Anyway, I am in excellent health with great metrics due to a highly enjoyable LCHF diet, but if anyone wanted to up their game health wise seafood is the way to go. Some of my kids even complained I had lost too much weight!
Dr Eades is making a lot of incretin effect these days along with highly processed food (HPF).
However, I was no convinced by the experiment that showed elevated insulin after co-ingestion of 50 g carb plus 10 g fat compared with 50 g carb alone. These two are not isocaloric. And plus there would be a satiating effect of (saturated) fat too. So a carb+sat fat meal could well be less in calorie relative to a carb only meal.
Traditionally, carbs were eaten with sat fat (if one could afford the cost). It might result in a degree of obesity but greater (digestive) health.
I was first exposed to the idea that F=C is risky right in this blog more than a decade ago along with dangers of PUFA, fructose and wheat. But I was not convinced by empirical support of the risk of F=C. Hence, I modified my diet to restrict PUFA alone. I wasn't consuming sodas and excess fruits in any case. I lost some weight without trying--from 76 kg to 67 kg in 3 years but then it gradually crept up. Post-covid it touched 75 kg with HbA1c in almost pre-diabetic range 5.6-5.8.
Now I like to get better idea behind this F=C risk. I do remember a plot ---a triangle with vertices showing F, P and C calories and metabolic zones inside the triangles. The plot was accessed from HyperLipid blog but I am unable to trace the plot now. I wonder if anyone remembers that plot.
What if it's genetic?
Like, seriously. This comes up in the autism argument: "genetic disorders don't increase that fast, it has to be something else". And yeah, there's probably an environmental thing going on, but what if it's *also* genetic?
Diabetes has been around a long time. Back in the day, it was mostly fatal, particularly during pregnancy. If you're talking genetics, that's something that *used* to be a somewhat random mutation that when it did crop up tended to severely limit the number of descendants in that line. If we posit true insulin-resistant T2 as rare before, say, 1950, then the diabetes that *did* happen would have been vastly more likely, just percentage-wise, to be some other sort, autoimmune, unfortunate polygenic clusters of genetic risk factors, or straight-up autosomal dominant one-off mutations like MODY or FPL. Are there other sorts? Like are there any interesting childhood diseases or drugs that can leave you with a partially-disabled pancreas?
There's a fascinating set of memoirs by Ralph Moody-- the later ones mention his diabetes. The guy was born around... 1908? and was diagnosed with diabetes via weight loss and sugar in his urine, at around age 20. He was told it was terminal, and maybe he could prolong his life by going on a strict low-carb diet and getting a lot of sun-- exogenous insulin wasn't a thing yet. The guy wrote the memoirs in his fifties, so he survived at least that long. Some things he says about it in the books suggest that he was more diabetic during periods of stress, and nearly normal when things were going well. What the heck kind of diabetes was that? Not T1. Not T2 either. Something else. Most people who had whatever he had... didn't have surviving children so if it was genetic, it ended there.
But it doesn't anymore. We test for GD, and treat, and babies and mothers mostly survive that. How long has that been the case? How many people alive today were born from mothers with GD, and wouldn't be around without modern medical testing and treatment?
I am confused with the glucagon-centric view of diabetes associated with Roger Unger that posits breakdown of communication between the alpha and beta cells of pancreas as the essential pathology of diabetes. Is it just a re-emphasis of the insulin-centric view or is it incompatible with it?
It is indeed surprising to learn that the postprandial rise in blood glucose is not mostly coming from food but from hepatic glucose production. In diabetics, the glucagon is not sufficiently opposed with insulin and thus greater production of hapatic glucose.
It is amazing that there are no drugs to target the excessive glucagon yet.
Gyan "It is amazing that there are no drugs to target the excessive glucagon yet."
I heard of one, it's known as insulin.
Gyan, Gary lacks the Protons perspective so misses the utter necessity of augmented insulin signalling in both weight gain and fatty liver, essentially the same problem. I doubt macros matter at all if you have a long term (from prenatal) avoidance of linoleic acid, ie keep it less than 4% of calories.
cave, if you eliminate the insulin sensitising effects of linoleic acid then fructose will not cause fatty liver. It will either be stored temporarily and released as soon as insulin drops or will calorically overload the hepatocytes so trigger FGF21 to burn plasma FFAs in BAT. Fructose, like ethanol, does not look to be a problem in low LA diets.
Gyan, I too struggle to find stuff on my own blog. I feel your pain.
JustPeachy, ah yes. Medicine is the act of blunting the process of evolution by side stepping evolutionary selection. Evolution best described as elimination of the un-fittest. Harsh but that’s how it works. DMT1 is the elimination of people with gluten/casein (probably + PUFA) intolerance once we introduced both in to our diet. The diet breaks us. Our genes determines how we break. Medicine fights this.
Gyan, there are glucagon antagonists being researched. IIRC they work. They are never going to compete with keto plus minimal exogenous insulin for diabetes management. Drug = off target effects. Always. You just trade the benefits vs problems (which may not be obvious).
Pass, the insulin needs to be graded with high levels at the beta cells, moderate levels at the hepatocytes and low levels at the adipocytes. Only under keto/fasting is there anything approaching equal exposure at all three sites, hence exogenous insulin absolutely requires keto for anything resembling physiologically effective control.
Peter
Oops, high levels at the alpha cells!
P
Peter "high levels at the alpha cells" I dimly recall one trial where lab animals ( dogs?) had both beta and alpha cells ablated and they ended up with manageable blood glucose levels. Of course no-one thought to ask the dogs how they felt afterwards but presumably there is enough redundancy built into the cellular nutrition process at many levels to smooth things over in the absence of those overwhelming high level signals.
Peter and Gyan re "Gyan, I too struggle to find stuff on my own blog." You may already be aware that there's a command for doing a search for a term on a specific website, when entered into the address/URL/search engine field. For example,
site:high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com hedgehog
The space characters or lack thereof are important. Enclosing a phrase in quotes should search for that phrase; I haven't experimented enough to figure out how to do an "and" search of multiple words—multiple search terms separated by a space (no quotes) seems to do "or".
This has been helpful to me over the years, hopefully it will be useful for someone else.
'Fructose, like ethanol, does not look to be a problem in low LA diets.'
It seems like a sufficient quantity of ethanol could drown out the low-LA advantage—as I think it did in my brother. And perhaps alcoholics prior to the modern high-LA diet?
Pass, IIRC I think they did total pancreatectomies. The diabetes causes is mild. I guess they supplemented exocrine pancreatic function to keep them alive.
cave, hard to say how severe the lab animal models are and certainly the best of the studies to show saturated fat is strongly protective against cirrhosis had quite convoluted methods. For which there must have been a reason!
Peter
That F=C is NOT a risk factor in absence of LA is reassuring and confirms the tradition of eating saturated fat with carbs. But also a pity--it was a nicely unifying explanation of many things--it even unifies Ancel Keys Six Country (false?, cherrypicked? )plot!--- higher fat consumption upto 35% (USA) correlates with greater heart disease.
I feel Taubes carries his anti-gluttony/sloth explanation a little too far when he claims that marathoners/champion cyclists are driven to their feats by their lean not fat-storing bodies.
Humans have agency and gluttony/sloth does exist.
Very cool complex 1 series Peter. I read through the last 6 posts yesterday evening, but i think it was too late for my brain to absorb much. will go over it again this week during the day (taking notes!)
Hi Gyan, I've not had chance to listen to Gary discussing his new book yet. Does he really cite overeating/under-exercising as triggers for obesity? This concept is utterly alien to me and he is the person who planted the seed of the adipocentric view in my mind...
Hi raphi, I had thought the series was completed but it still won't leave me alone. Now I have to take a charged surface facilitating electrochemistry through to ROS/RNS standing in for the charged surface, followed by asking myself why complex I (and probably other non related pumping complexes) produce ROS, more specifically superoxide. I can't get away from the idea that ROS are what allows the transitions between metabolites we call metabolism to occur. If true ROS are NOT a signal. They are the process, eventually embedded in to enzymes as the RNA/protein world developed, which is core to what we call metabolism.
So does complex I generate superoxide because it is what lubricates metabolism? Now relegated to what looks like a signalling system as enzymes have refined its actions....? But still largely replaceable by exogenous hydrogen peroxide, so is it still performing this function? A bit crazy, even for me.
Peter
Peter, sorry I didn't write clearly. I meant Taubes carries his reasoning against sloth/gluttony argument a little too far.
That is, he is arguing against sloth/gluttony but he also writes (twice at least), that the lean body types are driven to physical activity by their body's bias against storing fat.
Okay Gyan, that makes more sense....
Peter
Gyan, an interesting assortment of old and new therapies are discussed in this overview paper:
Alpha-cells and therapy of diabetes: Inhibition, antagonism or death? - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196978122001437
Peter, can't remember if I've already posted this elsewhere, but here's a nice long conversation between Gary and Jay Bhattacharya https://www.illusionconsensus.com/p/episode-30-dismantling-the-false
I do look forward to Gary incorporating LA [Protons?] Into his thinking. I heard an interview some months ago where it sounded like he was starting to pay attention.
Paul Jaminet (of Perfect Health Diet) made a big deal out of requirement of structural sugars and arrived at the round figure of minimum of 150 g/d of protein + carb to keep our mucosa in good shape.
This was at time of unfortunate cancer death of some Optimal Diet practitioners.
However, I take it that the actual requirement of structural sugars is far less. Maybe only a few g/d?
Is anything known about this issue?
@Gyan
Paul Jaminet's hypothesis is bollocks
It's easily disproven by people living happily on zero fiber diets. His hypothesis ignores the fact that colonic SCFAs can be derived by mucin degrading bacteria and the fermentation of amino acids from dietary protein
Two conflicting views about diabetes-- One, the over-production of hepatic glucose is due to liver being insulin-resistant. It is also claimed that the liver is the first organ to get insulin-resistant.
Or it is due to pancreatic alpha-cells not listening to insulin and the liver is perfectly fine.
@raphaels7
It is not about the fiber but the structural sugars or the glycome as they are sometimes called .
cave, that would be nice!
Gyan, Paul has his own ideas. That’s good. But people need to critically assess outcomes themselves. His approach is way ahead of the SAD but looks (from my superficial knowledge) to be far from ideal. With hindsight the main problem with JK’s Optimal Diet is the failure to limit LA intake, especially from pork lard. I would suspect lard was excellent stuff when pigs were fed a low LA diet, not so good if the lard ends up as 30% linoleic acid.
Re diabetes. The effects you mention are both downstream phenomena, not in anyway primary. If you do not start with adipocyte dysfunction you will get nowhere. And adipocyte dysfunction is secondary to exaggerated insulin sensitivity failing to limit fat storage leading to elevated basal lipolysis which cannot be suppressed by normal amounts of insulin. The downstream effects of FFA release during glucose based metabolism are secondary (and irrelevant). The adipocyte and linoleic acid are primary. IMNSVHO!
Peter
Thanks Peter. People are sending links to blood glucose lowering research on earthing/grounding. It seems nonsense but it is published ( though in alternate journals like J Alternative and Complementary Medicine).
What do you think?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21469913/
Gyan, grounding ... errrh ... makes me think of this kind of earthing:
https://youtu.be/R3LjJeeae68?si=UCPvATyKzX5T2YqL
And the next lesson will be on why magnets attract other magnets.
Pass, I spent the who clip waiting for her to mention the Pauli Exclusion Principle to explain why falling from the top of a grade 4 bouldering problem hurts. All that vacuum within atoms and still, ouch!
Gian, life is complicated. I have ended up in the place where I live, biochemically speaking, as a result of around 15 years of being pushed there by the scientific literature. I have no idea of how many studies I’ve worked through but probably 95% of them have pushed me to my current point of view. The other 5% are filed as “interesting”. This is not something I decided to do. I started, as a keto newbie, by asking myself what the difference was between eating fat and eating carbohydrate. The differential between saturated fats and PUFA emerged from this. This has become a seriously entrenched viewpoint for me.
It gives me no pointers as to how earthing/grounding might work and, if you set up your study correctly, you can lower blood glucose using linoleic acid. Is that good? Hmmmmmm…
Peter
SARS2 & Gain of Function (GOF): Where and when it all began. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Hotez). A history mad scientists and hubris... Hang 'em high.
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/the-pathogenic-academic-lobby?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=803495&post_id=141528705&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=tb182&utm_medium=email
Peter she probably does have another video on that exact topic but what you need is to be inside an airplane as you fall which is also falling but at a very slightly slower speed. Then as in Zeno's paradox you will never land
Irc various grounding practitioners have
featured in the finals of the Darwin awards by wandering around poorly insulated in stormy weather, their diabetes fixed by becoming significant electron acceptors! In the parts of my work where I handle mains powered equipment I aim to be as poorly grounded as possible.
I think I might prefer the ISS, throwing itself at the Earth and missing. By just enough...
P
@Peter: I'm pondering that lately.
Whatever familial diabetes we've got, we're at least six generations into the experiment now and haven't gone extinct (nor has the mutation, whatever it is), for all that the death rate was pretty high among the earlier set. I want to find some kind of meaning in it, like an offsetting evolutionary advantage. But maybe it's one of those horrors like Huntingdon's where it's just that it doesn't kill most of the carriers until *after* they have a fair chance to reproduce. I lean toward the first, with little evidence. Nobody *wants* to be the evolutionary dead end, but most of us are in the end, aren't we?
JP, I read an article at a popular atchaeology site recently claiming genetic evidence in remains showed that eg in Scandinavia the early farming type people migrating inwards killed off the original hunter gatherer populations. Some of us may be descended to a certain extent from the hunter gatherer types and the cultural practices of the farming types are continuing to have lethal or semi-lethal effects. I would draw a very loose comparison to the effects of western european dietary and cultural practices on traditional Australian people's health outcomes.
Similarly the example of Pima Indians given by Taubes is made complex by the fact that the Pima were unlikely to be adapted to wheat-- they were given wheat flour on the reservations I presume.
Perhaps they wouldn't have faced problem s on the carbs they were adapted to.
Likewise in India, wheat was generally eaten in the North-west only-- and now even in far South the doctors advice diabetics to eat wheat in place of rice!!
Post a Comment