Teresa (00:00.098)
Welcome to the bio energetic view. I'm your host, Teresa Piela joined as always by Jay Feldman and Mike Fave. Today we'll be talking about if there are benefits to consuming massive amounts of glucose for healing and overcoming all sorts of diseases, a followers health win, and then closing out with our regular Q and a let's get started from around the internet. David Stevens or Dr. David Stevens. He is new to me, but

His whole premise is about how we can overcome everything from trauma, addiction, ADHD, autism, fibromyalgia, with these pretty hefty doses of glucose. And Jay, you originally found this clip. Can you tell me more about his background and your understanding of his work?

Yeah, this was actually sent in by a listener who wanted us to discuss it. I don't know if it was this exact clip or some more one from a different interview, but it was the same idea. And I had heard a little bit about him because he made some appearances in the kind of bio-energetic or bio-energetic adjacent space, especially on the low vitamin A toxin forum, the low toxin forum, which used to be the repeat forum. And people there, especially, talk very positively about him.

And a lot of people trying this protocols of consuming large amounts of dextrose or glucose throughout the day. And I've had a number of clients come to me or people in the programs who have tried some of this protocol. So it's something that I had a little bit of familiarity with, but I never really dug into much. And so, yeah, listeners sent in this clip and he was really fearful about consuming anything with fructose and fruit because of it. so that was, that leads us to where we are now. And so we're going to hear about why.

Dr. David Stevens believes that we shouldn't be consuming sucrose or fructose only glucose. And yeah, he's a, I believe a clinical psychologist and or neuro psychologist. That was what I had seen, which I think ends up being kind of relevant as we start to talk about the physiology and biochemistry.

Teresa (02:11.084)
Alright, let's start with this first clip.

David Stephens
The entire chemical makeup of glucose is six atoms of carbon in the glucose molecule, 12 atoms of hydrogen or water, and six atoms of oxygen. That's it. There's nothing else in there. There's nothing acidic. There's nothing alkaline. There's nothing corrosive. Glucose cannot harm you in any way. Fructose is also a monosaccharide.

yeah, there's already a lot going on here. Jay, what's coming up?

mean, the first thing, so he's describing like the chemical makeup of glucose and then says that there's nothing acidic alkaline or corrosive. So glucose can't harm you in any way. That was how he phrased it. And I mean, we will hear more, like we'll hear some, some other, kind of more in depth thoughts from him about this, but the fact that there is nothing corrosive about glucose doesn't mean that it can't

harm you physiologically. Like it's almost like this weird, I mean, we kind of get into it because he talks about sucrose as well and fructose. And basically it's like this idea that the molecules just stay as they are and nothing else happens. And if that molecule isn't inherently like problematic in and of itself, then nothing bad can happen. But we're, you know, our bodies are really complex systems and we do a lot of things with these molecules that come in. They don't just stay.

Jay (03:46.922)
as they are. just because something isn't corrosive in and of itself, you you pour it on metal and it like melts it down or something, doesn't mean that it can't cause harm to your body. And insane amounts of glucose, like he suggests, can absolutely be problematic. And we'll get to the amounts that he suggests later, because it's, it's absolutely ridiculous. And just to back up a moment, part of the reason why I wanted to discuss this too, is that this is someone who's talking about the benefits of carbohydrates, talking about why glucose is really important.

talking about how important this is for the nervous system. The fact that when we have a lack of carbohydrate, it drives stress. So we agree in all these areas, but it kind of reminds me of the Wendy Salins episode that we did, Mike, where it's like, we agree that estrogen dominance is a major concern and that there's so much kind of misinformation when it comes to estrogen and a lot of things to be aware of there, but we're kind of coming to the same conclusions from very different methods or thought processes.

And this is definitely the case here. We'll get into some details, but anyway, just to start it off, the idea that because glucose in and of itself is an acidic alkaline or corrosive does not mean that it can't be incredibly harmful or incredibly helpful. Like that doesn't say anything about how it's used physiologically.

The other thing I want to add to is he like lists the chemical structure. It's like, yeah, it's just carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. It's like, there's a lot of chemicals and substances that are just carbon, hydrogen and oxygen that can be pretty toxic. Like ethanol is one. It's also like also even less, less carbons than, than glucose. So it's just like, they're not, these aren't arguments essentially is your point as far as why glucose is safe.

because it's in aldose or because it has carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, or because it doesn't have inherent corrosive properties or anything like this. Those things are true, but that doesn't mean that, well, it's not true that just because of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that it's inherently safe. Again, you can have multiple different structures with those components that can actually be really problematic, but just because it doesn't have those problems.

Mike (05:58.954)
or doesn't isn't corrosive or have these things doesn't mean that it's therefore safe in like unlimited amounts or really high amounts. Like there's still a limit to some of these things. And I think, I think there's premises that I've heard him say that I would, there's like things that I do agree with, but I, again, like this, this kind of goes into like, what is the amount that we're talking about? Because I think you can get to a point with even glucose where you push the levels.

really high, way too high, like you can create problems, regardless of its corrosive potential or not. So I think those are like, it sounds good when you open like that, but I think it's kind of, you know, it doesn't get, speak to like what we're actually trying to understand with like, is this going to be a problem or like, does this actually mean that glucose is safe in these amounts? So it's kind of like a straw man around the safety of glucose in the beginning.

And we kind of have this appeal to not an authority a little bit, but kind of trying to appear as an authority because you know the chemical makeup of glucose and you know that you're describing it as not being corrosive. I think to an average person listening, they wouldn't know that this is meaningless. And a lot of the things he says end up falling in that same category.

Jay, that's such a good point too, because I think people are so easily influenced, especially when they are in a slightly unwell or very unwell place and they're just desperate, right? So if someone places themselves as an authority figure by talking about the chemical structure, it's like, all of a sudden the brain might be more open to something that could be potentially really harmful advice. So let's see, let's see what else he has to

But the difference between fructose and glucose, fructose's chemical arrangement is what's called a ketose, which means its function is to get stored as fat. So providing a reserve for later. Glucose on the other hand, its chemical configuration is an aldose, which means it's active and it functions as fuel.

Teresa (08:20.392)
Okay, so we've gotten this all wrong, right? We should be avoiding fructose. We should only be having glucose, right?

Yeah, only one teaspoon of fructose a

That's what Dr. Lustig says.

Okay, Mike, us why Tell us what he's talking about here or maybe maybe what he's not talking about here

Alright, so it is true that they have different structures. Fructose has a slightly different arrangement than glucose does, but the overall structure is relatively similar. The difference in fructose's structure does adjust how it is metabolized through glycolysis and its entrance into the cell to some extent. So that is true. So like, he's right there, but that doesn't mean that it then automatically goes to fat.

Mike (09:07.884)
And we've covered this when we talked about the different fructose series or episodes about fatty liver and things like this because there's basically there's like a lack of regulation in some of the glycolytic steps for fructose. So it can keep entering into the pathway, whereas glucose does have a regulating step. And then when you look in some of the studies, they basically say that fructose will increase in ovulipogenesis, but then they're giving super high doses or injecting an IV or stuff like this. And what you find under normal circumstances,

is that fructose doesn't massively increase the novel lipogenesis at the liver like the liver's production of fats. It either gets converted to ATP and oxidized into CO2 through the, through the Krebs cycle, through electron, like through mitochondrial respiration, it can convert it to lactate or it can get converted to glucose. So I think part of what he says is true. They have a different structure and how they're metabolized is different because of that different structure.

But that doesn't necessarily mean then that the second piece there is not true that fructose is just automatically stored to fat. And we've gone through studies talking about the metabolic, like they've metabolic tracer studies where they basically, I think they carbon label the sugars so that you can trace where they move throughout the different metabolic pathways in the body. And you see that fructose doesn't massively up-regulate hepatic de novo lipogenesis or hepatic fat production under normal circumstances. It's in extreme circumstances in animal models and human models.

where you give like high dose of just fructose and there's other pathways that are involved that you see this problem. So I think when I'm listening to him talk, it's like, these are the heuristics that he runs with. like his mind has mapped this as glucose energy source, fructose storage molecule. And he like, this is the general model with what she sees things like how it's like distilled down and simplified. But I think the piece in there is that.

that's incorrect is that fructose is different in the structure and metabolism, but it doesn't directly go to fat. So that's where I disagree. And again, we've gone through this in depth and in multiple episodes on energy balance. And I think we've talked about in some of these episodes and I've talked about on my channel as well.

Teresa (11:13.656)
Jay, what were your reactions as he was trying to teach us something?

Yeah, I mean, again, we have a similar pattern here, right? We describe fructose as a ketose, glucose as an aldose, something that like a categorization that the vast majority of people have no conceptual idea of what that means. And the reality is that it doesn't mean anything in this context. As Mike said, there's a different structure between them and that does mean something. But the fact that fructose is a ketose and this assumption that ketoses all would be stored as fat, whereas glucose is an aldose, so it's used as fuel.

There are aldoses that are not at all used as fuel. Like an example would be mannose. you know, people will take D-mannose for UTIs. The mannose part, the doesn't actually get used as a fuel at all. Most of it gets excreted through the urine and then it binds with bacteria and clears them out. And mannose that does get used largely is for structural purposes where it's a precursor to glycoproteins. So it's just like a clear counterexample that is basically the opposite of what he's saying where this is an aldose that isn't used for fuel. So this.

The reasoning here, the lens that we're getting is nonsensical. Like it's totally irrelevant to human physiology. Again, just like the corrosive idea. Like it's not like the things that are harmful to human health are battery acid. Like that's what everyone needs to be watching out for. That's what's causing Alzheimer's. It's like, no, like lipid peroxidation and, you know, nutrient deficiencies and mitochondrial dysfunction and, heavy metals. mean, it's not corrosion. It's not extreme acidity. Like we're all just getting bathed in.

hydrochloric acid, and that's what's causing our health issues. the, they're everything like his reasoning for these things are not physiologically sound. They're not based in what's going on in the human body. And again, to say like fructose is a keto. So its function is to be stored as fat is wrong on multiple levels. It's wrong in terms of the idea that ketosis are all going to be stored as fat. And it's blatantly false to suggest that fructose is largely going to just be converted to fat as Mike was alluding to in those isotopic.

Jay (13:12.91)
straight tracer studies, see that less than 1 % of fructose or around 1 % in most cases is going to be converted into fat. The rest of it is utilized really efficiently as a fuel, which he's suggesting that is not the case and instead would only happen with glucose. And then a large amount is converted to glucose, which he likes. So that should be a good thing. And he should know that a large portion of fructose that's consumed gets converted to glucose. And then the large amount gets converted to lactate, which then funnels into

the glycolytic pathways and then into mitochondrial respiration, just like glucose as well. And also when it comes to fructose metabolism, it's nearly identical to glucose metabolism. It's just the first few steps that are different and then they're entering in to glycolysis and the rest is all the same. It's like 4 % of the metabolic pathway is different between the two. They're utilized really similarly. And it's just, if you have an excessive amount, then yes, it has to be stored. And beyond that, if there's an excessive amount, then sure, it'll be converted to

fat, but that's the same, whether it's glucose or fructose. So what we're seeing here is, mean, a lot of repetition of these kinds of common false narratives that we hear about fructose, but then reasoning for it just being totally irrelevant. And that continues on with the rest of this clip.

When it comes to creating a diet for optimal health, there's a lot of conflicting information out there. And that's why I've created the Energy Balance Food Guide to help you determine exactly what to eat, to optimally support your metabolism and help you lose weight, improve your digestion, get amazing sleep, boost your energy and so much more. The Energy Balance Food Guide is a one page infographic that organizes foods on a spectrum based on how effectively they support your metabolism. And it also has a separate spectrum that adjusts the scale for you.

in the case that you're dealing with various digestive symptoms. The food guide makes it extremely easy to get started with a bio-energetic approach to optimizing your health. So head over to jfeldmanwellness.com slash guide to download your free energy balance food guide.

Teresa (15:12.622)
Okay.

And then sucrose, is what's in candy and dessert and soda and all that. That's a polysaccharide. is twice as chemically heavy as glucose. So it cannot get past the barrier between your blood and your brain. So it can't be helpful in terms of fueling your body or your brain.

Okay, Mike, I think we just need to zoom in to your little box for that portion because your reactions are priceless. What's making you so mad over there?

I'm not mad. would just say this pun intended. This part of the clip takes the cake because it's like, I don't know. Like maybe he's, I don't know when you're going to get like sucrose in the blood. So that's like what I'm curious about is when are you going to get like high amounts of sucrose enter the bloodstream so that it then becomes a problem of crossing the blood brain barrier under normal circumstances. Most times the intestine, which sucrose is a disatriate poly would be more than two.

So dye is glucose and fructose bonded together. The intestine has enzymes that will cleave the bond there, sucrose isomaltase, and you'll absorb glucose and you'll absorb fructose. And they actually get absorbed in the co-transport. There is some separate fructose transport. So you're not gonna be exposed to circulating sucrose. You're gonna get glucose and you're gonna get fructose.

Mike (16:43.982)
as monosaccharides. you're not really gonna, you're not gonna sit there and be like, well yeah, this sucrose, like this stuff's useless. I can't even get this across the blood brain barrier. Your intestines gonna break it into monosaccharides. So it's like, this is like out of all of them, like the other ones had some half truths, you know? And I guess you can count the idea that it is true that sucrose probably is not gonna cross the blood brain barrier.

But you're not, it's like again, it's kind of irrelevant because you're not going to see sucrose in the blood so that it's exposed to the blood-brain barrier to move across into the central nervous system. So if your argument is we have to take really high doses of glucose so that we can optimize brain energy metabolism or central nervous system energy metabolism to force glucose oxidation. And the reason that we can't use sucrose is because it can't cross the blood-brain barrier. It means that you don't understand digestive physiology, which that is

possible if his focus like if he was mainly focused in you know neurology or or things like this or or psychiatry I don't you know based on his background. I don't specifically know much about him This is just this the main clip I've seen talk him talk about this But it sounds like he doesn't understand like how things get digested or broken down and digested in the GI tract and in the different metabolism Between the two different substrates between glucose and fructose

So you're getting these weird takes that's like setting the stage for his argument, but the stage is already bad. Like the stage is on faulty ground. It's like, so it's not gonna, this is not the rest of the argument can't, well, portions of it will probably still hold around glucose. Cause I would agree. And I do think some people are feeling better by adding in more carbohydrates, even if it's in the form of glucose, but at the same time, his reasoning for not using some of the other ones, I think is pretty like it though. That's not standing like other sugars, like sucrose.

Or like having this like fructose avoidance perspective So that's what I say with this It's actually kind of crazy to hear because it's like such authority around the perspective But it's like it's completely off base because you would you wouldn't really be exposed to high amounts of sucrose from ingestion under normal circumstances

Teresa (18:58.062)
Gosh, Jay, what are some other things people should be aware of when maybe an authoritarian health figure starts talking about what they should and not be eating? Because the person that sent this to you was worried about brook toast, right? And you know, which could be something that could really change and turn their health around. But they saw a video like this and reached out to you for some clarity. Am I correct there?

Yeah. And that's the toughest part here. Right. Is that, and I want to expand on it a little bit, but what he's saying here is complete nonsense. And yet most people aren't going to be able to recognize that because he speaks, you know, speaks well, you know, like the words he's saying seem like, you know, complicated words that most people don't understand. It sounds like he knows a lot about chemistry and biochemistry and the blood brain barrier. And he talks a lot about

brain health and you would think someone like that would have some understanding of these things. And so it makes it really difficult, really challenging for a listener here to be able to parse out what's accurate and what's not. we, there's something I think we've come back to in a few of the last recent episodes, which is what do you do when you come across conflicting information or how do you verify what somebody's saying? And it does become a little challenging. know, we, talked a bit about just crop referencing with like the basics, like

Wikipedia or chat GBT or just some like simple Googling with the understanding that those things might be wrong. But when it comes to really basic things, you know, you can try to get an idea of what the general consensus is. I compare it with other sources. And, you know, maybe with this, you could even reference some like online biochemistry textbooks or something. I mean, again, it does become challenging. We talked about some strategies with chat GBT to try to help it provide some more accurate answers.

You know, in that episode, but it is a really challenging situation when you are faced with a situation like this and you're just like, I don't know who to believe. I don't know what's what's right and what's not. So yeah, that's, that's always a tough one.

Mike (21:04.686)
I want to add something really quick, Jay, just for what you said. I actually queried multiple AIs. did ChatGBT and I did Claude about this question specifically. And they both, they came back and they basically said that fructose does increase DNL. And then I set them to give me their references and I went in their references. And I was like, well, what doses does it increase DNL?

And then basically it gave me rat studies, injection, human studies and high dose single, like single intake studies, like 80 grams of fructose. So it's even the same thing that you're getting from some of these other areas, that same perspective. And then articles is like the same stuff that we had gone through. So that's something to keep in mind. Like I, I queried it and then asked for the sources and followed up on the sources. I still, got for this podcast specifically, I got the same answers. so it is like.

You know, because you see it, even the chat, even the AIs are like pretty like, yeah, like this is the thing and like, you know, breaks it out on a chart and compares glucose to fruit doses, like show me the metabolic pathways, like show me all this and it will show you and it's like, it's pretty convincing. And then you go look at the data and it's like,

Right. It definitely makes it even more challenging there. The other thing too is what we're looking for, like the claim that he made wasn't when you consume a lot of fructose, you'll slightly increase the novel, the novel lipogenesis by a couple of grams. That's what you would see. You know, that's what you might see in high dose fructose studies or overfeeding studies or things like that. He said fructose just gets converted to fat. And that's a very different story too. Like even when you're increasing the novel lipogenesis by a couple of grams, you're still talking single digit percentages of fructose going to fat. So.

Either way, I mean, I think that that still doesn't support his point, but I get what you're saying. Yeah. It's, it's a treacherous, treacherous landscape out there when it comes to trying to parse through health information. But I mean, that's also, think in some ways always been the case, at least since the internet, right? Where you can find a potentially convincing take from a vegan perspective or a carnivore perspective or, you know, everything in between. But in any case, circling back to.

Jay (23:15.426)
some of his claims here. did just want to be really clear because Mike, you explained it, but I just want to make sure people understand. He's saying, says sucrose is twice as chemically heavy as glucose, so it can't cross the blood brain barrier. So it can't be helpful in terms of fueling your body or your brain. First off, even if we're following that logic, it doesn't have to cross the blood brain barrier to be helpful for your body. Like if, if sucrose was helpful and it didn't cross the blood brain barrier, it'd still fuel your body. That being said, to be really clear here.

Sucrose is never in your bloodstream. doesn't, that doesn't happen because sucrose, which is the combination of glucose and fructose, which is found that's like table sugar. When you consume it and it goes into your bloodstream, you can't absorb those two molecules when they're bound together. You cannot absorb sucrose. You have to break it down with the enzyme that Mike mentioned, which is sucrase. Then you get glucose and fructose and you can absorb them. And so this is like, this is just nonsense. This doesn't matter that like you're

We wouldn't even know if sucrose can cross the blood-brain barrier because it's never there. this doesn't happen in human physiology and you would think someone who has some neurology background would know that. So that's the first thing. The second thing, which again, speaking of neurology background and understanding of the blood-brain barrier, heaviness is not what determines what can cross the blood-brain barrier. Things have to be transported across the blood-brain barrier and it's true that glucose can, but

Fructose cannot cross the blood brain barrier, despite it being the same weight as glucose. Lactate does cross the blood brain barrier, even though it weighs a little bit less. But then we could look at something like insulin, which is over 15 times heavier than glucose, and that can cross the blood brain barrier. I mean, like, again, just making up physiology, coming up with whatever. I don't know. I don't know where he's, he's just like, I don't know. It's like Anthony Chafee saying that gorillas are in ketosis.

It's because it's fun. It's fun to make stuff up and make a video and then put it on YouTube, right?

Jay (25:13.834)
Yeah. And the other, was just trying to think of other examples here that just like point to how little sense this makes. And I was thinking about lactose, which is also a disaccharide lactose can't cross the blood brain barrier. So how do brain like babies brains get glucose at all? which is just, you know, another funny counter example here, but if we wanted to completely disregard every step of physiology, we could come to that conclusion that babies are all, all their brains are deprived of glucose, but yeah.

I'll leave it there.

Mike, anything to add before we jump to the next portion of those clips?

No, I just, I just feel bad for her. What's his name? for the doctor here, doctors.

I do too, because I, well, we did emphasize that we agree with some parts of his healing modalities, you know, we've seen the same.

Mike (26:08.27)
The agreement is that carbohydrates are helpful and that glucose can actually have benefits for energy metabolism. then I think that would be the central agreements. But then all this other stuff that we're going through here that's setting the stage to basically minimize the use of sucrose and minimize consuming things that have high amounts of fructose or any amounts of fructose. It's like there's no

necessarily, there's not a basis for this. Now, it also doesn't mean that people can't use glucose, nor does it mean that they're not getting benefits from using glucose or in this case, probably dextrose, which is powdered glucose and seeing improvements in what they're saying. It's like, that's, you know, sure, great. Like, I'm sure that they are. It's more just like these other tenants here. They're not founded in physiology. They're not like, and they're like pretty clear.

I would say errors, I guess, or misunderstandings around how some of the things work. So it's more just the basis of the arguments here for a decent portion of it isn't correct. I, so it's less, I think about saying, Hey, like glucose isn't, isn't valuable. it, like, it may actually have benefits in, and it probably does have benefits in these different circumstances and people are probably experiencing benefits from it. But the, like this.

the dosage is used, that could be a problem. And then also the idea that you can't use these other carb sources, that could also be a problem. I think if we set like, I haven't really followed up too much on the low vitamin A stuff, but my assumption is that this started to pick up steam within the low vitamin A sphere to some extent, because in that sphere, some of the main gurus at one point in time were basically talking negatively about fructose.

And so if you talk negatively about fructose, you basically eliminate a large portion of your carbohydrate sources. And then you also like have a relatively lower fat diet to some extent and you have a relatively restricted diet. like the way to get carbohydrates and calories in general will be to just add tons of glucose in a dextrose powder. So it kind of jives with that model to some extent. And I'm sure people would feel better adding some of this and it also justifies

Mike (28:32.258)
some of the dietary recommendations in there, which included like rice as one of the carbohydrate sources, I think. But I think this is like it mixes with the paradigm and it supports that paradigm's perspective. But the tenants of his paradigm here, we already talked about the low vitamin A stuff, but the tenants here and some of the foundational pillars are very shaky or basically just like completely incorrect. And so that then we will see the other sections here and then like we'll talk about.

Some of the other components. there is some agreement, but there's just some other things here is like, I don't really see the, I don't really see this argument playing out so well and it's full, full picture.

Mike (29:15.668)
anxiety, irritability or anger or frustration, depression, physical pain, autoimmune disorders, diabetes, all those things are the result of progressive loss of fuel to your brain.

Okay, Jay. So it's as simple as that. All of those diseases are just caused by this one deficiency.

Yeah, I mean, look, so this is one of the areas that, again, I think we have some level of agreement, which is glucose is important for brain metabolism and poor glucose metabolism is a feature of these different conditions. But the really key point here, the key discrepancy is he's just saying it's a fuel availability issue. They just don't have enough glucose coming into the brain. And so that's why the solution is as simple as you just pour tons of glucose into the body. You just consume

hundreds of grams of dextrose a day. And the problem isn't the, isn't just how much glucose is available. Cause that is a factor for sure that, you know, there, there can be a lack of glucose at times and you increase stress hormones and release more glucose. But normally it's not like there's a severe brain deficiency of glucose, but like mild ones at times for sure that can happen. But the bigger problem is how efficiently the body can utilize glucose. And this is where we get into the danger around this idea.

He doubles down on it. And I think the next clip, or at least in other parts of the podcast, this idea that glucose can't be harmful. Like literally can't. And when you consider that people like, there are a lot of chemical processes that I don't think he's aware of that have to go on for glucose to become ATP. And that is what we like, we can't, like, if you just have a bunch of glucose and you can't convert it to ATP, you'll still die. Like he talks about, you need enough glucose to be alive. And that's true. But also if you can't produce energy from that glucose, you die. It's actually the energy.

Jay (31:15.202)
that we need. And when you're not considering that piece of the puzzle, then yes, you could say everyone's just deficient in glucose, where the reality is, yeah, a lot of people could be partially deficient in glucose, but a bigger issue and a more common issue, more prevalent issue is that people aren't effectively able to convert that fuel into energy. And that's where we start to run into issues. And so if you're going to ignore that piece, which is a central piece to resolving any of the conditions you talked about, you can potentially run into a lot of issues.

As an example, if you're not metabolizing glucose well, and you're not producing energy well, you end up with a lot of damage. create a lot of reactive oxygen species, which ends up damaging lipids and DNA and proteins. it's, this isn't a, you having a ton of glucose and not using a well can be problematic. So yeah, I mean, there's a couple of really important pieces here that are, are not being acknowledged.

Mike, what else is he overlooking?

think he also centers this on the brain, right? So it's like the brain is not getting enough glucose. So there's a problem of his focus seems to be on delivery, as Jay pointed out, and less so on utilization. But one thing to point out is even in stressful circumstances, the body is maintaining a supply of glucose in the bloodstream at all points in time. That is like one of the central points or focuses of the stress hormones.

So you have supply. I think the bigger question is, there utilization? And I also think the other question is, is it just energy metabolism at the brain or in all these different, like, for example, with diabetes, the problem is like there's a full body wide issue, but a large, the centerpiece of the problem around the liver, the fat tissue, the muscle tissue and the pancreas. So it's not directly just a brain problem and it just, get

Mike (33:05.474)
glucose back to the brain and then there you go, like things are going to work well. So I think the model like is a bit myopic or a bit narrow and like how, because basically if you extend out from here, all problems that like all these problems he mentioned, if you do the like inverse of this is if I deliver glucose to my brain, if I get enough glucose in my brain, these problems will be resolved. And I don't think it's that simple.

And so I don't think it's about delivery and I don't think it's just about delivery of the fuel to the brain. I think it's fundamentally about the energy metabolism in and of itself at multiple cells and tissues across the body overall and the body as a whole. And it's not necessarily a delivery issue. It's not just delivering. Like there are circumstances where delivery is a problem. That's where you see ischemia, ischemic strokes, or you see, you know, progressive plaque formation in different vessels.

affecting delivery of these nutrients to different tissues. I think it's more so in most of these chronic disease states. You have things either impairing the utilization of that fuel source like endotoxin, heavy metal exposure, things like this, but high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids, or you can have a lack of micronutrients and components like this. So it's more looking at it from that perspective. And I think that this model of understanding metabolism, energy metabolism,

And, and components like this allows you to get a better sense of what's going on in these different states and how to correct them. Then just focusing on glucose delivery to the brain. And I think if you function under this model, I think it'd actually be problematic long-term and you get some, some interesting takes, which I think we'll see where it's like just plow glucose. Because if you just plow glucose, then you can ensure delivery. And again, like, think some people will feel better with that, but I don't think it's because they are.

increasing necessarily glucose delivery to the brain. They may be increasing like total carbohydrate intake into the diet, which will have wide ranging effects across the system, across the hormonal systems, across energy metabolism, etc. Assuming they have enough micronutrient to process that carbohydrate appropriately and they don't have things blocking that. A lot of these disease processes have components that are blocking the utilization of these fuel sources. And so if you if it's just if you think just delivery, you won't try to address that.

Mike (35:27.714)
And that's, think that's also a problem. I think when you're, when you have a model that you're looking to use to address different disease processes, you have to be really clear on what your model is and you have to be careful around how you set up your model and kind of understand its limitations or else you get really weird takes on how you're going to address things, what you're going to avoid, what you're going to add in. And it like leads you down this like very interesting path. And we see that with the hormesis model or some of these other extreme dietary models.

For example, like a carnivore setup, right? With carnivore, you have this idea that all of the plant foods have chemicals in them and to get to health, you just need to avoid the plant toxins and just have animal things. Then you get, okay, my diet's steak. And so it's like, again, the model and the foundational pillars, they need to be set up right. And basically we were going through and looking at these pillars and like, okay.

The foundational tenants here are problematic and that's gonna help us understand what the extension is down the road here with why we're recommending ridiculous amounts of glucose.

Yeah, I also wonder too, if people blindly take this as their next experiment to play with, what side effects they might create when their microbiome starts to shift in an unfavorable direction because they're just consuming massive amounts of powdered dextrose and not getting the polyphenols and fiber and other things that would maybe be helpful.

and then their blood glucose regulation. I don't know if you guys put on a CGM at any point and saw what like a bowl of white rice will do to your blood glucose if you just have it by itself in really high amounts.

Teresa (37:09.568)
No fat, no nothing else.

Yeah, even if sometimes depending on the person, even if they had fat and they had protein in the meal, for some people it will just rock their sugars up, especially like the sticky white rice, which would be more comparable to the dextrose powder here. So, and basically you come up high and you can come down fast with that. And that can make you, you're on the roller, you could be on the roller coaster to some extent with this. You have the blood glucose problem, you have the micronutrient problem, you have the microbiome problem that you talked about, Theresa.

And the fundamental model, there's some concerns that, you Jay, that you mentioned that I've mentioned with it as well. So I mean, yeah, there's, I think there's quite a few issues with the setup. We haven't gotten into what the doses she recommends though yet.

Get into it.

I did. And I do. Yeah. Cause there are some other potential side effects. think we want to talk about, um, we'll leave it for this last clip, but one thing I did want to touch on real quick, you know, Mike, you were talking about the, that the supply of glucose is rarely the issue. And I think I just wanted to add a, nuance there, which is that, yes, as you're saying, whenever like glucose deficient, that's what we have stress hormones for gluconeogenesis. And it prevents us from like dying from too little glucose helps us shift toward fat utilization to spare that glucose.

Jay (38:29.88)
But I do think there is something to be said for the idea that we're running on a subsistence level of glucose as opposed to an optimal level. you know, cause on the low carb diet, yes, you have all the glucose you need to live per se, but that doesn't mean that that's the amount of carbohydrate we need to thrive. And so I do think it's worth, highlighting that difference, but that also doesn't mean that, the most people's issues is that they're, you know, they need an extra 800 grams of dextrose a day or 200 grams.

More, think they might need more, that's the issue, right?

Teresa (39:04.302)
Let's finish up these last clips and see more about the amount.

Glucose cannot be harmful to any part of your body in any way, in any amount. It's impossible to take enough to be harmful.

Okay. Well, I guess he didn't tell us the exact amount, but before we started this episode, we were talking about the rest of that interview where he was talking about a client. 33 tablespoons. tablespoons. yeah, just imagining. I mean, I know the premise of his work is about stabilizing and helping overcome certain mental conditions, but even just think, just to think what kind of effect that type of blood sugar swing would have on our.

3 tablespoons.

Teresa (39:48.502)
mental state. But anyway, so Mike, there's no no harmful amount.

One, sorry, just real quick. I'm pretty sure it was, she was talking about 33 tablespoons multiple times a day, like three times a

Really? Okay. missed that fact. Okay. Yeah,

So it's like four, that's like 460 grams of glucose, something like this, like three times a day.

your take.

Teresa (40:13.262)
Okay. Yeah. I will maybe, are there side effects that you'd expect someone to experience if they were having that much glucose per day, multiple times a day?

Sorry, one quick caveat too. He was saying this was an extreme case. That's not his standard recommendation. So I do need to give him that.

Thank you, Jay.

Yeah, that is true. I think the initial claim that there's no amount of glucose that's toxic, as much as I am a fan of carbs, I do think that there will be an amount of glucose that will be problematic for multiple reasons. And so again, that goes with the idea that there's like an optimal range or amount for people for a particular macronutrient as well as a micronutrient for their particular goals and outcomes. And I think that like you can...

If you get for even the dishes that we just talked about before the amount depending on the amounts, I don't know that like what's the average amount he recommends like we have this extreme case, right? So it's probably not fair to rely on the extreme case. But even if there was like if there was like cases where it was like half that amount that still is very significant amount of glucose in it for the I think you'd see the same problems that we mentioned before digestive microbiome issues blood glucose issues potentially depending on how long this went for.

Mike (41:35.358)
some micronutrient issues, and I do think you'd see blood sugar issues for people with very high amounts of dextrose given in one sitting. Even if you had other food components present, I think you would probably see people really hit their blood glucose up high and come down, have it come down pretty fast, and they could feel off doing that. So I think you would see those components, and I do think running blood glucose levels at very high amounts consistently, I do think that would be a problem.

I do think over time with very high amounts running through the vasculature, there is, there would be some stress placed on the vasculature doing that. Um, but again, this is like, I'm not saying that the carbohydrates themselves are problematic and normal intake levels, but when you start like smashing to these levels, you, think you would see issues. And also I think it's the, that amount would probably cause weight gain in most people. I don't think the metabolism is going to automatically just, you know, up regulate to the, to the, these amounts of carbohydrates, especially if this is

added in addition to your normal diet. The other thing that you may see issues with is issues with oral health and teeth over time from running the really high glucose levels or the really high dextrose intake. And then the last piece that I would say, I think I want to caveat this with if somebody was really low carbohydrate intake and then they just added in like 400 grams of dextrose, so like 400 grams of carbs from glucose to their, and like they adjusted their

their fat intake downward a bit so that they had a relatively normal food intake, they probably would feel a bit better. That's still not optimal. It's definitely not optimal. And if you are running a low vitamin A diet and maybe it's like beef and black beans and maybe a little rice, and you have a hard time hitting enough of your caloric targets, then adding something like dextrose would probably make you feel better as well. Cause now you're going to get enough energy, enough carbohydrate instead of running an energy dip.

like deficiency for an extended period of time. So I had multiple clients come out of low vitamin A where they've had, like they basically weren't eating enough. Like young guys, like really not eating enough, running the low vitamin A diet. They felt better because they had some issues with some of the bioenergetics diets. So that's fair. They definitely like, they saw some improvements, not having tons of ice cream or cheese or milk and stuff like this, because they weren't tolerating dairy or doing a lot of OJ.

Mike (43:56.6)
So they felt better when they switched like beef and rice and some beans, which is an elimination diet, but then their intake dropped down low and they started losing weight and then they got sleep issues and anxiety and stuff like this. So if they then added dextrose, that probably would make improvements in how they feel because they've just increased their carbs, increased their energy intake. But that again, like this wouldn't be the way that I would go about that. There's other ways to increase your carbohydrate intake that would provide micronutrients that wouldn't, that would still give you a delivery of glucose.

to your brain that wouldn't mess with your microbiome, the amounts may not need to be that high. Probably will definitely don't need to be that high to make improvements in cognitive function in these different disease processes or mood disorders that people are experiencing. So I think, yeah, those would be some of the problems that I see. I do think that you could reach a toxicity level with really high dextrose or glucose intakes. And I think there's better ways to go about it, especially since we already ruled out that the fructose

sucrose probably are definitely not problems and shouldn't be excluded for the reasons that Dr. David Stevens mentioned.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, I could see someone with a really sensitive gut that is completely overgrown with bacteria. Maybe they would feel not so great on fructose and sucrose in large amounts, especially if they're trying to get the benefit. So again, they might notice improvement with the dextrose, but there could be other ways to do that. And Jay, I mean, we've talked about this a lot, but someone who can understand the nonsense here, but also still wanting to maybe benefit from...

the higher glucose or the higher carbohydrate intake, what's wrong with just a normal diet? Like a normal balanced diet? Why do we have to make things so extreme here?

Jay (45:48.686)
Yeah. Well, and on one, I mean, normal balanced diet can also be really problematic for some people, depending on what that means to them. You know, we were talking in one of those recent episodes about candy versus apples. And on one hand, we were saying, obviously there's a number of issues with, with candy, but for some people that candy could be a lot better if a carb source than apples. If they're dealing with this sort of bacterial overgrowth and you know, that's feeding bacteria and causing an endotoxin issue. So I think you have a pair, a parallel situation here where.

You could have somebody who, as you said, is dealing with these gut issues. Maybe, so there's a couple of different scenarios. Maybe they're on a low carb diet or they're under eating, like Mike said. And so having more carbs helps and feels really good. And they're providing the fuel that they need and lowering stress. Alternatively, maybe they're eating a lot of hard to digest carb sources. And so they're often feeding endotoxin and creating other digestive issues. And then they consume dextrose, which is digested super quickly and easily.

And they just feel the benefits of the carbs without all the other negatives that they're normally feeling. So there's a number of reasons why someone might be feeling good from this, but that doesn't mean that this is the solution or a good answer or that it won't come with the negatives. so, yeah, I mean, a better option would be if, if that's, you know, someone feels like they feel way better with dextrose than whatever carbs they're eating, then I would really lean into the easiest to digest carbohydrate sources, you know, juices and low FODMAP fruits.

maybe some honey. Honey is, again, one that's relatively nutrient poor, these could all be really great carb sources that will still provide the carbohydrates we need for fuel, for lowering stress hormones, for effectively producing energy, but without the negatives that would come with just plain dextrose. And then on the alternative side, if someone does a lot better with starches, I'd still go with white rice far before massive dosing of dextrose throughout the day, or other starches that are

Even better from a nutrient standpoint, like potatoes and sweet potatoes and other root vegetables. Of course, sometimes there can be some issues with digestion there, but if we tolerate them, that can be fantastic. So that'd be the alternatives I would look to. as Mike mentioned, there's a number of different concerns here with massive amounts of dextrose. On one hand, have nutrient deficiencies as a major one. We have the blood sugar fluctuations. And I wanted to mention weight gain because

Jay (48:09.774)
I'm pretty sure I've seen that in like the forums, people talking about doing these protocols, but I've definitely seen it in a couple of people who came to me who were doing not this level. I mean, they were doing maybe, you know, 30, 40 grams of dextrose a few times a day on top of their other diet. And it seemed like it was contributing to weight gain. So, despite what Dr. David Steven said, where glucose can literally not cause anything harmful. It can convert to fat. It can undergo de novo lipogenesis just like fructose can. And also it could, if it's making use as a fuel, could

cause other fuel sources, other substrates to be converted toward body fat. So yeah, definitely a number of potential concerns here with this kind of glucose protocol.

I also just want to mention too that I do think that running the blood glucose levels exceptionally high consistently could put pressure on the vasculature. But I do think that is something to consider. And the reason I say that is because there's like, makes statements like, yeah, like it's not toxic at all. And it's like, there is a point. And again, this is coming from us, right? Or like at least coming from me. I'm a fan of carbohydrate. I think it's important. I think it's extremely valuable for people to thrive.

Do people need to eat it to live? No, but to thrive and to optimize things, I think they do. But the question again, like if you're pushing really high doses of dextrose and you are really pushing blood glucose values up consistently, because you're like having your normal diet and you're passing like three large doses of dextrose in between your normal meals. I do think that that would put pressure on the vasculature and the metabolic systems over time and it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea. It's like one of the ways, could be the weight gain in terms of the metabolic system.

But I do think it would put pressure on the vasculature. And I think the hard part is when you look at some of the physiology and diabetes, a lot of the studies will look at like A1C levels. And then they'll say like, like with this A1C, you have this level of vascular stiffness and dysfunction. And sometimes it's hard to parse out there because it's like, well, is it the glucose in the blood that's doing it or is it the metabolic dysfunction? And I think it's largely the metabolic dysfunction.

Mike (50:17.954)
But I do think at certain levels, the glucose does actually reach a point where it does start to create some degree of damage when it gets quite high. Under normal circumstances, fine. But when you're at pathologically high levels, which may potentially be reached with some of the doses of dextrose that are being talked about, think running that long term could really be problematic. Even though glucose is not corrosive and even though glucose is made of carbons, hydrogens, oxygens, and it's an aldose and not a ketose. Like I think...

regardless of all of that.

Yeah. And I do, I definitely agree on the blood sugar side and it's, you're basically mimicking the overflow, right? When there's massive amounts of glucose, far more than can be utilized, you get a backup. You see a buildup of these various metabolic intermediates. You see increased reactive oxygen species production. You see increased methylglyoxal production. there are concerns there. In the vast majority of cases, the problem is that the

mitochondrial function is the bottleneck and the conversion of the fuel to energy is the bottleneck. But if you're going to consume these insane quantities and cause extremely massive amounts of overflow, you're going to get some negative effects of that as well. Just like you would when you basically do an infusion, like an IV of fructose, like that's not good either. And when you're seeing that major amount of de novo lipogenesis in those contexts, you also are seeing increased inflammatory markers. So it's not like a good thing to be in that overflow.

And glucose can cause it just like fructose can. And the other piece there to mention with the blood sugar is when you're having this massive amount of dextrose, one, yes, you're going to have a massive spike, but typically after that, you're going to have a massive crash. And then you're going to get the stress hormone release that he's talking about wanting to avoid anyway. So, you know, that's because you have to have this large amount of insulin that gets released in order to help clear the glucose. then oftentimes you can get that rebound effect when you're talking about having

Jay (52:15.37)
such quick digesting pure glucose. it's the quickest way to spike blood sugar. So yeah, I agree, Mike.

Yep. Up 100%.

Well, we all know what not to do, maybe. But if you have questions, people know, can know where to go for more information. And of course you guys have your services and can help people think for themselves, but also to direct them because yeah, like we've talked about in every single episode, it can be so overwhelming when experts are making claims and you're not sure who to trust and you just are desperate to feel better.

It doesn't have to be so extreme and it doesn't necessarily need to include powders and highly processed foods. It could be something a lot more simple.

And with that too, just one other thing, please don't fear sucrose or fructose because that's he was saying. which, mean, we didn't even dig into all of it, but he was talking about how like the problem with candy and soda is the sucrose, even though most of those it's high fructose corn syrup that doesn't have any sucrose anyway. I mean, there's just so much conflation going on, but yeah, I mean, the, they're really well used fuel sources when they get broken down as they do in our human bodies. And,

Jay (53:35.916)
Yeah, there are just to be clear, like there's a ton of benefits to getting enough carbohydrates, enough sugar and enough glucose as well as enough fructose.

The overarching point is I think with all this stuff, there is a too much and there is a too little on both sides. So I think some people are weird. You guys are like, why are you talking about like this guy who's like promoting carbs like this? Like, why are you making, it's because there is a point where there is too much. Like there is a reasonable amount of these things. There's a range of this stuff that is, that is like an ideal amount where you're, you're providing enough of what you need, keeping stress low, optimizing health without pushing into other problems by getting things too high. And so.

You know, it's not like pro carbs or no carbs, like pro or against. It's like, what is the amount of this stuff that we need as individuals from our diet and like carbohydrates in general to optimize our health, to recover from the different disease process you talked about? Or to like in the certain disease process, how much of this thing will I be able to handle? And then progressively over time, can I increase that? If I'm a type two diabetic, I have all this stuff going on. Am I going to start with, you know, maybe not 33 tablespoons of dextrose three times a day?

but you know, what's a reasonable amount? So I think these are the questions I'd be asking is like, you guys, I thought you guys were pro carb. Now you're not, now you're anti-carb. What's going on? I'm confused. It's like, like we're just trying to like give an idea, a target of where, like kind of give some boundaries of where we want to be with our carbohydrate intake. Like where's too much? Like this is probably too much. What source do we need? Probably wouldn't make my major carb source dextrose.

So these are things that we're saying. It doesn't mean we're going back over to the keto side either. It's like, yeah, less than 50 grams per day. So that's the whole point here is like a lot of the dietary stuff swings in these massive extremes and then misses the idea that there is an optimal amount of each of these components and you can have a a reasonably set up diet and achieve health. You don't have to go low carb to get health benefits. You don't have to go low fat, get massive health benefits. You can set up a reasonable diet specific to you.

Mike (55:41.218)
figure out the amounts of things that you need and then run from there for your particular types of goals and the different disease processes or concepts that you're dealing with.

I was just going say more is not better. Better is better. And normally better is somewhere in the middle ground. Of course there's nuance and of course there's, yeah, everyone's got an interesting health story and we've got the extreme cases, but it, think most people after going extreme carnivore, butarian, whatever it is they've, they've experimented with. Most people find themselves settling somewhere in the middle where there's a, right? Mike, you're laughing. Maybe not.

No, I'm agreeing with you. for me, like I took this trip around the world just to wind up like moving one town over with my diet. So that's kind of how I feel about it. It's like, know, I went, I was like a relatively decent diet. Like I grew up eating a relatively decent diet. There's definitely stuff I ate that wasn't great. And I developed health problems doing some things, but I started developing some of my health problems doing some of the really extreme dieting and some of these like very,

Yeah, very extreme dietary setups, very ideological dietary setups. And then I jumped through a bunch of them. And the diet that I have set up now is not massively different. Like there's some very, there are some big adjustments and there are some tweaks, but like it's not massively different from where I first started. And then some of the things I did like actually made me quite a bit worse going super extreme. And then some like helped me in some ways and didn't help me in others. So I'm laughing because you're like,

Most people wind up around the spawns. Like even most people I work with are like, huh, I'm, know, my diet is like, was around this at one point in time. Like there's some really fine tune adjustments we made in certain areas, but it's like, this is not extreme. It's not like I, I have carbs and I have proteins and I have fats like this. And then most like that becomes the revolutionary idea. That's why I'm laughing.

Teresa (57:41.164)
Yeah. And Jay, before I interrupted you, what were you going to add in?

I don't know at this point, but what I didn't want to throw in here when it comes to balance. I think what we're, what we're getting at is that the end point ends up not feeling restrictive. ends up, being similar to, think what a lot of people would consider to be healthy diet when they're, when they're young, when they're not as influenced by the kind of extreme diets. I also just want to put the, the caveat in there that when we're talking about balance here, it doesn't mean just like a little bit of everything or that everything's equal and no foods are.

can inherently have positives or negatives. We're not oscillating between cooking some of our food in butter and the other food in soy oil. There is a recognition that some things are beneficial for our health and some things are harmful. And it's not just like calories and eating like a balanced diet, so to speak. it does end up being something that's very far from the extremely restrictive dietary approaches. yeah, just wanted to highlight that.

And speaking of not having extreme approaches, this is a great little comment win from Joanna Dugo's 1252. She was laughing at something. Maybe we talked about ketosis being our natural state, but she shared that three months of ketosis cost my mental health deterioration, panic attacks, heartburns, anxiety. And I didn't lose any weight went to 80 % of whole food carbs and five kilograms are gone within five weeks.

Another smiley face. And her mood improved greatly. Whole food carbs are game changer. There you go. Keeping it.

Mike (59:20.195)
Great.

Very appropriate for this episode.

All right, guys, let's wrap up here for today. Mike, where can people find you? Where can they reach out to work with you?

They can find me at my YouTube channel, MikeFave.com. They can, or just MikeFave. They can find me at my website, MikeFave.com. And then they can find me here on Energy Balance as well as Bioenergetics View.

Awesome. Jay, what about you?

Jay (59:47.522)
Yeah, listeners can find me at JayFeldmanWellness.com and of course here on YouTube and other social media as well.

Awesome. And I'm at Living Roots Wellness and livingrootswellness.com or the Tapping with Tea app or website. Thanks everyone for tuning in today and we will see you in the next episode.