I wore a glucose monitor for sixteen days and logged every meal. The full write-up is now published, and the part I want to point at is the finding that went against me.
Post-meal walking looked like it made things worse. My blood sugar rose 34.3 points on average after meals I walked after, against 20.4 after meals I didn't.
That is the opposite of what the research says, and the reason is in my own method. I only walked after meals I expected to spike. The comparison was never fair.
I published it with that flaw stated, because taking it out would make everything else in there less trustworthy.
Three findings that do hold up:
Snacks were my worst meal category. An average rise of 37.6 points, higher than breakfast at 32.8. The same food eaten on its own behaved nothing like it did inside a meal.
Eating protein and vegetables before the carbohydrate reduced my average rise from 23.8 to 19.9 across 40 meals. Same foods, different order.
One bowl of All Bran flakes took me from 113 to 221 in 65 minutes. It was my worst reading of the whole sixteen days, from the food I would have called the healthiest thing in my cupboard.
All of it is here, every meal and every reading, with three tables and the references:
Free, no email, nothing to sign up for. You are already subscribed.
One thing worth saying about your own stats: none of my numbers will be yours. That is the whole argument for measuring rather than following a plan.
Alistair