Fat - certainly significant fat - is likely to slow any blood glucose reaction and/or lower it but keep glucose raised for longer than carbs on their own.
But that's the point. I know you and I will disagree about the rise itself, but I doubt we'd disagree that the bigger issue is the length of the high. What stands out to me, in the OP's case, is that it's still high after 2 hours.
If that's attributable to the combination with fat, as it might be - and given how such a combination is 'sold' as a benefit for curbing highs - why would this be something 'we' would want?
It's no different to me than the advice from the low-fat side to add beans and legumes to dull spikes. That's all well and good viewed through the lens of a spike. But it comes a the expense of much slower digestion, and a high that lasts longer
Naiman’s position relates not so much to blood sugar issues but to weight and potential gain thereof (i.e it’s about energy ratios ) so I’m not sure of its relevance to a question about blood sugar spikes.
Unfortunately, Ted's messaging is mixed and messy, and not worth trying to untangle. Suffice to say, that Ted's over-arching position seems very much to encompass insulin-resistance and diabetes.
Either way, that wasn't the context I meant. I was pointing out that both he and Barnard are pointing to a conflict/blockage due to the mix of carbs and fats in the blood, at the same time. In Naiman's case, he seems to be asserting that the presence of insulin stops fat from being burnt, while Barnard is suggesting that the presence of fat in that same blood mixture is stopping.
I think they are both right, but, within the wider contexts of their overall positions, I think they're both wrong
I quite agree with testing one thing at a time to fully understand it’s impact. That provides a platform to understand combinations of foods or combinations of food plus other activities. However the likelihood that such a high carb food would not lead to an unacceptable rise in someone with type 2 diabetes is extremely unlikely in anything other than minute quantities.
I'm glad you agree about isolated testing. I only test that way, but it seems most test an entire meal, then extrapolate from that an isolated conclusion based only on carbs.
Even if you knew that the same meal without carbs consistently gave a known result, it doesn't follow that everything above that is down to added carbs. Even if we completely dismiss the idea pf potential conflicts between the two, just the addition of extra bulk, calories etc. etc. would already cause issues with measurements.
As to the idea of small quantities and unacceptable rises: We're talking about 3 tablespoons of bulgar (I'll assume cooked, unless the OP confirms otherwise). I normally use cronometer for nutrient-tracking, but it offered no tbsp measurement for cooked bulgar. But I did find this, from fatsecret:
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/food/bulgur/carbohydrate
Even if we grant total carbs instead of net, it works out at 4.68 grams of carbs for the entire portion.
Would you consider that such a high-carb food? and would you expect such an amount to almost double BG, if eaten on its own, even in someone with diabetes?
Like I said, there are other variables that we can't test. And I definitely think that carb reactions can be exponential i.e over and above the value of the actual load, for those that tend to err on the side of very low-carb diets. But all the other unknown variables can also confound. It's entirely possible, that the exact same meal eaten under different circumstances, on a different day, might not have incurred even close to that amount of a rise.
It's all very well to advise people to let their meters be their guides, but perhaps that advice would be better off with some addenda.
