One thing I can tell you is that a meal of meat and fat will cause a slow rise in BG over about a 3 hour period after which it starts a slow decline.  I'm sure that the 3 hours is a combination of digestion of the meal as well as the time it takes for a portion of the resulting amino acids to be converted by the liver into BG, but I expect that it is fairly representative of the overall time to metabolize a meat/fat meal.

Carbs on the other hand, can cause a massive rise in BG within 15 minutes, especially if the carbs are free simple sugars rather than complex carbs that must be released from indigestible fiber.  There are even some carbs that require intestinal flora to break down the fiber to release the digestible portion within and this can take many hours (not to mention causing great discomfort in the form of gas etc.). Beans and legumes anyone?

Based on the rise and fall of BG, the digestion time for a meal consisting of meat and fat alone is quite consistent, but a meal of mixed carbohydrate sources appears to be quite variable depending on the source. 

Lex

It's "blood glucose."

As for nut digestion time vs. meat, nuts definitely take longer. Imo nuts take longer to digest than even cooked food. They are the most concentrated and hard to digest food in the world, the nutrition for a tree to grow is in there and at the same time it's locked down by shell coverings and enzyme inhibitors.

The above study was made by Wrangham, as I recall, who is a notoriously biased,anti-raw chimp behaviourist, and the study has not been corroborated by any other studies.Wrangham's claims re cooked-food leading to bigger brains and his laughable claim that no human can survive for long on a  raw food diet, even one including mostly raw meats,shows that he's never once met any Raw Animal Foodist at all. Plus his claim re humans needing to chew raw meats  for 5 to 6 hours a day in order to get adequate nutrition is not only absurdly extreme but based on a ridiculous comparison to chimpanzees(who are an entirely different species and who are not as adapted to meat-eating as humans are):-

http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/

Here's 2 scientific studies which prove Wrangham dead-wrong and show that raw meat is actually easier to digest:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1897402

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3748129

Anyway, Wrangham's pro-cooking views are held in ridicule by most palaeoanthroplogists as he continually makes the same mistake of many amteur scientists:- he makes up a really nice-sounding theory and then looks around for anything whatsoever, no matter how dodgy, to back it up. Real science works by starting with the facts/details of experiments  and only then forming a theory from it, rather than the other way round. Well, it's just as well we have someonas dodgy as Wrangham as the main anti-raw proponent, I suppose.


http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/

Freezing or storing food doesn't do anywhere near as much damage as heat. You have to freeze/store for absolutely ages before the damage becomes similiar(see beyondveg.com 's ridiculous anti-raw "thesis" where 30 days' storage is cited etc.). As regards the study re pythons, anyone can make up statistics for a particular study, making the facts fit the theories one wants.

As regards the Oste study, it makes it clear that heating above 100 degrees Centigrade decreases meat-digestibility. As regards heating above 40 degrees Celsius, when enzymes, and eventually, bacteria, start getting destroyed, it would be pretty difficult to argue that there wasn't a linear rate of harm done to food via heating. I mean, surely well-charred meat)with a proven higher amount of toxins in them, such as PAHs, would be far less digestible by comparison to lightly-cooked- or raw-foods?

And, of course, Wrangham totally ignores the whole issue of toxins in cooked-foods, which is a most inconvenient subject for him.

Obviously, more scientific data is needed, but it's becoming more and more difficult to defend cooked-diets when pet-owners find that their pets digest raw meats(on a prey-model diet) far better than the cooked-scraps or processed nutritional supplements they got before. And, brilliantly, all those vets who warned against the supposed "dangers of raw diets" are now looking very stupid, indeed, in the wake of all those recent Chinese pet-food-contamination-scares.

As regards the issue of vegetables being supposedly  "improved" by cooking re removing antinutrients, this is a moot point. Many nutritionists claim that small amounts of such raw vegetables contain "phytonutrients"  which, in small amounts, are beneficial, whereas they would be harmful in much larger amounts(and called "antinutrients", then). Plus, of course, cooking creates toxins in vegetables such as AGEs(advanced glycation endproducts), thus making cooked-veg worse than raw veg, overall.

In any case, the whole python-issue is killed off by the famous , more definitive Pottenger study which(along with numerous anecdotal reports from raw-feeding pet-owners) showed that cats fed on cooked diets suffer from numerous health-problems, which worsen over the generations. The only argument that anti-rawists can convincingly come up with against this study is that "adding artificial taurine supplements" to cooked-pet-food made everything (supposedly) OK - what they can't argue is that heat destroys taurine, which is essential for cats -  so only artificially-supplemented cooked-diets can even compete(albeit with serious damage for cats in the long-term, via AGEs, HCAs etc.).

In his book, Experiments and observations on the gastric juice, and the physiology of digestion
 Dr. William Beaumont experiments on the victim of a gunshot wound who has been left with on open stomach. I haven't re-read this but I do believe that, according to this, cooked meat does seem to digest faster than raw meat but neither digest as fast as plant matter, at least so far as the stomach is concerned. He also found that digestion outside the body was slower, if I remember correctly. This is only one person though.