 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / October 2005The silly scientist season
G'day G'day Folks, We sometimes come across articles that make us want to laugh or cry, the conclusions reached are so silly. It is tempting to think that the writer of the articles was being paid to write the articles in support of some predetermined conclusion ... and the money was too good to turn down. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/1/290S or http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf The first bit of silliness is making much to do of the different possibilities for measuring glycemic index. 50 grams of glucose was used then the standard was changed to white bread containing 50 grams of carbs. The two methods sometimes give inconsistent values. This is hardly surprising as glucose can affect osmotic pressures etc. The silliness is in suggesting this is grounds for doubting the validity of the glycemic index concept instead of accepting that standards can be and often are improved. Another bit of silliness is interpreting the fact that one could measure total area under the curve instead of merely the rise above fasting levels. Using the total area under the curve compresses the values so they move closer to 100. So what. Fussing over something that isn't done in practice is ... silly. The ROTFL silliness is yet to come. The writer finds it deeply significant that glycemic index doesn't predict insulin index. In effect he concludes the public need some sort of protection from something that doesn't do something it wasn't designed to do because they might misuse it. We all know the legalize inspired instructions that come with screw drivers that say they are not suited for punching holes in cans but this is ridiculous. In a fit of foolish consistency he repeats the silliness by making much of the fact that glycemic index doesn't predict satiety. Duh. That is why there is a satiety index and why it has a separate name. Does it matter that people publish such silliness? I think it does. What of their conclusions reached from interpreting the data from the Nurses' Study on carbohydrate and fat intakes and the incidence of T2 diabetes. Should we believe them? Well IMHO after so much silliness has been demonstrated on simple matters it is hard to believe their conclusions on complex matters ... especially when they miss out details such as which fats were involved. Other investigators have slammed trans fats but found most other fats insignificant when intakes were adjusted for calories. Read the article and tell me what you think. Best wishes,  SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >In a fit of foolish consistency he repeats the silliness by making >much of the fact that glycemic index doesn't predict satiety. Duh. >That is why there is a satiety index and why it has a separate name. > >Does it matter that people publish such silliness? My favorite bit from Umberto Ecco in "Focault's Pendulum" is his dissertation on what he calls "Moronic Logic:" One takes perfectly valid facts and combines them in ways that _appear_ reasonable to come up with idiotic conclusions. A simple example is the old "Eating mashed potatoes causes people to commit murder" bit. Here in the New York state, we will no longer be able to buy unpasturized apple cider because live organisms could be harmful to newborns with underdeveloped immune systems. Gotta protect everybody from the occasional stupid parent, at the cost of real tasty living food... Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G Over the years I have used the word plausible to post fallacies. All of us think we have a good handle on the real world. I have lived long enough and have had my limitations demonstrated so often. In diabetes ther is a lot of assumptions and a lot of concepts that are to serve the commercial, aspects of health care, I have questioned a lot of the material. Some things are of a lower level, where the\individual differences lose some items in the noise band. WE need to determine or own responses to certain items. For it is a item where our individual differences must be determined The "indexes" are for only rough guide lines . Medical science in the clinical area are recipes. They may not fit everyone. The best use of these groups it to give an overview and a collection of individual's experiences.. Remember the word "ASSUME". Guy >K This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 06:02:58 GMT, gswil@intertex.net (guy williams) wrote: >WE need to determine or own responses to certain >items. For it is a item where our individual differences >must be determined The "indexes" are for only rough >guide lines . Medical science in the clinical area >are recipes. They may not fit everyone. G'day G'day Guy, Wise words. Two good examples are milk and cherries. It isn't just that individuals actually vary in their responses. Both commodities appear to vary from country to country. Here we have a range of milk available in the supermarket. My preference is for Sun Latte, a yuppie milk suited for making lattes. It doesn't spike me and I find it hard to believe it would spike anyone, diabetic or not. The point is it is very low lactose, low fat (you know the 99% fat free thing). Put simply as well as the genuine variations in personal responses there is also the individual buying preferences. The cherries grown in different countries differ with climate and variety. Once again buyers have individual preferences if given the chance. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:35:22 GMT, Gary Woods <garyusenet@earthlink.net> wrote: >>In a fit of foolish consistency he repeats the silliness by making >>much of the fact that glycemic index doesn't predict satiety. Duh. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >A simple example is the old "Eating mashed potatoes causes people to commit >murder" bit. G'day G'day Gary, Oh, do tell. I haven't had the "pleasure" of that example. >Here in the New York state, we will no longer be able to buy unpasturized >apple cider because live organisms could be harmful to newborns with >underdeveloped immune systems. Gotta protect everybody from the occasional >stupid parent, at the cost of real tasty living food... It sure sounds like a good example. I take it there is now risk of leptospirosis being passed on to a breast fed infant. >Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic >Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G Best wishes and thank you. SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin Gary wrote: >>Here in the New York state, we will no longer be able to buy unpasturized >>apple cider because live organisms could be harmful to newborns with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It sure sounds like a good example. I take it there is now risk of > leptospirosis being passed on to a breast fed infant. Sorry, but the problem with commercially produced unpasteurized apple cider goes WAY beyond its effect on babies with poor immune systems. Over the years before it was banned it was found to be causing a lot of diarrhea, in some cases severe. When I was younger, I spent a season working in a commercial apple orchard and I saw how unpasteurized cider is made. They pick up the fallen apples, called "drops", from the ground where they may be mixed with bird droppings, insects and whatever else is in the long grass that they plant around the trees. These fallen apples are then crushed to produce the cider which is refrigerated and often sold without the addition of any preservatives. Most of the time it is fine, but not always, and if you've ever gotten the runs after drinking this stuff (as I have) you will understand the problem it poses. If it was made from clean apples off the tree it would be one thing, but it generally isn't. --Jenny http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info > G'day G'day Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > or Sorry Quentin, But I do not find this article "silly" at all. I see the GI being used as a marketing tool to convince people with diabetes that it is still healthy to eat high carbohydrate foods when for many of us, it simply isn't. For those of us who test, it isn't a huge issue and there are a few foods we may find that are low GI and work for us. But as you know, most people with type 2 diabetes who "test" test still once a week when they wake up. For them, the low GI recommendations result in them eating slices of so-called whole wheat toast with their boiled-to-mush oatmeal porridge and assuming they are taking good care of their health. My testing has found that most of the foods touted as having a low GI and hence "safe" spike me. The spike may be delayed, but it shows up, sometimes quite badly. Occasionally I find something that seems not to, but over time if I test it repeatedly, I'll find that sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it does. Worst of all, over this past year when something depressing has happened to my second phase insulin response, I've found that the "low GI" foods that I used to be able to eat with no problem are now causing a rise, often many hours later. I didn't used to see the postponed spike at all, which made Precose very helpful to me, as it makes most carbs "low GI" but that is no longer true. So I take the argument that low GI foods only postpone the spike, more seriously now. If the GI were presented as being part of a strategy that included individualized blood sugar testing for people with pre-diabetes or diabetes, I would applaud it being sold to the public as a way to narrow in on foods that might work for an individual. But it isn't. It is being promoted as a one-size-fits all healthy diet for people with blood sugar problems. So caution is in order here. Unfortunately, with the money pouring into the GI diet promotions from companies like General Mills (makers of "heart healthy" Cheerios and the other big food companies, I don't expect to see it. --Jenny http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info "Jenny" <lottadatacarbs@hotmail.com> wrote : > Sorry Quentin, But I do not find this article "silly" at all. I agree with you but didn't want to say anythingsince I was unwilling to read the whole thing. One thing I noticed in my brief scan is that the article seemed to mention and accommodate some of the problems of methodology that Quentin was concerned about. This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:46:27 -0400, "Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote: >"Jenny" <lottadatacarbs@hotmail.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >mention and accommodate some of the problems of methodology that Quentin was >concerned about. G'day G'day Bill, Fascinating comment. It has helped make my day more interesting. Firstly I haven't expressed any concerns about the methodology of GI measurement, so the writer can't possibly have addressed my concerns. IMHO a careful reread will show that the writer had concerns about the gi methodology. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin Quentin Grady mentioned in passing : > Firstly I haven't expressed any concerns about the methodology of GI > measurement, so the writer can't possibly have addressed my concerns. Now you are going to make me work... Methodology: (from your original post) > The first bit of silliness is making much to do of the different > possibilities for measuring glycemic index. 50 grams of glucose was > used then the standard was changed to white bread containing 50 grams > of carbs. The two methods sometimes give inconsistent values. The phrase "two methods" misleads me into thinking that you are talking about methods ie: methodology. Perhaps you can clear this up. As for the two methods, and the writer addressing them: (from your source) "Subsequently, the standard against which foods are compared was changed to white bread (5, 6). This is unfortunate for 2 reasons: first, published GI values conflict; second, 50 g carbohydrate in white bread is more difficult to determine accurately than is 50 g glucose. A comparative standard should be simple, accurate, and reproducible, and the one used to calculate GI is not. " When I read "give inconsistent values"(you) and compare it to "This is unfortunate"(them) I feel that the latter writer is addressing the former's concerns. Perhaps I misread your concern, since your first sentence above doesn't seem to agree with the last. Either you are agreeing with the study that using methodology that gives inconsistent results is a problem, or the phrase 'making much to do' means you don't think the problem is significant. Either way, as I said, I was and still am completely unwilling to muddle through the study, so I apologize if my initial impression was off base. This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:37:42 -0400, "Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote: >Quentin Grady mentioned in passing : >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Either way, as I said, I was and still am completely unwilling to muddle >through the study, so I apologize if my initial impression was off base. G'day G'day Bill, That's cool. IMHO it is worth noting that the article is something that requires chest high waders like anglers for trout use if one is to wade through it. The convincer strategy employed by the writer is to overload the thought processes of the reader by presenting what I have referred to as "a stack of sieves" The stack of sieves strategy is designed to produce the response you have experienced. The reader gets bored with wading through the detail and is lulled into thinking that with all this evidence and concerns about the gi methodology one shouldn't believe in it. FWIIW I'd like to help you with the following. >Either you are agreeing with the study >that using methodology that gives inconsistent results is a problem, or the >phrase 'making much to do' means you don't think the problem is significant The latter interpretation is correct. There have been concerns expressed by scientists about the methodology ie using glucose or white bread but the old standard has been replaced by the new standard so it isn't a problem. IMHO the writer is engaging in a softening up process casting doubts in an unwarranted manner. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin I wonder what those silly scientists would say if they ever bothered to read this group lol. probably nothing. SignatureTom Exercise Today = Life Tomorrow Information you can trust from the diabetes experts... Your American Diabetes Association http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp the American Diabetes Association's Message Boards http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=amdiabetesz&nav=index Pictures of My motorcycle and I think 2 of my doggies. http://www.adventurseofvtx1300c.com.50megs.com/photo.html This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:45:20 -0400, Jenny <lottadatacarbs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> G'day G'day Folks, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Sorry Quentin, But I do not find this article "silly" at all. G'day G'day Jenny, I thought for a moment on why you wouldn't find the article silly when patently the procedure adopted by the writer is largely a "stack of sieves" argument. Every one of the arguments such as I presented should be greeted with a "yes, but" response. They are flawed. They leak horribly. Stacking many such arguments on top of one another as the writer has done doesn't stop the leak in the slightest though it might influence the decision of folks not experienced in noticing faulty thinking. Could that apply to you? I don't think so. You are IMHO one of the most level headed people around so what it happening here? My guess is when you say it is not silly you are agreeing with the positive intention of the writer ie that the glycemic index and glycemic load are in some way dangerous concepts to promote to the public. >I see the GI being used as a marketing tool to convince people with >diabetes that it is still healthy to eat high carbohydrate foods when >for many of us, it simply isn't. OK. After years of looking at the issue I happen to agree with your point. IMHO the value of glycemic index is often over inflated. There are three ways to change glycemic load:- A. Eat less. B. Eat lower glycemic index foods. C. Eat foods that contain a lower percentage of carbohydrates. A. Tends requires reconditioning. It might or might not work over the long term. B. Eating lower glycemic index foods produces a relatively small advantage eg low gi rice is 70 and high gi is 100. That's a 30% difference and may seem significant but it gets buried in everyday meals where people eat mixtures etc. C. This one has the most leverage. We find commonly eaten vegetables such as cauliflower having one fifth the carb percentage of potatoes. That's an 80% improvement in glycemic load without factoring in any gi difference. Eating high water content vegetables and replacing some carbs with cis-monounsaturated fats is a vastly more powerful strategy than playing with glycemic index. >For those of us who test, it isn't a huge issue and there are a few >foods we may find that are low GI and work for us. But as you know, most >people with type 2 diabetes who "test" test still once a week when they >wake up. For them, the low GI recommendations result in them eating >slices of so-called whole wheat toast with their boiled-to-mush oatmeal >porridge and assuming they are taking good care of their health. Good point. There's nothing silly in what you are saying. >My testing has found that most of the foods touted as having a low GI >and hence "safe" spike me. The spike may be delayed, but it shows up, >sometimes quite badly. Occasionally I find something that seems not to, >but over time if I test it repeatedly, I'll find that sometimes it >doesn't and sometimes it does. I haven't had this experience. >Worst of all, over this past year when something depressing has happened >to my second phase insulin response, I've found that the "low GI" foods [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >but that is no longer true. So I take the argument that low GI foods >only postpone the spike, more seriously now. You have all the empathy one can muster and persuade electrons to convey. Naturally this is said with some feelings of "glad it hasn't happened to me yet, hope it doesn't." >If the GI were presented as being part of a strategy that included >individualized blood sugar testing for people with pre-diabetes or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >But it isn't. It is being promoted as a one-size-fits all healthy diet >for people with blood sugar problems. Good point and I'm not going to argue with you on that score. We see 50% sugar based chocolate spread marketed as low gi to give sustained energy to kids so they stay awake in class. >So caution is in order here. Unfortunately, with the money pouring into >the GI diet promotions from companies like General Mills (makers of >"heart healthy" Cheerios and the other big food companies, I don't >expect to see it. Sentiments understood. >--Jenny Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > There are three ways to change glycemic load:- > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > carbs with cis-monounsaturated fats is a vastly more powerful strategy > than playing with glycemic index. I think you left out that C also requires reconditioning! Especially the part about eating (lots more) veggies. bj This post not CC'd by email On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:50:35 GMT, "bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote: >> There are three ways to change glycemic load:- >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Especially the part about eating (lots more) veggies. >bj G'day G'day bj, Of course you are quite correct. Thank you for the timely reminder. It does require reconditioning to make vegies a greater proportion of one's food. It is a point that I hadn't given another thought to for some time. IMHO it is important to establish a healthy relationship with food. Food is a bit like water. We can't do without it but too much can kill us. My model for deciding which forms of reconditioning are likely to work and which are not is based on a river metaphor. To reduce intake is like damming a river. It works but the water builds up behind the damn and in times of extreme the damn may burst. To carry out plan one diverts the river. One hasn't changed the basic intake volume but the calorie content has been reduced. Our attention has been diverted from high calorie food to low calorie food. Diversion beats damming. It is a principle I had adopted so long ago I didn't think to mention it. Of course you are right in that it is another form of conditioning and for some people might not be easy. I happen to be lucky in living in an area where there are many Chinese market gardeners supplying high water content, high fibre Asian vegetables and there the Farmers' Market stall holders supplying a wide variety of traditional European vegetables. Others might not be so lucky. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > Diversion beats damming. It is a principle I had adopted so long ago This differs by one letter from another principle that I believe I've seen you employ to good effect in flame wars. SignatureWes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ? This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:45:20 -0400, Jenny <lottadatacarbs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> G'day G'day Folks, >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >diabetes that it is still healthy to eat high carbohydrate foods when >for many of us, it simply isn't. G'day G'day Jenny, What a fascinating thread this has turned out to be. I had half wondered if your not finding it silly at all was because the writer supported your low carb position. Of course he doesn't. Over stating your two positions to sharpen the dichotomy. You:- All carbs are bad except in the smallest of amounts in a diet. Fats are OK. The writer:- All carbs are good. The belief in GI is dangerous because it suggests some carbs are better than others. The bad stuff is fat. (undifferentiated) OK, neither of you is in favour of the glycemic index concept but heck this is like politics under MMP where parties choose strange bed fellows in pursuit of aims regarding single issues. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > This post not CC'd by email > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:45:20 -0400, Jenny [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Best wishes, I take your point. But you aren't really fair to either of our positions, and perhaps you miss that there is more agreement between those positions than you'd think. I don't think carbs are bad, I think they raise my blood sugar to damaging levels. so for me, and anyone like me whose glucose metabolism is screwed up, they are a bad idea. People who have normal metabolisms can eat a lot more carbs than I can without suffering from it. BUT, if they do, they sure as heck better cut down on their fat intake, because there is no doubt in my mind that the combination of fat and carbs, eaten together, is hard on health. So I have no problem with the low fat people when they are talking to people who can pack away great heaps of carbohydrate and never see a blood sugar rise or a weight gain. It is only when they prescribe their diets to people who cannot metabolize carbohydrates properly that my hackles rise. --Jenny http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info Thanks for a reasonable discussion. Hope we see a lot more. Guy This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:28:46 -0400, Jenny <lottadatacarbs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Over stating your two positions to sharpen the dichotomy. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >positions, and perhaps you miss that there is more agreement between >those positions than you'd think. G'day G'day Jenny, Glad you get the point. There is a deep divide and it has to be acknowledged. Am I unfair to you in overstating your position? Of course I am, it is a natural outcome of overstating a case for effect. Am I unfair to the writer in stating their case so baldly. Perhaps not. They have had plenty of scope to state their case. >I don't think carbs are bad, I think they raise my blood sugar to >damaging levels. so for me, and anyone like me whose glucose metabolism [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >because there is no doubt in my mind that the combination of fat and >carbs, eaten together, is hard on health. We happen to agree on that matter. It is a cornerstone of our beliefs ... assuming you are OK with replacing some carbs with cis monounsaturated fats ... and I do mean replacing not adding fats to existing carb intakes. My interpretation of the writers position is that he is pro carb and anti fat without distinguishing one fat from another. The writer has taken every opportunity to discuss differences in carbs but hasn't taken the opportunity to discuss differences in fats even in cursory way. (If I happen to have missed some examples please let me know.) >So I have no problem with the low fat people when they are talking to >people who can pack away great heaps of carbohydrate and never see a >blood sugar rise or a weight gain. > >It is only when they prescribe their diets to people who cannot >metabolize carbohydrates properly that my hackles rise. Yes. It is a point I should have made clearer and didn't. >--Jenny SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > We happen to agree on that matter. It is a cornerstone of our beliefs > .... assuming you are OK with replacing some carbs with cis > monounsaturated fats ... and I do mean replacing not adding fats to > existing carb intakes. You are way ahead of mainstream thinking with your understanding of fats. Though here in the U.S. there is a tiny bit of growing media awareness about the goodness of nut fats and the badness of transfats. BTW, I forgot to mention that my doctor ordered a carotid scan because of a problem I've having with faintness, and after 8 years of mostly low carb eating, it came back showing only a very small amount of plaque and no narrowing of the arteries at all. And that is with my genetically very high cholesterol (supposedly the large, fluffy kind). So that's a nice confirmation that eating the way I have been (adjusting fat content to match carb intake) is not going to kill me any time soon. --Jenny http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info This post not CC'd by email On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:09:00 -0400, Jenny <lottadatacarbs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> We happen to agree on that matter. It is a cornerstone of our beliefs >> .... assuming you are OK with replacing some carbs with cis [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You are way ahead of mainstream thinking with your understanding of >fats. G'day G'day Jenny, Me and the ADA expert opinion. <grin> It is weird to think that by this criteria the ADA expert opinion is way ahead of whatever passes as mainstream thinking. The expert opinion is right up with the idea of replacing some carbs with cis monounsaturated fats typically oleic acid from olive, avocados, macadamias, almonds, walnuts. They are right up with avoiding trans fats. (I wish I could say the same for those that advise the NZ Minister of Health.) The problem seems to be that it the public relations folks who write the pages for public consumption are still fat phobic if one scratches the surface of their thinking. >Though here in the U.S. there is a tiny bit of growing media >awareness about the goodness of nut fats and the badness of transfats. Glad to here it. Perhaps the avocado industry has had a more effective publicity campaign here. Something I haven't mentioned is my basic paradigms. Choose either carb or oleic acid plus water. I'd like to take a moment to make amends on this matter. For many years I taught engineering students about furnaces, boilers and sort of stuff. You can imagine the calculations involving different fuels and efficiencies. We aren't so different. We have an intake of different fuels. The two fundamental fuels of most interest are carbon and hydrogen. For the purpose of this discussion I'm going to ignore protein. We get carbon for carbohydrates and from fats. We get hydrogen only from the fats. Why you might ask don't we get hydrogen as a fuel from carbohydrate. Well the hydrogen is spent. The hydrogen is already hydrate ie water. Carbohydrate provides about the right calorific rate for humans, 4 kcal/gram. Protein does the same. Fats provide 9 kcal/gram. If we switch from carbohydrate to selected fats as some of us must then we must blend it with spent fuel ie water. It doesn't take much math to show that 44% fat plus 56% water by weight is an equivalent fuel to carbohydrate. Avocados are 75% water. They have a fabulous safety factor built in. Weight for weight avocados have lower calories per 100 gram than bread. It took me by surprise when a couple I had advised to eat an avocado for lunch were eating one each and merrily losing weight. I had intended they share an avocado for lunch. That's when the number cruncher came out. The thing that makes avocados fabulous is that they sneak in the benefits of one fruit or vegetable ie high potassium, folate, lutein etc. With nuts we must be more careful. There is a danger that some people will eat the nuts but ignore the advice to increase the proportion of food bulk from high water content vegetables. Strangely nut eaters don't put on weight in ad libitum trials. One factor might be that in trials they typically eat raw nuts and feral folk eat roasted nuts. Roasting whacks over half the Vit B1 IMHO Vit B1 should be called Belly ONE. <grin> We need Vit B1 to stay trim. >BTW, I forgot to mention that my doctor ordered a carotid scan because >of a problem I've having with faintness, and after 8 years of mostly low [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >nice confirmation that eating the way I have been (adjusting fat content >to match carb intake) is not going to kill me any time soon. Jenny, I think that is fantastic. People must wonder ... especially those who are low carb phobic in their thinking ... just when this "ridiculous" diet is going to whack you with arterial disease. BTW. Something I omitted to mention is how much I appreciate the balance you give to the discussion on carbs and fats. With millions of folks managing just fine on high carb low fat diets in some countries it has to be admitted it works ... except when it doesn't. The big exception appears to be when dealing with folks with an aberrant response to food such as T2 diabetics. >--Jenny Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > With nuts we must be more careful. There is a danger that some people > will eat the nuts but ignore the advice to increase the proportion of > food bulk from high water content vegetables. Strangely nut eaters Like me. Another thing I discovered I need to consider is the possibility of selenium overdose (Brazil nuts are my favorite). SignatureWes Groleau ----------- I've been framed! ... http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html This post not CC'd by email On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:11:30 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >> With nuts we must be more careful. There is a danger that some people >> will eat the nuts but ignore the advice to increase the proportion of >> food bulk from high water content vegetables. Strangely nut eaters > >Like me. Another thing I discovered I need to consider is >the possibility of selenium overdose (Brazil nuts are my favorite). G'day G'day Wes, Good point. I have seen a bloke buying a 500 gram bag of Brazil nuts from a health food supermarket. Out of curiosity I plucked up the courage to ask him if he ate a lot of them. He informed me they were good for selenium and this would last him a few days. I pointed out that one or two Brazil nuts per day were sufficient to supply selenium. Not sure if I made or lost a friend with that transaction. Brazil nuts are weirdly out of whack with regard to selenium compared to anything else. On top of this they are an exceeding variable source. One every two days might be enough with some Brazil nuts. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > This post not CC'd by email > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:11:30 GMT, Wes Groleau [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Best wishes, Hi there Quentin and Wes, Selenium is a tricky mineral. Too little and one can become deficient in this essential trace mineral. Too much and it does damage up to and including death from toxicity. The trouble is that the selenium content of foods can vary according to the amount found in the soil in which vegetable sources grow or the feed on which animals graze. One of the best sites that discusses the benefits and drawbacks of selenium intake in a pretty "easy to follow" way can be found at: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/selenium/selenium.html The article includes the recommended daily intake, the benefits to health of sufficient intake, as well as the symptoms of toxicity from excessive ingestion. Annette > One of the best sites that discusses the benefits and drawbacks of > selenium [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sufficient intake, as well as the symptoms of toxicity from excessive > ingestion. They've moved it - now at http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/selenium/index.html Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/74/72Kg >Read the article and tell me what you think. Interesting... The prime motive seems to be to advise against initiating a public health campaign for healthy people based upon the GI index. However the methodology was indeed perplexing. Much akin to advising diabetics against using home test meters due to their being a few percent inaccuracies. This brings to mind other studies, and government responses to them. There is a labeling law in California for certain substances that can be toxic. Oxygen is one of them. This post not CC'd by email On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:40:23 -0700, Chris J. <chris@noadress.com> wrote: >>Read the article and tell me what you think. > >Interesting... The prime motive seems to be to advise against >initiating a public health campaign for healthy people based upon the >GI index. G'day G'day Chris, That appears to be it. >However the methodology was indeed perplexing. Indeed. As I have said a few times by now, the writer's arguments are mostly silly. It seems he wishes to substitute quantity of argument for quality ... never a good strategy when dealing with folks accustomed to distinguishing straight from crooked thinking. >Much akin to advising diabetics against using home test meters due to >their being a few percent inaccuracies. Yeap. Trend is mostly what counts and even cheap meters are surprisingly good when it comes to trend. >This brings to mind other studies, and government responses to them. >There is a labeling law in California for certain substances that can >be toxic. Oxygen is one of them. LOL. Why is that so easy to believe ... apart from it being true when administered in excess? Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > There is a labeling law in California for certain substances that can > be toxic. Oxygen is one of them. Yes, and there must be a hundred others. I enjoy overanalyzing those blurbs. Some of them are worded to make it sound like this substance causes cancer in California but it's safe in Arizona. SignatureWes Groleau Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it. -- Robert A. Heinlein >> There is a labeling law in California for certain substances that can >> be toxic. Oxygen is one of them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Some of them are worded to make it sound like this substance >causes cancer in California but it's safe in Arizona. Surely, in the interest of their health, we should find a way to rid California's air of Oxygen..... >>> There is a labeling law in California for certain substances that can >>> be toxic. Oxygen is one of them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Surely, in the interest of their health, we should find a way to rid >California's air of Oxygen..... I thought they already had when I visited LA. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. > G'day G'day Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf It must be somewhat of an art form, writing an article on GI without using anything of Jenny Brand-Miller's research. She's quoted once - as J Miller, so presumably before her marriage - in 100+ references. Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/74/72Kg This post not CC'd by email On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:18:19 +0100, "Nicky" <ukc802466929@btconnect.com> wrote: >> G'day G'day Folks, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Nicky. G'day G'day Nicky, You have helped solve a little mystery. The writer doesn't seem to realise that the standard time for measuring the Area Under the Curve, AUC in gi trials is three hours for T2 diabetics unlike the two hours for non-diabetics. It seemed a strange oversight but makes sense if one hasn't read Jenny Brand-Miller's books. Best wishes SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > Read the article and tell me what you think. I think that it's premature to suggest that people drive slower than 120 KPH because most speedometers are inaccurate. SignatureWes Groleau You're all individuals! Yes, we're all individuals! You're all different! Yes, we are all different! I'm not! ("Life of Brian") |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.