Does he ever have anything constructive to say about anything?

On Feb 27, 10:46�pm, "DLynch" <dlynch57nos...@nospamhotmail.com>
wrote:

Well, my opinions on this subject have been slammed many times so I
hope you fair better than I do.

As far as the study goes, this is interesting but not surprising as I
have long known of the benefit of including real whole grains in the
diet, whether you need to lose weight or not.  The fact that they
found them superior to refined grains is kind of one of those obvious
things.  The study's findings were a result of people following a
weight loss program.  That's a key point as they were taking a
proactive step.  I can tell you from personal experience that when I
switched to a diet of whole grains, versus processed foods and refined
grains, I had a reduction in body fat, especially around the mid-
section than I  previously had on any other kind of calorie-restricted
diet.

I have also posted information her before in regards to the
nutritional advantages of whole grains and the fact that they are
easier on bg than refined grains.

This study didn't use diabetics so that fact will play into the kind
of response you'll get from diabetics.  It also didn't mention
exercise.  Judging it based on what it did say, I would say it's a
positive thing and people with metobolic syndrome would do well to
choose whole grains over refined ones when dieting to lose weight.  I
would recommend that to anyone, regardless of their health.

Kurt

And Kurt calls everyone else "haters"...

John C.

Seems reasonable.  However I don't recall anyone EVER making
the argument for refined grains vs whole grains ... this study doesn't
address the contentious subject (in this group) of the AMOUNT of
whole grains a type 2 diabetic should consume.

cheers

Paul

G'day G'day,

 I read and reread your reasons for posting they felt so important.

The point that especially caught my attention was "do you have
anything constructive to say about the study itself?"   It is so
easily to unintentionally let ourselves drift off onto familiar paths
that it can take some restraint to stick with the original request.

OK.  With regard to the original research notice that the researchers
didn't have a control in the normal sense of the word.   Both arms of
the trial were intervention diets ie involved change.  Neither arm
were left to carry on with SAD, the standard American diet.

One group had reduced calories and were instructed not to have whole
grains.  The other arm also had reduced calories but ate whole grains.
It wasn't surprising that both arms experienced weight loss.
Experience shows this tends to disappear in longer term trials when
people go back to eating their regular food intakes.

One good feature was the naming of the whole grain foods.  
IMHO this is a very positive feature of the trial.  In the past
researchers have discovered that the general public know about whole
grains at a conceptual level but not at a practical level.  So yes,
this was indeed a positive feature that came out of the trial. Those
who are interested in including whole grains might well learn about
some sources of whole grain of which they were previously unaware.

It is fairly well established that processing grains leads to large
losses where vitamins and minerals are concerned.  This is greater
than the case for vegetables and fruit.  If one is going to have
grains then it is really important to fully understand what is meant
by whole grains. Where glycemic index is concerned whole meal doesn't
do it for instance.

For whom is the research relevant and more importantly valid?
This is not so easy to answer.  

It is tempting to say for NON-diabetics with metabolic syndrome since
these were the subjects in the experiment however we can't even be
sure of that.  The point is the results were obtained with
non-diabetics with metabolic syndrome who WERE PREPARED TO CUT
BACK ON CALORIES.  

Is that last factor important?  

The researchers obviously think so or they wouldn't have included the
proviso in their research.  Put simply it seems likely the differences
in CRP levels for instance wouldn't appear as marked without the
reduction in calories.  

OK, it is possible some other research group has already dealt with
that issue.  If so someone can publish the URL.  

What about T2 diabetics and T1 diabetics?  

Obviously the research doesn't cover them and out of respect for your
wishes I'm not commenting beyond the usual injunction that all
diabetics are wise to measure their blood glucose and learn from the
experience.

Best wishes,

G'day G'day Folks,

 Given the suggestion that we discuss the research itself
constructively without it becoming a discussion on the merits of
various diets has some rather exciting possibilities.

You  see I'm all in favour of keeping foods as natural as possible.
Wholegrain has a healthy ring to it right from the start.

Now there is the rub.   What is "as natural as possible? "

When I buy bread for myself or others I get bread with a high
percentage of whole grain and plenty of seeds such as flaxseed,
pumpkin and sunflower seeds.  Naturally I go for either rye bread or
at least one with rye as a major component.  OK, that's just me and
bread is never a very significant part of my diet.  I buy a loaf a
week. It costs more than the mass produced breads in the supermarkets
and way more than the loss leader bread sold with milk at the petrol
stations.

My current A1c is 5.6 and I'm keen to keep it that way. (It strayed
recently over 6 for one of the few times in a half dozen years which
have been when I was on dexamethasone chemo.)
Think of it as a personal choice thing.  

OK,  back to the natural as possible thing.  

It seems some kids wont eat brown bread let alone wholemeal never mind
whole grain bread of the type I relish.  And not all parents can
afford "real" bread.  

Crafty bakers have come up with the solution that pleases the children
and their concerned parents.  Yes it is white bread and it contains as
much fibre as wholemeal bread.  How do they do it.  Easy.  They
include fibre extracted from maize.  It wont be genetic engineering
since the New Zealand population as a whole have said "No" to
genetically engineered foods.   Whatever.  

Here is the Australian equivalent, Wonder White.  You'll notice the
pride they take in having selected a naturally occurring strain of
maize with a high proportion of resistant starch.  That means no
genetic engineering was involved.
http://hsc.csu.edu.au/food_technology/industry/research/research.htm

This research we're discussing has compared two groups of men and
women on calorie restricted diets one with more whole grains than the
other.  The results were significantly different with regard to the
CRP levels.  The question in my mind is whether this was really due to
one group being given whole grains as the headlines would suggest or
something MUCH MORE MUNDANE eg fibre content or glycemic load.  

To find out whether whole grain really was all it is cracked up to be
one would need to establish more relevant control arms.  A group with
equal fibre intakes using bread such as white flour supplemented with
golden maize fibre could easily establish whether fibre is in fact the
hidden factor.  Fibre gets a lot of publicity these days with adverts
appearing on television promoting all sorts of ways parents can
covertly add fancy semi-artificial fibre to children's diets.  It is
what parents must do if they care so the brainwashing goes.

People scoff down psyllium (metamucil) sprinkling it virtuously over
their fruit and yoghurt etc.   Somehow I feel uneasy about this whole
trend.  Have we gone a little overboard with our certainty that we
know what is important when eating wholesome quality food might make
more sense.

FWIIW, I rather people baked muffins with flax fibre which is gentler
than psyllium.   A decent recipe is about as far I feel comfortable
going when fiddling with food.   Whatever.  

As I see it if we really want to know whether wholegrain is as good as
deep down I'd like it to be for all those non-diabetics out there who
engage in regular sports then a realistic fibre control arm is
required.  That way we'd really know rather than be sold a suggestion
based on trial which has made several modifications at once.

OK, now comes the other factor; glycemic load.   Both groups had their
glycemic load reduced thanks to the reduction in calories.  My guess
and I emphasize guess is that we wouldn't have seen much benefit in
the whole grain arm if there hadn't been a reduction in glycemic load.
The researchers didn't want to waste their research grant and
prospects of getting further grant money by coming up with a null
result where there was no difference between the two arms so went for
conditions where whole grain was sure to be a winner.   The headline
which makes it appear that it was wholegrain getting rid of belly fat
is stretching the interpretation a bit given that both groups were on
restricted calorie intakes.  Sure it helped but why, wholegrain,
higher fibre or lower glycemic index?  

Is it possible to get a low glycemic load using as much grain based
food without using whole grains?   Can it be done without resorting to
some artificially constructed diet that wouldn't appeal to the
participants. After all diets that have a high drop out rate have
little to recommend them even if they do prove something from a
scientific perspective.  

At first I thought of replacing a portion of white rice with pearl
barley. The Japanese have done that with success.
Some though might argue that pearl barley is a whole grain.

There are some potatoes that have a low GI.  Why, just tonight I was
reading of a new variety of salad potatoes for the NZ market called
Perlas. (They are bred from Annabelle and Tiffany, two varieties
popular with gourmet chef.  I confess I'd never heard of them.)  Then
there is Red Jacket to be launched by Wilcox this year.  It is a red
skinned variety with a deeper yellow flesh than Agria. These are the
sort of things I read in the commercial magazines while waiting for my
friends at Thai restaurants.  While I will go out of my way to find
what I want amongst the old varieties eg deep blue flesh, I'm all for
modern varieties bred for some of the same qualities.  Yellow flesh
might be what lets me retain my eyesight and keep on posting to you
guys. <grin>  To me that's important.  Hey, life has to be meaningful.
Red Jacket or Perla sound to me like heck of a good potatoes for those
of us who can manage the carbohydrate without the alarm bells of our
blood glucose meters ringing out a warning.  

Newcomers should read Jennifer's advice to the newly diagnosed.  It is
simple, considerate and above works for so many.  

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

Why bother with potatoes at all?

I do seem to have wandered from grains.  Darn.

Well IMHO it is vital that diabetics remain integrated with
non-diabetics and being able to share meals with them is healthy.

To me eating alone is as dangerous as drinking alone.  

That's just my opinion and remember this research dealt only with
NON-diabetics so this thread must for the most part be about
discovering what will contribute to the health of NON-diabetics with
metabolic syndrome. I think that is reasonable since a proportion of
them will end up here unless the research that is performed is
scientifically rigorous enough to find what for want of a better word
would be called the truth, rather than designed to validate some
predetermined belief.

So let's assume it is not unreasonable to construct three diets

A. One using whole grains with all their virtues.  Remember this was
one of the strong points of the study.  They gave a list of whole
grains from which folks could easily choose what they'd like.

B.  One using refined grains but integrating modern tricks to give
equivalent fibre intake to the whole grain group.  One simple method
it would undoubtedly use is carefully ground wholemeal.  Wholemeal if
stoneground for instance has not lost any significant amount of
vitamins or minerals.  

C.  One using refined grains and perhaps potatoes processed or bred in
such a way that their glycemic index and/or glycemic load was kept
low.   This third group while it might include more resistant starch
wouldn't include more fibre.

People  might find my choice of three diets strange.  After all I
haven't dealt with the typical T2 diets that many people have found
here from their own experience work for them.  My reasoning is simple.
IMHO it is more important to learn something we don't know than to
confirm something we already know from repeated experiment.

It is wholegrain that matters, is it fibre content that matters, is it
glycemic load that matters?   Simple questions deserving of scientific
research performed in a relatively unemotive framework.

May I take the opportunity to give very special thanks to dlynch.  
I'd like to be able to call you Dan, Dave, or Doris for that matter.
You deserve personal thanks for making your bold request. I can sense
the frustration that you must have felt wanting to know what the
research really was providing us with and yet knowing that all too
often even discussing such subjects degenerates into a diet war.

I hope I've managed to use my chemistry teaching background to stay on
track and give you what you asked for.  Frankly I've found it a fun
educational exercise that students might also enjoy.

Best wishes,