Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / February 2005
How do I avoid simple sugars?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Paul Kossa - 23 Jan 2005 04:01 GMT I know "simple sugars" are not the best carbos to eat. Thing is, I'm no nutritional scientist, so just how in the heck am I supposed to know if the carbs in a particular food are "simple" or "complex?!" (I notice on the food labels for carbs, they have "fiber," "other carbs," and "sugars." Am I right in assuming that "sugars" is a reference to the simple carbs . . . or is there something else I should be looking for?)
montygram - 23 Jan 2005 06:31 GMT I destroyed my guts on "complex carbs." They are hell on your GI tract. I almost died. Now I only eat "simple carbs," but the trick is to make your own, this way you can put more cinnamon and less sugar, for example, in your breads. Also, eat small amounts of nutritional yeast and a good fat source like butter, coconut oil, dark chocolate, full fat yogurt or similar dairy, with the simple carbs and you don't have to worry about gylcemic index or insulin index nonsense. More to be worried about is oxidative stress, which can come from too much oxidized cholesterol or unsaturated fatty acids. Search my other posts for specifics. Just search this group for montygram.
NoOption5L@aol.com - 23 Jan 2005 16:16 GMT > I destroyed my guts on "complex carbs." They are hell on your GI > tract. I almost died. Please explain. The only way complex carbs would be "hell on your GI system" is if you _suddenly_ switched from a no/low-fiber diet to the recommended high/higher fiber diet. (If you think your expirence was bad, try going from the higher/high-fiber diet to snacking on some highly processed, high-fat food.) To make the switch to more complex carbs, the "trick" is to slowly increase your consumption.
> Now I only eat "simple carbs," but the trick is to make your own, this
> way you can put more cinnamon and less sugar, for example, in your > breads. Also, eat small amounts of nutritional yeast and a good fat > source like butter, coconut oil, dark chocolate, full fat yogurt or > similar dairy, with the simple carbs and you don't have to worry about
> gylcemic index or insulin index nonsense. I agree the glycemic index thing is over blown. Most times you sit down to eat, you eat more than one type of food -- often a mixture of high and low glycemic foods -- so they balance and slow down the effects of the higher glycemic foods. And unless you have a medical condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you.
"Only eat simple carbs" What foods? Please define.
Never exclude complex carbs. They are the most important foods in our diet.
I don't think I would recommend full-fat products. While there's some debate they give you a greater sense of satiety, the other side of the coin is they pack many more calories and saturated fat than their lower-fat counterparts. Patrick
Jeff - 23 Jan 2005 17:12 GMT > And unless you have a medical > condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you. The natural high glycemic foods are high glycemic foods. They will harm you just as much as processed foods.
There is not special about natural.
Jeff
NoOption5L@aol.com - 23 Jan 2005 18:13 GMT > > And unless you have a medical > > condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you.
> The natural high glycemic foods are high glycemic foods. They will harm > you just as much as processed foods.
> There is not special about natural. Jeff,
There's a huge diffence between natural and unnatural. Man has been living and thriving on natural foods since... well, the begining of man. The introduction of unnatural foods is what has caused us problems.
Natural high glycemic foods like carrots and corn are not going to harm you, unlike high-glycemic, high-fractose corn syrup.
Patrick
montygram - 23 Jan 2005 21:02 GMT Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high saturated fatty acid content (and low unsaturated fatty acid content) has been great for me, plus the evidence demonstrates that oxidative stress is the key to "chronic disease," not highly saturated fats like coconut oil (Sri Lankans and others have just about no chronic disease until they switch from coconut to the highly unsaturated oils in the Western diet). This is even true of heart disease, where oxidized cholsterol (called oxysterols) causes a chronic inflammation in the interstitial spaces in the arteries. Saturated fatty acids don't oxidized cholesterol, whereas polyunsaturates do, especially when plenty of iron is present.
I ate a diet of legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds for years, and it caused stomach discomfort, but I didn't think much of it, since everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year. Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher, so it was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus" are preaching these days. I'm currently writing a book about the so-called French Paradox diet, which is what I'm eating these days. I make breads with butter, Rapadura sugar, unbleached organic flour, and liqueur, for example. I'd never go near whole wheat flour again. You don't need to protect your gut with "fiber" if there is no oxidative (or other) stress placed on it. So you can eat reasonable amounts of quality sugar (after al, that's what your brain runs on), but replace some of it with herbs and spices that are high in antioxidants, which will help your gut, not hurt it.
And my glucose went from 94 on the supposedly healthy diet to 75 on the French Paradox diet, though "saturated fat" is supposed to be "bad" for diabetes. As I've posted before, lard is 39% saturated, chicken/turkey is around 27-28%, and even Brazil nut fat is about 25%, whereas coconut oil is 92%. People on coconut oil diets should be dying all over the place of diabetes and heart disease, and yet according to WHO statistics and other studies, it is virtually unknown in peoples who use such fats as dietary staples. However, refined olive oil and lard are used in studies to test the antioxidant properties of herbs and spices. Why? Because they go rancid so quickly. You couldn't do this study with coconut oil because you'd have to wait forever to go rancid, and rancidity is the key point (lipid peroxidation). This is why vitamin C has been touted for many years now.
For example, from www.sciencedaily.com:
1/12/2005 Discovery Shows New Vitamin C Health Benefits
CORVALLIS - Researchers in the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University have made a major discovery about the way vitamin C functions in the human body - a breakthrough that may help explain its possible value in preventing cancer and heart disease.
The study, which explores the role of vitamin C in dealing with the toxins that result from fat metabolism, was just published in a professional journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It contradicts the conclusions of some research that was widely publicized three years ago, which had suggested that this essential nutrient might actually have toxic effects.
The new OSU study confirmed some of the results of that earlier laboratory study, which had found vitamin C to be involved in the formation of compounds potentially damaging to DNA. But that research, scientists say, only provided part of the story about what actually happens in the human body.
The newest findings explain for the first time how vitamin C can react with and neutralize the toxic byproducts of human fat metabolism.
"This is a previously unrecognized function for vitamin C in the human body," said Fred Stevens, an assistant professor in the Linus Pauling Institute. "We knew that vitamin C is an antioxidant that can help neutralize free radicals. But the new discovery indicates it has a complex protective role against toxic compounds formed from oxidized lipids, preventing the genetic damage or inflammation they can cause."
Some earlier studies done in another laboratory had exposed oxidized lipids - which essentially are rancid fats - to vitamin C, and found some reaction products that can cause DNA damage. These test tube studies suggested that vitamin C could actually form "genotoxins" that damage genes and DNA, the types of biological mutations that can precede cancer.
But that study, while valid, does not tell the whole story, the OSU researchers say.
"It's true that vitamin C does react with oxidized lipids to form potential genotoxins," said Balz Frei, professor and director of the Linus Pauling Institute, and co-author on this study. "But the process does not stop there. We found in human studies that the remaining vitamin C in the body continues to react with these toxins to form conjugates - different types of molecules with a covalent bond - that appear to be harmless."
In human tests, the OSU scientists found in blood plasma extraordinarily high levels of these conjugates, which show this protective effect of vitamin C against toxic lipids.
"Prior to this, we never knew what indicators to look for that would demonstrate the protective role of vitamin C against oxidized lipids," Stevens said. "Now that we see them, it becomes very clear how vitamin C can provide a protective role against these oxidized lipids and the toxins derived from them. And this isn't just test tube chemistry, this is the way our bodies work.
"This discovery of a new class of lipid metabolites could be very important in our understanding of this vitamin and the metabolic role it plays," Stevens said. "This appears to be a major pathway by which the body can get rid of the toxic byproducts of fat metabolism, and it clearly could relate to cancer prevention."
Oxidation of lipids has been the focus of considerable research in recent years, the scientists say, not just for the role it may play in cancer but also in other chronic diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, and autoimmune disorders.
The toxic products produced by fat oxidation may not only be relevant to genetic damage and cancer, researchers believe, but are also very reactive compounds that damage proteins. For instance, there's a protein in LDL, the "bad" cholesterol in your blood, which if damaged by toxic lipids can increase the chance of atherosclerotic lesions. In continuing research, the OSU team plans to study the role of this newly understood reaction between vitamin C and toxic lipids in atherosclerosis. In clinical studies they plan to examine the blood chemistry of patients who have been diagnosed with coronary artery disease, compared to a healthy control group.
"In the early stages of atherosclerosis, it appears that some of these toxic lipids make white blood cells stick to the arterial wall, and start an inflammatory process that ultimately can lead to heart disease or stroke," Frei said. "When we better understand that process and the role that micronutrients such as vitamin C play in it, there may be strategies we can suggest to prevent this from happening."
The new findings, the OSU scientists say, also point to new biomarkers that can be useful in identifying oxidative stress in the human body. They may provide an indicator of people who may be at special risk of chronic disease.
NoOption5L@aol.com - 24 Jan 2005 02:54 GMT > Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic > sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) Good stuff. As is blackstrap molasses, honey, and maple syrup.
> and very high > saturated fatty acid content (and low unsaturated fatty acid content) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > oxidized cholesterol, whereas polyunsaturates do, especially when > plenty of iron is present. I don't have a problem with coconut oil either (in moderation), as long as it's in its natural form and not hydrogenated.
> I ate a diet of legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds for years, and > it caused stomach discomfort, but I didn't think much of it, since > everyone else I knew had worse problems. That's odd. I've been eating all this for 20 years and never a problem.
> Then I lost the ability to > digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year. And it was diagnosed as being caused by eating these natural foods in their natural state? It wasn't maybe an allergic reaction from one of them...?
> Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher, so it > was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus" are > preaching these days. I've been reading on nutrition for 20 years, and dispite what the latest fad diets say, it all comes back to eating natural foods in their natural state, variety, and moderation in everything. Follow those three simple rules and I think anyone will be just fine.
Following these three rules has worked for me. Here's my proof:
Physically I was never genetically gifted, just average build and height. Never great at sports. And I was junk-food junky growing up. By the time I was twenty years old, I had borderline hypertension and I had had severe liver damage... you could say I was pretty much a wreck physically. Then I started trying to turn things around. I started working out a little and eating better, made some progress but it was tough going. Then I read a book by David Reuban called "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Nutrition." I incorporated much of what he said into my diet (and I continued reading everything I could from other sources.) After I made the dietary change to natural foods, working out was SO much easier. My energy level increased dramatically.
I worked out a lot through my twentys, but in my thirties I got away from it to spend more time with my kids/family (and because I tore up a knee). I just got back into the gym in early 2002. I worked hard to rehabilitate my knee, and by late '03 I was finally (after 10 years) able to run again without any pain or discomfort. By January '04, I was running a mile and a half in 10 minutes flat. Last March I completed a half marathon, without really training to do one (never ran more than 6 miles at a time before) and I ran it in 1 hour 48 minutes. Later in the year I ran a grueling (in hot weather) 4.4 mile run with a 7:13 pace. Now this week my mile and half pace is a 9:39, and I don't run much... maybe a couple times a week, maybe. I'm coming up on my 42 birthday, I'm 5' 9", 170 pounds, my waistline is less than 31 inches, and my resting heart rate is in the 30s. On top of this, when I'm with my kids, who are now 20 and 18 years old, people always ask if I'm their brother or my daughter's boyfriend. I think the natural diet is working for me.
Patrick
Rene - 28 Jan 2005 01:42 GMT <snip>
> I've been reading on nutrition for 20 years, and dispite what the > latest fad diets say, it all comes back to eating natural foods in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Patrick Congratulations! Everyone should have such a story. I'm just curious if you take any antioxidants along with your natural diet?
Ren?
NoOption5L@aol.com - 29 Jan 2005 05:15 GMT > Congratulations! Everyone should have such a story. I'm just > curious if you take any antioxidants along with your natural diet? Thanks for the kind words.
No, I don't. I get my antioxidants from fruits, veggies and green tea. I don't take vitamin pills either. I never saw a reason to, and after I had my diet analyzed a year or so ago, my thinking was validated.
Patrick
> > I've been reading on nutrition for 20 years, and dispite what the > > latest fad diets say, it all comes back to eating natural foods in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > their brother or my daughter's boyfriend. I think the natural diet is > > working for me. Rene - 29 Jan 2005 20:27 GMT >> Congratulations! Everyone should have such a story. I'm just >> curious if you take any antioxidants along with your natural diet? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Patrick Your welcome.
The reason I asked is that I have read more than once that a body that is being exercised hard, such as yours is, the need for antioxidants goes way up and the diet may not be able to provide this. When I was in my 30's I worked extremely hard to get my black belt in Karate (4 years) and from there started weight lifting and various aerobic activities. Although I was in the best shape of my life, it brought on the most health problems I have ever experienced. Now, I believe it was not enough antioxidants (maybe even specific antioxidants such as CoQ10), possibly a vitamin B12 deficiency and the fact that my body fat was only 12.5% (female).
Ren?
Piezo Guru - 29 Jan 2005 22:04 GMT Hard exercise is definitely a stressor to your body, probably a carcinogeous act too. The stress of "tearing your muscles down" causes many free radicals, according to the free radical theories. My body constantly ached, joints and muscles. After a few years it never stopped but I found that body pH was a big factor and corrected it. When you sweat you lose many minerals in your sweat and your blood stream, in an effort to balance the pH robs your bones of calcium and other minerals. Wheat and othe rgrains are very acid producing foods and are just wrong for heavy workout people.
I share the same experience as you have in martial arts for years and was sick all the time with everything going. I suspected the whirlpool bath was a den of bacteria though and it made my skin very dry, so I had theories of losing my hard exterior shell to outside bacteria by washing away the oils etc.
Later in years, I find that many heavy duty atheletes are much more of the time also.
> >> Congratulations! Everyone should have such a story. I'm just > >> curious if you take any antioxidants along with your natural diet? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Reni Rene - 29 Jan 2005 23:50 GMT > Hard exercise is definitely a stressor to your body, probably a > carcinogeous [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > your bones of calcium and other minerals. Wheat and othe rgrains are very > acid producing foods and are just wrong for heavy workout people. Yes to all of the above! Exercise is great, but extreme exercise may not be. Coincidentally, I am now gluten free and many of my problems have vanished.
> I share the same experience as you have in martial arts for years and was > sick all the time with everything going. I suspected the whirlpool bath [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > losing my hard exterior shell to outside bacteria by washing away the oils > etc. I did not catch colds or the flu, but more serious problems: loss of balance, tremors, rosacea, seizures that could only be detected through an EEG. The neurologist wanted to put me on drugs even though he could not figure out what was wrong with me. I said no thank you and have corrected almost everything through diet except my balance and, although my rosacea is not cured, it is under control without antibiotics.
Interestingly, I am experiencing some of the symptoms again, after losing my fianc? 1 month ago. I guess STRESS, no matter what kind, is a key factor.
Ren?
> Later in years, I find that many heavy duty atheletes are much more of the > time also. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >> Reni Piezo Guru - 30 Jan 2005 01:47 GMT Check out manganese for Menieres Disease.
> > Hard exercise is definitely a stressor to your body, probably a > > carcinogeous [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > >> > >> Reni Rene - 03 Feb 2005 02:17 GMT > Check out manganese for Menieres Disease. Thanks for the suggestion. I also have tinitis so this is interesting. The ear, nose and throat doc did not mention anything about this disease.
Ren?
>> > Hard exercise is definitely a stressor to your body, probably a >> > carcinogeous [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >> >> >> >> Reni Piezo Guru - 04 Feb 2005 01:31 GMT Manganese works for my tinnitus also. I tried it for dizziness after a medical persons recommendation and my tinnitus stopped. I use it now when needed but it took a few months the first time and now a few weeks each time.
> > Check out manganese for Menieres Disease. > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > >> >> > >> >> Reni NoOption5L@aol.com - 30 Jan 2005 04:40 GMT > >> Congratulations! Everyone should have such a story. I'm just > >> curious if you take any antioxidants along with your natural > >> diet?
> > Thanks for the kind words.
> > No, I don't. I get my antioxidants from fruits, veggies and > > green tea. I don't take vitamin pills either. I never saw a > > reason to, and after I had my diet analyzed a year or so ago, my > > thinking was validated.
> Your welcome.
> The reason I asked is that I have read more than once that a body > that is being exercised hard, such as yours is, the need for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > vitamin B12 deficiency and the fact that my body fat was only 12.5% > (female). Even with our exercise programs I don't think we do anywhere near the amount of physical labor our earlier generations did. Also our earlier generations never had the availability and variety of foods that we have today. Nor did they have the fortified foods that we have. Despite all this, they seemed to survive and thrive pretty well.
Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take years. So ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes care of your B12 needs. When I had my diet analyzed I found I was taking in well over 600% of the RDA.
As for antioxidants, drink green tea and eat lots of blueberries, pomagranates and scores of other friuts and veggies.
Patrick
Piezo Guru - 30 Jan 2005 06:07 GMT I try to avoid caffeine.
> As for antioxidants, drink green tea and eat lots of blueberries, > pomagranates and scores of other friuts and veggies. > > Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com - 30 Jan 2005 18:34 GMT > I try to avoid caffeine. So do I, but green tea offers too many health benefits.
> > As for antioxidants, drink green tea and eat lots of blueberries, > > pomagranates and scores of other friuts and veggies. Patrick
John de Hoog - 30 Jan 2005 07:55 GMT > Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take years. So > ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes care of your B12 > needs. When I had my diet analyzed I found I was taking in well over > 600% of the RDA. "Taking in" does not mean the body actually puts the B12 to use. Many people are unable to absorb enough B12 even though they eat lots of meat and other rich sources. A lack of intrinsic factor, and/or a lack of proper stomach acid, can be the immediate cause. Use of antibiotics and advanced age seem to be contributing causes. One treatment is to take sublingual tablets of B12 in sufficient amounts (1 to 5 mg) that your body will be able to absorb the necessary few micrograms it needs.
 Signature jdh
Rene - 30 Jan 2005 19:01 GMT >> Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take years. So >> ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes care of your B12 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > absorb > the necessary few micrograms it needs. Agreed! I do not think I was absorbing B12 because of being allergic to gluten, which can disrupt this process. I did purchase sublingual B12...I think I will start taking it again.
Ren?
John Que - 02 Feb 2005 03:04 GMT > >> Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take years. So > >> ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes care of your B12 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ren? If you have celiac disease which is an extreme sensitivity to gluten, your intestinal absorption is impaired on a long term basis.
Rene - 03 Feb 2005 02:01 GMT >> >> Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take years. So >> >> ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes care of your B12 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you have celiac disease which is an extreme sensitivity to gluten, your > intestinal absorption is impaired on a long term basis. Yes, I do know this. I have not been "professionally" diagnosed with celiac but I know I have a least a sensitivity to gluten. If I eat it, my throat swells and I can't swallow.
Ren?
NoOption5L@aol.com - 30 Jan 2005 20:24 GMT > > Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take years.
> > So ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes care of your
> > B12 needs. When I had my diet analyzed I found I was taking in well
> > over 600% of the RDA.
> "Taking in" does not mean the body actually puts the B12 to use. Many
> people are unable to absorb enough B12 even though they eat lots of > meat and other rich sources. A lack of intrinsic factor, and/or a lack
> of proper stomach acid, can be the immediate cause. Use of antibiotics
> and advanced age seem to be contributing causes. One treatment is to > take sublingual tablets of B12 in sufficient amounts (1 to 5 mg) that
> your body will be able to absorb the necessary few micrograms it needs.
All good info. Thanks, John.
Patrick
NoOption5L@aol.com - 31 Jan 2005 01:41 GMT > > > Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take > > > years. So ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes > > > care of your B12 needs. When I had my diet analyzed I found I > > > was taking in well over 600% of the RDA.
> > "Taking in" does not mean the body actually puts the B12 to use. > > Many people are unable to absorb enough B12 even though they eat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > sufficient amounts (1 to 5 mg) that your body will be able to > > absorb the necessary few micrograms it needs.
> All good info. Thanks, John. Oh forget to mention, and relative to this thread, for these people who are unable to absorb B12 from food, ingesting vitamin pills with B12 wouldn't help them either.
Patrick
John Que - 02 Feb 2005 03:04 GMT > > > > Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take > > > > years. So ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > are unable to absorb B12 from food, ingesting vitamin pills with B12 > wouldn't help them either. Sorry, but that comment is wrong if the dose used is the size mentioned by John de Hoog. If it is a small dose of a few micrograms or tens of micrograms do little good. The tiny few mcg dose is what is to be found as the maximum in EU Codex countries. I recall that Steve Harris was willing to admit very large PO B-12 supplementation was a workable TX for B-12 shortage. You should be able to Google for that thread it was back in the late 90's. I suppose I could Pubmed the references but you really should do that yourself given how far out of date you are.
> Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com - 03 Feb 2005 03:00 GMT > > > > > Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take > > > > > years. So ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk takes > > > > > care of your B12 needs. When I had my diet analyzed I found I > > > > > was taking in well over 600% of the RDA.
> > > > "Taking in" does not mean the body actually puts the B12 to use. > > > > Many people are unable to absorb enough B12 even though they eat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > sufficient amounts (1 to 5 mg) that your body will be able to > > > > absorb the necessary few micrograms it needs.
> > > All good info. Thanks, John.
> > Oh forget to mention, and relative to this thread, for these people who > > are unable to absorb B12 from food, ingesting vitamin pills with B12 > > wouldn't help them either.
> Sorry, but that comment is wrong if the dose used is the size mentioned > by John de Hoog. If it is a small dose of a few micrograms or tens of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the references but you really should do that yourself given > how far out of date you are. JQ,
The information I have is dated 2002. It says ..."B12 must be injected to bypass the need for intestinal absorption. Alternately, the vitamin may be delivered by nasal spray; absorborption is rapid, high, and well-tolerated."
Patrick
Piezo Guru - 04 Feb 2005 01:32 GMT I have heard this before about B12 but this would mena everybody that didn't have injections would be B12 deficient. I doubt this is the case. Most good B12 supplements are sublingual.
> > > > > > Your body recyles much of its B12 so a deficiency take take > > > > > > years. So ocassionally eating meat, eggs, cheese or milk [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Patrick MMu - 24 Jan 2005 12:37 GMT > Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic > sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > until they switch from coconut to the highly unsaturated oils in the > Western diet). How about "essential fatty acids"? Your body surely didn't start to build membrane proteins and prostaglandins/leukotrienes out of saturated fats.
> everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to > digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year. If this effect is caused by eating legumes, whole grains, seeds etc. why doesn't everyone get those symptoms who eats them? What was the medical explanation for you loosing your "ability to digest food"? (I mean.. lack of proteases, lack of lipase, lack of bile acids, ..?)
> Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher, so it > was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus" are > preaching these days. What was your source of information - studies, reviews maybe, textbooks - when you made your research? .. Not some kind of pseudo-science nutritheology books I hope.
John Que - 25 Jan 2005 06:55 GMT > > Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic > > sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your body surely didn't start to build membrane proteins and > prostaglandins/leukotrienes out of saturated fats. While I can not speak for monty, I see this as an issue or proportions. It Monty clearly believes that a higher proportion of fatty acids can be saturated than commonly claimed. If one is going to fry, coconut is a very reasonable choice. Understand I am not big fan of prolonged frying with all the browning. I hope he doesn't fry with butter. Butter in frying would result in oxysterols, not good. It would fine of rice or vegetable after they are done.
> > everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to > > digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > when you made your research? .. Not some kind of pseudo-science > nutritheology books I hope. mattlb@angelfire.com - 28 Jan 2005 10:34 GMT > > Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic > > sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your body surely didn't start to build membrane proteins and > prostaglandins/leukotrienes out of saturated fats. Don't get him started on that. He doesn't believe in them. He appears to have a unique physiology that doesn't need essential fatty acids and is deranged by complex carbohydrates.
> > everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to > > digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > when you made your research? .. Not some kind of pseudo-science > nutritheology books I hope. Pretty much. His ideas on fats and membranes are fringe at best and he's shown he doesn't understand the basic biochemistry many times in the past. His classic technique is to rail against modern textbooks and then quote ancient textbooks to support his arguments. He particularly likes demolishing old theories with his own, even those those old theories had been superseded already anyway.
MattLB
Roger Rabbit - 22 Feb 2005 05:36 GMT Hi Montygram.
>I ate a diet of legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds for years, and >it caused stomach discomfort, but I didn't think much of it, since >everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to >digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year. You often refer to Sri Lankans, et al, and their use of coconut oil in their diet. You fail to mention their reliance on legumes, nuts, fish and rice in their diet, things you considered to be problem causing. I think your problems with complex carbs says more about your own individual situation rather than actual problems with complex carbs. Did you not say once in a posting here that your problems were life-threatening? In any case, we (mankind) seemed to do quite well on complex carbs before we got into highly processed foods in a big way.
> I'm currently writing a book about the so-called >French Paradox diet, which is what I'm eating these days. I make [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >some of it with herbs and spices that are high in antioxidants, which >will help your gut, not hurt it. Are you really following a diet as currently practiced in France? You seem to be inventing your version of said diet. Last time I checked, the French weren't big consumers of coconut oil. From posts you have made the diet you are following sounds little like a "French Paradox" diet. The French eat meat, which you warn us against. They drink plenty of wine. I'm not sure what your stand on that is yet. The French basically eat a fatty diet but they eat slowly and they eat less than your typical westerner. As well, the French, on average, get more exercise than the typical westerner. Having said that, the French do eat foods high in antioxidants such as fruits and vegetables but let's not forget the cream and cheeses in their diet as well. Do you really think the dairy products consumed in France are all raw products?
Perhaps you could expand more on your definition of a French Paradox diet and identify the components of such a diet.
Thanks for your time.
rr
Jeff - 25 Jan 2005 02:16 GMT >> > And unless you have a medical >> > condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > man. The introduction of unnatural foods is what has caused us > problems. No, the introduction of so much food into our mouths and decreased physical activity are two of the problems. Natural or not, the body turns food in fat if you don't use it up. There is no evidence that what you call "natural" is any better than what you would say is not natural.
> Natural high glycemic foods like carrots and corn are not going to harm > you, unlike high-glycemic, high-fractose corn syrup. Incorrect. Sugar is sugar. And "high-fractose" corn syrup is just an extract of something natural.
Jeff
> Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com - 29 Jan 2005 05:03 GMT > >> > And unless you have a medical condition, _natural_ high > >> > glycemic foods are not going to harm you.
> >> The natural high glycemic foods are high glycemic foods. They > >> will harm you just as much as processed foods.
> >> There is not special about natural.
> > There's a huge diffence between natural and unnatural. Man has > > been living and thriving on natural foods since... well, the > > begining of man. The introduction of unnatural foods is what has > > caused us problems.
> No, the introduction of so much food into our mouths and decreased > physical activity are two of the problems. Natural or not, the body > turns food in fat if you don't use it up. This is true.
> There is no evidence that what you call "natural" is any better > than what you would say is not natural. Jeff, the fact is the butterballs you see are not eating natural foods. You don't see them stocking their shopping carts with sweet potatoes, oranges, Brazil nuts, plain non-fat yogurt, spinich, real maple syrup, apricots, salmon steaks, Quinoa, green tea, kiwis, whole-wheat bread, brocolli, black-eyed peas, almonds, brown rice or blackberries in their simplest forms. Instead, what you'll see is them wheeling out of the grocery store is the unnatural foods like soda, chips, ice cream, prepacked dinners, hot dogs, fruit punch/drinks, candy bars, sugar-based breakfast "cereals", and fruit chews.
Now don't you agree my "natural" foods are better than unnatural? And that these folks would lose weight with just the simple introduction of natural foods into their diets?
> > Natural high glycemic foods like carrots and corn are not going > > to harm you, unlike high-glycemic, high-fractose corn syrup.
> Incorrect. Sugar is sugar. You're mistaken. Carrots are not sugar they're carrots, and peas are not sugar they're peas. Both carrots and peas are very good for you. And no one should stop eating either of them because they're "high-glycemic."
> And "high-fractose" corn syrup is just an extract of something > natural. And used in many unnatural foods to make them palatable... no thanks, I'll pass...
Patrick
Piezo Guru - 29 Jan 2005 05:39 GMT What makes non-fat yogurt or whole wheat bread any more natural than ice cream or chocolate bars for that matter? These are the most processed, man intervened, products consumed today.
> Jeff, the fact is the butterballs you see are not eating natural foods. > You don't see them stocking their shopping carts with sweet potatoes, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com - 29 Jan 2005 15:07 GMT > What makes non-fat yogurt or whole wheat bread any more natural > than ice cream or chocolate bars for that matter? Man has been subsisting on yogurt and whole wheat/grain bread for thousands of years. That makes them "natural" in my book. If it doesn't in yours, than consider them naturally good for you.
Ice cream, and I wrote _candy_ bars, are all too often filled with all sorts of artifical (man-made) ingredients. Try comparing the ingredients lists and don't try to split hairs.
> These are the most processed, man intervened, products consumed > today. Depends on what you buy. If you're talking about multi-grain bread and "fruit" yogurts that are doctored up with artificial sweetners then yes they are. But _good_ plain yogurt and whole-wheat/grain bread are no where near the "most processed, man intervened products consumed today." And speaking of consumed, man is not eating _enough_ of these two foods... and that is not good.
Patrick
> > Jeff, the fact is the butterballs you see are not eating natural > > foods. You don't see them stocking their shopping carts with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > > Patrick Piezo Guru - 29 Jan 2005 22:09 GMT It doesn't matter what you buy, yogurt is a really man processed, unatural product, promoted by the dairy industry in a falling economy. Milk consumption is less than in the 1940s and they are trying compensate. Now I will admit yogurt is easier for the human digestion to utilize but to say it is "natural" means somebody has to go back to school and rethink the word.
Drink separated, homogenized, pasteurized, fortified, skimmed, filtered, all natural milk. Somethink sound fishy to you here? You are a product of 20 century advertising and a sucker to boot.
Bread is almost as bad and as many are finding out, causing much disease in humans. Man was not built to eat grass.
> > What makes non-fat yogurt or whole wheat bread any more natural > > than ice cream or chocolate bars for that matter? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > > > > Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com - 30 Jan 2005 04:59 GMT > It doesn't matter what you buy, yogurt is a really man processed, > unatural product, promoted by the dairy industry in a falling > economy. Milk consumption is less than in the 1940s and they are > trying compensate. Now I will admit yogurt is easier for the human > digestion to utilize but to say it is "natural" means somebody has > to go back to school and rethink the word. It has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, so again I think it deserves the "natural" term.
> Drink separated, homogenized, pasteurized, fortified, skimmed, > filtered, all natural milk. Somethink sound fishy to you here? You > are a product of 20 century advertising and a sucker to boot. So no dairy at all for you I take it...?
> Bread is almost as bad and as many are finding out, causing much > disease in humans. And bread has been around for thousands of years and it hasn't killed us off yet. If fact, in the cradle of civilization, bread has always been a staple.
> Man was not built to eat grass. What was man built to eat?
Patrick
> > > What makes non-fat yogurt or whole wheat bread any more natural > > > than ice cream or chocolate bars for that matter? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > > > > > > Patrick Piezo Guru - 30 Jan 2005 06:16 GMT Your reasoning for "natural" is ludicrous. Animal flesh and berries have been around for millions of years. we have developed our systems to these foods. Thousands of years only yesterday in human evolution.
Cows,sheep, and goats eat grass and have multiple stomachs and can digest fibre. Humans cannot. Doesn't that tell you something?
Besides, why do we grind it into powder and bleach it, add sugar to it and chemicals, let it partially rot and then burn it in heat? (Known as the largest source of carcinegens), Because we can't stomach the raw product. grains make many people sick and too acidic after years of poisoning themselves but I guess the cancer, heat disease and osteoporosis rates from celiac and allergies don't tell you anything either.
> > It doesn't matter what you buy, yogurt is a really man processed, > > unatural product, promoted by the dairy industry in a falling [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > > > > > > > > > > Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com - 30 Jan 2005 19:13 GMT > Your reasoning for "natural" is ludicrous. Animal flesh and berries > have been around for millions of years. we have developed our systems
> to these foods. Thousands of years only yesterday in human evolution. Okay, but how long have humans been cooking animal flesh? Or are you an advocate for eating raw meat?
> Cows, sheep, and goats eat grass and have multiple stomachs and can > digest fibre. Humans cannot. Doesn't that tell you something? There isn't a competent person in the nutritional field (even that hack Dr. Atkins was smart enough to know whole grains are good for you.) who would tell you not to eat whole grains. Whole grains are packed with vitamins, minerals and the fiber offers many health benefits.
> Besides, why do we grind it into powder Stop! The process stops here for WHOLE grain flours.
> and bleach it, add sugar to it Yes, the garbage called "enriched" flour is sometimes bleached. It was done by the food industry to extend its shelf life. That's why you eat whole grain flours.
No enriched flour, that I know of, has sugar added.
> and chemicals, let it partially rot and then burn it in heat? (Known as
> the largest source of carcinegens), The chemicals I assume you're talking about are the vitamins added after all the nutrious germ and fiber have been removed. That's why you're supposed to eat foods made from WHOLE-grain flour.
Where the heck did you get the info about rotting and burning? lol
And if you're worried about carcinegens, I hope you're not grilling your meat.
Or are you eating your meat, the "unnatural way" by heating it?
> Because we can't stomach the raw product. grains make many people sick > and too acidic after years of poisoning themselves but I guess the
> cancer, heat disease and steoporosis rates from celiac and allergies > don't tell you anything either. Really? Then please explain how this 41 year-old, grain eater, has a 30" waist, a resting pulse rate in the 30s, runs a mile and a half in the 9:30s, and can easily spend 2 hours in the gym pumping weights, and has an energy level that puts most twenty year olds to shame?
You've spiked my interest. Please list your typical daily diet. I'm curious.
Patrick
> > > It doesn't matter what you buy, yogurt is a really man processed, > > > unatural product, promoted by the dairy industry in a falling [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patrick Piezo Guru - 30 Jan 2005 20:10 GMT Well if you think "whole grain" means unprocessed and/or unground then the conversation just stopped here.
Mankind has been cooking meat since the invention of fire. Have a guess how long ago that was or do you think we always lived close to the equator?
You obviously have been sleeping through nutrition 101 for the last few years.
Buh bye
> Where the heck did you get the info about rotting and burning? lol > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > cancer, heat disease and steoporosis rates from celiac and allergies > > don't tell you anything either. Rene - 03 Feb 2005 02:06 GMT >> It doesn't matter what you buy, yogurt is a really man processed, >> unatural product, promoted by the dairy industry in a falling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, so again I think > it deserves the "natural" term. Yogurt today is not yogurt of yesterday. I make my own from whole raw milk and do not heat it above 110.
>> Drink separated, homogenized, pasteurized, fortified, skimmed, >> filtered, all natural milk. Somethink sound fishy to you here? You [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > us off yet. If fact, in the cradle of civilization, bread has always > been a staple. Wheat today is not wheat of yesterday either! I do not have a cite for you, but have read wheat from 1000s of years ago had a gluten content of about 12%. Today's wheat has a gluten content of about 51%. How much "glue" can a body take?
Ren?
>> Man was not built to eat grass. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> > > > >> > > > > Patrick Piezo Guru - 04 Feb 2005 01:33 GMT The yogurt culture definitely helps the breakdown of the dairy but homogenized dairy is a problem. I have heard many theories why but the one that seems most applicable is the particules get broken down so fine during the homogenization process the digestion system cannot recognize them properly for correct digestion.
> >> It doesn't matter what you buy, yogurt is a really man processed, > >> unatural product, promoted by the dairy industry in a falling [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > >> > > > > >> > > > > Patrick Rene - 04 Feb 2005 02:21 GMT > The yogurt culture definitely helps the breakdown of the dairy but > homogenized dairy is a problem. I have heard many theories why but the one > that seems most applicable is the particules get broken down so fine > during > the homogenization process the digestion system cannot recognize them > properly for correct digestion. http://www.realmilk.com/what.html Of course this site is a little biased;-) Homogenization is bad, but pasteurization is even worse. Plus, look at the additives to grocery store milk.
Ren?
>> >> It doesn't matter what you buy, yogurt is a really man processed, >> >> unatural product, promoted by the dairy industry in a falling [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > Patrick Piezo Guru - 04 Feb 2005 05:01 GMT Well I understand that if you are going to consume dairy, yogurt is the best one.
> > The yogurt culture definitely helps the breakdown of the dairy but > > homogenized dairy is a problem. I have heard many theories why but the one [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Patrick zwalanga@yahoo.com - 24 Jan 2005 08:25 GMT Where is this oxidized cholesterol coming from?
Zee
John Sankey - 23 Jan 2005 13:15 GMT montygram is right - if you want to control refined sugars, you have to make your own food from natural ingredients.
The USDA gives a few sugar analyses, but not for all foods.
Just remember, complex carbs are beneficial for many, probably most people (in moderation, of course). Your GI tract is probably not the same as montygram's (or mine).
Jeff - 23 Jan 2005 17:25 GMT >I know "simple sugars" are not the best carbos to eat. Thing is, I'm > no nutritional scientist, so just how in the heck am I supposed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the simple carbs . . . or is there something else I should be looking > for?) You're correct.
Digestable carbs come in groups two groups sugars &starches. Sugars are simple carbs; complex carbs are starches (other carbs) and fiber, which is carbohydrate which can't be digested. I guess because complex carbs includes starches, they decided to call digestable starches "other".
Good information on nutrition include:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/ http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wh-nutr.html
Beware of those sites selling diets or drugs (including herbs and vitamins and minerals).
Jeff
John Sankey - 23 Jan 2005 18:03 GMT Most processed foods contain gobs of refined sugar; natural foods contain a variety. That's why natural is better than processed (almost always) if you're concerned about simple sugars.
I too am surprised that montygram finds complex carbs more of a problem than simple, but I've long ago stopped counting the number of varieties of digestions and metabolisms people have!
markd@toad-net.com - 23 Jan 2005 20:01 GMT The best test is to ignore the labels in answer to your specific question. If you get and eat foods in the form as close to what comes from the farm as possible, you are getting the best sources of sugars and starches and other carbs for purposes of health. If you would like to read more on this and become aquainted with the best science on the topic in a form that is very accessable without too much science thrownin, see:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html
>I know "simple sugars" are not the best carbos to eat. Thing is, I'm >no nutritional scientist, so just how in the heck am I supposed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the simple carbs . . . or is there something else I should be looking >for?) zwalanga@yahoo.com - 24 Jan 2005 08:35 GMT A couple good nutrition sites:
Harvard School of Public Health http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
Berkeley Wellness Letter http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/fw/fwNut03Carbs.html
Zee
John Sankey - 24 Jan 2005 09:50 GMT "I think the natural diet is working for me."
Great! It's working for me too. But, we should be especially grateful that montygram has found a diet that seems to be working for him. I'm never so grateful for good health as when I meet someone with health problems of the severity of his.
MMu - 24 Jan 2005 12:43 GMT simple sugars (which means either one or two sugar molecules connected) in foods are mostly plain "sugar" ("sucrose", "saccharose". a dimer of glucose and fructose).
other more common simple sugars in food are: lactose (in milk, a dimer of galactose and glucose) maltose (in refined products sometimes, a dimer of two glucose molecules) fructose (in fruits and a monosugar used instead of "sucrose" in sweetened foods) glucose (in some drinks; "bloodsugar" is glucose)
TC - 24 Jan 2005 14:57 GMT > I know "simple sugars" are not the best carbos to eat. Thing is, I'm > no nutritional scientist, so just how in the heck am I supposed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the simple carbs . . . or is there something else I should be looking > for?) Technically speaking, sugars are simple carbs and starches are complex carbs. The difference being that simple carbs are comprised of single separate molecules while complex carbs are strings of simple molecules hooked together to form a long chain of connected molecules. Both are high glyceamic. Both will raise your blood glucose levels beyond what is considered normal.
When you are told to eat complex carbs it is because some egghead figures that your system has to break down the starches to its simple molecules first so it is implied that it will take longer to digest complex carbs than it will to breakdown simple sugars. This is nonsense, some complex carbs have a higher impact on blood glucose levels than simple sugars.
Neither of these terms are directly applicable to the good carbs like good whole food fruits and vegetables. Fruits and veggies are not entirely made up of simple or complex carbs. Some may contain simple sugars, some may contain complex starches, some may contain both. But they all contain great nutrition like needed vitamins and minerals. Sugars and starches contain little or no nutritional value.
The easiest way to aproach this is to avoid *added* carbs. Read the labels for added sugars and starches and avoid any food that contains them. That is difficult to do because, chances are that if the food has a label on it (ie. it is a maunfactured food), it will contain added carbs or fillers or preservatives, etc.
The best bet is to just eat fresh food and produce. If you are reading a label, chances are that there is a better option in a fresh whole food. Instead of frozen chicken fingers, cook a fresh chicken. Instead of a can of peas eat a fresh salad. The fresh whole foods are full of nutrition. Once a food has been processed, manufactured and packaged it has lost a lot of nutrition and gained a lot of added sugars and starches.
TC
NoOption5L@aol.com - 29 Jan 2005 04:24 GMT > Sugars and starches contain little or no nutritional value. This isn't entirely correct. Sugar in the form of Blackstrap molasses and Maple syrup are nutritious, and starches in the form of potatoes and whole grains are very nutritious.
Patrick
John Sankey - 28 Jan 2005 13:43 GMT In defense of montygram: people with health problems as severe as his are fortunate, and need a lot of courage and patience, to find a diet and surroundings that work for them. Once they find them, they usually tend to become extremely committed to them. But, their commonest mistake is to then assume that everyone wil benefit from them. Most of us won't.
So, montygram,be grateful, and accept my congratulations, but calm down a bit in this newsgroup!
(I work with environmentally sensitive people.)
John Sankey - 29 Jan 2005 23:36 GMT "Man was not built to eat grass."
True. But, modern man IS built to eat grass seeds - that is, since the advent of agriculture. There have been plenty enough generations of us since then for all but extremely northern populations to have become selected for a grain diet, as those who weren't died off from malnutrition and disease.
dxyzc@nospam.com - 02 Feb 2005 09:38 GMT > I know "simple sugars" are not the best carbos to eat. Thing is, I'm > no nutritional scientist, so just how in the heck am I supposed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the simple carbs . . . or is there something else I should be looking > for?) avoid processed foods.
|
|
|