 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / June 2005Low-Glycemic Better Than Low-Fat Diet
http://diabetes.about.com/b/a/175612.htm June 07, 2005 Low-Glycemic Better Than Low-Fat Diet Foods with a low-glycemic index, which cause smaller increases in blood sugar, may protect the heart and blood vessels better than a low-fat diet, according to the findings of a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers found that when obese people consumed as many carbohydrates with a low-glycemic index as they wanted, they lost just as much weight in 12 months as people who stuck with a conventional, calorie-restricted low-fat diet. People who followed the low glycemic diet also showed a larger decrease in blood fats linked to heart disease and lower levels of a protein that interferes with the body's ability to break down blood clots. "Based on our results, and several dozen other clinical trials and epidemiological studies, I would recommend eating foods with a low-glycemic index", said Dr. David S. Ludwig, who is based at Children's Hospital in Boston. In this study, 23 obese young adults followed either a low-fat diet or a diet in which they ate low-glycemic index foods for one year. As part of the low-glycemic index diet, people could eat as much as they wanted of foods with a low index, and got roughly 45 to 50 percent of calories from carbohydrates, and 30 to 35 percent from fat. Ludwig noted that even though low-glycemic index dieters had no calorie limits, they likely didn't overeat because they felt less hunger after eating foods that take longer to digest. Reports Reuters News ------- TC Dr. Spindler, who's a leading expert in animal caloric restriction experiments, has noted that the CR animals always had intense insulin spikes upon eating, but that the spikes went down quickly. The control animals had less intense spikes, but the insulin levels were higher between meals. That is the key, as far as this "low glycemic" stuff is concerned. Now, it's true that this kind of diet may be better than a higher fat diet, because in countries like the USA, unsaturated fatty acid consumption is very high, and that means heart disease due to oxidized cholesterol, as well as other chronic inflammatory markers. Peoples with poor "health care systems," but with very high saturated fatty acid diets (coconut or palm kernel oil) don't have the incidence of "chronic disease" that the USA, Europe, etc. have. Just go to the World Health Oranization and look at the statistics. The differences are amazing. So, if you're not smart enough to eat a lot of coconut product (or something similar) and you insist on eating mostly unsaturated fatty acids, then yes, go on a low fat diet. I was on such a diet for over a decade, and though I was never fat, I was always hungry. You've probably heard the phrase "corn fed," and they still feed livestock corn and soy, but not coconut, because that makes the animals lean. It's a suppressive effect on the thyroid that is at work, and if you go "low fat," you will remove the unsaturated fatty acids that are causing this effect. As people get older, the oxidative stress becomes more of a problem, the thyroid function goes down, making metabolism slower, and you gain weight. Many college students, eating cafeteria food, which is fried in highly unsaturated oils that gets changed once a month, put on a lot of weight. It's the same thing going on there. I eat plenty of fat, plenty of sugar, and at 5' 9" tall, I'm no more than 120 pounds, and I'm never hungry. Even when I wake up, I don't have to eat right away. On the old vegan, low fat diet, I would wake up very hungry, and my hands would often be shaking. I would wake up at 5 in the morning with hunger pains. So when you hear these reports, remember that better does not mean best. >I eat plenty of fat, plenty of sugar, and at 5' 9" tall, I'm no more >than 120 pounds, You are underweight, are you anorexic? Im sorry but women are not into a guy who is 5'9" 120 pounds. > On the old vegan, low fat diet, I would wake >up very hungry, and my hands would often be shaking. ? On 7 Jun 2005 21:20:02 -0700, montygram wrote in <news:1118204402.386991.211490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition : > Peoples with poor "health care systems," but with very high saturated > fatty acid diets (coconut or palm kernel oil) don't have the incidence > of "chronic disease" that the USA, Europe, etc. have. Just go to the > World Health Oranization and look at the statistics. > The differences are amazing. Examples? :) > On 7 Jun 2005 21:20:02 -0700, montygram wrote in > <news:1118204402.386991.211490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Examples? :) Here is the *healthy* life expectancy at birth, in years. I sorted it myself (well, MS Word did ;) Japan 75.0 San Marino 73.4 Sweden 73.3 Switzerland 73.2 Monaco 72.9 Iceland 72.8 Italy 72.7 Australia 72.6 Spain 72.6 Andorra 72.2 Canada 72.0 France 72.0 Norway 72.0 Germany 71.8 Luxembourg 71.5 Austria 71.4 Israel 71.4 Netherlands 71.2 Belgium 71.1 Finland 71.1 Greece 71.0 Malta 71.0 New Zealand 70.8 United Kingdom 70.6 Singapore 70.1 Denmark 69.8 Ireland 69.8 Slovenia 69.5 United States of America 69.3 Portugal 69.2 Czech Republic 68.4 Cuba 68.3 Republic of Korea 67.8 Cyprus 67.6 Chile 67.3 Costa Rica 67.2 Kuwait 67.0 Croatia 66.6 Panama 66.2 Slovakia 66.2 Uruguay 66.2 Poland 65.8 Barbados 65.6 Mexico 65.5 Argentina 65.3 Brunei Darussalam 65.3 Qatar 65.2 Jamaica 65.1 Hungary 64.9 Bulgaria 64.6 Georgia 64.4 Bahrain 64.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 64.3 Venezuela 64.2 China 64.1 Estonia 64.1 Oman 64.0 United Arab Emirates 63.9 Serbia and Montenegro 63.8 Dominica 63.7 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 63.7 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 63.4 Bahamas 63.3 Lithuania 63.3 Malaysia 63.2 Romania 63.1 Latvia 62.8 Saint Lucia 62.7 Tunisia 62.5 Mauritius 62.4 Colombia 62.0 Trinidad and Tobago 62.0 Turkey 62.0 Antigua and Barbuda 61.9 Ecuador 61.9 Paraguay 61.9 Tonga 61.8 Syrian Arab Republic 61.7 Cook Islands 61.6 Sri Lanka 61.6 Saint Kitts and Nevis 61.5 Albania 61.4 Nicaragua 61.4 Saudi Arabia 61.4 Viet Nam 61.3 Seychelles 61.2 Armenia 61.0 Jordan 61.0 Peru 61.0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 61.0 Cape Verde 60.8 Belarus 60.7 Algeria 60.6 Lebanon 60.4 Niue 60.4 Belize 60.3 Morocco 60.2 Thailand 60.1 Brazil 59.8 Republic of Moldova 59.8 El Salvador 59.7 Samoa 59.7 Dominican Republic 59.6 Palau 59.6 Uzbekistan 59.4 Philippines 59.3 Grenada 59.2 Ukraine 59.2 Egypt 59.0 Vanuatu 58.9 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 58.8 Fiji 58.8 Suriname 58.8 Russian Federation 58.6 Honduras 58.4 Indonesia 58.1 Maldives 57.8 Micronesia (Federated States of) 57.7 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 57.6 Guatemala 57.4 Azerbaijan 57.2 Solomon Islands 56.2 Kazakhstan 55.9 Mongolia 55.6 Kyrgyzstan 55.3 Guyana 55.2 Nauru 55.1 Marshall Islands 54.8 Tajikistan 54.7 Comoros 54.6 Bolivia 54.4 Sao Tome and Principe 54.4 Turkmenistan 54.4 Bangladesh 54.3 Kiribati 54.0 India 53.5 Pakistan 53.3 Tuvalu 53.0 Bhutan 52.9 Papua New Guinea 51.9 Nepal 51.8 Myanmar 51.7 Gabon 51.4 Iraq 50.1 Eritrea 50.0 Ghana 49.8 Timor-Leste 49.8 Gambia 49.5 Yemen 49.3 Madagascar 48.6 Sudan 48.5 Senegal 48.0 Cambodia 47.5 Lao People's Democratic Republic 47.0 Congo 46.3 Equatorial Guinea 45.5 Guinea 44.8 Togo 44.6 Mauritania 44.5 Kenya 44.4 South Africa 44.3 Benin 44.0 Haiti 43.8 Namibia 43.3 Djibouti 42.9 Uganda 42.7 Cameroon 41.5 Nigeria 41.5 Ethiopia 41.2 Chad 40.7 Guinea-Bissau 40.5 United Republic of Tanzania 40.4 Côte d'Ivoire 39.5 Rwanda 38.3 Mali 37.9 Central African Republic 37.4 Democratic Republic of the Congo 37.1 Mozambique 36.9 Somalia 36.8 Botswana 35.7 Burkina Faso 35.6 Afghanistan 35.5 Niger 35.5 Liberia 35.3 Burundi 35.1 Malawi 34.9 Zambia 34.9 Swaziland 34.2 Zimbabwe 33.6 Angola 33.4 Lesotho 31.4 Sierra Leone 28.6 The original (unsorted) table is in http://www3.who.int/whosis/core/core_select_process.cfm?language=english&fixed=c ountry&strISO3_select=AFG,ALB,DZA,AND,AGO,ATG,ARG,ARM,AUS,AUT,AZE,BHS,BHR,BGD,BR B,BLR,BEL,BLZ,BEN,BTN,BOL,BIH,BWA,BRA,BRN,BGR,BFA,BDI,KHM,CMR,CAN,CPV,CAF,TCD,CH L,CHN,COL,COM,COG,COK,CRI,CIV,HRV,CUB,CYP,CZE,PRK,COD,DNK,DJI,DMA,DOM,ECU,EGY,SL V,GNQ,ERI,EST,ETH,FJI,FIN,FRA,GAB,GMB,GEO,DEU,GHA,GRC,GRD,GTM,GIN,GNB,GUY,HTI,HN D,HUN,ISL,IND,IDN,IRN,IRQ,IRL,ISR,ITA,JAM,JPN,JOR,KAZ,KEN,KIR,KWT,KGZ,LAO,LVA,LB N,LSO,LBR,LBY,LTU,LUX,MDG,MWI,MYS,MDV,MLI,MLT,MHL,MRT,MUS,MEX,FSM,MCO,MNG,MAR,MO Z,MMR,NAM,NRU,NPL,NLD,NZL,NIC,NER,NGA,NIU,NOR,OMN,PAK,PLW,PAN,PNG,PRY,PER,PHL,PO L,PRT,QAT,KOR,MDA,ROU,RUS,RWA,KNA,LCA,VCT,WSM,SMR,STP,SAU,SEN,SCG,SYC,SLE,SGP,SV K,SVN,SLB,SOM,ZAF,ESP,LKA,SDN,SUR,SWZ,SWE,CHE,SYR,TJK,THA,MKD,TLS,TGO,TON,TTO,TU N,TUR,TKM,TUV,UGA,UKR,ARE,GBR,TZA,USA,URY,UZB,VUT,VEN,VNM,YEM,ZMB,ZWE&strIndicat or_select=HALE0Both&intYear_select=2002 Yes. Note that life expectancy in the US by state is a wide scatter, going from Hawaii where life expectancy is similar to Sweden and Iceland, down to Louisianna and Mississippi, where it's down about the same as Chile and Costa Rica. These differences are due to fundanmental socioeconomic problems which medical technology *per se* cannot deal with. If the problem was medical technolgy per se, Hawaii and Utah would be just as unhealthy as the rest of the US. They aren't. SBH On 8 Jun 2005 13:00:17 -0700, Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote in <news:1118260817.591857.78210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition : > Yes. Note that life expectancy in the US by state is a wide scatter, > going from Hawaii where life expectancy is similar to Sweden and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with. If the problem was medical technolgy per se, Hawaii and Utah > would be just as unhealthy as the rest of the US. They aren't. It seems there are strong differences between ethnic groups as well. Here is a statistic about obesity prevalence in several countries and in "USA-White", "USA-Mexican" and "USA-Black" people. http://www.post-gazette.com/images2/20040328obesitychart.gif Obesity figures are much higher for "USA-Mexican" and "USA-Black" women, while there is no such difference for men. Dunno why. > Here is the *healthy* life expectancy at birth, in years. > I sorted it myself (well, MS Word did ;) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Czech Republic 68.4 > Cuba 68.3 <snip> And here is Healthy Life Expectancy in years, at age 60, females (number of years in full health a woman can expect to live on average at 60). Country 2002 Japan 21.7 Monaco 20.5 Switzerland 20.4 France 20.3 Andorra 19.9 San Marino 19.9 Spain 19.9 Sweden 19.6 Australia 19.5 Italy 19.4 Austria 19.3 Canada 19.3 Luxembourg 19.2 Belgium 19.1 Germany 19.0 Finland 18.9 Norway 18.9 Iceland 18.7 Netherlands 18.4 Israel 18.2 New Zealand 18.2 Greece 18.1 Slovenia 18.1 United Kingdom 18.1 United States of America 17.9 Portugal 17.7 Malta 17.6 Ireland 17.5 Denmark 17.2 Republic of Korea 17.1 Uruguay 17.1 Chile 16.8 Czech Republic 16.8 Panama 16.8 Costa Rica 16.7 Cuba 16.7 Barbados 16.6 Argentina 16.5 Estonia 16.5 Mexico 16.3 Singapore 16.3 Lithuania 16.2 Croatia 16.1 Poland 16.1 Slovakia 16.1 Hungary 15.9 Latvia 15.7 Venezuela 15.7 Bahamas 15.6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 15.4 Colombia 15.4 Dominica 15.3 Ecuador 15.2 Cyprus 15.0 Bulgaria 14.9 China 14.7 Belarus 14.6 Georgia 14.6 Paraguay 14.6 Romania 14.6 Jamaica 14.5 Nicaragua 14.5 Peru 14.4 Saint Lucia 14.4 Russian Federation 14.2 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 14.2 Turkey 14.2 El Salvador 14.1 Trinidad and Tobago 14.1 Seychelles 14.0 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 14.0 Albania 13.9 Serbia and Montenegro 13.9 Antigua and Barbuda 13.8 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 13.8 Mauritius 13.8 Brazil 13.7 Dominican Republic 13.7 Oman 13.7 Ukraine 13.7 Kuwait 13.6 Saint Kitts and Nevis 13.5 Cape Verde 13.4 Algeria 13.3 Armenia 13.3 Belize 13.3 Brunei Darussalam 13.3 Guatemala 13.3 Tunisia 13.3 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 13.2 Republic of Moldova 13.2 Thailand 13.2 Honduras 13.1 Viet Nam 13.1 Saudi Arabia 13.0 Jordan 12.9 Syrian Arab Republic 12.9 Niue 12.8 Suriname 12.8 Morocco 12.7 Sri Lanka 12.7 Cook Islands 12.6 Grenada 12.6 Kyrgyzstan 12.6 Lebanon 12.6 Uzbekistan 12.6 Kazakhstan 12.5 United Arab Emirates 12.5 Azerbaijan 12.4 Mongolia 12.4 Guyana 12.2 Bolivia 12.1 Namibia 12.1 Philippines 12.1 South Africa 12.1 Malaysia 12.0 Palau 12.0 Tonga 12.0 Botswana 11.9 Fiji 11.9 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 11.9 Haiti 11.7 Vanuatu 11.7 Bahrain 11.6 Gabon 11.6 Kiribati 11.6 Samoa 11.6 Solomon Islands 11.6 Comoros 11.5 Congo 11.5 Indonesia 11.5 Kenya 11.5 Micronesia (Federated States of) 11.5 Turkmenistan 11.5 India 11.4 Pakistan 11.4 Sao Tome and Principe 11.4 Bhutan 11.3 Egypt 11.3 Eritrea 11.3 Myanmar 11.3 Gambia 11.2 Ghana 11.2 Qatar 11.2 Bangladesh 11.1 Madagascar 11.1 Timor-Leste 11.1 Cambodia 11.0 Lesotho 11.0 Tajikistan 11.0 Swaziland 10.9 Uganda 10.9 Nepal 10.8 Côte d'Ivoire 10.7 Marshall Islands 10.7 Senegal 10.7 Sudan 10.7 Togo 10.7 Djibouti 10.6 Iraq 10.6 Papua New Guinea 10.6 Zimbabwe 10.6 Equatorial Guinea 10.5 Guinea 10.5 Mauritania 10.5 Nauru 10.5 Rwanda 10.5 Benin 10.4 Burundi 10.4 Cameroon 10.4 Central African Republic 10.4 Malawi 10.4 Mozambique 10.4 Yemen 10.4 Zambia 10.4 Tuvalu 10.3 Democratic Republic of the Congo 10.2 Ethiopia 10.2 Guinea-Bissau 10.1 Lao People's Democratic Republic 10.1 United Republic of Tanzania 10.1 Chad 10.0 Nigeria 10.0 Burkina Faso 9.7 Liberia 9.7 Angola 9.6 Afghanistan 9.5 Mali 9.5 Maldives 9.4 Somalia 9.4 Niger 9.3 Sierra Leone 9.2 source: http://www.who.int/ga/default.asp >http://diabetes.about.com/b/a/175612.htm > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >TC So these are fat people who are borderline diabetics? I suppose they must be if their blood sugar is spiking that much. I suppose if you are on the way to becoming diabetic because you are fat than eating low glycemic foods will treat the symptom. However if you want to go to the root of the problem these 23 obese young adults should get off their couches and try getting some physical activity. > Researchers found that when obese people consumed as many carbohydrates > with a low-glycemic index as they wanted, they lost just as much weight > in 12 months as people who stuck with a conventional, > calorie-restricted low-fat diet. With emphasis on obese people! In other words, an ABNORMAL diet for ABNORMAL people. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :) "In this study, 23 obese young adults followed either a low-fat diet or a diet in which they ate low-glycemic index foods for one year. As part of the low-glycemic index diet, people could eat as much as they wanted of foods with a low index, and got roughly 45 to 50 percent of calories from carbohydrates, and 30 to 35 percent from fat." Using 2000 calories just to have a number to work with, around 250 grams of carbohydrates would have been consumed. This suggests it is not the total amount of carbs but where the source of them are placed on the index. Looking at standard index charts, many pastas and rice foods will be 50 or below on an index of 100. Most beans, many fruits, yams of all types are low to use some examples. Thus many foods, often thought to be high in carbohydrates are lower on the index and seem to be candidates in such a diet as was used. |
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.