 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2005Epidemiology Journal: Carb type matters
Findings - total carb intake not related to body weight - type of carb is important (these two statements seem to contradict eachother) - "These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets, which recommend people cut back on all carbohydrates, are missing the mark, Ma added." Researchers STILL dont get it. What low carb diets stop you eating tomatoes, mushrooms, broccoli, etc? No wonder the diet industry makes so much money. gtoomey ------------------------------------------------ http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2005/02/16/eline/links/20050216elin003.html Carbohydrate type, not amount, linked to obesity Last Updated: 2005-02-16 16:06:09 -0400 (Reuters Health) By Alison McCook NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to carbohydrates, it's not how much you eat, but which kind, that makes a difference to your bathroom scale, new research shows. People who are overweight do not appear to eat more carbohydrates overall than people who weigh less, the researchers report in the American Journal of Epidemiology. However, they found that overweight people tend to eat more refined carbohydrates, such as white bread and pasta, which cause a rapid spike in blood sugar. "Total amount of carbohydrate is not related to body weight," Dr. Yunsheng Ma of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester told Reuters Health. "It's the type of carbohydrate that's important." These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets, which recommend people cut back on all carbohydrates, are missing the mark, Ma added. "Carbohydrates are not the enemy," he said in an interview. "But you have to watch the kind of enemy." Ma explained that refined carbohydrates are often found in processed foods that contain a lot of sugar. This type of carbohydrate has what's called a high glycemic index, meaning it causes a rapid increase in blood sugar. The body stores that sugar in muscle, but if it is not used, it becomes fat, he noted. In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. In the report, Ma and his colleagues note that in the last 20 years, the rate of obesity has increased, despite the fact that people are eating less fat. To help investigate the role carbohydrates play in obesity, the researchers measured the height and weight of 572 healthy people, and asked them to regularly report what carbohydrates they ate. Ma's team followed study participants for one year. They found that people with a higher body mass index -- a measure of weight that factors in height -- tended to eat carbohydrates with a higher glycemic index. The amount of carbohydrates people ate had no influence on body mass index. "Refined carbohydrates are no good, but the total amount of carbohydrates is okay," Ma noted. He added that some countries now include a food's glycemic index on the labeling, which can be helpful for people trying to lose weight or deal with diabetes. SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, February 15; 2005 > Findings > - total carb intake not related to body weight [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > more refined carbohydrates, such as white bread and pasta, which cause a > rapid spike in blood sugar. I find this statement confusing. If people are eating the exact same amount of carbohydrates, what else is making up for the calorie difference? If there is a calorie difference, and it's not from carbs, then what's it from? It has to be from somewhere. That means that perhaps it's not necessarily the glycemic index, but the amount of food eaten. > "Total amount of carbohydrate is not related to body weight," Dr. > Yunsheng [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that > don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. What is meant by "whole grains"? Is "whole wheat" bread from "whole grains"? > In the report, Ma and his colleagues note that in the last 20 years, the > rate of obesity has increased, despite the fact that people are eating [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > on > body mass index. There they go again. So, you have two groups who appear to be eating the same amount of carbohydrates, but one group is heavier. That must mean that the heavier group is eating more. If they're eating more, then the excess calories -- and not the low glycemic index carbs -- could be to blame. Maybe the people who eat low glycemic index carbs exercise more (and, certainly, eat less). > "Refined carbohydrates are no good, but the total amount of > carbohydrates is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, February 15; 2005  SignatureBob in CT >> Findings >> - total carb intake not related to body weight [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > perhaps it's not necessarily the glycemic index, but the amount of food > eaten. i guess what they are saying is that if you eat 40 carb grams of brocolli you won't be as fat as the person who eats 40 carb grams of snickers bars? they just don' t seem to get it - >> "Total amount of carbohydrate is not related to body weight," Dr. >> Yunsheng [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> have to >> watch the kind of enemy." huh??? >> Ma explained that refined carbohydrates are often found in processed >> foods [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that >> don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. well -sounds to me they are reinventing the wheel. they want you to eat a low-carb diet but not call it that i guess. i think if they read one of the Low-carb books (like atkins or south beach or the hellers plan) they's say "Oh yeah - what he said, never mind" > What is meant by "whole grains"? Is "whole wheat" bread from "whole > grains"? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, February 15; 2005 >>> People who are overweight do not appear to eat more carbohydrates overall >>> than people who weigh less, the researchers report in the American [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> perhaps it's not necessarily the glycemic index, but the amount of food >> eaten. I think there's probably a few factors that come into play: 1) a diet high in refined carbs in generally more 'calorie dense' (remember, no food is 100% carbs, but usually a combination of carbs, protien, and fat) 2) metabolism 3) Satiety. I'd be curious to know of those who eat the high GI foods carbs are eating more other foods (more fat/protien) than the low GI carb eaters >i guess what they are saying is that if you eat 40 carb grams of brocolli >you won't be as fat as the person who eats 40 carb grams of snickers bars? Or 40 grams of carbs from white bread vs. 40 grams of carb from rye bread. >>> In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that >>> don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. > >well -sounds to me they are reinventing the wheel. they want you to eat a >low-carb diet but not call it that i guess. i think if they read one of the >Low-carb books (like atkins or south beach or the hellers plan) they's say Actually, high carb... but low GI. >> What is meant by "whole grains"? Is "whole wheat" bread from "whole >> grains"? Yes. The first ingredient on the label should be 'whole grain' or 'whole wheat flour' as opposed to 'wheat flour'. The amount of fibre can be a good indicator too. The colour is not a good indication. >>> They found that people with a higher body mass index -- a measure of >>> weight [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> blame. Maybe the people who eat low glycemic index carbs exercise more >> (and, certainly, eat less). Good point about the exercise (low GI foods do provide a steady stream of energy). But don't discount metabolism. =>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:26:55 +1000, Gregory Toomey <nospam@bigpond.com> =>wrote: => =>> =>> Findings =>> - total carb intake not related to body weight =>> - type of carb is important =>> (these two statements seem to contradict eachother) =>> =>> - "These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets, which recommend =>> people cut back on all carbohydrates, are missing the mark, Ma added." =>> =>> Researchers STILL dont get it. What low carb diets stop you eating =>> tomatoes, =>> mushrooms, broccoli, etc? No wonder the diet industry makes so much =>> money. =>> =>> gtoomey =>> ------------------------------------------------ =>> http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2005/02/16/eline/links/20050216elin003.html =>> =>> Carbohydrate type, not amount, linked to obesity =>> =>> Last Updated: 2005-02-16 16:06:09 -0400 (Reuters Health) =>> =>> By Alison McCook =>> =>> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to carbohydrates, it's not how =>> much you eat, but which kind, that makes a difference to your bathroom =>> scale, new research shows. =>> =>> People who are overweight do not appear to eat more carbohydrates overall =>> than people who weigh less, the researchers report in the American =>> Journal =>> of Epidemiology. However, they found that overweight people tend to eat =>> more refined carbohydrates, such as white bread and pasta, which cause a =>> rapid spike in blood sugar. => =>I find this statement confusing. If people are eating the exact same =>amount of carbohydrates, what else is making up for the calorie =>difference? If there is a calorie difference, and it's not from carbs, =>then what's it from? It has to be from somewhere. That means that =>perhaps it's not necessarily the glycemic index, but the amount of food =>eaten. Carbohydrate is a term that is confusing. For example, fiber is carb, but most fibers is not digestible in normal condition(not low cal situation). In conclusion, this research is pretty much pointless. => =>> "Total amount of carbohydrate is not related to body weight," Dr. =>> Yunsheng =>> Ma of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester told =>> Reuters Health. "It's the type of carbohydrate that's important." =>> =>> These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets, which recommend =>> people =>> cut back on all carbohydrates, are missing the mark, Ma added. =>> =>> "Carbohydrates are not the enemy," he said in an interview. "But you =>> have to =>> watch the kind of enemy." =>> =>> Ma explained that refined carbohydrates are often found in processed =>> foods =>> that contain a lot of sugar. This type of carbohydrate has what's called =>> a =>> high glycemic index, meaning it causes a rapid increase in blood sugar. =>> The =>> body stores that sugar in muscle, but if it is not used, it becomes fat, =>> he =>> noted. =>> =>> In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that =>> don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. => =>What is meant by "whole grains"? Is "whole wheat" bread from "whole =>grains"? <http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1043411&l=1&t=Food&c=13,1043411> Brown is whole grain rice that has not been milled, leaving the germ and bran layer intact. This bran layer accounts for the tan color, chewy texture and nutty flavor, and it is the reason why it contains four times the amount of insoluble fiber found in white rice, a prime reason for eating brown instead of white. => =>> In the report, Ma and his colleagues note that in the last 20 years, the =>> rate of obesity has increased, despite the fact that people are eating =>> less =>> fat. To help investigate the role carbohydrates play in obesity, the =>> researchers measured the height and weight of 572 healthy people, and =>> asked =>> them to regularly report what carbohydrates they ate. Ma's team followed =>> study participants for one year. =>> =>> They found that people with a higher body mass index -- a measure of =>> weight =>> that factors in height -- tended to eat carbohydrates with a higher =>> glycemic index. The amount of carbohydrates people ate had no influence =>> on =>> body mass index. => =>There they go again. So, you have two groups who appear to be eating the =>same amount of carbohydrates, but one group is heavier. That must mean =>that the heavier group is eating more. If they're eating more, then the =>excess calories -- and not the low glycemic index carbs -- could be to =>blame. Maybe the people who eat low glycemic index carbs exercise more =>(and, certainly, eat less). The law of physic is still the same in Foods. Fiber is the missing element, not the glycemic index carbs. => =>> "Refined carbohydrates are no good, but the total amount of =>> carbohydrates is =>> okay," Ma noted. =>> =>> He added that some countries now include a food's glycemic index on the =>> labeling, which can be helpful for people trying to lose weight or deal =>> with diabetes. =>> =>> SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, February 15; 2005 > =>There they go again. So, you have two groups who appear to be eating the > =>same amount of carbohydrates, but one group is heavier. That must mean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The law of physic is still the same in Foods. > Fiber is the missing element, not the glycemic index carbs. More fiber is what makes the food lower GI. SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes >> =>same amount of carbohydrates, but one group is heavier. That must mean >> =>that the heavier group is eating more. If they're eating more, then the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >More fiber is what makes the food lower GI. One reason, but not the only one. Acid (like that found in sourdough) also lowers GI. Processing is also a factor (ie. stone ground bread has a lower GI than bread processed with high speed steel rollers). Fat content can lower the GI of a good. > Processing is also a factor (ie. stone ground bread > has a lower GI than bread processed with high speed steel rollers). You know, that worries me - I spent some time as an archaeologist, admiring how worn down the teeth of people who ate stone-ground bread were... Maybe we're better at not including the stone these days... Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/4.5/<6 Weight 95/78/72Kg 1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine T2 DX 05/2004 >> Processing is also a factor (ie. stone ground bread >> has a lower GI than bread processed with high speed steel rollers). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Nicky. That's interesting! Which people/region did you study? The 'stone ground' bread that we have (at least in modern times) is pretty soft. I wonder if it might be something like gnawing on bones or calcium deficiency (or lack of proper cleaning?) that may have contributed to the poor dental health of our ancestors? SignatureA1c 10.5/4.5/<6 Weight 95/78/72Kg 1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine T2 DX 05/2004 > >>> Processing is also a factor (ie. stone ground bread [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or calcium deficiency (or lack of proper cleaning?) that may have > contributed to the poor dental health of our ancestors? Roman, Saxon and Iron Age people in East Anglia, England - many of the young adults have ground down teeth, so whatever they're doing, they're doing it young. It's not dental health, it's actually abrasion of the grinding surfaces. My money is still on the inclusion of stone particles with bread, but your bone point is onteresting too. Nicky. On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:12:07 -0000, "Nicky" > >Roman, Saxon and Iron Age people in East Anglia, England - many of the young >adults have ground down teeth, so whatever they're doing, they're doing it >young. It's not dental health, it's actually abrasion of the grinding >surfaces. My money is still on the inclusion of stone particles with bread, >but your bone point is onteresting too. Cool! I know this is a little off-topic, but do you believe there was a massive 'saxon invasion'... or the more radical theory of a somewhat peaceful 'migration'. Ummm... looking for something on topic to say... I wonder who's diet was lower in carbs (Romans, Saxons, or native Brits)? :-) >The law of physic is still the same in Foods. >Fiber is the missing element, not the glycemic index carbs. I would respectfully disagree. Fiber is not the missing element. While important, it's probably plays more a 'supporting' role rather than a leading role. I think the researchers have it right by focusing on the foods impact on blood sugar and insulin (glycemic index) rather than fiber. Many (non-carb) low GI foods have very little fiber. Some high carb foods (like sourdough bread) also has relatively low fiber, but also low GI. Another report out last week seems to indicate that the bran element is more important than fiber in overall health, or possibly some synergistic combination of the bran, phytochemicals, fiber, and/or possibly yet to be discovered compound. > > In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that > > don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. > > What is meant by "whole grains"? Is "whole wheat" bread from "whole > grains"? Some of it is, some of it is just colored white bread, you have to read the label to know for sure. SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes >> > In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that >> > don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Some of it is, some of it is just colored white bread, you have to read the >label to know for sure. Ummm... actually, whole grain, whole wheat, or whole meal bread is bread made from the whole grain. However, as you pointed out 'brown' bread is not necessarioy whole wheat. >> > In contrast, whole grains, fruits and vegetables have carbohydrates that >> > don't have such high glycemic index, Ma said. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Some of it is, some of it is just colored white bread, you have to read the >label to know for sure. Maybe the laws in the UK are different - but here in Canada they are not allowed to label bread as 'whole wheat' unless that is the main ingredient. We do have 'brown' breads that look like whole wheat... often with a fancy name 'ancient grains' '7 grains', 'rustic', etc. that are not truly whole grain (ie. the first ingredient on the list is enriched wheat flour) but they can't label it as 'whole wheat'. > >Some of it is, some of it is just colored white bread, you have to read the > >label to know for sure. > > Maybe the laws in the UK are different - but here in Canada they are > not allowed to label bread as 'whole wheat' unless that is the main > ingredient. In the US you can only be sure it's real whole wheat if the label say 100% whole wheat. They can call it whole wheat if it has a certain percentage (I don't know what that is) of whole wheat flour but less than 100%. SignatureNo Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes 1) I think they're talking about volume of carby foods, but not really counting carbs. 2) I, personally, didn't get fat eating whole grains, fruit, and veggies. I got really fat eating way too many highly refined carb- AND fat- filled foods. So, I do think that total carb intake matters, in terms of grams of carbs, but not in terms of weight or volume. Junk carbs need to go in any case. :: Findings :: - total carb intake not related to body weight [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: tomatoes, mushrooms, broccoli, etc? No wonder the diet industry :: makes so much money. Top posting because I'm lazy. I've skimmed the original article - the explanatory variables they've used in predicting BMI are: daily dietary glycemic index % of calories from fat energy intake (kcal/day) total physical activity (MET hours / day) gender (female = 1) age in years education levels (3 categories) season of the year In the corresponding regressions they use "% of calories from carb" or "total carb intake" or "glycemic load" in place of "daily dietary glycemic index". The point I'm driving at is that the results they found is kind of expected given the structure of the statistical models they've used. The "total carb intake" is a red-herring - carb in gram is just for counting, saying that total carb intake would have a significant impact on BMI is equivalent to saying Donald Trump should spend the same amount of money on champagne as someone who is homeless. In the case they use "% of calories from carb" in place of "daily dietary glycemic index", it's very likely that "% of calories from carb" would be correlated with "energy intake" and "% of calories from fat", whereas "daily dietary glycemic index" is unlikely to be correlated with either. When two or more of the explanatory variables are correlated, the model is said to be affected by multicollinearity and the coefficients are likely to be insignificant. I think the model they estimated with "% of calories from carb" is affected by multicollinearity and it's possible (although not certainly) that the coefficient of "% of calories from carb" is insignificant because of multicollinearity, rather than that it has no effect on BMI. Furthermore, if BMI is highly correlated with high body fat, and if high body fat is highly correlated with Insulin Resistance, and if Insulin Resistance is correlated with high % calorie intake from carb (I don't know, I am thinking / typing aloud), then this model is also affected by endogeneity, another reason why the coefficient is insignificant. Endogeneity means that one or more of the explanatory variables are co-determined with the regressand. I don't understand why there are epi/medic empirical studies estimate models that are affected by multicollinearity and/or endogeneity are able to get published without mentioning either problem in their discussion. I also don't understand why so many studies on diet that cost tons of money are being conducted without taking steps to reduce the impact of these two very common statistical problem. link to abstract: http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/4/359 > Findings > - total carb intake not related to body weight [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, February 15; 2005 > In the report, Ma and his colleagues note that in the last 20 years, the > rate of obesity has increased, despite the fact that people are eating less > fat. "Despite"? Maybe it should be "because of". To help investigate the role carbohydrates play in obesity, the > researchers measured the height and weight of 572 healthy people, and asked > them to regularly report what carbohydrates they ate. Ma's team followed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, February 15; 2005 |
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
|
©2012 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.