 |
 | 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 / March 2006Study casts doubt on glycemic index
Apparently the glycemic index hasn't proved to be as successful as hoped in lowering blood glucose levels. In a new study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, data over five years did not find a correlation between blood sugar levels and the glycemic index of an individual's food. ===================================================== Study Casts Doubt on Glycemic Index By JOHN C. DRAKE, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, March 1, 2006 COLUMBIA, S.C. - Diets that distinguish between "good carbs" and "bad carbs," are not an effective way of controlling blood sugar levels, a new study suggests. Although made popular by the South Beach Diet and others, the glycemic index has never been fully embraced by most dietitians and remains a point of debate among scientists. Now, diabetes researcher Elizabeth Mayer-Davis of the University of South Carolina says the use of the index should be ended altogether in favor of more traditional methods of losing weight and reducing the risk of diabetes - eating less and exercising more. "The glycemic index is sufficiently flawed as an index that it is not helpful for scientists or people trying to create a healthy diet," Mayer-Davis said. The glycemic index is a 100-point scale, with white bread at 100 points, that measures how quickly carbohydrates enter the bloodstream as sugar. According to index supporters, people should avoid high-glycemic foods such as white bread and potatoes because they will quickly raise a person's blood-sugar level. Meanwhile, low-glycemic foods such as carrots and apples are absorbed more slowly, making a person feel full longer and reducing cravings, which helps with weight loss. Promoters of the diet also say that eating low-glycemic foods will result in less fluctuation in their blood sugar levels. Both the Atkins and South Beach diets have raised interest in the theory, and an entire series, "The Glucose Revolution," guides consumers through a diet based on it. Beth Kunkel, a professor of food science and human nutrition at Clemson University and president of the South Carolina Dietetic Association, said that while there is debate among dietitians about its validity, it would be a mistake to reject the concept altogether. Kunkel was not involved in the University of South Carolina study. "To just reject it out of hand and quit working on it would be a mistake," Kunkel said. "I just think we're five to 10 years away from really understanding it from a research viewpoint." Previous studies have shown conflicting results. One small study showed that people on a low-glycemic diet were less hungry later in the day than a group fed a high-glycemic diet. Another study, involving 39 overweight people, showed that those on a low-glycemic diet lowered their risk of heart disease. Both studies were conducted by Dr. David Ludwig of Boston's Children's Hospital. However, American Heart Association officials have disputed the significance of those findings. The new study, published in the February issue of the British Journal of Nutrition, relied on food questionnaires from more than 1,000 people over five years and assessed their consumption of high- and low-glycemic foods. Researchers tested their blood sugar levels twice during the study period and found no significant correlation between the glycemic index of foods and the blood-sugar levels of participants. Mayer-Davis said that researchers should develop a new measure of how different carbohydrates can affect health. She said a better index would be based on the physical characteristics of foods, such as fat content and calories, because numerous factors influence a food's effect on blood-sugar levels. > The new study, published in the February issue of the British Journal of > Nutrition, relied on food questionnaires from more than 1,000 people over > five years and assessed their consumption of high- and low-glycemic foods. > Researchers tested their blood sugar levels twice during the study period > and found no significant correlation between the glycemic index of foods and > the blood-sugar levels of participants. I am speculating here but I suspect that someone who is more knowledgable on the subject of diabetes could provide more insight, but this paragraph caught my attention. If the study participants are not diabetic, and they are tested randomly, as in not a form of glucose tollerance test but rather their instaneous glucose level, wouldn't their bodies mantain a glucose level that was normal (for them)? My point here is - was the method of gathering test data appropriate for the conclusion that they were trying to prove? It sounds as thought these people were tested randomly as opposed to a testing process geared towards proving or disproving the concept of a glycemic index or glycemic load on the glucose / insulin reaction. Recently someone here posted a short term study of the Low Glycemic phenomena. Probably Roger Zoul, but I can't locate the thing. Evidently, if you only eat ONE FOOD, then GI nicely predicts the rise in blood sugar. However, if you eat a mixture of proteins and carbs and fats, then the blood sugar spike is quite diluted from that which would have occured based on the GI of the carb(s). This is commonly observed in a real life chemical kinetics of mixtures. Much of the time, you can't really compute the kinetics of a complex mixture from the simple kinetics of the individual reactive components.... because that fails to take into account reactions between the components rather than just the reactions of the individual isolated ingredients. In simple terms, folks speak about protein (or fat) eaten with bread will knock down the blood pressure spike that would have occured if you just ate the bread alone. A real life sandwich of meat, veggies, mayonase, tomato and bread will give you a lower blood sugar spike than just the bread alone. On the other hand, we could try to require people to eat only one food ingredient at a time, with hours for digestion between food ingredients. Then we could use the Glycemic Index to reliably predict the blood sugar rise. In other words, maybe make this drastic change in eating so that the narrow laboratory conditions of GI determination can be used in this "Altered Real Life". GI makes a better FAD DIET than it makes real sense in actual living. And it sells books too. But it is an oversimplified view of the kinetics of biochemical digestion..... I must admit that I was suckered into this idea when I first read it. I encourage people to not fall for "Simple Science" overstating its own usefulness in complex real life situations. Eating other stuff while you eat bread knocks down the effective GI of bread, but nobody knows how to accurately calculate the GI of a real food mixture. And when they do, there is no reason to believe that it will be simple enough for people to use in daily life, without a small portable computer. GI and GL --- sound really almost too good to be true. > Apparently the glycemic index hasn't proved to be as successful as hoped in > lowering blood glucose levels. In a new study published in the British [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > calories, because numerous factors influence a food's effect on blood-sugar > levels.  Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) "The new study, published in the February issue of the British Journal of Nutrition, relied on food questionnaires from more than 1,000 people over five years and assessed their consumption of high- and low-glycemic foods. Researchers tested their blood sugar levels twice during the study period and found no significant correlation between the glycemic index of foods and the blood-sugar levels of participants." Questionaires are notoriously poor science. And they tested blood sugars twice in the entire 5 years of the study and found no correlation between the food they reported eating and the bg tests. Big surprise. Now if they fed these people a given meal with a controlled variety of patterns of high or low GI foods, and then tested their bg levels over the next 6 hours, they would have seen the correlations. They are missing the trees for the forest. This study was designed to return the desired results. It could not have been designed better to return completely ambiguous results. My question is how this kind of crap study ever got published. This doesn't say much for the peer review system and the British Journal of Nutrition. And these "scientists" should be ashamed to call themselves scientists. So much for their professional pride. TC > Apparently the glycemic index hasn't proved to be as successful as hoped in > lowering blood glucose levels. In a new study published in the British [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > calories, because numerous factors influence a food's effect on blood-sugar > levels. > "The new study, published in the February issue of the British Journal > of [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > TC I agree. If the study was really done as described, I fail to see how it has any validity. Testing BG levels twice in 5 years? Why would they track what people ate for 5 years and only measure BG twice? > > Apparently the glycemic index hasn't proved to be as successful as hoped in > > lowering blood glucose levels. In a new study published in the British [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > calories, because numerous factors influence a food's effect on blood-sugar > > levels. > > "The new study, published in the February issue of the British Journal > > of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > it has any validity. Testing BG levels twice in 5 years? Why would > they track what people ate for 5 years and only measure BG twice? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil? Carmen > > > Apparently the glycemic index hasn't proved to be as successful as hoped in > > > lowering blood glucose levels. In a new study published in the British [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > > calories, because numerous factors influence a food's effect on blood-sugar > > > levels. :: "The new study, published in the February issue of the British :: Journal of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] :: of Nutrition. And these "scientists" should be ashamed to call :: themselves scientists. So much for their professional pride. Keep in mind that the post given didn't contain the actual study....so you must be careful to draw conclusions from some reporters' summary (John C. Drake). Of course, it could still be a poorly done study, but all I'm saying is that unless we see the actual paper, you can't know (and even then perhaps not). :: TC :: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] ::: as fat content and calories, because numerous factors influence a ::: food's effect on blood-sugar levels. >Keep in mind that the post given didn't contain the actual study....so you >must be careful to draw conclusions from some reporters' summary (John C. >Drake). Of course, it could still be a poorly done study, but all I'm >saying is that unless we see the actual paper, you can't know (and even then >perhaps not). Yeah. It was one of those large-scale screening tests, apparently. My guess would be that they were looking at other things as well. No, it's apparently not the definitive test on GI vs. blood glucose. And I haven't seen the actual paper, so there are still some unanswered questions. However, that said, I fail to understand some of the criticism here. Y'all are doing good for reading this stuff and trying to understand it, but some of you are missing the forest for the trees. (Not you, Roger.) The study is what it is, and the results are VERY provocative. They showed that there was NO correlation, positive or otherwise, over a 5-year period despite whether individuals ate high or low GI foods. This was a pretty large study, too, and long, with 1000 subjects for 5 years. What it shows is that when it comes to regulating blood sugar, for diabetics and non-diabetics alike, just sticking to "good carbs," the low-GI carbs, DOESN'T work on average. We know from other studies that cutting the total amount of carbs DID work, as diabetics in these studies had much better bg control than did those on other, higher-carb diets, even ones that were controlled-calorie vs. no calorie control on low-carb diets. This is JUST what Dr. Atkins, Dr, Bernstein, and other medical proponents of restricted carb eating have predicted. It's not enough to just control the TYPES of carbs, to stick to the whole grains as opposed to refined grains, as J. Gohde would apparently have us do. Most of us will need to also control the AMOUNT of carbohydrate, the number of grams of CHO we intake. OK, this was apparently a screening study. They may not be perfectly accurate. We know people sometimes "cheat," especially on amounts. But still, the people eating the doughnuts and Hohos and Sugar Pebbles for breakfast probably did end up with food logs that showed an overall higher GI for their meals than the health-conscious ones who only eat whole grains and who eat a lot more low-GI carbs. They only tested blood sugar twice. That means that the individual results may not have been completely representative of that's person's average blood sugar. But still, it's likely that people without diabetes or prediabetes had lower numbers than people with pre-diabetes or full-blown diabetes. But we're not looking at individual results, but whether there was a trend indicating correlation between average GI intake and average blood sugar. The fact that there was NOT is fascinating, and clearly an indication (1) that further, more detailed, study is needed, and (2) that the concept of controlling blood sugar, in persons who are diabetic or pre-diabetic, by concentrating on the quality of carb intake, rather than the quantity, may be ineffective and detrimental to the health of pre-diabetic and diabetic individuals. No one study will be the be-all or end-all on a given topic. This one probably could have been better designed, but it's hard to know without learning more than what a news agency tells us. For instance, had they tested for HbA1c, instead of blood sugar, that would have been a better gauge of average bg levels in a given individual. Maybe they did, who knows? But the fact that 1000 subjects were involved is reassuring, because so many studies are limited to small numbers such that error for one individual has a far greater impact on study results than does such error in a larger study. HG :: On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:25:00 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] :: :: HG Have I mentioned lately that I despise the use of the terms "good carbs" and "bad carbs?" For the diabetic, such notions can be deadly. BTW, nice post, Hannah. > :: On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:25:00 -0500, "Roger Zoul" > :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > BTW, nice post, Hannah. Would you prefer this terminology: fresh whole-food low-GI carbs and refined and processed high-GI carbs? TC :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Hannah Gruen wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] :: fresh whole-food low-GI carbs and refined and processed high-GI :: carbs? No. I'd settle for fibrous veigges and junk. :) > :: Would you prefer this terminology: > :: > :: fresh whole-food low-GI carbs and refined and processed high-GI > :: carbs? > > No. I'd settle for fibrous veigges and junk. :) My preferred terminology is real food vs. fake manufactured foods. That way I hit garbage refined carbs, fake fats like margarine, shortening and over-refined vegetable oils, and fake proteins like tofu and all soy products all at the same time. TC :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: shortening and over-refined vegetable oils, and fake proteins like :: tofu and all soy products all at the same time. I can hang with real vs fake foods. Still, some have different ideas about what those are. Such is life. > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I can hang with real vs fake foods. Still, some have different ideas about > what those are. Such is life. I think you have to do some real mental gymnastics to consider all soy products as manufactured food. Like roasted soybeans are manufactured food? Or do the Japanese know they are eating manufactured food when they chow down on edamame? This is what happens when people start to take their own peculiar view of many of the foods we eat. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :: This is what happens when people start to take their own peculiar :: view of many of the foods we eat. See? :) > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > See? :) Yep, it needs some splainin'. I did not say that all fake foods have to be manufactured foods. But all manufactured foods tend to be fake foods. Soy is not human food. It is a non-food item sold as food. It may not be manufactured but it was never used as food traditionally and it contains phyto-toxins and phyto-estrogens that really screws up our systems. Unless it is fermented and used sparingly, it is not real food. So a fake food can be something that did not exist as a food before, like soy or that fake fat that is supposed to go thru you and not be digested, or animal feed like grains. Even whole grain is fake food, (ie. not real food for humans) unless it is soaked and fermented properly, and even then it should be eaten in small quantities. Fake food can be a food that existed in our diet, but has been processed to death, like high temp pasturized milk. It ceases to be a real food. A fake food can be a food that has been purified like white sugar. It is not food anymore but a slow poison used to make other food palatable. Real food is fresh, whole-food, nutrient dense foods with minimal processing or minor processing that makes its nutrients more available. It goes bad quickly and is extremely healthy to eat. This includes real animal sourced meats and fats as well as fresh fruits and veggies. TC tunder...@hotmail.com wrote: > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > TC And of course it is not black and white. There are degrees of real foods and degrees of fake foods. Real milk from a healthy clean cow is real food. Take that milk and pasteurize and homogenize it and it is less real food and more fake food. High temp pasteurization kills it and it become a fake food. Take the milk from a cow fed on pelletized food, reared in a stall, and given all kinds of medications and hormones and the milk becomes nolonger real food. Chicken soup for instance. Take a healthy organically raised free-range chicken and fresh produce from healthy soils and clean water and you have real food. Extremely healthy and nutritious. Take a chicken raised in a wire cubicle, fed pelletized food, and forced to lay eggs for a few months, and the soup made from this chicken will not be as good and as real food as it could be. Take some chemicals and some chicken flavored powder in a styrofoam cup and add hot water and stir and that is not real food. that is a chemical soup pretending to taste like real food with no nutritional value whatsoever. Fake food. Non-food. TC :: tunder...@hotmail.com wrote: ::: Roger Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] :: chemical soup pretending to taste like real food with no nutritional :: value whatsoever. Fake food. Non-food. Not that I disagree with the gist of your comments, but it would help if you did some homework and defined your terms better. This notion of 'real' and 'fake' is kinda amateurish, really. Perhaps 'nutritious' or 'more nutritious' or 'less nutritious', would fit better where you use the words 'real' or 'fake'. etc. But even that's not good because not food stuffs are not as 'nutritious' as others, so that can't be a good term either. Likely, the dictionary definition is as good as it's gonna get. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: trader4@optonline.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] :: includes real animal sourced meats and fats as well as fresh fruits :: and veggies. from dictionary.com food n. Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains essential nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life. They had no entry for "real food" and I didn't bother to check if they have one for "fake food." > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > ::: trader4@optonline.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > They had no entry for "real food" and I didn't bother to check if they have > one for "fake food." Real: Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility or Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend. or Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour Fake: One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham. or To contrive and present as genuine; counterfeit or To simulate; feign or To engage in feigning, simulation, or other deceptive activity or fake adj 1: fraudulent; having a misleading appearance [syn: bogus, phony, phoney, bastard] 2: not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article; "it isn't fake anything; it's real synthetic fur"; "faux pearls"; "false teeth"; "decorated with imitation palm leaves"; "a purse of simulated alligator hide" [syn: false, faux, imitation, simulated] n 1: something that is a counterfeit; not what it seems to be [syn: sham, postiche] 2: a person who makes deceitful pretenses [syn: imposter, impostor, pretender, faker, fraud, sham, shammer, pseudo, pseud, role player] 3: (football) a deceptive move made by a football player [syn: juke] v 1: make a copy of with the intent to deceive; "he faked the signature"; "they counterfeited dollar bills"; "She forged a Green Card" [syn: forge, counterfeit] 2: fake or falsify; "Fudge the figures"; "cook the books"; "falsify the data" [syn: fudge, manipulate, falsify, cook, wangle, misrepresent] 3: talk through one's hat; "The politician was not well prepared for the debate and faked it" [syn: bullshit, bull] *** TC :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] :: Real: Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; :: real humility food n. Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains essential nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life. :: or Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real :: friend. :: or Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a :: real experience on the guided tour food n. Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains essential nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life. :: Fake: One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham. :: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] :: talk through one's hat; "The politician was not well prepared for :: the debate and faked it" [syn: bullshit, bull] food n. Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains essential nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life. It doesn't matter if it is manufactured or not, if it meets the definition above, it's food. Perhaps that fat-like stuff that passes through without leaving calories is fake. What about fiber that goes through undigested? Is that food? What about water? No, that's not food, no wait, it maintains life, so does that make it food? Even in a pure state. Water with splenda. Yes. Water with splenda run over coffee grounds. Yep, that has some food value, but not a whole lots, but many enjoy it. What about if you add cream? Now it has more food value, right? But the water isn't food. Obviously, the qualify of foods we eat runs over a sprectrum. Not even all whole foods are equal in terms of the nutrition they provide. Iceberg lettuce - virtually nothing. It's whole, though, right? Maybe not. > > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > > ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > like soy or that fake fat that is supposed to go thru you and not be > digested, or animal feed like grains. Didn't exist as a food before what? The Japanese have been eating tofu for 2000 years, since before the time of Christ, but that's not good enough? Even whole grain is fake food, > (ie. not real food for humans) unless it is soaked and fermented > properly, and even then it should be eaten in small quantities. OK, now we;re on to whole grains being fake food too? > Fake food can be a food that existed in our diet, but has been > processed to death, like high temp pasturized milk. It ceases to be a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not food anymore but a slow poison used to make other food > palatable. The reality is that the definition of fake food is manipulated through mental gymnastics to become whatever you want it to be. We just saw you do that with whole grains. You can argue the merits or possible harmful effects of most any foods, including your beloved red meats. But that doesn't define what is fake or real or change how long a food like soybeans has been used for human food. > Real food is fresh, whole-food, nutrient dense foods with minimal > processing or minor processing that makes its nutrients more available. > It goes bad quickly and is extremely healthy to eat. This includes real > animal sourced meats and fats as well as fresh fruits and veggies. > > TC > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > ::: tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I can hang with real vs fake foods. Still, some have different ideas about > what those are. Such is life. Just a head's up... Sometime in the last 2 weeks I read a lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal about the next wave of "manufacture foods" and the general direction the food industry will be taking to sell to dieters. Generally the idea is to create foods that would be engineer to keep you satiated for a longer period of time. Different companies had different ideas and methods on how they would go about doing making this happen. My take on the trend is that processed food manufactures can't make money off of promoting healthier eating habits but there's money to be made in making you think you can have your cake and eat it too. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm :: Roger Zoul wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] :: money to be made in making you think you can have your cake and :: eat it too. Okay, that's scary but not unexpected.....so food manufactures know the publich is catching on, and this notion of being sated for longer periods sounds very low-carb inspired to me, though they'll probably promote whole-grains and complex carbs in their pitch. >Okay, that's scary but not unexpected.....so food manufactures know the >publich is catching on, and this notion of being sated for longer periods >sounds very low-carb inspired to me, though they'll probably promote >whole-grains and complex carbs in their pitch. Yeah, with the increasing publicity re epidemic levels of obesity and diabetes, I'd think food manufacturers would be at least thinking about changing tack. Not for altruistic purposes... don't get me wrong... but because with increasing numbers of sick folks out there, the currently large market for total junk may decrease. I wonder how this will pan out. My guess is that they may pay lip service to "whole food" concept, but that the tendency will be to engineer ever more frankenfoodish stuff. Or maybe I'm just pessimistic. At any rate, thanks to Rudy for bringing this to our attention. HG :: On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:44:32 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: wrong... but because with increasing numbers of sick folks out there, :: the currently large market for total junk may decrease. In general, sick folks = $$$, new opportunties to make money. If everyone ate an optimal diet of whole, minimally processed foods, then sickness would decrease and millions in profits would be lost. So the plan is to keep us hooked. WGs is the new way (though, WGs food notion has been with us for quite some time - it's not new) :: I wonder how this will pan out. My guess is that they may pay lip :: service to "whole food" concept, but that the tendency will be to :: engineer ever more frankenfoodish stuff. Yes, frankenfood made from whole foods...ie, processed WGs. :: Or maybe I'm just pessimistic. You and me, both. :: At any rate, thanks to Rudy for :: bringing this to our attention. Yes. I hope that shoulder is better and that the cardio routines are going well, Rudy. > :: At any rate, thanks to Rudy for > :: bringing this to our attention. > > Yes. I hope that shoulder is better and that the cardio routines are going > well, Rudy. The shoulder is talking much longer than I had hoped for, and the toll its taking has been greater than I had anticipated. So much of my overall fitness and general well being came from WT. By having so much of it taken away for so long its caused me to lose more fitness than I had expected and took a toll on my idea or image of "self". My plan was to do more cardio, but to my surprise I fell into this attitude that if I couldn't do what I enjoy (WT) then I didn't want to do anything. It was difficult to make myself do 3-4 moderate cardio sessions. Then after not being able to fully train over 6 months, my metabolism really slowed down around November. The good news is that I had a long "window of grace" where my muscle mass kept me from putting on extra weight. But I did start to put on a few extra pounds during the holidays. Thennn... in January when I finally realize that a lot of cardio was in order, the IT band in my left leg really acted up (likely from my not doing the same WT training as before and more importantly from not doing as much stretching as before). So its not been too easy. But things are starting to go better. I'm back to training others (which is a little uncomfortable) and I have some clients who's enthusiasm has been contagious. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm >But things are starting to go better. I'm back to training >others (which is a little uncomfortable) and I have some clients >who's enthusiasm has been contagious. I'm glad to hear this, Rudy, but sorry that the shoulder has taken so long to heal. My little knee problem last year really put a crimp in my style, and affected many areas of my life, including my weight, and I wasn't that much of an athlete (to put it mildly). I can only imagine how hard an injury must be for you when fitness is your job and a major factor in your life. Best wishes for continuing recovery, Rudy. HG :: But things are starting to go better. I'm back to training :: others (which is a little uncomfortable) and I have some clients :: who's enthusiasm has been contagious. I'm glad to hear that things are starting to change for the better. Keep focus! || Sometime in the last 2 weeks I read a lengthy article in the Wall || Street Journal about the next wave of "manufacture foods" and the || general direction the food industry will be taking to sell to || dieters. Generally the idea is to create foods that would be || engineer to keep you satiated for a longer period of time. Enteric coated potato chips? <g> > > Have I mentioned lately that I despise the use of the terms "good carbs" > > and "bad carbs?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > fresh whole-food low-GI carbs and refined and processed high-GI carbs? GI isn't relevant. GI is what happens to bg on average, when one food is eaten alone. Average bg isn't useful. It doesn't help me if most people don't spike badly to carrots and I do. And few of us eat one food at a time anyway. The only way for a diabetic to track what does and doesn't work is to test their own bg, rather often, over a period of time and see what works for them.. Sure, you can start of testing things with lower GIs, and deciding to eat whole food rather than refined crap is always a good thing, but there's huge individual differences in how people react... and if your goal is to live a long, healthy life, "good carbs" and "bad carbs" have to be determined individually. > > > Have I mentioned lately that I despise the use of the terms "good carbs" > > > and "bad carbs?" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > goal is to live a long, healthy life, "good carbs" and "bad carbs" have > to be determined individually. The concept of GI or GI load is very valid and will generally apply to everyone with relatively minor variations. TC >> Sure, you can start of testing things with lower GIs, and deciding to >> eat whole food rather than refined crap is always a good thing, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The concept of GI or GI load is very valid and will generally apply to >everyone with relatively minor variations. I dunno, but I'll tend to take the opinion of someone like JadkiePatti who's done lots of post-meal bg testing, over someone with a "theory," any day. But that's just me. HG > The concept of GI or GI load is very valid and will generally apply to > everyone with relatively minor variations. That has not been my experience. When I visit diabetic newsgroups and forums, I find a *wide* variation in which foods different people can tolerate without unacceptable bg spikes. I expect there are two primary reasons, first because individual biochemistry is so different... some people make more or less insulin, some have more or less insulin resistance, some have undetected food allergies, and likely other factors not yet discovered cause differences as well. Secondly, I expect it is because individual diets differ tremendously as well. Given that we seldom eat one item at a meal, the composition of various meals, amounts of protein and fat eaten with the carbs, may cause one person to think they tolerate tomatoes well and another to think they do not - depending on how they eat. I do not think GI or GL has much practical, real-life value... I cannot predict which foods will have what effect on me simply by reading the data. While it does give me an indicaiton of which foods are best to "try out," The foods that "work" for me must be based on my own bg results, not on tables of data that are averages across many people. <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in >> there's huge individual differences in how people react... and if your >> goal is to live a long, healthy life, "good carbs" and "bad carbs" have >> to be determined individually. It's one thing to eat healthy and exercise to live healthly, but to live a long life we must also dodge all those crazy drivers on the highway in the morning. ;-) >Have I mentioned lately that I despise the use of the terms "good carbs" >and "bad carbs?" > >For the diabetic, such notions can be deadly. > >BTW, nice post, Hannah. Thanks, Roger. I pretty much agree on the "good carbs, bad carbs" thing. I've never been sold on the GI, although GI load tends to help explain why some types of carby foods tend to be addictive, and to trigger binging, even when consumed in small amounts, while other equally carby foods do not. I suspect, however, that there may be other factors involved besides just insulin response. That would almost have to be the case to explain the great individual differences in what foods constitute "trigger foods" for different people. For instance, I can eat a handful of raw almonds and leave them alone afterwards. You'll tend to eat the whole bag. I'll do that with cashews or macadamias, but not with almonds, walnuts, or pecans. Not enough difference in carb or fiber content, so there must be something else going on. HG :: On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:46:40 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] :: Not enough difference in carb or fiber content, so there must be :: something else going on. Right. I'm just greedy and enjoy eating nuts! :) I note that I will overeat just able any nut. I do try to stay away from the more carby ones, though. > Apparently the glycemic index hasn't proved to be as successful as hoped in > lowering blood glucose levels. In a new study published in the British > Journal of Nutrition, data over five years did not find a correlation > between blood sugar levels and the glycemic index of an individual's food. > Now, diabetes researcher Elizabeth Mayer-Davis of the University of South > Carolina says the use of the index should be ended altogether in favor of > more traditional methods of losing weight and reducing the risk of > diabetes - eating less and exercising more. Can we say misappropriation of research money? What really surprises me is how many people have bought into this "made up" "research study". Just throw basic common sense to the wind and believe what is stated to be research... I guess Face it. If everyone would start eating healthy and eat only low gi carbs, the medical industry would become severely jeopardized. We can't have that now, can we. >Can we say misappropriation of research money? Well, no. Since AFAIK, none of us have even seen the actual publication, just a news story about it. > What really surprises me is how many people have bought into this >"made up" "research study". Just throw basic common sense to the wind >and believe what is stated to be research... I guess Your criticism would be more meaningful if you actually had, like, some objective criticism. Just flinging insults doesn't tell us what you specifically objected to. >Face it. If everyone would start eating healthy and eat only low gi >carbs, the medical industry would become severely jeopardized. We can't >have that now, can we. As I remember, the issue was blood glucose control. I agree that eating low GI carbs - nonprocessed, nonrefined, whole food kinda stuff - would keep people on high carb diets a lot healthier. But once they get sick with insulin resistance and blood sugar disorders, from what I've seen, reducing overall CHO, regardless of whether "good" or "bad," is a much more effective intervention than just changing from low fiber to higher fiber carbs. There's a lot we don't know about this study, so I'm probably going to hold off on making further judgments until I see the actual thing. HG |
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.