 |
 | 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 / May 2010New Atkins Book
Anyone read it yet?  SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > Anyone read it yet? Who wrote it? Hope it's better than the others, which were horrid. At least DANDR was. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > > > Anyone read it yet? > > Who wrote it? Yes, what new book? > Hope it's better than the others, which were horrid. > > At least DANDR was. > > Susan I found his books to be excellent. They served their purpose, which was to show people the benefits of LC and how to do it without being complicated. The fact that most of them were best sellers in multiple editions over decades indicates a lot of other people didn't find them "horrid". On Apr 7, 6:57 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > \JK Coney wrote: > > Anyone read it yet? > > Who wrote it? Yes, what new book? My wife just bought it, and took it with her to work. I guess you could google it? Written by 2 docs. SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > Hope it's better than the others, which were horrid. > > At least DANDR was. > > Susan I found his books to be excellent. They served their purpose, which was to show people the benefits of LC and how to do it without being complicated. The fact that most of them were best sellers in multiple editions over decades indicates a lot of other people didn't find them "horrid". > On Apr 7, 6:57 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: > > x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My wife just bought it, and took it with her to work. I guess you could > google it? Written by 2 docs. Desperate people call for desperate measures, even horrid ones. If it had worked, they could have stopped with the first one. Signaturehttp://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html > Anyone read it yet? Is this the one you mean? It has been out about a month. Extremely new at this point. Your post is the first I've heard about it. http://www.amazon.com/New-Atkins-You-Ultimate-Shedding/dp/1439190275/ref=sr_1_6? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270741791&sr=1-6 New Atkins for a New You: The Ultimate Diet for Shedding Weight and Feeling Great. (Paperback) ~ Eric C. Westman (Author), Stephen D. Phinney (Author), Jeff S. Volek (Author) Review "For once, a book where the scientific facts outweigh the hype and where the results fulfill the promise. Once you have read the book, your diet and lifestyle will never be the same."-- Dr. William J. Kraemer, professor of kinesiology, University of Connecticut Given Susan's reaction to the lack of science in the books by Dr Atkins himself I had to laugh at that first cited review in the list. It's also interesting that there's already been a campaign by vegans against the book. Less recently "Atkins Essentials" has been released for Kindle. It is also written based on the Atkins Nutritional Approach by folks other than Dr A. I skimmed it at the store and concluded that it was too light duty for me but it's a nice idea to have a book about phase one. Like "Atkins for Life" that is sort of about the maintenance phase I like the idea of books by phase for folks who want more. Interesting that there is an "Atkins Diebetic Revolution" book by two authors who build on Dr A's work. Another book I have not heard of. >> Anyone read it yet? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > also interesting that there's already been a campaign by vegans against > the book. Those are very respectable researchers, who I believe have been funded by the non profit Atkins Foundation for some of their work. I have a lot of their citations in my archives. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'd love to hear from someone who's read the book if there is anything new from a practical standpoint on how to do Atkins. On Apr 8, 1:44 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote: I'd love to hear from someone who's read the book if there is anything new from a practical standpoint on how to do Atkins. My wife is half way through it and it sounds somewhat different. They talk about portion control and protein limits, calories, and different fats. SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > I'd love to hear from someone who's read the book if there is anything > new from a practical standpoint on how to do Atkins. My wife says she ordered it yesterday. In a couple of months I will have read it, made notes in it and such. >> I'd love to hear from someone who's read the book if there is anything >> new from a practical standpoint on how to do Atkins. > > My wife says she ordered it yesterday. In a couple of months I will > have read it, made notes in it and such. My wife read it and is on induction. She's never been able to do low carb, and feels that this method is more reasonable. Controlled portions this time, and a more varied diet. SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > My wife read it and is on induction. She's never been able to do low > carb, and feels that this method is more reasonable. Controlled portions > this time, and a more varied diet. I've started reading the "The News Atkins Diet for a New You" book. Much of it is unchanged from previous books. That is what it tells you to do is unchanged and that's the core. The way science works is when you do the repeatable stuff and it works, that's the start of the science. The explanation part follows the experimental part. So sure the science is there but the science isn't the thing. What to do is the thing and what to do is close to unchanged. There are some errors I've already encountered. There's a statement that the body can not manufacture its own fat using the energy from burning fat. It's an ineffecient process but it does happen. It's why only certain types of fatty acids are essential. Types can be converted and some saturated types can be created. It's not the only error but so far all such errors I've encountered have been small ones. The changes I've encountered so far have been small. Net carb counts got added shortly after the 2001 edition so this is the first book to include it. A cup of coffee now counts as liquid intake based on comparative results. There's a lot that's completely unchanged except for wording that is easier to understand. Veggies are mandatory and sure enough they point out that's been true since the 1972 edition, but at least now there isn't going to be a debate on the point by folks who dig their heels into every single point of bad writing on the part of Dr A. I'll read the book through over the next few weeks then see if my wife wants to read it. At some point I might go back and make notes in my copy. I did that with my 2001 edition and 1999 edition but not with my 1993 or 1972 editions. Other low carb site reviewers are calling this book a "major overhaul" and vastly improved over Atkin's own published books. Not the least of which is the inclusion of 50 research studies to support claims made in the book, and an emphasis on higher vegetable consumption. Susan >> My wife read it and is on induction. She's never been able to do low >> carb, and feels that this method is more reasonable. Controlled portions [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > copy. I did that with my 2001 edition and 1999 edition but not with my > 1993 or 1972 editions. > Other low carb site reviewers are calling this book a "major overhaul" > and vastly improved over Atkin's own published books. Some folks think that the same directions written in a different style is a major overhaul. It's a valid point of view that fails to consider what the directions are. > Not the least of which is the inclusion of 50 research studies to > support claims made in the book, Directions are orthagonal to any justification for those justifications. This is a point you've never agreed with and you'll never agree with. 1) Keep putting gas into your car whenever the gauge says it's low. The reason is because the car starts if you don't. 2) Repeat buying petrol for your vehicle when the meter says it's nearing empty. The reason is a gigantic list of studies about fuel consumption, mechanical engineering and traffic safety rules. The two statements are operationally the same because they both tell you to do the same thing. The two statements have very different justifications that have nothing to do with the directions. > and an emphasis on higher vegetable consumption. Which was present in the plan since 1972, as it points out in the second chapter. >> Other low carb site reviewers are calling this book a "major overhaul" >> and vastly improved over Atkin's own published books. > > Some folks think that the same directions written in a different style > is a major overhaul. It's a valid point of view that fails to consider > what the directions are. Some folks turns out to be pretty much everyone but you. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Susan Doug's point is that there are a variety of types of books. Atkins purpose was never to write a scientific work. Had he done so, instead of a few people complaining that it doesn't have enough scientific research basis and technical content, he would have had millions of other people who didn't read it because they were looking for quick diet advice that gets to the point and works. That these books became best sellers and that the simple plan outlined in them works, is proof enough that they served their purpose. There is also plenty of advice on the benefits and importance of vegetables in my 2002 edition. > > My wife read it and is on induction. She's never been able to do low > > carb, and feels that this method is more reasonable. Controlled portions [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > got added shortly after the 2001 edition so this is the first book to > include it. The 2002 edition of DANDR discusses at length deducting fiber carbs from the total carb count. He didn't actually use the term "net carbs", instead calling it "the carbs that count when you do Atkins." The simpler name likely came later. > The 2002 edition of DANDR discusses at length deducting fiber carbs > from the total carb count. He didn't actually use the term "net > carbs", instead calling it "the carbs that count when you do Atkins." > The simpler name likely came later. Thanks for the correction. My 2002 edition is heavily annotated but I have not referenced it in several years. If you look closely at carb counts in the various editions of the books you'll see signs of a net count as early as the 1972 edition. Some of the entries in his tables in that book are net so they are wrong if you look them up and compare them to the USDA site. Early on he discussed deducting insoluble fiber as a more accurate method but labels never seem to list fiber by type so doing that would require a separate counter book with all ingredients listed - Far too much work to be practical. He endorsed net carb counts in the last years of his life. I have never seen a source giving his reasons. I have several theories that I think explain why he decided that but there's no way to confirm such a theory. Somewhere along the way I lost my Ouiji board so I don't have the means to ask him. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Somewhere along the way I lost my Ouiji board so I don't have the means > to ask him. He explained it in Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002, pages 74-78. He stated that fiber was not digestible, had no impact on blood glucose levels, and hence could be deducted from carb counts. >> He endorsed net carb counts in the last years of his life. I have never >> seen a source giving his reasons. I have several theories that I think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He stated that fiber was not digestible, had no impact on blood > glucose levels, and hence could be deducted from carb counts. That explains accepting a net carb count. Given that he'd gone with total carb counts inconsistantly at least as far back as 1972 it does not explain why he switched. Because the Atkins Nutritional Approach uses the body's reactions to the food eaten to determine carb intake levels the actual food eaten during the stable parts of the plan are the same no matter how you chose to count. That makes net versus total counts not a matter of the food to be eaten during those times. > Because the Atkins Nutritional Approach uses the body's reactions to the > food eaten to determine carb intake levels the actual food eaten during > the stable parts of the plan are the same no matter how you chose to > count. That makes net versus total counts not a matter of the food to > be eaten during those times. The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about half the calories in fiber, so deducting them often gives worse results, at least glucose meters seem to think so. Susan > The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about > half the calories in fiber, Early on DR Atkins suggested deducting insoluble fiber but not soluble fiber. Not being termites humans do not get any calories from digestible fiber. Having intestinal bacteria that does digest soluble fiber humans get roughly half of the calories from soluble fiber. But labels do not give the partial counts of the two types. > so deducting them often gives worse results, > at least glucose meters seem to think so. A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the fiber got digested to lactic acid not a fatty acid so I never got what the statement meant. Your meter readings mean more than such statements I say. Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike because of your meter readings? Meter readings are hard data on the topic. > > The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about > > half the calories in fiber, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > because of your meter readings? Meter readings are hard data on the > topic. Fiber: fatty-acids, proteins? I thought fiber was like cellulose, insoluble glucose chains. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html In article <wildbilly-E31456.13410426042010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > > > The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about > > > half the calories in fiber, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Fiber: fatty-acids, proteins? I thought fiber was like cellulose, > insoluble glucose chains. Never mind. I sorted it out. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html >> A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain >> fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Fiber: fatty-acids, proteins? I thought fiber was like cellulose, > insoluble glucose chains. Fiber is made of glucose chains that are not digestible by enzymes contained in the human genome. The soluble fiber is made of glucose parts that can be digested by the bacteria we carry - It's an example of symbiosis. The insoluble fiber is made of glucose parts that can be digested by the bacteria that termites carry - It's a different example of symbiosis. Your point about fatty acids from fiber was also my confusion. If the process is our bacteria digest it so they get some of the calories and we get some of the calories then fatty acids are not the result of any digestion process. A digestion process would reduce it to glucose units and/or smaller molecules that can be reassembled into glucose, so no fatty acids would result. But digestion is not the only thing that happens in the intestines. The bacteria could absorb the fiber, digest it into glucose, use the glucose to fuel their metabolic processes, and emit fatty acids as the benefit for the symbiote human. Susan's report of meter results is the ticker for me. The hard data from the meter says that whatever it is the human body produces glucose from it. I don't have to care about what a "short chain fatty acid" is because whatever it is the human body turns it into glucose according to Susan's meter. Since the "short chain fatty acid" absorbed is not a sugar as such I'll call it a "carb-alike". There are other "carb-alike" substances that are converted to glucose by our bodies. Glycerine becomes glycerol becomes glucose for example. The substances I call "carb-alikes" are low glycemic load but there's more to low carbing than glycemic load or we would not count the carb grams in broccoli. > >> A lot of folks say that because the fiber is digesting into "short chain > >> fatty acids" and thus are not converted into carbs. I thought the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Fiber is made of glucose chains Fiber, for scientists, is referred to as glucans. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucan> >that are not digestible by enzymes amylase > contained in the human genome. The soluble fiber is made of glucose > parts that can be digested by the bacteria we carry - It's an example of > symbiosis. For us, this takes place in the large intestine. > The insoluble fiber is made of glucose parts that can be > digested by the bacteria that termites carry - It's a different example > of symbiosis. > > Your point about fatty acids from fiber was also my confusion. If the > process is our bacteria digest Should read "ferment" in place of "digest". > it so they get some of the calories and > we get some of the calories then fatty acids are not the result of any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it into glucose, use the glucose to fuel their metabolic processes, and > emit fatty acids as the benefit for the symbiote human. The energy seems to come from the process. Soluble fiber (depending on type and side chains, including amino acids) is reduced to fatty acid (It is these short-chain fatty acids--butyric, acetic (ethanoic), propionic, and valeric acids--that scientific evidence is revealing to have significant health properties.[50]) and farts. (See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber#Soluble_fibre_fermentation>) This makes sense because glucose is an aldehyde (See: Fischer projection of glucose <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose>). The top group, an oxygen and a hydrogen attached to the #1 carbon in the chain, is an aldehyde group. Replace the hydrogen with a hydroxyl (OH-) and you have a fatty acid. Somewhere in the process, the bacteria chip off some energy. (See:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-glucan#Beta-glucan_chemistry> > Susan's report of meter results is the ticker for me. The hard data > from the meter says that whatever it is the human body produces glucose > from it. I don't have to care about what a "short chain fatty acid" is > because whatever it is the human body turns it into glucose according to > Susan's meter. I suspect it is burn as protein (amino acids) not carbs. > Since the "short chain fatty acid" absorbed is not a sugar as such I'll > call it a "carb-alike". There are other "carb-alike" substances that > are converted to glucose by our bodies. Glycerine becomes glycerol > becomes glucose for example. I found no substantiation for this assertion. > The substances I call "carb-alikes" are > low glycemic load but there's more to low carbing than glycemic load or > we would not count the carb grams in broccoli. All in all, a good romp ;O) Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html > Do you suggest counting half of fiber calories as carb or carb-alike > because of your meter readings? Meter readings are hard data on the > topic. Yes, that and research I've read. Meter readings are also how a lot of us know that Dreamfields pasta gets digested and absorbed, just verrrrrry slooowwwwly, producing a glucose spike that's hours late and very protracted. Susan Found it in my archives: Nutr Rev. 2007 Dec;65(12 Pt 1):544-9. Links Caloric availability of polydextrose. Auerbach MH, Craig SA, Howlett JF, Hayes KC. Danisco USA Inc., Elmsford, New York 10523, USA. michael.auerbach@danisco.com Polydextrose is a randomly bonded polysaccharide produced by the bulk melt polycondensation of glucose and sorbitol in vacuo. It has been used as a bulking and texturizing agent and soluble fiber ingredient in many food products worldwide for over two decades. Because of its atypical linkages between glucose moieties, polydextrose resists digestion by mammalian gastrointestinal enzymes. It is minimally absorbed in the small intestine and partially fermented in the large intestine producing volatile fatty acids, with approximately 50% of the ingested dose being excreted undigested. In this it is similar to many other poorly digested soluble fiber ingredients. Numerous energy balance and isotope-label disposition studies have been conducted in animals and man to investigate the caloric availability of polydextrose. The weight of available experimental evidence in the 14 studies described herein shows that polydextrose has a caloric value of approximately 1 kcal/g. PMID: 18236693 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] J Nutr. 1999 Jul;129(7 Suppl):1436S-7S. Links Caloric value of inulin and oligofructose. Roberfroid MB. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Université Catholique de Louvain, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium. Dietary carbohydrates, which are absorbed as hexose, (glucose, fructose) have a caloric value of 3.9 kcal/g (16.3 kJ/g), and their cellular metabolism produces approximately 38 mol ATP/mol. However, chicory inulin and oligofructose resist digestion and they are not absorbed in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract. After oral ingestion, they reach the colon intact where they become hydrolyzed and extensively fermented by saccharolytic bacteria, which produce short-chain carboxylic and lactic acids as electron sinks. Depending on both the degree of their colonic fermentation and the assumptions of the model used, the caloric value of such nondigested but fermented carbohydrates varies between 0 and 2.5 kcal/g. Through the catabolism of the absorbed short-chain carboxylic and lactic acids, they may produce up to 17 mol ATP/mol of fermented sugar moiety. Because the daily intake of these dietary carbohydrates is likely to remain relatively small (<10% and probably often not >5% of total daily calorie intake), it is of low relevance nutritionally to give them a precise caloric value. On the basis of biochemical balance charts for carbon atoms, metabolic pathways and energy yields to the host, the caloric value of a fructosyl residue in chicory inulin and oligofructose has been calculated to be approximately 25-35% that of a fully digested and absorbed fructose molecule. For the purpose of food labeling, it is recommended that chicory inulin and oligofructose, like all the other carbohydrates that are more or less completely fermented in the human colon, should be given a caloric value of 1.5 kcal/g (6.3 kJ/g). PMID: 10395615 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jun;83(6):1321-30. Links Availability, fermentability, and energy value of resistant maltodextrin: modeling of short-term indirect calorimetric measurements in healthy adults. Goda T, Kajiya Y, Suruga K, Tagami H, Livesey G. Laboratory of Nutritional Physiology and the COE Program in the 21st Century, University of Shizuoka School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Shizuoka, Japan. gouda@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp BACKGROUND: Determination of the metabolizable (ME) and net metabolizable (NME) energy of total carbohydrate requires estimation of its available (AC) and fermentable (FC) carbohydrate content. Modeling of indirect calorimetric observations (respiratory gas exchange) and breath hydrogen would appear to make it possible to estimate noninvasively these nutritional quantities and the approximate time-course of availability. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the time-course of metabolism and energy availability from resistant maltodextrin (RMD) by modeling of respiratory gases after a single oral dose. DESIGN: Seventeen healthy adults (13 M, 4 F; aged 25-46 y) were randomly assigned to treatments (water, maltodextrin, or RMD) in a multiple-crossover, single-blinded trial with > or = 7 d washout. We monitored 8-h nitrogen-corrected oxygen and carbon dioxide exchanges and breath hydrogen. All treatment groups took low-carbohydrate meals at 3 and 6 h. RESULTS: Indirect calorimetry alone provided only qualitative information about the nutritional values of carbohydrate. In contrast, modeling of gaseous exchanges along with the use of central assumptions showed that 17 +/- 2% of RMD was AC and 40 +/- 4% was FC. As compared with 17 kJ gross energy/g RMD, mean (+/- SE) energy values were 7.3 +/- 0.6 kJ ME/g and 6.3 +/- 0.5 kJ NME/g. The fiber fraction of RMD provided 5.2 +/- 0.7 kJ ME/g and 4.1 +/- 0.6 kJ NME/g. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling with the use of this noninvasive and widely available respiratory gas-monitoring technique yields nutritional values for carbohydrate that are supported by enzymatic, microbial, and animal studies and human fecal collection studies. Improvement in this approach is likely and testable across laboratories. PMID: 16762943 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Br J Nutr. 1998 Oct;80(4):343-52. Links Net energy value of non-starch polysaccharide isolates (sugarbeet fibre and commercial inulin) and their impact on nutrient digestive utilization in healthy human subjects. Castiglia-Delavaud C, Verdier E, Besle JM, Vernet J, Boirie Y, Beaufrere B, De Baynast R, Vermorel M. Centre de Recherche en Nutrition Humaine d'Auvergne, INRA, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France. The energy value of NSP has been expressed as their metabolizable energy (ME) content. The aim of the present study was to determine whether differences in ME and net energy (NE) contents were similar for insoluble and soluble NSP. Nine healthy young men were offered three diets according to a Latin-square design (3 x 3) with three repetitions: diet C (control), diet B (control + 50 g sugarbeet fibre/d) and diet I (control + 50 g commercial inulin/d). After a 16 d adaptation period to NSP isolate, food intake was controlled (duplicate meal method) and faeces and urine were collected for 8 d. A period of 60 h was devoted to measurement of energy expenditure (EE) by whole-body indirect calorimetry. NSP-isolate ingestion induced significant increases in the number of defecations and stool weight resulting from increases in water, DM and microbial mass excretion. After deduction of microbial N, differences in faecal N excretion between diets were not significantly different. Urinary N excretion was slightly decreased by sugarbeet fibre or commercial inulin ingestion but the N balances for the diets were not significantly different. Diet energy, N and lipid apparent digestibilities decreased by only 1-2%. Commercial inulin was entirely fermented and fermentability of sugarbeet fibre averaged 0.886 (SD 0.117). Sugarbeet fibre and commercial inulin ME values averaged 10.7 (SD 1.2) and 13.0 (SD 2.3) kJ/g DM respectively. NSP-isolate ingestion caused significant (sugarbeet) and nonsignificant (inulin) increases in daily EE. The maintenance NE contents of sugarbeet fibre and inulin averaged 5.0 (SD 5.0) and 11.9 (SD 1.3) kJ/g DM respectively. Differences in maintenance NE contents of NSP isolates were much greater than differences in ME values. Eur J Nutr. 2001 Feb;40(1):23-9. Links Estimation of available energy of dietary fibres by indirect calorimetry in rats. Aust L, Dongowski G, Frenz U, Täufel A, Noack R. Department of Biochemistry and Physiology of Nutrition, German Institute for Human Nutrition, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558 Bergholz-Rehbrücke, Germany. BACKGROUND: Knowledge of energetic availability of dietary fibres is important for human nutrition. But up to now results are often different and depend on the methods used. Estimation of metabolisable energy of dietary fibres (mainly by balance technique) is a time-consuming procedure and needs special technical effort. AIM OF THE STUDY: Validation of the experimental design for short-term studies by using indirect calorimetry with feeding below maintenance requirement to evaluate the energetic availability of dietary fibres and their influence on absorption velocity of carbohydrates (CHO). METHODS: Energy expenditure and CHO oxidation (including short-chain fatty acids as fermentation products) were estimated in Wistar rats over 23 h after being fed a basal diet for the first day (300 KJ/kg0.75, 20% protein, 3% fat, 77% CHO) followed by supplementation with either microcrystalline cellulose, the soluble rye fibre arabinoxylan, apple pectin, amylomaize starch (with 48% of resistant starch) or gelatinised wheat starch (200 KJ/kg0.75 each) as control for the following days. Energetic availability was determined by comparing the increase of CHO oxidation after addition of gelatinised wheat starch with that of the dietary fibres tested. RESULTS: In comparison to wheat starch (100%), the following energetic availability of the dietary fibres was found: microcrystalline cellulose 14%, arabinoxylan 33%, pectin 39%, amylomaize starch 62%. The time-course of CHO oxidation indicated that microcrystalline cellulose enhances, whereas the soluble rye fibre slows down the velocity of CHO absorption due to the different consistency of the intestinal contents modified by the kind and properties of the used dietary fibres. After intake of arabinoxylan or pectin, CHO oxidation remained at a higher level during the experimental period elucidating an increased activity of fermentation to short-chain fatty acids. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term experiments in rats using indirect calorimetry are a suitable method for comparative estimation of the energetic availability of dietary fibres. Results are partly in agreement with values estimated by long-term in vivo methods. PMID: 11315502 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > The problem with net carb counts is that we digest and react to about > > half the calories in fiber, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > because of your meter readings? Meter readings are hard data on the > topic. It astounds me that you would accept one anecdotal report as "hard data" on anything. In reality, it establishes nothing. >> > at least glucose meters seem to think so. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It astounds me that you would accept one anecdotal report as "hard > data" on anything. Yep. There's the problem of what the words mean. Anecdotal data, hard data, statistically valid data, scientificially publishable data. Susan's report of others having her meter readings is anecdotal data. Susan's report of her own meter readings is hard data. To be statistically valid data we'd need to analyse a lot of volunteers, see what their data is, then do a numerical analysis on the data. To be scientifically publishable there would need to be a control group and various other requirements. So how to form conclusions? If it were necessary to understand the science before forming a conclusion then I would doubt the sun will come up tomorrow morning because nuclear physics still doesn't get the details of fusion in a stellar core. So are their studies with tabular data on the topic of meter readings and fiber digestion? Until there are I will go with the best quality that is available on the topic and at the moment it's Susans reports. As always any conclusion in science has to be provisional and subject to change as the data gets better. I've reformed my view of low carbing a number of times over the years based on improved data but most studies are still about point topics that have long since been settled to most people who actually do low carbing. One of the steps of the Scientific Method is to "Formulate a hypothesis". It does not take scientifically valid published data to formulate a hypothesis. One of the steps is to do a publication search and start improving the data. Real working scientists in the field are able to get studies funded that demonstrate small points with better data. Being an armchair hobbiest I get to swim in the more speculative end of the pool. That only makes me unscientific if I ignore considerations of quality of data or it only makes your view of me as unscientific if you ignore my considerations of quality of data. In science the data and the predictability rule. The narrative explanations are only "true" to the extent they suggest mathematical model. The mathematical models are only "true" to the extent they correctly predict the outcome of experiments. What's "true" is the data and the repeatablity statistics. > In reality, it establishes nothing. That says you think I do not consider the quality of the data and the degree of provision in my conclusions. Your conclusions on that front about my conclusions are not a match to my history. In reality it suggests further experiements that I will watch for. Not the same as calling my provisional conclusions wrong or worthless. Interesting - Near the beginning of section two in the new book there is a list of seven principles. When I tried to write down my view of why low carbing works and why the optimal approach isn't the obvious one I came up with a list of seven principles. My list and theirs don't list the same poits and don't appear to have the same goals. > >> > at least glucose meters seem to think so. > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > > In reality, it establishes nothing. To know what gravity does, is empirical knowledge. To claim to know how it does it, may involve a mathematical construct of "thingies" called gravitons. It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the former. YMMV > That says you think I do not consider the quality of the data and the > degree of provision in my conclusions. Your conclusions on that front [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > came up with a list of seven principles. My list and theirs don't list > the same poits and don't appear to have the same goals. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html >> > In reality, it establishes nothing. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the > former. In a recent thread Orlando Enrique Fiol questioned my double standard objecting to highly sweetened fruit but not to grain fattened livestock. It was a valid point that needed to be addressed. The answer to that comes from the arithmetic of gram counts that are common among low carbers - When the gram count of carbs are low the sources of carb grams are important to control. When the gram count of fats are high the sources of fat grams are less important. For fats one can go all the way from avoiding transfats and otherwise ignoring fatty acid ratios all the way to tracking fatty acid types by gram and there's little change in the results. Now Trader4 questioned the statistical certainty level of my conclusions. Given my assertive phrasing it's a completely valid question. My assertive phrasing can easily be interpreted as my feeling more certainty in my conclusions than is statistically valid. It's an issue with my writing style. There's a line between assertive and aggressive that I do not convey in person that I do convey in writing. No matter the amount of practice I have not acheived the writing skill to correctly qualify my statements. Whenever I try they come across as long legalese not as descriptions. Why do I reach the conclusions I do? What data have I based my conclusions on? What's the quality of that data? Is there better data on that topic available anywhere? Is there a scientific explanation for my stance in addition to the observed data? Escpecially on points where I disagree with what Dr Atkins appears to have written and on points where people quote Dr Aktins regularly it is best to ask these questions about my conclusions. The quality of the data and any history I have of changing my mind on the topic based on increased data quanity or quality are important considerations. There's also the issue of formal qualifications. I'm an engineer with a good scientific education with neither major nor degree in biochemistry or medicine. On the one hand I can't rely on my own authority because the only authority I have is from a few people who have tried my suggestions and succeeded. On the other hand when I disagree with an Atkins book quote and still claim to be an Atkins fan I have to be careful in justifying my conclusions. For me it has to be all about the data, the quantity of the data and the quality of the data. The data has to follow the science and the science has to explain the data. Here Trader4 called me on data quality. Data quality matters greatly. And yet conclusions can be made on poor quality data so long as those conclusions are provisional and subject to change when/if better quality data emerges. I do think that beginners need certainty more than they need long lists of qualifications but that's not the cause of my declarative writing style. Among the various side effects of my declarative writing style that's one that's beneficial. Not all of the side effects are beneficial. Plenty of folks disagree with me on a lot of points that I've addressed any times over the years. Eventually it comes down to an offer to gather better data than I have and get back to me. So far few ever have. Susan and I go back and forth several topics and she's gathered better data and changed my mind on some of my points over time. > >> > In reality, it establishes nothing. > > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > ever have. Susan and I go back and forth several topics and she's > gathered better data and changed my mind on some of my points over time. Tune in next time folks for the Etiology of Consciousness. It is a common trait among scientist to be neurotic about there findings. Nobody wants to mess up, and everybody does. Just tell us what you see Doug, and let us do the editing, OK? Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html > In a recent thread Orlando Enrique Fiol questioned my double standard > objecting to highly sweetened fruit but not to grain fattened livestock. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the way to tracking fatty acid types by gram and there's little change > in the results. I didn't read that discussion, but if your desired outcome is improved health/lower CVD and other risks, there's a LOT more to consider wrt feedlot meat than just the fat, arachidonic acid and CLA. There's the effect of pollution, ingested hormone residue, exposure to resistant pathogens due to antibiotic laden feed, runoff pollution with e. coli etc. of vegetable crops (spinach outbreak, etc...) CAFOs threaten your health in myriad ways. > I do think that beginners need certainty more than they need long lists > of qualifications but that's not the cause of my declarative writing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ever have. Susan and I go back and forth several topics and she's > gathered better data and changed my mind on some of my points over time. So no more ketostix endorsements, then? ;-D Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > pathogens due to antibiotic laden feed, runoff pollution with e. coli > etc. of vegetable crops (spinach outbreak, etc...) If you look at the USDA Nutrient Data Base, you will see that beef fat is mostly monounsaturated fat. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ Of course to reduce your chance of getting sick from the meat, the meat industry want to use ionizing radiation to sterilize the meat. As Marion Nestlé (a nutritionist and writer) said, "Sterilized sh.t is still sh.t." According to the documentary, Food Inc. the origin of E. coli 0157:H7, the deadly E. coli, was Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). And then there is Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) <http://www.biojobblog.com/2009/03/articles/rants-and-raves/methicillin-r esistant-staphylococcus-aureus-a-growing-link-between-mrsa-infections-and -pigs/> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/11/080811fa_fact_groopman?cur rentPage=all> The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan <http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038 583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1> pg. 269 Conventional nutritional wisdom holds that salmon is automatically better for us than beef, but that judgment assumes the beef has been grain fed and the salmon krill fed; if the steer is fattened on grass and the salmon on grain, we might actually be better off eating the beef. (Grass-finished beef has a two-to-one ratio of omega-6 to -3 compared to more than ten to one in corn-fed beef.) The species of animal you eat may matter less than what the animal you're eating has itself eaten. Keeping it in perspective <http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/organic-farming/18027-organ ic-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html > CAFOs threaten your health in myriad ways. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Susan Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html In article <wildbilly-A2D0B6.21195828042010@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > > x-no-archive: yes > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > > > Susan It is not what we eat that matters but what we eat eats. Sort of like gastronomic genealogy. My take. Bill Signature³That means on average 18 veterans commit suicide each day." Five of those veterans are under our care at VA. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/01/ 12/2010-01-12_army_suicide_.html#ixzz0m7nSNTq8 > >> trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > offer to gather better data than I have and get back to me. So far few > ever have. The problem is that your concept of "data" consists of anecdotal reports from anyone posting on the internet. And I would also strongly suspect that the data is NOT tabulated and interpreted with an unbiased eye. In other words, you see what you want to see and justify it in your own mind. Regarding this whole issue of the deductibility of carbs, I'd say the issue of accounting for the soluble carbs in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter for two reasons. First, with most foods people doing any reasonable version of LC, the amount of indigestible fiber is going to be the dominant type of fiber. Second, most of the soluble fiber is fermented in the digestive tract and turned into short chain fatty acids, which are actually beneficial to our health. These are not carbs. The rest is apparently eliminated undigested. So, I think from a practical standpoint it's OK to simply deduct all the carbs from the carb count. In article <3a413895-5791-498a-a440-05aadc3a7703@q21g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, > > >> trad...@optonline.net wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > So, I think from a practical standpoint it's OK to simply deduct all > the carbs from the carb count. Unless, of course, it doesn't work for *you*. Metabolisms vary. SignatureA computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. > In article > <3a413895-5791-498a-a440-05aadc3a7703@q21g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > Unless, of course, it doesn't work for *you*. Metabolisms vary. And how else are yo going to find out if it doesn't work for you unless you try it? The alternative is do the deer in the headlight routine, by computing your safe zone/comfort every time you eat, and you still need to allow for personal metabolism. Of course it may not be personal metablolism, but the kindness of unknown micro-flora in your guts, i.e. <http://www.physorg.com/news189865361.html> . Intrinsic metabolisms, I presume, are much more similar, or would you like to correct this presumption? Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html I'm not dumb. In fact I have a 148 IQ, but I have a hard time following all this. I can't believe how analytical you folks are? Perhaps it's a case of the few left on this NG are into the techno babble of it all? In the olden days of Doc Atkins being alive and well, there was mostly talk of recipes, carb counts. and "whooshes". Please don't take offense. I'm just making an observation, no insult intended. SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > I'm not dumb. In fact I have a 148 IQ, but I have a hard time following > all this. I can't believe how analytical you folks are? Perhaps it's a case > of the few left on this NG are into the techno babble of it all? In the > olden days of Doc Atkins being alive and well, there was mostly talk of > recipes, carb counts. and "whooshes". Please don't take offense. I'm just > making an observation, no insult intended. Okay. So what's your point? Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Susan Does an observation need a point? SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > In the > olden days of Doc Atkins being alive and well, there was mostly talk of > recipes, carb counts. and "whooshes". Bring on a bunch of newbies so we can discuss beginner issues! it would be great. The current population of regulars have mostly been at low carbing a lot of years. With a new book coming out maybe newbies will flow in. Hope springs eternal. >> In the >> olden days of Doc Atkins being alive and well, there was mostly talk of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > With a new book coming out maybe newbies will flow in. Hope springs > eternal. I agree, it would be nice, but I fear that we are the low carb dinosaurs! SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com >> > So, I think from a practical standpoint it's OK to simply deduct all >> > the carbs from the carb count. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And how else are yo going to find out if it doesn't work for you unless > you try it? Not that many people are organized enough to be able to figure out if their bodies treat soluble fiber like carbs. It can be done with a glucose meter. It can be done by telling if you have ketones in your urine and/or breath and then adjusting your carb and fiber levels in increments - I did that to see how my body reacted to sugar alcohols once and it was so much work I have no interest in trying it for fiber. But it really doesn't matter. Gram counts and calorie counts are inaccurate but folks lose anyways. Deducting fiber means eating more veggies and that's a good thing - It does not need to go beyond that. > Anyone read it yet? > > -- > JK Sinrodwww.MyConeyIslandMemories.com Thanks for the information. I will buy it today. :) |
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.