 |
 | 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 / General Topics / April 2007"Glycemic Load" study
The key to the report on this recent study is that people who ate equal calories had the same weightloss results. This is to be expected. It does run contrary to Atkins' metabolic advantage theory, however. The advantage of a low glycemic load manifests in the eating behavior of the dieter, as guided by the "appestat," the internal calorie regulator. Reducing hunger through low carb is an important advantage in dieting. > The key to the report on this recent study is that people who ate equal > calories had the same weightloss results. This is to be expected. It [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Reducing hunger through low carb is an important advantage in dieting. Were they actually following Atkin's diet? Low carb in general keeps my blood sugar low. I have no 3pm sleepies, no routine blood swings, none of the stuff I had on low fat. I simply feel better.  SignatureBob in CT > The key to the report on this recent study is that people who ate equal > calories had the same weightloss results. This is to be expected. It does [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Reducing hunger through low carb is an important advantage in dieting. To me it is not an advantage at all. I eat a very high carb, high glycemic diet or 1800 calories per day and I weight 133 lbs at 5'8" (male), so I am quite thin. The carbs fill me up very well...namely farina, oatmeal, grits. I eat almost no fat (under 10 grams per day) and adequate protein, about 60 grams per day. All the rest is carbs from cereal, vegetables and fruit. Dieting is much more complex than looking at a single diet as the answer. Lots of things work....if you count calories. dkw >> The key to the report on this recent study is that people who ate equal >> calories had the same weightloss results. This is to be expected. It [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > complex than looking at a single diet as the answer. Lots of things > work....if you count calories. dkw Well, bully for you. I gain weight that way. I stop gaining, start losing slowly, when I low carb. You CANNOT blanket everybody, and those of us who have to low carb did not chose this as their favorite way of eating. ~Melodie~ > <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You don't gain weight if you don't eat over your caloric requirements. That's the point. People might argue about what mix for fat, protein and carbs is healthy, but calories DO count. That was my point. Try a little less bully and more vegetables. LOL dkw >> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > and carbs is healthy, but calories DO count. That was my point. Try a > little less bully and more vegetables. LOL dkw I can eat VERY LITTLE, and starve, and gain weight if I don't carefully choose what I am eating. Conversely, I know a gal, in her early 50's, who is tall, extremely lean, and cannot get enough food down her gullet to satisfy her extreme hunger, much less exceed her body's need for food. She stated that she "eats like a pig". She also sleeps a lot, is a homebody and doesn't do much exercize. Most people could eat me under the table, I mean I like food a lot, but I really dislike being over full, and naturally just STOP eating when I reach a certain saiety point. I would love a month of just eating to satisfaction, without any moral values attached to it, even in my own mind. What my caloric requirements are seem to be even less then the nutrient requirements to get enough vitamins/minerals to maintain health...oh yea, did you know you can be fat AND malnourished at the same time? I gain control, when I eliminate carbohydrates for the most part, especially grains/flour, from the food I eat. I find it hard to overeat meat, and enjoy a great salad. Would I love to eat a whole-wheat bagel with non-fat cream cheese, followed by a half an orange, and have rice and chicken with vegetables for lunch/dinner, and rice cakes with an apple? Oh, yeah, I would...I am weird though, and: 1) Get carbohydrate triggered, and am left hungry and wanting more, ESPECIALLY when eating grains 2) I would gain weight on this diet. So what ever dude, believe what you want, that people just LOVE being fat, and congratulations on the purposeful misunderstanding of my use of the word "bully"...bully for you :)~ Signature~Melodie~ Aka AnonomissX >> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > and carbs is healthy, but calories DO count. That was my point. Try a > little less bully and more vegetables. LOL dkw Ah, not all (or many) of us are like you. I tried low fat dieting, and my blood sugar went through the roof. Plus, I can't see how you can eat oats for breakfast and not be hungry an hour later. It's simply not possible. SignatureBob in CT I have the same issue post gastric bypass, Bob. Besides which dense carbs spike/crash my blood sugar worse than an insulin dependent diabetic. Oats, rice, wheat of any kind, sweet potatoes even........corn, peas, they all do this now. Maybe they did prior to surgery and I wasn't as aware of it, I was insulin resistant for alot of years. People that can eat anything and not have flutuations in their blood sugars, are there really such an animal out there? I just don't know anymore......... Carol j >>> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > can eat oats for breakfast and not be hungry an hour later. It's > simply not possible. It is my understanding that a "normal" non-diabetic person can eat whatever they want and maintain a steady BG of 80, or so. > I have the same issue post gastric bypass, Bob. Besides which dense carbs > spike/crash my blood sugar worse than an insulin dependent diabetic. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >> can eat oats for breakfast and not be hungry an hour later. It's >> simply not possible. There are definitely people who can do that, but I think that the prevalence of those who cannot is vastly underrated. > It is my understanding that a "normal" non-diabetic person can eat > whatever [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >>> can eat oats for breakfast and not be hungry an hour later. It's >>> simply not possible. SignatureBob in CT Nope, that not be the case with me. I've had gastric by pass, this started around the holidays..........it's always normal fasting, always. It only spikes/crashes depending on what I've eaten. They call that reactive hyper/hypo glycemia or so my doc tells me......... Carol J > It is my understanding that a "normal" non-diabetic person can eat > whatever they want and maintain a steady BG of 80, or so. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >>> can eat oats for breakfast and not be hungry an hour later. It's >>> simply not possible. :: Nope, that not be the case with me. I've had gastric by pass, this :: started around the holidays..........it's always normal fasting, :: always. It only spikes/crashes depending on what I've eaten. They :: call that reactive hyper/hypo glycemia or so my doc tells me......... That gets you out of the "normal" catagory and into a group with a compromised, but perhaps not diabetic, glucose processing system. For health young people who are most normal, they will be rock steady. But since there are degrees of impaired glucose metabolism, it becomes a matter of who far (and precisely how) away from normal you are before you start getting the various other "unkind" (from an insurance standpoint, i mean) labels applied to you. :: Carol J :: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] ::::: see how you can eat oats for breakfast and not be hungry an hour ::::: later. It's simply not possible. Well, I'm told that it will probably resolve itself in time.............it's a frequent side effect of the RNY surgery. But I don't mind really, it makes me stay on a proper diet. Even with how much I've lost, even knowing what I know? In today's world when you work full time and have an active social life.........it's hard to eat no processed carbs. It's a major effort for me every day. Carol J Carol J wrote: :: Nope, that not be the case with me. I've had gastric by pass, this :: started around the holidays..........it's always normal fasting, :: always. It only spikes/crashes depending on what I've eaten. They :: call that reactive hyper/hypo glycemia or so my doc tells me......... That gets you out of the "normal" catagory and into a group with a compromised, but perhaps not diabetic, glucose processing system. For health young people who are most normal, they will be rock steady. But since there are degrees of impaired glucose metabolism, it becomes a matter of who far (and precisely how) away from normal you are before you start getting the various other "unkind" (from an insurance standpoint, i mean) labels applied to you. :: Carol J :: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] ::::: see how you can eat oats for breakfast and not be hungry an hour ::::: later. It's simply not possible. > It is my understanding that a "normal" non-diabetic person can eat > whatever they want and maintain a steady BG of 80, or so. Not true, or the Glycemic index would be meaningless. If a person with normal glucose metabolism eats something the blood sugar rises. The level of glucose drives other functions like the release of insulin or the making of glycogen etc. del ::: It is my understanding that a "normal" non-diabetic person can eat ::: whatever they want and maintain a steady BG of 80, or so. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: :: del Oh boy....some bodies can detect glucose increase so quickly that insulin dumps before glucose can significantly change. That's what a normal body does. A diabetic body doesn't response as it should either with insulin or doesn't react once it is there. Either way, the glucose levels remain high. > The key to the report on this recent study is that people who ate equal > calories had the same weightloss results. This is to be expected. It does not say what the carb counts were. I think a good design for this study would be the same number of carb grams using different sources to get different glycemic indexes. > It does > run contrary to Atkins' metabolic advantage theory, however. Since they do not specify the carb counts and do not mention ketosis that's jumping to a conclusion. Consider the studies that do mention ketosis that report 5% greater loss rates when compared to low fatters. Note well - I think Atkins metabolic advantage is proportional to the amount of fat to use. Get down to 10 to go (or even 20 to go for men) and the advantage drops to zero. The advantage can be dramatic for folks with 100+ to lose - Consider the unreasonable loss rate that 2Phat reports and expects to repeat. > The advantage of a low glycemic load manifests in the eating behavior of the > dieter, as guided by the "appestat," the internal calorie regulator. > > Reducing hunger through low carb is an important advantage in dieting. The metabolic advantage may sound really cool, and is real as long as amount to lose is considered, but it is of secondary importance to most folks. I think appetite reduction and lack of carb cravings is far and away the biggest advantage of low carbing. And in the case of Atkins removing food intolerance addictive responses through the elimination aspect of the system. > The key to the report on this recent study is that people who ate equal > calories had the same weightloss results. This is to be expected. It does > run contrary to Atkins' metabolic advantage theory, however. Imagine that. > The advantage of a low glycemic load manifests in the eating behavior of the > dieter, as guided by the "appestat," the internal calorie regulator. So the apestat doesn't work? > Reducing hunger through low carb is an important advantage in dieting. If the apestat works, why should it? I mean, that little d00d counts cals, right? with is little. micro-bomb-calorimeter, right? Signaturehttp://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html Hey Mu, We have here the theory of the appestat, which I modify, and also, my ideas that some specific factors of the modern diet imbalance the appestat. So, modern obesity is from an induced malfunction of the appestat. I think the calorie designations for most foods, which may have come from the bomb calorimeter are correct. Your calling [sarcastically?] the appestat a micro-bomb-calorimeter is interesting. The biological mechanism is undoubtedly quite complex. >> The key to the report on this recent study is that people who ate equal >> calories had the same weightloss results. This is to be expected. It [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If the apestat works, why should it? I mean, that little d00d counts > cals, right? with is little. micro-bomb-calorimeter, right? |
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.