Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / December 2007
The 20 worst foods in America
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Louise - 01 Dec 2007 17:06 GMT http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
The 20 worst foods in America The U.S. food industry has declared war on your waistline. Here's how to disarm its weapons of mass inflation Eat at your own risk By: Matt Goulding, Men's Health magazine Sure, a turkey burger sounds healthy. But is it, really? Not if you order the Bella from Ruby Tuesday, which packs a whopping 1,145 calories. (And yes, that's before a side of fries.)
To further enlighten you on the prevalence of preposterous portions, we spent months analyzing menus, nutrition labels, and ingredient lists to identify the food industry's worst offenders. Our primary criterion? Sheer caloric impact. After all, it's the top cause of weight gain and the health problems that accompany it. (As you read, keep in mind that 2,500 calories a day is a reasonable intake for the average guy.) We also factored in other key nutritional data, such as excessive carbohydrates and fat, added sugars, trans fats, and sodium. The result is our first annual list of the worst foods in America.
Eat at your own risk.
20: Worst fast-food chicken meal Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips from McDonald's (5 pieces) with creamy ranch sauce
830 calories
55 grams (g) fat (4.5 g trans fat)
48 g carbohydrates The only thing "premium" about these strips is the caloric price you pay. Add a large fries and regular soda and this seemingly innocuous chicken meal tops out at 1,710 calories.
Change Your Chicken: 20 McNuggets have the same impact. Instead, choose Mickey D's six-piece offering with BBQ sauce and save yourself 530 calories.
19: Worst drink Jamba Juice Chocolate Moo'd Power Smoothie (30 fl oz)
900 calories 10 g fat
183 g carbs (166 g sugar) Jamba Juice calls it a smoothie; we call it a milk shake. In fact, this beverage contains as much sugar as 2 pints of Ben & Jerry's butter pecan ice cream.
Turn Down the Power: Seventy-five percent of this chain's "power smoothies" contain in excess of 100 grams of sugar. Stick to Jamba's lower-calorie All Fruit Smoothies, which are the only menu items that contain no added sugar. And always opt for the 16-ounce "small." 18: Worst supermarket meal Pepperidge Farm Roasted Chicken Pot Pie (whole pie)
1,020 calories 64 g fat
86 g carbs The label may say this pie serves two, but who ever divided a small pot pie in half? The sad truth is, once you crack the crust, there will be no stopping -- which makes this 300 calories worse than anything else you'll find in the freezer case.
Pick a Better Pie: Swanson's chicken pot pie has just 400 calories.
17: Worst 'healthy' burger Ruby Tuesday Bella Turkey Burger
1,145 calories 71 g fat
56 g carbs We chose this burger for more than its calorie payload: Its name implies that it's healthy.
The Truly Healthy Choice: Skip burgers entirely (few at Ruby Tuesday come in under 1,000 calories). Instead, order a 9-ounce sirloin with a side of steamed vegetables, and keep things under 1,000 calories.
16: Worst Mexican entree Chipotle Mexican Grill Chicken Burrito
1,179 calories 47 g fat
125 g carbs
2,656 milligrams (mg) sodium Despite a reputation for using healthy, fresh ingredients, Chipotle's menu is limited to king-size burritos, overstuffed tacos, and gigantic salads -- all of which lead to a humongous waistline.
Make Over the Menu: There are two ways to Men's Healthify a burrito at Chipotle: (1) 86 the rice and tortilla and request your meat, vegetables, and beans served in a bowl or (2) bring a friend and saw the burrito in half. 15: Worst kids' meal Macaroni Grill Double Macaroni 'n' Cheese
1,210 calories 62 g fat
3,450 mg sodium It's like feeding your kid 1 1/2 boxes of Kraft mac 'n' cheese.
Your Best Option: The 390-calorie Grilled Chicken and Broccoli.
14: Worst sandwich Quiznos Classic Italian (large)
1,528 calories 92 g fat
4,604 mg sodium 110 g carbs A large homemade sandwich would more likely provide about 500 calories.
Cut the Calories: Isn't it obvious? Order a small -- or save half for later. 13: Worst salad On the Border Grande Taco Salad with Taco Beef
1,450 calories 102 g fat
78 g carbs 2,410 mg sodium This isn't an anomaly: Five different On the Border salads on the menu contain more than 1,100 calories each.
The Salad for You: The Sizzling Chicken Fajita Salad supplies an acceptable 760 calories. But remember to choose a noncaloric beverage, such as water or unsweetened iced tea. 12: Worst burger Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger
1,520 calories
111 g fat Carl's Jr. brags that it's home to this enormous sandwich, but the restaurant chain also provides convenient nutrition info on its Web site -- so ignorance is no excuse for eating it.
A Simple Solution: The Low Carb Six Dollar Burger has just 490 calories. 11: Worst steak Lonestar 20 oz T-bone
1,540 calories
124 g fat Add a baked potato and Lonestar's Signature Lettuce Wedge, and this is a 2,700-calorie blowout.
Choose with Your Head: The golden rule of steak restaurants is this: Limit yourself to a 9-ouncer or smaller. After all, that's more than half a pound of meat. You won't walk away hungry. 10: Worst breakfast Bob Evans Caramel Banana Pecan Cream Stacked and Stuffed Hotcakes
1,540 calories
77 g fat (9 g trans fat)
198 g carbs (109 g sugar) Five Egg McMuffins yield the same caloric cost as this stack of sugar-stuffed flapjacks, which is truly a heavy breakfast, weighing in at a hefty pound and a half.
Order This Instead: A Bob Evans Western Omelet starts your day with a reasonable 654 calories and 44 grams of muscle-building protein. 9: Worst dessert Chili's Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie with Vanilla Ice Cream
1,600 calories
78 g fat
215 g carbs Would you eat a Big Mac for dessert? How about three? That's the calorie equivalent of this decadent dish. Clearly, Chili's customers get their money's worth.
Don't Overdo It: If you want dessert at Chili's, order one single-serving Sweet Shot; you'll cap your after-dinner intake at 310 calories. 8: Worst Chinese entree P.F. Chang's Pork Lo Mein
1,820 calories
127 g fat
95 g carbs The fat content in this dish alone provides more than 1,100 calories. And you'd have to eat almost five servings of pasta to match the number of carbohydrates it contains. Now, do you really need five servings of pasta?
Pick Another Noodle: P.F. Chang's Singapore Street Noodles will satisfy your craving with only 570 calories. Or try the Moo Goo Gai Pan or the Ginger Chicken & Broccoli, which have 660 calories each. 7: Worst chicken entree Chili's Honey Chipotle Crispers with Chipotle Sauce
2,040 calories
99 g fat
240 g carbs "Crispers" refers to an extra-thick layer of bread crumbs that soaks up oil and adds unnecessary calories and carbs to these glorified chicken strips.
Switch Your Selection: Order the Chicken Fajita Pita: At 450 calories and 43 grams of protein, it's one of the healthiest entrées you'll find in a chain restaurant. 6: Worst fish entree On the Border Dos XX Fish Tacos with Rice and Beans
2,100 calories
130 g fat
169 g carbs 4,750 mg sodium Perhaps the most misleadingly named dish in America: A dozen crunchy tacos from Taco Bell will saddle you with fewer calories.
Lighten the Load: Ask for grilled fish, choose the corn tortillas instead of flour (they're lower in calories and higher in fiber), and swap out the carbohydrate-loaded rice for grilled vegetables.
5: Worst pizza Uno Chicago Grill Chicago Classic Deep Dish Pizza
2,310 calories
162 g fat
123 g carbs
4,470 mg sodium Downing this "personal" pizza is equivalent to eating 18 slices of Domino's Crunchy Thin Crust cheese pizza.
Swap Your Slices: Switch to the Sausage Flatbread Pie and avert deep-dish disaster by nearly 1,500 calories. 4: Worst pasta Macaroni Grill Spaghetti and Meatballs with Meat Sauce
2,430 calories
128 g fat
207 g carbs
5,290 mg sodium This meal satisfies your calorie requirements for an entire day.
Downsize the Devastation: Ask for a lunch portion of this dinner dish (or any pasta on the menu, for that matter), and request regular tomato sauce instead of meat sauce. You'll cut the calories in half. 3: Worst nachos On the Border Stacked Border Nachos
2,740 calories
166 g fat
191 g carbs
5,280 mg sodium
2: Worst starter Chili's Awesome Blossom
2,710 calories
203 g fat
194 g carbs
6,360 mg sodium
1: The worst food in America Outback Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing
2,900 calories
182 g fat
240 g carbs Even if you split these "starters" with three friends, you'll have downed a dinner's worth of calories before your entrée arrives.
Super Substitutions Front-load your meal with a protein-based dish that's not deep-fried. A high-protein starter helps diminish hunger without putting you into calorie overload. And remember: Appetizers are meant to be shared.
At On the Border: Chicken Soft Tacos (250 calories each). This entrée is as close as you'll come to a healthy starter.
At Chili's: Garlic & Lime Grilled Shrimp. Look for this item in the "sides."
At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie.
Cubit - 01 Dec 2007 21:09 GMT Your post made me hungry.
Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.
brigid nelson - 01 Dec 2007 23:48 GMT > Your post made me hungry. > > Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup. I'm surprised they bothered to mention the carb counts at all. After all carbs are good for you.
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 02 Dec 2007 02:26 GMT > > Your post made me hungry. > > > Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup. > > I'm surprised they bothered to mention the carb counts at all. After > all carbs are good for you. Right, carbs are good for you except that a lot of people are on a low- carb diet so presumably it wouldn't be good for them. I don't happen to buy into that idea, but many obviously do. The point is really that there really is no bad food or good food per se, unless you start from some nutritional goal. In general, fat is bad for diets. Why? Simple. It packs 9 cal. per gram vs. 4 cal per gram for protein and carbs. Still, you have any people who believe they need to seek certain fats, so to them omega 3 fat may not be good. I don't know of anyone who seriously believes cholesterol is good for you although many say its implication in heart disease is not so solid. High sodium is also not so good for many people, but if a person happens to sweat a lot and have low BP, sodium really isn't a problem for them. The point is that you almost have to start with a preconceived opinion to make sense of diet choices. Of course in the end, nobody can say for certainty the proper mix of nutrition for an individual based on science, not with complete confidence at any rate.
Luckily, there are lots of food choices that generally seem to work well and keep weight down. I'm vegetarian and eat no cholesterol at all and under 10% fat, about 50 gm. of protein a day and all the rest is carbs. I eat a lot of whole grains and scads of vegetables within a 2,000 cal per day diet. I am also very healthy far as I know and my thin. To me, almost nothing listed in the article was healthy and I never eat any of it. dkw
Cubit - 02 Dec 2007 02:55 GMT >> > Your post made me hungry. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > thin. To me, almost nothing listed in the article was healthy and I > never eat any of it. dkw [Hand raised]
I believe cholesterol is good for you.
-strong cell walls and such...
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 02 Dec 2007 05:02 GMT > <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Provided you have no heart problems or genetic disposition to heart problems or no weight problem, you could make a good case for eating lots of cholesterol. I agree most people love to eat high-cholesterol foods like ice cream and meat. In the good old days, people made the best pies using lard which has cholesterol. They certainly tasted good. I think our preference for high-fat foods is a survival instinct. Unfortunately, longevity and health past the child bearing years are not a concern of mother nature. She just wants you to survive long enough to have babies. After that if you drop dead with a heart attack, it's OK with her. This phenomenon helps explain why most diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. don't manifest themselves early in life as a rule. Otherwise, the disease itself would tend to disappear as those with it died or at least those who didn't get it could live and reproduce passing on their immunity. To me, cholesterol is like fast driving. I like to do it, but the odds are against you statistically having a good outcome in the long run. dkw
Cubit - 02 Dec 2007 19:05 GMT >> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > are against you statistically having a good outcome in the long run. > dkw I agree about the evolutionary problem of living past 30.
My understanding is that CVD is an inflammatory mystery disease of the vascular walls. The body responds by using a basic construction material (cholesterol) to plack over the problem with disastrous long term results. Since the body can make its own cholesterol, and medical science has failed to identify the true cause of CVD, I question the strategy of restricting dietary cholesterol.
Often in trials for drugs, such as the statins, while they can produce a small reduction in heart attacks, the overall mortality rate from all causes remains unchanged. You squeeze the balloon in one area and it pops out in another.
Rod Speed - 02 Dec 2007 21:26 GMT >>> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > rate from all causes remains unchanged. You squeeze the balloon in > one area and it pops out in another. Not often at all in fact.
Don Klipstein - 03 Dec 2007 00:48 GMT >> Provided you have no heart problems or genetic disposition to heart >> problems or no weight problem, you could make a good case for eating [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >to identify the true cause of CVD, I question the strategy of restricting >dietary cholesterol. The inflammation that promotes arterial plaque is often caused by arterial plaque. We have somewhat a chicken-egg situation, but largely arterial plaque is the starting point.
One factor that makes the data more confusing is that about 20% of the population is genetically prone to high blood cholesterol from eating dietary cholesterol, while in the other 80% blood cholesterol (total and bad-vs-good) is affected more by body fat content, exercise and diet factors other than cholesterol intake and less by dietary cholesterol intake.
Furthermore, arterial plaque is not just cholesterol. It is mainly VLDL-cholesterol, similar to LDL-cholesterol which causes it. This is "Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol", and a major ingredient is triglycerides, which are basically fat content in the blood. Triglyceride levels increase largely with calorie consumption and with being overweight.
>Often in trials for drugs, such as the statins, while they can produce a >small reduction in heart attacks, the overall mortality rate from all causes >remains unchanged. You squeeze the balloon in one area and it pops out in >another. The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. I know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7 beers a week. I would also check into how statins affect the liver's tolerance to other drugs such as acetaminophen ("Tylenol"), which can also stress the liver. Also, I suspect we will be seeing a higher reduction of heart attacks from use of statins once they have been around more than a decade. And overweight people who go on statins but remain overweight will continue to have high triglycerides. And people with their blood cholesterol being disproportionately LDL probbly stay that way unless they exercise more and/or make their diets healthier in terms of fat intake levels (and cholesterol intake levels for the dietary-cholesterol-intolerant) and what kinds of fat they eat.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 00:55 GMT > The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. I > know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7 > beers a week. > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) Now that's what I call a hardship.
Marsha/Ohio
krw - 03 Dec 2007 02:49 GMT > > The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. I > > know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7 > > beers a week. > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > > Now that's what I call a hardship. Doesn't sound so bad to me. I'm limited to zero. I'd like a beer once in a while...
 Signature Keith
Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 02:53 GMT >>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. I >>>know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Doesn't sound so bad to me. I'm limited to zero. I'd like a beer > once in a while... Facetious, hon, facetious.
Marsha/Ohio
krw - 04 Dec 2007 01:56 GMT > >>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. I > >>>know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Facetious, hon, facetious. Understood, sweetie, understood.
 Signature Keith
mallstop4u@gmail.com - 08 Dec 2007 05:41 GMT Baskin-Robbins - Chocolate Chip (reg scoop) 60mg
http://www.americanvistas.com/health.html
http://www.keep-cholesterol-control.com/index.html
> In article <fivk5l$j3...@news.datemas.de>, m...@xeb.net says...> > The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. I > > > know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Keith krw - 08 Dec 2007 14:26 GMT In article <f937cac4-dede-4f80-882d-c10383311288 @i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mallstop4u@gmail.com says...
> Baskin-Robbins - Chocolate Chip (reg scoop) 60mg > > http://www.americanvistas.com/health.html Anyone who publishes an article starting with "one of the most commonest" can't be trusted for any information.
> http://www.keep-cholesterol-control.com/index.html No issues with cholesterol, though I don't much like top-posters.
 Signature Keith
Ophelia - 08 Dec 2007 16:58 GMT > In article <f937cac4-dede-4f80-882d-c10383311288 > @i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mallstop4u@gmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No issues with cholesterol, though I don't much like top-posters. I can see you have your priorities sorted
krw - 08 Dec 2007 20:48 GMT > > In article <f937cac4-dede-4f80-882d-c10383311288 > > @i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mallstop4u@gmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I can see you have your priorities sorted Yep. No issues with one, and a lot with the other.
 Signature Keith
Jon v Leipzig - 05 Dec 2007 13:11 GMT >> My understanding is that CVD is an inflammatory mystery disease of the >> vascular walls. The body responds by using a basic construction material [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > arterial plaque. We have somewhat a chicken-egg situation, but largely > arterial plaque is the starting point. Disagree. From all my reading, I'd say plaque formation is a response to damage or stress on the artery wall. The damage causes the inflammatory state.Imo, the previous comment is correct. Cholesterol comes to the rescue, patches the damage,then gets blamed for clogging the arteries.
trivia: About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to initiate plaque formation in the arteries. (LPa) Imo, that doesn't convince me that it's a culprit. Taking Proline for many months can lower your LPa, but if the "repair crew" decides more is needed, the liver responds by making more.
Pauling also discovered this LPa only exists in the two critters which can't mfgr their own vitamin C....humans and guinea pigs.
>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. Others might disagree. Some develop severe muscle pain which continues even after stopping the drug.
The former NASA Flight Surgeon, (Graveline?) wrote the book: "Lipitor; Thief of Memory"
By delpeting coenzyme Q-10, some will die of congestive heart failure. (almost 20 years ago, that sleazy Merck co. received a patent for a statin with CoQ10, but never put it on the market. guess they just wanted to prevent another company form gettting it. )
They will raise your LPa level within a few months. Last time I checked, a warning was required in Canada, but not in the US market. Ask your favorite Dr Goodpill.....what is my statin doing to cause a rise in LPa??
>>Also, I suspect we will be seeing a higher reduction of heart attacks >>from use of statins once they have been around more than a decade. Disagree. If statins were going to reduce heart attacks, it wudda happened by now. The first statin was approved in 1987. (Lovastatin, Merck & Co.)
heart attack trivia: The main researcher here thinks 85% of heart attacks are caused by the rupture of newly formed (Vulnerable) plaque.
<snipt from newspaper article> Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic then adds; "The rupture of a plaque will be the cause of death of about half of all of us in the United States. Understanding why they rupture is probably the most important question today in cardiology and even the most important question in the country." (See Vulnerable Plaque, The Latest in Heart Disease? by Haney)
I disagree. Imo, tis more important to discover something to prevent the rupture of these tiny plaques. Just recalling, a few years back, our radio doc (real MD) once advised a caller to take some extra vitamin C, preferably 2-3x per day, to strengthen the caps, keep them from bursting. Think if I were concerned enuf, I might try to confirm this from another source.
Don Klipstein - 08 Dec 2007 07:52 GMT >>> My understanding is that CVD is an inflammatory mystery disease of the >>> vascular walls. The body responds by using a basic construction material [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >comes to the rescue, patches the damage,then gets blamed for clogging >the arteries. I maintain insistence that in American humans, most artery wall stress is caused by plaque deposits. And that all too many Americans have such lifestyles as to have arterial plaque form anywhere from "at a drop of any hat" to enough from lifestyle factors so that first less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a spot for plaque to be depositied, there it goes!
>trivia: > About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Pauling also discovered this LPa only exists in the two critters which >can't mfgr their own vitamin C....humans and guinea pigs. If vitamin C is the solution, then it should work when taken to the extent that achieves blood concentration of vitamin C that exists in all the other critters. Can anyone neutral in this area provide figures for daily vitamin C intake by humans necessary to achieve typical blood concentrations of vitamin C in critters other than humans and guinea pigs?
>>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >happened by now. >The first statin was approved in 1987. (Lovastatin, Merck & Co.) But when did statin use get to so much as 1/4 its current use? I suspect a hell of a lot later than 1987!
>heart attack trivia: >The main researcher here thinks 85% of heart attacks are caused by the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >to strengthen the caps, keep them from bursting. Think if I were >concerned enuf, I might try to confirm this from another source. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 08 Dec 2007 13:08 GMT > I maintain insistence that in American humans, most artery wall stress > is caused by plaque deposits. And that all too many Americans have such > lifestyles as to have arterial plaque form anywhere from "at a drop of any > hat" to enough from lifestyle factors so that first > less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a spot for plaque to be > depositied, there it goes! You've got a chicken-and-egg question going there.
At the current state of knowledge, it appears that artheresclerosis is primarily caused by inflammation. But since that was not the primary understanding a couple decades ago, I'm not sure where we're going with this in the long run. Based on what we know now, without inflammation, plaques don't seem to form.
As for the lipid question, it is beginning to appear much more complex: first it was cholesterol that was bad. Then we discovered LDL was bad and HDL good. Now we know there's good subsets of LDL and bad subsets of HDL.
There's also some evidence that the lipoprotein bit is what actually causes the damage and that the cholesterol it carries along is not very significant; I personally think that's what is likely to turn up in the long run, but we can't really say for sure yet. Though we do know that LP(a) is the real terrible baddy of lipoproteins.
Serum proteins being glycosylated turns out to be *very* bad; the reaction is irreversible and you just have sticky proteins floating about. The A1c is much more highly correlated with heart attack than cholesterol ever was, even in nondiabetics.
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 00:18 GMT >> I maintain insistence that in American humans, most artery wall stress >> is caused by plaque deposits. And that all too many Americans have such [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >long run, but we can't really say for sure yet. Though we do know that >LP(a) is the real terrible baddy of lipoproteins. Blood cholesterol does seem to be quite an indicator at least of conditions favorable to heart disease.
>Serum proteins being glycosylated turns out to be *very* bad; the >reaction is irreversible and you just have sticky proteins floating >about. The A1c is much more highly correlated with heart attack than >cholesterol ever was, even in nondiabetics. Glycosylated proteins that do bad sound like something that turns up more in diabetics. I plug into Google: glycosylated atherosclerosis diabetes
and it appears to me that this is the case.
Most diabetes occurs in people who are overweight.
I remember from back in the early 1980's that Japan had very little heart disease. The average Japanese diet up until then had a lot less caloric content than modern Western diets. Japan became concerned in the mid 1980's that the Japanese diet was starting to become more "Western" with more meat and fat and that this would cause more heart disease.
Doug Freyburger - 08 Dec 2007 19:42 GMT > > About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received > >one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Pauling also discovered this LPa only exists in the two critters which > >can't mfgr their own vitamin C....humans and guinea pigs. Also salmon apparently. And not just humans but other primates as well. Most other primates are still majority fruit eaters but humans have spent 5 million years evolving into the top predator on the planet and some species of monkeys spent 5-10 million years evolving into grass eaters. I bet those grass eater monkeys tend to die of heart attacks.
> If vitamin C is the solution, then it should work when taken to the > extent that achieves blood concentration of vitamin C that exists in all > the other critters. Can anyone neutral in this area provide figures for > daily vitamin C intake by humans necessary to achieve typical blood > concentrations of vitamin C in critters other than humans and guinea pigs? The place to look for that would be a veterinarian textbook. My brother is a veterinarian and I've discussed the issue with him.
A 150 pound goat will synthesize 14 grams of vitamin-C in its liver daily. A 150 pound human will synthesize 0 grams of vitamin-C in its liver daily. Dogs and cats make similar amoounts per body weight.
So if the human inability to synthesize vitamin-C is a recent mutation on an evolutionary time scale, the daily dosage should be about 1 gram per 10 pounds of body weight, and that would need to be adjusted for how much is actually absorbed not destroyed in digestion. So call it 30 grams per day for a 150 pound person, 40 per day for a 200 pound person. That level will trigger diarhea in almost everyone. Clearly, the loss of vitamin-C synthesis is somewhat old in evolution and that's consistant with other fruit-eating primates not needing it. The best dosage is going to be well below 40 grams per day for a 200 pounder.
I know that below a certain amount of vitamin-C there's danger of scurvy. That level is very low. I also know that above a certain level the person gets diarhea. The range is huge between those dosage levels. The ideal level is going to be somewhere in the range between the tiny dose that prevents scury and the mega dose that triggers diarhea, but where in that range?
The thing is if you get ill the amount of vitamin-C that it takes to trigger diarhea goes up. That suggests that during illness the amount of vitamin-C absorbed and/or used by the body goes up. I think the best amount is to find out how much triggers diarhea, then taper back down a bit. It won't give you the blood level of a goat, but evolutionary evidence suggests we don't need that much any more.
nospam@sbcglobal.invalid.net - 08 Dec 2007 22:48 GMT > A 150 pound goat will synthesize 14 grams of vitamin-C in its liver > daily. A 150 pound human will synthesize 0 grams of vitamin-C in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > goat, but evolutionary evidence suggests we don't need that much > any more. Studies in the last several years have found cell damage when C intake is higher than 65mg (yes, that's MILLIGRAMS) a day, taken long-term. As with virtually all vitamin advocates, Pauling made horribly myopic conclusions based on horribly insufficient data.
Jim - 09 Dec 2007 23:55 GMT >> A 150 pound goat will synthesize 14 grams of vitamin-C in its liver >> daily. A 150 pound human will synthesize 0 grams of vitamin-C in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > made horribly myopic conclusions based on horribly insufficient > data. Please post links to such studies.
So far, searches don't correlate with the claims.
Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 00:32 GMT >> > About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received >> >one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >goat, but evolutionary evidence suggests we don't need that much >any more. How about the same daily mg/kg as other primates whose diets are mainly fruit? How about the amount that achieves the blood concentration of vitamin C found in other primates, which is probably something less, since I have an impression that humans have lower daily calorie requirement per kg of body weight than most other primates?
So far, to keep in line with other primates, I would take as a first order of approximation the amount of vitamin C consumed if one eats 2,000 calories per day in fruit. That sounds to me like a gram or two a day.
Or do monkeys run into health problems that goats avoid due to higher blood levels of vitamin C? Anyone here know what the blood level of vitamin C is in rats - noted to have a similar dietary requirement as humans with a major difference being self-sufficiency for vitamin C?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jon v Leipzig - 12 Dec 2007 12:35 GMT >>>> About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received >>>> one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) The high numbers are in response to stress. Lows would probably be normal or maintenence dose.
http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/mega_1_1.html
Vitamin C produced per day by different animal species (equivalent for 70 Kg Man)
Goat 2,280 - 13,300 mg Rat 2,737 - 13,902 mg Rabbit 1,547 - 15,820 mg Cow 1,099 - 1,281 mg Mouse 2,352 - 19,250 mg Sheep 1,736 mg Cat 336 - 2,800 mg
http://www.paulingtherapy.com/page2.html
Most animals produce their own vitamin C in amounts varying between 3,000 mg - 12,000 mg per day adjusted for body weight.
Most animals convert ordinary sugar (sucrose) to vitamin C in their kidneys or their liver. The newly created vitamin enters directly into the animal?s blood stream. Animals also get some vitamin C from their food.
Jon v Leipzig - 12 Dec 2007 12:41 GMT > In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip
>> Disagree. From all my reading, I'd say plaque formation is a response >> to damage or stress on the artery wall. The damage causes the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a spot for plaque to be > depositied, there it goes! Imo, if serum chol- were the culprit, why isn't plaque buildup found evenly thruout the system??? Never heard of anyone needing a thigh or bicep bypass....
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.paulingtherapy.com/page2.html
Plaque is a Healing Response
[8] Plaque forms over injured blood vessels. If one suffers plaque deposits, it is likely he/she owes his life to this material that narrows arteries. Without plaque, the weakened blood vessels would rupture or leak causing internal bleeding and death. A slower version of scurvy, the disease long-dreaded by ancient sailors. (James Lind discovered (year 1753) that eating fruit prevents this disease. Acute scurvy can be prevented by a mere 10 mg vitamin C per day. )
The correct terminology for cardiovascular (heart) disease then is "chronic" scurvy or "sub clinical" scurvy.
[9] The human body's healing response to chronic scurvy is what medicine calls coronary heart disease (CHD), AKA cardiovascular disease (CVD), "heart disease", "atherosclerosis", "arteriosclerosis", "hardening", "plaque", "narrowing", etc. This process by itself rarely kills people, but plaque lined arteries make heart attack more likely from a blood clot or blockage. (Plaque lined arteries cannot easily dilate in response to a clot.) Currently, it is unknown what amount of vitamin C prevents the atherosclerotic plaques of chronic scurvy, but Linus Pauling often recommended 3000 mg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.paulingtherapy.com/book.html
ATHEROSCLEROTIC PLAQUE
A Nobel prize in Medicine was awarded for the finding that lesions in the walls of blood vessels are the primary cause of atherosclerotic plaques. Clusters of "fat" molecules acting as repair agents form nature's "plaster casts" against the weakness of blood vessel walls. These sticky molecules are lipoprotein(a). If these deposits continue to develop in the arteries of the heart they lead to heart attack. If they continue to develop in the arteries of the brain they lead to stroke.
Hundreds of investigators found that only a specific type of cholesterol molecule, lipoprotein-(a), or Lp(a) for short, is the primary material that binds to a lesion in the walls of an artery forming plaques. Lp(a) is an ordinary LDL cholesterol molecule with a sticky apo-protein(a) (or apo(a)) attached to the surface. Animals that make their own vitamin C generally do not have the variant Lp(a) cholesterol molecules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A corollary is that ordinary LDL (so-called "bad") cholesterol is not the primary cause of plaque build-up, any more than calcium.
Massive research now supports the insight of Linus Pauling, who well ahead of his time in 1994 pointed out, "If you have more than 20mg/dl of Lp(a) in your blood it begins depositing plaques causing atherosclerosis."
Rod Speed - 12 Dec 2007 18:40 GMT >> In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> factors so that first less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a >> spot for plaque to be depositied, there it goes!
> Imo, if serum chol- were the culprit, why isn't plaque buildup found > evenly thruout the system??? Never heard of anyone needing a thigh > or bicep bypass.... Then you need to get out more. Stents and bypasses are indeed widely used in those situations.
> --------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > of Lp(a) in your blood it begins depositing plaques causing > atherosclerosis." Don Klipstein - 17 Dec 2007 00:31 GMT >> In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >evenly thruout the system??? Never heard of anyone needing a thigh or >bicep bypass.... It is a bit of a common problem in the brain. And surgery gets a lot trickier there.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jon v Leipzig - 17 Dec 2007 16:11 GMT >>> In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip >>>> Disagree. From all my reading, I'd say plaque formation is a response [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) LDL Cholesterol: "Bad" Cholesterol, or Bad Science?
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons www.aapsonline.org/jpands/jpands1003.htm
Don Klipstein - 17 Dec 2007 18:53 GMT >>> Imo, if serum chol- were the culprit, why isn't plaque buildup found >>> evenly thruout the system??? Never heard of anyone needing a thigh or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons >www.aapsonline.org/jpands/jpands1003.htm I did take a look. It is one of 3 studies in the "Medical Controversies" section.
I am very used to seeing studies disagreeing with each other. Sometimes I find bad methodology, or conclusions not supported well by the study's presented data, or lack of consideration to data that obviously should be included, such as in some studies on global warming by McKitrick et al.
I also have an impression that there is considerable noise in studies.
I would like to see others, as well as where they get debated.
Meanwhile, this study did reaffirm something I heard some fair amount before: That polyunsaturated fatty acids (except for omega-3 ones) were not good the way cis-monounsaturated ones are. Cis-mono ones, such as oleic, which olive oil is rich in, were supposed to raise HDL. Most polyunsaturated ones, for example the linoleic that soybean oil is rich in, were supposed to be roughly neutral in effect. The study you point out claims an ill effect of linoleic.
Meanwhile, this study does not refute much in terms that having the factors that favor high LDL and low HDL favor arterial plaques and vice versa, merely claims that something else usually favored by such factors is what does the damage and claims a few exceptions to the correlation. (Such as a group with good lipoprotein profile and diet that has low intake of veggies, which are "well known" to be good, having a higher rate of arterial plaque.)
--------------------------
Another one of the 3 studies in the controversy section is on homosexuality. It claims that few people are homosexual or heterosexual, but that most are bisexual. It states that who people have sex with is a choice.
Well, there is a much older one that many like to bury, and it is by Kinsey. That one also says that most people have both homosexual and heterosexual tendencies, but goes on to show what I would call a "spectrum" of sexual orientation from strictly homosexual through various degrees of bisexuality to strictly heterosexual. The "Kinsey scale" is applied separately to a measure of orientation and to actual activity. Apparently, most people are bisexual but have their orientations lean one way or the other enough to spend most of their lives having sex with people of only one gender even where both are available.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 03 Dec 2007 00:25 GMT >> I believe cholesterol is good for you. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. don't manifest >themselves early in life as a rule. Most diabetes is Type II, which mainly hits people who are overweight. I have even heard of a specific trigger mechanism involving fat or fat cells. Type I often hits in childhood and was back then called "juvenile diabetes" and is generally genetic in origin. Of course, a genetic bad disease that typically strikes in childhood will tend to be not too common as explained here. But my point is that most diabetes that is occurring now would not occur if people did not get overweight.
>Otherwise, the disease itself >would tend to disappear as those with it died or at least those who >didn't get it could live and reproduce passing on their immunity. To >me, cholesterol is like fast driving. I like to do it, but the odds >are against you statistically having a good outcome in the long run. Back in the good old days, people also were a lot more active. Along with there being less fast food, especially supersize servings of french fries with 570-600 calories and usually a good dose of trans fats.
(http://www.bk.com/Nutrition/PDFs/brochure.pdf - "King Size" fries
http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html - large fries)
And the standard individual size bottle of soda was smaller than 20 ounces then. And advertized restaurant chains did not advertize or carry burgers with a pound of beef plus bacon. And fruit juices had lower sugar content back then than they do now. And we did not have Burger King the way they do now, with a "flagship" burger having 160 calories just from mayo - which has more calories per ounce than sugar!
Also, back to activity, back in older times we did not have cable TV, satellite TV, video games, music videos or Internet. In fact, there were times when there was no TV, and people were a lot less overweight then! And a higher percentage of the population walked to the nearest store than drove to the nearest store. Along with jobs on average requiring more physical activity in older times than they do now.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 02 Dec 2007 23:54 GMT In I8p4j.28423$lD6.26389@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, Cubit said in part:
>> Luckily, there are lots of food choices that generally seem to work >> well and keep weight down. I'm vegetarian and eat no cholesterol at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >-strong cell walls and such... The human liver is plenty capable of making the stuff. And eating saturated fats and trans fats has a trend of stimulating most human livers into making more of the "bad" LDL cholesterol. So is being overweight.
In fact, in about 80% of the population, dietary cholesterol intake does not affect blood cholesterol level (total and LDL vs. HDL) as much as fat intake (including kinds of fats), body fat content, and exercise. The other 20% has a genetic low ability to break down dietary cholesterol and needs to greatly restrict cholesterol intake.
If your total and LDL blood cholesterol levels are high despite doing everything right, then you are a candidate for statins. However, I see few people with diets good for lowering total and "bad" cholesterol or getting good exercise, let alone both.
Another factor for clogging of arteries with arterial plaque is triglycerides, which is basically fat in the blood. This is boosted mainly by being overweight and/or having higher calorie intake.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
MrsA - 03 Dec 2007 00:26 GMT Yep. That is why so many of us are on meds and special diets.
Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 00:33 GMT > Yep. That is why so many of us are on meds and special diets. To whom are you responding?.
Marsha/Ohio
Jackie Patti - 03 Dec 2007 17:22 GMT > The human liver is plenty capable of making the stuff. And eating > saturated fats and trans fats has a trend of stimulating most human livers > into making more of the "bad" LDL cholesterol. So is being overweight. Trans fats definitly have a bad effect, but I've not seen that it is so simple wrt to saturated fats.
Chain length seems important, though I have no idea why this should be so.
And some saturated fats contain a lot more CLA and GLA and do not seem to have the neagtive effects of other saturated fats. Pasture-raised animals have very different fats in their meat, milk and eggs than typical products.
Also, the omega3:omega6 ratio is important; one of the problems with people switching to vegetable oils is overall we've raised our omega6 level way too high. Polyunsaturated fats are not neutral.
As far as I can tell from the research, the only truly neutral fats are olive oil, avocado oil and rice bran oil.
Good fats include fish oil, flax, nuts, coconut oil and the meat, egg and dairy from pasture-raised animals.
> In fact, in about 80% of the population, dietary cholesterol intake does > not affect blood cholesterol level (total and LDL vs. HDL) as much as fat > intake (including kinds of fats), body fat content, and exercise. The > other 20% has a genetic low ability to break down dietary cholesterol and > needs to greatly restrict cholesterol intake. I'd be interested in seeing this research; I've been researching this topic the past few months and haven't seen this data yet. Do you have a reference?
> If your total and LDL blood cholesterol levels are high despite doing > everything right, then you are a candidate for statins. However, I see > few people with diets good for lowering total and "bad" cholesterol or > getting good exercise, let alone both. True.
However, all LDL isn't bad. If my LDL were high (it happens to be 59 on the last test I saw, so not high at all), first thing I'd want is a full lipoprotein panel in order to determine what type of LDL I had... if it's mostly the light, fluffy stuff, that's good.
I agree with you that if LDL needs lowering, diet and exercise are preferable to drugs.
If drugs are needed, there's better drugs than statins. If I had high LDL, I'd probably start with SloNiacin (which I take for other reasons discussed below). If I didn't get enough improvement from that, Zetia and Werchol are better than statins as they work in the gut, do not interfere with the liver and therefore do not disrupt endogenous steroid production with the myriad of muscle and cognitive side effects statin produce.
If my LDL were elevated in spite of everything I did wrt to diet, exercise, maximizing niacin and either Zetia or Werchol, and I just flatout needed a statin, I'd take the smallest effective dose and add CoenzymeQ10 to my supplement regimen to reduce statin side effects.
> Another factor for clogging of arteries with arterial plaque is > triglycerides, which is basically fat in the blood. This is boosted > mainly by being overweight and/or having higher calorie intake. Calories do not correlate to triglycerides directly; it depends on what the calories are. You could eat 8000 calories of whey protein every day and there'd be nearly no effect on your triglycerides.
Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides. As a five-ring sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is removed from the blood by the liver and converted to triglycerides and released back to the blood, where it travels to adipose tissue to be stored. If you're lucky, none of it clogs up the coronary arteries on the way.
Glucose isn't quite so bad, in that your body has direct metabolic use for glucose and will use it if needed. But if you eat more carb than you need, it goes through the same basic pathway, liver converting it to triglycerides and storage in adipose.
Most foods we think of as "sugars" are fructose, glucose, galactose or a di-mer of them. Most foods we think of as "starches" are glucose polymers. So cutting sugar and starch intake is the fastest way to bring triglycerides down.
Equally important, but not discussed in your post, is HDL. This is the worst part of my personal lipid panel and hasn't improved with diet and exercise, so I'm taking SloNiacin for it. I've just titrated up to 1000 mg (began at 500 mg) and am aiming for 2000 eventually as my daily dose. As far as I've been able to tell, niacin is the only cholesterol-lowering medication that actually *raises* HDL, therefore improving the entire lipid panel.
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 00:10 GMT In <47543b58$0$2741$470ef3ce@news.pa.net>, Jackie Patti wrote in part:
>> Another factor for clogging of arteries with arterial plaque is >> triglycerides, which is basically fat in the blood. This is boosted [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the calories are. You could eat 8000 calories of whey protein every day >and there'd be nearly no effect on your triglycerides. Eat 4.4 pounds dry weight of protein daily and I doubt you would live long - that will put some serious stress on the liver and kidneys!
>Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides. As a five-ring >sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is >removed from the blood by the liver and converted to triglycerides and >released back to the blood, where it travels to adipose tissue to be >stored. Then why is HCFS-55 (55% fructose) supposed to be so much worse than sucrose which is a disaccharide with one of the two saccharides being fructose?
Why do I also hear bad things about the 6-ring variant of fructose, which the 5-ring form is said to change into if fructose is used in baked goods and hot coffee?
Why do at least some of the anti-carbers like sorbitol and mannitol, which must be metabolized by the liver? I see "low carb" candy made with these! Why should anti-carbers like those and hate fructose?
> If you're lucky, none of it clogs up the coronary arteries on >the way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you need, it goes through the same basic pathway, liver converting it to >triglycerides and storage in adipose. Excessive calories in any form have the same fate.
>Most foods we think of as "sugars" are fructose, glucose, galactose or a >di-mer of them. Most foods we think of as "starches" are glucose >polymers. So cutting sugar and starch intake is the fastest way to >bring triglycerides down. The American Heart Association does not emphasize carbs as especially bad calories for blood triglyceride levels to this extent.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 04 Dec 2007 02:58 GMT >> Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides. As a five-ring >> sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sucrose which is a disaccharide with one of the two saccharides being > fructose? HFCS is worse for triglyceride levels because it contains more fructose than sucrose. 55% is more than 50%.
Also, HFCS produces carbonyls in solution; there's evidence this is one of the causes of diabetes aside from the fructose.
> Why do I also hear bad things about the 6-ring variant of fructose, > which the 5-ring form is said to change into if fructose is used in baked > goods and hot coffee? I'm not sure what the "6-ring variant of fructose" is. I need something more specific to address your question.
> Why do at least some of the anti-carbers like sorbitol and mannitol, > which must be metabolized by the liver? I see "low carb" candy made with > these! Why should anti-carbers like those and hate fructose? That entirely depends. Many do *not* like them because they have laxative effects. Many who test their blood glucose regularly find some or all sugar alcohols raise bg as much as sugar, so they're not a very useful replacement. Some do like them. YMMV.
I'm not sure what the relevance is though. I was discussing carbohydrate metabolism. Fructose not being a healthy sugar does not imply sugar alcohols are healthy either; the two issues are entirely unrelated.
I'm not sure you understood my explanation of fructose metabolism; you seem to think that liver metabolising fructose is somehow significant. The liver being involved isn't the significant bit. The significant bit is liver metabolism of fructose raises serum triglycerides and therefore raises the risk of heart disease and that triglycerides are removed from the blood by adipose and stored as fat.
It's particulary distressing because fructose was long recommended to diabetics as a very low-GI sugar. And this is true, it doesn't raise blood glucose much at all, but in exchange for not raising bg, it gives you atherosclerosis and makes you fat - not exactly a good tradeoff if one is trying to optimize their health.
> Excessive calories in any form have the same fate. You don't need "excess" fructose to produce serum triglycerides and adipose; any fructose will do. The body can only convert it to glucose at very small quantities and has no other use for it except to sock it away for storage. This happens whether it's "excess" fructose or not, if the endocrine system is working properly, the fat will be burned while you're asleep or when caloric intake is insufficient. However, nearly all fructose becomes triglycerides - that's simply basic human biochemistry.
Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways of foods are *not* the same. Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as protein metabolism is not the same as fat metabolism. The chemical equations are different, the hormones that drive the equations are different, the end products are different.
> The American Heart Association does not emphasize carbs as especially > bad calories for blood triglyceride levels to this extent. The AHA allows their heart-healthy logo to be used on Cocoa Puffs and well... I just can't discuss nutrition with anyone who thinks Cocoa Puffs is health food.
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 03:28 GMT >>> Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides. As a five-ring >>> sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >nearly all fructose becomes triglycerides - that's simply basic human >biochemistry. Then why are fruits supposed to be good (though hated by a few anti-carbers)?
>Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways >of foods are *not* the same. Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as >protein metabolism is not the same as fat metabolism. The chemical >equations are different, the hormones that drive the equations are >different, the end products are different. The ultimate end products are either body fat or CO2+water (and some ammonia, uric acid or urea when proteins are metabolized - I forget which of these the amino group usually goes into when protein is metabolized). Unless one is in the process of gaining actual body weight other than fat and water that is.
Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change that into glucose for that matter.
>> The American Heart Association does not emphasize carbs as especially >> bad calories for blood triglyceride levels to this extent. > >The AHA allows their heart-healthy logo to be used on Cocoa Puffs and >well... I just can't discuss nutrition with anyone who thinks Cocoa >Puffs is health food. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 04 Dec 2007 04:38 GMT > Then why are fruits supposed to be good (though hated by a few > anti-carbers)? I'm not sure what an "anti-carber" is.
I eat low-carb and eat fruit daily, usually at two meals, though sometimes only at one. I eat blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, strawberries, kiwi, watermelon, honeydew, cantalope, lemons, limes, pomegranates, apples, peaches, tangerines, oranges.
I don't eat them for the fructose, but for the vitamins, minerals, fiber and phytochemicals. And I eat them because I enjoy berries stirred into my yogurt, I find melon on the side of some cottage cheese to be a pleasant breakfast, I like stevia-sweetened lemonade and limeade as a beverage, and I find a kiwi or half a pomegranate as dessert after dinner pleasurable.
>> Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways >> of foods are *not* the same. Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Unless one is in the process of gaining actual body weight other than fat > and water that is. I'm beginning to suspect you are purposely being silly.
I fed my daughter when she was a baby and am pretty certain I have empirical evidence that more end products than you suggest were produced. She's significantly taller at age 24 than when I gave birth and I'm pretty darned certain she doesn't consist primarily of C02, urea and fat. I guess the muscles and internal organs just appeared out of nowhere, eh? What a waste feeding her all those years!
I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat, cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my biochemistry courses.
> Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change > that into glucose for that matter. It's not the same. In fat, only the glycerol portion can be converted to glucose, and it takes two triglycerides to produce a single glucose molecule. Given the average molecular weight of fats (variable since fatty acids can be different lengths and contain different numebrs of hydrogen molecules), around 10% of fat on average can be converted to glucose. The rest of fat (the three fatty acids making up a "triglyceride" ) is metabolised in entirely different biochemical cycles than glucose; you don't feed fatty acids into the Kreb's cycle .
Protein is entirely different still. You hit the nail on the head with nitrogen; you cannot convert fat or carb to protein as they do not contain nitrogen. Protein also contains sulfur. Protein weight varies since the various amino acids vary, but on average only 50% can be converted to glucose. How much is actually converted depends on a variety of factors, largely under control of the endocrine system.
If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html
All the pathway diagrams are located on this page: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/BiochSupp/PathwayDiagrams/PathIndex.html - you find me the one where carbohydrates can be catabolised to urea; I'll be very interested to hear about it. Thanks.
You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the liver to triglycerides all you like, but you can't change basic biochemical fact anymore than you can suspend the laws of thermodynamics.
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
Don Klipstein - 08 Dec 2007 07:41 GMT >> Then why are fruits supposed to be good (though hated by a few >> anti-carbers)? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >beverage, and I find a kiwi or half a pomegranate as dessert after >dinner pleasurable. In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", sometimes citing title and author, to extent (in one case) of arguing that an apple is fattening while a quantity of sausage with same calorie count is not.
>>> Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways >>> of foods are *not* the same. Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >and fat. I guess the muscles and internal organs just appeared out of >nowhere, eh? What a waste feeding her all those years! OK, I may have to add that my comments had to do with kind of calorie intake breakdown by those who had free choice in their diets - which should be adults. Most people don't die of natural causes at a ripe old age with more muscle mass than they had at age 18.
>I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat, >cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my >biochemistry courses. That's because only protein can contribute to urea. Plenty of the anti-carbers sure like protein!
>> Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change >> that into glucose for that matter. > >It's not the same. In fat, only the glycerol portion can be converted >to glucose, and it takes two triglycerides to produce a single glucose >molecule. Then what the hell comes from the fatty acids? Why the hell should the human body store spare caloric energy in a form with most of the stored caloric content in fatty acids?
> Given the average molecular weight of fats (variable since >fatty acids can be different lengths and contain different numebrs of >hydrogen molecules), around 10% of fat on average can be converted to >glucose. The rest of fat (the three fatty acids making up a >"triglyceride" ) is metabolised in entirely different biochemical cycles >than glucose; you don't feed fatty acids into the Kreb's cycle . OK, you tell me what it does become! The body does make use of it!
>Protein is entirely different still. You hit the nail on the head with >nitrogen; you cannot convert fat or carb to protein as they do not >contain nitrogen. Protein also contains sulfur. Protein weight varies >since the various amino acids vary, but on average only 50% can be >converted to glucose. How much is actually converted depends on a >variety of factors, largely under control of the endocrine system. On average for protein, human metabolism gets 4 calories per gram from protein. I suspect the actual heat of combustion of "average protein" is more like 5 or 5.5 calories per gram.
>If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located >here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you find me the one where carbohydrates can be catabolised to urea; I'll >be very interested to hear about it. Thanks. I did not yet look and I only claimed that proteins go to urea.
>You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the >liver to triglycerides all you like, What I claim is that all forms of caloric food do or can become triglycerides.
Switch from carb intake from fructose to carb intake from glucose, and then your insulin upticks to get more glucose converted to triglycerides. Switch claorie intake from carb to other forms, and other metabolic pathways manage similar triglyceride output in most people not having a shortage of anything that is good.
> but you can't change basic >biochemical fact anymore than you can suspend the laws of thermodynamics. Such as the above?
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 08 Dec 2007 12:56 GMT > In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have > been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", sometimes > citing title and author, to extent (in one case) of arguing that an apple > is fattening while a quantity of sausage with same calorie count is not. OK.
I'm diabetic, so frankly more concerned with managing bg than weight loss. To me personally, fat loss is a side effect of low-carb, not the purpose.
An apple most definitly will raise my bg more than sausage. Apples contain twice as much sucrose and glucose and it does fiber.
However, since a third of the carbohydrate is fructose, it will likely have more effect on my serum triglycerides.
That "cost" buys me a lot of nutrients though.
Sausage will raise my bg slightly also. I find in my body that protein is not insiginficant to my bg readings. Small amounts of fat also can convert to glucose, but practically speaking the difference is not measurable.
Practically speaking, as someone who uses insulin, I find I 10g net carbs require an equivalent amount of bolus insulin as 30g protein. This is of course dependent on many factors, including my specific biochemistry and my diet, there's too many variables to state it as a "rule" or anything, except for me.
> OK, I may have to add that my comments had to do with kind of calorie > intake breakdown by those who had free choice in their diets - which > should be adults. Most people don't die of natural causes at a ripe old > age with more muscle mass than they had at age 18. You're oversimplifying though.
For instance, if you follow the pathways through, the end products of ethanol are water and carbon monoxide (pretty much the same as for carbohydrates).
But much ethanol is lost prior to completing the pathways, the intermediate acetic acid is lost in urine. So all the ethanol calories are not actually available to the body.
When you go through the biochemical pathways, you see a lot of this sort of thing.
Calories are measured in a bomb calorimeter, in which the food is reduced entirely to ash and water. It's a very precise way of measuring the potential energy in food. But bodies are not nearly as efficient at extracting energy from food as a calorimeter is; biochemistry just doesn't work like that.
>> I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat, >> cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my >> biochemistry courses. > > That's because only protein can contribute to urea. Plenty of the > anti-carbers sure like protein! I don't know. I don't think I've ever met an anti-carber. But I've only been hanging around on low carb fora for about a decade, so...
>>> Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change >>> that into glucose for that matter. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > human body store spare caloric energy in a form with most of the stored > caloric content in fatty acids? Free fatty acids can enter blood and muscle fiber by diffusion.
Fatty acids are used as building blocks for cell membranes, just as amino acids are the building blocks of muscle.
They are also used to produce cellular energy by being activated and transported into the mitochondria and burnt via the beta-oxidation cycle, which produces acetyl co-A to be fed into the Kreb's cycle.
They are also converted to ketones by the liver, some of which are burnt for energy and some of which are lost in urine and breath - we do not also extract energy from fat efficiently.
Some may be converted back to triglycerides by they lvier for transport to adipose.
Specifically what occurs to an excess of fatty acids in the body depends on the insulin, glucagon, epinephrine and norepinephrine levels at the time. It also depends on the concentrations of various cellular enzymes; during sleep, you are more in "fat burning" mode than when up and about. There's a lot of possibilities.
>> Given the average molecular weight of fats (variable since >> fatty acids can be different lengths and contain different numebrs of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > OK, you tell me what it does become! The body does make use of it! It uses some. Some it throws away partially used though.
> On average for protein, human metabolism gets 4 calories per gram from > protein. I suspect the actual heat of combustion of "average protein" is > more like 5 or 5.5 calories per gram. Bomb calorimeter measurements have little to do with it though. You excrete most excess nitrogen as urea, which is not a fully oxidized version of nitrogen as results from combustion. You don't extract all the calories from it.
>> If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located >> here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I did not yet look and I only claimed that proteins go to urea. The nitrogen bit often does, yes. It's also used in building proteins in your body, not just muscles, but enzymes and such, as well as nucleic acids.
>> You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the >> liver to triglycerides all you like, > > What I claim is that all forms of caloric food do or can become > triglycerides. With high blood glucose and corresponding high insulin resistance, very little glucose makes it into somatic cells to be used for energy. In that case, the liver clears it from the blood and stores it as triglycerides.
But that's not the only choice. Glucose can be used to produce ATP via the Kreb's cycle and burned as cellular energy.
For most biochemicals, it depends on what is going on with the entire body at the time, hormones, enzyme levels, etc.
Fructose has the same empirical formula as glucose, but it's got a weird shape relative to glucose, so it is very hard to convert it. So nearly all fructose becomes triglycerides regardless of what is going on with those levels just because that's pretty much all the body can do efficiently with an influx of fructose.
> Switch from carb intake from fructose to carb intake from glucose, and > then your insulin upticks to get more glucose converted to triglycerides. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Such as the above? Certainly all carbs are readily converted to triglycerides, if the biochemical environment is right for that.
Fructose does it regardless of the biochemcial environment though, cause our bodies aren't set up to do much with fructose except store it for the coming winter.
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
Don Klipstein - 10 Dec 2007 23:44 GMT >> In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have >> been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", sometimes [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >intermediate acetic acid is lost in urine. So all the ethanol calories >are not actually available to the body. The way I hear it, not much acetic acid goes that way - the liver metabolized a majority of it, and the muscles also metaboplize it.
>When you go through the biochemical pathways, you see a lot of this sort >of thing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >extracting energy from food as a calorimeter is; biochemistry just >doesn't work like that. That's why protein gets counted as 4 calories per gram rather than the roughly 5.4 actual heat of combustion.
>>> I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat, >>> cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Fatty acids are used as building blocks for cell membranes, just as >amino acids are the building blocks of muscle.
>They are also used to produce cellular energy by being activated and >transported into the mitochondria and burnt via the beta-oxidation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >for energy and some of which are lost in urine and breath - we do not >also extract energy from fat efficiently. Then why does urine normally not have ketones even though people normally have nonzero fat intake?
Also, any inefficiency in energy extraction while oxidizing anything means heat. This reduces the requirement of the body to burn calories to maintain body temperature.
>Some may be converted back to triglycerides by they lvier for transport >to adipose. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >It uses some. Some it throws away partially used though. How? Usual ketone level in urine is zero.
>> On average for protein, human metabolism gets 4 calories per gram from >> protein. I suspect the actual heat of combustion of "average protein" is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >version of nitrogen as results from combustion. You don't extract all >the calories from it. That's why bomb calorimeters say 5.4 while protein is only counted as 4 calories per gram.
>>> If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located >>> here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >in your body, not just muscles, but enzymes and such, as well as nucleic >acids. As long as the body's content of muscles, enzymes, etc. is staying the same, the amount of protein being metabolized is the same as the amount of protein being taken in.
>>> You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the >>> liver to triglycerides all you like, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >those levels just because that's pretty much all the body can do >efficiently with an influx of fructose.
>> Switch from carb intake from fructose to carb intake from glucose, and >> then your insulin upticks to get more glucose converted to triglycerides. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Certainly all carbs are readily converted to triglycerides, if the >biochemical environment is right for that. Same for all calorie forms in general.
>Fructose does it regardless of the biochemcial environment though, cause >our bodies aren't set up to do much with fructose except store it for >the coming winter. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Aaron Baugher - 10 Dec 2007 16:44 GMT > In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have > been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", > sometimes citing title and author, to extent (in one case) of arguing > that an apple is fattening while a quantity of sausage with same > calorie count is not. This is true, in general. Yes, since both foods give the body the same amount of energy to do something with, they're *potentially* equally fattening. But the higher amount of carbohydrate in the apple will cause a great production of insulin and other factors that increase the chance of the body storing that energy as fat.
Of course, we rarely eat foods in a vacuum, so a lot depends on what I eat the apple or sausage with. If I have the sausage with pancakes, and the apple as part of a low-carb salad with lettuce, nuts, and mayo; then more of the sausage may be stored as fat than the apple. But it's not because the sausage is "fattening"; it's because the pancakes are. Being calorie-dense doesn't automatically make something fattening; I have to eat enough of it to have extra energy to store (which is less likely to happen on low-carb in the first place), and I have to trigger the chemical reactions to cause it to be stored.
 Signature Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz
Don Klipstein - 10 Dec 2007 23:56 GMT >> In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have >> been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >cause a great production of insulin and other factors that increase the >chance of the body storing that energy as fat. Insulin is produced to regulate blood glucose concentration. If your blood glucose level was already adequate, insulin upticks to store just the extra calories as fat. Eat a sausage instead of an apple, and the sausage's calories don't need any insulin to make you fat.
>Of course, we rarely eat foods in a vacuum, so a lot depends on what I >eat the apple or sausage with. If I have the sausage with pancakes, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have to eat enough of it to have extra energy to store (which is less >likely to happen on low-carb in the first place), Which is less likely to happen if you consume less food energy and more likley to happen if you consume more food energy. Insulin is produced to regulate blood sugar. Carbs that are part of excessive calorie intake trigger insulin release to get them converted to fat. Excessive calories in other forms have other routes to become fat - you don't see much of those coming out in breath or urine - they go somewhere!
> and I have to trigger >the chemical reactions to cause it to be stored. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 00:30 GMT In <47543b58$0$2741$470ef3ce@news.pa.net>, Jackie Patti wrote in part:
>> In fact, in about 80% of the population, dietary cholesterol intake does >> not affect blood cholesterol level (total and LDL vs. HDL) as much as fat [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >topic the past few months and haven't seen this data yet. Do you have a >reference? I saw that in a newspaper article several years ago.
Now, Google is telling me that the problem is with 15% of the population and is a faulty cholesterol regulation mechanism. The other 85% of the population has their bodies producing less cholesterol if more is eaten and vice versa, while fat intake (both quantity and what kinds of fat are eaten) affect blood cholesterol more than dietary cholesterol intake does.
In the 15% of the population with faulty cholesterol regulation, it is important to restrict intake of dietary cholesterol.
An earlier link that I got from Google after a few minutes working on this is:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n242/ai_19945113
If I spent more time reading Google returns from
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22dietary+cholesterol%22+15+ %22percent+of+the+population%22
I think I would find among the first 100-200 of the 2,050 hits that explain this well and give good citations if I put more time into reading these hits to find and identify the really good ones.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
MU - 02 Dec 2007 06:35 GMT > Your post made me hungry. Then you still have a serious problem.
Cubit - 02 Dec 2007 15:01 GMT >> Your post made me hungry. > > Then you still have a serious problem. Low calorie days have windows of vulnerability.
I've been at maintenance for 2 years now.
I felt my post was humorous, and it happens it was true too. I went and had a protein shake.
MU - 03 Dec 2007 01:57 GMT >>> Your post made me hungry. >> >> Then you still have a serious problem. > > Low calorie days have windows of vulnerability. If you're vulnerable to simply *reading* about food, then you still have a serious problem.
> I've been at maintenance for 2 years now. So?
> I felt my post was humorous, and it happens it was true too. I went and had > a protein shake. Then you still have a serious problem.
Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 02:23 GMT >>>>Your post made me hungry. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Then you still have a serious problem. I disagree, Mu. I haven't smoked for 22 years, yet sometimes when my SO lights a cigarette, it still smells "good". I do not have a serious problem, because I have no intention of acting those feelings.
Marsha/Ohio
MU - 03 Dec 2007 03:50 GMT >> If you're vulnerable to simply *reading* about food, then you still have a >> serious problem. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Marsha/Ohio When you read your post about smoking, did it make you want to smoke?
Charmander - 03 Dec 2007 17:35 GMT  Signature What's popular isn't always right. What's right isn't always popular.
> Your post made me hungry. > > Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup. for real! I don't feel so guilty about eating my ramen w/miso, tofu, & nori while reading this. I'm kind of glad I don't have access to many of these places. The restaurants around here are bad enough as it is. Seems if we go out any more, we only hit the habachi grills.
Jon v Leipzig - 02 Dec 2007 10:59 GMT > http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods > > The 20 worst foods in America > > The U.S. food industry has declared war on your waistline. Why....does the food industry also manufacture pants ??
> Eat at your own risk If you eat one of these meals per week, what's the risk???
> By: Matt Goulding, Men's Health magazine > Sure, a turkey burger sounds healthy. But is it, really? Not if you order [quoted text clipped - 310 lines] > > Jim - 02 Dec 2007 11:29 GMT >> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you eat one of these meals per week, what's the risk??? 3.14159
Lisbeth Andersson - 02 Dec 2007 20:49 GMT >>> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20Wor >>> stFoods [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 3.14159 Your talk about PIE has made me hungry. :-(
Lisbeth.
---- The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 02 Dec 2007 18:31 GMT > >http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods > [quoted text clipped - 314 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nobody could really tell you the risk. I have occasionally heard that you are more likely to have a stroke or heart attack after such a high- fat, high cal meal, but that could just be coincidental. There are far too many factors to determine the risk including what, if anything you did to offset it, like exercising a little more, eating less another day, taking an aspirin, your particular genetics, present age, condition, etc, etc. Even then nobody can tell you for certain that being a little fat or eating a little too much cholesterol would be statistically significant even for the population at large, so it boils down to a judgement call and opinions. dkw
Lady Veteran - 02 Dec 2007 18:26 GMT >http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods If a hamburger has all that fat in it at a fast foot place-how do homemade burgers stack up?
one beef patty, tomatoes, 1/2 teaspoon mayo, dash of mustard. one slice Velveeta cheese and two regular sized buns?
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones -------------------------------------------- "A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not change the subject."
---Winston Churchill ----------------------------------------------
Don Klipstein - 03 Dec 2007 01:12 GMT >>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods >> >If a hamburger has all that fat in it at a fast foot place-how do >homemade burgers stack up? > >one beef patty, A 6 ounce precooked weight beef patty has 330 calories. A 1/4 pound one has 220 calories.
>tomatoes, Not much, a bit of sugars.
>1/2 teaspoon mayo, That's little mayo as far as burgers with mayo go. I only see people use at least half a tablespoon or none at all. But a mere half teaspoon of mayo has 20 calories.
A Whopper has 160 of its 670 calories from mayo. 10 of those are from carbs and 150 of those are from fat, but BK omits the mayo in their bunless "Low Carb Whopper".
> dash of mustard. Just a few calories.
> one slice Velveeta cheese 80 calories
>and two regular sized buns? A burger bun has 150-170 calories, based on looking up nutritional info on a couple of McD's burgers. Most are white bread, which has somewhere around 55-60 calories per ounce if I remember well from back when I read a couple of bread packages.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Lady Veteran - 04 Dec 2007 01:05 GMT >>>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) so it seems that the condiments are the villain here? Yes, meat has a high calorie content but those are primarily protein calories. Home made most of the time uses a better cut of meat or ground chuck.
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones -------------------------------------------- "A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not change the subject."
---Winston Churchill ----------------------------------------------
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 01:41 GMT <Calorie analysis of a homemade burger with specific ingredients>
>so it seems that the condiments are the villain here? Yes, meat has a >high calorie content but those are primarily protein calories. Home >made most of the time uses a better cut of meat or ground chuck. I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt to lose body fat generally failing. The 4 calories per gram "official figure" for protein is already discounted for the human body not oxidizing it completely.
The condiments are significant villains if they are calorie-dense ones, and I see mayo standing out in this area. Plenty of mayo has almost twice the calorie density of sugar! Ketchup and mustard have much lower calorie density than the usual calorie-dense mayo, though usually plenty of salt.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 04 Dec 2007 03:17 GMT > I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein > calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt > to lose body fat generally failing. The 4 calories per gram "official > figure" for protein is already discounted for the human body not oxidizing > it completely. I'm curious where you see this.
I've been a diabetic almost 2 decades now and have been low-carbing for about a decade, during which time I've participated in many different low-carb fora, both online and offline.
I've really never seen people eating more protein when they low-carb for any length of time. Sometimes when they start, they go overboard for a while, but it never lasts.
I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself. I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do not eat more protein.
My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets.
The Yudkin study is discussed by Dr. Mike Eades here: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/09/11/is-a-calorie-always-a-calorie/
"Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter, margarine, cream and leafy vegetables as they wished. The amount of carbohydrate in other food was listed in 'units' with each unit consisting of 5 g carbohydrate; the subjects were told to limit these foods to not more than 10 units (or 50 g) carbohydrate daily."
They found instructing folks this way resulted in them eating less carb (216g reduced to 67g per day), about the same amount of protein (84g vs. 83g) and less fat (124g to only 105g per day).
Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy foods for more servings of vegetables. I've frankly never understood why eating mashed cauliflower instead of mashed potatoes was considered *controversial* - less carb, same amount of protein, less fat and more veggies... what exactly is so *bad* about this?
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
Don Klipstein - 08 Dec 2007 07:24 GMT >> I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein >> calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do >not eat more protein. I hear plenty of low carb advocates advocating increased protein consumption.
>My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets. My experience is that low-carbing coworkers increase consumption of fat and protein.
If you decrease carb intake without increasing intake of fat or protein, then you are decreasing your calorie intake.
>"Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk >daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter, >margarine, cream and leafy vegetables as they wished. The amount of >carbohydrate in other food was listed in 'units' with each unit >consisting of 5 g carbohydrate; the subjects were told to limit these >foods to not more than 10 units (or 50 g) carbohydrate daily."
>They found instructing folks this way resulted in them eating less carb >(216g reduced to 67g per day), about the same amount of protein (84g vs. >83g) and less fat (124g to only 105g per day). My experience is that people limiting carbs so severely and eating as much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and more protein than before.
One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to 105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545. My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much to reduce their calorie intake due to following some belief that carb calories are fattening and other calories are not. They tend to not lose much weight as a result, then get skeptical of all diets and get more fatalistic about getting in a good shape via diet. Also, while being less physically active than most Americans were before 1965-1970 or so.
>Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy >foods for more servings of vegetables. That will give weight loss, and most Americans eat to little of veggies and too much of starchy foods (as well as excessive fat and protein).
> I've frankly never understood why eating mashed cauliflower instead of > mashed potatoes was considered *controversial* - less carb, 4 grams or so per ounce of each vegetable product
> same amount of protein, 1 gram or fraction of a gram per ounce of vegetable product
> less fat Potatoes and cauliflower both have negligible fat content. 1/4 pound of each have maybe a gram of fat.
> and more veggies... what exactly is so *bad* about this? The controversy comes in part from using examples of reduction of calories to claim that carbs as opposed to calories in general being fattening.
Potatoes have no more fat than cauliflower, and potatoes have 20 calories per ounce. If one is getting fat from potatoes, it's probably from high calorie density fatty toppings or eating some serious bulkage of potatoes (or both). But I don't mind cauliflower - I think most Americans don't eat enough veggies. Personally, I eat plenty of veggies - though mainly ones green, red, orange or yellow in color rather than cauliflower.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 08 Dec 2007 12:17 GMT >> I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself. >> I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do >> not eat more protein. > I hear plenty of low carb advocates advocating increased protein > consumption. And you measured what they eat, right?
>> My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets. > > My experience is that low-carbing coworkers increase consumption of fat > and protein. And you measured what they eat, right?
So your experience trumps an actual study in which these things were measured, eh?
>> "Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk >> daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and > more protein than before. By percentage, that is absolutely true; my diet is approximately 60-70% of the calories from fat. If my body processed food by percentage, it would matter.
But by amount, it's less fat than I ate on a high-carb diet with lots of whole grains like quinoa and brown rice when I was trying to limit fat as much as possible.
> One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to > 105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545. Yup. My calories average 1400-1600 per day and have for years now, so the study didn't surprise me when I found it. People eating ad libitum on low-carb spontaneously reduce calories; it's been shown again and again.
My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories. Consumption of a couple pounds per day of veggies does cut the calories quite a bit since they contain largely noncaloric water.
> My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their > intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fatalistic about getting in a good shape via diet. Also, while being less > physically active than most Americans were before 1965-1970 or so. Your personal experience is watching people eat, not measuring what they're eating, and not doing it yourself. I don't think that trumps either actual research or the personal experience of folks who've done it.
Throwing out the bun on a hamburger does not increase the calories in the burger any. It just decreases your hunger since it limits insulin spikes.
I've maintained a 50 lb loss for several years, so... your experience not doing the diet is not very compelling to me in the face of my own experience.
More importantly, I've maintained bg levels and thus reduced my chances of suffering diabetic complications. Cause hey, I *could* eat lots of carbs and wind up needing bits amputated, but that'd be a crappy way to lose weight. YMMV.
>> Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy >> foods for more servings of vegetables. > > That will give weight loss, and most Americans eat to little of veggies > and too much of starchy foods (as well as excessive fat and protein). I agree that hardly anyone eats enough veggies; most Americans don't even hit the lame-a.s USDA recommendations.
> The controversy comes in part from using examples of reduction of > calories to claim that carbs as opposed to calories in general being > fattening. Discussing calories *only* ignores the biochemical cycles involved and the hormonal effects of diet.
About 14 years or so ago, I did a low-fat diet for a year. I was hungry *all* the time, don't know how I lasted a year, it was just sheer willpower. I became progressively weaker until I could barely get to work and spent nearly all the rest of the time in bed by the end of the year. And at the end of the year, I'd gained weight.
Then I bought a bg meter and learned to eat low-carb. I have never been hungry on low-carb - over a decade with hardly any "willpower" needed to do it. Without much fast-acting carb in my diet, my bg doesn't rise and I don't feel that painful type of hunger that wakes you from a dead sleep.
Both weight loss and maintenance works *practically* on low-carb in a way it doesn't on just lowering isocalorically.
And as we've seen, when scientists actually *measure* what people eat on low-carb, protein intake does not rise and fat intake decreases.
> Potatoes have no more fat than cauliflower, and potatoes have 20 > calories per ounce. If one is getting fat from potatoes, it's probably > from high calorie density fatty toppings or eating some serious bulkage of > potatoes (or both). But I don't mind cauliflower - I think most Americans > don't eat enough veggies. I don't know how *you* make mashed potatoes, but I've never really made them without at least milk and butter myself, but they're much better with sour cream and chives. I do the same with mashed cauliflower.
They're similar veggies generally, in being very bland, boring foods with little taste appeal until doctored up somehow. They fit in the diet the same way, which is why I used them as examples as mashed cauliflower easily replaces mashed potatoes.
The significant difference is that potatoes contain a lot of starch (21g carb in 100g potato) whereas cauliflower doesn't (4g per 100g cauliflower); about one tenth of the potato carbs are fiber whereas half of cauliflower's are.
Based on bg measurements I've made with Sweetarts (nearly pure glucose), the potato would raise my bg about 60 mg/dL and the cauliflower about 6 mg/dL.
The spike from potato contributes to insulin resistance and thus the glucose is less likely to enter cells to be used for energy and more likely to be converted to triglycerides and stored in adipose. Thus the potato is more likely to result in fatigue, rebound hunger and fat gain. All this from half a medium sixed potato.
And yes, the cauliflower only has about a quarter of the calories of the potato.
This isn't even getting into the micronutrient differences. Cauliflower has significant amounts of vitamins C, K, B6 and folate in 100 gram serving; potatoes have a quarter of the vitamin C and a bit more B6 and if you eat the skin, a good dose of potassium and otherwise, nearly no nutrition.
It's a good example to discuss largely because neither has much phytochemical content and can therefore be easily looked up in the USDA database (which doesn't contain phytochemicals yet, though there is a flavanoid databse separate from the main nutrition database).
> Personally, I eat plenty of veggies - though mainly ones green, red, > orange or yellow in color rather than cauliflower. I eat around 2 lbs of vegetables daily, and like you, focus mostly on the darkest, deepest colors to maximize micronutrient content and especially phytochemicals. I eat even more in the summer when the fresh stuff is more available; tastes much better to me.
Still mashed cauliflower replaces mashed potatoes in a practical sense that a stirfry of mixed bell peppers doesn't, which is why I used it as an example. Plus it's a common substitution that many low-carb folks make.
Other practical examples in *my* diet include replacing noodles with stirfried shredded cabbage and pasta with stirfried shredded zucchini. This is pretty specific to me though; everyone does low-carb differently.
Practically speaking, vegetables crowd out nearly all simple sugars (with the exception of low-sugar fruits) and starches in my diet.
I don't see any possible downside to this.
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
em - 08 Dec 2007 17:21 GMT > I agree that hardly anyone eats enough veggies; most Americans don't even > hit the lame-a.s USDA recommendations. I eat a *lot* more fruits and veggies on low-carb than I ever did before, by percentage, weight, or any way you could count it. I *never* made it a habit, on a low-cal diet or on no diet, to eat veggies every day. Following a low-carb diet, as I understand it, and as low-carb dieting works for me, there is no choice. Either you eat a lot of fruits and veggies in order to get your carbs, or the diet fails. YMMV. -- Mike
Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 01:10 GMT >>> I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself. >>> I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >So your experience trumps an actual study in which these things were >measured, eh? How about those books the anti-carbers are telling me to read being said to explain why one should eat more protein and can eat more fat, as opposed to not letting consumption of those increase? One of them being titled "Protein Power"?
>> My experience is that people limiting carbs so severely and eating as >> much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >whole grains like quinoa and brown rice when I was trying to limit fat >as much as possible. My experience is that coworkers and family members who tried low-carb ate more meat and more nuts because that was supposed to be OK.
>> One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to >> 105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >on low-carb spontaneously reduce calories; it's been shown again and >again. Except when my coworkers and relatives tried it. They ate more meat, more nuts, more salad oil, more butter. In a few cases they kept count of calories, due to trying low-calorie before, in expectation of confirmation that calories are not as bad if they are not from carbs - and consumed anywhere from 2100-3,000 calories per day (usually 2100-2600). They were surprised to see their weight maintained or increasing slightly. Some reported weight loss limited to the first 2 weeks of low-carb.
>My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots >of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories. Consumption >of a couple pounds per day of veggies does cut the calories quite a bit >since they contain largely noncaloric water. And fiber!
This is well and good to do, and unrelated to which kinds of calories to reduce intake of by susbstituting calorie-dense foods with ones that we should be eating.
>> My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their >> intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >the burger any. It just decreases your hunger since it limits insulin >spikes. Why are carbs supposed to make you hungrier by causing an insulin spike, and fructose supposed to leave you hungrier by not doing so?
I think the sellers of bunless burgers want people to buy them because they are less filling so people would buy more burgers or more of other food.
>I've maintained a 50 lb loss for several years, so... your experience >not doing the diet is not very compelling to me in the face of my own >experience. My experience is that those who lost weight and sustained their weight loss did so by reducing calories and they did not need to reduce carbs more than other calories to do so. The one I know who had greatest success in weight loss (to improve heart health after a heart attack) actually increased the percentage of his caloriesbeing in the form of carbs.
>More importantly, I've maintained bg levels and thus reduced my chances >of suffering diabetic complications. Cause hey, I *could* eat lots of >carbs and wind up needing bits amputated, but that'd be a crappy way to >lose weight. YMMV. That friend of mine who reduced calorie count after his heart attack is doing very well. His cardiologist told him to keep on doing whatever he started doing because his outcome turned out to be the best thought possible by his cardiologist. Including the daily bowl of "Froot Loops" that replaces chinese takeout and steak. He eats more chicken cutlets but less meat overall.
If he was diabetic, he would probably have to quit the "Froot Loops". Since he is now nice and lean, chances are much less that he will become diabetic.
>>> Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy >>> foods for more servings of vegetables. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >work and spent nearly all the rest of the time in bed by the end of the >year. And at the end of the year, I'd gained weight. That friend of mine dieting to not get another heart attack reduced his calorie intake more by fat than by anything else and his energy level did not drop at all.
I also have my energy level varying directly with intake of carbs. This may be an effect of getting adequate exercise or keeping body fat content low enough to reduce my risk of becoming pre-diabetic.
>Then I bought a bg meter and learned to eat low-carb. I have never been >hungry on low-carb - over a decade with hardly any "willpower" needed to >do it. Without much fast-acting carb in my diet, my bg doesn't rise and >I don't feel that painful type of hunger that wakes you from a dead sleep. If I reduce my calorie intake in any form, I sleep more soundly (and more).
>Both weight loss and maintenance works *practically* on low-carb in a >way it doesn't on just lowering isocalorically. > >And as we've seen, when scientists actually *measure* what people eat on >low-carb, protein intake does not rise and fat intake decreases. They should have measured my coworkers and relatives who believed those books saying to eat more protein and that it's OK to eat more fat!
<EDIT FOR SPACE by snipping potato vs. culiflower including some results that I suspect to be specific to diabetics and pre-diabetics>
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 11 Dec 2007 05:05 GMT > How about those books the anti-carbers are telling me to read > being said to explain why one should eat more protein and can eat more > fat, as opposed to not letting consumption of those increase? One of them > being titled "Protein Power"? An excellent book.
According to the calcualtions in that book for me, a cup of cottage cheese, a cup of yogurt and a can of tuna more than covers my protein needs for the day.
That is an excessive amount of protein?
Or you just decided that the book *must* have recommendations for excessive protein intake without reading it based on it being recommended by the "anti-carbers"?
> My experience is that coworkers and family members who tried low-carb > ate more meat and more nuts because that was supposed to be OK. Your experience is no experience. You have not done low-carb yourself. You have also not measured what anyone ate. So you don't really know what you're talking about.
I've been doing this for a decade. I *know* that I buy double and triple the fresh produce I did before. I also know I don't buy more meat, cheese or eggs. I *do* buy more nuts and seeds as I've made a conscious decision to eat more of them.
>> My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots >> of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories. Consumption [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reduce intake of by susbstituting calorie-dense foods with ones that we > should be eating. It absolutely has to do with it. If I fix a plate for dinner, and put a 4oz tilapia fillet on it, whether I have room for a few tablespoons of okra or a half pound varies depending on whether there's a baked potato on my plate.
There's essential amino acids and essential fatty acids that must be had in a balanced diet. There's also a wide variety of micronutrients needed. Choosing carb sources that maximize the micronutrients per carb greatly improves the diet - this means getting most of your carbs from nonstarchy veggies and low-sugar fruits.
There's simply better and worse choices and a large variety of deeply-colored veggies adds much that is not added by pasta or rice.
>> Throwing out the bun on a hamburger does not increase the calories in >> the burger any. It just decreases your hunger since it limits insulin >> spikes. > > Why are carbs supposed to make you hungrier by causing an insulin spike, > and fructose supposed to leave you hungrier by not doing so? Fructose is a carb; but it is not glucose. It cannot be converted to glucose and barely raises your bg. It is a "weird" carb, which is what we began by discussing.
Carbs are not "supposed" to cause an insulin spike; either they do or you are taking insulin injections.
> I think the sellers of bunless burgers want people to buy them because > they are less filling so people would buy more burgers or more of other > food. That's not been my experience at all. Carbs make me hungry.
> My experience is that those who lost weight and sustained their weight > loss did so by reducing calories and they did not need to reduce carbs > more than other calories to do so. The one I know who had greatest > success in weight loss (to improve heart health after a heart attack) > actually increased the percentage of his caloriesbeing in the form of > carbs. Your experience contradicts mine.
When I reduced calories via a low-fat diet, I spent a year very, very hungry. That required *enormous* discipline to stick to as I was ravenous the entire time, waking at night with painful hunger pangs. At the end of that year, I was very weak and could barely get out of bed. And I'd gained weight. :(
Low-carb requires little willpower on my part as it doesn't leave me hungry.
Obviously, mileage varies. My SIL lost 100 lbs on Weight Watchers. Although she eats more carbs than I do, I've noticed the particular *way* she implements WW is similar to what I do in that the majority of her food is fruits and vegetables.
 Signature http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 08:05 GMT >> How about those books the anti-carbers are telling me to read >> being said to explain why one should eat more protein and can eat more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >excessive protein intake without reading it based on it being >recommended by the "anti-carbers"? I have already had that book recommended to me to support claims of goodness of actually increasing daily protein intake by grams, not just percentage of calories. Along with claims that protein calories are less fattening to an extent beyond the discount to 4 calories per gram from the 5.4 calories per gram that a bomb calorimeter typically indicates. I prefer to not contribute any of my money to such a cause that makes my BS detector start ringing, in large part due to my overall life experience in this area, including claims that apples are fattening while sausage with same calories are less so.
>> My experience is that coworkers and family members who tried low-carb >> ate more meat and more nuts because that was supposed to be OK. > >Your experience is no experience. You have not done low-carb yourself. I have done low-carb non-low-calorie, low-fat non-low-calorie, and low calorie. Low calorie slows me riding my bike. That gets worse when the calorie reduction is more from carb reduction than from fat reduction. I find carbs hurting me less by being bicycle fuel.
> You have also not measured what anyone ate. So you don't really know >what you're talking about. Do I need a gram scale and a bomb calorimeter on hand to verify that coworkers and relatives are teling the truth when they say they tried eating more meat, eggs and dairy and less bread and cereal out of belief that carb calories are worse than other calories?
>I've been doing this for a decade. I *know* that I buy double and >triple the fresh produce I did before. I also know I don't buy more >meat, cheese or eggs. My experience is that those trying low-carb do buy more meat, cheese and eggs. And increased produce consumption is a good way to go whether targeting for reduction carb calories, fat calories, both, or calories in general!
> I *do* buy more nuts and seeds as I've made a >conscious decision to eat more of them. Aren't whole grains seeds?
>>> My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots >>> of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories. Consumption [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >okra or a half pound varies depending on whether there's a baked potato >on my plate. Or a 5-6 ounce sausage or a a steak or a pork chop for that matter!
>There's essential amino acids and essential fatty acids that must be had >in a balanced diet. Heck, vegetarians with over 2/3 of their caloric intake from carbs manage to do that truly adequately!
> There's also a wide variety of micronutrients >needed. Choosing carb sources that maximize the micronutrients per carb [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Carbs are not "supposed" to cause an insulin spike; either they do or >you are taking insulin injections. Fructose does not, and other carbs only do when eaten in a binge that causes bounces in insulin reaction or by people that are already pre-diabetic or diabetic (conditions caused more by having excessive body fat than by calorie type percentage breakdown).
>> I think the sellers of bunless burgers want people to buy them because >> they are less filling so people would buy more burgers or more of other >> food. > >That's not been my experience at all. Carbs make me hungry. My experience is that going low-calorie makes me hungry and slows me down no matter what form my remaining calorie intake is. I find caloric content in general to sate me, and carbs to do so more quickly and effectively.
My experience is that the foods that increase my hunger are hot spicy foods.
>> My experience is that those who lost weight and sustained their weight >> loss did so by reducing calories and they did not need to reduce carbs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Your experience contradicts mine. Finally, a point where we agree!
>When I reduced calories via a low-fat diet, I spent a year very, very >hungry. That required *enormous* discipline to stick to as I was >ravenous the entire time, waking at night with painful hunger pangs. At >the end of that year, I was very weak and could barely get out of bed. >And I'd gained weight. :( And my friend trying to not get another heart attack reduced calorie intake on all fronts, more against fat than against other calorie forms, lost a lot of body fat and actually slightly gained perception of energy. He even reported the "Froot Loops" almost-daily consumption to his cardiologist, who told him to keep up the good work to sustain the best-possible outcome that he achieved!
>Low-carb requires little willpower on my part as it doesn't leave me >hungry. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >*way* she implements WW is similar to what I do in that the majority of >her food is fruits and vegetables. I consider this confirmation of goodness of eating veggies and fruits. (I do hear anti-carbers in past and current experience claiming that apples are fattening while same calories from sausages are not.) I find it likely that increasing veggie consumption helps one decrease calorie consumption. I even think that most fruits have lower calorie density than the calorie-dense food or "food" that all too many Americans eat all too much of nowadays while being more sedentary than most Americans were before about 1970 or 1960 or so.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 02 Dec 2007 23:36 GMT In <20071201170605.189CC4E4B1@outpost.zedz.net>, Louise wrote in part:
>12: Worst burger >Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >A Simple Solution: The Low Carb Six Dollar Burger has just 490 calories. The Low Carb one has 74 grams less fat for a reduction of 666 calories from fat, and 54 grams less carb for a reduction of 216 calories from carb. It also has 34 grams less protein for a reduction of 144 calories from protein. About 21% of the calorie reduction is from carb reduction.
Now, why do they give some sort of implication that it is less fattening primarily because it is low carb?
Even compared to the "Original Six Dollar Burger", most of the calorie reduction is from reduction of caloric content other than carbs.
Also, this low carb burger sure does not look like a burger to me. It has no bun. The picture looks to me like it is in a bag-like paper wrapper.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) (posting from reading misc.consumers)
brigid nelson - 03 Dec 2007 04:40 GMT > In <20071201170605.189CC4E4B1@outpost.zedz.net>, Louise wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > has no bun. The picture looks to me like it is in a bag-like paper > wrapper. The paper wrapper makes it easier to hold the "lettuce sandwich". I've eaten many Six Dollar Low-Carb Burgers, they're pretty messy with all the condiments on the patty wrapped up in lettuce. Are you sure about the calorie count though? I seem to recall figuring it out to be more like 1,000 cals per serving.
Many low-carbers reject the calorie-in, calorie-out hypothesis in any case. We're not that worried about the number of calories we eat, but the percentage of carbs to fats and proteins. The implication is that carbs trigger the release of insulin which facilitates the storage of sugars and starches as fats. Of course this flies in the face of the current accepted wisdom profferred by nutritionists and other health-care professionals.
If you're really interested in this subject, may I suggest that you read _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ by Gary Taubes? He's a writer for the journal Science who has analyzed the actual published diet research and draws his conclusions based upon what those studies actually show, which in many cases is not the same as what the authors of those studies claim.
brigid
brigid
The Master - 03 Dec 2007 18:53 GMT > 20: Worst fast-food chicken meal > Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips from McDonald's (5 pieces) with > creamy ranch sauce And here I thought they were healthy...
> 18: Worst supermarket meal > Pepperidge Farm Roasted Chicken Pot Pie (whole pie) Looks like Chicken is bad for me... Good thing there is beef...
> 17: Worst 'healthy' burger > Ruby Tuesday Bella Turkey Burger See? BEEF!
> 16: Worst Mexican entree > Chipotle Mexican Grill Chicken Burrito Chipotle only puts on it what you want... Want a healthy burrito? Don't put all the unhealthy stuff on it. Personally, I want the beans, rice, sour cream, cheese, beef, etc etc etc... I'm just saying don't b!tch about it when it's in your power to limit it...
> Macaroni Grill Double Macaroni 'n' Cheese > Your Best Option: The 390-calorie Grilled Chicken and Broccoli. Like getting your kid to eat that will work...
> 14: Worst sandwich > Quiznos Classic Italian (large) And they have the balls to say Subway is bad for you...
> 13: Worst salad > On the Border Grande Taco Salad with Taco Beef That's not really a "salad" though, is it?
> 12: Worst burger > Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger So, the double western baccon cheeseburger is just fine then... MMmmmmm...
> 7: Worst chicken entree > Chili's Honey Chipotle Crispers with Chipotle Sauce See? More chicken! Chicken is evil!
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 01:11 GMT >> 20: Worst fast-food chicken meal >> Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips from McDonald's (5 pieces) with >> creamy ranch sauce > >And here I thought they were healthy... I don't know whether or not these are breaded and fried - which gives a 1-1/2 whammy of extra calories, the breading and more still the frying oil in the breading.
That ranch sauce is probably rich in vegetable oil, which like fats in general have 9 calories per gram.
>> 18: Worst supermarket meal >> Pepperidge Farm Roasted Chicken Pot Pie (whole pie) > >Looks like Chicken is bad for me... Good thing there is beef... Chicken and same-leanness beef are similar in calorie content and fat content. One problem with pot pies is the pie crust. Most pie crusts and many other pastries have significant amounts of either lard or partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening (which typically has plenty of trans fat).
>> 17: Worst 'healthy' burger Ruby Tuesday Bella Turkey Burger > >See? BEEF! I would think the "worst burger" gets to have beef and no poultry.
>> 12: Worst burger >> Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger It has beef rather than poultry!
http://www.carlsjr.com/content_svn/downloads/ingredients.pdf
page 5
Whoa - extra especially bad for a bad burger - the patty has partially hydrogenated vegetable oil! Maybe not much worse since it has less of this than it has salt, though this burger does have more than a day's recommended allowance of sodium! The roughly 2.7 grams of sodium in the burger as a whole means about 6.5 grams of salt, and not all of this is added salt in the patty, and the oil added to the patty is less still in quantity, but it caught my attention!
>So, the double western baccon cheeseburger is just fine then... 970 calories - sounds to me to be a smaller burger than the "Double Six Dollar Burger", and by calorie count in comparison to the calorie champion sounds to me like a move out of the fire and into the frying pan.
The beef patty here this time is nothing but beef.
>> 7: Worst chicken entree >> Chili's Honey Chipotle Crispers with Chipotle Sauce > >See? More chicken! Chicken is evil! Sounds to me like something that is breaded and fried in oil and also having a fat-rich sauce.
Hmmm... I wonder if I could sustain a bonfire by feeding it modern American high-calorie-density fast food once it gets rolling? I suspect that could be done! I have seen campfires sustained with green logs and damp logs, so I think the same could be done with bacon cheeseburgers, chicken nuggets/tenders, maybe even french fries!
I know that most nuts burn easily, not surprising since most have more calories per gram than sugar has. Sugar also burns if added to a campfire or a bonfire, and flour burns and especially thick concentrations of grain dust in air can if ignited flash up quickly enough to blow up grain elevators. And I know that cars have been made that can run on vegetable oil and that vegetable oil can be used in oil lamps and that candles can be made of more-solid fats. But I think it would make some impact to show a bonfire being fueled with french fries, bacon cheeseburgers or chicken nuggets!
This would mainly be good as a demonstration, since cost per unit heat of combustion is less for materials that have experienced more use or consideration for use as fuels than for burgers, fries, and chicken nuggets.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
amdo954@gmail.com - 03 Dec 2007 18:58 GMT There is an interesting podcast on NPR about carbohydrates. It discusses new evidence about the particle size being a major.
Armando http://www.mynsp.com/herbsoflife
Steve - 04 Dec 2007 16:24 GMT > http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods > [quoted text clipped - 323 lines] > > At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie. Great tips!
George - 08 Dec 2007 05:14 GMT How can a food be bad? Does food make people fat? or do people make themselves fat? What does WW teach, anyway?
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods > [quoted text clipped - 323 lines] > > At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie. em - 08 Dec 2007 05:32 GMT > How can a food be bad? Does food make people fat? or do people make > themselves fat? What does WW teach, anyway? Food makes people fat, of course. Bad foods sold by greedy people. That's my theory.
Mr Markham - 21 Dec 2007 18:56 GMT > http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods > [quoted text clipped - 308 lines] > > At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie. God help me, this sounds fantastic:
1: The worst food in America Outback Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing
2,900 calories
182 g fat
240 g carbs Even if you split these "starters" with three friends, you'll have downed a dinner's worth of calories before your entrée arrives.
|
|
|