Reader's Digest & Low Carb

This month's Reader's Digest (Australian Edition) features "Low Carb
Diets - The Verdict" as their Cover Story.

It is a rather lightweight look at low carbing but is positive in
agreeing that low carb diets work, and that low carbing (not extreme)
has health benefits.

I found it interesting that they had this to say:

"It's no longer a matter of controversy whether low-carb diets can lead
to weight loss", quoting Dr Eric Westerman, research Director of the
Diet & Fitness Centre at Duke University in North Carolina. He went on
to say that they do create short-term weight losses".

They then reported on the 2003 study from the New England Journal of
Medicine where they found that participants on a low-carb plan lost
twice as much weight over six months as participants on standard low
kilojoule/low fat plans, with the added bonus of healthier levels of
cholesterol and blood fats. They also mention that at the twelve month
stage, weight loss between the two methods had equaled.

They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.

They also quote research from the University of Pennsylvania that
suggests that with all diets, it is only the reduction of
kilojoules/calories that induces weight loss.

When a magazine like Reader's Digest features low carb as their cover
story, with a positive slant, I find it unlikely that the low carb trend
has "peaked" as so many media reports have suggested lately.

They are *NOT* promoting Atkins or anything like it, they promoting a
diet that allows sufficient carbs for good nutrition but cutting all
unnecessary or refined carbs out of the diet.

Interesting to see how other magazines follow up. Often a lead in
Reader's Digest is picked up by quite a few other Titles.

Regards

David

One thing I found VERY interesting in the article was where they
acknowledged that glucose can be created from sources other than
sugars and starches. They said

"You may think that skimping on carbs will cut off your supply of
blood glucose, but your body can extract glucose not only from carbs
but through fat metabolim and even from dietary protein"

They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.

Aramanth

One thing I found VERY interesting in the article was where they
acknowledged that glucose can be created from sources other than
sugars and starches. They said

"You may think that skimping on carbs will cut off your supply of
blood glucose, but your body can extract glucose not only from carbs
but through fat metabolim and even from dietary protein"

They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.

Aramanth

I read somewhere that protein is converted to glucose at a 58% effectivity
level versus the 100% level of carbohydrates.

The moral of the story being, I am guessing, that although you can eat
"liberal" amounts of meat, be aware that 58% if it is converted to glucose.

Placid

"Aramanth Dawe" wrote in message
...
One thing I found VERY interesting in the article was where they
acknowledged that glucose can be created from sources other than
sugars and starches. They said

"You may think that skimping on carbs will cut off your supply of
blood glucose, but your body can extract glucose not only from carbs
but through fat metabolim and even from dietary protein"

They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.

Aramanth

I read somewhere that protein is converted to glucose at a 58% effectivity
level versus the 100% level of carbohydrates.

The moral of the story being, I am guessing, that although you can eat
"liberal" amounts of meat, be aware that 58% if it is converted to glucose.

Placid

"Aramanth Dawe" wrote in message
...
One thing I found VERY interesting in the article was where they
acknowledged that glucose can be created from sources other than
sugars and starches. They said

"You may think that skimping on carbs will cut off your supply of
blood glucose, but your body can extract glucose not only from carbs
but through fat metabolim and even from dietary protein"

They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.

Aramanth

They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.

When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling, not protein?

Yvonne

They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.

When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling, not protein?

Yvonne

Cailleachschilde wrote:

They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.


When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling, not protein?

Yvonne

It is strange how different people perceive the same thing Yvonne?

I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more satisfying
to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a lean steak, fish
etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly together, I can can keep
right on eating them; not because of hunger but because they taste good
and don't seem to fill me. For instance, I like slow cooked pork spare
ribs, seasoned with garlic, soy and ginger, and can eat them without
stopping, but a much lesser quantity of lean pork fillet will cause me
to stop eating as I feel full. I have to agree with their theory
regarding protein.


Regards

David

Aramanth Dawe

writes:

They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.

True. In maintenance, I'm eating about 90-100 carbs per day, about 110 in the
48 hours before a big hike (6+ miles). From your list, I'm still avoiding the
whole grain breads, oranges, and grapes, and will only have black beans when
I'm looking for extra pre-hike carbs. So I think it depends on the
individual's carb levels and how they react to certain things.

By the way, I once volunteered at a zoo, helping the keepers prepare food for
certain animals. Grapes were given out sparingly, because the animals loved
them but the zoo nutritionists viewed them as junk food. I remember during
orientation, one of the keepers held up a grape and said "this is like a bag of
Doritos to them." And what were we doing? We were giving grapes that day to
some exotic porcupines from South America that had had a rough time adjusting
to a new enclosure (even though it was gigantic, about 6 times larger than the
animals' previous one, and full of nifty hiding places, climbing "furniture",
live plants from their native environment, etc.). So we were comforting them
with "bad" food, a purely human notion. Anyway, that was years ago, and I
still think of grapes as junk food. The fact that of all the wide range of
fruits we fed the various animals, grapes were singled out as being less than
desirable has really stuck with me.

Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04

Aramanth Dawe

writes:

They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.

True. In maintenance, I'm eating about 90-100 carbs per day, about 110 in the
48 hours before a big hike (6+ miles). From your list, I'm still avoiding the
whole grain breads, oranges, and grapes, and will only have black beans when
I'm looking for extra pre-hike carbs. So I think it depends on the
individual's carb levels and how they react to certain things.

By the way, I once volunteered at a zoo, helping the keepers prepare food for
certain animals. Grapes were given out sparingly, because the animals loved
them but the zoo nutritionists viewed them as junk food. I remember during
orientation, one of the keepers held up a grape and said "this is like a bag of
Doritos to them." And what were we doing? We were giving grapes that day to
some exotic porcupines from South America that had had a rough time adjusting
to a new enclosure (even though it was gigantic, about 6 times larger than the
animals' previous one, and full of nifty hiding places, climbing "furniture",
live plants from their native environment, etc.). So we were comforting them
with "bad" food, a purely human notion. Anyway, that was years ago, and I
still think of grapes as junk food. The fact that of all the wide range of
fruits we fed the various animals, grapes were singled out as being less than
desirable has really stuck with me.

Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04