If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
wrote:
Why? Of course I know there may be people here who are attached to their diet, and we all have to make our own decisions in this life. I am quite sure that for many people the atkins is a great diet and will significantly improve their life expectancy. This is not the Atkins newsgroup; it is the low-carb newsgroup. I, for one, don't do Atkins. I've read him and like some of his stuff, but it's very incomplete, poorly referenced and wildly out-of-date now that research has progressed and he's not been keeping up due to being dead. No one is arguing with you because of being Atkins fans, but because of stupid arguments you make. However to deny the existance of any risk would be dishonest. I particullar for me I worried about the ketosis. Implying that there is a risk to ketosis is pretty dishonest. The twin sheep study you provided showed the dangers of starvation; during starvation ketosis occurs because body fat is burned. Unless you diet to starve yourself to death like an anorexic, the study doesn't apply. Long term low level ketosis can cause many problems, including eye damage and vasculitis (inflamation fo the blood vessels). Please provide any reference that shows any of these occurring with ketosis (absent other problems). In my case the tooth softening was a problem, and I baddly broke a tooth on a pork scratching that I am sure would not have been a problem before. You have no evidence whatsoever that ketosis had anything to do with it. I could not prevent ketosis during a long working day on the atkins diet. Look, you don't have to like the Atkins diet. I don't myself. There's lots of low-carb or moderate-carb diets, Protein Power, Zone, CAD, Bernstein, EFLF, GI, etc. My own personal diet is based on very wide reading from a multitude of sources, with blood glucose readings primary since I'm diabetic. But you just can't SAY that Atkins causes all these problems without some actual evidence. And you don't have any. Entire generations of humans have lived and reproduced without any dietary carbohydrate or very minimal amounts. -- http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
wrote in message ups.com... On 21 Oct, 13:54, "jcderkoeing" wrote: wrote in message ps.com... Hi all, I am considering going on the low GI diet. I went on the Atkins a few years ago and I found it useful, but I have decided it may be too unhealthy. You're an idiot. Go remove yourself from the gene pool. HTH Why? I am aware of the advantages of the attkins, and I am sure that for many people the weight loss on the atkins would significantly increase their life expectancy. But to deny that there is any risk is dishonest. I worried most about the ketosis. I found it impostble to go a long working day without getting ketotic. The risks of long term ketosis are significant, in particular eye damage and vasculitis. I blame the ketosis for softening my teeth, as I broke a tooth on a pork scratching that I am sure would not have been a problem prior to goiing on the atkins. This is all nonsense. Of course I could be wrong, but I do not belive that considering the risk is idiotic. You are completely wrong, not just a little bit. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
wrote in message ups.com... On 21 Oct, 15:16, Jim wrote: Well, some of the things that you have mentioned have already been covered. There is no absolute necessity for carbohydrates to be in the diet according to the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. They also cite examples of cultures that managed to be healthy on virtually no carbohydrates, or very little carbohydrates. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...10490&page=275 It is a proven fact that people can survive for long periods of time (decades) without carbohydrates. I am saying that I was unable to while working an 8+ hour day in an office. The long term risks of ketosis are UNKNOWN from scientific studies, not SIGNIFICANT. A telling story is the belief you have of the softening of your teeth from ketosis. Lemon juice and coca cola are two liquids known to soften dental enamel. There are consumer reports that some of the whitening agents for teeth also soften enamel. I am not sure how this is relavent. The connections between ordinary diet KETOSIS (not DIABETIC KETOACIDOSIS) and other diseases fail to crop up on short searches on Google. Diabetic ketoacidosis (with diabetes) certainly has known effects on the eye and general risks for several other organs. Please post any links you have to evidence for *dietary* *ketosis* causing the organ damage to which you refer. My experience is on the animal rather than human side. It is well known that acute dietry ketosis can be fatal, and is known as Twin Lamb Disease [1] in sheep. It is obviouly a very different case to cronic ketosis in a low carb diet. I shall try and find something more relavent, but the fact that some forms of ketosis are damaging surely means it is not totally stupid to cosider the risk of inducing another form. As I say, I sure the atkins is very good for many people, I have just choosen not to go down that road at this time. If the GI diet is not low carb enough for the question to be OT in this forum then fair enough, but to call me an idiot and suggest rather dramatic measures seems a bit over the top. [1] http://www.pipevet.com/articles/Pregnancy%20Ketosis.htm You're pretty clueless. Posting your nonsense here does put you in the idiot box. The real question is: Do you wish to stay there? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
Others have done a fine job of correcting your mistaken beliefs about
the "risks" of low-carbing, so I'll skip ahead. There is no such thing as a reliable list of GI values, because they vary too much from person to person, and also because we rarely eat single foods in a vacuum. Food combinations matter; adding some fat to a carb will (generally) make the combo lower-glycemic than the carb itself was, for example. If you want to figure out what foods have a low GI *for you*, here's what you do (the short version): Get yourself a blood glucose tester and the stuff that goes with it, keep a journal tracking what you eat at each meal, and record your BG one hour and two hours after each meal. If the one-hour test is over 120, or if the two-hour test isn't back in the normal range of 70-100, then that meal was too "glycemic" for you. Here's the fun part: After all that blood-letting and writing everything down, unless you're part of that small minority of people with excellent insulin sensitivity (in which case you probably wouldn't have any reason to be here), you're going to end up with a list of acceptable foods that looks a heck of a lot like what you'd be eating on Atkins, Protein Power, or any other "risky" low-carb plan. You could save yourself a lot of work by starting with those plans in the first place, instead of hunting around looking for obscure studies that claim to find risks in ketosis by comparing humans to *sheep*, of all things. -- Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
"Aaron Baugher" wrote Others have done a fine job of correcting your mistaken beliefs about the "risks" of low-carbing, so I'll skip ahead. There is no such thing as a reliable list of GI values, because they vary too much from person to person, and also because we rarely eat single foods in a vacuum. Food combinations matter; adding some fat to a carb will (generally) make the combo lower-glycemic than the carb itself was, for example. If you want to figure out what foods have a low GI *for you*, here's what you do (the short version): Get yourself a blood glucose tester and the stuff that goes with it, keep a journal tracking what you eat at each meal, and record your BG one hour and two hours after each meal. If the one-hour test is over 120, or if the two-hour test isn't back in the normal range of 70-100, then that meal was too "glycemic" for you. Here's the fun part: After all that blood-letting and writing everything down, unless you're part of that small minority of people with excellent insulin sensitivity (in which case you probably wouldn't have any reason to be here), you're going to end up with a list of acceptable foods that looks a heck of a lot like what you'd be eating on Atkins, Protein Power, or any other "risky" low-carb plan. You could save yourself a lot of work by starting with those plans in the first place, instead of hunting around looking for obscure studies that claim to find risks in ketosis by comparing humans to *sheep*, of all things. I'm willing to bet that this advice will be ignored. We'll see. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
wrote:
"jcderkoeing" wrote: Go remove yourself from the gene pool. Why? You replied to the local troll. However to deny the existance of any risk would be dishonest. Any? Sure. Specific risks? Different issue. I particullar for me I worried about the ketosis. There are several bullet points that identify someone as incompetant on low carb matters. Complaints about ketosis is as the top of that list. When I first started reading this thread I thought maybe you were gullable and you had been tricked by idiots. Then I read your nonsense reference to sheep and I joined the majority understanding that you are clueless at best but more likely dishonest. Long term low level ketosis can cause many problems, May? Nonsense. Cite any applicable result at all. Even one name in a medical case of a person who saw any problems caused by following the directions of any plan that uses dietary ketosis. It's okay, I'll wait. Dr A offered a similar challenge to the AMA back int he 1970s and the good doctor died still waiting. including eye damage and vasculitis (inflamation fo the blood vessels). Confusing ketoacidosis and dietary ketosis, standard issue incompetance. In my case the tooth softening was a problem, and I baddly broke a tooth on a pork scratching that I am sure would not have been a problem before. You have no evidence that ketosis caused your teeth to soften, so your assertion is made up nonsense. I could not prevent ketosis during a long working day on the atkins diet. Ketonuria is the cornerstone of Atkins. Being on Atkins you are supposed to be in ketosis from early in Induction until you find your CCLL at the start of OWL. Then again until the end of OWL. Trying to stay out of ketosis while on Atkins would be like gorging on goat simmered in goat's milk while eating kosher. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: "jcderkoeing" wrote: Go remove yourself from the gene pool. Why? You replied to the local troll. If I was trolling, I would change my name and address for each post like Chung. Idiot. My advice is always more correct and concise than yours. Idiot. However to deny the existance of any risk would be dishonest. Any? Sure. Specific risks? Different issue. I particullar for me I worried about the ketosis. There are several bullet points that identify someone as incompetant on low carb matters. Complaints about ketosis is as the top of that list. When I first started reading this thread I thought maybe you were gullable and you had been tricked by idiots. Then I read your nonsense reference to sheep and I joined the majority understanding that you are clueless at best but more likely dishonest. Long term low level ketosis can cause many problems, May? Nonsense. Cite any applicable result at all. Even one name in a medical case of a person who saw any problems caused by following the directions of any plan that uses dietary ketosis. It's okay, I'll wait. Dr A offered a similar challenge to the AMA back int he 1970s and the good doctor died still waiting. including eye damage and vasculitis (inflamation fo the blood vessels). Confusing ketoacidosis and dietary ketosis, standard issue incompetance. In my case the tooth softening was a problem, and I baddly broke a tooth on a pork scratching that I am sure would not have been a problem before. You have no evidence that ketosis caused your teeth to soften, so your assertion is made up nonsense. I could not prevent ketosis during a long working day on the atkins diet. Ketonuria is the cornerstone of Atkins. Being on Atkins you are supposed to be in ketosis from early in Induction until you find your CCLL at the start of OWL. Then again until the end of OWL. Trying to stay out of ketosis while on Atkins would be like gorging on goat simmered in goat's milk while eating kosher. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
On Oct 21, 4:06 pm, sad ant wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:51 am, wrote: Hi all, I am considering going on the low GI diet. I went on the Atkins a few years ago and I found it useful, but I have decided it may be too unhealthy. I want to find reliable figures for GI values of foods. Have found this [1] database, from the university of Sydney but it gives very varied results [2] and no references. I have a book [3] but it is completely unreferenced, does not give values and has some odd choices for the red, yellow and green columns [4]. Does anyone have any sujestions for good sources of GI values of foods? It is important to me that it is usable, but more important is trustable. If it had references that would make trustable, but any suggestions would be great. I belive I have a reasnoble idea of the science of nutrition from a biological degree and further reading over some years. [1]http://www.glycemicindex.com/ [2] Potato, Russet Burbank, baked without fat (Canada) 56 Potato, Russet Burbank, baked without fat (USA) 111 [3] the Gi DIET Rick Gallop 0-7535-0775-7 [4] hard margarine, vegetable fat in red, rapeseed and olive oil in green (other than the omega 3/6 levels which have little to do with wieght loss, these are almost identical nutrionally). Broad beans in red, boiled new potatoes in green. Grapes, which are far higher than other fruits in free sugars are in green. Ravioli and tortellini are in red, most other pastas are in green. When I make these things, pretty much the exact same ingedients go into them, and they are cooked for a similar time so why should the fact the the sauce is inside the pasta make any difference. Thanks for any help, Hugh HELLO FRIEND HELP IS ON THE WAY STOP WORRIING. I MIGHT HAVE THE ANSWERS TO YOU PROBLEM. HAVE YOU HERD OF THE MANGOSTEEN FRUIT? THIS FRUIT IS FORM THAILAND AND IT IS DOING AMAZING THINGS FOR PEOPLE. HERE ARE SOME WEBSITES YOU CAN GOTO AND DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS FRUIT . WWW.DEMO.XPOWERPRO.COM WHEN YOU GET THERE CLICK ON THE GET STARTED NOW BOTTON THE CLICK ON PROSPECT TOUR DEMO BOTTON. AND YOU CAN ALSO VISIT WWW.CREATEMYSUCCESS.COM/JIMHURD/WEBCAST IF YOU WANT YOU CAN E-MAIL ME AT AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK THANKS AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS Hi! Are you really an ant? c fascinating... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Reliable (referenced?) GI values
On Oct 21, 7:51 am, wrote:
Hi all, I am considering going on the low GI diet. I went on the Atkins a few years ago and I found it useful, but I have decided it may be too unhealthy. I want to find reliable figures for GI values of foods. Have found this [1] database, from the university of Sydney but it gives very varied results [2] and no references. I have a book [3] but it is completely unreferenced, does not give values and has some odd choices for the red, yellow and green columns [4]. Does anyone have any sujestions for good sources of GI values of foods? It is important to me that it is usable, but more important is trustable. If it had references that would make trustable, but any suggestions would be great. I belive I have a reasnoble idea of the science of nutrition from a biological degree and further reading over some years. [1]http://www.glycemicindex.com/ [2] Potato, Russet Burbank, baked without fat (Canada) 56 Potato, Russet Burbank, baked without fat (USA) 111 [3] the Gi DIET Rick Gallop 0-7535-0775-7 [4] hard margarine, vegetable fat in red, rapeseed and olive oil in green (other than the omega 3/6 levels which have little to do with wieght loss, these are almost identical nutrionally). Broad beans in red, boiled new potatoes in green. Grapes, which are far higher than other fruits in free sugars are in green. Ravioli and tortellini are in red, most other pastas are in green. When I make these things, pretty much the exact same ingedients go into them, and they are cooked for a similar time so why should the fact the the sauce is inside the pasta make any difference. Thanks for any help, Hugh Hi Hugh: I am not certain if you are an idiot. But you do have ants. I think the GI diet is just way too convoluted to follow. You can eat a sweet potato, but not a potato. You can have potato chips and ice cream but you can't have pretzels and wonderbread. I took one look at that thing and realized there was no way it could work for me. However, if you want to spend your days and nights analyzing the food you're eating according to this arbitrary scale that still has no relationship at all to how sugar works in your own personal body, have at it. I would have given up within days. c think I did, actually t |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Carb Values of: | Welshie | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | July 21st, 2006 12:37 AM |
Low-carb values... | MaxMustermann | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | April 30th, 2006 02:49 PM |
RDA vitamin values | Paul Aspinall | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | February 28th, 2005 10:13 PM |
RDA vitamin values | Paul Aspinall | General Discussion | 8 | February 28th, 2005 10:13 PM |