Reliable (referenced?) GI values

wrote:
On 21 Oct, 20:31, Jackie Patti wrote:
wrote:
Of course I could be wrong, but I do not belive that considering the
risk is idiotic.
When fat is burned by the body, it produces ketones.

There's simply no way on any diet to lose weight without ketones.

That is not correct. Normally fats are utilized by convertion to the
constituent fatty acids and glycerol, and these are used by the
muscles (through a very complicated proccess involving the
lipoprotiens (LDL and HDL). Ketones are produced when you do not have
enough glucose stored in the liver and you need another energy source
for the brain.

No. If you are losing fat, you are producing ketones.

Fats (triglycerides) break down into 2 components: glycerol and fatty acids.

Glycerol itself forms a ketone after reaction with ATP and NDPH:
dihydroxyacetone phosphate.

Fatty acids are catabolised in cells first via fatty acid activation,
then passed into the mitochondria and catabolised further via the
beta-oxidation pathway, which removes 2 carbons from the fatty acid
chain length in each pass. Each pass produces a molecule of acetyl-SCoA
for input to the Kreb's cycle. (I'm ignoring what happens with
odd-length chain fatty acids to simplify).

If you burn a lot of fat, you produce a lot of acetyl-SCoA, more than
the Kreb's cycle can burn. The liver converts excess acetyl-SCoA to
acetoacetate and dumps it in the blood, resulting in ketonemia.

Accelerated fat catabolism ALWAYS leads to hepatic production of
acetoacetate from the excess acetyl-SCoA; it's just how the system
works; if you have lipogenesis slowed down and lipid catabolism speeded
up - you get ketonemia.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

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it's very incomplete, poorly referenced and wildly out-of-date now that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/

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.

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?

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

"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.

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.

"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.

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...

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