If Fats and Fibers Slow Down Digestion...

If fats and fibers slow down digestion, does that mean that any high-
glycemic carbs eaten with them won't be as quickly digested and
absorbed, and therefore no insulin spike?

That is why ice cream has a lower than average glycemic index, even if it is
killing you.


"Prisoner at War" wrote in message
...

If fats and fibers slow down digestion, does that mean that any high-
glycemic carbs eaten with them won't be as quickly digested and
absorbed, and therefore no insulin spike?

On Jan 21, 11:21 am, Prisoner at War
wrote:

If fats and fibers slow down digestion, does that mean that any high-
glycemic carbs eaten with them won't be as quickly digested and
absorbed, and therefore no insulin spike?

Protein or protein powder shakes are recommended to be taken prior to
high carb digestion.

So, I would say the same about fat and fiber, unless those high-
glymemic carbs are actually part of the meal, such as being part of a
stew.

On Jan 21, 4:23 pm, "Mr. Natural-Health"
wrote:


Protein or protein powder shakes are recommended to be taken prior to
high carb digestion.

I've read that insulin helps drive protein into the muscles, and
therefore high-glycemic carbohydrate consumption with protein
immediately after working out is highly anabolic.

So, I would say the same about fat and fiber, unless those high-
glymemic carbs are actually part of the meal, such as being part of a
stew.

You would say what, that fat and fiber should be taken prior to high-
glycemic carbs?? Why? What's the big deal about being taken together
with high-glycemic carbs??

You want a protein spike, just not more than 3 times a day, it seems.
The problem occurs when you eat "simple carbs" many times a day, even
just a "soft drink" or possibly fruit juice. The best solution seems
to be to eat meals rich in fat along with the "simple carbs," so long
as you avoid major sources of unsaturated fatty acids (good quality
olive oil might be okay, but that's too complex to address in detail
here). Because Americans, for example, eat more fat and much more
unsaturated fatty acids than they used to, the issue has become
muddled, and "fat" gets blamed for all kinds of things that are the
result of the unsaturated fatty acids, especially the polyunsaturated
ones (though canola oil and rapeseed oil appear to be very dangerous
too, most likely due to the erucic acid content, the omega 3 content,
and the way they are "refined").

On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, wrote:
You want a protein spike, just not more than 3 times a day, it seems.
The problem occurs when you eat "simple carbs" many times a day, even
just a "soft drink" or possibly fruit juice.

What's recommended is to take high-glycemic carbs around one's
workout, particularly right after it. This way, one doesn't simply
get fat from all the carbs: apparently, high-glycemic carbs right
after working out (as well as, though to a lesser extent, immediately
before and during the workout itself) doesn't cause fat to be formed
as much as it causes protein to be driven into the muscles --
according to the book "Nutrient Timing" (though you'll also find
basically similar versions of this notion in any bodybuilding
magazine).

The best solution seems
to be to eat meals rich in fat along with the "simple carbs," so long
as you avoid major sources of unsaturated fatty acids (good quality
olive oil might be okay, but that's too complex to address in detail
here). Because Americans, for example, eat more fat and much more
unsaturated fatty acids than they used to, the issue has become
muddled, and "fat" gets blamed for all kinds of things that are the
result of the unsaturated fatty acids, especially the polyunsaturated
ones (though canola oil and rapeseed oil appear to be very dangerous
too, most likely due to the erucic acid content, the omega 3 content,
and the way they are "refined").

Have you read "Good Calories Bad Calories" yet? Your argument there
sounds like that book's, which is practically at the top of my to-read
list, but I'm still busy with the ton of books I ordered over the
holidays....

On Jan 21, 2:07 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
That is why ice cream has a lower than average glycemic index, even if it is
killing you.

Well, if the glycemic index is low, then that means no insulin spike,
which means no "preference" to store carbs as fat, right?

Or do excess carbs just get stored as excess carbs, insulin spike or
not? Which would seem to have to be the case -- where would the
excess carbs go?

But then, in that case, what's the big concern with insulin spikes and
fat...??

BTW, stuff like ice cream would be so much easier to forego if only I
could be convinced that they're bad for me...as it is, they seem
fairly harmless -- so what if I gain weight; I could easily lose it by
some dieting and more cardio...even a nice slow jog around the six-
mile Central Park Loop will have basically earned me a three-scoop
banana split with fixings....

You can see more details of my conclusions at my free site:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

I'll point out here that what's missing in "nutritional science" is a
clear, scientific approach. The problem is that the molecular-level
evidence is excellent, but it's usually ignored or applied incorrectly
at the level of the actual meal. There really is no discipline right
now that is designed to reconcile the two.

I'll also add that I've been experimenting on myself for several years
now. Ice cream did tend to have a fattening effect (in the mid
section), but it could be that I consumed too many calories. Now, I'm
eating "junk food" that is rich in SFAs but low in UFAa (usually no
cholesterol or just a tiny amount per serving), and I don't care about
the TFA content (so long as there is well over 50% SFAs in the fat).
I gained no weight (after losing a few pounds when I gave up the ice
cream), and I still eat a lot of butter and cheese. In science, there
can be no exceptions to the rules, If "simple carbs" and/or
"saturated fat" is unhealthy, I should have some health problems by
now (started doing this in 2001), and I'm not a "kid" (I'm in my early
40s, and I'm thin). It was after I tried some omega 3 supplements,
actually (1998-2000), that I gained weight, looked inflamed, and had
fatigue problems. Taubes, like the "cholesterol skeptics" and many
others, simply can't grasp the implications of the molecular-level,
biochemical evidence. I contacted a few of these skeptics over the
years. One refused to respond (after a few tries), another was citing
high school student papers, and a third said he didn't understand the
molecular-level evidence, but said that he'd pass the studies I cited
to him on, then he never got back to me. I tell people things like,
"a linoleic acid molecule is the same, whether it comes from an animal
or a plant," and "who decided how 'saturated fat' is defined, and how
can a fat source that is well under 50% SFAs be called a 'saturated
fat' - there's so much UFAs in that fat that it's likely to be the
problem, considering all the molecular-level evidence, rather than the
SFAs being a problem, in light of the demographic data on peoples who
consume large amounts of coconut oil, which is around 92% SFAs."

On Jan 22, 12:31*am, wrote:
I'll also add that I've been experimenting on myself for several years
now. *Ice cream did tend to have a fattening effect (in the mid
section), but it could be that I consumed too many calories. *Now, I'm
eating "junk food" that is rich in SFAs but low in UFAa (usually no
cholesterol or just a tiny amount per serving), and I don't care about
the TFA content (so long as there is well over 50% SFAs in the fat).
I gained no weight (after losing a few pounds when I gave up the ice
cream), and I still eat a lot of butter and cheese. *In science, there
can be no exceptions to the rules, *If "simple carbs" and/or
"saturated fat" is unhealthy, I should have some health problems by
now (started doing this in 2001), and I'm not a "kid" (I'm in my early
40s, and I'm thin).

How anyone could think that the fact that results of a sample size of
one over a span of 7 years proves anything about whether a particular
diet is healthy or not is beyond me. The issue with various types of
fats and health risks involves diseases that have been focused on in
studies involve diseases like cancer and CHD, both of which take very
long periods of time. I could find you plenty of people who smoked
for 7 years and are fine too. Does that mean smoking is healthy?





*It was after I tried some omega 3 supplements,
actually (1998-2000), that I gained weight, looked inflamed, and had
fatigue problems. *Taubes, like the "cholesterol skeptics" and many
others, simply can't grasp the implications of the molecular-level,
biochemical evidence. *I contacted a few of these skeptics over the
years. *One refused to respond (after a few tries), another was citing
high school student papers, and a third said he didn't understand the
molecular-level evidence, but said that he'd pass the studies I cited
to him on, then he never got back to me. *I tell people things like,
"a linoleic acid molecule is the same, whether it comes from an animal
or a plant," and "who decided how 'saturated fat' is defined, and how
can a fat source that is well under 50% SFAs be called a 'saturated
fat' - there's so much UFAs in that fat that it's likely to be the
problem, considering all the molecular-level evidence, rather than the
SFAs being a problem, in light of the demographic data on peoples who
consume large amounts of coconut oil, which is around 92% SFAs."