A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th, 2007, 08:46 AM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc

"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.

The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.

The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.

However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.

Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.

Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.

"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."

A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.

Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.

The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.

"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.

This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.

And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth

  #2  
Old April 20th, 2007, 12:54 PM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc

"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.

The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.

The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.

However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.

Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.

Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.

"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."

A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.

Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.

The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.

"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.

This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.

And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:


But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth


  #3  
Old April 20th, 2007, 03:25 PM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

"If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:"

Just one of the obvious flaws in the two pound diet. In it good
nutrition in food choices is downplayed or ignored. The two pound diet
is yet again found to be trash science and does not cure diabetes as
claimed.

The author of the two pound diet does not keep up with the diabetic
literature, willfully distorts science in pursuit of a non-scientific
agenda, ignores research contrary to his claims; reason enough to ignore
his advice because the truth is not in him.

  #4  
Old April 20th, 2007, 03:38 PM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc

"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.

The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.

The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.

However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.

Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.

Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.

"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."

A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.

Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.

The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.

"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.

This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.

And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp


But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


Metabolic syndrome (MetS) arises from overeating and not from any one
specific diet.

There is no human disease assigned to a diet of pizza, mac, and pepsi.

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth

  #5  
Old April 20th, 2007, 04:51 PM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
Pastor Kutchie, Earthquack's nemesis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

On Apr 20, 3:38 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:
wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc


"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.


The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.


The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.


The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.


However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.


Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.


Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.


"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."


A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.


Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.


The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.


"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.


This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.


And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.


SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:


http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp


But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


Metabolic syndrome (MetS) arises from overeating and not from any one
specific diet.

There is no human disease assigned to a diet of pizza, mac, and pepsi.


What? You have got to be joking!

1) Scurvy

2) Dental caries

3) Type 2 diabetes

4) Hyperlipoproteinanaemia

5) Spots

6) Insomnia

....and much more.

  #6  
Old April 20th, 2007, 05:09 PM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

On Apr 20, 10:38 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:
wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc


"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.


The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.


The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.


The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.


However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.


Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.


Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.


"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."


A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.


Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.


The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.


"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.


This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.


And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.


SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:


http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp


But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


Metabolic syndrome (MetS) arises from overeating and not from any one
specific diet.


I am sorry to say that I have been overeating all my life. I am trying
to control it now. I like the idea of living under one kilogram food.
Do you follow this yourself as well? I'll try to see if I am able to
control how much I eat. I'll email you of my progress

There is no human disease assigned to a diet of pizza, mac, and pepsi.


Still it's best not to eat it though



May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,


Do pray for me to lose weight, find a wife, and a better job

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhDhttp://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth



  #7  
Old April 20th, 2007, 05:36 PM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


"Metabolic syndrome (MetS) arises from overeating and not from any one
specific diet."

True, in the same way sunburns are caused by sun rises. There is ample
evidence to show clearly what one eats is part of the mets story, and
just as important the reduced level of physical activity. This is why
the two pound science is trash science because it relies on this kind of
simple minded distorted consideration of the entire source of causes in
mets. It ignores or grossly underplays nutrition and ignores exercise
completely.

The author of the two pound diet has not kept up with medical and
scientific literature, distorts scientific knowledge and methods in
pursuit of a non-scientific agenda, willfully ignores scientific
evidence to the contrary of his agenda; all reasons to ignore him
because the truth is not in him on this area.
  #8  
Old April 20th, 2007, 09:02 PM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
Father Haskell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

On Apr 20, 10:38 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:
wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc


"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.


The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.


The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.


The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.


However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.


Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.


Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.


"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."


A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.


Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.


The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.


"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.


This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.


And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.


SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:


http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp


But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


Metabolic syndrome (MetS) arises from overeating and not from any one
specific diet.

There is no human disease assigned to a diet of pizza, mac, and pepsi.


Well, yeah, there is. It's deficient. I don't see crack listed
anywhere.

  #9  
Old April 21st, 2007, 05:12 AM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
bigvince
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

On Apr 20, 10:38 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:
wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc


"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.


The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.


The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.


The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.


However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.


Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.


Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.


"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."


A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.


Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.


The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.


"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.


This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.


And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.


SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:


http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp


But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


Metabolic syndrome (MetS) arises from overeating and not from any one
specific diet.

There is no human disease assigned to a diet of pizza, mac, and pepsi.

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhDhttp://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


In some people the overconsumtion of sugar and other simple
carbohydrates that turn quickly into sugar can led to insulin
resistance independant of the amount . Eating both the right amount
and the right kind of food is critical to optimal health many
diesease can be caused by poor diet. Most high glycemic diets contain
to much sugar and to many "empty calories, vince

  #10  
Old April 21st, 2007, 07:25 AM posted to alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default "Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss - study

neighbor bigvince wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
TheDaveŠ wrote:
Note that this appears to be geared toward weight loss, and not
diabetic blood glucose control, but I thought some here might find it
of interest, anyway.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070419/...ycemic_load_dc


"Glycemic load" of diet has no effect on weight loss
By Amy Norton
1 hour, 9 minutes ago


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - When it comes to losing weight, the number
of calories you eat, rather than the type of carbohydrates, may be what
matters most, according to a new study.


The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
suggest that diets low in "glycemic load" are no better at taking the
pounds off than more traditional -- and more carbohydrate-friendly --
approaches to calorie-cutting.


The concept of glycemic load is based on the fact that different
carbohydrates have different effects on blood sugar. White bread and
potatoes, for example, have a high glycemic index, which means they
tend to cause a rapid surge in blood sugar. Other carbs, such as
high-fiber cereals or beans, create a more gradual change and are
considered to have a low glycemic index.


The measurement of glycemic load takes things a step further by
considering not only an individual food's glycemic index, but its total
number of carbohydrates. A sweet juicy piece of fruit might have a high
glycemic index, but is low in calories and grams of carbohydrate.
Therefore, it can fit into a diet low in glycemic load.


However, the effort of figuring out what's an allowable carb might not
be worth it, if the new study is any indication.


Principal investigator Dr. Susan B. Roberts, of Tufts University,
Boston, and colleagues found that a reduced-calorie diet, whether
glycemic load was high or low, was effective in helping 34 overweight
adults shed pounds over one year.


Study participants who followed a low-glycemic-load diet ended up
losing roughly 8 percent of their initial weight, as did those who
followed a high-glycemic-load diet.


"The bottom line is that in this study we don't see one single way to
eat that is better for weight loss on average," Roberts told Reuters
Health. Of course, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as long as you're
cutting calories."


A super-sized serving of French fries won't do any dieter any good, she
noted.


Both diets her team used in the study were carefully controlled. For
the first 6 months, participants were provided with all the food they
needed, and both diets were designed to cut their calories by 30
percent while providing the recommended amount of fiber, limiting fat
and encouraging healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.


The comparable outcomes suggest that, among healthy diets, no single
one stands out as better, according to Roberts. So the focus should be
on calories, rather than specific foods to avoid or include.


"Focusing on calories is something we need more of, especially when
portion sizes are so absurd," Roberts said, referring to the portions
served at so many U.S. restaurants.


This doesn't mean, however, that there's no place for diets that focus
on glycemic load, according to the researcher. Some studies, for
example, have found that low-glycemic index foods might help control
blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes.


And in their own research, Roberts said she and her colleagues have
found that low-glycemic index diets do seem more effective for
overweight people who naturally secrete high levels of the hormone
insulin, which regulates blood sugar.


SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2007.


If you are overeating, it is not what you eating but how much you are
eating that is harming you:


http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp


But Doc. Won't a person living on pizza, mac, and pepsi will be
harming him/herself?


Metabolic syndrome (MetS) arises from overeating and not from any one
specific diet.

There is no human disease assigned to a diet of pizza, mac, and pepsi


In some people the overconsumtion of sugar and other simple
carbohydrates that turn quickly into sugar can led to insulin
resistance independant of the amount .


Internally contradictory.

Without visceral adipose tissue (VAT) there is no insulin resistance.

VAT arises from overeating.

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
when is it "good enough"? (the obsession of weight loss) determined General Discussion 20 November 7th, 2006 03:17 AM
Bad Headlines 101: "Weight Loss Could Signal Future Dementia In Women" Kirk Is General Discussion 2 July 17th, 2006 09:18 PM
Claim, weight loss "cures" diabetes [email protected] General Discussion 8 June 13th, 2006 11:33 PM
Google "Aspartame" and you get "toxic diet soda" [email protected] General Discussion 0 May 5th, 2006 08:29 PM
Low-Glycemic Load Diet Facilitates Weight Loss in Overweight Adults with High Insulin Secretion [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 4 December 16th, 2005 02:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2017 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.