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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Elzinator wrote:
"OmegaZero2003" wrote... This is very similar to the issues facing cancer researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint. Biological systems are more complex than most realize: feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant and overlapping pathways, etc. And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very (very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness and robustness. -- -Wayne |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. .
pete wrote: Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. . Lyle McDonald wrote: still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never bothered to actually look up. Amazingly, I managed to track it down on Pubmed. Lyle *** Diabetes. 1990 Jul;39(7):775-81. Metabolic effects of reducing rate of glucose ingestion by single bolus versus continuous sipping. Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Ocana AM, Vuksan V, Cunnane SC, Jenkins M, Wong GS, Singer W, Bloom SR, Blendis LM, et al. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Modifying the rate of absorption has been proposed as a therapeutic principle of specific relevance to diabetes. To demonstrate clearly the metabolic benefits that might result from reducing the rate of nutrient delivery, nine healthy volunteers took 50 g glucose in 700 ml water on two occasions: over 5-10 min (bolus) and at a constant rate over 3.5 h (sipping). Despite similar 4-h blood glucose areas, large reductions were seen in serum insulin (54 +/- 10%, P less than 0.001) and C-peptide (47 +/- 12%, P less than 0.01) areas after sipping, together with lower gastric inhibitory polypeptide and enteroglucagon levels and urinary catecholamine output. There was also prolonged suppression of plasma glucagon, growth hormone, and free-fatty acid (FFA) levels after sipping, whereas these levels rose 3-4 h after the glucose bolus. An intravenous glucose tolerance test at 4 h demonstrated a 48 +/- 10% (P less than 0.01) more rapid decline in blood glucose (Kg) after sipping than after the bolus. Furthermore, FFA and total branched-chain amino acid levels as additional markers of insulin action were lower over this period despite similar absolute levels of insulin and C-peptide. These findings indicate that prolonging the rate of glucose absorption enhances insulin economy and glucose disposal. I think it's pretty clear that there is sufficient evidence that the overwhelming majority of people fare better on a low carb diet, define majority and better. For obese/insulin resistant folks, no doubt that lowering carbs is beneficial from a number of standpoints. If that the majority at this point? Maybe, maybe not. I would define majority as most americans who are not involved in a sport or exercise program using high volume (bodybuilder w/ high volume trainer, endurance athlete, etc). The average american who spends most of their time on their ass when they're not at work, and just wants to improve health and body composition. This I consider is the overwhelming majority of americans. I would define low carb as 100g carbs or less. To define better, in the sense that again, in the majority of cases (not all), but most people find it much, much easier to control calories with a low carb diet. This, as you know, is b/c a variety of reasons. Now, I know u have argued in those that do not get good calorie control w/ high fat foods, they will overeat. Yes, but there is another approach that I believe is applicable, overeat protein and keep fat somewhat lower. This is of course assuming that one is NOT counting calories, which realistically most people WILL NOT do. And all the studies showing free eating w/ no specific control of calories are showing superior results with a low carb diet. To me this shows an overall superiority to low carb diets from a practical standpoint b/c as you well know, most people will not strictly count calories. I personally have done this many times, and still do on occasion, but i'm not the typical person or dieter. I'm really anal retentive about such things. Another aspect that makes it better is like you said b4, it makes getting sufficient protein and EFA's much easier, as most of these foods have significant quantities (of protein at least), still gotta supplement some Cod Liver or Fish Oil. Better in the sense that for many people, they enjoy higher fat foods vs. "clean" carbs and super-lean proteins. If having to choose between the two, most people I know would choose a steak and broccoli w/ garlic and olive oil vs. a baked potato and skinless chicken breast. Of course this is grossly simplifying food choices, but for ME and many people (not all), these moderate-high fat foods taste better than rabbit food. Because almost all americans have been raised on processed carbs/sugars to some degree, it has been argued that almost everyone has some degree of insulin resistance. It seems that all evidence so far shows that blood sugar maintenance is superior on a low carb diet. And insulin levels are lowered as well. Overall blood profiles improve dramatically, for most. I'm sure the resultant weight loss is a big part of this, perhaps the only part, but these results always seem to be correlated with a reduced carbohydrate intake. I have also read that carbs generally have a role in raising triglyceride levels in the blood, and by lowering carb intake these levels almost always lower. Dr. Wolfgang Lutz has a book, "Life Without Bread", documenting his approach to low carbs and success with thousands of patients he's treated over a 40yr period, using a low carb diet. The results he has achieved for a variety of health conditions is quite impressive, despite the fact the book has errors. It can be argued that our evolutionary diet "Paleolithic Diet" for at least some part of the human race consisted of a high protein, moderate to high fat, low to moderate carb diet of no starches. From the study I posted above, it seems that glucose places a certain amount of oxidative stress on the body, resulting in reactive oxygen species (ROS), implicated in many diseases. Comparatively, lipid peroxidases are caused mainly by PUFA (which are known to be highly reactive), but still are easily dealt w/ by small amts. of antioxidants, such as vit. c, and E. a fat soluble vitamin. A question is how low carbs have to go (i.e. you need to define low-carb). I doubt a complete removal of all carbs is necessary. MOderation would work fine in *most* cases IMO. For many people moderation would probably be best. I can only speak for myself, an obsessive dieter who is very strict about how I eat and concious overall of my health. For me, I really do need to remove all carbs from my diet. Seriously, perhaps it is only psychological (i'm extreme in that sense, all or nothing), but when I have a small amount of carbs, I almost ALWAYS develop an immediate addiction and go on an all-out carb eating binge. It's almost beyond my control. Right now i've eaten no carb-specific foods (aside from some veggies and nuts) for over a month now, no problem, been strict, yada yada. But every time i've eaten some starches, sweets, etc., a switch goes off and I lose control. So for me, I either have none or all. Of course this is just me. But i've talked to others like this, so I know i'm not the only one. Now I understand everyone is not diabetic, but many, including Dr. Ron Rosedale, Dr. Serrano, even Charles Poliquin treats everyone like they are prediabetic, and gets most athletes insulin levels under control. It seems a combined low carb diet, w/ some veggies and supplemented antioxidants is going to be a superior method for all but extreme athletes. With the exception of endurance athletes, carb needs for most are vastly overstated. yeah, a cyclist doing hours on bike every day nees a ****pile of carbs. So does a runner or rower or what have you. Even the mid distance athletes, who are doing a lot of work near or above lactate threshold probably need a lot. a strength athlete is not burning a ton of carbs, neither is a bodybuilder unless his volume is really, really high. I did the math in my first book, for every 2 sets (assuming about 45 second set length), you need a whopping 5 grams of carbs to replenish glycogen. So a 24 set workout means you need all of 60 grams to replenish the glycogen you used. Add to that ~100 to avoid ketosis (if such is your goal) and you end up with a whopping 160 grams of carbs per day to sustain basic function and exercise. Maybe 1 g/lb or a little bit less. To suggest 4-5 g/lb (8-10 g/kg) as for endurance athletes is retarded. Lyle |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message news:
"Elzinator" wrote in message... "On a superficial level, many would consider it intuitive to make the statement that exercise in general is a good thing. However, when the layers of the exercise onion are peeled, the answer to the question of how exactly at the mechanistic level is exercise beneficial for human health does not seem that obvious to the general scientific community, although there is extensive literature at a descriptive level documenting the precise benefits of exercise for many aspects of human health. If, peeling those layers even further, we then consider the notion that gene selection during the eons of human evolution was likely influenced by physical activity to support human health, we would suspect the reaction would be one of great skepticism. Hmmm - the selection-for mechanisms have been theorized to include a way to reward both curiosity and activity given the nature of the nature most of homo sapiens' ancestors faced. Even the theory of neuronal group selection is based on (appropriate) activation upon perturbation (sensory modalities, motor skills etc.) I forgot to mention in my previous response that, if you are interested, I have a few very good papers (pdfs)on evolutionary biology (and evo-devo) that would be applicable to this topic. Not so much directed in general. The other thread got me going on this (evobio) again (a hobby of mine A buddy in Austin and I talk this stuff for hours. Booth's recent paper extends the basics of evolutoinary biology to the context of diet and activity. Booth rocks. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On 20 Dec 2003 00:25:22 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
Elzinator wrote: "OmegaZero2003" wrote... This is very similar to the issues facing cancer researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint. Biological systems are more complex than most realize: feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant and overlapping pathways, etc. And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very (very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness and robustness. Very true, but that's part of the challenge. I'm trying to talk someone (computational systems geek) into modeling bodyweight homeostasis. He's reluctant. It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:11:41 -0500, Elzinator
wrote: Guys are too macho to admit they eat salads........ Call it roughage. Sounds more macho that way. And anything that adds a competive aspect to it would help, too. --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On 20 Dec 2003 00:25:22 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:
Elzinator wrote: "OmegaZero2003" wrote... This is very similar to the issues facing cancer researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint. Biological systems are more complex than most realize: feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant and overlapping pathways, etc. And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very (very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness and robustness. Yeah, but that is true for all real systems. Overdrive an amplifier, you'll get clipping. Underdrive a hydroelectric facility, the dam will overflow. Some are even nonlinear within their useful range, but we can deal with that, too. --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:29:22 -0500, Elzinator
wrote: On 20 Dec 2003 00:25:22 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote: Elzinator wrote: "OmegaZero2003" wrote... This is very similar to the issues facing cancer researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint. Biological systems are more complex than most realize: feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant and overlapping pathways, etc. And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very (very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness and robustness. Very true, but that's part of the challenge. I'm trying to talk someone (computational systems geek) into modeling bodyweight homeostasis. He's reluctant. Well, he probably realizes that it's one of those projects that would never end. --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Low Carb Week in Review | Dave N | General Discussion | 0 | November 24th, 2003 12:06 AM |
Latest Low Carb News | Dave N | General Discussion | 1 | November 18th, 2003 07:13 AM |
What is low carb? | Jarkat2002 | General Discussion | 7 | October 30th, 2003 02:21 PM |
named vs. homegrown diets Curiosity about posters who drop out of this NG | JayJay | General Discussion | 16 | September 27th, 2003 02:16 AM |