Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8160 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2014 9:56 AM
63 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, Colbard, jar, Phat (AdminPhat), sfs, Tempe 12ft Chicken (7 members, 56 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Mike Taylor
Post Volume:
Total: 741,589 Year: 27,430/28,606 Month: 2,487/2,244 Week: 601/967 Day: 20/53 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
262728
29
3031Next
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
Percy
Member
Posts: 13347
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 421 of 451 (632596)
09-08-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by molbiogirl
09-08-2011 3:38 PM


Re: In vitro v. in vivo
Hi Molbiogirl,

You're correct, the foods in that study were analyzed both in vivo and in vitro.

We made no progress toward finding common ground two years ago, and there's been no progress this second time around, so it seems unlikely that the impasse can be resolved. We may as well give it up. Thanks for all your efforts tracking down relevant research.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2011 3:38 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 7:26 AM Percy has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9976
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 1.3


(2)
Message 422 of 451 (632643)
09-09-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Percy
09-08-2011 6:51 PM


Re: In vitro v. in vivo
I have been loosely following the discussion between you and Molbiogirl since it's conception. Although I haven't really been taking in the technical details I am interested in the end conclusion. At the moment I am bit bewildered as to what the end conclusion is.......

Are refined carbs likely to be a major cause of obesity and diabetes in the Western world? Or not? Is it the case that the evidence is contradictory and thus inconclusive? Is it the case that much of the evidence regarding cutting down on refined carbs is anecdotal? I am a bit lost.

I think this thread could do with some sort of attempt at a vaguely objective summary.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Percy, posted 09-08-2011 6:51 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 10:02 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13347
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 423 of 451 (632664)
09-09-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Straggler
09-09-2011 7:26 AM


Taubes Explained
Straggler writes:

I think this thread could do with some sort of attempt at a vaguely objective summary.

I feel the same way, so here we go.

It is believed that the diseases of western civilization, namely heart disease, obesity and diabetes, are caused by the dietary changes that accompany increasing prosperity. The country studies conducted after WWII involving millions of people concluded that fat was responsible. The theory was that when a country achieved a certain level of prosperity that the amount of fat in the diet increased and produced increasing rates of heart disease, obesity and diabetes.

Taubes claims that it is increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and not fat that is responsible for the diseases of western civilization. The ready availability of inexpensive refined carbohydrates during a period when people were replacing fat with carbohydrates in their diets is responsible for the obesity and type II diabetes epidemics that we're currently experiencing. Anyone who still accepts the fat hypothesis must explain why obesity and diabetes rates exploded during the very period when the emphasis was on reduction of dietary fat.

Taubes' proposed mechanism is that refined carbohydrates, because they're so easily digested and transported into the bloodstream, cause higher blood glucose levels which in turn causes higher insulin levels. Carbohydrates are digested into glucose in the blood, also known as blood sugar. The level of glucose in the blood is what diabetics measure when they check their blood sugar.

Insulin mediates the transformation of blood glucose into fat in fat cells and into energy molecules in muscle cells, but persistent higher insulin levels cause muscle and fat cells to become increasingly resistant to insulin. The more resistant a cell is to insulin, the more insulin is required to cause that cell to metabolize blood glucose. As insulin resistance increases, the ability of the body to produce sufficient insulin to cause cells to metabolize glucose diminishes, and the type II diabetic is forced to inject additional insulin, otherwise his blood sugar levels will become too high, which is very dangerous to health. Insulin resistance is one of the factors measured when making a diagnosis of type II diabetes.

In general, people's cells become more resistant to insulin over time, but not all cells are the same. The cells on the back of our hands are very resistant to accepting fat, while those around our middle not so much. Over time muscle cells become more resistant to insulin than fat cells, so as we age more and more of the glucose in the blood stream is directed toward the fat cells. We become fatter and more sedentary. This should sound familiar to many people over 40 and to most people over 50.

There can be no doubt that blood glucose levels and insulin levels are highly correlated. As mentioned earlier, high blood sugar levels, known as hyperglycemia, are very dangerous to health. Insulin's most significant responsibility is to mediate processes within the body that metabolize the blood sugar into fat and energy molecules. Without sufficient insulin blood sugar levels will rise, causing hyperglycemia. A diabetic who fails to take his insulin before a meal risks hyperglycemia. Chronic hyperglycemia causes many kinds of damage to the body, and is the reason kidney, eye and cardiovascular damage (and obesity, too) are so prevalent among diabetics. The dangers of hyperglycemia make clear insulin's critical role in reducing blood sugar levels.

While I haven't finished Taubes' latest book, Why We Get Fat, my understanding is that unlike GCBC it includes dietary recommendations. I assume he'll recommend the avoidance of foods that produce more elevated insulin levels, which means avoiding foods containing refined carbohydrates. This means avoiding white rice, white bread, white pasta, sugar, and the sweeter fruits like grapes and cherries that contain a great deal of fructose.

I feel I would be remiss if I didn't comment on the exchanges between myself and Molbiogirl that must be responsible for a great deal of confusion for anyone attempting to understand this thread, so I reluctantly and briefly do so. Taubes' position is that there is at present insufficient biological research to prove either the fat or the carbohydrate hypothesis, but that our experience with obesity and diabetes as a population over the past 30 years or so calls the fat hypothesis into serious question. He believes he has a very promising idea that deserves a great deal more research attention.

Molbiogirl's position is that sufficient research does exist to disprove the carbohydrate hypothesis, and she believes she has produced that evidence here. But when I look at her evidence I cannot see what she sees, and for me her conclusions do not seem to follow from the evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 7:26 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5182
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 424 of 451 (632666)
09-09-2011 10:21 AM


It's the psychology
I normally brown bag for lunch at work.

I typically take a few slices of bread, and some fake cheese slices. The "fake cheese" is actually a soy product. I make a couple of sandwiches out of that. Then I finish up with a couple of bananas.

It's high carb, low fat, some vegetable protein.

I still feel a bit hungry after eating, but that soon goes away.

Last week, I forgot to bring the brown bag. So I went to the local McDonald's for a hamburger and fries. This was likely high fat, high protein, high calory.

After eating the hamburger and fries, I felt extremely hungry. I managed to resist eating anything else, but that was hard.

My suspicion is that it is that feeling of hunger that drives people to eat more. Counting calories doesn't work, because if people feel hungry enough they will "cheat" on the calory counting diets.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that high fat, high protein encourage hunger. I think it far more likely that McDonald's spikes their food with something (it might be the salt) that increases the appetite. After all, they are in the business of selling food, and if they can get you to come back for more, that helps their business.

My point: Forget about carbs vs fat vs protein. Concentrate on whatever it is that causes your appetite to spike. Avoid foods that make you feel hungry. Prefer foods that tend to reduce your appetite.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 10:40 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 427 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 11:17 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 13347
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 425 of 451 (632669)
09-09-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by purpledawn
09-08-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Protein, Glucagon, and Insllin
purpledawn writes:

I was thinking about the insulin issue with protein. Since we know from experience that when we lower the refined carbs our weight goes down, the question is what does protein do differently than the refined carbs?

If both can raise the insulin levels, what is different about protein in the body than the refined carbs?

Protein is digested into amino acids (readily absorbed by the blood stream), while refined carbohydrates are digested into glucose (also readily absorbed by the blood stream). Both amino acids and glucose cause an insulin response. But meat is only slowly digested into amino acids and so cannot produce glucose and insulin spikes, and according to Bolder-dash even protein drinks are unlikely to do so. Only refined carbohydrates have the ability to quickly and dramatically increase blood glucose levels thereby causing quick and dramatic increases in insulin level, i.e., glucose and insulin spikes.

Someone made the comment that protein also raises glucagon, which counters insulin, whereas carbs just raise insulin alone.

This is true. The secretion of insulin and glucagon are part of the body's feedback system for maintaining consistent blood sugar levels within a range.

Not to beat a dead horse, but serious doubts were expressed upthread about the relationship between blood glucose and insulin. The Wikipedia article on insulin contained such a clear statement about the relationship between insulin and blood sugar that I shall reproduce it here:

Wikipedia writes:

Insulin is provided within the body in a constant proportion to remove excess glucose from the blood, which otherwise would be toxic.

Wikipedia also included this diagram (click to enlarge):

The idealized diagram shows the fluctuation of blood sugar (red) and the sugar-lowering hormone insulin (blue) in humans during the course of a day containing three meals. In addition, the effect of a sugar-rich versus a starch-rich meal is highlighted.

Notice that the dotted lines for sugar (sucrose-rich food) are more extreme than for starch.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2011 3:13 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 2:31 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13347
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 426 of 451 (632670)
09-09-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by nwr
09-09-2011 10:21 AM


Re: It's the psychology
nwr writes:

My point: Forget about carbs vs fat vs protein. Concentrate on whatever it is that causes your appetite to spike. Avoid foods that make you feel hungry. Prefer foods that tend to reduce your appetite.

I completely agree. Anyone who has found a diet that works for them should just stick with what works.

But as I said very early in this thread, I've only had to diet a few times in my life, and only when I was older. The first time I was able to lose weight simply by cutting calories. The second time was much more difficult, I had to seriously cut calories. The third time was impossible - I wasn't losing weight on a diet of 1200-1400 calories a day. I was out of ideas, and I never considered a low carbohydrate diet because I had heard the message from the medical establishment that it was dangerous.

That was when I found Taubes' book, reduced my carbohydrate intake, and lost 30 pounds in 12 months.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by nwr, posted 09-09-2011 10:21 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-09-2011 12:32 PM Percy has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 427 of 451 (632675)
09-09-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by nwr
09-09-2011 10:21 AM


Re: It's the psychology
nwr writes:

I think it far more likely that McDonald's spikes their food with something (it might be the salt) that increases the appetite. After all, they are in the business of selling food, and if they can get you to come back for more, that helps their business.


Or perhaps they (also) try to avoid ingredients that help reduce feelings of hunger?
McD have such a dodgy history, that I expect their reputation to eventually be on a par with the cigarette industry.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by nwr, posted 09-09-2011 10:21 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 428 of 451 (632686)
09-09-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Percy
09-09-2011 10:40 AM


Re: It's the psychology
I would add to this, that it is my opinion that it is the refined sugars and the high fructose corn syrups, not the carbohydrates that is really the cause behind the obesity epidemic in America and elsewhere. I attended a meeting of sports industry professionals and they showed a graph of the obesity levels of America overlayed with the amounts of high fructose corn syrups consumed in America over the past 20 years. They were tethered together like handcuffs. 20 years ago no single state in America had a majority of its citizens in the category of obese (according to the recent standards of obesity). Within 10 years you could see the map of America changing, to the current situation in which EVERY state has the majority of their population in the obese category. Every one! It happened in 10 years!

Add to that the fact that the average Chinese consumes larges amounts of rice every day and has done so for decades and centuries(as do the Japanese), and yet the population has never had a weight problem; until this last decade, in which imported America soft drinks, ice cream, and high fructose corn syrup snacks are abundant in every village in the country, and suddenly China is becoming a nation of severely obese young kids.

So is it carbohydrates, or is it the sugar mixed with carbohydrates? I would say almost certainly the latter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 10:40 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 1:24 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 430 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2011 1:29 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13347
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 429 of 451 (632688)
09-09-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Bolder-dash
09-09-2011 12:32 PM


Re: It's the psychology
Your terminology is different, but you're saying the same thing as Taubes. In Taubes' vocabulary sugar, both glucose and fructose, is a refined carbohydrate, the most refined of all refined carbohydrates. Table sugar is a 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose and would be considered more refined than, for example, white rice.

The Wikipedia article on carbohydrates classifies sugars as a type of carbohydrate. Nutrition labels also group sugars with carbohydrates, often breaking the group down into total carbohydrates, sugar and dietary fiber. Subtracting the number of grams of sugar and dietary fiber from total carbohydrates yields the amount of other carbohydrates, often called starch. Starch is a more complex carbohydrate than sugar but is still broken down and absorbed relatively rapidly, but the rate can be greatly mitigated by the presence of fiber, depending upon how they're combined in any individual food.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-09-2011 12:32 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 430 of 451 (632689)
09-09-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Bolder-dash
09-09-2011 12:32 PM


Re: It's the psychology
I would add to this, that it is my opinion that it is the refined sugars and the high fructose corn syrups, not the carbohydrates that is really the cause behind the obesity epidemic in America and elsewhere.

Hi, Dash. We actually had a thread about this sometime last year:

High Fructose Corn Syrup - the Controversy

I'd be interested in your further thoughts. Here's what I understand to be the problems with the evidence you allude to:

1) Charting obesity and prevalence of HFCS over only 20 years elides the fact that the trend in increasing obesity goes back much further than 20 years, to well before any increase in the prevalence of HFCS as an industrial sweetener (the sugar tariff system that prompted the switch to HFCS as a sweetener was only instituted in 1977 and it took several years for manufacturers to switch to HFCS; the sudden increase in the rate of obesity and all obesity-related pathologies begins in 1975.)

2) HFCS is sweeter than sugar by about a factor of three, and foods and beverages are usually sweetened to taste. The result of this is that most foods sweetened with HFCS have somewhat less calories than foods sweetened with sugar. The caloric composition of the average American diet has added only 50 additional calories from simple sugars since 1950 despite the dramatic increase in consumption of sweetened foods and beverages.

3) There's no metabolic logic to the proposition that HFCS is somehow digested differently from sucrose because HFCS and sucrose are both comprised of glucose and fructose. The "high" in HFCS refers to the fact that it has more fructose than regular corn syrup (which has almost none), not that it is high relative to table sugar. It's not: HFCS is 55/45 fructose to glucose; sucrose is 50/50. In order to ingest enough soda, for instance, that the relative difference in fructose would be sufficient to have an effect on metabolic signaling, according to rat studies you would have to consume approximately 12 cans of soda in the space of an hour. People just aren't consuming enough HFCS to trigger some kind of alternate metabolism, even the people who are drinking soda all the time.

In regards to China, the increase in obesity is at least as likely to be related to the increasing wealth of the average Chinese, and therefore their increased consumption of high-calorie, high-value foods or the increase in automobile ownership and driving among Chinese. It's not coincidental that China's consumption of fossil fuels is increasing right along with the increase in their waistlines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-09-2011 12:32 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-09-2011 11:43 PM crashfrog has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16121
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 431 of 451 (632696)
09-09-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Percy
09-09-2011 10:34 AM


Some thoughts on Glucagon, and Insllin
Hi Percy et al

Excellent summary.

... But meat is only slowly digested into amino acids and so cannot produce glucose and insulin spikes,...

Notice that the dotted lines for sugar (sucrose-rich food) are more extreme than for starch.

So it is the SPIKE that is important in the bodies reaction rather than the average daily dosages, and this would also explain, IMHO, why HFCS added to prepared foods is worse that foods with natural sugars.

Someone made the comment that protein also raises glucagon, which counters insulin, whereas carbs just raise insulin alone.

This is true. The secretion of insulin and glucagon are part of the body's feedback system for maintaining consistent blood sugar levels within a range.

Has anyone studied the effect of glucagon to control blood sugar instead of insulin?

Would it be possible to develop a drug that chemically reacts with blood sugar to remove it from the system?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Percy, posted 09-09-2011 10:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Percy, posted 09-10-2011 9:22 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 442 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 4:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 432 of 451 (632763)
09-09-2011 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by crashfrog
09-09-2011 1:29 PM


Re: It's the psychology
A few points:

1) I would disagree somewhat that the trend in obesity in America goes back further than 1977. I think it is probably fairer to say that the may have been a slight weight issue in America before that, but not the clinically obese rates of today. As I said, the studies that I saw, which although I don't remember the exact years, was looking at the decades of the eighties and nineties-and there was not one single state that had a majority of its population as obese (and they have even upped the parameters of what they used to call obese). They then showed a decade long diagram of the percentage of obese people in each state. Then is when it all happened-it went from one state, to 5 states, to 18 states, to 30 states, to all fifty states, in just a few short years. There was nothing slow and subtle about the trend from slightly overweight to obese and severely obese.

2) I don't believe it is an issue of calories at all, but rather an issue of mixing very simple sugars with more complex foods. I think they slow and disrupt the metabolism of the entire body such that all of the calories that are consumed are converted quicker into fat than into quicker energy storage. In America these days, those simple sugars are so ubiquitous in so many of your foods. Take a look some time at the number of sweeteners in your average "healthy" energy bar-it unbelievable. There will be high fructose corn syrup, malto-dextrin, maltose, molasses, brown sugar, regular corn syrup, honey, white sugar, and sweetened fruit pieces, brown rice syrup, cane syrup, barely malt, sorbitol...all in one little bar! The makers don't believe it would be sweet enough for Americans if they just added a little honey?

But one has to put most of the blame on your drinks. Go to any seven eleven and try to find an unsweetened soft drink. You will find 480 kinds of sweetened drinks before you find one other than water that isn't. Its what these things are doing to the human metabolism that is causing the great damage. When you mix these together with normal intakes of food you wreak all kinds of problems.

3) I only point out HFCS because it has become so ubiquitous as a flavoring agent in America. I don't necessarily feel that it is so much worse than white sugar on the surface. Although there is some evidence to suggest that by mixing so much sweetened corn products into one's diet that you are making the body develop allergies to foods that are eaten together with the high corn intake, but that is another issue. Soda, with or without the corn syrup will harm your body. It is too thin of a sugar.

Finally regarding the Chinese lifestyle, and the use of the automobile, and the increased consumption of higher calorie food, I don't think this fully explains it. First, the obesity that we are seeing is in the youth populations, not the adult population. For the most part adult Chinese are pretty set in their eating habits and don't consume a lot of overly sweet foods. They do however eat very high calorie foods, much more so than Americans even perhaps. All Chinese dinners are large lavish affairs. Many Americans would never be able to eat the amounts of large pure pork fat dishes that Chinese regularly consume. Children's diets are quite different however. All young children, in both city and rural areas have access to many westernized snack food and drinks-manufactured cheaply here in China. They dominate every small country store.

This phenomenon is not limited to wealthy children in China, it is just as bad or worse in poorer rural areas, where the children buy the cheapest of snacks. A soda costs about 20 cents and a ice cream bar costs even less. They also regularly consume various kinds of milk drinks, which they believe to be healthy for young kids, that are all sweetened with sugar and corn syrup. These are cheap and abundant. And western style bread shops are everywhere in China now, and it is a large part of all young kids diets-a type of cakey sweetened bread made into 300 different shapes, all with the same ingredients.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2011 1:29 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 7:56 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 435 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 11:27 AM Bolder-dash has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16121
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 433 of 451 (632793)
09-10-2011 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Bolder-dash
09-09-2011 11:43 PM


. . . It's the sugars, not the fats
Hi Bolder-dash

2) I don't believe it is an issue of calories at all, but rather an issue of mixing very simple sugars with more complex foods. I think they slow and disrupt the metabolism of the entire body such that all of the calories that are consumed are converted quicker into fat than into quicker energy storage. In America these days, those simple sugars are so ubiquitous in so many of your foods. Take a look some time at the number of sweeteners in your average "healthy" energy bar-it unbelievable. There will be high fructose corn syrup, malto-dextrin, maltose, molasses, brown sugar, regular corn syrup, honey, white sugar, and sweetened fruit pieces, brown rice syrup, cane syrup, barely malt, sorbitol...all in one little bar! The makers don't believe it would be sweet enough for Americans if they just added a little honey?

Don't you mean speed up the metabolism to convert the sugars to fat?

It is very difficult to find foods without sweeteners in them, and multiple sweeteners so they can be listed lower in the ingredients to 'look' healthier. The other day I was looking at cereals, and one I looked at had "evaporated cane syrup" as an ingredient -- in other words sugar, but trying to hide the fact. This is as bad as calling HFCS "corn sugar" to avoid the negative image of HFCS.

IMHO they should all be grouped in the ingredients under a heading: sugars (cane sugar, fructose etc) the way things are that come from previous processing.

I've lost more weight since I cut out sugars and preprocessed foods than I ever did limiting fats. In fact I enjoy more fats now (butter esp, yum) and still keep the weight off.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-09-2011 11:43 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13347
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 434 of 451 (632803)
09-10-2011 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
09-09-2011 2:31 PM


Re: Some thoughts on Glucagon, and Insllin
RAZD writes:

So it is the SPIKE that is important in the bodies reaction rather than the average daily dosages, and this would also explain, IMHO, why HFCS added to prepared foods is worse that foods with natural sugars.

Taubes conjectures from the existing evidence that insulin and glucose spikes are dangerous to health, but as he readily concedes, the medical research to convincingly demonstrate this is true or untrue has not yet been done.

Has anyone studied the effect of glucagon to control blood sugar instead of insulin?

Would it be possible to develop a drug that chemically reacts with blood sugar to remove it from the system?

Interesting questions, I don't know. Another issue, at least when it comes to long term treatment for many people, is that insulin was in relatively short supply until they developed the ability to synthesize it, could be the same with glucagon.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 2:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 435 of 451 (632813)
09-10-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Bolder-dash
09-09-2011 11:43 PM


Re: It's the psychology
I would disagree somewhat that the trend in obesity in America goes back further than 1977. I think it is probably fairer to say that the may have been a slight weight issue in America before that, but not the clinically obese rates of today.

You're confusing the prevalence with the rate of increase of prevalence; the function with its first derivative, in other words. The prevalence of obesity in the United States has not ever been not increasing, because the United States was founded approximately at the beginning of the Industrial Age and at the end, roughly, of the existence of wide-spread agricultural failure in the Western world - in other words, Americans have always been getting fatter because the United States has always been a place where agriculture has been successful.

The question is the rate of increase. Starting in about 1975, roughly associated with the time that public health dietitians recommended a shift in calorie composition to carbs and away from fats, that rate of increase increased dramatically in both children and adults as shown by the slope in prevalence:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6002a2.htm

http://nchspressroom.wordpress.com/category/nhanes/

This graph somewhat conceals the actual timing of the trend because it's based on Census information and they only collect it every few years.

I think they slow and disrupt the metabolism of the entire body such that all of the calories that are consumed are converted quicker into fat than into quicker energy storage.

Well, ok. What's the biochemical basis for this conclusion?

The makers don't believe it would be sweet enough for Americans if they just added a little honey?

It's funny you should mention honey; the primary constituents of honey are free fructose and glucose in water solution - almost exactly the same as HFCS, in fact.

Go to any seven eleven and try to find an unsweetened soft drink.

I've never been to a convenience store that didn't have an enormous variety of diet soft drinks, so I don't know what you mean. If you want to avoid sugars in your soft drinks, everything these days has a diet version sweetened with sucralose (which is noncaloric.)

Its what these things are doing to the human metabolism that is causing the great damage.

And what, in your view, are they doing to the human metabolism? Please be specific.

First, the obesity that we are seeing is in the youth populations, not the adult population.

No, that's not correct. Obesity and obesity-related morbidity are on the rise for all age segments of the Chinese population, but most especially adults in high-income areas of the country:

quote:
The age-standardized prevalence of overweight and obesity is shown in Table 2. Men ages 45 to 54 years had the highest prevalence of overweight and obesity, whereas prevalence of overweight and obesity varied among age groups in women. The age-specific prevalence of overweight was higher among women compared with men after age 45 years. For every age group, the age-specific prevalence of obesity was higher among women compared with men. Prevalence of overweight and obesity was also higher in northern compared with southern China and urban compared with rural areas...

Our study indicates that the mean BMI and prevalence of overweight and obesity in the general Chinese adult population are higher than previously reported from national studies conducted in China (13, 14, 15). In 1991, the prevalences of overweight and obesity were 9.9% and 0.8%, respectively, among men and 12.9% and 1.9%, respectively, among women ages 18 years and older in mainland China (14). Furthermore, these results document regional differences in mean BMI and waist circumference; prevalence of overweight, obesity, and central obesity; and risk factors. Our study suggests that 119 million Chinese adults ages 35 to 74 years were overweight and 18 million Chinese in the same age range were obese, using BMI criteria. Using waist circumference, 126 million Chinese adults ages 35 to 74 years had central obesity. The current study documents an unexpectedly large burden of overweight and obesity in the general Chinese population...

This national survey indicates that overweight and obesity are very common in the general Chinese adult population and that the prevalence of overweight and obesity and mean BMI are higher than previously reported from national studies.


http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v15/n1/full/oby2007527a.html

This phenomenon is not limited to wealthy children in China, it is just as bad or worse in poorer rural areas, where the children buy the cheapest of snacks. A soda costs about 20 cents and a ice cream bar costs even less.

I've never been to China, so I can't speak to that except to point out that:

1) the average rural daily income is about six dollars in China, so a 20-cent drink isn't actually all that cheap, and
2) rural areas of China have the lowest prevalence of obesity, as we've just seen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-09-2011 11:43 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 12:28 PM crashfrog has responded

RewPrev1
...
262728
29
3031Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014