Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 358 of 451 (629412)
08-17-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 1:34 PM


Re: Message 316
Hi Molbiogirl,
You quote something I say, then ignore it and cite page 454 from GCBC and ask me to respond to your question about it.
I repeat, what part of "respond to things I've said instead of demanding I defend the positions you've assigned to me" didn't you understand?
I'm not here to defend every detail of Taubes' book, but I think he describes a reasonable hypothesis. It makes a lot of sense to me. If you want to raise a specific question, or even a few questions, and will stick with them and focus on them for a bit so some mutual agreement or at least understanding can emerge then that might be enlightening and fun.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 1:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 2:20 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 360 of 451 (629420)
08-17-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 2:20 PM


Re: GCBC hypothesis
Hi Molbiogirl,
I think what I've been saying all along is that it seems a reasonable hypothesis that carbohydrates, not fat, are responsible for the diseases of western civilization: heart disease, obesity, diabetes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 2:20 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 364 of 451 (629432)
08-17-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Back to this...
Hi Molbiogirl,
I think the biggest problem for the fat hypothesis and the research supporting it is that during the very period when low fat diets were receiving by far the greatest emphasis and people replaced fat calories with carbohydrate calories, much of the western world experienced explosive growth rates in obesity and diabetes. I understand that a significant proportion of the medical establishment favors the fat hypothesis, but that position stands in stark contrast to our experience of the last 30 years or so.
Why does the majority of the research implicate fat instead of carbohydrates? I don't know.
But more importantly, why did obesity and diabetes rates soar during a period of decreasing fat intake and increasing carbohydrate intake?
The answer lies in the fact that making a firm connection between studies at the level of biochemistry and the experience of actual people isn't something we've proven we can do very effectively. For example, biochemical research said that free radicals were bad, but studies on actual people reveal that taking supplements that reduce free radicals have a negative impact on health. For another example, just look at all the failed drug trials with drugs that appeared very promising in the lab. This is the way it goes with this kind of research. The obvious conclusions from the test tube level do not often translate well to people.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 4:12 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 8:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 376 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 9:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 373 of 451 (629512)
08-18-2011 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
molbiogirl writes:
Taubes: All carbs are bad.
P. 394
1. Carbohydrates are singularly responsible for prompting insulin secretion 2. Insulin is singularly responsible for inducing fat accumulation 3. Dietary carbohydrate are required for excess fat accumulation. Note he doesnt say refined carbs. Just carbs. In searching Chapter 22 (The Carbohydrate Hypothesis II: Insulin) online, I see that he doesnt qualify his use of carbohydrate with refined.
In fact, Taubes uses the word refined 86 times. In a 600 page book.
You seem to think that he thinks it's primarily refined carbohydrates responsible for obesity. Would you like to discuss this aspect of his book?
In Taubes' view the greater the insulin response the more dangerous the food with respect to obesity and diabetes. Refined carbohydrates cause the greatest insulin response and are therefore the most dangerous.
The more refined the carbohyrates consumed, the higher the resulting blood glucose level. Insulin is mostly a response to blood glucose levels, and the higher the blood glucose levels, the greater the insulin response.
It would make no sense, it would be inconsistent with his fundamental hypothesis, for Taubes to include the claim that foods associated with small insulin responses (like complex carbohydrates) could be responsible for the high rates of obesity and diabetes. As he says in the prologue while summarizing old studies:
Taubes on page ix-xx writes:
...these diseases appeared in these populations only after they were exposed to Western foods - in particular, sugar, flour, white rice, and maybe beer. These are known technically as refined carbohydrates...
That's Taubes hypothesis in a nutshell, that the increase in intake of refined carbohydrates are responsible for the high rates of obesity and diabetes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 11:53 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 10:07 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 381 of 451 (629537)
08-18-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 9:42 AM


molbiogirl writes:
I don't feel his overall hypothesis rests on insulin. Wasn't my take away from the book.
From a science point of view, his hypothesis rests on insulin. If you would like to discuss that, I'm game.
Both PD and I are drawing a distinction between what PD is calling his *overall hypothesis* and his underlying hypothesis.
Taubes *overall hypothesis* is that increased intake in refined carbohydrates is responsible for the diseases of western civilization, namely obesity and diabetes. PD and I are both interested in this.
But this is distinct from Taubes underlying hypothesis, the one he explores throughout his book by examining the research. This is the hypothesis that it is the insulin response to refined carbohydrates that is responsible.
But speaking just for myself now, I have no horse in this race. I'm looking for dietary answers, not trying to prove insulin is the bogey man. Whether it's insulin or fat or something else, I don't care. It's what happens to me in terms of weight and health when I eat certain foods that I care about. I want someone to know what's going on inside the human body so that they can make dietary recommendations that work for the long term.
So getting to the bottom line, maybe carbohydrates didn't cause the skyrocketing rates of obesity and diabetes. But then, what did? "We don't know yet," is a perfectly respectable answer. "We don't know yet but it's not carbs," is not something that I think has been established yet, and this is where you and I disagree.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 9:42 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 9:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 382 of 451 (629550)
08-18-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 10:07 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
molbiogirl writes:
Refined carbohydrates cause the greatest insulin response and are therefore the most dangerous.
This isn't true.
What isn't true? That this is Taubes' view? That refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates? That rapid insulin swings have a negative impact on long term health?
That's Taubes hypothesis in a nutshell, that the increase in intake of refined carbohydrates are responsible for the high rates of obesity and diabetes.
I disagree. As I stated upthread, I am strongly of the opinion that Taubes has not limited his hypothesis to refined carbs. But I'm afraid you and I won't come to an understanding on this point.
I already explained how that would be contradictory to consider all carbs equally dangerous. Taubes is very clear:
Taubes on page xxiii writes:
...obesity is caused by the quality of the calories, rather than the quantity, and specifically by the effect of refined and easily digestible carbohydrates on the hormonal regulation of fat storage and metabolism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 10:07 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 388 of 451 (629684)
08-19-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by molbiogirl
08-19-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
That refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates is supported by the paper you cited:
This is Figure 1 from page 1270 showing that foods with greater concentrations of simple carbohydrates, particularly sugar, cause greater insulin responses. The lack of correlation with glucose levels is extremely interesting:
And Figure 2 breaks down the insulin scores by individual foods:
Independent of our discussion there's some extremely useful information here. I've always wondered why chile is so incredibly fattening, and this figure says that only jellybeans are worse than beans when it comes to insulin response. I wonder if a reasonable chile can be made from lentils, which have a much lower insulin score.
Also very interesting is that french fries have a lower insulin score than potatoes - this is great, I love french fries!
This is a very useful paper, though it isn't without its problems. Their measures of carbohydrates are not sufficiently detailed, see Table 2 on page 1267. For sugar they do not differentiate between glucose and fructose, which makes fruit a problematic comparison. Their categorizations are not really by food type, e.g., jellybeans and peanuts are grouped together, and they don't break down the starch category into simple and complex, so white bread and brown pasta have nearly equal carb levels.
But that refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates, and also of protein rich foods, seems a very good general rule that is fully supported by this paper.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify last two paragraphs.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2011 8:59 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by molbiogirl, posted 08-22-2011 9:21 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 390 of 451 (630168)
08-22-2011 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by molbiogirl
08-22-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Refined v. unrefined insulin response
Hi Molbiogirl,
You can't disprove the claim that refined carbohydrates cause a larger insulin response than complex carbohydrates using a paper whose data does not distinguish between complex and refined carbohydrates. They cite separate figures for sugar and starch, but they do not say what proportion of the starchy carbohydrates are simple versus complex.
You mentioned Table 4, so here are the foods with the 10 highest insulin scores:
FoodInsulin score
Jellybeans
Mars Bar
Potatoes
Baked Beans
Yogurt
White bread
Whole-meal bread
Cookies
Ice cream
Grapes
160
122
121
120
115
100
96
92
89
82
All these foods have high carbohydrate content, and though the paper doesn't include data for refined carbohydrates, most of them are known to rate high in refined carbohydrate content. Grapes rate exceedingly high in fructose, one of the highest levels of all fruits, though I don't believe fructose has a significant influence on insulin levels.
Now here are the foods with fhe 10 lowest insulin scores:
FoodInsulin score
Peanuts
Eggs
All Bran
White pasta
Brown pasta
Porridge
Cheese
Muesli
Beef
Popcorn
20
31
32
40
40
40
45
46
51
54
With the possible exception of white pasta none of these foods are thought to have any significant refined carbohydrate content. The data in Table 4 fully supports the position that as a general rule refined carbohydrates cause a greater insulin response than complex carbohydrates, and I'm sure that if you sorted all of Table 4 instead of just these 20 foods that you'd just find further evidence of this.
While the paper doesn't explicitly measure refined carbohydrate content, it does occasionally mention refined carbohydrates in a way that makes clear they are fully aware of their greater ability to heighten insulin levels. For example, this appears near the bottom of page 1273:
Holt, et al, writes:
Similarly, the highly refined bakery products and snack foods induced substantially more insulin secretion per kilojoule or per gram of food than did the other test foods.
And this from near the bottom of page 1274:
Holt, et al, writes:
Similar ISs [insulin scores] were observed for white and brown pasta, white and brown rice, and white and whole-meal bread. All of these foods are relatively refined compared with their traditional counterparts. Collectively, the findings imply that typical Western diets are likely to be significantly more insulinogenic than more traditional diets based on less refined foods.
So they recognized the effect of refined carbohydrates, they just didn't happen to measure the levels of refined carbohydrates, excepting sugar.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by molbiogirl, posted 08-22-2011 9:21 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by molbiogirl, posted 08-29-2011 10:30 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 393 of 451 (631068)
08-30-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by molbiogirl
08-29-2011 10:30 AM


Re: Refined v. unrefined insulin response
Hi Molbiogirl,
Just for reference, here's a link to the paper again:
molbiogirl writes:
I'm not trying to "disprove" the claim that refined carbs evoke a greater insulin response than unrefined carbs. I am arguing that refined and unrefined evoke a very similar insulin response.
I don't see a significant difference between these two positions, but okay, fine, you're arguing that refined and unrefined carbohydrates cause similar insulin responses. The same question remains. How are you going to do that with a paper whose data does not distinguish between complex and refined carbohydrates (except for sugar)?
The best that we can do with this paper is make our own inferences about which foods are high in refined carbohydrates and which are not, and I did that with my two tables. This table lists the foods from Table 4 with the greatest insulin scores, most of which are known for high levels of refined carbohydrates:
FoodInsulin score
Jellybeans
Mars Bar
Potatoes
Baked Beans
Yogurt
White bread
Whole-meal bread
Cookies
Ice cream
Grapes
160
122
121
120
115
100
96
92
89
82
And this table lists the foods from Table 4 with the lowest insulin scores, most of which are known for a low level of refined carbohydrates:
FoodInsulin score
Peanuts
Eggs
All Bran
White pasta
Brown pasta
Porridge
Cheese
Muesli
Beef
Popcorn
20
31
32
40
40
40
45
46
51
54
As I indicated before, I agree that white pasta is normally considered as having higher levels of refined carbohydrates than brown pasta, and possibly there is something wrong with their data because it is contradictory. If you look at Table 2 you'll see that their white pasta is higher in sugar and lower in fiber, but Table 4 shows that their brown pasta produced higher glucose levels and a higher glucose score, which is opposite to the known effects of fiber (increasing levels correlate with a lower glucose response) and sugar (increasing levels correlate with a higher glucose response).
So I can't explain their white/brown pasta data, but it's just one data point. Overall their data is very consistent with the hypothesis that increasing levels of refined carbohydrates cause increasing insulin scores.
Despite containing similar amounts of carbohydrate, jellybeans induced twice as much insulin secretion as any of the four fruits.
Same carbs, twice the insulin response. Jellybeans = refined. Fruit = unrefined.
But they are not the same carbs. The carbohydrates in Jellybeans are sucrose (50% glucose, 50% fructose), while those in fruit are fructose. The glucose in jellybeans requires no conversion to glucose, which is not true of fruit which has no glucose. The glucose and insulin responses of glucose and fructose are not the same. Plus fruit has fiber, jellybeans have none. You can't compare apples to oranges, or in this case jellybeans to grapes.
Despite containing more carbohydrate than porridge and muesli, All Bran produced the lowest GS.
Again. A hiccup that Taubes' hypothesis can't explain.
You keep misstating Taubes' hypothesis, which is that increased intake of refined carbohydrates is responsible for the diseases of western civilization.
Someone somewhere might be arguing that total carbohydrate content is by itself a good indicator of glucose and insulin responses, but it isn't me and it isn't Taubes. If you're arguing that this hypothesis is wrong then I agree with you, and I'm sure Taubes would agree with you, too.
But if you're also arguing that that is Taubes' hypothesis then you are wrong. Taubes' hypothesis is that increased intake of refined carbohydrates is responsible for the diseases of western civilization.
And the coup de grace:
Significant differences were found both within and among the food groups when the insulin AUC responses were examined as a function of the food's carbohydrate content. On average, protein-rich foods produced the highest insulin secretion per gram of carbohydrate.
Of course protein-rich foods produce a high insulin response per gram of carbohydrate. That's because protein-rich foods contain very little carbohydrate. Protein produces its own insulin response, and when you divide that response by a small carbohydrate content you'll get large numbers. The insulin response of beef and fish per gram of carbohydrate is infinite, while that of cheese and eggs is merely astronomical. In other words, measuring insulin response per gram of carbohydrate for foods with little or no carbohydrate content is a meaningless exercise.
These results reflect the insulinogenic effects of protein and fat.
Protein is insulinogenic. How does that fit in with Taubes' hypothesis?
It is not Taubes' hypothesis that only carbohydrates cause an insulin response. The digestive system breaks food down into constituents that can be absorbed by the bloodstream, such as glucose. Insulin response is governed by many factors, but one significant factor is blood glucose levels.
How can grapes be on your list for high IS and popcorn on your list for low IS when the scores are so similar?
It isn't my list. It's just the data from Table 4 sorted into order by insulin score. I didn't make the mathematical rule that says that 54 (popcorn) is less than 82 (grapes).
How can you claim that refined carbs are do darn bad when beef is right there in the middle?
The hypothesis is that refined carbohydrates, because of their rapid digestion, cause glucose and insulin spikes and other health effects that are ultimately responsible for the increasing rates of obesity and and diabetes observed in western countries. Beef isn't rapidly digested, nor does it cause glucose and insulin spikes.
Refined carbs and unrefined carbs evoke similar insulin responses.
No they don't. In general, the more refined the carbohydrates the greater the insulin response, and this paper, to the extent possible given that it didn't measure levels of refined carbohydrates, fully supports this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by molbiogirl, posted 08-29-2011 10:30 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by molbiogirl, posted 09-02-2011 10:12 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 394 of 451 (631261)
08-31-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by molbiogirl
08-29-2011 10:30 AM


Re: Refined v. unrefined insulin response
Hi Molbiogirl,
Sorry for the second reply, but I'd like to get through the points where we disagree as quickly as possible. Here are what I believe are our primary areas of disagreement:
  1. You believe that Taubes' hypothesis is that all carbohydrates are bad, while I believe that Taubes hypothesis is that the greater the intake of refined carbohydrates the worse are the health effects regarding obesity and type II diabetes.
  2. You don't believe that increased intake of refined carbohydrates is associated with an increased incidence rate of obesity and type II diabetes, while I believe that it is.
  3. You don't believe that any particular food categories can be singled out as causing greater insulin responses than other foods, while I believe that in general the greater the refined carbohydrate content the greater the insulin response.
Regarding #1 concerning Taubes' hypothesis, he has clearly stated his hypothesis a number of times in articles, books and talks. Taubes believes that it is the increased intake of refined carbohydrates that is responsible for the diseases of western civilization. He was clear about this in the original article in the New York Times (What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?), he was very clear about this in his book (Good Calories, Bad Calories, of which you have a copy), and he's been clear about this in his talks.
Regarding #2 concerning the association of increased refined carbohydrate intake with obesity and type II diabetes, here is a study showing this effect with type II diabetes.
From the conclusions:
Gross et al writes:
Conclusions: Increasing intakes of refined carbohydrate (corn syrup) concomitant with decreasing intakes of fiber paralleled the upward trend in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes observed in the United States during the 20th century.
Regarding #3 concerning some food categories causing greater insulin responses than others, the paper I just cited makes this statement:
Gross et al writes:
In several small-scale metabolic trials, refined grains have been shown to cause a significant increase in insulin secretion and the postprandial glucose response (50-54).
Very interestingly, one of the papers they cite in support of this statement about the effect of refined grains on insulin response is the same one you've been citing in support of the opposite view. Clearly this paper shares my interpretation that the paper you're citing disagrees with you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by molbiogirl, posted 08-29-2011 10:30 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by molbiogirl, posted 09-02-2011 10:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 395 of 451 (631481)
09-01-2011 7:42 AM


A Possible Evolutionary Connection
A group of scientists have proposed an evolutionary explanation for why people might become more sensitive to refined carbohydrates as they get older. In the August 6-12, 2011, issue of New Scientist, Michael R. Rose of the University of California, Irvine, suggests the possibility that human evolution over the 10,000 years since the emergence of agriculture has caused adaptations to a diet higher in "grass-derived foods," but that these adaptations work best when you are young, and less well when you are old. This is because, he argues, "the forces of natural selection decline with age." In other words, processes that emerge after you've already reproduced cannot be directly affected by natural selection. He goes on:
Michael R. Rose writes:
Given the declining forces of natural selection, we can expect to be well adapted to agricultural diet at early ages but less so at later ages. This has the effect of amplifying the decline in adaptedness that we experience as we get older.
...
So it may be beneficial to our health to switch to the diet and activity levels of hunter-gatherers.
I have been following such a diet - essentially avoiding grass-derived foods, such as grains, rice, corn and sugar cane, and anything made from milk - for two years and the results have been good.
New Scientist article: The end of ageing: Why life begins at 90
--Percy
PS - I am well aware of the amount of nonsense in New Scientist. I'm only throwing this out there as an interesting idea.

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 398 of 451 (631755)
09-02-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by molbiogirl
09-02-2011 10:12 AM


Re: Refined v. unrefined insulin response
Hi Molbiogirl,
I don't understand how you keep doing this, but at least you're remarkably consistent. You have again presented information that disagrees with you.
molbiogirl writes:
Your list is wrong. You can't ignore the error bars. Here's the list, from lowest to highest, with error bars included.
Here's your table, this time with labels:
FoodInsulin ScoreInsulin Score + maxerror
Peanuts20 525
All-Bran32 436
Eggs31 637
Porridge40 444
White Pasta40 545
Brown pasta40 545
Muesli46 551
Cheese45 1358
Grain bread56 662
Apples59 463
Oranges60 363
Popcorn54 953
Beef51 1667
Lentils58 1270
Special K66 571
Honeysmacks67 673
Brown rice62 1173
Potato chips61 1475
Fish59 1877
Sustain71 677
Cornflakes75 882
Doughnuts74 983
French fries74 1286
Bananas81 586
Grapes82 688
White rice79 1291
Croissants79 1493
Cake82 1294
Crackers87 1299
White bread100 0100
Ice cream89 13102
Cookies92 15107
Whole-meal bread96 12108
Yoghurt115 13128
Potatoes121 11132
Mars Bars122 15137
Baked beans120 19139
Jellybeans160 16176
I have no idea why you think sorting the table by "Insulin Score + maxerror" instead of just by "Insulin Score" is an improvement, but as anyone can plainly see the relationship I described before still holds true. As you scan down the table the Insulin Scores increase and the foods are generally higher and higher in refined carbohydrate content. My tables showed it, and your more complete table shows it.
Also, the relationship between grapes and popcorn that you expressed concern about doesn't change. Popcorn, a relatively more complex carbohydrate, has a lower insulin score than grapes, which contain a great deal of sugar in the form of fructose which is a relatively simple carbohydrate.
Englyst, K at al. Glycaemic index of cereal products explained by their content of rapidly and slowly available glucose, British Journal of Nutrition (2003), 89, 329—33
In other words, the type of carb (rapidly absorbed glucose, slowly absorbed glucose, resistant starch, nonresistant starch) is no more predictive of the insulin response than the % carb content.
You have again cited a paper that disagrees with you (Glycaemic index of cereal products explained by their content of rapidly and slowly available glucose). The conclusion is right there at the end of the abstract on page one of the paper:
Englyst et al writes:
In conclusion, the GI and II values of the cereal products investigated can be explained by the RAG and SAG contents. A high SAG content identifies low-GI foods that are rich in slowly released carbohydrates for which health benefits have been proposed.
GI is Glycemic Index and II is Insulinemic Index. The conclusion is stating that SAG (Slowly Available Glucose) is associated with lower a glycemic index, and RAG (Rapidly Available Glucose) is associated with a higher glycemic index.
You actually quoted part of the paper that raises questions about whether you understand what you're reading, particularly the math portions, for you quoted this, and I maintain the portion you highlighted in red:
Of the carbohydrate fractions investigated in the present study, RAG demonstrated the strongest correlation with II, but still only explained 32 % of the variance. (This) in agreement with previous findings ( (Kabadi, 1991; Trout, 1993; Brand-Miller 1995).
This is stating in no uncertain terms what I've been telling you, that in general the higher the content of refined carbohydrates the higher the glycemic index and the higher the insulin index. No one is saying there aren't other factors, which is all the part in red is saying. You're not telling anyone anything they didn't know already. You're not rebutting a claim that anyone has made.
It might be worth noting that in contrast to the other paper, this was a study of a narrow food group (cereal products only), and it was done in vitro, not in vivo, in other words, in the laboratory rather than with actual people.
Because you're exhibiting the same pattern as a couple years ago of citing papers that disagree with you I'm not going to look at the other papers you cited because I think I'll just find more of the same.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve table presentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by molbiogirl, posted 09-02-2011 10:12 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2011 5:29 AM Percy has replied
 Message 417 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2011 12:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 418 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2011 1:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 420 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2011 3:38 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 400 of 451 (631779)
09-03-2011 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by purpledawn
09-03-2011 5:29 AM


Re: Interpreting Studies
purpledawn writes:
Bottom line, the individual has to do what works for them...
I know we would like to be able to point to one thing that actually causes the problem, but I still see the body as a very complicated machine and we are still trying to figure out how parts interact with other parts.
Yes, that's the problem. Human metabolic processes are very complicated, and we're all complicated in different ways, which only adds to the problem of figuring things out.
As you alluded, Taubes makes clear that the post WWII research (especially the country studies) indicting fat for the diseases of western civilization were highly flawed. He argues that increased intake of refined carbohydrates is responsible. He is aware that existing research is merely suggestive and not conclusive, and in his writings and talks he always calls for more research.
My own personal experience regarding obesity is that fat by itself is not bad, that refined carbohydrates in the form of refined grass-derived products and sugar are bad, and that refined carbohydrates combined with fat are very bad. I've been following a low carb diet for over a couple years now, and my recent annual blood tests yield better results for HDL/LDL and triglycerides than I have ever had in my life.
Taubes' original book GCBC gave no dietary advice, but what that advice would be had he given it is pretty clear, and it seems pretty much the same as Michael Pollan's advice to return to a diet somewhat similar to that of our great or great great grandparents. I have Taubes' new book, Why We Get Fat, but I'm having trouble getting through it because of boredom - the early chapters are just shorter and simplified versions of the same information in GCBC.
If you've never seen the movie Food, Inc. I think it is well worth watching. As the title suggests, it's about the food industry and not the diabetes and obesity epidemics, but it explains how the food we get in our stores that is so high in refined carbohydrates is a strong function of the nature of that industry.
But more relevant to this topic is a segment about a Latino family of four in poor financial shape struggling to get by where the father is a type II diabetic whose medicine is a significant expense for them. Because they have little money they are forced to consume the cheapest calories available, and those calories are high in refined carbohydrates. One scene shows them in a supermarket looking at healthy foods and their prices and showing how much more expensive it would be for them to create healthy meals instead of just going to McDonald's, whose fast food is the worst stuff for a diabetic. The entire family is overweight.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2011 5:29 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2011 7:57 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 402 of 451 (631789)
09-03-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by purpledawn
09-03-2011 7:57 AM


Re: Interpreting Studies
purpledawn writes:
Oddly enough when my weight went down, my cholesterol went up. Fix one thing and another breaks.
Do you mean your overall cholesterol level actaully went up? Or that your HDL/LDL ratio worsened? If the latter then that *is* odd. If the former then it doesn't seem much worth worrying over.
Right now I'm on T3 for the thyroid and that makes my cholesterol go down. The odd thing is that on paper, my thyroid looks fine.
When you say your thyroid looks fine on paper, do you mean that blood tests for TSH and T4/Free come out normal? If so, then why are you on T3? And are you really on T3, or is it really T4 of which some percentage the body transforms into T3?
Also, for you is the T3 supposed to help with things like blood levels and long term health, or does it have an impact on the way you feel, things like energy level, endurance and alertness?
If they mess up our food, we're in trouble. Evolution takes it course. Only those who can survive on the carbs with make it through. As Granny Magda says: Mutate and survive.
Yes, exactly. A few messages back I described the view of some researchers that we have become better adapted to carbs over the past 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2011 7:57 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2011 10:11 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 404 of 451 (631797)
09-03-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by purpledawn
09-03-2011 10:11 AM


Re: Interpreting Studies
Hi PD, thanks for all the information. I just looked down the list of symptoms for hypothyroidism and it looks like I don't really have any them. If I wanted to be picky I suppose I could say I have fatigue and weight gain, but that would be stretching it.
I have another appointment with my doctor coming up this week when we'll look at the results of the latest blood tests and see if anything interesting shows up. He included pituitary tests in addition to the thyroid tests this time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2011 10:11 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024