The results you've mentioned also echo what the South Beach Diet book says. This book also mentions studies done with doctors and nurses (don't have copy handy to cite them). This also matches what Jazzns states, and my experience.
Also ironically, fat is good for you. Mortality is higher with low fat intake than with high fat intake. Specifically, the mortality rate from cancer is higher with low fat diets than the mortality rate from heart disease with high fat diets.
And some fats are better than others. Olive oil seems to rate high on all similar studies as a good fat.
The worst sugars are in beer. Starches can act like sugars, and that's why white bread is bad.
I am much interested in this issue since my cancer came back, plus I started to get back pain problems. I've tried to increase exercise and have eliminated sugars and breads for now. My ability to exercise is limited due to muscle loss during the recovery period for the stem cell transplant, and my arms in particular are weak. This is double bad as poor exercise in elderly people can lead to permanent bone density loss. I do yoga and cycling, thinking about swimming. Not intense stuff, but more motion and flexibility and endurance.
One of the problems I've always had is the focus on weight loss, because exercise not only burns fats, it builds muscles, which are denser than fats. You should measure girth (ie belt size).
I've been on this diet for ~4 months now - inspired by your posts - the first couple months I could see some improvements, then some friends visited and 3 nights eating out and I blew up like a balloon.
Recently I am at a low point for the year, however part of it is the chemotherapy and loss of appetite (not a diet regimen I recommend), but I'll take it and see if I can base-line it or improve on it.
Chemo depletes nutrients from the body and you probably can't eat enough to restore those nutrients even if you had an appetite. Here is an unexpected twist discovered in a study done by Eli Lilly. Vitamins to relieve chemotherapy side effects
Well then it's a good thing I take Folic Acid and B12 suppliments in addition to a full elderly vitamin pill (last thing I want is some vitamin deficiency due to my funky post treatment "diet"
Fruit juices were my weakness. I haven't had sodas for over 20 years.
I think I gave up soda 30 years ago and I've never been keen on the fruit drinks -- I'll go for the V8's if I need something beside coffee.
In the studies he mentioned people couldn't get fat on meat and fats alone. They needed to add carbs. I think the carbs in these studies were fruits and veggies.
The South Beach diet says the same thing about insulin cycling. I've pretty much avoided beef for the last 5 years or so (since moving here) and particularly ground beef. I figure all those grwoth hormones and diet supplements to make the beef cows obese is carried to the consumer in at least some small quantities to the same effect on humans (duh?), and the MAD COW disease was the clincher -- evidence of horizontal transfer through diet.
Chemo definitely doesn't help. One of the issues I had with my father's treatment is that they didn't address his nutrition. They just told him to eat what he felt like eating. Well he didn't feel like eating much of anything most times and when he did it was the sweets and processed carbs that he preferred. I think he had difficulty tasting also.
Taste and smell, can key nausea, and yes the cruel part for me is that coffee doesn't taste right for a week. Even my pee smells different (and is as noticable as when you eat asparagus).
One of the arguments for "Dr Jane" is that it curbs nausea and restores appetite (munchies), but it's gotta be natural
My weakness is dark chocolate. Very dark chocolate.
Taubes hypothesis in Good Calories, Bad Calories is that it is carbohydrates rather than fat that is responsible for the diseases of western civilization (heart disease, diabetes and obesity), and evidence supporting his hypothesis continues to grow.
Since my last post on this thread, I cut out three things:
(1) sugar of any kind (even substitutes) - especially as it can also fuel cancer cells,
(2) starch (no potatoes or beans, etc) except occasional corn (yum on the cob, fresh)
(3) wheat (no breads (which often have highfructosecornsyrup as well) which also means no gluten.
With this diet I lost 15 lbs fairly quickly, and with that diet and taking up cycling most every day since early aprilish (cycling thread started 07may10 with 100 miles done), I have now lost another 10 lbs, and stand 5'-9" at 190 lbs.
The websites on ideal weight show I should lose another 15lbs ...
So far most loss has been in the derriere - I'm down several pant sizes and a couple of belt notches, and I could stand to lose more from the belly area.
She has more trouble with her weight on the high carb diet.
I seem to do better with weight control with low carbs, but I need to get back on board (I've slipped into some breads and -horrors- cookies). I seem to be maintaining my waist, but I feel like I am gaining weight (don't have a scale).
Curiously, it seems every time I have something with sugar in it my face (where I still have some swelling and inflammation left over from shingles) lights up with tingling sensations over the whole cheek. Quite distracting and annoying (not painful) as if my body is telling me something I should already know.
I watched the video. I found the part with the insulin resistance interesting.
And water and energy loading. I mostly drink coffee, so I don't know how many fewer calories I get when drinking water ...
quote:So: coffee beans + water = virtually calorie-free. It's about Milk and Sugar starbucksdrink.jpg When we talk about about a coffee high in calories - we are really talking about the additives we put in it. Caffeine is a bitter chemical and products containing caffeine are bitter - so we tend to sweeten them up - with milk, sugar, or syrups.
The larger the drink volume - the more milk you will be getting. With espresso-based drinks (latte, cappuccino) - the amount of water in the drink is minimal (typically 45mls / 1.5 fl. ounces per espresso shot). You do the math: a 16 ounces Grande Latte from Starbucks will have two espresso shots (~ 3 oz) -- that leaves around 13 ounces of milk (depending on how much foam tops the drink) - so there's 198 Calories already (if the milk is 2% reduced fat).
My lattes are usually half that (8 ounce, one shot) with 1%. No sugar.
Tea I drink straight.
When cycling I usually drink a lot of water.
It would be nice not to have to think so much about our food
Yep, the holidays got me. Weight started creeping up. My clothes still fit, but for how long.
I'm still down to my 34" waist pants (from 38-40) but I had been thinking maybe 32's and now the 34's are getting tight.
We are starting to work with quinoa. High in protein and good on fiber. Since I'm not much for salads, I don't get enough fiber. Hopefully this will help and not add fat to my body. We shall see in a week or two.
I'm going back to yogurt & fruit for brekky, meat & cheese for lunch and mixed meat and veggies for dinner (fish and stirfrys)
If I need a snack I'll go to nuts or fruit, and in evening will make a yogurt "sunday" (so I try to tell myself anyway) with fruit or raisins
I haven't found anything yet that says I can have sugar and not have to exercise.
Try a fructose sweet like bosc pears? It tastes sweet but the loading is lower than sugared foods. It also gives you some fiber and is juicy (water content high?) so I feel full after eating one.
I started a bastardised version of the Dukan Diet back at the end of May. The end result is that I have lost over 20 pounds, and I'm still losing weight despite the fact that I no longer recognise that I'm on the diet.
I went on a simple to remember diet of no sugar (sucrose), no starch (bread, pasta), no refined wheat products (also includes starches & sugars, but also limits gluten, which may or may not be related), no pre-prepared foods (especially HFCS products, but also eliminates preservatives and other chemicals). Other than that I eat pretty much what I like, which includes olive oil, lean meats, fish, vegetables and fruit. The sugar I get is natural sugars in the fruits and vegies, rather than loaded sugars added to other foods.
I went from 215 lbs & 38+" waist to 165 lbs & 32-" waist (over 6" from waist area, as well as loss in the butt area) and had to get new pants & swimsuits. Like awarewolf I have almost visible abs muscles, and overall am quite pleased. I've settled to 170-175 lbs and 32 to 34" waist for the last 4 months.
In maintenance I find that it is not so much a "diet" as my basic eating pattern of choice. I can occasionally (when with friends, dining out, etc) go "off-diet" and I'll see a little waist thickening, but this goes away with continued "eating pattern of choice" in about a week.
This works for me. It seems I actually enjoy food more now.
Thinner stomach and butts should make cavediving easier eh?
... 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?
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.