Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 406 of 451 (631807)
09-03-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Bolder-dash
09-03-2011 10:59 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
The choices for the average consumer in America are not very good unfortunately. I believe this to be the single biggest cause of obesity in your country.
PD and I were commenting on the same thing a few messages back when I recommended the film Food, Inc. What's your take on fruit in general?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-03-2011 10:59 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-03-2011 11:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 414 of 451 (631836)
09-03-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by molbiogirl
09-02-2011 10:12 AM


Re: Refined v. unrefined insulin response
Hi Molbiogirl,
I have a little time, so I'm going to respond to the rest of your message.
molbiogirl writes:
In conclusion, the present results show that the GI of mixed meals calculated by table values does not predict the measured GI and furthermore that carbohydrates do not play the most important role for GI in mixed breakfast meals. Our prediction models show that the GI of mixed meals is more strongly correlated either with fat and protein content, or with energy content, than with carbohydrate content alone. Furthermore, GI was not correlated with II.
Flint A, et al. The use of glycaemic index tables to predict glycaemic index of composite breakfast meals, British Journal of Nutrition (2004), 91, 979—98.
First, the portions of text highlighted in red are not rebutting claims anyone is making in this thread. There is no claim that the glycemic index of foods in general or cereals in particular can be predicted from a list of ingredients. Food is much more complicated than that. The claim is that in general the higher the refined carbohydrate content the higher the insulin response.
It is well known that food in general causes an insulin response. If that were not true then diabetics would only have to inject insulin before consuming carbohydrates. No one is claiming that only carbohydrates cause an insulin response. We could save a lot of time if you would stop rebutting claims no one is making. Anyone can do what you're doing ("The sky is blue - looks like Molbiogirl's theory has a hiccup."), but what a waste of time.
Now let's get a link to the paper into the thread and I'll check out what it says: The use of glycaemic index tables to predict glycaemic index of composite breakfast meals
After taking a brief look at the paper I don't see how it has much relevance. The paper claims to have demonstrated that the glycemic index of individual foods is a poor predictor of final glycemic index when mixed with other foods. It makes sense that this would be so. In the context of cereal, dry cereal has a measured GI, and milk has a measured GI, but those GI's are a poor predictor of final GI when they're combined. And I'm sure it isn't just GI but many measures of food characteristics that can't tell you what to expect when they are mixed. This is the dilemma of those trying to control their diet.
The underlying theory is that the more a food's glucose is rapidly available or whose nutrients can be used to rapidly create glucose, the more likely it is to cause dangerous glucose and insulin spikes in the blood. The difficulty of determining which foods are most dangerous is very relevant to those trying to diet, but not at all relevant to the underlying theory.
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.
No it isn't, Percy.
Yes it is. You seem in a bit of a rut when it comes to understanding what Taubes is actually saying, that increased consumption of refined carbohydrates is responsible for the diseases of western civilization. Here's Taubes in the preface to his book:
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.
Moving on:
molbiogirl writes:
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.
That's called the GI. And, as I've shown above, there is a huge disconnect between the IS and the GI. The GI is not predictive of the IS.
No one claimed that the GI is predictive of what one paper called the Insulin Score. The claim is that the greater a food's ability to cause glucose and insulin spikes, the more dangerous it is for health.
If you'd like, I can compile a list of the papers that show glucose load is not predictive of insulin levels. A list of the papers that show carb content is not predictive of IS. A list of the papers that show type of carb is not predictive of IS.
What would be the point? Maybe somewhere on the Internet someone is claiming they can predict insulin response based on a list of a food's ingredients, but no one in this thread is making that claim.
How about you show me the data that support your contention that type of carb is predictive of IS?
I never contended that the type of carb is predictive of insulin response. The claim is that in general the greater the refined carbohydrate content the greater the insulin response. Insulin secretion is a response to certain nutrients, both protein and carbohydrates among them. For blood glucose levels, the more rapidly carbohydrates can be digested into glucose in the bloodstream the greater the insulin response. If you hold other factors constant, increasing consumption of glucose (for instance, in the form of glucose tablets) will cause an increasing insulin response. I believe the same is true of protein, but meat is generally only slowly digested when compared to refined carbohydrates and so can't cause an insulin spike. However, my endocrinologist believes protein drinks can be dangerous, and my guess is that it's because the rapid availability of so much protein also has the ability to cause insulin spikes.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by molbiogirl, posted 09-02-2011 10:12 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-03-2011 8:45 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 416 of 451 (631858)
09-03-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Bolder-dash
09-03-2011 8:45 PM


Re: Refined v. unrefined insulin response
My endocrinologist expressed his opinion that protein drinks are not good for health while asking questions about my diet in an attempt to discover the reason for an abnormal blood test result. I've never consumed protein drinks myself.
I have a blood sugar test kit, the kind used by diabetics, and my blood sugar has never tested outside the normal range during a period of grogginess, usually brought on by over exercise, though some types of meals have the same effect, like Chinese food. Measurement of insulin levels isn't possible with at-home equipment.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-03-2011 8:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2011 3:13 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

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

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(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 replied

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

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 seen this message but not replied

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

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(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 seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 438 of 451 (632818)
09-10-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Bolder-dash
09-10-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Its not about calories
Hi Bolder-dash,
I think there may be a cause/effect versus correlation question that's still open in this case. That's probably true of much diet research. Certainly it's true of the correlation between increasing carbohydrate intake and increasing obesity. We really need more research.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 12:37 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2011 2:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 450 of 451 (633074)
09-12-2011 10:11 AM


Summation
Increased intake of refined carbohydrates, not fat, is responsible for the diseases of western civilization (heart disease, obesity, diabetes).
There's a follow on thread: Why We Get Fat by Gary TaubesWhy We Get Fat[/i] by Gary Taubes
--Percy

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024