This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just watched the Horizon programme about the twins who tried high sugar diet and high fat diet separately.
One conclusion was that combined fat and sugar in food made by man is the weak point of our taste/appetite/satiation system.
I was told about 6wks ago that I was pre-diabetic with a glucose of 6.3,even though I am relatively slim and do a fair amount of exercise.My cholesterol was high normal,but most of my fat was of the "good" type.
So I cut back on sugar filled food.(my weak point had been not having time to eat lunch and so ate chocolate bars like club and penguin).So I have not eaten any bars and not drunk any squash(another weakness of mine) or pop(don't normally anyway).
I thought that I had the chocolate sorted by eating 85% chocolate(much lower sugar),and preferred the Green and Blacks to Lindt.
I have just gone back and found that the G&B has higher fat than the Lindt,which is probably why it is more appealing.So now going to phase out the G&B and just suck on the less inviting Lindt.
I've eaten even more fruit,but I still crave carbohydrate commercial food late at night.I wonder if this is just because I often end up eating my main meal late in the day.
The point of the message is that you have to spend even more time in the supermarket reading the analysis of the food.Not just the sugar content.
As for cheese,I do not know what I can substitute it with.I love cheese.
I can eat porridge every morning,and oatcakes at night, and even oatmeal brose type mix(but without the sugar),but I still love and crave cheese.
How do you trick your appetite?
One conclusion was that combined fat and sugar in food made by man is the weak point of our taste/appetite/satiation system.
I was told about 6wks ago that I was pre-diabetic with a glucose of 6.3,even though I am relatively slim and do a fair amount of exercise.My cholesterol was high normal,but most of my fat was of the "good" type.
So I cut back on sugar filled food.(my weak point had been not having time to eat lunch and so ate chocolate bars like club and penguin).So I have not eaten any bars and not drunk any squash(another weakness of mine) or pop(don't normally anyway).
I thought that I had the chocolate sorted by eating 85% chocolate(much lower sugar),and preferred the Green and Blacks to Lindt.
I have just gone back and found that the G&B has higher fat than the Lindt,which is probably why it is more appealing.So now going to phase out the G&B and just suck on the less inviting Lindt.
I've eaten even more fruit,but I still crave carbohydrate commercial food late at night.I wonder if this is just because I often end up eating my main meal late in the day.
The point of the message is that you have to spend even more time in the supermarket reading the analysis of the food.Not just the sugar content.
As for cheese,I do not know what I can substitute it with.I love cheese.
I can eat porridge every morning,and oatcakes at night, and even oatmeal brose type mix(but without the sugar),but I still love and crave cheese.
How do you trick your appetite?
In reply to veteye:
A little bit of very strong flavoured cheese is the way forward, cut it into portions and freeze most of it for another time.
A little bit of very strong flavoured cheese is the way forward, cut it into portions and freeze most of it for another time.
In reply to veteye:
Go climbing... I eat when I'm bored or inactive...
> How do you trick your appetite?
Go climbing... I eat when I'm bored or inactive...
In reply to 999thAndy:
That's what I was thinking. Some fat is required in your diet. Sugar (fructose) is far worse, that's what I avoid.
> Surely cheese doesn't have sugar in it?
That's what I was thinking. Some fat is required in your diet. Sugar (fructose) is far worse, that's what I avoid.
In reply to veteye:
I understand why you want to give up on the heavily processed chocolate bars and sugary food but you're slim and do exercise, why can't you eat cheese?
In terms of cravings some of it could be psychological. If your evening meal is good then you might find the cravings die off in time. Drinking water helps to suppress your appetite, as does eating food with low calorie density. You could quite easily pile down 4 or 5 lindt bars but you'd be sick before you ate half that many calories in apples or raw carrots.
Provided you don't live too close to the shops then to stop eating junk at night your will power only needs to hold out while you're in the supermarket. If you don't buy it, you can't eat it. There's plenty times I'd have a biscuit if there were any in the house but it's just an aisle I never go down in the supermarket, I never have them in, I never eat them.
I understand why you want to give up on the heavily processed chocolate bars and sugary food but you're slim and do exercise, why can't you eat cheese?
In terms of cravings some of it could be psychological. If your evening meal is good then you might find the cravings die off in time. Drinking water helps to suppress your appetite, as does eating food with low calorie density. You could quite easily pile down 4 or 5 lindt bars but you'd be sick before you ate half that many calories in apples or raw carrots.
Provided you don't live too close to the shops then to stop eating junk at night your will power only needs to hold out while you're in the supermarket. If you don't buy it, you can't eat it. There's plenty times I'd have a biscuit if there were any in the house but it's just an aisle I never go down in the supermarket, I never have them in, I never eat them.
In reply to veteye:
I thought there was some shonky science in that TV programme, but hopefully a proper scientist will be along shortly to tell us. One point which seemed odd, or maybe I misunderstood, is that they guy on the low carb diet was the one who had become more at risk of developing diabetes.
I thought there was some shonky science in that TV programme, but hopefully a proper scientist will be along shortly to tell us. One point which seemed odd, or maybe I misunderstood, is that they guy on the low carb diet was the one who had become more at risk of developing diabetes.
In reply to Turdus torquatus:
As I understand it, LC eating is known to rapidly induce physiological insulin resistance and it is entirely normal.
Fatty tissue breaks down and releases non esterified fatty acids which are taken up by muscle cells as fuel and which apparently induces insulin resistance in those muscles. This resistance spares any glucose for the brain which HAS to have glucose.
It is recommended in LC groups that you should increasae your carbohydrate intake prior to an oral glucose tolerance test otherwise you'll get a single, unrepresentative reading and be labelled pre/diabetic.
Further reading here. http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/305/12/E1521
> (In reply to veteye)
>
> I thought there was some shonky science in that TV programme, but hopefully a proper scientist will be along shortly to tell us. One point which seemed odd, or maybe I misunderstood, is that they guy on the low carb diet was the one who had become more at risk of developing diabetes.
>
> I thought there was some shonky science in that TV programme, but hopefully a proper scientist will be along shortly to tell us. One point which seemed odd, or maybe I misunderstood, is that they guy on the low carb diet was the one who had become more at risk of developing diabetes.
As I understand it, LC eating is known to rapidly induce physiological insulin resistance and it is entirely normal.
Fatty tissue breaks down and releases non esterified fatty acids which are taken up by muscle cells as fuel and which apparently induces insulin resistance in those muscles. This resistance spares any glucose for the brain which HAS to have glucose.
It is recommended in LC groups that you should increasae your carbohydrate intake prior to an oral glucose tolerance test otherwise you'll get a single, unrepresentative reading and be labelled pre/diabetic.
Further reading here. http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/305/12/E1521
In reply to marsbar:
Freezing cheese. That's brilliant. Can't believe I've never thought of that. :O)
Freezing cheese. That's brilliant. Can't believe I've never thought of that. :O)
In reply to Turdus torquatus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_content_of_foods
only ~3% ish if wiki is to be believed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_content_of_foods
only ~3% ish if wiki is to be believed
In reply to veteye:
Horizon is getting ever more shonky on the science front. This episode wasn't far behind the one on cats in terms of being diabolical.
I seem to remember that this used to be a quality programme, but have given up watching some years ago.
Horizon is getting ever more shonky on the science front. This episode wasn't far behind the one on cats in terms of being diabolical.
I seem to remember that this used to be a quality programme, but have given up watching some years ago.
Post edited at 09:58
In reply to deepsoup:
Eating a lump of frozen cheese... mmmmmm.... makes it last longer!
> Freezing cheese. That's brilliant. Can't believe I've never thought of that. :O)
Eating a lump of frozen cheese... mmmmmm.... makes it last longer!
In reply to veteye:
I find if I don't eat sweet stuff, after a while I just don't really crave it any more and can quite easily not eat any. But if I have one teeny thing, then that's it - I'm soon woofing down huge quantities.
What is a 'commercial carbohydrate'?????
Do you mean refined carbohydrates? What sorts of foods are you craving in your evenings? Pasta?
I find if I don't eat sweet stuff, after a while I just don't really crave it any more and can quite easily not eat any. But if I have one teeny thing, then that's it - I'm soon woofing down huge quantities.
What is a 'commercial carbohydrate'?????
Do you mean refined carbohydrates? What sorts of foods are you craving in your evenings? Pasta?
In reply to veteye:
My wife told me about this program. Her take was that you can't get fat by eating just fat and you can't get fat by eating just sugar. However, if you eat a mixture of the two, your brain doesn't know when to top. So the top tip would be don't eat things that contain sugar and fat i.e. cake, McDonalds, biscuits, chocolate, ice cream - that sort of thing. I don't really eat this but do love my kebabs. Fortunately, they are high in fat so I guess that is why I get away with it. I also find beer very fattening and often lose quite a bit of weight if I give up the ale.
My wife told me about this program. Her take was that you can't get fat by eating just fat and you can't get fat by eating just sugar. However, if you eat a mixture of the two, your brain doesn't know when to top. So the top tip would be don't eat things that contain sugar and fat i.e. cake, McDonalds, biscuits, chocolate, ice cream - that sort of thing. I don't really eat this but do love my kebabs. Fortunately, they are high in fat so I guess that is why I get away with it. I also find beer very fattening and often lose quite a bit of weight if I give up the ale.
In reply to ByEek:
That's because of the high 50/50 ratio of sugars and fat in it. Oh. Hang on.
> I also find beer very fattening and often lose quite a bit of weight if I give up the ale.
That's because of the high 50/50 ratio of sugars and fat in it. Oh. Hang on.
In reply to Shani:
Point being that low-carb isn't bad?
> It is recommended in LC groups that you should increasae your carbohydrate intake prior to an oral glucose tolerance test otherwise you'll get a single, unrepresentative reading and be labelled pre/diabetic.
Point being that low-carb isn't bad?
In reply to veteye:
You need to train your brain out of the addictions it has and train your glucose metabolism / insulin sensitivity to become more physiological. After a few years of persistent stress, long hours, and overeating junk food particularly at night, I am trying to address the same issues, along with a degree of central fat deposition excessive despite my skinny frame.
- 2 consecutive days of fasting / week (500 calories or less)
- no more than 2 days of alcohol / week (2-3 beers, half bottle of wine in an evening)
- biasing meals away from carbs toward proteins on indolent days (e.g. the poached salmon and lightly fried, curry spiced spinage I had last night)
- allowing more carbs in after heavy exercise
- make your own snacks, like flapjacks.. ..the problem is that refined ingredients are less good for you. Glucose syrup couldn't be a worse sugar.. ..but sucrose sugar is slap bang in the middle of the glycaemic index. You can control that by making your own snacks.. .full of seeds and nuts, and using only sucrose or honey as sugars. Biscuits from the supermarket are typically pretty engineered for high palatability and studies suggest use ingredients that appear genuinely addictive.. ..such as transfats. Another reason to avoid them.
- everything in moderation, and watch out for unhealthy carbs.. .rice, pasta, about 50 on the glycaemic index, baked potatoes, which are much worse, (after heating has converted much of the healthier starch into simple sugars like glucose) and cous cous, which is also really bad (switch to bulgar wheat)
- lots of exercise
Hope that helps!
You need to train your brain out of the addictions it has and train your glucose metabolism / insulin sensitivity to become more physiological. After a few years of persistent stress, long hours, and overeating junk food particularly at night, I am trying to address the same issues, along with a degree of central fat deposition excessive despite my skinny frame.
- 2 consecutive days of fasting / week (500 calories or less)
- no more than 2 days of alcohol / week (2-3 beers, half bottle of wine in an evening)
- biasing meals away from carbs toward proteins on indolent days (e.g. the poached salmon and lightly fried, curry spiced spinage I had last night)
- allowing more carbs in after heavy exercise
- make your own snacks, like flapjacks.. ..the problem is that refined ingredients are less good for you. Glucose syrup couldn't be a worse sugar.. ..but sucrose sugar is slap bang in the middle of the glycaemic index. You can control that by making your own snacks.. .full of seeds and nuts, and using only sucrose or honey as sugars. Biscuits from the supermarket are typically pretty engineered for high palatability and studies suggest use ingredients that appear genuinely addictive.. ..such as transfats. Another reason to avoid them.
- everything in moderation, and watch out for unhealthy carbs.. .rice, pasta, about 50 on the glycaemic index, baked potatoes, which are much worse, (after heating has converted much of the healthier starch into simple sugars like glucose) and cous cous, which is also really bad (switch to bulgar wheat)
- lots of exercise
Hope that helps!
In reply to veteye:
I think you missed the point entirely.
We're eating too much.
Don't eat chocolate and cakes or anything that is 'made' in large quantities. That's what they call processed food and the manufacturers have spent millions of pounds researching which combinations of ingredients make you want to buy their products.
The rats didn't get fat from eating fat and sugar, they got fat from constantly going back and grazing on it.
When people get fat, it's because they eat all the time. That's been proved by people who keep food diaries. The simple thing to do is make your own breakfast and sandwiches for lunch and a decent meal in the evening. Don't have huge amounts of biscuits, chockolate and cake in the house.
> The point of the message is that you have to spend even more time in the supermarket reading the analysis of the food.Not just the sugar content.
I think you missed the point entirely.
We're eating too much.
Don't eat chocolate and cakes or anything that is 'made' in large quantities. That's what they call processed food and the manufacturers have spent millions of pounds researching which combinations of ingredients make you want to buy their products.
The rats didn't get fat from eating fat and sugar, they got fat from constantly going back and grazing on it.
When people get fat, it's because they eat all the time. That's been proved by people who keep food diaries. The simple thing to do is make your own breakfast and sandwiches for lunch and a decent meal in the evening. Don't have huge amounts of biscuits, chockolate and cake in the house.
In reply to contrariousjim:
It is a strategy that the body has evolved over thousands (hundreds of thousands) of years to get us through winters, inhabit northern latitudes and altitudes where meat/fat may be the only source of food.
We'd expect to be able to go in to ketosis periodically without detriment.
Is it 'bad'? I've not seen evidence that it is but my inclination is that as an adapted strategy, it is probably harmless. Flip-flopping between vLC and HC states over a chronic period might be detrimental due to the spiking mentioned above, but I doubt episodic events are.
However nutritional science is dynamic and dietary advice fast changing. We're currently seeing the rehabilitation of saturated fat and now the demonisation of sugar. The truth as always, is somewhere in the middle.
> (In reply to Shani)
> [...]
>
> Point being that low-carb isn't bad?
> [...]
>
> Point being that low-carb isn't bad?
It is a strategy that the body has evolved over thousands (hundreds of thousands) of years to get us through winters, inhabit northern latitudes and altitudes where meat/fat may be the only source of food.
We'd expect to be able to go in to ketosis periodically without detriment.
Is it 'bad'? I've not seen evidence that it is but my inclination is that as an adapted strategy, it is probably harmless. Flip-flopping between vLC and HC states over a chronic period might be detrimental due to the spiking mentioned above, but I doubt episodic events are.
However nutritional science is dynamic and dietary advice fast changing. We're currently seeing the rehabilitation of saturated fat and now the demonisation of sugar. The truth as always, is somewhere in the middle.
In reply to Shani:
No. We have seasonal vegetables. You can dig carrots and other root veg out of the ground in the winter.
We've forgotten how to cook and we've become lazy and eat ready meals and large portions of cake.
No. We have seasonal vegetables. You can dig carrots and other root veg out of the ground in the winter.
We've forgotten how to cook and we've become lazy and eat ready meals and large portions of cake.
In reply to veteye:
I saw that the program makers didn't say exactly what that fat/sugar mix was. Other than 'half and half' which I suspect isn't really the truth.
I saw that the program makers didn't say exactly what that fat/sugar mix was. Other than 'half and half' which I suspect isn't really the truth.
In reply to veteye:
I thought the program missed the point with insulin. I've read that eating more sugar does make the body produce more insulin but its insulin resistance from having too much of it over a period of time which causes diabetes, so no surprise the high sugar diet had high insulin levels ( for some reason the program was surprised by this).
I thought the program missed the point with insulin. I've read that eating more sugar does make the body produce more insulin but its insulin resistance from having too much of it over a period of time which causes diabetes, so no surprise the high sugar diet had high insulin levels ( for some reason the program was surprised by this).
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Your 'no' seems quite emphatic. Given that settled agriculture is only around 10k years old, I'd be interested to hear you explain how vegetables would be gathered in anything other than opportunistic fashion. Also, digging frozen ground requires a lot of effort for little caloric return.
Your explanation only holds for lower latitudes and altitudes, so your emphatic 'no' is a limited case.
> No. We have seasonal vegetables. You can dig carrots and other root veg out of the ground in the winter.
Your 'no' seems quite emphatic. Given that settled agriculture is only around 10k years old, I'd be interested to hear you explain how vegetables would be gathered in anything other than opportunistic fashion. Also, digging frozen ground requires a lot of effort for little caloric return.
Your explanation only holds for lower latitudes and altitudes, so your emphatic 'no' is a limited case.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I thought the shock was from the twin on the low carb high fat diet, who was shocked at making himself "pre-diabetic" (markedly raised insulin resistant) in only one month, coupled with the fact that twin eating sugar for Britain wasn't much worse off than when he started in terms of blood sugar - i.e he had adapted by upping his production of insulin. Although I'm sure that raised insulin levels are not healthy either.
I thought the shock was from the twin on the low carb high fat diet, who was shocked at making himself "pre-diabetic" (markedly raised insulin resistant) in only one month, coupled with the fact that twin eating sugar for Britain wasn't much worse off than when he started in terms of blood sugar - i.e he had adapted by upping his production of insulin. Although I'm sure that raised insulin levels are not healthy either.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
No scale is not why it is called processed food.
Yes it is easier to scale up food production where it is processed, but that is not the same thing. Processed foods are those that have been altered from their natural state. Not all processed food is necessarily bad for you. According to your logic you would not want any milk or breakfast cereal etc either.
That's a sweeping statement. I presume you did not see the program, because one of the issues addressed was why people eat all the time.
> Don't eat chocolate and cakes or anything that is 'made' in large quantities. That's what they call processed food.
No scale is not why it is called processed food.
Yes it is easier to scale up food production where it is processed, but that is not the same thing. Processed foods are those that have been altered from their natural state. Not all processed food is necessarily bad for you. According to your logic you would not want any milk or breakfast cereal etc either.
> When people get fat, it's because they eat all the time.
That's a sweeping statement. I presume you did not see the program, because one of the issues addressed was why people eat all the time.
In reply to Removed User:
How so? It was a bit light on specific scientific detail, but popular science programmes usually are, and they did point this out. I thought it explained some of the processes about how the body deals with fat and sugar quite well
> This episode wasn't far behind the one on cats in terms of being diabolical.
How so? It was a bit light on specific scientific detail, but popular science programmes usually are, and they did point this out. I thought it explained some of the processes about how the body deals with fat and sugar quite well
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I meant food that is 'made' is processed. And you shouldn't eat it in large quantities.
The rats got fat, not because they ate the same amount of some magically altered foodstuff compared to the other rats. All three sets of rats were given the opportunity to eat as much as they wanted.
The rats that got fat ate continually as opposed to the other rats who had 'enough' or got 'bored'. Essentially the rats that got fat were addicted to eating food.
If you had reduced the availability of cheesecake they would not have got fat.
I meant food that is 'made' is processed. And you shouldn't eat it in large quantities.
The rats got fat, not because they ate the same amount of some magically altered foodstuff compared to the other rats. All three sets of rats were given the opportunity to eat as much as they wanted.
The rats that got fat ate continually as opposed to the other rats who had 'enough' or got 'bored'. Essentially the rats that got fat were addicted to eating food.
If you had reduced the availability of cheesecake they would not have got fat.
Post edited at 12:43
In reply to Shani:
I'm not a scientist but the Inuit don't just eat steak. They eat all of the animal. Their bodies have also adapted to deal with this. I'm sure Wikipedia will do for now. : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
I'm not a scientist but the Inuit don't just eat steak. They eat all of the animal. Their bodies have also adapted to deal with this. I'm sure Wikipedia will do for now. : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
In reply to DancingOnRock:
In reply to DancingOnRock:
That's more understandable now, but I still think this statement potentially conflicts with the remainder of your post. There is an issue when you focus on quantity and use a word like 'large' as it can lead to denial and be understood differently.
Large meal= large quantity seems obvious. However lots of small snacks can result in a much greater overall quantity consumed. The rat experiment appeared to support this conclusion¡¦
It is a bit like the way your supermarket bill adds up when you have not even bought a treat.
But I think we agree with each other overall as your post can be read in a way that supports what I have just said.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> I meant food that is 'made' is processed. And you shouldn't eat it in large quantities.
That's more understandable now, but I still think this statement potentially conflicts with the remainder of your post. There is an issue when you focus on quantity and use a word like 'large' as it can lead to denial and be understood differently.
Large meal= large quantity seems obvious. However lots of small snacks can result in a much greater overall quantity consumed. The rat experiment appeared to support this conclusion¡¦
It is a bit like the way your supermarket bill adds up when you have not even bought a treat.
But I think we agree with each other overall as your post can be read in a way that supports what I have just said.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
'Meat' refers to skeletal muscle and associated fat and other tissues of an animal and also describes other edible tissues such as offal. That link is entirely consistent with my statement above.
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> I'm not a scientist but the Inuit don't just eat steak. They eat all of the animal. Their bodies have also adapted to deal with this. I'm sure Wikipedia will do for now. : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
>
> I'm not a scientist but the Inuit don't just eat steak. They eat all of the animal. Their bodies have also adapted to deal with this. I'm sure Wikipedia will do for now. : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
'Meat' refers to skeletal muscle and associated fat and other tissues of an animal and also describes other edible tissues such as offal. That link is entirely consistent with my statement above.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Yes. By large quantity that's what I mean. And the main point is still that people eat too much but seem to be in denial that they're eating too much.
They're effectively sleep walking into obesity.
There's still the issue that the food companies are adding sugar to make it addictive. So the mechanism making us fat isn't the fat or the sugar, but the addiction the added sugar is causing.
Yes. By large quantity that's what I mean. And the main point is still that people eat too much but seem to be in denial that they're eating too much.
They're effectively sleep walking into obesity.
There's still the issue that the food companies are adding sugar to make it addictive. So the mechanism making us fat isn't the fat or the sugar, but the addiction the added sugar is causing.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Not sure what you mean by 'we'. I know 'meat' as including offal.
I'm not sure of the composition of the LC diet in the program - whether organ meats were eaten (liver is VERY nutritious and packed full of highly bioavailable vitamins). I thought he was eating a lot of fat as well?
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> Yes. But the guy in the program was just eating 'meat' as we know it.
>
> Yes. But the guy in the program was just eating 'meat' as we know it.
Not sure what you mean by 'we'. I know 'meat' as including offal.
I'm not sure of the composition of the LC diet in the program - whether organ meats were eaten (liver is VERY nutritious and packed full of highly bioavailable vitamins). I thought he was eating a lot of fat as well?
In reply to Shani:
I would be surprised if many people on LC diets upped their consumption of blood, offal and oily fish. Don't they all just cut out pasta and bread?
I would be surprised if many people on LC diets upped their consumption of blood, offal and oily fish. Don't they all just cut out pasta and bread?
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Black pudding easily slips back in to a LC diet as part of a fry up! As for 'convenience foods', oily fish like tinned sardines and tinned mackerel are regularly consumed AFAIK.
But I am lower carb myself (and only on rest days) - not low carb, so I don't really know.
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> I would be surprised if many people on LC diets upped their consumption of blood, offal and oily fish. Don't they all just cut out pasta and bread?
>
> I would be surprised if many people on LC diets upped their consumption of blood, offal and oily fish. Don't they all just cut out pasta and bread?
Black pudding easily slips back in to a LC diet as part of a fry up! As for 'convenience foods', oily fish like tinned sardines and tinned mackerel are regularly consumed AFAIK.
But I am lower carb myself (and only on rest days) - not low carb, so I don't really know.
In reply to Shani:
Yes. That's what I understood, but I was wanting to clarify for the OP, as it wasn't clear what the message of your post was. Low carb diets bring about a physiological response that favours other useful energetic sources and a relatively low insulin environment, which is not pathological and does not contribute to long term insulin resistance. Whereas high glucose diets will bring about high insulin levels initially with peripheral resistance to insulin that is pathological and eventually resulting in reduced pancreatic insulin production, a much more chronic problem, and not readily modifiable, especially after loss of insulin production.
> Is it 'bad'? I've not seen evidence that it is but my inclination is that as an adapted strategy, it is probably harmless.
Yes. That's what I understood, but I was wanting to clarify for the OP, as it wasn't clear what the message of your post was. Low carb diets bring about a physiological response that favours other useful energetic sources and a relatively low insulin environment, which is not pathological and does not contribute to long term insulin resistance. Whereas high glucose diets will bring about high insulin levels initially with peripheral resistance to insulin that is pathological and eventually resulting in reduced pancreatic insulin production, a much more chronic problem, and not readily modifiable, especially after loss of insulin production.
In reply to contrariousjim:
That is broadly my understanding, although I thought that chronically elevated insulin (particularly from grazing throughout the day on refined carbohydrate), desensitises us to the effects of insulin and so over time the body has to produce more insulin to handle a given amount of carbohydrate - so in T2, insulin levels are actually high, but they are just not responding to it. (This is simplified and there is some contention around the 'insulin hypothesis'!)
To the OP. Bottom line for me is to do exercise which depletes glycogen stores (vigorous activity for about 3x30-40 mins a week), and to eat food that you could concievably hunt/forage for (this is just a shorthand concept). Make sure you fast for at least half the day.
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes. That's what I understood, but I was wanting to clarify for the OP, as it wasn't clear what the message of your post was. Low carb diets bring about a physiological response that favours other useful energetic sources and a relatively low insulin environment, which is not pathological and does not contribute to long term insulin resistance. Whereas high glucose diets will bring about high insulin levels initially with peripheral resistance to insulin that is pathological and eventually resulting in reduced pancreatic insulin production, a much more chronic problem, and not readily modifiable, especially after loss of insulin production.
>
> [...]
>
> Yes. That's what I understood, but I was wanting to clarify for the OP, as it wasn't clear what the message of your post was. Low carb diets bring about a physiological response that favours other useful energetic sources and a relatively low insulin environment, which is not pathological and does not contribute to long term insulin resistance. Whereas high glucose diets will bring about high insulin levels initially with peripheral resistance to insulin that is pathological and eventually resulting in reduced pancreatic insulin production, a much more chronic problem, and not readily modifiable, especially after loss of insulin production.
That is broadly my understanding, although I thought that chronically elevated insulin (particularly from grazing throughout the day on refined carbohydrate), desensitises us to the effects of insulin and so over time the body has to produce more insulin to handle a given amount of carbohydrate - so in T2, insulin levels are actually high, but they are just not responding to it. (This is simplified and there is some contention around the 'insulin hypothesis'!)
To the OP. Bottom line for me is to do exercise which depletes glycogen stores (vigorous activity for about 3x30-40 mins a week), and to eat food that you could concievably hunt/forage for (this is just a shorthand concept). Make sure you fast for at least half the day.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
n reply to DancingOnRock:
And that's the conundrum, how do you create food that is pleasurable to eat without being additive.
Willpower is one way, becoming an athlete is another. But in reality not many people are able to see food as a fuel rather than as a pleasure.
n reply to DancingOnRock:
> So the mechanism making us fat isn't the fat or the sugar, but the addiction the added sugar is causing.
And that's the conundrum, how do you create food that is pleasurable to eat without being additive.
Willpower is one way, becoming an athlete is another. But in reality not many people are able to see food as a fuel rather than as a pleasure.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Well, it's the addition of sugar to make something sell that's in question. So tax the sugar. People have to eat, but they don't have to live on cake and pizza.
Well, it's the addition of sugar to make something sell that's in question. So tax the sugar. People have to eat, but they don't have to live on cake and pizza.
In reply to veteye:
It isn't good to cut any group of food out completely. I eat mainly Paleo but saturdays I tend to have a cheat day. Steer clear of processed shit and eat barley and quinoa instead of rice, eat sweet potato instead of white, have lots of veggies, and good oils from fish, almonds, walnuts, and olive oil. Only good lean proteins and treat dairy as condiments. Exercise regularly and you won't go far wrong. The trick is not to spike your insulin levels with high glycemic carbs otherwise your body composition will be poor and you just become an inefficent fat storing machine.
It isn't good to cut any group of food out completely. I eat mainly Paleo but saturdays I tend to have a cheat day. Steer clear of processed shit and eat barley and quinoa instead of rice, eat sweet potato instead of white, have lots of veggies, and good oils from fish, almonds, walnuts, and olive oil. Only good lean proteins and treat dairy as condiments. Exercise regularly and you won't go far wrong. The trick is not to spike your insulin levels with high glycemic carbs otherwise your body composition will be poor and you just become an inefficent fat storing machine.
In reply to Ian Black:
I largely agree with you although I think white potatoes are rather benign - certainly when eaten after training, and I don't really worry about fattier cuts of meat.
For anyone interested in GI index of popular cereals/foods, check this out:
Rice Krispies: 82
Corn Flakes: 81
Shredded Wheat: 75 Wholegrain!
Cheerios: 74
Bran Flakes: 74 'wheat bran, fortified with 8 vitamins and iron!'
Weetabix: 74
Skittles: 70 !!!!!!!!!!!!
Special K: 69
Froot Loops: 69
Pure white table sugar: 68 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instant oatmeal: 66
Oatmeal: 58
Snickers bar: 55
Frosted Flakes: 55
I largely agree with you although I think white potatoes are rather benign - certainly when eaten after training, and I don't really worry about fattier cuts of meat.
For anyone interested in GI index of popular cereals/foods, check this out:
Rice Krispies: 82
Corn Flakes: 81
Shredded Wheat: 75 Wholegrain!
Cheerios: 74
Bran Flakes: 74 'wheat bran, fortified with 8 vitamins and iron!'
Weetabix: 74
Skittles: 70 !!!!!!!!!!!!
Special K: 69
Froot Loops: 69
Pure white table sugar: 68 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instant oatmeal: 66
Oatmeal: 58
Snickers bar: 55
Frosted Flakes: 55
Post edited at 17:20
In reply to contrariousjim:
I drink on average about 1 beer per week or 1-2 glasses of wine per week,if that.So that is not my problem.
I have been advised by the diabetic nurse to cut down on my sugar(not specifically glucose)levels and also reduce fats.This is at least consistent with the cheese-cake eating rats inability to stop eating.
To make Flap Jack is a no-no.I am a world champion at it.I do not need a recipe.It is in my head.Yet I have only made it for my daughter since the blood test.Far too high in sugar including golden syrup
I have cut out eating any meat fat including chicken skin.
I have cut down on the cheese due to the fat incrimination in the development of DM.Yet I love cheese.
I eat low calorie biscuits(e.g.Fox's Wholemeal Crackers)when I have a craving for something, or eat an orange.(Or Sharon fruit when they are around).
I seem to be eating too many bananas which makes me feel bad from the environmental side of things too..
I love dried apricots and previously cooked a fair amount with them,but the sugar content is too high to eat much.Other dried fruit fare no better.
A lot of you on this thread mention getting overweight.This is a misconception.I am not overweight.I am 6ft 3 inches(Can't remember in metric).Prior to my change in diet I weighed~82Kg.Now I weigh ~79Kg.That happened due to the change rather than a deliberate ploy to loose weight.
Some of you assume that I eat ready meals.I never have unless I was really really pushed for time.In general I cook from the basic ingredients.
Who has designated that certain carbohydrates are "unhealthy"?
Is there an objective evaluation that is statistically sound?
I certainly have a liking for carbohydrates and have always had a liking for potatoes.
I am told that brown pasta ow wholemeal pasta is a better product.So I have changed to that although I have no proof for it.
I suspect that I am just an example of what a good crowd of us are, and that is confused by the conflicting ideas and evidence.There does not seem to be an overall protocol which is sound and proven.
In the meantime I still cannot help being an addict of cheese.So I have cut down on the intake,but still eat some.So I have even moved to buying Emmental light!
It seems that the debate is a long way from being resolved.
Chocolate wise I only eat 2-3 squares at a time,but it all adds up(?)
I am just wary of going down the other path and increasing my protein input, and then find out that I am scuppered by a new diagnosis of renal failure and a need for low protein diets...
Back to you guys!
I drink on average about 1 beer per week or 1-2 glasses of wine per week,if that.So that is not my problem.
I have been advised by the diabetic nurse to cut down on my sugar(not specifically glucose)levels and also reduce fats.This is at least consistent with the cheese-cake eating rats inability to stop eating.
To make Flap Jack is a no-no.I am a world champion at it.I do not need a recipe.It is in my head.Yet I have only made it for my daughter since the blood test.Far too high in sugar including golden syrup
I have cut out eating any meat fat including chicken skin.
I have cut down on the cheese due to the fat incrimination in the development of DM.Yet I love cheese.
I eat low calorie biscuits(e.g.Fox's Wholemeal Crackers)when I have a craving for something, or eat an orange.(Or Sharon fruit when they are around).
I seem to be eating too many bananas which makes me feel bad from the environmental side of things too..
I love dried apricots and previously cooked a fair amount with them,but the sugar content is too high to eat much.Other dried fruit fare no better.
A lot of you on this thread mention getting overweight.This is a misconception.I am not overweight.I am 6ft 3 inches(Can't remember in metric).Prior to my change in diet I weighed~82Kg.Now I weigh ~79Kg.That happened due to the change rather than a deliberate ploy to loose weight.
Some of you assume that I eat ready meals.I never have unless I was really really pushed for time.In general I cook from the basic ingredients.
Who has designated that certain carbohydrates are "unhealthy"?
Is there an objective evaluation that is statistically sound?
I certainly have a liking for carbohydrates and have always had a liking for potatoes.
I am told that brown pasta ow wholemeal pasta is a better product.So I have changed to that although I have no proof for it.
I suspect that I am just an example of what a good crowd of us are, and that is confused by the conflicting ideas and evidence.There does not seem to be an overall protocol which is sound and proven.
In the meantime I still cannot help being an addict of cheese.So I have cut down on the intake,but still eat some.So I have even moved to buying Emmental light!
It seems that the debate is a long way from being resolved.
Chocolate wise I only eat 2-3 squares at a time,but it all adds up(?)
I am just wary of going down the other path and increasing my protein input, and then find out that I am scuppered by a new diagnosis of renal failure and a need for low protein diets...
Back to you guys!
In reply to veteye:
And after all that, how is your blood glucose? With regard to the evidence, it is still a matter of scientific debate.. ..however complex carbs are better than simple ones (glucose, fructose). Complex carbohydrates require more digesting (utilising energy in the process) and result in a lower sustained release into your blood rather than a rapid big peak with the glucose and fructose. Evidence though is that low carb, low fat diets are best, but that doesn't mean high protein, but a balanced meal in which there is a bias away from carbs and fat toward protein and fibre. Exercise is undoubtedly crucial, and without that component, it is well researched that big disease modifying effects are difficult through diet alone. Have you thought about the fasting approach? Less than 500 calories in a day...?
And after all that, how is your blood glucose? With regard to the evidence, it is still a matter of scientific debate.. ..however complex carbs are better than simple ones (glucose, fructose). Complex carbohydrates require more digesting (utilising energy in the process) and result in a lower sustained release into your blood rather than a rapid big peak with the glucose and fructose. Evidence though is that low carb, low fat diets are best, but that doesn't mean high protein, but a balanced meal in which there is a bias away from carbs and fat toward protein and fibre. Exercise is undoubtedly crucial, and without that component, it is well researched that big disease modifying effects are difficult through diet alone. Have you thought about the fasting approach? Less than 500 calories in a day...?
In reply to contrariousjim:
I've dipped in and out of this thread but it seems that at a general level foods high in sugar and fats encourage overeating, basically modern processed foods. As an aside - sugar in the form of molasses is often added to animal feed (colloquially referred to as "cake") in order to make it palatable and presumably addictive to them.
Interestingly if you look at what is often held up to be the nation's healthiest diet, wartime rationing, then it's full of fat and sugar!
The weekly ration for an adult was as below.
Bacon & Ham 8 oz
Meat to the value of 1 shilling and sixpence (around about 1/2 lb minced beef)
Butter 8 oz
Cheese 8 oz
Margarine 12 oz
Cooking fat 4 oz
Milk 3 pints
Sugar 16 oz
Preserves 1 lb every 2 months
Tea 4 oz
Eggs 1 fresh egg per week
Sweets/Candy 12 oz every 4 weeks
These were the maximum weekly amounts, the amount varied through the war so for example at one point the ration of cheese was just 1oz.
What the above doesn't show of course is the unrationed foodstuffs: potatoes and the like, though fresh vegetables weren't explicitly rationed they were in short supply.
I think most of us would consider the above list to be very limited because we focus on what might be called the "eye catchers": meat, eggs, cheese, etc. which by today's standards are only sufficient for one meal.
It may have been a Horizon programme some years ago that put a group on to what was thought to be similar to the early hunter-gatherer diet. They didn't have to do the actual hunting etc but just eating the required amount of calories took a considerable amount of time. The 1939 Cambridge study in to the effects of proposed rationing found the same thing, simple foodstuffs required longer to consume per calorie than even the processed foods of the time.
I've dipped in and out of this thread but it seems that at a general level foods high in sugar and fats encourage overeating, basically modern processed foods. As an aside - sugar in the form of molasses is often added to animal feed (colloquially referred to as "cake") in order to make it palatable and presumably addictive to them.
Interestingly if you look at what is often held up to be the nation's healthiest diet, wartime rationing, then it's full of fat and sugar!
The weekly ration for an adult was as below.
Bacon & Ham 8 oz
Meat to the value of 1 shilling and sixpence (around about 1/2 lb minced beef)
Butter 8 oz
Cheese 8 oz
Margarine 12 oz
Cooking fat 4 oz
Milk 3 pints
Sugar 16 oz
Preserves 1 lb every 2 months
Tea 4 oz
Eggs 1 fresh egg per week
Sweets/Candy 12 oz every 4 weeks
These were the maximum weekly amounts, the amount varied through the war so for example at one point the ration of cheese was just 1oz.
What the above doesn't show of course is the unrationed foodstuffs: potatoes and the like, though fresh vegetables weren't explicitly rationed they were in short supply.
I think most of us would consider the above list to be very limited because we focus on what might be called the "eye catchers": meat, eggs, cheese, etc. which by today's standards are only sufficient for one meal.
It may have been a Horizon programme some years ago that put a group on to what was thought to be similar to the early hunter-gatherer diet. They didn't have to do the actual hunting etc but just eating the required amount of calories took a considerable amount of time. The 1939 Cambridge study in to the effects of proposed rationing found the same thing, simple foodstuffs required longer to consume per calorie than even the processed foods of the time.
In reply to contrariousjim:
I am not keen on the idea of fasting on 2 days out of 7 as I am not a carnivore,but an omnivore and I would rather deal with things on the same basis for much of the time.
Due to work I not uncommonly go from eating at 7.15am and getting "lunch" at 4-5pm,perhaps with an apple imbetween so this would count as a half day fasting I suppose.
On a Tuesday I go to the wall,often straight from work.Usually I don't then eat until 11pm,but sometimes I decide to do without food and just drink water before going to bed.
I had my blood glucose immediately rechecked after the insurance company's test and it was 6.4 mmoles l-1,after 16 hours of not eating,(6.3before) but I have not checked it since, and I am reluctant to do testing of the Hb related chemical that gives an idea of what my blood glucose is doing generally,until after the insurance company re-examines me in May.They have not accepted me for a life assurance/critical illness policy,but nor have they turned me down,and I do not want to prejudice the process by having things checked early.I suppose that I could check myself with the glucometer,but I am not sure if I would be swayed by good results into laxness with diet.
My job involves a lot of brain activity of a good degree of intensity and I do not know if fasting would help that.
I am not keen on the idea of fasting on 2 days out of 7 as I am not a carnivore,but an omnivore and I would rather deal with things on the same basis for much of the time.
Due to work I not uncommonly go from eating at 7.15am and getting "lunch" at 4-5pm,perhaps with an apple imbetween so this would count as a half day fasting I suppose.
On a Tuesday I go to the wall,often straight from work.Usually I don't then eat until 11pm,but sometimes I decide to do without food and just drink water before going to bed.
I had my blood glucose immediately rechecked after the insurance company's test and it was 6.4 mmoles l-1,after 16 hours of not eating,(6.3before) but I have not checked it since, and I am reluctant to do testing of the Hb related chemical that gives an idea of what my blood glucose is doing generally,until after the insurance company re-examines me in May.They have not accepted me for a life assurance/critical illness policy,but nor have they turned me down,and I do not want to prejudice the process by having things checked early.I suppose that I could check myself with the glucometer,but I am not sure if I would be swayed by good results into laxness with diet.
My job involves a lot of brain activity of a good degree of intensity and I do not know if fasting would help that.
In reply to veteye:
Grate your own parmesan or crumble small quantities of feta (esp good on a salad): very small amounts of cheese can give significant improvements in flavour.
Grate your own parmesan or crumble small quantities of feta (esp good on a salad): very small amounts of cheese can give significant improvements in flavour.
In reply to nufkin:
Another thing they said which appeared odd was when they were doing the hill test on the bikes. "You can't turn fat into sugar". I probably need to surrender my O-level biology certificate.
> How so? It was a bit light on specific scientific detail, but popular science programmes usually are, and they did point this out. I thought it explained some of the processes about how the body deals with fat and sugar quite well
Another thing they said which appeared odd was when they were doing the hill test on the bikes. "You can't turn fat into sugar". I probably need to surrender my O-level biology certificate.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Plus 1
I'm type 1 diabetic, which means it's in my genes, a great uncle was too, the first thing they asked me at the hospital was if I'd been very stressed recently, which I had been. If I remember correctly, stress triggers the production of adrenaline, which raises blood sugar, which then needs correcting with insulin production, then all you need is to have the gene for type 1 to developing it.
It's possible that a few factors need to be at work for type 1 to start happening...
> I think you missed the point entirely.
> We're eating too much.
> Don't eat chocolate and cakes or anything that is 'made' in large quantities. That's what they call processed food and the manufacturers have spent millions of pounds researching which combinations of ingredients make you want to buy their products.
> The rats didn't get fat from eating fat and sugar, they got fat from constantly going back and grazing on it.
> When people get fat, it's because they eat all the time. That's been proved by people who keep food diaries. The simple thing to do is make your own breakfast and sandwiches for lunch and a decent meal in the evening. Don't have huge amounts of biscuits, chockolate and cake in the house.
Plus 1
I'm type 1 diabetic, which means it's in my genes, a great uncle was too, the first thing they asked me at the hospital was if I'd been very stressed recently, which I had been. If I remember correctly, stress triggers the production of adrenaline, which raises blood sugar, which then needs correcting with insulin production, then all you need is to have the gene for type 1 to developing it.
It's possible that a few factors need to be at work for type 1 to start happening...
Post edited at 13:58
In reply to contrariousjim:
You make no sense. Sucrose is half glucose (the relatively good bit!) and half fructose (the shite). Did you get mixed up?
> Glucose syrup couldn't be a worse sugar.. ..but sucrose sugar is slap bang in the middle of the glycaemic index. You can control that by making your own snacks.. .full of seeds and nuts, and using only sucrose or honey as sugars.
You make no sense. Sucrose is half glucose (the relatively good bit!) and half fructose (the shite). Did you get mixed up?
In reply to Jonny2vests:
No. Not at all. Glycaemic index is all about how quickly the sugar gets into your blood. The point is that it is significantly slower and more sustained with sucrose, which can't be absorbed directly into the blood, than it is with free glucose and fructose, which can. Most sucrose digestion occurs in the small bowel, and once the bond is hydrolysed then, yes, they are absorbed quickly. Eating starch is better for the same reason. Bonds need to be hydrolysed to free glucose monomers before they are absorbed, and indeed utilises a small amount of energy in the process of digestion, which isn't needed for free glucose or fructose.
> You make no sense. Sucrose is half glucose (the relatively good bit!) and half fructose (the shite). Did you get mixed up?
No. Not at all. Glycaemic index is all about how quickly the sugar gets into your blood. The point is that it is significantly slower and more sustained with sucrose, which can't be absorbed directly into the blood, than it is with free glucose and fructose, which can. Most sucrose digestion occurs in the small bowel, and once the bond is hydrolysed then, yes, they are absorbed quickly. Eating starch is better for the same reason. Bonds need to be hydrolysed to free glucose monomers before they are absorbed, and indeed utilises a small amount of energy in the process of digestion, which isn't needed for free glucose or fructose.
In reply to contrariousjim:
Ok, well that seems to flatly contradict professor whatshisface from the university of California.
Ok, well that seems to flatly contradict professor whatshisface from the university of California.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
Think of it like this. If you're eating lots of junk / processed good like chocolate bars and biscuits and fizzy pop then you'll be getting big doses of free glucose and free fructose.. ..bad. And it'd be an improvement if these calories were coming from more complex carbs from sucrose through to starches. For those who have a diet that already has a low intake of these processed foods, but has a lot of sucrose, then yes the sucrose is pretty bad.
Think of it like this. If you're eating lots of junk / processed good like chocolate bars and biscuits and fizzy pop then you'll be getting big doses of free glucose and free fructose.. ..bad. And it'd be an improvement if these calories were coming from more complex carbs from sucrose through to starches. For those who have a diet that already has a low intake of these processed foods, but has a lot of sucrose, then yes the sucrose is pretty bad.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
If you have a walk around an Inuit graveyard you'll notice that most didn't make it past 65. People out that down to diet but I didn't get a detailed explanation of why their diets were unhealthy, possibly though it was due to the very small amounts of vegetables that they did eat.
If you have a walk around an Inuit graveyard you'll notice that most didn't make it past 65. People out that down to diet but I didn't get a detailed explanation of why their diets were unhealthy, possibly though it was due to the very small amounts of vegetables that they did eat.
In reply to contrariousjim:
I see, so horses for courses. I'd like to think I fit in to the latter category.
I see, so horses for courses. I'd like to think I fit in to the latter category.
In reply to Removed User:
Genuinely interested if you can back that up with evidence.
> If you have a walk around an Inuit graveyard you'll notice that most didn't make it past 65. People out that down to diet but I didn't get a detailed explanation of why their diets were unhealthy, possibly though it was due to the very small amounts of vegetables that they did eat.
Genuinely interested if you can back that up with evidence.
In reply to Shani:
I do a lot of work in the Canadian North in Inuit communities, allow me.
Traditionally, their staple involves lots of fatty fish and meat, with very little fruit and veg, other than things like blueberries which are abundant in summer. Doing exercise (or just going anywhere on foot) is also just weird to them, so by our standards they would be labelled overweight and unfit. They hunt, but mostly by boat, quad or skidoo.
These days they have supermarkets, with (not exactly fresh) veg etc, but generations of high protein and fat now means that junkfood and the worst of processed foods imaginable along with high sugar drinks are very popular. KFC is massive. Fruit and veg are expensive, alien to them, and they have no real 'health conscience' anyway.
So their Atkins type diet, that served them well when they were nomadic, has now morphed into something horrific, which is exacerbated by the fact they now live in static communities. People in Nunavut, on average, live 10 years less than their lower latitude Canadian counterparts. Food is not the only factor, but it plays its part.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/190511_northern_canada_lags_i...
> Genuinely interested if you can back that up with evidence.
I do a lot of work in the Canadian North in Inuit communities, allow me.
Traditionally, their staple involves lots of fatty fish and meat, with very little fruit and veg, other than things like blueberries which are abundant in summer. Doing exercise (or just going anywhere on foot) is also just weird to them, so by our standards they would be labelled overweight and unfit. They hunt, but mostly by boat, quad or skidoo.
These days they have supermarkets, with (not exactly fresh) veg etc, but generations of high protein and fat now means that junkfood and the worst of processed foods imaginable along with high sugar drinks are very popular. KFC is massive. Fruit and veg are expensive, alien to them, and they have no real 'health conscience' anyway.
So their Atkins type diet, that served them well when they were nomadic, has now morphed into something horrific, which is exacerbated by the fact they now live in static communities. People in Nunavut, on average, live 10 years less than their lower latitude Canadian counterparts. Food is not the only factor, but it plays its part.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/190511_northern_canada_lags_i...
Post edited at 05:50
In reply to Shani:
I can't really back it up. Just something I remember from spending a few days in the Inuit village at Anaktuvak Pass in Alaska. We had a wander around the graveyard and were struck by the fact that no one had lived to a ripe old age. Speaking to the health worker later she mentioned that the Inuit had a terrible diet that was almost devoid of fresh vegetables. I recall that if they killed a ptarmigan they would eat the contents of it's crop as it provided them with a little bit of salad. These were inland inuit who traditionally had followed and lived off the caribou herds which provided almost all their food and clothing.
I can't really back it up. Just something I remember from spending a few days in the Inuit village at Anaktuvak Pass in Alaska. We had a wander around the graveyard and were struck by the fact that no one had lived to a ripe old age. Speaking to the health worker later she mentioned that the Inuit had a terrible diet that was almost devoid of fresh vegetables. I recall that if they killed a ptarmigan they would eat the contents of it's crop as it provided them with a little bit of salad. These were inland inuit who traditionally had followed and lived off the caribou herds which provided almost all their food and clothing.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
Cheers for the response. Aye, I'm aware of all of that and also of the prevalence of obesity and T2 amongst Inuit who no longer follow traditional diets and lifestyles. I saw a feature on Canadian TV a few years ago about how 'syndrome X' was being reversed in these same people by encouraging them to go back to their traditional diets. I've since seen a similar feature on native Australians.
But my question to Eric was because I thought he was talking about Inuit following a traditional lifestyle.
What is your line of work? It sounds interesting.
Cheers for the response. Aye, I'm aware of all of that and also of the prevalence of obesity and T2 amongst Inuit who no longer follow traditional diets and lifestyles. I saw a feature on Canadian TV a few years ago about how 'syndrome X' was being reversed in these same people by encouraging them to go back to their traditional diets. I've since seen a similar feature on native Australians.
But my question to Eric was because I thought he was talking about Inuit following a traditional lifestyle.
What is your line of work? It sounds interesting.
Post edited at 11:13
In reply to veteye:
Having finally watched this episode of horizon and had a quick scan through this thread... there are a few points about the programme bothering me.
First... as stated by others on here, the science on it was poor even by horizons normal standards.
The final test of insulin/ blood glucose levels seemed to me to be massively flawed, since by drinking glucose, one of the twins was just doing exactly what he had been for the previous 4 weeks, whilst the other twin was shocking his body with a substance that it hadn't been exposed to for 4 weeks. Also they made no real mention that the results of this test may bare no reflection of the long term influence of these diets on glucose metabolism and insulin production, which for me really biased their conclusions.
The over thing with this experiment, whilst I realise that one pair of twins is not scientific, but the fact that the carbs/sugar twin could eat all the fruit and veg they liked getting access to lots of other useful micronutrients, vits and minerals not just sugar, the fat/protein twin couldn't get any of those things, which wilts I know that is a feature of a low carb diet to an extent, the results of any experiment that doesn't adjust for this variable is flawed in it's design. The fat/protein twin's poor performance in concentration and physical challenges could be related to some extent to the lack of these micronutrients.
Another thing that i thought was bizarre was when he was trying to explain the 50/50 fat/sugar thing by eating spoonfuls of sugar and saying that this was impossible to do with larger amounts. I don't buy haribo often for a good reason, in that I will continue eating it until the bag is empty, despite an aching jaw and feeling a little nauseous. Haribo, is all sugar and 0% fat, so how does that fit in with their theory.
The cynic in me did think they were trying to sell the government/NHS line on diet rather then think more radically and differently about it.
Having finally watched this episode of horizon and had a quick scan through this thread... there are a few points about the programme bothering me.
First... as stated by others on here, the science on it was poor even by horizons normal standards.
The final test of insulin/ blood glucose levels seemed to me to be massively flawed, since by drinking glucose, one of the twins was just doing exactly what he had been for the previous 4 weeks, whilst the other twin was shocking his body with a substance that it hadn't been exposed to for 4 weeks. Also they made no real mention that the results of this test may bare no reflection of the long term influence of these diets on glucose metabolism and insulin production, which for me really biased their conclusions.
The over thing with this experiment, whilst I realise that one pair of twins is not scientific, but the fact that the carbs/sugar twin could eat all the fruit and veg they liked getting access to lots of other useful micronutrients, vits and minerals not just sugar, the fat/protein twin couldn't get any of those things, which wilts I know that is a feature of a low carb diet to an extent, the results of any experiment that doesn't adjust for this variable is flawed in it's design. The fat/protein twin's poor performance in concentration and physical challenges could be related to some extent to the lack of these micronutrients.
Another thing that i thought was bizarre was when he was trying to explain the 50/50 fat/sugar thing by eating spoonfuls of sugar and saying that this was impossible to do with larger amounts. I don't buy haribo often for a good reason, in that I will continue eating it until the bag is empty, despite an aching jaw and feeling a little nauseous. Haribo, is all sugar and 0% fat, so how does that fit in with their theory.
The cynic in me did think they were trying to sell the government/NHS line on diet rather then think more radically and differently about it.
In reply to SAF:
I watched the programme and felt utterly 'meh'. I learned nothing, the show explained very little with the end result being like a paper from the university of the bleedin obvious. Considering it was billed as having such insight, it was very poor.
I watched the programme and felt utterly 'meh'. I learned nothing, the show explained very little with the end result being like a paper from the university of the bleedin obvious. Considering it was billed as having such insight, it was very poor.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: A few years ago these guys were supporting a paleo-esque diet on TV.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/medicine-men-go-wild/episode-guide
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/medicine-men-go-wild/episode-guide
In reply to Shani:
We monitor ground motion using radar satellites, in this case caused by melting permafrost in northern communities. I go up there for a few weeks each summer to validate the measurements.
We monitor ground motion using radar satellites, in this case caused by melting permafrost in northern communities. I go up there for a few weeks each summer to validate the measurements.
> What is your line of work? It sounds interesting.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
'Ground-truthing' remotely sensed images? The fieldwork sound great!
> We monitor ground motion using radar satellites, in this case caused by melting permafrost in northern communities. I go up there for a few weeks each summer to validate the measurements.
'Ground-truthing' remotely sensed images? The fieldwork sound great!
In reply to Shani:
...
Would you mind divulging your source for this please?
> For anyone interested in GI index of popular cereals/foods, check this out:
> Rice Krispies: 82
> Corn Flakes: 81
...
Would you mind divulging your source for this please?
In reply to Jonny2vests:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/1/5/T1.expansion.html
> (In reply to Shani)
>
> Would you mind divulging your source for this please?
>
> Would you mind divulging your source for this please?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/1/5/T1.expansion.html
In reply to Jonny2vests:
Not quite the same but similar...
Rice Krispies: 82
Corn Flakes: 80
Frosties: 55
Source: University of Sydney
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?num=2194&ak=detail
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?num=761&ak=detail
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?num=768&ak=detail
Not quite the same but similar...
Rice Krispies: 82
Corn Flakes: 80
Frosties: 55
Source: University of Sydney
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?num=2194&ak=detail
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?num=761&ak=detail
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?num=768&ak=detail
In reply to Jonny2vests:
Personally I don't think episodic spikes in insulin are a bad thing - nor to some extent are heavy glycemic loads. It is the inability to handle heavy GI and GLs that are the problem - which comes down to insulin sensitivity. You get spikes in insulin from protein as well as carbohydrate.
The way to maintain (and restore) insulin sensitivity can come from multiple activities such as episodic LC eating, fasting, and, from emptying muscle glycogen.
I use each these strategies over the course of days weeks and months (keeping things mixed up). I mostly eat 'real food' and eat to satiety.
> (In reply to deepsoup and Shani)
>
> Both useful thanks.
>
> Both useful thanks.
Personally I don't think episodic spikes in insulin are a bad thing - nor to some extent are heavy glycemic loads. It is the inability to handle heavy GI and GLs that are the problem - which comes down to insulin sensitivity. You get spikes in insulin from protein as well as carbohydrate.
The way to maintain (and restore) insulin sensitivity can come from multiple activities such as episodic LC eating, fasting, and, from emptying muscle glycogen.
I use each these strategies over the course of days weeks and months (keeping things mixed up). I mostly eat 'real food' and eat to satiety.
In reply to Shani:
Glycaemic index is just the ability of a dietary component to evoke a blood glucose relative to a standard like glucose. The following is a detailed, bu nevertheless excellent review of the basic science on understanding insulin resistance:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412002176
> Personally I don't think episodic spikes in insulin are a bad thing - nor to some extent are heavy glycemic loads. It is the inability to handle heavy GI and GLs that are the problem - which comes down to insulin sensitivity. You get spikes in insulin from protein as well as carbohydrate.
Glycaemic index is just the ability of a dietary component to evoke a blood glucose relative to a standard like glucose. The following is a detailed, bu nevertheless excellent review of the basic science on understanding insulin resistance:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412002176
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...