Low carb & High fat ???

"Kamalakar Pasupuleti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What is this new style diet pyramid low carb high fat diet for weight
reduction , diabetes and so on . Is it a new research or a fancy ?

Hardly. It was invented by Hippocrates. You know, the ancient Greek medical
discoverer for whom the Hippocratic Oath was named, and who described how to
diagnose diabetes by tasting the urine?

Fats last longer than carbs, and leave you full longer. They're tougher to
digest, but their caloric density is very high, so a little fat goes a
*LONG* way. They're also a key component of really good tasting food, since
the fat carries seasons and flavors so well.

Why do you think BBQ tastes so good, and while veggie vindallo may be tasty
it doesn't compare to lamb vindaloo for making your whole body sweat?

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:53:05 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes :

Quoted message said:

"Kamalakar Pasupuleti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What is this new style diet pyramid low carb high fat diet for weight
reduction , diabetes and so on . Is it a new research or a fancy ?

Hardly. It was invented by Hippocrates. You know, the ancient Greek medical
discoverer for whom the Hippocratic Oath was named, and who described how to
diagnose diabetes by tasting the urine?

Fats last longer than carbs, and leave you full longer.

Have you got some evidence for that?
According to Dr Holt's studies on the Satiety Index, hi-fiber carbs like
whole grains and lean protein foods stop your hunger better than fatty
foods.

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
[...]
"Fatty foods are not satisfying, even though people expected them to be",
says Dr Holt. 'We think the reason is that fat is seen by the body as a
fuel which should be used only in emergencies - it stores it in the cells
instead of breaking it down for immediate use. Because it doesn't recognise
the fat as energy for immediate use, the body does not tell the brain to
cut hunger signals, so we go on wanting more. Carbohydrates are the
opposite - they raise blood glucose so the body knows it has got enough
fuel to be going on with.'

Overall, the carbohydrates deter nibbling best, while protein-rich foods
such as cheese, eggs, baked beans, meat and fish come second, and fruit
third. But there are big differences between the satisfaction value of
foods within the same group.

"You can't just say that vegetables are satisfying or that bakery products
aren't, because there can be a two-fold difference between two similar
foods," says Dr Holt.

"We found that bananas are much less satisfying than oranges or apples, and
that wholemeal bread is half as satisfying again as [i.e. one-and-a half
times as much as] white bread. And a diet which simply recommends cereal
for breakfast overlooks the fact that muesli is only half as satisfying as
porridge."

"One thing that I am concerned about, is that many people do not know how
to interpret these findings properly. The SI scores reflect the total
amount of fullness produced by the set 1000 kJ portions of the test foods
over 2 hours - ie short-term satiety. Although most foods with high SI
scores kept fullness realtively high for the whole 2 hours, there were a
few exceptions. The fruits were served in very large portions, but fullness
dropped off quickly towards the end of the 2nd hour, reflecting the rapid
rate of gastric emptying (oranges and apples and grapes are mainly sugar
and water)."

===

Quoted message said:

They're tougher to
digest, but their caloric density is very high, so a little fat goes a
*LONG* way. They're also a key component of really good tasting food, since
the fat carries seasons and flavors so well.

Agreed. Fats are strong tasting! And good fatty foods are good tasting...
🙂
That's a different kettle of fish, though... "Good tasting" foods are not
necessarily the most satiating ones per calorie... after a couple of hours.

Quoted message said:

Why do you think BBQ tastes so good,

Well, that's matter of taste. Not everyone loves BBQ. Anyway, I agree it
has a "strong" taste... 🙂

Quoted message said:

A matter of
and while veggie vindallo may be tasty
it doesn't compare to lamb vindaloo for making your whole body sweat?

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes

--
Enrico C

it-alt.viaggi.londra
(Per quelli che... Ci vediamo a Piccadilly)

"Enrico C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to Dr Holt's studies on the Satiety Index, hi-fiber carbs like
whole grains and lean protein foods stop your hunger better than fatty
foods.

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php

That was an interesting read. Does anyone have a link to the full study? I'd
like to know how that buffet worked, how the different foods were presented,
and whether the subjects were allowed to combine them. For instance, I don't
believe that anyone would choose a plain, unbuttered piece of white bread -
but they might wrap it around a piece of cheese.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/76/72Kg

"Nico Kadel-Garcia" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Fats last longer than carbs, and leave you full longer. They're tougher to
digest, but their caloric density is very high, so a little fat goes a
*LONG* way. They're also a key component of really good tasting food, since
the fat carries seasons and flavors so well.

Why do you think BBQ tastes so good, and while veggie vindallo may be tasty
it doesn't compare to lamb vindaloo for making your whole body sweat?

I wish to know if this diet was tested on diabetics and
what were the results on A1C and Lipid profile .

Kam

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Enrico C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snipped lots of interesting links> Thanks! Saved for later reading.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/76/72Kg

"Kamalakar Pasupuleti" <[email hidden]> wrote in
misc.health.diabetes:

Quoted message said:

I wish to know if this diet was tested on diabetics and
what were the results on A1C and Lipid profile .

There have been conducted a limited number of studies on the
comparison between more traditional diets and low carb diets,
especially in cases of overweight. If applicable, it concerned T2
diabetics.

The low carb dieter lost weight faster the first half year; the
effect disappeared after roughly a year. Reason for this is that
maintaining a low carb diet is more difficult on the long run if
compared with traditional diet.
Both groups had lost about the same weight and had improved BG-
controls and A1c readings, caused by the weight loss, improving
insulin sensitivity.
Studies showed the triglyceride levels in the low carb group being
better than the alternative group.

Nowadays there are more studies conducted to see results in the
long run.

If you want to lose weight, any healthy and varied diet combined
with plenty of exercise will give you weight loss, as long as your
caloric balance becomes negative: you need to lose more calories
than you take in. The exercise is vital: it prevents the body from
burning redundant muscle tissue and use fat tissue instead.
This is no "eating habit", but a change of life style, which must
be permanent.

If you want to control BG's and you are a T2 on meds and/or diet
you should control your carb load on a per meal basis to prevent
as many spikes as possible. It means calculating your carb load
per meal, eating more small meals during the day and of course
watch your calorie intake. You're likely to rely a bit more on fat
and protein than on carbohydrates. One gram of fat has 9
Kcalories, one gram of crabs or protein has 4Kcal, so take care
that you don't gain weight by controlling your BG's.

Carbohydrates are necessary for fueling your muscles and your
brain, so you always will need them. It's really a matter of
balancing diet and effect on BG's.

There are a lot of people here with day to day experience to go on
a combination of per meal carb control and exercise.

--
CeeBee

***The cookie has spoken***

x-no-archive: yes

CeeBee wrote:
n't gain weight by controlling your BG's.

Quoted message said:

Carbohydrates are necessary for fueling your muscles and your
brain, so you always will need them. It's really a matter of
balancing diet and effect on BG's.

Glucose is necessary for brain fuel, but dietary carbohydrate is not.

The brain runs very well on ketones, supplemented by the glucose
available from protein metabolism, for example.

Susan

Susan <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.health.diabetes:

Quoted message said:

Glucose is necessary for brain fuel, but dietary carbohydrate is
not.

The brain runs very well on ketones, supplemented by the glucose
available from protein metabolism, for example.

Carbohydrates are the most important providers of fast energy in the
form of blood glucose. When muscles are being taxed heavily - think
about swimming, biking - neither fat nor protein can deliver the
energy fast enough.

The brain must get about at least half of its energy directly from
glucose, not from ketones alone. It is very sensitive to glucose
swings in the blood as there is no storage; it takes up glucose and
burns all.

OTOH the brain does not need very much glucose, so reducing carb
intake on a per meal level is perfectly possible without ever
compromising vital brain functions.

--
CeeBee

***The cookie has spoken***

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:25:17 -0400, Susan wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes :

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

CeeBee wrote:
n't gain weight by controlling your BG's.

Quoted message said:

Carbohydrates are necessary for fueling your muscles and your
brain, so you always will need them. It's really a matter of
balancing diet and effect on BG's.

Glucose is necessary for brain fuel, but dietary carbohydrate is not.

The brain runs very well on ketones, supplemented by the glucose
available from protein metabolism, for example.

What about the possible effects of a diet too low in carbs? (let's say,
lower than 50-100 g/die), such as build-up of ketone bodies, excessive
catabolism of tissue protein, and loss of cations, especially sodium?

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309046335/html/41.html
"Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition (1989)", page 41

[...] "Therefore, there is no absolute dietary requirement for
carbohydrates, at least under most circumstances. In the absence of dietary
carbohydrates, however, lipolysis of stored triglycerides and the oxidation
of fatty acids increase and ketone bodies accumulate. A carbohydrate-free
diet also is generally associated with an accelerated breakdown of dietary
and tissue protein, loss of cations (especially sodium), and dehydration.
These effects produced by low-carbohydrate diets or by fasting can be
prevented by the daily ingestion of 50 to 100 g of carbohydrates (Calloway,
1971)."

Besides, specifically for people with type 2 diabet who need to lose
weight, even the Joslin Diabetes Center new Guideline for Overweight/Obese
Adults with Type 2 Diabetes warns that total carbohydrate "should not be
less than 130 gm/day" (while the carb intake suggested by the Joslin Center
to those people is about 40% of calories).
http://www.joslin.org/Files/Nutrition_ClinGuide.pdf
http://www.joslin.org/Files/Nutrition_AppendixA.pdf

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes

x-no-archive: yes

CeeBee said:

Carbohydrates are the most important providers of fast energy in the
form of blood glucose.

The last thing in the world I need as a diabetic is a fast form of
glucose. That's what got me here.

Quoted message said:

When muscles are being taxed heavily - think
about swimming, biking - neither fat nor protein can deliver the
energy fast enough.

So you eat while you're swimming? Are we all endurance athletes here?

Quoted message said:

The brain must get about at least half of its energy directly from
glucose, not from ketones alone.

Okay, but the glucose needn't come from dietary carbohydrate.

Quoted message said:

It is very sensitive to glucose
swings in the blood as there is no storage; it takes up glucose and
burns all.

The tissues are lazy; if glucose is around, they'll use what they can.
Doesn't make it a good thing. The brain prefers ketones, though it has
a glucose (NOT a dietary carb) requirement.

Quoted message said:

OTOH the brain does not need very much glucose, so reducing carb
intake on a per meal level is perfectly possible without ever
compromising vital brain functions.

Eating no carbs at all is perfectly okay without ever compromising brain
functions. If you're an endurance athlete, you may have a need for fast
dextrose while performing, but not at other times. Some endurance
athletes remain ketogenic dietarily all the time, but that takes a
longer adaptation period.

Susan

Susan <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.health.diabetes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When muscles are being taxed heavily - think
about swimming, biking - neither fat nor protein can deliver
the energy fast enough.

So you eat while you're swimming?

No, when I swim my muscles need a lot of fast energy. If there's an
insufficient supply of fast energy a diabetic will go hypo.
Carbohydrates are the _fastest_ way to metabolize glucose, not
necesarilythe _best_ way,

Quoted message said:

Are we all endurance athletes
here?

No. Apart from the fact that this is certainly not only an academic
question for endurance athletes, my conclusion that with carbs "it
isn't white" doesn't automatically mean "it's pitch black". There
are shades of gray.

I am familiar with your obsession with any critic on a low carb diet
and your religious inclination to it. It's your choice, I respect
it.
But questioning and discussing certain choices doesn't mean
_rejecting_ them. Testing validity of choices is well worth the
discussion. There's no need to charge or ridicule.

Quoted message said:

Eating no carbs at all is perfectly okay without ever
compromising brain functions. If you're an endurance athlete,
you may have a need for fast dextrose while performing, but not
at other times. Some endurance athletes remain ketogenic
dietarily all the time, but that takes a longer adaptation
period.

As a T1, when I inject a doseage of insulin which I need to inject
after dinner normally, and I go sitting on the couch, nothing will
happen. My BG's will stay in range.

When I do the same and go for a swim, I'll have a hypo in less than
10 minutes, because my body suddenly needs a lot of fast energy in
the form of glucose, and has a lot of undosed insulin (in comparison
to a healthy person) at its disposal.

If you were right, I wouldn't get a hypo, because my body would
process fat and protein to provide me that instance with the energy.
However, it doesn't happen.

It's not that academical or "super athletes only" as you suggest it
is. In fact, the oppositie - a need for fast carbs - is quite more
common than uncommon in normal, active people.

If carbohydrates wouldn't have been a natural part of our diet, they
wouldn't exist in our food, and probably in nature at all. We have
adapted to the food sources we have to our disposal, not the other
way around. That's why carbs are a normal and healthy part of our
diet, and is our body set to use carbs as they are intended to.

Carb restriction because of diabetic needs is not the same as carb
annihilation because of intrinsic dangerous qualities of
carbohydrates.

There is no need to eliminate carbs from your diet, nor to restrict
them to very small portions. Not as a healthy person, nor as an
overweight person, nor as a diabetic.

--
CeeBee

***The cookie has spoken***

x-no-archive: yes

CeeBee said:

No, when I swim my muscles need a lot of fast energy. If there's an
insufficient supply of fast energy a diabetic will go hypo.

I have a very low supply of fast glucose, and though I'm not an
endurance athlete, I can perform physically for 6 hours without going
hypo. I don't know any type 2 diabetics who get hypos unless they're
eating badly and taking beta stimulators.

I felt a little (64) when I hadn't eaten more than 300 cal per day, and
had gone 12 hours without food for a week recently due to illness, but I
didn't have any problems from it.

Quoted message said:

Carbohydrates are the _fastest_ way to metabolize glucose, not
necesarilythe _best_ way,

Right.

Quoted message said:

No. Apart from the fact that this is certainly not only an academic
question for endurance athletes, my conclusion that with carbs "it
isn't white" doesn't automatically mean "it's pitch black". There
are shades of gray.

There are certainly lots of shades when it comes to what is the
appropriate carb level for individual needs, based upon activity level,
heredity, taste preferences, and other health conditions.

That doesn't mean that there is any *need* for dietary carbohydrate, and
certainly not fast ones, in human nutrition.

Quoted message said:

I am familiar with your obsession with any critic on a low carb diet
and your religious inclination to it. It's your choice, I respect
it.

I'm not obsessed, I merely like to see some scientific accuracy when
discussing these issues, not opinions presented as established science.
I've noted you have trouble with the distinction all too often.

Quoted message said:

But questioning and discussing certain choices doesn't mean
_rejecting_ them.

Certainly not. Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Testing validity of choices is well worth the
discussion. There's no need to charge or ridicule.

I didn't. I asked for some cites. I have lots, if you really want me
to go first, to support my assertions.

Quoted message said:

As a T1, when I inject a doseage of insulin which I need to inject
after dinner normally, and I go sitting on the couch, nothing will
happen. My BG's will stay in range.

When I do the same and go for a swim, I'll have a hypo in less than
10 minutes, because my body suddenly needs a lot of fast energy in
the form of glucose, and has a lot of undosed insulin (in comparison
to a healthy person) at its disposal.

Because you injected insulin, to cover dietary carbs, and, since you're
T1, some protein? I'm not a type 1 and I've never had occasion to
research it a lot, so I'm not going to pretend any authority on it.

Quoted message said:

If you were right, I wouldn't get a hypo, because my body would
process fat and protein to provide me that instance with the energy.
However, it doesn't happen.

First of all, I can't speak to type 1 diabetes, but I note that the type
1 folks are constantly having hypos. I can't help wonder if it wouldn't
be helpful (if not boring) to find a moderate carb menu (from veggies
and fruit, not starch) that one sticks to, so that insulin needs are
predictable from day to day, including exercise? Wouldn't that make it
so much easier to keep things level *and* optimize nutrition?

Second, it seems possible that it's the insulin causing your hypo, not
the absence of dietary carbohydrate, but that's a question in my mind,
not stated with any authority about type 1 diabetes.

Quoted message said:

It's not that academical or "super athletes only" as you suggest it
is. In fact, the oppositie - a need for fast carbs - is quite more
common than uncommon in normal, active people.

Perhaps due to the high amounts of endogenous insulin so many type 1s
rely on to cover fast carbs? Seems too, well, bouncy, or
rollercoasterish to this observer.

Quoted message said:

If carbohydrates wouldn't have been a natural part of our diet, they
wouldn't exist in our food, and probably in nature at all.

They didn't, not the fast ones early on and we were fine. Starch did
more for us economically than health wise. That's why CVD and type 2
diabetes are so commonly labeled the diseases of civilization.

We have

Quoted message said:

adapted to the food sources we have to our disposal, not the other
way around. That's why carbs are a normal and healthy part of our
diet, and is our body set to use carbs as they are intended to.

Some of us have become diabetic, and are not at all adapted to dietary
starches and sugars. I eat a boatload of carbs by volume, just not by
calorie or GL.

Quoted message said:

Carb restriction because of diabetic needs is not the same as carb
annihilation because of intrinsic dangerous qualities of
carbohydrates.

Non sequitir. All I ever discuss is subbing veggies and salads for
starches and sugar. Point out any dangers, please? I eat a LOT of
carbs, piles of them, each day. Salad greens, high fiber veggies, some
fruits.

Quoted message said:

There is no need to eliminate carbs from your diet, nor to restrict
them to very small portions. Not as a healthy person, nor as an
overweight person, nor as a diabetic.

You're not having the same discussion I am. I didn't advocate
eliminating them, I simply said there is no nutritional requirement for
them, which is plainly stated in every biochemistry text you can lay
your hands on.

Susan

Susan <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.health.diabetes:

Quoted message said:

That doesn't mean that there is any *need* for dietary
carbohydrate, and certainly not fast ones, in human nutrition.

We're not discussing the _quantity_ of carbs versus insulin but
_speed_ with which the carbs are processed into bloodglucose.

If I go for a swim with a healthy person, he or she wouldn't need
extra food to counter the demand of glucose while swimming.
Neither do I, because I get enough energy from my food, even to go
for a swim instead of sitting on the couch.

You state that the body needs _no_ carbs at all because it can
always get enough glucose from the protein, or other energy
sources from fat. (Fat can not be converted to glucose). My
example shows this is not the case - and specifically for a
diabetic. The speed with which my body delivers and processes
energy is not on par with my energy demand at that specific time.

That's why your statement is incorrect. Even for very average guys
like me sometimes glucose is in higher demand than can be
metabolized.

I know exactly how to solve it if it happens: a lot of carbs, very
fast carbs. To recover from a typical hypo I mostly need at least
around 40 grams of carbs without bouncing back to the other side.
Fat nor protein helps me to recover from a hypo fast enough.

For _normal_ people it means that they also have a high energy
demand for fast available glucose. Because their insulin is dosed
better than with me they won't experience a hypo, but the
immediate fast energy demand is no less for them.

Carbs are the only source for this kind of fast available energy.
Restriction of carbs is no problem, elimination is.

Quoted message said:

I'm not obsessed, I merely like to see some scientific accuracy
when discussing these issues, not opinions presented as
established science. I've noted you have trouble with the
distinction all too often.

🙂 I can remember a discussion or two about you claiming the laws
of thermodynamics not applicable to human metabolism. I'm really
sorry, but as long as you utter such bunk I would be careful with
pertinent statements like the above.
I can remember you quoting one of those established science
sources of which you claimed it proved your point. The article
talked about "variable thermodynamic efficiency" instead.

If that's your way of handling established science, sorry to say
again, than there's not much use in throwing in quotes - how
scientifically sound they might be.

(Wasn't it this? http://tinyurl.com/b2jke (long pubmed URL)
I thought I saved the URL, but can't find it. Please provide it
again.)

Quoted message said:

First of all, I can't speak to type 1 diabetes, but I note that
the type 1 folks are constantly having hypos. I can't help
wonder if it wouldn't be helpful (if not boring) to find a
moderate carb menu (from veggies and fruit, not starch) that one
sticks to, so that insulin needs are predictable from day to
day, including exercise? Wouldn't that make it so much easier
to keep things level *and* optimize nutrition?

We are not talking the benefits of a moderate carb diet, we are
discussing your statement that there is no _need_ for
carbohydrates in human nutrition.

One of the most quoted examples to underline this are small Inuit
populations solely feeding on fats and protein - and that is a
fact. But as an example, research also shows that the annihilation
of carbs from their diet leads to a much higher occurance of
osteoporosis. It shows that "no need for carbohydrates" might be
theoretically true, but comes with serious tradeoffs in
_practice_.

Quoted message said:

They didn't, not the fast ones early on and we were fine.
Starch did more for us economically than health wise. That's
why CVD and type 2 diabetes are so commonly labeled the diseases
of civilization.

CVD and T2 are not caused by carbs, but by a combination of to
much calories, wrong eating habits - mainly too much _fat_ and too
little exercise. Too much fat, too much protein, too much carb,
too much everything, except physical labor.

High carb content has at least for the last 10 to 15,000 year been
the main and basic component in our food, because there was a
combination with much physical labour. It has never lead to any
problems.

Quoted message said:

You're not having the same discussion I am. I didn't advocate
eliminating them, I simply said there is no nutritional
requirement for them, which is plainly stated in every
biochemistry text you can lay your hands on.

As practice shows convincingly for the majority of people, there
_is_ sometimes.

--
CeeBee

***The cookie has spoken***

"CeeBee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a T1, when I inject a doseage of insulin which I need to inject
after dinner normally, and I go sitting on the couch, nothing will
happen. My BG's will stay in range.

When I do the same and go for a swim, I'll have a hypo in less than
10 minutes, because my body suddenly needs a lot of fast energy in
the form of glucose, and has a lot of undosed insulin (in comparison
to a healthy person) at its disposal.

I wonder if this is a T1 phenomenon? Certainly I don't know any T2s who have
this problem. And why does it happen? It's T2s who are supposed to have a
damaged liver, and yet we seem to be able to cope with sudden energy demands
without an issue.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/76/72Kg

"Nicky" <[email hidden]> wrote in
misc.health.diabetes:

Quoted message said:

I wonder if this is a T1 phenomenon? Certainly I don't know any
T2s who have this problem. And why does it happen? It's T2s who
are supposed to have a damaged liver, and yet we seem to be able
to cope with sudden energy demands without an issue.

Because T2's still have the ability to regulate their own insulin
dose, and T1's don't.
If you use medication as a T2 it does increase your insulin
sensitivity, not your insulin production.

I didn't give this example to show the hazards of hypos, but to
underline the need for fast energy, even in quite normal, "non-
athelete" circumstances. If Susan's statement would be correct, I
wouldn't get a hypo, both because I had enough energy in my body
_and_ would have the ability to metabolize a lot of fast energy from
fats and protein. The experience shows it doesn't.

--
CeeBee

***The cookie has spoken***

The key to satiety of "low carb high fat" vs. "hi-fiber carbs like whole
grains" is a short term vs. long term effect. The body's regulation of food
volume relative to calories adjusts very slowly. It takes a few weeks to
change. Thus, in a one day study, it appears that a volume of low calorie
density food is more filling. If one is on a 65% fat diet for 3 weeks, one
will find that satiety is achieved with amazingly small fatty food portions.
Fat wins the satiety battle by a large margin, but someone needs to do a
study with the right conditions....

Dave
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/LowCarbHighFat/

"Enrico C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:53:05 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes :

Quoted message said:

"Kamalakar Pasupuleti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What is this new style diet pyramid low carb high fat diet for weight
reduction , diabetes and so on . Is it a new research or a fancy ?

Hardly. It was invented by Hippocrates. You know, the ancient Greek

medical

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

discoverer for whom the Hippocratic Oath was named, and who described

how to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

diagnose diabetes by tasting the urine?

Fats last longer than carbs, and leave you full longer.

Have you got some evidence for that?
According to Dr Holt's studies on the Satiety Index, hi-fiber carbs like
whole grains and lean protein foods stop your hunger better than fatty
foods.

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
[...]
"Fatty foods are not satisfying, even though people expected them to be",
says Dr Holt. 'We think the reason is that fat is seen by the body as a
fuel which should be used only in emergencies - it stores it in the cells
instead of breaking it down for immediate use. Because it doesn't

recognise

Quoted message said:

the fat as energy for immediate use, the body does not tell the brain to
cut hunger signals, so we go on wanting more. Carbohydrates are the
opposite - they raise blood glucose so the body knows it has got enough
fuel to be going on with.'

Overall, the carbohydrates deter nibbling best, while protein-rich foods
such as cheese, eggs, baked beans, meat and fish come second, and fruit
third. But there are big differences between the satisfaction value of
foods within the same group.

"You can't just say that vegetables are satisfying or that bakery products
aren't, because there can be a two-fold difference between two similar
foods," says Dr Holt.

"We found that bananas are much less satisfying than oranges or apples,

and

Quoted message said:

that wholemeal bread is half as satisfying again as [i.e. one-and-a half
times as much as] white bread. And a diet which simply recommends cereal
for breakfast overlooks the fact that muesli is only half as satisfying as
porridge."

"One thing that I am concerned about, is that many people do not know how
to interpret these findings properly. The SI scores reflect the total
amount of fullness produced by the set 1000 kJ portions of the test foods
over 2 hours - ie short-term satiety. Although most foods with high SI
scores kept fullness realtively high for the whole 2 hours, there were a
few exceptions. The fruits were served in very large portions, but

fullness

Quoted message said:

dropped off quickly towards the end of the 2nd hour, reflecting the rapid
rate of gastric emptying (oranges and apples and grapes are mainly sugar
and water)."

===

Quoted message said:

They're tougher to
digest, but their caloric density is very high, so a little fat goes a
*LONG* way. They're also a key component of really good tasting food,

since

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the fat carries seasons and flavors so well.

Agreed. Fats are strong tasting! And good fatty foods are good tasting...
🙂
That's a different kettle of fish, though... "Good tasting" foods are not
necessarily the most satiating ones per calorie... after a couple of

hours.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think BBQ tastes so good,

Well, that's matter of taste. Not everyone loves BBQ. Anyway, I agree it
has a "strong" taste... 🙂

Quoted message said:

A matter of
and while veggie vindallo may be tasty
it doesn't compare to lamb vindaloo for making your whole body sweat?

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes

--
Enrico C

it-alt.viaggi.londra
(Per quelli che... Ci vediamo a Piccadilly)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:31:51 GMT, Dave LCHF wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes :

Quoted message said:

The key to satiety of "low carb high fat" vs. "hi-fiber carbs like whole
grains" is a short term vs. long term effect. The body's regulation of food
volume relative to calories adjusts very slowly. It takes a few weeks to
change. Thus, in a one day study, it appears that a volume of low calorie
density food is more filling. If one is on a 65% fat diet for 3 weeks, one
will find that satiety is achieved with amazingly small fatty food portions.
Fat wins the satiety battle by a large margin, but someone needs to do a
study with the right conditions....

Let's wait for such a study, then...

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes

--
Enrico C

x-no-archive: yes

Enrico C said:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:31:51 GMT, Dave LCHF wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes :

Quoted message said:

The key to satiety of "low carb high fat" vs. "hi-fiber carbs like whole
grains" is a short term vs. long term effect. The body's regulation of food
volume relative to calories adjusts very slowly. It takes a few weeks to
change. Thus, in a one day study, it appears that a volume of low calorie
density food is more filling. If one is on a 65% fat diet for 3 weeks, one
will find that satiety is achieved with amazingly small fatty food portions.
Fat wins the satiety battle by a large margin, but someone needs to do a
study with the right conditions....

Let's wait for such a study, then...

You wait. I'm staying thin and healthy this way.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Enrico C said:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:31:51 GMT, Dave LCHF wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.diabetes :

Quoted message said:

The key to satiety of "low carb high fat" vs. "hi-fiber carbs like whole
grains" is a short term vs. long term effect. The body's regulation
of food
volume relative to calories adjusts very slowly. It takes a few
weeks to
change. Thus, in a one day study, it appears that a volume of low
calorie
density food is more filling. If one is on a 65% fat diet for 3
weeks, one
will find that satiety is achieved with amazingly small fatty food
portions.
Fat wins the satiety battle by a large margin, but someone needs to do a
study with the right conditions....

Let's wait for such a study, then...

You wait. I'm staying thin and healthy this way.

I should point out that I don't eat *very* high fat, more like 40-50% range.

Susan