General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Reader's Digest & Low Carb

Jeff Anderson · 2004-09-05T03:12:51+00:00

This month's Reader's Digest (Australian Edition) features "Low Carb Diets - The Verdict" as their Cover Story. It is a rather lightweight look at low carbing but is positive in agreeing that low carb diets work, and that low carbing (not extreme) has health benefits. I found it interesting that they had this to say: "It's no longer a matter of controversy whether low-carb diets can lead to weight loss", quoting Dr Eric Westerman, research Director of the Diet & Fitness Centre at Duke University in North Carolina. He went on to say that they do create short-term weight losses". They then reported on the 2003 study from the New England Journal of Medicine where they found that participants on a low-carb plan lost twice as much weight over six months as participants on standard low kilojoule/low fat plans, with the added bonus of healthier levels of cholesterol and blood fats. They also mention that at the twelve month stage, weight loss between the two methods had equaled. They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller. They also quote research from the University of Pennsylvania that suggests that with all diets, it is only the reduction of kilojoules/calories that induces weight loss. When a magazine like Reader's Digest features low carb as their cover story, with a positive slant, I find it unlikely that the low carb trend has "peaked" as so many media reports have suggested lately. They are *NOT* promoting Atkins or anything like it, they promoting a diet that allows sufficient carbs for good nutrition but cutting all unnecessary or refined carbs out of the diet. Interesting to see how other magazines follow up. Often a lead in Reader's Digest is picked up by quite a few other Titles. Regards David

Started by Jeff Anderson · 5 September 2004 · Last activity 8 September 2004 · 25 posts · 939 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postReader's Digest & Low CarbJeff Anderson · 5 Sep 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 2 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #25revek · 8 Sep 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 5 September 2004
Last activity: 8 September 2004
Original author: Jeff Anderson
Posts: 25
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 939
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Jeff Anderson
Archived post

5 September 2004, 03:12 UTC #1

This month's Reader's Digest (Australian Edition) features "Low Carb
Diets - The Verdict" as their Cover Story.
It is a rather lightweight look at low carbing but is positive in
agreeing that low carb diets work, and that low carbing (not extreme)
has health benefits.
I found it interesting that they had this to say:
"It's no longer a matter of controversy whether low-carb diets can lead
to weight loss", quoting Dr Eric Westerman, research Director of the
Diet & Fitness Centre at Duke University in North Carolina. He went on
to say that they do create short-term weight losses".
They then reported on the 2003 study from the New England Journal of
Medicine where they found that participants on a low-carb plan lost
twice as much weight over six months as participants on standard low
kilojoule/low fat plans, with the added bonus of healthier levels of
cholesterol and blood fats. They also mention that at the twelve month
stage, weight loss between the two methods had equaled.
They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
They also quote research from the University of Pennsylvania that
suggests that with all diets, it is only the reduction of
kilojoules/calories that induces weight loss.
When a magazine like Reader's Digest features low carb as their cover
story, with a positive slant, I find it unlikely that the low carb trend
has "peaked" as so many media reports have suggested lately.
They are *NOT* promoting Atkins or anything like it, they promoting a
diet that allows sufficient carbs for good nutrition but cutting all
unnecessary or refined carbs out of the diet.
Interesting to see how other magazines follow up. Often a lead in
Reader's Digest is picked up by quite a few other Titles.
Regards
David

Report
Aramanth Dawe
Archived post

5 September 2004, 04:16 UTC #2

One thing I found VERY interesting in the article was where they
acknowledged that glucose can be created from sources other than
sugars and starches. They said
"You may think that skimping on carbs will cut off your supply of
blood glucose, but your body can extract glucose not only from carbs
but through fat metabolim and even from dietary protein"
They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.
Aramanth

Report
PlacidBull
Archived post

5 September 2004, 04:53 UTC #3

I read somewhere that protein is converted to glucose at a 58% effectivity
level versus the 100% level of carbohydrates.
The moral of the story being, I am guessing, that although you can eat
"liberal" amounts of meat, be aware that 58% if it is converted to glucose.
Placid
"Aramanth Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
One thing I found VERY interesting in the article was where they
acknowledged that glucose can be created from sources other than
sugars and starches. They said
"You may think that skimping on carbs will cut off your supply of
blood glucose, but your body can extract glucose not only from carbs
but through fat metabolim and even from dietary protein"
They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.
Aramanth

Report
Cailleachschilde
Archived post

5 September 2004, 05:57 UTC #4

Quoted message said:
They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling, not protein?
Yvonne

Report
J. David Anderson
Archived post

5 September 2004, 07:20 UTC #5

Cailleachschilde said:
Quoted message said:
They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling, not protein?
Yvonne
It is strange how different people perceive the same thing Yvonne?
I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more satisfying
to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a lean steak, fish
etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly together, I can can keep
right on eating them; not because of hunger but because they taste good
and don't seem to fill me. For instance, I like slow cooked pork spare
ribs, seasoned with garlic, soy and ginger, and can eat them without
stopping, but a much lesser quantity of lean pork fillet will cause me
to stop eating as I feel full. I have to agree with their theory
regarding protein.
Regards
David

Report
DG511
Archived post

5 September 2004, 14:50 UTC #6

Quoted message said:
Aramanth Dawe [email hidden]
Quoted message said:
They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.
True. In maintenance, I'm eating about 90-100 carbs per day, about 110 in the
48 hours before a big hike (6+ miles). From your list, I'm still avoiding the
whole grain breads, oranges, and grapes, and will only have black beans when
I'm looking for extra pre-hike carbs. So I think it depends on the
individual's carb levels and how they react to certain things.
By the way, I once volunteered at a zoo, helping the keepers prepare food for
certain animals. Grapes were given out sparingly, because the animals loved
them but the zoo nutritionists viewed them as junk food. I remember during
orientation, one of the keepers held up a grape and said "this is like a bag of
Doritos to them." And what were we doing? We were giving grapes that day to
some exotic porcupines from South America that had had a rough time adjusting
to a new enclosure (even though it was gigantic, about 6 times larger than the
animals' previous one, and full of nifty hiding places, climbing "furniture",
live plants from their native environment, etc.). So we were comforting them
with "bad" food, a purely human notion. Anyway, that was years ago, and I
still think of grapes as junk food. The fact that of all the wide range of
fruits we fed the various animals, grapes were singled out as being less than
desirable has really stuck with me.
Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04

Report
Armand
Archived post

5 September 2004, 16:52 UTC #7

What's wrong with grapes? 1 whole cup has only 14.8 grams of carbs and
who eats an entire cup at a time? Also, don't forget the antioxidents packed in
dark grapes.
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
Aramanth Dawe [email hidden]
Quoted message said:
They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain breads,
apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this is still a
big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and I will have to
avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not going to be true
for all low-carbers.
True. In maintenance, I'm eating about 90-100 carbs per day, about 110 in

the
Quoted message said:
48 hours before a big hike (6+ miles). From your list, I'm still avoiding the
whole grain breads, oranges, and grapes, and will only have black beans

when
Quoted message said:
I'm looking for extra pre-hike carbs. So I think it depends on the
individual's carb levels and how they react to certain things.
By the way, I once volunteered at a zoo, helping the keepers prepare food

for
Quoted message said:
certain animals. Grapes were given out sparingly, because the animals

loved
Quoted message said:
them but the zoo nutritionists viewed them as junk food. I remember during
orientation, one of the keepers held up a grape and said "this is like a bag of
Doritos to them." And what were we doing? We were giving grapes that day

to
Quoted message said:
some exotic porcupines from South America that had had a rough time

adjusting
Quoted message said:
to a new enclosure (even though it was gigantic, about 6 times larger than

the
Quoted message said:
animals' previous one, and full of nifty hiding places, climbing "furniture",
live plants from their native environment, etc.). So we were comforting them
with "bad" food, a purely human notion. Anyway, that was years ago, and I
still think of grapes as junk food. The fact that of all the wide range of
fruits we fed the various animals, grapes were singled out as being less

than
Quoted message said:
desirable has really stuck with me.
Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04

Report
DG511
Archived post

5 September 2004, 17:36 UTC #8

Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (Armand)
Quoted message said:
What's wrong with grapes? 1 whole cup has only 14.8 grams of carbs and
who eats an entire cup at a time? Also, don't forget the antioxidents packed
in
dark grapes.
This is in response to something I wrote about not giving them to zoo animals
and my subsequent decision not to have them myself.
The zoo nutritionists determined they were like junk food for the animals; I'm
not privy to their research.
As for myself, there are other fruits that I don't have a negative anecdote
about, and I prefer to eat those other fruits.
Daria
166/under 145/under 145
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04

Report
jamie
Archived post

5 September 2004, 22:01 UTC #9

Armand said:
What's wrong with grapes? 1 whole cup has only 14.8 grams of carbs and
who eats an entire cup at a time? Also, don't forget the antioxidents packed in
dark grapes.
Some kinds of grapes have twice that, especially seedless.
Per Netzer:
fresh American type (slipskin), Concord, Delaware, Niagara, etc.:
15.8g/cup
fresh European type (adherent skin), Malaga, muscat, Thompson
seedless, etc.: 28.4g/cup
--
jamie ([email hidden])
"There's a seeker born every minute."

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

6 September 2004, 12:50 UTC #10

PlacidBull wrote:
:: I read somewhere that protein is converted to glucose at a 58%
:: effectivity level versus the 100% level of carbohydrates.
::
:: The moral of the story being, I am guessing, that although you can
:: eat "liberal" amounts of meat, be aware that 58% if it is converted
:: to glucose.
58% of the protein in the meat.....and 10% of the fat in the meat..... will
be converted to glucose.
::
:: Placid
::
:: "Aramanth Dawe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: One thing I found VERY interesting in the article was where they
::: acknowledged that glucose can be created from sources other than
::: sugars and starches. They said
:::
::: "You may think that skimping on carbs will cut off your supply of
::: blood glucose, but your body can extract glucose not only from carbs
::: but through fat metabolim and even from dietary protein"
:::
::: They still advocated eating things that *I* cannot contemplate right
::: now (although others might be fine with them) such as brown rice,
::: rolled oats, whole-grain cereal, 100% wholewheat or multigrain
::: breads, apples, pears, oranges, grapes, beans and lentils, but this
::: is still a big improvement. I wouldn't advocate eating grapes and
::: I will have to avoid most grains forever I suspect but this is not
::: going to be true for all low-carbers.
:::
::: Aramanth

Report
Martin W. Smith
Archived post

6 September 2004, 12:53 UTC #11

Roger Zoul said:
J. David Anderson wrote:
:: Cailleachschilde wrote:
::
:::: They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means
:::: increased protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger
:::: satisfying than carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
:::
:::
::: When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling,
::: not protein?
:::
::: Yvonne
::
:: It is strange how different people perceive the same thing Yvonne?
::
:: I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more
:: satisfying to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a lean
:: steak, fish etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly together, I
:: can can keep right on eating them; not because of hunger but because
:: they taste good and don't seem to fill me. For instance, I like slow
:: cooked pork spare ribs, seasoned with garlic, soy and ginger, and
:: can eat them without stopping, but a much lesser quantity of lean
:: pork fillet will cause me to stop eating as I feel full. I have to
:: agree with their theory regarding protein.
I agree with David on this issue.
I don't feel full in either case. I feel full when I eat two bowls of
All Bran Plus with fruit on it.
I can feel sated eating a small amount of protein, say a hamburger
patty or an egg or a piece of cheese, but not right after I eat it.
But if I wait about 15 minutes or a half hour, my hunger goes away.

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

6 September 2004, 12:53 UTC #12

J. David Anderson wrote:
:: Cailleachschilde wrote:
::
:::: They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means
:::: increased protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger
:::: satisfying than carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
:::
:::
::: When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling,
::: not protein?
:::
::: Yvonne
::
:: It is strange how different people perceive the same thing Yvonne?
::
:: I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more
:: satisfying to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a lean
:: steak, fish etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly together, I
:: can can keep right on eating them; not because of hunger but because
:: they taste good and don't seem to fill me. For instance, I like slow
:: cooked pork spare ribs, seasoned with garlic, soy and ginger, and
:: can eat them without stopping, but a much lesser quantity of lean
:: pork fillet will cause me to stop eating as I feel full. I have to
:: agree with their theory regarding protein.
I agree with David on this issue.

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

6 September 2004, 12:54 UTC #13

Cailleachschilde wrote:
::: They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means
::: increased protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger
::: satisfying than carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
::
:: When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling, not
:: protein?
Fat doesn't fill me up, but it does taste good.

Report
Cailleachschilde
Archived post

6 September 2004, 18:10 UTC #14

Quoted message said:
J. David Anderson wrote:
:: I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more
:: satisfying to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a lean
:: steak, fish etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly together, I
:: can can keep right on eating them; not because of hunger but because
:: they taste good and don't seem to fill me. For instance, I like slow
:: cooked pork spare ribs, seasoned with garlic, soy and ginger, and
:: can eat them without stopping, but a much lesser quantity of lean
:: pork fillet will cause me to stop eating as I feel full. I have to
:: agree with their theory regarding protein.
I ate a lot of lean protein on a low fat diet and I was always hungry.
On Atkins, with the higher fat content, I'm satiated more easily with less
food.
I agree about the carbs and fat. They never filled me up either. But I think
it was not just about the taste, but also the insulin spike and drop would
increase my appetite.
Yvonne

Report
Roger Zoul
Archived post

6 September 2004, 19:03 UTC #15

Cailleachschilde wrote:
::: J. David Anderson wrote:
::::: I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more
::::: satisfying to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a
::::: lean steak, fish etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly
::::: together, I can can keep right on eating them; not because of
::::: hunger but because they taste good and don't seem to fill me. For
::::: instance, I like slow cooked pork spare ribs, seasoned with
::::: garlic, soy and ginger, and can eat them without stopping, but a
::::: much lesser quantity of lean pork fillet will cause me to stop
::::: eating as I feel full. I have to agree with their theory
::::: regarding protein.
::
:: I ate a lot of lean protein on a low fat diet and I was always
:: hungry.
Did you eat lots of carbs too? If so, that might be why. Also, I think you
mean to say you ate lean meat, not lead protein. Protein is protein, so it
won't ever have fat 🙂
::
:: On Atkins, with the higher fat content, I'm satiated more easily
:: with less food.
Or, was it the lower carbs combined with enough protein?
::
:: I agree about the carbs and fat. They never filled me up either.
:: But I think it was not just about the taste, but also the insulin
:: spike and drop would increase my appetite.
::
:: Yvonne

Report
Luna
Archived post

7 September 2004, 02:30 UTC #16

In article <[email hidden]>,
(Cailleachschilde) said:
Quoted message said:
They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means increased
protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger satisfying than
carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling, not protein?
Yvonne
Protein is filling. Fat is what makes the protein taste good.
--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

Report
Penelope Baker
Archived post

7 September 2004, 12:36 UTC #17

"Armand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
What's wrong with grapes? 1 whole cup has only 14.8 grams of carbs and
who eats an entire cup at a time? Also, don't forget the antioxidents

packed in
Quoted message said:
dark grapes.
I could and would easily eat an entire bunch, not just a cup. Grapes are
lovely. So I don't eat them at all now.
Peace,
Pen

Report
rosie
Archived post

7 September 2004, 14:49 UTC #18

in my case, yvonne is right................FAT is what fills me up!
NOT protein.
: >
: > When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling,
not protein?
: >
: > Yvonne
:
: Protein is filling. Fat is what makes the protein taste good.
:
: --
: Michelle Levin
: http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
:
: I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3
flaws.

Report
Martha Gallagher
Archived post

7 September 2004, 16:28 UTC #19

Roger Zoul said:
J. David Anderson wrote:
:: Cailleachschilde wrote:
::
:::: They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means
:::: increased protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger
:::: satisfying than carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
:::
:::
::: When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling,
::: not protein?
:::
::: Yvonne
::
:: It is strange how different people perceive the same thing Yvonne?
::
:: I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more
:: satisfying to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a lean
:: steak, fish etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly together, I
:: can can keep right on eating them; not because of hunger but because
:: they taste good and don't seem to fill me. For instance, I like slow
:: cooked pork spare ribs, seasoned with garlic, soy and ginger, and
:: can eat them without stopping, but a much lesser quantity of lean
:: pork fillet will cause me to stop eating as I feel full. I have to
:: agree with their theory regarding protein.
I agree with David on this issue.

Me 3!!!!!
One of the reasons people rag on meal replacement bars is the idea that
one little bar can't possibly be filling and so people will eat more than
they need. I've found that the bars I use, which have 20 g of protein and
a minimal amount of fat, if eaten as breakfast, can keep me satisfied
until lunchtime. Now they're pretty good tasting, so I can imagine that
someone might go the "it's small, I need two to feel full routine." But,
for me, if I actually pay attention to whether or not I'm hungry, they're
quite filling.
Martha
--
"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can
go." -- T.S. Eliot

Report
Bob in CT
Archived post

7 September 2004, 16:43 UTC #20

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:28:46 -0400, Martha Gallagher <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Roger Zoul said:
J. David Anderson wrote:
:: Cailleachschilde wrote:
::
:::: They attribute the weight loss to the fact that low carb means
:::: increased protein and protein in diet is more "filling" and hunger
:::: satisfying than carbohydrates. It makes people feel fuller.
:::
:::
::: When are they going to understand that it's fat that is filling,
::: not protein?
:::
::: Yvonne
::
:: It is strange how different people perceive the same thing Yvonne?
::
:: I have always found protein to be filling, but fat to be more
:: satisfying to eat. I find my appetite very quickly sated with a lean
:: steak, fish etc., but with carbs and fat, particularly together, I
:: can can keep right on eating them; not because of hunger but because
:: they taste good and don't seem to fill me. For instance, I like slow
:: cooked pork spare ribs, seasoned with garlic, soy and ginger, and
:: can eat them without stopping, but a much lesser quantity of lean
:: pork fillet will cause me to stop eating as I feel full. I have to
:: agree with their theory regarding protein.
I agree with David on this issue.

Me 3!!!!!
One of the reasons people rag on meal replacement bars is the idea that
one little bar can't possibly be filling and so people will eat more than
they need. I've found that the bars I use, which have 20 g of protein and
a minimal amount of fat, if eaten as breakfast, can keep me satisfied
until lunchtime. Now they're pretty good tasting, so I can imagine that
someone might go the "it's small, I need two to feel full routine." But,
for me, if I actually pay attention to whether or not I'm hungry, they're
quite filling.
Martha
Personally, I think it's lack of blood sugar swings that cause one to be
full.
--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread