Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-09-2007, 03:31 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Coach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,127
Buckeye, sorry -- I used the word correlation less than precisely. I meant to correlate exercise with good effects on cholesterol. In my case, no change in HDL, about a 15% reduction in LDL, and about a 10% reduction in triglycerides.

That's on top of pretty good numbers anyway, thanks to luck in parent selection.

Coach
__________________

__________________
Coach is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-14-2007, 03:26 PM   #22
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 352
Gary Taubes, a very bright journalist who has been investigating diet issues for the past several years and is respected for his reportage in the field, has book coming out in a couple of weeks, Good Calories, Bad Calories, that is on point for this discussion. I have it on order but from pre-pub reviews know that he will tout evidence impicating triglyceride issues over cholesterol. In the past, he has argued that refined carbs (read about half of what most Americans eat) are the dietary culprit behind much of our diabetes epidemic and associated cardiac problems. When you factor in cancers from the lack of the antioxidants and phytonutrients which are missed b/c of the displacement by crap food, you begin to realize that it is a major problem. If you are SERIOUS about your HEALTH, you cannot eat a diet that conceives of rice krispies and orange juice as much better than a bagel and a pop tart. It's a little better but not much. A better choice is an egg and fresh strawberries. MUCH better.
__________________

__________________
windsurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 03:33 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
It's amazing to me that low-carb was considered a fad just a few years ago. Then the research reports starting coming out, but docs hadn't got the message yet. I think docs are finally getting it. And it's not just CHD risks. Even stuff as mundane as acne is now seen as having carbs as a contributing factor.

Now, if they will just change the food pyramid, we can reduce the damage caused by years of "low fat" diets.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 05:43 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by twaddle View Post
It's amazing to me that low-carb was considered a fad just a few years ago. Then the research reports starting coming out, but docs hadn't got the message yet.

Now, if they will just change the food pyramid, we can reduce the damage caused by years of "low fat" diets.
I think this is a gross oversimplification. As I understand it, it's not 'carbs' so much as it is 'refined carbs'.

The trouble with the 'low fat' diets was that people started looking at fat alone. Never mind that the junk labeled 'low fat' was pumped up with sugar, sugar substitutes and salt and who-knows-what to add flavor and mouth-feel.

The Okinawans are one of the healthiest cultures on the planet, and carbs make up a high % of their diet. But not refined carbs.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 06:07 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
My understanding is that it's not just refined carbs, but any high glycemic load. Basically, any easily digested carbs that can cause an insulin reaction. Even the venerable potato is suspect.

And you're right, "low fat" came to mean "high sugar," which I think is a huge part of the problem. Of course, lots of fats are good for you. People even eat fish fat as a supplement.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 06:44 PM   #26
Moderator Emeritus
Rich_by_the_Bay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,827
Glycemic index and glycemic load are tricky and not yet well understood. The evidence is not complete, but I and many others suspect it will be shown to have important implications for diabetes (prevention and management) and obesity, if nothing else. As to whether it will affect things like cardioivascular disease and others remains to be seen. Unfortunately, implementing dietary change in a population is notoriously difficult.

Here is an excerpt from UpToDate which is a little technical, but explains some of the basics:
GLYCEMIC INDEX
Definition An in vivo measure of the relative impact of carbohydrate-containing foods on blood glucose is the glycemic index (GI). A particular food's GI is determined by evaluating the incremental rises of blood glucose after ingestion of a food that contains 50 g of carbohydrate compared with the same amount of carbohydrate from a reference food, usually white bread or glucose.

The following values are generally applied for defining the GI of a particular food (using glucose as a reference):
  • Low GI - 55 or less
  • Medium GI - 56 to 69
  • High GI - 70 or more
...Typically, foods with a low degree of starch gelatinization, such as pasta, and those containing a high level of viscous soluble fiber, such as whole-grain barley, oats, and rye, have slower rates of digestion and lower GI values.
Another important influence on GI values is the ratio of amylose (a linear-chain molecule of 300 to 600 glucose residues linked by a-1,4-glucosidic bonds) to amylopectin (a larger, highly branched polymer of 6,000 glucose residues linked by both a-1,4- and a-1,6-glucosidic bonds). ...

Utility Use of the GI has shown that many complex carbohydrates induce glycemic and insulinemic responses nearly as high as those induced by pure glucose, thereby further casting doubt on the usefulness of the simple versus complex classification system...

The pros and cons of the GI concept have been debated since its introduction in the 1980s. ... Concerns raised about the clinical usefulness of the GI revolve around two major issues:
  • The usefulness of the GI for mixed meals
  • The lack of long-term studies
Mixed meals In the early 1980s, three studies showed that when individual carbohydrate foods were taken as part of a mixed meal, differences in glycemic responses between foods no longer existed...

...there are now abundant data to support the GI concept. In particular, several studies have shown that although fat and protein affect the absolute glycemic response, they do not affect the relative differences between foods. In other words, given the same amount of protein and fat in a meal, high glycemic foods still lead to a higher glycemic response than do low glycemic foods. ...

Long-term data Controversy regarding the clinical usefulness of the GI continues, mainly due to the lack of long-term data

GLYCEMIC LOAD A principal argument against the glycemic index (GI) concept is that it cannot capture the entire glucose-raising potential of dietary carbohydrates because the blood glucose response is influenced by the quantity of carbohydrate consumed as well as the quality (the latter reflected in the GI). The current American Diabetes Association (ADA) guideline uses such an argument to deemphasize the clinical utility of GI for glycemic control....
To address this concern, the concept of glycemic load (GL) was introduced. Defined as the product of the GI value of a food and its carbohydrate content, GL incorporates both the quality and quantity of carbohydrate consumed ...dietary GL quantifies the glucose raising potential of dietary carbohydrates, with each unit of dietary GL representing the equivalent glycemic effect of 1 g of carbohydrate from white bread. In general, carbohydrate-rich foods with low fiber content have high GI and GL values; examples include potatoes, refined cereal products, and many sugar-sweetened beverages. In contrast, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables with high fiber content provide low to very low GLs per serving.

Many low GI foods are not necessarily high in fiber (eg, pasta, Basmati rice, and dairy products), while some high-fiber whole-meal bread and cereal products (eg, Raisin Bran and Wheaties) are high in GI. This highlights the importance of determining GI values of food products through direct testing.
  • Low GL - 10 or less
  • Medium GL - 11 to 19
  • High GL - 20 or more
The following values are generally applied for defining the GL per day:
  • Low GL - less than 80
  • High GL - more than 120
In other words, it is a logical concept, may have important implications for at least certain health issues and seems to have no important downside. I think it's prudent to be aware of GI and eat accordingly. Ironically, many experts think the final link is the associated weight loss resulting from diet manipulations of this type. That alone explains a lot.

Further research will see if this turns out to be the case. Hope this is helpful.
__________________
Rich
San Francisco Area
ESR'd March 2010. FIRE'd January 2011.

As if you didn't know..If the above message contains medical content, it's NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient. Don't rely on it for any purpose. Consult your own doctor for all medical advice.
Rich_by_the_Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 06:57 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Just a couple of personal anecdotes. I went on a low-GL diet for a few weeks in 2004 to reduce triglyceride levels. The results were amazing. I went from off-the-chart to normal in just a few weeks.

I lost 10lbs in the process as well, which was a nice bonus, and the weight has stayed off even today -- 3 years later.

One warning: beware of constipation!
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 10:26 PM   #28
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 352
Eat plenty of cabbage, cauliflower, kale, radishes and other fibrous but low gi foods and the "passage" will probably be smoother.
__________________
windsurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 10:57 PM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa View Post
Glycemic index and glycemic load are tricky and not yet well understood.
.....

In other words, it is a logical concept, may have important implications for at least certain health issues and seems to have no important downside. I think it's prudent to be aware of GI and eat accordingly.

Further research will see if this turns out to be the case. Hope this is helpful.
Yes Rich, very helpful, thanks a lot.

I've been following the GI and GL information a bit and it does seem to tie many reasonable diet/health ideas together nicely. While I look forward to some good long term studies, it is hard to see any downside. After all, it is not excluding anything we know to be healthy, nothing seems 'fadish' or extreme about it.

The info you listed has encouraged me to take a closer look at this and take some measure to try to move more towards the low GI-GL foods.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 06:55 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurf View Post
Eat plenty of cabbage, cauliflower, kale, radishes and other fibrous but low gi foods and the "passage" will probably be smoother.
Mmm, all my favorites.

I like the turn this topic has taken. Seriously, I couldn't tolerate low-carb because of constipation, and as I research this a bit, it turns out to be a common problem. But a lot of people apparently feel that the extra fiber doesn't help, and there's not a ton of research on the issue.

As an aside, even the well accepted "fiber is good for you" appears to be controversial. For example:

Fiber Menace: Home Page

and

A cautionary tale of mucus fore and aft | Health & Nutrition by Michael R. Eades, M.D.

Anyway, after reading a bit, the consensus among the low-carb followers appears to be that eating more fat is the most effective way to avoid constipation.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 10:29 AM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsurf View Post
Eat plenty of cabbage, cauliflower, kale, radishes and other fibrous but low gi foods and the "passage" will probably be smoother.
Quite likely there'll be some "gassage" as well...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 10:51 AM   #32
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Quite likely there'll be some "gassage" as well...


We eat lots of dal, cabbage and other fibery stuff. If you eat that way all the time "gassage" is no longer a problem.
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 10:54 AM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Is this because your digestive system adjusts, or your olfactory?
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 11:06 AM   #34
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Is this because your digestive system adjusts, or your olfactory?


Like only eating garlic if your spouse eats garlic too?

Nah, the emissions quiet down in pretty short order.
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 12:03 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
If you eat that way all the time "gassage" is no longer a problem.
Interestingly, that's sort of what the research literature says. Yes, there is some fairly rigorous research on the effects of fiber on your poo, and it basically says that if you have a "normal" digestive system and that what you're eating doesn't cause digestion to slow down, then fiber is effective for constipation. (I'm paraphrasing like mad.)

But, it's not so clear it helps if your digestive system has been "trained" by years of your old dietary habits and then you change your habits. In the case of low-carb, I believe you're eating more slowly digested foods (protein and fat), and your digestive system is thrown for a loop. But, quite frankly, all the mechanisms involved baffle me.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 03:07 PM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by twaddle View Post
Interestingly, that's sort of what the research literature says. Yes, there is some fairly rigorous research on the effects of fiber on your poo, and it basically says that if you have a "normal" digestive system and that what you're eating doesn't cause digestion to slow down, then fiber is effective for constipation. (I'm paraphrasing like mad.)

But, it's not so clear it helps if your digestive system has been "trained" by years of your old dietary habits and then you change your habits. In the case of low-carb, I believe you're eating more slowly digested foods (protein and fat), and your digestive system is thrown for a loop. But, quite frankly, all the mechanisms involved baffle me.
Whatever the mechanisms may or may not be, I switched to a very low carb diet about 10 years ago and never had trouble. This of course is also a high fat diet, as well as high fiber. Another thing that may be useful is a daily probiotic. One made and sold in our area is called Fortify, and I know people who use it daily to prevent constipation. I take it too, but more to avoid tummy aches and gastric upset. Another good remedy/preventative is chili pepper.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 03:58 PM   #37
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 352
For me, it is all about the foods we have evolved to eat. So-called "ancestral" diet advice that looks at a couple of centuries is silly. Agriclutlure has only existed (for those directly descended from the middle east) for less than 10 or 11 thousand years. For others, much less. 10 thousand years in evolutionary terms is just about insignificant. The cromagnon population of Europe 20 thousand years ago would be a better model for our evolutionary diet. It included meat and lots of very fibrous fruits, vegetables and nuts. While the Inuit (as an example) survived very nicely (no heart disease or colon cancner issues) on mostly animal protein and fat, their diet is hard to replicate from supermarket shopping. The animals they ate had a superb omega 3 dominance over the omega 6's. Most of us (European ancestry) had ancestors who ate huge of amounts of very fibrous stuff along with the meat that (not being grain fed) also had a predominance of omega 3 fatty acids. We were brain wahsed in the 60's and 70's to think that grain fed animals ere superior. The grain gave their fat a bad profile: low omega 3's relative to 6's. I could go on but this knowledge is readily available to readers. BTW, Twaddle. Industrial by-product fiber fixes/additives are probably very distinct from the fibrous cell material yeilded by whole foods. Similar to the problems created by fobbing off soy bean oil in everything (very high in omega 6's) as it is a by-product of the animal feed industry. Eat like our hunter-gatherer ancestors and stick to the perimeter of the supermarket and minimize the processed stuff from the interior aisles.
__________________
windsurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 04:18 PM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post


Like only eating garlic if your spouse eats garlic too?

Nah, the emissions quiet down in pretty short order.
A by-product of stopping smoking is that I can now detect 'tobacco breath" with more acuity than before...

My triglycerides are relatively high. I eat a fair amount of breads and cereals, though all are "whole grain" for the fiber content. I need to get more fiber from fruits and veggies.

Don't really have much of a weight problem...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2007, 10:16 PM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
My triglycerides are relatively high. I eat a fair amount of breads and cereals, though all are "whole grain" for the fiber content. I need to get more fiber from fruits and veggies.

Don't really have much of a weight problem...
Same here. In fact, I went for annual checkups for years, and docs would look at my total chol (< 200) and LDL (< 100), and tell me I was healthy as a horse.

Then, one day, I went to a new doc. One who actually did post-doc work in nutrition (mosts docs get very little training in this area). And he said "whoa dude, kill the carbs!"

At the time, this was fairly controversial advice. Unfortunately, we just don't understand much about diet and health. Humans are complex. Genetics cause wide variation in populations. We're not allowed to do arbitrary experiments on humans. Humans live for a long time.

All these factors mean that most of our diet/health knowledge comes from fairly weak observational studies. Basically, all we really know for sure is that the "western diet" is associated with obesity, heart diseases, etc.

So, what's a confused food consumer to do?

I did three experiments on myself:

1) Low-carb for about 6 weeks.

2) Vegan for about 8 weeks.

3) Mix of aerobic and resistance training for 5 months on a near daily basis.

I did before-and-after bloodtests (not quite as regularly as I would have liked), but the results were basically:

1) Ate like a pig on the low-carb diet. Lots of cheeseburgers without the bun. Lost 10 lbs, and my bloodwork came back with the best numbers I've ever seen.

2) No weight change on the Vegan diet. It wasn't very satisfying and no improvement on bloodwork.

3) Lost about 5lbs with regular exercise, but no improvement on the bloodwork. Broke my friggin wrist as part of the experiment.

So, after all that, I'm going back to low-carb. I don't really buy the caveman diet bit, but I believe the research on low-carb is good enough, the mechanisms of action make sense to me, and it worked on my particular phenotypes.

It could be worth checking out for you.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 09:05 AM   #40
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 352
Twaddle: "So, after all that, I'm going back to low-carb. I don't really buy the caveman diet bit, . . . ."


What is your understanding of the "caveman diet?" Why do you dismiss it?
__________________

__________________
windsurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Umbrella insurance levels while ER ? Delawaredave FIRE and Money 77 11-05-2007 01:25 PM
Cholesterol drugs in the elderly ferco Health and Early Retirement 36 06-07-2007 10:56 AM
Vanguard Perk Levels Bikerdude FIRE and Money 38 05-08-2007 08:26 AM
Spending Levels JDARNELL Young Dreamers 0 07-24-2004 06:29 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:09 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.