Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-25-2009, 11:19 AM   #41
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Interesting. What's the theory -- that liquids increase the absorption rate of carbs (sugars) into the bloodstream?
Yes, pretty much. From p. 88:
Quote:
Beverages consumed with a meal liquefy stomach contents and quicken their entry into the bloodstream. The more liquefied food is, the higher it raises blood glucose levels and the less it restricts appetite.
He also thinks people do not need to drink 8 glasses of water a day (p. 67) in addition to the liquid in foods and other beverages:

Quote:
Stretching the stomach with liquids just makes it empty faster and speeds the absorption of glucose. In fact, several things about the way liquids affect digestion suggest that excess water may actually promote weight gain. Laboratory animals deprived of water sharply curtail their food intake.
__________________

__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever 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 09-26-2009, 11:26 AM   #42
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
I'm reading Good Calorie, Bad Calorie now. I expect that this comprehensive book will result in a general and gradual sea change in attitude among scientists.
I read a LOT of books (when I'm not reading on the Internet) but I finally gave up on this one after about 150 pages.

I'd been grimly turning myself in for Taubes reading duty over the last week, but I finally arrived at a paragraph where he promised to spend FIVE CHAPTERS developing his carbohydrate hypothesis. That was it for me.

I learned a lot. I enjoyed the first 100+ pages of the literature surveys and the history of the controversies. I enjoyed the way he contrasted the research "findings" to people's anecdotal experiences. I enjoyed the way he tracked down people 20-30 years later to get their take on the politics and the grant funding.

But I get it: Protein good. Fat OK. Complex carbs not too bad. Simple carbs kill. Stop eating white rice, refined flour, and sugar. Don't slam around your blood sugar & insulin.

Maybe Taubes felt obligated to write the way he did for the book to stand up to scientific/research scrutiny as well as for casual readers. But its binding and marketing are for the popular market, not the technical/medical fields. I got more from Taubes' 2002 NYT article (the precursor to the book) in 10 minutes than I had from over three weeks of plowing through a few book pages at a time.

I had the same readability problem with Friedman's "Hot, Flat, & Stupid Crowded". By the first 50 pages, it's not too hard to figure out where the author's going. But in Friedman's case I was just as tired of being screeched at as I was at Taubes' slow, deliberate, snail's pace plodding.

Taleb's "Black Swan" has a similar problem with obscurely erudite curmudgeonly rants.

Apparently I need to read more fiction. I'm picking up Richard K. Morgan's latest from the library next week. It's not Takeshi Kovacs but I'm willing to see if Morgan can switch from noir sci-fi to fantasy...
__________________

__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 09:51 AM   #43
Recycles dryer sheets
Tesaje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frederick
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords View Post
But I get it: Protein good. Fat OK. Complex carbs not too bad. Simple carbs kill. Stop eating white rice, refined flour, and sugar. Don't slam around your blood sugar & insulin.

Maybe Taubes felt obligated to write the way he did for the book to stand up to scientific/research scrutiny as well as for casual readers. But its binding and marketing are for the popular market, not the technical/medical fields. I got more from Taubes' 2002 NYT article (the precursor to the book) in 10 minutes than I had from over three weeks of plowing through a few book pages at a time.
Sorry, but you didn't get it when you stopped short. Yes, the Taubes read is a tough one. He needed to plow thru all the research and what the data actually showed because of the loud clamor for the opposite conclusion than what the data actually shows. When you go against the conventional conclusions, you have to take each study and show not only how the conventional wisdom got there but what the data actually showed.

The short synopsis is actually: animal fat is good, protein is good in moderation, bad in excess, carbohydrates of any sort in excess are bad and actually unnecessary if the whole animal is eaten. Polyunsaturated fats are really bad as are the fake trans fats, natural saturated fats are neutral to good, monounsaturated fats remain good (which are the main composition of animal fats).

In other words, our 18th century diet was far healthier than the modern ideas. There are several other books summarizing this research in more readable form but they also do not do as thorough a job in analyzing all the data. That leaves them open to criticism. Barry Groves is one such but he dips into histrionics from time to time.
__________________
I FIREd myself at start of 2010!
Tesaje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 10:47 AM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Some people like data, others prefer opinion. Taubes can provide either, depending on his purpose.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 07:11 PM   #45
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post




One classic rule of statistics:
Correlation does not imply causation.
__________________
detroitbabu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 01:55 PM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,197
Yes, that's right, and it's also the main objection that Taubes has to much of the science supporting the "fat is bad" hypothesis (e.g. Country A eats more fat and is more obese, so eating fat causes obesity).

Another note about that graph is that the scalings of the y axes are arbitrary, and obviously chosen so that the curves are relatively congruent. If, for example the right Y axis went from zero to 100, you'd perceive a slow rise in obesity versus a rapid rise in wheat consumption.

However, the research Thompson presents supports a causal relationship between carbo consumption and obesity.
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is online now   Reply With Quote
Counting Carbs Not So Easy
Old 09-28-2009, 02:47 PM   #47
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Counting Carbs Not So Easy

Say you are convinced that for you, a low carb approach is best to control weight and blood sugar, and blood lipids. I largely am convinced.

It realy isn't that easy to do accurately. Supposedly you are to subtract the fiber grams from the total carb grams on the nutrition labels on foods, giving "metabolically active carbs". But this gives some odd results. If I take total calories from the label, and subtract fat calories, then subtract gms protein * 4, then divide remaining calories by 4cal/gm carb, what you should be left with is gms of active carbohydrate per serving. But it never matches the gms of carb claimed on the label.

Am I doing something wrong, or are these labels just very sloppy?

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 03:24 PM   #48
Moderator Emeritus
Rich_by_the_Bay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Say you are convinced that for you, a low carb approach is best to control weight and blood sugar, and blood lipids. I largely am convinced.

It realy isn't that easy to do accurately. Supposedly you are to subtract the fiber grams from the total carb grams on the nutrition labels on foods, giving "metabolically active carbs". But this gives some odd results. If I take total calories from the label, and subtract fat calories, then subtract gms protein * 4, then divide remaining calories by 4cal/gm carb, what you should be left with is gms of active carbohydrate per serving. But it never matches the gms of carb claimed on the label.
Forget about counting or restricting fat and protein calories. Just restrict the carbs appropriately and the other stuff works itself out. That's one of the reasons it is so easy to follow.

No small part of it is that fat without carbs, and protein are hard to consume in amounts large enough to maintain weight. Throw in a little exercise and it works well for most people. My patients seem to like Protein Power as a guide.
__________________
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 09-28-2009, 03:49 PM   #49
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
Rich's advice mirrors what Dr.Thompson says in his book. Give up Bread, Potatoes, Rice and sugared soft drinks, and the other stuff does not matter. Atkins, on the other hand, cut all carbs. He call catchup, Killer Catchup! Tonight it is Beans and Weenies! Now, baked beans may not seem like it would be OK, but here again, it ain't bread potatoes or rice, the other side of his advice kicks in keep the total glycemic load under 500 a day.
__________________
If it is after 5:00 when I post I reserve the right to disavow anything I posted.
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 04:35 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa View Post
Forget about counting or restricting fat and protein calories. Just restrict the carbs appropriately and the other stuff works itself out. That's one of the reasons it is so easy to follow.
Rich, that is what I am trying to do. But it's like a balance sheet that doesn't balance. Either the total calories are wrong, or the carb grams are wrong or my algebra is wrong on most of the food nutrition labels. So I cannot be sure how many "active carbs" I am getting from a serving of a given food.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 06:07 PM   #51
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
Ok, I picked two items from the pantry: "natural" peanut butter, and "old-fashioned" oats...

Peanut butter:
  • One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
  • Label states that 160 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 18g
    • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
    • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
  • Total protein = 7g
    • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
  • Total carbs = 6 g
    • 6g * 4 cal/gm = 24 cal
    • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
    • 4g - 1g (sugar) = 3 g complex? carbs
  • 160 + 28 + 24 = 212 cal, or
  • 162 + 28 + 24 = 214 cal
Oats:
  • One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
  • Label states that 25 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 3g
    • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
    • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
  • Total protein = 5g
    • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
  • Total carbs = 27g
    • 27g * 4 cal/g = 108 cal
    • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
    • 23g - 1g (sugar) = 22g complex carbs
  • 25 + 20 + 108 = 153 cal
  • 27 + 20 + 108 = 155 cal
So, in this small sample size, it appears the deviation is from rounding.
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 06:20 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Ok, I picked two items from the pantry: "natural" peanut butter, and "old-fashioned" oats...



Peanut butter:
  • One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
  • Label states that 160 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 18g
    • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
    • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
  • Total protein = 7g
    • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
  • Total carbs = 6 g
    • 6g * 4 cal/gm = 24 cal
    • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
    • 4g - 1g (sugar) = 3 g complex? carbs
  • 160 + 28 + 24 = 212 cal, or
  • 162 + 28 + 24 = 214 cal
Oats:
  • One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
  • Label states that 25 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 3g
    • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
    • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
  • Total protein = 5g
    • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
  • Total carbs = 27g
    • 27g * 4 cal/g = 108 cal
    • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
    • 23g - 1g (sugar) = 22g complex carbs
  • 25 + 20 + 108 = 153 cal
  • 27 + 20 + 108 = 155 cal
So, in this small sample size, it appears the deviation is from rounding.
Thanks for posting this HFWR. These do balance. I'm trying to finish my income taxes today but I will do some of my labels tomorrow or the next day. One thing I get from your analysis is that all carbs are active and the idea of subtracting fiber grams from total carb grams is flawed, unless of course they are getting their kcal count from burning the food. I guess we need a "what is a calorie" FAQ according to the practice of food labelers. It seems that if the carbs are contributing calories to the body, they are ipso facto "active".

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 06:41 PM   #53
Moderator Emeritus
Rich_by_the_Bay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Rich, that is what I am trying to do. But it's like a balance sheet that doesn't balance. Either the total calories are wrong, or the carb grams are wrong or my algebra is wrong on most of the food nutrition labels. So I cannot be sure how many "active carbs" I am getting from a serving of a given food.
To avoid confusing labels and nutritional reported regulations, just look at total carbs and subtract fiber. Nothing else matters nearly as much as just that.

In a reduced-carb diet, for that small amount of total carbs, just avoid starches and refined sugar - that's the big thing. Glycemic index is less important because your total carb intake is low to begin with.

For those who choose larger amts of carbs, glycemic index may be more important simply because carbs are a larger part of their dietary intake. But in a 70g carb diet glycemic index is less crucial since it only reflects a small fraction of your diet (compared to typical American diet).

Count and plan your carbs, then eat whatever you want within that limit; use common sense to choose your foods but don't let yourself get hungry (low carb snacks like nuts, cheese, etc.). Throw in a little extra exercise, drink lots of fluid. Don't bother counting calories. That about sums it up.

P.S. There are a few medical conditions that are affected by this, like renal insufficiency, but a quick call to your doc can determine if you are safe to go.
__________________
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 09-28-2009, 07:00 PM   #54
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 haha View Post
Thanks for posting this HFWR. These do balance. I'm trying to finish my income taxes today but I will do some of my labels tomorrow or the next day. One thing I get from your analysis is that all carbs are active and the idea of subtracting fiber grams from total carb grams is flawed, unless of course they are getting their kcal count from burning the food. I guess we need a "what is a calorie" FAQ according to the practice of food labelers. It seems that if the carbs are contributing calories to the body, they are ipso facto "active".

Ha
Hmmm, let's explore that...

Peanut butter:
  • One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
  • Label states that 160 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 18g
    • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
    • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
  • Total protein = 7g
    • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
  • Total carbs = 6 g
    • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
    • 4g * 4 cal/gm = 16 cal
  • 160 + 28 + 16 = 204 cal
Oats:
  • One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
  • Label states that 25 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 3g
    • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
    • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
  • Total protein = 5g
    • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
  • Total carbs = 27g
    • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
    • 23g * 4 cal/g = 92 cal
  • 25 + 20 + 92 = 137 cal
  • If we add back the 2g soluble fiber, the calorie total is 145...
Not sure that proved anything...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 07:40 PM   #55
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Hmmm, let's explore that...



Peanut butter:
  • One serving = 2 tbsp = 200 cal (or kcal, for the anal...)
  • Label states that 160 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 18g
    • 160 cal / 9 cal/g = 17.8 g
    • 18g * 9 cal/g = 162 cal
  • Total protein = 7g
    • 7g * 4 cal/g = 28 cal
  • Total carbs = 6 g
    • 6g - 2g (fiber) = 4 g "active" carbs
    • 4g * 4 cal/gm = 16 cal
  • 160 + 28 + 16 = 204 cal
Oats:
  • One serving = 0.5 c = 150 cal
  • Label states that 25 cal are from fat
  • Total fat = 3g
    • 25 cal / 9 cal/g = 2.8g
    • 3g * 9 cal/g = 27 cal
  • Total protein = 5g
    • 5g * 4 cal/g = 20 cal
  • Total carbs = 27g
    • 27g - 4g (fiber) = 23g active carbs
    • 23g * 4 cal/g = 92 cal
  • 25 + 20 + 92 = 137 cal
  • If we add back the 2g soluble fiber, the calorie total is 145...
Not sure that proved anything...
It seems to show that the method is not consistently applied by the manufacturers-ie. whether or not to subtract out the grams of fiber carbs.

BTW- I think I got my taxes finished. I was struggling over getting TTax to properly handle sales of MLPs

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2009, 10:31 AM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,197
Another way to do it is to forget about all that label info, and look up the glycemic load. After all, that's what you're interested in: how much the food will raise your blood sugar, and that's what glycemic load measures.
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2009, 12:57 PM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
Another way to do it is to forget about all that label info, and look up the glycemic load. After all, that's what you're interested in: how much the food will raise your blood sugar, and that's what glycemic load measures.
Perhaps true, but when I read some of the papers about establishing "glycemic load" data it was clear that there are huge individual differences in how a given food affects a given person's BG response. This is made much more true if there is any deviation from normal glucose tolerance.

My goal is to predict how a given carb dose in a given food will affect my BG, and to make that easier I need accurate carb counts.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha 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
Glycemic Load -- Different Definitions? TromboneAl Health and Early Retirement 13 08-31-2009 09:13 AM
Washer:Front load versus Top Load gwix98 Other topics 11 12-09-2006 03:39 PM
High-carb, low-glycemic-index diet best for weight loss and CVD risk reduction wabmester Other topics 37 09-03-2006 05:20 PM
My first book report: Just One (more) Thing greg FIRE and Money 3 11-17-2005 07:13 PM
Book report: DisneyWar Nords Other topics 0 10-22-2005 03:43 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:05 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.