Glycemic Load Diet -- Book Report

[Tesaje]

I would recommend Taube's book Good Calories Bad Calories. He shows that there is copious research showing the modern diet recommendation is horrible. The problem is that the institutions have allowed very bad science to hold sway. There is no data supporting the cholesterol theory for heart disease. There never was. What they have done is have a strong personality hold sway - Ancel Keys (not unlike a preacher) despite test after test not providing support for the hypothesis.

What they have done is formulate a hypothesis that if A, then B. They do a test that shows if A, not B. Then the conclusion is, the hypothesis is correct, the test results are wrong. This lack of science and reason has been done for some 70 years of medical/nutrition "science"! Repeated tests engender the same results and the same idiotic conclusions. The reason is that a blowhard bullies all others, slanders them, and basically bullies his way to making the govt buy into their theory. Then we have pileing on with researchers and doctors afraid to go against the conventional wisdom because they will be drummed out of their livelihood and get no more research money.

When you go to the actual data all these studies presented, it is obvious that the current hypotheses are grossly wrong. It is junk science at its finest.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I just took this book out of the library and I'm going to try it. I like a plan that can basically be summed up as:

*cut way back on flour (bread and pasta), rice, and potatoes (e.g., eat no more than 1/4 of a regular serving of these items);
*walk 2 miles at your own pace 4 times a week;
*do 6 major muscle exercises 2 times a week (three upper body, three lower body).

Can't hurt to try it. I'll post in the Wednesday weigh-ins with results.

 

[W2R]

I just took this book out of the library and I'm going to try it. I like a plan that can basically be summed up as:

*cut way back on flour (bread and pasta), rice, and potatoes (e.g., eat no more than 1/4 of a regular serving of these items);
*walk 2 miles at your own pace 4 times a week;
*do 6 major muscle exercises 2 times a week (three upper body, three lower body).

Can't hurt to try it. I'll post in the Wednesday weigh-ins with results.

My doctor yesterday told me to cut out (or cut back on?) rice, potatoes, and bread (and sugary drinks but I never drink them).

I am already doing the major muscle exercises, I guess, since I do 17 weight machines at the gym when I work out and about half are lower body and half upper body I suppose.

So, I'll also do the walking and join you in this. Two miles four times a week, which is about every time I work out. I am terrible at cardio but walking at my own pace is something even I can do. That can't be that bad. My favorite walking speed is 3 mph, so it would take 40 minutes. If I remember to take my headphones I can watch CNBC while I walk on the treadmill, so that I won't absolutely die of boredom. I might have to break down and purchase my first iPod if the treadmills are too busy, so I can walk on the indoor track with less boredom.

Maybe I'll buy the book, but probably walking will do me more good than sitting around reading it.

 

[Rustic23]

W2W, just to add, the walking is not a 'cardio' rate. I also don't think it is a stroll. In his book, Dr. Thompson, explained this by slow vs fast twitch mussel. He states a slow twitch is like your diaphragm, the mussel is oxygenated as it works and does not get tired. So the pace you should walk is one you could walk all day. Interestingly he does not say you have to give up completely bread, potatoes, rice and sugar drinks. He says eat these last, and if you have to have some only eat 1/4 of the starch. I think he does recommend giving up sugared drinks, also fruit drinks. Here, the '..if the glass is sticky when it is empty, don't drink it'.

good luck.

 

[W2R]

Thanks, Rustic! Due to my constant battle with weight, I haven't had sugary drinks in at least ten years and so that part won't be a problem. I don't even like them any more. In fact, I don't even drink diet soda any more much less sugary soda.

Maybe 2.5 mph would be more like it for me. 3 mph feels brisk to me (ok, don't snicker all you athletes! ). I'll have to experiment and see what I think I could keep up all day long, but 3 mph probably isn't it.

 

[Nords]

My doctor yesterday told me to cut out (or cut back on?) rice, potatoes, and bread (and sugary drinks but I never drink them).
Maybe I'll buy the book, but probably walking will do me more good than sitting around reading it.

Unfortunately Taube is leading me to conclude that beer is a sugary drink too.

I guess it's gonna have to be cabernet sauvignon from here on out...

 

[W2R]

Unfortunately Taube is leading me to conclude that beer is a sugary drink too.

I guess it's gonna have to be cabernet sauvignon from here on out...

See? I'm lucky that I don't drink alcoholic beverages. Coffee or tea without sugar, skim milk, and water are about all that I normally drink.

Watch out for that grape sugar.

I've got the sugary drink part completely A-OK before I even start. I need to work on the walking.

 

[Rustic23]

Actually Nords, Beer, Wine and other spirits are just fine. However he does say, there may be other reason not to consume to many.

 

[haha]

Actually Nords, Beer, Wine and other spirits are just fine. However he does say, there may be other reason not to consume to many.

I really cannot understand this with respect to beer, especially the heavy ales so popular now. It has been known for a very long time that an easy way to get fat is to drink a lot of beer. I can't think of many heavy beer drinkers out of their 20s who are not at least somewhat fat.

Ha

 

[Rustic23]

Well, one of the cautions with alcohol in general increase ones appetite.

 

[harley]

I personally prefer a lager with my mussels. Unless, of course, they are cooked in a white wine sauce. That requires Sauvignon Blanc.

 

[TromboneAl]

From Thompson's table, beer's glycemic load is "<15" (slice of bread=100), which means it's fine to drink it (an orange soda is 314, orange juice is 119).

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.

If these books are right, it's mind blowing to think of millions of people having weight problems and then trying to cut down on fats (and eating more carbs in the process), and making their problem worse. That is, it's a vicious positive feedback situation.

 

[ziggy29]

Well, one of the cautions with alcohol in general increase ones appetite.

As witnessed by all those people eating a huge breakfast at Denny's at 2 AM on a Saturday morning...

 

[Bestwifeever]

Thompson also suggests you not drink very much with meals, including water. So save those beverages to savor on their own.

 

[ziggy29]

Thompson also suggests you not drink very much with meals, including water. So save those beverages to savor on their own.

Interesting. What's the theory -- that liquids increase the absorption rate of carbs (sugars) into the bloodstream?

 

[Bestwifeever]

Interesting. What's the theory -- that liquids increase the absorption rate of carbs (sugars) into the bloodstream?

Yes, pretty much. From p. 88:

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:

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.

 

[Nords]

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...

 

[Tesaje]

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.

 

[haha]

Some people like data, others prefer opinion. Taubes can provide either, depending on his purpose.

Ha

 

[detroitbabu]

​

One classic rule of statistics:
Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[TromboneAl]

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.

 

[haha]

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

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

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.

 

[Rustic23]

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.

 

[haha]

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