tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post3740201764893901171..comments2024-02-25T02:24:14.972-08:00Comments on Whole Health Source: The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical ExaminationStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger557125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-83494756152168418942016-10-10T23:21:50.911-07:002016-10-10T23:21:50.911-07:00It would be interesting to see the macronutrient g...It would be interesting to see the macronutrient graph in the article with carbs divided into refined cars and unrefined. Does anyone know where to find an overview of the rise in refined carbs?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02466386522792033440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-10623191999630259732016-01-29T01:01:19.093-08:002016-01-29T01:01:19.093-08:00Thanks so much for so much of information in one p...Thanks so much for so much of information in one post. While it took just over 30 minutes to read this, it probably would have taken months for you to compile this and we, fitness conscious folks from around the world, owe you a lot for this wonderful exposition. Very scientific with ample reference to genuine research. Probably what I gained from reading this would not even be possible even if I did a specialized course. You have answered so many of questions in the blog that I always was trying to find an answer and what a way to find answers for all questions at one single place. <br /><br />You are the man...! Please continue to enlighten the human kind with more such scholarly blogs. God bless you!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09866610231823970473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-60124181845291090502014-05-05T19:28:39.122-07:002014-05-05T19:28:39.122-07:00Taking this particular 'fact' as a given, ...Taking this particular 'fact' as a given, I question and caution the use of such a statistic to promote a perspective if it itself has not been examined for consistency. e.g. I am referring to:<br />..taking a long view.. "per capita macronutrient consumption in calories per day from 1909 to 2006, according to USDA data*:" <br /><br />This is just a fact with no mention made of contributing or ameliorating factors and certainly is not derived by controls or double blinds. It therefore may be a skewed fact when interpreted through the above. And this I suspect it has.<br /><br />S Guyenet puts a convincing case above, however that statement serves it no good at all. CHO per se seems ill attacked, but there is another case to be made that specific carbs - sugars specifically fructose and inflammatory proteins contained within carbs (such as gluten) may have a greater contribution to obesity and that they have risen as the intake of specific manufactured products containing CHO have risen predominately in the past 40 years. To include these in such a longitude study is obviously minimising their influence within CHO versus fats etc.earthgirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05470301035896999916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-11395287105895755332014-03-03T16:33:34.151-08:002014-03-03T16:33:34.151-08:00A comment here from the very beginning (within the...A comment here from the very beginning (within the first 10 comments or so), which seemed to have been neglected. Too bad, because the point is critical. <br /><br />Begin quote:<br /><br />"Marie Curious said...<br /> Terrific explanation of otherwise difficult-to-follow interactions, but I'm confused on one point. How can we draw useful conclusions about the effects of serum glucose or insulin from 'traditional' tribes and cultures, which have constant activity all day long? Similarly, Americans were a majority of manual laborers earlier in the last century. Is the effect of a high carbohydrate diet or of chronically elevated insulin the same in active and sedentary individuals? Do our hormones work the same way irrespective of muscle mass and activity level? For that matter, do we know if muscular, lean, active people ever become 'insulin resistant'?"<br /><br />Haha! Excellent!<br /><br />The whole discussion is hopelessly crippled and nearly meaningless unless activity (and to a lesser extent, as she says, muscle mass) is accounted for. It is possible to eat a moderately high-carb diet and stay in ketosis, if you're performing extreme physical work. Correspondingly, for couch potatoes, and particularly for ones with already-damaged metabolisms, even small amounts of carb can screw everything up. Taubes may not be wrong, but his view needs this vital context, and is lost without it. It is not (and cannot be) carbs *per se*, but rather carbs in relation to activity or lack thereof. And Stephan's analysis is similarly lost without it.<br />Alan2102https://www.blogger.com/profile/03077725184637352859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-87809224955057032072013-10-08T11:40:38.516-07:002013-10-08T11:40:38.516-07:00And what about this study showing the relation abo...And what about this study showing the relation about insulin/obesity?<br /><br />http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253713.phpAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03203741391885567667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-38239759221212712692013-09-06T09:49:18.267-07:002013-09-06T09:49:18.267-07:00Inese - if obesity is caused by overexposure to ch...Inese - if obesity is caused by overexposure to chemicals, then why is it so easy to cure with a well formulated low cab/sugar diet? Fred Hahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01287565594918201935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-44161944255024634212013-09-05T20:34:28.309-07:002013-09-05T20:34:28.309-07:00Many interesting thoughts. It's just so that n...Many interesting thoughts. It's just so that neither one of these theories answers some very crucial questions: why has obesity become epidemic only by now and it was not a problem about hundred years ago? Why we are seeing most extreme obesity issues only in the countries which belong to so called "highly developed countries"? There are still lots of countries which do not have obesity problem at all. This all makes one think that the answer is not within leptin-insulin-glucose interaction. Secondly, all these theories and trials treat carbohydrates as simply carbohydrates of any type (with high glycemic index, low glycemic index, fast action, slow acting, so on), but there are huge differences, "fats" are also assumed to be simply "fats", and not fats from different sources, natural fats or chemically produced substitutes. Most likely, not carbs themselves, but chemically modified carbs, chemically modified proteins, chemically processed foods with high content of huge numbers of substances which were never assumed to be proper for human consumption cause interactions which do not exist in natural food chains with the same values of natural carbohydrates, fats and other nutrients. <br />I am more than sure that obesity is caused by overexposure to chemical substances over prolonged periods of time, and the interactions of these substances have resulted in destruction of normal metabolism, normal insulin and pancreatic enzyme functions. I am originally from Latvia, and I was recently there visiting. It was not open for any processed foods until 90s of the last century. Obese people were big rarity there, but with more processed foods on the market, increase in consumption of chemically produced soft drinks, more obese people have started to appear there, as well. The answer to North American obesity is within chemically enhanced foods, drinks, fast food chains. There is a big difference in metabolism and absorption of foods from natural source (normally grown vegetables, fruits, berries, grains, real meat, fish, etc.) and those which have been exposed to long-processing procedures and reactions, and have additives in form of all kinds of enhancers and supplements. Extreme obesity started in North America and is spreading out since US manufacturers export lots of their poisonous stuff.Inese Pogahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04116960274211354084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-67599770662836854322013-06-19T11:47:26.116-07:002013-06-19T11:47:26.116-07:00" Carbohydrate restriction spontaneously redu..." Carbohydrate restriction spontaneously reduces calorie intake (as does fat restriction to a lesser extent), suggesting the possibility that it alters body fat homeostasis, but there is no compelling evidence that that happens due to a hormonal influence on fat tissue itself."<br /><br />If you reduce carb intake and replace it with fat, how does that reduce calorie intake? <br /><br />Most people who are succesful with low carb diets, replace the carbs with fat, they are not losing weight just because they took their usual diet and just reduced carbs. <br /><br /><br />If it's true that there are around 9 calories per gram of fat, and around 4 per gram of carbohydrate, wouldn't it make more sense that if you replace cabs with fats, that you should significantly increase your overal calorie intake? If so, then why are people so successful with this way of living (low carb high fat)? <br /><br />Just asking questions, I might have misunderstood something!David Madarrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05271507846589428725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-7531562145830468922013-01-29T14:36:35.457-08:002013-01-29T14:36:35.457-08:00Having recently completed my master's degree i...Having recently completed my master's degree in human nutrition, I can say that everything in your post is spot on and scientifically accurate. This was a thoroughly enjoyable read - we need better advocates out there to get the right message to both healthy and overweight individuals.yanks1mighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501956021340571782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-29013581269646919732013-01-10T17:37:12.690-08:002013-01-10T17:37:12.690-08:00"Carbohydrate restriction spontaneously reduc..."Carbohydrate restriction spontaneously reduces calorie intake."<br /><br />Now that is a real knee slapper!<br /><br />I am never trying to lose weight, but when I reduce carb intake without reducing overall calorie intake I always lose weight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-59946129672072040322013-01-07T04:59:23.029-08:002013-01-07T04:59:23.029-08:00Raising insulin only improves insulin sensitivity ...Raising insulin only improves insulin sensitivity short term in the same way that opium improves opioid sensitivity short term by increasing the size and number of protein receptors for that chemical on the cell membrane. Long term use of opium will eventually cause the protein receptors to shrink and die off, leading to opioid resistance. That is why drug addicts continually need a higher dose to get the same ‘high’ that they used to get at a lower dose. <br />The same thing happens with insulin – in the short term raising insulin improves insulin sensitivity. However long term exposure to chronically raised insulin levels eventually leads to insulin resistance. Here is the proof - <br /><br /> Raising glucose, raises insulin, increases insulin resistance…<br />Beta-cell dysfunction and glucose intolerance: results from the San Antonio metabolism (SAM) study.<br />Diabetologia (2004) 47:31–39<br />“Conclusion/interpretation. When the plasma insulin response to oral glucose is related to the glycaemic stimulus and severity of insulin resistance, there is a progressive decline in beta-cell function that begins in “normal” glucose tolerant individuals.”<br /><br />Barbara B. Kahn and Jeffrey S. Flier, Harvard Medical School<br />The Journal of Clinical Investigation, August 2000 | Volume 106<br />“Hyperinsulinemia per se can cause insulin resistance by downregulating insulin receptors and desensitizing postreceptor pathways, as was confirmed by overexpression of insulin in livers of otherwise normal transgenic mice. This transgene resulted in an age-related reduction in insulin receptor expression, glucose intolerance, and hyperlipidemia without any primary genetic defect in insulin action or secretion.”<br />And again…<br />Alternative Approach to Treating Diabetes Tested<br />ScienceDaily (June 10, 2011)<br />From; Deletion of Insulin-Degrading Enzyme Elicits Antipodal, Age-Dependent Effects on Glucose and Insulin Tolerance.<br />Plos One June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6<br />“It’s an example of too much of a good thing [insulin] becoming bad for you…chronic hyperinsulinemia seemed to actually cause diabetes. As they aged, the mice appeared to adapt to the chronically high insulin levels, for example, by reducing the number of receptors for insulin in their tissues. These adaptations make the mice less sensitive to insulin, which is the exact cause of type 2 diabetes.”<br />And again…<br />Insulin: In need of some restraint? Salk Institute<br />Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,March 07, 2007<br />“the study reveals the “dark side” of high insulin production, the kind that results from over eating and obesity. “Insulin is very effective at lowering blood sugar, and promotes fat storage, preparing the animal for times when food may not be available,” he says. “But when the hormone [insulin] is produced at too high a level for too long, the body becomes insulin resistant and blood sugar and certain blood lipids gradually creep up, which can cause progressive damage to multiple organ.”<br /><br />And of course insulin resistance goes hand in hand with leptin resistance. Gary taubes’ preoccupation with insulin was a tad myopic, and apparently he did not know how it interrelated with leptin resistance. <br />But his conclusions were still probably sound; I see nothing in this critique to refute that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210534744129983587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-64248949048393498752013-01-04T04:26:31.317-08:002013-01-04T04:26:31.317-08:004:
Dr.Guyenet does not explain why some groups and...4:<br />Dr.Guyenet does not explain why some groups and subcultures have become obese on low calorie semi-starvation diets in which the predominant food was simple sugars. For example, in Trinidad a team of nutritionists from the United States reported in 1966 that one third of the women were obese and that they achieved this condition eating fewer than 2000 calories a day. <br />By 1973 in Jamaica 10% of adult men were obese and nearly two thirds of the women were obese in a society in which “malnutrition in infancy and early childhood remains one of the most important disorders contributing to childhood mortality”. Presumably, if the kids are starving, the adults are probably not eating many calories either. <br /><br />5:<br />Since Dr.Guyenet maintains that weight gain and loss is determined solely by calories consumed vs. calories burnt one would expect that force feeding high calorie diets would produce marked and significant increases in adipose if combined with a sedentary lifestyle.<br /> IN GCBC, there are a number of studies that contradict this assumption, for example a study conducted in the late 1960s by endocrinologist Ethan Sims at the University of Vermont. <br />In this study he used convicts at the Vermont state prison, who raised their food consumption to 4000 calories a day. They gained a few pounds but then their weight stabilized. So they ate 5000 calories a day, then 7000, then 10,000, while remaining sedentary. <br />Of his 8 subjects that went 200 days on this regimen, two gained weight easily and six did not. One convict managed to gain less than 10 pounds after 30 weeks of this forced gluttony. One would expect that should all be obese if calories and not a metabolic defect was the critical element in obesity.<br /><br /><br />6:<br />Dr.Guyenet admits that chronic inflammation contributes to leptin resistance, which in turn contributes to obesity; but neglects to mention that carbohydrates and particularly refined sugars create reactive oxygen species and raise HBA1C, a measure of glycation – all of which contributes to chronic inflammation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210534744129983587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-65367610574910146252013-01-04T04:25:46.224-08:002013-01-04T04:25:46.224-08:00There are other limitations -
1:
in GCBC, gary ...There are other limitations - <br />1: <br />in GCBC, gary taubes cites numerous examples of people on bland high carbohydrate semi starvation diets. Invariably the people on these diets remained ‘ravenously hungry’ throughout the experiment and developed severe physical/psychological symptoms (including self-mutilation and suicide threats). <br />For example, in 1944 Ancel keys and his colleagues replicated benedict’s experiment on semi starvation diets. The subjects ate 1570 calories a day consisting mostly of whole wheat bread, potatoes, cereals, turnips and cabbage. This diet would hardly evoke the food-reward feedback loop that Stephan claims is the cause of overeating...so why were they still so ‘ravenously hungry’?<br /><br />2:<br />By contrast Gary refers to various experiments were subjects are placed on comparably low calorie low carbohydrate diets and the results are contra positive – the subjects are satiated on the sparse caloric diet and exhibit no symptoms of malnutrition or hunger. <br />For example, Ohlsen tested Pennington’s low carb low calorie diet a number of times and even though the subjects were restricted to eating 1400-1500 calories a day they reported feeling satisfied. Arguably eating meat and fatty foods are going to be more rewarding than eating potatoes and turnips, so again this contradicts Dr.Guyenet’s assertion that food-reward dominates hunger and calorie intake. <br /><br />3:<br />This critique does not explain why some researchers have been able to produce weight loss in subjects on high calorie low carbohydrate diets, again gary taubes cites copious examples in his book.<br /> One such case was the DuPont experience published in the journal ‘industrial medicine’ authored by pennington in june 1949. Subjects ate a minimum of 2400 calories a day and averaged 3000 calories a day yet still lost between 9 and 54 pounds averaging 2 pounds a week.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210534744129983587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-20047924356416269042013-01-04T04:25:01.243-08:002013-01-04T04:25:01.243-08:00This was an interesting critique that raised some ...This was an interesting critique that raised some difficult questions. Overall I did not find it very convincing because Dr.Guyenet failed to address some key points raised in Good calories Bad calories:<br /><br />Raising insulin only improves insulin sensitivity short term in the same way that opium improves opioid sensitivity short term by increasing the size and number of protein receptors for that chemical on the cell membrane. Long term use of opium will eventually cause the protein receptors to shrink and die off, leading to opioid resistance. That is why drug addicts continually need a higher dose to get the same ‘high’ that they used to get at a lower dose. <br />The same thing happens with insulin – in the short term raising insulin improves insulin sensitivity. However long term exposure to chronically raised insulin levels eventually leads to insulin resistance. Here is the proof - <br /><br /> Raising glucose, raises insulin, increases insulin resistance…<br />Beta-cell dysfunction and glucose intolerance: results from the San Antonio metabolism (SAM) study.<br />Diabetologia (2004) 47:31–39<br />“Conclusion/interpretation. When the plasma insulin response to oral glucose is related to the glycaemic stimulus and severity of insulin resistance, there is a progressive decline in beta-cell function that begins in “normal” glucose tolerant individuals.”<br /><br />Barbara B. Kahn and Jeffrey S. Flier, Harvard Medical School<br />The Journal of Clinical Investigation, August 2000 | Volume 106<br />“Hyperinsulinemia per se can cause insulin resistance by downregulating insulin receptors and desensitizing postreceptor pathways, as was confirmed by overexpression of insulin in livers of otherwise normal transgenic mice. This transgene resulted in an age-related reduction in insulin receptor expression, glucose intolerance, and hyperlipidemia without any primary genetic defect in insulin action or secretion.”<br />And again…<br />Alternative Approach to Treating Diabetes Tested<br />ScienceDaily (June 10, 2011)<br />From; Deletion of Insulin-Degrading Enzyme Elicits Antipodal, Age-Dependent Effects on Glucose and Insulin Tolerance.<br />Plos One June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6<br />“It’s an example of too much of a good thing [insulin] becoming bad for you…chronic hyperinsulinemia seemed to actually cause diabetes. As they aged, the mice appeared to adapt to the chronically high insulin levels, for example, by reducing the number of receptors for insulin in their tissues. These adaptations make the mice less sensitive to insulin, which is the exact cause of type 2 diabetes.”<br />And again…<br />Insulin: In need of some restraint? Salk Institute<br />Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,March 07, 2007<br />“the study reveals the “dark side” of high insulin production, the kind that results from over eating and obesity. “Insulin is very effective at lowering blood sugar, and promotes fat storage, preparing the animal for times when food may not be available,” he says. “But when the hormone [insulin] is produced at too high a level for too long, the body becomes insulin resistant and blood sugar and certain blood lipids gradually creep up, which can cause progressive damage to multiple organ.”Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210534744129983587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-58977419991358673052013-01-03T05:15:09.547-08:002013-01-03T05:15:09.547-08:00There is another palusible hypothesis which seems ...There is another palusible hypothesis which seems obvious to me and so i'm surprised no one has venture to posit it yet. <br />The contradictory results in clinical studies in response to high carb vs high fat diets (specifically, the tendency for one to induce insulin/leptin resistance and/or metabolic syndrome in some people but to have a favourable result in others, might more easily be explained by metabolic individuality. <br />Isn't it possible, even likely that each person's metabolic response to different macronutrient ratios is unique, and this the optimum ratio might not be universally applied?<br />This is exactly what metabolic typing proposes, and it explains a whole lot of incongruous studies and anecdotal experiences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210534744129983587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-73308806825607930582012-12-04T07:15:25.051-08:002012-12-04T07:15:25.051-08:00Excellent article, rite up in McDougall Diet terri...Excellent article, rite up in McDougall Diet territroy. But too much is being made of food, and not enuf of ACTIVITY. I didn't write "excercise", I wrote :activity". It's what you do ALL DAY LONG., not for an hour ina gym. Food and activity, in nature, are one and the same, despite that there are more than a few ways to obtain burnable energy from foods. There is one activity humans have evolved to do, and from it all other activity stems--WALKING. When this is factored into the erudite--I mean that, erudite--equations offered here, the "answer" to fatness will be clear.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326581561024734863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-38771130535496457082012-08-20T01:55:19.654-07:002012-08-20T01:55:19.654-07:00Stephen - its seems your fundamental objection to ...Stephen - its seems your fundamental objection to Taubes is in this para:<br />"The reason insulin suppresses fat burning is because it's a signal of glucose abundance. It's telling tissues to stop burning fat because carbohydrate is the available fuel. If you eat a meal of 500 calories of carbohydrate, you will burn that carbohydrate under the direction of insulin, which will also make sure body fat mostly stays inside your fat cells during the process. If you eat a meal of 500 calories of fat, you will burn fat instead of carbohydrate, but since you just ate fat, you aren't dipping into your body fat stores any more than you were when you ate carbohydrate. So even though insulin temporarily suppresses fat burning and the release of fat from fat cells when you eat carbohydrate, at the end of the day if you ate the same number of calories you end up with the same amount of fat in your fat cells either way. You now know more about insulin than many popular diet gurus."<br /><br />The assumption is that we are using all the energy we eat. We do convert all the carb energy which is rapidly metabolised. Fat is much more slowly metabolised so we do not overeat.<br /><br />Exp results:<br />500 kcals cereal b'fast - B gluc<br />1 hour 14, 2 hours 5.1 3 hours 4.1 - HUNGRY again.<br />370 kcals Nut porridge <br />1 hour 7.4, 2 hours 5.5, 3 hours 5.7.<br /><br />Cab calories are fully used, fat cals are sustaining. <br /><br />I'm T2 diabetic for 12 years. 7-8 years on a low fat, complex carb diet caused crippling complications. 3 months on a low carb diet restored my health.IanDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02659062859402513907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-24547526561697488842012-06-26T20:25:03.972-07:002012-06-26T20:25:03.972-07:00Note that two kinds of PUFA has been found to be e...Note that two kinds of PUFA has been found to be essential to human health - the omega-3 kind and the omega-6 kind, and the proper ratio between the two is needed. There is also an omega-9 kind, not essential. Partial hydrogenation (to preserve fats) tends to destroy the omega-3 kind, and upset the ratio between omega-3 and omega-6. Also, the omega-3 kind needs to be split up even more, since human bodies are very inefficient at converting the ALA variety into the DHA and EPA varieties it has more need for (under 1% gets converted). SFA is not essential - the liver can make it from the carbohydrates in the diet. MUFA is not essential, but I haven't found the way the body can make it.Robert Mileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269202188813892701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-57787816753662487862012-06-23T22:36:30.718-07:002012-06-23T22:36:30.718-07:00There are two graphs on one of R D Feinman's p...There are two graphs on one of R D Feinman's posts on his blog.<br /><br />Rations of sugar, starch, protein and fat in the USA haven't changed much in recent decades.<br />Calories eaten by men, on average haven't increased.<br />Calories eaten by women have increased during the period.<br />There is one difference between the two charts;<br />women (not men) are now eating more of their fat as PUFA, less as SFA; and this increase is parallel to the increase in calories consumed...Puddleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00953398103675945541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-88533907326315096902012-06-20T03:44:47.607-07:002012-06-20T03:44:47.607-07:00Is there a graph of consumption of consumption of ...Is there a graph of consumption of consumption of sugars, refined carbohydrates and other carbs over the same time period?Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05211172764524922383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-8038013860169345712012-05-14T00:00:28.815-07:002012-05-14T00:00:28.815-07:00I think the main issue of High fructose corn syrup...I think the main issue of High fructose corn syrup and other sugars and the exposion of obesity is that they are added into a ton of foods.<br /><br />Some of the comments on here make me think many people dont really cook for themselves, and by that Im not referring to making your self canned soup or boiling pasta, but actually making your sauces etc from scratch.<br /><br />For example if I make pasta sauce from scratch I will often add a bit of sugar to help soften the acidity and also bring out the flavour.<br /><br />Now take your average processed sauce/food which has the lesser quality ingredients (tomatoes not fit for produce stands etc) and to make them taste good and consistent a number of things are added.<br /><br />No doubt people are eating more carbs now than before and often unintentionally.<br /><br />I can see the low carb diets working because it has for me in the past (15 years ago) Although I was on the specific carb diet by Elaine Gotschall for non-weight loss reasons, I had some changes in my digestive tract after drinking tap water in mexico.<br /><br />I spent 2 or so months on it and lost about 25 pounds or 11 kilos.<br /><br />I was not exercising anymore but I just dropped weight.<br /><br />This was facinating to me and a real eye opener, into diet.TBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02468924557216380391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-77362216457776069302012-05-10T16:39:42.395-07:002012-05-10T16:39:42.395-07:00I was interested in the studies that show high car...I was interested in the studies that show high carb intakes don't increase hunger or energy intake. I did notice that all of the cited studies were on lean, healthy people. I wonder if overweight/obese subjects would produce the same results. I have also seen one study that came to the opposite conclusion, on a mixed group of preadolescent children. A high-GI breakfast resulted in a higher energy intake at lunch by 147 calories.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14595085<br /><br />How would you reconcile this finding? It's not the only one, either. Here's a study showing that a 4-week low-carb diet reduced ad-libitum food intake more than a high-carb diet:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175736<br /><br />And what about this 2007 review that found similar studies supporting the idea that low-GI eating reduces food intake?<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17610996Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12182579211549382453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-6023752142492536772012-05-07T06:40:37.659-07:002012-05-07T06:40:37.659-07:00I'm a little late to the party for commenting....I'm a little late to the party for commenting... My personal take is that obesity is not about carbohydrate in general, rather it is largely caused by overconsumption of nutrient poor carbohydrate calories (alhtough I blame inactivity even more than diet). The calories in refined carbohydrate don't pack a large nutritional punch (aren't dense with vitamins, minerals, etc.), therefore you must consume more calories to meet nutritional demands.Adam St.Pierrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17567665074448450839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-30340087215517703092012-05-03T04:56:12.198-07:002012-05-03T04:56:12.198-07:00Outstanding write-up. I tend to agree that obesity...Outstanding write-up. I tend to agree that obesity is a complex phenomenon and cannot be reduced to simplistic cause-effect relationships. <br /><br />As you say, everything happens through brain; is there any study to examine effectiveness of mental techniques such as neurolinguistic programming to controll obesity?Anand Tekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04748841195384204229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-91465652695348225612012-04-12T02:00:18.642-07:002012-04-12T02:00:18.642-07:00Brilliant work. Chapeau!Brilliant work. Chapeau!Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03275301798197142793noreply@blogger.com