Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 162370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13121
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2015, 10:32:02 AM »
Cant quite phrase this right to get an answer from google so maybe you know of the top of your head-
Are there examples of high level athletes who stepped up a noticeable notch in performance after switching to lLCHF? 


http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/428272/Novak-Djokovic-Going-gluten-free-was-a-real-game-changer
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline PB67

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #76 on: April 08, 2015, 01:53:28 PM »
Cant quite phrase this right to get an answer from google so maybe you know of the top of your head-
Are there examples of high level athletes who stepped up a noticeable notch in performance after switching to lLCHF? 


http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/428272/Novak-Djokovic-Going-gluten-free-was-a-real-game-changer

LOL. Did you even read the article?

Quote
Adopting a diet of gluten-free pasta, brown rice, oatmeal plus other gluten-free carb-rich foods saw his energy levels soar. Novak went on to win an incredible 10 tennis titles, three Grand Slams and 53 consecutive matches in 2011.

Not exactly LCHF.

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 17381
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2015, 02:05:51 PM »
In fairness, I only asked for names that I could check out myself one way or the other so the article was a bonus bit of help.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #78 on: April 10, 2015, 06:38:39 PM »
The two articles below are more about Paleo/primal eating (ancestral, if you like), not necessarily LCHF but tend to be.  There is certainly nothing lost in eating this way, unless one thinks that if they are lean, eating sugary foods, grains and seed oils is fine (even though NAFLD affects more than 25% of all Americans).  Dr. Cate of the Lakers is certainly a fan of eating real food, ditching grains sugar and bad oil.

Maybe we have to wait and see for the results, but when top end cancer researchers have cut sugar from their diet do to strong correlations they see in their studies... it makes me think twice about eating a bag of chocolate chippies even if it does have a heart healthy tick.

Meredith and Sami set a record, crossing the Pacific to Hawaii last August on a ketogenic diet http://www.fatchancerow.org  And as I pated before  Zach Bitter holds the 12 Hour World Record, 100 mile American Record, and 200k American Record and keeps nutritional ketosis.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/24373097/nutrition-in-the-nba-part-ii-paleo-diet-takes-hold-for-variety-of-reasons

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-players-to-adopt-radical-paleo-diet-in-2015-afl-season/story-fni5f91a-1227133470817
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Herra Efahyggja

  • The Skeptical Fairy
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
  • another reason not to move, another vodka stinger
    • Expelled Exposed
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #79 on: April 11, 2015, 09:26:10 AM »
I wouldn't say I follow a necessarily "low carb" diet, but it's considerably lower carb than many other people might be eating.

I've become a big fan of Bill Shrapnel, aka the Sceptical Nutritionist, after reading his blog. He has an excellent multifactorial model for assessing carbohydrate quality, which balances glycemic index, fiber and nutrient density. It makes the argument that pure, natural, unadulterated whole grains are not as much of a silver bullet as many might argue, due to their relatively low nutrient density. Fortified breakfast cereals, though possibly a bit higher in GI, are offset by their nutrient profile, making them a better choice than natural oatmeal, for example. And legumes rank the highest.

Right now, most of my starch carbs are coming from potatoes, fortified cereals, blueberries and black beans, but they're not necessarily the staple of my diet.

Here's the article
http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=369
Og eigi leið þú oss ekki í trúgirni, heldur frelsa oss frá fáfræði. Amen.

Expelled Exposed

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #80 on: April 11, 2015, 02:02:09 PM »
The GI of foods is a bit immaterial, isn't it?  If one eats, say, a potato with no other food within the narrow timeframe of a potato only meal with no exercise above one's BMR, the GI will be about the one that is the average listed in tables.  If one eats a potato in the context of a mixed meal (or exercise), ones blood glucose should rise more slowly and to a lesser amount than the listed GI. 

At least that has been the case when I have tested myself.   
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13121
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #81 on: April 11, 2015, 02:47:48 PM »
The GI of foods is a bit immaterial, isn't it?  If one eats, say, a potato with no other food within the narrow timeframe of a potato only meal with no exercise above one's BMR, the GI will be about the one that is the average listed in tables.  If one eats a potato in the context of a mixed meal (or exercise), ones blood glucose should rise more slowly and to a lesser amount than the listed GI. 

At least that has been the case when I have tested myself.

Not just that, but the GI index is based on weight of the food. It measures how much 50g of a given food raises blood sugar.  Since serving size and calories and/or carbs per gram of foods vary widely, it's not that useful in formulating weight loss dietary advice.   

Also, it measures glucose two hours after meals, which means it misses the immediate insulin spike of sugars and refined flours.

Diets based on GI have not been found to be as effective as LCHF.

The GL index addresses the first issue. It's based on the serving size of the food rather than an arbitrary dose by weight. But it also measures glucose after two hours.

(The two-hour figure is more helpful for diabetics, not so much for weight loss dieters).
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #82 on: April 11, 2015, 03:15:34 PM »
Food high in fructose has a low GI and a large effect of fat production n the liver.  Not so bad during serious exercise, though, I hear.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13121
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #83 on: April 11, 2015, 04:39:38 PM »
Food high in fructose has a low GI and a large effect of fat production n the liver.  Not so bad during serious exercise, though, I hear.

Not really. There are very few foods that are high in fructose, and also low in glucose or starch. I can think of only one, and that's highly refined to reach that state (agave nectar).

Sucrose, for example, is 50/50 fructose/glucose, and is lower GI than refined white flower, which is all starch. But even though it's less than the GI of refined flour it's still not "low."

GI Database
http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch.php?ak=list&food_name_search_type=cn&food_name=&gi_search_type=gt&gi=100&gl_search_type=lte&gl=&lop=AND&orderBy=GIG%20DESC&find=Find+Records&page=1

Glycemic Index Testing & Research
http://www.glycemicindex.com/testing_research.php

But your are right, fructose does trigger TG formation in the liver (NAFLD).
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #84 on: April 11, 2015, 05:06:15 PM »
There are plenty of "foods" that are very high on fructose compared to glucose.  I'd reckon a little googling would find some sports nutrition with only fructose.  The first link is to an article in praise of such 'nutrition', the second, a line of products.

http://www.ironman.com/triathlon-news/articles/2012/10/gu-fuels-u-fructose.aspx#axzz3X6x6y0kx

http://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/21-fructose-and-caffeine
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13121
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #85 on: April 11, 2015, 06:09:51 PM »
There are plenty of "foods" that are very high on fructose compared to glucose.  I'd reckon a little googling would find some sports nutrition with only fructose.  The first link is to an article in praise of such 'nutrition', the second, a line of products.

http://www.ironman.com/triathlon-news/articles/2012/10/gu-fuels-u-fructose.aspx#axzz3X6x6y0kx

http://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/21-fructose-and-caffeine

Yeah, I wouldn't call those foods. Not sure what the GI index is, but they've definitely go the biochemistry fouled up.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Herra Efahyggja

  • The Skeptical Fairy
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
  • another reason not to move, another vodka stinger
    • Expelled Exposed
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #86 on: April 11, 2015, 07:01:37 PM »
Is the topic here "healthy eating" only in the context of weight loss? "Healthy eating" is not and should not be viewed only in terms of weight control because you can lose weight eating ANYTHING in amounts enough to cause a calorie deficit. And the article that I linked to talks about GI in terms of coronary heart disease risk, which is where a lot of nutritional science research is headed these days.

We have a limited number of sources of calories we can eat in a day, so deciding general rules for which foods should be recommended over others needs to be viewed in different contexts. A lot of nutritional research is going in the direction of high GI foods, in general, disproportionately contributing to total glycemic load in terms of the nutrients they offer. If given the choice between eating a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios, it may be better to choose the Cheerios.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 07:35:59 PM by Herra Efahyggja »
Og eigi leið þú oss ekki í trúgirni, heldur frelsa oss frá fáfræði. Amen.

Expelled Exposed

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #87 on: April 11, 2015, 07:36:22 PM »
Is the topic here "healthy eating" only in the context of weight loss? "Healthy eating" is not and should not be viewed only in terms of weight control because you can lose weight eating ANYTHING in amounts enough to cause a calorie deficit. And the article that I linked to talks about GI in terms of coronary heart disease risk, which is where a lot of natural science research is headed these days.

We have a limited number of sources of calories we can eat in a day, so deciding general rules for which foods should be recommended over others needs to be viewed in different contexts. A lot of nutritional research is going in the direction of high GI foods, in general, disproportionately contributing to total glycemic load in terms of the nutrients they offer. If given the choice between eating a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios, it may be better to choose the Cheerios.

I started this thread and I'd like to think the topic is health. 

I'd also like to think the choice is not between a bowl of cheerios and a bowl of rice.  That's a very straw man IMHO.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Herra Efahyggja

  • The Skeptical Fairy
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
  • another reason not to move, another vodka stinger
    • Expelled Exposed
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #88 on: April 11, 2015, 08:24:03 PM »
Not just that, but the GI index is based on weight of the food. It measures how much 50g of a given food raises blood sugar.  Since serving size and calories and/or carbs per gram of foods vary widely, it's not that useful in formulating weight loss dietary advice.

Also, it measures glucose two hours after meals, which means it misses the immediate insulin spike of sugars and refined flours.

Diets based on GI have not been found to be as effective as LCHF.

The GL index addresses the first issue. It's based on the serving size of the food rather than an arbitrary dose by weight. But it also measures glucose after two hours.

(The two-hour figure is more helpful for diabetics, not so much for weight loss dieters).

Glycemic index is one of many factors being looked as a way to measure the quality of carbohydrates and the relation to heart disease. Weight loss was never mentioned in my original reply, nor the topic of the original link which I posted.

The GI of foods is a bit immaterial, isn't it?  If one eats, say, a potato with no other food within the narrow timeframe of a potato only meal with no exercise above one's BMR, the GI will be about the one that is the average listed in tables.  If one eats a potato in the context of a mixed meal (or exercise), ones blood glucose should rise more slowly and to a lesser amount than the listed GI. 

At least that has been the case when I have tested myself.   

I started this thread and I'd like to think the topic is health. 

I'd also like to think the choice is not between a bowl of cheerios and a bowl of rice.  That's a very straw man IMHO.

In terms of the research currently being done about diet and optimum general health, no, GI is not immaterial.

And there are many people in poverty with little to no income, whose food sources are incredibly limited, so deciding upon which criteria general nutritional health recommendations are based on is an important matter of public health. In the early 1900s, pellagra was an epidemic in the poverty-stricken southern United States because we did not know that the nixtamalization of maize was required to unlock niacin for absorption. Had we known about nutrient density back then, many people would not have suffered. Knowing which carbs to recommend and for what reasons, especially on a LCHF diet, is key.

You may not be in that position, but having to choose between a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios may just be a reality for many people.
Og eigi leið þú oss ekki í trúgirni, heldur frelsa oss frá fáfræði. Amen.

Expelled Exposed

Offline Herra Efahyggja

  • The Skeptical Fairy
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
  • another reason not to move, another vodka stinger
    • Expelled Exposed
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #89 on: April 11, 2015, 08:59:30 PM »
Also, adding on to the point estockly made about glycemic index vs. glycemic load, wouldn't it follow that if two foods are equal in GI but Food A is twice as nutrient dense as Food B, Food A would be a better choice because you could get the same amount of nutrients with half the contribution to daily glycemic load as Food B?
Og eigi leið þú oss ekki í trúgirni, heldur frelsa oss frá fáfræði. Amen.

Expelled Exposed

 

personate-rain