Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 162363 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #90 on: April 11, 2015, 09:46:09 PM »
From what I have read, many added vitamins and minerals are not particularly bioavailable, and in the case of vitamin E and calcium, these added nutrients can lead to very deleterious effects, including death.

Vegetables, dairy, eggs, and meat/fish have all the vitamins and minerals (in excess) that one might need to be healthy.  These are low carb foods, satiating and tasty.  On my recent trip to Cambodia, it seemed that for a very economically poor country, there was generally all these foods available and eaten by the general population.  There is processed and sugary food as well, but that was more expensive and not the main fare.

"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #91 on: April 11, 2015, 10:09:48 PM »
Is the topic here "healthy eating" only in the context of weight loss?

My concern is healthy eating in the context of weight loss through burning stored fat and prevention of weight gain through excess fat storage.

Quote
"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.

That's what they say, but weight loss is not always healthy, and eating ANYTHING isn't as healthy as eating a carefully planned LCHF diet. Calorie deficit is not the most important factor in healthy weight loss.

Quote
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.

You're mixing models here. Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load are simply two different ways of measuring how foods impact blood sugar. Of course high GI foods will be high on the GL index. To calculate GI they use 50g of each food; to calculate GL they use the serving size for each food.

But here's the thing, you don't need any carbohydrates in your diet. You need fat. You need protein. The minimum daily requirement for carbohydrate intake is zero.
Quote
If given the choice between eating a bowl of rice and a bowl of Cheerios, it may be better to choose the Cheerios.
The choice shouldn't be cheerios or rice. The choices should be cheerios or bacon and eggs; rice or steak.
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 CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #92 on: April 11, 2015, 10:11:11 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?

No. I don't think you're understanding what the difference between GI and GL are.
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 #93 on: April 11, 2015, 11:09:33 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?

No. I don't think you're understanding what the difference between GI and GL are.

I believe I understand it completely. If you think I have it wrong, I invite you to explain to me my error.

Glycemic load is a function of a food's glycemic index and the amount of that particular food eaten. So even if a food has a particularly high glycemic index, if it is nutrient dense, you don't need to eat very much of it to get its nutritional benefits, which means that food contributes a very low glycemic load.

Carrots are commonly used as an example. The GI of a boiled carrot is somewhat high at 41, but the portion size one would normally eat to achieve its nutritional properties is fairly low, which means you get a lot of nutrients while contributing a nearly negligible low glycemic load.

Which is exactly the point that I was making with linking to Bill Shrapnel's model. Boiled carrots: relatively high GI but extremely nutrient dense - good carb recommendation. Unenriched white rice: high GI and pretty nutrient poor - not a relatively good carb recommendation.

Which means that in determining relative carbohydrate quality, GI is one factor but is by no means negligible. Hence my Food A and Food B comparison. Given two foods with identical GI's, the food with the better nutrient profile is a better choice.

What is mistaken about that?

EDIT

Carrots and white rice are an obvious, easy to understand example, which is why I used it.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 11:12:44 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 #94 on: April 11, 2015, 11:23:34 PM »
If one's entire meal was carrots, you would be correct.  But if one eats a few carrots (or potatoes) seasoned with butter and accompanied by a decent steak and a few other green vegetables, a heathy person (me) hardly sees a blip in in my blood sugar.  I've done my blood sugar at postprandial intervals and that's what I saw; the glycemic load of the carrots and potatoes is swamped by digesting things with little or no glycemic load.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 11:46:35 PM by lonely moa »
"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 #95 on: April 12, 2015, 12:07:58 AM »
I'm sorry, but I don't think you're understanding the very simple point that I'm trying to make and you're arguing against something I'm not even saying.

I've done my blood sugar at postprandial intervals and that's what I saw; the glycemic load of the carrots and potatoes is swamped by digesting things with little or no glycemic load.

Carrots are commonly used as an example. The GI of a boiled carrot is somewhat high at 41, but the portion size one would normally eat to achieve its nutritional properties is fairly low, which means you get a lot of nutrients while contributing a nearly negligible low glycemic load.
......
.... Boiled carrots: relatively high GI but extremely nutrient dense - good carb recommendation.

We are quite literally saying the exact same thing but in different contexts.

"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.

That's what they say, but weight loss is not always healthy, and eating ANYTHING isn't as healthy as eating a carefully planned LCHF diet. Calorie deficit is not the most important factor in healthy weight loss.

Read what I said and read what you said and notice that we're saying the same thing. I would lose weight eating 1600 calories of Twizzlers every day but the negative health effects would be detrimental.

The choice shouldn't be cheerios or rice. The choices should be cheerios or bacon and eggs; rice or steak.

But if one eats a few carrots (or potatoes) seasoned with butter and accompanied by a decent steak and a few other green vegetables...

This is not meant to be condescending or sarcastic, but it's really great that you are able to enjoy that luxury. Not everyone can. Poor people and vegetarians/vegans deserve good nutritional advice as well, and for people who do get the majority of their nutrients through plant-based carbs, fats and proteins, having good models for carbohydrate quality is a must, especially those wanting to follow a mostly vegetarian LCHF diet.
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 #96 on: April 12, 2015, 12:50:34 AM »

This is not meant to be condescending or sarcastic, but it's really great that you are able to enjoy that luxury. Not everyone can. Poor people and vegetarians/vegans deserve good nutritional advice as well, and for people who do get the majority of their nutrients through plant-based carbs, fats and proteins, having good models for carbohydrate quality is a must, especially those wanting to follow a mostly vegetarian LCHF diet.

The Cambodians I met would be lucky to get a dollar a day.  Unlike vegans, they eat literally everything and get all the vitamins and minerals they need.  They understand nutrition.  Their culture has taken care of it.  In the industrialised world, most of us didn't listen to our grandmother (well, for most of this forum, great grandmothers). 

You want a LCHF diet, it is time to drop the idea of shunning animal products.  One would struggle with the amount of olive and coconut oil to achieve it.  Expensive, as well.

And I am saying, worrying about the GI thing is a waste of time.  Just don't eat an entire meal of high glycemic food and one won't raise one's blood sugar inappropriately; that's the point of GI, isn't it?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2015, 01:02:28 AM by lonely moa »
"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 #97 on: April 12, 2015, 01:00:20 AM »
Sorry, come again?
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 #98 on: April 12, 2015, 01:22:42 AM »

This is not meant to be condescending or sarcastic, but it's really great that you are able to enjoy that luxury. Not everyone can. Poor people and vegetarians/vegans deserve good nutritional advice as well, and for people who do get the majority of their nutrients through plant-based carbs, fats and proteins, having good models for carbohydrate quality is a must, especially those wanting to follow a mostly vegetarian LCHF diet.

The Cambodians I met would be lucky to get a dollar a day.  Unlike vegans, they eat literally everything and get all the vitamins and minerals they need.  They understand nutrition.  Their culture has taken care of it.  In the industrialised world, most of us didn't listen to our grandmother (well, for most of this forum, great grandmothers). 

You want a LCHF diet, it is time to drop the idea of shunning animal products.  One would struggle with the amount of olive and coconut oil to achieve it.  Expensive, as well.

And I am saying, worrying about the GI thing is a waste of time.  Just don't eat an entire meal of high glycemic food and one won't raise one's blood sugar inappropriately; that's the point of GI, isn't it?

You have anecdotes, I have statistics and information. I would not rely on arguments from antiquity and traditionalism in a skeptical forum to make your case, especially when they're blatantly refuted by the evidence.

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGN/nutrition/khm_en.stm

"Women also seemed to be affected by malnutrition. According to the UNICEF/WFP survey, the prevalence of women 15 to 49 years old with a BMI<18.5 kg/m2 was 28.5%. As for children, the analysis by food economy zone showed that women in the forest were the most affected by CED with 60% having a BMI<18.5 kg/m2.

The FAO Sixth World Food Survey estimated that the DES in Cambodia did not cover the requirements of 29% of the population in 1990-92, compared to 13% in 1969-71, therefore indicating that the proportion of the population which is "undernourished" in terms of food inadequacy has increased. The problem is not only availability, but also access and utilization of food, as well as a lack of diversity in the diet of the typical Cambodian. As a consequence, there are high rates of night blindness in children 24-59 months (3.6%) and pregnant women (10%). The national weighed total goitre rate was 12% in school children aged 8 to 12 years."

Also, your experience in Cambodia means no food deserts in American cities and rural regions?

And forgive me if I defer to actual nutritional scientists doing actual research in scientific journals for what is worth studying in nutritional science.
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 #99 on: April 12, 2015, 03:03:43 AM »
The WHO in 2013 have a much brighter picture than the FAO in 1990.

Average life expectancy 70/75.  Pretty good for a country that still suffers from unexploded US munitions.

http://apps.who.int/nutrition/landscape/report.aspx?iso=khm
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #100 on: April 12, 2015, 11:38:59 AM »
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?

No. I don't think you're understanding what the difference between GI and GL are.

I believe I understand it completely. If you think I have it wrong, I invite you to explain to me my error.

I'll do my best.

GI is measured by testing blood sugar two hours after consuming a food containing 50g of carbohydrates.
GL is measured by testing blood sugar two hours after consuming a typical serving of food.

In the case of carrots, to reach 50g you would need to eat about 4 cups , but the typical serving size used in measuring GL is about 1/4 cup; which is about 5g of carbs. (EDIT: I'm going to verify to those amounts, that sounds off)

Quote
Glycemic load is a function of a food's glycemic index and the amount of that particular food eaten.


No. There is no mathematical relation between the two. They are two different measures of the same effect. But one is not a function of the other. GI measures the blood sugar impact of the same amount of carbs in a given food after two hours; GL measures the blood sugar impact of a typical serving size. One shows only how efficient the body is a removing carbs from the food, the other shows the typical impact of that food on blood sugar.

Quote
So even if a food has a particularly high glycemic index, if it is nutrient dense, you don't need to eat very much of it to get its nutritional benefits, which means that food contributes a very low glycemic load.

No. Fat is a nutrient and has no impact on blood sugar. So one food (bacon) can be more nutrient dense than another (carrots) and have  lower GI and GL. 

Niether GI or GL measure nutrient density. Only the effect of blood sugar using two very different criteria.

Quote
Carrots are commonly used as an example. The GI of a boiled carrot is somewhat high at 41, but the portion size one would normally eat to achieve its nutritional properties is fairly low, which means you get a lot of nutrients while contributing a nearly negligible low glycemic load.

Which is exactly the point that I was making with linking to Bill Shrapnel's model. Boiled carrots: relatively high GI but extremely nutrient dense - good carb recommendation. Unenriched white rice: high GI and pretty nutrient poor - not a relatively good carb recommendation.

First, neither food is acceptable on a LCHF diet. Second, GI and GL don't tell you anything about nutrients or nutrient density. Only the effect on blood sugar based on the body's absorption of the food; or the body's blood glucose response to a typical serving size.

And even then, as Moa pointed out, these are only measures in isolation. If ate either those foods with and without high fiber (soluble and insoluble) you'd get very different effect on your blood sugar.

Quote
Which means that in determining relative carbohydrate quality, GI is one factor but is by no means negligible. Hence my Food A and Food B comparison. Given two foods with identical GI's, the food with the better nutrient profile is a better choice.
What is mistaken about that?

GI and GL only give you one narrow slice of the nutrient value of a food. And, especially on a LCHF diet, the least helpful slice.

Your approach seems to be to use the GI index to chose which carb heavy food to eat and have the least impact on blood sugar.

An even better approach would be to avoid carb heavy foods altogether, and keep daily carb intake to an absolute minimum. 

You don't need carbs in your diet at all. You do need fat and protein.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2015, 11:42:21 AM by estockly »
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 #101 on: April 13, 2015, 11:02:49 PM »
I was way more combative than I should have been. I think I was way too hyped up on caffeine and a bit manic... it was a bad day. I apologize.
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 #102 on: April 14, 2015, 02:04:03 AM »
I was way more combative than I should have been. I think I was way too hyped up on caffeine and a bit manic... it was a bad day. I apologize.

Thank you.  I'm afraid I can't blame caffeine.  I need to rein myself in sometimes.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #103 on: April 18, 2015, 04:00:38 PM »
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #104 on: April 23, 2015, 10:54:58 AM »
Obesity is caused by diet,  not exercise? 

More fuel for the fire.

Exercise is good … but it won't help you lose weight, say doctors | Society | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/obesity-owes-more-to-bad-diet-than-lack-of-exercise-say-doctors

It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet -- Malhotra et al. -- British Journal of Sports Medicine
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/21/bjsports-2015-094911.full
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.

 

personate-rain