Grains A Good Thing: Legumes, pasta, barley, bulgur, parboiled rice and whole grain breads such as

  • Thread starter Mr-Natural-Health
  • Start date



M

Mr-Natural-Health

Guest
World Rev Nutr Diet. 1990;62:120-85.

The glycemic index.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2180214

Wolever TM.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, St. Michael's Hospital, Faculty of
Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

"Different starchy foods produce different glycemic responses when fed
individually, and there is evidence that this also applies in the
context of the mixed meal. Methods of processing, and other factors
unrelated to the nutrient composition of foods may also have major
effects on the glycemic response. The reason for differences in
glycemic response appears to relate to the rate at which the foods are
digested and the many factors influencing this. The glycemic index (GI)
is a system of classification in which the glycemic responses of foods
are indexed against a standard (white bread). This allows the results
of different investigators to be pooled. GI values also depend upon a
number of nonfood-related variables. The method of calculation of the
glycemic response area is most important, but the method of blood
sampling and length of time of studies also may have effects.
Variability of glycemic responses arises from day-to-day variation in
the same subject and variation between different subjects. There is
less variability between the GI values of different subjects than there
is within the same subject from day to day. Therefore, the mean GI
values of foods are independent of the glucose tolerance status of the
subjects being tested. Potentially clinically useful starchy foods
producing relatively flat glycemic responses have been identified,
including legumes, pasta, barley, bulgur, parboiled rice and whole
grain breads such as pumpernickel. Specific incorporation of these
foods into diets have been associated with reduced blood glucose,
insulin, and lipid levels. Low-GI foods may influence amino acid
metabolism although the implications of these are unknown. In addition,
low GI foods increase colonic fermentation. The physiologic and
metabolic implications of this relate to increased bacterial urea
utilization, and to the production and absorption of short chain fatty
acids in the colon. The application of the GI to therapeutic diets
should be in the context of the overall nutrient composition of the
diet. High-fat or high-sugar foods may have a low GI, but it may not be
prudent to recommend these foods solely on the basis of the GI. It is
therefore suggested that the most appropriate use of the GI is to rank
the glycemic effects of starchy foods which would already have been
chosen for possible inclusion in the diet on the basis of their
nutritional attributes, i.e. low-fat, unrefined carbohydrate."

PMID: 2180214
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/
 
Thomas M.S. Wolever, D.M., Ph.D., University of Toronto, Faculty of
Medicine. Research on the effect breakfast cereals on dietary
management of type 2 diabetes partially supported by Kellogg Company.
(Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;72:439-49) Research on the effect of acetate
and propionate on calcium absorption partially supported by the Dairy
Farmers of Canada. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996;63:574-8) Research on type
1 diabetes supported by Bayer Inc. (J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 1999;18:242-7)


Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> World Rev Nutr Diet. 1990;62:120-85.
>
> The glycemic index.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2180214
>
> Wolever TM.
>
> Department of Nutritional Sciences, St. Michael's Hospital, Faculty of
> Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
>
> "Different starchy foods produce different glycemic responses when fed
> individually, and there is evidence that this also applies in the
> context of the mixed meal. Methods of processing, and other factors
> unrelated to the nutrient composition of foods may also have major
> effects on the glycemic response. The reason for differences in
> glycemic response appears to relate to the rate at which the foods are
> digested and the many factors influencing this. The glycemic index (GI)
> is a system of classification in which the glycemic responses of foods
> are indexed against a standard (white bread). This allows the results
> of different investigators to be pooled. GI values also depend upon a
> number of nonfood-related variables. The method of calculation of the
> glycemic response area is most important, but the method of blood
> sampling and length of time of studies also may have effects.
> Variability of glycemic responses arises from day-to-day variation in
> the same subject and variation between different subjects. There is
> less variability between the GI values of different subjects than there
> is within the same subject from day to day. Therefore, the mean GI
> values of foods are independent of the glucose tolerance status of the
> subjects being tested. Potentially clinically useful starchy foods
> producing relatively flat glycemic responses have been identified,
> including legumes, pasta, barley, bulgur, parboiled rice and whole
> grain breads such as pumpernickel. Specific incorporation of these
> foods into diets have been associated with reduced blood glucose,
> insulin, and lipid levels. Low-GI foods may influence amino acid
> metabolism although the implications of these are unknown. In addition,
> low GI foods increase colonic fermentation. The physiologic and
> metabolic implications of this relate to increased bacterial urea
> utilization, and to the production and absorption of short chain fatty
> acids in the colon. The application of the GI to therapeutic diets
> should be in the context of the overall nutrient composition of the
> diet. High-fat or high-sugar foods may have a low GI, but it may not be
> prudent to recommend these foods solely on the basis of the GI. It is
> therefore suggested that the most appropriate use of the GI is to rank
> the glycemic effects of starchy foods which would already have been
> chosen for possible inclusion in the diet on the basis of their
> nutritional attributes, i.e. low-fat, unrefined carbohydrate."
>
> PMID: 2180214
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
> mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
> Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
> sharper terminology than ever before.
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/
 
TC wrote:
> Thomas M.S. Wolever, D.M., Ph.D., University of Toronto, Faculty of
> Medicine. Research on the effect breakfast cereals on dietary
> management of type 2 diabetes partially supported by Kellogg Company.
> (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;72:439-49) Research on the effect of acetate
> and propionate on calcium absorption partially supported by the Dairy
> Farmers of Canada. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996;63:574-8) Research on type
> 1 diabetes supported by Bayer Inc. (J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 1999;18:242-7)
>


So, you point is what?

If you are suggesting that /World Rev Nutr Diet/ has published
fraudulent research then I hope that you have a good lawyer.
Wrongfully defamed businesses and individuals have been known to file
lawsuits, from time to time.

I do recall Stephen Barrett, MD taking people like you to court.

Perhaps, our resident De-Barred lawyer might help you get into even
more legal trouble.

You have my condolences.


>
> Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> > World Rev Nutr Diet. 1990;62:120-85.
> >
> > The glycemic index.
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2180214
> >
> > Wolever TM.
> >
> > Department of Nutritional Sciences, St. Michael's Hospital, Faculty of
> > Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
> >
> > "Different starchy foods produce different glycemic responses when fed
> > individually, and there is evidence that this also applies in the
> > context of the mixed meal. Methods of processing, and other factors
> > unrelated to the nutrient composition of foods may also have major
> > effects on the glycemic response. The reason for differences in
> > glycemic response appears to relate to the rate at which the foods are
> > digested and the many factors influencing this. The glycemic index (GI)
> > is a system of classification in which the glycemic responses of foods
> > are indexed against a standard (white bread). This allows the results
> > of different investigators to be pooled. GI values also depend upon a
> > number of nonfood-related variables. The method of calculation of the
> > glycemic response area is most important, but the method of blood
> > sampling and length of time of studies also may have effects.
> > Variability of glycemic responses arises from day-to-day variation in
> > the same subject and variation between different subjects. There is
> > less variability between the GI values of different subjects than there
> > is within the same subject from day to day. Therefore, the mean GI
> > values of foods are independent of the glucose tolerance status of the
> > subjects being tested. Potentially clinically useful starchy foods
> > producing relatively flat glycemic responses have been identified,
> > including legumes, pasta, barley, bulgur, parboiled rice and whole
> > grain breads such as pumpernickel. Specific incorporation of these
> > foods into diets have been associated with reduced blood glucose,
> > insulin, and lipid levels. Low-GI foods may influence amino acid
> > metabolism although the implications of these are unknown. In addition,
> > low GI foods increase colonic fermentation. The physiologic and
> > metabolic implications of this relate to increased bacterial urea
> > utilization, and to the production and absorption of short chain fatty
> > acids in the colon. The application of the GI to therapeutic diets
> > should be in the context of the overall nutrient composition of the
> > diet. High-fat or high-sugar foods may have a low GI, but it may not be
> > prudent to recommend these foods solely on the basis of the GI. It is
> > therefore suggested that the most appropriate use of the GI is to rank
> > the glycemic effects of starchy foods which would already have been
> > chosen for possible inclusion in the diet on the basis of their
> > nutritional attributes, i.e. low-fat, unrefined carbohydrate."
> >
> > PMID: 2180214
> > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
> > --
> > John Gohde,
> > Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
> >
> > The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
> > mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
> > Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
> > sharper terminology than ever before.
> > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mr-Natural-Health" <[email protected]> wrote:

> World Rev Nutr Diet. 1990;62:120-85.
>
> The glycemic index.
>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2180214
>
> Wolever TM.
>
> Department of Nutritional Sciences, St. Michael's Hospital, Faculty of
> Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
>
> "Different starchy foods produce different glycemic responses when fed
> individually, and there is evidence that this also applies in the
> context of the mixed meal. Methods of processing, and other factors
> unrelated to the nutrient composition of foods may also have major
> effects on the glycemic response. The reason for differences in
> glycemic response appears to relate to the rate at which the foods are
> digested and the many factors influencing this. The glycemic index (GI)
> is a system of classification in which the glycemic responses of foods
> are indexed against a standard (white bread). This allows the results
> of different investigators to be pooled. GI values also depend upon a
> number of nonfood-related variables. The method of calculation of the
> glycemic response area is most important, but the method of blood
> sampling and length of time of studies also may have effects.
> Variability of glycemic responses arises from day-to-day variation in
> the same subject and variation between different subjects. There is
> less variability between the GI values of different subjects than there
> is within the same subject from day to day. Therefore, the mean GI
> values of foods are independent of the glucose tolerance status of the
> subjects being tested. Potentially clinically useful starchy foods
> producing relatively flat glycemic responses have been identified,
> including legumes, pasta, barley, bulgur, parboiled rice and whole
> grain breads such as pumpernickel. Specific incorporation of these
> foods into diets have been associated with reduced blood glucose,
> insulin, and lipid levels. Low-GI foods may influence amino acid
> metabolism although the implications of these are unknown. In addition,
> low GI foods increase colonic fermentation. The physiologic and
> metabolic implications of this relate to increased bacterial urea
> utilization, and to the production and absorption of short chain fatty
> acids in the colon. The application of the GI to therapeutic diets
> should be in the context of the overall nutrient composition of the
> diet. High-fat or high-sugar foods may have a low GI, but it may not be
> prudent to recommend these foods solely on the basis of the GI. It is
> therefore suggested that the most appropriate use of the GI is to rank
> the glycemic effects of starchy foods which would already have been
> chosen for possible inclusion in the diet on the basis of their
> nutritional attributes, i.e. low-fat, unrefined carbohydrate."
>
> PMID: 2180214
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
> mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
> Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
> sharper terminology than ever before.
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/


Hello,
I may have kidney or liver problems as a result of taking statins. I
stopped taking statins about about a year ago since the statins caused my
creatinine level to rise above the normal limits. I can now eat most
fruits and vegatables without any problems. However, when I ate some black
beans several weeks ago, I did not urinate for about 14 hours. I drank
about 3 glasses of water during those 14 hours. I am hoping that you can
tell me the reason. My doctor told me that it may be related to the salt
content but according to the label on the can--the beans did not have any
added salt.
Thanks in advance,
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
 
> I do recall Stephen Barrett, MD taking people like you to court.

You really ARE as dumb as a post, aren't you. He is pointing out who
paid for the research and nothing more. Research does not have to be
fraudulent to be misleading. A prime example would be the plethora of
studies you've been posting to prove that whole grains are a good
thing... yet the only thing they seem to be better than is refined
wheat. I haven't seen you post a study yet that proves eating whole
grains is better than eating a non-refined food, no-grain diet.

For the record, here's a small list of how well Stephen Barrett has
done in the court room:

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm
"Quackbuster Stephen Barrett: 'Not an Expert,' Declares Judge"

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/allentownwin2.htm
"Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett loses Major Defamation trial in
Hometown"

http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/297
"Two important legal victories will doubtlessly give natural medicine a
break at last: the infamous industry front organization
"Quackwatch" had their key "expert witnesses," such as Stephen
Barret and his colleagues, totally discredited by several U.S. courts,
so they can't testify against homeopathic and naturopathic doctors
anymore."

http://www.iahf.com/antiquackbusters/20020203a.html

He's lost dozens of cases. I was looking for a specific usenet post
that listed most of them, but can't find it right now. Suffice it to
say that just because you get taken to court doesn't mean you're in the
wrong. It means someone else has too much time and money to use.

Once again your study is misleading. There, I said it. Go get your
lawyers. You're pitiful.

Max.
 
Max C. wrote:
> > I do recall Stephen Barrett, MD taking people like you to court.

>
> You really ARE as dumb as a post, aren't you. He is pointing out who
> paid for the research and nothing more. Research does not have to be
> fraudulent to be misleading. A prime example would be the plethora of
> studies you've been posting to prove that whole grains are a good
> thing... yet the only thing they seem to be better than is refined
> wheat. I haven't seen you post a study yet that proves eating whole
> grains is better than eating a non-refined food, no-grain diet.


You really ARE as dumb as a post, if you think that you are smarter
than moi. :)

YOU do NOT have a point.

TC does NOT have a point.

YOU TWO are just a bunch of whiners. :)

Between my account name, that has not changed in over 2 years, and the
fact that all my THREADS start with GRAINS A GOOD THING, if you cannot
filter my threads out than you truly are stupid.

Who says so? I do.

Just thought that the DUMB POST might want to know.


> http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm
> "Quackbuster Stephen Barrett: 'Not an Expert,' Declares Judge"
>
> http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/allentownwin2.htm
> "Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett loses Major Defamation trial in
> Hometown"
>
> http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/297
> "Two important legal victories will doubtlessly give natural medicine a
> break at last: the infamous industry front organization
> "Quackwatch" had their key "expert witnesses," such as Stephen
> Barret and his colleagues, totally discredited by several U.S. courts,
> so they can't testify against homeopathic and naturopathic doctors
> anymore."
>
> http://www.iahf.com/antiquackbusters/20020203a.html
>
> He's lost dozens of cases. I was looking for a specific usenet post
> that listed most of them, but can't find it right now. Suffice it to
> say that just because you get taken to court doesn't mean you're in the
> wrong. It means someone else has too much time and money to use.
>
> Once again your study is misleading. There, I said it. Go get your
> lawyers. You're pitiful.
>
> Max.
 
> Between my account name, that has not changed in over 2 years, and the
fact that all my THREADS start with GRAINS A GOOD THING, if you cannot
filter my threads out than you truly are stupid.

Who are you talking to? You replied to me, but you seem to be
answering someone else.. possibly even from a different thread. I
never said I couldn't find all your posts. If I actually wanted to
read all of the junk science you've posted, I would have no problem
digging up your posts.

You seem to do this a lot. When someone has made a solid argument
against a position you hold you switch horses mid-stream and attack
them for something you seem to pick out of thin air.

Me thinks all the grains are causing you mental dysfunction. Or you're
just stupid. Either way you're still pitiful.

Max.
 
On 2 Mar 2006 15:51:56 -0800, Mr-Natural-Health wrote in
<news:[email protected]> on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.paleolithic,alt.health.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.nutrition
:

> If you are suggesting that /World Rev Nutr Diet/ has published
> fraudulent research then I hope that you have a good lawyer.


I don't think company sponsored research is necessarily a fraud,
generally speaking.

Still, there are some concerns...

Wikipedia reports: "A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247
US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the NIH). Out of the
scientists questioned, 15,5% admitted to altering design, methodology
or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding
source. In a contemporary study published in the New England Journal
of Medicine, a similar proportion of the 107 medical research
institutions questioned was willing to allow pharmaceutical companies
sponsoring research to alter manuscripts according to their interests
before they were submitted for publication."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding


X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.paleolithic,alt.health.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.nutrition
 
FWIW, I think that anyone prepared to testify against homeopathic
doctors deserves a pat on the back and a knighthood.