The med. diet uses whole carb food sources as a rule, as does the dash diet and seems the direction the newer dietary guidelines likely to go. It is an intresting observation that atkins is mentioned, even though the kind of previous research on which this is based has nothing to do with him or his diet books; he did no research. It seems we are doomed to have "atkins" as a generic term whenever carbs are discussed, just as kleenex is for tissue for nose blowing. In any case, use of complex whole carb food sources provide clear support for including them in a mixed diet, in this study 69 percent was from carb sources and weight and health benefits were evident:
[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
The med. diet uses whole carb food sources as a rule, as does the dash diet and seems the direction the newer dietary guidelines likely to go. It is an intresting observation that atkins is mentioned, even though the kind of previous research on which this is based has nothing to do with him or his diet books; he did no research. It seems we are doomed to have "atkins" as a generic term whenever carbs are discussed, just as kleenex is for tissue for nose blowing. In any case, use of complex whole carb food sources provide clear support for including them in a mixed diet, in this study 69 percent was from carb sources and weight and health benefits were evident:
Again this is nothing new. Yes the low GI diet is healthier in relation to a high GI diet. That is what this study shows. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing by saying this study proves something it does not. The study does not provide "clear support" for including whole complex carbs in a mixed diet. It gives support to a low GI diet over a high GI diet. Hardly ground breaking. Why dont you admit that you view things with just as much bias and preconceived notions as the others who you accuse of the same thing. And while you are at it you can thank me for pointing this out to you so you can avoid such things in the future.
What is funny about this study is it shows directly that high GI diets lead to risk factors for heart disease and diabetes. Risk factors they have previously blamed on fats(especially saturated fat). Fat was not even a factor in this study. They unwittingly added yet more evidence against their preconceived ideas and false theories like the lipid hypothesis. Despite this they do not even consider the reality of what they have observed and what significance and impact it has on those previous assumptions. Anyone who looks at this rationally and unbiasedly can understand such significance. One can easily see that while fat was not a factor in the increased risks of disease in this study GI has always been an uncontrolled, unconsidered factor in previous studies that blamed saturated fat. Could this possibly be why there is so little relation between cholesterol and fat to disease. Could this be why their observations are always so inconsistent? Maybe if they designed real studies that could reveal deeper truths they would learn something. That would be real science as it is done in most other scientific fields.
