General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

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

Started by Mr-Natural-Health · · Last activity · 9 posts · 689 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
2 March 2006
Last activity
3 March 2006
Original author
Mr-Natural-Health
Posts
9
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
689
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–9 of 9
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. 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/

  2. 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 said:

    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/

  3. TC said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:


    Mr-Natural-Health said:

    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/

  4. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Mr-Natural-Health said:

    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

    Quoted message said:


    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.

  5. Quoted message said:

    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.

  6. Max C. said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

  7. Quoted message said:

    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.

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

    Quoted message said:

    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

  9. FWIW, I think that anyone prepared to testify against homeopathic
    doctors deserves a pat on the back and a knighthood.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.