Protein Suppresses Hunger

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Joe the Aroma, Feb 23, 2006.

  1. ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate, according
    to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (83,
    2:211-20, 2006).

    In the single blind, crossover study, researchers administered an isocaloric
    high-protein breakfast (58.1 percent of energy from protein and 14.1 percent
    of energy from carbohydrate) or high-carbohydrate breakfast (19.3 percent of
    energy from protein and 47.3 percent of energy from carbohydrate) to15
    healthy men. Blood samples and subjective measures of satiety were assessed
    frequently for three hours after consumption. The high-protein breakfast
    decreased secretion of postprandial ghrelin (a hormone that stimulates
    hunger) more than did the high-carbohydrate breakfast. Appetite ratings were
    not significantly different between the two groups, and the high-protein
    breakfast did not significantly affect ad libitum energy intake.

    The researchers concluded the high-protein breakfast decreased postprandial
    ghrelin concentrations more strongly over time than did the high-carb
    breakfast, and noted high associations between ghrelin and glucose-dependent
    insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon suggest stimulation of these
    peptides may mediate the postprandial ghrelin response. In addition, the
    high-protein breakfast also reduced gastric emptying, probably through
    increased secretion of cholecystokinin and glucagon-like peptide 1, the
    researchers said.
     
    Tags:


  2. Star Shooter

    Star Shooter Guest

    On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:44 -0500, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    =>ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate, according
    =>to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (83,
    =>2:211-20, 2006).
    =>
    =>In the single blind, crossover study, researchers administered an isocaloric
    =>high-protein breakfast (58.1 percent of energy from protein and 14.1 percent
    =>of energy from carbohydrate)

    Should we presume the rest is Fat 100-58.1-14.1=27.8

    =>or high-carbohydrate breakfast (19.3 percent of
    =>energy from protein and 47.3 percent of energy from carbohydrate) to15

    100-19.3-47.3=33.4

    =>healthy men. Blood samples and subjective measures of satiety were assessed
    =>frequently for three hours after consumption. The high-protein breakfast
    =>decreased secretion of postprandial ghrelin (a hormone that stimulates
    =>hunger) more than did the high-carbohydrate breakfast. Appetite ratings were
    =>not significantly different between the two groups, and the high-protein
    =>breakfast did not significantly affect ad libitum energy intake.
    =>
    =>The researchers concluded the high-protein breakfast decreased postprandial
    =>ghrelin concentrations more strongly over time than did the high-carb
    =>breakfast, and noted high associations between ghrelin and glucose-dependent
    =>insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon suggest stimulation of these
    =>peptides may mediate the postprandial ghrelin response. In addition, the
    =>high-protein breakfast also reduced gastric emptying, probably through
    =>increased secretion of cholecystokinin and glucagon-like peptide 1, the
    =>researchers said.
    =>

    Since there are Fat. Protein and Carb all in the foods, we will never know
    what is what from this study.

    It would be best to test diets like this

    1. Protein only
    2. Carb only
    3. Fat only
    4. Protein+Fat
    5. Protein+Carb
    6. Carb+Fat

    Then we will really know what is what.
     
  3. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

    > ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate,


    What "charbohydrate"? Whole grains and some fruits are very satiating.
    Candies, sodas and white bread are not.

    http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php



    Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    long time. Your kidneys might complain...

    As the Harvard Public School of Health reminds us on
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html
    high-protein foods *ARE* indeed satiating, because
    "chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the
    movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach
    emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later."

    BUT
    "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    exclusion of everything else."

    X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
     
  4. zob

    zob Guest

    DUH! This is what Dr. Atkins said 30 + years ago
     
  5. zob wrote:
    >
    > DUH! This is what Dr. Atkins said 30 + years ago


    He said carbs can increase or decrease hunger depending
    on glycemic index/load and depending on a person's
    level or insulin resistance. And that protein suppresses
    hunger better than carbs. And that fat suppresses hunger
    better than either protein or carbs.

    So the next study should be holding the carb intake fixed
    and varying the fat and protein percentages to see which
    is better at suppressing hunger - protein or fat. They'll
    discover that calorie for calorie fat does it even better than
    protein. Likely because excess protein gets burned as
    fuel at around 50% conversion to carbs while fat gets
    burned as fuel at around 10% conversion to carbs.
     
  6. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

    > ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate,


    What "charbohydrate"? Whole grains and some fruits are very satiating.
    Candies, sodas and white bread are not.

    http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php



    Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    long time. Your kidneys might complain...

    As the Harvard School of Public Health reminds us on
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html
    high-protein foods *ARE* indeed satiating, because
    "chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the
    movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach
    emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later."

    BUT
    "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    exclusion of everything else."

    X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
     
  7. "Enrico C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:44 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in
    > <news:[email protected]> on
    > alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :
    >
    >> ZEIST, Netherlands--Protein is more satiating than carbohydrate,

    >
    > What "charbohydrate"? Whole grains and some fruits are very satiating.
    > Candies, sodas and white bread are not.
    >
    > http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
    >
    >
    >
    > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    > long time. Your kidneys might complain...


    No they probably won't, actually.

    > As the Harvard School of Public Health reminds us on
    > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html
    > high-protein foods *ARE* indeed satiating, because
    > "chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the
    > movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach
    > emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later."
    >
    > BUT
    > "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    > exclusion of everything else."


    Why not?
     
  8. Joe the Aroma wrote:
    > Enrico C wrote:
    >
    > > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    > > long time. Your kidneys might complain...

    >
    > No they probably won't, actually.


    In fact you can tell someone's level of ignorance about
    low carb from it. Without one single case ever of kidney
    damage from a low-carb medium-protein high-fat damage
    any mention of that means the person hasn't looked up
    their facts.

    > > BUT
    > > "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    > > exclusion of everything else."

    >
    > Why not?


    That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb
    medium/low-fat which isn't a part of current well designed low
    carb plans.

    A couple of decades ago there were plans that called for
    eating the highest protein doable and lowest carb and fat.
    Scarsdale and such. Some people actually died from doing
    those plans. Going extremely high protein without either
    complementing fat or carbs does become harmfull. The
    low carb side stresses that protein complemented with fat
    works great. The low fat side stresses that protein
    complemented with carb works great. Both sides are
    correct in their own way.

    It isn't a good idea to go overboard in any of the three main
    macronutrients to the exclusion of all the others. A 90%
    protein diet is bad. So is a 90% carb diet or a 90% fat
    diet.
     
  9. "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Joe the Aroma wrote:
    >> Enrico C wrote:
    >>
    >> > Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    >> > long time. Your kidneys might complain...

    >>
    >> No they probably won't, actually.

    >
    > In fact you can tell someone's level of ignorance about
    > low carb from it. Without one single case ever of kidney
    > damage from a low-carb medium-protein high-fat damage
    > any mention of that means the person hasn't looked up
    > their facts.
    >
    >> > BUT
    >> > "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    >> > exclusion of everything else."

    >>
    >> Why not?

    >
    > That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb
    > medium/low-fat which isn't a part of current well designed low
    > carb plans.


    Well, protein power emphasizes lean protein. I do that too, dunno how much
    fat I'm eating, except that I try to eat the leaner proteins. And I lose
    more weight than doing full fat protein.

    > A couple of decades ago there were plans that called for
    > eating the highest protein doable and lowest carb and fat.
    > Scarsdale and such. Some people actually died from doing
    > those plans. Going extremely high protein without either
    > complementing fat or carbs does become harmfull. The
    > low carb side stresses that protein complemented with fat
    > works great. The low fat side stresses that protein
    > complemented with carb works great. Both sides are
    > correct in their own way.


    I think you might be talking about the Last Chance diet, which was
    essentially a fast with about 400 calories of a low quality protein.

    > It isn't a good idea to go overboard in any of the three main
    > macronutrients to the exclusion of all the others. A 90%
    > protein diet is bad. So is a 90% carb diet or a 90% fat
    > diet.


    Of course you're right. I just try to do lean protein and veggies at most
    meals.
     
  10. Joe the Aroma wrote:
    > Doug Freyburger wrote:
    > > Joe the Aroma wrote:
    > >> Enrico C wrote:

    >
    > >> > BUT
    > >> > "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    > >> > exclusion of everything else."

    >
    > >> Why not?

    >
    > > That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb
    > > medium/low-fat which isn't a part of current well designed low
    > > carb plans.

    >
    > Well, protein power emphasizes lean protein. I do that too, dunno how much
    > fat I'm eating, except that I try to eat the leaner proteins. And I lose
    > more weight than doing full fat protein.


    PP teaches you your minimum grams of daily protein.
    Mine is 77. It does not encourage eating far beyond that
    personalized amount. And so I suggest that if you think
    PP says you should go overboard on protein I suggest
    you missed some of what it was trying to teach. Also
    PP gives quite generous carb counts and that too is not
    the same as eating protein to the exclusion of all else.
    I think the PP plan is a good counterexample of EC's
    comment.

    > I just try to do lean protein and veggies at most meals.


    Isn't it grand that a system so simple and easy works so
    well for both loss and health.
     
  11. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

    > Joe the Aroma wrote:
    >> Enrico C wrote:
    >>
    >>> Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    >>> long time. Your kidneys might complain...


    >> No they probably won't, actually.


    "Probably".


    > In fact you can tell someone's level of ignorance about
    > low carb from it.


    From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said "probably"
    not. We are speaking of probabilities.
    Do you know *for sure* your kidneys will be fine?


    > Without one single case ever of kidney
    > damage from a low-carb medium-protein high-fat damage
    > any mention of that means the person hasn't looked up
    > their facts.



    http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/conten...&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B59

    Journal of Nutrition. 2000;130:886-889.)

    Metabolic Consequences of a High Dietary-Protein Intake in Adulthood:
    Assessment of the Available Evidence

    Cornelia C. Metges1 and Christian A. Barth

    [...] "In a 50- to 75- y-old Caucasian population, a daily increment
    of 0.1 g protein · kg-1 was associated with an increased risk for
    microalbuminuria, which is a predictor of renal and cardiovascular
    disease (Hoogeveen et al. 1998 ). "
    [...] "It has been reported that a chronic high-protein intake is
    associated with a range of functional and morphological changes such
    as increased urinary nitrogen excretion, vasopressin plasma levels,
    creatinine clearance, glomerular filtration rate, kidney hypertrophy,
    renal hemodynamics and eicosanoid production in renal tubules (Bankir
    and Kriz 1995 , Brändle et al. 1996 , Yanagisawa and Wadi 1998 ). In
    addition, increased risk of renal cell cancer has been linked to
    high-protein intake (Chow et al. 1994 ) (Table 1) , while among white
    males with indicators of kidney disease an increased relative risk of
    total mortality with an additional 15 g of protein per day [1.25; 95%
    confidence interval (CI) = 1.09, 1.42] was observed (Dwyer et al.
    1994 ). Patients with moderate renal insufficiency benefit from a
    low-protein diet by slowing the deterioration of renal functions
    (Klahr et al. 1994 , Maroni and Mitch 1997 ). In addition,
    epidemiological evidence suggests a relationship between high-protein
    intake and prostate cancer (Vlajinac et al. 1997 ) (Table 1) ."
    [...]
    A further indication that the high intake of protein may have adverse
    effects can be taken from studies investigating lifestyle changes
    (i.e., adopting Westernized dietary habits) in Japanese men and
    schoolchildren. A higher incidence of noninsulin-dependent diabetes
    (NIDDM) correlated with increased animal protein and animal fat
    intakes while total energy intake was not different from controls
    (Kitagawa et al. 1998, Tsunehara et al. 1990 ).



    http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content-nw/full/130/4/886/T1

    Table 1. Undesirable metabolic effects of high dietary-protein intakes
    in adult humans: experimental and epidemiological evidence
    [...]


    [...]

    > It isn't a good idea to go overboard in any of the three main
    > macronutrients to the exclusion of all the others.


    That's it.

    > A 90%
    > protein diet is bad. So is a 90% carb diet or a 90% fat
    > diet.


    I guess the same can be said about a 70% carb, protein or fat diet.

    X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
     
  12. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
    <news:1140806087.394945.3572[email protected]> on
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

    >>> BUT
    >>> "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    >>> exclusion of everything else."

    >>
    >> Why not?

    >
    > That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb
    > medium/low-fat


    Actually, it discusses "high-protein, low-carb diets", compared to
    "low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets".


    May as it be, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets:

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html
    Some popular diets, particularly the Atkins diet, treat carbohydrates
    as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight. While
    there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people
    lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet (12, 13), no one knows
    the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates. Equally
    worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets.

    If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits,
    vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day. They contain a
    host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are
    essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement
    bottle.

    ===



    X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition

    --
     
  13. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
    <news:1140806[email protected]> on
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

    >>> BUT
    >>> "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    >>> exclusion of everything else."

    >>
    >> Why not?

    >
    > That's a different topic since it discusses high-protein low-carb
    > medium/low-fat


    Actually, it discusses "high-protein, low-carb diets", compared to
    "low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets".


    Be as it may, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets:

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html
    Some popular diets, particularly the Atkins diet, treat carbohydrates
    as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight. While
    there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people
    lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet (12, 13), no one knows
    the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates. Equally
    worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets.

    If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits,
    vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day. They contain a
    host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are
    essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement
    bottle.

    ===

    X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
     
  14. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >Appetite ratings were
    >not significantly different between the two groups, and the high-protein
    >breakfast did not significantly affect ad libitum energy intake.

    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  15. Enrico C wrote:
    >
    > Be as it may, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets:
    >
    > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html
    > Some popular diets, particularly the Atkins diet, treat carbohydrates
    > as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight.


    In other words Harvard hasn't read the book or can't read the
    book. Got it. Folks write all sorts of clueless stuff about Atkins,
    especially folks who can't be bothered to actually read any of
    those nasty book things. I don't normally think of such folks
    being at Harvard. That bit came as a disappointment.

    Atkins teaches that carbs are a tool to be used to control
    stored body fat. Very much not the same thing as calling
    carbs evil. If you actually read the book, that is. Funny how
    folks with bad stuff to say about Atkins never seem to actually
    read the book and never actually seem to know what's in
    them.

    > While
    > there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people
    > lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet (12, 13), no one knows
    > the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates.


    What with Eskimos and such never having gotten any study
    whatsoever. Uhm, okay, here's another example of someone
    having a problem reading those nasty book things.

    > Equally
    > worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets.


    Finally undergoing studies that don't compare high carb
    eating plans against high carb eating plans. We are currently
    seeing the results flow in on that. Guess what, those fats
    aren't actually unhelathy when not mixed with a high carb
    eating plan.

    > If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits,
    > vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day.


    You were doing great up until you included the grains.

    > They contain a
    > host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are
    > essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement
    > bottle.


    Grains don't have anything that aren't found in veggies.

    Suggesting that grains are automatically healthy is like
    suggesting that dairy is automatically healthy. There are
    plenty of people who have problems with grain and/or
    dairy. I've yet to encounter anyone who has problems with
    brocolli, but I figure I just might someday. For comparison
    I know a fair number of folks with grain oriented problems.
     
  16. Enrico C wrote:
    > Doug Freyburger wrote:
    > > Joe the Aroma wrote:
    > >> Enrico C wrote:

    >
    > >>> Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    > >>> long time. Your kidneys might complain...

    >
    > >> No they probably won't, actually.

    >
    > "Probably".
    >
    > > In fact you can tell someone's level of ignorance about
    > > low carb from it.

    >
    > From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said "probably"
    > not. We are speaking of probabilities.


    And the probability from following Atkins is zero.

    > Do you know *for sure* your kidneys will be fine?


    Certainly. Over 30 years without a single case.

    > > Without one single case ever of kidney
    > > damage from a low-carb medium-protein high-fat damage
    > > any mention of that means the person hasn't looked up
    > > their facts.

    >
    > http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/conten...&sortspec=relevance&journalcode=nutrition#B59
    >
    > Journal of Nutrition. 2000;130:886-889.)
    >
    > Metabolic Consequences of a High Dietary-Protein Intake in Adulthood:
    > Assessment of the Available Evidence


    Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that study is not relevant to
    Atkins.
    But thanks for playing. It's an okay warning against people who can't
    be bothered to actually read the book and end up not following the
    directions, though.

    > http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content-nw/full/130/4/886/T1
    >
    > Table 1. Undesirable metabolic effects of high dietary-protein intakes
    > in adult humans: experimental and epidemiological evidence


    Second study, same comment about it not applying.
     
  17. Star Shooter

    Star Shooter Guest

    On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:07:32 +0100, Enrico C
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    =>Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    =>long time. Your kidneys might complain...
    =>
    =>As the Harvard Public School of Health reminds us on
    =>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html
    =>high-protein foods *ARE* indeed satiating, because
    =>"chicken, beef, fish, beans, or other high-protein foods slow the
    =>movement of food from the stomach to the intestine. Slower stomach
    =>emptying means you feel full for longer and get hungrier later."
    =>
    =>BUT
    =>"There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    =>exclusion of everything else."
    =>
    =>X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition

    Try a chicken noodle soup with chicken breast and try chicken noodle soup with
    chicken breast and 3 to 4 tbs of vegetable oil in another day.

    If you are in low carb, you can try
    Chicken breast vegetable soup.
    Chicken breast vegetable soup with 3 to 4 tbs sun flower seed oil(or your
    favorite veg oil) in another day.

    One half chicken breast should be enough(one day's need of protein) for an
    adult around 200lbs.

    You should be able to tell the difference between the one with oil and the one
    w/o oil.

    Conclusion, protein along just can not make it. Fat is an important element in
    any diet, so as Vitamins/Mineral complex pill and fiber and water.
     
  18. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 25 Feb 2006 14:47:42 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

    [...]
    > Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that study is not relevant to
    > Atkins.



    Did I mention Atkins in my first post?
    I don't think so.

    Here's what I wrote:

    | Anyway, the problem with protein is you can't eat lots and lots for a
    | long time. Your kidneys might complain...

    and here's what I reported from the Harvard web site:

    | "There's no need to go overboard on protein and eat it to the
    | exclusion of everything else."

    Did you notice that the subject of this thread is about "protein",
    BTW?

    So, that study *is* relevant.



    >> Table 1. Undesirable metabolic effects of high dietary-protein intakes
    >> in adult humans: experimental and epidemiological evidence

    >
    > Second study, same comment about it not applying.


    Not "second study". Table 1 of the same study.

    X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
     
  19. Enrico C <[email protected]> writes:

    > From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said
    > "probably" not. We are speaking of probabilities. Do you know *for
    > sure* your kidneys will be fine?


    Just as sure as I know I won't be struck by lightning today because
    the sky is clear.

    Besides, since when is 'might' a basis for an argument? You might
    kill someone some day; should we go ahead and lock you up now to
    prevent it? 'Might' without some numbers behind it isn't
    probabilities; it's politics.


    --
    Aaron -- [email protected] -- 285/245/200
    http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher
     
  20. Enrico C

    Enrico C Guest

    On 25 Feb 2006 14:33:59 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
    <news:[email protected]> on
    alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

    > Enrico C wrote:
    >>
    >> Be as it may, here is what Harvard says about Atkins-like diets:
    >>
    >> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html
    >> Some popular diets, particularly the Atkins diet, treat carbohydrates
    >> as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight.

    >
    > In other words Harvard hasn't read the book or can't read the
    > book. Got it. Folks write all sorts of clueless stuff about Atkins,


    For starters, let me point out that the study discussed in the
    original post was about "high-protein vs high-carbohydrate", not about
    Atkins, which is neither high-protein nor high-carb, AFAIK.

    Then, in this sub-thread, we moved to discussing Atkins, and Harvard
    point of view on the Atkins diet.

    I thus think we had better change the subject consequently.


    > especially folks who can't be bothered to actually read any of
    > those nasty book things. I don't normally think of such folks
    > being at Harvard. That bit came as a disappointment.


    > Atkins teaches that carbs are a tool to be used to control
    > stored body fat. Very much not the same thing as calling
    > carbs evil.


    I see your point. Still, don't you think many Atkins followers just
    think of carbs as "evil"?


    > If you actually read the book, that is. Funny how
    > folks with bad stuff to say about Atkins never seem to actually
    > read the book and never actually seem to know what's in
    > them.
    >
    >> While
    >> there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people
    >> lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet (12, 13), no one knows
    >> the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates.

    >
    > What with Eskimos


    Good point. Even if Eskimos are not known for longevity, indeed it's
    remarkable how man can live on completely different diets and adapt to
    hostile environments.
    I doubt there is one single diet definitely better or healthier than
    any other, or ideal for everyone and any environment.


    > and such never having gotten any study
    > whatsoever. Uhm, okay, here's another example of someone
    > having a problem reading those nasty book things.



    >> Equally
    >> worrisome is the inclusion of unhealthy fats in some of these diets.

    >
    > Finally undergoing studies that don't compare high carb
    > eating plans against high carb eating plans. We are currently
    > seeing the results flow in on that. Guess what, those fats
    > aren't actually unhelathy when not mixed with a high carb
    > eating plan.


    I tend to agree with you in that there isn't such a thing as
    "unhealthy" natural fat. Any food can be "healthy" or "unhealthy"
    depending on quantities. In my view, people should rather focus on the
    diet as a whole and on exercise.


    >> If you want to go the lower carb route, try to include some fruits,
    >> vegetables, and whole-grain carbohydrates every day.

    >
    > You were doing great up until you included the grains.


    Harvard did. Whole grains and plant oils are at the base of their food
    pyramid.
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html


    >> They contain a
    >> host of vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients that are
    >> essential for good health and that you can't get out of a supplement
    >> bottle.

    >
    > Grains don't have anything that aren't found in veggies.
    >
    > Suggesting that grains are automatically healthy is like
    > suggesting that dairy is automatically healthy. There are
    > plenty of people who have problems with grain and/or
    > dairy. I've yet to encounter anyone who has problems with
    > brocolli, but I figure I just might someday. For comparison
    > I know a fair number of folks with grain oriented problems.



    If you have specific problems with some foods, be it wheat or milk,
    that's a different kettle of fish.

    X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
     
Loading...