Protein Suppresses Hunger



J

Joe the Aroma

Guest
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
"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?
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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
 
On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
<news:[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

--
 
On 24 Feb 2006 10:34:47 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
<news:[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
 
"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]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back