Re: Low-Glycemic Load Diet Facilitates Weight Loss in Overweight Adultswith High Insulin Secretion

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD, Dec 10, 2005.

  1. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    > In alt.support.diabetes [email protected] wrote:
    > > http://www.docguide.com/news/conten...=FDE48C5AAAA580E785256BD5007E630B&lan=English

    >
    > > When weight loss is the goal, most diets restrict calories. It is a
    > > relatively simple concept--a person can lose weight by taking in fewer
    > > calories than he or she expends. But does it matter where the calories
    > > come from? It might, according to findings from a small study published
    > > in the December 2005 issue of the medical journal Diabetes Care.

    >
    > > Researchers at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on
    > > Aging at Tufts University discovered that a diet's overall "glycemic
    > > load" may be an important determinant of weight loss, but only for some
    > > people.

    >
    > > Senior author Susan Roberts, PhD, director of the Energy Metabolism
    > > Laboratory at the Center says, "Our results suggest that in the future
    > > there may be a way to predict who will do best on a low glycemic load
    > > diet." The key, they have found, may be in knowing a person's level of
    > > insulin secretion.

    >
    > > "Insulin is a hormone that is important in glucose (sugar) metabolism,"
    > > explains senior author Andrew Greenberg, MD, director of the Obesity
    > > and Metabolism Laboratory at the Center. "The regulation of body weight
    > > is, at least in part, influenced by how much insulin a person secretes
    > > in response to a load of glucose, as well as by how sensitive that
    > > person is to insulin's glucose-lowering effects."

    >
    > > "In our study," says first author Anastassios Pittas, MD, assistant
    > > professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, "everyone lost some
    > > weight as a result of restricting calories, but people who had high
    > > levels of insulin secretion and ate a diet with a low glycemic load
    > > lost the most weight."

    >
    > > As part of the ongoing Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of
    > > Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE) trial at Tufts, the authors studied
    > > 32 healthy overweight adults on a reduced-calorie diet for 6 months.
    > > Half of the subjects were randomly assigned to a low glycemic load
    > > diet, and the other half followed a diet with a high glycemic load.

    >
    > > "A food's glycemic load is a relative measure of how much carbohydrate
    > > is in the diet and how quickly that food is converted in the body to
    > > blood sugar. Foods with lower numbers typically have a greater
    > > proportion of protein and fat, which usually result in a smaller rise
    > > in blood glucose following a meal. Examples of low glycemic load foods
    > > include salads with oil and vinegar dressing, high fat granola cereal,
    > > and most fresh fruits and vegetables. Glycemic load may not be the
    > > 'be-all, end-all' of weight-loss diets for everyone," says Roberts, who
    > > is also a professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and
    > > Policy at Tufts, "but it significantly enhanced weight loss in our
    > > high-insulin-secreting subjects."

    >
    > > "Our findings may eventually have implications for individualizing
    > > weight-loss diets," says Roberts. "We need to confirm our results with
    > > further studies of larger groups of subjects first, but measuring
    > > insulin secretion might be a simple way to target dietary
    > > recommendations that help enhance successful weight loss." Greenberg,
    > > who is also an assistant professor at the Friedman School, notes that
    > > "only when we have completed these future studies can we determine
    > > whether these tests will be useful for making recommendations for the
    > > general public."

    >
    > That's the artificial problem they're suffering from, that they want
    > to be able to make recommendations to the general public. It may be
    > the case that the nutritional biochemistry of the general public is
    > too diverse for general recommendations to be safe enough for all.


    The concerns arise more from skepticism about efficacy rather than about
    safety.

    > For diabetics, pre-diabetics, etc. there is a simple answer to this
    > problem: get a BG meter and avoid the foods which spike your BG.


    From a cardiovascular perspective, BG spikes are not as bad as prolonged
    periods of modest BG elevations (i.e. fasting BG of 150-200 mg/dL with
    max of 250 mg/dL is less optimal than fasting BG of 100-150 mg/dL with
    max of 250 mg/dl in the form of transient post-prandial "spikes")

    > Wait a minute! That involves allowing patients to make their own
    > decisions about how to treat their illness! That's the beginning of a
    > very slippery slope involving a very important matter of medical
    > principle!


    Chris, most physicians understand their role to be that of medical
    advisors for patients so that the decision making has been the
    responsibility of each respective patient. That is certainly how the
    diabetic 2PD-OMER Approach is structured:

    http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp

    Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
    like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
    this thread here during the next on-line chat(12/15/05) from 6 to 7 pm
    EST:

    http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

    For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
    the LORD has reshaped me:

    http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

    In Christ's love always,

    Andrew
    http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
     
    Tags:


  2. In alt.support.diabetes Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >>
    >> In alt.support.diabetes [email protected] wrote:
    >> > http://www.docguide.com/news/conten...=FDE48C5AAAA580E785256BD5007E630B&lan=English


    >> > Researchers at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on
    >> > Aging at Tufts University discovered that a diet's overall "glycemic
    >> > load" may be an important determinant of weight loss, but only for some
    >> > people.

    >>
    >> > Senior author Susan Roberts, PhD, director of the Energy Metabolism
    >> > Laboratory at the Center says, "Our results suggest that in the future
    >> > there may be a way to predict who will do best on a low glycemic load
    >> > diet." The key, they have found, may be in knowing a person's level of
    >> > insulin secretion.


    [snip]

    >> > "In our study," says first author Anastassios Pittas, MD, assistant
    >> > professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, "everyone lost some
    >> > weight as a result of restricting calories, but people who had high
    >> > levels of insulin secretion and ate a diet with a low glycemic load
    >> > lost the most weight."


    [snip}

    >> > "Our findings may eventually have implications for individualizing
    >> > weight-loss diets," says Roberts. "We need to confirm our results with
    >> > further studies of larger groups of subjects first, but measuring
    >> > insulin secretion might be a simple way to target dietary
    >> > recommendations that help enhance successful weight loss." Greenberg,
    >> > who is also an assistant professor at the Friedman School, notes that
    >> > "only when we have completed these future studies can we determine
    >> > whether these tests will be useful for making recommendations for the
    >> > general public."


    >> That's the artificial problem they're suffering from, that they want
    >> to be able to make recommendations to the general public. It may be
    >> the case that the nutritional biochemistry of the general public is
    >> too diverse for general recommendations to be safe enough for all.


    > The concerns arise more from skepticism about efficacy rather than about
    > safety.


    Fair enough, but not that it still may be impossible to discover an
    efficacious recommendation to the general public, if it so happens
    that the general public consists of subgroups of people with
    considerably different kinds of nutritional biochemistry. My general
    impression from a number or recent research reports is that suggestive
    evidence is accumulating that this in fact is the case, e.g. the
    distinction between those with insulin resistance and those without.

    >> For diabetics, pre-diabetics, etc. there is a simple answer to this
    >> problem: get a BG meter and avoid the foods which spike your BG.


    > From a cardiovascular perspective, BG spikes are not as bad as prolonged
    > periods of modest BG elevations (i.e. fasting BG of 150-200 mg/dL with
    > max of 250 mg/dL is less optimal than fasting BG of 100-150 mg/dL with
    > max of 250 mg/dl in the form of transient post-prandial "spikes")


    You're quite right, but there is also accumulating suggestive evidence
    that if you want to stop the progression of diabetic complications it
    may be necessary not only to bring down prolonged modest BG
    elevations, but also transient high prost-prandial BG spikes. In other
    words, while BG spikes are not as bad as modest prolonged elevations,
    they're still bad enough to damage you, although more slowly than
    prolonged modest elevations.

    >> Wait a minute! That involves allowing patients to make their own
    >> decisions about how to treat their illness! That's the beginning of a
    >> very slippery slope involving a very important matter of medical
    >> principle!


    > Chris, most physicians understand their role to be that of medical
    > advisors for patients so that the decision making has been the
    > responsibility of each respective patient.


    I do hope so. There are certainly a lot who do. But you can't read
    this newsgroup without noticing that there is certainly a significant
    number of doctors who react with dismay to the idea that patients
    should be given some responsibility for dosage adjustment, etc.. In my
    own UK NHS experience, whenever I've changed medical group practice
    I've selected a new practice with a particularly good reputation, but
    I've nevertheless had to work my way through a few doctors before I
    found one that wasn't upset by how much I wanted to know, how much I
    did know, and how much I wanted to take my own decisions based on them
    helping me to become as fully informed as I thought necessary.

    I'm not talking about a mild reluctance. I'm talking about doctors who
    far example would refuse to tell me what my blood pressure was, and
    would simply go on insisting that all I needed to know was that it was
    "ok for my age".

    > That is certainly how the
    > diabetic 2PD-OMER Approach is structured:


    > http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp


    Yes, I would agree, and as I've posted in the past, I've discovered by
    expriment that with my typical kind of diet, 2lbs is about the
    threshold for me above which I gain weight and below which I lose it.

    I'm sure, however, that you can recall a number of doctors disagreeing
    with your diet on the grounds that a member of the public couldn't be
    trusted not to eat 2lbs of ice cream and think they were following
    your diet.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
  3. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    > In alt.support.diabetes Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > >>
    > >> In alt.support.diabetes [email protected] wrote:
    > >> > http://www.docguide.com/news/conten...=FDE48C5AAAA580E785256BD5007E630B&lan=English

    >
    > >> > Researchers at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on
    > >> > Aging at Tufts University discovered that a diet's overall "glycemic
    > >> > load" may be an important determinant of weight loss, but only for some
    > >> > people.
    > >>
    > >> > Senior author Susan Roberts, PhD, director of the Energy Metabolism
    > >> > Laboratory at the Center says, "Our results suggest that in the future
    > >> > there may be a way to predict who will do best on a low glycemic load
    > >> > diet." The key, they have found, may be in knowing a person's level of
    > >> > insulin secretion.

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > >> > "In our study," says first author Anastassios Pittas, MD, assistant
    > >> > professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, "everyone lost some
    > >> > weight as a result of restricting calories, but people who had high
    > >> > levels of insulin secretion and ate a diet with a low glycemic load
    > >> > lost the most weight."

    >
    > [snip}
    >
    > >> > "Our findings may eventually have implications for individualizing
    > >> > weight-loss diets," says Roberts. "We need to confirm our results with
    > >> > further studies of larger groups of subjects first, but measuring
    > >> > insulin secretion might be a simple way to target dietary
    > >> > recommendations that help enhance successful weight loss." Greenberg,
    > >> > who is also an assistant professor at the Friedman School, notes that
    > >> > "only when we have completed these future studies can we determine
    > >> > whether these tests will be useful for making recommendations for the
    > >> > general public."

    >
    > >> That's the artificial problem they're suffering from, that they want
    > >> to be able to make recommendations to the general public. It may be
    > >> the case that the nutritional biochemistry of the general public is
    > >> too diverse for general recommendations to be safe enough for all.

    >
    > > The concerns arise more from skepticism about efficacy rather than about
    > > safety.

    >
    > Fair enough, but not that it still may be impossible to discover an
    > efficacious recommendation to the general public, if it so happens
    > that the general public consists of subgroups of people with
    > considerably different kinds of nutritional biochemistry. My general
    > impression from a number or recent research reports is that suggestive
    > evidence is accumulating that this in fact is the case, e.g. the
    > distinction between those with insulin resistance and those without.


    Time will tell.

    > >> For diabetics, pre-diabetics, etc. there is a simple answer to this
    > >> problem: get a BG meter and avoid the foods which spike your BG.

    >
    > > From a cardiovascular perspective, BG spikes are not as bad as prolonged
    > > periods of modest BG elevations (i.e. fasting BG of 150-200 mg/dL with
    > > max of 250 mg/dL is less optimal than fasting BG of 100-150 mg/dL with
    > > max of 250 mg/dl in the form of transient post-prandial "spikes")

    >
    > You're quite right, but there is also accumulating suggestive evidence
    > that if you want to stop the progression of diabetic complications it
    > may be necessary not only to bring down prolonged modest BG
    > elevations, but also transient high prost-prandial BG spikes. In other
    > words, while BG spikes are not as bad as modest prolonged elevations,
    > they're still bad enough to damage you, although more slowly than
    > prolonged modest elevations.


    Those spikes would be addressed by lowering insulin resistance with
    weight loss +/- exercise.

    > >> Wait a minute! That involves allowing patients to make their own
    > >> decisions about how to treat their illness! That's the beginning of a
    > >> very slippery slope involving a very important matter of medical
    > >> principle!

    >
    > > Chris, most physicians understand their role to be that of medical
    > > advisors for patients so that the decision making has been the
    > > responsibility of each respective patient.

    >
    > I do hope so. There are certainly a lot who do. But you can't read
    > this newsgroup without noticing that there is certainly a significant
    > number of doctors who react with dismay to the idea that patients
    > should be given some responsibility for dosage adjustment, etc.. In my
    > own UK NHS experience, whenever I've changed medical group practice
    > I've selected a new practice with a particularly good reputation, but
    > I've nevertheless had to work my way through a few doctors before I
    > found one that wasn't upset by how much I wanted to know, how much I
    > did know, and how much I wanted to take my own decisions based on them
    > helping me to become as fully informed as I thought necessary.
    >
    > I'm not talking about a mild reluctance. I'm talking about doctors who
    > far example would refuse to tell me what my blood pressure was, and
    > would simply go on insisting that all I needed to know was that it was
    > "ok for my age".


    Sorry you have encountered those in my profession who would covet the
    LORD's power.

    > > That is certainly how the
    > > diabetic 2PD-OMER Approach is structured:

    >
    > > http://www.HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp

    >
    > Yes, I would agree, and as I've posted in the past, I've discovered by
    > expriment that with my typical kind of diet, 2lbs is about the
    > threshold for me above which I gain weight and below which I lose it.
    >
    > I'm sure, however, that you can recall a number of doctors disagreeing
    > with your diet on the grounds that a member of the public couldn't be
    > trusted not to eat 2lbs of ice cream and think they were following
    > your diet.


    Those would be the doctors that covet the LORD's power :)

    Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
    like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
    this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/22/05) from 6 to 7 pm
    EST:

    http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

    For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
    the LORD has reshaped me:

    http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

    Many Christmas blessings,

    Andrew
    http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
     
Loading...