410 replies to this topic

[Dmitri]

My diet is low in fat which is likely the reason why I'm not fat.

Rephrase plz, this is a thread about ketogenic diets

That's my assumption, I know people here adhere to a low carb, high fat diet.

[Dmitri]

Not sure I believe this; there are studies that show eating whole grains (carbs) can reduce the chance of getting diabetes, cancer and cholesterol so how can they be the cause of disease?

A study is only as good as its design. Look at what they were compared against, as well as the critique of epidemiology itself.

I couldn't find the complete articles so I don't know what the specific diets of the people in the macrobiotics studies were; though we can assume they were high in carb since the diet consists of 50-60% whole grains.

Anyway, aren't AGEs a problem with a ketogenic diet? At least some members here claim that if you eat meat it should be raw because cooking creates AGEs, do ketogenic people consume raw meat? Carbs seem to produce the least amount of AGEs from cooking (according to kismit who posted this on the Madonna thread), while fats and proteins are most prone to AGE formation.

Edited by Dmitri, 13 October 2008 - 06:41 PM.

[Matt]

I count calories every day, and the only consistent thing I've seen is that calories account for changes in weight. Fat/catb/protein percentages made zero difference.

Lets not forget that even though people have been saying go low fat for decades now, this is NOT what people have actually done. Maybe I'm behind on my knowledge here, but isn't fat intake about the SAME now as it was 5, 10 years + years ago, it's just that carb intake have increased, lowering the 'tpercentage' of calories coming from fat.

By the way, I personally follow a more Zone like diet at the moment.

and lets not forget the Biosphere two study

Calorie Restriction in Biosphere 2
Alterations in Physiologic, Hematologic, Hormonal, and Biochemical Parameters in Humans Restricted for a 2-Year Period

Four female and four male crew members, including two of the present authors (R. Walford and T. MacCallum)—seven of the crew being ages 27 to 42 years, and one aged 67 years—were sealed inside Biosphere 2 for two years. During seven eighths of that period they consumed a low-calorie (1750–2100 kcal/d) nutrient-dense diet of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and legumes, with small amounts of dairy, eggs, and meat (~12% calories from protein, ~11% from fat, and ~77% from complex carbohydrates). They experienced a marked and sustained weight loss of 17 ± 5%, mostly in the first 8 months. Blood was drawn before entry into Biosphere 2, at many time-points inside it, and four times during the 30 months following exit from it and return to an ad libitum diet. Longitudinal studies of 50 variables on each crew member compared outside and inside values by means of a Bayesian statistical analysis. The data show that physiologic (e.g., body mass index, with a decrease of 19% for men and 13% for women; blood pressure, with a systolic decrease of 25% and a diastolic decrease of 22%), hematologic (e.g., white blood cell count, decreased 31%), hormonal (e.g., insulin, decreased 42%; T3, decreased 19%), biochemical (e.g., blood sugar, decreased 21%; cholesterol, decreased 30%), and a number of additional changes, including values for rT3, cortisol, glycated hemaglobin, plus others, resembled those of rodents or monkeys maintained on a calorie-restricted regime. Significant variations in several substances not hitherto studied in calorie-restricted animals are also reported (e.g., androstenedione, thyroid binding globulin, renin, and transferrin). We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years.

Edited by Matt, 14 October 2008 - 01:32 AM.

[Dmitri]

I count calories every day, and the only consistent thing I've seen is that calories account for changes in weight. Fat/catb/protein percentages made zero difference.

Lets not forget that even though people have been saying go low fat for decades now, this is NOT what people have actually done. Maybe I'm behind on my knowledge here, but isn't fat intake about the SAME now as it was 5, 10 years + years ago, it's just that carb intake have increased, lowering the 'tpercentage' of calories coming from fat.

By the way, I personally follow a more Zone like diet at the moment.

and lets not forget the Biosphere two study

Calorie Restriction in Biosphere 2
Alterations in Physiologic, Hematologic, Hormonal, and Biochemical Parameters in Humans Restricted for a 2-Year Period

Four female and four male crew members, including two of the present authors (R. Walford and T. MacCallum)—seven of the crew being ages 27 to 42 years, and one aged 67 years—were sealed inside Biosphere 2 for two years. During seven eighths of that period they consumed a low-calorie (1750–2100 kcal/d) nutrient-dense diet of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and legumes, with small amounts of dairy, eggs, and meat (~12% calories from protein, ~11% from fat, and ~77% from complex carbohydrates). They experienced a marked and sustained weight loss of 17 ± 5%, mostly in the first 8 months. Blood was drawn before entry into Biosphere 2, at many time-points inside it, and four times during the 30 months following exit from it and return to an ad libitum diet. Longitudinal studies of 50 variables on each crew member compared outside and inside values by means of a Bayesian statistical analysis. The data show that physiologic (e.g., body mass index, with a decrease of 19% for men and 13% for women; blood pressure, with a systolic decrease of 25% and a diastolic decrease of 22%), hematologic (e.g., white blood cell count, decreased 31%), hormonal (e.g., insulin, decreased 42%; T3, decreased 19%), biochemical (e.g., blood sugar, decreased 21%; cholesterol, decreased 30%), and a number of additional changes, including values for rT3, cortisol, glycated hemaglobin, plus others, resembled those of rodents or monkeys maintained on a calorie-restricted regime. Significant variations in several substances not hitherto studied in calorie-restricted animals are also reported (e.g., androstenedione, thyroid binding globulin, renin, and transferrin). We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years.

Interesting study it appears to contradict Ketogenics claim that carbs are the cause of obesity and disease. I had also posted studies that showed Whole grain diets promoted good health, but they were ignored or didn't convince (Sheppard). We'll see what the members here have to say about your abstract which has a more detailed diet.

[Shepard]

I had also posted studies that showed Whole grain diets promoted good health, but they were ignored or didn't convince (Sheppard).

You have to realize that a study can be conducted that shows basically anything can improve health. It doesn't say anything about optimal health. And when they don't control for Calories, it all goes out the window.

[Shepard]

Anyway, aren't AGEs a problem with a ketogenic diet? At least some members here claim that if you eat meat it should be raw because cooking creates AGEs, do ketogenic people consume raw meat? Carbs seem to produce the least amount of AGEs from cooking (according to kismit who posted this on the Madonna thread), while fats and proteins are most prone to AGE formation.

A ketogenic diet doesn't necessarily include a lot of meat, and neither is it necessarily high in protein. That said, Atkins dieters have shown higher methylglyoxal levels, which I've yet to see a strong dismissal of from the low-carb "gurus". And, you've got the potential for higher ALEs, depending on fat source.

Bottom line: Any diet can kill you if you nit-pick enough with basic outlines (low-carb, low-fat, etc.). It's the layer under that that really shows the quality of a diet.

[Matt]

Biosphere 2002 study
http://www.matthewla...osphere2002.pdf

Edited by Matt, 14 October 2008 - 02:16 AM.

[edward]

I count calories every day, and the only consistent thing I've seen is that calories account for changes in weight. Fat/catb/protein percentages made zero difference.

Lets not forget that even though people have been saying go low fat for decades now, this is NOT what people have actually done. Maybe I'm behind on my knowledge here, but isn't fat intake about the SAME now as it was 5, 10 years + years ago, it's just that carb intake have increased, lowering the 'tpercentage' of calories coming from fat.

By the way, I personally follow a more Zone like diet at the moment.

and lets not forget the Biosphere two study

Calorie Restriction in Biosphere 2
Alterations in Physiologic, Hematologic, Hormonal, and Biochemical Parameters in Humans Restricted for a 2-Year Period

Four female and four male crew members, including two of the present authors (R. Walford and T. MacCallum)—seven of the crew being ages 27 to 42 years, and one aged 67 years—were sealed inside Biosphere 2 for two years. During seven eighths of that period they consumed a low-calorie (1750–2100 kcal/d) nutrient-dense diet of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and legumes, with small amounts of dairy, eggs, and meat (~12% calories from protein, ~11% from fat, and ~77% from complex carbohydrates). They experienced a marked and sustained weight loss of 17 ± 5%, mostly in the first 8 months. Blood was drawn before entry into Biosphere 2, at many time-points inside it, and four times during the 30 months following exit from it and return to an ad libitum diet. Longitudinal studies of 50 variables on each crew member compared outside and inside values by means of a Bayesian statistical analysis. The data show that physiologic (e.g., body mass index, with a decrease of 19% for men and 13% for women; blood pressure, with a systolic decrease of 25% and a diastolic decrease of 22%), hematologic (e.g., white blood cell count, decreased 31%), hormonal (e.g., insulin, decreased 42%; T3, decreased 19%), biochemical (e.g., blood sugar, decreased 21%; cholesterol, decreased 30%), and a number of additional changes, including values for rT3, cortisol, glycated hemaglobin, plus others, resembled those of rodents or monkeys maintained on a calorie-restricted regime. Significant variations in several substances not hitherto studied in calorie-restricted animals are also reported (e.g., androstenedione, thyroid binding globulin, renin, and transferrin). We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years.

Interesting study it appears to contradict Ketogenics claim that carbs are the cause of obesity and disease. I had also posted studies that showed Whole grain diets promoted good health, but they were ignored or didn't convince (Sheppard). We'll see what the members here have to say about your abstract which has a more detailed diet.

Of course if you are Calorie Restricted to an appropriate level it doesn't matter what your macronutrient profile is so long as you have enough protein and EFAs to meet your bodies needs. I think we can all agree that a CRON diet is the best diet for longevity and I personally would be doing it if I wasn't so vain (ie I like my muscle tissue and my athletic ability). If you aren't going to go CR though then controlling carbs in some way has got to be a part of your health plan whether its eliminating refined sugars, processed carbs, high GI carbs not a part of a mixed meal with fats and proteins, offensive grains, carb only snacks not related to pre workout, during or post workout, etc etc. You don't have to go keto but it sure is easier if you do.

[Dmitri]

I count calories every day, and the only consistent thing I've seen is that calories account for changes in weight. Fat/catb/protein percentages made zero difference.

Lets not forget that even though people have been saying go low fat for decades now, this is NOT what people have actually done. Maybe I'm behind on my knowledge here, but isn't fat intake about the SAME now as it was 5, 10 years + years ago, it's just that carb intake have increased, lowering the 'tpercentage' of calories coming from fat.

By the way, I personally follow a more Zone like diet at the moment.

and lets not forget the Biosphere two study

Calorie Restriction in Biosphere 2
Alterations in Physiologic, Hematologic, Hormonal, and Biochemical Parameters in Humans Restricted for a 2-Year Period

Four female and four male crew members, including two of the present authors (R. Walford and T. MacCallum)—seven of the crew being ages 27 to 42 years, and one aged 67 years—were sealed inside Biosphere 2 for two years. During seven eighths of that period they consumed a low-calorie (1750–2100 kcal/d) nutrient-dense diet of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and legumes, with small amounts of dairy, eggs, and meat (~12% calories from protein, ~11% from fat, and ~77% from complex carbohydrates). They experienced a marked and sustained weight loss of 17 ± 5%, mostly in the first 8 months. Blood was drawn before entry into Biosphere 2, at many time-points inside it, and four times during the 30 months following exit from it and return to an ad libitum diet. Longitudinal studies of 50 variables on each crew member compared outside and inside values by means of a Bayesian statistical analysis. The data show that physiologic (e.g., body mass index, with a decrease of 19% for men and 13% for women; blood pressure, with a systolic decrease of 25% and a diastolic decrease of 22%), hematologic (e.g., white blood cell count, decreased 31%), hormonal (e.g., insulin, decreased 42%; T3, decreased 19%), biochemical (e.g., blood sugar, decreased 21%; cholesterol, decreased 30%), and a number of additional changes, including values for rT3, cortisol, glycated hemaglobin, plus others, resembled those of rodents or monkeys maintained on a calorie-restricted regime. Significant variations in several substances not hitherto studied in calorie-restricted animals are also reported (e.g., androstenedione, thyroid binding globulin, renin, and transferrin). We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years.

Interesting study it appears to contradict Ketogenics claim that carbs are the cause of obesity and disease. I had also posted studies that showed Whole grain diets promoted good health, but they were ignored or didn't convince (Sheppard). We'll see what the members here have to say about your abstract which has a more detailed diet.

Of course if you are Calorie Restricted to an appropriate level it doesn't matter what your macronutrient profile is so long as you have enough protein and EFAs to meet your bodies needs. I think we can all agree that a CRON diet is the best diet for longevity and I personally would be doing it if I wasn't so vain (ie I like my muscle tissue and my athletic ability). If you aren't going to go CR though then controlling carbs in some way has got to be a part of your health plan whether its eliminating refined sugars, processed carbs, high GI carbs not a part of a mixed meal with fats and proteins, offensive grains, carb only snacks not related to pre workout, during or post workout, etc etc. You don't have to go keto but it sure is easier if you do.

Like I mentioned before the carbs I consume consist of: brown rice, rolled oats (oatmeal), 100% whole grain pasta(once a week or every two weeks), 100% whole wheat and rye bread(twice a week), corn, rice milk (made from brown rice), 100 % multi-grain vegan waffles (free of dairy, eggs and preservatives), fruits, vegetables, pinto beans and lentils.

Should I also limit these carbs (excluding the vegetables which are part of every healthy diet)? A lot of those foods are also rich in antioxidants which is why I was consuming them. Also, what is the Optimum glucose serum level? According to doctors normal is 65-99 mg/dL (below 60 is not good and referred to as hypoglycemia), but from a life extension perspective what would be the best level to maintain? A blood test I performed 3 weeks ago showed my level to be 81 mg/dL is that good from a LE perspective?

[DukeNukem]

>>> Should I also limit these carbs (excluding the vegetables which are part of every healthy diet)?

Want to really improve your health? Try this: Eliminate all wheat and corn carbs (or foods containing them) or any processed version of these two grains. Whole wheat, included. Wheat and corn are evil -- eliminate them and 98% of the population's health will dramatically improve. You'll also lose a LOT of bodyfat quite rapidly.

[Dmitri]

>>> Should I also limit these carbs (excluding the vegetables which are part of every healthy diet)?

Want to really improve your health? Try this: Eliminate all wheat and corn carbs (or foods containing them) or any processed version of these two grains. Whole wheat, included. Wheat and corn are evil -- eliminate them and 98% of the population's health will dramatically improve. You'll also lose a LOT of bodyfat quite rapidly.

Corn is bad? I thought it was healthy considering it has more than twice the antioxidant content of broccoli and spinach and it’s also high in fiber; I guess I'll have to limit corn now. Anyway, are my glucose levels fine?

[frederickson]

>>> Should I also limit these carbs (excluding the vegetables which are part of every healthy diet)?

Want to really improve your health? Try this: Eliminate all wheat and corn carbs (or foods containing them) or any processed version of these two grains. Whole wheat, included. Wheat and corn are evil -- eliminate them and 98% of the population's health will dramatically improve. You'll also lose a LOT of bodyfat quite rapidly.

Corn is bad? I thought it was healthy considering it has more than twice the antioxidant content of broccoli and spinach and it’s also high in fiber; I guess I'll have to limit corn now. Anyway, are my glucose levels fine?

i agree with duke here... wheat, corn, and most grains are deleterious to many people. i would try to drop (or at least reduce) those, definitely keep the non-starchy veggies, some fruits (berries especially), and potentially some legumes as they are pretty nutrient dense (at least as far as starchy foods go).

i don't know where you saw that corn has twice the antioxidant content of brocolli and spinach. i am pretty sure brocolli and spinach have a considerably higher orac score, and are healthier in pretty much every way imaginable.

[Dmitri]

>>> Should I also limit these carbs (excluding the vegetables which are part of every healthy diet)?

Want to really improve your health? Try this: Eliminate all wheat and corn carbs (or foods containing them) or any processed version of these two grains. Whole wheat, included. Wheat and corn are evil -- eliminate them and 98% of the population's health will dramatically improve. You'll also lose a LOT of bodyfat quite rapidly.

Corn is bad? I thought it was healthy considering it has more than twice the antioxidant content of broccoli and spinach and it's also high in fiber; I guess I'll have to limit corn now. Anyway, are my glucose levels fine?

i agree with duke here... wheat, corn, and most grains are deleterious to many people. i would try to drop (or at least reduce) those, definitely keep the non-starchy veggies, some fruits (berries especially), and potentially some legumes as they are pretty nutrient dense (at least as far as starchy foods go).

i don't know where you saw that corn has twice the antioxidant content of brocolli and spinach. i am pretty sure brocolli and spinach have a considerably higher orac score, and are healthier in pretty much every way imaginable.

The article below mentions Corn having more antioxidants:

http://www.whfoods.c...f...ce&dbid=128
Phytonutrients with Health-Promoting Activity Equal to or Even Higher than that of Vegetables and Fruits

Research reported at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) International Conference on Food, Nutrition and Cancer, by Rui Hai Liu, M.D., Ph.D., and his colleagues at Cornell University shows that whole grains, such as rice, contain many powerful phytonutrients whose activity has gone unrecognized because research methods have overlooked them.

Despite the fact that for years researchers have been measuring the antioxidant power of a wide array of phytonutrients, they have typically measured only the "free" forms of these substances, which dissolve quickly and are immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. They have not looked at the "bound" forms, which are attached to the walls of plant cells and must be released by intestinal bacteria during digestion before they can be absorbed.

Phenolics, powerful antioxidants that work in multiple ways to prevent disease, are one major class of phytonutrients that have been widely studied. Included in this broad category are such compounds as quercetin, curcumin, ellagic acid, catechins, and many others that appear frequently in the health news.

When Dr. Liu and his colleagues measured the relative amounts of phenolics, and whether they were present in bound or free form, in common fruits and vegetables like apples, red grapes, broccoli and spinach, they found that phenolics in the "free" form averaged 76% of the total number of phenolics in these foods. In whole grains, however, "free" phenolics accounted for less than 1% of the total, while the remaining 99% were in "bound" form.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that because researchers have examined whole grains with the same process used to measure antioxidants in vegetables and fruits-looking for their content of "free" phenolics"-the amount and activity of antioxidants in whole grains has been vastly underestimated.

Despite the differences in fruits', vegetables' and whole grains' content of "free" and "bound" phenolics, the total antioxidant activity in all three types of whole foods is similar, according to Dr. Liu's research. His team measured the antioxidant activity of various foods, assigning each a rating based on a formula (micromoles of vitamin C equivalent per gram). Broccoli and spinach measured 80 and 81, respectively; apple and banana measured 98 and 65; and of the whole grains tested, corn measured 181, whole wheat 77, oats 75, and brown rice 56. Dr. Liu's findings may help explain why studies have shown that populations eating diets high in fiber-rich whole grains consistently have lower risk for colon cancer, yet short-term clinical trials that have focused on fiber alone in lowering colon cancer risk, often to the point of giving subjects isolated fiber supplements, yield inconsistent results. The explanation is most likely that these studies have not taken into account the interactive effects of all the nutrients in whole grains-not just their fiber, but also their many phytonutrients. As far as whole grains are concerned, Dr. Liu believes that the key to their powerful cancer-fighting potential is precisely their wholeness. A grain of whole wheat consists of three parts-its endosperm (starch), bran and germ. When wheat-or any whole grain-is refined, its bran and germ are removed. Although these two parts make up only 15-17% of the grain's weight, they contain 83% of its phenolics. Dr. Liu says his recent findings on the antioxidant content of whole grains reinforce the message that a variety of foods should be eaten good health. "Different plant foods have different phytochemicals," he said. "These substances go to different organs, tissues and cells, where they perform different functions. What your body needs to ward off disease is this synergistic effect - this teamwork - that is produced by eating a wide variety of plant foods, including whole grains."

[Prometheus]

I count calories every day, and the only consistent thing I've seen is that calories account for changes in weight. Fat/catb/protein percentages made zero difference.

You may want to revisit that.

[DukeNukem]

>>> Should I also limit these carbs (excluding the vegetables which are part of every healthy diet)?

Want to really improve your health? Try this: Eliminate all wheat and corn carbs (or foods containing them) or any processed version of these two grains. Whole wheat, included. Wheat and corn are evil -- eliminate them and 98% of the population's health will dramatically improve. You'll also lose a LOT of bodyfat quite rapidly.

Corn is bad? I thought it was healthy considering it has more than twice the antioxidant content of broccoli and spinach and it’s also high in fiber; I guess I'll have to limit corn now. Anyway, are my glucose levels fine?

i agree with duke here... wheat, corn, and most grains are deleterious to many people. i would try to drop (or at least reduce) those, definitely keep the non-starchy veggies, some fruits (berries especially), and potentially some legumes as they are pretty nutrient dense (at least as far as starchy foods go).

i don't know where you saw that corn has twice the antioxidant content of brocolli and spinach. i am pretty sure brocolli and spinach have a considerably higher orac score, and are healthier in pretty much every way imaginable.

I singled out wheat and corn because these two are the most overused, over-processed, and over-consumed two grains. Just eliminating these two will solve most of America's obesity problem. Just try to find a processed food that doesn't contain wheat and/or corn, in some form, usually processed. Almost impossible. I try hard to avoid these two grains, and it's nearly impossible to always succeed. Even main-brand ketchups, for example, are half corn. On the rare times I have a good, gourmet style burger (never a fast food total crap burger), I only eat one side of the bun to reduce my wheat intake.

[edDe]

>>> Should I also limit these carbs (excluding the vegetables which are part of every healthy diet)?

Want to really improve your health? Try this: Eliminate all wheat and corn carbs (or foods containing them) or any processed version of these two grains. Whole wheat, included. Wheat and corn are evil -- eliminate them and 98% of the population's health will dramatically improve. You'll also lose a LOT of bodyfat quite rapidly.

Corn is bad? I thought it was healthy considering it has more than twice the antioxidant content of broccoli and spinach and it's also high in fiber; I guess I'll have to limit corn now. Anyway, are my glucose levels fine?

i agree with duke here... wheat, corn, and most grains are deleterious to many people. i would try to drop (or at least reduce) those, definitely keep the non-starchy veggies, some fruits (berries especially), and potentially some legumes as they are pretty nutrient dense (at least as far as starchy foods go).

i don't know where you saw that corn has twice the antioxidant content of brocolli and spinach. i am pretty sure brocolli and spinach have a considerably higher orac score, and are healthier in pretty much every way imaginable.

The article below mentions Corn having more antioxidants:

http://www.whfoods.c...f...ce&dbid=128
Phytonutrients with Health-Promoting Activity Equal to or Even Higher than that of Vegetables and Fruits

Research reported at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) International Conference on Food, Nutrition and Cancer, by Rui Hai Liu, M.D., Ph.D., and his colleagues at Cornell University shows that whole grains, such as rice, contain many powerful phytonutrients whose activity has gone unrecognized because research methods have overlooked them.

Despite the fact that for years researchers have been measuring the antioxidant power of a wide array of phytonutrients, they have typically measured only the "free" forms of these substances, which dissolve quickly and are immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. They have not looked at the "bound" forms, which are attached to the walls of plant cells and must be released by intestinal bacteria during digestion before they can be absorbed.

Phenolics, powerful antioxidants that work in multiple ways to prevent disease, are one major class of phytonutrients that have been widely studied. Included in this broad category are such compounds as quercetin, curcumin, ellagic acid, catechins, and many others that appear frequently in the health news.

When Dr. Liu and his colleagues measured the relative amounts of phenolics, and whether they were present in bound or free form, in common fruits and vegetables like apples, red grapes, broccoli and spinach, they found that phenolics in the "free" form averaged 76% of the total number of phenolics in these foods. In whole grains, however, "free" phenolics accounted for less than 1% of the total, while the remaining 99% were in "bound" form.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that because researchers have examined whole grains with the same process used to measure antioxidants in vegetables and fruits-looking for their content of "free" phenolics"-the amount and activity of antioxidants in whole grains has been vastly underestimated.

Despite the differences in fruits', vegetables' and whole grains' content of "free" and "bound" phenolics, the total antioxidant activity in all three types of whole foods is similar, according to Dr. Liu's research. His team measured the antioxidant activity of various foods, assigning each a rating based on a formula (micromoles of vitamin C equivalent per gram). Broccoli and spinach measured 80 and 81, respectively; apple and banana measured 98 and 65; and of the whole grains tested, corn measured 181, whole wheat 77, oats 75, and brown rice 56. Dr. Liu's findings may help explain why studies have shown that populations eating diets high in fiber-rich whole grains consistently have lower risk for colon cancer, yet short-term clinical trials that have focused on fiber alone in lowering colon cancer risk, often to the point of giving subjects isolated fiber supplements, yield inconsistent results. The explanation is most likely that these studies have not taken into account the interactive effects of all the nutrients in whole grains-not just their fiber, but also their many phytonutrients. As far as whole grains are concerned, Dr. Liu believes that the key to their powerful cancer-fighting potential is precisely their wholeness. A grain of whole wheat consists of three parts-its endosperm (starch), bran and germ. When wheat-or any whole grain-is refined, its bran and germ are removed. Although these two parts make up only 15-17% of the grain's weight, they contain 83% of its phenolics. Dr. Liu says his recent findings on the antioxidant content of whole grains reinforce the message that a variety of foods should be eaten good health. "Different plant foods have different phytochemicals," he said. "These substances go to different organs, tissues and cells, where they perform different functions. What your body needs to ward off disease is this synergistic effect - this teamwork - that is produced by eating a wide variety of plant foods, including whole grains."

Isn't measuring nutrient composition "per gram" kind of deceptive? A Per calorie comparison
is a much better approach.

Edited by edDe, 04 November 2008 - 08:56 PM.

[Mind]

I found that it isn't that hard to avoid grains. Maybe it is just me. The main thing is to avoid anything sweetened (almost always has high fructose CORN syrup) or anything that is processed and comes in a box. The only grain I eat during the week are oats. A half a cup for breakfast each day. Otherwise, my main diet during the week is dairy, eggs, veggies, meat, nuts, berries. That is about it. When I go shopping nowadays I can skip about 90% of the grocery store. I usually eat some sweets or grains (like pizza) one day a week for a treat.

[Moonbeam]

If you only eat whole foods, you won't eat grains (or legumes, for that matter), since they cannot really be eaten unprocessed. Except corn, I guess. I'm not sure if oatmeal counts as unprocessed.

Anyway, you can't eat very much grains or beans if you don't ever eat processed food. That's not too hard to do.

I guess that's what you just said, Mind. I concur.

Edited by Moonbeam, 05 November 2008 - 03:34 AM.

[Dmitri]

If you only eat whole foods, you won't eat grains (or legumes, for that matter), since they cannot really be eaten unprocessed. Except corn, I guess. I'm not sure if oatmeal counts as unprocessed.

Anyway, you can't eat very much grains or beans if you don't ever eat processed food. That's not too hard to do.

I guess that's what you just said, Mind. I concur.

So products that say 100% natural or 100% whole grain are lying?

[mitkat]

If you only eat whole foods, you won't eat grains (or legumes, for that matter), since they cannot really be eaten unprocessed. Except corn, I guess. I'm not sure if oatmeal counts as unprocessed.

Anyway, you can't eat very much grains or beans if you don't ever eat processed food. That's not too hard to do.

I guess that's what you just said, Mind. I concur.

So products that say 100% natural or 100% whole grain are lying?

'100% natural' depending on what country you live in can mean a huge range of things when labelled on a product. Many substances in food which we would consider quite unhealthy are indeed 100% natural. I find it's the processed foods that contain less than optimal ingredients that are the most boastful of their 'naturalness', whereas products that are actually natural don't bother to claim that or have better things to advertise on their packaging.

[Mind]

100% whole grain is still grain. What we are talking about is nearly eliminating grains, whether they are whole or processed. Whole grains might digest slower and have more fiber, but you are still getting the carbs.

[Dmitri]

100% whole grain is still grain. What we are talking about is nearly eliminating grains, whether they are whole or processed. Whole grains might digest slower and have more fiber, but you are still getting the carbs.

Whole grains also have more antioxidants, but I understand why individuals who are not on CR avoid them. However, a recent study showed that glucose restriction and vitamin intake shortened life span and some ketogenics here mega dose. What do those who practice the diet and mega dose think of that study?

Edited by Dmitri, 05 November 2008 - 11:30 PM.

[Moonbeam]

So products that say 100% natural or 100% whole grain are lying?

Most grains cannot be eaten without being processed. That's why I said the only grain that I can think of that you can't eat without processing is corn (thinking of corn on the cob.) If it says "100%" natural or "100%" whole grain, they aren't necessarily, or maybe technically, lying, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been processed. The terms are not equivalent.

"Whole food" means you can look at it and it still looks like it did when it was growing, at the most it is softer because you cooked it, but nothing has been removed or added. That's what I meant by non-processed food. A loaf of 100% whole wheat bread is not a whole food nor a non-processed food.

I realize that eating oatmeal and corn are still eating grain, I was just saying it is easy to avoid grain if you never eat processed food, since you can't eat grain any other way (for the most part). For example, it's hard to eat wheat that you picked without separating the components, smashing it up, adding other things, etc. It wouldn't be edible without doing that. That's becasue it's not a natural human food; we haven't evolved like chickens to be able to eat that.

Like mitkat said, if they have to tell you it's "natural", it isn't. It goes without saying for things that really are.

Edited by Moonbeam, 06 November 2008 - 12:29 AM.

[Dmitri]

So products that say 100% natural or 100% whole grain are lying?

Most grains cannot be eaten without being processed. That's why I said the only grain that I can think of that you can't eat without processing is corn (thinking of corn on the cob.) If it says "100%" natural or "100%" whole grain, they aren't necessarily, or maybe technically, lying, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been processed. The terms are not equivalent.

"Whole food" means you can look at it and it still looks like it did when it was growing, at the most it is softer because you cooked it, but nothing has been removed or added. That's what I meant by non-processed food. A loaf of 100% whole wheat bread is not a whole food nor a non-processed food.

I realize that eating oatmeal and corn are still eating grain, I was just saying it is easy to avoid grain if you never eat processed food, since you can't eat grain any other way (for the most part). For example, it's hard to eat wheat that you picked without separating the components, smashing it up, adding other things, etc. It wouldn't be edible without doing that. That's becasue it's not a natural human food; we haven't evolved like chickens to be able to eat that.

Like mitkat said, if they have to tell you it's "natural", it isn't. It goes without saying for things that really are.

If what you say is true then macrobiotics are being mislead; they eat a macrobiotic diet (a whole foods diet) precisely because they want to avoid processed foods, yet 50-60% of their diet consists of whole grains.

Edited by Dmitri, 06 November 2008 - 04:32 AM.

[Dmitri]

So products that say 100% natural or 100% whole grain are lying?

Most grains cannot be eaten without being processed. That's why I said the only grain that I can think of that you can't eat without processing is corn (thinking of corn on the cob.) If it says "100%" natural or "100%" whole grain, they aren't necessarily, or maybe technically, lying, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been processed. The terms are not equivalent.

"Whole food" means you can look at it and it still looks like it did when it was growing, at the most it is softer because you cooked it, but nothing has been removed or added. That's what I meant by non-processed food. A loaf of 100% whole wheat bread is not a whole food nor a non-processed food.

I realize that eating oatmeal and corn are still eating grain, I was just saying it is easy to avoid grain if you never eat processed food, since you can't eat grain any other way (for the most part). For example, it's hard to eat wheat that you picked without separating the components, smashing it up, adding other things, etc. It wouldn't be edible without doing that. That's becasue it's not a natural human food; we haven't evolved like chickens to be able to eat that.

Like mitkat said, if they have to tell you it's "natural", it isn't. It goes without saying for things that really are.

Actually you are thinking of refined grains; refined grains have nutrients removed and added back (sometimes even more is added), whole grains on the other hand don't have anything removed or added. I look at the ingredients when I go to the store to make sure it's really whole grain not refined.

[Moonbeam]

Actually you are thinking of refined grains; refined grains have nutrients removed and added back (sometimes even more is added), whole grains on the other hand don't have anything removed or added. I look at the ingredients when I go to the store to make sure it's really whole grain not refined.

No form of bread is included within category of unprocessed food. Can you look at bread, and if you didn't know what it was made from, recognize it as grass seed? No, so it is processed. There's all kinds of stuff you have to do to grain before it turns into bread, besides just cooking it. I don't really know a lot about bread, except to avoid it, but I do know if it's not frozen, it can't possibly be whole, because the germ goes rancid right away. There are frozen breads which are closer to being a whole food, I think (they still might have to remove the outer shell of the grain or something, I'm not sure), but still they are not unprocessed. Applesauce, which has an ingredient list of "peeled smashed apples" is not unprocessed. You don't have to read the ingredients, just look at it.

My original point was it is easy to avoid grains if you never eat any processed foods (except damn corn on the cob!)

[Dmitri]

Actually you are thinking of refined grains; refined grains have nutrients removed and added back (sometimes even more is added), whole grains on the other hand don't have anything removed or added. I look at the ingredients when I go to the store to make sure it's really whole grain not refined.

No form of bread is included within category of unprocessed food. Can you look at bread, and if you didn't know what it was made from, recognize it as grass seed? No, so it is processed. There's all kinds of stuff you have to do to grain before it turns into bread, besides just cooking it. I don't really know a lot about bread, except to avoid it, but I do know if it's not frozen, it can't possibly be whole, because the germ goes rancid right away. There are frozen breads which are closer to being a whole food, I think (they still might have to remove the outer shell of the grain or something, I'm not sure), but still they are not unprocessed. Applesauce, which has an ingredient list of "peeled smashed apples" is not unprocessed. You don't have to read the ingredients, just look at it.

My original point was it is easy to avoid grains if you never eat any processed foods (except damn corn on the cob!)

I apologize, I was under the assumption that processing meant that foods were added with chemicals and other things for taste and preservation. Whole Grains are processed to make edible, but they don't have any harsh chemicals added to them and their nutritional value is not removed either (so it keeps it's antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and fiber). That being said, how are they bad if nothing harsh is added to them (I know they have carbs which are not all bad if they come from the right source)?

[Moonbeam]

Oh no reason to apologize, I know the terms are kind of used sort of loosely and interchangably. I think that in the strictest definition of unprocessed, you can tell by looking at something if it is a whole, unprocessed food--it looks like what it is (a piece of fruit, a vegetable, a piece of meat, etc.). The fact that grains cannot be eaten unprocessed is one argument that is used against them by people who advocate a natural diet. Humans obviously did not evolve to eat grass seed, because there is a huge amount of labor that goes into making them edible (especially if you are a hunter-gatherer, without the benefit of a factory to do it for you.) Only after the development of agriculture, with the particular ease of cultivating wheat as opposed to many other plants, is when these seeds could be grown in quantities that made it worthwhile to gather and process them.

OK, problems with grains not having to do with the carbs:
--They are high in phytate, whith interrupts the absorption of micro-nutrients such as zinc, iron and manganese. (People eating mostly bread develop deficiencies.)
--They are high in monocot fibers (indigestible) which are not like the good kind of dicot fiber found in other vegetables, being insoluble. (I suppose if you are constipated and/or just need something to fill you up, that's a good thing, but most people in the natural state would not have these problems.)
--They have toxins to which natural seed eaters have developed resistance, but humans have not: lectins, which are associated with auto-immune disease, and which make the digestive tract more porous, allowing other bad things to enter the blood-stream; gluten, which causes celiac disease in susceptible people and may cause problems even for those not diagnosed with the full-blown disease; amylase and protease inhibitors, which are allergens and disrupt digestion; and alkyl resorcinols, which disrupt an array of biochemical functions.
--They seem to be somewhat addictive (that's my own observation).
--I think there is some hormonal effect, causing women to be more fertile, which is why farmers have babies every year (most of them dying in pre-industrial times), and hunter-gatherers have them every three-four years, but I can't find a reference to that right now, so I'm going by memory. That may be associated with a lack of breast-feeding?? or both maybe.

Cereals were introduced into the human diet about 10,000 years ago, with the following results: loss of stature (about 6 inches), osteoarthritis, gum disease, dental cavities, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancer. These conditions are rarely seen in hunter-gatherers. Also famine became a problem with dependence on a limited food supply, if something happened to it one year.

If you're starving, grains will keep you alive, but that's about the extent of their benefit, it seems. I don't think an occasional whole-grain something is poison, I just think there are much more beneficial foods that should be eaten on a regular basis.

Edited by Moonbeam, 09 November 2008 - 09:27 PM.

[Mind]

I used to eat truly whole grain back on the farm when I was growing up. I'd just walk out into a field of rye or oats and start eating. It was not easy (removing the husk and then eating the tiny seed), as Moonbeam explained above, which would make it a good rule of thumb for eating grains - only eat what you pick out of a field. lol. I still eat some grains but I have cut back quite a bit after learning the dangers of eating too many carbs.

[Dmitri]

Oh no reason to apologize, I know the terms are kind of used sort of loosely and interchangably. I think that in the strictest definition of unprocessed, you can tell by looking at something if it is a whole, unprocessed food--it looks like what it is (a piece of fruit, a vegetable, a piece of meat, etc.). The fact that grains cannot be eaten unprocessed is one argument that is used against them by people who advocate a natural diet. Humans obviously did not evolve to eat grass seed, because there is a huge amount of labor that goes into making them edible (especially if you are a hunter-gatherer, without the benefit of a factory to do it for you.) Only after the development of agriculture, with the particular ease of cultivating wheat as opposed to many other plants, is when these seeds could be grown in quantities that made it worthwhile to gather and process them.

OK, problems with grains not having to do with the carbs:
--They are high in phytate, whith interrupts the absorption of micro-nutrients such as zinc, iron and manganese. (People eating mostly bread develop deficiencies.)
--They are high in monocot fibers (indigestible) which are not like the good kind of dicot fiber found in other vegetables, being insoluble. (I suppose if you are constipated and/or just need something to fill you up, that's a good thing, but most people in the natural state would not have these problems.)
--They have toxins to which natural seed eaters have developed resistance, but humans have not: lectins, which are associated with auto-immune disease, and which make the digestive tract more porous, allowing other bad things to enter the blood-stream; gluten, which causes celiac disease in susceptible people and may cause problems even for those not diagnosed with the full-blown disease; amylase and protease inhibitors, which are allergens and disrupt digestion; and alkyl resorcinols, which disrupt an array of biochemical functions.
--They seem to be somewhat addictive (that's my own observation).
--I think there is some hormonal effect, causing women to be more fertile, which is why farmers have babies every year (most of them dying in pre-industrial times), and hunter-gatherers have them every three-four years, but I can't find a reference to that right now, so I'm going by memory. That may be associated with a lack of breast-feeding?? or both maybe.

Cereals were introduced into the human diet about 10,000 years ago, with the following results: loss of stature (about 6 inches), osteoarthritis, gum disease, dental cavities, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancer. These conditions are rarely seen in hunter-gatherers. Also famine became a problem with dependence on a limited food supply, if something happened to it one year.

If you're starving, grains will keep you alive, but that's about the extent of their benefit, it seems. I don't think an occasional whole-grain something is poison, I just think there are much more beneficial foods that should be eaten on a regular basis.

Thank you for the info, I will decrease my whole grain intake starting today. I'll stick with oatmeal (to keep my cholesterol stable) and brown rice (I don't think I can ever give this one up) though. The reason I was eating so many whole grains was because the medical community considered them healthy and since I could not live off beans, fruits and vegetables alone I decided to add them. I don't like meat aside from chicken, fish and sea food though it's not good to eat those last two everyday.