Atkins vs South Beach vs Ornish
ra...@val.com
inflammation compared to South Beach and Ornish once weight loss ended
on each diet. Each subject was rotated on each diet for a month and
Atkins was associted with increase inflammatory markers and decreased
blood vessel function compared to the other diets.
The researchers used ultrasound scans to measure the flexibility and
dilation of blood vessels and measured proteins in the blood that can
indicate inflammation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/us_nm/heart_diets_dc
The diet wars continue.
Regards
Randy
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
amount in order to become healthier (hungrier) to lose all the harmful
VAT thereby curing the insulin resistance (IR/MetS) and possibly also
the type-2 diabetes:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/2PD-OMER
"This is in essence bariatric surgery without the surgery." -- Holy
Spirit
Amen.
Illustrative case example:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Healing
This completely free Approach comes with free cardiologist support via
Usenet plus an unprecedented million-dollar guarantee whose details
have been freely posted and discussed in sci.med.cardiology as
archived by Google:
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
Bobo Bonobo®
your God, they would be doing you a favor, right? They'd sure be
doing Usenet a service.
--Bryan
Michael Sand
"ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:
Had anyone more luck in locating the original paper and maybe found a
description of the diets' fatty compositions? With a deficit in n-3
fatty acids an increased inflammatory activity deriving from a
relative surplus of linoleic acid (building arachidonic acid
supporting COX-2 activity) wouldn't surprise. We mustn't forget, that
this simplified macronutrient back and forth is only one aspect of the
story.
Kind regards
Mike
Jackie Patti
> Had anyone more luck in locating the original paper and maybe found a
> description of the diets' fatty compositions? With a deficit in n-3
> fatty acids an increased inflammatory activity deriving from a
> relative surplus of linoleic acid (building arachidonic acid
> supporting COX-2 activity) wouldn't surprise. We mustn't forget, that
> this simplified macronutrient back and forth is only one aspect of the
> story.
There isn't a full paper, just an abstract. It was a poster
presentation at a conference.
Mike Eades blogged about it here:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/11/06/does-the-atkins-diet-damage-blood-vessels/
Nicky
wrote:
>A paper presented at recent AHA conference showed Atkins increased
>inflammation compared to South Beach and Ornish once weight loss ended
>on each diet. Each subject was rotated on each diet for a month and
>Atkins was associted with increase inflammatory markers and decreased
>blood vessel function compared to the other diets.
But given that both Atkins and South Beach have an induction period,
and the diet changes fairly fundamentally after the first couple of
weeks - what the hell is the point of a 4-week study?!
Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 100ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25
Jackie Patti
> If one followed Atkin's recommendations, one would not have pro
> inflammatory effects from the diet. He advised grass fed animal
> products, with proven heart healthy anti inflammatory levels of omega
> 6/omega 3s and lower in arachidonic acid.
The one that bugs me is the notion that you eat gobs of bacon on Atkins.
I haven't read the book in many years, but I'm pretty sure he said no
nitrates or nitrites.
He also said no caffeine, and most folks don't seem to take that bit
seriously, so I doubt very many people actually do his diet.
Julie Bove
"Jackie Patti" <jpa...@ccil.org> wrote in message
news:47339a5c$0$27023$470e...@news.pa.net...
Yep. I constantly hear about people eating unlimited amounts of bacon,
cheese and butter. I can't speak specifically for the bacon, but I know any
lunch type meats had to be looked at carefully and couldn't contain certain
ingredients. Pretty much it was just supposed to be plain cooked meat. As
for the rest of the fats, they were to be eaten in limited amounts.
People always spout off about things they know nothing about.
Alan S
That was the bit that occurred to me too. Also, when you are
using their system of rotating diets in the same group the
interactivity effects and personal likes/dislikes that
affect choices confound the issue.
It's now been a couple of decades since these various
dietary styles were all available to be tested over long
terms. Why have there been no long-term studies during that
period?
I wonder occasionally why no enterprising researcher has
contacted the people on these groups, and the various other
diabetes groups and blogs I read, to do a study of
"pro-active type 2 diabetics using diet and exercise
modified by SMBG" over a decent period. The control group
could be any group of diabetics following ADA/NHS/DA
guidelines.
Surely a test strip manufacturer would have a vested
interest in funding a study like that.
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Psyllium, Fibre, Muesli and Nuts
Jackie Patti
> That was the bit that occurred to me too. Also, when you are
> using their system of rotating diets in the same group the
> interactivity effects and personal likes/dislikes that
> affect choices confound the issue.
Yeah, you could get weirdos eating brewer's yeast shakes to screw up all
the results! ;)
ra...@val.com
> Hi Randy!
>
>
>
>
>
> "ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> >A paper presented at recent AHA conference showed Atkins increased
> >inflammation compared to South Beach and Ornish once weight loss ended
> >on each diet. Each subject was rotated on each diet for a month and
> >Atkins was associted with increase inflammatory markers and decreased
> >blood vessel function compared to the other diets.
>
> >The researchers used ultrasound scans to measure the flexibility and
> >dilation of blood vessels and measured proteins in the blood that can
> >indicate inflammation.
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/us_nm/heart_diets_dc
>
> >The diet wars continue.
>
> >Regards
> >Randy
>
> Had anyone more luck in locating the original paper and maybe found a
> description of the diets' fatty compositions?
Reply:
The papter was a presentation at a AHA gathering.
It made the pop press circuit big time and I hope these guys will
release more details.
I don't know if it will turn into published paper or not.
Mike Wrote:
>With a deficit in n-3
> fatty acids an increased inflammatory activity deriving from a
> relative surplus of linoleic acid (building arachidonic acid
> supporting COX-2 activity) wouldn't surprise. We mustn't forget, that
> this simplified macronutrient back and forth is only one aspect of the
> story.
Reply:
Excellent point.
If it just took a couple of fish oil pills to reduce inflammation in
the high protein group (and that depends if it was truely increasesd
to begin with) that would be a huge result.
The was a very recent study (1) that showed a large increase in CRP,
but it might suffer your same criticism. And I know there's been
atleast one other paper showing Reduced inflammation with a higher
protein diet.
Also Mike I would like to thank you for the fine work you did in
another thread detailing the fine nuances on the IGF-1.
Regards
Randy
(1) Low carbohydrate, high fat diet increases C-reactive protein
during weight loss.Rankin JW, Turpyn AD.
Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0430, USA. jra...@vt.edu
OBJECTIVE: Chronic inflammation is associated with elevated risk of
heart disease and may be linked to oxidative stress in obesity. Our
objective was to evaluate the effect of weight loss diet composition
(low carbohydrate, high fat, LC or high carbohydrate, low fat, HC) on
inflammation and to determine whether this was related to oxidative
stress. METHODS: Twenty nine overweight women, BMI 32.1 +/- 5.4 kg/
m(2), were randomly assigned to a self-selected LC or HC diet for 4
wks. Weekly group sessions and diet record collections helped enhance
compliance. Body weight, markers of inflammation (serum interleukin-6,
IL-6; C-reactive protein, CRP) oxidative stress (urinary 8-epi-
prostaglandin F2alpha, 8-epi) and fasting blood glucose and free fatty
acids were measured weekly. RESULTS: The diets were similar in caloric
intake (1357 kcal/d LC vs. 1361 HC, p=0.94), but differed in
macronutrients (58, 12, 30 and 24, 59, 18 for percent of energy as
fat, carbohydrate, and protein for LC and HC, respectively). Although
LC lost more weight (3.8 +/- 1.2 kg LC vs. 2.6 +/- 1.7 HC, p=0.04),
CRP increased 25%; this factor was reduced 43% in HC (p=0.02). For
both groups, glucose decreased with weight loss (85.4 vs. 82.1 mg/dl
for baseline and wk 4, p<0.01), while IL-6 increased (1.39 to 1.62 pg/
mL, p=0.04). Urinary 8-epi varied differently over time between groups
(p<0.05) with no consistent pattern. CONCLUSION: Diet composition of
the weight loss diet influenced a key marker of inflammation in that
LC increased while HC reduced serum CRP but evidence did not support
that this was related to oxidative stress.
PMID: 17536128 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Ozgirl
> Alan S wrote:
>> That was the bit that occurred to me too. Also, when you are
>> using their system of rotating diets in the same group the
>> interactivity effects and personal likes/dislikes that
>> affect choices confound the issue.
>
> Yeah, you could get weirdos eating brewer's yeast shakes to screw up all
> the results! ;)
Oi! Just for that I am off to eat a Vegemite sanger.
Alan S
Thanks Jackie Patti
I hadn't read Eades blog for a while. He certainly tears
that "paper" (should I say poster?) to shreds with logic and
background.
It wasn't a peer-reviewed research paper and it wasn't the
Atkins diet.
Randy, I would suggest you take the time to read Eades
report on this.
As far as the original version goes, this is an extract from
the blog:
"let’s take a look at the study itself.
I emailed the publicist for the University of Maryland
Medical Center for an abstract of this talk, and he kindly
sent it to me within minutes. (I’ve converted it to PDF for
you: miller-2007-aha-abstract-diet.pdf.) Remember, this is
all there is. Just an abstract, not a real paper. We can
tell only a little about what really went on in this study.
But let’s take a look."
Here is that pdf:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/miller-2007-aha-abstract-diet.pdf
Michael Sand
Susan wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
BTW, does this directive work being located in a message's body?
>Michael Sand wrote:
>
>> Had anyone more luck in locating the original paper and maybe found a
>> description of the diets' fatty compositions? With a deficit in n-3
>> fatty acids an increased inflammatory activity deriving from a
>> relative surplus of linoleic acid (building arachidonic acid
>> supporting COX-2 activity) wouldn't surprise. We mustn't forget, that
>> this simplified macronutrient back and forth is only one aspect of the
>> story.
>>
>
>If one followed Atkin's recommendations, one would not have pro
>inflammatory effects from the diet. He advised grass fed animal
>products, with proven heart healthy anti inflammatory levels of omega
>6/omega 3s and lower in arachidonic acid.
>
>Susan
If that's the case, which I didn't notice, why does he contradict
himself? Apart from alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3), he also tries to
attribute a benefit to supplements of gamma-linolenic acid (omega-6,
derivate of linoleic acid), which actually worsens the n-6:n-3 ratio,
and postulates oleic acid (omega-9) being essential, which it isn't,
and worth to be added as well. Provided that he knows what it's about
with fats, that looks like a clever salesman strategy profitting from
all (even unavoidable disadvantageous) characteristics of one's
products, in this case his 'Essential Oil Formula' capsules. Even
being essential doesn't automatically mean being hardly available. To
put it in a nutshell, there's no need for 'Essential Water' capsules.
Citations from his book (he may forgive me, as it's not done aiming at
a banal transfer of valuable information, but a critical discussion):
| An EFA supplement should include gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) -
| primarily found in primrose or borage oil - and omega-3 fatty
| acids from fish oil or flaxseed oil. (You can, of course,
| also eat salmon and other cold-water fish.)
[...]
| There are three types of EFAs: Omega-9 fatty acids are readily
| available in olive oil, but you need supplements to get
| adequate amounts of omega-3 and omega-6 oils. The former come
| from animal sources (fish and marine mammals primarily) and
| vegetable sources, such as flaxseed oil, which provides alpha-
| linolenic acid (ALA). Omega-6, also known as gamma linolenic
| acid (GLA), is contained in borage oil and black-currant oil.
| I usually suggest one capsule of borage oil, one of fish oil
| and one of flaxseed oil. My Essential Oils Formula contains
| all of the above, and the minimum dose is two per day.
In my view a lot of mumbo jumbo. In order to decrease the n-6:n-3
ratio of our current foods, which is about 10 to 15 (!) in the US, to
a healthy level of 2 or below, directing one's attention to the intake
of high-alpha-linolenate oils such as flaxseed oil is sufficient. Of
course reducing saturated and trans-fats as far as possible is healthy
as well. BTW, you find nice graphics of the fat content of several
dietary oils in http://www.canolainfo.org/pdf/BRIO_01.PDF and
http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin213.pdf (p. 211), the latter
incomprehensibly without mentioning the most advantageous flaxseed
oil. The rest of the data seems to stem from an identical source.
But where to get products from free-running herbal-fed animals. The
grain based industrial output distinguishes itself from healthy food
by disadvantageous n-6:n-3 fatty acid relations. See the graph at
http://www.mbforagecouncil.mb.ca/Repository/2005%20Grazing%20School%20Proceedings/5_2005GS_Proceedings_Scott_Timmerman_Thornton.pdf
page 3, which shows a continuous degradation of the fatty quality in
the course of grain feeding, or read about differences in eggs' fatty
composition in
'The Mediterranean Diets: What Is So Special about the Diet of
Greece?' http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/131/11/3065S.pdf p.
3066S, right column:
| In the Greek countryside, chickens wander on farms, eat grass,
| purslane, insects, worms and dried figs, all good sources of
| (n-3) fatty acids. Table 4 shows the composition of the
| Ampelistra (Greek) egg (39,40). It has a ratio of (n-6) to (n-3)
| of 1.3 whereas the USDA egg has a ratio of 19.4. As a result,
| noodles made with milk and eggs in Greece also contain (n-3)
| fatty acids.
Unhealthy grains seem to affect nearly all fields of 'modern'
nutrition with industrial products.
Kind regards
Mike
Michael Sand
ra...@val.com wrote:
>On Nov 8, 3:10 pm, Michael Sand <s...@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>> "ra...@val.com" <ra...@val.com> wrote:
>> >A paper presented at recent AHA conference showed Atkins increased
>> >inflammation compared to South Beach and Ornish once weight loss ended
>> >on each diet. Each subject was rotated on each diet for a month and
>> >Atkins was associted with increase inflammatory markers and decreased
>> >blood vessel function compared to the other diets.
>>
>> >The researchers used ultrasound scans to measure the flexibility and
>> >dilation of blood vessels and measured proteins in the blood that can
>> >indicate inflammation.
>>
>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/us_nm/heart_diets_dc
>>
>> >The diet wars continue.
>>
>> >Regards
>> >Randy
>>
>Mike Wrote:
>> Had anyone more luck in locating the original paper and maybe found a
>> description of the diets' fatty compositions?
>
>Reply:
>The papter was a presentation at a AHA gathering.
>It made the pop press circuit big time and I hope these guys will
>release more details.
>I don't know if it will turn into published paper or not.
As long as that doesn't happen, I classify their interpretation as
pure propaganda.
>Mike Wrote:
>>With a deficit in n-3
>> fatty acids an increased inflammatory activity deriving from a
>> relative surplus of linoleic acid (building arachidonic acid
>> supporting COX-2 activity) wouldn't surprise. We mustn't forget, that
>> this simplified macronutrient back and forth is only one aspect of the
>> story.
>
>Reply:
>Excellent point.
>
>If it just took a couple of fish oil pills to reduce inflammation in
>the high protein group (and that depends if it was truely increasesd
>to begin with) that would be a huge result.
Mainly high fat I think:
| The Atkins diet was set to deliver 50 percent of calories as fat,
| the South Beach was 30 percent fat and the Ornish diet, designed
| by nutritionist Dr. Dean Ornish, was 10 percent fat.
I'm very optimistic in this respect. But why not using cheap oils
(rapeseed / canola for hot cooking and additionally flaxseed aka
linseed for salads etc.) a canister for at most a few $s instead of
buying it extravagantly packed in capsules or even following the
expensive fish oil hype. No problem for your body to build
eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the most
important fish oil ingredients, from ALA. Or are there any advantages
I'm not aware of?
>The was a very recent study (1) that showed a large increase in CRP,
>but it might suffer your same criticism.
You're right, hard to draw conclusions from clinical studies with such
a lot of differences. All macronutrient components are different as
well as the resulting weight loss. I prefer constellations with less
variables or, to a lesser degree, in-vitro examinations. E.g. it is
well-known that in contrast to n-6 fatty acids the mRNA leading to
interleukin-6 is suppressed by n-3 fatty acids.
> And I know there's been
>atleast one other paper showing Reduced inflammation with a higher
>protein diet.
For millions or years our ancestors lived well with a protein intake
of about 30 energy-%. I never understood why all of us, especially
diabetics, should replace half of it by grains deficient in
micronutrients and overloading our glucose regulatory system.
>Also Mike I would like to thank you for the fine work you did in
>another thread detailing the fine nuances on the IGF-1.
Very kind, thanks.
Cheerio
Mike
Jackie Patti
> I'm very optimistic in this respect. But why not using cheap oils
> (rapeseed / canola for hot cooking and additionally flaxseed aka
> linseed for salads etc.) a canister for at most a few $s instead of
> buying it extravagantly packed in capsules or even following the
> expensive fish oil hype. No problem for your body to build
> eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the most
> important fish oil ingredients, from ALA. Or are there any advantages
> I'm not aware of?
I understand that commonly-available canola oil is processed and
therefore contains trans fats, just at a low enough level to round to 0g
per serving on the label. I've looked locally, but can't find the
virgin stuff.
As for the EPA/DHA thing, apparently ALA converts at a very low rate.
I'm not sure if this is true for everyone or a subset of folks. I know
Davis uses fish oil and is successful at reducing heart scan scores with
it and has had difficulty finding anything as successful for
vegetarians, except some expensive DHA stuff available a few places that
doesn't come from fish.
I am not clear on the saturated fat vs. polyunsaturated fat question;
research seems contradictory to me. Though I am more clear on the
omega3:omega6 question.
It became much more important to me after my heart attack to get it
straightened out, both for myself and for people I advise. So I take a
middle-of-the-road attitude towards the fat question. I strongly
prefer just eating real food to taking supplements, and have done a lot
more to change my diet than to take pills.
I do take very cheap fish oil supplements from Walmart. I have upped my
fish intake, but I'm not fond of fish much, so mostly mild stuff like
tuna and tilapia. When I can afford it, scallops.
I eat flax meal as a basic cereal ingredient and to make bread-like and
muffin-like concoctions (often with almond meal). I eat a lot of nuts
and seeds generally.
I use primarily olive as a raw oil and avocado oil or homemade broth to
cook with. Avocado oil is expensive, but you use little - I also eat a
couple whole avocados each week. The homemade broth is made without
removing the fat as long as it's from pasture-raised animals and
provides a lot of minerals as well as being quite flavorful to cook with.
I have switched all my animal intake, meat, poultry, cheeses, yogurt,
butter, eggs, etc. to products from grass-raised animals - and since
these are more expensive, have also cut my intake of saturated fat a bit
in doing so. It still comes in much cheaper than CLA supplementation
and buys me a bit more omega3s.
I replaced cocoa butter in chocolate with coconut oil via a homemade
bark I make. Net increase in saturated fat is zero with whatever
advantages coconut oil adds.
I use lecithin as the main emulsifier in cooking. It's dead cheap when
bought as a baking ingredient and only gets expensive if packaged as a
supplement. A completly painless change in my diet.
It seems to me that eating better is a lot easier, cheaper and more
pleasant than taking pills. It also seems my strategy maximizes my
health no matter what turns out to be the ultimate truth about fats.
ra...@val.com
> As for the EPA/DHA thing, apparently ALA converts at a very low rate.
> I'm not sure if this is true for everyone or a subset of folks.
Reply:
That has been my impression also. This is not to say that ALA in
ineffective in this regard, only that fish oil might be more
efficient. There could also be significant variance between people
(male vs female).
Regards
Randy
References:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16884482
http://www.zikang.cn/enbbs/forum_posts.asp?TID=43&PN=1
http://www.zikang.cn/enbbs/forum_posts.asp?TID=43&PN=1
http://tinyurl.com/2q8z3x
http://www.omega3sealoil.com/Chapter4_3c.html
Michael Sand
>Michael Sand wrote:
>> I'm very optimistic in this respect. But why not using cheap oils
>> (rapeseed / canola for hot cooking and additionally flaxseed aka
>> linseed for salads etc.) a canister for at most a few $s instead of
>> buying it extravagantly packed in capsules or even following the
>> expensive fish oil hype. No problem for your body to build
>> eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), the most
>> important fish oil ingredients, from ALA. Or are there any advantages
>> I'm not aware of?
>
>I understand that commonly-available canola oil is processed and
>therefore contains trans fats, just at a low enough level to round to 0g
>per serving on the label.
Are you sure? Why hydrogenate it? Moderate heat shouldn't harm.
>As for the EPA/DHA thing, apparently ALA converts at a very low rate.
>I'm not sure if this is true for everyone or a subset of folks. I know
>Davis uses fish oil and is successful at reducing heart scan scores with
>it and has had difficulty finding anything as successful for
>vegetarians, except some expensive DHA stuff available a few places that
>doesn't come from fish.
I never read about such an unavoidable bottleneck.
http://www.canolainfo.org/pdf/BRIO_01.PDF says
| ALA is converted in the body to to the omega 3 long chain,
| polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
| and docosohexaenoic acid (DHA) at a rate of approximately 20%.
but 'The Scientific Evidence for a Beneficial Health Relationship
Between Walnuts and Coronary Heart Disease'
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/132/5/1062S.pdf reports
| Addition of walnuts to either the HD [habitual] or LF [20% fat] diet
| increased plasma concentrations of linoleic and alpha-linolenic
| acids and decreased palmitic (16:0), oleic, and arachidonic acids
| without changing concentrations of EPA and DHA.
and in 'Dose-response effects of dietary gamma-Iinolenic acid-enriched
oils on human polymorphonuclear-neutrophil biosynthesis of leukotriene
B4' http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/55/1/39.pdf I read on p. 41
| Although the PMN concentration of alpha-linolenic acid, a
| constituent of BCO, was increased in PMNs of the BCO group,
| interestingly, this increase did not significantly influence
| the PMN concentrations of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA,
| 22:6n-3), which are both desaturation and elongation
| metabolites of alpha-linolenic acid.
Weird, increase in ALA, but no change in EPA / DHA levels.
I found the most profound statement on page 6 of 'Polyunsaturated
fatty acids in the food chain in the United States'
(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/179S.pdf):
| The recommended ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids is 2.3:1 and has
| been made to maximize the conversion of ALA to DHA (40). Because
| of competition between n-6 and n-3 fatty acids for desaturase and
| elongase enzymes, the quantity of linoleic acid in the diet can
| affect the extent to which ALA is converted to EPA and DHA in vivo.
| Kinetic studies conducted in vivo (41) have shown that ~15% of
| dietary ALA is converted to the long chain n-3 fatty acids [which
| include 5 fatty acids of which 3 predominate: 20:5, 22:5, and 22:6
| at typical intakes of both linoleic acid (15 g/d; 5% of energy)
| and ALA (2 g/d; 0.6% of energy)]. Quantitatively, this conversion
| results in ~300 mg of n-3 long-chain fatty acids being derived via
| conversion from ALA. When dietary linoleic acid is increased to
| 30 g/d, conversion of ALA to the long-chain n-3 fatty acids is
| reduced by ~40% (41). Thus, the conditions that favor maximal
| conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA are critically dependent on the
| amount of linoleic acid in the diet.
In consequence, when continuing the 'western' dietary style, a
supplement of EPA and DHA seems to be favourable. But one primarily
ought to focus on improving the omega-6:omega-3 ratio, which promotes
the building of EPA/DHA (highly unsaturated fatty acids, HUFA) as
well. I won't doubt, that with our ancestors' n-6:n-3 ratio of about 1
sufficient quantities were attainable:
In the example above with an n-6:n-3 ratio of 15 g/d : 2 g/d = 7,5,
which is a bit better than the current US average, you get 15% of ALA
= 300 mg converted, whereas the goal is about 650 mg EPA + DHA per
day. The question is, by how much the conversion rate increases when
cutting the ratio in half (to realistic 3, half the way to
physiological conditions) with the knowledge of a 40% reduction when
doubling the ratio. Not unlikely, that even such a little move may be
enough to cover the daily need in HUFA. An ALA intake of 2 g/d is
equivalent to 4 ml flaxseed oil (inherent ratio of 0,3) or 20 ml
canola oil (inherent ratio of 2), the latter less qualified to correct
the overall ratio as long as unfavourable n-6 fatty acids from other
sources are involved in relevant quantities and have to be countered.
But let me state it clearly, it's a different story, if you not only
aim at a healthy nutrition, but try to shape your dietary components
in a way to positively influence a specific medical condition. One
example:
You may have read my comments on gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) as a
component of Atkins' 'essential' oil capsules, which I don't think is
indispensable for healthy people. OTOH supplementing GLA may make
sense under certain conditions like acute or chronic inflammatory
processes (psoriasis vulgaris, rheumatoid arthritis, other autoimmune
diseases etc.), where some immunomodulatory effect has been shown.
Vincent A. Ziboh worked on this topic and demonstrated an inhibition
of the transformation from arachidonic acid to leukotriene B4 by the
metabolites of GLA, though I'm not able to duplicate his explanation
(competitive inhibition, PGE1 production etc.). In
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/361S.pdf the diagram on page 365S
lacks the important fact, that the classical desaturation & elongation
pathway from linoleic acid (LA; 18:2n-6) to arachidonic acid (AA;
20:4n-6) also leads via gamma-linolenic acid (GLA; 18:3n-6) and
dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA; 20:3n-6), e.g. described in
http://www.jlr.org/cgi/reprint/28/11/1342.pdf. Now, why in the world
should the dietary GLA behave differently from GLA produced internally
from dietary LA? Maybe someone else has a plausible explanation to
bring me round. But as long as this uncertainty continues I see GLA as
an ordinary omega-6 fatty acid, which I personally won't deliberately
add to my diet, though in case of an immunologic disorder it may be
beneficial.
>I am not clear on the saturated fat vs. polyunsaturated fat question;
>research seems contradictory to me.
In which respect? Replacing saturated fat by omega-6 rich vegetable
oils, as proclaimed by the anti-cholesterol campaign throughout
previous decades, obviously was a washout. But what against taking the
chance to shift to the advantageous omega-3 fatty acids instead?
The proinflammatory effects of LA also raise some further questions,
e.g. whether VAT is dangerous in principle or only with a PUFA
dysbalance high in unhealthy n-6 fatty acids. There's a study, which
shows a dependency of the blood pressure from the alpha-linolenic acid
contents of fatty tissue. Allow me another citation from 'The
Scientific Evidence for a Beneficial Health Relationship Between
Walnuts and Coronary Heart Disease'
(http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/132/5/1062S.pdf):
| Another study, by Berry et al. (68), investigated the
| relationship of the fatty acid concentration in adipose tissue
| and BP in 399 free-living males in New York City. The
| investigators concluded that alpha-linolenic acid had a
| disproportionate association with BP, ie, a 1% increase in
| alpha-linolenic acid reduced BP 5 mm Hg.
Moreover, it's no secret, that LA also induces insulin resistance.
What if our metabolic disaster as a whole is mainly driven by the PUFA
problematic, and you see a major improvement of all aspects of this
syndrome with nothing but a normalized omega-3 FA concentration in
your fatty tissue regardless of your BMI? Should we simply turn our
bad VAT into good VAT instead of getting rid of it, which anyway we
rarely succeed in?
>I eat flax meal as a basic cereal ingredient and to make bread-like and
>muffin-like concoctions (often with almond meal).
Is that grinded resp. pulverized linseed / almonds? And what do you
use to bind the dough? Eggs?
>I replaced cocoa butter in chocolate with coconut oil via a homemade
>bark I make. Net increase in saturated fat is zero with whatever
>advantages coconut oil adds.
You replace it? Or do you make chocolate from scratch using
(hardened?) coconut oil and cocoa? Some time ago I came across
http://www.level1diet.com/coconut-oil-supplement-medium-chain-triglycerides-health-benefits.html
but think that's nonsense, though I appreciate the beneficial effects
of coconut oil ... to my skin in the form of suntan oil. ;-)
>I use lecithin as the main emulsifier in cooking. It's dead cheap when
>bought as a baking ingredient and only gets expensive if packaged as a
>supplement. A completly painless change in my diet.
>
>It seems to me that eating better is a lot easier, cheaper and more
>pleasant than taking pills. It also seems my strategy maximizes my
>health no matter what turns out to be the ultimate truth about fats.
Right. We have to be content with a healthy approach, as the
theoretical optimum is out of reach.
Were you aware of the subversive tendencies described below (once
again http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/179S.pdf, p. 3):
| Factors such as cultivar, variety, growing region, and climatic
| conditions have marked influences on the ALA content of soybean
| and canola oil. For example, there have been substantial efforts
| over the years to reduce the ALA content of soybean oil through
| classic plant-breeding techniques and, more recently, by genetic
| manipulation. This is attractive to the edible-oil industry for
| use in a nonhydrogenated liquid salad oil and in deep-frying
| applications because of the increased oxidative stability.
| Low-ALA soybean varieties with much lower ALA contents, in the
| range of 3-4%, than the common williams variety (ie, ~7.8%) are
| now becoming commercially available.
That means, for a better keeping 'quality' the food industry
deliberately further weakens our already impaired health, and the
consumer isn't even aware of the lousy ingredients, reads 'soybean'
and thinks 'wow, great'. Looks like premeditated grievous bodily harm.
Kind regards
Mike
BTW: You got my mail?
Jackie Patti
> Jackie Patti wrote:
>> I understand that commonly-available canola oil is processed and
>> therefore contains trans fats, just at a low enough level to round to 0g
>> per serving on the label.
>
> Are you sure? Why hydrogenate it? Moderate heat shouldn't harm.
Am I sure? No. But I've heard this from several sources. Apparently,
hydrogenation improves shelf life.
Since I can't find anything specifically labeled as virgin canola oil, I
quit using it myself.
> Weird, increase in ALA, but no change in EPA / DHA levels.
Yeah, I've heard this stuff. The studies seem a bit contradictory, so
I'm not sure that it's not a subset of people who don't convert to EPA
and DHA well.
But fish oil is darned cheap so I've taken to recommending it at the
same level I recommend a general multivitamin - probably benefits nearly
everyone unless they eat loads of fish already.
Quentin pointed out to that ALA may well have benefits of it's own, so
the flax and nuts and such stay in the diet also.
> But let me state it clearly, it's a different story, if you not only
> aim at a healthy nutrition, but try to shape your dietary components
> in a way to positively influence a specific medical condition. One
> example:
Absolutely. Correcting current medical issues and/or long-standing
deficiencies is a much different thing than what should just generically
be recommended to everyone.
I think the fish oil is in the "general recommendation" category though
- it's cheap and can't hurt.
I've been finding stuff about vitamin D everywhere lately. Apparently,
most supplements contain D2 and a subset of people do not convert
efficiently to D3. People who do stuff like landscaping and live in FL
and such have turned up deficient in serum levels of vitamin D! It
turns out to have a huge impact on heart scan scores, HDL levels,
thyroid, fatigue, all sorts of things. You can't really know if you're
low without blood work, but it turns out our greatgrandmothers had
darned good reason to force cod liver oil on their kids.
> You may have read my comments on gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) as a
> component of Atkins' 'essential' oil capsules, which I don't think is
> indispensable for healthy people. OTOH supplementing GLA may make
> sense under certain conditions like acute or chronic inflammatory
> processes (psoriasis vulgaris, rheumatoid arthritis, other autoimmune
> diseases etc.), where some immunomodulatory effect has been shown.
> Vincent A. Ziboh worked on this topic and demonstrated an inhibition
> of the transformation from arachidonic acid to leukotriene B4 by the
> metabolites of GLA, though I'm not able to duplicate his explanation
> (competitive inhibition, PGE1 production etc.). In
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/361S.pdf the diagram on page 365S
> lacks the important fact, that the classical desaturation & elongation
> pathway from linoleic acid (LA; 18:2n-6) to arachidonic acid (AA;
> 20:4n-6) also leads via gamma-linolenic acid (GLA; 18:3n-6) and
> dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA; 20:3n-6), e.g. described in
> http://www.jlr.org/cgi/reprint/28/11/1342.pdf. Now, why in the world
> should the dietary GLA behave differently from GLA produced internally
> from dietary LA? Maybe someone else has a plausible explanation to
> bring me round. But as long as this uncertainty continues I see GLA as
> an ordinary omega-6 fatty acid, which I personally won't deliberately
> add to my diet, though in case of an immunologic disorder it may be
> beneficial.
Goodness, you're a geek! I learn so much reading your posts!
I haven't looked into GLA much yet, though see some of the CLA-pushing
folks also push GLA for weight loss.
Bernstein seemed to push evening primrose oil with the "other" ALA for
insulin sensitivity, but seems to have backed off to just the ALA lately.
So I don't know about GLA, but some of the CLA benefits seem clear to
me. Given that we do need some amount of omega6s, it seems a no-brainer
to get them from pasture-rasied animals rather than vegetable oils.
>> I am not clear on the saturated fat vs. polyunsaturated fat question;
>> research seems contradictory to me.
>
> In which respect? Replacing saturated fat by omega-6 rich vegetable
> oils, as proclaimed by the anti-cholesterol campaign throughout
> previous decades, obviously was a washout. But what against taking the
> chance to shift to the advantageous omega-3 fatty acids instead?
I think replacing animal fats with most vegetable oils is bad because it
screws up the omega ratios and that is unfortunately the standard advice
usually given to folks about fat.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced saturated fats are "good" either.
Obviously, they don't oxidize nor form weird trans configurations and
such, but I'm unsure whether they're neutral or bad. That's where I'm
uncertain - there seems good research and arguments on both the
pro-saturated and anti-saturated fat argument.
For me, the middle road was switching to all pasture-raised animal
products, which being more expensive, limits my intake somewhat. Also
has much healthier overall fats with more CLA (which does seem to be a
more healthy omega6), more omega3s, and bioactive vitamins A and D and such.
Using coconut oil for my bark recipe means it's replacing cocoa butter
since the bark replaces chocolate in my diet, so I get whatever coconut
oil benefits there are without increasing saturated fat overall.
The vegetable oils I use are olive, avocado and nuts - all of which are
neutral or adding to the omega3 overall.
> Moreover, it's no secret, that LA also induces insulin resistance.
> What if our metabolic disaster as a whole is mainly driven by the PUFA
> problematic, and you see a major improvement of all aspects of this
> syndrome with nothing but a normalized omega-3 FA concentration in
> your fatty tissue regardless of your BMI? Should we simply turn our
> bad VAT into good VAT instead of getting rid of it, which anyway we
> rarely succeed in?
It's a very chicken-and-egg kind of question.
IMO, too long it's been viewed entirely as a carb issue. And I do think
carb intake is very important for T2s and others with metabolic syndrome
- we can build gobs of bad fats out of excess glucose and fructose
easily enough after all.
But low-carb is *not* the entire story, else I'd be healthy as a horse
rather than recovering from surgeries.
>> I eat flax meal as a basic cereal ingredient and to make bread-like and
>> muffin-like concoctions (often with almond meal).
>
> Is that grinded resp. pulverized linseed / almonds? And what do you
> use to bind the dough? Eggs?
Yes, just flax and almonds ground to powder - you have to stop the
grinding in time with the almonds or you get butter instead. And stored
in the fridge after grinding as the fats will oxidize.
For the breads and muffins, yes it's egg. I posted the recipes on
alt.food.diabetic recently - they're near-instant microwave recipes.
The bread is also "raised". The cereal doesn't need binding, of course.
>> I replaced cocoa butter in chocolate with coconut oil via a homemade
>> bark I make. Net increase in saturated fat is zero with whatever
>> advantages coconut oil adds.
>
> You replace it? Or do you make chocolate from scratch using
> (hardened?) coconut oil and cocoa? Some time ago I came across
> http://www.level1diet.com/coconut-oil-supplement-medium-chain-triglycerides-health-benefits.html
> but think that's nonsense, though I appreciate the beneficial effects
> of coconut oil ... to my skin in the form of suntan oil. ;-)
I mean cocoa butter is replaced in my diet cause I am eating this
homemade bark stuff instead of Lindt 85% now. It's coconut oil, cocoa
and whatever flavor of DaVinci strikes my fancy.
I'm uncertain on the coconut oil issue. The chain length of fattay
acids seems a bit spurious of a distinction to me based on my
understanding of fatty acid metabolism, unless someone wants to argue
for even-chain vs. odd-chain length.
But I've been known to be wrong before, so adding coconut oil without
increasing the saturated fat in my diet hedges my bets.
> Right. We have to be content with a healthy approach, as the
> theoretical optimum is out of reach.
The optimum is *impossible*.
The biochemistry of nutrition has grown *tremendously* since I was a
grad student a couple decades ago.
So we'll know all sorts of other new stuff a decade or two from now that
will make today's knowledge seem quaint.
> Were you aware of the subversive tendencies described below (once
> again http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/71/1/179S.pdf, p. 3):
>
> | Factors such as cultivar, variety, growing region, and climatic
> | conditions have marked influences on the ALA content of soybean
> | and canola oil. For example, there have been substantial efforts
> | over the years to reduce the ALA content of soybean oil through
> | classic plant-breeding techniques and, more recently, by genetic
> | manipulation. This is attractive to the edible-oil industry for
> | use in a nonhydrogenated liquid salad oil and in deep-frying
> | applications because of the increased oxidative stability.
> | Low-ALA soybean varieties with much lower ALA contents, in the
> | range of 3-4%, than the common williams variety (ie, ~7.8%) are
> | now becoming commercially available.
>
> That means, for a better keeping 'quality' the food industry
> deliberately further weakens our already impaired health, and the
> consumer isn't even aware of the lousy ingredients, reads 'soybean'
> and thinks 'wow, great'. Looks like premeditated grievous bodily harm.
I'm aware of it as a general issue though not specifically wrt to soy
and flax.
I didn't have a garden this year due to my health issues, but stick
primarily to heirloom seeds when I do. I'm anti-GMO (which has more to
do with *taste* than hating Monsanto) and pro-organic (which has a lot
more to do with micronutrients than just not using pesticides).
Plant breeders just don't have the same values I do... I don't need a
tomato that ships well or a corn that is extra sugary.
> BTW: You got my mail?
Yes, I am behind on email. Went on the road with hubby for a week right
after I asked you.
I'm behind on *everything* which is pretty frustrating since I'm not
even working right now!
I have about 6 hours or so a day that I can do things actively and have
some days I can't even manage getting to the Y as I tire easily.
ra...@val.com
> lacks the important fact, that the classical desaturation & elongation
> pathway from linoleic acid (LA; 18:2n-6) to arachidonic acid (AA;
> 20:4n-6) also leads via gamma-linolenic acid (GLA; 18:3n-6) and
> but think that's nonsense, though I appreciate the beneficial effects
> of coconut oil ... to my skin in the form of suntan oil. ;-)
>
> >I use lecithin as the main emulsifier in cooking. It's dead cheap when
> >bought as a baking ingredient and only gets expensive if packaged as a
> >supplement. A completly painless change in my diet.
>
> >It seems to me that eating better is a lot easier, cheaper and more
> >pleasant than taking pills. It also seems my strategy maximizes my
> >health no matter what turns out to be the ultimate truth about fats.
>
> Right. We have to be content with a healthy approach, as the
> theoretical optimum is out of reach.
>
> Were you aware of the subversive tendencies described below (once
>
> | Factors such as cultivar, variety, growing region, and climatic
> | conditions have marked influences on the ALA content of soybean
> | and canola oil. For example, there have been substantial efforts
> | over the years to reduce the ALA content of soybean oil through
> | classic plant-breeding techniques and, more recently, by genetic
> | manipulation. This is attractive to the edible-oil industry for
>
> read more »
Michael,
Another reason, beside the conversion issue, that I avoid concentrated
sources of short chain n3s is the associate with prostate cancer.
I know there is evidence on both sides, but its worrisome enough for
me that I avoid canola oil.
Regards
Randy
References:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/1/204
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/919
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:16430627
http://tinyurl.com/2m6rq6
ra...@val.com
Another reason, beside the conversion issue, that I avoid
concentrated
sources of short chain n3s, is the association with prostate cancer.
Michael Sand
Susan wrote:
>It is the case that he recommended range fed animal products.
I'd demand a more profound justification in order to buy his company's
expensive supplements. On the one hand he criticizes low-fat diets due
to their deficits in certain vitamins and fatty acids, while on the
other he recommends them to those on his high-fat diet, which by
itself should provide even more fat-related micronutrients than any
standard nutrition. Seems illogical to me.
>As to the rest of his "scientific" claims, I'm the last person you'd
>look to to defend his bombastic writings and errors and inaccuracies.
As I already said, I also noticed several errors and inconsistencies
I'd expected to be eliminated in the 2nd or at least 3rd edition of a
publication.
>I'm just knowledgable about his diet and read one of his books (with my
>teeth grinding) among several others and know that he was aware of the
>health benefits of the fat profiles and lower AA in grass fed animals.
At the risk of doing him wrong - is it all about making money?
Kind regards
Mike
BlueBrooke
wrote:
>Susan wrote:
>
>> If one followed Atkin's recommendations, one would not have pro
>> inflammatory effects from the diet. He advised grass fed animal
>> products, with proven heart healthy anti inflammatory levels of omega
>> 6/omega 3s and lower in arachidonic acid.
>
>The one that bugs me is the notion that you eat gobs of bacon on Atkins.
> I haven't read the book in many years, but I'm pretty sure he said no
>nitrates or nitrites.
Yup.
>He also said no caffeine, and most folks don't seem to take that bit
>seriously, so I doubt very many people actually do his diet.
and -- Yup.
--
BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005
May 2007 A1c 5.5
Oct 2007 Yellow Belt! Yeah!
Cheri
BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote in message
<1nlej3pskb78fe6a3...@4ax.com>...
>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:23:20 -0500, Jackie Patti <jpa...@ccil.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Susan wrote:
>>
>>> If one followed Atkin's recommendations, one would not have pro
>>> inflammatory effects from the diet. He advised grass fed animal
>>> products, with proven heart healthy anti inflammatory levels of
omega
>>> 6/omega 3s and lower in arachidonic acid.
>>
>>The one that bugs me is the notion that you eat gobs of bacon on
Atkins.
>> I haven't read the book in many years, but I'm pretty sure he said
no
>>nitrates or nitrites.
>
>Yup.
>
>>He also said no caffeine, and most folks don't seem to take that bit
>>seriously, so I doubt very many people actually do his diet.
>
>and -- Yup.
I think in my original Atkins book, he said that caffeine might stall
some people, so it was an individual choice, and if you weren't
losing, try not drinking it. I don't think he said *no* caffeine, but
I could be wrong, since it's been many years since I had the book.
Cheri
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/1c4a2da10f3e0b51?
>
> If someone were to kill you while you were in a state of grace with
> your God, they would be doing you a favor, right?
GOD's will be done and not my will.
> They'd sure be doing Usenet a service.
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
BlueBrooke
wrote:
*sigh* Okay -- you caught me on an ambitious day and I had to
actually pull out my books. I'm just impressed I could even find them
-- LOL!
And Cheri wins the teddy bear! LOL!
From Atkins 1972 --
"Caffeine Also Aggravates Carbohydrate Intolerance
"The caffeine in our coffee (and even the theobromine in our tea) also
can lead to an excess insulin production. Our national consumption of
soft drinks (many of which contain significant amounts of caffeine as
well as sugar) has contributed importantly to our national
vulnerability to overweight, hypoglycemia, heart disease and
diabetes."
[He then goes on to discuss his belief that the obesity epidemic in
Westernized countries is due to the overconsumption of refined sugar.]
In the list of foods allowed on induction --
"Drinks
". . . sugar-free diet soda; coffee,* tea, decaffeinated coffee.
"*Special note on caffeine and Diet Cola. Because most heavy people
have some hypoglycemia, coffee, which contains caffeine, should be
limited to six servings a day (cups). If you *know* you have low
blood sugar, better limit it to three."
From Atkins 1992 --
In the list of foods allowed on induction --
". . . Decaffeinated coffee or tea*
"*Caffeine mimics the effect of sugar on blood glucose levels by
stimulating insulin release. It should be avoided by those who
suspect they are caffeine dependent and taken in limited quantities by
others."
"Q. I can't start my day without coffee. What can't I have it on
this diet?
"A. Simply this: Caffeine stimulates the insulin mechanism, and
that's your vulnerable spot. It raises blood sugar at first and then
allows it to crash. This could mean fatigue, irritability, crabings,
increased appetite, or the like. If you try the diet for two weeks
without caffeine, and would then like to re-introduce it to see if you
notice any of these effects, and you do not, you may find it
acceptable to have a small amount of coffee from time to time."
So, to me, it looks like from 1972 to 1992 the stance on caffeine was
more restrictive. So, it can be argued that he didn't actually say
*no* caffeine -- but it is something to watch if things aren't
working?
On a personal note, as one who once thought I couldn't start the day
without my caffeine fix -- it wasn't true. After I went though about
two weeks of "withdrawl" -- not just from the coffee, but from the
regular soda, which also has a lot of caffeine, I felt much better and
didn't need the "morning boost."
Caffeine is just another legal drug. There's a difference between
"need" and "want." I hope no one thinks I'm slamming them with this
statement -- my hubby can't stand decaf and can taste the difference
with the first sip (I can't -- I can drink regular coffee and don't
know it until I get jittery), so we have both. When he's home, we
start off with a pot of regular coffee and then, if we still want
more, we switch to decaf. I can handle a cup or two, but more than
that and I can really feel it.
Cheri
BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote in message
<8aqej3tbsdehetbec...@4ax.com>...
>Caffeine is just another legal drug. There's a difference between
>"need" and "want." I hope no one thinks I'm slamming them with this
>statement -- my hubby can't stand decaf and can taste the difference
>with the first sip (I can't -- I can drink regular coffee and don't
>know it until I get jittery), so we have both. When he's home, we
>start off with a pot of regular coffee and then, if we still want
>more, we switch to decaf. I can handle a cup or two, but more than
>that and I can really feel it.
I'm one of those people that definitely enjoys my coffee. I don't have
any real problems that I've ever noticed with it, even drinking it
late at night, but it was Hell to give up the cream in it. I just got
tired of always being out of cream, and having to go buy more, so I
just stopped using it. It took about six weeks before it tasted good
black though. :-)
Cheri
Cheri
Seriously, thanks for looking that up Blue. I was curious myself.
Cheri
BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote in message
<8aqej3tbsdehetbec...@4ax.com>...
Alan S
<snip>
>Caffeine is just another legal drug. There's a difference between
>"need" and "want." I hope no one thinks I'm slamming them with this
>statement -- my hubby can't stand decaf and can taste the difference
>with the first sip (I can't -- I can drink regular coffee and don't
>know it until I get jittery), so we have both. When he's home, we
>start off with a pot of regular coffee and then, if we still want
>more, we switch to decaf. I can handle a cup or two, but more than
>that and I can really feel it.
YMMV definitely applies. I drink two or three mugs a day of
strong brewed full-caffeine coffee without discernible side
effects. No jitters, no headaches, no sleep problems.
Balancing the negatives you and Atkins mentioned you will
find a number of studies showing benefits for type 2's with
moderate caffeine consumption. The most surprising ones
implied it may be protective against developing type 2, but
that is a little late for us.
We have had several past threads on the subject here, which
include references to various studies:
http://tinyurl.com/22w6mp
http://tinyurl.com/249wxa
http://tinyurl.com/yon5w4
http://tinyurl.com/yoc7tg
http://tinyurl.com/yr682d
and this one is about coffee and Alzheimers:
http://tinyurl.com/27xarb
I'm just sipping on my first of the morning, infused with
cinnamon...aaaah...that was good...
Alan S
<sa...@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>
>At the risk of doing him wrong - is it all about making money?
>
>Kind regards
>
>Mike
I don't do Atkins, but I do do low-spike. I've never bought
an Atkins product; it's more about the things I don't buy.
I probably go through the same quantity of bread, corn,
potatoes and similar in a year these days as I used to go
through in a month. I had to throw out some stored flour and
sugar lately because it simply got too old to use and ants
got into the storage containers.
Those who do follow a low carb regimen have no need to buy
"low-carb" products. That is a matter of convenience and
taste, not need.
Jackie Patti
> From Atkins 1992 --
>
> In the list of foods allowed on induction --
>
> ". . . Decaffeinated coffee or tea*
<much snipped>
I think maybe it's just an induction thing with the decaf. A lot of his
rules are strict at first and lighten up over time depending on how you do.
I'm pretty sure I don't have as many copies as you do, if I even have
any at all at this point!
> On a personal note, as one who once thought I couldn't start the day
> without my caffeine fix -- it wasn't true. After I went though about
> two weeks of "withdrawl" -- not just from the coffee, but from the
> regular soda, which also has a lot of caffeine, I felt much better and
> didn't need the "morning boost."
I've been through the withdrawal a few times.
But now, I need my one morning cup. I can switch over to decaf after
that, but without the one, I fall back asleep before 10 AM or so.
Michael Sand
>Michael Sand wrote:
>
>> I'd demand a more profound justification in order to buy his company's
>> expensive supplements.
>
>Well, that's a non sequitir! What does one thing have to do with
>another? FTR, the only supplement I ever bought from the company when
>Atkins still owned it was their 450 mg pantethine. The new ownership did
>away with it.
I wouldn't recommended buying any supplement as long as there are
practicable ways to get the ingredients from natural unprocessed
sources. But I at least expect the proof of their necessity before
even thinking about how to obtain the respective substances.
>I am discussing specifics of the diet plan, I don't know what your topic is.
In contrast to the final chapters of Atkins' book I pursue no
commercial aim, just interpret his argumentation and try to get to the
bottom of his recommendations, which is when the context of all his
interests matters, are they of philanthropic or commercial nature.
> On the one hand he criticizes low-fat diets due
>> to their deficits in certain vitamins and fatty acids, while on the
>> other he recommends them to those on his high-fat diet, which by
>> itself should provide even more fat-related micronutrients than any
>> standard nutrition. Seems illogical to me.
>
>He's dead. He doesn't recommend anything, now. Nor does his company
>own Atkins Nutritionals, it was sold off years ago and the offerings
>completely changed.
You're right, I should have chosen the past tense. Anyway, I cited and
judged what he once wrote in his books and still is read and followed
by many people.
>> At the risk of doing him wrong - is it all about making money?
>>
>>
>No, I don't think it's all about money. His estate is funding a non
>profit research foundation granting no strings attached monies to
>nutrition researchers. And he's dead and his estate doesn't own the
>nutrition company/products any longer.
Was he already out of business when he wrote his books?
>It *was* the way he made his living, based upon his education and
>expertise, but isn't that what we all strive for?
Please, don't understand me wrong. I honestly appreciate his work on
basic dietary strategies and the way he succeeded in making them so
popular. But I find it annoying how he desperately tried to justify
the supplements sold by his (former) company.
Regards
Mike
Frank t2
"Ozgirl" <are_we_t...@maccas.com> a écrit ...
>
> "Jackie Patti" <jpa...@ccil.org> wrote ...
>> Alan S wrote:
>>> That was the bit that occurred to me too. Also, when you are
>>> using their system of rotating diets in the same group the
>>> interactivity effects and personal likes/dislikes that
>>> affect choices confound the issue.
>>
>> Yeah, you could get weirdos eating brewer's yeast shakes to screw up all
>> the results! ;)
>
> Oi! Just for that I am off to eat a Vegemite sanger.
sanger = sarnie ?
Michael Sand
>Michael Sand wrote:
>
>> Jackie Patti wrote:
>>> I understand that commonly-available canola oil is processed and
>>> therefore contains trans fats, just at a low enough level to round to 0g
>>> per serving on the label.
>>
>> Are you sure? Why hydrogenate it? Moderate heat shouldn't harm.
>
>Am I sure? No. But I've heard this from several sources. Apparently,
>hydrogenation improves shelf life.
>Since I can't find anything specifically labeled as virgin canola oil, I
>quit using it myself.
Why not contact the producers to sort things out instead of banning a
possibly healthy product for questionable reasons? I just read the
label of my rapeseed oil. Stored in the dark at room temperature it
has to be consumed within a year. That's plenty of time. With flaxseed
oil it could be a much shorter period. I read Jan/2008, but found no
production date.
>But fish oil is darned cheap so I've taken to recommending it at the
>same level I recommend a general multivitamin - probably benefits nearly
>everyone unless they eat loads of fish already.
A plausible strategy. What does a bottle of fish oil cost you and
what's the amount you ingest per day?
>I think the fish oil is in the "general recommendation" category though
>- it's cheap and can't hurt.
ACK.
>I've been finding stuff about vitamin D everywhere lately. Apparently,
>most supplements contain D2 and a subset of people do not convert
>efficiently to D3. People who do stuff like landscaping and live in FL
>and such have turned up deficient in serum levels of vitamin D!
I'm sure you know, that vitamin D substances actually are hormones and
not essential vitamins, which means, they can be synthesized by our
bodies themselves. Only under certain conditions, in particular if
you're not sufficiently exposed to ultraviolet radiation or as a
result of a grave liver or kidney insufficiency, you get a deficit.
The physiologic precursor of active vitamin D is 7-dehydrocholesterol,
transformed into cholecalciferol (D3) under ultraviolet radiation,
which happens in the skin. The activation by hydroxylation then takes
place in liver and kidneys. AFAIK calciferol (D2) is a technical
product derived from ergosterol, a plant steroid, also by UV
radiation. So whom would you blame for our deficit in utilizing D2
when we're perfectly designed to build our own 'vitamin' D? ;-)
>Goodness, you're a geek! I learn so much reading your posts!
Thanks, but no, I have to pass the compliment back. We, as most of
others here, are merely interested in basing our decisions on
reasonable grounds. And learning in a group of kindred souls is much
more motivating than doing it in isolation. Thus it's me who profits
most. Problems and questions are often more inspiring, more important
for advance than answers. That's why I love to participate in this
group.
>I haven't looked into GLA much yet, though see some of the CLA-pushing
>folks also push GLA for weight loss.
>
>Bernstein seemed to push evening primrose oil with the "other" ALA for
>insulin sensitivity, but seems to have backed off to just the ALA lately.
I'm still waiting for his new book, hope to get it within the next few
days.
>So I don't know about GLA, but some of the CLA benefits seem clear to
>me. Given that we do need some amount of omega6s, it seems a no-brainer
>to get them from pasture-rasied animals rather than vegetable oils.
I don't rack my brain over n-6 supply, as it's unavoidable to get
plenty of it from n-3 sources.
>>> I am not clear on the saturated fat vs. polyunsaturated fat question;
>>> research seems contradictory to me.
>>
>> In which respect? Replacing saturated fat by omega-6 rich vegetable
>> oils, as proclaimed by the anti-cholesterol campaign throughout
>> previous decades, obviously was a washout. But what against taking the
>> chance to shift to the advantageous omega-3 fatty acids instead?
>
>I think replacing animal fats with most vegetable oils is bad because it
>screws up the omega ratios and that is unfortunately the standard advice
>usually given to folks about fat.
Of course you have to select nutrients that support your goals of
lowering the n-6:n-3 ratio, and there are dietary oils as well that
can thwart your intentions. But I feel more secure when relying on
certain sorts of vegetable oils with nearly standardized ingredients
than depending on non-standardized feeding practices of meat producers
I don't know. Moreover, I didn't calculate that yet, but it may be
hard to eat the amount of lean meat that corresponds to the quantity
of n-3 PUFAs concentrated in one single tablespoon of flaxseed oil.
Don't get me wrong, I consider the current recommendations of 15
energy-% from protein to be way too low, especially for diabetics, and
would favour to nearly double that share, which not least is a
question of micronutrients.
>On the other hand, I'm not convinced saturated fats are "good" either.
>Obviously, they don't oxidize nor form weird trans configurations and
>such, but I'm unsure whether they're neutral or bad. That's where I'm
>uncertain - there seems good research and arguments on both the
>pro-saturated and anti-saturated fat argument.
I never heared of an SFA deficiency. Isn't one of the problems of our
Western eating habits getting too much of them?
>The vegetable oils I use are olive, avocado and nuts - all of which are
>neutral or adding to the omega3 overall.
Olive oil 10% PUFA, no more than 1% ALA / omega-3 AFAICS. That fits
the unhealthy U.S. 6:3 ratio of about 10. Olive oil is known to be
high in phenolic compounds, but its disadvantageous energy density
leaves less room for n-3 rich food. :-( Would eating olives and
drinking other oils be a solution, as the solid production residues
often contain more healthy components than the final liquid product?
:-)
>> Moreover, it's no secret, that LA also induces insulin resistance.
>> What if our metabolic disaster as a whole is mainly driven by the PUFA
>> problematic, and you see a major improvement of all aspects of this
>> syndrome with nothing but a normalized omega-3 FA concentration in
>> your fatty tissue regardless of your BMI? Should we simply turn our
>> bad VAT into good VAT instead of getting rid of it, which anyway we
>> rarely succeed in?
>
>It's a very chicken-and-egg kind of question.
And it's provocative, I know. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in
results of some study analyzing the fatty acid components of VAT
obtained as a by-product from routine abdominal surgery, and
correlating them with the health status of the patient (BMI,
hypertension, diabetes etc.).
>IMO, too long it's been viewed entirely as a carb issue. And I do think
>carb intake is very important for T2s and others with metabolic syndrome
>- we can build gobs of bad fats out of excess glucose and fructose
>easily enough after all.
Of course, without a carbohydrate mast you get less fatty tissue,
which is assumed to be the promoter of the metabolic syndrome, maybe
because that's where the bad n-6 fatty acids reside, that are known to
support the production of proinflammatory n-6 arachidonic acid and
interleukines. Now if you have that bad n-6 tooth taken out ... ???
[guidance for low-carb meal substitutes snipped]
Thanks for the explanation.
>I'm uncertain on the coconut oil issue. The chain length of fattay
>acids seems a bit spurious of a distinction to me based on my
>understanding of fatty acid metabolism, unless someone wants to argue
>for even-chain vs. odd-chain length.
Any indication of the chain length making a difference? Otherwise I'd
concentrate on the facts. Isn't it hard to find out such differences
with no purified fatty acids available for feeding over a longer
period of time, to say nothing of the poor volunteers taking part in
such a study?
There's one paper stored on my harddisk dealing with pp profiles after
meals containing different fatty acids, but I've no idea how to
interpret those data and whether the findings are relevant at all:
'Effect of 6 dietary fatty acids on the postprandial lipid profile,
plasma fatty acids, lipoprotein lipase, and cholesterol ester transfer
activities in healthy young men'
(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/73/2/198.pdf).
>> Right. We have to be content with a healthy approach, as the
>> theoretical optimum is out of reach.
>
>The optimum is *impossible*.
>
>The biochemistry of nutrition has grown *tremendously* since I was a
>grad student a couple decades ago.
>
>So we'll know all sorts of other new stuff a decade or two from now that
>will make today's knowledge seem quaint.
The bad thing is, the facts are obvious, but we don't act accordingly.
Tobacco commercials are prohibited, but more and more soft drink
companies flood our schools. To allow this is a hypocritical behaviour
of the administration and all the other parties involved. Not long ago
here in Germany we had a discussion about raising VAT for sugar,
candies etc., which clearly threaten out health - just guess what
happened. And what are the agricultural subsidies paid for? Mostly in
support of products high in energy density. I can't accept, that every
$ invested in this field entails another one having to be given to the
healthcare sector to cover follow-up costs. SCNR.
>I didn't have a garden this year due to my health issues,
Hope you're doing better soon.
>> BTW: You got my mail?
>
>Yes, I am behind on email.
No reason to hurry. I just wanted to be sure you got mine.
Kind regards
Mike
Nicky
<sa...@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>Why not contact the producers to sort things out instead of banning a
>possibly healthy product for questionable reasons?
Personally, I avoid the stuff because I hate the way it attacks my
chest in practically every other field during the growing season! I
don;t care how healthy the oil is, the plant is a pest.
Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 100ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25
Jackie Patti
>>> Jackie Patti wrote:
>> Am I sure? No. But I've heard this from several sources. Apparently,
>> hydrogenation improves shelf life.
>> Since I can't find anything specifically labeled as virgin canola oil, I
>> quit using it myself.
>
> Why not contact the producers to sort things out instead of banning a
> possibly healthy product for questionable reasons? I just read the
> label of my rapeseed oil. Stored in the dark at room temperature it
> has to be consumed within a year. That's plenty of time. With flaxseed
> oil it could be a much shorter period. I read Jan/2008, but found no
> production date.
I suppose if I were a bit less lazy, I could do that. ;)
>> But fish oil is darned cheap so I've taken to recommending it at the
>> same level I recommend a general multivitamin - probably benefits nearly
>> everyone unless they eat loads of fish already.
>
> A plausible strategy. What does a bottle of fish oil cost you and
> what's the amount you ingest per day?
I began taking 4 grams, but the cardiologist suggested upping to 6
grams. There's 400 1-gram pills in a bottle, so that's still 2 months
worth at the higher intake level.
This costs about $6-7 per bottle, so it's dead cheap - really the
cheapest of all meds and supplements I take except the aspirin
(multivitamin, B-complex, niacin, pantothenic acid, vitamin D3,
Lisinopril, Carvedilol, Lantus and Humalog).
>> I think the fish oil is in the "general recommendation" category though
>> - it's cheap and can't hurt.
>
> ACK.
Why Ack?!?
> I'm sure you know, that vitamin D substances actually are hormones and
> not essential vitamins, which means, they can be synthesized by our
> bodies themselves.
Yup, and I'm of the opinion that people need to be conservative messing
around with hormones.
> Only under certain conditions, in particular if
> you're not sufficiently exposed to ultraviolet radiation or as a
> result of a grave liver or kidney insufficiency, you get a deficit.
> The physiologic precursor of active vitamin D is 7-dehydrocholesterol,
> transformed into cholecalciferol (D3) under ultraviolet radiation,
> which happens in the skin. The activation by hydroxylation then takes
> place in liver and kidneys. AFAIK calciferol (D2) is a technical
> product derived from ergosterol, a plant steroid, also by UV
> radiation. So whom would you blame for our deficit in utilizing D2
> when we're perfectly designed to build our own 'vitamin' D? ;-)
An awful lot of folks don't seem to convert much D2 -> D3 based on their
serum levels. Seems like something most people could have checked with
their blood work easily enough to see if there's a problem or not.
A lot of health problems are associated with low serum vitamin D; Davis
has found supplementing until serum levels are at 50 ng/dL significantly
decreases heart scan scores. But there's a lot of other issues
involved, largely endocrine-related and osteoporosis, of course.
> Thanks, but no, I have to pass the compliment back. We, as most of
> others here, are merely interested in basing our decisions on
> reasonable grounds. And learning in a group of kindred souls is much
> more motivating than doing it in isolation. Thus it's me who profits
> most. Problems and questions are often more inspiring, more important
> for advance than answers. That's why I love to participate in this
> group.
I'm very much the same way.
>> I haven't looked into GLA much yet, though see some of the CLA-pushing
>> folks also push GLA for weight loss.
>>
>> Bernstein seemed to push evening primrose oil with the "other" ALA for
>> insulin sensitivity, but seems to have backed off to just the ALA lately.
>
> I'm still waiting for his new book, hope to get it within the next few
> days.
It's pretty good. He's a bit dogmatic as always, but there's loads of
good info in there.
> Of course you have to select nutrients that support your goals of
> lowering the n-6:n-3 ratio, and there are dietary oils as well that
> can thwart your intentions. But I feel more secure when relying on
> certain sorts of vegetable oils with nearly standardized ingredients
> than depending on non-standardized feeding practices of meat producers
> I don't know. Moreover, I didn't calculate that yet, but it may be
> hard to eat the amount of lean meat that corresponds to the quantity
> of n-3 PUFAs concentrated in one single tablespoon of flaxseed oil.
> Don't get me wrong, I consider the current recommendations of 15
> energy-% from protein to be way too low, especially for diabetics, and
> would favour to nearly double that share, which not least is a
> question of micronutrients.
Largely agreed.
My diet has always tended to be heavy in animal products, I'm pretty
content getting most of my calories from cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese
and meat.
I usually buy meat from farmers cause I live in a rural area and have a
freezer. So I do know how the aminals are raised cause I see them when
I pick it up.
Dairy has been more difficult; I had to check with a bunch of sources to
find the few little organic brands that use pasture-raised animals.
> I never heared of an SFA deficiency. Isn't one of the problems of our
> Western eating habits getting too much of them?
That seems to be the theory, but I'm uncertain. Dietary studies rarely
isolate things enough to satisfy me about what exactly caused what.
My grandmother is 105 years old and grew up eating meats and dairy
products off farms. People died of lots of childhood diseases back
then, but not heart disease much. She's never had a heart attack and I
sometimes suspect she is immortal. ;)
So that's a big part of my suspicion that it may well be the different
fatty acid profile in current products vs. pasture-raised products that
is the real issue, rather than saturated fat overall.
If I were dead broke and couldn't afford the pasture-raised products,
I'd probably switch to low-fat products and up my intake of olive oil,
avocado oil, nuts and flax to compensate calorically.
But as long as I can afford it, I prefer my cream and butter! ;)
>> It's a very chicken-and-egg kind of question.
>
> And it's provocative, I know. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in
> results of some study analyzing the fatty acid components of VAT
> obtained as a by-product from routine abdominal surgery, and
> correlating them with the health status of the patient (BMI,
> hypertension, diabetes etc.).
Sounds a bit less gross than the studies done to show the benefits of fiber.
>> I'm uncertain on the coconut oil issue. The chain length of fattay
>> acids seems a bit spurious of a distinction to me based on my
>> understanding of fatty acid metabolism, unless someone wants to argue
>> for even-chain vs. odd-chain length.
>
> Any indication of the chain length making a difference? Otherwise I'd
> concentrate on the facts. Isn't it hard to find out such differences
> with no purified fatty acids available for feeding over a longer
> period of time, to say nothing of the poor volunteers taking part in
> such a study?
Yes, there's loads of research on medium chain triglycerides, though
probably more animal studies than people actually eating the stuff.
I just am not sure if I buy it as it seems a ridiculous distinction to me.
Bodybuilders are into it; you can buy protein powders with MCT added as
a supplement. Coconut oil is a lot cheaper. ;)
> The bad thing is, the facts are obvious, but we don't act accordingly.
> Tobacco commercials are prohibited, but more and more soft drink
> companies flood our schools. To allow this is a hypocritical behaviour
> of the administration and all the other parties involved. Not long ago
> here in Germany we had a discussion about raising VAT for sugar,
> candies etc., which clearly threaten out health - just guess what
> happened. And what are the agricultural subsidies paid for? Mostly in
> support of products high in energy density. I can't accept, that every
> $ invested in this field entails another one having to be given to the
> healthcare sector to cover follow-up costs. SCNR.
IME, the government doesn't much give a damn what I think about corn and
sugar subsidies. Frankly, if they suddenly decided my opinion mattered,
I'd have a lot of stuff higher on my priority list to change than that
anyways!
For me, it's mostly about what I put in my own mouth and recommend to
others who ask me. The USDA and farm subsidies aren't likely to be sane
in my lifetime anymore than the ADA diet recommendations are.
Michael Sand
>Michael Sand wrote:
>
>> Jackie Patti wrote:
>>> I understand that commonly-available canola oil is processed and
>>> therefore contains trans fats, just at a low enough level to round to 0g
>>> per serving on the label.
>>
>> Are you sure? Why hydrogenate it? Moderate heat shouldn't harm.
>
>Am I sure? No. But I've heard this from several sources. Apparently,
>hydrogenation improves shelf life.
>Since I can't find anything specifically labeled as virgin canola oil, I
>quit using it myself.
Why not contact the producers to sort things out instead of banning a
possibly healthy product for questionable reasons? I just read the
label of my rapeseed oil. Stored in the dark at room temperature it
has to be consumed within a year. That's plenty of time. With flaxseed
oil it could be a much shorter period. I read Jan/2008, but found no
production date.
>But fish oil is darned cheap so I've taken to recommending it at the
>same level I recommend a general multivitamin - probably benefits nearly
>everyone unless they eat loads of fish already.
A plausible strategy. What does a bottle of fish oil cost you and
what's the amount you ingest per day?
>I think the fish oil is in the "general recommendation" category though
>- it's cheap and can't hurt.
ACK.
>I've been finding stuff about vitamin D everywhere lately. Apparently,
>most supplements contain D2 and a subset of people do not convert
>efficiently to D3. People who do stuff like landscaping and live in FL
>and such have turned up deficient in serum levels of vitamin D!
I'm sure you know, that vitamin D substances actually are hormones and
not essential vitamins, which means, they can be synthesized by our
bodies themselves. Only under certain conditions, in particular if
you're not sufficiently exposed to ultraviolet radiation or as a
result of a grave liver or kidney insufficiency, you get a deficit.
The physiologic precursor of active vitamin D is 7-dehydrocholesterol,
transformed into cholecalciferol (D3) under ultraviolet radiation,
which happens in the skin. The activation by hydroxylation then takes
place in liver and kidneys. AFAIK calciferol (D2) is a technical
product derived from ergosterol, a plant steroid, also by UV
radiation. So whom would you blame for our deficit in utilizing D2
when we're perfectly designed to build our own 'vitamin' D? ;-)
>Goodness, you're a geek! I learn so much reading your posts!
Thanks, but no, I have to pass the compliment back. We, as most of
others here, are merely interested in basing our decisions on
reasonable grounds. And learning in a group of kindred souls is much
more motivating than doing it in isolation. Thus it's me who profits
most. Problems and questions are often more inspiring, more important
for advance than answers. That's why I love to participate in this
group.
>I haven't looked into GLA much yet, though see some of the CLA-pushing
>folks also push GLA for weight loss.
>
>Bernstein seemed to push evening primrose oil with the "other" ALA for
>insulin sensitivity, but seems to have backed off to just the ALA lately.
I'm still waiting for his new book, hope to get it within the next few
days.
>So I don't know about GLA, but some of the CLA benefits seem clear to
>me. Given that we do need some amount of omega6s, it seems a no-brainer
>to get them from pasture-rasied animals rather than vegetable oils.
I don't rack my brain over n-6 supply, as it's unavoidable to get
plenty of it from n-3 sources.
>>> I am not clear on the saturated fat vs. polyunsaturated fat question;
>>> research seems contradictory to me.
>>
>> In which respect? Replacing saturated fat by omega-6 rich vegetable
>> oils, as proclaimed by the anti-cholesterol campaign throughout
>> previous decades, obviously was a washout. But what against taking the
>> chance to shift to the advantageous omega-3 fatty acids instead?
>
>I think replacing animal fats with most vegetable oils is bad because it
>screws up the omega ratios and that is unfortunately the standard advice
>usually given to folks about fat.
Of course you have to select nutrients that support your goals of
lowering the n-6:n-3 ratio, and there are dietary oils as well that
can thwart your intentions. But I feel more secure when relying on
certain sorts of vegetable oils with nearly standardized ingredients
than depending on non-standardized feeding practices of meat producers
I don't know. Moreover, I didn't calculate that yet, but it may be
hard to eat the amount of lean meat that corresponds to the quantity
of n-3 PUFAs concentrated in one single tablespoon of flaxseed oil.
Don't get me wrong, I consider the current recommendations of 15
energy-% from protein to be way too low, especially for diabetics, and
would favour to nearly double that share, which not least is a
question of micronutrients.
>On the other hand, I'm not convinced saturated fats are "good" either.
>Obviously, they don't oxidize nor form weird trans configurations and
>such, but I'm unsure whether they're neutral or bad. That's where I'm
>uncertain - there seems good research and arguments on both the
>pro-saturated and anti-saturated fat argument.
I never heared of an SFA deficiency. Isn't one of the problems of our
Western eating habits getting too much of them?
>The vegetable oils I use are olive, avocado and nuts - all of which are
>neutral or adding to the omega3 overall.
Olive oil 10% PUFA, no more than 1% ALA / omega-3 AFAICS. That fits
the unhealthy U.S. 6:3 ratio of about 10. Olive oil is known to be
high in phenolic compounds, but its disadvantageous energy density
leaves less room for n-3 rich food. :-( Would eating olives and
drinking other oils be a solution, as the solid production residues
often contain more healthy components than the final liquid product?
:-)
>> Moreover, it's no secret, that LA also induces insulin resistance.
>> What if our metabolic disaster as a whole is mainly driven by the PUFA
>> problematic, and you see a major improvement of all aspects of this
>> syndrome with nothing but a normalized omega-3 FA concentration in
>> your fatty tissue regardless of your BMI? Should we simply turn our
>> bad VAT into good VAT instead of getting rid of it, which anyway we
>> rarely succeed in?
>
>It's a very chicken-and-egg kind of question.
And it's provocative, I know. Nevertheless, I'd be interested in
results of some study analyzing the fatty acid components of VAT
obtained as a by-product from routine abdominal surgery, and
correlating them with the health status of the patient (BMI,
hypertension, diabetes etc.).
>IMO, too long it's been viewed entirely as a carb issue. And I do think
>carb intake is very important for T2s and others with metabolic syndrome
>- we can build gobs of bad fats out of excess glucose and fructose
>easily enough after all.
Of course, without a carbohydrate mast you get less fatty tissue,
which is assumed to be the promoter of the metabolic syndrome, maybe
because that's where the bad n-6 fatty acids reside, that are known to
support the production of proinflammatory n-6 arachidonic acid and
interleukines. Now if you have that bad n-6 tooth taken out ... ???
[guidance for low-carb meal substitutes snipped]
Thanks for the explanation.
>I'm uncertain on the coconut oil issue. The chain length of fattay
>acids seems a bit spurious of a distinction to me based on my
>understanding of fatty acid metabolism, unless someone wants to argue
>for even-chain vs. odd-chain length.
Any indication of the chain length making a difference? Otherwise I'd
concentrate on the facts. Isn't it hard to find out such differences
with no purified fatty acids available for feeding over a longer
period of time, to say nothing of the poor volunteers taking part in
such a study?
There's one paper stored on my harddisk dealing with pp profiles after
meals containing different fatty acids, but I've no idea how to
interpret those data and whether the findings are relevant at all:
'Effect of 6 dietary fatty acids on the postprandial lipid profile,
plasma fatty acids, lipoprotein lipase, and cholesterol ester transfer
activities in healthy young men'
(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/73/2/198.pdf).
>> Right. We have to be content with a healthy approach, as the
>> theoretical optimum is out of reach.
>
>The optimum is *impossible*.
>
>The biochemistry of nutrition has grown *tremendously* since I was a
>grad student a couple decades ago.
>
>So we'll know all sorts of other new stuff a decade or two from now that
>will make today's knowledge seem quaint.
The bad thing is, the facts are obvious, but we don't act accordingly.
Tobacco commercials are prohibited, but more and more soft drink
companies flood our schools. To allow this is a hypocritical behaviour
of the administration and all the other parties involved. Not long ago
here in Germany we had a discussion about raising VAT for sugar,
candies etc., which clearly threaten out health - just guess what
happened. And what are the agricultural subsidies paid for? Mostly in
support of products high in energy density. I can't accept, that every
$ invested in this field entails another one having to be given to the
healthcare sector to cover follow-up costs. SCNR.
>I didn't have a garden this year due to my health issues,
Hope you're doing better soon.
>> BTW: You got my mail?
>
>Yes, I am behind on email.
No reason to hurry. I just wanted to be sure you got mine.
Kind regards
Mike
Michael Sand
>Michael Sand wrote:
>
>>>> Jackie Patti wrote:
>>> But fish oil is darned cheap so I've taken to recommending it at the
>>> same level I recommend a general multivitamin - probably benefits nearly
>>> everyone unless they eat loads of fish already.
>>
>> A plausible strategy. What does a bottle of fish oil cost you and
>> what's the amount you ingest per day?
>
>I began taking 4 grams, but the cardiologist suggested upping to 6
>grams. There's 400 1-gram pills in a bottle, so that's still 2 months
>worth at the higher intake level.
>
>This costs about $6-7 per bottle, so it's dead cheap - really the
>cheapest of all meds and supplements I take except the aspirin
>(multivitamin, B-complex, niacin, pantothenic acid, vitamin D3,
>Lisinopril, Carvedilol, Lantus and Humalog).
Now let's calculate: A 250 ml bottle of flaxseed oil costs about 2$,
ALA contents 50% = 125 g, of which approx. 15% = 18,75 g are getting
converted to HUFAs. Fish oil OTOH usually contains about 300 mg HUFAs
per gram, thus 120 g n-3 FAs = HUFAs per 6$ bottle. You're right,
seems to be a bargain. :-) Have to look how to get it here for that
price. In addition to the other oils 2-3 g a day seem to be o.k. for a
guy like me.
>>> I think the fish oil is in the "general recommendation" category though
>>> - it's cheap and can't hurt.
>>
>> ACK.
>
>Why Ack?!?
Why not? Every cheap supplement that adds to the n-3 side is
advantageous. I'd only have written 'as it's cheap' instead of 'though
...'.
>> I'm sure you know, that vitamin D substances actually are hormones and
>> not essential vitamins, which means, they can be synthesized by our
>> bodies themselves.
>
>Yup, and I'm of the opinion that people need to be conservative messing
>around with hormones.
[...]
>An awful lot of folks don't seem to convert much D2 -> D3 based on their
>serum levels. Seems like something most people could have checked with
>their blood work easily enough to see if there's a problem or not.
>
>A lot of health problems are associated with low serum vitamin D; Davis
>has found supplementing until serum levels are at 50 ng/dL significantly
>decreases heart scan scores. But there's a lot of other issues
>involved, largely endocrine-related and osteoporosis, of course.
Right, using supplements requires a proper indication. An uncritical
ingestion of vitamin D resulting in a surplus can also do harm, e.g.
induce kidney stones.
>>> Bernstein seemed to push evening primrose oil with the "other" ALA for
>>> insulin sensitivity, but seems to have backed off to just the ALA lately.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for his new book, hope to get it within the next few
>> days.
>
>It's pretty good. He's a bit dogmatic as always, but there's loads of
>good info in there.
In this respect I appreciate dogmatism, not for following the advice
in a 'puritanical' way, but to help me set one of my abstract
cornerstones, that all together allow to define an optimum individual
approach.
>> I never heared of an SFA deficiency. Isn't one of the problems of our
>> Western eating habits getting too much of them?
>
>That seems to be the theory, but I'm uncertain. Dietary studies rarely
>isolate things enough to satisfy me about what exactly caused what.
>
>My grandmother is 105 years old and grew up eating meats and dairy
>products off farms. People died of lots of childhood diseases back
>then, but not heart disease much. She's never had a heart attack and I
>sometimes suspect she is immortal. ;)
It wasn't an affluent society back then. Hardly conceivable she ate as
much as we do now. Or is she overweight since her youth?
>So that's a big part of my suspicion that it may well be the different
>fatty acid profile in current products vs. pasture-raised products that
>is the real issue, rather than saturated fat overall.
SFAs in moderation won't hurt. But IMHO the fatty acid profile is
crucial, what I've tried to give evidence for.
>For me, it's mostly about what I put in my own mouth and recommend to
>others who ask me. The USDA and farm subsidies aren't likely to be sane
>in my lifetime anymore than the ADA diet recommendations are.
Yep, to the worst of our health day in, day out they've proven to be
anything but honest.
Mike
Michael Sand
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:40:11 +0000 (GMT), Michael Sand
><sa...@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>
>>Why not contact the producers to sort things out instead of banning a
>>possibly healthy product for questionable reasons?
>
>Personally, I avoid the stuff because I hate the way it attacks my
>chest in practically every other field during the growing season! I
>don;t care how healthy the oil is, the plant is a pest.
<sarcasm>
LOL. Aren't rape plants easy to tear out? Furthermore there isn't much
stress for one's back as they grow high, easy to grab. ;-)
</sarcasm>
Mike
Jackie Patti
> Jackie Patti wrote:
>> Yup, and I'm of the opinion that people need to be conservative messing
>> around with hormones.
> [...]
>> An awful lot of folks don't seem to convert much D2 -> D3 based on their
>> serum levels. Seems like something most people could have checked with
>> their blood work easily enough to see if there's a problem or not.
>>
>> A lot of health problems are associated with low serum vitamin D; Davis
>> has found supplementing until serum levels are at 50 ng/dL significantly
>> decreases heart scan scores. But there's a lot of other issues
>> involved, largely endocrine-related and osteoporosis, of course.
>
> Right, using supplements requires a proper indication. An uncritical
> ingestion of vitamin D resulting in a surplus can also do harm, e.g.
> induce kidney stones.
I think it's unlikely to be the case for most folks; seems like
overdosing on vitamin D is a lot rarer than we used to think.
But a serum blood test makes it clear easily enough one way or the other.
>>>> Bernstein seemed to push evening primrose oil with the "other" ALA for
>>>> insulin sensitivity, but seems to have backed off to just the ALA lately.
>>> I'm still waiting for his new book, hope to get it within the next few
>>> days.
>> It's pretty good. He's a bit dogmatic as always, but there's loads of
>> good info in there.
> In this respect I appreciate dogmatism, not for following the advice
> in a 'puritanical' way, but to help me set one of my abstract
> cornerstones, that all together allow to define an optimum individual
> approach.
I like his book, but suspect I'd dislike him if he were my doctor. I
think we'd be having lots of arguments. ;)
I do better with my internist who thinks if my bg doesn't go over 200,
that's good enough. He doesn't argue with me.
I have an appointment with an endo next week. Should be interesting as
the instrucitons are I am to bring bg readings and my meter to be
checked for accuracy. I've never had a doctor who actually paid
attention to this stuff before!
>> My grandmother is 105 years old and grew up eating meats and dairy
>> products off farms. People died of lots of childhood diseases back
>> then, but not heart disease much. She's never had a heart attack and I
>> sometimes suspect she is immortal. ;)
>
> It wasn't an affluent society back then. Hardly conceivable she ate as
> much as we do now. Or is she overweight since her youth?
No, she's never been overweight. And after the depression, she became a
sugar addict and began hiding stashes of chocolate in her closet, which
she still does today. Her caretakers have difficulty getting any real
food into her at all - personally, I'd just let her eat the damned
chocolate myself; I think 105 year old people should do any thing they
want to!
Unfortunately, I seem to have inherited my health from the paternal side
of my family.
My point is wrt to heart disease specifically though, not about my
grandmother. A hundred years ago, most people ate from local farms,
low-fat was not yet a popular idea and agribusiness wasn't as developed
as it is today, yet cardiologists had much less to do.
There's a lot of possible interpretations of that data and unfortunately
no one seems to have done the research specifically comparing saturated
fat from pasture-raised animal products vs. the modern stuff, but I'm
inclined to think animal fat can't be terrible in it's more natural
state since it wasn't killing people back then.
And I suspect the research that does indicate problems with saturated
fat is because of this distinction.
>> So that's a big part of my suspicion that it may well be the different
>> fatty acid profile in current products vs. pasture-raised products that
>> is the real issue, rather than saturated fat overall.
>
> SFAs in moderation won't hurt. But IMHO the fatty acid profile is
> crucial, what I've tried to give evidence for.
I agree the omega-3 thing is critical and as long as fish oil and flax
products are cheap, it sure can't hurt!
Michael Sand
>Michael Sand wrote:
>> Jackie Patti wrote:
>>>>> Bernstein ...
>I like his book, but suspect I'd dislike him if he were my doctor. I
>think we'd be having lots of arguments. ;)
So you think he is stubborn and not willing to compromise, whereas
'you, you have your own special way' (don't remember the band, damn,
my brain seems to vie with my bones for getting into the worst habit).
>I do better with my internist who thinks if my bg doesn't go over 200,
>that's good enough. He doesn't argue with me.
>
>I have an appointment with an endo next week. Should be interesting as
>the instrucitons are I am to bring bg readings and my meter to be
>checked for accuracy. I've never had a doctor who actually paid
>attention to this stuff before!
Weird. BTW, how will he check the accuracy? The usual simultaneous
one-shot lab:meter comparison?
>There's a lot of possible interpretations of that data and unfortunately
>no one seems to have done the research specifically comparing saturated
>fat from pasture-raised animal products vs. the modern stuff, but I'm
>inclined to think animal fat can't be terrible in it's more natural
>state since it wasn't killing people back then.
>
>And I suspect the research that does indicate problems with saturated
>fat is because of this distinction.
It's your decision to bet on saturated fat though there's no clear
indication of any advantage even for a subvariant of it. At the risk
of repeating myself, I'd prefer a diet with an adequate ratio of
monounsaturated and polyunsaturated FAs, aiming at a low n-6:n-3
quotient, and a proportion of saturated fats as small as possible,
which is regarded to be the hemodynamically healthiest. The
consumption of SFAs is known to cause an increase in total serum
cholesterol, mainly of the low-density atherogenic fraction, whereas
PUFAs decrease total serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol
concentrations in an efficient manner, although the latter may also
decrease the HDL fraction. Furthermore, MUFAs are more neutral,
possibly responsible for a cardioprotective effect by diminishing LDL
without touching HDL. Both groups of unsaturated fats are even
supposed to act antiatherogenic by inducing the mobilization of
already present cholesterol depots.
>> SFAs in moderation won't hurt. But IMHO the fatty acid profile is
>> crucial, what I've tried to give evidence for.
>
>I agree the omega-3 thing is critical and as long as fish oil and flax
>products are cheap, it sure can't hurt!
Yesterday I was searching the Internet for a fish / salmon oil source
(of supply of course) here in Germany. The cheapest offer I found was
a 250 ml bottle of pure salmon oil intended for veterinary use
(horses, dogs, cats) for 11 USD plus 8 USD shipping, ugh. Anyway,
let's follow the prehistoric path. :-)
Mike
Frank t2
"Michael Sand" <sa...@nym.mixmin.net> a écrit ...
>
>
> Yesterday I was searching the Internet for a fish / salmon oil source
> (of supply of course) here in Germany. The cheapest offer I found was
> a 250 ml bottle of pure salmon oil intended for veterinary use
> (horses, dogs, cats) for 11 USD plus 8 USD shipping, ugh. Anyway,
> let's follow the prehistoric path. :-)
You don't HAVE fish oil capsules in Germany ?
Or maybe you prefer to 'slug back a moutghful of pure oil ?
In which case, I recommend you do it while sitting on the potty ...
;)))
Chris Malcolm
> "Michael Sand" <sa...@nym.mixmin.net> a ecrit ...
Really? I've been slugging oils of various kinds on and off for most
of my life. My mother started me off in childhood with two dessert
spoons of cod liver oil a day. Has never seemed to affect my bowel
movements. If it had the kind of effect you're suggesting to me I'd
suspect it of being rancid.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Frank t2
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> a écrit ...
> Frank t2 <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Sand" <sa...@nym.mixmin.net> a ecrit ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Yesterday I was searching the Internet for a fish / salmon oil source
>>> (of supply of course) here in Germany. The cheapest offer I found was
>>> a 250 ml bottle of pure salmon oil intended for veterinary use
>>> (horses, dogs, cats) for 11 USD plus 8 USD shipping, ugh. Anyway,
>>> let's follow the prehistoric path. :-)
>
>> You don't HAVE fish oil capsules in Germany ?
>
>> Or maybe you prefer to 'slug back a moutghful of pure oil ?
>> In which case, I recommend you do it while sitting on the potty ...
>> ;)))
>
> Really? I've been slugging oils of various kinds on and off for most
> of my life. My mother started me off in childhood with two dessert
> spoons of cod liver oil a day. Has never seemed to affect my bowel
> movements. If it had the kind of effect you're suggesting to me I'd
> suspect it of being rancid.
Two dessert spoonsful is hardly what I would call 'slugging them back ..'.
Indeed, I also had the cod liver oil and orange juice treatment just after
the war, so clearly we are talking in different volumes, Chris.
Michael Sand
>"Michael Sand" <sa...@nym.mixmin.net> a écrit ...
>>
>>
>> Yesterday I was searching the Internet for a fish / salmon oil source
>> (of supply of course) here in Germany. The cheapest offer I found was
>> a 250 ml bottle of pure salmon oil intended for veterinary use
>> (horses, dogs, cats) for 11 USD plus 8 USD shipping, ugh. Anyway,
>> let's follow the prehistoric path. :-)
>
>
>You don't HAVE fish oil capsules in Germany ?
We do, AFAICS for triple the price of the bottled version. :-(
>Or maybe you prefer to 'slug back a moutghful of pure oil ?
I'd prefer to add it to my tuna salad hoping it tastes similar.
>In which case, I recommend you do it while sitting on the potty ...
>;)))
I never heard of salmon oil having a laxative effect though that would
be convenient for a constipating low-fiber Atkins induction diet. ;-)
Mike
Gantlet
"Susan" <neve...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5r5ouqF...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> high fiber veggies to eat per day?
>
> Fish oil isn't laxative so much as stool softening.
>
> Susan
only 2 cups of veggies? even i thought Atkins was better than that.
just how many grams of fiber do you get in those 2 tiny cups?
maybe he should take more calories from fat and exchange them for more fruit
and veggies.
--
Tom
Chat in peace with other diabetes at the American Diabetes Associations Web
Site.
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=index&webtag=amdiabetesz&redirCnt=1
Information You Can "Trust" From Your American Diabetes Association
www.diabetes.org
Information on Specific Types of Fat.
http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/foodlabel/specific-fats.jsp
Cheri
Gantlet wrote in message ...
For two weeks only. Do you even know what the induction phase is?
Never mind.
Cheri
Jackie Patti
> only 2 cups of veggies? even i thought Atkins was better than that.
> just how many grams of fiber do you get in those 2 tiny cups?
> maybe he should take more calories from fat and exchange them for more fruit
> and veggies.
It is better than that. 2 cups is the *minimum* at the lowest level of
Atkins, which is only supposed to last for two weeks. After that you're
supposed to add more every week until you find the limit where you cease
losing weight, though for us a limit based on bg testing makes more sense.
The point being that folks who aren't eating veggies aren't doing
Atkins, whatever else they may or may not be doing. And given that
Atkins induction is the most "extreme" of the published low-carb diets,
most folks low-carbing ought to be getting lots of veggie fiber.
Personally, I don't find constipation issues are primarily about fiber.
I know with many folks, if they don't get enough liquids, fiber can
actually makes the problem worse. You don't just need fiber, but
sufficient water to allow the fiber to work properly.
I eat gobs of fiber including grain-based fibers like oat bran and flax
meal, but still occassionally have issues. For me, the fastest way to
get things moving is to eat something like sugar-free ice cream or the
bark I make with coconut oil. Fat seems to lubricate things and help
them move along.
Alan S
TaniO
(in article <qsmrk31trphutggg6...@4ax.com>):
With me, the two cup amount, per your reference, would be about an ounce and
a half... YMMV.
TaniO
W. Baker
: Personally, I don't find constipation issues are primarily about fiber.
: I know with many folks, if they don't get enough liquids, fiber can
: actually makes the problem worse. You don't just need fiber, but
: sufficient water to allow the fiber to work properly.
: I eat gobs of fiber including grain-based fibers like oat bran and flax
: meal, but still occassionally have issues. For me, the fastest way to
: get things moving is to eat something like sugar-free ice cream or the
: bark I make with coconut oil. Fat seems to lubricate things and help
: them move along.
: --
: http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
And the sugar alcohols in that no sugar added ice cream! Also, regular
metformin cand do too much the same.
Wendy
Ozgirl
exercise and a lot of water and careful choice of vegetables (I found raw
better) but I found exercise during an induction period difficult, I also
found that extreme lacks of carbs, for me, just didn't "work". Basically
induction for me could only last 3 days at a time then a few days at more
carbs. Blah Blah. I used it for kick start weight loss and it had the
desired effect, just not a long term option for me.
"Gantlet" <T...@TomsDiabeticDiary.com> wrote in message
news:BHj3j.14577$B21.5948@trndny07...
Ozgirl
"Jackie Patti" <jpa...@ccil.org> wrote in message
news:474dc9d2$0$27025$470e...@news.pa.net...
Fat and water yes. Alcohol sugars don't give me the runs but they give me
gas, which is uncomfortable and I am sure for those around me ;)