Posts Tagged ‘cardiovascular disease’

The Evil of Carbohydrates?

March 6th, 2008

In recent years, carbohydrates have been labeled as the nutrition bad guy because of the increases in insulin that occurs during metabolic processes. The secretion of insulin is dependent primarily upon the concentration of blood glucose an increase of blood sugar brings about an increase in the secretion of insulin. Therefore, one function of insulin is to lower glucose.

Conversely, the body increases blood glucose levels by secreting another hormone called glucagon.
If blood glucose levels remain high, and that energy source is not burned shortly after it is consumed, the excess glucose is shuttled off to the muscles for storage. If the muscles have reached their limit in storage capacity, and the body does not require extra glucose to sustain body activities, the excess converts to fat.

Also, as insulin efficiently clears the blood of excess sugar, blood sugar levels oftentimes dip below normal and will produce the infamous sugar blues or a ‘downer’, followed by a possible craving for more sugar consumption. Lastly, while insulin levels are high or active, the body will not burn fat as energy since the body is attempting to utilize as much blood sugar as possible. (Note that fat is not used as a primary energy source while eating an energy-sufficient, healthy diet and fat is used more heavily only during periods of fasting and extensive aerobic-type exercise.) Hence, high-fat-low-carb advocates claim that we should not want:

1) Excess carbs to turn into fat (what do they think happens to excess fat and protein kcal?);

2) To feel groggy with low energy from the insulin ups and downs associated with high carbohydrate (sugar) consumption; and

3) High carbs in the diet since they prevent us from burning body fat.
Although these factors are true, the extent or magnitude of their validity varies in accordance to a number of conditions, such as:

i) How active is the individual?

ii) How many kcal is the individual ingesting (including carbs) per meal?

iii) What comprises an individual’s food and carbohydrate intake?

HOW ACTIVE ARE YOU?

The more active a person, the more carbohydrate he or she should consume. Also, the greater the physical activity, the less insulin the body produces since muscles become insulin sensitive after exercise and glucose tolerance improves as a result. The Food Guide/Pyramid recommends about 50% of kcal in the average individuals diet to be in the form of carbohydrate. Therefore, if a person is very active, the amount should be increased to about 60% since nearly every activity uses a great deal of blood glucose and muscle glycogen for energy, but only a smaller percentage of fat. In fact, athletes who consume a high-carb diet (60%) can maintain higher-intensity exercise longer than those following a low-carb diet (<40%). If a person is relatively sedentary, then much less energy is required, and 30-40% will suffice.

The bloodstream holds about only a one-hour supply of glucose and muscles store about only a half-days energy needs. The sugar requirements of the nervous system (including the brain, an organ that survives on nothing but sugar) for the average adult is approximately 100-150 g per day (and 100 g minimum to prevent ketosis, or 600 kcal). If a 90 kg/200 pound, moderately active man consumes 3,500 kcalories per day, this is equal to 17% of his total caloric intake... just for his nervous system. This does not take into account the remainder of his requirements, the energy required for metabolism of food, or his general activity levels such as work, sports, weight training, reading, housework, walking, etc.

Since this man is moderately active, about 55% of his kcal should be in the form of carbohydrate, or 1,925 kcal, or 481 grams. If he were very active, the percent should probably be closer to 60%. That leaves 20% for fat intake, and 25% for protein intake.

HOW MANY KCAL ARE YOU CONSUMING?

Although national surveys indicate that we are eating less fat now than 20 years ago, we are also eating more kcal. Consequently, a reduction in fat and an increase in carbohydrates are hardly the problem. Rather, it is the total number of kcal consumed that is of vital importance in fat gain. If total caloric intake is below maintenance levels, a person will reduce fat, even if 80% are in the form of carbohydrates. (In fact, Southeast Asian diets are 80-90% carbohydrate, yet these individuals, on average, are not considered overweight but underweight. Conversely, an Inuit [Eskimo] diet is only about 15% carbohydrate intake and most are overweight because of the high fat/calorie intake.)

In regard to energy levels, one pro-fat advocate recollected the days when he trained for 2+ hours per day, while he consumed about 6000 kcal per day, and yet felt tired all the time. At under 200 lbs bodyweight, this person never considered in general how such a large quantity of food caused his insulin levels to go awry. He further attributed his depression and chronic fatigue to his state of hypoglycemia, but the American Diabetic Association has repeatedly stated that there is no evidence in connection to these symptoms, including nervous breakdowns, juvenile delinquency, and childhood behavior problems. Moreover, what most people experience after a meal is a change in blood plasma glucose concentrations and not actual hypoglycemia, which is a serious medical condition that requires medical treatment.

WHAT TYPES OF CARBS DO YOU CONSUME?
The next factor to consider is the composition of meals and dietary carbohydrate consumption. Obviously simple sugars/empty kcal that consist of concentrated sweets and that come from low nutrient (junk) foods should be limited or eaten infrequently. By reducing the concentrated and simple sugars in the diet, this change could contribute to a reduction in the risk of obesity, Type II diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and tooth decay. But it is not so simple as to suggest that simple sugars create the greatest insulin spike since the effect of food on blood glucose depends on several factors that constitute a meals total glycemic index.

First, the ratio and types of foods must be considered. Fat helps to slow digestion and absorption processes, thereby resulting in a lower and a less steep insulin spike. Hence, a food with a high glycemic index (e.g., potato) can have little effect on rising blood sugar levels if it is eaten with a high fat food (e.g., steak). Fiber tends to have an effect in keeping blood glucose levels down, and eating sucrose with whole wheat bread will not cause problems even for a diabetic. In fact, diabetics can consume up to 50% carb intake, so long as most are low on the glycemic index to keep blood glucose response to a minimum.

Refined starches (white flour and rice, cornstarch, pasta, enriched breads, and breakfast cereals) digest and absorb a little slower than simple sugars, but these foods still should be limited within the diet. Complex starchy carbohydrates, such as sweet potatoes, winter squash, yams, unrefined grains and grain products (e.g., barley, brown rice, buckwheat, oatmeal, and whole wheat products) are the preferred source of energy since they are high in fiber and digest the slowest. Slow digestion means slow glucose conversion, energy which burns/oxidizes during body functions at about the same rate at which it is produced.

Further, the process of digesting carbohydrates as a whole burns more kcal than the digestion of an equivalent amount of fat. However, even refined and whole grain starches break down to produce glucose, with the excess storing as fat tissue. Nonetheless, it is over-consumption of whole grains that results in added fat, a situation which is no different than over-consumption of healthy essential fatty acids or proteins. Hence, it is not carbohydrates that cause problems of excess fat gain, but the choice and amount of carbohydrate.

The form of the food also alters the glycemic response because of the time it takes for the food to be digested and absorbed:

Liquid quickly digested and absorbed.

Dry opposite to the liquid state, resulting in a slower rate of digestion and absorption.

Finely Ground digests and absorbs better than dry because of a larger surface area, and this causes food to break down better and faster.

Raw more difficult to digest than cooked foods; usually harder and tougher and requires more time to be broken down, digested, and absorbed.

Cooked breaks down, digests, and absorbs faster than its raw counterpart.

OTHER REASONS FOR HIGH (SUFFICIENT) CARB INTAKE

A most important complimentary aspect of carbohydrate is its protein-sparing effect. When the body is low in energy or when it is deprived of sufficient kcal, it will use its glucose stores. Once depleted, the body uses protein to manufacture glucose. Consuming sufficient carbohydrates guarantees that minimal protein in the muscles will be catabolized for energy requirements. Conversely, low carb diets accelerate protein catabolism to produce energy by more than 100% than with a moderate to high carbohydrate diet (50-60%).

High-fat advocates further suggest that if carbohydrates in the diet are limited, the body will use fat for energy. Although fat can supply most of the bodys tissues with energy, if need be, it cannot supply energy for the brain, which requires glucose. Even during fasting, fat is used last as an energy source. Neither can fat optimally supply the body with energy required for intense weight training, the main fuel source required from carbohydrates. Even with aerobic exercise, muscles cannot function effectively on fat alone, but will utilize glucose simultaneously. Moreover, as the body hurriedly breaks down fat for energy on a low carb diet, the process is often incomplete and produces by-products that the body must eliminate.

About the Author

(May be reprinted freely if linked to www.ExerciseCertification.com)

Brian D. Johnston is the Director of Education and President of the I.A.R.T. fitness certification and education institute. He has written over 12 books and is a contributor author to the Merck Medical Manual. An international lecturer, Mr. Johnston wears many hats in the fitness and health industries, and can be reached at info@ExerciseCertification.com. Visit his site at www.ExerciseCertification.com for more free articles and offers.

Written By: Brian D. Johnston

Low Carb and Low Fat Diets – A Scam?!

October 16th, 2007

If anyone knows anything about fitness, its that a low fat diet is the healthiest way to avoid serious diseases, right? Maybe wrong.

In many instances quality research has shown just the oppositethat a low fat diet, sometimes even a vegetarian diet, can be harmful to your health. Although vegetarian and low-fat diets have been proven to reduce cholesterol and triglyceride levels, they have not demonstrated significant reductions in deaths from any disease.

The Low-Fat Approach
Popular diets of today encouraging low-fat approaches, such as the diets of Dr. Pritkin, Dr. Ornish, Macrobiotics, and Weight Watchers, are generally effective with weight-loss and reduction in blood fats. The low-fat approach has even been proven to overcome serious illness successfully.

But the majority of dieters find these plans difficult to stick with. And most research trials have not shown these diets effective in decreasing death rates from diseases in general, long-term.

Fats in a meal make you feel more full. They slow the time it takes for your stomach to empty, thus ensuring you will not feel hungry too soon.

Generally, high-carb, low-fat meals have the opposite effect. The stomach empties quicker and insulin levels increase following the meal. This means you may be hungry sooner than youd like.

Research shows the higher insulin levels of a low-fat, high-carb diet may predispose you to adult onset diabetes, hypoglycemia, and even heart disease.

The Low-Carb Approach
These diets claim that limiting carbs, like sugars, grains, fruits, and some vegetables, is the solution. The Atkins Diet, South Beach Diet, and even the Zone Diet all suggest if you cut out the carbs or have a balance of fat/carbs/protein in every meal, you will experience weight loss and better health. Many dedicated dieters find this to be true.

Although a low-carb diet can cause weight loss, the goal of any program should be life long radiant health. It is still up for debate if this approach leads to any significant health advantages. It is possible to hasten heart disease, arthritis, cancer, and aging with a diet too high in the wrong fats and too low in essential nutrients from various fruits and veggies.

Many health care professionals find it difficult to prescribe to either of the above theories. If there is no definitive answer in either direction that is indisputable, then there must be a middle ground.

A Healthy Solution for Everyone
It is difficult to imagine that reducing intake of the wonderful fruits and vegetables that keep people well is the way to a healthy future. Research will back this up. The average American already ingests too little fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and other factors present in whole, unprocessed fruits and vegetables.

In much of our history, it was rare to have many of the diseases we live with today. Most people in native cultures eating diets dictated by availability experienced vibrant health. Their death was caused by accidents, bacterial or viral diseases, or by old age. Very few died of our number one killers: cardiovascular disease and cancer.

People did not begin to experience heart disease and cancer in such great numbers until the advent of our more modern diet and lifestyle customs.

These advances included:
growing and eating more grains
discovering how to refine and preserve foods to extend shelf-life
consuming sugar and simple carbohydrates
pasteurizing and homogenizing dairy products

With the human tampering of food overall health took an undeniable turn for the worse.

Almost exclusively we now eat, even in so called healthy or organic foods, the following: refined products, products with added sugar, preservatives, additives, petroleum products, animal products laden with antibiotics and hormones, and animals that are fed diets that they would never eat in the wild (wild cattle do not eat other cattle, poultry by-products, or even grains; cattle eat grass).

Native cultures worldwide, before being indoctrinated with more westernized food choices, eat remarkably similar diets.

Since many food products spoil without refrigeration or freezing, most people fermented their foods. This supplies necessary probiotic bacteria, which many people supplement with today since we eat natural fermented foods so infrequently.

Whether or not they inhabited the same regions, most people ate a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and animal products in season. Very few societies tip the scales by eating mostly animal products (Inuit cultures) or mostly vegetarian (a few tribes in Africa and South America).

The similarities that bind the historical human diet together are:
A diet based on fresh or fermented whole, unrefined foods
A diet high in essential fatty acids with an omega 6 to omega 3 ratio of 4:1 (current US diets have a ratio of 16:1)
A diet where spirituality around food is more meaningful than the material
A diet with 10 times the level of fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K)
A diet lower in total calories overall

Wisdom passed down through the ages says that a varied diet with foods found abundant in nature is best. In almost all cultures this means a diet, as available, of fresh or dried wild meats and fish, fermented cheeses, fresh whole or fermented milk, butter, eggs, fresh, dried, or fermented fruits, fresh or fermented vegetables, whole grains (these were fermented normally, even if dried), some beans, and water or fermented beverages to drink.

It is interesting to note that instead of eating fresh foods or those naturally fermented, we chose to cook or destroy what could spoil in our foods then add additives and preservatives. Are these foods as digestible? Do they supply the same nutrients? Does the magic number of carbohydrates versus fats or proteins really matter? What if the answer lies in ancient wisdom and thousands of years of knowledge?

Something to think about.

For more information or questions on related topics, please visit www.MyWebND.com. Get all your health questions answered from a licensed Naturopathic physician without the wait for an office visit. Well-researched, reliable information is now available and easy to find.

Written By: Dr. Tara Barker

Low-Carb Out, High-Fiber In

February 24th, 2007

While at the grocery store, have you noticed that you have more choices than ever from food manufacturers? Low-fat, high-protein, low-sodium, and especially high-fiber foods have become the growing trend impacting our shopping carts, taste buds and our health. High fiber is no longer the ‘neglected nutrient’. Its role in healthy lifestyles has become the buzzword for today’s health-conscious consumer. The whole-grain trend has apparently surpassed the low carb movement. Fiberlady says it’s about time.

Continued research encourages the food industry to develop whole-grain products that are more appealing and acceptable to you and me. By exploring new technology for grain-processing, the texture and taste of whole-grain products is being altered. There is currently marketed a fiber-enriched flour that tastes and has a similar texture of white bread. The mounting presence of dietary fiber in our food sources should easily satisfy a wide range of dietary needs, tastes and choices.

Fiberlady has curiously noticed foods such as cereals, breads and pastas, the once dreaded low-carbs, have now become the darlings of health-conscious, high-fiber food fans. There are good carbs that not only help you with weight loss and control, but also protect your health.

“The percentage of products being marketed as fiber-enriched has increased from 2.3 percent in 2000, 2.5 percent in 2001, 2.8 percent in 2002, 3 percent in 2003, to 4.2 percent this year,” comments Tom Vierhile, the executive editor of Productscan Online. “Four years of consective growth is pretty good evidence of a trend.” The revisions in the new food pyramid will help promote the trend for high fiber foods and high-fiber diets as well.

The daily recommendation of dietary fiber by nutritional experts is 20-35 grams. Studies support over and over again the health benefits of consuming high fiber foods. A high fiber diet helps to protect and prevent cardiovascular disease, reduces the risk of some cancers,aids in weight loss,lowers cholesterol levels, and helps regulate diabetes and high blood pressure.

Fiberlady recognizes that we have come along way in the evolution of our species, but we didn’t get this far by eating highly-refined, processed foods. Fast food for our ancestors meant grabbing an apple off the nearest tree. There was an undeniable instinct for nutrient-rich fibrous plants.

Today, we descendants of the apes eat barely enough high-fiber foods to keep a monkey in bananas. There is a challenging road ahead to redefine overly-refined foods. The food industry needs to consciously bridge the gap in nutritional awareness among consumers. Informative websites are abundant and can address all of your high fiber questions and/or doubts.

Fiberlady wants you to raise your high fiber IQ and do the same for the people you care about, choose high fiber foods. Even if you have to read every nutritional fact on every food label on the grocer’s shelf, choose high fiber foods. Think about the alternative.

About the author:

Stephanie Shank (a.k.a. Fiberlady) has studied good nutrition since her days of mothering began 15 years ago which prompted her commitment to a high fiber lifestyle and the development of her informative website High Fiber Health.

Written By: Stephanie Shank