Posts Tagged ‘grain products’

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

No comments »

Posted in Low Carb

Tags:

History And Background Of Low-carb Dieting

December 17th, 2007

The terminology “low-carb” wasn’t really coined until around 1992 when the USDA announced America’s model food pyramid included six to eleven servings daily of grains and starches. However, low-carb dieting dates back more than 100 years before the trendy Atkins diet to 1864 with a pamphlet titled Letter on Corpulence written by William Banting, as close to the first commercial low-carb diet as you could get. Banting had suffered a series of debilitating health problems due mainly to being overweight or “corpulent”. He searched in vain for cures to his weight problem, which many doctors at that time believed to be a necessary side effect of old age. He also tried eating less but he continued to gain weight and have various health problems. He could not understand how the small amounts of food he was eating led to his weight problem:

“Few men have led a more active life – bodily or mentally – from a constitutional anxiety for regularity, precision, and order, during fifty years’ business career, from which I had retired, so that my corpulence and subsequent obesity were not through neglect of necessary bodily activity, nor from excessive eating, drinking, or self indulgence of any kind, except that I partook of the simple aliments of bread, milk, butter, beer, sugar, and potatoes more freely than my age required…”

Many contemporary Americans on the go may recognize Banting’s previous unhealthy daily diet:

“My former dietary table was bread and milk for breakfast, or a pint of tea with plenty of milk, sugar, and buttered toast; meat, beer, much bread (of which I was always very fond) and pastry for dinner, the meal of tea similar to that of breakfast, and generally a fruit tart or bread and milk for supper. I had little comfort and far less sound sleep.”

Just substitute a Pop tart, doughnut or muffin with coffee and plenty of cream and sugar for breakfast, a fast food burger and fries with a super-sized soft drink for lunch and a frozen pot pie or pizza for dinner followed by dessert and you can see how Banting’s diet was so much like the typical fast-paced modern day Americans.

When his physician placed these items on a “forbidden foods list,” Banting lost 50 pounds and 13 inches in one year. He kept it off, living a long and much healthier life.

His new diet plan consisted of a number of meat dishes and he listed it as follows:

“For breakfast, at 9.00 A.M., I take five to six ounces of either beef mutton, kidneys, broiled fish, bacon, or cold meat of any kind except pork or veal; a large cup of tea or coffee (without milk or sugar), a little biscuit, or one ounce of dry toast; making together six ounces solid, nine liquid.

For dinner, at 2.00 P.M., Five or six ounces of any fish except salmon, herrings, or eels, any meat except pork or veal, any vegetable except potato, parsnip, beetroot, turnip, or carrot, one ounce of dry toast, fruit out of a pudding not sweetened any kind of poultry or game, and two or three glasses of good claret, sherry, or Madeira- Champagne, port, and beer forbidden; making together ten to twelve ounces solid, and ten liquid.

For tea, at 6.00 P.M., Two or three ounces of cooked fruit, a rusk or two, and a cup of tea without milk or sugar; making two to four ounces solid, nine liquid.

For supper, at 9.00 P.M. Three or four ounces of meat or fish, similar to dinner, with a glass or two of claret or sherry and water; making four ounces solid and seven liquid.

For nightcap, if required, a tumbler of grog (gin, whisky, or brandy, without sugar)-or a glass or two of claret or sherry.”

So great were the changes in his appearance and health that his friends and acquaintances began to notice and just like today wanted to know what diet he was on. Most important of all Banting could feel and see a difference himself.

“I am told by all who know me that my personal appearance greatly improved, and that I seem to bear the stamp of good health; this may be a matter of opinion or friendly remark, but I can honestly assert that I feel restored in health, “bodily and mentally,” appear to have more muscular power and vigour, eat and drink with a good appetite, and sleep well. All symptoms of acidity, indigestion, and heartburn (with which I was frequently tormented) have vanished. I have left off using boot-hooks, and other such aids, which were indispensable, but being now able to stoop with ease and freedom, are unnecessary. I have lost the feeling of occasional faintness, and what I think a remarkable blessing and comfort is, that I have been able safely to leave off knee-bandages, which I had worn necessarily for many years, and given up the umbilical truss.”

His how-to dieting book became very popular and was translated into multiple languages. However, over time it was abandoned.

Banting noted in Letter on Corpulence that a common health paradox of our time did not exist in his. This was the paradox of obesity, widely believed to be a problem of excess, among the poor. The poor of the 19th century could not afford the refined sugary foods that cause weight gain. But poor people of the 21st century sure can today.

In a recent Associated Press article titled, “Health Paradox: Obesity Attacks Poor”, the reporter noted that many poor families are stretching their food dollars by purchasing unhealthy processed and refined foods. Of one family Barbassa wrote,

“During winter, jobs are scarce, so Caballero feeds her husband and three children the cheapest food she can get: potatoes, bread, tortillas… As processed foods rich in sugar and fat have become cheaper than fruits and vegetables, the poor in particular are paying a high price with obesity rates shooting up, followed by diabetes.”

Unfortunately for the Caballero family, these cheap staples are bad for their health. Fresh meat, low-starch fruits and vegeta-bles may be more expensive and have a shorter shelf life, but they are definitely worth the price in saved medical expenses and better health.

Throughout the years, as “calories” became known, variations of counting them were included in dietary solutions. And a variety of other issues were explored like how many of which foods should be eaten and how frequently.

While Banting’s diet eventually fell out of favor, low-carb diets did begin appearing again in the 20th century. The most famous of these are the Atkins and Scarsdale diets that came to popularity in the 1970s. While Scarsdale has a set 14 day meal plan that must be followed and greatly restricts calories, the Atkins diet allowed for unlimited calorie consumption as long as those calories were from protein, fat and vegetables and carbs intake was kept low.

Atkins and Scarsdale fell out of favor in the 1980′s as the U. S. Department of Agriculture encouraged the consumption of grains and grain products with the USDA food pyramid.

It was only in the 1990′s that we began to see a return to low-carb dieting that seems to be more than a fad. It’s a lifestyle! As more and more people realize the weight loss and other health benefits that are available to people who eat low-carb, the number of diets and stores that sell specialty low-carb products continue to rise.

In a nutshell, most low-carb diets carry the same basic premise: that too much of simple, refined carbohydrates leads to over overproduction of insulin, which leads to the storage of too much fat in the body. This fat storage is especially prominent around the middle.

While there are degrees of difference among the many diets, they all agree on the negative effects that excess insulin production have on our systems.

About the Author

David Riewe is the Editor of Daves Health Buzz. Daves Health Buzz covers a wide variety of health and wellness related topics. Do You Want To Know How to Conquer Obesity? If YES, then Click Below To Read More http://www.daveshealthbuzz.com/conquerobesity

Written By: David Riewe

No comments »

Posted in Low Carb

Tags:

Understanding Carbs to Stay Healthy

April 29th, 2007

Low carb diets are popular. How good are they? How healthy are they? It all depends on what you know about the difference between different types of carbohydrates.

Common table sugar represents 20 to 25 percent of the daily caloric intake of Americans who live on the typical All American processed food diet. In the early 1800s average sugar consumption was about 12 pounds per person a year. In 1997, it was 152 pounds per person. Is that too much? You bet it is. Its making us old before we need to be.

Do we need carbohydrates? No, we dont. They are non-essential to the human diet. We do need water, fat, and protein. It is possible to survive for long periods without carbohydrates providing fat and protein needs are met. Fat and protein are broken down to make building blocks of carbohydrates as food and energy. This is something the carb-rich processed foods industry doesnt tell us.

Regardless of what is known about carbohydrate needs, we continue to consume massive quantities of carbohydrates. Therefore, its important to know which carbs are better than others. Its simple: All carbs are broken down into sugar in the body. The key is the rate and the amount that determines the level of sugar in the blood.

Complex carbs such as green leafy veggies, brown rice, potato, whole grain products, and fruits break down slowly. The result is a gradual rise and fall in blood sugar. It is generally understood that most complex carbs are good for you.

Refined, simple carbs such as cake, ice cream, cookies, breakfast bars, so-called cereals, and refined grains break down quickly in the body. This causes rapid elevation of blood sugar levels. These are not good for your health.

It should be understood that while refined carbs should be avoided because they are harmful, some complex carbs such as potatoes are not good because of their relatively fast breakdown.

How do you determine which carbs are really good, and what to avoid? Simple. Become familiar with something called the Glycemic Index of foods. When you look at a glycemic index for foods, bear in mind that the lower the rating, or number, the slower the digestion and absorption process and the better it is for your health.

As useful as the glycemic index is, you will need to learn which foods are good for you.. For example, a cup of low fat ice cream has a glycemic index of 50, which is lower than the glycemic index of a baked potato. Thats because the glycemic index rating of a refined sugar product is lower than that of a starchy food! So, learn to discern the difference between refined sugars and everything else. Just assume that if its made in a factory, its suspect!

Here are some glycemic index numbers for some popular food choices:
Baked Potato: 85; Cheerios: 74; Fanta soft drink: 68; Cheese pizza: 60; Banana: 54; Sweet potato: 54, Low fat ice cream: 50; Carrots: 49; Grapefruit juice: 48; All-bran: 42; Spaghetti: 41; Apple: 38; M&Ms (peanut): 32; Peanuts: 15; Yogurt, lot fat, artificially sweetened:14.

You can see from the above how misleading, yet useful the glycemic index can be.

The bottom is this: Do your homework. Dont rely on advertising or uninformed advice of well meaning friends to give you guidance about healthy eating. Making educated choices about what you put into your body puts you in the drivers seat and allows you to be in charge of how healthy you are, and how quickly or slowly you age.

About the Author

Barbara Morris, R.Ph., is a 76-year-old working pharmacist and recognized expert on unique anti-aging strategies. Author of Put Old on Hold, her message is for Boomers who want to feel and function as a healthy 40 or 50 year old for 25 or more years. She calls it Liberation Living a process she has discovered that bypasses infirmities and indignities of traditional old age. http://www.PutOldonHold.com

Written By: Barbara Morris

No comments »

Posted in Low Carb

Tags: