Re: Carbohydrates

[Guest guest]

Not sure about "starch" vs. "non-starch," but studies have been done on glycemic index as a variable in diet:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;80(2):337-47.

Related Articles,

Links

No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet.Sloth B, Krog-Mikkelsen I, Flint A, Tetens I, Bjorck I, Vinoy S, Elmstahl H, Astrup A, Lang V, Raben A.Department of Human Nutrition, Centre for Advanced Food Studies, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark.BACKGROUND: The role of glycemic index (GI) in appetite and body-weight regulation is still not clear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with either low glycemic index (LGI) or high glycemic index (HGI) on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, and composition, as well as on risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease in overweight healthy subjects. DESIGN: The study was a 10-wk parallel, randomized, intervention trial with 2 matched groups. The LGI or HGI test foods, given as replacements for the subjects' usual carbohydrate-rich foods, were equal in total energy, energy density, dietary fiber, and macronutrient composition. Subjects were 45 (LGI diet: n = 23; HGI diet: n = 22) healthy overweight [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 27.6 +/- 0.2] women aged 20-40 y. RESULTS: Energy intake, mean (+/- SEM) body weight (LGI diet: -1.9 +/- 0.5 kg; HGI diet: -1.3 +/- 0.3 kg), and fat mass (LGI diet: -1.0 +/- 0.4 kg; HGI diet: -0.4 +/- 0.3 kg) decreased over time, but the differences between groups were not significant. No significant differences were observed between groups in fasting serum insulin, homeostasis model assessment for relative insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment for beta cell function, triacylglycerol, nonesterified fatty acids, or HDL cholesterol. However, a 10% decrease in LDL cholesterol (P < 0.05) and a tendency to a larger decrease in total cholesterol (P = 0.06) were observed with consumption of the LGI diet as compared with the HGI diet. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the contention that low-fat LGI diets are more beneficial than HGI diets with regard to appetite or body-weight regulation as evaluated over 10 wk. However, it confirms previous findings of a beneficial effect of LGI diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease.PMID: 15277154 [PubMed - in process]

>From: "Rodney" <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Carbohydrates >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:34:49 -0000 > >Hi folks: > >I think it may be important to differentiate between low carbohydrate >diets, and low starch diets. > >Some people here who believe they are on a low carbohydrate diet >cannot possibly be, given all the high carbohydrate vegetables they >say they consume. > >But I do believe they are on a low starch diet. And I suspect that a >low starch diet may very well be beneficial. After all, essentially >the only difference between Mattson's CR mice (which lived 40% >longer) and the controls was the near total elimination of starch. > >I have looked for, and have not been able to find, a breakdown of the >different types of carbohydrates, similar to the detailed breakdowns >one can find many places for the different types of fats, for >example. Does anyone know of a link to such a source? TIA. > >Rodney. >

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And regarding starch vs non-starch ......... since starch is, I

believe, a 'complex carbohydrate' and since so many sources advocate

consuming what they call " complex carbohydrates " , it may be that one

should be especially careful about the TYPE of complex carbohydrate

recommended.

A couple of studies I have seen recently seemed to suggest a direct

relationship between starch intake and cancer incidence. (I believe

it was posted here a few weeks ago, but I do not remember the source

now.)

I am resigned to the fact that over time I will have to wean myself

from my starch sources - principally bread - or at least the starch

component of it.

Rodney.

Of course many things that contain starch may also contain beneficial

nutrients in addition to the, perhaps not beneficial, starch.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Here is one source suggesting there may be a link between starch and

cancer:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020904073950.htm

http://snipurl.com/83vt

There is also the acrylamide issue.

Rodney.

> >

[Guest guest]

I won't bore the group with my opinions about macronutrient ratios (again),

but I think it's worth pointing out in this general discussion of diet wrt

to Tchol that energy balance should be considered also.

I expect energy balance may have a bigger effect on blood lipids than

macronutrient ratios. Discussion of diet without considering energy balance

is perhaps subject to faulty conclusions (IMO).

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 11:15 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Carbohydrates

Hi folks:

And regarding starch vs non-starch ......... since starch is, I

believe, a 'complex carbohydrate' and since so many sources advocate

consuming what they call " complex carbohydrates " , it may be that one

should be especially careful about the TYPE of complex carbohydrate

recommended.

A couple of studies I have seen recently seemed to suggest a direct

relationship between starch intake and cancer incidence. (I believe

it was posted here a few weeks ago, but I do not remember the source

now.)

I am resigned to the fact that over time I will have to wean myself

from my starch sources - principally bread - or at least the starch

component of it.

Rodney.

Of course many things that contain starch may also contain beneficial

nutrients in addition to the, perhaps not beneficial, starch.

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Rod: this study is of people who are overweight and sedentary, so the evidence seems flimsy that moderate amounts starches are detrimental to health. Remember lots of a good thing may be bad. Moderate amounts are often beneficial. Alcohol is one such example of " moderate intake is good " . Fruit is another.

I would be careful to eliminate all starches. Beans and legumes (aren't they a high starch food?) are very healthy (and are part of the portfolio diet). Russett Potatoes recently came out as one of the highest anti-oxidant foods. Whole grains are correlated with long life and excellent health. Corn was mentioned in the " whole grains " article I posted yesterday. Sweet potatoes are also desirable.

My motto still remains: moderation and: eat a wide variety of fruits and veggies (including some starches like whole grains, legumes and sweet potatoes)

Also, this study mentions white bread, potatoes and white rice only. At least two out of the three are hardly CRONIE foods.

on 7/29/2004 12:32 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Here is one source suggesting there may be a link between starch and

> cancer:

>

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020904073950.htm

>

> http://snipurl.com/83vt

>

> There is also the acrylamide issue.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>>>

[Guest guest]

From the article you've linked:

"The researchers found that women who were significantly overweight and physically inactive (and whose levels of glucose and insulin were therefore already above normal) were more than two-and-a-half times more likely to develop pancreatic cancer if they had a high glycemic load than if they had a low glycemic load. Interestingly, a high glycemic load did not increase pancreatic cancer risk among women who were lean and physically fit. "

In my perusal of Medline, I found many references to an inverse association of whole grain consumption and mortality.

No doubt, if one is eating a lot of "starch," one is probably eating less whole, unrefined grains as well as less fruits and vegetables.

>From: "Rodney" <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Carbohydrates >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:32:59 -0000 > >Hi folks: > >Here is one source suggesting there may be a link between starch and >cancer: > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020904073950.htm > >http://snipurl.com/83vt > >There is also the acrylamide issue. > >Rodney. > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca/:

You are both right that the pancreatic cancer issue would be unlikely

to apply to those on CR. So not too relevant to us here.

The acrylamide issue suggests being careful about how foods

containing starches are cooked. So with care that does not have to

be an issue for us either.

There remains the question of whether starch in and of itself

provides anything beyond the calories. (Granted, what

comes 'packaged' with the starch may have beneficial nutrients. But

can they not be obtained from the germ and bran while avoiding the

starch part of the seed?)

Also, as Warren has mentioned here a number of times,

**undigestible** starch may have a protective effect against colon

cancer - by bacterial fermentation in the colon. And of course if it

is undigestible then it does not contribute the calories. So there

is a use for some types of starch.

Would anyone like to suggest how we can identify (so I can make a

list, lol) the starches that are indigestible? ........

Psyllium? Guar? Cold potato? ............?

Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

I think the reason that it is all so confusing is that there are different variables that are not always considered. Terms like "low fat", "low carb", are often thrown out without really defining what these terms means. In addition, there are varying differences in the make-up of many of the low fat and low carb diets. I can easily design a low fat diet that is not healthy (as Americans have lived on the last 30 years) and also one that is very healthy (as populations around the world have lived on for a very long time) . To lump them both together (as is often the case) is misleading. In many studies, in fact the majority of studies that vilified low fat diets, the diets were not low fat (averaging 30% fat or more), not low in saturated fat (often having as much if not more sat fat than the other diet), not high in fiber, and also high in sugar and white flour. So, the result we hear is "low fat diets are not good. Yet what they really mean is a 30% fat diet that is also high in SFA and refined carbs and low in fiber is not good. But, that's no surprise. But when you look at diets that may be low in fat, but also comprised mostly of fresh unrefined plant foods, with lots of fiber, low in SFA and TFA, and low in sugar and refined carbs, they do great.

>>In normal weight, normolipidemic women, a short-term very low carbohydrate diet modestly increased LDL-C, yet there were favorable effects on cardiovascular disease risk status by virtue of a relatively larger increase in HDL-C and a decrease in fasting and postprandial triaclyglycerols.

As I posted, the low carb diet increased LDL, (Not decreased which was my main point) and the favorable effect reported was from a rise in HDL. There are several problems with this. Eating fat raises HDL. This is not always good. When you look at subfractions of HDL, the ones that go up as a result of a low carb diet (or higher fat diet) are not the ones known to be protective. When you look at cholesterol transport on a healthy low fat diet, HDL may go down, but reverse cholesterol transport (the beneficial function of HDL) remains the same or becomes more efficient. So, regardless of the number of the HDL, on a healthy low fat diet, they work better. Also, the whole HDL ratio being important is based on the Framingham data, and not worldwide data. And, I have posted here many references on how misguided that is.

The TGs only go up on refined carb diets, not unrefined carb diets. We see an average dropn of 33% of TGs in 2 weeks on a diet thats 65-80% carb.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Exactly the point that the researcher made in the " whole grains " article I

posted yesterday. We don't know exactly what it is in the whole food (a

combination of nutrients? A nutrient not yet identified?) that gives the

benefits. Reposted a couple of paragraphs from that article:

Interestingly, grains are still a mystery to researchers. They are so

complex and full of a multitude of different compounds, scientists are

largely unsure of what components of the grain are responsible for the

benefits.

" We're not sure if the benefits are from the fiber or the phytochemicals, "

says Simin Liu, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard.

" In my opinion, it's the thousands of phytochemicals in whole grains which

produce most of the benefits. "

To prove his point, Liu points to a four-year National Cancer

Institute-funded study of high-fiber cereals in which wheat bran was added

in the processing as opposed to naturally occurring in a whole grain.

Researchers were surprised to find the high-bran diet did not prevent colon

polyps, often a precursor to cancer.

" The data doesn't support the claim that added bran fiber or fiber

supplements make a positive difference in colon cancer, which is why I like

to use the term 'whole grain foods' instead of fiber. The data only point to

whole foods, " says Liu.

on 7/29/2004 1:57 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Francesca/:

>

> There remains the question of whether starch in and of itself

> provides anything beyond the calories. (Granted, what

> comes 'packaged' with the starch may have beneficial nutrients. But

> can they not be obtained from the germ and bran while avoiding the

> starch part of the seed?)

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

>>> CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the contention that low-fat LGI diets are more beneficial than HGI diets with regard to appetite or body-weight regulation as evaluated over 10 wk. However, it confirms previous findings of a beneficial effect of LGI diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease.

Interesting article. As I have discussed here and elsewhere if you control energy density and dietary fiber that GI index would have little or no impact on ad libitum energy intake or body weight so I do not find these results at allsurprising. As far as the impact of the two diets on LDL-C this may be due in part to differences in the type of fat, fiber, plant sterols or other phytochemicals that can impact LDL-C. I have not seen the original article which I will look into it. We know that fructose (a low GI carb)raises LDL-C and TG levels relative to glucose (a high GI carb) so lower GI does not always mean lower LDL-C.

Again, the devil is in the details.

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

According to Bowes & Church's ***65%*** of the calories in spinach

come from carbohydrates. Hardly a low carbohydrate source. But is

that carbohydrate starch? Or something else?

My question is how many different kinds of carbs are there? What are

they? And what are the benefits/drawbacks of each?

Doubtless there is more than one kind of starch. In addition, I

believe dextrins are also carbohydrates. Glucose, fructose, lactose,

maltose, etc too, of course, and no one I know of calls them starch.

Similarly, I think things like guar and psyllium. So how many other

kinds of carbohydrates are there out there that we ought to know

about? And which make sense to consume, and why, given the

objectives of a CR diet, and which do not?

IOW which supply just calories and no compensating benefits? Which

provide health benefits, and if so what are they? Which, because of

undigestibilty do not supply calories and do provide benfits?

These are a few issues I would like to understand, and have not had

much luck answering via Google searches.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> I haven't been following the thread too closely, but brown rice is

77% carbs (SR16-1) with no 'oses; wheat is 71%., potatoes 27% (by

weight) . What do we call those carbs if not starch? Are there diff

starches, perhaps?

> BTW, spinach is 3.9% carbs but 95 % water.

>

>

> water gms

> carb gms

> w/owater

> % carbs

>

> rice

> 10.37

> 77.24

> 89.63

> 86%

>

> wheat

> 13.1

> 71.18

> 86.9

> 82%

>

> potato

> 74.45

> 21.44

> 25.55

> 84%

>

> spinach

> 92.2

> 3.9

> 7.8

> 50%

>

>

>

> So is the discussion whether spinach carbs are better than grains?

>

> Regards.

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Dowling

>

> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:15 PM

> Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Carbohydrates

>

>

> From the article you've linked:

>

> " The researchers found that women who were significantly

overweight and physically inactive (and whose levels of glucose and

insulin were therefore already above normal) were more than two-and-a-

half times more likely to develop pancreatic cancer if they had a

high glycemic load than if they had a low glycemic load.

Interestingly, a high glycemic load did not increase pancreatic

cancer risk among women who were lean and physically fit. "

>

> In my perusal of Medline, I found many references to an inverse

association of whole grain consumption and mortality.

>

> No doubt, if one is eating a lot of " starch, " one is probably

eating less whole, unrefined grains as well as less fruits and

vegetables.

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Based on that quote below there would seem to be a likely and very

simple explanation. That IF there is a benefit it is not in the

BRAN, but in the GERM.

But what is more, his own university says fibre does NOT reduce the

incidence of either colon cancer or polyps, so why would he expect

additions of bran to have such an effect?

(From Harvard School of Public Health 'Nutritionsource'):

" Fiber and colon cancer

For years, Americans have been told to consume a high-fiber diet to

lower the risk of colon cancer--mainly on the basis of results from a

number of relatively small studies. Unfortunately, this

recommendation now seems mistaken, as larger and better-designed

studies have failed to show a link between fiber and colon cancer.

One of these--a Harvard study that followed over 80,000 female nurses

for 16 years--found that dietary fiber was not strongly associated

with a reduced risk for either colon cancer or polyps (a precursor to

colon cancer).

Rodney.

> To prove his point, Liu points to a four-year National Cancer

> Institute-funded study of high-fiber cereals in which wheat bran

was added

> in the processing as opposed to naturally occurring in a whole

grain.

> Researchers were surprised to find the high-bran diet did not

prevent colon

> polyps, often a precursor to cancer.

>

> " The data doesn't support the claim that added bran fiber or fiber

> supplements make a positive difference in colon cancer, which is

why I like

> to use the term 'whole grain foods' instead of fiber. The data only

point to

> whole foods, " says Liu.

[Guest guest]

While spinach is no doubt predominantly carbohydrate it is low calorie, esp

when considered wrt serving size.

If you're looking for ways to evaluate or rank carbohydrates how about a

cost benefit for nutrition vs. energy density or energy per serving.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:33 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Carbohydrates

Hi JW:

According to Bowes & Church's ***65%*** of the calories in spinach

come from carbohydrates. Hardly a low carbohydrate source. But is

that carbohydrate starch? Or something else?

My question is how many different kinds of carbs are there? What are

they? And what are the benefits/drawbacks of each?

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>>>>(From Harvard School of Public Health 'Nutritionsource'):

" Fiber and colon cancer

For years, Americans have been told to consume a high-fiber diet to

lower the risk of colon cancer--mainly on the basis of results from a

number of relatively small studies. Unfortunately, this recommendation

now seems mistaken, as larger and better-designed studies have failed to

show a link between fiber and colon cancer.

One of these--a Harvard study that followed over 80,000 female nurses

for 16 years--found that dietary fiber was not strongly associated with

a reduced risk for either colon cancer or polyps (a precursor to colon

cancer).

Again, the devil is in the details..

I reviewed this study several years ago (along with an earlier one that

drew similar conclusions) when it first came out..

From my original articles....

Fiber: Taking A Closer Look Again

Jeff's Weekly Health Update

April 24, 2000

For many years, dietary fiber has been promoted to prevent colon

cancer. However, two recent studies published in the New England

Journal of Medicine, " apparently " showed that high-fiber diets

did not decrease risks of colon cancer.

So, what is the story on fiber? Are these studies accurate?

Should we give up the goal of trying to get in more fiber? Or

is fiber still important?

Many of you may remember my weekly health update of 1/27/1999

" Fiber - To Much or Just Not Enough? " where a very similar

situation arose. A study, also from the NEJM, reported that

there was " no association between fiber intake and the risk of

colorectal cancer. " I used the study as an example to show

how, by taking a closer look at the study, we can learn a number

of lessons about how information is often (mis)reported in the

news.

Now, we have the same situation once again, so lets take a

closer look at this study. Also, for those of you who missed

it, I will reprint my update on fiber from last year.

The Polyp Prevention Trial from the National Cancer Institute

and the Wheat Bran Fiber Study from the Arizona Cancer Center

looked at the effect of diet on the growth of new colorectal

polyps because people with a prior polyp have as much as a 50

percent chance of developing more polyps within three years of

their diagnosis. In both studies, recurrence of colorectal

polyps was not reduced by increase fiber intake.

First, realize the this study did not show that fiber, fruits

and vegetables do not protect against colon cancer.

In an editorial release in the same issue of the New England

Journal of Medicine, Dr. Tim Byers, M.D., M.P.H. from the

University of Colorado School of Medicine stated that

" ...observational studies around the world continue to find that

the risk of colorectal cancer is lower among populations with

high intakes of fruits and vegetables and that the risk changes

on adoption of a different diet, but we still do not understand

why. "

W. , M.D., professor of medicine and clinical

nutrition at the University of Kentucky, points out the many

health benefits of whole grain foods. " Whole grains are

excellent sources of fiber and phytochemicals in the diet.

The evidence is mounting that whole grain foods have

important protective effects for heart disease and diabetes.

It's also possible that studying people with

colon polyps may not be the best way to assess risk for

developing colon cancer. "

Many health experts, including the study's lead investigators,

emphasize Americans should continue to eat a diet rich in

complex carbohydrates and whole grains, because fiber-rich foods

protect against developing colon polyps in the first place, as

well as coronary heart disease, hypertension, certain types of

diabetes, and other types of cancer. In addition, Dr. Arthur

Schatzkin, chief of the National Cancer Institute's Nutrition

Epidemiology Branch and lead investigator of the Polyp

Prevention Trial, stated that " There is still a great deal of

evidence that adopting a diet low in animal fat, high in

whole grains, and rich in vegetables and fruit can improve

one's overall health and reduce the risk of chronic

disease. "

The investigators also emphasized that a diet high in fiber,

fruits, and vegetables and low in fat can improve overall

health and reduce the risk of chronic diseases, including

heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

Also, the amount of fiber intake in the study is also important

as the range of dietary fiber may not have been enough to see

a benefit, since the highest intake was 25-27 grams a day in

the study on fiber. In the study on fiber supplements, the

supplemented amount was about 14 grams. Add this to the

average intake of 12 grams and we still have a total intake

(~26) that is too low. Both of these levels are the bare

minimum recommended today. Fiber recommendations for

the general public range from a very low of 25 grams per

day, to 25 grams per 1000 calories, to a high of 35 - 45

grams or more per day. For prevention and or treatment of

disease, the higher recommendations may be necessary.

At our center, we recommend a minimum of 35 grams a day.

And now, the reprint of the weekly health update from last

year...

Fiber - To Much or Just Not Enough?

Jeff's Weekly Health Update

January 27, 1999

Many news articles have appeared recently with sensational

headlines like " Fiber Found Useless " . All of this was the

result of a recent article in the New England Journal of

Medicine. Researchers, who studied 89,000 female nurses for 16

years, reported that there was no association between fiber

intake and the risk of colorectal cancer. However, by taking a

closer look at the study we can learn a number of lessons about

how information is often (mis)reported in the news.

Dr. Kurtz, chief of gastroenterology at Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said the Boston team

conducted a good study, but it doesn't provide the ``whole

answer.'' One of the weaknesses of this large study is that it

uses a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire which is

not very accurate in measuring how much is eaten. Kurtz pointed

out that the study subjects _ all nurses who were between the

ages of 30 and 55 in 1980 _ provided their fiber-intake

information through several questionnaires over the 16 years.

The reliability of such data depends upon the women's memories.

Several other problems appear in this study. Diet was

measured in 1980, 1984, and 1986 - before interest in dietary

fiber caught the public's attention. Fiber supplements were not

asked about until 1994 and it was found that over 5,000 women

were taking them. (Which is more than the total number of

cases found.) During the six years of the dietary surveys, 4 out

of 5 women in the study changed the amount of fiber in their

diets which almost guarantees that this study could not find a

protective effect.

Also, the range of dietary fiber may not have been enough to see

a benefit, since the highest intake was 25 grams a day. This is

the minimum recommended today. Fiber recommendations

for the general public range from a low of 25 grams per day,

to 25 grams per 1000 calories, to a high of 35 - 45 grams or

more per day. For prevention and or treatment of disease, the

higher recommendations may be necessary.

The type and source of fiber is also important. There are two

broad categories of fiber that you will see on food labels,

called insoluble and soluble. This simply refers to the ability

of these to dissolve in hot water. We need a mix of both types

of fiber in our diets. Insoluble fiber assists in maintaining

regular bowel movements while soluble fiber lowers blood

cholesterol levels and can help regulate blood sugar

concentrations and insulin levels.

The best source of fiber is from whole natural foods (fruits,

vegetables, whole grains, legumes) because it is more effective

then the fiber in processed foods or supplements. The more you

process a food the less the fiber content and the less effective

the fiber is also. A classic experiment in the fiber field was

done more than 20 years ago and is still one of the best

examples of its benefit. If you squeeze two apples, you get a

glass of juice that you can drink in 30 seconds and you may feel

hungry half an hour later. If you cook the two apples to make

apple sauce, you can eat this in a few minutes and you will feel

hungry one or two hours later. But if you eat two apples, it

will take you 20-30 minutes and you won't be hungry for several

hours. The apple juice and apple sauce caused greater swings in

blood sugar then the plain whole apple. One of the main reasons

for the difference is the amount of fiber.

Studies in animals with colon cancer strongly show that

different types of fiber have different effects. SO, it would

also be important to know the source and type of the

fiber in the subjects diets before coming to any conclusions.

Also, remember that fiber is just one component of foods. And

many researchers in the field agree that many of the benefits

seen in high fiber diets, may not be attributable to just the

fiber alone. Fiber may just be acting as a " marker " for other

beneficial components of food. Some of the benefits seen may be

due to other nutritional factors that are also found in foods

that are high in fiber, such as certain vitamins, minerals,

antioxidants and/or phytochemicals. A few recent studies have

indicated that folic acid helps cut the risk of cancer. This is

another reason why fiber supplements are not as effective as

whole foods, and why knowing the source of the fiber in the

study is very important.

In an editorial accompanying the report, Dr. D. Potter of

the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle agreed and

compared the questions surrounding fiber's link to colorectal

cancer to the case of dietary fat and heart disease. Research

into that link, Potter noted, was aided by the ability to

subdivide fats and cholesterol into various types. A similar

approach to fiber and other plant components, he added, might

help flesh out their relevance to colorectal cancer.

In spite of the sensational headlines that were reported saying

that fiber is useless, the article itself had a different

conclusion. The authors of the study listed a number of reasons

why people should continue to consume fiber. Fiber has been

shown to reduce the development of heart disease (the nations

number 1 killer) , hypertension, diabetes, and diverticular

disease in many studies. While a single new study is big news

for the media, there are dozens of other studies in humans which

suggest a protective effect of dietary fiber against colon

cancer.

Have another great week, and remember...

Your Health Is Your Greatest Wealth!

In Health,

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>If you're looking for ways to evaluate or rank carbohydrates how about a cost benefit for nutrition vs. energy density or energy per serving.One of the ways I have been wanting to do, but havent gotten around to yet, was to plot fruits, veggies and unrefined complex carbs on one line by calorie density and another by fiber/carb ratio and a third by nutrient density (it would have to be 3D). Then split the graph into 4 quadrants. IT would than be easy to rank the foods

Anybody got the time, i got most all the numbers

[Guest guest]

Probably right.

Sr16 data is in grams.

Energy is still the largest req't for nutrition. Either fat or carbs.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:32 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Carbohydrates

Hi JW:According to Bowes & Church's ***65%*** of the calories in spinach come from carbohydrates. Hardly a low carbohydrate source. But is that carbohydrate starch?

>>yes, some kind of starch. Plants store their stuff as starch. It's not sugars per sr16.

Or something else?My question is how many different kinds of carbs are there? What are they? And what are the benefits/drawbacks of each?

>>you're kidding, right?

Doubtless there is more than one kind of starch. In addition, I believe dextrins are also carbohydrates.

>>yes.

Glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose, etc too, of course, and no one I know of calls them starch.

>>They are delineated in sr16-1.

Similarly, I think things like guar and psyllium. So how many other kinds of carbohydrates are there out there that we ought to know about?

>>Proabbly as many as there are plants.

And which make sense to consume, and why, given the objectives of a CR diet, and which do not?

>>carbs provide energy, our largest nutrional req't.IOW which supply just calories and no compensating benefits?

>> some say potatoes are empty calories, but I need empty calories to mix with high density calories.

Which provide health benefits, and if so what are they?

>>Lots of irish ate a lot of potatoes.

Which, because of undigestibilty do not supply calories and do provide benfits? These are a few issues I would like to understand, and have not had much luck answering via Google searches.

>>google is not my source for precise info. start by downloading the sr16-1 tool to your computer and you'll have the food composition at your fingers.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Not taking. Sounds like a 1m$ gov't grant. I just know it will be rutabaga, and that would destroy the whole effort.(ha)

We don't have trouble getting rda's, rather knowing which of those unknowns chems we need.

I doubt carbos cause cancer unless you smoke em.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 2:15 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Carbohydrates

>>If you're looking for ways to evaluate or rank carbohydrates how about a cost benefit for nutrition vs. energy density or energy per serving.One of the ways I have been wanting to do, but havent gotten around to yet, was to plot fruits, veggies and unrefined complex carbs on one line by calorie density and another by fiber/carb ratio and a third by nutrient density (it would have to be 3D). Then split the graph into 4 quadrants. IT would than be easy to rank the foods

Anybody got the time, i got most all the numbers

[Guest guest]

I suppose you could ask that question, but why? I'm no clinical researcher,

which might have something to do with my lack of curiosity in the matter,

but what also contributes to this is years and years of observing natural

whole foods always coming out on top in the end. Throughout all the fads

and diet wars, in the end natural foods always come out vindicated. As

Francesca is wont to say, " Throw out a whole food group at your own risk. "

To this I could add: throw out an entire part of a food at your own risk.

My point is that while throwing everything out but the starch is unhealthy,

keeping everything but the starch could have unforseen consequences as well.

I'd rather trust that the food we have was put here for us specially so that

if we consume it moderately and in all its variety we will be doing what is

best for us.

Maybe I just like things simpler, or maybe I've seen too often that making

simple things complicated is just a waste of time and energy.

good health,

(|-|ri5

> There remains the question of whether starch in and of itself

> provides anything beyond the calories. (Granted, what

> comes 'packaged' with the starch may have beneficial nutrients. But

> can they not be obtained from the germ and bran while avoiding the

> starch part of the seed?)

>

>