Re: Low-glycemic Load Diet

[Guest guest]

Hi Aequalsz:

So if a low glycemic load diet reduces metabolism **less**, then from

a CRON point of view it is less than optimal, since more calories

will be burnt?

If it reduces insulin then that is a benefit. But does that make

sense? (From what little I know) I would have thought that a higher

metabolic rate would be more likely to require more insulin, rather

than less? But I have no medical qualifications of any kind so I

could be full of it on this. Perhaps those who know what they are

talking about would like to chip in?

Rodney.

--- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...>

wrote:

>

> Hello,

>

> " Low-glycemic Load Diet May Improve Ability To Stay On Diet Longer "

>

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041124155206.htm

>

> http://snipurl.com/b25a

>

> Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> Hi Aequalsz:

>

> So if a low glycemic load diet reduces metabolism **less**, then

from

> a CRON point of view it is less than optimal, since more calories

> will be burnt?

>

Hello,

Even though more calories may be burnt, does this necessarily mean a

resulting shorter lifespan? Apparently nobody knows for sure. The

added benefits (QOL) may outweigh the uncertainties associated with

the traditional CRON diet.

> If it reduces insulin then that is a benefit. But does that make

> sense? (From what little I know) I would have thought that a

higher

> metabolic rate would be more likely to require more insulin, rather

> than less?

Apparently insulin production is dependant on many factors and no

simple cause effect relationship may exist.

>But I have no medical qualifications of any kind so I

> could be full of it on this. Perhaps those who know what they are

> talking about would like to chip in?

Same here. I guess a person could research this topic and become very

knowledgeable about this subject (insulin response), but I'd guess

that this is still only one part of living a healthy lifestyle.

I doubt that there are any magic potions available today that will

allow us to all live to 120 yo. So the best bet IMHO is to follow

general guidelines like eating less, maintain a well balanced diet,

etc. etc., get plenty of exercise, reduce stress (meditation or Yoga?)

and most of all - monitor how your body feels when doing all of this.

Buckle up, don't smoke, stay out of bar fights, etc. Those sort of

things probably will keep a person alive much longer than a strict

CRON diet. JMHO. If you observe bad effects - weakness or feeling

cold or wanning of libido - maybe one is going overboard and is

displaying some kind of obsessive behavior. (Don't know much about

that either :-).

And life is short so don't waste all of your time worrying about

prolonging it. :-)

Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

>>>

From: " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...>

Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 3:52 am

Subject: Re: Low-glycemic Load Diet

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

Hi Aequalsz:

So if a low glycemic load diet reduces metabolism **less**, then from

a CRON point of view it is less than optimal, since more calories

will be burnt?

===== " aequalsz " :

Even though more calories may be burnt, does this necessarily mean a

resulting shorter lifespan? Apparently nobody knows for sure. The

added benefits (QOL) may outweigh the uncertainties associated with

the traditional CRON diet.

>>>

In Message 15517 and Message 14018 (Aug 5, 2004), I asked the question

" What is CRON? - 18% more food? " . The reason for the question was that

the food consumed on a weight basis is greater for CR animals than

those fed ad libitum. This is even reported on Masoro's classic paper

" Action of food restriction in delaying the aging process " Proc. Natl

Acad. Sci. Vol 79, pp.4239-4241, July 1982.

All the experimental data demonstrate that calorically restricted

animals consume MORE calories per weight than animals fed ad libitum.

So eating more calories per body weight DOES NOT result in shorter

life span as long as the number of calories does not cause weight gain

AND your weight is in the " proper " range. The question that remains

is: What is the optimum weight, BMI, or other biomarker that we have

to maintain in order to enhance our chances of a long life? Data from

our links and files indicate that a BMI in the range from 21 to 22 may

be the best. So, once you achieve the ideal BMI, eat as much

nutritionally rich food (ON) as you need to maintain your weight. Low

glycemic load diets may decrease insulin spikes, and this may affect

the feeling of satiety by supplying carbohydrates more steadily.

Glycation, which is the gummying up of proteins by carbohydrates, has

been proposed as a mechanism for aging.

http://www.anti-aging-guide.com/21-07internal.php

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

This is the Medline pdf-available paper abstract, and seems

to me to be of potential importance for its studying the effects

of alternative diets for CR.

It was a study of overweight or obese adults, but was also

a randomized-control trial.

The low-glycemic load diet had about half more calcium and

fiber, surprisingly. It did have much higher levels of all and all

individual fats. The numbers were impressive.

Pereira MA, Swain J, Goldfine AB, Rifai N, Ludwig DS.

Effects of a low-glycemic load diet on resting energy expenditure

and heart

disease risk factors during weight loss.

JAMA. 2004 Nov 24;292(20):2482-90.

CONTEXT: Weight loss elicits physiological adaptations relating to

energy intake and expenditure that antagonize ongoing weight loss.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether dietary composition affects the

physiological adaptations to weight loss, as assessed by resting

energy expenditure. DESIGN, STUDY, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized

parallel-design study of 39 overweight or obese young adults aged 18

to 40 years who received an energy-restricted diet, either low-

glycemic load or low-fat. Participants were studied in the General

Clinical Research Centers of the Brigham and Women's Hospital and the

Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass, before and after 10% weight loss.

The study was conducted from January 4, 2001, to May 6, 2003. MAIN

OUTCOME MEASURES: Resting energy expenditure measured in the fasting

state by indirect calorimetry, body composition by dual-energy x-ray

absorptiometry, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and self-

reported hunger. RESULTS: Resting energy expenditure decreased less

with the low-glycemic load diet than with the low-fat diet, expressed

in absolute terms (mean [sE], 96 [24] vs 176 [27] kcal/d; P = .04) or

as a proportion (5.9% [1.5%] vs 10.6% [1.7%]; P = .05). Participants

receiving the low-glycemic load diet reported less hunger than those

receiving the low-fat diet (P = .04). Insulin resistance (P = .01),

serum triglycerides (P = .01), C-reactive protein (P = .03), and

blood pressure (P = .07 for both systolic and diastolic) improved

more with the low-glycemic load diet. Changes in body composition

(fat and lean mass) in both groups were very similar (P = .85 and P

= .45, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in dietary composition

within prevailing norms can affect physiological adaptations that

defend body weight. Reduction in glycemic load may aid in the

prevention or treatment of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and

diabetes mellitus.

PMID: 15562127 [PubMed - in process]

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > " Low-glycemic Load Diet May Improve Ability To Stay On Diet

Longer "

> >

> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041124155206.htm

> >

> > http://snipurl.com/b25a

> >

> > Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

--

I'm new to this group but am reading as a registered dietitian and

a " mostly " raw foods eater. Anyway, I can clear up your question

about insulin and metabolic rate, and that is that the two are

separate entities. Insulin is produced in response to sugar levels

in the blood (in a normal person, not someone suffering from Type 1

or Type 2 diabetes in which case the body does not produce enough).

Higher metabolic rates may stimulate the liver to produce more sugar

from stored glycogen into the bloodstream (if more energy is needed

than is provided in the diet), but insulin does not enter into this

equation. Lower glycemic diets seem to be very helpful for people

who are on the road to diabetes (or have it already), but in my

opinion may not offer any significant benefit over any other balanced

diet (or prescribed diet if you have a specific problem such as heart

disease or liver disease) except maybe some notable physical things

(like increased fullness, decreased hunger, etc). Hope this helps!

Shani

- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> Hi Aequalsz:

>

> So if a low glycemic load diet reduces metabolism **less**, then

from

> a CRON point of view it is less than optimal, since more calories

> will be burnt?

>

> If it reduces insulin then that is a benefit. But does that make

> sense? (From what little I know) I would have thought that a

higher

> metabolic rate would be more likely to require more insulin, rather

> than less? But I have no medical qualifications of any kind so I

> could be full of it on this. Perhaps those who know what they are

> talking about would like to chip in?

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > " Low-glycemic Load Diet May Improve Ability To Stay On Diet

Longer "

> >

> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041124155206.htm

> >

> > http://snipurl.com/b25a

> >

> > Aequalsz