Re: Best Foods

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

With regard to your request: " Can you be more specific about which

foods these are? If not non starchy vegetables, some fruits, and

some lower calorie dense legumes (though I dont know many " higher " CD

legumes outside of the chickpea). "

There is doubtless no perfectly rejectable starchy food that has all

my three targeted (bad) characteristics in abundance. But we do know

that peanuts, a legume, have about 70% of calories from fat, 15% from

carbs about half of which, I believe, is starch, and is one of the

foods most susceptible to aflatoxin. I eat some peanuts but I

certainly do not regard them as a staple food, for the above reasons!

Rice and potatoes have high starch content, and calories, are not

noted for high micronutrient density, but are not, as far as I know

implicated as likely carriers of aflatoxin. (It would be helpful to

have an 'aflatoxin index' listing for foods. Perhaps I will try to

find one, or organize one. It was the ALA/aflatoxin/prostate cancer

possible link that peeked my interest in that issue).

Regular corn is famous for aflatoxin contamination, is 82% carbs most

of which is starch. I do not remember it being famous for

micronutrient content, although I can not find my data on it. Corn

**oil** has been known for a long time to be carcinogenic, presumably

because of the aflatoxin, which is in the corn itself also, of course.

Do you see where I am coming from? These are criteria that can be

used to shift some vegetable products down the list of desirability.

In addition, in all the cases I am aware of where people point out a

benefit of a starchy product, the benefits DO NOT DERIVE FROM THE

STARCH COMPONENT of the product. For example, the apparent benefits

of whole grain products (assuming they are not the consequence of

confounding) can be obtained, I submit, from eating the germ and/or

bran, without the caloric burden of the associated starch.

This approach does not disqualify any food (some legumes for example)

which contains starch but can more than justify its existence by the

fact that it is never affected by aflatoxin, and/or has high

micronutrient and/or antioxidant capacity, or has some other

empirically demonstrated significant benefit.

Now, if you believe I am 'full of it' on this, **please** shoot me

down. That is the purpose of this establishment and (contrary to

's vanguard reference) I am here to learn, and am learning a

great deal, from everyone else. But I am trying to draw logical

conclusions from the still inadequate amount of information we all

have on various food sources.

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> >>> But it seems to me that since, if one is going to practice

> CR, calories must be reduced somewhere, concentrated sources of

> calories (starch is one such concentrated source) that have a high

GI

> (or probably better, a high II); low levels of micronutrients and

> antioxidants per calorie;

>

> Outside of " non Starchy " vegetables and many fruits, starchy

vegetables may be the next most concentrated source of nutrients per

calorie. Next to vegetables and fruits, they are also very low in

calorie density. And, in regard to II, they actually have lower II

than many foods " thought " to be low in II.

>

> For example...

>

> The insulin scores for the following foods may be eye opening

> (all numbers based on equal caloric portions)

>

> Beef 51

> Fish 59

> Cheese 45

> Brown pasta 40

> Porridge (Oatmeal) 40

> Brown rice 62

> Apples 59

> Oranges 60

>

> So, Whole Wheat Pasta, and Oatmeal actually produced lower insuling

reactions that fish or beef or cheese. Apples and oranges produced a

response not much different than Fish.

>

> In overall nutrient density, I will double check , but i think its

the oatmeal that wins out of the above.

>

> >>Let me put it this way: it is probably better to reduce those

than

> to reduce sources which have a low II; high levels of micronutrients

> and antioxidants per calorie; and low susceptibility to aflatoxin.

>

> Can you be more specific about which foods these are? If not

nonstarchy vegetables, some fruits, and some lower calorie dense

legumes (though I dont know many " higher " CD legumes outside of the

chickpea).

>

> thanks

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:47:44 -0500, Jeff Novick <jnovick@...> wrote:

> >>> But it seems to me that since, if one is going to practice

> CR, calories must be reduced somewhere, concentrated sources of

> calories (starch is one such concentrated source) that have a high GI

> (or probably better, a high II); low levels of micronutrients and

> antioxidants per calorie;

>

> Outside of " non Starchy " vegetables and many fruits, starchy vegetables may

be the next most concentrated source of nutrients per calorie. Next to

vegetables and fruits, they are also very low in calorie density. And, in

regard to II, they actually have lower II than many foods " thought " to be low in

II.

>

> For example...

>

> The insulin scores for the following foods may be eye opening

> (all numbers based on equal caloric portions)

>

> Beef 51

> Fish 59

> Cheese 45

> Brown pasta 40

> Porridge (Oatmeal) 40

> Brown rice 62

> Apples 59

> Oranges 60

Yeah, but, increasing insulin, in the sort term, may not necessarily

be a terrible thing....

>

> So, Whole Wheat Pasta, and Oatmeal actually produced lower insuling reactions

that fish or beef or cheese. Apples and oranges produced a response not much

different than Fish.

Yes, but studies of tissue advanced glycosylation endproducts (AGEs)

have found them to be higher in vegetarians than in omnivores, FWIW.

>

> In overall nutrient density, I will double check , but i think its the oatmeal

that wins out of the above.

Interesting. I guess it depends upon how one evaluates " nutrient density. "

>

> >>Let me put it this way: it is probably better to reduce those than

> to reduce sources which have a low II; high levels of micronutrients

> and antioxidants per calorie; and low susceptibility to aflatoxin.

>

> Can you be more specific about which foods these are? If not nonstarchy

vegetables, some fruits, and some lower calorie dense legumes (though I dont

know many " higher " CD legumes outside of the chickpea).

>

> thanks

> Jeff

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>Yeah, but, increasing insulin, in the sort term, may not necessarily

be a terrible thing....

I see insulin implicated more and more often as being negative.

BTW, increased glucose in the short term , may not be a bad thing.

I understand the wanting glucose below 110, and maybe 100, but that is

usually for " fasting " glucose. And,I would actually say under 90 for

fasting glucose. But, where does your guidelines for 2 hr post

prandial glucose of under 110 (or 100) come from?

In the studies on GI/GL, even Walter Willet admits that it is only

relevant in the obese (so doesn't apply to CR) and those with insulin

resistance (shouldnt apply to CR as losing weight, being active and

elimating excess body fat all decrease and/or eliminate IR).

So how does GI apply to those following CR-ON and where is there any

evidence supporting that?

BTW< those long lived Okinawans and Japanese ate one of the highest GI

Diets around. Today, as GI goes down in their diet, so does life

expectance and disease rates go up. There is much more to the picture

than to simplify it all with GI/GL

The researchers on GI/GL like and Jennie Brand

arent against starchy vegetables and have spoken out about those best

selling diet books that promote it. The USDA 2005 Dietary Guidelines

committee and the 2003 WHO Committee on Diet and Health both said it was

not useful in planning healthy diets.

>>Yes, but studies of tissue advanced glycosylation endproducts (AGEs)

have found them to be higher in vegetarians than in omnivores, FWIW.

Yes, but studies on vegetarians show they tend to have less disease and

live longer.

>>Interesting. I guess it depends upon how one evaluates " nutrient

density. "

Nutrients per calorie.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

AFAIK while not common it is possible to have too low of a general inflammation

level. As a hypothetical, if

higher BG (as from eating higher GI foods) managed to increase inflammation (

via overproduction of superoxide)

and balance out an otherwise too low inflammation level it might return the

inflammation level to the good range.

Human nutrition is full of complex interactions. I sure don't know but fear over

optimization of one

axis without consideration for the bigger picture may be as flawed as over

dosing supplements.

Yet another post where I expound upon what I don't know... (sorry about that).

JR

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

From: Jeff Novick [mailto:jnovick@...]

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:27 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Best Foods

>>Yeah, but, increasing insulin, in the sort term, may not necessarily

be a terrible thing....

I see insulin implicated more and more often as being negative.

BTW, increased glucose in the short term , may not be a bad thing.

I understand the wanting glucose below 110, and maybe 100, but that is

usually for " fasting " glucose. And,I would actually say under 90 for

fasting glucose. But, where does your guidelines for 2 hr post

prandial glucose of under 110 (or 100) come from?

In the studies on GI/GL, even Walter Willet admits that it is only

relevant in the obese (so doesn't apply to CR) and those with insulin

resistance (shouldnt apply to CR as losing weight, being active and

elimating excess body fat all decrease and/or eliminate IR).

So how does GI apply to those following CR-ON and where is there any

evidence supporting that?

BTW< those long lived Okinawans and Japanese ate one of the highest GI

Diets around. Today, as GI goes down in their diet, so does life

expectance and disease rates go up. There is much more to the picture

than to simplify it all with GI/GL

The researchers on GI/GL like and Jennie Brand

arent against starchy vegetables and have spoken out about those best

selling diet books that promote it. The USDA 2005 Dietary Guidelines

committee and the 2003 WHO Committee on Diet and Health both said it was

not useful in planning healthy diets.

>>Yes, but studies of tissue advanced glycosylation endproducts (AGEs)

have found them to be higher in vegetarians than in omnivores, FWIW.

Yes, but studies on vegetarians show they tend to have less disease and

live longer.

>>Interesting. I guess it depends upon how one evaluates " nutrient

density. "

Nutrients per calorie.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

Certainly there is always the argument as to whether any studies done

on ad libbers have any relevance to those on CRON. I share that

skepticism.

But the present 'argument' was set off I believe when I responded to

Al's post #17067 which, in part, said the following:

" These findings imply that the glycemic nature of dietary

carbohydrates may also be relevant. We aim to provide a clearer

perspective on how the glycemic impact of carbohydrates may modulate

development of cardiovascular disease. "

Perhaps no one, or few, on fully established CRON will ever suffer

CVD. If so then the above study has no relevence. Perhaps

experiments with restricted HAMSTERS might help clarify that?

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> .............. So how does GI apply to those following CR-ON and

> where is there any evidence supporting that? ..............

[Guest guest]

" I understand the wanting glucose below 110, and maybe 100, but that

is usually for " fasting " glucose. And,I would actually say under 90

for

fasting glucose. But, where does your guidelines for 2 hr post

prandial glucose of under 110 (or 100) come from? "

Dr. Bernstein (http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com) believes 90

should be the limit fasting or otherwise and he uses five insulin

shots a day to do this, he is seventy, has had diabetes type1 for 58

of those years and has no diabetic complications. We start

producing insulin at about 85 upwards so that's when the body gets

worried. but at what point we should get worried I don't know. One

doctor in bernsteins forums reckons above 90 is when the heart

starts to come under extra pressure and above 105 is when the

kidneys get over-taxed. The okinawan example is not so good in some

ways as only 34 okinawans out of every 100,000 reach a hundred years

of age, not impressive as it stands, only impressive if compared to

other societies. That makes me think the high carb okinawa way is

probably not the best answer, but I obviously don't know what the

answer is.

So for 10,000 of us following a 10% cr okinawa diet (that's if they

were doing 10%) we can expect just 4 of us to reach age 100, it

seems like a big gamble, unless we argue that most okinawans were

not eating a good diet and that only the centarians were, in which

case our chances are better.

richard

[Guest guest]

Dr Berstein is just one person with a group like this one and he

advises very high fat to control blood glucose, but I used his

example as he is very sensitive to the blood glucose issue (as he

has treated patents for over 25 years so has a lot of front-line

knowledge as opposed to academic) and his way has saved him whereas

his diabetic peers are all dead. I am taking his feelings on blood

glucose as a possible marker for what's safe and not, his actual

diet is really a last gasp thing to save yourself from the ravages

of diabetes, certainly not relevant to most people here.

When I re-read my e-mail it only just sank in how poor the okinawa

statistics look and as no other figures (china study etc) are

better, then this is all we have - a 34 in 10,000 chance of reaching

a hundred the okinawa way. For what its worth I think that Pritkin

and Ornish would beat those okinawa statistics hands down if a

similar group could be studied over time. But how well they would

beat them I don't know. I am sure there must be a better way to

raise that 34 to a much higher level.

richard ....

[Guest guest]

" We are actually in the process of going back over the records for

thelast 30 or so years and try to see what we can about those who

have stayed with, and why " > I would find that very interesting,

would love to see the results when you get them.

...

[Guest guest]

guess what? They're human, just like us :-) And when they

start eating/living/western style they start getting western

style disease and death rates. Good enough for me (and was

good enough for Roy too!)

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> Not just to be contrary but ... The Okie data is a proven method

for Okies.

>

> We may have different genes, different environment (perhaps causing

different gene

> expression), etc... We don't have a very complete picture of human

nutrition

> so can't have perfect knowledge.

>

> That said the Okie data is compelling and some of the best we have,

but true folly

> IMO is assuming we know.

>

> JR

>

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

> From: fskelton@s... [mailto:fskelton@s...]

> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:50 AM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Best Foods

>

>

>

> IMHO it's folly to ignore the OKIE data. Besides being the

> best we have as to what humans should eat and how they should

> be living to attain old age, they attain it INTACT and VITAL

> and HEALTHY. Good enough for me, at least til something

> better comes along.

>

> The rest is just conjecture. The OKIES are a proven method.

>

>

>

>

>