Re: Macronutrients for CR

[Guest guest]

>>>Available evidence suggests that restriction of sugars and carbohydrates

having a high glycemic index would be preferable to total carbohydrate

restriction,

and that an increased intake of fiber

This " almost " sounds contradictory as fiber is found exclusively in carbohydrate

foods.

As I have said before, I personally beleive that the fiber/calorie ratio is one

of the important ways tto evaluate food choices. And, the fiber should be

naturally occuring.

So, instead of focusing on a confusing unproven tool like the GI or GL, I think

a simplier public health message,would be to encourage the intake of more

naturally occuring high fiber carbohydrates and to restrict the intake of

refined and processed carbs that have little or no fiber.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

And, isn't GI a rather subjective measure, that gives diff values for diff people?

My impression was that I might have a lower glucose result, depending on digestion, insulin availability, etc. Obviously those with glucose intolerance will see remarkable differences.

When I looked at fiber/calorie ratios, seeking the highest value, I found brans at the top, notably RTE cereal. I'm gonna pick on you a little.

If I try to get fiber just from things like turnip greens that's OK, but I'll be short energy so I need to add something like beans anyway. I can't eat 4-5 pounds of greens for fiber but I can eat 8 oz of black beans, easily,eg.

Beans are like half the fiber/calorie of turnip greens (0.07 versus 0.18).

8 oz providing about 2/3 of the RDA at a cost of 300 kcals.

So some kind of beans, preferably the green, immature type (limas, peas), have to be the backbone of my fiber from a veggie source.

Just my take.

Regards.

RE: [ ] Macronutrients for CR

>>>Available evidence suggests that restriction of sugars and carbohydrateshaving a high glycemic index would be preferable to total carbohydrate restriction,and that an increased intake of fiberThis "almost" sounds contradictory as fiber is found exclusively in carbohydrate foods.As I have said before, I personally beleive that the fiber/calorie ratio is one of the important ways tto evaluate food choices. And, the fiber should be naturally occuring.So, instead of focusing on a confusing unproven tool like the GI or GL, I think a simplier public health message,would be to encourage the intake of more naturally occuring high fiber carbohydrates and to restrict the intake of refined and processed carbs that have little or no fiber.RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

>> When I looked at fiber/calorie ratios, seeking the highest value, I found brans at the top, notably RTE cereal. I'm gonna pick on you a little. Thats OK, But it fails my principle of natural occuring. The fiber in it comes from "added" bran .

>> So some kind of beans, preferably the green, immature type (limas, peas), have to be the backbone of my fiber from a veggie source.

Yes, beans are on of the highest in the fiber per calorie ratio and they are also one of the highest in the nutrient per calorie group. They are just alittle higher in the calorie per pound group, so not the lowest in calorie density.

But, great foods!

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Don't see the contradiction here....most legumes are rated for a low glycemic index FWIW. Recent studies have suggested there's rather more fiber content in legumes than previouslys suspected, as well (resistant starches).

On 11/1/05, jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

And, isn't GI a rather subjective measure, that gives diff values for diff people?

My impression was that I might have a lower glucose result, depending on digestion, insulin availability, etc. Obviously those with glucose intolerance will see remarkable differences.

When I looked at fiber/calorie ratios, seeking the highest value, I found brans at the top, notably RTE cereal. I'm gonna pick on you a little.

If I try to get fiber just from things like turnip greens that's OK, but I'll be short energy so I need to add something like beans anyway. I can't eat 4-5 pounds of greens for fiber but I can eat 8 oz of black beans, easily,eg.

Beans are like half the fiber/calorie of turnip greens (0.07 versus 0.18).

8 oz providing about 2/3 of the RDA at a cost of 300 kcals.

So some kind of beans, preferably the green, immature type (limas, peas), have to be the backbone of my fiber from a veggie source.

Just my take.

Regards.

RE: [ ] Macronutrients for CR

>>>Available evidence suggests that restriction of sugars and carbohydrateshaving a high glycemic index would be preferable to total carbohydrate restriction,

and that an increased intake of fiberThis " almost " sounds contradictory as fiber is found exclusively in carbohydrate foods.As I have said before, I personally beleive that the fiber/calorie ratio is one of the important ways tto evaluate food choices. And, the fiber should be naturally occuring.

So, instead of focusing on a confusing unproven tool like the GI or GL, I think a simplier public health message,would be to encourage the intake of more naturally occuring high fiber carbohydrates and to restrict the intake of refined and processed carbs that have little or no fiber.

RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

>> Don't see the contradiction here....most legumes are rated for a low glycemic index FWIW.

If you follow the GI/GL you occasionally come upon foods that are low rated and also healthy. And, there is no one constant GI/GL number for any food. There are many influences.

If you follow the naturally occuring fiber/calorie ratio you almost always come upon healthy foods, regardless of thier GI/GL rating.

If you throw in nutrient/calorie and calorie/pound you win every time and its a simple system that always works.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

Could I ask you to elaborate on how you differentiate between foods

you define as naturally occuring from those that are not, please?

Bran seems natural enough to me.

If you are arguing that the whole food should be eaten, and that if

it is not the whole food then it is not classified as " naturally

occurring " then on what basis do you feel justified in excluding the

root, stem, husk, and the bristles on the head of the wheat plant?

Sincerely not trying to be argumentative here. I am just having

difficulty with the proposition that 'bran' is not naturally

occurring.

I can see that it might be appropriate to advocate the consumption of

bran and/or germ without the remainder of the plant on the basis that

most of the rest of the plant is simply empty calories. And

therefore BETTER, on the basis of this argument, than eating

the 'whole food'.

Rodney.

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

wrote:

> That's OK, But it fails my principle of natural occuring. The

> fiber in it comes from " added " bran .

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I was treating those as 2 separate issues, but I see your point.

Maybe you could enlighten me why dried beans (all) raise my BP when the immature types do not? It's not enough to stop me from eating them, and it's not the soaking/cooking method that does it.

Something happens in the dried bean. Notably, split peas, orange lentils have less effect.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Macronutrients for CR

Don't see the contradiction here....most legumes are rated for a low glycemic index FWIW. Recent studies have suggested there's rather more fiber content in legumes than previouslys suspected, as well (resistant starches).

On 11/1/05, jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

And, isn't GI a rather subjective measure, that gives diff values for diff people?

My impression was that I might have a lower glucose result, depending on digestion, insulin availability, etc. Obviously those with glucose intolerance will see remarkable differences.

When I looked at fiber/calorie ratios, seeking the highest value, I found brans at the top, notably RTE cereal. I'm gonna pick on you a little.

If I try to get fiber just from things like turnip greens that's OK, but I'll be short energy so I need to add something like beans anyway. I can't eat 4-5 pounds of greens for fiber but I can eat 8 oz of black beans, easily,eg.

Beans are like half the fiber/calorie of turnip greens (0.07 versus 0.18).

8 oz providing about 2/3 of the RDA at a cost of 300 kcals.

So some kind of beans, preferably the green, immature type (limas, peas), have to be the backbone of my fiber from a veggie source.

Just my take.

Regards.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

OK. Well let me word my question a little differently by putting it

in terms of a specific example:

Which of the five listed below, isocalorically, do you consider to be

the healthiest to eat as part of a healthy diet, presuming that the

RDAs of all the nutrients are satisfied by the overall diet which

contains other healthy foods:

1) Whole grain wheat bread;

2) Wheat bran;

3) Wheat germ;

4) Wheat germ+bran;

5) White bread or white pasta made from wheat.

In other words, I am taking the position (subject to change without

notice, lol) that the amount of micronutrients in the 'NON bran+germ'

part of whole grain bread, is small relative to the amount of

calories it contains. So that the nutrient values in the bran, and

perhaps the germ, is superior.

If my bias is correct then eating bran+germ is better in terms of

nutrients per unit of calories than eating whole grain bread.

Does this make sense, in your opinion? Or do you have a different

approach?

Rodney.

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

wrote:

>

> Maybe my choice of wording " naturally occuring " isnt the best, as

there

> are many arguments over what " natural " means.

>

> However...

>

> What I mean is that when the bran is extracted from the whole grain,

> which normally also contains the germ (where certain fatty acids

are)

> and endosperm (other nutrients) . Than this extracted bran is

added to

> many refined processed foods, like cold cereals to raise their fiber

> content. (some of this is done as they can make an Official health

claim

> based on fiber content). So, this gives a exaggerated fiber/calorie

> ratio. Cereals, with such a high fiber/calorie ratio don't occur

> naturally (oops, grow on trees, I mean).

>

> If you were to get in 50 grams of fiber in a day from foods that

don't

> have any " extracted " fiber " added " to them, like fruits, veggies,

whole

> grains, legumes, you would not only get in plenty of fiber (both

soluble

> and insoluble), but also loads of nurtients that are also in those

foods

> that come along for the ride with the fiber.

>

> If you ate 2 (or 3) servings of some of those high fiber dry

cereals,

> you would get in all the fiber, and some of the benefit of it (as

it is

> mostly added extracted insoluble fiber) but you would not get all

the

> benefit of it as you wouldn't get all the soluble fiber and you also

> wouldn't get all the other nutrients that would have come along for

the

> ride, in the whole fruits, veggies, whole grains, legumes, etc.

>

> Does that make more sense to you?

>

> Also, if you apply the fiber/calorie ratio, those bran cereals may

win,

> but if you add in the calorie/pound ratio, they no longer win. Most

> natural foods, are 100-600 calories per pound. Dried cereals are

more

> like 1200-1700 calories per pound.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney. I'm not 100% sure of this, but isn't wheat bran the part of

the grain that contains large amounts of phytic acid? Are you taking

dephytinized bran? Would not mineral absoption be a concern if you

tend to concentrate dietary wheat bran?

best regards,