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]

Fiber one is one of a few things I eat that are processed by someone who likes to play in my food.

It just happens that a high % of fiber at a time will have more effect than say homogeneous mixture.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Macronutrients for CR

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.> That's OK, But it fails my principle of natural occuring. The > fiber in it comes from "added" bran .

[Guest guest]

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 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,

[Guest guest]

Of course there's a long standing argument for bran for an anti-cancer effect:

CONCLUSION: inositol hexaphosphate (InsP(6) or phytic acid) can increase blood NK cell activity in DMH-induced colon tumor in rats and inhibit tumor growth and metastasis in rats. PMID: 16124063

Our findings suggest that IP6 has the potential to become an effective adjunct for pancreatic cancer treatment. Further in vivo and human studies are needed to evaluate safety and clinical utility of this agent in patients with pancreatic cancer. PMID: 15919420

[ ] Re: Macronutrients for CR

Hi Rodney. I'm not 100% sure of this, but isn't wheat bran the part ofthe grain that contains large amounts of phytic acid? Are you takingdephytinized bran? Would not mineral absoption be a concern if youtend to concentrate dietary wheat bran? best regards,

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney

I had to sleep on this one.

My daughter used to always ask me these kind of questions... " Ok Dad,

but what if you had to choose between...... "

I wouldn't consider either of the 5 choices " optimal " though I realize

you are asking it as a " addition " to a healthy diet. But, if all

nutrients needs are met, why the addition?

I am not fully up and running after Wilma and so don't have access to my

databae but I was going to run a comparisons.

In the meantime... I would choose whole wheat berries over any of the 5

you listed. Second, I would choose whole wheat (or other grain) pasta

(due to the much lower calorie density). Third, ... I cant answer as

this may come up in front of the court at a later date.

Thanks

Jeff

[ ] Re: Macronutrients for CR

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 All,

The pdf is available for the below. CR macronutrient ratios may matter.

JAMA. 2005;294:2455-2464

Context Reduced intake of saturated fat is widely recommended for prevention of

cardiovascular disease. The type of macronutrient that should replace saturated

fat

remains uncertain.

Objective To compare the effects of 3 healthful diets, each with reduced

saturated

fat intake, on blood pressure and serum lipids.

Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, 3-period, crossover feeding study

(April 2003 to June 2005) conducted in Baltimore, Md, and Boston, Mass.

Partici-pants

were 164 adults with prehypertension or stage 1 hypertension. Each feeding

period lasted 6 weeks and body weight was kept constant.

Interventions A diet rich in carbohydrates; a diet rich in protein, about half

from

plant sources; and a diet rich in unsaturated fat, predominantly monounsaturated

fat.

Main Outcome Measures Systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein

cholesterol.

Results Blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and estimated

coronary

heart

disease risk were lower on each diet compared with baseline. Compared with the

car-bohydrate

diet, the protein diet further decreased mean systolic blood pressure by 1.4

mm Hg (P = .002) and by 3.5 mm Hg (P=.006) among those with hypertension and

de-creased

low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 3.3 mg/dL (0.09 mmol/L; P=.01),

high-density

lipoprotein cholesterol by 1.3 mg/dL (0.03 mmol/L; P=.02), and triglycerides by

15.7 mg/dL (0.18 mmol/L; P<.001). Compared with the carbohydrate diet, the

unsat-urated

fat diet decreased systolic blood pressure by 1.3 mm Hg (P = .005) and by 2.9

mm Hg among those with hypertension (P=.02), had no significant effect on

low-density

lipoprotein cholesterol, increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 1.1

mg/dL

(0.03 mmol/L; P=.03), and lowered triglycerides by 9.6 mg/dL (0.11 mmol/L;

P=.02).

Compared with the carbohydrate diet, estimated 10-year coronary heart disease

risk

was

lower and similar on the protein and unsaturated fat diets.

Conclusion In the setting of a healthful diet, partial substitution of

carbohydrate

with

either protein or monounsaturated fat can further lower blood pressure, improve

lipid

levels, and reduce estimated cardiovascular risk.

Table 1:

---------------------------------------------------------------

DIET: CARB PRO UFA

---------------------------------------------------------------

Nutrient targets, kcal%

Fat 27 27 37

Saturated 6 6 6

Monounsaturated 13 13 21

Polyunsaturated 8 8 10

Carbohydrate 58 48 48

Protein 15 25 15

Meat 5.5 9 5.5

Dairy 4 4 4

Plant 5.5 12 5.5

Food groups, servings/d

Fruit and juices 6.6 3.8 4.8

Vegetables 4.4 5.4 6.3

Grains 5.3 5 4.3

Low-fat dairy 1.4 2.3 1.6

High-fat dairy 0.7 0.2 0.3

Legumes, nuts, seeds, and other vegetable protein 1.3 3 1.2

Beef, pork, and ham 0.9 1.1 1

Poultry 1.6 2.6 1.8

Fish 1.1 1.3 1

Egg product substitutes 0.2 1.1 0.1

Desserts and sweets 4.6 2.5 1.7

Fats and oils 6 3.5 12

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.