Re: Re: Whole Grain Benefits

[Guest guest]

At 08:23 AM 1/18/2006, you wrote:

Hi folks:

I am open minded but a bit skeptical about this. People who take

the

trouble to eat whole grain products, overall undoubtedly take much

more care of their health than those who don't pay any attention to

what they eat. So I wonder how much of the beneficial effect truly

is a result solely of the whole grains, and how much is attributable

to their other healthy behaviours.

That said, I do take the trouble to add germ and bran to my diet, as

I am fairly sure it is not harmful ; ^ )))

--Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate

to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative

" grain " part of the whole grain products--I find it hard to

swallow, as it were, that increased consumption of relatively high GI

carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own.

Maco

[Guest guest]

At 08:23 AM 1/18/2006, you wrote:

Hi folks:

I am open minded but a bit skeptical about this. People who take

the

trouble to eat whole grain products, overall undoubtedly take much

more care of their health than those who don't pay any attention to

what they eat. So I wonder how much of the beneficial effect truly

is a result solely of the whole grains, and how much is attributable

to their other healthy behaviours.

That said, I do take the trouble to add germ and bran to my diet, as

I am fairly sure it is not harmful ; ^ )))

--Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate

to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative

" grain " part of the whole grain products--I find it hard to

swallow, as it were, that increased consumption of relatively high GI

carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own.

Maco

[Guest guest]

Maco wrote:

>

> --Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate

> to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative " grain " part

> of the whole grain products--I find it hard to swallow, as it were,

> that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in

> any way beneficial on its own.

>

> Maco

>

One CRON principle I stick to is substituting something better for

something worse. If you're going to eat bread, make it whole wheat

bread. A pound of bread a day is too much, but a small whole wheat

tortilla stuffed with good things?

Bad findings have circulated around excessive fructose, so it's not

clear that " low-GI " always means " healthy. "

On paper, vegetables have more " fiber " than whole grains, but I

find I get constipated if I go to zero grain, even if I eat a pound of

salad a day.

[Guest guest]

Maco wrote:

>

> --Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate

> to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative " grain " part

> of the whole grain products--I find it hard to swallow, as it were,

> that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in

> any way beneficial on its own.

>

> Maco

>

One CRON principle I stick to is substituting something better for

something worse. If you're going to eat bread, make it whole wheat

bread. A pound of bread a day is too much, but a small whole wheat

tortilla stuffed with good things?

Bad findings have circulated around excessive fructose, so it's not

clear that " low-GI " always means " healthy. "

On paper, vegetables have more " fiber " than whole grains, but I

find I get constipated if I go to zero grain, even if I eat a pound of

salad a day.

[Guest guest]

>>> I find it hard to swallow, as it were, that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own.

See my recent post on reversing CVD in 3 weeks. The diet is 60-70% carbohydrates, many of them considered high GI.

I find it hard to swallow that GI or GL has any relevance to health or longevity

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>> I find it hard to swallow, as it were, that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own.

See my recent post on reversing CVD in 3 weeks. The diet is 60-70% carbohydrates, many of them considered high GI.

I find it hard to swallow that GI or GL has any relevance to health or longevity

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Maco and Rod: unless you have some hard evidence (or even any evidence) I would caution you to refrain from posting these opinions only. It so happens we have an entire file of evidence in favor of eating whole grains. We do not advocate eliminating entire food groups (such as whole grains, in the unproven interests of getting one's weight down as much as possible). Just the opposite, the more variety (and that includes grains) the better.

I remind you that often evidence comes out that it is the interaction of nutrients in the WHOLE food (instead of just a portion or the food, in this case, such as the germ or bran) that is desirable. So either cite your evidence or don't post it, because it looks to me like mere conjucture (which is often later proven entirely wrong.)

on 1/18/2006 10:32 AM, Maco at mstewart@... wrote:

At 08:23 AM 1/18/2006, you wrote:

Hi folks:

I am open minded but a bit skeptical about this. People who take the

trouble to eat whole grain products, overall undoubtedly take much

more care of their health than those who don't pay any attention to

what they eat. So I wonder how much of the beneficial effect truly

is a result solely of the whole grains, and how much is attributable

to their other healthy behaviours.

That said, I do take the trouble to add germ and bran to my diet, as

I am fairly sure it is not harmful ; ^ )))

--Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative " grain " part of the whole grain products--I find it hard to swallow, as it were, that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own.

Maco

[Guest guest]

Maco and Rod: unless you have some hard evidence (or even any evidence) I would caution you to refrain from posting these opinions only. It so happens we have an entire file of evidence in favor of eating whole grains. We do not advocate eliminating entire food groups (such as whole grains, in the unproven interests of getting one's weight down as much as possible). Just the opposite, the more variety (and that includes grains) the better.

I remind you that often evidence comes out that it is the interaction of nutrients in the WHOLE food (instead of just a portion or the food, in this case, such as the germ or bran) that is desirable. So either cite your evidence or don't post it, because it looks to me like mere conjucture (which is often later proven entirely wrong.)

on 1/18/2006 10:32 AM, Maco at mstewart@... wrote:

At 08:23 AM 1/18/2006, you wrote:

Hi folks:

I am open minded but a bit skeptical about this. People who take the

trouble to eat whole grain products, overall undoubtedly take much

more care of their health than those who don't pay any attention to

what they eat. So I wonder how much of the beneficial effect truly

is a result solely of the whole grains, and how much is attributable

to their other healthy behaviours.

That said, I do take the trouble to add germ and bran to my diet, as

I am fairly sure it is not harmful ; ^ )))

--Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative " grain " part of the whole grain products--I find it hard to swallow, as it were, that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own.

Maco

[Guest guest]

Ok, lets have a little fun...

Lets look at what the results of recommending/using the glycemix load

would be in the real world.

But lets also compare it to another scale, one that actually has

scientific data behind it, showing that it helps people lose weight and

maintain their weight loss... and that is....energy (or calorie)

density.

Basically, for the GL, " they " say, anything with a GL under 10 is a

good choice.

For the ED, they say anything under 600 cal/lb is a good choice.

So, let the games begin......

(yes, this is extreme examples, but it makes the point)

Food ED GL

Peanuts 2556 2

By GL, seem to be an excellent choice. By ED, peanuts are a poor

choise for weight loss.

Pizza 1217 13

By GL, pizza, not that bad, by ED, not very good

Bananas 404 14

By GL, worse than pizza. By ED, great food.

Brown rice 508 23

By GL, poor choise. By ED, Excellent choice

Honey 1380 9

By GL, great choice, by ED, poor choice

Oatmeal 286 12

by GL, not that bad,a little better than pizza. By ED, Great choice

Ice cream 912 10

Phew! By GL, made it. Good choice. By ED, not good

Sugar (sucrose) 1756 8

By GL, great choice. By ED, poor choice

White bread 1330 10

By GL, good choice. As good as ice cream and much better than oatmeal

and brown rice. By ED, not a good choice

Popcorn 1734 7

By GL, great choice, by ED, not very good

Baked potato 422 28

by GL, very bad choice. Worse than everything else. By ED, very good

choice

So, would you rather recommend the use of GL as a tool and beleive that

peanuts. honey, ice cream, sugar, white bread, popcorn, and pizza are

good choices for a healthy weight loss diet.

Or would you rather recommend the use ED as a tool and know that baked

potatoes, oatmeal, brown rice, and bananas are GREAT choices, even

though they may have a high GL?

The choice is yours. Your health and weight may be at steak. I mean

stake.

Reagrds (I mean regards)

jeff

[Guest guest]

Ok, lets have a little fun...

Lets look at what the results of recommending/using the glycemix load

would be in the real world.

But lets also compare it to another scale, one that actually has

scientific data behind it, showing that it helps people lose weight and

maintain their weight loss... and that is....energy (or calorie)

density.

Basically, for the GL, " they " say, anything with a GL under 10 is a

good choice.

For the ED, they say anything under 600 cal/lb is a good choice.

So, let the games begin......

(yes, this is extreme examples, but it makes the point)

Food ED GL

Peanuts 2556 2

By GL, seem to be an excellent choice. By ED, peanuts are a poor

choise for weight loss.

Pizza 1217 13

By GL, pizza, not that bad, by ED, not very good

Bananas 404 14

By GL, worse than pizza. By ED, great food.

Brown rice 508 23

By GL, poor choise. By ED, Excellent choice

Honey 1380 9

By GL, great choice, by ED, poor choice

Oatmeal 286 12

by GL, not that bad,a little better than pizza. By ED, Great choice

Ice cream 912 10

Phew! By GL, made it. Good choice. By ED, not good

Sugar (sucrose) 1756 8

By GL, great choice. By ED, poor choice

White bread 1330 10

By GL, good choice. As good as ice cream and much better than oatmeal

and brown rice. By ED, not a good choice

Popcorn 1734 7

By GL, great choice, by ED, not very good

Baked potato 422 28

by GL, very bad choice. Worse than everything else. By ED, very good

choice

So, would you rather recommend the use of GL as a tool and beleive that

peanuts. honey, ice cream, sugar, white bread, popcorn, and pizza are

good choices for a healthy weight loss diet.

Or would you rather recommend the use ED as a tool and know that baked

potatoes, oatmeal, brown rice, and bananas are GREAT choices, even

though they may have a high GL?

The choice is yours. Your health and weight may be at steak. I mean

stake.

Reagrds (I mean regards)

jeff

[Guest guest]

that.

I don't think I can outlaw any food group except those manufactured.

There is something about wheat that's "comforting", as long as I don't do excess gluten.

I find if I take a glass (8oz) of prune juice, it helps the constipation, also 8 oz of orange juice, also enough sodium. And 1 oz slice of heavy whole wheat bread "rounds" out that picture.

One article said it's not the glucose but the hyperinsulemia that effects aging. Well I don't know, but I can assure you a good constitutional solves a lot of problems at age 70.

Anyway that's only one of the aging theories (glycation).

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Whole Grain Benefits

One CRON principle I stick to is substituting something better for something worse. If you're going to eat bread, make it whole wheat bread. A pound of bread a day is too much, but a small whole wheat tortilla stuffed with good things? Bad findings have circulated around excessive fructose, so it's not clear that "low-GI" always means "healthy." On paper, vegetables have more "fiber" than whole grains, but I find I get constipated if I go to zero grain, even if I eat a pound of salad a day.

[Guest guest]

that.

I don't think I can outlaw any food group except those manufactured.

There is something about wheat that's "comforting", as long as I don't do excess gluten.

I find if I take a glass (8oz) of prune juice, it helps the constipation, also 8 oz of orange juice, also enough sodium. And 1 oz slice of heavy whole wheat bread "rounds" out that picture.

One article said it's not the glucose but the hyperinsulemia that effects aging. Well I don't know, but I can assure you a good constitutional solves a lot of problems at age 70.

Anyway that's only one of the aging theories (glycation).

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Whole Grain Benefits

One CRON principle I stick to is substituting something better for something worse. If you're going to eat bread, make it whole wheat bread. A pound of bread a day is too much, but a small whole wheat tortilla stuffed with good things? Bad findings have circulated around excessive fructose, so it's not clear that "low-GI" always means "healthy." On paper, vegetables have more "fiber" than whole grains, but I find I get constipated if I go to zero grain, even if I eat a pound of salad a day.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Jeff,

No argument.

First, I recall the GI is a relative thing, different between people.

That makes it suspect to me, even for people with glucose problems.

In the real world all the old people I know eat grains. And the "whites".

The knowledge might improve if the diabetic orgs came to a concensus.

Also, how many CRers have a type 2 problem?

That's one thing CR should handle nicely.

Regards.

RE: [ ] Re: Whole Grain Benefits

Ok, lets have a little fun...Lets look at what the results of recommending/using the glycemix loadwould be in the real world. But lets also compare it to another scale, one that actually hasscientific data behind it, showing that it helps people lose weight andmaintain their weight loss... and that is....energy (or calorie)density.Basically, for the GL, "they" say, anything with a GL under 10 is agood choice. For the ED, they say anything under 600 cal/lb is a good choice. So, let the games begin......(yes, this is extreme examples, but it makes the point)Food ED GLPeanuts 2556 2By GL, seem to be an excellent choice. By ED, peanuts are a poorchoise for weight loss.Pizza 1217 13By GL, pizza, not that bad, by ED, not very goodBananas 404 14By GL, worse than pizza. By ED, great food.Brown rice 508 23By GL, poor choise. By ED, Excellent choiceHoney 1380 9By GL, great choice, by ED, poor choiceOatmeal 286 12by GL, not that bad,a little better than pizza. By ED, Great choiceIce cream 912 10Phew! By GL, made it. Good choice. By ED, not goodSugar (sucrose) 1756 8By GL, great choice. By ED, poor choiceWhite bread 1330 10By GL, good choice. As good as ice cream and much better than oatmealand brown rice. By ED, not a good choicePopcorn 1734 7By GL, great choice, by ED, not very goodBaked potato 422 28by GL, very bad choice. Worse than everything else. By ED, very goodchoiceSo, would you rather recommend the use of GL as a tool and beleive thatpeanuts. honey, ice cream, sugar, white bread, popcorn, and pizza aregood choices for a healthy weight loss diet. Or would you rather recommend the use ED as a tool and know that bakedpotatoes, oatmeal, brown rice, and bananas are GREAT choices, eventhough they may have a high GL?The choice is yours. Your health and weight may be at steak. I meanstake.Reagrds (I mean regards)jeff

[Guest guest]

Thanks Jeff,

No argument.

First, I recall the GI is a relative thing, different between people.

That makes it suspect to me, even for people with glucose problems.

In the real world all the old people I know eat grains. And the "whites".

The knowledge might improve if the diabetic orgs came to a concensus.

Also, how many CRers have a type 2 problem?

That's one thing CR should handle nicely.

Regards.

RE: [ ] Re: Whole Grain Benefits

Ok, lets have a little fun...Lets look at what the results of recommending/using the glycemix loadwould be in the real world. But lets also compare it to another scale, one that actually hasscientific data behind it, showing that it helps people lose weight andmaintain their weight loss... and that is....energy (or calorie)density.Basically, for the GL, "they" say, anything with a GL under 10 is agood choice. For the ED, they say anything under 600 cal/lb is a good choice. So, let the games begin......(yes, this is extreme examples, but it makes the point)Food ED GLPeanuts 2556 2By GL, seem to be an excellent choice. By ED, peanuts are a poorchoise for weight loss.Pizza 1217 13By GL, pizza, not that bad, by ED, not very goodBananas 404 14By GL, worse than pizza. By ED, great food.Brown rice 508 23By GL, poor choise. By ED, Excellent choiceHoney 1380 9By GL, great choice, by ED, poor choiceOatmeal 286 12by GL, not that bad,a little better than pizza. By ED, Great choiceIce cream 912 10Phew! By GL, made it. Good choice. By ED, not goodSugar (sucrose) 1756 8By GL, great choice. By ED, poor choiceWhite bread 1330 10By GL, good choice. As good as ice cream and much better than oatmealand brown rice. By ED, not a good choicePopcorn 1734 7By GL, great choice, by ED, not very goodBaked potato 422 28by GL, very bad choice. Worse than everything else. By ED, very goodchoiceSo, would you rather recommend the use of GL as a tool and beleive thatpeanuts. honey, ice cream, sugar, white bread, popcorn, and pizza aregood choices for a healthy weight loss diet. Or would you rather recommend the use ED as a tool and know that bakedpotatoes, oatmeal, brown rice, and bananas are GREAT choices, eventhough they may have a high GL?The choice is yours. Your health and weight may be at steak. I meanstake.Reagrds (I mean regards)jeff

[Guest guest]

A Houle wrote:

> Maco wrote:

>> --Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate

>> to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative " grain " part

>> of the whole grain products--I find it hard to swallow, as it were,

>> that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in

>> any way beneficial on its own.

>>

>> Maco

>>

> One CRON principle I stick to is substituting something better for

> something worse. If you're going to eat bread, make it whole wheat

> bread. A pound of bread a day is too much, but a small whole wheat

> tortilla stuffed with good things?

>

> Bad findings have circulated around excessive fructose, so it's not

> clear that " low-GI " always means " healthy. "

>

> On paper, vegetables have more " fiber " than whole grains, but I

> find I get constipated if I go to zero grain, even if I eat a pound of

> salad a day.

>

>

>

>

In managing diet I like to look for small incremental improvements.

Preferring to make small easy to stick to permanent changes over drastic

moves that you may back slide on.

For example in the course of my dietary evolution I went from store

bought bagels to home made (with whole wheat flour). Eventually I cut

out my daily morning bagel completely, as just not justified by the

nutritional value.

At that point it was a somewhat different decision calculus because I

was saving the time/labor of cooking them every week.

JR

[Guest guest]

A Houle wrote:

> Maco wrote:

>> --Ditto at least to the bran; the problem comes in trying to isolate

>> to what extent the " whole " outweighs the likely negative " grain " part

>> of the whole grain products--I find it hard to swallow, as it were,

>> that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in

>> any way beneficial on its own.

>>

>> Maco

>>

> One CRON principle I stick to is substituting something better for

> something worse. If you're going to eat bread, make it whole wheat

> bread. A pound of bread a day is too much, but a small whole wheat

> tortilla stuffed with good things?

>

> Bad findings have circulated around excessive fructose, so it's not

> clear that " low-GI " always means " healthy. "

>

> On paper, vegetables have more " fiber " than whole grains, but I

> find I get constipated if I go to zero grain, even if I eat a pound of

> salad a day.

>

>

>

>

In managing diet I like to look for small incremental improvements.

Preferring to make small easy to stick to permanent changes over drastic

moves that you may back slide on.

For example in the course of my dietary evolution I went from store

bought bagels to home made (with whole wheat flour). Eventually I cut

out my daily morning bagel completely, as just not justified by the

nutritional value.

At that point it was a somewhat different decision calculus because I

was saving the time/labor of cooking them every week.

JR

[Guest guest]

At 12:50 PM 1/18/2006, Francesca wrote:

Maco and Rod: unless you

have some hard evidence (or even any evidence) I would caution you to

refrain from posting these opinions only.

These are some examples of what has led me to my possibly erroneous

belief that, as I put it in my post, I find it hard to swallow that

increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way

beneficial on its own. I never came out against whole grain products, and

indeed I consume them. But since you implicitly asked:

http://snipurl.com/lp50

Caloric restriction and aging: an update

1 J.

Masoro

,

,

a

a Department of

Physiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San , San

, TX 78284-7756, USA

Received 7 December 1999; revised 24 January 2000; accepted 24 January

2000. Available online 25 May 2000.

3. Modulation of glycemia and

insulinemiaPlasma glucose levels are lower

and plasma insulin levels are markedly lower in calorically restricted

rats than in ad lib-fed animals; yet rats on the CR regimen utilize

glucose as fuel per unit of metabolic mass at the same rate as ad lib-fed

rats

(

Masoro et al., 1992). Both hyperglycemia and

hyperinsulinemia are known to cause aging-like damage. It has been

proposed that insulin is damaging because of its mitogenic action

(

Lev–Ran, 1998). The damaging action of glucose

has been linked to glycation and/or glycoxidation

(

Kristal and Yu, 1992), but other mechanisms may

also be involved.

Masoro (1996) hypothesized that the lifetime

maintenance of reduced levels of plasma glucose and insulin without

compromising glucose fuel use is, at least in part, responsible for the

antiaging action of CR. To test the validity of this hypothesis would

require establishing that the long-term reduction of glycemia and

insulinemia below that of normoglycemic and normoinsulinemic levels

protects against aging-like damage. Although much recent information has

been gained on the mechanisms by which CR promotes the ability to utilize

glucose fuel, testing the validity of this hypothesis has yet to be

conducted. It is known, however, that CR decreases the age-associated

accumulation of glycoxidation products in rat skin collagen

(

Cefalu et al., 1995).

and

http://snipurl.com/lp58

Does dietary sugar and fat influence

longevity?

*1 Victor E.

Archer

,

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah,

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Received 23 September 2002; accepted 11 November 2002. ; Available

online 28 March 2003.

Caloric restrictionIn CR studies, calories are 50–75% of

ad lib amounts

[

11 and

23]. This restriction results in life extension by 40–60% in rodents

[

11,

20 and

23](16% in one dog experiment)

[

12], and in a reduction of 30–90% of tumors

[

14 and

55]. Life extension by CR is attributed to delays or reduction in

diseases of aging, including cancer

[

11,

12,

13,

14 and

15]. Changes in many biochemical parameters have been noted as a

result of CR

[

11,

12,

13,

14,

15,

16,

25 and

56]. The serum glucose level is lowered by about 15%; the

insulin/glucagon ratio is reduced; some hormones, cholesterol, lipid and

glycated hemoglobin levels were reduced

[

15,

20 and

56]. Glucoregulatory parameters were improved, while diabetes and CVD

rates were decreased in aging CR monkeys

[

15 and

56]. CR may accelerate protein turnover,

reducing protein cross links and reducing related disease

[

57]. In the Biosphere 2 experiment, CR in men for 2 years resulted in

decreased serum cholesterol, blood sugar, leukocytes, cortisol, insulin

and glycated hemoglobin

[

16].

The usual assumption in CR animal experiments, that the total caloric

reduction is much more important than the reduction in individual

components

[

11 and

14], is probably incorrect. It may be true for

protein or fat, but not for carbohydrates, as rat experiments have found

that total carbohydrates, or type of carbohydrate acted independently of

total calories in life extension

[

58 and

59]. Longevity in rats was extended by low carbohydrate intake, with

or without CR. Similar experiments with protein and fat are equivocal,

but suggest little influence beyond the calories and essential nutrients

they supply

[

55,

58,

60 and

61]. These studies, however, are not definitive

as the investigators may have been unaware of the differences in effect

of high glycemic vs. low glycemic carbohydrates, saturated vs.

unsaturated fats or different types of protein. The type and amount of

protein without CR may influence length of life

[

62,

63,

64 and

65].

Side effects from CR include decreased fertility and neonatal survival,

stunted growth and development, and possibly a decreased resistance to

infectious diseases

[

58]. Most CR experiments have started with young animals. It is

uncertain whether or not CR effects will develop when it is started in

midlife or later; some reports suggest it

[

57,

63,

66,

67 and

68] while others do not

[

40,

69 and

70].

DiscussionCaloric restriction increases the life span of

invertebrates, mice, rats, and dogs, despite differences in species,

strains, experimental design, nutritional variables, environmental

conditions, or predisposition for naturally occurring causes of death

[

12 and

71], so it would not be surprising to find that the CR life span

effect applies to all primates as well.

Although incomplete, the CR findings in humans and subhuman primates were

similar to results from CR in rodents and dogs. Much of the avoidance and

delay in age associated diseases noted in CR rodents and dogs is probably

similar in primates

[

12]. This suggests that life extension may result from CR in humans

as well. Since many of the age related diseases are associated with the

metabolism of sugars and fats, and since CR severely restricts these two

items, it follows that severe dietary restriction of the glycemic load

(glycemic index multiplied by the grams consumed), together with foods

that are high in saturated and trans fatty acids, might reduce or

delay many diseases in humans, even without CR. This could lead to

extended, healthy lives.

etc.

--My concern isn't with whole grains: the point that I brought up is that

carbohydrate in itself is not great vis a vis CR or longevity, and that

the " whole " part of whole grains represents an amelioration of

a generally destructive tendency that higher blood glucose levels will

have over time.

--But, of course, I could well be misled re all of this.

Maco

[Guest guest]

At 12:50 PM 1/18/2006, Francesca wrote:

Maco and Rod: unless you

have some hard evidence (or even any evidence) I would caution you to

refrain from posting these opinions only.

These are some examples of what has led me to my possibly erroneous

belief that, as I put it in my post, I find it hard to swallow that

increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way

beneficial on its own. I never came out against whole grain products, and

indeed I consume them. But since you implicitly asked:

http://snipurl.com/lp50

Caloric restriction and aging: an update

1 J.

Masoro

,

,

a

a Department of

Physiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San , San

, TX 78284-7756, USA

Received 7 December 1999; revised 24 January 2000; accepted 24 January

2000. Available online 25 May 2000.

3. Modulation of glycemia and

insulinemiaPlasma glucose levels are lower

and plasma insulin levels are markedly lower in calorically restricted

rats than in ad lib-fed animals; yet rats on the CR regimen utilize

glucose as fuel per unit of metabolic mass at the same rate as ad lib-fed

rats

(

Masoro et al., 1992). Both hyperglycemia and

hyperinsulinemia are known to cause aging-like damage. It has been

proposed that insulin is damaging because of its mitogenic action

(

Lev–Ran, 1998). The damaging action of glucose

has been linked to glycation and/or glycoxidation

(

Kristal and Yu, 1992), but other mechanisms may

also be involved.

Masoro (1996) hypothesized that the lifetime

maintenance of reduced levels of plasma glucose and insulin without

compromising glucose fuel use is, at least in part, responsible for the

antiaging action of CR. To test the validity of this hypothesis would

require establishing that the long-term reduction of glycemia and

insulinemia below that of normoglycemic and normoinsulinemic levels

protects against aging-like damage. Although much recent information has

been gained on the mechanisms by which CR promotes the ability to utilize

glucose fuel, testing the validity of this hypothesis has yet to be

conducted. It is known, however, that CR decreases the age-associated

accumulation of glycoxidation products in rat skin collagen

(

Cefalu et al., 1995).

and

http://snipurl.com/lp58

Does dietary sugar and fat influence

longevity?

*1 Victor E.

Archer

,

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah,

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Received 23 September 2002; accepted 11 November 2002. ; Available

online 28 March 2003.

Caloric restrictionIn CR studies, calories are 50–75% of

ad lib amounts

[

11 and

23]. This restriction results in life extension by 40–60% in rodents

[

11,

20 and

23](16% in one dog experiment)

[

12], and in a reduction of 30–90% of tumors

[

14 and

55]. Life extension by CR is attributed to delays or reduction in

diseases of aging, including cancer

[

11,

12,

13,

14 and

15]. Changes in many biochemical parameters have been noted as a

result of CR

[

11,

12,

13,

14,

15,

16,

25 and

56]. The serum glucose level is lowered by about 15%; the

insulin/glucagon ratio is reduced; some hormones, cholesterol, lipid and

glycated hemoglobin levels were reduced

[

15,

20 and

56]. Glucoregulatory parameters were improved, while diabetes and CVD

rates were decreased in aging CR monkeys

[

15 and

56]. CR may accelerate protein turnover,

reducing protein cross links and reducing related disease

[

57]. In the Biosphere 2 experiment, CR in men for 2 years resulted in

decreased serum cholesterol, blood sugar, leukocytes, cortisol, insulin

and glycated hemoglobin

[

16].

The usual assumption in CR animal experiments, that the total caloric

reduction is much more important than the reduction in individual

components

[

11 and

14], is probably incorrect. It may be true for

protein or fat, but not for carbohydrates, as rat experiments have found

that total carbohydrates, or type of carbohydrate acted independently of

total calories in life extension

[

58 and

59]. Longevity in rats was extended by low carbohydrate intake, with

or without CR. Similar experiments with protein and fat are equivocal,

but suggest little influence beyond the calories and essential nutrients

they supply

[

55,

58,

60 and

61]. These studies, however, are not definitive

as the investigators may have been unaware of the differences in effect

of high glycemic vs. low glycemic carbohydrates, saturated vs.

unsaturated fats or different types of protein. The type and amount of

protein without CR may influence length of life

[

62,

63,

64 and

65].

Side effects from CR include decreased fertility and neonatal survival,

stunted growth and development, and possibly a decreased resistance to

infectious diseases

[

58]. Most CR experiments have started with young animals. It is

uncertain whether or not CR effects will develop when it is started in

midlife or later; some reports suggest it

[

57,

63,

66,

67 and

68] while others do not

[

40,

69 and

70].

DiscussionCaloric restriction increases the life span of

invertebrates, mice, rats, and dogs, despite differences in species,

strains, experimental design, nutritional variables, environmental

conditions, or predisposition for naturally occurring causes of death

[

12 and

71], so it would not be surprising to find that the CR life span

effect applies to all primates as well.

Although incomplete, the CR findings in humans and subhuman primates were

similar to results from CR in rodents and dogs. Much of the avoidance and

delay in age associated diseases noted in CR rodents and dogs is probably

similar in primates

[

12]. This suggests that life extension may result from CR in humans

as well. Since many of the age related diseases are associated with the

metabolism of sugars and fats, and since CR severely restricts these two

items, it follows that severe dietary restriction of the glycemic load

(glycemic index multiplied by the grams consumed), together with foods

that are high in saturated and trans fatty acids, might reduce or

delay many diseases in humans, even without CR. This could lead to

extended, healthy lives.

etc.

--My concern isn't with whole grains: the point that I brought up is that

carbohydrate in itself is not great vis a vis CR or longevity, and that

the " whole " part of whole grains represents an amelioration of

a generally destructive tendency that higher blood glucose levels will

have over time.

--But, of course, I could well be misled re all of this.

Maco

[Guest guest]

this is no direct proof, yet we have direct proof that a properly planned diet, even one with HI GI carbs, can dramatically reduce the risk of many diseases that shorten our life (DB, CVD, BP etc).

The problem is that GI as a marker. In theory, as in the articles you presented, it may seem to make sense based on some theory, in the effect that lower glucose levels and insulin levels are better. The problem is, that the application of GI doesnt work. And the actual studies they try to make it work, cant.

In other words, GI is being used as a marker of glucose, but its not the GI per see. No food has one single "GI" number but has many many GIs based on growing conditions, storage conditions, moisture content, cooking conditions, amount of processing, degree of cooling post cooking, toppings, acidity or lack of it, etc etc.

But, when we look at the basic principle of what GI is trying to do, we find some common denominators,... The less processed and refined the better, the higher the fiber per calorie (and or carb) the better, the lower the calories per gram the better (or the less calorie/carb dense) the better

So, in the end, why follow GI when it just "happens" to work sometimes as a "marker" but not a precise indicator?

Why not follow the simple principle of unprocessed unrefined foods that are High in nutrient density and Low in calorie density

RegardsJeff

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Maco Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Whole Grain Benefits

At 12:50 PM 1/18/2006, Francesca wrote:

Maco and Rod: unless you have some hard evidence (or even any evidence) I would caution you to refrain from posting these opinions only. These are some examples of what has led me to my possibly erroneous belief that, as I put it in my post, I find it hard to swallow that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own. I never came out against whole grain products, and indeed I consume them. But since you implicitly asked:http://snipurl.com/lp50

Caloric restriction and aging: an update 1 J. Masoro , , a a Department of Physiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San , San , TX 78284-7756, USA Received 7 December 1999; revised 24 January 2000; accepted 24 January 2000. Available online 25 May 2000.

3. Modulation of glycemia and insulinemiaPlasma glucose levels are lower and plasma insulin levels are markedly lower in calorically restricted rats than in ad lib-fed animals; yet rats on the CR regimen utilize glucose as fuel per unit of metabolic mass at the same rate as ad lib-fed rats ( Masoro et al., 1992). Both hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia are known to cause aging-like damage. It has been proposed that insulin is damaging because of its mitogenic action ( Lev–Ran, 1998). The damaging action of glucose has been linked to glycation and/or glycoxidation ( Kristal and Yu, 1992), but other mechanisms may also be involved. Masoro (1996) hypothesized that the lifetime maintenance of reduced levels of plasma glucose and insulin without compromising glucose fuel use is, at least in part, responsible for the antiaging action of CR. To test the validity of this hypothesis would require establishing that the long-term reduction of glycemia and insulinemia below that of normoglycemic and normoinsulinemic levels protects against aging-like damage. Although much recent information has been gained on the mechanisms by which CR promotes the ability to utilize glucose fuel, testing the validity of this hypothesis has yet to be conducted. It is known, however, that CR decreases the age-associated accumulation of glycoxidation products in rat skin collagen ( Cefalu et al., 1995).and http://snipurl.com/lp58

Does dietary sugar and fat influence longevity? *1 Victor E. Archer , Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Received 23 September 2002; accepted 11 November 2002. ; Available online 28 March 2003.

Caloric restrictionIn CR studies, calories are 50–75% of ad lib amounts [ 11 and 23]. This restriction results in life extension by 40–60% in rodents [ 11, 20 and 23](16% in one dog experiment) [ 12], and in a reduction of 30–90% of tumors [ 14 and 55]. Life extension by CR is attributed to delays or reduction in diseases of aging, including cancer [ 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15]. Changes in many biochemical parameters have been noted as a result of CR [ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25 and 56]. The serum glucose level is lowered by about 15%; the insulin/glucagon ratio is reduced; some hormones, cholesterol, lipid and glycated hemoglobin levels were reduced [ 15, 20 and 56]. Glucoregulatory parameters were improved, while diabetes and CVD rates were decreased in aging CR monkeys [ 15 and 56]. CR may accelerate protein turnover, reducing protein cross links and reducing related disease [ 57]. In the Biosphere 2 experiment, CR in men for 2 years resulted in decreased serum cholesterol, blood sugar, leukocytes, cortisol, insulin and glycated hemoglobin [ 16].The usual assumption in CR animal experiments, that the total caloric reduction is much more important than the reduction in individual components [ 11 and 14], is probably incorrect. It may be true for protein or fat, but not for carbohydrates, as rat experiments have found that total carbohydrates, or type of carbohydrate acted independently of total calories in life extension [ 58 and 59]. Longevity in rats was extended by low carbohydrate intake, with or without CR. Similar experiments with protein and fat are equivocal, but suggest little influence beyond the calories and essential nutrients they supply [ 55, 58, 60 and 61]. These studies, however, are not definitive as the investigators may have been unaware of the differences in effect of high glycemic vs. low glycemic carbohydrates, saturated vs. unsaturated fats or different types of protein. The type and amount of protein without CR may influence length of life [ 62, 63, 64 and 65].Side effects from CR include decreased fertility and neonatal survival, stunted growth and development, and possibly a decreased resistance to infectious diseases [ 58]. Most CR experiments have started with young animals. It is uncertain whether or not CR effects will develop when it is started in midlife or later; some reports suggest it [ 57, 63, 66, 67 and 68] while others do not [ 40, 69 and 70].

DiscussionCaloric restriction increases the life span of invertebrates, mice, rats, and dogs, despite differences in species, strains, experimental design, nutritional variables, environmental conditions, or predisposition for naturally occurring causes of death [ 12 and 71], so it would not be surprising to find that the CR life span effect applies to all primates as well.Although incomplete, the CR findings in humans and subhuman primates were similar to results from CR in rodents and dogs. Much of the avoidance and delay in age associated diseases noted in CR rodents and dogs is probably similar in primates [ 12]. This suggests that life extension may result from CR in humans as well. Since many of the age related diseases are associated with the metabolism of sugars and fats, and since CR severely restricts these two items, it follows that severe dietary restriction of the glycemic load (glycemic index multiplied by the grams consumed), together with foods that are high in saturated and trans fatty acids, might reduce or delay many diseases in humans, even without CR. This could lead to extended, healthy lives.etc.--My concern isn't with whole grains: the point that I brought up is that carbohydrate in itself is not great vis a vis CR or longevity, and that the "whole" part of whole grains represents an amelioration of a generally destructive tendency that higher blood glucose levels will have over time.--But, of course, I could well be misled re all of this.Maco

[Guest guest]

this is no direct proof, yet we have direct proof that a properly planned diet, even one with HI GI carbs, can dramatically reduce the risk of many diseases that shorten our life (DB, CVD, BP etc).

The problem is that GI as a marker. In theory, as in the articles you presented, it may seem to make sense based on some theory, in the effect that lower glucose levels and insulin levels are better. The problem is, that the application of GI doesnt work. And the actual studies they try to make it work, cant.

In other words, GI is being used as a marker of glucose, but its not the GI per see. No food has one single "GI" number but has many many GIs based on growing conditions, storage conditions, moisture content, cooking conditions, amount of processing, degree of cooling post cooking, toppings, acidity or lack of it, etc etc.

But, when we look at the basic principle of what GI is trying to do, we find some common denominators,... The less processed and refined the better, the higher the fiber per calorie (and or carb) the better, the lower the calories per gram the better (or the less calorie/carb dense) the better

So, in the end, why follow GI when it just "happens" to work sometimes as a "marker" but not a precise indicator?

Why not follow the simple principle of unprocessed unrefined foods that are High in nutrient density and Low in calorie density

RegardsJeff

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Maco Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Whole Grain Benefits

At 12:50 PM 1/18/2006, Francesca wrote:

Maco and Rod: unless you have some hard evidence (or even any evidence) I would caution you to refrain from posting these opinions only. These are some examples of what has led me to my possibly erroneous belief that, as I put it in my post, I find it hard to swallow that increased consumption of relatively high GI carbohydrates is in any way beneficial on its own. I never came out against whole grain products, and indeed I consume them. But since you implicitly asked:http://snipurl.com/lp50

Caloric restriction and aging: an update 1 J. Masoro , , a a Department of Physiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San , San , TX 78284-7756, USA Received 7 December 1999; revised 24 January 2000; accepted 24 January 2000. Available online 25 May 2000.

3. Modulation of glycemia and insulinemiaPlasma glucose levels are lower and plasma insulin levels are markedly lower in calorically restricted rats than in ad lib-fed animals; yet rats on the CR regimen utilize glucose as fuel per unit of metabolic mass at the same rate as ad lib-fed rats ( Masoro et al., 1992). Both hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia are known to cause aging-like damage. It has been proposed that insulin is damaging because of its mitogenic action ( Lev–Ran, 1998). The damaging action of glucose has been linked to glycation and/or glycoxidation ( Kristal and Yu, 1992), but other mechanisms may also be involved. Masoro (1996) hypothesized that the lifetime maintenance of reduced levels of plasma glucose and insulin without compromising glucose fuel use is, at least in part, responsible for the antiaging action of CR. To test the validity of this hypothesis would require establishing that the long-term reduction of glycemia and insulinemia below that of normoglycemic and normoinsulinemic levels protects against aging-like damage. Although much recent information has been gained on the mechanisms by which CR promotes the ability to utilize glucose fuel, testing the validity of this hypothesis has yet to be conducted. It is known, however, that CR decreases the age-associated accumulation of glycoxidation products in rat skin collagen ( Cefalu et al., 1995).and http://snipurl.com/lp58

Does dietary sugar and fat influence longevity? *1 Victor E. Archer , Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Received 23 September 2002; accepted 11 November 2002. ; Available online 28 March 2003.

Caloric restrictionIn CR studies, calories are 50–75% of ad lib amounts [ 11 and 23]. This restriction results in life extension by 40–60% in rodents [ 11, 20 and 23](16% in one dog experiment) [ 12], and in a reduction of 30–90% of tumors [ 14 and 55]. Life extension by CR is attributed to delays or reduction in diseases of aging, including cancer [ 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15]. Changes in many biochemical parameters have been noted as a result of CR [ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25 and 56]. The serum glucose level is lowered by about 15%; the insulin/glucagon ratio is reduced; some hormones, cholesterol, lipid and glycated hemoglobin levels were reduced [ 15, 20 and 56]. Glucoregulatory parameters were improved, while diabetes and CVD rates were decreased in aging CR monkeys [ 15 and 56]. CR may accelerate protein turnover, reducing protein cross links and reducing related disease [ 57]. In the Biosphere 2 experiment, CR in men for 2 years resulted in decreased serum cholesterol, blood sugar, leukocytes, cortisol, insulin and glycated hemoglobin [ 16].The usual assumption in CR animal experiments, that the total caloric reduction is much more important than the reduction in individual components [ 11 and 14], is probably incorrect. It may be true for protein or fat, but not for carbohydrates, as rat experiments have found that total carbohydrates, or type of carbohydrate acted independently of total calories in life extension [ 58 and 59]. Longevity in rats was extended by low carbohydrate intake, with or without CR. Similar experiments with protein and fat are equivocal, but suggest little influence beyond the calories and essential nutrients they supply [ 55, 58, 60 and 61]. These studies, however, are not definitive as the investigators may have been unaware of the differences in effect of high glycemic vs. low glycemic carbohydrates, saturated vs. unsaturated fats or different types of protein. The type and amount of protein without CR may influence length of life [ 62, 63, 64 and 65].Side effects from CR include decreased fertility and neonatal survival, stunted growth and development, and possibly a decreased resistance to infectious diseases [ 58]. Most CR experiments have started with young animals. It is uncertain whether or not CR effects will develop when it is started in midlife or later; some reports suggest it [ 57, 63, 66, 67 and 68] while others do not [ 40, 69 and 70].

DiscussionCaloric restriction increases the life span of invertebrates, mice, rats, and dogs, despite differences in species, strains, experimental design, nutritional variables, environmental conditions, or predisposition for naturally occurring causes of death [ 12 and 71], so it would not be surprising to find that the CR life span effect applies to all primates as well.Although incomplete, the CR findings in humans and subhuman primates were similar to results from CR in rodents and dogs. Much of the avoidance and delay in age associated diseases noted in CR rodents and dogs is probably similar in primates [ 12]. This suggests that life extension may result from CR in humans as well. Since many of the age related diseases are associated with the metabolism of sugars and fats, and since CR severely restricts these two items, it follows that severe dietary restriction of the glycemic load (glycemic index multiplied by the grams consumed), together with foods that are high in saturated and trans fatty acids, might reduce or delay many diseases in humans, even without CR. This could lead to extended, healthy lives.etc.--My concern isn't with whole grains: the point that I brought up is that carbohydrate in itself is not great vis a vis CR or longevity, and that the "whole" part of whole grains represents an amelioration of a generally destructive tendency that higher blood glucose levels will have over time.--But, of course, I could well be misled re all of this.Maco

[Guest guest]

Fernandes G, Velangi A, Wolever, T. Glycemic Index of Potatoes Commonly Consumed in North America. Journal American Dietetic Association.

2005;105:557-562.

The glycemic index (GI) values of potatoes reported in the literature range from very low (23 for an unspecified type) to very high (111 for baked US Russets). Despite this wide range, Russet potatoes are routinely labeled as "high" on the GI. In fact, while GI values for US Russet baked potatoes have been reported, these values were estimated from studies published before standardized methodology for determining GI had been developed and thus, used methods which were not consistent with those recommended for determining GI. This study determined the effects of variety and cooking method on glycemic response and GI of common North American potatoes.

The study was split into two parts. In the first part of the study subjects consumed 200g Russet or white potatoes that were either pre-cooked, refrigerated and reheated (pre-cooked) or cooked and consumed immediately (day-cooked). Incremental area under the curve

(AUC) was determined. The results indicated that precooked Russet potatoes elicited lower AUC than day cooked potatoes (p<0.05) while pre-cooking had no effect on boiled white-potatoes.

In the second part of the study, subjects consumed 50 g white bread or potatoes (6 different varieties and 2 different cooking methods) and GI values were calculated. In both studies meals were consumed after a 10-12h overnight fast and finger-prick capillary-blood glucose was measured before and at intervals for 2h after consumption.

The GI values of potatoes varied significantly depending on the variety and cooking method used (p=0.003) ranging from intermediate (boiled red-potatoes consumed cold: 56) to moderately-high (roasted California

white-potatoes: 72; baked US Russet potatoes: 77) to high (instant mashed-potatoes: 88; boiled red-potatoes: 89).

These results confirm that the GI of potatoes is influenced by variety and method of cooking and demonstrate that the GI of baked US Russet potatoes was not as high as commonly believed. Individuals wishing to minimize dietary GI can be advised to pre-cook potatoes and consume them cold or re-heated.

[Guest guest]

Fernandes G, Velangi A, Wolever, T. Glycemic Index of Potatoes Commonly Consumed in North America. Journal American Dietetic Association.

2005;105:557-562.

The glycemic index (GI) values of potatoes reported in the literature range from very low (23 for an unspecified type) to very high (111 for baked US Russets). Despite this wide range, Russet potatoes are routinely labeled as "high" on the GI. In fact, while GI values for US Russet baked potatoes have been reported, these values were estimated from studies published before standardized methodology for determining GI had been developed and thus, used methods which were not consistent with those recommended for determining GI. This study determined the effects of variety and cooking method on glycemic response and GI of common North American potatoes.

The study was split into two parts. In the first part of the study subjects consumed 200g Russet or white potatoes that were either pre-cooked, refrigerated and reheated (pre-cooked) or cooked and consumed immediately (day-cooked). Incremental area under the curve

(AUC) was determined. The results indicated that precooked Russet potatoes elicited lower AUC than day cooked potatoes (p<0.05) while pre-cooking had no effect on boiled white-potatoes.

In the second part of the study, subjects consumed 50 g white bread or potatoes (6 different varieties and 2 different cooking methods) and GI values were calculated. In both studies meals were consumed after a 10-12h overnight fast and finger-prick capillary-blood glucose was measured before and at intervals for 2h after consumption.

The GI values of potatoes varied significantly depending on the variety and cooking method used (p=0.003) ranging from intermediate (boiled red-potatoes consumed cold: 56) to moderately-high (roasted California

white-potatoes: 72; baked US Russet potatoes: 77) to high (instant mashed-potatoes: 88; boiled red-potatoes: 89).

These results confirm that the GI of potatoes is influenced by variety and method of cooking and demonstrate that the GI of baked US Russet potatoes was not as high as commonly believed. Individuals wishing to minimize dietary GI can be advised to pre-cook potatoes and consume them cold or re-heated.

[Guest guest]

Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2123-9.

Influence of glycemic index/load on glycemic response, appetite, and food intake in healthy humans.

"RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-nine healthy adults consumed only low- or only high-GI foods ad libitum in the laboratory for 8 days in either high (three foods per meal)- or low (one food per meal)-variety conditions. Glucose and insulin concentrations as well as appetitive sensations were determined before and for 2 h following breakfast and lunch on days 1 and 8. Energy intake was monitored daily. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in plasma glucose or insulin responses, appetitive ratings, or food intake between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that the differential glycemic response of foods tested in isolation under fixed time are not preserved under conditions of chronic ad libitum consumption of mixed meals."

[Guest guest]

Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2123-9.

Influence of glycemic index/load on glycemic response, appetite, and food intake in healthy humans.

"RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-nine healthy adults consumed only low- or only high-GI foods ad libitum in the laboratory for 8 days in either high (three foods per meal)- or low (one food per meal)-variety conditions. Glucose and insulin concentrations as well as appetitive sensations were determined before and for 2 h following breakfast and lunch on days 1 and 8. Energy intake was monitored daily. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in plasma glucose or insulin responses, appetitive ratings, or food intake between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that the differential glycemic response of foods tested in isolation under fixed time are not preserved under conditions of chronic ad libitum consumption of mixed meals."