Re: Carbs with a high thermogenic / carb ratio

[Guest guest]

thanks Joe and Greg

with only 5 months of CRon and near the setpoint my body maintained from

ages 24 - 34, i'm wrestling with the concept Joe raises here...how does our

own, unique body respond to calorie restriction in general? for those who

have reached their setpoint?

in my case, i haven't really lost any weight in the past 3 weeks, even

though i am maintaining the same calorie range (1400 - 1600 cal/day) where i

lost 2 - 4 pounds per month for 4 months.

my sense is that it DOES matter once the set point is reached and i am

wondering if other CRonnies could relate their experiences with this. i

wanted to start slow at 1400 - 1600 cal/day and focused on the nutrient

content, not the wieght loss. now i am kind of worried that to get below my

setpoint, i'll have to drop down to 1100 - 1400 to get CRon effects. is this

unusual or a result unique to my body?

what scares me is that i'm tall - 6'3'- and this calorie range really

requires diligence to get the proper nutrients, although Greg suggests that

these calories are discounted. and of course the osteo scare here is also

relevant since i can't make up the difference by cutting out yogurt or

molasses.

it amazes me that when i 1st heard of Dr. Walford, i thought it would be

neat to try this and participate in a cool experiment with my body. at first

it was great and relatively easy. yet suddenly find myself faced with either

trusting others and daring to live at calorie range i would never have

thought sustainable or giving up and just trying to maintain my setpoint

through healthier eating. the latter is not a failure, yet i want

desparately to stay with this and try to be one of the few thousands who

make the committment and help understand CR in humans.

i'm interested in Greg's or others knowledge about how cooking effects

nutrient bioavalability but i also think hearing what others experienced

near or below their setpoints would be helpful, even inspirational.

thanks,

taz

~~~~~~~

Joe wrote:

Does the body work less on the carbs from cooked veges, and should cooked

veges be considered real carbs while the raw lower calories?

Also, regarding the number of true calories we take, our own body and diet

affects either our indiviual final set weight (if you have already reached a

desired weight) or a weekly weight loss rate (1-2 lbs) for those of us still

striving to obtain a set point (like myself with about 30 lbs left to lose).

Eating a large bowl of the raw green stuff once a day (150 calories) plus

the rest of one's food plan (say 1800 calories without the bowl of veges)

results in weight loss of 1-2 lbs/week. My point is if we use software for

our diets, does it really matter the actual final calorie numbers. Isn't it

more important the end result, slow steady weight loss while maintaining the

maximum nutrients we can get?

~~~~~~~~

[Guest guest]

Greg,

Is this for the cooked or raw form of these vegetables? If I

remember Walford's book, nutriants are released from about 5% of the

vegetable if raw and 15% if cooked, yet the cooking process destroyed a

decent amount of nutriants so it ended up a push. Does the body work less

on the carbs from cooked veges, and should cooked veges be considered real

carbs while the raw lower calories?

Also, regarding the number of true calories we take, our own body

and diet affects either our indiviual final set weight (if you have already

reached a desired weight) or a weekly weight loss rate (1-2 lbs) for those

of us still striving to obtain a set point (like myself with about 30 lbs

left to lose). Eating a large bowl of the raw green stuff once a day (150

calories) plus the rest of one's food plan (say 1800 calories without the

bowl of veges) results in weight loss of 1-2 lbs/week. My point is if we

use software for our diets, does it really matter the actual final calorie

numbers. Isn't it more important the end result, slow steady weight loss

while maintaining the maximum nutrients we can get?

Joe

At 02:50 PM 8/30/01 +0930, Greg wrote:

>Hi All,

>

>The following carbs really should be consider to have almost no effect on

>glucose due to their high degree of

>thermogenesis to the amount of carbs per serve. This means the body must

>do almost as much work to get at the carbs as

>it gets out of the released glucose. This is partly due to their high

>fibre content.

>

>Asparagus,

>Broccoli,

>Cabbage,

>Carrot,

>Cauliflower,

>Celery,

>Lettuce,

>Mushroom,

>Peppers,

>Radicchio,

>Radish,

>Spinach,

>Tomato, from Natural Hormone Enhancement, page 153.

>

>What this means is that you can discount any carb based calories from

>these foods, even though they should still be

>eaten for their nutritional contents.

>

>So if your diet has lots of these veggies, subtract the contribution to

>total calories these foods suggest you are

>getting. This may mean your real carb calories may be much lower than

>software such as DWIDP shows.

>

>========================

>Good Health & Long Life,

> Greg ,

> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~gowatson

> gowatson@...

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

From: " ph Fernandez " <fernaj@...>

< >; " Health CrSociety "

<crsociety@...>

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:20 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Carbs with a high thermogenic / carb ratio

> Greg,

>

> Is this for the cooked or raw form of these vegetables? If I

> remember Walford's book, nutriants are released from about 5% of the

> vegetable if raw and 15% if cooked, yet the cooking process destroyed a

> decent amount of nutriants so it ended up a push. Does the body work less

> on the carbs from cooked veges, and should cooked veges be considered real

> carbs while the raw lower calories?

It probably doesn't matter than much as the reduced calorie content of the

cooked foods is offset by the body having to

do less work.

> Also, regarding the number of true calories we take, our own body

> and diet affects either our indiviual final set weight (if you have already

> reached a desired weight) or a weekly weight loss rate (1-2 lbs) for those

> of us still striving to obtain a set point (like myself with about 30 lbs

> left to lose). Eating a large bowl of the raw green stuff once a day (150

> calories) plus the rest of one's food plan (say 1800 calories without the

> bowl of veges) results in weight loss of 1-2 lbs/week. My point is if we

> use software for our diets, does it really matter the actual final calorie

> numbers. Isn't it more important the end result, slow steady weight loss

> while maintaining the maximum nutrients we can get?

Hi Joe,

Sure slow weight loss & maximum nutrient intake is important but achieving a

" Good Glucose & Insulin " lift at each is

meal is also important.

Insulin is too often seem as a bad guy, but you must remember Insulin is the

prime driver of the bodies anabolic /

catabolic engine. Let insulin get too high, via eating too many carbs or too

high an GI and you will get negative

results. Likewise keep insulin flat lined during a meal and the body will not

realize there is excess energy available

and not engage in anabolic tissue building / repair.

So veggies are fine, but if you feel hungry between meals and you haven't pigged

out on carbs, realize you last meal

didn't have enough net realizable carbs to fill up your liver's glycogen stores

and you need to add in some moderate GI

foods to your diet. Adding in fat will also kill the hunger but will not

address the issue of you are not getting

enough carbs to fill your glycogen stores and / or pumping insulin and the

anabolic control level up a notch or two.

Greg

[Guest guest]

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

From: " thomas aciukewicz " <ta2z@...>

< >

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:42 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Carbs with a high thermogenic / carb ratio

> it amazes me that when i 1st heard of Dr. Walford, i thought it would be

> neat to try this and participate in a cool experiment with my body. at first

> it was great and relatively easy. yet suddenly find myself faced with either

> trusting others and daring to live at calorie range i would never have

> thought sustainable or giving up and just trying to maintain my setpoint

> through healthier eating. the latter is not a failure, yet i want

> desparately to stay with this and try to be one of the few thousands who

> make the committment and help understand CR in humans.

Hi ,

I suggest if you stick with what Dr. Walford has written you can't go too wrong.

Just be sure to eat those sweet

potatoes and get some moderate GI foods along with the low GI veggies.

I'm 6'3 " , 180 lbs and eat around 1,600 - 1,800 cals (according to DWIDP), PCF ~

20:65:15 and have NO bone / libido

problems. My blood lipids are excellent.

Greg