Re: Bekele & Big Macs

On 2006-09-04, Mark Hutchinson <markh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The studies I have read indicate that there are very common foods
other than table sugar that produce a dip. For example instant
oatmeal. It has a very high GI and when eaten for breakfast has
been shown to increase hunger by lunchtime:

They used overweight subjects. You might get different curves in typical
subjects, and different again in athletes.

relatively low GI, but most of them (even most of the low GI
ones) have too much carbs for someone on the Atkins diet, for
example. Many grains are also low to moderate GI.

I don't see how that is fundamentally and philosophically
different. Low-carb foods and low-GI foods share an important
characteristic -- they are both lower in the total number of
carbs.

Some low GI foods contain carbs, but no fat or protein. It is
theoretically possible to consume a 100% carb meal that has low GI

Recommending a low-carb diet to someone does not mean that
you are prescribing Atkins per se, or its variants. You are

Well, minimizing carbs would mean taking almost none, which is essentially
the induction phase Atkins diet.

simply making a recommendation that the person needs to watch and
minimize their carb intake.

My understanding of "minimize" means "reduce as much as possible". This
is not the same thing as allowing low GI carbs.

So I guess I'm not really clear on which one of the above you advocate.

Perhaps you could clarify your position on this point.

If the effect were linear, this would make perfect sense. But
maybe it's not necessary or desirable to eliminate as much as
possible.

OK then, if you have evidence that there is an identifiable
inflection point in the curve, it would be useful if you
contributed it to this debate. I am not aware that this has been
quantified, but if so it would be an important data point to
consider.

Here's an example: the study you cited. Take a look at the graphs of
plasma glucose levels, or if you like, read the accompanying text. All
of the graphs do dip below baseline, but while the dip is greater for
the high GI meal, it is the same for the low and mid GI meal.

Macronutrient = protein or fat or carb. Other nutrients
(micronutrients) are things like vitamins and minerals.
Generally, junk food means high calories, low dietary fiber, and
not much in terms of vitamins and minerals.

Well, that's somewhat of an idiosyncratic definition. Bordering
on cultish. It sounds more philosophical than nutritional. By
that definition a piece of salmon would be considered junk food.

Salmon is loaded with EFAs. I suppose they're technically not
micronutrients, but for the purpose of my junk food definition, I'll
say that they are.

Except that those overweight people are still living longer for
whatever reason. So at least in terms of mortality, it's not as
bad as those 65/24 numbers might have you believe.

Which does sort of make this debate academic at best. But it's OK
to argue over points of logic, even if they are academic.

I think the issue with overweight/obesity is probably more esthetic
than directly related to health anyway. Especially to runners, who
typically do not have a weight problem and so can casually and
with a sense of smug superiority pronounce judgement on the
blubbery masses.

Probably (-;

No. Adding water won't reduce GI numbers. But putting peanut
butter on bread does.

No, it doesn't. If you put peanut butter on white bread, the GI
of the white bread will not change. What does change is the
combined GI of the total meal (white bread with peanut butter).

But if you want to play those games I'll point out that most
people consume soft-drinks either with meals, or very soon
thereafter. So you'll have a very similar GI-blending effect.

yes, if you always take it with a meal. I think most people drink more often
than they eat. Since it's liquid, it's also easier to overconsume than
white bread regardless of GI.

The recommendation has been to avoid fats and sugar. So it's
hardly their fault that people are consuming a lot of sugar.

It is ABSOLUTELY their fault. When you are charged with the
responsibility of making a recommendation for a healthy dietary
policy, you must consider ALL aspects of that recommendation. You
have to be aware of all consequences, even the unintended ones.

Let's just say I don't agree with this.

If they're not following those recommendations, then it's a misattribution.

The policy recommendation over the last 25 years has been to
target the fats first, sugars secondarily. Just look at the
evidence in the supermarkets. You will find lots of foods
plastered prominently with the "Fat Free" label. In contrast,
sugar-free foods are much more discretely marked, almost as if to
hide to fact that they are without added sugar.

I saw a lot of sugar-free food just today.

When your official governmental policy stresses the reduction in
dietary fats, it will by default cause an increased ingestion of
sugars. That's a fact of life. People WILL replace the missing
fats with sugars.

You can keep yelling this at the top of your voice, I just don't buy
it. In particular, I don't believe they've stopped eating fats, and I
don't think they're following the goverment's recommendations. Sorry.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
.