41 replies to this topic

[DAMI]

Thank you for your detailed answer, timar. Obviously you recommend whole grain pasta and think that refined carbs are bad. What is your opinion why several healthy people like the italians eat mostly refined grains (white pasta, white rice) when whole grains are so much healthier? Also how do they have the lowest rates of heart disease when they eat the wrong carbs? Dont you buy into the idea that the bran contains harmful substances?

As for the paleo advocates: i think that most of them agree with you, but refined carbs are not part of the paleo diet to begin with, so why should that matter?

[Dolph]

Do you eat those grains raw, or do you cook them?

I'm not Timar, but this kind of Muesli is always eaten "raw" here with milk and/or yoghurt. Hot cereal like porridge and so on are very uncommon in German speaking countries, with the exception of feeding convalescent patients or small children.

Edited by Dolph, 05 August 2014 - 06:00 PM.

[timar]

Thank you for your detailed answer, timar. Obviously you recommend whole grain pasta and think that refined carbs are bad. What is your opinion why several healthy people like the italians eat mostly refined grains (white pasta, white rice) when whole grains are so much healthier? Also how do they have the lowest rates of heart disease when they eat the wrong carbs? Dont you buy into the idea that the bran contains harmful substances?

 

I've already hinted on the answer in my reply:

 

 

Whole grains and fruits packed with fiber and phytonutrients are completely different types of food compared with refined starches and sugars and even the effect of refined grains depends on the overall dietary context (they seem to be much more benign in a diet low in saturated fat and animal protein but high in fiber and phytonutrients).

 

In other words, large amounts of saturated fat, animal protein and refined carbohydrates act synergistically to produce an adverse lipid profile and metabolic syndrome. Saturated fat and excess protein induce insulin resistance and refined carbs on top of that of course cause havoc on blood sugar levels. Similarly, saturated fats raise total cholesterol (but also cause relatively high HDL and a large particle size) and refined carbs on top of that reduce HDL and decrease particle size. This is probably the explanation why traditional Mediterranean and Asian diets relying on white rice or wheat but low in saturated fat and animal protein show much better health outcomes than the SAD.

 

That said, there are differences to different types of refined carbohydrates. Pasta and bulgur made from durum wheat as well as parboiled rice, for example, have a low glycemic index, much lower in fact than many whole grain foods. Super-fluffy bread, on the other hand, made from 100% whole grain flour has a GI almost as high as a similar bread made from refined flour. Traditionally fermented sourdough bread has a lower GI than yeast-leaved bread. And all those complex carbohydrates, refined or not, are more benign than refined sugar, which is 50% fructose, which, as Robert Lustig has made us more than aware, is easy to consume in excess of our metabolic capacity, putting a heavy load on the liver (moreover, it is about ten times as reactive as glucose in glycation reactions).

 

No, I don't buy into the idea that the bran contains harmful substances. There is no convincing evidence that the lectins and other substances contained in the bran cause any harm when eating properly prepared whole grains (I would, however, refrain from eating large amounts of isolated bran as sold in health food stores) but there is a lot of evidence for beneficial effects from whole grains consumption and this partly because of the lower GI of whole grains and partly because of the vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients contained in the bran and germ.

Edited by timar, 05 August 2014 - 06:39 PM.

[timar]

And all those complex carbohydrates, refined or not, are more benign than refined sugar, which is 50% fructose, which, as Robert Lustig has made us more than aware, is easy to consume in excess of our metabolic capacity...

 

As I was asked what amount would be excessive: the evidence seems to suggest that everything above 10% of the daily caloric intake, or 50 g for a 200 kcal diet, of added sugars is an unhealthy excess (see this recent blog by Marion Nestle, endorsing the declaration of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts Sheet and proposing the given limit of 10%). I would include natural sugar from fruit juices and syrups (honey, agave nectar, etc.) in that definition, as they are metabolized just as fast as added sugar. Sugar from whole fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, comes balanced with phytonutrients and fiber which naturally limits the intake. To be on the save side, simply avoid eating large amounts of those super-sweet cultivars of some fruits, like grapes and cantaloupe and prefer the tarter ones.

 

From a metabolic perspective, not only the average amount per day but also the amount consumed at once is of importance, though. The simple rule that I follow and routinely recommend it is the 20/30 (or 20/50) rule. That is: no more than 20 g of added or liquid sugar (e.g. one cup of fruit juice, one large cookie or a half a cup of ice cream) at any given time (for a three-hour period) and not more than 30 g (or 50 g) a day (50 g would be the less ambitious minimum goal for those with a sweet tooth, while 30 g is a reasonable limit for a pragmatic whole-food diet such as mine). You may add ten grams of sugar to the total amount for every one hour of vigorous or two hours of moderate exercise (e.g. in the form of 100 ml fruit juice dilluted with 400 ml mineral-rich water, making a great isotonic sports drink).

 

I recommend to substitute added sugar in foods you prepare yourself with xylitol, which has not only 30% fewer calories and a much lower GI than sugar but some intruiging health benefits as well. The 20 g rule still applies though, if only because more can cause diarrhea   ...and, of course, because it is generally a good idea to try to reduce one's affinity for super-sweet foods instead of just substituting sugar with polyols and other sweeteners in order to maintain an "unnatural" level of sweetness in the diet.

 

Edited by timar, 13 August 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[nupi]

How would you account for milk (in particular, lactose free milk) in your sugar calculation? Presumably that would fall into the liquid sugar category?

 

As for xylitol, personally I can eat at least 30g without any digestion issues, so I think the upper limit may be higher for some.

 

 

(And there's the question of beer and wine but I guess that's offtopic here )

Edited by nupi, 14 August 2014 - 02:03 PM.

[timar]

How would you account for milk (in particular, lactose free milk) in your sugar calculation? Presumably that would fall into the liquid sugar category?

 

Good question. Although milk has liquid sugar, lactose shouldn't be much of a concern because it doesn't contain any fructose and it is slow-digesting (the lactase needs some time even in lactose tolerant people to break it down into glucose and galactose. Galactose itself is absorbed and slowly metabolized to glucose). Given this fact and that milk is rich in protein (and fat if it is whole milk) too and thus has a much stronger satiety-inducing effect than fruit juices or soda, I don't think it needs to be included in the balance, even if it contains "pre-digested" lactose, e.g. free glucose and galactose. This doesn't hold true for milk with added sugars, of course.

 

As for xylitol, personally I can eat at least 30g without any digestion issues, so I think the upper limit may be higher for some.

 

Yes, the tolerance for xylitol differs from person to person and once you have become accustomed, it increases considerably.

 

(And there's the question of beer and wine but I guess that's offtopic here )

 

Not really, since it is also part of my diet . I guess one could come up with a similar limit for alcohol as for added/liquid sugar, that is no more than 10% of one's daily calories (30 g for a 2000 kcal diet) in order to stay on the safe side of the dose-response curve and probably half of that to get the most benefit. That is for man - woman may only drink half as much (gender discrimination by nature). I usually drink a half a liter of beer or one 200 ml glas of wine a day with dinner (preferably red wine or unfiltrated wheat beer for their phytonutrients). This may be more than optimal, but at least it is below the 10% limit. I have to admit that on some occasions I screw that limit, but then I don't drink at all on other days. I think not only the amount but the way of consumption is of crucial importance, though. Studies about alcohol and mortality are probably confounded by addictive behaviour and unhealthy lifestyle related to alcohol intake. In Mediterranean culture, alcohol is never drunken on its own, but always accompanied by a good meal. This makes sense psychologically as well as physiologically. I would go so far as to say that if consumed this way, you could probably go even above the 10% limit and still get net health benefits, as long as it doesn't lead to weight gain or elevated liver enzymes.

Edited by timar, 14 August 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[timar]

Here's an excellent recent review on the subject of alcohol:

 

Mayo Clin Proc. 2014 Mar;89(3):382-93. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.11.005.

Alcohol and cardiovascular health: the dose makes the poison…or the remedy.

O'Keefe JH¹, Bhatti SK², Bajwa A², DiNicolantonio JJ², Lavie CJ³.

 

Habitual light to moderate alcohol intake (up to 1 drink per day for women and 1 or 2 drinks per day for men) is associated with decreased risks for total mortality, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and stroke. However, higher levels of alcohol consumption are associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Indeed, behind only smoking and obesity, excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of premature death in the United States. Heavy alcohol use (1) is one of the most common causes of reversible hypertension, (2) accounts for about one-third of all cases of nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, (3) is a frequent cause of atrial fibrillation, and (4) markedly increases risks of stroke-both ischemic and hemorrhagic. The risk-to-benefit ratio of drinking appears higher in younger individuals, who also have higher rates of excessive or binge drinking and more frequently have adverse consequences of acute intoxication (for example, accidents, violence, and social strife). In fact, among males aged 15 to 59 years, alcohol abuse is the leading risk factor for premature death. Of the various drinking patterns, daily low- to moderate-dose alcohol intake, ideally red wine before or during the evening meal, is associated with the strongest reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Health care professionals should not recommend alcohol to nondrinkers because of the paucity of randomized outcome data and the potential for problem drinking even among individuals at apparently low risk. The findings in this review were based on a literature search of PubMed for the 15-year period 1997 through 2012 using the search terms alcohol, ethanol, cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, stroke, and mortality. Studies were considered if they were deemed to be of high quality, objective, and methodologically sound.

→ source (external link)

 

This graph from the review, showing the between alcohol intake and all-cause mortalty, is based on the 2006 meta-analysis by Di Castelnuovo et al. One drink equals 14 g of alcohol.

 

 

Edited by timar, 14 August 2014 - 10:44 PM.

[blood]

I gorge on... I like to eat a lot of... I fry a large amount of... I made my own pizza... I could go on and on...

 

Hence, a BMI of 25 & rising.

 

I'm alarmed at many of your recent posts, Timar. More & more, it seems, you are throwing up weak psychological or social justifications for your self-harming impulses (over-eating). Can you point to good research quantifying levels of harm from social exclusion &/or feelings of isolation arising from adherence to an idiosyncratic diet? I doubt this is even a thing (but am open to learning otherwise).

Edited by blood, 15 August 2014 - 02:53 AM.

[timar]

Hence, a BMI of 25 & rising.

 

Do you realize that you already asked for my BMI twice in the last several months? You are clearly more obsessed about my BMI than I am... No, it certainly hasn't risen to 25 (actually, it has fallen a bit during the last several years).

 

I'm alarmed at many of your recent posts, Timar. More & more, it seems, you are throwing up weak psychological or social justifications for your self-harming impulses (over-eating).

 

I doubt whether it is even possible to gain weight by gorging on asparagus.. or by eating a lot of salads and raw vegetables - as that were to objects to those verbs! In my opinion it is the sad and unnecessary anti-pleasure attitude towards eating you seem to adhere to which is neurotic and ultimately self-harming. I can only repeat the last response I gave to those accusations you perpetually come up with:

 

You seem to be possesed by the strange, Calvinist idea that sensual pleasure and well-being are antagonisms. That idea is completely foreign to Mediterranean culture. I would go so far as to say that this very idea is at least in part responsible for the sorry state of today's mainstream diet in the US and other countries influenced by Calvinist thought. In my opinion, any kind of puritan, anti-pleasure attitude inevitably turns what is good and natural into some dysfunctional evil. If you condemn sex or food for their sensual pleasures, people will develop a unhealthy attitute towards them: voilá, there you have the fast food and porn industries! Sex reduced to the mere act of penetration, food reduced to mere calories.

 

With regard to your question:
 

Can you point to good research quantifying levels of harm from social exclusion &/or feelings of isolation arising from adherence to an idiosyncratic diet? I doubt this is even a thing (but am open to learning otherwise).

 

 

Welcome to the weird and wonderous world of eating disorders! There is a lot of research on that. For starters:

 

Appetite. 1999 Jun;32(3):295-305.

Flexible vs. Rigid dieting strategies: relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes.

Smith CF¹, Williamson DA, Bray GA, Ryan DH.

 

This study was designed to test the hypothesis that different types of dieting strategies are associated with different behavioral outcomes by investigating the relationship of dieting behaviors with overeating, body mass and mood. A sample of 223 adult male and female participants from a large community were studied. Only a small proportion of the sample (18%) was seeking weight loss treatment, though almost half (49.3%) of the subjects were significantly overweight (body mass index, BMI>30). Subjects were administered questionnaires measuring dietary restraint, overeating, depression and anxiety. Measurements of height and weight were also obtained in order to calculate BMI. Canonical correlation was performed to evaluate the relationship of dietary restraint variables with overeating variables, body mass, depression and anxiety. The strongest canonical correlation (r=0.65) was the relationship between flexible dieting and the absence of overeating, lower body mass and lower levels of depression and anxiety. The second strongest canonical correlation (r=0.59) associated calorie counting and conscious dieting with overeating while alone and increased body mass. The third canonical correlation (r=0.57) found a relationship between low dietary restraint and binge eating. The results support the hypothesis that overeating and other adverse behaviors and moods are associated with the presence or absence of certain types of dieting behavior.

→ source (external link)

 

Appetite. 2002 Feb;38(1):39-44.

Rigid vs. flexible dieting: association with eating disorder symptoms in nonobese women.

Stewart TM¹, Williamson DA, White MA.

 

The correlates of rigid and flexible dieting were examined in a sample of 188 nonobese women recruited from the community and from a university. The primary aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that women who utilize rigid versus flexible dieting strategies to prevent weight gain report more eating disorder symptoms and higher body mass index (BMI) in comparison to women who utilize flexible dieting strategies. The study sample included women who were underweight (29%), normal weight (52%), and overweight (19%). None of the women were obese, as defined by BMI>30. Participants were administered a questionnaire that measures Rigid Control and Flexible Control of eating. Body weight and height were measured and measures of eating disorder symptoms and mood disturbances were administered. Our results indicated that BMI was significantly correlated with rigid dieting and flexible dieting. BMI was controlled statistically in other analyses. The study found that individuals who engage in rigid dieting strategies reported symptoms of an eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape. In contrast, flexible dieting strategies were not highly associated with BMI, eating disorder symptoms, mood disturbances, or concerns with body size. Since this was a cross sectional study, causality of eating disorder symptoms could not be addressed. These findings replicate and extend the findings of earlier studies. These findings suggest that rigid dieting strategies, but not flexible dieting strategies, are associated with eating disorder symptoms and higher BMI in nonobese women.

→ source (external link)

 

 

Edited by timar, 15 August 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[Gerrans]

If I had to put my money on who is going to live longest: Timar eating his well-researched mixed diet of good real food or our many contributors who munch their way through dizzying lists of nootropic pills and poorly researched chemicals, I would say Timar.

[DAMI]

Timar, I wonder why you are having the yogurt with your breakfast. Don't you think that dairy inhibits the antioxidant benefits of plant foods? http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19135520

[timar]

Timar, I wonder why you are having the yogurt with your breakfast. Don't you think that dairy inhibits the antioxidant benefits of plant foods? http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19135520

 

I think the evidence regarding possible inhibitory effects of (milk-)protein on the absorption of polyphenols is inconsistant and inconclusive. A few years ago, Adel from Supversity wrote an excellent review on the subject, mentioning many of the methodological pitfalls with the studies at hand and concluding that if there is an overal inhibitory effect it seems rather small.

 

There are some more methological objections to those studies, however, which Adel did not adress. If bioavailbility is accessed by urinary excretion or blood levels, one has to make sure that all possible metabolites are accounted for. Polyphenols bound to protein may be absorbed to an equal extend, but metabolized different from free polyphenols. Think about this scenario: the absorption of the polyphenol is not diminished but actually increased by the protein it is bound to, but it does not appear in the bloodstream in its free form and the HPLC method employed is "blind" to the specific metabolite. Of course the polyphenol-protein complex can have a different bioactivity profile than the free polyphenol, further complicating things.

 

Today, casein and other proteins are actually studied as carriers for polyphenols, as they often increase their stability in the food matrix and during digestion. A recent study found that the bioefficiacy of EGCG against colon cancer cells was not diminished by complexation with casein micelles.

 

Anyway, I usually have a teaspoon of my Polypulp well before the muesli, so I should get plenty of polyphenols in their free form too.

 

Edited by timar, 21 March 2015 - 06:18 PM.