Upcoming new US dietary guidelines

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I also read a report about the guidelines, but it came to some very different conclusions: saturated fats are not fine, there were financial incentives to de-emphasize dietary cholesterol, and salt is not fine for everyone. The first two points are clear in the report that I read, here: http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.ph...the-good-the-bad-and-the-downright-confusing/
The reference to salt I found in the US Dietary Guidelines report itself, here: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/11-chapter-6/d6-1.asp
The DGAC concurs that adults who would benefit from blood pressure lowering should “lower sodium intake.” AHA/ACC Grade: Strong; DGAC Grade: Strong

Since the source report really is about a bazillion pages, as indicated in the article by Dr. Kendrick, I have no intention of trying to sift through it to sort this out. Given the length of the guidelines it may be possible for people to draw what they want from it even though their conclusions may be at odds.
 
I agree that there's a lot of room for improvement in the guidelines but the article seems to be saying that eating vegetables is essentially the same as eating a spoonful of sugar which seems a little bit of a stretch. Of course there are a lot of nutrients and fiber in the veggies that are healthy. So a cup of sugar and a blob of fat to chew on would be better than fruits and vegetables?
 
Hi

AZ Don;n855914 said:
... Given the length of the guidelines it may be possible for people to draw what they want from it even though their conclusions may be at odds.

par for the course on medical "research" ... I can't count the times I've read stuff which takes a sentence from a study out of context and uses that to support their assertion. Few ever read the citations and see if its reasonable to make that assertion and use that paper as a citation to back up your assertion.
 
pellicle;n855916 said:
Hi



par for the course on medical "research" ... I can't count the times I've read stuff which takes a sentence from a study out of context and uses that to support their assertion. Few ever read the citations and see if its reasonable to make that assertion and use that paper as a citation to back up your assertion.


PS: I read this line
Yes, all those healthy fruit and vegetables are simply extended chains of simple sugar(s). And once they enter your digestive system, your body cares not whether or not you ate a carrot or a sugar cube. It delivers them into your bloodstream as sugar [primarily glucose and fructose].

and wondered if he has any idea on how much is in a carrot (or if he understands that many of those long sugar chains are not digestable to humans (like cellulose) even if they are tantalizingly made of glucose). He seems unaware of the difference between sucrose and sugar (sucrose being merely but one sugar).

meh
 
Definitely a carrot will raise blood glucose as much as sugar - this is testable if you have a blood glucose meter. This is because carrots are starchy vegetables. Obviously the carrot will also contain vitamins which plain sugar doesn't. Possibly the article didn't make clear the difference between starcy and non starchy vegetables. The starchy veggies are things like carrots, parsnips, potatoes (Dr Richard Berstein, a Type 1 diabetic and diabetologist calls potatoes "balls of sugar" - they raise blood glucose very high). Non-starchy veggies are those such as kale, cabbage, collards, asparagus, broccoli - the list is quite extensive, and they contain very little carbohydrate and will not raise blood glucose much at all, practically unnoticeable. When it comes to fruit, most fruit is very high in carbohydrate and will raise blood glucose, the exception being some berries which are low in carbs. Grain foods are also high in carbohydrate and will raise blood glucose, wholewheat bread will raise blood glucose as much as white bread which often surprises people.

What the article was trying to say was that all carbohydrates are turned to glucose in the blood. It doesn't matter that the carbs come from sweet foods or from plain sugar or from savoury foods which are high in carbohydrates, the body turns them into glucose. In fact the body turns some starches into glucose right in the mouth through the action of the digestive enzyme amylase. A simple experiment you can do which we did back when I was at school, is to get a plain cracker, or water biscuit or matzos, they all are only made from wheat and water with maybe a bit of salt or not if you get salt free. Chew some of it and hold it in your mouth, don't swallow. After a very short time you will taste some sweetness - this is the sugars released from the wheat by the action of amylase.
 
10 baby carrots = 4 g sugar
Mounds bar = 31 g sugar

Carrot demonization drives me nuts. It makes people like my husband think eating a candy bar and a carrot are equivalent. It DOES matter where the sugar comes from because people do not typically eat, say, 90 g of sugar from eating 220 baby carrots at a sitting, but ALL KINDS of people eat 90 g of sugar from 3 Mounds bars or a big slice of cake or 4 cups of pasta.

I know you know this Paleogirl, I am just grumpy.
 
Grain foods are also high in carbohydrate and will raise blood glucose, wholewheat bread will raise blood glucose as much as white bread which often surprises people.
Not all grains are created equal. While it is true that whole wheat can raise blood glucose as much as white bread, the same is not true for whole grain bread. Both the glycemic index and the glycemic load of whole grain bread are lower than that of wheat bread (white or whole). That means that the impact on blood sugar is less and is spread out over a longer period of time.

When it comes to fruit, most fruit is very high in carbohydrate and will raise blood glucose, the exception being some berries which are low in carbs.
It's my understanding that on the glycemic index, under 55 is considered low, and over 70 is high. Averaging all the fruits listed on the Harvard page below, the average glycemic index/load is 46/9. By definition these are low glycemic foods.

For reference: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods

The beneficial ingredients effects of fruits should not be ignored. In fact they have the capacity to blunt blood sugar spikes, even when eaten with sugar:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-fructose-is-bad-what-about-fruit/
 
Hi AZ - if you get a blood glucose meter (they're very cheap, it's the test strips that cost a lot but you get at least ten included with the meter you buy) you can check out how your body reacts to different fruits and different grains. Test your blood glucose around 45 mins after eating those foods….especially after eating fruit with sugar !

Fruits are good for vitamin C yes, but non starchy veggies like kale, weight for weight, have as much vitamin C as an orange, plus vitamin K1, calcium and magnesium and many trace minerals, but they're very low carb.
 
Hi
Paleogirl;n855919 said:
Definitely a carrot will raise blood glucose as much as sugar - this is testable if you have a blood glucose meter.

of course it will and of course does will because it contains some sugar, but as dornole suggests below the quantities are VERY different. A quick trip to wikipedia will make this clear.

This is because carrots are starchy vegetables.

well this is really an exaggeration. Potatos are starch, carrots contain some starch but very little. Grass is made of cellulose, wihch is starchy, but the form of that carbohydrate is indigestable. That is an important point which is ignored by these analysts.

What the article was trying to say was that all carbohydrates are turned to glucose in the blood.

which is why its misguided as not all are, and some which are require more energy to acess than they liberate.

There is about 30 calories per 100g of carrot ... yet there is more than 3 times that in one slice of the bread (of which you have two to make a sandwich). Potato has 77 grams and so being more than double I think its fair to call that starchy. The calorific numbers themselves will tell you how exaggerated the view about the starch content of carrots is as carrots do not contain much fat (the other source of calories). On the other hand 100g of mars bar has 452 calories ... so you need to eat a kilo of carrots to equal a mars bar ... now how likely is it someone will have a second mars bar VS a second kilo of carrot in the day?

so its really about understanding proportions ...
 
Hi AZ - if you get a blood glucose meter (they're very cheap, it's the test strips that cost a lot but you get at least ten included with the meter you buy) you can check out how your body reacts to different fruits and different grains. Test your blood glucose around 45 mins after eating those foods….especially after eating fruit with sugar !
If you look at the last video that I posted you can see that after eating blood glucose rises over time and then falls. Measuring at a point in time does not give the whole story and I am not planning to stick myself multiple times to repeat a study that was done better than I could do it.
 
AZ Don;n855934 said:
If you look at the last video that I posted you can see that after eating blood glucose rises over time and then falls. Measuring at a point in time does not give the whole story and I am not planning to stick myself multiple times to repeat a study that was done better than I could do it.
Hi AZ - I'm Type 2 diabetic and, because I'm not a typical diabetic as I have always been thin (underweight) and am not insulin resistant as typical Type 2's are, have researched the difference between non-diabetic blood glucose post prandial numbers and diabetic post prandial numbers with the difference between the rise and subsequent fall within the two groups. The reason I mention 45 minutes, for whether diabetic or non-diabetic, is because we're talking about blood glucose spikes here. It's the spikes which cause vascular damage. A non-diabetic can eat a couple of Mars bars, for example, and their blood glucose level will be more or less normal after two or three hours, but if they measure it after 45 mins to one hour there will be a spike. It's the spike you want to avoid. The glycaemic index is very misleading and unhelpful and was not testing for spikes in blood glucose.

This from the entry in Wikipedia explains more about the problems with the glycaemic index: "The glycemic index does not take into account other factors besides glycemic response, such as insulin response, which is measured by the insulin index and can be more appropriate in representing the effects from some food contents other than carbohydrates.In particular, since it is based on the area under the curve of the glucose response over time from ingesting a subject food, the shape of the curve has no bearing on the corresponding GI value. The glucose response can rise to a high level and fall quickly, or rise less high but remain there for a longer time, and have the same area under the curve."

Btw, it doesn't hurt one bit to do testing with a blood glucose meter, at least not if done correctly. I never get any pain or marks on my fingers but when I was in hospital for my AVR the nurses, who obviously didn't know how to do the test properly, would do it so wrong that I ended up with little blue marks all over my finger tips. They really should let diabetics test for themselves. Hey, they also tested at the 'wrong' times, they tested only pre-meals. Luckily I had my own meter with me and tested post meals. Not that I was able to eat much due to the pain killers affecting gut motility - a nightmare now behind me !
 
The insulin response can even cause the fall in blood sugar to extend below the starting point, which can also be harmful. Certainly it is very complicated. And I should have acknowledged the point about whole wheat. I know to look for whole (multi) grains first but I did forget there is little benefit of whole wheat over wheat.
 
carolinemc;n855985 said:
Now I am totally confused. I will talk to my PCP doctor on my next diabetes checkup
I doubt your PCP doctor will be up to date on this latest stuff, takes years to filter down. Both my GP and my endocrinologist will doubtless still be on the previous standard advice. My endo is very pleased with my blood glucose and HbA1c of 5.2 - he knows that I eat low carb and high fat (have done this for about seven years now and my coronary arteries are completely clear) - and he says "but you eat good fats" and I nod and say yes because I know that saturated fats are good and polyunsaturated not good, but I'm sure he thinks I eat polyunsaturated fats ! He is the most wonderful endo though and believes that patients and doctors should work together. Last time I saw him in March he mentioned a colleague of his who had just had bypass, a doctor only in his 40's, so I told him that the British Heart Foundation published that 50% of people who have heart attacks have a cholesterol level above 5 - or 200 in the US - which means, of course, that 50% of people who have heart attacks have a cholesterol level below 5 or 200 US !
 
Back
Top