
Your arteries on Wonder bread - ph0rque
http://www.physorg.com/news165153583.html
======
jberryman
We've known for decades that the western diet kills people (and increasingly
so) and that traditional diets don't, yet nutrition science seems to be stuck
in a reductionist view of food, obsessed with finding the precise chemicals
responsible for heart disease, diabetes, and all the other Western Diseases.

Maybe this new study really has gotten to the bottom of heart disease, in
which case we can all eat the newly re-formulated Low Glycemic Index Wonder
Bread and carry on as usual. We'll be healthier, Food Industry will make
another fortune, everyone's happy.

Thought this would be a good opportunity to pimp the book: In Defense of Food
by Michael Pollan. It's quite extraordinary if you are interested in your
health (in the broadest sense of that word), food, and the history of
Nutrition Science and the western diet.

~~~
grandalf
Finally a rational comment!

Nutrition is one of the areas where normally rational people (such as the
typical HN reader) go totally off the deep end and rely on superstition,
hearsay, herd mentality, group think, and whimsy. In general, most people
(including people who are otherwise quite rational) do exactly what
advertisers and corporate sponsors want when it comes to nutrition.

There was a huge bombshell study a few years ago, documented in the book "The
China Study" on the western diet (by a guy from Cornell). It should have made
headlines. People should have thrown their meat and dairy into the garbage
immediately... but nothing happened.

Instead, ostensibly "health conscious" people convince themselves that there
are "good fats" and ask themselves if they are getting enough protein.

Most Americans are overweight and will end up with obesity, type II diabetes,
heart disease, or colon cancer. Most vegetarians are overweight, pallid, and
sick-looking (b/c they eat so much "good fat" -- more fat than McDonalds
aficionados eat!).

What it means for a human to eat optimally is well known and has been backed
up by rigorous scientific research... why hasn't it made headlines? Because in
this case it's too much work to think critically... it's not easy going
against the grain of an entire society built upon destructive mythology with
the nutrition establishment telling us to eat according to a harmful food
pyramid, etc.

So the whole "nutrition" industry is focused on convincing people that health
is obtained by consuming or avoiding magic ingredients like "Omega 3s" or
"turmeric" or "trans fats" or "mono unsaturated fats" or "whole grains" or
"protein". All of this is at best minimally correlated or patently false.

What's the difficult truth that nobody wants to hear? Animal protein causes
disease. That means no meat, fish, milk, etc. The optimal human diet is plant
based and should contain 80% carbs (as much of this unrefined as possible),
10% protein, and 10% fat). Fresh fruit has a few percent fat already, so very
little extra fat is needed, even if it's so-called "good fat".

If you're skeptical, read The China Study and then raid your fridge and cure
your future cancer immediately :)

notes:

1) humans can survive on lots of things including meats, cardboard, etc. b/c
we evolved to survive in extreme conditions/habitats. That does not mean that
all things we can digest are optimal for health. Also, it is trivial for any
modern human to obtain sufficient calories only from optimal foods.

2) link to book (well worth the $10, read the reviews on Amazon):

[http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-
Im...](http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-
Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246067556&sr=8-1)

~~~
barrkel
An extended life (perhaps - modulo advances in medicine) but at what cost?

I'd rather live well on delicious foods and most likely die in my 70s, than
worry about this and derive satisfaction from pride in piety and devotion to
some food religion.

And for the record, I'm not obese, nor am I overweight (BMI of 21). But I'll
be damned if I'm going to give up one of the greatest sources of pleasure I
have ever known just to eke out a few more years on this planet.

~~~
grandalf
First, we're probably talking about 20 more years. If you believe Ray Kurzweil
(I'm a skeptic) it could be a lot more...

We're also not talking about being old and immobile... you could feasibly
enjoy an excellent quality of life in your 90s and beyond. Think of it... you
could get a Ph.D at 80 if you wanted to, while your contemporaries had been
dead for around a decade.

You also may not realize this, but eating optimally offers immediate,
pleasurable benefits. How would you like 25% more energy, vitality, and
endurance? How would you like a more sharply focused mind?

Mind and body are one... you can't expect to experience true pleasure if you
neglect either one.

------
alanthonyc
I've been living on a (personal) variation of the South Beach diet for the
past eight months or so. One mostly eats proteins and fats and only low
glycemic index carbohydrates.

I was also raised on the typical foods: white bread, frosted flakes, white
rice, etc. However, although cutting out the starches was difficult, it was
not impossible. The hardest part was during the first two to three weeks.
Probably partially because of chemical factors as well as psychological. Since
then, it hasn't been too difficult at all.

I feel much healthier now and have lost a lot of extra weight I had been
carrying around for years.

On the other hand, my diet is much more expensive. It takes a lot more protein
to feel full than carbs, and proteins are more expensive.

The best thing about this diet is that, budget notwithstanding, I can actually
live the rest of my life on it. It's not a binge type of diet which cannot be
used for prolonged periods of time. It's very practical, as long as you can
find the foods you need.

~~~
jackchristopher
Protein + Fat destroys hunger. Eat them together. In fact if you don't get
enough fat you starve. [1]

One reason protein is filling is it signals a hormone PPY for satiety [2].
Ever try eating a jumbo can of tuna? You'll feel a lump in your throat. You
can't eat much.

Hormones usually are dismissed as wonky, but they actually do factor in weight
loss.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation>

[2] [http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2007/10/peptide-yy-
and-...](http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2007/10/peptide-yy-and-
appetite.html)

~~~
boundlessdreamz
High protein diets usually have high purine which can cause high uric acid
levels in blood for some people [like me]. Can cause gout :(

------
daveungerer
I've been on a low glycemic index diet for the past 8 years, combined with
regular snacks and exercise. The background to this is that I had trouble
concentrating at university. Went to the doctor, who sent me for tests that
confirmed I'm hypoglycemic.

Today, I can still notice the drop in concentration and the intense desire to
take a nap after eating the occasional high GI food. But my mind is very clear
when I eat correctly, so that's enough motivation to keep it up. Of course,
the health benefits are a nice side-effect - I became quite skinny from losing
what little fat I had, so I had to work out to pick up some weight.

A few points to address some of the other comments: It's not necessary to go
extremely high protein, and increasing your fat intake may do more harm than
good if you don't work hard to exclude saturated fats. Don't limit your total
carb intake, but choose the right carbs and spread them out across meals /
snacks.

And some very important points the article doesn't mention: Never skip a meal.
Eat breakfast within an hour of waking up. This will help prevent spikes in
your blood sugar.

I would suggest googling the glycemic index as well as the glycemic load of
foods before making any changes to your diet. Apart from giving preference to
food that's higher in fibre, healthy fat and proteins, there are some
surprises.

Once you've passed through the proverbial dip, your taste changes. The
cravings for sweet or highly processed carbs are similar to the cravings when
giving up smoking. They do pass.

------
yankeeracer73
Has anyone found a good book or site that has a definitive diet for a non-
overweight, non-diabetic person who just wants to make sure they're eating
healthy? Every book I've found seems to address some sort of problem vs.
talking about being in a long term "maintenance" mode.

~~~
hachiya
Some excellent resources:

<http://drmcdougall.com> Dr. John McDougall's site

An excellent presentation that he gave is available here:

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2348910096409126100> John McDougall
MD on the perils of dairy products

He has advocated a low fat, whole foods, plant based site for decades, and
this type of diet has been clinically shown to prevent and even reverse heart
disease (see studies by Dr. Dean Ornish, probably others).

The diet consists of fruits and vegetables, with starches such as potatoes,
yams, beans, and oats featuring as the staple calorie source.

The pre-1950s Okinawan diet was like this, with the staple being sweet potato.
Their percentage of calories from fat was in the single digits, with
carbohydrates being over 80% of calories. Okinawa has been known as having one
of the highest number of centenarians, not to mention healthy long-lived
people overall. Sure there are more factors than diet, but it is worth
considering what they ate.

The "Star McDougallers" area of the site has many testimonials of people
helped with their health problems far beyond weight loss, such as rheumatoid
arthritis and lupus.

Taking it to the next level:

The 80/10/10 diet

also low fat and plant based, but all raw (fruits instead of starches,
basically)

<http://vegsource.com/talk/raw> Message board for the 80/10/10 diet, by Doug
Graham

<http://foodnsport.com> Doug Graham's site

<http://30bananasaday.com> 80/10/10 enthusiast forum & social network

~~~
daveungerer
Keep in mind that sweet potatoes have a much lower glycemic index than normal
potatoes, and in fact many other carbs, which probably explains the
centenarians.

Having normal potatoes as a staple will reduce your lifespan.

~~~
hachiya
Glycemic index is not the only determining factor of a food's worth, nor has
it been shown to necessarily carry much weight at all.

Glycemic _load_ has been considered by some to be more important.

Chocolate cake has been measured to have a glycemic index of 38, while a baked
potato is 85. Heck, fructose, pure sugar, has a glycemic index of 19, while
brown rice is at 87.

( Numbers from "International table of glycemic index and glycemic load
values: 2002" Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Jul;76(1):5-56.)

I don't think anyone is going to say chocolate cake or pure fructose is
healthier than a baked potato or brown rice.

So there is certainly more to a food's nutritional value than the glycemic
index, which has been shown to be on shaky ground.

<http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/july/glycemic.htm> ( Glycemic Index -
Not Ready for Prime Time )

> Having normal potatoes as a staple will reduce your lifespan.

Reference please? The assertion that potatoes will reduce one's lifespan is
utter nonsense. Reduce it compared to what? An Atkins diet? How well did that
work out for Dr. Atkins?

Peruvians have traditionally used potatoes as a staple, and even in modern
times they have 1/4 the heart disease death rate of the USA. As heart disease
is the leading cause of death, this is significant. In fact, this "potato
capital of the world" has obesity and diabetes rates which pale in comparison
to the USA.

As we have such an abundant variety available to us today, it is possible to
pick our own staples, and I personally prefer fruits or sweet potatoes to
regular potatoes. However, the fact remains that even regular potatoes are a
healthy choice, provided they are consumed unrefined. French fries are a
disaster of a food, but nobody is advocating these highly processed potatoes
as a staple food.

The below articles clearly demonstrate that potatoes are healthy and will not
"reduce your lifespan". Many references are provided within.

<http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/may/potato.htm> ( International Year
of the Potato, 2008 )

[http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall020400pupotatoesarep...](http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall020400pupotatoesarepillars.htm)
( Potatoes Are Pillars of Worldwide Nutrition )

~~~
daveungerer
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index>

Pretty much contradicts everything said by the page on glycemic index on
www.drmcdougall.com and also addresses the points you raised above. I guess
the question now is: Who do you trust? WikiPedia or a guy peddling DVDs and
books?

~~~
hachiya
Dr. McDougall offers for free all the information necessary to follow his
program. It is linked from the front page. Direct link:
<http://drmcdougall.com/free.html>

> Pretty much contradicts everything said by the page on glycemic index on
> www.drmcdougall.com and also addresses the points you raised above.

Care to enumerate any contradictions? You haven't given a single example.

~~~
daveungerer
Fine, I'll mark statements by Dr. McDougall with [D], WikiPedia with [W]. A
few brief examples:

[D]: Worldwide, populations of hundreds of millions of people who eat high GI
potatoes (Peruvians) and rice (Asians) are trim and active for a lifetime.
[W]: The high consumption of legumes in South America and fresh fruit and
vegetables in Asia likely lowers the glycemic effect in these individuals. The
mixing of high and low GI carbohydrates produces moderate GI values.

[D]: the American Diabetic Association dismisses the value of GI in treating
diabetes. [W]: The glycemic index is supported by leading international health
organisations including the American Diabetes Association.

If you read Dr. McDougall's material carefully, you'll see him stringing
together sets of unrelated facts and strawmen in such a way that it almost
appears that a valid argument is being made. Like this gem: [D]: "For the most
efficient means of replenishing spent glycogen reserves, athletes have learned
to choose foods that have a high GI. Selecting foods with a high GI is just as
sound advice for anyone yearning to be strong and energetic throughout the
day—not just for athletes."

The second statement does not follow from the first. Doing what athletes do to
replenish their reserves when you haven't even used yours is incredibly bad
advice. I'm speechless.

~~~
hachiya
The potato consumption example is hardly a contradiction. It amounts to at
most speculation by a Wikipedia author as to why the "glycemic effect" may be
lower in South America, with no substantiation. Potatoes are bad for people,
but in South America they are ok because they also eat fruit, beans, and
vegetables? Most people don't eat only one food, so what is your point? Also,
if I eat a candy bar, and then eat some fruit later, that does not lower the
effect of the candy bar.

With regards to the American Diabetes Association reference by Dr. McDougall,
one has to take into consideration when his article was written. Secondly, the
reference you provided hardly shows much support for the glycemic index by the
ADA, other than acknowledgement as a possible useful tool.

> The findings of a meta-analysis indicate that implementing a low-glycemic

> index diet lower A1C values by 0.43% when compared with a high-glycemic
> index diet.

0.43 PERCENT? Hardly a groundbreaking discovery.

> QUALIFYING STATEMENTS

> At this time, there is insufficient information to determine whether

> there is a relationship between glycemic index or glycemic load of diets

> and the development of diabetes. Prospective randomized trials will be

> necessary to confirm the relationship between the type of carbohydrate

> and the development of diabetes.

Harldy a strong endorsement.

> FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

> Janette C. Brand-Miller, PHD is on the board of directors of Glycemic Index
> Limited.

That report is not free of conflicts of interest.

Here is an article about the glycemic index currently at the ADA website.

<http://www.diabetes.org/glycemic-index.jsp>

> The Glycemic Index debate: Does the type of carbohydrate really matter?

> by Janine Freeman, RD, CDE

> As the low-carbohydrate-diet fad slowly loses steam, another may be moving
> in to take its place: the glycemic index fad.

...

> Some studies show small improvements in A1Cs among people who are attentive

> to the glycemic index. But reducing calories, weight loss, and basic

> carbohydrate counting have been shown to be more effective in improving

> A1Cs among people with type 2 diabetes than basing diet decisions on the GI.

> _I don't suggest eliminating "high GI" foods in favor of "low GI" foods to_

> _gain better blood glucose levels for two reasons._ First, there is not

> enough evidence yet to show that such an action actually will improve your

> blood glucose levels; and second, choosing foods based solely on GI will

> compromise healthy eating.

So it is evident that the ADA does not outright support and recommend the
glycemic index.

Your final criticism is simply ridiculuous. Dr. McDougall writes of athletes
and follows up with a recommendation for "anyone yearing to be strong and
energetic". Hardly unrelated. I am speechless at your incredulity here.
Secondly, he is not referring to old sports myths, such as carb loading, but
replensihing glycogen reserves, which should be done after substantial
activity, such as for one who is yearning to be "strong and energetic
throughout the day."

Lastly, this has veered off topic - please provide a reference for your claim
above that potatoes will "reduce your lifspan." I provided historical evidence
of societies that lived on potatoes as a staple, with better health than the
USA. You have done nothing other than nitpick and provide a Wikipedia URL that
does not back up your claim, pretending that it contradicts an entire article
by Dr. McDougall, without showing a single example.

~~~
daveungerer
_Secondly, he is not referring to old sports myths, such as carb loading, but
replensihing glycogen reserves, which should be done after substantial
activity, such as for one who is yearning to be "strong and energetic
throughout the day."_

The feats of logic required to go from _after substantial activity_ to _such
as for one who is yearning to be "strong and energetic throughout the day."_
are just too much for me to bear.

To get back on topic, just by citing the original article that this post is
about, I can tell you that eating sweet potato instead of normal potatoes will
extend your life, unless the change excludes some very important nutrients
(unlikely).

------
enomar
Man I hate hearing about this stuff. I was raised on these types of foods and
now it's like crack to me. As an adult, I'm having a really tough time giving
them up.

I'm sure I just need to learn new habits and have some will power, but
sometimes I wish they'd just outlaw or ration unhealthy food too. It's just
too damn abundant...

~~~
hapless
My problem is that I was raised with the food pyramid. Grain as staff of life
etc. I look at corn flakes or wonderbread, and my subconscious health
barometer reads "all clear." I'll consume these products without thinking
about it.

It's really difficult to re-train myself for a more modern understanding of
nutrition.

~~~
madh
Yes, especially since I've trained myself to think that carbs are so good.

------
ams6110
These studies come out like clockwork. Every few weeks we hear about the new
discovery of a food or ingredient that will kill you. I say if you're not
obese and in reasonably good health, eat what you like. Nobody escapes death
because they don't eat Wonder bread.

~~~
hachiya
Nobody will escape death, but death does not have to be prolonged, painful,
and miserable.

Everybody has to die of something, but if people were able to pick, nobody
would pick the most common causes: heart disease, cancer, and stroke.

If diet can play a part in avoiding these, and evidence suggests that the role
is significant, we probably should eat what we like, as long as we learn to
like that which is good for us.

------
bpb
Umm... this study used water as the placebo? Shouldn't they at least have used
oatmeal? As it is, the study compares eating vs not-eating, rather than eating
high-GI vs low-GI foods.

------
gurtwo
There is a ton of theories about nutrition out there, as the radically opposed
comments show here.

I haven't really studied the subject, but I know from experience that the food
I used to have at home (basically, the mediterranean diet) keeps me healthy
and with no overweight. So I still follow my mother's wisdom: eat a bit of
everything, with ingredients around olive oil, vegetables, fruit, bread, fish
and some meat.

------
scscsc
Cheap, fast, tasty, healthy. Choose the last or any combination of the first
three.

~~~
whughes
I think it's more accurate to say "choose any two of the four." Certainly
there are ways to have tasty and healthy or fast and healthy foods, but you
may miss out on the other things.

~~~
scscsc
I might be willing to admit healthy and tasty sometimes work together. But
healthy and cheap/fast? I don't think so.

------
thras
Oops. Turns out the Keyes hypothesis (fat = harmful) was awful science based
on cherry-picked data.

High-carb is actually the killer, and it's not a coincidence that has our diet
got higher and higher in simple carbohydrates, our obesity levels have tripled
(since 1970).

Of course, since we evolved to be hunter-gatherers and live off of high-fat,
high-protein diets, it's sort of bizarre that medical professionals ever
thought that high-carb was healthy in the first place. But that's what you get
when you let doctors do the research instead of scientists. Iatrogenic disease
has a long and sordid history.

~~~
daveungerer
I'll forgive you guys for modding this up, as the article is quite poorly
written - the author uses the terms "high glycemic index" and "high carb"
interchangeably, when they are in fact vastly different.

High carb: food that contains a lot of carbs, saying nothing about the effect
on blood sugar.

High glycemic index: carbs that cause blood sugar spikes.

High glycemic load: the (very bad) combination of the above 2 factors.

In other words, it's possible for one food with the exact same amount of carbs
as another to have a much lower glycemic index.

High-carb is NOT the killer. High GI carbs are. Low GI carbs are good for you.
That is the point of the article.

~~~
trapper
Correct - but tecnically all food causes a blood sugar "spike" - it's the rate
of change, and potentially area under the curve that counts.

We know the body treats glucose in the bloodstream like a poison in the sense
that it tries it's damnedest to get it out. Interesting articles:

<http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14045678.php>

<http://darwinstable.wordpress.com/tag/glucose/>

~~~
daveungerer
If a graph has a spike, that implies "high rate of change". How high the peak
is is all that really counts, as the body produces insulin in accordance to
how high your blood sugar currently is - it has no way of knowing what the
area under the curve will be in the end. And inevitably it overproduces if the
peak is too high, since we are not evolved to deal with modern high GI carbs.

~~~
trapper
"How high the peak is is all that really counts". You severely underestimate
the bodies predictive capability. There are 21+ pathways feeding into the
insulin response system, all of them trying to prepare the internal system to
get rid of glucose. Thought, taste, smell etc all contribute to our predictive
capability.

The point is that the body tries to predict the amount of glucose ingested to
minimise peaks. A long term marker of the bodies success at this is hba1c.

I'd love to see a reference for your last claim. Surely the mechanism of fat
storage in periods of high sugar availability would be a desirable trait?

