Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Main Lowcarb Lobby
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2013, 06:10 PM   #1
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: West of Philly
Posts: 832
Gallery: Garlic
Stats: 326 / 260 / 175
WOE: Atkins 2010
Start Date: May 25th, 2013
Did we really need yet another study to know this?

This is just a snippet of something I found online.... It always amazes / fascinates / or sometimes angers me that people waste money on stuff like this.... He is the snippet:

Sugary foods and drinks, white bread and other processed carbohydrates that are known to cause abrupt spikes and falls in blood sugar appear to stimulate parts of the brain involved in hunger, craving and reward, the new research shows. The findings, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggest that these so-called high-glycemic foods influence the brain in a way that might drive some people to overeat.

I think we need to do a study to see where the sun rises and sets on the 3rd Tuesday of each month.
Garlic is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 06-27-2013, 06:26 PM   #2
Senior LCF Member
 
Hot Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 146
Gallery: Hot Potato
Stats: 117.4kg/107.1/99kg (first goal)
WOE: LCHF/primal/NK
Start Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garlic View Post
This is just a snippet of something I found online.... It always amazes / fascinates / or sometimes angers me that people waste money on stuff like this.... He is the snippet:

Sugary foods and drinks, white bread and other processed carbohydrates that are known to cause abrupt spikes and falls in blood sugar appear to stimulate parts of the brain involved in hunger, craving and reward, the new research shows. The findings, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggest that these so-called high-glycemic foods influence the brain in a way that might drive some people to overeat.

I think we need to do a study to see where the sun rises and sets on the 3rd Tuesday of each month.

I totally agree! It's not rocket surgery to know processed carbohydrates spike insulin.
Hot Potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 06:30 PM   #3
Major LCF Poster!
 
snowmop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: florida
Posts: 1,734
Gallery: snowmop
Stats: 113/89/90 4' 10" 67 yrs old
WOE: atkins
Start Date: Long, long ago!
This was featured on our local news channel tonight. I can always count on them to crack me up with their health wisdom.
snowmop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 06:31 PM   #4
Senior LCF Member
 
Aleina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Argentina
Posts: 874
Gallery: Aleina
Stats: 224/ 172.9 31 Jan /150
WOE: Epi Paleo
Start Date: 15 Nov 2012 various WOES
Oh but this is new ... White bread and sugary stuff is part of my cultshah ...

Seriously though ,the "old message" has had so much air time that new studies are needed to displace the old knowledge of years of indoctrination. And you know something I think we are not even there yet with the new message. We are only learning.
Aleina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 07:57 PM   #5
Senior LCF Member
 
rndiane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 271
Gallery: rndiane
Stats: 215/ 175/size8-10
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: Jan 22,2013 3rd time
My personal opinion is, the hardest people to change their way of thinking will be Nutrionalist/ Dieticians and I'm sorry if there are some on this board. More than anyone else in the healthcare community, they have been bombarded with the nutrition pyramid . A good friend of mine has a doctorate in Nutrition from the 1980s. She believes I am killing myself with high fat and low carb and there is no changing her opinion.

Last edited by rndiane; 06-27-2013 at 08:06 PM..
rndiane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:24 PM   #6
.
 
ravenrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,648
Gallery: ravenrose
Stats: lost 130 lb so far, and miles to go before I sleep
WOE: low carb controlled calorie
Start Date: June, 2009
suggest that these so-called high-glycemic foods influence the brain in a way that might drive some people to overeat.

this is the part that is not generally accepted, I think.
ravenrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:56 PM   #7
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Ntombi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Boston, then OH, then NYC, now SoCal. Whew!
Posts: 38,343
Gallery: Ntombi
Stats: Restart: 360/287.2/190
WOE: Atkins for weight loss, NK for maintenance.
Start Date: Restarted: 1-3-13 Original: 8-23-02
On some low fat board, there's someone saying, "do we really need a study to tell us that fat makes us fat? It's common sense!"

Yes, we need these studies. Not everyone understands the role of insulin on weight, and not nearly enough people with medical training understand how looking beyond calorie intake can be crucial.
Ntombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:12 PM   #8
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: West of Philly
Posts: 832
Gallery: Garlic
Stats: 326 / 260 / 175
WOE: Atkins 2010
Start Date: May 25th, 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntombi View Post
On some low fat board, there's someone saying, "do we really need a study to tell us that fat makes us fat? It's common sense!"

Yes, we need these studies. Not everyone understands the role of insulin on weight, and not nearly enough people with medical training understand how looking beyond calorie intake can be crucial.
They could look at dozens of studies that already have been done. You could post them as new, lol. No need to spend new money on what people knew for 20 years. I think I knew 30 years ago that carbs spike blood sugar levels, and for most people are just useless calories.
Garlic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:16 PM   #9
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: West of Philly
Posts: 832
Gallery: Garlic
Stats: 326 / 260 / 175
WOE: Atkins 2010
Start Date: May 25th, 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenrose View Post
suggest that these so-called high-glycemic foods influence the brain in a way that might drive some people to overeat.

this is the part that is not generally accepted, I think.
I agree, but really, it is just common sense.... I mean I always over ate carbs, my whole life... I never really over ate fat or protein.... I bet that is the case for almost everybody who over eats. I could have made that hypothesis myself..... But that doesn't mean that I would have done the right thing.
Garlic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 11:38 PM   #10
Major LCF Poster!
 
Trillex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,202
Gallery: Trillex
Stats: 235/135/135
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: 11 May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntombi View Post
Yes, we need these studies. Not everyone understands the role of insulin on weight, and not nearly enough people with medical training understand how looking beyond calorie intake can be crucial.
You're absolutely right, Ntombi.

I think most people believe we know more about how the human body functions than current research has actually established -- which is *why* research continues looking into things that the average person believes are settled points. The issue of brain chemistry and food is NOT well understood in humans. The neurotransmitter function of a catecholamine called "dopamine" stimulates a variety of physiological activities in humans that make the human response to food about more than just energy management and/or hormonal response. Dopamine is activated in humans by *pleasure* -- sugar, drugs, sex -- things that make you *feel* good stimulate increased dopamine activity. The sight or smell of *pleasing* food raises the serum insulin level in some humans, (partly) in response to the function of dopamine. And we don't *really* understand why. At this time, a lot of hormone research is done simply to establish *what* is happening inside the human body. Researchers are trying to establish what physiologically occurs under different conditions because they honestly don't know.

For example, two of the most significant regulators of human bodyfat were *discovered* during my lifetime: leptin function was identified in humans in the mid-1990s, and beta-3 adrenergic receptors were isolated in humans in the mid-1980s. Leptin choreographs a comprehensive series of hormonal, enzymatic, and neurotransmitter operations that regulate the level of stored human bodyfat. Beta-3 adrenergic receptors orchestrate levels of fat release from storage and also the rate at which skeletal muscle consumes energy. Both of these discoveries were made when researchers looked into phenomena that the average person probably believes is already well established or even obvious.

With leptin, researchers examined whether obese mice, who ate more than healthy-weight mice, were *hungry*. So they took the mouse brains apart to examine the hunger centers, and this examination (eventually) led to the discovery of leptin. With beta-3 receptors, researchers examined whether bodyfat release is stimulated by hormones. That seems kind of obvious, right? Researchers used drugs to *block* the major fat release hormone receptors in study subjects and then examined whether those subjects would/could still burn bodyfat as fuel. The subjects did continue to burn bodyfat and this examination (eventually) led to the discovery of beta-3 receptors.

The two primary enzymes in the human body that regulate fat storage are "lipoprotein lipase" (LPL) and "acylation-stimulating protein" (ASP). ASP wasn't discovered until the 1980s, but LPL was well-known and was thought to be the key (only) fat storage enzyme. So researchers did something that probably seemed obvious at the time, they manipulated the genes of test rodents and studied whether rodents who were born without LPL could still store fat. The test rodents were still able to store fat and this discovery eventually identified ASP -- and rodents who are born without ASP can't store fat, so the discovery of ASP vastly expanded our understanding of bodyfat regulation in mammals.

The human biochemical response to food is not just about insulin. It's not just about hormones, at all. Our current level of biophysical knowledge suggests that bodyweight/bodyfat regulation in humans is primarily about brain function -- the way that key signals in the brain control the function of hormones AND neurotransmitters AND enzymes AND a vast array of biochemical reactions that we may not yet know exist. Without having read the details of this study, I can't comment on what the researchers are actually *doing* but I do know that research into the functions of known hormones can be extremely fruitful -- especially when examined in the context of brain function -- even if the studies seem to be asking for answers to questions that most people believe have already been settled.

We don't really know *why* the human brain responds to food stimuli the way it does -- humans are quite different from other mammals in this respect, and those differences can't be adequately explained at this time. For example, the past couple of decades of research suggest that humans are a bit more complicated than other mammals, in that human bodyweight regulation may be as significantly influenced by environmental factors as by biological factors. Human bodyfat levels are higher in what researchers call "obesogenic environments" in a way that doesn't directly correspond to strictly biological factors. This probably seems like an obvious question: Do humans who have readily-available food eat more food than people for whom food is scarce? But it *isn't* obvious because other mammals respond to food scarcity by eating more and respond to food abundance by eating less -- the lack of food leads to overeating behavior that stores energy for future use at times when food may not be available. But there seems to be a cognitive element that makes this behavior different in humans.

For example, members of the same family who live in industrialized nations accumulate more bodyfat than their direct, genetic relatives that live in developing nations, even though the family members who live in industrialized nations typically continue eating the same basic foods and recipes as their relatives who live in the developing home nation. Human populations that live in food-rich environments have significantly higher levels of obesity than human populations that live in areas with more food scarcity, but *why* this happens is a question that biological research can't fully address. The biological and physiological theories of bodyweight/bodyfat regulation are currently being looked at alongside behavioral and environmental theories.

Basically, the current research looks at the way that human bodyweight is controlled by internal, biological factors AND is also heavily influenced by environmental stimuli and cultural behavior patterns. And all of these issues are about *how* the human brain operates, which is still an open question. Environmental food stimuli and cultural patterns seem to lead to food behavior that increases bodyweight/bodyfat but the *reasons* that this happens in humans is not clearly understood. Just because this research is looking at insulin and human brain chemistry, that doesn't necessarily mean it's *only* looking at blood insulin levels and things of that nature. So we don't know what the research might eventually lead to.
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 01:37 AM   #11
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,006
Gallery: Spanilingo
Stats: 130 now 102 5 ft 1
WOE: Lost Atkins/mod carb. Maint-HFLC
Start Date: Feb-March 2011
The variables that make it impossible for the research to be thorough are the quality of food choices in "developing nations", and excercise levels . It would make sense that someone with more access to more food would have more access to "recreational" food and more access to machinery, cars , equipment etc ..
Spanilingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 04:42 AM   #12
Major LCF Poster!
 
Trigger828's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,808
Gallery: Trigger828
WOE: atkins 72
Start Date: ongoing lc lifestyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garlic View Post
This is just a snippet of something I found online.... It always amazes / fascinates / or sometimes angers me that people waste money on stuff like this.... He is the snippet:

published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggest that these so-called high-glycemic foods influence the brain in a way that might drive some people to overeat.
Amer. Journal of Clinical Nutrition. sure they are going to publish new studies it is what they do.

I think things we learn and have established about nutrition have to be pounded into the heads of people every single day. I read info about this many years ago YET IT TOOK me many many years to apply it to myself
Trigger828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 05:01 AM   #13
Senior LCF Member
 
Taxbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Longwood, FL
Posts: 831
Gallery: Taxbane
Stats: LBS:215/171/160- - -BF%: 35+/20/11
WOE: 1650 kcals (55 NC/160P/88F) Str Train x2 Wk.
Start Date: December 2010
Think of it like Cigarettes. How did it take for that industry to come crashing down? 30 years or more. Remember there were Doctors on TV commercial recommending certain braids of cigarettes as healthy. The tobacco lobby was pretty strong back then.

Similarly, today you have the sugar/corn/grain lobby and the pharmaceutical lobby in bed with the Fed, who controls the FDA, the USDA, and ultimately the AMA since the FED also controls the money given to researchers at universities to conduct and promote "studies". On top of that, most people with an addiction live in "denile" b/c they wouldn't want to give up their fix. In this case, the fix just happens to be carbs and the average American is addicted to them and lives in denile in the face of what little research comes out suggesting carbs are bad.

In sum, it will take 30 years or more.
__________________
Ketogenic: 30-40 Net Carbs Per Day.
Low Glycemic Loads: 12-15 max p/2 hrs.
Intermittent Fasting: To Boost SIRT1; HGH.
Exercise: Tai Chi 2x, Kung Fu 2x, Strength Train x2, P/Wk.
Taxbane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 05:38 AM   #14
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: West of Philly
Posts: 832
Gallery: Garlic
Stats: 326 / 260 / 175
WOE: Atkins 2010
Start Date: May 25th, 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger828 View Post
Amer. Journal of Clinical Nutrition. sure they are going to publish new studies it is what they do.

I think things we learn and have established about nutrition have to be pounded into the heads of people every single day. I read info about this many years ago YET IT TOOK me many many years to apply it to myself
Then market what you have, IMO... Stop wasting money on new studies that show what is already known.
Garlic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 05:38 AM   #15
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,261
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/114/115-120
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance. Ketogenic PHD.
Start Date: 11 Dec. 2011 Restart 1 Jan 2013
I strongly agree with Trillex and Ntombi.

The Clinical Trials description of this study is: Glycemic Index and Brain Function - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

The abstract is fairly interesting Effects of dietary glycemic index on brain regions related to reward and craving in men although the NYT piece that was extracted in the OP is a reasonable account.

The Clinical Trials gives a description of the shake that was used as the test meals. They used corn starch in the lower GI shake and corn syrup in the higher GI shake. They have some useful ambitions for the work:
Quote:
This work will inform an integrated physiological model relating peripheral postprandial changes to brain function and hunger. In addition, findings may provide evidence of a novel diet-phenotype, in which baseline clinical characteristics can be used to predict which weight loss diet will work best for a specific individual. Metabolite profiling might shed light on the mechanisms linking diet composition to brain function, and provide feasible clinical markers of the identified phenotype to facilitate translation into practice.
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:22 AM   #16
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,186
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Yes, I agree as well. I think this might be reporting the same story. The connection to additiction is very important and it also uses foods that some organizations use as 'vegetables' like french fries. The ramifications are very important.


Quote:
A Boston Children’s Hospital research team announced this week that eating high-glycemic index carbohydrates, or highly processed carbs like white breads and potatoes, can trigger addictive tendencies in the brain.

According to the study, eating is regulated by the pleasure centers in the brain, meaning that food addiction is an actual addiction that can be hard to cure. The overweight individuals in the study demonstrated excess hunger after eating highly processed carbs because those carbs stimulated the addictive areas of the brain, which led to more overeating after the fact. Basically, eating processed carbs will make it harder to stop eating once your plate is clean.

In a report, Dr. David Ludwig, the director of the study, discussed the brain chemistry of food addiction:

“Beyond reward and craving, this part of the brain is also linked to substance abuse and dependence, which raises the question as to whether certain foods might be addictive,” says Ludwig.

Ludwig and his colleagues measured blood glucose levels, which are elevated when eating processed carbs, and hunger. They also used MRIs to observe brain activity while the individuals were eating.

According to the report, the researchers followed twelve overweight or obese men:

Twelve overweight or obese men consumed test meals designed as milkshakes with the same calories, taste and sweetness. The two milkshakes were essentially the same; the only difference was that one contained rapidly digesting (high-glycemic index) carbohydrates and the other slowly digesting (low-glycemic index) carbohydrates.

After participants consumed the high-glycemic index milkshake, they experienced an initial surge in blood sugar levels, followed by sharp crash four hours later.

Other food studies have looked at patients’ reactions to different types of foods (like cheesecake versus vegetables), but never at the specific chemical substances in the foods. This study, which is the first to look at a specific dietary factor, could mean that researchers can teach people to stop overeating, perhaps eventually solving the problem of obesity.

So how can you use this information to your advantage? Try to eat unprocessed carbs, which are the foods that you can grow yourself and find in nature. These include fruits, vegetables, potatoes, nuts, beans, and seeds, which are usually full of fiber, vitamins, and minerals.

You should avoid processed breakfast cereals, processed white and whole wheat breads (make bread at home instead), and snack foods like potato chips, pretzels, rice cakes, crackers, granola bars, and cookies. You’ll also want to keep your sugar intake in moderation, and avoid french fries and sugary fruit juices.
The recommendations in this article are pretty amusing considering that potatoes are french fries and those were used in the study. The author seems to not have a handle on what the real and underlying issue is.... Having trouble seeing the forest for all the trees???
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:54 AM   #17
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,165
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 And again...223/215.0/146 5'7
WOE: Misc.
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
They can't admit they were wrong all those years recommending low fat. What I read in the "mainstream" magazines and such is now railing against "processed carbs" but still telling people to avoid fat.

DH went to the doctor yesterday who told him all his health markers were perfect, but he could lose a few pounds. He told him to avoid carbs AND fat. If he did that his hair would fall out. He also told him to take up running, apparently ignoring his chart full of MRIs on his knee (I love to run, but it isn't for everyone).

It is a step in the right direction, but like Taxbane said, it will take years. I really think all the scientists who have staked their reputations on the dangers of fat will have to retire or die, because they will not admit how wrong they were.
GME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 07:01 AM   #18
Major LCF Poster!
 
Trillex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,202
Gallery: Trillex
Stats: 235/135/135
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: 11 May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanilingo View Post
The variables that make it impossible for the research to be thorough are the quality of food choices in "developing nations", and excercise levels . It would make sense that someone with more access to more food would have more access to "recreational" food and more access to machinery, cars , equipment etc ..
I thought the exact same thing when I started reading about this topic. Both of my parents are Caribbean immigrants and I thought, "Well, in the islands, people WALK everywhere." So this field of inquiry integrates multiple different fields of study in an effort to actually quantify the array of different variables between immigrant groups and the lifestyles of their relatives in the home country because you're right, there are countless different variables involved. So researchers have to do cross-disciplinary work to quantify things like acculturation to different food sources among the immigrant population and to examine activity levels. This research overview discusses some different ways of looking at the phenomena based on the literature that has been published by different disciplines:
Acculturation and obesity among migrant populations in high income countries – a systematic review
Acculturation and obesity among migrant populations in high income countries
On a related note that isn't directly about immigration, anthropologists are reevaluating some previously held assumptions about differences in the level of energy expenditure between modern, western populations and tribes that operate without modern mechanization:
In this study, we used the doubly-labeled water method to measure total daily energy expenditure (kCal/day) in Hadza hunter-gatherers to test whether foragers expend more energy each day than their Western counterparts. As expected, physical activity level, PAL, was greater among Hadza foragers than among Westerners. Nonetheless, average daily energy expenditure of traditional Hadza foragers was no different than that of Westerners after controlling for body size. The metabolic cost of walking (kcal kg−1 m−1) and resting (kcal kg−1 s−1) were also similar among Hadza and Western groups. The similarity in metabolic rates across a broad range of cultures challenges current models of obesity suggesting that Western lifestyles lead to decreased energy expenditure.

Hunter-Gatherer Energetics and Human Obesity
PLOS ONE: Hunter-Gatherer Energetics and Human Obesity
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.