? For those doing Protein Power

Tater Head · 03-09-2006, 10:00 AM

I am looking at the PPLP book and on page 323, it says " It's easy to deterime the ECC of any food; you need to only know the total amount of carbohydrate it cantains and the amount of fiber or unasorbable "SUGAR ALCOHOLS". I was surprised to see that they let you deduct SA. Do Any of you who do this plan know if they have changed their minds on this since this book was written? I know they have updated other info as they knew more from studies that came out.

I did this plan a couple of years ago and really liked it, so I was refreshing myself this morning.

Also on the same page 323 they say " If the body can't turn a food substance into glucose, that food component can't cause a rise in insulin, and therefore can't perpetuate the insulin-resistance cycle, so it can be deducted. So why on earth do some people count all carbs, even fiber.

Debbie....

.

Tater Head · 03-09-2006, 11:32 AM

whippetlady · 03-09-2006, 11:35 AM

HI- I do PP, and I always subtract the carbs from fiber and Sugar alcohols. Carbs are carbs by default- anything that is not fat or protein is then a carb. But not all of them are absorbable or digestable. I figure if it's not going in, I am not counting it.
Some people avoid the SAs at all costs due to the unpleasant side effects of gas and bloating, some people feel they cause a stall. I love 'em, just have to be real about how many a day I can safely eat. And that's about 15 SA carbs.

lalabella · 03-09-2006, 11:45 AM

as far as i know PP has always allowed the deduction of sugar alcohols...

I don't have my book around me (lent it to dbf)... I know they have talked about sugar alcohols on their weblogs though. for more info from Drs. Eades, here are their blog addresses:

Dr. Michael Eades:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

Dr. Mary Dan Eades:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmd/

and they are both searchable

lots of great info between the 2 of them. Mrs. Eades has lots of great cooking info in her blog as well.

LowCarbConvert · 03-09-2006, 11:48 AM

I have read that sugar alcohols affect different people in different ways, and sometimes cause an insulin response, sometimes not.
I can't handle but 3 grams before I toot.
I don't know wether the Eadeses have weighed in on that recently. They both have excellent blogs though. Maybe if you read through some of the archived blogs you'll find an answer. I've just started reading the archives and they are fabulous! Lots of really great information, logical study analyses, even recipes.

I've been reading PPL and like it very much. Even my husband is reading it, and he never reads.

The only problem with it is that I find myself getting slowely sucked into the world of grass fed, antibiotic/hormone free animals. Boy is that expensive.

Tater Head · 03-09-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whippetlady

HI- I do PP, and I always subtract the carbs from fiber and Sugar alcohols. Carbs are carbs by default- anything that is not fat or protein is then a carb. But not all of them are absorbable or digestable. I figure if it's not going in, I am not counting it.
Some people avoid the SAs at all costs due to the unpleasant side effects of gas and bloating, some people feel they cause a stall. I love 'em, just have to be real about how many a day I can safely eat. And that's about 15 SA carbs.

Thanks for trying to help me out whippetlady, but I already know all that you said. I have both the PPLP and the 30 days plan books,plus, I've done this plan before.

My question was : I was surprised to see that they let you deduct SA's in the first place. Do Any of you who do this plan know if they have changed their minds on this since the PPLP book was written?

Anyone else have an opinion on that???

Debbie.......

.

Tater Head · 03-09-2006, 11:55 AM

Thanks for the replies guys, and the links. I have done nothing but read about the PPLP today, I need to get a life

I'm not so sure I'm going to dedcut them, I have read too much to take that chance in my weight loss.

lalabella · 03-09-2006, 11:58 AM

i have watched their show LowCarbCookworx and they talked about sugar alcohols (also known as polyols) and they had favorable things to say about Erythritol and Xylitol. The other SA's tend to have more gastric impact/distress... but everyone is different!
HTH

Tater Head · 03-09-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lalabella

i have watched their show LowCarbCookworx and they talked about sugar alcohols (also known as polyols) and they had favorable things to say about Erythritol and Xylitol. The other SA's tend to have more gastric impact/distress... but everyone is different!
HTH

Yeah of those two SA I only use Erythritol. I wish we got that show here

belfrybat · 03-09-2006, 12:06 PM

YES, they have revised their opinion on sugar alcohols. Please remember when a nutrition book is written, it is based on the knowlege at that time, and as the knowledge base grows, there will be changes. Here's an entry from Dr. Mary's blog that gives their current teaching:

August 11, 2005
Sugar Alcoholics
Back in the good old days of low carb dieting,life was simpler. A prudent and sensible low carb diet consisted of real food--real beef, real chicken, real fish, real cheese, real butter, real cream, real olive oil, real nuts, real lettuce, spinach, tomatoes, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, zucchini, strawberries, melon...you get the picture. That how it was, back before the tsunami of low carb convience foods flooded the marketplace and swamped the low carb ark. I have to say, we warned the manufacturers and retailers and others interested in the big business of low carb in a keynote speech at the Low Carb Biz Summit in Denver in January 2004 that just such a natural disaster would come to pass if everybody tried to climb onto the boat at once. But low carb was hot hot hot and nobody from the Mom and Pop's to the industry giants wanted to be left standing on the pier. (As an aside, what's currently referred to in the press as the demise of the low carb diet is really nothing more than the demise of the low carb craze in the food industry, with bankruptcies and sell-offs abounding. The diet, in its native real-food form, lives on and will continue to do so, because it works and it's healthy. As Mark Twain said: The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated! Indeed.)

One of the byproducts of the food manufacturing industy's keen interest in going low carb was the introduction of a swarm of new sugar alcohols into the food supply in ever increasing amounts. Where before there was mainly just sorbitol, found mainly in candies marketed to those with diabetes and xylitol, found in sugar-free chewing gums, suddenly product labels sported such ingredients as lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, erythritol, and others.

Instead of just a gram or two here and there from the occasional piece of candy or gum, people were becoming unwitting sugar alcoholics, getting huge doses of a multitude of them each day. Although each serving might not seem like much, they sneak up on you, what with 5 grams in a scoop of sugar-free ice cream, 7 in the sugar free pancake syrup, 18 or 20 in a gooey protein energy bar, and 15 or more in one purportedly "zero-net carb" brownie! (Trust me on that last one, it doesn't exist--not with the first ingredient being almond flour.) Just like cell phone minutes, the grams add up and the bill comes due, as a host of miserable side effects, ranging from bloating to diarrhea in many people and, depending on the sugar alcohol involved, unpredictable blood sugar surges in diabetics.

We get frequent letters from viewers and readers about the topic of sugar substitutes, particularly the sugar alcohols and exactly how they figure into a low carb plan. Whenever we give a speech or lecture, someone from the audience almost always asks such a question. A succinct and totally accurate answer is tough, unfortunately, to give, because all sugar alcohols are not created equal; they don't behave the same way with regard to their absorption, their ability to raise blood sugar or to spike insulin. Even the same sugar alcohol doesn't behave predictably identically from one person to the next.

Our sort of ballpark standard means of calculating their effective contribution to a low carb diet, crude at best, is to count as usable about one-third to one-half of the sugar alcohol grams in a recipe or food. For instance, say the nutritional label of a protein bar proclaims 20 total grams of carbohydrate, 5 of which are fiber, 3 of which are starch and 12 of which are sugar alcohols. The label will likely state--usually in a big red or yellow starburst--contains only 3 grams net carb! Really? Depending on which sugar alcohol(s) contributed those 12 grams, some portion of them will be absorbed to contribute calories at the very least and raise blood sugar in sensitive individuals at the very worst. And, of course, what's not absorbed contributes to the gastrointestinal symptoms that occur with some of them. It would be more correct (not to mention more prudent for people struggling to lose weight and for the diabetic population) to count at least 4 and possibly 6 of those sugar alcohol grams as having an effect, for a total of 7 or 9 net grams. Just doing that little bit of math may help keep your weight loss going or your blood sugar in better control.

lalabella · 03-09-2006, 12:07 PM

me too... of all the SA's i only use erythritol, doesn't mess me up. I like it because it is natural as well. (all SA's are)

Tater Head · 03-09-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by belfrybat

YES, they have revised their opinion on sugar alcohols. .

A BIG THANK YOU

Debbie.....

..

MyCannelloni · 03-09-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tater Head

Also on the same page 323 they say " If the body can't turn a food substance into glucose, that food component can't cause a rise in insulin, and therefore can't perpetuate the insulin-resistance cycle, so it can be deducted. So why on earth do some people count all carbs, even fiber.

.

Because trial and error has shown me that I lose better that way. I believe in the scientific explanation of the fiber subtraction but the feedback my actual body has given me tells me that I should keep counting total carbs.

BTW, I'm an Atkins girl now, but Protein Power introduced me to LC, and I love the Eades.

03-09-2006, 10:00 AM	#1
Tater Head Very Gabby LCF Member!!! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Cave Creek Az. Posts: 3,710 Gallery: Tater Head Stats: 210/186/135 WOE: Protein Power Start Date: January 5th 2005	? For those doing Protein Power I am looking at the PPLP book and on page 323, it says " It's easy to deterime the ECC of any food; you need to only know the total amount of carbohydrate it cantains and the amount of fiber or unasorbable "SUGAR ALCOHOLS". I was surprised to see that they let you deduct SA. Do Any of you who do this plan know if they have changed their minds on this since this book was written? I know they have updated other info as they knew more from studies that came out. I did this plan a couple of years ago and really liked it, so I was refreshing myself this morning. Also on the same page 323 they say " If the body can't turn a food substance into glucose, that food component can't cause a rise in insulin, and therefore can't perpetuate the insulin-resistance cycle, so it can be deducted. So why on earth do some people count all carbs, even fiber. Debbie.... .

03-09-2006, 11:32 AM	#2
Tater Head Very Gabby LCF Member!!! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Cave Creek Az. Posts: 3,710 Gallery: Tater Head Stats: 210/186/135 WOE: Protein Power Start Date: January 5th 2005	bump

03-09-2006, 11:48 AM	#5
LowCarbConvert Senior LCF Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: NW Chicago Burbs Posts: 518 Gallery: LowCarbConvert Stats: (147/120/115) 5' WOE: Atkins Start Date: March 2004	I have read that sugar alcohols affect different people in different ways, and sometimes cause an insulin response, sometimes not. I can't handle but 3 grams before I toot. I don't know wether the Eadeses have weighed in on that recently. They both have excellent blogs though. Maybe if you read through some of the archived blogs you'll find an answer. I've just started reading the archives and they are fabulous! Lots of really great information, logical study analyses, even recipes. I've been reading PPL and like it very much. Even my husband is reading it, and he never reads. The only problem with it is that I find myself getting slowely sucked into the world of grass fed, antibiotic/hormone free animals. Boy is that expensive. __________________ Do you know what breakfast cereal is? It's those little curly wooden shavings you find in pencil sharpeners -Charlie and The Chocolate Factory Karen

03-09-2006, 11:55 AM	#7
Tater Head Very Gabby LCF Member!!! Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Cave Creek Az. Posts: 3,710 Gallery: Tater Head Stats: 210/186/135 WOE: Protein Power Start Date: January 5th 2005	Thanks for the replies guys, and the links. I have done nothing but read about the PPLP today, I need to get a life I'm not so sure I'm going to dedcut them, I have read too much to take that chance in my weight loss. Last edited by Tater Head : 03-09-2006 at 11:56 AM.

03-09-2006, 12:06 PM	#10
belfrybat Senior LCF Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 292 Gallery: belfrybat Stats: 199/153/145 WOE: Protein Power Start Date: June 2005 (restart)	YES, they have revised their opinion on sugar alcohols. Please remember when a nutrition book is written, it is based on the knowlege at that time, and as the knowledge base grows, there will be changes. Here's an entry from Dr. Mary's blog that gives their current teaching: August 11, 2005 Sugar Alcoholics Back in the good old days of low carb dieting,life was simpler. A prudent and sensible low carb diet consisted of real food--real beef, real chicken, real fish, real cheese, real butter, real cream, real olive oil, real nuts, real lettuce, spinach, tomatoes, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, zucchini, strawberries, melon...you get the picture. That how it was, back before the tsunami of low carb convience foods flooded the marketplace and swamped the low carb ark. I have to say, we warned the manufacturers and retailers and others interested in the big business of low carb in a keynote speech at the Low Carb Biz Summit in Denver in January 2004 that just such a natural disaster would come to pass if everybody tried to climb onto the boat at once. But low carb was hot hot hot and nobody from the Mom and Pop's to the industry giants wanted to be left standing on the pier. (As an aside, what's currently referred to in the press as the demise of the low carb diet is really nothing more than the demise of the low carb craze in the food industry, with bankruptcies and sell-offs abounding. The diet, in its native real-food form, lives on and will continue to do so, because it works and it's healthy. As Mark Twain said: The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated! Indeed.) One of the byproducts of the food manufacturing industy's keen interest in going low carb was the introduction of a swarm of new sugar alcohols into the food supply in ever increasing amounts. Where before there was mainly just sorbitol, found mainly in candies marketed to those with diabetes and xylitol, found in sugar-free chewing gums, suddenly product labels sported such ingredients as lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, erythritol, and others. Instead of just a gram or two here and there from the occasional piece of candy or gum, people were becoming unwitting sugar alcoholics, getting huge doses of a multitude of them each day. Although each serving might not seem like much, they sneak up on you, what with 5 grams in a scoop of sugar-free ice cream, 7 in the sugar free pancake syrup, 18 or 20 in a gooey protein energy bar, and 15 or more in one purportedly "zero-net carb" brownie! (Trust me on that last one, it doesn't exist--not with the first ingredient being almond flour.) Just like cell phone minutes, the grams add up and the bill comes due, as a host of miserable side effects, ranging from bloating to diarrhea in many people and, depending on the sugar alcohol involved, unpredictable blood sugar surges in diabetics. We get frequent letters from viewers and readers about the topic of sugar substitutes, particularly the sugar alcohols and exactly how they figure into a low carb plan. Whenever we give a speech or lecture, someone from the audience almost always asks such a question. A succinct and totally accurate answer is tough, unfortunately, to give, because all sugar alcohols are not created equal; they don't behave the same way with regard to their absorption, their ability to raise blood sugar or to spike insulin. Even the same sugar alcohol doesn't behave predictably identically from one person to the next. Our sort of ballpark standard means of calculating their effective contribution to a low carb diet, crude at best, is to count as usable about one-third to one-half of the sugar alcohol grams in a recipe or food. For instance, say the nutritional label of a protein bar proclaims 20 total grams of carbohydrate, 5 of which are fiber, 3 of which are starch and 12 of which are sugar alcohols. The label will likely state--usually in a big red or yellow starburst--contains only 3 grams net carb! Really? Depending on which sugar alcohol(s) contributed those 12 grams, some portion of them will be absorbed to contribute calories at the very least and raise blood sugar in sensitive individuals at the very worst. And, of course, what's not absorbed contributes to the gastrointestinal symptoms that occur with some of them. It would be more correct (not to mention more prudent for people struggling to lose weight and for the diabetic population) to count at least 4 and possibly 6 of those sugar alcohol grams as having an effect, for a total of 7 or 9 net grams. Just doing that little bit of math may help keep your weight loss going or your blood sugar in better control. __________________ ---------------------------------- Brigit-Carol

03-09-2006, 11:35 AM	#3
whippetlady Blabbermouth!!! Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: OH Posts: 6,512 Gallery: whippetlady Stats: 157/133/130 5'5 small frame WOE: Protein and Bourbon Start Date: Feb. 22, 2006	HI- I do PP, and I always subtract the carbs from fiber and Sugar alcohols. Carbs are carbs by default- anything that is not fat or protein is then a carb. But not all of them are absorbable or digestable. I figure if it's not going in, I am not counting it. Some people avoid the SAs at all costs due to the unpleasant side effects of gas and bloating, some people feel they cause a stall. I love 'em, just have to be real about how many a day I can safely eat. And that's about 15 SA carbs.

03-09-2006, 11:45 AM	#4
lalabella MAJOR LCF POSTER! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,646 Gallery: lalabella Stats: 269/249/160-ish 5'9" Start Date: restart Oct 08	as far as i know PP has always allowed the deduction of sugar alcohols... I don't have my book around me (lent it to dbf)... I know they have talked about sugar alcohols on their weblogs though. for more info from Drs. Eades, here are their blog addresses: Dr. Michael Eades: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ Dr. Mary Dan Eades: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmd/ and they are both searchable lots of great info between the 2 of them. Mrs. Eades has lots of great cooking info in her blog as well.

03-09-2006, 11:58 AM	#8
lalabella MAJOR LCF POSTER! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,646 Gallery: lalabella Stats: 269/249/160-ish 5'9" Start Date: restart Oct 08	i have watched their show LowCarbCookworx and they talked about sugar alcohols (also known as polyols) and they had favorable things to say about Erythritol and Xylitol. The other SA's tend to have more gastric impact/distress... but everyone is different! HTH

03-09-2006, 12:07 PM	#11
lalabella MAJOR LCF POSTER! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,646 Gallery: lalabella Stats: 269/249/160-ish 5'9" Start Date: restart Oct 08	me too... of all the SA's i only use erythritol, doesn't mess me up. I like it because it is natural as well. (all SA's are)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode