RoR: Forum

I agree that the bureaucratic dolts in government should keep their laws out of my digestive system.

There ought to be a separation of Diet and State for the same or similar reasons that there ought to be a separation of Church and State. Hard, general rules will never be able to be better than individualized advice from working with doctors, yourself, and other health professionals.

That said, much of the reason that government mandates have produced so much disease and discomfort, is because nutritional advice was never brought back to the level of genetics. Nutrition advice has been like a floating abstraction, not rooted in anything fundamental. Loren Cordain, author of The Paleo Diet, has been one of the forward-thinking researchers successful in grounding nutrition in genetics (and evolution).

Some scientist once said that nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of genetics. Nutrition (a biological science) is no exception.

Ed

Post 1

Monday, August 2, 2010 - 7:15pm

From the article:

In an analysis of the daily food intake of some 350,000 people published in the March issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers at the Children�s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found no link between the amount of saturated fat that a person consumed and the risk of heart disease. One reason, the researchers speculate, is that saturated fat raises levels of so-called good, or HDL, cholesterol, which may offset an accompanying rise in general cholesterol. A few weeks later, researchers at Harvard released their own analysis of data from 20 studies around the world, concluding that those who eat four ounces of fresh (not processed) red meat every day face no increased risk of heart disease.

First of all, I'm allergic to eggs, so there's no egg on my face! ;-) Secondly, 4 ounces of red meat every day is not very much. Even Pritikin allows that much on his diet, which is very low in fat (10% of total calories). If the rest of the diet is low in fat, you're fine. The problem comes when people consume far more than that -- 30-45% of total calories as fat, which is the amount in the average American diet.

Secondly, as far as HDL cholesterol, it can help if it's high enough, but if it's low, then you need to keep the total cholesterol low. It's the LDL that's important, and that can go up with an increase in total cholesterol, despite a concurrent rise in HDL. Generally, a person's Total/HDL ratio is pretty stable. Mine is around 5, which is not very good, so I need to keep my total low. If my total goes up to 250, which it was at one point in my life, then my HDL will be only 50, which will make my LDL too high. But if my total is 125, say, then my HDL will be 25, and accordingly my LDL will be much lower and safer. So one can't simply ignore total cholesterol on the assumption that if it goes up, the HDL will go up as well, because it may not, and probably will not, be enough to compensate for the rise in the total cholesterol.

Finally, the recommendation hasn't simply been to eat high-glycemic carbs; its been to substitute high-fiber, relatively-low glycemic carbs for the high-fat foods. Nor is the problem due simply to people who consume potatoes, white rice, and white bread. Granted, these foods do trigger insulin production, but if the diet is very low in fat, the body is far more insulin sensitive, and not as much insulin is required to metabolize the carbs. As a result, blood sugar does not rise very much. I eat a lot of carbs, and some high glycemic ones as well, but my fasting glucose is always in the 70's, and a recently tested random glucose only three hours after I'd eaten was also in the 70's. The reason is that my diet is very low in fat, so my body is very insulin sensitive. People I know who are much younger than I have fasting glucoses in the 90's and higher. But, of course, they follow a diet that is higher in fat than mine.

The problem for the average American who is diabetic or pre-diabetic is not the white rice, white bread or potatoes, but the Crispy Cream donuts, the cookies, pies and cakes, the snacks like chips and dip, the jams and jellies, pancakes and waffles, etc., and of course the ice cream with all the fat and sugar it has. These are the foods that are causing people to have problems, and observe that they typically eat a fair amount of fat along with these carbs like butter on pancakes, and the fats in the snacks and cookies, etc.

There's a lot of misinformation and confusion on diet and even people who claim to be experts on the subject are not well informed.

Post 2

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 - 5:32am

Another convincing argument for 50 experiments run in parallel, not 1 massive single point of failure experiment run serially.

We should be learning from each other's successes and failures, in parallel.

The function of national federal oversite should be as a clearinghouse, scorekeeper, not setter of 'the' policy.

Post 3

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 - 1:36pm

Bill,

The problem comes when people consume far more than that -- 30-45% of total calories as fat, which is the amount in the average American diet.

You're putting too dull a point on it (which is a potential disservice to readers). The problem isn't as easy as cutting fat. It never was. A half-century ago, Ancel Keys said it was. Quite a few researchers since his time have acknowledged now that it isn't. You are one of the ones still saying that it is (one of the "old dogs", unable or unwilling to learn the new tricks).

Secondly, as far as HDL cholesterol, it can help if it's high enough, but if it's low, then you need to keep the total cholesterol low.

True, but unacceptable (you are putting too fine a point on it). You act like you cannot do anything to alter your HDL cholesterol. You are stuck in the 'drug research' model of thinking. Drug companies drive a lot of research. If there isn't an approved drug which does something -- you are likely to hear either no mention or a down-play of that very thing. HDL cholesterol is an example. For decades, we heard little about it. Why? Is it because it isn't crucial? No, instead, it was because there were no drugs to increase it. Now we have drugs to increase it and researchers can afford to be completely honest about it.

It matters.

It's the LDL that's important ...

There's that 'drug research' model of thinking I mentioned. Is LDL really more important than HDL? No, absolutely not. If not, then why have there been so many researchers over the decades saying so? Because there were drugs to lower LDL. LDL has been given center stage not because it's most important, but because it was more modifiable. Well all that has changed now and we can afford to look objectively at a lipid profile and calibrate and quantify and compare and contrast the risks.

Generally, a person's Total/HDL ratio is pretty stable.

This quote flat-out ignores (evades?) the research showing that you can change your ratio. It's just hand-waving ...

So one can't simply ignore total cholesterol on the assumption that if it goes up, the HDL will go up as well, because it may not, and probably will not, be enough to compensate for the rise in the total cholesterol.

"probably will not" = more hand-waving ...

Nor is the problem due simply to people who consume potatoes, white rice, and white bread. Granted, these foods do trigger insulin production, but if the diet is very low in fat, the body is far more insulin sensitive, and not as much insulin is required to metabolize the carbs. ... The problem for the average American who is diabetic or pre-diabetic is not the white rice, white bread or potatoes, but the Crispy Cream donuts, the cookies, pies and cakes, the snacks like chips and dip, the jams and jellies, pancakes and waffles, etc., and of course the ice cream with all the fat and sugar it has.

That's too dull of a point, again. Both carbs and fats can get you in trouble. For example, particular excesses of either one can lead to type 2 diabetes. Some folks (e.g., those with the apolipoprotein E3 or E4 phenotype) should avoid high-carb diets. Other folks (e.g., those with the apoE2 phenotype) can eat higher-carb diets without the ill effects noted in those with the other phenotypes.

It's this same "listen to me, I have the answers" attitude that led to the government (dys-)regulating dietary intake in the first place.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/03, 1:39pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 - 1:45pm

Appendix (to the post above):

1)
Low-fat dietary pattern and lipoprotein risk factors: the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial.

2)
A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet vs orlistat plus a low-fat diet for weight loss.

3)
One-year weight maintenance after significant weight loss in healthy overweight and obese subjects: does diet composition matter?

4)
Preliminary report: the effect of a 6-month dietary glycemic index manipulation in addition to healthy eating advice and weight loss on arterial compliance and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in men: a pilot study.

5)
Carbohydrate intake, serum lipids and apolipoprotein E phenotype show association in children.

Ed

Post 5

Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 6:49am

Addendum to the Appendix (to the post above it)
*************************
1)
In the first study: Women's Health Initiative trial (8.1 years long), diabetic white women got a 4.4 mg/dl increase in triglycerides for every percent increase in baseline carbohydrate intake! Keep in mind they weren't adding carbs on top of everything, they were replacing the fat in their diet with carbs.

And that resulted in increased health risk.

I may calculate the increased risk soon.
*************************
2)
In the second study: Low-Carbs vs. [Orlistat + Low-Fat] (48 weeks long), the low-carb diet creamed (oh geez) ... the low-carb diet destroyed the low-fat diet (combined with Orlistat) when it came to blood pressure outcome. Even though Orlistat + low-fat worked to decrease body weight, the unfortunate folks in this treatment arm ended up with the same or higher blood pressure!

That's a clinically-significant finding.

Perhaps a side-effect of Orlistat is that it increases blood pressure. I will have to look into that, most specifically to see if the unabsorbed fat is key (or if it's something more intrinsic to the chemical, Orlistat).
*************************
3)
In the third study: "One-year weight maintenance ...", those who maintained their weight loss with a high-protein diet got twice the systolic blood pressure reduction as those who maintained their weight loss on a high-carb diet.

The take-away message is clear:
Higher protein, lower carbohydrate diets are better for lowering blood-pressure than higher-carbohydrate, lower protein diets.

I may calculate the risk difference soon.
*************************
Ed
**Edited for an error

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/05, 1:13pm)

Post 6

Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 6:00pm

Ed,

What kind of carbs are we talking about here? When I went on the Pritikin diet, some 25 years ago, I was eating a high-fat, high protein diet, and my blood pressure was 134/90, which is high, and that was when I was running several miles a day at a 6 minute, 30 second per mile pace. On the extremely low-fat, high-complex-carb Pritikin diet, my blood pressure dropped to 100/70, despite the fact that I had reduced my level of exercise. The Pritikin Longevity Center and Dean Ornish can give you similar figures.

As I say, I'll put my stats up against yours any day, and I'm twice your age! I'll bet that my fasting and random glucose is lower than yours and my blood pressure is lower, and I'm 70 years old. How old are you, my friend?! And what is your glucose and blood pressure on your "healthful" high-fat, high-protein diet?

Post 7

Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 6:37pm

Bill,

The carbs are the kind administered by the researchers. At least one of these studies was totally controlled (in-patient). I'm pretty sure that most added carbs were whole foods, not candies and such -- as the researchers would be sabotaging their own research if they passed out candy & donuts.

I admit that you are healthy, Bill. Perhaps even healthier than me. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm more right when it comes to what the scientific literature has uncovered about diets and human health.

:-)

Ed

p.s. I'm 42 years old (though I still feel like a kid), but -- as I said above -- that doesn't affect the truth and altogether appropriateness of my argument.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/05, 6:39pm)

Post 8

Saturday, August 7, 2010 - 11:30am

Ed, you wrote:

The carbs are the kind administered by the researchers. At least one of these studies was totally controlled (in-patient). I'm pretty sure that most added carbs were whole foods, not candies and such -- as the researchers would be sabotaging their own research if they passed out candy & donuts.

I didn't mean to imply that they were fed candy and donuts (donuts, of course, are high in fat as well). But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily fed nothing but whole grain or low-glycemic carbs either. They could have been fed white rice, white bread, honey bunches of oats, etc. It helps to know the specifics in evaluating this. Also, what percentage of the total calories was fat? I'll bet it wasn't the same as the Pritikin diet of 10% of total calories as fat. The American Heart Association's "low-fat" diet is a whopping 30%. That's not low-fat, except by comparison to the average American diet, which is 43%.

I admit that you are healthy, Bill. Perhaps even healthier than me.

Ed, the reason I'm healthier than you is that my diet is healthier than yours! I wasn't always as healthy as I am now. When I was your age (42), I was not! My blood pressure was too high and my blood fats were too high, because I was eating too much fat. The Pritikin diet changed all of that, and it changed it dramatically! My cholesterol dropped almost 50%, and my blood pressure dropped a lot, as did my risk of cancer and heart disease. You would get the same results, if only you would try it. :-)

But that doesn't change the fact that I'm more right when it comes to what the scientific literature has uncovered about diets and human health.

Well, I don't think your conclusions are correct, Ed. You said that you eat a pound of meat a day. I don't know any doctor who would consider that an acceptable dietary practice. Do you? What does your doctor say?

Post 9

Saturday, August 7, 2010 - 1:48pm

Bill,

From the first link I provided, it is pretty clear that the added carbs were of the healthy kind:
*********************
The Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial tested the effects on chronic disease of a dietary pattern lower in fat and higher in vegetables, fruit, and grains.
*********************

Note that this is the study where these healthy carbs replaced fat -- and this resulted in greater health risk.

In the fifth link I provided, increases in overall carbohydrate led to twice the triglyceride increase as increases in sugar (sucrose) did -- so you can't really blame the increased triglycerides on added table sugar (or sugary cereal, etc):

*********************
An increase in total carbohydrate intake by 1 E% increased triglycerides by 0.02 mmol/L (p < 0.001) independently of apoE phenotype, while 1 E% increase in sucrose intake increased triglycerides by 0.01 mmol/L (p < 0.001).
*********************

Unfortunately, the other 3 links I provided did not have enough information.

*********************
You would get the same results, if only you would try it. :-)
*********************

Perhaps true, but irrelevant. There are trade-offs involved which I do not desire. It is also likely true, and perhaps just as irrelevant, that you would get even better health results than you have -- by switching off of your diet and onto a Paleo diet.

********************
You said that you eat a pound of meat a day. I don't know any doctor who would consider that an acceptable dietary practice. Do you?
********************

I don't trust a doctor to give me diet advice. Do you?

It has been my experience that doctors aren't the experts in the room when it comes to diet.

Ed

Post 10

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 12:07am

Ed,

In Post 9, you wrote,

From the first link I provided, it is pretty clear that the added carbs were of the healthy kind:
*********************
The Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial tested the effects on chronic disease of a dietary pattern lower in fat and higher in vegetables, fruit, and grains.
*********************

Note that this is the study where these healthy carbs replaced fat -- and this resulted in greater health risk.

I went back and checked the conclusions of that study, and here is what it said: "CONCLUSIONS: The replacement of 7-8% of fat intake with complex carbohydrates over 6 y was not associated with clinically adverse effects on triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, or lipoprotein subclasses. Diabetic white women with higher triglyceride concentrations may have greater increases in triglycerides."

It is also likely true, and perhaps just as irrelevant, that you would get even better health results than you have -- by switching off of your diet and onto a Paleo diet.

When I was your age, I was eating what you would consider to be a healthy diet -- lots of meat and fat, vegetables and fruit, no sugar and no junk food. The only change I made was to reduce the fat, and it improved my health dramatically -- dramatically -- so I don't see how going back on all the meat and fat would make it any better. If past experience is any indication, it would just make it worse. In Post 5, you wrote

The take-away message is clear: Higher protein, lower carbohydrate diets are better for lowering blood-pressure than higher-carbohydrate, lower protein diets.

I just took my blood pressure 5 minutes ago. It was 99/58. How much lower do you think my blood pressure would go if I switched to a paleo diet? When I was on something very similar to it, my blood pressure was 134/90.

By the way, what is your blood pressure?

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/08, 12:11am)

Post 11

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 4:07am

By the way, what is your blood pressure?
.....................

Well, mine is 120/70, and I am on a high fiber diet, with about 1/2 lb meat and plenty peanut butter per day... am 6' and 200 lbs... and yes, take vitamins and calcium tablets... healthy, or unhealthy? oh yes, am 65...

Post 12

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 8:03am

Don't you guys think that maybe different people do better on different diets? What if you're like a rabbit and a tiger arguing about what's best to eat?

The high-meat diet worries me, since I know two men who ate that way and extolled the health benefits of it, and died of heart attacks in their early 50s; plus another who recently underwent treatment for colon cancer.

Post 13

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 9:09am

Well, there's meat and there's meat, too - I count fowl and reptile as meat, as well as fish - others do not, for instance...

Post 14

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 12:46pm

Laure asked,

Don't you guys think that maybe different people do better on different diets? What if you're like a rabbit and a tiger arguing about what's best to eat?

Well, I'd say that tiger won that one! ;-) Different animals do better on different diets, that's for sure; but a high-fat, high-meat diet is probably not good for anyone, for, as you say, it poses too big a risk for heart disease and colon cancer.

By the way, Robert, did you hear about the recent study in which calcium supplements increased the risk of heart attack? Apparently, they promote arterial calcification. You really don't need a lot of calcium, if you eat enough fruit and vegetables (alkaline-type foods) to compensate for the acidic foods such as meat and grains. I don't drink milk or consume dairy products and even though I'm 70, my bones are denser than the average 30-year old's. I know, because I recently had a bone mineral density test.

The test result is expressed in terms of a T-score, which is the number of standard deviations above or below the mean for a healthy 30 year old adult of the same sex and ethnicity as the patient. On the T-score scale, 0 represents normal, healthy bone density for a 30-year-old person (the age of peak bone density). A T-score lower than 0 represents lower bone density; a T-score higher than 0, higher bone density. A range of -1 to +1 is considered normal bone density. Anything above +1 is high normal. My T-score was +1.619, which is 1.6 standard deviations above the young mean. I'm not a vegetarian, although I eat very little meat. What's interesting is that vegetarians at the age of 70 have stronger bones than meat eaters at the age of 50. The guy next to me in line, who was no older than I, had a T-score of -2.5. Probably a carnivore who didn't eat his vegetables! ;-)

Btw, Robert, not a bad blood pressure, especially for someone your age. They used to say that 120/80 was ideal. Now they want it to be 115/75 or lower. There's also something called "pulse pressure, which is the difference between the systolic and the diastolic -- the upper and lower numbers. As people age and their arteries harden and calcify, their "pulse pressure" tends to rise. So the lower the pulse pressure, the better; but as long as the difference is below 60, it's considered acceptable. Body builders often have higher pulse pressures, because their arteries tend to harden in response to the stress of heavy resistance training. One way to prevent this from happening if you lift weights is to do aerobic exercise along with it. Studies have shown that aerobic exercise prevents the rise in pulse pressure from resistance training.

Post 15

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 1:29pm

Laure,

***********
Don't you guys think that maybe different people do better on different diets? What if you're like a rabbit and a tiger arguing about what's best to eat?
***********

That's nutritional relativism, but our argument is over the best diet for most folks. It's a "statistical" argument. If you go to www.pubmed.com and punch in these 8-digit numbers in the search box, you will see that my theory is statistically superior (a better diet for more folks than the alternative presented by Bill):

Total Glycemic Load is bad
*************************
PMID: 18249220
"Dietary GL was associated with HDL cholesterol, LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio, and TG (comparing top to bottom quintile HDL cholesterol = -4.9 mg/dL, LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio = 0.24, and TG = 13 mg/dL). Differences in blood lipids and CRP between extreme quintiles of dietary GI and GL were small, but may translate into a clinically meaningful difference in cardiovascular risk."

Eggs (if you exercise) aren't bad
*************************
PMID: 18495465
"These data demonstrate that endurance training improved the plasma lipid profiles of previously unfit, normolipidemic subjects independent of dietary cholesterol intake from eggs."

Dietary Cholesterol (if you eat low-carb) isn't bad
*************************
PMID: 18495466
"These findings are similar to those observed in humans, thus validating the use of adult guinea pigs to study lipid responses to carbohydrate restriction. The results also indicate that the atherogenicity of lipoproteins induced by high dietary cholesterol is attenuated by carbohydrate restriction in guinea pigs."

Protein is a better choice than carbohydrate (when such choices arise)
*************************
PMID: 18541549
"CONCLUSIONS: Substituting protein for carbohydrate in the context of a healthy dietary pattern reduced atherogenic apo C-III-containing LDL and its precursor, apo C-III-containing VLDL, resulting in the most favorable profile of apo B lipoproteins."

Overall, a year on low-carb diets is easier and healthier
*************************
PMID: 18700873
"There were significant differences between the groups for weight, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triacylglycerols and systolic blood pressure, favouring the low-carbohydrate diet. There was a higher attrition rate in the low-fat compared with the low-carbohydrate groups suggesting a patient preference for a low-carbohydrate/high-protein approach as opposed to the Public Health preference of a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet. Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year."

Restricting carbs is better at reducing 'atherogenic' (small, non-bouyant) LDL -- the exact kind of LDL which poses health risk
*************************
PMID: 19083444
"Favorable reductions in small low-density lipoprotein concentrations after 8 weeks suggest that a moderately restricted carbohydrate diet (20% CHO as energy) can promote a less atherogenic lipid profile when compared to the low-fat diet."

Cutting carbs helps with aging
*************************
PMID: 20204146
"CONCLUSIONS: In the context of an outpatient medical clinic, a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carbohydrate diet with nutritional supplementation led to improvements in serum factors related to the aging process. Further research regarding this dietary approach and its relationship to aging is in order."

Protein is better than carbs for overweight, black kids
*************************
PMID: 19825190
"Increases in carbohydrate energy were associated with undesirable effects including increases in several classes of plasma lipids and HOMA-IR. Increases in protein energy were associated with the desirable effect of reduced HOMA-IR"

Eating protein at the expenses of carbs reduces 'risky' LDL
*************************
PMID: 20305576
"RESULTS: Switching from the mod-FAT to the isocaloric high-CHO diet lowered plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations (P < 0.001) and tended to increase triglyceride levels (P = 0.087). Cholesterol content in the larger, buoyant low-density lipoprotein (LDL) fractions decreased, whereas those of the very-low-density lipoprotein, intermediate-density lipoprotein, and smaller, denser LDL fractions tended to increase. These changes were largely reversed when subjects lost weight by consuming this high-CHO diet ad libitum. Switching from the mod-FAT diet to the isocaloric high-PRO diet did not increase cholesterol content in the small-dense LDL fraction and led to decreases in both LDL and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma (P < 0.001 for both).Consumption of the high-protein ad libitum diet accompanied by weight loss did not change plasma lipids further, except for a shift of cholesterol from dense low-density lipoprotein fractions to more buoyant low-density lipoprotein fractions."

The Paleolithic diet is better for diabetes than even a diabetic diet
*************************
PMID: 19604407
"CONCLUSION: Over a 3-month study period, a Paleolithic diet improved glycemic control and several cardiovascular risk factors compared to a Diabetes diet in patients with type 2 diabetes."

This last study is the key. Conventional medicine only finds things out piecemeal -- and could stand to be informed (i.e., improved upon) by the paleo diet.

Ed
Edited for an error
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/08, 7:46pm)

Post 16

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 6:33pm

RM: Well, mine is 120/70, and I am on a high fiber diet, with about 1/2 lb meat and plenty peanut butter per day... am 6' and 200 lbs... and yes, take vitamins and calcium tablets... healthy, or unhealthy? oh yes, am 65...

Mine is low, also, 120/70 would be typical for me. It varies, of course, through the day, depending on what happens. There was one time, as the nurse was running up the cuff, she said, "You know, this is not covered by your insurance."

We have meat almost daily. When we do not, we balance our vegetable proteins. Not so much for fruits and vegetables, I confess, though I do like bananas. My wife hates fish (Catholic thing), so I don't get as much as I want, though I can work in salmon as lox. I've had rattlesnake and alligator, but as the Matrix makes them taste like chicken, it's hard to get excited. Buffalo is OK as different from beef, but my wife objects to lamb ... poor little guys... so I sneak that in without saying anything... We have a brand of beef here in the Ohio Region, called Laura's, sold at Kroger supermarkets, for instance, small herd from Kentucky. Avoids a lot of problems, we think.

I cannot understand why duck is so expensive. At those prices, ostrich is cheaper.

Post 17

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 7:36pm

Black market - the only ducks ye can legally sell have to be farm raised these days...

and yes, buffalo is good, as is the to me, too expensive ostrich, and yes, reptile tends to have a chickeny taste to it for the most part... goat, tho, is delicious bbq'd, and rabbit makes a nice light stew...

Post 18

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 8:56pm

There is a link to the full study regarding the superiority of the Paleolithic diet (mentioned above):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/?tool=pubmed

In it, there is a link to a table (Table 5) of food intakes for both groups:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/table/T5/

Remarkably, these folks didn't go 'totally-Paleo' -- they just went a little Paleo and the other diet wasn't totally anti-Paleo, either (it was like a Mediterranean diet or something). What this shows is that just a little move toward a paleo diet can make a big difference in health outcomes.

The most statistically-significant differences (between diets) in this table were of these 4 things:

**********************************************
...........................................Paleo diet.......Diabetes diet........p value

Carbohydrate (g)..................125 � 43..........196 � 61........0.00001

Glycemic Load (g)..................63 � 23.........111 � 41........0.00002

Calcium (mg)........................356 � 102.......698 � 220.......0.00002

Cereals without rice (g)............11 � 24........172 � 96.........0.00004
**********************************************

I think the important finding is roughly twice the glycemic load in the Diabetes & Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) diet. The calcium in the paleo diet was low, but this may or may not present a problem. Interestingly, this DNSG diet (Mediterranean???) currently eludes me. If anyone can find it online, please post it. All I found on it is a published letter from American dieticians saying that they don't agree with it!:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/7/1258.full

Ed

The primary DNSG study (abstract unavailable):
**********************************************
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2004 Dec;14(6):373-94.
Evidence-based nutritional approaches to the treatment and prevention of diabetes mellitus.

Mann JI, De Leeuw I, Hermansen K, Karamanos B, Karlstr�m B, Katsilambros N, Riccardi G, Rivellese AA, Rizkalla S, Slama G, Toeller M, Uusitupa M, Vessby B; Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the European Association.

Post 19

Sunday, August 8, 2010 - 9:14pm