Back to Current forum index
| Back to Main forum index Back to Current forum index |
| Author | Topic: does dietary fiber stabalize sugar as much as fat does? |
| Auron 05-08-2003 02:54 PM | or is fat more effective? |
| Michael 05-08-2003 03:41 PM | I have also been wondering about that. In fruits there are usually soluble fibre which contributes to reducing the glycemic index, for example orange typically has a GI of 62, and orange juice a GI of 74. And low GI food is a good thing, except after heavy workout when the muscles should refill their glycogen depots fast. Fruits should also by evolution be designed to be perfect food, and there aren´t that many mammals with juicers out there. The fibres should be a part of the nutritional "design" of the fruit. So shouldn´t it be healthier to use the fruits with fibre and all, without juicing them? Even if one uses fat together with them? I have no problems with acne, so this is not a factor in this for me. |
| Wai 05-09-2003 12:33 PM | quote:not on this diet a low GI means little energy (from sugars), whcih means that more readily ingest too little energy if you eat whole fruits only, you need to keep on eating fruits constantly, and even that may be insufficient for those with a large energy expenditure in such cases it is advised to increase energy intake by all means, and the intake of extra sugar and fat are such means fiber, on the other hand, does not supply you with that needed energy, and the more fiber you ingest, the harder it is to ingest sufficient energy so much for the 'stabalizing factor'; it is simply harder to ingest more sugars when consuming much fiber... so, with this diet, it is already hard enough to ingest enough energy, so i advice to take fat instead of fiber quote:yes, but that was in times when we had nothing else on our mind than collecting and eating food constantly times have changed... quote:there arent that many mammals that care about so much other things besides food juicers simply make this diet a bit easier; which enables you to spend some time on other things than food |
| Auron 05-09-2003 01:54 PM | I don't get it then what does fat do to stabalize sugar I agree that we need quick easier to digest energy but doesn't the fat lower the GI if not how does it stabalize it? |
| benzapp 05-09-2003 10:33 PM | Your body has evolved a greater method of control in the digestion of fat, whereas sugars immediately enter your bloodstream. Through bile, lipid specific enzymes, and some other fun tricks I can't remember, the breakdown of fat into glucose takes much longer(relatively) than the ingestion of sugars. Fat also satiates you more easily than sugars, so you don't overeat which is the main source of blood sugar difficulties. You see very few thin diabetics. |
| Auron 05-10-2003 08:45 AM | so your saying fat only keepes your sugar more stabalized because you don't eat as much sugar and get fuller faster? |
| Wai 05-10-2003 01:45 PM | how fat stabilizes the blood sugar level: there are only 2 direct sources of energy in the blood: sugar-like molecules and fat-like molecules (redundant amino acids from protein are converted in such molecules, prior to conversion in directly available energy) fats are converted into direct energy (fatty acids > ATP), or into glucose (glycerol > glucose > ATP) you can imagine that if one of these sources is absent / poorly available, the other source is more heavily used Thus, when too little fatty acids are available, the strain on the utilisation of sugars is greater, and much more sugars need to get ingested (a greater influx) to have equally much energy (ATP) available. the less great the utilisation of sugars, the more sugars in the blood are spared; the less sharp the decline in the blood sugar level THUS: less greater highs and less deeper lows; a more stabalised blood sugar level . sugars and fats are perfectly complementary; not just because they stabalise eachother's levels, but also because fats are slow, but long lasting energy (esp for the heart and colon), while sugars are fast, short lasting energy (esp for the brain and muscles) indeed, sugars are absorbed and utilised faster |
| Michael 05-25-2003 01:09 PM | quote:I think this image of the close to starvation ancestor is a cliche, and not true. Tribal people living on a stone age level today usually spend about three hours a day collecting food. This is of course in rather benevolent environments, but if one assumes that fruits were an important part of our ancestors diets, they should not have had to spend that much time looking for food. But otherwise I guess I can accept your arguments for the practicality with juicers for our busy schedules today, even though I still think whole fruits should be slightly better provided you get enough energy from them. http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/economy/gathering.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/mander.htm http://www.uiowa.edu/~lsa/bkh/lla/notes1.htm http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html |
| Wai 05-25-2003 01:13 PM | quote:what tribal people? |
| Michael 05-25-2003 02:32 PM | quote:For example at the Trobriand Islands, Papua New Guinea. What support do you have for the assumption that our ancestors had to work very hard for their food? My main reference is in Swedish, Göran Burenhult. http://www.csus.edu/anth/trobriand/depth/GBCV.htm I saw him at TV talking about the shortcomings of our modern diet, comparing it to research of what is known about paleontological diet He has done research on the dietary habits of ancient man, and also studies of diets, habits and health condition of tribal people around the world. His dietary suggestions are very similar to yours, except that he doesn´t seem to be concerned with the negative effects of cooked meat. |
| Wai 05-26-2003 01:01 PM | quote:do they represent what has happened in millions of years on different continents? quote:if you want to ingest enough energy from whole fruits, you have to keep on eating all day ... without organized gardens only gathering quote:does he know about the Maillard reaction, oxidation, and the formed HCA, oxysterols and trans fats? at all? |
| Michael 05-29-2003 11:51 AM | quote:According to Göran Burenhult their diet and food gathering efforts were quite similar to most tribal people in similar climates. And one should also consider that most people in ancient times lived in warm climates, we originated in Africa after all, and all those big deserts weren´t there then. There should have been plenty of fruit, fish, small animals and bugs to eat. |
| Michael 05-29-2003 12:11 PM | quote:I think you are exaggerating. Eating fruits combined with fat from bugs and some meat or fish doesn´t take all day. And if you live in a benevolent climate the gathering shouldn´t have to be that time consuming, provided you know what you´re doing. quote:I don´t think so. He should have a look at your web site. |
| Wai 05-29-2003 02:56 PM | quote: quote:my question was about millions of years as well quote:yes, but gathering these may have been a continous task... quote:searching for fruit-bearing trees may consume some time (insects, birds or other primates may have been first) how many bugs do you need to catch to ingest enough fat? and we have never been specialised hunters |
| Michael 05-29-2003 05:54 PM | quote:I forgot to add that he also meant that their diet was representative for what people eons ago as well. quote:May or may not, I think not. I don´t see the difficulties with surviving in the wild as so monumental, if you have the necessary skill and knowledge. I´ve at least done some theoretical studies on the subject, but the discussion is getting somewhat peripheral I guess. . |
| RRM 05-30-2003 07:29 AM | quote:Based on what archeological findings? |