The Skinny Kid

When a recent study showed no special weight loss benefit from low-glycemic diets relative to other diets, I said:

I’ve always been a believer in the “weight gain/loss = calories in - calories out” theory. Still, the concept of glycemic load has some intuitive appeal. For example, given the link between obesity and diabetes, and the need to control sugar absorption in the latter case, perhaps overweight people should pay attention to glycemic index even if they aren’t trying to lose weight.

As it turns out, not only was I on the right track with that question but other researchers were in the process of answering it.

Insidermedicine Video News : Low Glycemic Diet Lowers Cholesterol, Good for Weight Loss

Dieters who select a low-glycemic load diet my have more success at losing weight, than those following a low carbohydrate or low fat diet, say researchers in a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.Three popular diets have recently received much attention – low fat, low carbohydrate, and low glycemic load. However, there is still no consensus on which diet yields the best results. Glycemic load refers to the increase in blood sugar that occurs following the consumption of a carbohydrate. Foods low on the glycemic index, such as certain fruits, nuts, and vegetables, release glucose gradually into the blood stream. Foods high on the glycemic index, such as breads and pasta, provoke an immediate response in the blood sugar levels and tend to result in increased hunger and overeating.

For people with tendency for high insulin levels 30 minutes after eating, the low-glycemic diet produced a five times greater decrease in weight than the low-fat diet at 18 months. The low-glycemic diet was also more effective in reducing body fat and improving cholesterol and trigyceride levels, while the low-fat diet improved low-density lipoprotein, or “bad” cholesterol.

Differences in insulin secretion among individuals may help predict the success of weight loss programs, and reducing glycemic load may be especially important for those who secrete insulin at a higher level.

Makes sense to me.

Who can resist a headline like that one? As it turns out, however, there are some drawbacks.

ScienceDaily: Could Carrots Be The Secret To A Long-life And Sex Appeal?

Researchers at the Universities of Glasgow and Exeter have found that eating certain plant substances can slow down the rate of ageing - and that females prefer mates that will be long-lived.Carotenoids are naturally-occurring yellow and red pigments found in plants. Animals that eat those plants can then use the pigments to make themselves colourful in order to attract mates. But carotenoids are also antioxidants, which improve an animal’s ability to combat oxidative stress and strengthen its immune system.

This latest research has found for the first time that males eating more carotenoids were better able to protect their cells from damage and so lived longer - and that females found these long-lived males particularly attractive.

The work was carried out on sticklebacks, and compared the fate of fish that all received the same basic diet but had different amounts of carotenoid supplement. Male sticklebacks need carotenoids to produce the red throat patch that they develop in the breeding season and display to females.

Not being a stickleback, but being a fairly regular carrot eater, I have not noticed swarms of female humans rushing to mate with me. The well-known article outlining the longevity/beta carotene impacts on human sexuality was decidedly less encouraging.

Okay, but what about women who don’t share April’s natural attraction to underweight men? Women like my girlfriend, for instance, who was happy enough to see the first ten pounds drop off my calorie-restricted frame but likes the shape I’m in less and less as my weight keeps dropping?

“You might have to change girlfriends,” Paul quips, though it’s not exactly clear to me he’s kidding. He seems quite serious, for instance, as he barrels on into a brief oration on the beauty of the calorie-restricted male physique and the need to rethink our cultural standards of male beauty. “Men are stereotyped and still associated with Arnold Schwarzenegger and that kind of thing,” he complains. “But to be honest, when I see a man like Michael, I think that’s how a man should be. I think he looks absolutely handsome—intelligent, dapper, sexy. It’s a mark of intelligence, of how a great role model should be: slim, bright, calorie-restricted!”

All eyes now fall on Michael, naturally, and for the first time, I get a good look at his hands. And though I’m sure the light must be playing tricks on me, I can’t help thinking that those hands are actually a vivid shade of …

“I know, isn’t it pretty?” asks April. “I love the orange. I call him the Orange One.”

Michael smiles, just a little. “I consume an enormous amount of carotenoids—beta-carotene and lycopene—which are found in foods like carrots, kale, tomatoes,” he explains. “If I had skin like yours, the effect probably would be barely noticeable, but because my skin is an extremely pasty white to begin with … ”

“So wait,” Adam interjects, “you eat so much kale, tomatoes, and carrots that your hands actually turn orange?”

“Yes, isn’t it pretty?” April asks again.

And sure, I’m thinking, maybe it is. And maybe if I look a little harder, I’ll eventually see with my own eyes just how pretty Michael’s orange hands really are. But first, I’m going to need a moment to deal with the slight attack of existential vertigo that’s hitting me just now. All evening, I have let the bubbling enthusiasm and essential reasonableness of my guests carry me past the little weirdnesses that go with being calorie-restricted. But the weirdnesses are starting to pile up, and my guests are looking weirder and weirder themselves, like emissaries from a future I’m not sure could ever feel like home: a world where the food grows in vats, where the porn industry just barely survives on government subsidies, where the physically ideal male has the BMI of Mary-Kate Olsen and the skin tones of an Oompa-Loompa.

I take a deep breath then and think, A world where 80 is the new 40. And suddenly, all those little weirdnesses seem quite manageable again.”

You’ll have to make up your own mind on this one.

For those who thought eating more of anything would somehow lead to lower weight, you will be disappointed with this headline.

Eating extra soy may not promote weight loss | Science & Health | Reuters

Adding soy-protein-rich foods while cutting calories doesn’t accelerate weight loss, a new study shows.Overweight women who ate 500 fewer calories a day than normal while consuming an extra 18 grams of soy-rich food daily for 12 weeks didn’t lose any more weight than their peers who didn’t add the extra soy, Dr. Marie-Pierre St. Onge of St. Luke’s/Roosevelt Hospital in New York City and colleagues found.

You see, it is calories in versus calories out, more than the composition of those calories, that results in weight gain or loss. Still, the higher-soy diet (with equal calories) did lower insulin and bad cholesterol. And those are good things to lower.

For those who thought eating more of anything would somehow lead to lower weight, you will be disappointed with this headline.

Eating extra soy may not promote weight loss | Science & Health | Reuters

Adding soy-protein-rich foods while cutting calories doesn’t accelerate weight loss, a new study shows.Overweight women who ate 500 fewer calories a day than normal while consuming an extra 18 grams of soy-rich food daily for 12 weeks didn’t lose any more weight than their peers who didn’t add the extra soy, Dr. Marie-Pierre St. Onge of St. Luke’s/Roosevelt Hospital in New York City and colleagues found.

You see, it is calories in versus calories out, more than the composition of those calories, that results in weight gain or loss. Still, the higher-soy diet (with equal calories) did lower insulin and bad cholesterol. And those are good things to lower.

ScienceDaily: How Eating Less Might Make You Live Longer

Caloric Restriction in non-obese people translates into less oxidative damage in muscle cells, according to a new study by Anthony Civitarese, Eric Ravussin, and colleagues (Pennington Biomedical Research Center). As oxidative damage has been linked to aging, this could explain how limiting calorie intake without malnutrition extends life span.

That’s one possible explanation.

Practitioners of Calorie Restriction often endure years of light hunger in hopes of adding a few years to their time on this planet. It only seems worth it, however, if the payoff is large.

Genes Discovered That Can Slow Cell Division And May Fight Cancer

Cancer cells differ from normal cells in, among other things, the way they divide. When a normal cell complies with a signal telling it to divide, it also begins to activate a “braking system” that eventually stops cell division and returns the cell to a resting state. When that braking system is faulty, uncontrolled cell division and the growth of cancer can result. Weizmann Institute scientists studied this system of brakes, and identified a number of the genes involved.According to the study’s findings, which appeared in Nature Genetics online, aberrations in the activities of these genes are tied to certain types of cancer, as well as to the relative aggressiveness of the cancer. These insights may, in the future, lead to the development of ways to restore the brakes on runaway cell division and halt the progression of cancer.

Every couple of extra years you live could help you live past the discovery of something that could give you another couple.

Five Food Myths Exposed - Forbes.com

“It’s unfortunate, not only because you end up getting less pleasure out of the meals but also because it’s not good for your health,” says Barry Glassner, author of the new book The Gospel of Food: Everything You Think You Know About Food Is Wrong. “You get more out of a meal physically and emotionally when it’s a pleasure to eat.”What’s more, in chasing down a healthy diet, Glassner says, Americans have accepted as fact a number of myths and half-truths that need debunking.

The myths in question are:

1. Fresh is best
2. Vitamin-enhanced foods are better
3. A meal is worthy for what it lacks
4. Natural means less processed
5. Some foods are inherently bad for you

You can read the article to learn why these myths should be busted.

Practitioners of CRON - Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition, don’t just try to eat less. They try to eat as little as possible while still getting the recommended daily allowances of all key vitamins and minerals. A recent study illustrates the importance of that distinction.

Calcium lowers cardiovascular risk in people on a weight loss program

Université Laval Faculty of Medicine researchers have discovered that taking calcium and vitamin D supplements while on a weight loss program lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease.

It shows how important it is to get all of your nutrients, even if you are cutting calories.

Miracle Muffins sent from the Heavens - The Diabetes Blog

Miracle is a strong word. However, when you see the impact these muffins have on blood sugar — you’ll agree it’s miraculous. Ramsey wanted to create a muffin that his diabetic mother could enjoy without the rise in her sugar. He concocted a recipe that contains generous amounts of fiber, healthy soy protein, low-glycemic sweeteners, and very low in fat. Another fact for good measure - the muffins fit comfortably into the diet programs of Weight Watchers, Atkins, South Beach, LA Weight Loss, Nutra System and Zone.

The muffins look similar to megamuffins, but less nutritious. While megamuffins take longer to prepare (slightly) it is probably worth the effort. Still, these could be a handy backup for when one is either short on ingredients or time.

It may be better than the alternatives. According to Are You Sugar Coating Your Workout:

Most personal trainers surveyed (65 percent) said their clients are fueling their workouts with nutrition bars or shakes. However, both personal trainers and consumers are unaware of the wide range of nutrition content found in popular nutrition bars.

When asked which in a list of food items has the most sugar, more than one in three personal trainers incorrectly identified a Krispy Kreme(R) glazed doughnut as having more sugar than many popular nutrition bars. In an October 2006 consumer survey, half of American adults surveyed made the same mistake in response to the same question. In reality, a PowerBar Performance top-selling* Chocolate bar (18g of sugars) and Clif Bar’s top-selling* Crunchy Peanut Butter (18g of sugars) tip the sugar scale more than a Krispy Kreme glazed doughnut (10g of sugars).

Of course I’m being sarcastic about the doughnut. The article identifies low-sugar nutrition bars as an alternative. But why stop there? Why not have a megamuffin, or a grilled chicken salad? Or a chicken salad made with non-fat yogurt rather than mayonnaise? Why, in other words, turn to a highly processed nutrition bar at all?