Specific Carbohydrate Diet
- Thread starter Capsid
- Start date
-
- Tags
- carbohydrate diet specific
Seems unscientific to me.
She also states that grains were not part of "ancient" diets, but were only introduced after agriculture was established. I believe that wild grains were a part of ancient man's diet.
Seems to be another diet based on claims that we evolved to eat the wild foods that primitive cultures ate and anything "newer" is unhealthy...
Or perhaps they are just eliminated...
She also states that grains were not part of "ancient" diets, but were only introduced after agriculture was established. I believe that wild grains were a part of ancient man's diet.
Seems to be another diet based on claims that we evolved to eat the wild foods that primitive cultures ate and anything "newer" is unhealthy...
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
It's crap.
That's my default stance on ANY new diet out there, and so far I've yet to see an exception.
Low carb diet, grapefruit diet, Atkins, natural diets, vegan diets, so far, all crap. At least, the reasons for them are crap. Some work, but the way they work has nothing to do with the "explanations" provided for them.
We're omnivores. We also have a wide range in our operating parameters, so to speak. The body can make up for a lot of what it's missing, so as long as you're pretty close to your nutritional needs you'll be fine. There are a few things to consider for a diet, that make it "good", regardless of other factors:
1. Variety. Any diet that pushes for a majority of a single food or group (grapefruit diet) or the complete removal of groups (low carb, Atkins) is automatically bogus. Avoid it. Some peopel with specific dietary needs may benefit from something along these lines (lactose intolerant, diabetics, etc), but a doctor should place them on it. Eat veggies, fruits, meats, breads, grains, dairy, etc. Get some of everything.
2. Moderation. Goes along with variety. To get a wide variety of food, you eat moderate amounts of any food type. Don't overload on fatty foods, or meats, or veggies. Don't eat signifigantly larger amounts of one group than another. Follow recommended serving sizes.
3. "Process" tree. Eat less of heavily processed foods, more of unprocessed foods. THis is a genenral rule of thumb. Basically, what I mean by processed is how much it resembles the starting state. Low processed foods: steaks and lean meats, fresh fruit and veggies, water. Medium processed foods: Ground meats, canned fruits or veggies, frozen meats (fish fillets and such), pre-packaged dinners. High processed foods: hot dogs and sausage, Twinkies (aka "Oblong Death Sponge"), Anything chopped and form or cloaked into unrecognizeability by sauces and gravies. Generally, more from the low end and fewer from the high end. Has nothing to do with the natural = better fad, but just the idea that the processing typically removes vitamins and minerals. Milk is an exception (fresh is good, but high fat and chance for disease), as some other foods. Use common sense.
4. Ye Olde Foode Pyramide. Think ease of acquisition. Eat more furits and veggies than meats. Eat fewest of sweets and such. Think about how easy it is to get those types of foods if alone on a primitive world. THe easiest are what you need more of. I think this idea has merit because it falls into the accepted food pyramid pretty well, and intuitively it matches with our evolution (we'd obviously evolve to make more use of available foods...meats had to be hunted, and were less common but useful, fruits and veggies could be gathered relatively easily, etc).
Everything else is a fad diet. To lose weight, eat smaller portions and less of them (lower calories) and/or increase your exercise. To gain weight, eat more of each group and exercise. To stay the same, eat the same and exercise
.
That's about all I have to say on diets. If any new diet idea doesn't match up to my four principals, I pretty well dismiss it out of hand unless there is very strong evidence for it. So far, history has proven me right
That's my default stance on ANY new diet out there, and so far I've yet to see an exception.
Low carb diet, grapefruit diet, Atkins, natural diets, vegan diets, so far, all crap. At least, the reasons for them are crap. Some work, but the way they work has nothing to do with the "explanations" provided for them.
We're omnivores. We also have a wide range in our operating parameters, so to speak. The body can make up for a lot of what it's missing, so as long as you're pretty close to your nutritional needs you'll be fine. There are a few things to consider for a diet, that make it "good", regardless of other factors:
1. Variety. Any diet that pushes for a majority of a single food or group (grapefruit diet) or the complete removal of groups (low carb, Atkins) is automatically bogus. Avoid it. Some peopel with specific dietary needs may benefit from something along these lines (lactose intolerant, diabetics, etc), but a doctor should place them on it. Eat veggies, fruits, meats, breads, grains, dairy, etc. Get some of everything.
2. Moderation. Goes along with variety. To get a wide variety of food, you eat moderate amounts of any food type. Don't overload on fatty foods, or meats, or veggies. Don't eat signifigantly larger amounts of one group than another. Follow recommended serving sizes.
3. "Process" tree. Eat less of heavily processed foods, more of unprocessed foods. THis is a genenral rule of thumb. Basically, what I mean by processed is how much it resembles the starting state. Low processed foods: steaks and lean meats, fresh fruit and veggies, water. Medium processed foods: Ground meats, canned fruits or veggies, frozen meats (fish fillets and such), pre-packaged dinners. High processed foods: hot dogs and sausage, Twinkies (aka "Oblong Death Sponge"), Anything chopped and form or cloaked into unrecognizeability by sauces and gravies. Generally, more from the low end and fewer from the high end. Has nothing to do with the natural = better fad, but just the idea that the processing typically removes vitamins and minerals. Milk is an exception (fresh is good, but high fat and chance for disease), as some other foods. Use common sense.
4. Ye Olde Foode Pyramide. Think ease of acquisition. Eat more furits and veggies than meats. Eat fewest of sweets and such. Think about how easy it is to get those types of foods if alone on a primitive world. THe easiest are what you need more of. I think this idea has merit because it falls into the accepted food pyramid pretty well, and intuitively it matches with our evolution (we'd obviously evolve to make more use of available foods...meats had to be hunted, and were less common but useful, fruits and veggies could be gathered relatively easily, etc).
Everything else is a fad diet. To lose weight, eat smaller portions and less of them (lower calories) and/or increase your exercise. To gain weight, eat more of each group and exercise. To stay the same, eat the same and exercise
.That's about all I have to say on diets. If any new diet idea doesn't match up to my four principals, I pretty well dismiss it out of hand unless there is very strong evidence for it. So far, history has proven me right
Many diets and dieticians are promoting complex carbohydrates on the grounds that they release their energy more slowly and tend to be less processed:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002469.htm
It therefore seems a little faddy to eliminate these and instead just ingest those which give you an immediate spike of energy.
The effect on IBS is almost certain to be due to O B E C A L P
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002469.htm
It therefore seems a little faddy to eliminate these and instead just ingest those which give you an immediate spike of energy.
The effect on IBS is almost certain to be due to O B E C A L P
Capsid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,845
Thanks all for your responses. The Don, what is O B E C A L P? Although I'm asking in regard to IBD rather than IBS. I started the thread because on another forum this diet was put up as being the answer (no more flare ups) for IBD, whereas my understanding is that it is not diet related, although IBS is.
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,608
How fast a carbohydrate elevates blood sugar has nothing to do with whether it is a simple or complex one. This is the concept of the glycemic index and there is no way to predict it other than ingesting a certain quantity of a carbohydrate and measuring blood sugar in specified intervals. Potatoes eg are a source of a complex carbohydrate yet they raise blood sugar much faster than fructose which is a simple carbohydrate. Keep in mind that simultaneous ingestion of other carbohydrates or fats or protein dramatically changes the gi of the mix, so in practice the gi concept is useless to anyone except for diabetics and certain athletes.
And just from the quoted text (I am too nervous to read the full description of another idiotic diet) I can say that yes, that diet is a total crap too, because simply there is nothing that substantiates the claim that complex carbs are not easily digested. Not to mention the aother claims of course (harmful bacteria, inflammation ect.)
Move on.
And just from the quoted text (I am too nervous to read the full description of another idiotic diet) I can say that yes, that diet is a total crap too, because simply there is nothing that substantiates the claim that complex carbs are not easily digested. Not to mention the aother claims of course (harmful bacteria, inflammation ect.)
Move on.
Let's look at the statement you selected from the website:
While this is true, there are specific enzymes in the brush border of the small intestine that breakdown disaccharides (maltose, sucrose, lactose, etc.) into their monosaccharide components so they can be absorbed by specific transporters.
Again, a "complex carbohydrate" can be anything from starch to gluten to fiber. Corresponding foods these are found in can range from anything from pasta to apples to brocolli. Large molecules are broken down by specific enzymes released in the digestive process, namely hydrolases that break-down the bonds in these polysaccharides. Amylase, as was suggested by Xeriar, works both in saliva in the mouth, which starts the process although it is then inactivated at the low pH in the stomach, and then continues in the small intestine by pancreatic amylase that is released into the duodenum. Again, the brush border enzymes break these sugars down into their absorbable monosaccharide components. There is even an enzyme in the brush border that will break down trehelose, a component sugar found in insects (which suggest in an evolutionarily sense that insects made up a large part of our ancestors diet).
Again, this is a bit of a misleading statement. Most carbohydrates available in the standard diet - in fact the majority of them - are easily digested. Some exceptions are the ones found in beans and other legumes that pass into parts of the intestine that contain high numbers of bacteria ready to digest what can't absorbed. These bacteria are, by no means, normally harmful. In fact, they are beneficial and produce things like Vitamin K, which the body needs to make clotting factors.
This is bollocks. Pure and simple. The only harmful bacteria routinely seen anywhere in the GI tract is H. pylori in the lower stomach and upper small intestine. Of course, this bacteria is not supposed to be there and, if found, is treated with medicines to eliminate it. Another common instance when the normal flora of the intestines can become problematic is when certain antibiotics are given that tip the balance in favor of overgrowth of one particular species. Otherwise, if you have a "harmful" bacteria in your intestine, you are likely to be sick. The normal flora is not considered in any way, shape, or form to be harmful... provided it stays in the gut.
So, this part of that statement is complete b.s. Bacteria growth is normally well-balanced in the intestine and indeed necessary to normal health. Likewise, with the exception of certain non or poorly digested carbohydrates, most sugars don't even make it as far as the colon because they are almost completely absorbed.
Again, bollocks. You can't "starve out" bacteria from your body. If you eat a lot of undigestible or poorly digestible carbohydrates, then you will have gas (and maybe diarrhea). That's about it. That's why people who are lactose intolerant should avoid lactose, or who eat a lot of sorbitol or xylitol, or they will have gas and maybe diarrhea.
What's most worrying it that this diet appears to be advocating the avoidance of a lot of foods that contain complex carbohydrates, including fiber, long considered part of a healthy diet, namely fruits and vegetables.
I think this suggested diet is, in a word, silly.
-TT
While this is true, there are specific enzymes in the brush border of the small intestine that breakdown disaccharides (maltose, sucrose, lactose, etc.) into their monosaccharide components so they can be absorbed by specific transporters.
Again, a "complex carbohydrate" can be anything from starch to gluten to fiber. Corresponding foods these are found in can range from anything from pasta to apples to brocolli. Large molecules are broken down by specific enzymes released in the digestive process, namely hydrolases that break-down the bonds in these polysaccharides. Amylase, as was suggested by Xeriar, works both in saliva in the mouth, which starts the process although it is then inactivated at the low pH in the stomach, and then continues in the small intestine by pancreatic amylase that is released into the duodenum. Again, the brush border enzymes break these sugars down into their absorbable monosaccharide components. There is even an enzyme in the brush border that will break down trehelose, a component sugar found in insects (which suggest in an evolutionarily sense that insects made up a large part of our ancestors diet).
Again, this is a bit of a misleading statement. Most carbohydrates available in the standard diet - in fact the majority of them - are easily digested. Some exceptions are the ones found in beans and other legumes that pass into parts of the intestine that contain high numbers of bacteria ready to digest what can't absorbed. These bacteria are, by no means, normally harmful. In fact, they are beneficial and produce things like Vitamin K, which the body needs to make clotting factors.
This is bollocks. Pure and simple. The only harmful bacteria routinely seen anywhere in the GI tract is H. pylori in the lower stomach and upper small intestine. Of course, this bacteria is not supposed to be there and, if found, is treated with medicines to eliminate it. Another common instance when the normal flora of the intestines can become problematic is when certain antibiotics are given that tip the balance in favor of overgrowth of one particular species. Otherwise, if you have a "harmful" bacteria in your intestine, you are likely to be sick. The normal flora is not considered in any way, shape, or form to be harmful... provided it stays in the gut.
So, this part of that statement is complete b.s. Bacteria growth is normally well-balanced in the intestine and indeed necessary to normal health. Likewise, with the exception of certain non or poorly digested carbohydrates, most sugars don't even make it as far as the colon because they are almost completely absorbed.
Again, bollocks. You can't "starve out" bacteria from your body. If you eat a lot of undigestible or poorly digestible carbohydrates, then you will have gas (and maybe diarrhea). That's about it. That's why people who are lactose intolerant should avoid lactose, or who eat a lot of sorbitol or xylitol, or they will have gas and maybe diarrhea.
What's most worrying it that this diet appears to be advocating the avoidance of a lot of foods that contain complex carbohydrates, including fiber, long considered part of a healthy diet, namely fruits and vegetables.
I think this suggested diet is, in a word, silly.
-TT
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Capsid said:
Hooey! Now I've seen everything! Simple sugars were bad, but complex carbohydrates were just peachy. Now complex carbohydrates are bad, but simple sugars are just peachy.
Here's the skinny. There are two kinds of carbohydrates, indigestible ones (except for termites and ruminants) that are cellulose and others, and digestible carbohydrates.
There are simple sugars, such as glucose, maltose, and fructose. There are slightly more complex sugars, such as sucrose (a fructose and a glucose), maltotriose (three maltose), maltodextrine, etc.
Then there are the big digestible carbohydrates, usually called starches, or more pompously, complex carbohydrates. These are chains of simple sugars (usually maltose). They look like a tree. They have parts that are long and skinny and parts that branch out. Plants put energy into making these chains for long-term storage.
There are two main enzymes in the gut that break them apart: alpha and beta amylase. Alpha amylase can seize onto a long skinny part and break it into two. Beta amylase can only nibble away at the end. Since the enzymes are big compared to the starch, alpha amylase works really well with starches that are long, but it leaves these "knots" of starch that beta amylase must nibble away at. Computer scientists will recognize the action of alpha amylase as parallel, and the action of beta amylase as linear.
Now, plants differ in what kinds of starch they make. Potatoes make a lot of linear starch, which few branches. Beans make starch with a lot of branches. Wheat, rice, and the other cereal grains make starch that is somewhere between the two.
Since the action of beta amylase, being linear, is slower, if you eat a lot of highly branched starch, a lot of it will get into the lower gut where the bacteria are, and they'll eat it. This explains why beans make you fart, becuase the bacteria produce gases.
However, alpha amylase is so fast that eating a potato raises one's blood sugar faster than eating sucrose.
Capsid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,845
I revisited this thread after more thought and further posts on another forum.
Is it possible that this SCD diet will promote a specific group of gut bacteria over another group because of the restricted carbohyrdrate types of the diet? The rationale here is that IBD is thought to be due to an inappropriate immune response to the normal gut flora. The trigger for this is unclear but perhaps there is a possible genetic factor (disposition); stress is also a possible factor. So eliminating the gut flora against which there is an inflammatory response would seem appropriate. Wouldn't it?
Can you totally eliminate certain bacterial species from the gut or reset the gut flora by diet?
Is it possible that this SCD diet will promote a specific group of gut bacteria over another group because of the restricted carbohyrdrate types of the diet? The rationale here is that IBD is thought to be due to an inappropriate immune response to the normal gut flora. The trigger for this is unclear but perhaps there is a possible genetic factor (disposition); stress is also a possible factor. So eliminating the gut flora against which there is an inflammatory response would seem appropriate. Wouldn't it?
Can you totally eliminate certain bacterial species from the gut or reset the gut flora by diet?
Capsid said:
I don't believe so. You could, theoretically, do this by taking antibiotics to "sterilize" the gut, then "reload" the gut with a separate species. But, short of doing this, I'm not sure how you could completely eliminate a species by diet alone.
Additionally, I think people often mistake "the smoke and the fire" in such illnesses. For example, there is a lot of talk about "leaky gut" syndrome as a specific entity that causes diseases - i.e., they assume this "fire" that needs to be extinguished. In reality, people who have sinus disease swallow a lot of inflammatory mediators that can cause GI upset and the syndromes associated with what has been labeled "leaky gut" syndrome. In essence, the GI symptoms are caused by the sinus problems, and not the other way around. This is a classic example of confusing cause and effect. Treat the sinus syndrome effectively, and the GI disturbances go away.
-TT
I have read of people using this diet (in some online groups) and their purpose has always been to avoid the gluten found in some grains (protein, not carb) rather than the carbohydrates themselves. I'm not sure if that was the original idea behind the diet, but it is often used for that reason. (And some people do believe in a link between autism and gluten sensitivity, so they use this diet for that reason. )
Capsid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,845
Thanks TT and flume for your responses.
The SCD apparently is designed to exclude certain bacteria which in IBD (such as ulcerative colitis), the immune system recognises these "bad" bacteria inappropriately leading to an inflammatory response in the colon (not nice).
So it is correct that IBD is assumed to be caused by an inappropriate immune reaction to the gut flora and hence the SCD would seem to have some logic. But I have not seen any studies behind this diet and so far it is anecdotal evidence which makes me suspicious.
The SCD apparently is designed to exclude certain bacteria which in IBD (such as ulcerative colitis), the immune system recognises these "bad" bacteria inappropriately leading to an inflammatory response in the colon (not nice).
So it is correct that IBD is assumed to be caused by an inappropriate immune reaction to the gut flora and hence the SCD would seem to have some logic. But I have not seen any studies behind this diet and so far it is anecdotal evidence which makes me suspicious.
matt4magic
New Blood
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 6
To the best of my knowledge there is one way and one way only to lose weight.
1. Consume less calories than the body burns.
2. Do this by altering your lifestyle in a permanent way.
3. Try to keep your diet balanced, consuming enough vitamins, fibres, vater etc.
*. For your own pleasure, keep the speed below 500-2000 grams a week.
The reason all BS-methods work is that they (1) in some way (apart from the really bad ones - they just dehydrate!!!).
There are ways to increase the burn rate, but the most efficient way to reduce weight would certainly be to eat less, train more.
Personally I would like to kick GI-methods in the butt. Why? GI is personal and varies ALOT among persons. The only thing a GI diet can do for you is to keep you from feeling hungry - and I rather prefer to eat whatever I like, in reasonable portions, whenever I like. GI-hysteria and low-carb hysteria made people stop eating white bread, white sugar etc etc. I think this is quite alarming. Not that they do GI or low-carb, but that they do not think critical about it.
One boneheaded woman said "Haha! In diet X they allow you to eat any amount of potatos. They are SOOOO stupid. Have they never heard of GI?". Guess the diet X for a 5 extra bonus points *hint*.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I have lost 30 kg by "permanent" lifestyle change. Still eating the goodies, not avoiding white sugar or bread, excercising, etc.
My dream project would be to gain back my weight of 125 kg and reduce my weight back to 90 eating all my meals at McDonalds.
1. Consume less calories than the body burns.
2. Do this by altering your lifestyle in a permanent way.
3. Try to keep your diet balanced, consuming enough vitamins, fibres, vater etc.
*. For your own pleasure, keep the speed below 500-2000 grams a week.
The reason all BS-methods work is that they (1) in some way (apart from the really bad ones - they just dehydrate!!!).
There are ways to increase the burn rate, but the most efficient way to reduce weight would certainly be to eat less, train more.
Personally I would like to kick GI-methods in the butt. Why? GI is personal and varies ALOT among persons. The only thing a GI diet can do for you is to keep you from feeling hungry - and I rather prefer to eat whatever I like, in reasonable portions, whenever I like. GI-hysteria and low-carb hysteria made people stop eating white bread, white sugar etc etc. I think this is quite alarming. Not that they do GI or low-carb, but that they do not think critical about it.
One boneheaded woman said "Haha! In diet X they allow you to eat any amount of potatos. They are SOOOO stupid. Have they never heard of GI?". Guess the diet X for a 5 extra bonus points *hint*.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I have lost 30 kg by "permanent" lifestyle change. Still eating the goodies, not avoiding white sugar or bread, excercising, etc.
My dream project would be to gain back my weight of 125 kg and reduce my weight back to 90 eating all my meals at McDonalds.