There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
You just keep making this a better place.
0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
Always enjoy reading your input (sincere, not sarcasm!)0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
Always enjoy reading your input (sincere, not sarcasm!)
Ditto on the sincerity.0 -
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
I recognize instantly that the author's choice of an open journal (Cell) was not coincidental; their writing includes a certain amount of informality that indicates they anticipated and expected a broader audience. Given the press around the Israeli microbiome studies, I'm not surprised. However, they are walking a dangerous line by weaving speculations into the results section. While it makes a 'better read' its poor practice in science writing.
Absolutely agree. I just found it interesting.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.0 -
This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm0 -
IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »When I see a thread that exploded in a short span of time, I like to read the first page, then jump to the last page to see how far things have derailed. In this case, I got a cat eating a banana gif. Win!
0 -
Thanks for the positive feedback.
0 -
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
0 -
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
One's risk of colon cancer is 5% before eating daily processed meats. If you raise that by 18% it brings you to a 6% risk. It is a small increase that some are going to risk.Wetcoaster wrote: »This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm
On my phone, can someone post a "Shut up and take my money" meme here0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
yes, and we are all aware of the point you are making ..0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
pretty sure nothing in this thread is about anyone with a medical condition ….
we understand that some people may need to avoid insulin spikes due to medical condition, but every single post on this board does not need that disclaimer.
In the study, yes. In this thread, no.0 -
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.
- Pre-diabetes means "you are at risk for getting diabetes". It is not itself a disease state. It also isn't a very good predictor of disease state (15%-30% of people will develop diabetes? that means somewhere between 70-85% won't).
- I haven't seen anything convincing that any and all blood glucose spikes in response to eating are bad for anyone. Not even diabetics. Only excessively high spikes ( >180 mg/dL)
- In diabetics, insulin response is borked, so you frequently see unmodulated spikes of >300 mg/dL right after meals.
- None of the data in this study as released suggested the individuals studied were having massive blood sugar spikes; they were all well within the 180 mg/dL recommendation.
- Redefining "bad" blood sugar spikes as those above 115 (which the article doesn't do but the press release does through graphs) requires a quite a bit of justification, which is entirely lacking.
Strike the Spike - Diabetes Self-Management
Checking Your Blood Glucose - American Diabetes Association
Management of Hyperglycemia in Type2 Diabetes - A Patient Centered Approach (Diabetes Care 2012)0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I don't know if you read that study, but there were prediabetics included in it. So if we are going to discuss it, that must be taken into account.
- Pre-diabetes means "you are at risk for getting diabetes". It is not itself a disease state. It also isn't a very good predictor of disease state (15%-30% of people will develop diabetes? that means somewhere between 70-85% won't).
- I haven't seen anything convincing that any and all blood glucose spikes in response to eating are bad for anyone. Not even diabetics. Only excessively high spikes ( >180 mg/dL)
- In diabetics, insulin response is borked, so you frequently see unmodulated spikes of >300 mg/dL right after meals.
- None of the data in this study as released suggested the individuals studied were having massive blood sugar spikes; they were all well within the 180 mg/dL recommendation.
- Redefining "bad" blood sugar spikes as those above 115 (which the article doesn't do but the press release does through graphs) requires a quite a bit of justification, which is entirely lacking.
Strike the Spike - Diabetes Self-Management
Checking Your Blood Glucose - American Diabetes Association
Management of Hyperglycemia in Type2 Diabetes - A Patient Centered Approach (Diabetes Care 2012)
*mic drop*0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When applying this study to those that don't have defective genes for glucose metabolism (diabetes genes) in the first place, I can understand your point. But for those that do have these genes, an unusually high surge after meals is problematic.Wetcoaster wrote: »This is an interesting study
http://news.meta.com/2015/11/19/cell-nutrition-is-personal-identical-foods-produce-healthy-and-unhealthy-responses-in-different-individuals/
Nutrition is personal. A high degree of variability exists in the responses of different people to the same food.
The collected observations further revealed both an individual’s responses to the same food were reproducible, and that there exists a high levels of variability in the responses of different individuals to the same foods. The researchers found that the food associated with an individual’s highest glucose response varied greatly between individuals. Foods that induced a “healthy” response in one individual might induce an “unhealthy” response in another. In a particularly compelling figure, the researchers showed an example where two participants had opposite responses to cookies and bananas
I don't feel this study really makes a case why normal blood sugar fluctuations following meals are unhealthy in and of themselves, particularly as their illustrated levels look well within established post-meal guidelines. The R-value correlations with obesity and H1CA levels, never mind actual disease, are unconvincing in establishing a causal effect. Thus labeling the fluctuations in blood glucose "healthy" and "unhealthy" seems a long stretch here.
There are other medical conditions that do better when insulin is kept low or stable as well. So, yeah, studies about insulin are generally of interest to people dealing with a medical condition.0 -
Disclaimer: I'm not going to say that science won't indicate stricter control on blood sugar is good, and that in 20 years they'll recommend keeping spikes under a lower number. Only that there is no strong evidence at this time supporting such strict blood sugar control as this study claims to have achieved.0
-
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
One's risk of colon cancer is 5% before eating daily processed meats. If you raise that by 18% it brings you to a 6% risk. It is a small increase that some are going to risk.Wetcoaster wrote: »This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm
On my phone, can someone post a "Shut up and take my money" meme here
Making all kindz of gainz, anabolic and alcoholic.0 -
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
One's risk of colon cancer is 5% before eating daily processed meats. If you raise that by 18% it brings you to a 6% risk. It is a small increase that some are going to risk.Wetcoaster wrote: »This however I like Beer-Protein Shakes Are Being Crowdfunded As We Speak
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/100dts/beer-protein-shakes-are-being-crowdfunded-as-we-sp/bc04ef3b-d885-48eb-b451-9eac83d10e3d.htm
On my phone, can someone post a "Shut up and take my money" meme here
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions