CEREAL!!!

LauraSmyth28

100g of cereal is a huge amount. A normal amount is 30g which is a decent sized portion. I don't think it's particularly high calorie for that amount

^^^ This

I'm currently eating special K with almonds and it's 119 cals for 30g (I don't drink milk).

Not bad.

meli_medina

But the research is proving that high sugar diets can lead to insulin resistance, and insulin resistance is a really bad thing to deal with.

Furthermore, if we mildly increased the insulin resistance of everyone who has read this post will probably take at least one to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus levels - many people dont even realise they suffer from diabetes.

To conclude. As I have said many times in this post, feel free to eat a bowl of cereal, just choose the right types of cereal and dont be conned into thinking there all good for you because they say "FORTIFIED WITH VITAMINS AND MINERALS".

I didn't even read the rest of what you put in because it was a novel and a half... but I am going to respond mainly to your first quoted sentence.

From http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/

Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: No, it does not. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors. Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories, whether from sugar or from fat, can contribute to weight gain. If you have a history of diabetes in your family, eating a healthy meal plan and regular exercise are recommended to manage your weight.

Myth: People with diabetes can't eat sweets or chocolate.
Fact: If eaten as part of a healthy meal plan, or combined with exercise, sweets and desserts can be eaten by people with diabetes. They are no more “off limits” to people with diabetes than they are to people without diabetes.

I have mentioned that my father has diabetes. He doesn't take insulin or pills, unless he gets an infection and it throws his blood sugar out of whack. He is not insulin dependent. He manages his diabetes through his diet, which contains cereal, donuts, chocolate bars, and ice cream, all of which have a high GI.

Because my father has T2, I watch my weight. But more than that, I watch my weight because my grandmother died of a heart attack at 50 years old, her Mom died of a heart attack at 49 years old, and my father had his first heart attack at 32 years old. Diabetes didn't even play a role in his health problems until he made it to his 50's.

There are so many people who are scared of getting diabetes and people like you help feed the fear. Eating Coco Puffs will not cause someone to become diabetic or insulin resistant. They have to have a predisposition in their genetics and have to be eating more calories than they should be consuming. It doesn't matter if those calories are in the form of butter or sucrose.

So please, stop beating a horse that is not only dead, but never should have been killed in the first place.

Acg67

First up, no im not saying that snickers is healthier than a watermelon. This is because snickers obviously lack in a lot of micronutrients in comparison to watermelon. The reason I used the example of dark choclate is because its been shown to be help reduce blood pressure, endothelial function and insulin sensitivitiy. I wasnt suggesting you should actually eat dark chocolate for breakfast I was making a point using an example.

But you spent most of this thread demonizing fructose, and dark chocolate contains sucrose which is part fructose, so to quote you "Sorry, but that undermines most of your argument."

Fourthly.. You think GI is meaningless? Sorry, but that undermines most of your argument....

After adjustment for potential confounding variables, intakes of total dietary fiber, cereal fiber, fruit fiber, and whole grains were inversely associated, whereas glycemic index and glycemic load were positively associated with HOMA-IR. The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was significantly lower among those in the highest quintile of cereal fiber (odds ratio [OR] 0.62; 95% CI 0.45–0.86) and whole-grain (0.67; 0.48–0.91) intakes relative to those in the lowest quintile category after adjustment for confounding lifestyle and dietary factors. Conversely, the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was significantly higher among individuals in the highest relative to the lowest quintile category of glycemic index (1.41; 1.04–1.91). Total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, fruit fiber, vegetable fiber, legume fiber, glycemic load, and refined grain intakes were not associated with prevalence of the metabolic syndrome. - http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/2/538.short

The resulting glycemic index classification of foods provided a numeric physiologic classification of relevant carbohydrate foods in the prevention and treatment of diseases such as diabetes. Since then, low-glycemic-index diets have been shown to lower urinary C-peptide excretion in healthy subjects, improve glycemic control in diabetic subjects, and reduce serum lipids in hyperlipidemic subjects. Furthermore, consumption of low-glycemicindex diets has been associated with higher HDL-cholesterol concentrations and, in large cohort studies, with decreased risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Case-control studies have also shown positive associations between dietary glycemic index and the risk of colon and breast cancers. Despite inconsistencies in the data, sufficient, positive findings have emerged to suggest that the dietary glycemic index is of potential importance in the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases. - http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/1/266S.short

Let's look at some RCTs on GI

An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.

Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.

No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

CONCLUSION:

This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.

As for your copy paste from wikipedia, look into the difference in metabolic pathways between mice/rats and humans, particularly at rates of DNL

And finally - http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/6/1760.short

Conclusions: A 7-d high-fructose diet increased ectopic lipid deposition in liver and muscle and fasting VLDL-triacylglycerols and decreased hepatic insulin sensitivity. Fructose-induced alterations in VLDL-triacylglycerols appeared to be of greater magnitude in the OffT2D group, which suggests that these individuals may be more prone to developing dyslipidemia when challenged by high fructose intakes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00523562.


The above shows evidence that eating a high-fructose diet can increase the risk of developing T2DM (Especially if you are already IGT - Impaired glucose tolerance) and increase obesity.

Again context matters, in that study they were consuming 35% over their maintenance in fructose, I don't see the actual diets broken down, but let's assume a 200lb man @ 25% bf. They would have been given 239g of fructose a day in that study.

Let's look at something actually based in reality

The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial. Metabolism. 2011 Nov;60(11):1551-9. Epub 2011 May 31
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21621801

One of the proposed causes of obesity and metabolic syndrome is the excessive intake of products containing added sugars, in particular, fructose. Although the ability of excessive intake of fructose to induce metabolic syndrome is mounting, to date, no study has addressed whether a diet specifically lowering fructose but not total carbohydrates can reduce features of metabolic syndrome. A total of 131 patients were randomized to compare the short-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets-a low-fructose diet vs a moderate natural fructose diet-on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters. Patients were randomized to receive 1500, 1800, or 2000 cal diets according to sex, age, and height. Because natural fructose might be differently absorbed compared with fructose from added sugars, we randomized obese subjects to either a low-fructose diet (<20 g/d) or a moderate-fructose diet with natural fruit supplements (50-70 g/d) and compared the effects of both diets on the primary outcome of weight loss in a 6-week follow-up period. Blood pressure, lipid profile, serum glucose, insulin resistance, uric acid, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and quality of life scores were included as secondary outcomes. One hundred two (78%) of the 131 participants were women, mean age was 38.8 ± 8.8 years, and the mean body mass index was 32.4 ± 4.5 kg/m(2). Each intervention diet was associated with significant weight loss compared with baseline. Weight loss was higher in the moderate natural fructose group (4.19 ± 0.30 kg) than the low-fructose group (2.83 ± 0.29 kg) (P = .0016). Compared with baseline, each intervention diet was associated with significant improvement in secondary outcomes. Reduction of energy and added fructose intake may represent an important therapeutic target to reduce the frequency of obesity and diabetes. For weight loss achievement, an energy-restricted moderate natural fructose diet was superior to a low-fructose diet.

leomentlines

OP, try Kashi GoLean or Special K Protein Plus (I ~think~ that's the name)

I love other varieties, but the fiber/protein in these two keep me full longer.. Normally I'll be hungry not even two hours later if I eat something like a bowl of Life cereal (my favorite kind)

JoniBologna

I can accept that I have failed to clarify my actual point, and the original mistype of writing "killer cereal" has seriously undermined my argument.

I never meant to suggest eating a bowl of cereal was going to kill you.

This is where my problem lies. This was not a "mistype". You did not accidentally hit a button, which made that sentence appear. You said it to be alarming and to get more attention to your post. Please do not pass off alarmist information to other users like it is absolute. What you are doing is dangerous, and quite frankly, hurts your credibility.

candiceanderson84

I agree...I think to each its own as well. I eat cereal a lot through out my diet and it has not impacted my weight loss at all. I remember to eat in moderation and I still enjoy my special K, Krave, Cheerios, etc.