Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Preferences

Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition

Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Page 2 of 2 [30 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2

Author

Message

Katra
medicine forum addict

Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 80

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: Note

Re: Black soy beans WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

In article <%UVhe.155$st4.96@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
sarah bennett <anisaerah@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Quote:

Katra wrote:
In article <118g94qcq6oni39@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

Katra wrote:

In article <118fu179br2mc78@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

Katra wrote:

In article <118f5ldlcogh30c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

So people who are genuinely concerned with maintaining a lower carb
intake just went back to whole foods. Fish, meats (relatively small
portions), cheeses (full-fat or not), green beans, chicken, broccoli,
tofu, cauliflower, black soy beans, cabbage, etc. These foods (and this
is just the tip of a large culinary iceberg) combined with other
ingredients higher in carbs still can be the elements of a reduced carb
regimen.

In other words, real food. ;-D

Black soy beans? That's not one I'm familiar with.
Do tell?

I saw cans of black soy beans in a supermarket and read the label.
Seemed too good to be true, so I called the company and asked a lot of
questions. Eden products. I spoke with a pleasant and knowledgeable
woman who read me the lab reports about the nutritional analyses they
had had done. Blew me away. Because of labeling laws, the numbers on the
can are all rounded in the directions mandated, up or down. The real
numbers are better than the ones on the can. And they're very good for
low carbing. Comes to 3.5 grams net carb in a 15-ounce can.

Here's a rather full description:
http://www.edenfoods.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=21_32&products_id=1
03
05
0

I've taken to buying big bags of dry beans and cooking my own (and
giving some to other people who might be interested).
http://www.edenfoods.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=31_66&products_id=1
02
81
4

Cheaper and I can make them taste however I want. Put them in soups.
Cook them into whatever form I want. Refried beans. Chili with beans.
Use them in pureed soups as thickeners (not from starch; just from
texture). Eat them cold with a vinaigrette. Or just plain with a dab of
butter, drop of lemon juice.

Happy beans...

Pastorio

I love beans...
This is going to be a godsend! :-)

THANK YOU!!!!

kisses

May I distribute them to suit myself...?

Just asking, is all...

Pastorio

snicker
Whatever floats your boat..... ;-D

;-* ;-* ;-*

How much do you normally pay for these?
I plan to see if my local oriental market carries them before ordering
them on line.

you should be able to find them at a natural foods market, too.

Whole Foods or Sun Harvest?
--
K.

Sprout the MungBean to reply

"I don't like to commit myself about heaven and hell‹you
see, I have friends in both places." --Mark Twain

Bob (this one)
medicine forum Guru

Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1196

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:46 am Post subject: Note

Re: Black soy beans WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Katra wrote:

Quote:

In article <118g94qcq6oni39@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

Katra wrote:

In article <118fu179br2mc78@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

Katra wrote:

In article <118f5ldlcogh30c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

So people who are genuinely concerned with maintaining a lower carb
intake just went back to whole foods. Fish, meats (relatively small
portions), cheeses (full-fat or not), green beans, chicken, broccoli,
tofu, cauliflower, black soy beans, cabbage, etc. These foods (and this
is just the tip of a large culinary iceberg) combined with other
ingredients higher in carbs still can be the elements of a reduced carb
regimen.

In other words, real food. ;-D

Black soy beans? That's not one I'm familiar with.
Do tell?

I saw cans of black soy beans in a supermarket and read the label.
Seemed too good to be true, so I called the company and asked a lot of
questions. Eden products. I spoke with a pleasant and knowledgeable
woman who read me the lab reports about the nutritional analyses they
had had done. Blew me away. Because of labeling laws, the numbers on the
can are all rounded in the directions mandated, up or down. The real
numbers are better than the ones on the can. And they're very good for
low carbing. Comes to 3.5 grams net carb in a 15-ounce can.

Here's a rather full description:
http://www.edenfoods.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=21_32&products_id=103
05
0

I've taken to buying big bags of dry beans and cooking my own (and
giving some to other people who might be interested).
http://www.edenfoods.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=31_66&products_id=102
81
4

Cheaper and I can make them taste however I want. Put them in soups.
Cook them into whatever form I want. Refried beans. Chili with beans.
Use them in pureed soups as thickeners (not from starch; just from
texture). Eat them cold with a vinaigrette. Or just plain with a dab of
butter, drop of lemon juice.

Happy beans...

Pastorio

I love beans...
This is going to be a godsend! :-)

THANK YOU!!!!

kisses

May I distribute them to suit myself...?

Just asking, is all...

Pastorio

snicker
Whatever floats your boat..... ;-D

;-* ;-* ;-*

How much do you normally pay for these?

Prices on the web site. Plus shipping. Cans I can get in supermarkets.

Quote:

I plan to see if my local oriental market carries them before ordering
them on line.

Not very likely. I had a hard time finding them in bulk.

Pastorio

zxcvbob
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 24

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:17 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Bob (this one) wrote:

Quote:

Actually, the Atkins "craze" isn't dead at all. What's dead are the
crappy products that tried to capitalize on it. They didn't do what they
claimed they did and were rejected wholesale.

People say the low-carb thing is past and gone when the reality is that
there are still many, many people doing it. What's not happening is the
purchase of snacks and other foods being hustled as low in carbohydrates
when they really aren't. Low-carbers didn't fall for the same kind of
hype that low fat dieters bought. It's easier to track results with low
carb.

The fact that those products didn't succeed isn't an indication that the
idea is dead; it's that the products didn't deliver what they promised
and were quickly dropped. Pastas that tasted like old socks and felt
like plastic. [snip]

I bought a box of low-carb penne pasta for 40¢ at Big Lot's, and it sat
on the shelf for months. I finally used the stuff to make a casserole
much like King Ranch Chicken, but with noodles instead of tortillas.

The low-carb noodles were made with soy flour and semolina, and were
brown when dry. They lightened when cooked, but were still kind of
gray-brown. They were perfect in this particular casserole because the
taste and texture was reminiscent of corn tortillas. I was lucky. They
would have been very dissapointing in an Italian pasta dish -- the
taste wasn't quite right and the texture was nothing at all like real pasta.

If they still have any next time I'm at Big Lot's, I'll buy another
couple of boxes to use just like I used that first box. I wouldn't pay
full price for them.

Best regards,
Bob

sarah bennett
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 2

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Black soy beans WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Katra wrote:

Quote:

In article <%UVhe.155$st4.96@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
sarah bennett <anisaerah@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Katra wrote:

In article <118g94qcq6oni39@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

Katra wrote:

In article <118fu179br2mc78@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

Katra wrote:

In article <118f5ldlcogh30c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote:

So people who are genuinely concerned with maintaining a lower carb
intake just went back to whole foods. Fish, meats (relatively small
portions), cheeses (full-fat or not), green beans, chicken, broccoli,
tofu, cauliflower, black soy beans, cabbage, etc. These foods (and this
is just the tip of a large culinary iceberg) combined with other
ingredients higher in carbs still can be the elements of a reduced carb
regimen.

In other words, real food. ;-D

Black soy beans? That's not one I'm familiar with.
Do tell?

I saw cans of black soy beans in a supermarket and read the label.
Seemed too good to be true, so I called the company and asked a lot of
questions. Eden products. I spoke with a pleasant and knowledgeable
woman who read me the lab reports about the nutritional analyses they
had had done. Blew me away. Because of labeling laws, the numbers on the
can are all rounded in the directions mandated, up or down. The real
numbers are better than the ones on the can. And they're very good for
low carbing. Comes to 3.5 grams net carb in a 15-ounce can.

Here's a rather full description:
http://www.edenfoods.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=21_32&products_id=1
03
05
0

I've taken to buying big bags of dry beans and cooking my own (and
giving some to other people who might be interested).
http://www.edenfoods.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=31_66&products_id=1
02
81
4

Cheaper and I can make them taste however I want. Put them in soups.
Cook them into whatever form I want. Refried beans. Chili with beans.
Use them in pureed soups as thickeners (not from starch; just from
texture). Eat them cold with a vinaigrette. Or just plain with a dab of
butter, drop of lemon juice.

Happy beans...

Pastorio

I love beans...
This is going to be a godsend! :-)

THANK YOU!!!!

kisses

May I distribute them to suit myself...?

Just asking, is all...

Pastorio

snicker
Whatever floats your boat..... ;-D

;-* ;-* ;-*

How much do you normally pay for these?
I plan to see if my local oriental market carries them before ordering
them on line.

you should be able to find them at a natural foods market, too.

Whole Foods or Sun Harvest?

eden makes a canned version that i would imagine you could find at most
any natural foods place.

--

saerah

"I think there's a clause in the Shaman's and Jujumen's Local #57 Union
contract that they have to have reciprocity for each other's shop rules."
-König Prüß

Bob (this one)
medicine forum Guru

Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1196

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject: Note

Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

zxcvbob wrote:

Quote:

I bought a box of low-carb penne pasta for 40¢ at Big Lot's, and it sat
on the shelf for months. I finally used the stuff to make a casserole
much like King Ranch Chicken, but with noodles instead of tortillas.

The low-carb noodles were made with soy flour and semolina, and were
brown when dry. They lightened when cooked, but were still kind of
gray-brown. They were perfect in this particular casserole because the
taste and texture was reminiscent of corn tortillas. I was lucky. They
would have been very dissapointing in an Italian pasta dish -- the
taste wasn't quite right and the texture was nothing at all like real
pasta.

If they still have any next time I'm at Big Lot's, I'll buy another
couple of boxes to use just like I used that first box. I wouldn't pay
full price for them.

I tried the soy pasta once. I'd rather change the subject entirely than
do an approximation this distant.

I've tried several different brands/formulations for a piece I wrote.
The only one that came close was Dreamfields. And I still don't get
their business of somehow sequestering carbs. I've seen comments from
diabetics that indicate that their BG levels stay pretty even with it,
but I can't imagine the technology.

Pastorio

Guest

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 12:16 am Post subject: Note

Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Bob (this one) wrote:

Quote:

Low-sugar has become the new low-carb.

Great! If nothing else, at least Atkins finally woke up the dumb
American consumers to the fact that low-fat is meaningless, if
the
food is stuffed chock-full of sugar!

I'll give Atkins credit for trying to shut down refined sugar
consumption, but replacing sugar with artificial sweetners is not
the
answer.

This level of tight-lipped intensity doesn't lead anywhere. Reduction
of
sugar consumption is one topic. Another is whether to replace it with

anything. Another is whether to use artificial sweeteners. And, as in

virtually everything, YMMV.

In human nutrition, there is no *the* question, so there can be no
*the*
answer. I note that you offer no suggestion.

Blackstrap molasses, honey, maple syrup, unrefined cane sugar,
turbinado sugar, rupadura sugar, and sucanat sugar are a few I'd rather
consume.

Quote:

I assumed there are some, but I haven't found any yet.

Quote:

The Atkins
*industry* (and that's what it is) shouldn't have allowed these
companies to use the Atkins name/symbol. But that just goes to
show
you, again, that the Atkins diet is only about making his empire
more
money... because the diet certainly isn't about health.

Give it a rest. *NO* diet is about health. It's about losing weight.
But
this virulence offers no information beyond condemnation.

No. A diet should be about health. You don't eat "diet foods" to lose
a set amount of weight or to try to maintain a weight. You eat a
healthy diet which will give you energy. And with that energy you use
it to get adequate exercise which will loses weight/maintains the
proper weight.

Quote:

It was Atkins himself exploiting a sham. Now it's his heirs feeding
off the sham.

Quote:

Consuming less *quality* carbs doesn't get any results. The results
these people are after comes from eating quality food in the proper
amounts and exercise.

Quote:

These diet plans come and go and come back all the time. It's just sad
watching people fall for these hoaxs when the answer is staring
everyone right in the face. Quality natural food and exercise, lots of
exercise. But these people would rather pay for the quick fix -- the
diet plans, the diet pills, vitamins pills and the surgeries --
anything to avoid eating their fruits and veggies, and anything to be
able to continue sitting on their couch watching TV and slugging down
sodas.

Patrick

Bob (this one)
medicine forum Guru

Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1196

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:11 am Post subject: Note

Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:

Quote:

Bob (this one) wrote:

Low-sugar has become the new low-carb.

Great! If nothing else, at least Atkins finally woke up the
dumb American consumers to the fact that low-fat is
meaningless, if the food is stuffed chock-full of sugar!

I'll give Atkins credit for trying to shut down refined sugar
consumption, but replacing sugar with artificial sweetners is not
the answer.

This level of tight-lipped intensity doesn't lead anywhere.
Reduction of sugar consumption is one topic. Another is whether to
replace it with anything. Another is whether to use artificial
sweeteners. And, as in virtually everything, YMMV.

In human nutrition, there is no *the* question, so there can be no
*the*> answer. I note that you offer no suggestion.

Blackstrap molasses, honey, maple syrup, unrefined cane sugar,
turbinado sugar, rupadura sugar, and sucanat sugar are a few I'd
rather consume.

Your body sees sugar as sugar. The tiny bit of other trace items don't
alter how you assimilate the sugars.

Quote:

And now that the Adkins craze is dead, low-sugar doesn't mean
it's ok to eat lots of carbs...

Actually, the Atkins "craze" isn't dead at all. What's dead are
the crappy products that tried to capitalize on it. They
didn't do what they claimed they did and were rejected
wholesale.

Many of the crappy products were Atkins' approved.

*Some* of the crappy products. And some of the good ones. I see
that balance isn't important.

I assumed there are some, but I haven't found any yet.

The Atkins *industry* (and that's what it is) shouldn't have
allowed these companies to use the Atkins name/symbol. But that
just goes to show you, again, that the Atkins diet is only about
making his empire more money... because the diet certainly isn't
about health.

Give it a rest. *NO* diet is about health. It's about losing
weight. But this virulence offers no information beyond
condemnation.

No. A diet should be about health. You don't eat "diet foods" to
lose a set amount of weight or to try to maintain a weight.

*You* don't. Other people have other motivations.

Quote:

You eat a healthy diet which will give you energy. And with that
energy you use it to get adequate exercise which will loses
weight/maintains the proper weight.

This is your prescription. Other people see it differently.

Quote:

Atkins is dead. Whatever is being done since his death is out of
his control. He wrote books. That's how he benefitted from his
ideas.

Your logic is absurd. If some commercial managers are trying to
exploit an idea, it doesn't make the idea bad.

It was Atkins himself exploiting a sham. Now it's his heirs feeding
off the sham.

That "sham" has benefitted a lot of people. It would seem many more than
the low-fat gospel of the past few decades.

Quote:

Not every dish has to be low in carbs, just every day.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with carbs. It's only about
the *quality* of those carbs.

Nah. There's nothing wrong with carbs. Period. They're valid and
vital parts of our nutrition. Consuming less carbohydrate is an
option for seeking specific results. Deciding which is a personal
issue, not, as you imply, a foregone conclusion.

Consuming less *quality* carbs doesn't get any results. The results
these people are after comes from eating quality food in the proper
amounts and exercise.

*Your* view.

Quote:

Just as it is with fats and protein.

Save your spittle-flecked, white-knuckle sermons for when you
become a TV evangelist. Given the state of knowledge about human
nutrition and the differences between us all, any claims to having
The Truth about it is pure folly. That finger is pointing at you.
NoOption, indeed...

These diet plans come and go and come back all the time. It's just
sad watching people fall for these hoaxs when the answer is staring
everyone right in the face. Quality natural food

"Natural" means lots of different things to different people. And some
"natural" things aren't too good for you. And you've implied a
definition of "quality" that's far from unanimous.

Quote:

It's a singular astonishment how you guys with *The Answer* have such
contempt for folks. You and Low-Fat John talk about how the world is
being bilked and swindled because they're doing something different from
your view. How stupid everyone else is.

Pastorio

Don Klipstein
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:08 am Post subject: Note

Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

In article <118lqlkbl8d62ed@corp.supernews.com>, Bob (this one) wrote:

Quote:

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
Bob (this one) wrote:

Low-sugar has become the new low-carb.

Great! If nothing else, at least Atkins finally woke up the
dumb American consumers to the fact that low-fat is
meaningless, if the food is stuffed chock-full of sugar!

I'll give Atkins credit for trying to shut down refined sugar
consumption, but replacing sugar with artificial sweetners is not
the answer.

This level of tight-lipped intensity doesn't lead anywhere.
Reduction of sugar consumption is one topic. Another is whether to
replace it with anything. Another is whether to use artificial
sweeteners. And, as in virtually everything, YMMV.

In human nutrition, there is no *the* question, so there can be no
*the*> answer. I note that you offer no suggestion.

Blackstrap molasses, honey, maple syrup, unrefined cane sugar,
turbinado sugar, rupadura sugar, and sucanat sugar are a few I'd
rather consume.

Your body sees sugar as sugar. The tiny bit of other trace items don't
alter how you assimilate the sugars.

True, as in falsehood of benefit of unrefined sugar over refined sugar.

However, most points claimed by NoOption5L@aol.com I believe are true
despite the exception that you point out and that I agree with!

As for low-fat vs. low-carb:

It appears to me that most Americans consume excessive amounts of fats,
carbs, and protein! What Americans consume insufficiently is whole grains
(these tend to be rich in carbs), veggies (calories there are low but
mainly in the form of carbs), and fruits (calories mainly in the form of
the carbs considered worst by the anti-carbers - sugars).

Another thing that Americans tend to lack is sufficient exercise! Those
who work out a lot increase their requirement for calories while only to a
lesser extent increase their requirement for anything with nutritional
value other than calories - as in the calorie burners need more carbs and
the unhealthfully sedentary people are the ones that can reduce (but
not eliminate) their damage to themselves by cutting carbs more than other
sources of calories.
Does this explain how I am rubbed the wrong way by a low-carb beer ad
that pictures cyclists and says, "for today's active lifestyle"?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Bob (this one)
medicine forum Guru

Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1196

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:18 am Post subject: Note

carbs WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Don Klipstein wrote:

Quote:

In article <118lqlkbl8d62ed@corp.supernews.com>, Bob (this one) wrote:

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:

Bob (this one) wrote:

Low-sugar has become the new low-carb.

Great! If nothing else, at least Atkins finally woke up the
dumb American consumers to the fact that low-fat is
meaningless, if the food is stuffed chock-full of sugar!

I'll give Atkins credit for trying to shut down refined sugar
consumption, but replacing sugar with artificial sweetners is not
the answer.

This level of tight-lipped intensity doesn't lead anywhere.
Reduction of sugar consumption is one topic. Another is whether to
replace it with anything. Another is whether to use artificial
sweeteners. And, as in virtually everything, YMMV.

In human nutrition, there is no *the* question, so there can be no
*the*> answer. I note that you offer no suggestion.

Blackstrap molasses, honey, maple syrup, unrefined cane sugar,
turbinado sugar, rupadura sugar, and sucanat sugar are a few I'd
rather consume.

Your body sees sugar as sugar. The tiny bit of other trace items don't
alter how you assimilate the sugars.

True, as in falsehood of benefit of unrefined sugar over refined sugar.

However, most points claimed by NoOption5L@aol.com I believe are true
despite the exception that you point out and that I agree with!

As for low-fat vs. low-carb:

It appears to me that most Americans consume excessive amounts of fats,
carbs, and protein! What Americans consume insufficiently is whole grains
(these tend to be rich in carbs), veggies (calories there are low but
mainly in the form of carbs), and fruits (calories mainly in the form of
the carbs considered worst by the anti-carbers - sugars).

Looking at carbs is a funny thing. Food labels list nutritive and
non-nutritive carbs as a single category and include the calories in the
portion values on the label. So when there's lots of fiber in a food, as
in most veggies, that's included in the calorie counts as though we were
digesting and assimilating them.

As for what most Americans eat and don't eat, cite some facts instead of
beliefs.

Given the vast riches in fresh, frozen, canned, dried, pickled, and
home-grown veggies available, it looks like somebody's eating veggies.
Given the myriad choices in soups, stews, braises, entrees, side dishes
and plain adjuncts to meals available in food markets. Somebody's eating
them. Frozen dinners. Pizza toppings. Fast tacos. Fruits to outshine the
rainbow with new ones appearing daily. Somebody's buying them or they
wouldn't be on display.

I won't dispute that Americans consume too many calories and have a
large obese population fraction. How they've gotten that way is a
question a lot more complex than merely to focus on one macronutrient.
We bump into marketing and taste preferences, of course, but we also hit
instinct and what we've evolved to do when confronted with food in great
abundance. No other animal on earth has to moderate its food intake.

Quote:

Another thing that Americans tend to lack is sufficient exercise! Those
who work out a lot increase their requirement for calories while only to a
lesser extent increase their requirement for anything with nutritional
value other than calories - as in the calorie burners need more carbs and
the unhealthfully sedentary people are the ones that can reduce (but
not eliminate) their damage to themselves by cutting carbs more than other
sources of calories.

Almost agree. Degree enters these considerations and can throw them out
for different values.

Quote:

Does this explain how I am rubbed the wrong way by a low-carb beer ad
that pictures cyclists and says, "for today's active lifestyle"?

I guess so. But that theory about carbs doesn't seem to include how much
for what level of exercise. The blanket statement leaves a lot of
science to the imagination.

Pastorio

Don Klipstein
medicine forum beginner

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: Note

Re: carbs WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

In article <118p11sg9ml1ped@corp.supernews.com>, Bob (this one) wrote:

Quote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Your body sees sugar as sugar. The tiny bit of other trace items don't
alter how you assimilate the sugars.

True, as in falsehood of benefit of unrefined sugar over refined sugar.

However, most points claimed by NoOption5L@aol.com I believe are true
despite the exception that you point out and that I agree with!

As for low-fat vs. low-carb:

It appears to me that most Americans consume excessive amounts of fats,
carbs, and protein! What Americans consume insufficiently is whole grains
(these tend to be rich in carbs), veggies (calories there are low but
mainly in the form of carbs), and fruits (calories mainly in the form of
the carbs considered worst by the anti-carbers - sugars).

Looking at carbs is a funny thing. Food labels list nutritive and
non-nutritive carbs as a single category and include the calories in the
portion values on the label. So when there's lots of fiber in a food, as
in most veggies, that's included in the calorie counts as though we were
digesting and assimilating them.

Absolutely NOT TRUE.

Labels do list fiber as a carb, but the calorie count on the label
includes 4 calories per gram of carbs excluding fiber.

Next time you see a label with quantities of protein, fat, total
carbs, fiber, categories of carb other than fiber, and calories try adding
9 times the grams of fat plus 4 times the grams of protein plus 4 times
the grams of carbs other than fiber.
Labels can lack grams of starch while showing grams of fiber, sugars,
and total carbs. When the label shows total carbs and sugar and fiber not
adding up to the total, the remainder is starch and maybe "sugar
alcohols" and the like but usually mainly starch - but they count about 4
calories per gram of carbs other than fiber, and fiber as not having
calories.
The total may be off by an amount explainable by grams of anything with
calories being rounded to the nearest gram (such as almost half a gram
of fat being listed as zero) and the total being rounded to a multiple of
10.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Bob (this one)
medicine forum Guru

Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1196

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject: Note

Re: carbs WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Don Klipstein wrote:

Quote:

In article <118p11sg9ml1ped@corp.supernews.com>, Bob (this one) wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

It appears to me that most Americans consume excessive amounts of fats,
carbs, and protein! What Americans consume insufficiently is whole grains
(these tend to be rich in carbs), veggies (calories there are low but
mainly in the form of carbs), and fruits (calories mainly in the form of
the carbs considered worst by the anti-carbers - sugars).

Looking at carbs is a funny thing. Food labels list nutritive and
non-nutritive carbs as a single category and include the calories in the
portion values on the label. So when there's lots of fiber in a food, as
in most veggies, that's included in the calorie counts as though we were
digesting and assimilating them.

Absolutely NOT TRUE.

<LOL> Nor is your vehement denial.

Quote:

Labels do list fiber as a carb, but the calorie count on the label
includes 4 calories per gram of carbs excluding fiber.

Not quite. There are several optional methods for doing that label.
Here's what the Code of Federal Regulations says about that:

(1) "Calories, total," "Total calories," or "Calories": A
statement of the caloric content per serving, expressed to the nearest
5-calorie increment up to and including 50 calories, and 10-calorie
increment above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories
may be expressed as zero. Energy content per serving may also be
expressed in kilojoule units, added in parentheses immediately following
the statement of the caloric content.

(i) Caloric content may be calculated by the following methods.
Where either specific or general food factors are used, the factors
shall be applied to the actual amount (i.e., before rounding) of food
components (e.g., fat, carbohydrate, protein, or ingredients with
specific food factors) present per serving.

(A) Using specific Atwater factors (i. e., the Atwater method) given
in Table 13, "Energy Value of Foods--Basis and Derivation," by A. L.
Merrill and B. K. Watt, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised, 1973), which is incorporated by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is
available from the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary
Supplements (HFS-800), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD
20740, or may be inspected at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol St. NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.;

(B) Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for
protein, total carbohydrate, and total fat, respectively, as described
in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) pp. 9-11, which is
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in
paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section);

(C) Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for
protein, total carbohydrate less the amount of insoluble dietary fiber,
and total fat, respectively, as described in USDA Handbook No. 74
(slightly revised 1973) pp. 9-11, which is incorporated by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of
this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of
this section;

(D) Using data for specific food factors for particular foods or
ingredients approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
provided in parts 172 or 184 of this chapter, or by other means, as
appropriate; or

(E) Using bomb calorimetry data subtracting 1.25 calories per gram
protein to correct for incomplete digestibility, as described in USDA
Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) p. 10, which is incorporated by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the
availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph
(c)(1)(i)(A) of this section).

Carbs aren't measured; they're calculated like this:
"'Total carbohydrate' is calculated by subtracting the weight of crude
protein, total fat, moisture, and ash from the total weight ("wet
weight") of the sample of food.
21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)"

This below is not quite correct, as explained in quotations above.

Pastorio

Quote:

Next time you see a label with quantities of protein, fat, total
carbs, fiber, categories of carb other than fiber, and calories try adding
9 times the grams of fat plus 4 times the grams of protein plus 4 times
the grams of carbs other than fiber.
Labels can lack grams of starch while showing grams of fiber, sugars,
and total carbs. When the label shows total carbs and sugar and fiber not
adding up to the total, the remainder is starch and maybe "sugar
alcohols" and the like but usually mainly starch - but they count about 4
calories per gram of carbs other than fiber, and fiber as not having
calories.
The total may be off by an amount explainable by grams of anything with
calories being rounded to the nearest gram (such as almost half a gram
of fat being listed as zero) and the total being rounded to a multiple of
10.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Guest

Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 1:00 am Post subject: Note

Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Bob (this one) wrote:

Quote:

Low-sugar has become the new low-carb.

Great! If nothing else, at least Atkins finally woke up the
dumb American consumers to the fact that low-fat is
meaningless, if the food is stuffed chock-full of sugar!

I'll give Atkins credit for trying to shut down refined sugar
consumption, but replacing sugar with artificial sweetners is not
the answer.

This level of tight-lipped intensity doesn't lead anywhere.
Reduction of sugar consumption is one topic. Another is whether to
replace it with anything. Another is whether to use artificial
sweeteners. And, as in virtually everything, YMMV.

In human nutrition, there is no *the* question, so there can be no
*the* answer. I note that you offer no suggestion.

Blackstrap molasses, honey, maple syrup, unrefined cane sugar,
turbinado sugar, rupadura sugar, and sucanat sugar are a few I'd
rather consume.

Your body sees sugar as sugar. The tiny bit of other trace items
don't
alter how you assimilate the sugars.

Sure. Just like the thinking that said hydrogenated fat was just fat.
Who knows how all those little trace elements in the natural sugars
work together.

I say play it safe and consume *natural* sugar and keep the lab
creations in the lab.

Quote:

What other motivations can there be besides better health? Eating a
deficient diet to lose weight only makes you a thinner unhealthy
person.

Quote:

You eat a healthy diet which will give you energy. And with that
energy you use it to get adequate exercise which will loses
weight/maintains the proper weight.

This is your prescription. Other people see it differently.

What is a better prescription than the combination of following a
healthy diet *and* exercising? This isn't a question. You must do
both.

Quote:

Both diets have good components but both missed the mark.

The low-fat diet started in response to the number of people dropping
dead from heart attacks after eating tons of meat from big fat lazy
mass-market cows, pigs, etc. Farm animals from years past, and natural
game, got/get exercise and eat a natural diet, therefore they're leaner
and their flesh healthy to eat. Many people just went overboard
thinking that all fat was bad.

The Atkins diet (the latest revision) also has a few good components.
The big one being the *reminder* that refined sugars and carbs are bad.
(I made note of _reminder_ because no one advocated eating lots of
refined carbs.) Atkins was a just scam artist and a good marketing
guy. He used what everyone wanted to hear (eat your meat and fatty
foods), and then tossed in some hokey glycemic thing that targeted
healthy foods like watermelon, bananas, carrots, apples, potatoes,
peas, etc. What a hack! And, amazingly, he made $millions$ doing it.
He wasn't trying to make people healthy, only _his_ net income.

Quote:

Not every dish has to be low in carbs, just every day.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with carbs. It's only about
the *quality* of those carbs.

Nah. There's nothing wrong with carbs. Period. They're valid and
vital parts of our nutrition. Consuming less carbohydrate is an
option for seeking specific results. Deciding which is a personal
issue, not, as you imply, a foregone conclusion.

Consuming less *quality* carbs doesn't get any results. The
results
these people are after comes from eating quality food in the
proper
amounts and exercise.

*Your* view.

Remember: thinner doesn't necessarily mean healthier.

Quote:

Just as it is with fats and protein.

Save your spittle-flecked, white-knuckle sermons for when you
become a TV evangelist. Given the state of knowledge about human
nutrition and the differences between us all, any claims to having
The Truth about it is pure folly. That finger is pointing at you.
NoOption, indeed...

These diet plans come and go and come back all the time. It's just

sad watching people fall for these hoaxs when the answer is staring

everyone right in the face. Quality natural food

"Natural" means lots of different things to different people. And
some
"natural" things aren't too good for you. And you've implied a
definition of "quality" that's far from unanimous.

It's all about a balance and constant variety of fresh vegetables,
fruits, whole grains, fish/meat, dairy/eggs, nuts, seeds and spices, in
organic form if you can get them that way.

Quote:

and exercise, lots
of exercise. But these people would rather pay for the quick fix
--
the diet plans, the diet pills, vitamins pills and the surgeries --

anything to avoid eating their fruits and veggies, and anything to
be
able to continue sitting on their couch watching TV and slugging
down sodas.

It's a singular astonishment how you guys with *The Answer* have such

contempt for folks. You and Low-Fat John talk about how the world is
being bilked and swindled because they're doing something different
from
your view. How stupid everyone else is.

Not everyone. Only those who buy/follow the latest diet plan and/or
refuse to get off their butt and exercise.

Patrick

Guest

Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 1:27 am Post subject: Note

Re: carbs WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

Bob (this one) wrote:

Quote:

Bob,

You only need to look at what is in the shopping baskets people are
pushing (though an increasing number are so obese they're driving them)
around in grocery stores. Most people are loading them up with just
garbage "food and drinks." Crackers, sausages, frozen dinners and
pizza, chips, bacon, ice cream, lunch meat, soda, hot dogs, white
"bread", cookies, sugar "cereals"... it's amazing these people can live
on crap like this. And then the kicker is they'll cruise the parking
lot forever until they find a parking slot right next to the front
door. God forbid they had to actually walk some distance. I swear if
grocery stores had drive-up services, people would be wait in long
lines just so they wouldn't even have to get out of their car.

Patrick

Enrico C
medicine forum Guru

Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 558

Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 10:53 am Post subject: Note

Re: carbs WAS:Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:18:50 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote on
sci.med.nutrition,sci.bio.food-science,rec.food.cooking,misc.health.alternative,misc.consumers,alt.diet.support.low-carb
:

Quote:

On US labels, not in the EU.

In Italy the "carbohydrate" on labels means just "available carbs", not
"total carbs", so they don't include fiber in it.

AFAIK

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.bio.food-science

--
Enrico C

Enrico C
medicine forum Guru

Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 558

Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 8:09 am Post subject: Note

Re: Low-sugar fad stirs artificial sweetener concerns

On Thu, 19 May 2005 05:08:30 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein wrote in
<news:slrnd8o7qd.87i.don@manx.misty.com> on
sci.med.nutrition,sci.bio.food-science,rec.food.cooking,misc.health.alternative,misc.consumers
:

Quote:

Of course!

One doesn't need Mr Atkins to avoid huge amounts of sugar, anyway!
Let's just read the American Guide Lines 2005, for instance Smile

Quote:

I'll give Atkins credit for trying to shut down refined sugar

I would shut down all (or most of) sugar consumption, not just "refined
sugar".

Especially when you buy foods in stores read the labels: sugar is often the
first ingredient.
[For Italian law, ingredients are named in the same order as their
quantity.... is that so in the States?]

Quote:

consumption, but replacing sugar with artificial sweetners is not
the answer.

Agreed. The key is getting oneself used to less sugar, not staying addicted
to sugar taste.

Quote:

This level of tight-lipped intensity doesn't lead anywhere.
Reduction of sugar consumption is one topic. Another is whether to
replace it with anything. Another is whether to use artificial
sweeteners. And, as in virtually everything, YMMV.

In human nutrition, there is no *the* question, so there can be no
*the*> answer. I note that you offer no suggestion.

Blackstrap molasses, honey, maple syrup, unrefined cane sugar,
turbinado sugar, rupadura sugar, and sucanat sugar are a few I'd
rather consume.

Maybe pure honey and unrefined cane sugar are better foods than white
sugar, but I'd consume much less sugar of any sort.

Quote:

Your body sees sugar as sugar. The tiny bit of other trace items don't
alter how you assimilate the sugars.

There are different kinds of sugars, though: the "sugars" in fruit are
different from the "sugars" in white sugar.

Quote:

True, as in falsehood of benefit of unrefined sugar over refined sugar.

As I said, I would reduce both refined and unrefined sugar.

Quote:

However, most points claimed by NoOption5L@aol.com I believe are true
despite the exception that you point out and that I agree with!

As for low-fat vs. low-carb:

It appears to me that most Americans consume excessive amounts of fats,
carbs, and protein!

What Americans consume insufficiently is whole grains
(these tend to be rich in carbs), veggies (calories there are low but
mainly in the form of carbs), and fruits (calories mainly in the form of
the carbs considered worst by the anti-carbers - sugars).

Another thing that Americans tend to lack is sufficient exercise!

*Contemporary* Italians do just the same. Too much of everything. Too
little whole grains, veggies and fruits. And too little exercise.
We've dismissed much of our good Mediterrean traditions about food and
lifestyle, alas!

Quote:

Those
who work out a lot increase their requirement for calories while only to a
lesser extent increase their requirement for anything with nutritional
value other than calories - as in the calorie burners need more carbs

Don't you think phisical activity needs *some* more protein and fat too?
I said "some more", not "a lot more"! :)

Quote:

and
the unhealthfully sedentary people are the ones that can reduce (but
not eliminate) their damage to themselves by cutting carbs more than other
sources of calories.

Does this explain how I am rubbed the wrong way by a low-carb beer ad
that pictures cyclists and says, "for today's active lifestyle"?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

LOL :)

X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.bio.food-science,misc.consumers

--
Enrico C

Google

Display posts from previous:

Page 2 of 2 [30 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic

The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:07 am | All times are GMT

Forum index » Medicine forums » nutrition

Topic		Author	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Similar Topics
	76 Ways Sugar Can Ruin Your Health	TC	nutrition	8	Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:41 pm
	sugar = sugar diabetes = alzheimers	TC	nutrition	8	Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:51 pm
	concerns about soy - interesting article	TC	nutrition	31	Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:23 pm
	filling concerns	Sexy Amalgam Smile	dentistry	3	Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:00 am
	'Artificial light increases breast ca...	Roman Bystrianyk	cancer	5	Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:34 pm

Debt Consolidation | Online Loans | Bleach 149 . Bleach 150 | Credit Counseling | Credit Card

Other DeniX Solutions sites: electronics forum, Science forum Unix/Linux blog Unix/Linux documentation Unix/Linux forums

[ Time: 0.4714s ][ Queries: 16 (0.2290s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]