Researchers reveal apples' protective ways

[Dodger]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/uocd-udr051706.php

Molecular mechanism of flavonoid-rich fruit discovered

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Doctors have long been encouraging Americans to add more fruits and vegetables to their daily diets. Now, UC Davis researchers have discovered one way in which flavonoid-rich apples inhibit the kinds of cellular activity that leads to the development of chronic diseases, including heart disease and age-related cancers. "We've known for a long time that it's the flavonoids in fruits that are protecting the body. We just haven't known exactly how. Now, at least in the case of apples, we have a good idea about what's going on," said Eric Gershwin, professor of allergy, rheumatology and immunology at the UC Davis School of Medicine.

Gershwin and his colleagues found that apple extract was able to protect cells from damage and death by interfering with communication between cells.

The current findings appear in the latest issue of Experimental Biology and Medicine. Earlier studies have shown that flavonoids--which are found in chocolate and green tea, as well as other fruits and vegetables--behave as anti-oxidants, taking up free oxygen radicals that can damage precious DNA. The UC Davis study takes that research further by looking beyond the antioxidant effects of apple flavonoids.

In the current study, Gershwin and his colleagues exposed human endothelial cells to an extract of an apple mash made from different apple varieties. The researchers then challenged these cells by exposing them to tumor necrosis factor (TNF), a compound that usually triggers cell death and promotes inflammation via a mechanism called the "nuclear factor (NF) kappa B pathway." This pathway involves chemical signaling between cells. The apple extract was able to protect the cells from the normal lethal effects of TNF.

"Our study showed that the flavonoids in apples and apple juice can inhibit signals in this pathway that would otherwise damage or kill cells in the body," Gershwin explained.

The method by which apple extract protects cells is different than that reported for other flavonoid-rich foods. Grape seed extracts, for example, do not affect the NF kappa B pathway, the authors wrote. In addition, they said, other studies indicate that it is not just the flavonoids in the apple extract that are important in protecting cells from genetic damage.

"The differences are likely due to the other biologically active ingredients found in the different fruits," Gershwin said. "We need to know more about how fruits like apples are able to protect us from disease."

[dina1957]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/uocd-udr051706.php

Molecular mechanism of flavonoid-rich fruit discovered

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Doctors have long been encouraging Americans to add more fruits and vegetables to their daily diets. Now, UC Davis researchers have discovered one way in which flavonoid-rich apples inhibit the kinds of cellular activity that leads to the development of chronic diseases, including heart disease and age-related cancers. "We've known for a long time that it's the flavonoids in fruits that are protecting the body. We just haven't known exactly how. Now, at least in the case of apples, we have a good idea about what's going on," said Eric Gershwin, professor of allergy, rheumatology and immunology at the UC Davis School of Medicine.

Gershwin and his colleagues found that apple extract was able to protect cells from damage and death by interfering with communication between cells.

The current findings appear in the latest issue of Experimental Biology and Medicine. Earlier studies have shown that flavonoids--which are found in chocolate and green tea, as well as other fruits and vegetables--behave as anti-oxidants, taking up free oxygen radicals that can damage precious DNA. The UC Davis study takes that research further by looking beyond the antioxidant effects of apple flavonoids.

In the current study, Gershwin and his colleagues exposed human endothelial cells to an extract of an apple mash made from different apple varieties. The researchers then challenged these cells by exposing them to tumor necrosis factor (TNF), a compound that usually triggers cell death and promotes inflammation via a mechanism called the "nuclear factor (NF) kappa B pathway." This pathway involves chemical signaling between cells. The apple extract was able to protect the cells from the normal lethal effects of TNF.

"Our study showed that the flavonoids in apples and apple juice can inhibit signals in this pathway that would otherwise damage or kill cells in the body," Gershwin explained.

The method by which apple extract protects cells is different than that reported for other flavonoid-rich foods. Grape seed extracts, for example, do not affect the NF kappa B pathway, the authors wrote. In addition, they said, other studies indicate that it is not just the flavonoids in the apple extract that are important in protecting cells from genetic damage.

"The differences are likely due to the other biologically active ingredients found in the different fruits," Gershwin said. "We need to know more about how fruits like apples are able to protect us from disease."
Thank you for posting this article, Dodger! I love fruit in general, but if I could only pick one fruit for the rest of my life, it would be a humble apple! Apples are not only the best tasting fruit IMO: crunchy, juicey, sweet and tart, but they also are one of the healthiest! They are major appetite suppresants, especially green Grany Smith variety, when eaten on empty stomach thanks to pectin, they work like a sponge in our colon, absorbing and carrying away toxins and waste, protect our lungs, brain function, lower cholesterol, and they hold pretty good, for up to 7 months after being harvested! The are great raw and baked, fermented and made into apple butter and sauce, and are versatile in sweet and savory dishes (pork and apples). No wonder they say an apple a day keep the doctor away! ;)

[Whoa182]

Thanks for sharing the story dodger!

I eat like around 210g of mostly Red apple peels a day! :)

[Kharma]

I wonder if dehydrated apples (used in the winter months) have good heath benefits also

[kaypeeoh]

I don't like the sweetness of apples and prefer tomatoes. V8 juice seems to have a lot of flavenoids and isn't sweet. Eating just the apple peels seems like a great idea as I assume that's where most the vitamins are. But my wife would kill me if I peeled and apple and threw all but the peels away. We've got a crab apple in our yard. I could eat those peels and she wouldn't mind tossing the rest out. But then the birds would be pissed off. They might take their revenge on the pepper and tomato plants. :-)

[Scars]

The health benefits of apples are well-documented and have been know for many years. The 3 main reasons why apples are worthy of their powerfood status;

-Phytochemical profile: Apples are absolutely loaded with disease-fighting antioxidants. Among the most potent in the arsenal are the phenolics - quercetin, epicatechin, and procyanidin B2. In fact, one small apple has the antioxidant capacity of 1500mg of vitamin C! Additionally, a flavonoid unique to apples called phloridzin may help prevent bone loss associated with menopause, suggests a study published in the November 2005 issue of Calcified Tissue International..

-Fiber: Apples contain both soluble and insoluble fiber. The insoluble fiber latches on to LDL (not good) cholesterol and ferries it out of the body. The soluble fiber in apples (pectin - which Dina mentioned) reduces the amount of cholesterol produced in the liver. Adding just one large apple to the daily diet has been shown to decrease serum cholesterol by 8-11%. Eating 2 large apples a day has lowered cholesterol levels by up to 16%!

-Ability to keep you full: This is largely due to the aforementioned pectin. This satiating fiber has been shown to translate into weight loss. A study showed that eating 3 apples a day for 12 weeks resulted in significant weight loss compared to a group that ate 3 oat cookies. (bit of a no-brainer here, but noteworthy). Apples have a rock-bottom glycemic load too, so no need to worry about escalating blood sugar.
An analysis of 85 studies has determined apples to be most consistently associated with a reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, asthma, and type 2 diabetes - when compared to other fruits and vegetables. In addition, eating apples was also associated with increased lung function and increased weight loss. Researchers hypothesize that this is largely due to the synergistic effect of the powerful ingredients, and not one specific component. This lends credibility to getting nutrients from food.

When it comes to the best type of apple (there are 7500+ types), it would appear that Fuji and Red Delicious top the charts when it comes to phenolic and flavanoid content. Oh, yeah and be sure to eat the peels too - compared to the flesh the peels of an apple have 2-6x more phenols and 2-4x more flavonoid.


References:

1. Boyer, J. and R. Liu, Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits. Nutrition Journal, 2004. 3(1): p. 5.

2. Wolfe, K., X. Wu, and R. Liu, Antioxidant activity of Apple Peels. J Agric Food chem, 2003(51): p. 609-614.

3. Conceicao de OliveiraConceição de Oliveira, M., R. Sichieri, and A. Sanchez Moura, Weight Loss Associated With a Daily Intake of Three Apples or Three Pears Among Overweight Women. Nutrition, 2003. 19(3): p. 253-256.

4. Fernandez ML. Soluble fiber and nondigestible carbohydrate effects on plasma lipids and cardiovascular risk. Curr Opin Lipidol 2001 Feb;12(1):35-40.

[Nancy LC]

Calcified Tissue International
Sounds like what happens if you leave a kleenex alone for a long period of time, after a good sneeze.

[Scars]

Sounds like what happens if you leave a kleenex alone for a long period of time, after a good sneeze.

lol... an underestimated area of study...

[DietSka]

exposed human endothelial cells to an extract of an apple mash made from different apple varieties. ... The apple extract was able to protect the cells from the normal lethal effects of TNF.

So what this means is that should you have inflammation, you can protect your cells by asking a surgeon to cut you up and apply mashed apples on the inflamed tissue. :P

It doesn't say eating apples has that effect.


As a side note, apples make me hungry as hell. They may be rich in fiber (if you want to call 3.73g of fiber in a medium apple "rich") but I personally never experienced this purported satiating effect. Back in my carby days, if I was hungry and someone would offer me an apple, I would refuse the apple knowing my hunger would only get worse after eating it.

[dina1957]

As a side note, apples make me hungry as hell. They may be rich in fiber (if you want to call 3.73g of fiber in a medium apple "rich") but I personally never experienced this purported satiating effect. Back in my carby days, if I was hungry and someone would offer me an apple, I would refuse the apple knowing my hunger would only get worse after eating it.
I think it's more due to a type of apples: sweet variety like Red and Golden Delicious, and Fuji are much higher in sugar than tarty apples like Granny Smith, Macintosh, Pipine, Jona Gold. I specifically buy not too ripen and tart apples, these work much better as appetite supressants because they higher in pectine (the greener the apple the higher the content) and tart taste. They work as a broom for digestive tract without making you bloated and gasy.

[Wyvrn]

Tumor necrosis factor is a natural substance produced by the immune system to fight cancer. Yes it's pro-inflammatory. So is the sugar in apples. I'd rather skip the sugar and let my immune system do its job.

Wyv

[Whoa182]

Tumor necrosis factor is a natural substance produced by the immune system to fight cancer. Yes it's pro-inflammatory. So is the sugar in apples. I'd rather skip the sugar and let my immune system do its job.

Wyv

Apples have a very low GI Index. The good benifits from eating apples seem to far outweigh the negative effects of its natural sugars.

and if you like inflammation then good for you :lol:

[Whoa182]

At first it might seem that fruit could have a negative effect on health because of the amount of sugar. But in this study fruit benifited obese women.

Crujeiras AB, Parra MD, Rodriguez MC, Martinez de Morentin BE, Martinez JA. A role for fruit content in energy-restricted diets in improving antioxidant
status in obese women during weight loss.
Nutrition. 2006 Jun;22(6):593-9.
PMID: 16704952 http://tinyurl.com/pc4ch
... Fifteen obese women (age 32 +/- 6 y, body mass index 34.9 +/- 2.9
kg/m(2)) were assigned to two different dietary treatments for 8 wk. The
subjects received a hypocaloric diet (600 kcal/d restriction from the
measured individual energy expenditure) containing 5% (n = 8) or 15% (n = 7)
energy supplied by fructose from fruits. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malondialdehyde (MDA) ... No differences in
weight loss were observed between diets (5% energy from fructose in the low
fruit diet -6.9 +/- 2% versus 15% energy from fructose in the high fruit
diet -6.6 +/- 2%; P = 0.781). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels
significantly decreased (P = 0.048) in obese women who followed the high
fruit diet, which was accompanied by a statistical (P = 0.046) diet-related
decrease (-30%) in the ratio of MDA to antioxidant capacity. There was a
positive association between MDA diet-related change and low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (r = 0.665, P = 0.003), with antioxidant capacity
directly proportional to the fiber plus fructose content associated with
fruit consumption (r = 0.697, P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION: A fruit-enriched
hypocaloric diet appears to be more effective against oxidative stress.
Consumption of antioxidant substances contained in fruit could be a useful
strategy in the design of hypocaloric diets that, with the weight reduction,
could increase the improvement of cardiovascular risk factors related to
obesity.

[Whoa182]

As a side note, apples make me hungry as hell. They may be rich in fiber (if you want to call 3.73g of fiber in a medium apple "rich") but I personally never experienced this purported satiating effect. Back in my carby days, if I was hungry and someone would offer me an apple, I would refuse the apple knowing my hunger would only get worse after eating it.

You know that is really 'normal' right? It just means that you don't have an apple as your dinner, but as a healthy desert.

[arc]

At first it might seem that fruit could have a negative effect on health because of the amount of sugar. But in this study fruit benifited obese women.


Compared to what?

[DietSka]

You know that is really 'normal' right? It just means that you don't have an apple as your dinner, but as a healthy desert.

I was referring to the apple as a snack for when I was hungry, something to keep me going until the next meal. It only made hunger worse for me.

[ItsTheWooo]

So what this means is that should you have inflammation, you can protect your cells by asking a surgeon to cut you up and apply mashed apples on the inflamed tissue. :P

It doesn't say eating apples has that effect.


As a side note, apples make me hungry as hell. They may be rich in fiber (if you want to call 3.73g of fiber in a medium apple "rich") but I personally never experienced this purported satiating effect. Back in my carby days, if I was hungry and someone would offer me an apple, I would refuse the apple knowing my hunger would only get worse after eating it.
Apples ain't so healthy if they are leading to over eating and crazy blood sugar/insulin.

My "healthy" fatbody snack:
1 bag precut baby carrots (Mmmm orangey and sweet :homer: )
2-3 medium apples
Glass milk

I used to chain eat apples like I drink water now. I LOVED apples. Still do, but, I limit my consumption to the peels of half an apple every once in awhile, mostly in the fall and winter months (in hot cereal with a bit of oats and flax)

[ItsTheWooo]

Apples have a very low GI Index. The good benifits from eating apples seem to far outweigh the negative effects of its natural sugars.

and if you like inflammation then good for you :lol:
Her point was even if it can be demonstrated that apples are in some respects anti-inflammatory, the powerful pro-inflammatory effect of relatively higher and unbalanced insulin levels more than negate that (the pro-inflammatory effect comes from the sugars in the apple, as well as the additional food you WILL consume due to greater hunger) .

Of course, if you have a very low sensitivity to carbs, this isn't much of a problem. Unfortunately my metabolism is weird and doesn't work with sugar well, so, that's that.

[Meg_S]

Interesting.. I love the taste and texture of apples but they give me an empty growling bottomless pit feeling in my stomach.

[Scars]

Apples should not (for the vast majority of people) affect insulin levels much. There is virtually no reason that apples cannot be part of a healthy way of eating. If people think that apples give them adverse reactions/more cravings etc. than I wouldn't eat them either. I just find it humerous that when "apples" are brought up, some people throw up a cross sign with their fingers while muttering "evil, evil, evil - they have sugar in them - avoid them at all costs"...

[Nancy LC]

Its probably a YMMV thing, but for me they make a nice dessert or snack when I need to postpone eating for an hour or two. I don't get raving blood sugar swings from them.

[ItsTheWooo]

Apples should not (for the vast majority of people) affect insulin levels much. There is virtually no reason that apples cannot be part of a healthy way of eating. If people think that apples give them adverse reactions/more cravings etc. than I wouldn't eat them either. I just find it humerous that when "apples" are brought up, some people throw up a cross sign with their fingers while muttering "evil, evil, evil - they have sugar in them - avoid them at all costs"...

I can handle apples pretty well myself, but carbs are tricky devils. You think you're doing alright with them at first, but after awhile you find your hunger growing and you just don't feel as good as you used to. I eat small bits of apples in the fall and winter months usually but not often.

[kwikdriver]

Apples should not (for the vast majority of people) affect insulin levels much. There is virtually no reason that apples cannot be part of a healthy way of eating. If people think that apples give them adverse reactions/more cravings etc. than I wouldn't eat them either. I just find it humerous that when "apples" are brought up, some people throw up a cross sign with their fingers while muttering "evil, evil, evil - they have sugar in them - avoid them at all costs"...

I use apples (and pears, and oranges) to stimulate my appetite when I'm not hungry, but probably should eat. They work like a charm.

For some reason some of the comments in this thread remind me of being a kid, wanting something to eat, being given candy with the phrase "That should hold you until dinner," and just getting more hungry. I eventually learned that I was better off not eating the candy if I didn't want to be hungry. The same thing happened with breakfast cereal; given the choice between breakfast cereal and nothing, I chose nothing because it made me less hungry compared to the cereal. So while I can fit apples and so on into my plan, I certainly understand why people would consider something like an apple dangerous. We really can't know what it's like for other people.

Oh, and Woo, the correct phrase is "Orangey, sweet, crunchy goodness," iirc. :lol:

[ItsTheWooo]

Oh yes, the crunchy, how could I forget :lol: ...

BTW that was pretty smart of you to figure out eating less carbs made you less hungry. I wasn't quite as observant. Instead of figuring out it was probably better if I ate no apples (or candy, or juice, etc), instead I just ate a LOT of them. My motto was "BETTER TAKE 3 WHEN I GET TO THE FRIDGE". Ha. Ha.
I mean I knew when I woke up I had NO appetite, and I also knew over the course of the day my appetite would grow till I was simply a food vacuum, but I never quite figured out it was the food at all. Honest. I suppose I never much was able to observe the effect(s) of food because I've always been a grazer (that was one smart thing I figured out, to prevent hypos simply eat all the time :lol: ).

[ceberezin]

Advice about the health benefits of a particular food should always be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that a food contains a particular nutrient does not mean that you will absorb that nutrient or receive its beneficial effects. There are many other factors involved. Principal among those is insulin resistance, which prevents the absorption of supposedly beneficial nutrients.

Apples are moderately high in carbs. If you're following a low carb diet, an apple every once in a while won't hurt. If you're eating 300 grams of carbs a day, not only will you not get the benefit of the flavonoids in apples, but the apples will contribute to your ever increasing insulin resistance.

In any event, it''s nice that apples contain flavonoids, but no one should think that eating apples is going to boost your anti-oxidant system. Enjoy apples (in moderation) because they taste good, not for their health benefits.

[Dodger]

I use apples (and pears, and oranges) to stimulate my appetite when I'm not hungry, but probably should eat. They work like a charm.
I remember "Don't eat that, it'll ruin your appetite"!

[dina1957]

Apples ain't so healthy if they are leading to over eating and crazy blood sugar/insulin.
Woo, for this matter all carbs can cause the same problem.

My "healthy" fatbody snack:
1 bag precut baby carrots (Mmmm orangey and sweet :homer: )
2-3 medium apples
Glass milk
If this amount distributed between few snacks I don't see a problem, if in one sitting - waaaay too much!

I used to chain eat apples like I drink water now. I LOVED apples. Still do, but, I limit my consumption to the peels of half an apple every once in awhile, mostly in the fall and winter months (in hot cereal with a bit of oats and flax)
Sorry but I doubt that eating apples made you gain all that weight, you do seem to have some degree of ED. I personally can't eat more than one medium apple and eat it always as a part of a meal (for dessert) and trust me, I check my blood sugar 4 times a day at least, and now that apples do not spike it much as do starches and grains! Also it does not cause me to binge on entire bag.
ED is similar to ancoholism, one drink leads to a binge. So may be for you it's indeed better to stay away from apples, other fruits, and carbs in general. BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE APPLES UNHEALTHY!
JMHO

[dina1957]

Its probably a YMMV thing, but for me they make a nice dessert or snack when I need to postpone eating for an hour or two. I don't get raving blood sugar swings from them.
I can second this, and I check my BGs few times a day. At 80 calories Grany Smith apple makes a yummy dessert and a great snack, especially eaten with cheese or smeared with a bit of peanut butter or eaten with few nuts.:yum:

[dina1957]

Apples should not (for the vast majority of people) affect insulin levels much. There is virtually no reason that apples cannot be part of a healthy way of eating. If people think that apples give them adverse reactions/more cravings etc. than I wouldn't eat them either. I just find it humerous that when "apples" are brought up, some people throw up a cross sign with their fingers while muttering "evil, evil, evil - they have sugar in them - avoid them at all costs"...
Can't agree more;)

[ItsTheWooo]

Woo, for this matter all carbs can cause the same problem.

If this amount distributed between few snacks I don't see a problem, if in one sitting - waaaay too much!


Sorry but I doubt that eating apples made you gain all that weight, you do seem to have some degree of ED. I personally can't eat more than one medium apple and eat it always as a part of a meal (for dessert) and trust me, I check my blood sugar 4 times a day at least, and now that apples do not spike it much as do starches and grains! Also it does not cause me to binge on entire bag.
ED is similar to ancoholism, one drink leads to a binge. So may be for you it's indeed better to stay away from apples, other fruits, and carbs in general. BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE APPLES UNHEALTHY!
JMHO
1) I never said apples made me gain weight, but carbs - such as apples - contributed to my unbalanced metabolism which lead to eating too much and a variety of health problems. You are kidding yourself saying otherwise, even if it makes you feel good to pretend you are a politically correct "healthy eater" (yet, a type 2 diabetic from it, oh the irony).

2) It is impossible to be carb sensitive and not have disordered eating of some kind or another. A disorder is two parts: brain chemistry (produced by the body in response to your body/environment) and habit/learning... that is, actually, everything about our psychology. The brain chemistry part is fixed when I stop eating carbs - my hunger decreases, therefore my appetite and need for food decrease as well. I don't struggle to stay on the wagon or to eat right, because I have no problems of that nature. The "habit" part of my tendency to abuse food by over eating is effectively kaput. It never was that strong to begin with, honestly (thank god). Either way, this is a moot point because of point #3.

3) You are assuming I was "binging", when I was not binging. I wouldn't eat this quickly, more like how most people would eat a bag of chips in front of a TV. I was a hypoglycemic so I settled into a grazing food pattern - I always was eating something. I might eat the apples pretty quickly, but it would not be a binging fashion. I know the difference between normal eating and binging, and that wasn't binging. I never even KNEW what binging felt like until, ironically, I started restricting food to lose weight (a process that DID actually give me more disordered behavior/thoughts than I *ever* had before in my organic carbohydrate sensitivity).

I am not "triggered" to binge, because I am not a binger (a true binger anyway, that seems to have other issues besides food/hunger going on). I can easily handle apples, and there isn't a food in existence that "makes" me do anything. For example, I had a pound cake with strawberries and whipped cream for breakfast... for snack I had coconut blueberry & almond custard. I felt zero desire to eat more than my portion to satisfy myself, and that's because the total carbs for these meals were 10 and 7 each, with ample fat and protein.

In other words, my behavior with food is totally normal and well controlled until you stick carbs into the spokes of my wheels. Then, how much I eat and how "strangely excessive" my portions increase parallel with carbohydrate and metabolic issues. If you give me a apple pie, a cheesecake, a soda, a plate of pasta... but if these meals are all loaded with fat and carbohydrate controlled, I will eat normally and feel great.If they are the real deal, oozing with carbs, forget it.

4) I never said apples were as bad as other carbs, but carbs are still carbs. At the end of the day I know with my body, and it's the total amount of carbs eaten that matters the MOST, more than GI or any other factor (although those are important total carbohydrate amount is more so).

[Turtle2003]

Compared to what?

Yes, the fact is that these women were probably substituting apples for their usual treats like Pop-Tarts, donuts, and other worthless foods. Of course the apples are better for them. What I'd want to know is whether the apples were better for you than eating, say a handful of nuts.

[dina1957]

1) I never said apples made me gain weight, but carbs - such as apples - contributed to my unbalanced metabolism which lead to eating too much and a variety of health problems. You are kidding yourself saying otherwise, even if it makes you feel good to pretend you are a politically correct "healthy eater" (yet, a type 2 diabetic from it, oh the irony).
We already discussed how person can become diabetic, there are other contributed factors, except of eating fruit and apples in general. I am considered diabetic only because of current guidelines for fasting blood sugar and few years back it won't be a problem, but this is beoynd the point. On the other side, I am a bit older that you are (going 50) and my BGs problems started at 45 along with onset of perimenopause. This period of women's life is known to become highly insulin resistannt due to widely fluctuating and declining estrogen levels. I am not fooling myself, but I don't see any metabolic advantage of avoiding apples and other healthy fruit in moderation for my blood sugar control, au contrary, my FBG runs higher on very low carbs and protein and fat mostly diet.
Apples and other low GI fruit, do not cause blood suigar spike and carb coma and overeating afterwards, like grains and processed sugars do. BTW, beef and eggs causes quite measurable insulin response for hours, and this is a concern for me as well.
2) It is impossible to be carb sensitive and not have disordered eating of some kind or another. A disorder is two parts: brain chemistry (produced by the body in response to your body/environment) and habit/learning... that is, actually, everything about our psychology.
There other causes of ED except ill metabolism, and in many cases it is the habit of overeating that causes changes in brain chemistry and metabolic changes, you are right, we are creatures of habit. You give your body more food than it needs for some time, and it will ask for more, and you will hungry around the clock. If one is overeating on a regular basis due to any reson: emotional instability, depression, habitual, stress related, etc. This leads to ED regardless of food nutriotional content, and can compromize any "normal" metabolism!

You are assuming I was "binging", when I was not binging. ...and you assumed I have T2 diabetes because of my unlhealthy eating habits! Diabetes does not arise from eating some fruit, it's much more complex disorder.
The brain chemistry part is fixed when I stop eating carbs - my hunger decreases, therefore my appetite and need for food decrease as well. I don't struggle to stay on the wagon or to eat right, because I have no problems of that nature.
Yes, but only when you are fooling your body into ketogenic state of artificial starvation and supressed appetite. Does it mean your metabolism is healed now?
I recall in your earliest days of low cabing, you were eating between 800-1000 calories and barelly any carbs (and reported feeling not too good) , and even to maintain you trying to keep ypur calories very low, around 1,200 or less. I have no time to quote your journal, but I think it's pretty accurate numbers. So if you keep your hunger at bay by remaining in ketosis or eating very little in general to stay on the wagon, does it mean your problem is solved?
I was a hypoglycemic so I settled into a grazing food pattern - I always was eating something. [/quoite]
Hypoglycemia is another side of the diabetic coin, eating all the time is by far not the best way to control it. AFAIK, it can be caused by benign pancreatic tumors secreating too much insulin, and inhibiting glucogenesis, so you are forced to eat all the time to keep Bgs leveled. I would guess that eating some carbs with fat and protein should not be a problem even for hypoglycemics unless there are other issues besides hypoglycemia.
BTW, being hypoglycemic and eating no carbs does not garantee that you won't become diabetic later in your life.
[quote]In other words, my behavior with food is totally normal and well controlled until you stick carbs into the spokes of my wheels. Then, how much I eat and how "strangely excessive" my portions increase parallel with carbohydrate and metabolic issues. If you give me a apple pie, a cheesecake, a soda, a plate of pasta... but if these meals are all loaded with fat and carbohydrate controlled, I will eat normally and feel great.If they are the real deal, oozing with carbs, forget it.
So what is the problem then, have your cake and eat it too. This means you can eat a small apple for desert (after or with a fatty meal) or as a snack with nuts (fat) and cheese (fat and protein) and have no problems, right? This is what I call carbohydrate controlled WOE, and I have no problem with it for blood sugar cotnrol. But I don't eat bag of carrots as a snack, or few apples in a short period of time. It is normal for us to eat every 3-4 hours of waking hours, but if one keeps portions normal. I keep my carbs <100g with 40g of fiber and eat 3 meals a day (with ocational small bedtimes snack of cheese or nuts), and I am never hungry and eat between meal. I can go as long as 5-6 hours between lunch and dinner and don't have sugar cravings or crushes, and I normally have apples or another low GI fruit for dessert after lunch. My Hb1C runs as low as 5.2%, and I can'y imagine living on protein and fat only.
I never said apples were as bad as other carbs, but carbs are still carbs.

This post was about health benefits of apples, not how apples or carbs affect you and some other ppl, so if you are allergic to carbs (apples including) and this makes you hungry, then simply avoid it!
There are ppl that allergic to eggs, dairy, nuts, seafood. But it does not make all this food not healthy!;)

[Wyvrn]

Apples should not (for the vast majority of people) affect insulin levels much.Absolutely! In a perfect world, we'd all be able to eat a politically correct diet high in fruit and grains and potatoes, without getting addicted or having any adverse health effects.

But I can't complain since the real world has allowed me to achieve great health improvements on a luxurious diet rich in butter, beef, cream and eggs.

Wyv

[dina1957]

The serum insulin and plasma glucose responses to milk and fruit products in type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients.

Gannon MC (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Gannon+MC%22%5BAuthor%5D), Nuttall FQ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Nuttall+FQ%22%5BAuthor%5D), Krezowski PA (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Krezowski+PA%22%5BAuthor%5D), Billington CJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Billington+CJ%22%5BAuthor%5D), Parker S (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&itool=PubMed_Abstract&term=%22Parker+S%22%5BAuthor%5D).

The plasma glucose and serum insulin responses were determined in untreated Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients following the ingestion of foods containing sucrose, glucose, fructose or lactose in portions that contained 50 g of carbohydrate. The results were compared to those obtained following the ingestion of pure fructose, sucrose, glucose + fructose and lactose. The objectives were to determine 1) if the glucose response to naturally occurring foods could be explained by the known carbohydrate content, and 2) whether the insulin response could be explained by the glucose response. The glucose response was essentially the same whether the carbohydrate was given as a pure substance, or in the form of a naturally occurring food. The glucose response to each type of carbohydrate was that expected from the known metabolism of the constituent monosaccharides. The glucose areas following the ingestion of the foods were: Study 1: glucose 11.7, orange juice 7.3, sucrose 5.2, glucose + fructose 6.3, and fructose 0.7 mmol X h/l; Study 2: glucose 14.6, orange juice 7.3, apples 5.5, and apple juice 4.7 mmol X h/l; Study 3: glucose 12.6, ice cream 8.1, milk 3.7, and lactose 4.1 mmol X h/l. The insulin response was greater than could be explained by the glucose response for all meals except apples. Milk was a particularly potent insulin secretagogue; the observed insulin response was approximately 5-fold greater than would be anticipated from the glucose response. In summary, the plasma glucose response to ingestion of fruits and milk products can be predicted from the constituent carbohydrate present. The serum insulin response cannot.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3545955&dopt=Abstract

There is also interesting comparison of different food group satiety index, where oranges and apples scores the higest in fruit group, and pototes (not the french fries) outscored beef and even fish.


"Fatty foods are not satisfying, even though people expected them to be", says Dr Holt. 'We think the reason is that fat is seen by the body as a fuel which should be used only in emergencies - it stores it in the cells instead of breaking it down for immediate use. Because it doesn't recognise the fat as energy for immediate use, the body does not tell the brain to cut hunger signals, so we go on wanting more. Carbohydrates are the opposite - they raise blood glucose so the body knows it has got enough fuel to be going on with.
"We found that bananas are much less satisfying than oranges or apples, and that wholemeal bread is half as satisfying again as white bread. And a diet which simply recommends cereal for breakfast overlooks the fact that muesli is only half as satisfying as porridge."

"Many "health-conscious" dieters will eat a meal based on several pieces of fruit and some rice cakes (in Australia anyway) and then wonder why they feel ravenous a few hours later. These kind of extremely low-fat, high-carb meals do not keep hunger at bay because they are not based on slowly-digested carbs and probably don't contain enough protein. A dieter would be better off eating a wholesome salad sandwich on wholegrain bread with some lean protein like tuna, or beef and an apple. This kind of meal can keep hunger at bay for a very long time."
http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
I simply substitute bread for a large green salad with some cukes, tomatoes, bell peppers and nice oil/vinegar dressing, and this type of meal gets me going from 12 to 6 pm. ;)

[Scars]

Absolutely! In a perfect world, we'd all be able to eat a politically correct diet high in fruit and grains and potatoes, without getting addicted or having any adverse health effects.

But I can't complain since the real world has allowed me to achieve great health improvements on a luxurious diet rich in butter, beef, cream and eggs.

Wyv

In all sincerety, I am glad that you have found what works for you :)

I should mention, though that I do not eat anything based on "political correctness", I eat based on what has proven to be healthy and more importantly, what works and what is palatable. To echo one of Dina's posts - if apples make you hungry or you don't like them - don't eat them! I'm not saying that apples are essential to a healthy diet, but I think for the vast majority of people, they will do more good than harm.

Also, let's not lump apples into the same category as potatoes and all forms of grain. ;)

[dina1957]

In all sincerety, I am glad that you have found what works for you :)

I should mention, though that I do not eat anything based on "political correctness", I eat based on what has proven to be healthy and more importantly, what works and what is palatable.
This is what I forgot to mention, I eat food that is not only healthy but also palatable, and apples are waaay more healthy and palatable for me than any fancy dessert ever be, even the low carb one!;)

[Whoa182]

Apples are not the cause of Diabetes... simple as that!

Whether or not you can handle them now that you *** up your metabolism is your problem, not the whole of humanity. Normal functioning people do not get affected by apples in any negative way. The helps benifits of them are quite consistent from research over the years. There are studies that I've seen out there showing that apples help diabetics control blood sugar and even help weight loss :thup:

[kwikdriver]

The serum insulin and plasma glucose responses to milk and fruit products in type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients.

"Many "health-conscious" dieters will eat a meal based on several pieces of fruit and some rice cakes (in Australia anyway) and then wonder why they feel ravenous a few hours later. These kind of extremely low-fat, high-carb meals do not keep hunger at bay because they are not based on slowly-digested carbs and probably don't contain enough protein. A dieter would be better off eating a wholesome salad sandwich on wholegrain bread with some lean protein like tuna, or beef and an apple. This kind of meal can keep hunger at bay for a very long time."


This is the kind of meal that Americans have been eating since the low fat mania of the '80s, and all we did was get fatter and fatter and fatter. Adequate protein and high carb does not sate even people with "normal" metabolisms, and how many calories are in this rabbit banquet, anyway? 300, 400, tops? No wonder people who eat a shit meal like this end up eating junk food -- if they didn't they would starve.

[dina1957]

sorry, I accidently posted twice!

[dina1957]

This is total B-----S------, I can eat whole grain crackers , salad and roast beef and a piece of fruit, and feel full for hours. Fat for me means flavor, not satiety. "Rabit starvation" would arise if one eats protein only and very little/no carbs. Even lean protein has fat in it, especially beef.
Americans became fat because of the enormous amounts processed and simple sugars they consumed and most in liquid form. Obesity arised since HFCS made it's way into food industry. Sandwitch made with wholegrain bread (18g of cabrs with 3 g of fiber) , roast beef and a salad (large one - 6 g carbs), and apple (medium 18 g+3 g fiber ) for dessert, is not a high carb meal for non-diabetics, and usually sandwich is made with mayo and/or cheese. Lean roast beef (3-4 oz) is about 200 calories and ~10g of fat, whole grain bread has 130 calories per slice, and apple is another 80. Add a tbs of dressing to salald or mayo to sandwich (another 10 g of fat and 100 calories), and you have all the fat you need, and a decent ~calories meal. But wash it down with a large soda (70g of sugar), and you will be munching in no time.
If you live on meat/eggs/fat and find it pallatable, then good for you, it does not mean that everyone should eat like this

[kwikdriver]

This is total B-----S------, I can eat whole grain crackers , salad and roast beef and a piece of fruit, and feel full for hours.

:Party: :cheer: :Party: :cheer: Woohoo! You go girl! The nation, however, obviously cannot, judging by spiraling obesity rates that began getting truly out of control at the time when people started trying to eat just like that. That diet is high in carbs, low in fat (at most around 25% fat, lower if tuna is chosen), and adequate in protein. It's exactly the diet being recommended by the ADA and various other organizations that has people slamming insulin and a variety of other drugs as a result. They didn't talk about adding fat or anything else. Why do you think that was?


"Rabit starvation" would arise if one eats protein only and very little/no carbs. Even lean protein has fat in it, especially beef.

Who talked about "Rabit [sic] starvation"?

[Wyvrn]

I should mention, though that I do not eat anything based on "political correctness", I eat based on what has proven to be healthy and more importantly, what works and what is palatable.For you.
To echo one of Dina's posts - if apples make you hungry or you don't like them - don't eat them! I'm not saying that apples are essential to a healthy diet, but I think for the vast majority of people, they will do more good than harm. An apple instead of a cupcake, yeah that's more good. Or at least less harm. But most people are overweight or obese.... they are better off eating nothing instead of an apple. Or perhaps an egg, which unlike an apple contains no empty calories.
Also, let's not lump apples into the same category as potatoes and all forms of grain.Let's speak for ourselves. "Low-GI" doesn't work for everyone. For people like myself, the glycemic load is a lot more important. In fact, apples tend to give me more cravings, probably because of their sweetness. But you should go ahead and eat apples if you like them and if they don't cause you trouble, and especially if the alternative would be even less healthy. I'm sure there are many people - especially young people who are not overweight - who can eat apples and other sweet fruit in moderation without problems. Just don't overestimate their benefits.

What bothers me about this topic is the implication that we should suppress inflammation by suppressing part of our immune system - in this case, an important defense against cancer. Whatever happened to addressing the cause of the imbalance? Say... by eliminating dietary causes of inflammation and auto-immune reactions, like gluten, excess carbs, excess PUFA, PHO and so on.

Wyv

[dina1957]

What bothers me about this topic is the implication that we should suppress inflammation by suppressing part of our immune system - in this case, an important defense against cancer. Whatever happened to addressing the cause of the imbalance? Say... by eliminating dietary causes of inflammation and auto-immune reactions, like gluten, excess carbs, excess PUFA, PHO and so on.

Wyv
What about when our immune is working against us: attacking our healthy cells by mistake (diabetes T1)? Sometimes immuno supression is required. Also, what about fooling your body it's in starvation (STRESS) mode by eliminating carbs or cutting them very low. Any stressfull mode (physical, emotional, and dietary extremes) causes adrenalin/cortisol response that supressing immune system even further. Going very low cabr makes me restlless, jittery and lusgish at the same time (tired and wired), and achy all over. While I am hungry (surprise), my stomach aches. I am nauseated, cosntipated, and acid reflux is killing me. Uric acid level goes up (I do blood tests quite often), and I get aches and pain all over. I am also concern that high uric acid will cause gout one day (ouch!).
My brain needs carbs like fruit to feel good, and apples are one of the tastiest fruit for me. I contribute my great facial compexion (never had acne in my life), very few wrinkles , and good skin tone to eating lots of raw vegetables and fruits, not cookies, candies, or soda (regular or diet), no sugary treats but fresh produce, and this is how I am planing to continue. To each their own!

[Scars]

For you.
An apple instead of a cupcake, yeah that's more good. Or at least less harm. But most people are overweight or obese.... they are better off eating nothing instead of an apple. Or perhaps an egg, which unlike an apple contains no empty calories.
Let's speak for ourselves. "Low-GI" doesn't work for everyone. For people like myself, the glycemic load is a lot more important. In fact, apples tend to give me more cravings, probably because of their sweetness. But you should go ahead and eat apples if you like them and if they don't cause you trouble, and especially if the alternative would be even less healthy. I'm sure there are many people - especially young people who are not overweight - who can eat apples and other sweet fruit in moderation without problems. Just don't overestimate their benefits.

What bothers me about this topic is the implication that we should suppress inflammation by suppressing part of our immune system - in this case, an important defense against cancer. Whatever happened to addressing the cause of the imbalance? Say... by eliminating dietary causes of inflammation and auto-immune reactions, like gluten, excess carbs, excess PUFA, PHO and so on.

Wyv

Do you not think most people eat based on what works for them and what is palatable? Assuming of course they are aiming to eat healthfully. I would have a difficult time recommending somebody eat nothing instead of an apple if they are hungry. I'm not going to start squaring apples off against other foods as many foods have healthy aspects to them. I still maintain that apples in and of themselves will rarely cause blood sugar fluctuation problems for the vast majority of people.

I guess I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, Wyvrn :)

[Scars]

What about when our immune is working against us: attacking our healthy cells by mistake (diabetes T1)? Sometimes immuno supression is required. Also, what about fooling your body it's in starvation (STRESS) mode by eliminating carbs or cutting them very low. Any stressfull mode (physical, emotional, and dietary extremes) causes adrenalin/cortisol response that supressing immune system even further. Going very low cabr makes me restlless, jittery and lusgish at the same time (tired and wired), and achy all over. While I am hungry (surprise), my stomach aches. I am nauseated, cosntipated, and acid reflux is killing me. Uric acid level goes up (I do blood tests quite often), and I get aches and pain all over. I am also concern that high uric acid will cause gout one day (ouch!).
My brain needs carbs like fruit to feel good, and apples are one of the tastiest fruit for me. I contribute my great facial compexion (never had acne in my life), very few wrinkles , and good skin tone to eating lots of raw vegetables and fruits, not cookies, candies, or soda (regular or diet), no sugary treats but fresh produce, and this is how I am planing to continue. To each their own!

Precisely! Great insight.

[LC FP]

I still maintain that apples in and of themselves will rarely cause blood sugar fluctuation problems for the vast majority of people.

You're right. Apples contain fructose, which doesn't cause blood glucose fluctuations.


Uric acid level goes up (I do blood tests quite often), and I get aches and pain all over. I am also concern that high uric acid will cause gout one day (ouch!).
My brain needs carbs like fruit to feel good, and apples are one of the tastiest fruit for me.

According to this study, you'd better stop eating apples, then..


http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/fw04/apples.html

A significantly large and unexpected increase in plasma uric acid was observed 1-2 hours after the subjects ate apples, and rapidly decreased to basal levels after 3 hours, paralleling the increases in antioxidant capacity. The healthy participants in this study had baseline levels of uric acid within the normal range, and the consumption of apples did not increase uric acid beyond the previously established healthy range of plasma uric acid.

These guys claim that the vaunted flavonoids in apples aren't even absorbed by humans (another example of dietician-delusional-thinking), and that the antioxidant capacity improvement after apple ingestion is from uric acid production by the liver, and that uric acid is an antioxidant (news to me).

[kaypeeoh]

What I read in the article is that the fructose, (5-carbon sugar) is collected in the liver and turned into 6-carbon sugar. The process releases uric acid. I also didn't know uric acid is an antioxident. The salt of uric acid is urate, which is excreted into urine. Our ability to excrete urate into urine is a measure of kidney health. The researchers tested subjects by making them eat 5 large apples. Perhaps that overwhelmed the liver's ability to metabolize the apples.

[ceberezin]

The article was very interesting in regard to flavonoids and uric acid. The anti-oxidant levels increased in response to the fructose, not as a direct result of the flavonoids in the apples. The researchers saw this increase in anti-oxidants as a benefit of eating fruits that contain fructose. But perhaps the increase in anti-oxidants stimulated by fructose is a protective response to the damage caused by the fructose. The fact that the anti-oxidant increase is a response to the apples and not directly caused by them leads to this speculation.

[dina1957]

The healthy participants in this study had baseline levels of uric acid within the normal range, and the consumption of apples did not increase uric acid beyond the previously established healthy range of plasma uric acid.
My uric acid gets borderline high when I cut my carbs to 30-40g total. Once I increse carbs and eat less protein respectively, it falls well within the helathy range.
Since I eat one apple a day, I have nothing to worry about. :)

[Whoa182]

The anti-oxidant levels increased in response to the fructose not as a direct result of the flavonoids in the apples. The researchers saw this increase in anti-oxidants as a benefit of eating fruits that contain fructose. But perhaps the increase in anti-oxidants stimulated by fructose is a protective response to the damage caused by the fructose.

I don't think they mentioned any increase in antioxidant enzymes such as superoxid dismutase, catalase or glutathione peroxidase. Serum antioxidant levels were increased due to the flavanoids in the apples.

The fact that the anti-oxidant increase is a response to the apples and not directly caused by them leads to this speculation.


If you don't like free radicals you could always try hold your breath, like erm forever?

jk =/

Im tired.

Anything that increases antioxidant enzymes is gooooooood. But It didn't it say apples did.

[ItsTheWooo]

I debated whether or not to respond to your post, dina, but I decided toward it.

On the other side, I am a bit older that you are (going 50) and my BGs problems started at 45 along with onset of perimenopause. This period of women's life is known to become highly insulin resistannt due to widely fluctuating and declining estrogen levels.

Diabetes is never a normal part of aging or menopause. This is irrelevant.
I am not fooling myself, but I don't see any metabolic advantage of avoiding apples and other healthy fruit in moderation for my blood sugar control, au contrary, my FBG runs higher on very low carbs and protein and fat mostly diet.

I simply do not believe that your blood sugar control is worse when you avoid fat and protein and eat more carbs. This is completely irrational. Equal calories (energy), an apple always yeilds more sugar than either lean meat or fat. There must be other factors at work here. The sugar has to be endogenously produced.

When we overproduce sugars, it almost always means an overactive stress response. Thing is, LC dieting reduces stress response (whereas insulin/sugar aggravates it like mad ). Most diabetics see an immediate decrease in blood sugar, but I suppose since you are borderline, it's entirely possible the stress of dietary change could overwhelm the reduction in dietary sugar, temporarily causing hyperglycemia. Your higher sugars are likely in response to the stress of changing your diet without allowing ample time for metabolic adaptation. If you followed the diet a bit longer until you adapted, it's likely eventually you would see better control eventually.
Apples and other low GI fruit, do not cause blood suigar spike and carb coma and overeating afterwards, like grains and processed sugars do. BTW, beef and eggs causes quite measurable insulin response for hours, and this is a concern for me as well.

Again, this is more politically correct BS. Some carbs are worse than others, but carbs are carbs. They all raise insulin and suppress glucagon, contributing to metabolic imbalance, thus stress and sickness.

First of all, eggs have a very weak effect on insulin because they are so high fat. Eggs have one of the lowest insulin scores of any food for this reason, and it is no coincidence almost every person finds them extremely satiating and balancing. The effect of meat on blood sugar very much depends on the percentage of fat/protein; the more protein, the more insulin.

When it comes down to it, carbs cause metabolic imbalances, and fat protects against them. Carbs are always going to increase insulin and suppress glucagon; the question is only to what degree. On the other hand, fat not only has zero effect on insulin, *but it also* slows down how quickly other sugars get into the blood and promotes satiety (thus decreasing average blood sugar and promoting metabolic balance in 2 ways). A diabetic, a hypoglycemic, *anyone* with blood sugar disorders should be eating a fat base and very few carbs.

You can hug that USDA poster of fruit, whole grain crackers, and lean meat all you want if it makes you feel good and pure, but your buying into a lie.

There other causes of ED except ill metabolism, and in many cases it is the habit of overeating that causes changes in brain chemistry and metabolic changes, you are right, we are creatures of habit. You give your body more food than it needs for some time, and it will ask for more, and you will hungry around the clock. If one is overeating on a regular basis due to any reson: emotional instability, depression, habitual, stress related, etc. This leads to ED regardless of food nutriotional content, and can compromize any "normal" metabolism!


Metabolism has the lions share of executive power over the orientation of brain chemistry. What you feed yourself DOES control how you feel and how you act.
Stress external to metabolism can also cause problems in brain chemistry, but even this is accomplished by altering metabolism (stress affects metabolism which then affects brain chemistry). Certainly in some very rare people there are true organic brain chemistry imbalances (but I believe this is probably extremely rare).
It's safe to say for most people, psychiatric disturbances are usually involving a metabolic/dietary element; stresses of the kind you speak of can contribute but even these are causing the problem by altering metabolism in some way.

Oh, and the reason eating more often (say, because of stress) leads to more hunger is *because* this is causing metabolic imbalances. First of all, stress itself does modulate metabolism and brain chemistry to make us miserable and hungry. Second, the behavior in response (over eating) further aggravates the metabolic derangement. Unless you know what you're doing, food yields sugar. Sugar yields insulin and suppresses glucagon. This leads to imbalance and metabolic disease.

No one chooses to over eat, and no one *definitely* chooses to be fat (weight is a function of metabolism not eating)...but, keep on believing that lie, too. Apparently a lot of your self esteem is built into being a politically correct healthy eater and having a great deal of "discipline" to eat that way
(...unlike screwed up people who are so disordered they can only "handle" fat even though fruits are sooo much healthier and actually better for blood sugar! heh.)

...and you assumed I have T2 diabetes because of my unlhealthy eating habits! Diabetes does not arise from eating some fruit, it's much more complex disorder.

Your response here makes no sense, as I did not initiate this. My statement was reactive. I said that bit about your diabetes because I wanted you to see how inappropriate and ignorant what you assumed (and then said) to me was. You no more understand my history of food eating behavior than I know the circumstances surrounding the origin of your diabetes.

Yes, but only when you are fooling your body into ketogenic state of artificial starvation and supressed appetite. Does it mean your metabolism is healed now?

Ha ha.
One, I don't eat ketogenic carbs. As a hypoglycemic I find myself intolerant of very deep ketosis. But, yes, I must keep carbs below 60 and eat lots of fat for ideal control. Love your assumptions BTW!

Oh and no, my metabolism is not healed... likely because there is nothing wrong with it. For purely genetic reasons, I just don't tolerate carbs well. I don't need to "heal" my carbohydrate sensitivity any more than someone without the genetic code for gluten or dairy needs to "heal" their metabolism either.

I have likely inherited many of the genes from my maternal grandmother's family, and they are not good carb eaters. They were tribal people; (my great grandmother actually had tribal tattoos on her face).
Me and my sister take after that side of the family in many respects. Both of us express PCOS, carbohydrate intolerance symptoms (she gets occasional hypoglycemia; mine is more severe). PCOS fertility issues go back from my mother, to my grandmother, to my great grandmother. Lots of diabetes, stroke (grandma had diabetes and died of a stroke), heart disease.

I recall in your earliest days of low cabing, you were eating between 800-1000 calories and barelly any carbs (and reported feeling not too good) , and even to maintain you trying to keep ypur calories very low, around 1,200 or less. I have no time to quote your journal, but I think it's pretty accurate numbers. So if you keep your hunger at bay by remaining in ketosis or eating very little in general to stay on the wagon, does it mean your problem is solved?

First things first, early on I was a crappy calorie counter. Like so many other newbies, I was off by a wide margin. I think back to the actual foods I ate and I *know* it couldn't be possible I was eating as little as I thought I was.

Second, I ate that little due to lack of appetite. Yes, lack of appetite is normal when you're extremely over weight and start low carbing, assuming everything else is balanced.

Third, I didn't feel good because I was still adapting to LC eating (it took a long time to feel really good) and my carbs were too low. I started feeling better when I began eating more carbs, paying attention to minerals (sodium/potassium depletion was an issue), etc.

Today, when I eat well enough food, I feel GREAT. The only problems with well being I have mostly relate to weight (or eating to maintain weight) but this is an issue totally removed from LC. Although, I'm sure you will fixate on it anyway, that seems to be your M.O...

It is stupid to point out the issues I had as a newbie and then use that as evidence LC is bad. You don't automatically know all this stuff when you start... and if I just quit because I was having problems, I would really have regret it. I am a lot better off now that I have almost total control over my metabolic health. There is no amount of apple and lean meat eating that would have got me to where I am now... and where I am now is MUCH better off.

Perhaps if you stuck with LC for a little longer, you could enjoy all the benefits others eventually see.

[ceberezin]

I don't think they mentioned any increase in antioxidant enzymes such as superoxid dismutase, catalase or glutathione peroxidase. Serum antioxidant levels were increased due to the flavanoids in the apples.
No, the article clearly attributed the increase in anti-oxidant activity to uric acid, not the enzymes you mention. They specifically deny the connection between antioxidant increase and flavonoids from the apples: Consequently, the concentration of flavonoid metabolites in plasma is very low, yet the reported increase in antioxidant capacity of plasma after flavonoid-rich foods are consumed often greatly exceeds the increase in plasma flavonoids. This paradox intrigued us.
Also . . . If you don't like free radicals you could always try hold your breath, like erm forever?
Watch the hostility. It's quite unpleasant.

[ItsTheWooo]

In all sincerety, I am glad that you have found what works for you :)

I should mention, though that I do not eat anything based on "political correctness", I eat based on what has proven to be healthy and more importantly, what works and what is palatable. To echo one of Dina's posts - if apples make you hungry or you don't like them - don't eat them! I'm not saying that apples are essential to a healthy diet, but I think for the vast majority of people, they will do more good than harm.

Also, let's not lump apples into the same category as potatoes and all forms of grain. ;)

You're going to have to explain to me why an equal calorie portion of apples is better than potatoes. Potatoes, the small red kind, also contain many valuable micronutrients. Both contain very similar macronutrient makeups.

...The only difference I see is that "fat gluttons" generally enjoy eating potatoes and grain, whereas apples are associated with being a politically correct "pure" eater: disciplined, healthy, thin. Taters/grains are also associated with much more "sinful" food: you put (gasp) fat and sugar on taters and grains.
Apples are so pure and natural; you don't put anything on it sinful ;). In the media and in propaganda, it's always some fit young person comming back from a run eating an apple... never a fat person! They're eating the taters and grains with fat and sugar!

You and Dina are just kidding yourselves if you think this is anything but image and emotions here. Hug your apples (healthy food!) but shun your potatoes and bread (fat people food) if it rocks your world... but nutritionally, if energy portions are equal, it's the practically the same thing.

[ItsTheWooo]

This is what I forgot to mention, I eat food that is not only healthy but also palatable, and apples are waaay more healthy and palatable for me than any fancy dessert ever be, even the low carb one!;)
Wow, you really are pure! You don't like dessert either!

[Whoa182]

No hostility ceberezin :daze:

relax, I was joking around. (jk)

[ItsTheWooo]

This is total B-----S------, I can eat whole grain crackers , salad and roast beef and a piece of fruit, and feel full for hours. Fat for me means flavor, not satiety.

I sure hope that salad has some oil, avocados, nuts, cheese, etc because if not I would feel like crap.

Oh, and for me, FAT means satiety, carbs mean texture/flavor. Judging by how the low carb diet is known for restoring order and balance to eating, I would say mine is the more common issue... few people feel "full for hours" on a little salad, crackers, fruit, and lean meat.


Americans became fat because of the enormous amounts processed and simple sugars they consumed and most in liquid form. Obesity arised since HFCS made it's way into food industry. Sandwitch made with wholegrain bread (18g of cabrs with 3 g of fiber) , roast beef and a salad (large one - 6 g carbs), and apple (medium 18 g+3 g fiber ) for dessert, is not a high carb meal for non-diabetics, and usually sandwich is made with mayo and/or cheese. Lean roast beef (3-4 oz) is about 200 calories and ~10g of fat, whole grain bread has 130 calories per slice, and apple is another 80. Add a tbs of dressing to salald or mayo to sandwich (another 10 g of fat and 100 calories), and you have all the fat you need, and a decent ~calories meal. But wash it down with a large soda (70g of sugar), and you will be munching in no time.

Jesus christ I'm feeling hungry just reading that.

BTW that's very similar to the meals I was eating to carb up for my blood sugar test (for hypoglycemia). I was crashing pretty hard after every meal. I discovered a truth about weight problems and hypoglycemia from that experience, by the way. On a politically correct diet, it is mathetmatically impossible to keep sugar out of the red without overconsuming calories. A reactive hypoglycemic is doomed to be overweight unless they low carb simply by calorie consumption alone (then when you factor the chronic glucagon suppression and insulin dominance, supreme fatness will result ).

If you live on meat/eggs/fat and find it pallatable, then good for you, it does not mean that everyone should eat like this

This morning I ate a fried curried egg in butter, a small portion of fiber one diluted with a generous portion of 3 different kinds of roasted nuts (macs, almonds, walnuts), a few berries/stone fruit (1.5 oz) and low carb milk. I feel fantastic, total carbs were only 12 (and they were only that high because I need to buy liquid splenda one day :) ). Palatable? You bet. I am deprived of nothing. My food tastes delicious.

If I ate a politically correct breakfast of an eggwhite, fried in cooking spray, with a large portion of fiber one, lots of fruit, NO nuts, and skim milk... I would feel like *UTTER CRAP* right now. Actually I probably would have crashed an hour ago and be starving. That would be deprivation, because when you are metabolically imbalanced no amount of food satisfies - all you can think about is everything you can't eat. "Full" and "hungry" have no meaning. You always want more.

Everyone doesn't have to eat like this... but a lot of people do. Judging by how common insulin diseases and disorders are, MOST people would be better off with breakkie 1 than breakkie 2.

[ItsTheWooo]

You're right. Apples contain fructose, which doesn't cause blood glucose fluctuations.

....

These guys claim that the vaunted flavonoids in apples aren't even absorbed by humans (another example of dietician-delusional-thinking), and that the antioxidant capacity improvement after apple ingestion is from uric acid production by the liver, and that uric acid is an antioxidant (news to me).

Excellent!

[kaypeeoh]

You and Dina are just kidding yourselves if you think this is anything but image and emotions here. Hug your apples (healthy food!) but shun your potatoes and bread (fat people food) if it rocks your world... but nutritionally, if energy portions are equal, it's the practically the same thing.


The 5-carbon sugars in apples do not stimulate insulin release. The sugar enters the body, going straight to the liver to be converted into 6-carbon glucose. The roundabout pathway never lets blood sugar be elevated.

Potatoes are the opposite. For whatever reason, potatoes enter the bloodstream as sugar...faster than table sugar does. Probably enzymes in the potato start breaking the starch up into sugar faster than the body can break to links in table sugar to make glucose.

[Wyvrn]

I still maintain that apples in and of themselves will rarely cause blood sugar fluctuation problems for the vast majority of people.

I guess I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, Wyvrn :)I never said that the sugar in apples causes blood sugar fluctuation problems, though there is evidence that the reason fructose is more prone to cause cravings/excess hunger than glucose is due to its effect (or lack thereof) on grehlin and leptin.

What I actually stated is that the sugar in apples is pro-inflammatory. Don't put words in my mouth. :wave:

Wyv

[Scars]

I never said that the sugar in apples causes blood sugar fluctuation problems, though there is evidence that the reason fructose is more prone to cause cravings/excess hunger than glucose is due to its effect (or lack thereof) on grehlin and leptin.

What I actually stated is that the sugar in apples is pro-inflammatory. Don't put words in my mouth. :wave:

Wyv

High fructose corn syrup from excess pop consumption definately has a negative imapct on leptin and grehlin - there are several studies to show this. Please show me studies that draw the same conclusion about apples. It seems that studies posted on this thread so far have shown the opposite with regards to appetite. While your at it, please show me studies that apples cause inflammation. I don't know about you, but I eat food, not macronutrients. As much as I would like to just take your word for it, Wyv - I don't work that way. Again, I agree to disagree with you. ;)

[Wyvrn]

What about when our immune is working against us: attacking our healthy cells by mistake (diabetes T1)? Sometimes immuno supression is required.There's a lot of evidence that T1 diabetes and other autoimmune diseases are often caused by food intolerances, most commonly gluten intolerance. If you address the underlying problem you may be able to avoid taking immune suppressing drugs.Also, what about fooling your body it's in starvation (STRESS) mode by eliminating carbs or cutting them very low. Any stressfull mode (physical, emotional, and dietary extremes) causes adrenalin/cortisol response that supressing immune system even further. Going very low cabr makes me restlless, jittery and lusgish at the same time (tired and wired), and achy all over. While I am hungry (surprise), my stomach aches. I am nauseated, cosntipated, and acid reflux is killing me.A lot of people starting induction report the symptoms you describe. The purpose of induction isn't to fool your body into thinking it's starving - quite the opposite as the starving body would hang onto fat, not burn it - but to kick the carb-addiction. Your difficulty may be due to eating too many carbs during induction (or too high an insulin dosage for the low amount of carbs), not enough to provide the energy you need to feel good, but enough to prevent adaptation and keep you in metabolic limbo between fuels, so to speak. It's also possible that you may have more difficulty than most people in adapting to lipolysis due to autoimmune damage to your endocrine system. But keep in mind, most people are not T1 diabetics.

Wyv

[Scars]

You're going to have to explain to me why an equal calorie portion of apples is better than potatoes. Potatoes, the small red kind, also contain many valuable micronutrients. Both contain very similar macronutrient makeups.

...The only difference I see is that "fat gluttons" generally enjoy eating potatoes and grain, whereas apples are associated with being a politically correct "pure" eater: disciplined, healthy, thin. Taters/grains are also associated with much more "sinful" food: you put (gasp) fat and sugar on taters and grains.
Apples are so pure and natural; you don't put anything on it sinful ;). In the media and in propaganda, it's always some fit young person comming back from a run eating an apple... never a fat person! They're eating the taters and grains with fat and sugar!

You and Dina are just kidding yourselves if you think this is anything but image and emotions here. Hug your apples (healthy food!) but shun your potatoes and bread (fat people food) if it rocks your world... but nutritionally, if energy portions are equal, it's the practically the same thing.

No, again - I don't eat based on political correctness or image - to suggest that I'm "kidding myself" if I don't think I'm basing my personal dietary decisions on emotions is presumptious and without merit. This is an uncharacteristically vacuous statement from someone with reams of highly intelligent and thoughtful posts.

I don't give a rats *** what popular perception tells us about people who eat apples vs. those that eat potatoes.

And on that subject, just because macronutrient content may be similar b/w apples and potatoes, it doens't mean that as whole units, apples are not superior in overall health benefits than potatoes. There are numerous studies that show beneficial effects of eating apples. I have not found any that support the same for potatoes.

If you don't like apples - fine... if you think they are no different than other carbs - so be it... but please do not make blinding generalizations and unwarranted presumptions about my food choices.

[dina1957]

Your difficulty may be due to eating too many carbs during induction (or too high an insulin dosage for the low amount of carbs), not enough to provide the energy you need to feel good, but enough to prevent adaptation and keep you in metabolic limbo between fuels, so to speak.

I did Induction once by the book, and did not lose a pound, not to mention all the discomfort I already explained. I got my fasting insulin measured, and it's well within the range. It's also possible that you may have more difficulty than most people in adapting to lipolysis due to autoimmune damage to your endocrine system. But keep in mind, most people are not T1 diabetics.
I see posts everyday from non-diabetics who experince same side effect of Induction, and hey are not diabetics. Many endocrinologist who are actually PRO low carb WOE, do not find niether necessary or nor healthy cutting carbs to 20g or less, and many suggest somewhat around 70-75g.
And no, I am not T1, but borderline T2.
After all all overweight folks have compromized metabolism to a certain degress, or they won't be overweight to begin with.;) If a ketogenic diet is simply a walk in a park, why so many ppl are unable to stick to it (even for a short term) and many actually gain weight and feel lousy? If the is the way to go, why it requires supplementation with vitamins, mineral, and fiber to avoid constipation, heart palps, and bad muscle cramps?

[Wyvrn]

High fructose corn syrup from excess pop consumption definately has a negative imapct on leptin and grehlin - there are several studies to show this. Please show me studies that draw the same conclusion about apples. It seems that studies posted on this thread so far have shown the opposite with regards to appetite. While your at it, please show me studies that apples cause inflammation. I don't know about you, but I eat food, not macronutrients. As much as I would like to just take your word for it, Wyv - I don't work that way. Again, I agree to disagree with you. ;)Putting words in my mouth, again. If you insist on disagreeing with me, at least disagree with something I actually said. I never said apples cause inflammation. I said the sugar in apples is pro-inflammatory. Fructose, glucose, sucrose.

As for your contention that we eat food, not isolated nutrients, that is exactly my point and thank you for making it. The observation that apple extract inteferes with a certain immune function (thereby possibly reducing inflammation) when applied directly to cells in a petri dish in no way supports the idea that there are more benefits than drawbacks to eating apples. And that's assuming that such an effect is desireable - I have my doubts.

Wyv

[dina1957]

Diabetes is never a normal part of aging or menopause. This is irrelevant.
Woo,
diabetes is genetic predisposition to begin with but losing female reproductive hormones shifts balance toward overproduction of androgens, and hence, increases IR. Ever wonder why men have pot beliies and women normally have heavy bottoms?
Dropping estrogen makes all women gain weight at menopause, even those who were stick thin entire life. They complain of almost overnight weight gain of 15 or more pounds and the weight gain is mostly around abdomen, not like it used to be before -butt and tighs. Those days that I use Bioidentical Estrogen (to curb other wodnerfull symptoms of low E), my FBGs drops to a normal (<100) range, without any changes to my diet, while it will run in prediabetic range without supplemental E. Also FBG runs 20-30 points higher during TOM ( when Estrogen is the lowest). Wait another 20 years, and you will get it.;)

I simply do not believe that your blood sugar control is worse when you avoid fat and protein and eat more carbs. This is completely irrational. Equal calories (energy), an apple always yeilds more sugar than either lean meat or fat.
I never said I avoid protein and fat in favor to cabrs! I said my Bgs run higher if I eat very little carbs. You can call me a liar, but my meter never lies!

There must be other factors at work here. The sugar has to be endogenously produced.
You finally getting somwhere, Ms.Know Everything;) .
In diabetics, liver contributes to majority of blood sugar, and especially when one is fasting ( overnight) or eating very little cabrs. Ever heard about so called Dawn Phenomenon? Check any the diabetic forum or gogle it. So, if I cut my carbs to 30g , my liver is working overtime, converting protein into glucose (gluconeogenesis). Lowering carbs too much lowers my not-too-high-to beign with-insulin level (tested it too) and low insulin can't stop gluconeogenesis! So I end up wit higher FBG and higher Bgs on average (start your day higher, and the whole day is shot). Like my Endo said, my problem is my liver, my body can handle waaaaaay more cabrs than any diabetic can, so my post prindial BG is always normal (<100).

When we overproduce sugars, it almost always means an overactive stress response. Thing is, LC dieting reduces stress response (whereas insulin/sugar aggravates it like mad ). Most diabetics see an immediate decrease in blood sugar, but I suppose since you are borderline, it's entirely possible the stress of dietary change could overwhelm the reduction in dietary sugar, temporarily causing hyperglycemia.
Nope, I am not hypoglycemic, never been, my stress arises from being not being able to relax (low serotonin), insomnia, acid reflux that prevents me from a sound sleep, etc. I don't have this Bgs rollercoster than makes folks with hypoglycemia shakey and hungry, but my falling serotonin level (think Estrogen connection here) is making me depressed and anxious if my carbs are too low.

Your higher sugars are likely in response to the stress of changing your diet without allowing ample time for metabolic adaptation. If you followed the diet a bit longer until you adapted, it's likely eventually you would see better control eventually.
Wrong again, even before being very strict with my carbs (started in 2002), I was eating less carbs 2-3 years before. To be accurate, I have been eating eating lower cabr diet for my entire adult life, without even reading any lc book. I just intuitively knew that potaotes and bread make me gain weight (lots of calories), and sugar was off my list waaay before than, since I was 22.
[quoite] Again, this is more politically correct BS. Some carbs are worse than others, but carbs are carbs. They all raise insulin and suppress glucagon, contributing to metabolic imbalance, thus stress and sickness. [/quote]
I go by a total amount of carbs (glycemic load) and eat some bread and sweet potatoes and even regular red young potatoes (on special ocations). But starches are more concetrate source of carbs due to low water content), and I am trying to get more volume for the same amount of carbs, and also I don't eat for political correctness but for pleasure, so I choose apples instead of potatoes and bread, DUH!

First of all, eggs have a very weak effect on insulin because they are so high fat. Eggs have one of the lowest insulin scores of any food for this reason, and it is no coincidence almost every person finds them extremely satiating and balancing. The effect of meat on blood sugar very much depends on the percentage of fat/protein; the more protein, the more insulin.
Ever heard of arachidonic aicd effect on insulin? Bodybuilders use it as a supplement to increase insulin output and build bigger muscles! it also increases testosterone, and this is exactly what I am trying to avoid. So it's not a direct impact and simply equation of carbs = blood sugar, there many substances that impact indirectly insulin secretion and utilization!

When it comes down to it, carbs cause metabolic imbalances, and fat protects against them. Carbs are always going to increase insulin and suppress glucagon; the question is only to what degree. On the other hand, fat not only has zero effect on insulin, *but it also* slows down how quickly other sugars get into the blood and promotes satiety (thus decreasing average blood sugar and promoting metabolic balance in 2 ways). A diabetic, a hypoglycemic, *anyone* with blood sugar disorders should be eating a fat base and very few carbs.
While I agree with concept that in theory fat directly does not trigger insulin responce, in reality, what is left to eat: protein should be limited to avoid exessive gluconeogenesis, carbs shoud be severely limited to avoid Bgs spike, then how to subside on fat mostly? Good question? Eat nuts (small amount of protein and carbs) with lots of fat - I can eat handfull after a handfull and still be hungry. Cheese- has lots of protein too, so what to use a carrier to get this fat down? Protein, right, but then again, we are back to square 1, when protien should be restricted! Oh, and alsom, too much fat in one meal, and I will be restless because of horribel hurtburn. Eat more carbs and moderate fat in a meal, and no indigestion after that!

You can hug that USDA poster of fruit, whole grain crackers, and lean meat all you want if it makes you feel good and pure, but your buying into a lie.
I don't hug anything, I just stated that I can eat this type of a meal without being hungry. I eat crackers with 80% of bran (3g EC), high fiber content is what keep me full, our brain register volume of food too, and for this purpose high fiber = satiety. Funny, how you change your mind from time to time, depending what suites you or what stage of LC diet you are in. If someone bashing carbs and promoting meat and fat only diet - theer you are jumping in to support eating carbs, and you do the opposite if somebody dares to mention health benefits of apples!

Metabolism has the lions share of executive power over the orientation of brain chemistry. What you feed yourself DOES control how you feel and how you act.
This is exactly my point, and this is why I eat food that makes me feel great regardless of political correctness, plan that does not make me depressed, irritalbe and angy. Eating protein and fat only does the opposite: angry, irritable, tense, famous so- called Atkins attitude;)
Stress external to metabolism can also cause problems in brain chemistry, but even this is accomplished by altering metabolism (stress affects metabolism which then affects brain chemistry). Certainly in some very rare people there are true organic brain chemistry imbalances (but I believe this is probably extremely rare).
It's safe to say for most people, psychiatric disturbances are usually involving a metabolic/dietary element; stresses of the kind you speak of can contribute but even these are causing the problem by altering metabolism in some way.
There are also hormonal pathways that alter brain chemistry (estrogen/progesteron connection) and food is not one and only modulator. But food does affects emotions to a certain degree, and carbs are not called comfort food for nothing, especially carb dense food like sweets and starches. There is a book "Potatoe not Prozac" that explains it in details. I eat sweet potatoe once a month, when PMS munches strike (hormonal drop), and feel great after all. I wish I could do this everyday!


Apparently a lot of your self esteem is built into being a politically correct healthy eater and having a great deal of "discipline" to eat that way
I don't care about being PC eater again, weither it's regular or low carb eating, actually, it's you who are pushing PC of a very low carb diets! I eat for pleasure, after all food is a big part of our lives, and I love to cook and eat food full of flavors and palatable for me, and I happen to love apples! This diet keeps my digestive system healthy, my skin smooth and clean, and my energy level and mood just right for me. Sorry if this upsets you, but I don't care about sweet taste, I just love the freshness of vegetables and fruit, some protein, and good fats, and not so much about sweets and starches! This is how I ate since being a child, and I am planing to continue the same way, simply now I go with GL of food.
I don't dwell on food/mind connection like you do, discussing how every morsel of food affects your mood, and life in general. I have no time or desire to do something like this. For me it is a 1st indication of ED!
(...unlike screwed up people who are so disordered they can only "handle" fat even though fruits are sooo much healthier and actually better for blood sugar! heh.)
This is where the root of the problem is, you do feel that at some point you screwed up your metabolism badly and now you blame it on fruit and other carbs! But you are only 23 (same age as my younger daughter) and you have whole life ahead of you, would you be able to continue with this level of carbs forever? What if you decide to have a baby?
I understand your anger towards PC diets, because you can't handle regular food, it will get you back to your fat days! But what apples have to do with it?
One, I don't eat ketogenic carbs. As a hypoglycemic I find myself intolerant of very deep ketosis. But, yes, I must keep carbs below 60 and eat lots of fat for ideal control.
60g of carbs is plenty to include apples and other fruit, as long as you abstain from grains and starches and ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO DENSE IN CARBS COMPARE TO APPLE!
I am sorry that you have such bad genes, but I see the root of the problem in your reproductive hormones imbalance, IMO . May be trying to address this issue, will help your body to handle food and carbs better. Women with PCOS are proned to diabetes, heart desease, and different cancers. May I suggest a books of Dr.E. Vliet "It's your ovaries, stupid" and "screaming to be heard" , she has great explanation of how female reproductive hormone imbalance impacts every aspect of our lives! Correct diet is good for weight loss, but balancing hormones is crucial for a women of any age, especially as young as yourself!
Today, when I eat well enough food, I feel GREAT. The only problems with well being I have mostly relate to weight (or eating to maintain weight) but this is an issue totally removed from LC.
According to your journal, you still count calories in order to avoid gaining weight! You acknowledge that eating lots of food even on strict low carb will either stall or result of weight gain, after all a calorie is a calorie.;)
Good luck to you with your journey, you found what works for you, and it's fine with me. But why do you have to bash innocent apples and healthy carbs in general only because you can't handle them?
Perhaps if you stuck with LC for a little longer, you could enjoy all the benefits others eventually see.
I have been low carbing long enough, experimenting with different levels of carbs, so I can enjoy all benefit of low carbing combined with pleasure of eating. Since I am coming from eating lower carbs for a long time already, cutting too much does not provide any additional benefits for me!
Trust me, I am as intelligent as you are, and read many books of books on diabetes, LC diets, and recently female hormones, which opened my eyes in terms of diets and such.
This posts took wrong turn, and probably will be moved to War Zone. Not something I intented when posted my 1st reply. I am dropping this one, no point of argueing. We have to agree to disagree.;)

[Wyvrn]

If a ketogenic diet is simply a walk in a park, why so many ppl are unable to stick to it (even for a short term) and many actually gain weight and feel lousy?Who said a ketogenic diet is easy? I'd be the first to acknowledge that it requires a strong commitment, drastic lifestyle change, the ability to think outside the box (or pyramid) and the willingness to read and educate oneself instead of taking someone else's word for it. There are many ways to fail; the difference between low-carb and other types of diets is that for many of us, there is also a way to succeed.If the is the way to go, why it requires supplementation with vitamins, mineral, and fiber to avoid constipation, heart palps, and bad muscle cramps?You must be talking about a specific plan, not low-carb in general. The primary sources I used for my diet (very low-carb relaxed paleo) certainly don't require vitamin, mineral or fiber supplementation, just whole foods that can be eaten raw. I eat mostly red meat, eggs and small amounts of veggies and fruits. I don't have heart arrhythmias (though I did before going low-carb), am never constipated, and have only had muscle cramps from being dehydrated.

Wyv

[dina1957]

You're going to have to explain to me why an equal calorie portion of apples is better than potatoes. Potatoes, the small red kind, also contain many valuable micronutrients. Both contain very similar macronutrient makeups.
Potatoes are as healthy as apples, and provide good amont of potassium, but they are too heavy on a "carb budget" so to speak! BTW, I love sweet potatoes and eat them in season or when I must have something carby and sweet!

Apples are so pure and natural; you don't put anything on it sinful ;). In the media and in propaganda, it's always some fit young person comming back from a run eating an apple... never a fat person! They're eating the taters and grains with fat and sugar!
You are wrong, I put almond butter on my apple or eat it with a hunk of cheese, so there we go! Apples for me simply aquired taste and they work like a broom in my digestive system, eliminating toxins! I do not eat taters and grains on daily basis, but I love good Fench butter and allow myslef small amount of good Italian bread with it or couple of small potatoes with herring!

You and Dina are just kidding yourselves if you think this is anything but image and emotions here. Hug your apples (healthy food!) but shun your potatoes and bread (fat people food) if it rocks your world... but nutritionally, if energy portions are equal, it's the practically the same thing.
You are kidding yourself, Woo, when you blame apples and carbs in your problems! Eating certain food has nothing to do with image or emotions, unless one has clear ED! The only food I don't eat is junk, fast food, and processed sugars in any form, especially liquid! I don't chug soft drinks even if they are diet either! My mentality is simply to eat fresh whole unprocessed food and I happen to enjoy taste of it! Nothing is wrong with it!

[Scars]

Putting words in my mouth, again. If you insist on disagreeing with me, at least disagree with something I actually said. I never said apples cause inflammation. I said the sugar in apples is pro-inflammatory. Fructose, glucose, sucrose.

As for your contention that we eat food, not isolated nutrients, that is exactly my point and thank you for making it. The observation that apple extract inteferes with a certain immune function (thereby possibly reducing inflammation) when applied directly to cells in a petri dish in no way supports the idea that there are more benefits than drawbacks to eating apples. And that's assuming that such an effect is desireable - I have my doubts.

Wyv

Then by your logic, if apples don't cause inflammation (the original topic is the healthful nature of apples, afterall) and they don't cause blood sugar fluctuations - then why do you think they wouldn't be beneficial for the majority of the population, given their prolific phytochemical profile? You may have your doubts as to the benefits of apples, but they are hopelessly baseless. Here are some studies that help solidify my contentions. A meta- analysis of 85 studies has determined apples to be most consistently associated with a reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, asthma, and type 2 diabetes - when compared to other fruits and vegetables. That's pretty hard to argue against. Here are some other studies. If you actually have any evidence to back up your "doubts", please post away.

Boyer J, Liu RH. Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits. Nutr J. 2004 May 12;3(1):5.

Cho E, Seddon JM, Rosner B, Willett WC, Hankinson SE. Prospective study of intake of fruits, vegetables, vitamins, and carotenoids and risk of age-related maculopathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Jun;122(6):883-92.

Fernandez ML. Soluble fiber and nondigestible carbohydrate effects on plasma lipids and cardiovascular risk. Curr Opin Lipidol 2001 Feb;12(1):35-40.

Honow R, Laube N, Schneider A, Kessler T, Hesse. Influence of grapefruit-, orange- and apple-juice consumption on urinary variables and risk of crystallization. Br J Nutr. Aug;90(2):295-300.

Huxley RR, Neil HAW. The relation between dietary flavonol intake and coronary heart disease mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies,. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2003) 57, 904-908.

Kern M, Tjaden Z, Ngiewih Y, Puppel N, Will F, Dietrich H, Pahlke G, Marko D. Inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor in apple juice extract. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2005 Mar 9;49(4):317-328 [Epub ahead of print].

Knekt P, Jarvinen R, Reunanen A, Maatela J. Flavonoid intake and coronary mortality in Finland: a cohort study. BMJ 1996 Feb 24;312 (7029): 478-81.
Liu RH, Liu J,

Chen B. Apples prevent mammary tumors in rats. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Mar 23;53(6):2341-3.

Pearson DA, Tan CH, German JB, et al. Apple juice inhibits low density lipoprotein oxidation. Life Sci 1999;64(21):1913-20.

Puel C, Quintin A, Mathey J, Obled C, Davicco MJ, Lebecque P, Kati-Coulibaly S, Horcajada MN, Coxam V. Prevention of bone loss by phloridzin, an apple polyphenol, in ovariectomized rats under inflammation conditions. Calcif Tissue Int. 2005 Nov;77(5):311-8. Epub 2005 Nov 16.

Sable-Amplis R, Sicart R, Agid R. Further studies on the cholesterol-lowering effect of apple in humans. Biochemical mechanisms involved. Nutr Res 1983;3:325-8.

Solovchenko A, Schmitz-Eiberger M. Significance of skin flavonoids for UV-B-protection in apple fruits. J Exp Bot. Aug;54(389):1977-84. Epub 2003 Jun 18.

[Wyvrn]

Then by your logic, if apples don't cause inflammation (the original topic is the healthful nature of apples, afterall) and they don't cause blood sugar fluctuations - then why do you think they wouldn't be beneficial for the majority of the population, given their prolific phytochemical profile? You may have your doubts as to the benefits of apples, but they are hopelessly baseless. Here are some studies that help solidify my contentions. A meta- analysis of 85 studies has determined apples to be most consistently associated with a reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, asthma, and type 2 diabetes - when compared to other fruits and vegetables. That's pretty hard to argue against. Here are some other studies. If you actually have any evidence to back up your "doubts", please post away.You are STILL putting words in my mouth. Why? Once again - what I actually said is that the study that started this thread proves nothing about the dietary benefits of apples. In fact, if you read my original response on this thread, you'll see that the doubt I expressed isn't about apples at all... it's about the effect observed in the study that started this thread. The effect that blocks cancer-fighting TNF in order to reduce inflammation. I question that this is a benefit as the researchers imply.

Or are apples so sacred that we aren't allowed to question any research that might show even a remote chance of a benefit?

Wyv

[Scars]

"Or are apples so sacred that we aren't allowed to question any research that might show even a remote chance of a benefit?"

Therein lies the problem, I believe... the pendulum has swung so far the opposite way that the die-harders abandon all logic (ie. that some carb-containing fruits may actually have some benefit.) Again, apples are not some special entity that are free of criticism, BUT - if you are going to question the validity of a claim - please do so with some logic.

[Scars]

Tumor necrosis factor is a natural substance produced by the immune system to fight cancer. Yes it's pro-inflammatory. So is the sugar in apples. I'd rather skip the sugar and let my immune system do its job.

Wyv

Wyv - just to be sure that I am not "putting words in your mouth" this is your first reply to the subject. Your first post offered nothing more than a wayward opinion that you would rather skip the apples. My contension is that you are offering up nothing more than a best guess based on a) your overt bias against anything that has carbs in it and b) what works for you. Regarding the latter, I made every attempt to express (to no avail), that I respected what works for you. YOU decided to keep pushing your opinion, even though you offered nothing to back up your assertions. So, I would like to end this fruitless (pun inteded) "debate", as you have nothing to back up what you have said. :) Have a great day.

[Wyvrn]

"Or are apples so sacred that we aren't allowed to question any research that might show even a remote chance of a benefit?"

Therein lies the problem, I believe... the pendulum has swung so far the opposite way that the die-harders abandon all logic (ie. that some carb-containing fruits may actually have some benefit.)True... there are a couple of people - 2 or 3 on this forum, maybe, that seem to think veggies are all poison. Or maybe they're just providing balance to the occasional PCRM/vegan zealot that wanders in here looking for a fight. Or how about the constant, insidious bombardment of messages, big pharma/big ag/big factory food. You have to admit, there is a tremendous amount of pressure from many fronts to get people to eat more carbs. Even on this forum, we sometimes get people who aren't necessarily up front about their agenda, trying to push carbs on people whose health requires them to keep carbs very low. Crazy, isn't it? Again, apples are not some special entity that are free of criticism, BUT - if you are going to question the validity of a claim - please do so with some logic.If you are going to argue against my stated doubts about the benefit of the effect observed in the study in question (see first post) - or anything else I've actually said - do so with some logic. I'd suggest using the quote function on my points that you want to argue to avoid attributing statements to me that I never made.

For the record, I have no problem with people eating apples. They are better than many other choices for those who can handle the carbs. But it would be difficult for someone (like myself) who needs to keep carbs under 20 grams/day to incorporate them in the diet, so I generally don't.

Wyv

[dina1957]

Wow, you really are pure! You don't like dessert either!
I sense irony again, Woo, but again, sorry to upset you, I DON'T HAVE SWEET TOOTH, GET IT ALREADY!
It looks you simply can't stand the fact that someone have no sweet tooth, and does not eat dessert and other sweet junk low carb or regular! I am not sure what is wrong with it! I am not even sure if I am a purist since I eat organ meats, cured pork fat, etc. But I happepend not to like sweets, this how my parents raised me, they did not like and did not eat sweets and sugar too. Sorry to disappoint you ;)

[Nancy LC]

I'm jealous! Life would be a lot easier if I didn't enjoy sweet things so much.

[Scars]

True... there are a couple of people - 2 or 3 on this forum, maybe, that seem to think veggies are all poison. Or maybe they're just providing balance to the occasional PCRM/vegan zealot that wanders in here looking for a fight. Or how about the constant, insidious bombardment of messages, big pharma/big ag/big factory food. You have to admit, there is a tremendous amount of pressure from many fronts to get people to eat more carbs. Even on this forum, we sometimes get people who aren't necessarily up front about their agenda, trying to push carbs on people whose health requires them to keep carbs very low. Crazy, isn't it?If you are going to argue against my stated doubts about the benefit of the effect observed in the study in question (see first post) - or anything else I've actually said - do so with some logic. I'd suggest using the quote function on my points that you want to argue to avoid attributing statements to me that I never made.

For the record, I have no problem with people eating apples. They are better than many other choices for those who can handle the carbs. But it would be difficult for someone (like myself) who needs to keep carbs under 20 grams/day to incorporate them in the diet, so I generally don't.

Wyv

Hey - I'm all for what you just said! Common ground, I like it ;) ... apples don't work for you - you don't eat them. I'm glad we can move on...if I misconstrued what you said, please accept my apologies.

[dina1957]

I'm jealous! Life would be a lot easier if I didn't enjoy sweet things so much.
I feel for you Nancy, and for my DH and kids, they all have huge sweet tooth. I like everything salty, spicy, and savory food in general.
I think since I did not eat much sugar in my childhood, my sweet taste buds sort of underdeveloped, LOL. But I crave salt all the time!

[twistiyogi]

I only eat apples drowned in peanut butter!

If I eat them alone they seem to burn a hole in my stomach.

[Nancy LC]

I feel for you Nancy, and for my DH and kids, they all have huge sweet tooth. I like everything salty, spicy, and savory food in general.
I think since I did not eat much sugar in my childhood, my sweet taste buds sort of underdeveloped, LOL. But I crave salt all the time!

Actually, I think I crave salty carb-y food worse than sweets. But they're both on the list. :\

[Hismouse]

I am a diabetic and apples cause me blood sugar spikes and last hrs. I am an apple shape, why ingest more apples,lol