Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 03:16
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,403
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/205/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 21%
Location: UK
Default Bad news for food manufacturers: the low-carb word is out

Bad news for food manufacturers: the low-carb word is ou

Joanna Blythman


https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/health/.../650241.article

Quote:
The low-carb diet market is expected to grow by 6.4% by 2027. More of us are limiting the carbs on our plates, a worrying trend for food manufacturers whose business model depends on highly processed forms of corn, wheat, grain and rice.

The distinction between ‘good’ (complex) and ‘bad’ (simple) carbohydrates used to have considerable traction, but it hasn’t brought on board doubters persuaded to follow a ‘keto’ or ‘paleo’ eating approach.

Now Big Carb is trying to reverse that trend. A press release landed on my desk, trumpeting Against the Grain, “a new paper [that] reveals that cereals offer greater health and nutrition benefits than commonly acknowledged, despite often being considered ‘nutrient-poor’”. Two of the three authors of this review are economists at the CGIAR International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.

Their conclusion is so desperate it’s almost amusing: “Only relative to other ‘nutrient-rich’ foodstuffs can cereals be described as ‘nutrient-poor’.” Well, I might appreciate the joke more if the authors stopped there, and didn’t go on to argue that to feed the world “within planetary boundaries”, current intakes of wholegrain foods should more than double. But it’s becoming stark-staring obvious that high consumption of carbs is driving the waves of obesity and type 2 diabetes washing up everywhere from the UK to India.

To be fair, the authors refer obliquely to the need to “address tricky issues like the current over-processing, to make the most of the nutrition potential of maize and wheat”. But that still leaves them behind the curve.

Worldwide awareness is growing that our bodies metabolise carbs much in the same way as sugar. In the UK, Dr David Unwin, a GP who has had positive results with diabetic patients, has developed visually striking infographics, depicting the glycemic load of any given food in terms of the equivalent number of teaspoons of sugar it contains. His infographics had their endorsement from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence removed this year, following a complaint that they weren’t “evidence-based”.

Let NICE play safe. The low-carb word is out and unstoppable. Many people who previously struggled to control their weight and blood sugar are finding that it works for them.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 10:13
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,555
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Love to hear news like this as an indicator of progress. Food manufacturers will continue to campaign against low carb, as their businesses depend on it, and the mantra of "healthy whole grains" continues in the registered dieticians camp and among many in the medical community, but the first step has started. The first step is that people aware of clinical successes like Dr. Unwin and many others adopting a low carb WOE are causing them to take action by ignoring the highly processed foods on grocery store shelves. As sales decline with improved identification of healthy foods, things will change, slowly, but things will change.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 10:29
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,376
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Since nutrient density is a relative measure, I guess the bit about

Quote:
Only relative to other ‘nutrient-rich’ foodstuffs can cereals be described as ‘nutrient-poor


is true. But in this case, 'only relative' helped us to discover most of the vitamins--various deficiency diseases caused by relying on various grains, whole or refined, for nutrition. Pellegra, beri-beri, rickets, scurvy, all related to eating grains. Only relative is important--because it's only because other foods are relatively rich in various nutrients, and can be added to a grain-rich diet, and provide more than their share of vital nutrients, that a grain diet is at all tenable.

I don't have a problem with grains being a staple in much of the world. I think it's clear that reasonable health can be had on a diet heavy in starchy grains. (It's not clear that it can be had for me, and everyone on this forum, but there's enough evidence I think that a population can do reasonably well). It's not just a matter of, lean on whole grains and you'll do well. There's a whole dietary structure and lifestyle, much of it not entirely voluntary--people eating the foods they can actually afford that are available in their area--going into that. To me, is whole grain healthful? or even is heavy cream healthful? is nonsensical, it's more, in what dietary/lifestyle context is it healthful, and for who?
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 12:54
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,133
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

And cereals are even nutrient poorer before all the vitamins & minerals are added. It would be just as effective to eat the box (for fiber if you believe you need it) and pop a multivitamin.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 14:29
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,149
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
I think it's clear that reasonable health can be had on a diet heavy in starchy grains. (It's not clear that it can be had for me, and everyone on this forum, but there's enough evidence I think that a population can do reasonably well).


I think recent history illustrates this. Prior to the Food Pyramid, the Four Food Groups allowed starches on the plate far more than sugar. In my case, this makes a difference; maybe even if only in concentration.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 14:47
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,044
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

History shows grain filled diets are bad for teeth and bones. Period.

Good to see low carb movement building....... even if the products are usually higher carb than the daily 20 which is baseline for a surprising number of people and the products will be highly processed, another negative.

As for grains becoming sugar, every diabetic knows carbs are a reason to track blood sugar after a meal. Really.

Last edited by Ms Arielle : Wed, Nov-11-20 at 15:42.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 15:17
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,555
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Since nutrient density is a relative measure, I guess the bit about



is true. But in this case, 'only relative' helped us to discover most of the vitamins--various deficiency diseases caused by relying on various grains, whole or refined, for nutrition. Pellegra, beri-beri, rickets, scurvy, all related to eating grains. Only relative is important--because it's only because other foods are relatively rich in various nutrients, and can be added to a grain-rich diet, and provide more than their share of vital nutrients, that a grain diet is at all tenable.

I don't have a problem with grains being a staple in much of the world. I think it's clear that reasonable health can be had on a diet heavy in starchy grains. (It's not clear that it can be had for me, and everyone on this forum, but there's enough evidence I think that a population can do reasonably well). It's not just a matter of, lean on whole grains and you'll do well. There's a whole dietary structure and lifestyle, much of it not entirely voluntary--people eating the foods they can actually afford that are available in their area--going into that. To me, is whole grain healthful? or even is heavy cream healthful? is nonsensical, it's more, in what dietary/lifestyle context is it healthful, and for who?

Very well stated. The many frankenfoods produced that masquerade as "healthy grains" are the real culprits in this context. Not only do they not provide nutrients, unless they are fortified, but they are very different than the harvested grains they started with after they were processed into something else. Some people do ok on on whole grains. I'm not one of them.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 16:38
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,567
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

If whole grains are so great then why have people around the world put so much effort into polishing off the husks from rice, removing bran from wheat flour, etc? My opinion, the lectins and other anti-nutrients are mostly found in the hulls/bran and people have figured out over eons of trial and error that they feel better not eating that stuff. Doesn't mean extremely processed grains with added inflammatory industrial seed oils are good, though. Thinking of traditional Asian white rice, French white flour breads, etc. I can't eat that stuff due to years of metabolic damage from SAD diet but people who grew up that way on the stuff are often relatively healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Nov-11-20, 18:11
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,683
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/171/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 128%
Location: Florida
Default

I think a little grain every now and then is OK for me, definitely not daily, definitely small doses, and definitely with a healthy portion of good fats.

I'm 65 pounds down and extremely healthy.

Starch used to be a staple, 65 pounds ago.

Everybody is different though. Small portions, like a slice or two of zero carb bread (mostly fiber) per week for a grilled cheese sandwich with Irish Cheddar plus Danish Havarti and saturated with grass-fed butter. Mmmmm - delightful.

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sat, Nov-14-20, 06:27
sheryl2020's Avatar
sheryl2020 sheryl2020 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 109
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 207/172/140 Female 5'3”
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: New Mexico
Default

Thank you for this article Demi! So glad to see the low carb food market growing. Personally, I am dirty low carb (a term I got from the book Dirty Lazy Keto), and don’t fret over artificial sweeteners or the occasional low carb cookie. In fact, I love to bake, and low carb products like almond flour have opened up a world of possibility for me.

Looking back, I never did well on “ healthy” whole grains like Quinoa and brown rice. I get my fiber from psyllium now, and never fret about grains any more. Never going back!

Thanks again for your wonderful postings.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sat, Nov-14-20, 10:52
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,507
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
I think recent history illustrates this. Prior to the Food Pyramid, the Four Food Groups allowed starches on the plate far more than sugar. In my case, this makes a difference; maybe even if only in concentration.



But even the starches were far more limited with the 4 basic food groups than they are now. Potatoes were lumped in with bread, pasta, cereals, and other grains in the oldest 4 food groups classifications, because they were all starch based.



It's difficult now to even find information about the 4 food groups and how many servings were recommended back then (much less images of the 4 food group posters from the 50's and 60's), but if I'm recalling correctly, each meal was basically a serving of starch (usually 2 slices of bread or one slice of bread plus a small serving of potatoes or cereal - and bread slices were most often white bread, and smaller in size back then than they are now), 2 servings of vegetables (not potatoes), or a vegetable and a fruit (juice was permitted as a 4 oz serving), a serving of meat (4 oz, not the pitiful 2 oz recommended now), and a serving of dairy (whole milk and/or real cheese) at each meal. Fats like real butter fit in with the meal to spread on your bread, or season your veggies. Easy, and it didn't cause nearly as many metabolic problems for nearly as many people.



In the 70's (I have an old college textbook from then with this information in it), potatoes had been quietly moved to the fruit and vegetable group - but they were the very last item on the fruit and vegetable list, with vegetables clearly preferred, followed by fruit (preferably whole fruit, not juice), and finally potatoes - small potatoes, not the huge 1 lb baking potatoes we see these days. There were also alternatives offered for the meat group - you could have some beans or peanut butter, but again the very last option on the list, the assumption being that you'd get the vast majority of your protein from various animal products. Dairy was a separate group (milk, cheese, eggs), which means you also got protein from that group too. Real fats - butter was added to season vegetables, or spread on bread. Fruit was served with cream. Cheese was full fat. Meat didn't have most of the fat trimmed away. For hamburger, 30% fat was the norm. Pork and beef were well marbled. Chicken was always on the bone, with the skin intact.



So different from now with the pyramid and plate - far too much starch, far too little protein, far too much of the protein being plant based, and hardly any fat, much less real, naturally occurring fat.



Bah, humbug.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sat, Nov-14-20, 11:42
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,567
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

What I remember of the 4 food groups was servings per day, something like 4 servings of the starches, 2 meat, 2 milk, 4 fruit/veg (or was it 2 fruit, 2 veg?). It was supposed to represent a minimum selection of foods to get the nutrients you needed, expecting you'd eat more of whatever as individually needed for energy.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, Nov-14-20, 12:46
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,507
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
What I remember of the 4 food groups was servings per day, something like 4 servings of the starches, 2 meat, 2 milk, 4 fruit/veg (or was it 2 fruit, 2 veg?). It was supposed to represent a minimum selection of foods to get the nutrients you needed, expecting you'd eat more of whatever as individually needed for energy.



Yes, I believe you're right - it was sooo long ago now, that I can't recall exactly. It's just so difficult to find the exact information now, and the only image I found illustrating the 4 food groups from back in the 50's and early 60's is so small that I can't see what it says about each food group. Food recommendations had started changing by the time that college textbook came out in the 70's, so mostly going by memory here.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sun, Nov-15-20, 13:57
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,683
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/171/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 128%
Location: Florida
Default

I remember the 4 food groups too, but I don't remember the ratio.

I don't think they were as commercialized as the pyramids, but I don't think we knew as much about nutrition as we do now either.

No matter how much we know, it doesn't matter. Way too many people still think if you eat fat you get fat.

The minority of us use our brains, the rest just do what the salesmen/saleswomen in their living rooms tell them to do (TV, magazines, newspapers, websites).

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Nov-16-20, 10:39
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Posts: 4,701
 
Plan: TheraKeto~Atkins72
Stats: 170/136/140 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 113%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

I hate to throw shade, but I've learned something disturbing since we rely so heavily on meat to stay healthy. Thought posting it here is the best place.
China finds coronavirus on frozen meat, packaging from Latin America, New Zealand
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:44.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.