Every Diet Is Wrong
I thought I'd finally found something in the world of nutrition that made some sense, but now there's a study (isn't there always) saying that the glycemic index (the basis for diets such as South Beach) may not be all that useful.
"Now, diabetes researcher Elizabeth Mayer-Davis of the University of South Carolina says the use of the index should be ended altogether in favor of more traditional methods of losing weight and reducing the risk of diabetes — eating less and exercising more."
"Eat less and exercise more." Now where have I heard that advice before? The problem is, of course, that it's not useful to make a blanket statement like that without giving people some indication of what they can and can't eat. It just makes us all confused and frightened off by food.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that I had a chronic condition that went away (at least so far) once I started doing the first phase of the South Beach diet, and I also have lost weight and felt better since I've been doing it. I don't know if it's glycemic in nature or the fact that cutting out sugar and white bread is a sound nutritional principle. But I know I'm eating more healthfully, and that's... still good, right?
"Mayer-Davis said that researchers should develop a new measure of how different carbohydrates can affect health. She said a better index would be based on the physical characteristics of foods, such as fat content and calories, because numerous factors influence a food's effect on blood-sugar levels."
Well, keep me posted, Mayer-Davis. The whole thing makes my head hurt.
"Now, diabetes researcher Elizabeth Mayer-Davis of the University of South Carolina says the use of the index should be ended altogether in favor of more traditional methods of losing weight and reducing the risk of diabetes — eating less and exercising more."
"Eat less and exercise more." Now where have I heard that advice before? The problem is, of course, that it's not useful to make a blanket statement like that without giving people some indication of what they can and can't eat. It just makes us all confused and frightened off by food.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that I had a chronic condition that went away (at least so far) once I started doing the first phase of the South Beach diet, and I also have lost weight and felt better since I've been doing it. I don't know if it's glycemic in nature or the fact that cutting out sugar and white bread is a sound nutritional principle. But I know I'm eating more healthfully, and that's... still good, right?
"Mayer-Davis said that researchers should develop a new measure of how different carbohydrates can affect health. She said a better index would be based on the physical characteristics of foods, such as fat content and calories, because numerous factors influence a food's effect on blood-sugar levels."
Well, keep me posted, Mayer-Davis. The whole thing makes my head hurt.
posted by mo pie at 10:18 AM
14 Comments:
I think it's entirely possible that the glycemic index might not be valid in and of itself, but might still lead people to make better food choices. After all, low glycemic foods tend to be things like whole grains, veggies - stuff that's good for you.
Personally, though, I found that it made a huge difference in my ability to lose weight and in my well-being when I started eating to prevent blood sugar swings. I did this by a combination of eating fewer carbs, eating low glycemic-index carbs, and eating smaller meals more frequently. I don't know which one of those is most important.
I think that's why so many of these nutrition studies that look at just one element of diet (fat intake, glycemic index, whatever) show that there's no effect. Diet is such a complex thing that tweaking just one variable at a time just may not give you much.
Well, if the glycemic index helps people eat more healthfully, it could be fine. But if ice cream has a lower glycemic index and that encourages you not to eat fruits and vegetables and low-fat proteins, well it seems like a bad idea. I agree with Jen that thinking about the ratio of calories to food volume and weight is important. More water in = fewer calories in! My own blog about my dieting experiences is here: http://duhdiet.blogspot.com/. I lost 20 pounds in under two months!
I've lost over 135 pounds on the South Beach Diet, so even if someone proved it helps terrorists and kills baby penguins, I would be unable to think ill of it. My first hand experience is going to trump some random researchers findings any day.
Word on the uselessness of a blanket statement like "Eat less and exercise more." If people knew how to do that, wouldn't they do it already?
I think it's safe to say that it's better to eat whole grains and complex carbs than Krispy Kreme Donuts.
I also say that if you find a way of eating that feels good to your body and mind and gives you results that you want, then stick with it no matter WHAT the muckity mucks say.
Unless you're doing the GM Cabbage Soup Diet -- that diet is a crock of crap.
I was so annoyed when I read this article. I just started SB on Sunday and I already feel better. I've lost a little already, I'm healthier, there's no guilt about the food I'm choosing.
Then this stupid article has to pop up all over the place and wham, the guilt's back and I'm stuck wondering if I'm f-ing up my body again.
I don't care. Life goes on. And, so will South Beach.
The glycemic index is the food equivalent of the BMI; it's a measure, but not particularly a good one, as it doesn't take into account the volume of food, what happens when you eat other foods, how the food is prepared, and so on.
I think the glycemic load is an improvement, since it does account for volume (see http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm for a nice description of GL and http://www.glycemicindex.com/ for a great GL database).
Also, I wouldn't categorize South Beach as a GI diet. Yes, South Beach recommends that the carbs you eat are on the lower end of the GI/GL scale, which, like spaceling said, is a good thing, since it points you in the direction of healthier foods.
But IMO, South Beach is much more than a GI diet. It's really a low/managed carb approach, and I think that is what makes it successful. The CSPI calls South Beach a "healthy version of Atkins diet that’s backed by solid evidence on fats and heart disease."
Me? I like the South Beach concepts, but don't have the patience for following it too closely, so I do my own variant (which I call SuperFoods Rx meets Volumetrics meets Rachael Ray).
Note too that the study you point to is a five-year study that measured folks' blood sugar "tested their blood sugar levels twice during the study period."
Huh?!?
If I'm reading this right (and I'm looking at the actual study abstract now), they measured the blood sugar of 1000 adults at the beginning of the study, had them do food diaries for five years and then measured the blood sugar of the 813 adults who returned at the end of the study.
The way they determined whether or not the diet was effective was to test their blood sugar after fasting (prior to exam presumably) and two hours after ingesting 75g of glucose.
Now, I'm not a scientist (nor do I play one on TV :), but IMO, this completely misses the point of the GI/GL concept, which is blood sugar levels shortly after ingestion. Not five years later.
Or am I missing something here?
The glycemic index is the food equivalent of the BMI; it's a measure, but not particularly a good one, as it doesn't take into account the volume of food, what happens when you eat other foods, how the food is prepared, and so on.
I think the glycemic load is an improvement, since it does account for volume (see http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm for a nice description of GL and http://www.glycemicindex.com/ for a great GL database).
Also, I wouldn't categorize South Beach as a GI diet. Yes, South Beach recommends that the carbs you eat are on the lower end of the GI/GL scale, which, like spaceling said, is a good thing, since it points you in the direction of healthier foods.
But IMO, South Beach is much more than a GI diet. It's really a low/managed carb approach, and I think that is what makes it successful. The CSPI calls South Beach a "healthy version of Atkins diet that’s backed by solid evidence on fats and heart disease."
Me? I like the South Beach concepts, but don't have the patience for following it too closely, so I do my own variant (which I call SuperFoods Rx meets Volumetrics meets Rachael Ray).
Note too that the study you point to is a five-year study that measured folks' blood sugar "tested their blood sugar levels twice during the study period."
Huh?!?
If I'm reading this right (and I'm looking at the actual study abstract now), they measured the blood sugar of 1000 adults at the beginning of the study, had them do food diaries for five years and then measured the blood sugar of the 813 adults who returned at the end of the study.
The way they determined whether or not the diet was effective was to test their blood sugar after fasting (prior to exam presumably) and two hours after ingesting 75g of glucose.
Now, I'm not a scientist (nor do I play one on TV :), but IMO, this completely misses the point of the GI/GL concept, which is blood sugar levels shortly after ingestion. Not five years later.
Or am I missing something here?
I'm a scientist, and I Agree that there may not be a firm scientific grounding for the theory behind South Beach and many other diets, but a lot of them work very well for people trying to reduce calorie intake because they introduce a system, and a somewhat simplified approach to help you figure out WHAT to eat.
That's extremely valuable.
I always figured atkins was so hugely sucessful because a lot of poeple are close to addicted to refined sugars, so a diet that makes you go cold turkey on them would help fight that. It also combats the availability of "low fat", high calorie low nutrition snacks, something that has really confused the issue of healthy eating. (I'm thinking of my coworker who snacked constantly on pretzels and gummy candy, insisting it was healthy because it was "low fat" and then complained that she was no longer a size 8).
I think the best thing to take away from this article is to remember that not every claim about eating habits is very well established, and to focus on finding what works for you, no matter what that system is called.
Don't abandon the magical tootie diet!
You're right, they need to be more specific. Not just eat less, exercize more. Eat less FAT, exercise more. Eat less SUGAR, exercize more. If you're willing to be a damn hippie like me, sticking to whole foods can help, too.
But I worry so much about those that turn to diets like South Beach. As my (nutritionist) mama always taught me, fruits, vegetables, low-fat fish and grains (GRAINS! REALLY!) can all be very important contributions to a healthy diet.
I would never say that South Beach, or Atkins, or any of the rest won't help you lose weight. But I would never say that they will help you be healthy, either.
Jen,
Thanks for the update. But what the study shows ("low-GI or high-GI diet are not associated with long-term changes in diabetes risk") is not exactly what the media is reporting!
A selection of headlines shows: Study Casts Doubt on Glycemic Index (Yahoo), Researcher finds glycemic index useless (UPI), Study Questions Glycemic Index as Diet Tool (Newswise), Glycaemic Index ‘unrealistic’ (NutraIngredients.com), Carb Counting May Not Control Blood Sugar Levels, Study Says (Fox News), and Get the skinny on another diet fad (Florence Morning News).
So IMO, this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
You "can" eat anything. Is the thing. I deeply and profoundly do not get the fact that diets like South Beach tell you you "can't" eat carrots. Like carrots are somehow "bad" for you. Are you kidding? Come on. It is a CARROT. It is full of FIBER and VITAMINS.
I see a nutritionist, and she has never told me there is a food I "can't" eat. She will never tell me that. I eat ice cream, she's like, "Cool." I eat pasta, she's like, "Yup." It's her job to make sure I'm eating in a way that's balanced and regular. (Keep in mind, though, that I don't see her for weight-loss, just for health and sanity.)
I think this latest spate of diets-don't-work research proves a couple of things: 1) That the human body is a complicated organism we don't really understand, so we should quit telling other people how to manipulate it, and in fact, quit trying to manipulate it at all and just sort of go with the flow, and 2) That simpler is better. Whole grains, protein, fruits and vegetables (carbs and all), no chemically-altered "low-fat" whatever. And definitely carrots.
Roberta, I can't agree at all. Too much rhetoric, not enough doing.
All of you, exercise more! Lift weights. Muscle is healthier than fat. You want to lower your blood sugar, go to the gym. Just do it, cut out terrible snacks, cut back on pasta.
Too many diet plans and not enough ACTION! How hard is it REALLY to understand "eat less and exercise more". Each of you sounds like you're just making excuses. Stop!
Sarah, sweetie, I'm not overwieght, don't eat a lot of crap, exercise regularly at the gym (cardio and weights) and do you think I can lose 5 pounds? No. The only time I have ever lost the little bits of weight I've wanted to have been by following the principals of diets like South Beach and Low GI. All eating less ever did for me was stuff up the metabolism of a perfectly healthy 23 year old.
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a Low Gi Diet site. It pretty much covers dieting related things.
Come and check it out if you get time ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home