Wednesday, March 15. 2006

Low-Glycemic Diets Don't Work Either

In the February 2006 edition of the British Journal of Nutrition Dr. Elizabeth Mayer-Davis reported on a study that showed people eating a low-glycemic diet had the same kind of blood sugar problems as those who ate freely. ?So much for another one-size-fits-all solution to health and diet. ?Low-glycemic diets are designed to slow the rush of sugar into the bloodstream. ?Unfortunately, there?s a lot more going on in your body and mine than a single number that tells us how sweet our blood is at the moment. ?Diet success has to include lots of other factors. ?Dare I say, exercise?

The glycemic index (GI) ?classifies carbohydrates based on their effect on blood sugar levels. High-GI foods, like white bread and potatoes, tend to produce a quick surge in blood sugar, and some studies have suggested that these foods can contribute to weight gain, diabetes and heart disease.? Books and Web sites espousing "low-GI" diets have followed suit.

Not all studies have found that high-GI foods elevate blood sugar and increase the incidence of diabetes. One reason is that lab findings on glycemic index don?t have anything to do with everyday eating, according to Dr. Elizabeth Mayer-Davis, the lead author of the new study.

A food's GI is determined under artificial conditions where a person eats the test food after a fast, then has blood sugar tests taken two hours later. But there?s a whole lot more going on in the body than the two-hour blood test findings can show.? Many factors sway blood sugar levels after a meal, according to Mayer-Davis, a diabetes researcher at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. These include cooking time, the foods it is eaten along with, and the workings of an individual's hormones, among other things. In her team's study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, there was no association between high-GI eating habits and elevated blood sugar among 813 adults who were followed over 5 years.

We began work on the Better Body Brighter Mind System? several years ago to attack all the factors that contribute to weight gain, diabetes and heart disease.? The Precision Mix? Eating Plan addresses all the factors that come into play with foods including:

???????? Protein percentage

???????? Blood type impact

???????? Hormonal influences

???????? Stress

You can check out the Better Body Brighter Mind? System at www.betterbodybrighetrmind,.com .? It beats a ?low-GI diet? any day!

Posted by Dr. James Mahoney at 13:41 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

The Evolution of Scientific Stupidity

Yesterday, the New York Times reported on the theories of evolutionary biologist Dr. David Haig.? He claims that the kidneys and heart are "amazing bits of engineering" but pregnancy "doesn't work very well!"? His basic premise is that mother and child compete for survival during pregnancy so that evolution can continue.? Huh?? Nearly 6.5 billion people http://www.geohive.com/?have come to grace our planet through this "flawed process!"? This guy's not that bright for a Harvard man!

I have been amazed at the incredible ability of a woman's body to house a developing person from conception to birth since I could think such "big thoughts."? Basically, a woman keeps a "foreign body" inside her womb without rejecting it.? On top of that she marshals her body's resources to nourish and protect that child until it comes screaming onto the planet with the aforementioned 6.5 billion other fellow humans.? Though scientific exploration into this field is a noble and worthwhile effort I think evolutionary preconceptions make scientist's conclusions weak and empty.

Dr. Haig has other scientists in his orbit who believe, and I quote, his work is "Absolutely cool!"? Dr. Karamanuchi, also of Harvard, has replicated the results of studies that show fetal proteins create imbalances in the mother.? Duh!? These are foreign proteins that are being acted upon outside the womb according to immune system?requirements for survival.? To make the?leap in logic to assume that the mother and child are in a "tug-of-war" is exceedingly foolish.? From a creationist perspective it appears entirely different.?

First I need to give kudos to the brilliant research that is done to investigate the inner workings of women during pregnancy.? Next I need to point out that there is another side to the story.? Women are known to "lay down their lives" for their children.? I believe that biology reflects this conscious behavior.? I view this as a sacrificial biology rather than a parasitic form.? This would make the assumption that the system was designed by a loving creator that had the capacity for sacrifice.? This thought is alien to evolutionary biology which suggests that we live in a "dog-eat-dog" competition for scarce resources that will result in the most vicious individuals surviving.? Personally, that's a little too dark for me.

I believe that the observations of these scientists can be interpreted in a different light.? Genetic expression is clearly the direct consequence of the DNA's environment.? In the presence of good nutrition, low stress and adequate physical activity the genes will have their optimal conditions for healthy expression.? To the extent that there is deficiency, emotional strife or poor circulatory activity these healthy genes will be expressed less fully and poor quality output will show up in less healthy individuals.? I do not refute the possibility that there are components of evolution that make sense.? I especially embrace the idea that scientist's thoughts can evolve into a twisted mess of illogic and hubris with regard to God and their own created beauty.? Sometimes it makes me sad to see such brilliance turned to such foolish ends.

Posted by Dr. James Mahoney at 12:30 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

(Page 1 of 1, totalling 2 entries)