Jump to content
Health Discovery Network


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good
  1. And what they mean by "whole grain oats" is "whole grain oat flour". You can see by the texture that it's ground up finely, there are no chunks of oat in it. No flour is SiFi. Enjoy and count the (probably fairly low) points.
  2. Judy I hear you. My Dad used to do that a lot, lately not as much. Maybe there is hope for your guy too! Both my sons are still home from university but one will be leaving fairly soon, the other in October. There sure will be less activity in the house then! I successfully avoided the jelly beans at work today.
  3. I tend to just eat the same things I like, over and over. I know some people like variety but I will very happily repeat a successful meal.
  4. Off to bed. Didn't sleep well last night and was tired at work today, despite melatonin and a sleeping pill. Menopause insomnia is hitting me hard. I made an appointment with a naturopath today too see whether any herbal remedies will help with menopause or sleep. My doctor recommended I try some herbals so I hope the naturopath can assist in choosing the right things.
  5. Sigh. Mine seems rather small compared to others but I refuse to be discouraged. Rode stationary bike for 45 minutes - not very briskly if truth be told. I tell myself that anything that I do, makes tomorrow's workout easier, even if small. But sigh.
  6. Here's how we deal with the varied ways of eating. Our household has a very scattered supper schedule, especially on the weekdays. My 2 sons are home from university for the summer, and both have irregular work schedules which often cross the dinner hour. DH is now self employed but likes to stop work at 5:00 or so and go for a 2 hour bike ride. I get home at 6:00 and eat with whoever is home. We usually cook on the weekends and people eat what is available. DH has been cooking the meat since I have been eating plant-based. Last night, after his bike ride, he did a grill full of hamburgers and then a second grill of chicken breasts, so the meat-eaters are good to go for awhile. They eat my curried vegetables and stir fries, heated in the microwave or cold for lunches. They also like cole slaw or Mexican Fiesta Salad, which keep well. Bean dips are popular. One DS also drinks soya milk. He cut out juices and milk last year and his acne cleared right up. I find that when we eat together, we are all eating the same thing except they have a meat and I have a bean or tofu dish.
  7. I've been lurking on and off so thought I'd say hello. I introduced myself on the intro sticky thread http://www.healthdiscovery.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1801753#post1801753 My household is busy these days. We're getting ready to send 2 of my sons out of the nest for the next university year, leaving it empty except for DH and me. As always, this is a great place! I've been reading the August Experiment thread and have been trying the plant-based eating. I think it's great and it has helped get me back on track. Hope everyone has a great day.
  8. Name : Marilyn Where: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Married : Yes, 30 years Kids : 3 Occupation : Banker Hobbies : cooking, reading sci fi and gardening WW history : This is a reintroduction for some of you. I was an active poster here on the Core board, reached goal in Sept 2006, kept it off for a year, but am now 30 pounds above the top of my goal range. I have developed some health problems but things are looking up now. I've been eating vegan for the past few weeks and am losing.
  9. Their reply is just cut and pasted, word for word, from the Frequently Asked Questions on their website. My comments on their reply: The Whey Low calories are based on how the body processes Whey Low. The three natural sugars (simple carbohydrates) that comprise Whey Low® work synergistically in the small intestine to interfere with the normal absorption of each other into the bloodstream. For example, we (but no-one else, although others have tried) have found in (only our) clinical testing that fructose (fruit sugar) interferes with the normal absorption of lactose (milk sugar). Fructose, a small hexose monosaccharide (all monosaccharides are hexoses, this just makes it sound more fancy), is easily absorbed via a facilitated diffusion mechanism, and no sugar is known to interfere with its absorption. (at least he admits that all the fructose that you eat, is absorbed and really does have calories) Lactose, (which is in milk) a disaccharide, interferes (in some mysterious way which has never been observed by anyone else) with the normal absorption of the disaccharide, sucrose (ordinary or table sugar), and with starch, a polysaccharide or complex carbohydrate usually consumed along with any sweetener. Finally, there is a weaker interference between fructose and the normal absorption of sucrose. These interactions are depicted and a theoretical framework put forth in the diagram. (this is just a picture of his theory) The mutual interferences with normal absorption serve to provide a unique (never before seen) barrier for the body's normal dietary sources for carbohydrates and resulting blood glucose and calories. Insulin demand is reduced. that's a well known effect of plain sucrose which does not spike insulin, but has nothing to do with calories Carbohydrate and calorie utilization by the host of the unabsorbed carbohydrates, which pass into the large intestine or gut, are minimized by rapid and complete bacterial utilization. Small, but quantifiable, amounts of volatile fatty acids (VFA's) are produced from the unabsorbed carbohydrates by the indigenous bacteria and are absorbed through the walls of the large intestine into the bloodstream. VFA's are eventually converted into glucose in the liver. so they have calories Best Regards, ********************* I'm not sure what to think. Is this how aspartame, etc is also determined to have 0 calories? How the body processes it vs actual energy stored in it? No, absolutely not. Aspartame is a protein, just like the proteins in your other food. It is digested in your body and has calories just like other proteins. But it is so sweet that just a tiny amount is needed to sweeten food, so the amount of calories is negigible. But the calories are calculated just like any other protein of the same amount. If they have it on the NI label, then I assume they showed their reasonsings to the FDA who approved it? If that was the case why don't they so say, clearly, on their website or in their reply to you? I sure would. I'm torn. If there is something real to their (own) studies, I could keep using it. But if it is just baloney, I'd rather just keep with my regular sucrose!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Think about it. Their theory is that: Nothing interferes with fructose since is absorbed normally Lactose strongly interferes with sucrose absorption Fructose weakly interferes with sucrose absorption So why not have a glass of milk (which, as he says somewhere in his website, has lots more lactose than his mix) whenever you eat something with sugar? For example, cookies and milk - the lactose in the milk should interferes with the absorption of the sucrose, and even interferes with the absorption of the starch in the flour. No? Why not? It's the same combination of stuff as in his sweetener. The other unbelievable thing is that there are bacteria just hanging out in your intestine, waiting to digest these sugars which can't seem to get themselves absorbed by your body. And these bacteria are so efficient that they don't even produce any digestion byproducts (gas), unlike all the other bacteria in your intestine (and in the world) which product gas as a byproduct of digestion. It's not happening like this. Impossible. All made-up science. If you're curious, you could contact Dr Castonguay at the University of Maryland and ask him what his research results were. If he was able to replicate their results, he would have published it. And it would have been big-time news. His e-mail address is on the university website. Or contact the FDA and ask whether the calorie claims are true. Eat it if you enjoy it and count the calories as regular sugar.
  10. If you are only using 2 teaspoons a day, then you are using 30 calories, not 10. Not enough difference to cause a weight gain.
  11. Just to clarify, I do believe that this product will produce less of a blood sugar spike. So will plain fructose. And the d-version, which has more fructose, has a lower spike than the regular Whey Low. The "testimonial" is surely true. Where I disagree is his assumption about what the lower spike means. Because the spike is lower, he infers that the calories are lower. That it never gets digested and used by your body. That's the part that's his opinion. He assumes that the area under the graph is proportional to the calories used by your body. He implies that those sugars go "away". In your body, there is no "away". Either 1. you digest them, which means full calories same as sugar. Fructose digestion is different than glucose. Check out wikipedia for details. 2. they stay in your intestines and bacteria digest them. That's what happens to sugar alcohols such as sorbitol and xylitol, the ones in sugar free candies. The gas that these candies can give you is the result of bacteria digesting these sugar alcohols. It says in several spots that people don't get gas from Whey Low, so that is not apparently happening here. There is always gas formed when bacteria digest stuff in your intestines. Think beans. 3. They are excreted in your feces. That's the way olestra (the artifical fat) works. It's very easy (although yucky) to check the feces of a person eating this stuff to determine if there is undigested sugar in it. If that was the case, he'd say so. My vote is with #1. That said, I don't think this stuff is any different from eating fructose, if that is your choice of sweetener. And it will prevent the blood sugar spike, if that is important to you. But make your decision based on whether you want to use fructose. There is no calorie savings that has been demonstrated.
  12. I don't believe the claims for this product. Here's a newspaper article from May 2007. http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/184211 Zaehner's comments are just made up stuff. Something like "Lactose is known to feed the good bacteria, forcing out the bad bacteria." has no basis in fact. Same with "Meanwhile, sucrose is simply consumed by all bacteria." The whole idea of the interaction between the sugars is simply invented. The Whey Low website has a picture of the interactions between the sugars, showing lots of red lines and arrows with "inhibition". This is just made up stuff which you won't find in any biochemistry text. Even he doesn't try to explain what is going on. http://www.wheylow.com/Articles.asp?ID=138 The so-called clinical trials are all done by his company. The article mentions an independent researcher, Castonguay, who was going to try to verify his work, and it was supposed to be done by the end of 2007. Neither the official website nor any searches I have done for Castonguay, show that this was verified. And if it was true, wouldn't it be big news? Wouldn't this independent verification be on the product website? And the article tries to make it sound as if Castonguay is promoting the product already, by interspersing his quote with non-quote commentary. Most importantly, the way they infer the low calorie count is bogus, total fiction. http://www.wheylow.com/Articles.asp?ID=136 He says they "calculate an estimated caloric value". They measure the blood sugar spike, which is lower for Whey Low. Then they say that the calories are lower, because the blood sugar spike is lower. But the reason that the blood sugar spike is lower, is that the mixture contains fructose. Fructose does not cause blood sugar to spike, which is why the diabetes organizations, for a time, were recommending it for diabetics. Then it was found that there was a bad effect on triglyceride levels, likely because fructose is metabolized in the liver. But anyway, this is major bogus science. This stuff has the same number of calories as sugar or fructose or lactose, 15 calories per teaspoon. Which is what it is - sugar Everybody else in the world calculates the calories in their food this way: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-food-manufacturers. According to one of the FAQ, the fructose in Whey Low is made from corn, i.e. the same stuff in high fructose corn syrup. I know there are still some folks who believe that it is from fruit, therefore must be healthier than the stuff from corn. Sorry to be a downer.
  13. Be sure to get a new helmet. Any helmet, if it has had a hard knock, is no longer able to protect you as it should, even if there is no visible damage. The material inside is compressed and can no longer absorb a second knock as it should. Glad you are okay!
  14. All the healthy oils (olive, canola, safflower, sunflower and flaxseed) are vegetable oils. What you buy as "vegetable oil" in the store is usually a blend of oils. It will likely contain some oils which are not the healthy oils, so you're better to choose from the WW list. Canola is considered "heart-healthy". Many people prefer it over olive oil for all-purpose use because it does not have a strong a taste. Or just try a few different WW oils and if you don't like one just try another. They're not expensive.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.