Written by goldie

For Salacia Oblonga herb Capsules and Extract Write to Botanika : : : : WWW.SALACIAOBLONGACAPSULES.COM Traditional Indian medicine, herb Salacia oblonga may help treat diabetes Posted By: News-Medical in Medical Study News Published: Tuesday, 8-Feb-2005 Printer Friendly Email to a Friend : : : : Herbs used in traditional Indian medicine to treat diabetes seems to lower blood sugar and insulin levels in a manner similar to prescription drugs, a new study reports. Researchers gave extracts ofrepparttar herb Salacia oblonga to 39 healthy adults, andrepparttar 141716 results were promising. The largest dose ofrepparttar 141717 herb extract - 1,000 milligrams - decreased insulin and blood glucose levels by 29 and 23 percent, respectively. : : "These kinds of reductions are similar to what we might see with prescription oral medications for people with diabetes," said Steve Hertzler, a study co-author and an assistant professor of nutrition at Ohio State University. : : Salacia oblonga, which is native to regions of India and Sri Lanka, binds to intestinal enzymes that break down carbohydrates inrepparttar 141718 body. These enzymes, called alpha-glucosidases, turn carbohydrates into glucose,repparttar 141719 sugar that circulates throughoutrepparttar 141720 body. Ifrepparttar 141721 enzyme binds torepparttar 141722 herbal extract rather than to a carbohydrate, then less glucose gets intorepparttar 141723 blood stream, resulting in lowered blood glucose and insulin levels. : : "Lowering blood glucose levels lowersrepparttar 141724 risk of disease-related complications in people with diabetes," Hertzler said. "Also, poor compliance with diabetes medications often hindersrepparttar 141725 effectiveness of these drugs. It may be easier to get someone to take an herb with food or in a beverage, as opposed to a pill." : : The study appears in a recent issue ofrepparttar 141726 Journal ofrepparttar 141727 American Dietetic Association. : : Thirty-nine healthy adults participated in four separate meal tolerance tests. These meals, which were given in beverage form, were spaced three to 14 days apart. Each participant fasted for at least 10 hours before consumingrepparttar 141728 test beverage. : : Participants were asked to drink about two cups' worth ofrepparttar 141729 chilled beverage, which contained zero, 500, 700 or 1,000 milligrams of Salacia oblonga extract. Afterward,repparttar 141730 researchers usedrepparttar 141731 finger-prick method to draw blood samples from each person every 15 to 30 minutes for three hours. These blood samples were used to determine insulin and blood glucose concentrations. The biggest changes in blood glucose and insulin levels usually happen withinrepparttar 141732 first

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and Muscle Gain

Written by Will Brink

Copyright 2005 Internet Publications

When people hearrepparttar term Unified Theory, some times calledrepparttar 141556 Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of definingrepparttar 141557 nature ofrepparttar 141558 interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock allrepparttar 141559 secrets of nature andrepparttar 141560 universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to readrepparttar 141561 mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics orrepparttar 141562 nature ofrepparttar 141563 universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless ofrepparttar 141564 topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probablyrepparttar 141565 longest running debate inrepparttar 141566 nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would sayrepparttar 141567 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matterrepparttar 141568 source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call morerepparttar 141569 'new school' of thought onrepparttar 141570 issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about whererepparttar 141571 calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel,repparttar 141572 "calorie is a calorie" mantra ofrepparttar 141573 old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people inrepparttar 141574 field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion byrepparttar 141575 general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline allrepparttar 141576 information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyondrepparttar 141577 scope of this article. A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supportsrepparttar 141578 theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence showsrepparttar 141579 theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidifyrepparttar 141580 theory as fact. "A calorie is a calorie"

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless ofrepparttar 141581 calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless ofrepparttar 141582 calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based onrepparttar 141583 fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram andrepparttar 141584 source of those calories matters not. They base this onrepparttar 141585 many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss isrepparttar 141586 result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However,repparttar 141587 "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects onrepparttar 141588 metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into accountrepparttar 141589 fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignoresrepparttar 141590 ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only isrepparttar 141591 mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The "calories don't matter" school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Likerepparttar 141592 old school, this school fails to take into accountrepparttar 141593 effects such diets have on various pathways and ignorerepparttar 141594 simple realities of human physiology, not to mentionrepparttar 141595 laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thusrepparttar 141596 person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also,repparttar 141597 weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least inrepparttar 141598 first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, butrepparttar 141599 effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use