Diet Thread

[CKinnard]

Looks like NSW is having a go at heading off the obesity crisis with the"Make Healthy Normal" site. Like many sites, their half-hearted diet section has the words "balance" and "moderation". .

Not only that, they still consider dairy to be one of the 5 main food groups....when 75% of the world's population is lactose intolerant after weaning.
Dairy promotion is white supremacy, racism.
These authoritarian goons have no idea how they are excluding or belittling people with Asian DNA who are essentially all lactose intolerant.

[mikesbytes]

Almost any initiative is better than none.

BTY They are up against huge advertising revenues peddling cheap to manufacture process foods

[Nobody]

Not only that, they still consider dairy to be one of the 5 main food groups....when 75% of the world's population is lactose intolerant after weaning.
Dairy promotion is white supremacy, racism.
These authoritarian goons have no idea how they are excluding or belittling people with Asian DNA who are essentially all lactose intolerant.

I'd argue that most Asians don't want to be the size of most New South Welshmen anyway. So missing out on milk is no loss. But I see your point about their added ignorance.

My family are lactose intolerant and they drink plenty of lactose free milk. They eat normal cheese because it doesn't have much lactose.

I took their quiz and failed in not drink 2L of water a day (non-cycling days). But my food is so water heavy that I doubt I've got hydration issues.

[Nobody]

Almost any initiative is better than none.

You are correct. But the down side is that authorities are continuing to reinforce the "balance" and "moderation" messages - "moderation in all things" was popularised by the cigarette industry - which can still lead to a host of problems for people who are genetically susceptible. I prefer Esselstyn's moderation kills message. A less popular message, but closer to the truth for many.

[CKinnard]

Almost any initiative is better than none.

BTY They are up against huge advertising revenues peddling cheap to manufacture process foods

hmmm...that's a very big "ALMOST" Mike
As well meaning as bureaucrats try to be, they are often not sufficiently informed, or single minded in putting the well being of the citizenry first beyond every other consideration.
When creating dietary guidelines, there should be absolutely no consideration given to current agricultural production. that can be changed based on demand. Human physiology cannot change to match current ag prodn!

[mikesbytes]

If the Govt puts some real money behind it, enough for those with little nutritional thought actually pay attention, then there's a starting point and from there what is being peddled can be refined.

Using this weeks tue eat out lunch as an example, I was at McDonald's and as usual no one around me ate the salad, I was the only one, however those going for the burger meal are given the option of changing the chips to salad at no additional cost and if you ordered thru the electronic screen, you have to select between the chips and salad. Will the Govt initiatives include sufficient marketing to change the selection habits of even a small % of the population?

On the home front with my breakfast, I'm trying to make the vege's more interesting for the family. This morning I did lightly broccoli, mushrooms and carrot with a small amount of egg and then put it in a wrap with a small amount of sweet chili sauce, toasted. Boiled egg and a couple of side vege's. They gave it the thumbs up, though the calories would of been up a little

[CKinnard]

If the Govt puts some real money behind it, enough for those with little nutritional thought actually pay attention, then there's a starting point and from there what is being peddled can be refined.

Using this weeks tue eat out lunch as an example, I was at McDonald's and as usual no one around me ate the salad, I was the only one, however those going for the burger meal are given the option of changing the chips to salad at no additional cost and if you ordered thru the electronic screen, you have to select between the chips and salad. Will the Govt initiatives include sufficient marketing to change the selection habits of even a small % of the population?

On the home front with my breakfast, I'm trying to make the vege's more interesting for the family. This morning I did lightly broccoli, mushrooms and carrot with a small amount of egg and then put it in a wrap with a small amount of sweet chili sauce, toasted. Boiled egg and a couple of side vege's. They gave it the thumbs up, though the calories would of been up a little

hmmmm.... at some stage MB, society has to wake up to the fact that it's a pretty sad state of affairs if people have no greater life meaning and life values, than what the govt dictates via the television!!!

I come from an era when govt sorted out the problems individuals, parents, and communities could not sort out themselves.....and govt always does it less efficiently!!! So I am more invested in individuals, parents, and communities being more self reliant.

sounds like you are on the right track with that home made breakfast.
though if kids are partial to excessive sweetness and starch, you have to look a bit closer at why!!!

[mikesbytes]

Tuesday purchased lunch. This week I went to a different Subway and like the other one the coffee machine was broken, so they say. I'm wondering if both Subways are owned by the same person considering that both have a 'broken' coffee machine.

about 10 people eating subway, all of which had a cold drink with their food. About half had a bottle of coke and the other half had a bottle of water. Noticeably better than what I see at other places.

[CKinnard]

Tuesday purchased lunch. This week I went to a different Subway and like the other one the coffee machine was broken, so they say. I'm wondering if both Subways are owned by the same person considering that both have a 'broken' coffee machine.

about 10 people eating subway, all of which had a cold drink with their food. About half had a bottle of coke and the other half had a bottle of water. Noticeably better than what I see at other places.

I think I've been in Subway 5 times in the last 10 years.
What turns me off fast food apart from the food is the poor customer service.
The owners just don't seem to train staff well, in addition to their parents!

[Nobody]

Watched part 2 of the Catalyst microbiome program.

The guy on it had been on The Biggest Loser show so he had been educated in their way of eating. But it wasn't helping him long term. No surprise there. This time they had him eating better and calorie restricting two days a week. Seemed to be working for him.

Can't say I learnt much in this episode either. It was good to see them state what should be obvious. That if you change your diet, you change your microbiome makeup.

[CKinnard]

Watched part 2 of the Catalyst microbiome program.

They were both on The Biggest Loser.
And both have had extensive education in healthy eating.
And both fell off the wagon+++.
I've yoyo'd myself with weight, but always manage to reel it in once I get uncomfortable enough.

I just cannot believe these people take health seriously when they go so far overboard, after all the apparent knowledge and experience they've acquired. And lots of motivated fatties actually use their computers to do a bit of research into nutrition, and it doesn't take long before they discover more fruit and vege are key......but obviously not this pair.
And the fact that the subject responded so quickly to the healthy eating program recommended by the dietitian is indicative that he isn't that owned by overwhelming cravings and hormonal dysregulation.

I agree this series is lightweight. The subjects need to be grilled more about their cravings and their struggles with such.

The microbiome has been written about extensively for at least 10 years in the mainstream media.
And this show is presenting it as if no one has heard of it before.

The panel of experts has given no great insight, the sum total of their advice, that more fruit and vegetables will be a good thing!
If the dietitian, oh excuse me, nutrition scientist (which is what she calls herself due to her Ph.D) was more familiar with the literature, she'd just prescribe the guy a PBWF diet.. Did you hear her prescribe a "plant rich whole foods diet"? You can't be a Ph.D if you are just recommending what the literature says works. You have to come up with novel creative solutions, preferably that are the makings of a new diet book, program, television series!

It's easy to be cynical re nutrition experts.

[Nobody]

Yeah, I could have given better dietary recommendations and I'm part of the great dietary unwashed.

I didn't like their reductionist attitude to analysing the different food plates as they were getting away from the message of the importance of packaging. It might be an effective illustration one way, but not in others. Reductionism is the reason why people tell me I should only have a small amount of fruit a day.

McMillan recommends to eat fish 4 times a week (according to what the guy said when in the supermarket). All I could think was, PCBs, methyl mercury, etc. She also appeared to recommended a lot of lentils and chickpeas. That might work to lose weight when obese, but I've found eating chickpeas gains weight for me. Even McDougall warns against more than a cup of beans a day. He talks about beans being a heavy starch. Then there's the olive oil. People could get some less than ideal steers from that show IMO.

[mikesbytes]

CK This is where you are head and shoulders above others in the diet/nutrition/whatever industry. Anyone can put a plate of steamed vege's in front of a client but where you have the advantage is that you can understand the person trying to improve their eating and work with that understanding.

[march83]

She also appeared to recommended a lot of lentils and chickpeas. That might work to lose weight when obese, but I've found eating chickpeas gains weight for me. Even McDougall warns against more than a cup of beans a day. He talks about beans being a heavy starch.

Have you hypothesised about a mechanism for this? FWIW, I eat 150g per weekday, typically kidney beans, and avoid them on the weekends. I'm off the chickpeas because of the lysine/argnine ratio and I'm currently pretty serious about avoiding cold sores.

I'm inclined to agree that when I'm eating a lot of beans (I deem a can a day as a lot) I don't typically see weight loss, but I don't have anything more than a vague correlation and I don't have any mechanism to back it up. I think just saying "starch" is an over-simplification for me at least. I'm currently using sweet potatoes as my snack food and it's not slowing down my weight loss at all.

Then there's the olive oil. People could get some less than ideal steers from that show IMO.

Ahh, the old olive oil scam... The average person simply doesn't realise that when they're trying to be healthy and they make a nice salad that the generous drizzle of olive oil has possibly as many calories as the salad on its own! A while back I started measuring my oil intake when frying foods - it's pretty tricky to fry with much less than 10g of oil is so that's ~90cals right there - I'd rather just eat it raw and have a banana or an apple for dessert

I seem to survive just fine on 30g fat a day - i'm basically just getting it from a small avocado and 10g of flax and that's fine for me. <5g saturated fat and a 1:1.5 ratio of o3 to o6.

[CKinnard]

Re legumes, I note she turned the chickpeas into hummus.
She needs to break away from her Ph.D specialty and read more broadly.
Blending fiber into micro particles reduces their role, as "fiber".
The large intestine creates a barrier of thicker mucus against the intestinal wall, to keep food, bacteria, and bacterial endotoxins away from it. A poor diet, inflammation, dehydration, splanchnic hypoperfusion from high intensity exercise or emotional stress, can all compromise the mucus barrier. Further, making fiber and other foods small via blending significantly changes food and fiber's relationship with the mucin barrier, with bacteria, gut hormones that signal satiety, insulin release, etc, etc.

For a documentary about fiber, the nutrition scientist's decision to blend fiber epitomizes the disconnect between "authority" and the science.

edit;
thanks for compliment Mike.
I've struggled with cravings myself as you know. I know vege+++ and fruit are an essential part of easing dysregulated states...but you've also heard me say enough that the psyche and emotions are also powerful disturbers of homeostatic mechanisms re appetite.
I will go to the grave questing to know more, and how to communicate it more simply and clearly.
However, I know in what's left of my time on planet earth, we are not going to tease out the facts one biochemical step at a time.
We already know enough about diet and lifestyles that confer a longevity and health advantage.
So we don't need to tease out the mechanistic micro detail to the nth degree.

I think the strong interest in diet in modern society is a symptom of something deeper.
I think many people feel impotent in the world. they are frustrated. that state is upsetting their CNS and endocrine function, and leads to dysregulation of many things, more difficulty in maintaining homeostasis in many systems.
They want a sense of power over themselves and within the world.
Their belief that they have free will to decide what they put in their mouth, has taken on more more importance to the individual because they feel impotent in other areas of life.
This is why I think for many, diet has to be addressed in conjunction with other areas of a person's life- love and loneliness, life meaning, sense of self and purpose, whether they are achieving in life what they want.
I am not saying everyone who is overweight needs to get into this stuff boots and all. Some just need the info such as Nobody, and he is discplined and logical enough to walk stridently along that path.
Then there's others whose emotional energy has so much power over free will, that with just one set back in love or sense of self, that energy blows up a cortisol storm, and God knows what else, and powerful unhealthy cravings hit with a vengeance.
What I saw at True North, within myself, and most who go there, is that the communal culture and the acceptance and supportive energy is paramount to many settling abnormal cravings.
But I accept some don't need all that. The guy on Catalyst last night apparently had his cravings settle within a few weeks. However, his history of falling off the wagon should be having the "authorities" look more deeply at the cause of these events. In my view, they are usually emotional stress states stirring up that storm....and a balanced lifestyle and belief system has to accompany the right food choices to calm these storms. RANT OFF

[cyclotaur]

I wont argue with CK or anyone on here about diets. I'm no expert.

However my recollection of the show last night was that she was using the chickpeas>hummus move to make them more palatable and useful, and to get them into the guys diet as food for the 'good' gut microbiota that he was generally lacking, rather than specifically to function as fiber. It seemed a reasonable approach to me, given he was getting a fair amount of fiber generally.

Re: the participants, they have both been in that feedback loop of psychological and physiological response to 'other issues' which have not really been explored too much (personal stuff I guess, so fair enough), though last nights guy was fairly open and honest about his psychological state, I thought.

Also the show is pitched at the general viewer, and I think we can forgive some simplification and generalising of information. It can't really be a platform for specific, prescriptive advice. The way I see it is, given the 'average' person has a pretty crap diet, any small nudges towards better eating (that isn't too technical or 'over-science-y'...) from a popular prime-time show on free-to-air TV is better than nothing. And certainly better than infomercial TV punctuated with fast food advertising.

[CKinnard]

However my recollection of the show last night was that she was using the chickpeas>hummus move to make them more palatable and useful, and to get them into the guys diet as food for the 'good' gut microbiota that he was generally lacking, rather than specifically to function as fiber. It seemed a reasonable approach to me, given he was getting a fair amount of fiber generally.

I am not after an argument either....but Joanna McMillan the dietitian/nutrition researcher specifically said chick peas are very high in fiber (as are all legumes per 100g), and that the purpose of the fiber was to promote good bacteria.

Joanna has been a media favorite front for the Dietitians Association of Australia, because of her agreeable physical features, and good communication skills. I've spoke with her over 10 years ago at some function or other (might have been the Qld Obesity Summit), and believe she represents the consensus view well.

Joanna has not been a clinician for most of her career, and I presume she is still primarily doing "nutrition research".
Researchers and clinicians both have potential to maintain holes in their knowledge and skillset.

I know many of both, and the great majority do not read broadly enough. And the reason there's arguments going on between low and high carb camps is because neither camp is sufficiently well read to appreciate the studies and experience that brings success to the other camp.
Nutrition, diet, obesity involves multiple physiological systems....and there's no discipline that educates regarding them all.
I've spent a lot of time with several of the world's PBWF gurus ovre the last few years, and I found holes and close mindedness there.

I see the ambiguities because I've been reading broadly about multiple systems and their interplay for decades. And even though I am firmly in the PBWF high carb low fat camp, there's many respected doctors and researchers getting on board the low carb camp. So in the last 6 mths on particular I've prioritized having a good look at their literature and experience. Doing so has helped me improve my understanding, and pick up blind spots on both sides.

I am not spouting off as knowing more than the authorities. They are specialists and would know more about a particular part of nutrition science. And I think Joanna is smart to have got a group of authorities together for the documentary. It underlines she appreciates the multi system and compicated nature of obesity and cravings.

Nevertheless, I am surprised Joanna, in an attempt to make Garry's diet more palatable, essentially destroyed the fibrous benefits of chick peas. Considering Garry has eaten clean before, and was represented in the documentary as sitting down to plates of vege before the intervention, he didn't have an aversion to vegetables and presumably didn't need his chick peas taste modified via blending and adding oil. In fact, one of the authorities said Garry wasn't getting enough fiber, because he was just having his protein with a stack of vegetables which is very common among diet peddlers. i.e. to lose weight, cut the carbs (in unschooled circles, carbs refers to starchy carbohydrates...and ignores that fruit and vegetables are also carbs).

I could go on picking holes in Joanna's approach. the 4 serves of salmon every week has holes in it, not just because of the toxins. She obviously wants that for the n-3 PUFAs but they can be got with less unhealthy fat via seeds and nuts.

As for the audience Catalyst tailored the documentary for, people who watch the ABC are not representative of broader society, especially that part of society that suffers obesity more so.
Overall, the doc could have kicked along at a more rapid pace and included more science.
Low and high carb camps have been putting out documentaries much more knowledge rich for 20 years, and most have been highly successful. Diet is a hot and controversial topic with a lot of confusion around it, which is why a week doesn't go by without several diet related stories in all mainstream media. Catalyst and Joanna had an opportunity to present and clarify the current state of science.

[cyclotaur]

^^ All good CK, as I said I'm just a casual watcher of Catalyst these days so you could infer that what I took from it is what 'joe average' might. I was doing (attempting) the cryptic crossword at the time as well.... may not have been paying full attention.

Still, we all know what's happened to Catalysts budget/programming and what the outcomes of that have been - a move to less actual data and solid science (which I loved) towards more general 'magazine' style shows aimed at a broader (and less critical) audience. I don't think the current ABC management really understands they have a captive, intelligent audience looking for more depth.

In that context, I doubt we can expect much better than broad brush, generalist show unfortunately that might be good for 'joe average' (who may not even be watching) but unsatisfying for the already well-informed.

[mikesbytes]

I haven't seen the show but by the sounds of it they have simplified, which I like as much of the information out there puts dieting in the hard basket "its too difficult, I give up". Interesting comments about who would of watched it, sounds like you guys are saying that the average BF% of ABC viewers is lower than the Australian average BF% LOL.

So here's a question, would the airing of that nutrition segment resulted in some people improving their diet and some people making their diet worse? If so would the benefits that were received be higher than the mistakes others made due to this show? Agree its a difficult question to answer as we don't have any data to go on, so its a personal guess.

CK you have brought up an interesting point with the chick peas and the hommos (spelling) in regards to fiber[for the record is use a little bit of hommos, but that's not the discussion]. I have been sceptical of liquidising food but the counter argument was that if you leave the pulp in it, such as liquidising in a blender then you get the same nutrients. However am I reading correctly into the statement that the fibre is damaged so its effectiveness is reduced?

[CKinnard]

So here's a question, would the airing of that nutrition segment resulted in some people improving their diet and some people making their diet worse? If so would the benefits that were received be higher than the mistakes others made due to this show? Agree its a difficult question to answer as we don't have any data to go on, so its a personal guess.

CK you have brought up an interesting point with the chick peas and the hommos (spelling) in regards to fiber[for the record is use a little bit of hommos, but that's not the discussion]. I have been sceptical of liquidising food but the counter argument was that if you leave the pulp in it, such as liquidising in a blender then you get the same nutrients. However am I reading correctly into the statement that the fibre is damaged so its effectiveness is reduced?

1. The docu is on the right track in that it is recommending ppl eat more vege and fiber, and it informs that these increase healthy bacteria and decrease unhealthy. My view is that they could have given simpler guidance to more people on how to get the same effect i.e. ramp up your vege and legume intake, and very preferably as whole foods with minimal processing (such as blending).

2. There's many issues with blending foods, especially the high fiber ones.

- Satiation is very much dependent on boluses of food applying mechanical pressure to the walls of the stomach and intestines. Minimally processed food forms better boluses which stay in the stomach longer, and signal to the brain that one is full, and to stop eating.

- Boluses that make their way to the duodenum also inhibit gastric emptying, so also contribute to satiation.

- Boluses delay glucose and fat absorption into the blood stream (their bulk makes it harder for digestive enzymes, bile, and mechanical agitation to free the glucose and fat from the fiber). Avoiding rapid absorption of these things stops blood glucose spikes and high levels of lactescence (fat in the blood). High levels of either are associated with more inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance....and the post prandial period after heavy fatty meals is overrepresented in the timing of MI's and strokes).
So the brunt of it is we need boluses more than we need smoothies and other blended stuffs.

- As well as the mechanical effects of minimally processed fiber, there are hormonal. There are several insulin and glucagon like hormones excreted in the small intestine. These both respond to food bulkiness mechanical pressure in addition to free glucose and fat. All of the evidence strongly supports these hormones keep metabolic homeostasis best when fiber is not broken down. When fiber is broken down, the carbohydrates within it, which should be left to go through to the bacteria in the large intestine, are instead absorbed in the small intestine. The incretin hormones GIP and GLT signal to the pancreas to ramp up insulin production in expectation of free glucose about to enter the blood stream. This can crash blood glucose and lead to overeating during and shortly after meals.

- There's also the mucin layer in the large intestine I mentioned this arvo, which is our first line of defense to keep out of the body undesired stuff in the gut. This layer is more effective against whole fiber, and does not work as well against fiber that has been essentially powderized. So the take home is if you struggle with weight, preferentially take your Calories bound up in fiber. It will more effectively normalize hormone and satiation signaling, and stop the vascular and other damage caused by inflammation, insulin resistance, and oxidative stress.

All this stuff makes sense if you believe in evolution (or even intelligent design!).
Our ancestors ate minimally processed foods. Cooking came first, then turning grains and legumes into flours.
But if one has weight or insulin resistance issues, it is better to eat less flours, and a mix of raw and cooked, so as to facilitate satiation and prevent glucose and insulin spikes.

Whole fiber and starch prevents rapid absorption of large amounts of fat and glucose, and makes the gut work more like a reservoir of these things with a slow release valve. "Pre digesting" foods short circuits this effect.

[Nobody]

Have you hypothesised about a mechanism for this?

No, just personal experience.
For me, beans appear to amplify my appetite. The more I eat, the more I want to eat them (to an extent) and the more I want to eat in general that day. I could argue they act somewhat like an addictive food for me.

I'm inclined to agree that when I'm eating a lot of beans (I deem a can a day as a lot) I don't typically see weight loss, but I don't have anything more than a vague correlation and I don't have any mechanism to back it up. I think just saying "starch" is an over-simplification for me at least. I'm currently using sweet potatoes as my snack food and it's not slowing down my weight loss at all.

I appear to have a strong correlation. Recently I've been eating chickpeas to help add some muscle as I add fat. But I'm now getting too fat for my liking, so I'm likely to stop in the next few days. I usually lose a kg a week when I stop, sometimes more. It's quite sudden. But as CK has mentioned before, much of the change may not be fat.

I seem to survive just fine on 30g fat a day - i'm basically just getting it from a small avocado and 10g of flax and that's fine for me. <5g saturated fat and a 1:1.5 ratio of o3 to o6.

I'm eating about that amount of fat at the moment, with a o3 to o6 of about 1:2. I'll probably drop back in the mid 20g range once I stop the beans, then the ratio will be less than 1:2.

[Nobody]

We already know enough about diet and lifestyles that confer a longevity and health advantage.
So we don't need to tease out the mechanistic micro detail to the nth degree.

^^^ This.

I obviously have a keen interest in diet, believing it has more impact on my long term health than anything else I do. But I doubt knowing all the intracate mechanisms is going to make much difference to what I eat. Once one knows the basics, acting on the results of self experimentation is going to make more difference than knowledge of intricate mechanisms IMO.

From reading Greger's book "How Not to Die", he appears to be an example of someone who is a bit too entwined in the science. To the point where it dictates to him when he needs to cut up broccoli, or the long list of staples he needs to include in his daily diet. We probably need some people like this to help add more precision to our general direction and I thank him for his efforts. But I wouldn't want to be him when it comes to diet choice.

[CKinnard]

Stories like this just blow me away.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/glenn ... z846e.html

I know GPs are human, but a new grad nurse would not make this mistake.
IMV, every GP clinic should have a 12 lead ECG on premises
- due to the consequences of getting the diagnosis wrong.
- due to the commonality of cardiovascular disease (diet related!)

[mikesbytes]

So here's a question, would the airing of that nutrition segment resulted in some people improving their diet and some people making their diet worse? If so would the benefits that were received be higher than the mistakes others made due to this show? Agree its a difficult question to answer as we don't have any data to go on, so its a personal guess.

CK you have brought up an interesting point with the chick peas and the hommos (spelling) in regards to fiber[for the record is use a little bit of hommos, but that's not the discussion]. I have been sceptical of liquidising food but the counter argument was that if you leave the pulp in it, such as liquidising in a blender then you get the same nutrients. However am I reading correctly into the statement that the fibre is damaged so its effectiveness is reduced?

1. The docu is on the right track in that it is recommending ppl eat more vege and fiber, and it informs that these increase healthy bacteria and decrease unhealthy. My view is that they could have given simpler guidance to more people on how to get the same effect i.e. ramp up your vege and legume intake, and very preferably as whole foods with minimal processing (such as blending).

2. There's many issues with blending foods, especially the high fiber ones.

- Satiation is very much dependent on boluses of food applying mechanical pressure to the walls of the stomach and intestines. Minimally processed food forms better boluses which stay in the stomach longer, and signal to the brain that one is full, and to stop eating.

- Boluses that make their way to the duodenum also inhibit gastric emptying, so also contribute to satiation.

- Boluses delay glucose and fat absorption into the blood stream (their bulk makes it harder for digestive enzymes, bile, and mechanical agitation to free the glucose and fat from the fiber). Avoiding rapid absorption of these things stops blood glucose spikes and high levels of lactescence (fat in the blood). High levels of either are associated with more inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance....and the post prandial period after heavy fatty meals is overrepresented in the timing of MI's and strokes).
So the brunt of it is we need boluses more than we need smoothies and other blended stuffs.

- As well as the mechanical effects of minimally processed fiber, there are hormonal. There are several insulin and glucagon like hormones excreted in the small intestine. These both respond to food bulkiness mechanical pressure in addition to free glucose and fat. All of the evidence strongly supports these hormones keep metabolic homeostasis best when fiber is not broken down. When fiber is broken down, the carbohydrates within it, which should be left to go through to the bacteria in the large intestine, are instead absorbed in the small intestine. The incretin hormones GIP and GLT signal to the pancreas to ramp up insulin production in expectation of free glucose about to enter the blood stream. This can crash blood glucose and lead to overeating during and shortly after meals.

- There's also the mucin layer in the large intestine I mentioned this arvo, which is our first line of defense to keep out of the body undesired stuff in the gut. This layer is more effective against whole fiber, and does not work as well against fiber that has been essentially powderized. So the take home is if you struggle with weight, preferentially take your Calories bound up in fiber. It will more effectively normalize hormone and satiation signaling, and stop the vascular and other damage caused by inflammation, insulin resistance, and oxidative stress.

All this stuff makes sense if you believe in evolution (or even intelligent design!).
Our ancestors ate minimally processed foods. Cooking came first, then turning grains and legumes into flours.
But if one has weight or insulin resistance issues, it is better to eat less flours, and a mix of raw and cooked, so as to facilitate satiation and prevent glucose and insulin spikes.

Whole fiber and starch prevents rapid absorption of large amounts of fat and glucose, and makes the gut work more like a reservoir of these things with a slow release valve. "Pre digesting" foods short circuits this effect.

Thanks CK, what would be a simple one liner to communicate that you shouldn't put the food in the blender? Something like "speeds up digestion and the end result is that you get a higher insulin spike than if you ate the food solid"

[CKinnard]

From reading Greger's book "How Not to Die", he appears to be an example of someone who is a bit too entwined in the science. To the point where it dictates to him when he needs to cut up broccoli, or the long list of staples he needs to include in his daily diet. We probably need some people like this to help add more precision to our general direction and I thank him for his efforts. But I wouldn't want to be him when it comes to diet choice.

Yes it's a questionable pursuit to keep pumping out the pro PBWF vids every week at nutritionfacts.org.
I'd like to see Greger doing more vids on the evidence against eating a non PBWF diet, rather than digging around trying to find yet another novelty that is not going to impact our food choices.
His audience would also benefit from him expanding into presenting the health benefits from non-nutrition lifestyle choices, which no doubt are more relevant than whether we eat 1 cup of legumes, or 3....though this would require a change of business name!
Nevertheless, considering the absolute state of confusion due to mainstream media perpetually publishing trashy sensationalist diet articles, I think his service was warranted.

____________

Mike take your pick :
- balls stay in the stomach longer and make you feel full for longer.
- balls make better stools = more regular and no straining
(MIs in the toilet are actually quite common due to straining pushing blood pressure and delayed venous return messing with heart rate and stroke volume).
- balls trickle feed sugar and fat to the blood which (a) stops the blood from getting sticky and sluggish, and (b) stops cravings for longer.
- balls take more energy to break down, so you don't have to exercise as much to lose weight!
- good bacteria prefer balls.

Throwing these around should also include ensuring one is hydrated before eating.