Diet Thread

[CKinnard]

Re markers, I think psychophysiological ones are overlooked, such as
- time to sleep after going to bed.
- quality of sleep (restorative sleep score, broken sleep, bad dreams/nightmares)
- stress level/tolerance
- noise and light sensitivity (as in how much it irritates)
- cravings related to stress (cortisol)
- anxiety score
- blink rate
- fidgeting
- attention span
etc

Blood tests could include those Team Sky are using to monitor overtraining in its riders. I discussed the latest of these in May with team doctor Derick Macleod at the Tour of California. However, as I implied earlier, what is good for short term athletic performance isn't necessarily good for longevity.

Other markers I think are not considered seriously are the special senses (vision, hearing, taste, smell, balance). These are more sensitive to changes in blood flow and poor lifestyle choices.

Much progress has been made into neurological diseases in the last 10 years, and there's good evidence neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, compromised blood and glymphatic flow, and sensory gating play a central role. These have chemical as well as physiological tests. If one wants to preserve cognitive function and a robust emotional constitution into old age, then these should not be ignored in comparing diet and lifestyle.

[RhapsodyX]

Ketogenic LCHF and "low carb" diets are both what I would call "fringe" diets - they are not going to show up in population studies. There is no point debating the subject if the argument keeps reverting to an epidimological point of view. And, no - I don't care that my choice of diet isn't mainstream, it works for me.

And... note to plant based. Polyphenols in tea/coffee (mainly tannin) bind to the minerals in the food, you have to have your chosen caffeine source one hour before or two hours after meals. Otherwise the haemoglobin numbers don't look very good.

re fringe diets, are you serious? so you think Loren Cordain and Gary Taubes are wrong about Paleolithic diet being our natural diet. and when you say fringe, fringe from what? it is as easy to say the lifestyles of all the Blue Zoners are fringe (compared to the majority).

re epidemiological POV, on the contrary, it is pointless validating a dietary approach on the basis of one or two health markers, while ignoring stronger epidemiological and longitudinal studies, in addition to all the other health markers that counter. If you go down that path, you may as well say whatever makes you the quickest strongest athlete must be what is going to keep us healthiest and live longest. It is a really blinkered naive approach to discovering the truth. THere are multiple factors that can give a better methionine and hscrp reading - previous diet was crap, previous viral or bacterial infection, has lost weight (which hey presto, he has), is sleeping better, has less life/work stress, upped fibrous and fruity carbohydrates since last test.

Going OT (strawman?) again? Where did I say anything about Paleo/Cordain/Taubes? Fringe was obviously defined as - "they are not going to show up in population studies". Therefore - no data, no discussion. If you want to raise specific aspects of ketogenic - science backed and not "small scale, < 6 months" - feel free, I'm happy to discuss.

[Nobody]

Re markers, I think psychophysiological ones are overlooked, such as
- time to sleep after going to bed.
- quality of sleep (restorative sleep score, broken sleep, bad dreams/nightmares)
- stress level/tolerance
- noise and light sensitivity (as in how much it irritates)
- cravings related to stress (cortisol)
- anxiety score
- blink rate
- fidgeting
- attention span
etc

For those like myself with the lone financial responsibility of supporting a family of 4 and in my particular case of being a 24 hours shift worker, some of these stresses are out of my control.

Other markers I think are not considered seriously are the special senses (vision, hearing, taste, smell, balance). These are more sensitive to changes in blood flow and poor lifestyle choices.

Maybe because they are more difficult to quantify and/or test.

[warthog1]

Re markers, I think psychophysiological ones are overlooked, such as
- time to sleep after going to bed.
- quality of sleep (restorative sleep score, broken sleep, bad dreams/nightmares)
- stress level/tolerance
- noise and light sensitivity (as in how much it irritates)
- cravings related to stress (cortisol)
- anxiety score
- blink rate
- fidgeting
- attention span
etc

For those like myself with the lone financial responsibility of supporting a family of 4 and in my particular case of being a 24 hours shift worker, some of these stresses are out of my control.

Ditto. There is plenty of evidence that shift work involving circadian rhythm disturbance is very bad for longevity and chronic disease.

A little sprig of uplifting information for you;

https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2007/pr180.html

[Nobody]

Ditto. There is plenty of evidence that shift work involving circadian rhythm disturbance is very bad for longevity and chronic disease.

A little sprig of uplifting information for you;

https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2007/pr180.html

Yeah, thanks, I think.

Nearly 20% of the working population in Europe and North America is engaged in shiftwork, which is most prevalent in the health-care, industrial, transportation, communications, and hospitality sectors

If 20% of the population is doing it because the roles are considered necessary, but shift work is a “probably carcinogenic to humans”, then who is going to do it? But then again eating meat is also considered the same and plenty of people are still doing that, so...

In the end someone has to do it. But maybe if this was well known then the pay would increase and/or the conditions of employment would improve. I've always considered the pay rate too low for night shifts during the week.

[warthog1]

The talk recently has been about cutting penalty rates.
Supply and demand, market forces, globalisation, the reduction in collective bargaining.
I think it won't improve anytime soon.
I agree the penalty rates dont reflect the true penalty in health and social cost though.

[Nobody]

I thought the article below was good at highlighting the effects of food industry deception.

Ultra-processed foods like soda and chips account for 58 percent of the calories that [Americans] consume in a given day, according to 2016 research published in BMJ Journal...More than 80 percent of [Americans] don't eat our fruits and veggies like [they] should, per the CDC. And, of course, more than one-third of [them] are obese...In fact, when a recent national poll asked 3,000 adults "How healthy would you consider your eating habits to be?" more than 3 in 4 chirped back with "good," "very good" or "excellent." Hmm.

It's important to realize that, no, getting these answers incorrect doesn't mean you're a dunce. It means you're a consumer. And as such, you've been hit with so much confusing, conflicting and, quite often, deceptive nutritional info that of course you're going to think you're eating healthy. After all, you're really trying to eat healthy.

http://health.usnews.com/wellness/artic ... iet-really

[CKinnard]

Many people care more about how many air bags a car has than the diet they feed their kids.

On another note, I have noticed in the last 6 mths fruit and vege prices have risen steeply.
I've never seen truss tomatoes over $10/kg before the last couple of weeks.
And cherry tomatoes at $20/kg!
Avocadoes $3 each.

Time to put up my fees I think.

[Nobody]

Many people care more about how many air bags a car has than the diet they feed their kids.

Totally agree. Poor diet is the biggest long term killer, but parents are now setting their kids up with food addictions and the mental disposition to make poor food choices for the rest of their lives. Then there are the many physical and psychological effects of childhood obesity...

On another note, I have noticed in the last 6 mths fruit and vege prices have risen steeply.

I haven't noticed this in Sydney yet, but I don't buy tomatoes anymore due to intolerance. I might keep more of a lookout.

______________________________________________________________________

Myth That Athletes Need More Protein & Current Nutritional Research Leads to Incorrect Conclusions


I found both subjects interesting.

It was no surprise to find no change in muscle gain in athletes between a 17% and 35% protein diet, considering I think 17% is also too much. I would like to see 10% versus 17% and I still doubt they'll see a change.

[CKinnard]

The protein for athletes picture is confounded.

Endurance athletes cannot help but get more protein with the additional Calories they eat, which is why talking in terms of macronutrient %'s is not wise. Protein intake on a 10% protein diet of 2000 Calories isn't the same as 10% protein on a 4000 Calorie diet.

And weightlifters do tend to build more muscle mass with higher protein intake. The picture is confused by compromised metrics like grams of protein per kg of bodyweight. Not all bodyweight has the same protein or energy needs. i.e. take two guys both 90kg each. one is junkie weight lifter and has 8% bodyfat, and the other is a couch potato with 40%.
Do they have the same protein requirements in grams per kg bodyweight?

Some bodybuilders argue correctly in my view that protein requirements should be made in terms of grams / kg of lean bodyweight. And that's where they derive their 3 and 4 grams of protein from (per kg of lean bodyweight.)

[Nobody]

The protein for athletes picture is confounded...

Like many things, it would be. Regardless of how you measure it, I still think there is too much emphasis on protein. IMO most athletes would still be more likely to be getting too much rather than too little.

Some bodybuilders argue correctly in my view that protein requirements should be made in terms of grams / kg of lean bodyweight. And that's where they derive their 3 and 4 grams of protein from (per kg of lean bodyweight.)

I agree with lean body weight as a measure, but do they really need 3g/kg? Because most of them are eating a lot of animal products to get it, they are just setting themselves up for future kidney problems. And that is without the added kidney load of taking 'roids.

One vegan bodybuilder I saw in one of Bite Size Vegan's videos was getting 1.5g/kg from memory and he was doing OK.

[CKinnard]

the thing is for strength, there is an advantage to getting higher levels of protein than 1g/kg bwt.
Excess protein tends to build muscle. i.e. it gets stored as muscle rather than fat.

I am not debating whether excess protein is bad. I am just debating how confusing the guidelines are we have now. considering 2/3's of the population are overweight or obese, health authorities shouldn't be telling them to get 1g/kg bwt of protein. especially if they are 50% bodyfat, because that is very likely too much for their needs.

[RhapsodyX]

For protein, I aim for 1 - 1.5g/lean kg, and try and stay under 2g - which means I regularly end up having vegetarian meals. The whole "percentage of calories" concept is obviously incorrect, regardless of the chosen dietary approach.

[Nobody]

Fair enough. Just changed my spreadsheet to lean body weight, with a current estimate of 13% body fat from measurements. With that, I get about 1.3g/kg LBW per day. Looks like I could do with less protein. I now understand why RX has to eat vego. That would mean most average overweight/obese omnis would be getting well over 2g/kg LBW if they aren't restricting what they eat.

I think another problem is getting people to estimate their body fat content themselves. As said, mine is from body measurements. Sure I could get a DEXA scan if I wanted to expose myself to x-rays. But I'd rather not. And I'm not that keen the get air-displacement plethysmography or hydrostatic weighing either.

[CKinnard]

All bodyfat % metrics are BS anyway imho.

DEXA has no way of discriminating whether you drank a liter of water or over fed before the scan. Doing so significantly drops bodyfat % estimate.

Hydrostatic weighing is highly sensitive to how much air you consistently blow out to empty your lungs. And most Westerners are pussys regarding such things these days.

BodyFat % calipers are crap. The variability in real life is worse than reported in the literature. I've had some of the most skilled and experienced clinicians use them on me and athletes under my charge, and the results are useless.

Honestly, the best metric is for males to keep their waist circumference minimal while building strength. For women, keep your buttock circumference minimal.

[Nobody]

All bodyfat % metrics are BS anyway imho.
...

Honestly, the best metric is for males to keep their waist circumference minimal while building strength. For women, keep your buttock circumference minimal.

Thanks. I'll stay with measurements then.

[mikesbytes]

As I've said before protein needs are activity based. There is also a limit to how much the body can absorb and that is often quoted as 2.2g/Kg LBM.

And the timing is important as it only lasts so long, in fact the timing is more important that the actual quantity. The advice out there states that the consumed protein lasts about 4 hours from when it is absorbed and muscle damage takes up to 48 hours to repair. So to maximise muscle growth from protein intake you need to take small regular doses of protein.

In regards to the vegan body builder on 1.5gms/Kg LBM, as stated above the timing is more important and most body builders do this with protein shakes, which are a concentrated milk extract (vegetarian) or a soya extract (vegan). The protein shakes provide the opportunity to get the protein in there straight away after the workout, some even consume it just before the workout. The shakes are also a convenient way to take a dose conveniently, like at work, just like having a coffee. If one wants to do this with unprocessed food, then a snack of nuts will suffice

[CKinnard]

The protein story needs elaboration and I don't have time now. But the studies show pretty much all protein people consume is absorbed (through the gut). Many confuse absorption with how much the muscles can use. Peak muscle protein synthesis with variable protein dosing is around 35g of a fast absorbed protein like whey. Unprocessed proteins are absorbed more slowly through the gut. I've never seen a study that shows whether it is better to does every 4 hours 4 times a day, or 5 or 6 times a day. And many bodybuilders traditionally overfeed to get desired protein (bulking) which results in my view in unnecessary and unhealthy fat gain and strain on cardiovascular adnd renal systems.

[RhapsodyX]

...
DEXA has no way of discriminating whether you drank a liter of water or over fed before the scan. Doing so significantly drops bodyfat % estimate.

DEXA has issues with identifying water vs fat-free-mass, but as long as it can (reasonably) accurately measure fat mass and where it is located, does it really matter if the overall percentage number can't account for water? Is percentage of importance when the scan can tell you that you have (for example) 6.2kg of body fat? I'm speaking from experience here, after having been DEXA'ed multiple times over a six week period.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4140034/

[CKinnard]

...
DEXA has no way of discriminating whether you drank a liter of water or over fed before the scan. Doing so significantly drops bodyfat % estimate.

DEXA has issues with identifying water vs fat-free-mass, but as long as it can (reasonably) accurately measure fat mass and where it is located, does it really matter if the overall percentage number can't account for water? Is percentage of importance when the scan can tell you that you have (for example) 6.2kg of body fat? I'm speaking from experience here, after having been DEXA'ed multiple times over a six week period.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4140034/

It makes a difference to females. Women's menstrual cycle weight variation averages 3% and can be as high as 10%.
Most women eat more in the pre-menstrual week which adds to weight variation.

And it can also make a difference to a pro cyclist trying to prove he is not guilty of doping, even if he did dope.
Suspicion is raised most by having unrealistic watts/kg estimates during a race.
Anything a cyclist can do to reduce that figure will reduce suspicion.
The first thing they can do to reduce suspicion is over-report their weight during the race (a larger bodyweight raises the denominator in watts/kg thereby reducing suspicion).
They can then overfeed or drink before a dexa scan in the weeks after a race to reduce bodyfat% reading.
It would take me too long to explain but see if you can follow how it applies to the pundits looking at Froome here
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/chris-fr ... -champion/

[mikesbytes]

The protein story needs elaboration and I don't have time now. But the studies show pretty much all protein people consume is absorbed (through the gut). Many confuse absorption with how much the muscles can use. Peak muscle protein synthesis with variable protein dosing is around 35g of a fast absorbed protein like whey. Unprocessed proteins are absorbed more slowly through the gut. I've never seen a study that shows whether it is better to does every 4 hours 4 times a day, or 5 or 6 times a day. And many bodybuilders traditionally overfeed to get desired protein (bulking) which results in my view in unnecessary and unhealthy fat gain and strain on cardiovascular adnd renal systems.

They are training their bodies for sport, not health. The over eating is deliberate, as you put on more muscle as you get fatter, then comes the cut, where you strip the body fat as quickly as possible, so to minimise muscle loss.

While not the healthiest approach to nutrition, the steroids are worse. I use to train with a BB a long time ago and while I never brought up the subject I could see that he would need steriods to be competitive, playing games with nutrition are not enough. I hope he gave up on his goal and didn't take that step...

[Nobody]

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/animal- ... e-smoking/

[RhapsodyX]

...
Suspicion is raised most by having unrealistic watts/kg estimates during a race.
Anything a cyclist can do to reduce that figure will reduce suspicion.
The first thing they can do to reduce suspicion is over-report their weight during the race (a larger bodyweight raises the denominator in watts/kg thereby reducing suspicion).
They can then overfeed or drink before a dexa scan in the weeks after a race to reduce bodyfat% reading.
It would take me too long to explain but see if you can follow how it applies to the pundits looking at Froome here
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/chris-fr ... -champion/

When WADA gives a damn about power-to-weight and fat percentages, I might care, but the reality is that a DEXA scanner can be used to measure the fat mass and tell you if you are losing/gaining/stable. Anything requiring a more accurate analysis of body composition is going to be purely for academic research in a laboratory, not bragging rights or newspaper speculation. In the context of the discussion, BF% is just a rubbery measure, and DEXA (at least) gives you a lot of data. Then again, my body-fat scales roughly agree with the DEXA values - as long as I am fasted, hydrated, the impedance pads are wet, and I'm not carrying "retained fibre". As an average over time, and ignoring outliers, it's been useful as a guide to tell me if I'm over-indulging in food vs spending too much time doing strength work on hills.

FWIW, Chris Frooms tested at 5.91 L/min vs my (current) paltry 5.2 L/min and my best-ever 5.5 L/min. If only I wasn't so heavy.

[CKinnard]

RX, you know these metrics have to be standardized re mass, which is why L/min cannot be compared!!!
What's your mls/kg/min, and threshold watts/kg?

If you ever feel inclined, you might be interested in objectively testing your impedance scales.
Take a bodyfat % reading 5 times as soon as you get out of bed, then drink a liter of water, wait 15 minutes, and take another 5 readings.
If you want to get really anal, drink a second liter of water, and take a 3rd set of readings. Then you'll have something you can chart, and compare variance.

Twenty years ago, we had impedance apparatus at Uni of Qld, and messed around with it. To get significant results, the protocol is very rigid, and standing on bathroom scales doesn't come anywhere near the protocol written up in the lit, which requires at least 3 leads, the body must be supine for over 15 minutes and rested, same time of day, temp and humidity controlled room, etc, etc.

[RhapsodyX]

Yes, CKinnard, I know all about comparative performance. As for my specific numbers... who cares. I'm in the "Cat2" range for 20m, my 5 sec is classed as "untrained", and I'm a good 15+kg heavier (and a lot taller) than Mr Froome. But I'm also a reasonable TT'er for my age (FTP/frontal area/drag), and good enough that the AIS is happy to use me as a lab rat.

I've already played extensively with my scales - as I said : "As an average over time, and ignoring outliers, it's been useful as a guide to tell me if I'm over-indulging in food vs spending too much time doing strength work on hills.". The day-to-day numbers are fairly meaningless.