Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:55 pm


RhapsodyX
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:19 pm

Nobody wrote:For those are interested in the amount of fat (saturated or other) in their diet may find the following article on animal protein interesting.
...
Too simplistic - given research points to specific carbon structures and amino acids, why does this message aim at "saturated fat" and "animal protein"? Not that there isn't an association at such a level, but most of the recent research suggests that improving diet quality and avoiding red meat (and excessive protein intake!) is still the underlying issue - not simply "fat" and "animal protein".

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:10 pm

AUbicycles wrote:Admin Says:
There was a report about this member / comment, suggested that it is was made as an insult.

As a moderator, I would first remind everyone that your words can have different interpretations and it is always worth pressing preview and to consider whether anything you have written may be misunderstood.

In this case, the members have continued a dialogue and my (outside) view on reviewing is that this has not caused offence or may have been intended to ofend, so have closed the report and will let this continue. If I have missed anything, please open a new report and provide more details as the moderators and myself have an active role in ensuring the forum runs smoothly and is positive.

Christopher / AuBicycles / Admin

CKinnard wrote: 3. HCHF stands for high cholesterol high fat.
Dunning-Kruger effect I think.
Yes, here's more information.

The person my comment was aimed at had clearly not comprehended the article he/she attacked sarcastically (the 10 second reference)...otherwise they would have realized what HCHF meant. Besides, it is impossible for HCHF to mean high carb high fat diet. There is no such thing in the science.

Ergo, Dunning-Kruger effect rightfully applies.

It is difficult for me to believe a regular participator in this thread was triggered so profoundly by my comment, that they made a formal complaint to the forum owner. I'll take a not so wild guess here and infer the complaint was made by a LCHF advocate, possibly suffering from non restorative sleep as per the large recent Australian study I linked to. or the complaint was one in a long series of concocted for ulterior motives.


and here's the chart that was discussed a few pages back, that seems to have been removed.

Image

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby AUbicycles » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:47 pm

Admin Says: It was not necessary to comment.

I would suggest an approach like this:
@OtherPoster, I believe that if you read the article again and look out for XY and Z that you will recognise....


If you don't like the other persons input, chose to 'be above it' by remaining fair and courteous because it is not always easy or possible to convince others to your viewpoint.

Everyone has the right to report a post
It is not necessary to make guesses about the motivations, but I can confirm that your speculation is incorrect. I also encourage members to use the report button to draw the attention of the moderators to posts or content which need to be reviewed.

Christopher / AuBicycles / Admin
Cycling is in my BNA

Baalzamon
Posts: 5470
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:21 pm

Then please tell me how my blood glucose is under 80. I eat 90g protein daily and it comes from eggs and red meats.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

warthog1
Posts: 14307
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:20 am

AUbicycles wrote:
If you don't like the other persons input, chose to 'be above it' by remaining fair and courteous because it is not always easy or possible to convince others to your viewpoint.
Despite the futility of it are we allowed to argue though? There is a shallow entertainment in it. :oops: :lol:
I understand personal abuse is unnecessary and best avoided.
I aim to reach the zen like state of tranquility Nobody (the old steel is real stager) has attained, but I'm not there yet :x :)

Sorry Nobody couldn't help it :mrgreen:
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby AUbicycles » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:28 pm

warthog1, go for it.

Readers often take different things out of a thread so banter between members could be reported by someone who is not a participant and then the mods have to wade through the murky thread to work out which shade of grey to believe.

The report on this thread was a prime example as I was guessing that the participants were all mutual participants.
Cycling is in my BNA

warthog1
Posts: 14307
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:07 pm

Thanks. :)
I'm out of inspiration at the moment though :(

The wading sounds like a pita, glad someone will do it though as the forum is well run and generally pretty civilized.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue May 03, 2016 1:15 pm

Study of some "The Biggest Loser" contestants showed a mean regain of 70% of their original weight loss over the next 6 years. They also saw a change in resting metabolic rate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8/abstract

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue May 03, 2016 6:02 pm

Nobody wrote:Study of some "The Biggest Loser" contestants showed a mean regain of 70% of their original weight loss over the next 6 years. They also saw a change in resting metabolic rate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8/abstract

"Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow-up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001) and metabolic adaptation was −499 ± 207 kcal/day (P < 0.0001). Weight regain was not significantly correlated with metabolic adaptation at the competition's end (r = −0.1, P = 0.75), but those subjects maintaining greater weight loss at 6 years also experienced greater concurrent metabolic slowing (r = 0.59, P = 0.025)."

Not challenging your reasons for posting this result Nobody, but these authors have been a tad disingenuous in what they report and don't.

i.e.
- when weight is lost, of course total body RMR decreases. There's less tissue to maintain.
- the large variation in RMR change at the end of the competition (610+/- 483) is likely influenced by gender, elevated activity effect, and pre-existing medical issues such as hypothyroidism.
- from the above, metabolic adaptation at the end of competition has way too much variance for statistical and physiological trend to be meaningful.
- Similarly, those who maintained greater weight loss after 6 years are physiologically going to have a lower RMR, if due to nothing else than lower bodyweight. However, as one ages, RMR decreases due to ageing of physiology and a very real tendency towards a more sedentary lifestyle.

There's so much rubbish published these days. I think it is because the biological sciences are not endowed with top statisticians. Biological science is considered soft by STEM professionals. In the 10 odd years I worked in research, I saw seasoned professors screw up their study design and stats analysis. Why? because they were too arrogant to walk across the courtyard for a 20 minute chat with the stats geniuses in the maths department. It appears journal staff suffer the same affliction.

If RMR is to be compared over time, physiological ageing, activity levels (yes activity effects RMR), co-morbidities, all need to be respected. Further, RMR is better compared as energy expenditure per kg, adjusting for bodyfat and lean tissue %'s. Why? because these tissues have very different RMRs /kg.

User Name
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 1:30 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby User Name » Tue May 03, 2016 9:22 pm

http://anthonycolpo.com/more-proof-the- ... oxic-junk/


More Proof That Cholesterol Theory is a Farce, and that Statins are Toxic Junk

.....The study involved more than 12,000 patients at ‘high risk’ of CVD from approximately 540 health centers around the world. The participants were randomized to receive either 130 milligrams of evacetrapib or a placebo pill daily for at least 18 months.

On average, patients taking evacetrapib lowered their so-called "bad" LDL cholesterol by 37% and increased their "good" HDL cholesterol by 130% compared to patients taking the placebo.

If you subscribe to the reigning cholesterol theory of heart disease, then you would expect this to have dramatically reduced the number of cardiovascular events and deaths in the evacetrapib group.

It did no such thing. The drug's ‘favorable’ effects on cholesterol did not translate into a reduced risk of heart attack, stroke, coronary artery bypass surgery, hospitalization for chest pain, nor did it affect time until cardiovascular death.

"Here we've got an agent that more than doubles the levels of good cholesterol and lowers bad cholesterol and yet has no effect on clinical events," lead study author Dr. Stephen Nicholls, a professor at Australia's University of Adelaide and cardiologist at Royal Adelaide Hospital, said in a statement. "We were disappointed and surprised by the results."[1]

He shouldn’t have been. In terms of reducing CVD incidence, the war on cholesterol has been an abject failure right from the start. Dietary intervention trials have completely failed to show any benefit from cholesterol-lowering low-fat and low-saturate diets, while cholesterol-lowering fibrate drugs made up for any reduction in CVD by increasing death from other causes


More in the article

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue May 03, 2016 10:28 pm

For long term reader, the stuff below is just repetition. Nothing to see here. :)
User Name wrote:http://anthonycolpo.com/more-proof-the- ... oxic-junk/


More Proof That Cholesterol Theory is a Farce, and that Statins are Toxic Junk
...
I believe I've heard about this study elsewhere and agree that drugs targeting cholesterol are often ineffective at targeting the cause. There have also been some studies to show various cholesterol numbers not be reliable indicators of atherosclerosis. However, a direct inflammation indicator like hsCRP has been shown to be more reliable.
User Name wrote:Dietary intervention trials have completely failed to show any benefit from cholesterol-lowering low-fat and low-saturate diets
That statement by Colpo is false.

I've already posted a study somewhere in this thread showing dietary change to be effective at not only lowering cholesterol, but also slowing, stopping, or reversing the symptoms of atherosclerosis. The study is listed in the link below. It works because the diet addresses the cause of inflammation and not just the symptoms.

http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/articles-studies/

RhapsodyX
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Wed May 04, 2016 2:34 pm



Baalzamon
Posts: 5470
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Thu May 05, 2016 9:57 am

Taxing foods won't stop the obesity epidemic. It will take a full change of a person's mindset if they desire to get more healthy.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

RhapsodyX
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Thu May 05, 2016 11:08 am

Baalzamon wrote:Taxing foods won't stop the obesity epidemic. It will take a full change of a person's mindset if they desire to get more healthy.
There are very few behavioral drivers available outside of taxation - just look at smoking, it's been (literally) "on the nose" for years, yet I still see young people smoking. And the State/Federal Governments don't have the balls to impose a ban following a specific date - no ID / born after a specific day... no cigarette sale. How hard would that be?

Food is no different. If it is on the shelf, people will buy it, and the continuing normalisation of over-weight people in the media means most of them don't even realise they have a problem, combined with Doctors who won't say anything to their patients regarding their weight. We (capitalist society) have normalised being overweight as being healthy. Given the cross investment between the health, food and exercise industries and their influence on Government - should anyone really be surprised?

Baalzamon
Posts: 5470
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Thu May 05, 2016 11:26 pm

Forcing packaging changes would be a very big driver in stopping kids in begging their parents on buying foods that are junk. Lots of companies do target specific marketing at children as they know it's an effective means to sell items.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

softy
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby softy » Fri May 06, 2016 9:53 am

My opinion,

I made this statement up front as this is moving into the communities freedom of choice. I personally feel people should still have choice weather it is bad or good. The government shouldn't tell us who we are or how we should act, although laws have already gone down this path.

Instead of taxing food, give an incentive, your tax can be reduced if you maintain a healthy weight. How this is done could be open to discussion. So you get a reward, rather than taxing someone who is thin or fat what both people may consume, give a tax reduction on your income tax at the end of the year. then it is not tired to choice, just the result.

if an airlines charged heavier people more, eg: total body weight and luggage, there would be an outrage, but it is okay to tax "fat" food. How us humans will accept a soft approach to the same thing. Human nature is so interesting.

softy
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby softy » Fri May 06, 2016 10:00 am

As to packaging, I don't agree with governments dictating requirements on packaging, it is a form of discrimination that has been legalised by the government. Companies should be able to market their product like all other companies.

People will buy what they enjoy, eg: smoking, you can't even tell the brand anymore but people still buy. why the cigarette industry has to comply to this whilst alcohol doesn't is beyond me! both drugs have a negative impact on the community but quite different compliance laws

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri May 06, 2016 1:31 pm

softy wrote:Instead of taxing food, give an incentive, your tax can be reduced if you maintain a healthy weight.
It would never fly in anything buy a dictatorship. The endless cries of discrimination...

Education would work better, but it would be opposed by too many industries and academics with vested interests to get to the point where most people are well educated on diet. Although if that did suddenly happen and people acted on it (even more unlikely) it would change many facets of our economy. Would the country become a better place to live? For the people who acted on the information, obviously yes. But it appears we can't get in the way of people trying to make a buck, regardless of how. As long as it's legal.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon May 09, 2016 8:54 am

Scientists were researching how reducing protein in the human body could fight diabetes when they realised the same method could be used to stop the growth of tumours.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nationa ... ooftc.html

The above article correlates with earlier work of scientist doing rodent studies decades ago. T Colin Campbell who wrote in The China Study on page 47:
In the Indian study, when all the rats had been predisposed to get liver cancer after being given aflatoxin, only the animals fed 20% protein got the cancer while those fed 5% got none.

Baalzamon
Posts: 5470
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Tue May 10, 2016 8:36 am

So my doctor was happy with my CRP of 4.0. Nutritionist wasn't nor was I happy. Dug deeper and got more blood work done which hadn't been tested.
Elevated Uric acid slightly
The more concerning one homocysteine levels were over 16 and is a measure of inflammation. My b12 levels perfectly fine, didn't test other B group vitamins however. Now supping the whole B group vitamins with folate to drop that homocysteine level.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

Aussiebullet
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:00 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Aussiebullet » Tue May 10, 2016 11:33 am

So given your blood test results are you happy to continue with your diet and what you were trying to achieve with what you are currently eating?
As you put it, "trying to achieve in becoming a fat adapted energizer bunny on a bike"

Baalzamon wrote:
Audax is endurance. Pick your pace at the start and stay with it. I've got no idea if your fat munching is anything close to what I'm eating and trying to achieve in becoming a fat adapted energizer bunny on a bike

RhapsodyX
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue May 10, 2016 12:02 pm

Aussiebullet wrote:So given your blood test results are you happy to continue with your diet and what you were trying to achieve with what you are currently eating?
As you put it, "trying to achieve in becoming a fat adapted energizer bunny on a bike"

Baalzamon wrote:
Audax is endurance. Pick your pace at the start and stay with it. I've got no idea if your fat munching is anything close to what I'm eating and trying to achieve in becoming a fat adapted energizer bunny on a bike
There's an assumption there that the blood test results are due to the diet and not other factors. I'm on a similar diet (not as carb restricted as Baalzamon), and there was nothing "wrong" with my blood tests, although I haven't had the hsCRP test done yet.

Aussiebullet
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:00 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Aussiebullet » Tue May 10, 2016 12:39 pm

I highly doubt your diet is identical or even close to Baalzamon's sure you both might be eating "some" of the same foods and you both might be eating a HFLC diet but that that doesn't tell us much about the whole picture,
I eat "some" of the foods Nobody eats and a similar diet percentage wise in terms of macronutrients to Nobody but he is vegan and I am not so we eat very different diets.

And from decades of my own experience diet plays a massive role in variance in blood test resuts, relying on percentage of macronutrients alone can have a massive variance in results, again in my own experience.

Which is why I asked If Baalzamon would continue with his current diet or change it, not if he was going to change from HFLC to HCLF.
Hope that helps make sense of my original post.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users