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 » Mon May 18, 2015 7:03 pm

CKinnard wrote:be careful weighing frozen vege. the usual trick is they freeze soon after washing, when a lot of water still clings to the vege.
as an experiment, weigh your frozen produce straight out of the packet, then again about 30 minutes later when it's thawed!!! :shock:
I'd say you're right with some brands, especially if you empty the entire packet. I did the experiment by soaking 300g from a 1Kg packet of Birds Eye, Country Harvest (Australian grown carrot, peas & corn) in a tub of water for 30 mins or more. When I drained then weighed again, they were 320g.
CKinnard wrote:This is yet again an example of public health being run by people who are not master communicators, and why I was motivated 15 years ago to get involved in this. I also had consults with 2 dietitians, and worked with many more, and was always stunned at how poorly they communicated.
So if the doctors, dieticians and government sites are all poor communicators, while the relentless food industry advertising, isn't. Then we all know what's going to happen in the end to most people, if it hasn't already.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon May 18, 2015 9:16 pm

Nobody wrote:I'd say you're right with some brands, especially if you empty the entire packet. I did the experiment by soaking 300g from a 1Kg packet of Birds Eye, Country Harvest (Australian grown carrot, peas & corn) in a tub of water for 30 mins or more. When I drained then weighed again, they were 320g.


hang on Noobs...back it up boy! :) why on earth would you soak frozen vege in a tub of water???? you are just going leech out nutrients and absorb water you didn't pay for. try what I originally recommended!
Nobody wrote: So if the doctors, dieticians and government sites are all poor communicators, while the relentless food industry advertising, isn't. Then we all know what's going to happen in the end to most people, if it hasn't already.
The advertising industry don't have egos as big and naive as the public sector.....and there's very big highly paid egos in advertising!!! (count the exotic cars in the car park of any major ad agency!!! when I worked in advertising, the 3 partners had the top marques in Rolls Royce (Leo Schofield), Ferrari (David Sherbon), and Merc (David Baker))

David was a very good mate.....
http://www.campaignbrief.com/2009/11/in ... ng-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon May 18, 2015 9:43 pm

CKinnard wrote:hang on Noobs...back it up boy! :) why on earth would you soak frozen vege in a tub of water???? you are just going leech out nutrients and absorb water you didn't pay for. try what I originally recommended!
Speed of thaw. OK, I'll try to dry thaw tomorrow if I have time.
Nobody wrote:David was a very good mate.....
http://www.campaignbrief.com/2009/11/in ... ng-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
66 is relatively young. What did he die from?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon May 18, 2015 10:16 pm

Nobody wrote:66 is relatively young. What did he die from?
he died from being a product of his time....what's of most importance to you is whether that is a high enough life goal for you.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon May 18, 2015 10:51 pm

CKinnard wrote:
Nobody wrote:66 is relatively young. What did he die from?
he died from being a product of his time....what's of most importance to you is whether that is a high enough life goal for you.
Depends what age you are now. Young people don't care much in general, but someone 65.5 is far more likely to. I don't have a length of life goal, but health quality while alive is a driver.

Changing the subject back to what you were writing about before with energy density of foods. In Potato Strong's "This week In Plants", he touches on energy density and weight gain or loss with this post he found by Jeff Novick, of which almost all is quoted below:
JeffN wrote:Unlimited does not mean unlimited in the sense that you can eat all you want of anything.

What it means is that if you follow the principles of the program, especially of the Maximum Weight Loss program, you will be able to eat all you want of the recommended foods, until you are comfortably full, and still lose weight.

The reason, as TominTN pointed out is due to calorie density. Many many studies have been done in the last few decades confirming this. If you allow people to eat "ad libitum" or all they want till the are comfortably full, from low calorie dense foods, they will lose weight, not be hungry and do not have to count calories.

Of course, calories still count, but it becomes almost impossible to over consume calories from the foods you choose if you follow these recommendations.

The numbers Tom gave are very close, so let me adjust them slightly

These are averages that I use for each category that I think covers the range of the category fairly well and if anything, errs on the side of caution.

Fresh Veggies are around 100 cal/lb
Fresh Fruits around 250-300 cal/lb
Starchy Veggies/Intact Whole Grains around 450-500 cal/lb
Legumes around 550-600 cal/lb
Processed Grains (even if their Whole grain) around 1200-1500 cal/lb
Nuts/Seeds around 2800 cal/lb
Oils around 4000 cal/lb

What I have found is if the calorie density of the food is below ~400 calories per pound, not matter how much they eat, they will lost weight.

Between ~400-~800 calories per pound, with some moderate exercise, they all lost weight.

Between ~800-~1200 calories per pound, people gained weight, except for those with very high activity levels

Over ~1200 calories per pound, everyone seems to gain weight.

Remember, the physical sensation of "fullness" is influenced in a large part by the filling of the stomach and the triggering of the stretch receptors. This would happen regardless of the calorie density of the food, as long as enough food was consumed.

However, between 400-800 calories per pound is the range where people either maintained, gained or lost a little. It was the area that I call the "cut-off" zone and the results depending on the person and their activity level. The mid point of the range is around 600 cal/lb

I would not worry to much about the exact numbers when you are trying to apply this to yourself but would be more concerned about the principles as I would not want anyone to weigh and measure their food. The calorie density numbers I give for food groups are "averages" and dont apply exactly to each food in the group.

If you follow the MWL program, you will be applying the principles of calorie density. If it is not working as well as you would like then you can adjust the calorie density of your intake by making slight adjustments in your food choices.

These numbers are also inline with other recommendations.

The recent WCF/AICR report on cancer recommends that the average calorie density of our diets be around 567 calories per pound, to avoid obesity and weight problems which is 100% in line with my experience.

The Okinawan diet, before Western influence, was around 600-650 calories per pound

So, knowing all this, if you look at the numbers, it all makes sense.

A starch based diet, made up of starchy vegetables and intact whole grains along with some fruit and veggies, will have a calorie density under 500 calories per pound and maybe even 400 calorie per pound. It would be near impossible to overeat.

You can also see the problem with many of the "low fat" diets that focused on processed whole grains, like whole wheat bread, crackers, dry cereals. At 1200-1500 calories per pound, if they become a large part of the diet, they can raise the overall calorie density and make it much easier to overeat on calories and easy to gain weight and/or not lose weight, even with a higher activity level. Hence the principles of the MWL program is to avoid those foods, or really limit them.

In Health
Jeff
Using their method of including the ~11% fibre, my average is about 400 Cals/lb. So that is why I don't appear to have a problem.
Last edited by Nobody on Mon May 18, 2015 11:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

warthog1
Posts: 14309
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Mon May 18, 2015 10:59 pm

So bssically eat food with very little energy content and you lose weight, with the added benefit that it tastes like [emoji90] so that you dont want to eat anyway [emoji14] More weight loss.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon May 18, 2015 11:18 pm

warthog1 wrote:So bssically eat food with very little energy content and you lose weight, with the added benefit that it tastes like [emoji90] so that you dont want to eat anyway [emoji14] More weight loss.
It doesn't taste like [emoji90], but you'll certainly do more [emoji90]. And you won't need a wire coat hanger either. :D
You just need to change your diet slowly and let your tastes slowly change with them. Then you too can have a WHtR below 0.43 without having to do 300Km/week. Unlike the 0.46 with 300Km/week currently. :P

warthog1
Posts: 14309
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Tue May 19, 2015 7:23 am

Nobody wrote:It doesn't taste like [emoji90], but you'll certainly do more [emoji90]. And you won't need a wire coat hanger either. :D
You just need to change your diet slowly and let your tastes slowly change with them. Then you too can have a WHtR below 0.43 without having to do 300Km/week. Unlike the 0.46 with 300Km/week currently. [emoji14]
[emoji38]

A bit less than 300 a week lately. We've just had 3 good days of weather but its back rubbish again today :x . Got a dose of the cbf's
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Diet Thread

Postby casual_cyclist » Tue May 19, 2015 2:54 pm

warthog1 wrote:So bssically eat food with very little energy content and you lose weight, with the added benefit that it tastes like [emoji90] so that you dont want to eat anyway [emoji14] More weight loss.
I like the taste of the very little energy content foods.
<removed by request>

User avatar
matagi
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:52 am
Location: In a parallel universe

Re: Diet Thread

Postby matagi » Tue May 19, 2015 4:17 pm

The new food pyramid has been released.

warthog1
Posts: 14309
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Tue May 19, 2015 6:37 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:
warthog1 wrote:So bssically eat food with very little energy content and you lose weight, with the added benefit that it tastes like [emoji90] so that you dont want to eat anyway [emoji14] More weight loss.
I like the taste of the very little energy content foods.
I'm just sad about all the stuff I'm not supposed to eat :( [emoji38]
Dogs are the best people :wink:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue May 19, 2015 6:37 pm

matagi wrote:The new food pyramid has been released.
well that lags the science a lot less than the previous pyramid! good to see! :)

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue May 19, 2015 6:57 pm

Noobs, it's not just the stomach's mechanical stretch receptor effect.
It's also the stabilizing effect of fibrous carbs on blood glucose. This settles inappropriate hunger pangs.
So much over-eating is driven by psychoneuroendocrino dysregulation!

Vege are the best dietary defense against that. The best weapon overall is to calm the mind and emotions, regularly....persistently.

Re your quote, vego advocates have been spouting energy dense versus nutrient dense for decades.
Further, most people struggle to intuitively grasp energy density...which is why I zeroed in on it in my approach...which isn't about energy/mass relationship (Cals/gram), but Cals/volume measure.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue May 19, 2015 9:15 pm

OK, thanks for the reply CK. Vego advocates probably have been saying it for decades, but most here (including me) wouldn't have seen the detail and so I thought it was worth posting for that reason. It helps to make a bit clearer on what might be putting on the weight in the veg world and therefore what to do about it. Obviously if a person is also eating animal product, then that isn't likely to help either.

I tried to dry thaw tonight, but after an hour I still had frozen veg so I just cooked and ate it instead. I'll probably try again some other time when I have a lot more time to play with.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue May 19, 2015 9:26 pm

Gee Noob, just remove 50g of frozen vege from the pack before you go to bed, stick in a colander, and weigh in the morning. :)

Keep in mind that nutrient density trumps energy density in this day and age. If we all ate more nutrient dense foods, we wouldn't have a weight problem.

And that's pretty much my final word on the subject.....on this private forum!

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Diet Thread

Postby casual_cyclist » Tue May 19, 2015 11:02 pm

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health ... 7360638686" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
<removed by request>

User avatar
bigfriendlyvegan
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: Denistone, NSW
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby bigfriendlyvegan » Tue May 19, 2015 11:17 pm

CKinnard wrote:I can see the day is coming closer when I am going to create a free website where people can construct their own healthy eating plan.
Saw this: https://www.eatthismuch.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and thought of you.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun May 24, 2015 8:45 am

Couple of recent articles written by Greger:

Low Carb Diets Found to Feed Heart Disease

Nuts May Extend Your Lifespan By About 2 years


An article about GI. The inventor of GI is on a WFPB diet.

http://www.ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2 ... ut-the-gi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Diet Thread

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon May 25, 2015 2:35 am

Nobody wrote:An article about GI. The inventor of GI is on a WFPB diet.

http://www.ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2 ... ut-the-gi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Great link! I have always been sus of GI. Sweet Potato has a GI of 54, Peanut M&Ms have a GI of 33. In GI theory, the lower the GI the better. Peanut M&Ms are not healthier than sweet potatoes. Fail.

There is a thread killer in that article though.
So maybe it’s time to stop worrying about a food’s GI count. And simply start digging into all the whole grains, fruits and vegetables, beans and lentils, nuts and seeds with their great wealth of enriching nutrients.
There is not much to discuss after a statement like that! :mrgreen:
<removed by request>

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Diet Thread

Postby casual_cyclist » Fri Jun 05, 2015 4:01 pm

I didn't mean my last post literally!

Like others in this thread, I am very interested in the impact that diet has on risk indicators such as cholesterol, triglicerides, fasting gluose etc. Particularly in my case, I am interested to see if eating a lot more plants has improved my already good cholesterol.

To find out, I went to a doctor who ordered a standard panel of blood tests including iron etc. He didn't discuss with me that I am vegetarian, so didn't order any tests associated with that such as B12. The policy of the centre is that if they don't contact you, your results were normal but if there is a finding outside the normal range (higher or lower), then they will send an sms and you book in to get your results. I went in and asked to see my results out of interest because I wanted to know if I should see this doctor or my normal doctor, which I would know by seeing which result or results were out of range. Anyway, they refused to show me my records and claimed that to see them I had to book in to see the doctor. Cost is $50 after medicare rebate.

That would be fine if I liked or trusted the doctor that I saw. I don't, so I requested all my records be transferred to my regular (good) doctor, who I like, trust and can talk to. I am going to go in on Monday and talk to him about what tests are appropriate considering I am vegetarian and just re-run them.

I'm feeling very much annoyed that I have been denied access to my medical records, which I believe is in contravention of the Privacy Act. I'm glad in a way because I don't see my doctor very regularly and I think it is time to start going at least yearly to get appropriate tests done. That way, if there are any findings outside of range I will be able to address them with appropriate lifestyle modifications where medication is not needed.
<removed by request>

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:00 pm

Link below is a response to the US Dietary Guidelines report that dietary cholesterol was no longer a "nutrient of concern".
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2015/04/28/nea ... l-matters/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Link below is from a study which shows reducing fat works better than reducing carbs for the same energy intake reduction.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/to-red ... rbohydrate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:22 pm

Maybe of some interest to a few, a BMR chart built on one of the newer and more accurate linear regression equations in the science.

Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:41 pm

Nobody wrote: Link below is from a study which shows reducing fat works better than reducing carbs for the same energy intake reduction.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/to-red ... rbohydrate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Due diligence" mean anything?

https://endo.confex.com/endo/2015endo/w ... 20716.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whole-body fat oxidation rapidly increased during the LC diet and reached a plateau at 426±40 kcal/d (p<0.0001) but was unchanged on the LF diet (-53±40 kcal/d; p=0.15). However, body fat loss was ~67% greater after 6 days of LF vs. LC (394±40 vs. 236±30 g; p=0.0003).
Long-term extrapolation of our results is fraught with difficulties. However, our data demonstrated that the LC diet increased fat oxidation rapidly and plateaued at ~400 kcal/d above fat intake. In contrast, the isocaloric LF diet demonstrated no change in fat oxidation despite reducing fat intake by ~800 kcal/d, thereby leading to a greater degree of fat imbalance. While fat oxidation during prolonged LF and LC diets would be expected to slowly wane over time, our data suggest that the greater fat imbalance is likely to persist with the LF diet leading to more long-term body fat loss than with the LC diet.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:02 pm

RhapsodyX wrote:"Due diligence" mean anything?
Sorry, I must be too slow today. Could you explain to me in simple terms what I did wrong? If I'm misleading people, that wasn't my intent. If what I've posted is wrong, I should be able to get the mods to delete it. However I did read the article you linked before I posted and decided not to link it as the one I linked seemed easier to read.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:57 am

To convert stored fat to energy requires oxidation. The study shows that fat oxidation increased on the LC diet, and decreased slightly on the LF diet. Despite this, the study concluded that because the difference between fat intake and fat oxidation was higher on the LF diet that it must result in "more long-term body fat loss than with the LC diet" despite fat oxidation being the indicator of body fat loss. The conclusion is not consistent with the study data, the study has not attempted to resolve this paradox. Perhaps they should have measured how much fat was being passed through the digestive tract without being absorbed while on the LC diet.

At the end of the day - it's not good science, and should not be used to set dietary targets.

After all, we would not want to fall for something like this again.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cavebear2