Diet Thread

[CKinnard]

I still see the word diet in the context of something that you put in your mouth in general, like a type of animal has a specific diet. My diet was the same when I was losing weight as it is now. So somewhere along the way I went from "on a diet" to "having a diet". It would have been good if the English language had different words for the different meanings.

Maybe I should have a sig that says something like, "I have a diet. I'm not on one".

Yes I see diet as having two meanings, but the media use it pretty much solely as weight loss diet.
Nobody, do you think you have the same energy intake and expenditure now as when you were losing weight?

[Nobody]

Likewise Nobody...

Thanks.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WHTR 0.431 today
65.1 kg yesterday, BMI 21.75
Both are above my personal "reassess what I'm doing" threshold, so I'll probably trim the nuts 4g and seeds 2g (from total of 32g to 26g) and see how I go. I still need the essential omega3 & 6 fats, the hard part is trying to get them without adding the extra weight.

As Barnard says in one of his books, "Our bodies seem to have different plateaus depending on the fat content of our foods." McDougall agrees with this and doesn't excluded nuts & seeds in that statement as can be seen in one of his webinars. I have personally found this to be the case so far, even though studies have said otherwise for nuts. Makes me wonder if the nut studies were rigged by the industry (which wouldn't surprise me). Anyway, nuts are good for you, but if you start adding weight, then they are one of the first places to look.

If my total cholesterol is higher than 3.8 next week, then that would be another indicator that you can get too much nuts & seeds on a WFPB diet. Most of the studies done are of overweight/obese people on a standard diets, so nuts/seeds additions help them.

[Nobody]

Nobody, do you think you have the same energy intake and expenditure now as when you were losing weight?

Expenditure should be the same, since I've tried to maintain the same life pattern whatever that turns out to be. The intake is harder to gauge as it started with more salads than I have now, but also more bread, jam, peanut butter, sugar, meat substitutes and milk substitutes like rice milk. If I was doing Cronometer in the beginning it would have been useful. But I didn't post about it for some time until I was sure it was working and educated enough to know that it's a reality, rather than another fad diet. Too many people out there deceiving others about fad diets already.

The average calorie density may be lower now than originally, but I'm fairly sure I eat more total calories from about 3.5 kg of food a day. I don't think I want to be 20.7 BMI again unless I need to be. I thought I was starting to get too light as I felt cold much of the time. I actually made a conscious decision to gain some weight in about March/April. I think I added more beans at the time from 100g to 200g+ beans a day and maybe some nuts too. I knew beans added weight for me. I'm back down to 100g of beans a day. Nuts & seeds are going to be my main variable now.

[Nobody]

Meat Causes Cancer? Don't Worry. Just like these people in 1962.

[CKinnard]

Nothing like a colostomy bag hanging off a stoma hole to help the red and processed meat go down

One of the more memorable sights from my hospital days was a little old fella out in the smokers area at the end of the medical ward.
He was yacking with others via his larynx speech aid, and every time he took a drag of his fag, he'd have to put a finger over his tracheostomy hole.
Then when exhaling, he'd take his finger off and the smoke would come out the hole.

Charlie Darwin must be up there shaking his head.

[Top_Bhoy]

Nothing like a colostomy bag hanging off a stoma hole to help the red and processed meat go down

One of the more memorable sights from my hospital days was a little old fella out in the smokers area at the end of the medical ward.
He was yacking with others via his larynx speech aid, and every time he took a drag of his fag, he'd have to put a finger over his tracheostomy hole.
Then when exhaling, he'd take his finger off and the smoke would come out the hole.

Charlie Darwin must be up there shaking his head.

That's a very sad image which you conjure up making the old fella an easy target for ridicule. However, is he wholly to blame? There should be no surprise that after a lifetime of tobacco abuse aided and abetted by tacit Govt support and huge marketing budgets, an individual cannot give up a tobacco addiction in the face of common sense.

[kb]

Nothing like a colostomy bag hanging off a stoma hole to help the red and processed meat go down

One of the more memorable sights from my hospital days was a little old fella out in the smokers area at the end of the medical ward.
He was yacking with others via his larynx speech aid, and every time he took a drag of his fag, he'd have to put a finger over his tracheostomy hole.
Then when exhaling, he'd take his finger off and the smoke would come out the hole.

Charlie Darwin must be up there shaking his head.

That's a very sad image which you conjure up making the old fella an easy target for ridicule.

Darwin or the smoker?

[CKinnard]

That's a very sad image which you conjure up making the old fella an easy target for ridicule. However, is he wholly to blame? There should be no surprise that after a lifetime of tobacco abuse aided and abetted by tacit Govt support and huge marketing budgets, an individual cannot give up a tobacco addictionin the face of common sense.

and the majority of the population are using the same excuse today for not maintaining healthy weight, which prompted Nobody's comparison with the old video about smokers.

but the reality is, lots of people give up smoking, and lots of people give up a poor diet in favor a healthier one.

To promote that everyone is without hope in giving up smoking, or poor diet, misrepresents reality grossly.

Lots of things in life are considered impossible or too hard these days...but in my experience, pretty much everything of significance in life, is not achieved without commitment, discomfort, and breaking entrenched habits.

usually, people have difficulty letting go of bad habits because they refuse to change their 'meaning of life', to something less egocentric.
And that's a sad state of how self centered most are these days.

For the overwhelming majority of those not bed bound, there's ample opportunity to express greater meaning by serving others in less fortunate circumstances.
Once an addict (of any sort) begins to look outside their entrenched paradigm, they are more likely to find ways that free them from their addiction. But few dare to do that because experts, family, and peers, underwrite their limitations.

But if you have ever been to an AA meeting, you'll find example after example of how members gave up alcoholism after turning to religion, when the humanists and secularists will tell us no one escapes alcoholism without free health care. And you'll find example of after example of people who changed their lifestyle for the better through meditation, yoga, and healthy eating, after some life challenging trauma.

All I can say is there's a lot of emphatic people throwing generalizations around that are talking from very limited life experience.

[Nobody]

6 reasons to go vegan
I must admit I was surprised to find this on MSN.

[ball bearing]

6 reasons to go vegan
I must admit I was surprised to find this on MSN.

November 1st is World Vegan Day.

[Nobody]

I got my blood test results today.

The good:

CRP
0.4 mg/L
Highly sensitive C-reactive protein is a general inflammation marker, more detail here from AHA. It can show if you have arterial inflammation even though your cholesterol is low. But it can also show general inflammation from other things. So a low result is good, but a high result can be ambiguous. According to the (first) link:

According to the American Heart Association, results of the hs-CRP in determining the risk for heart disease can be interpreted as follows:

- You are at low risk of developing cardiovascular disease if your hs-CRP level is lower than 1.0 mg/L.
- You are at average risk of developing cardiovascular disease if your levels are between 1.0 mg/L and 3.0 mg/L.
- You are at high risk for cardiovascular disease if your hs-CRP level is higher than 3.0 mg/L.

To quote Dr Esselstyn on the subject of CRP from page 40 of his book, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease:

...it is considered by many cardiologists to be even better than a standard cholesterol measurement at assessing your risk of heart attacks.

Cholesterol
total 3.7 mmol/L.
HDL 0.9
LDL 2.2
tris 1.2
Hardly a stunning result considering my diet, so my set point must be high. The test comments say LDL should be below 2.0 for high risk patients. I think it would be very difficult for me to get there without meds considering most foods I eat are already supposed to be actively lowering cholesterol. There is no cholesterol in my diet. Saturated fat is about 5g per day. Total cholesterol is also flagged as being too low which goes against the other comments. Strange that none of the individual components are flagged as low, but the total is. Dr Esselstyn, in his book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease believes the upper limit should be below 3.88, so I don't see why it's seen as too low.

Anyway, I'm becoming less of a believer in cholesterol alone as a good indicator of heart disease risk, since (hs-)CRP is a greater single indicator. According to the second link above, both CRP and LDL together are good indicators of risk.

However, from what I've been told, a coronary artery CT calcification scan is one of the best screening tools. I got a referral for that scan today. So if I decide to get it, that should give me a good starting reference for future tests. If the result is already low enough, I probably won't bother with future tests.

Vit D
87 nmol/L
The sun baking for up to 25 mins on sunny days in Sydney has paid off. Was 51 (marginal) last year. I suspect I was below 51 over last winter though.

The bad:

Vit B12
214 pmol/L
Has dropped from 315 over the 13.5 months between tests. So the 1000 mcg of the methyl (natural) type of B12 once a week (as recommended by McDougall) wasn't enough to sustain my levels. I've heard from others that the methyl type needs more dosage. So I'm going to try 1000 mcg 2 or 3 times per week.

Merged results:

[Nobody]

I've rattled on here before about contentious subjects in the plant based world of nuts/seeds and salt. Most other areas appear pretty clear-cut. The hardest part about sorting out the diet maze in general is knowing who you can trust. Probably should've gone to the Jeff Novick's forum some time ago.

The following thread not only may cause you to become more of a nut benefit skeptic, but also more of a study skeptic.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/view ... ea81a63d84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't read much of this salt thread, but it's starting to look fairly similar to the nut thread above.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/view ... ea81a63d84" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CKinnard]

nice LDL ...

[Nobody]

nice LDL ...

Thanks. What's yours? (Not that it matters too much.)
Not as low as I'd like it, but with a CRP of 0.4, I can live with it.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/16/1955.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry, didn't notice your post earlier because I've been busily correcting the post above.
Have you had your CRP checked, or had a calcification scan yet?

[matagi]

nice LDL ...

HDL is not so good however.

[Nobody]

HDL is not so good however.

True, but typical for my style of diet. Less going in so less coming out.
http://www.wholefoodplantbasedrd.com/20 ... ctly-fine/

[Nobody]

If anyone had any doubts about how little nutritional training MDs get.



This one is about deception with the government dietary guidelines and food industries designing studies to get the results they want. Starts at 5:18

[CKinnard]

nice LDL ...

Thanks. What's yours? (Not that it matters too much.)
Not as low as I'd like it, but with a CRP of 0.4, I can live with it.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/16/1955.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry, didn't notice your post earlier because I've been busily correcting the post above.
Have you had your CRP checked, or had a calcification scan yet?

I don't buy into the HDL/LDL ratio thing. LDL cuts it for me.

As for me, had my CRP done last week before consult with rheumatologist.
CRP 129 (prior test outside gout attack 0.7)
ESR 46
Uric Acid 0.33 but serum levels drop during treated attacks.

Am coming off a gout attack. First I've had in years, and very painful. Had to take time off work.
My grandfather had it. And I unmasked my genetic predisposition by having to push against CFS for years.
Hence why I am very personally aware of the influence of diet and hydration, stress management, etc.

It goes without saying the teetotalling whole foods plant based diet my intuition led me to when younger was the ideal diet for me to delay gout.
In retrospect I regret not sticking with that diet after being strict vego for 7 years. But I was painted as a freak by my family and workmates, and my diet was blamed for when I got CFS.

Today, a client gave me two very high quality wines. I had no hesitation in passing them on to work colleagues, one of which messaged the front and rear labels to her wine connoisseur husband, who replied I must be really sick to be giving those bottles away! which is probably the coarsest backhanded thankyou I've had in a while

[Nobody]

I don't buy into the HDL/LDL ratio thing. LDL cuts it for me.

Agree. If HDL is a function of excess cholesterol leaving, then it's no surprise to see it usually goes up with increasing LDL as a ratio, depending on exercise. A colleague has a 5.5 total with a 1.3 HDL, so estimated LDL/HDL would be similar to mine. But I wouldn't want to swap with him.
Esselstyn on page 49 of his book says:

Our research strongly suggests, in fact, that lower than "normal" HDL levels are not worrisome as long as total cholesterol is well within the safe range - under 150mg/dL - a finding that has been discussed by other researchers, as well.

150mg/dL is 3.9 mmol/L. I'll add here for those who don't know, that it's not worrisome for his study of people on a WFPB diet. Probably not comparable to a standard diet.
Incidently, the average for the people on his successful study was a total of 137mg/dL (3.54 mmol/L) with a HDL of 36.6mg/dL (0.94 mmol/L). Those still above 150mg/dL were given statins. My total cholesterol is higher and HDL is lower than those averages. But I have haemochromatosis which is a contributor to heart disease, so no surprise.

As for me, had my CRP done last week before consult with rheumatologist.
CRP 129 (prior test outside gout attack 0.7)
ESR 46
Uric Acid 0.33 but serum levels drop during treated attacks.

CRP of 0.7 is a good result. I hadn't heard of an ESR test before. Interesting.

Am coming off a gout attack. First I've had in years, and very painful. Had to take time off work.
My grandfather had it. And I unmasked my genetic predisposition by having to push against CFS for years.
Hence why I am very personally aware of the influence of diet and hydration, stress management, etc.

It goes without saying the teetotalling whole foods plant based diet my intuition led me to when younger was the ideal diet for me to delay gout.

I heard a saying once, which goes something like, "love your illness, it's keeping you healthy". In a world of deception, where we would otherwise be led astray, our bodies have given us early warning signs due to our illnesses which have allowed us to chase a healthier path while there is still time to benefit. As you well know, those without those early warning signs (or choose to ignore them) may get to a point where they may be too old for the body to repair well by the time they decide to turn their lives around.

In retrospect I regret not sticking with that diet after being strict vego for 7 years. But I was painted as a freak by my family and workmates, and my diet was blamed for when I got CFS.

One thing I'm sure of in life from being different to the norm in a number of areas, is that at points of trouble in your life, the "normal" people will happily blame everything that's different about you for your trouble. When I was diagnosed with H63D haemochromatosis, of course my diet got blamed, even though it is the best diet for it. It couldn't be all those years of dietary abuse previously. Also my diet is bad because I'm too thin and I have to take B12 supplements. But apparently their diet isn't bad even though they are overweight/obese and also take supplements.

[CKinnard]

ESR was used years ago as the principal inflammatory marker before the more sensitive CRP became cheaper.

As for loving your illness, I think maybe 'respect your illness' might be more apt.

The most rounded and evolved people I know have usually been made aware of their mortality and fragility earlier in life, which is an apt segway to your last paragraph above! I am never surprised by how 2 dimensional and selfish many are that achieve worldly success.

[Nobody]

As for loving your illness, I think maybe 'respect your illness' might be more apt.

Yes, that is more apt. I doubt even Michael J Fox really loves his Parkinson's disease, regardless of the impression he gives of his situation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"It's time to get real, eating healthier doesn't mean you have to act like a freak."

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebri ... kt0t3.html

This was pulled down because some people were offended by her poking fun at the extreme of growing your own food etc. I'm not offended by it, but disagree with the statement. In the western world where the average/normal/moderate/balanced are getting many chronic diseases over their lifespan and two thirds are overweight, acting "like a freak" seems to make more sense.

So I calculated the macro-nutrient ratio of one of her meals, "Asian Style Chicken" which was the lowest fat one of the two listed on this site. Results are C38.3:F32.1:P29.6, so way off the ~80:10:10 for ideal human health.

It was only 290 Cals. The other one listed was 326. So it appears if you ate 3 per day (unlikely as breakfast would probably be something else) you'll end up eating only about 900 Cal per day. This appears to fit in with The Biggest Loser diet of 1000 - 1300 Cal per day. Clearly in the "I'm on a diet" style of eating. IMO not a good strategy long term as most people who do this kind of thing and drift back to a normal calorie intake later often put on even more weight than they had originally.

The only thing they have going for them that I can see is the calorie density is about right at < 100 Cals/100g.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Video below on the parallels between the tobacco and food industries at making their products appear healthier.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/big-foo ... -playbook/

[CKinnard]

It blows me away that people can spend thousands of hours playing computer games and messing on facebook, but cannot spend 10 hours over a life time learning how to cook or prepare staples.

[Nobody]

It blows me away that people can spend thousands of hours playing computer games and messing on facebook, but cannot spend 10 hours over a life time learning how to cook or prepare staples.

Not being able to cook probably only applies to young ones or those who have been cooked for all their lives. If they can't be bothered learning, it shows where their priorities are anyway. Even if they already know how to cook, some people see themselves as too busy/tired to cook after a day at work.

Also most who don't understand things like calorie density, macros ratios etc, are being deceived by food industries to think that their processed food is as good as anything you can cook. Seems to be working. That people can pay over $7 for 300 Cal of food regularly (or 15% of the average Cal intake, so ~$50/day) shows how wealthy some of us are becoming.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Since my recent experiment of adding more nuts to my diet and adding more weight (should have known I couldn't trust the science ) I decided to chase just how much PUFA I actually need to avoid deficiency. The nuts thread I posted earlier didn't appear to specify anything or trust the studies. Previously I used the government sites, but I've learned not to implicitly trust them either, so I went searching again for a WHO recommendations. This time I found them.

[quote="WHO"]The minimum intake levels for essential fatty acids to prevent deficiency symptoms are estimated at a convincing level to be 2.5%E LA plus 0.5%E ALA.[/quote]Their bold. Where %E is "percent of energy". I am going to assume that includes fibre for simplicity.
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA ... lusion.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So today that would work out to be 1.1g of ALA and 5.4g of LA for me. It explains why I only have needed about 9g of LA in the past to lose the irritability symptoms. Where the AU government site (NRV) says 13g and Cronometer says 17g for LA.

Anyway, I thought the dozen or so readers of this thread might find the WHO spec interesting considering how much conjecture there is around the topic of necessary fats on a WFPB diet.

[Nobody]

ABC iview currently have Super Size Me available for those who haven't seen it already. Worth seeing IMO.

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/super- ... 345A001S00

[Nobody]

US Obesity Rates Rising - BBC

This latest study means they are rising again - to nearly 38% in 2013-14, up from about 32% a decade ago.

Hardly surprising that the unhealthy food industries continue to win in the US, since they use their financial power to influence/control government. This is a window to Australia's future too.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Should you go to a dietitian or nutritionist? Surprisingly, they're not the same - MSN/Nine News

Don't listen to extreme advice

Aloysa Hourigan says that practitioners advocating diets that cut out major food groups, like carbs or fat, are not necessarily based in evidence.
"If you are seeking advice from a nutritionist who is recommending practices like cutting out whole food groups or extreme diets, remember these may not be evidence based practices."

Obviously the writer of this article doesn't know that carbs and fat are macro-nutrients and not major food groups.
Aloysa appears to be taking a swipe at paleo, vegan and fad diets. I generally agree other than a correctly structured whole food plant based (WFPB) diet is driven by the evidence, or the body of genuine nutritional science. However from what I've seen from dietitians so far, they appear to push "moderation" or "balance" in reference to standard western diets. Which is fine if you want to risk moderation in chronic diseases later in life. They would consider WFPB extreme, but it's still healthier than what they generally offer and the people on well structured WFPB diets are meeting all their dietary needs.

Hopefully the Dietitians Association of Australia isn't as corrupted as the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/11/10/co ... dietetics/