Diet Thread

[Addictr3]

next time use purple sweet potato and pumpkin. and replace the cheeses with hummus...a lot healthier and your heart and arteries will appreciate it. oh, and throw some dark green leafys and broccoli in to make a more rounded meal.

Actually i'd say replace all your low fat version to full fat. Sat fat does not cause heart disease or block your arteries.

[CKinnard]

next time use purple sweet potato and pumpkin. and replace the cheeses with hummus...a lot healthier and your heart and arteries will appreciate it. oh, and throw some dark green leafys and broccoli in to make a more rounded meal.

Actually i'd say replace all your low fat version to full fat. Sat fat does not cause heart disease or block your arteries.

Really? In what quantity?

And unlike a low fat plant based diet, saturated fat doesn't unblock your arteries, before or after a heart attack.

But never mind. I'm cool with people who like saturated fat eating it to their heart's discontent. as long as they are cool with the large contribution it makes to global warming.

[Nobody]

Sat fat does not cause heart disease or block your arteries.

This is likely the case for at least some of the population, if not most. And I'm sure there are studies out there with or without a funding trail that goes back to the animal product industries that say saturated fat is healthy.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-sat ... p-to-fail/

But there are also conclusive studies that show that high fat diets (low carb diets) do harm.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/low-car ... lood-flow/
Abstract of main study from the video:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11108325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowering saturated fat worked for Finland.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary ... o-berries/

Studies show that we shouldn't eat any saturated fat.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/trans-f ... e-of-zero/

Also animal products have been linked to many other chronic diseases. So even if you get a calcification scan to show you have no atherosclerosis, that doesn't mean you aren't increasing your risk of other chronic diseases like diabetes, auto-immune, cancer, Alzheimer's etc.

[barefoot]

My osteopathic mentor used to say that the more people are attached to worldly things, the more they will desire heavier foods and more of them. Their bodies and emotions will be heavier and slower. To lose weight, he recommended one quest spiritually. Crave spiritual things, and that would reduce appetite for heavier foods and help one to enjoy and prefer lighter healthier foods. The body would become lighter. I have to say the profundity of this grows every year in my clinical experience.

Probably good advice, but be aware that as soon as you use the word "spiritual", you lose a big chunk of audience who have no belief in such things... and in many cases are so tired of having superstitious nonsense enforced upon us... uh... I mean them, that they are actively hostile toward it. Start talking about spiritual quests, and you'll be pigeonholed with unicorns, rainbows, crystal healing and "magic happens" stickers.

I read between your lines that what you say applies just as well to seeking emotional satisfaction. Maybe that's just a different way of saying the same thing.

I'll digest that for a while

tim

[CKinnard]

My osteopathic mentor used to say that the more people are attached to worldly things, the more they will desire heavier foods and more of them. Their bodies and emotions will be heavier and slower. To lose weight, he recommended one quest spiritually. Crave spiritual things, and that would reduce appetite for heavier foods and help one to enjoy and prefer lighter healthier foods. The body would become lighter. I have to say the profundity of this grows every year in my clinical experience.

Probably good advice, but be aware that as soon as you use the word "spiritual", you lose a big chunk of audience who have no belief in such things... and in many cases are so tired of having superstitious nonsense enforced upon us... uh... I mean them, that they are actively hostile toward it. Start talking about spiritual quests, and you'll be pigeonholed with unicorns, rainbows, crystal healing and "magic happens" stickers.

I read between your lines that what you say applies just as well to seeking emotional satisfaction. Maybe that's just a different way of saying the same thing.

I'll digest that for a while

tim

Yep, I am very aware that these days 'spiritual' is as off trend as radicalization of alienated minorities is on trend.

[Nobody]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health ... 6eccb52c23

Newspaper article about a study which monitored the blood sugar of different people after eating certain foods. Their belief from this was that people's gut bacteria were different which changed the resultant blood sugar levels and therefore diets should be tailored to the individual. But Catalyst did a program some time ago which showed you could change your gut bacteria by changing your diet. So maybe an individual eating plan isn't necessary. Maybe people just need to eat well and the rest will sort itself out over time.

As usual, the commentary about the study was not really looking at the results holistically, but instead suggesting a more reductionist approach be used with research into the individual bacteria etc. If there is one thing many current scientists know how to it do, it's make the simple complex.

[Nobody]

From my reading and self experimentation this is what I found to work so far for losing weight. It is arranged in order of decreasing importance.

Removing animal products from diet

Animal products add weight in 3 ways:

- Even lean cuts of meat have 20% fat of the calorie intake by maco-nutrient ratio. And even light milk at 1.4% fat can be 27% fat by calorie intake.

- Lean animal products increase blood insulin levels. The increase can be up to 45% compared to just plant eaters. Raised nsulin levels are associated with adding body weight.

- Animal products are calorie dense, which has been shown to make it harder for your body to regulate your calorie intake. As you can read below, I'm not entirely convinced of this one.

Fat intake

You only need about 1.6g of ALA (omega-3) and 9g of LA (omega-6) to avoid fat deficiency. As I've written earlier from Barnard, simply put, your body weight plateaus to your fat intake. I usually get 30g/day of fat. If I get more than 40g/d, my weight climbs, regardless of the calorie density. Also my fat intake is mainly due to nuts & seeds which some studies suggest don't add weight. Somehow I suspect those studies may have been indirectly funded or influenced by industry. Either that or I'm a freak, which I doubt.

Macro-nutrient ratio

This is a good tool to get your diet on track. It is more of a guide than anything. It may be possible to lose weight with any macro-nutrient ratio, but to be healthy and lose weight requires us to stay around the guidelines. It is based on calorie intake rather than food weight and so you need to know how to calculate it.

As an example, the standard American diet is C40:F40:P20 which results in an average BMI of 28.8.
From studying successful early civilisations, the ideal human diet is considered to be C80:F10:P10. By following this and therefore keeping fat and protein low, you should expect to have a BMI under 25 and more likely around 23 or less. Or a waist to height ratio around 0.45.

Calorie density

This is a model that is supposed to explain why a whole food plant diet reduces body weight. As said above, it is supposed to make it easier for the body to self regulate. I found that fat intake over-rode it and added weight for me, even though my calories density was quite low.
It is supposed to operate on the basis that the body weighs food rather than monitors calories. My tracking has found this not to be true. If averaged over a number of days, my (eat to satisified) calorie intake is fairly stable, where my food weight can vary significantly from day to day. Getting the calorie density lower should help. But at this stage I think it's more a pointer to whole plant foods which do the work, rather than any other significant mechanism.

Carlorie counting

This is the common way most people diet and some people can make it stick over the long term. But usually 99% will fail by the 5 year mark by not maintaining the weight loss. Some will even put more weight back on than they originally started with. I'm not going to speculate as to why this is the case. But I believe that combining all the methods above should be an easier way of controlling weight than calorie counting.


Of course this is just my opinion at this stage of my learning and I certainly don't have all the answers. My opinion may change in time, refuting something I've written here. Regardless, I hope this helps someone.

[mikesbytes]

[Mod] Just a reminder guys to debate the topic and not each other and a reminder on the forum rules;

The following topics / content does not belong in this forum:
• Religion / Sexuality / Sex / Politics / Race & Ethnicity [/Mod]

[Nobody]

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/fitness ... ocid=wispr

I read a lot of these newspaper style articles and although most are just another form of misinformation, I don't bother to comment on most of them. But this one is just so pro-fat...

They start with what appears to be a cherry-picked meta-analysis to say high fat diets are better than low fat diets for weight loss. Which is possible, but not healthy. Then:

For instance, high-fat foods like avocados, eggs, olive oil and cheese can be part of a healthy diet. But low- and fat-free foods like “diet” ice cream and gummy worms probably aren’t doing anyone’s waistline any favors.

That's a shocker of a comparison. Only avocados are healthy in that high fat list. The low fat list gets ice cream and lollies?

Unfortunately, when many people try to follow a low-fat diet, they eliminate those high-fat healthy foods and fill up on low-fat processed foods, rather than whole foods like fruits, veggies and lean meats, which just happen to be low in fat, she says.

Yes, they are calling eggs, oil and cheese from the previous quote healthy. They are also calling lean meat a whole food and a low fat food. (Lean meat is usually 20% fat by macro ratio or calorie intake.)

“When you eliminate one food group or macronutrient like fat from your diet, it’s very easy to overdo it on another food group, primarily carbohydrates,”

Mixing their food groups and macros like other misinformation articles.

What’s more, eating some fat, especially unsaturated fat from plant foods, can actually benefit your weight-loss efforts...

Hasn't done so for me.

[Nobody]

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/fitness ... ocid=wispr
They start with what appears to be a cherry-picked meta-analysis to say high fat diets are better than low fat diets for weight loss. Which is possible, but not healthy.

It's same meta-analysis study as both reference Tobias.

[Nobody]

http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/ ... ocid=wispr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good example of peoples' obsession with protein. Extra protein just loads the liver and kidneys and almost everyone is getting too much already. It just goes to show how effective marketing is over the long term.

Cereal Partners Australia the manufacturer of Uncle Tobys was fined for overstating the amount of protein in the product by implication.

The ACCC claims that by presenting the word “protein” and “superfood” prominently on the packaging, Cereal Partners Australia was suggesting Uncle Tobys oats contained a significant amount of protein when this is not the case.

[Nobody]

http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/11/26/ho ... your-life/

As one author noted in the book Something from the Oven, over the last century:

“we began the long process of turning over to the food industry many of the decisions about what we eat…Today our staggering rates of obesity and diabetes are testimony to the faith we put in corporations to feed us well. But the food industry is a business, not a parent; it doesn’t care what we eat as long as we’re willing to pay for it. Home cooking these days has far more than sentimental value; it’s a survival skill.”

I agree with the author above. You need to be in control of your diet to have a healthy one. Cooking is part of that. I prepare all my own meals at home. I've also precook and take all my food when I need to go to other people's homes. I leave nothing to negotiation or chance.

I'm obligated to eat at a restaurant once a year for my wedding anniversary. Last time I ordered the steamed broccoli with a side of boiled rice.

[Nobody]

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/nutriti ... ocid=wispr
This article is about a study that showed the study subjects still preferred the same amount of sugar even after time on reduced sugar diet. Where previous salt studies showed the opposite. Subjects preferred less salt after time on a low salt diet.

I suspect they must have reduced/cut fruit as well, because I tried a jellybean after a long time on a low sugar diet (and probably none for months before) to find the jellybean still tasted the same as I remembered it. It didn't taste sweeter from what I could tell.

[matagi]

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/nutriti ... ocid=wispr
This article is about a study that showed the study subjects still preferred the same amount of sugar even after time on reduced sugar diet. Where previous salt studies showed the opposite. Subjects preferred less salt after time on a low salt diet.

I suspect they must have reduced/cut fruit as well, because I tried a jellybean after a long time on a low sugar diet (and probably none for months before) to find the jellybean still tasted the same as I remembered it. It didn't taste sweeter from what I could tell.

That's interesting - I now can't eat anything less than 90% dark chocolate because all the others taste too sweet

[Nobody]

That's interesting - I now can't eat anything less than 90% dark chocolate because all the others taste too sweet

Similar to how the studies say nuts don't add fat, but they do for me. These days, one-off studies might not mean much.

[Nobody]

I'll start by saying I'm not one to idolize so called "high achievers" in one area of life for their favorable genetics and focused hard work. Good for them. I usually don't pay too much attention. But I'm posting below to debunk two misconceptions. They are that you can't be strong on a vegan diet and you need to be big/tall to be strong.

This guy was strong before he became vegan, but it obviously didn't hurt him as he continued to progress. He is also only 168cm tall. Cynics like myself may say he may have just found better PEDs. But even if true, his diet hasn't inhibited him.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Baboumian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have made the claim in the past that my cycling speed improved after the diet changes. Much of this is probably due to the 17kg or so weight reduction, but better recovery probably helped too. However I'm not too vocal on this aspect because others may not see an improvement and improved general health should be the focus IMO.

[Top_Bhoy]

The guy in the video also debunks two other misconceptions; having a vegan diet automatically makes you healthy nor does it guarantee you to be thin.

Undoubtedly strong with big muscles, I don't think he looks particularly healthy. He carries a lot of fat (particularly around the stomach) and is overweight. How is this a health improvement from carrying fat and being overweight as a result of other diet types?

[Nobody]

The guy in the video also debunks two other misconceptions; having a vegan diet automatically makes you healthy nor does it guarantee you to be thin.

Good points. True on both counts. As some have said, "chips and Coke are vegan". As I indicated previously in this post, avoiding animal products is only one part of the weight loss equation. Reducing fat, processed foods, sugar and salt are some others. On page 96 of Barnard's book "Program for Reversing Diabetes" he says:

Our bodies seem to have different plateaus depending on the fat content of out foods. That is to say, if you drop the fat content slightly, your weight will probably drop a bit, then plateau.

Or more bluntly:

The fat you eat is the fat you wear.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/jul/one.htm

I have reduced my fat intake to about 30g/day while still making sure I'm getting enough omega-3 & 6 to avoid deficiencies. I expect to slowly lose a bit of weight after regaining about 2kg by increasing fat to 40g/d with added nuts.

Undoubtedly strong with big muscles, I don't think he looks particularly healthy. He carries a lot of fat (particularly around the stomach) and is overweight. How is this a health improvement from carrying fat and being overweight as a result of other diet types?

I doubt he would have world records without steroid use. My only point was in regard to not hindering his performance. I doubt many of these strong men types will be long lived or overly healthy in the latter part of their lives.

[Nobody]

...after regaining about 2kg by increasing fat to 40g/d with added nuts.

Results of this study also cautioned against excessive walnut consumption, as those that consumed nuts without any calorie control showed a significant increase in body fat. However when consumed more moderately and with calorie restriction, waist circumference decreased.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical ... ocid=wispr

[Nobody]

The Truth About Carbs!

I'm posting this because it was refreshing to find a newspaper article that wasn't just primarily spreading misinformation, like so many others.

However I don't agree with all of it:

“We could take our cues from how some of the Europeans eat, particularly the Mediterranean diet, which includes eating a lot of non-processed and whole foods,” he advises.

I personally know three people who claim to be on the Mediterranean diet. Visually, two (from the same family) are overweight, while the other, a manual worker, appears to be doing OK. The science says that the only life extending components of the Mediterranean diet are the vegetables and nuts. The two main problems with the diet are added oils (a processed food) and animal products, both of which have been shown to be unhealthy for arterial health, among other things.

They also go on about Orthorexia. According to the screening questions, I have it. But I don't need to log my food every day and don't "freak out" or excessively worry about eating things outside my usual diet, as long as it's healthy and not every day. Currently there is a far bigger danger of chronic diseases from the majority of people that are fairly ignorant about their diet, than the danger from those who border on obsessive about it like me. I think people need to be more concerned TBH. By touching on Orthorexia they are taking away from the primary message IMO.

[Constantheadwind]

Could be orthorexia, there certainly is an animal rights agenda if quoting Gregoror as if often presented in this thread. A lot of what I have read I disagree with, however, it's your soapbox so carry on.

[warthog1]

A lot of what I have read I disagree with, however, it's your soapbox so carry on.

Post up your alternative position with supporting evidence and we'll all be enlightened

[Constantheadwind]

I failed to mention world health agenda in my previous ramble.
No I don't think I'll do that warthog. My evidence only applies to me and is of no significance to others as it is based on my pathology results, & personal readings with a glucometer. So basically I'm stating only one opinion, mine.
Free country mate.

[warthog1]

I failed to mention world health agenda in my previous ramble.
No I don't think I'll do that warthog. My evidence only applies to me and is of no significance to others as it is based on my pathology results, & personal readings with a glucometer. So basically I'm stating only one opinion, mine.
Free country mate.

Sure but Nobody always provides evidence supporting his position.
You have basically had a go at Nobody's position without providing an alternative or any evidence.
At least that is my take on the previous post of yours I quoted. Happy to be wrong

[mikesbytes]

Yeh we debate the carnivore's and vegan's pro and con's a lot. And in the doing so we tend to gloss over the importance of vegetables. If you not into reading papers and studies, there's always articles been published on news sites, for example this one;

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... sk/172051/

Some of these articles are good and others are a little misleading or difficult to understand, but what's easy to understand is that if you don't snack between meals then you tend to put less junk in there and that's another area where vegetables come into play as fibre takes a while to break down meaning that the stomach is busy which will reduce your desire to snack.