Diet Thread

[defy1]

You could see an overall pattern though in the family grocery shopping, of those countries that had bad diets vs good
bad :
- processed food in packaged cardboard with colourful logos
good
- wholesome non processed meat, dairy, fresh fruit and vegetables

[CKinnard]

That documentary has not represented the science accurately. It's glossed over the detail by lumping all Seventh Day Adventists together, no matter what their dietary preference.
All cause mortality Hazard Ratio is a common method for comparing the benefits of one lifestyle or diet to another.
The winner of that in the literature at the moment is SDAs who smash vegetables, fruit, whole grains, and light to moderate fish intake.

[Nobody]

Placing the link to the full episode on this page too.
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/49 ... -best-diet

You could see an overall pattern...
good
- wholesome non processed meat, dairy, fresh fruit and vegetables

A ubiquitous view of meat and dairy, but the inconvenient truth is that the science doesn't support that commonly held view when it comes to either long-term weight loss, or general health.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/paleo-d ... -exercise/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-milk ... our-bones/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/meat-an ... cea-study/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/thousan ... s-studied/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-p ... nded-life/

At ~38:10 in the video shows an Ethiopian diet which would have to be one of the best I've ever seen. Mainly because they can't usually afford meat and everything appears to be whole foods.

Then the presenter talks about fibre and colon cancer, but that doesn't appear to agree with the most recent science either.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/solving ... r-mystery/

[CKinnard]

Icelanders who have watched the documentary say most eat minimal meat, fish, and dairy because it is so expensive.

[toolonglegs]

I thought they also drank a hell of a lot like most far northern countries ?

[Nobody]

http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/thetruth ... /#autoplay

Above is a good example of infotainment and why we shouldn't treat them as entirely factual.

One of the presenter's early statements is that we should get about a third of the calories we eat from fat. No reason why, just makes the statement like it's established fact. AFAIK the ideal fat level in a human diet should be around 10%. Credit for this goes to Pritikin (from 1974) who studied many successful diets around the world and nutritional scientist T. Collin Campbell (from the China Project) agrees. The McDougall diet is typically 8% fat.
http://pcrm.org/health/medNews/high-fat ... metabolism
http://www.newswise.com/articles/to-red ... rbohydrate

The presenter wants to find out why she has 43% body fat even though (she thinks) she doesn't eat much fat. So she goes to a college/uni which tells her people get fat because they eat too much fat and carbs. Although technically true, it's too brief and summarized to be useful to the average person. Nothing specific about insulin response of various foods, whole foods versus processed, fibre, food energy density etc. No detailed guidelines on how to prevent it.

~27:10 Uunsaturated fats (showing bottles of oil) helps to lower bad cholesterol in the blood and be heart protective.


~33:20 Fish is good for us due to the omega-3 fats and oily fish is the best source of omega-3 fats.
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/omega-3-fatty-acids/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-fish ... snake-oil/

~36:15 Paints a low fat diet as difficult and an "extreme thing" to do. I think the picture they paint of low fat diets will leave most viewers misinformed of the long term benefits of a low fat diet and even less likely to try one in the future.

[CKinnard]

http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/thetruth ... /#autoplay

Above is a good example of infotainment and why we shouldn't treat them as entirely factual.

One of the presenter's early statements is that we should get about a third of the calories we eat from fat. No reason why, just makes the statement like it's established fact.

This is a sterling example of a clinically naive health professional meddling in the literature of a field she is inadequately trained and read in; and a publicly funded broadcaster confounding the science in the pursuit of television audience ratings.

As for the scientists she interviews, they have a vested interest in promoting their particular corner of the bigger picture, and few are objective enough or familiar enough with the broader literature, to accurately represent the consensus for a subject as huge as optimal human nutrition.

It is highly irresponsible and unethical of health professionals and scientists to produce shows with skewed messages such as above, for general broadcasting to a scientifically illiterate population...shows based on a small selective sampling of the science. And it is fallacious in the extreme to argue the benefits of fat by exploring what happens when fat intake is reduced to a very unnatural 1%. This proves nothing other than the idiocy of the people who devised the experiment.

The highest quality studies for producing dietary guidelines are large longitudinal and epidemiological. This show ignored, contradicted, and confounded these.

These studies consistently show a diet of low fat, low animal produce, high fiber, whole foods has the longevity and low morbidity advantage.
Broadcasting a message that contradicts or confuses this is irresponsible anti-science. Health professionals who get involved in things like this are ego driven narcissists.

[Aussiebullet]

Yeh shocking reporting, just clueless, lets just throw the baby out with the bath water. My dad has always said there are so many well educated people out there who just lack any common sense, they went to extremes to target only low fat foods within a certain % and deliberately avoided perfectly fine foods to eat on a low fat diet like avocados, nuts etc.

"NEWS FLASH" Low fat means low fat % overall for the day, week, month, year etc.
NOT "no fat" and avoid all foods that have a fat content above what your particular % range might be"

So you can for example: eat fruit/cereal for breakfast, salad sandwich/roll for lunch and home made pizza with a low fat cheese and lean meat topping if you like for dinner, or a roast chicken with tonnes of roasted potatoes, pumpkin and corn etc for lunch OR dinner and still fall into that ~10% range for the day give or take a few % on any given day (no need to be anal about it)

I eat a low fat diet usually around 4000 - 5000 kcals (~20'000 kilojules) and some of those calories on some days do come from eating chocolate, dairy, nuts, oily fish, red meat, white meat, avocado, butter, eggs, coconut oil, olive oil etc,
any given day might see my daily % of fat intake between 5 % and 20% but overall for the wk/mth/year it falls into the 8% - 15% of total dietary calories. (

The bulk of my calories comes from fruit, vegetables and grains(rice,wheat,oats,corn)
I don't eat meat or eggs, cheese etc on a daily weekly or even monthly basis but I do hunt and fish so whenever the mood strikes me they form part of my diet. So on average my daily fat intake is less than half the ~30% that some are recommending as optimal, I don't assume eating more is bad in fact have no issue with it but it just doesn't fit into my diet without either eliminating some carb calories or increasing total calories.

YMMV.

[casual_cyclist]

So on average my daily fat intake is less than half the ~30% that some are recommending as optimal, I don't assume eating more is bad in fact have no issue with it but it just doesn't fit into my diet without either eliminating some carb calories or increasing total calories.

I think where eating more is bad is that people eat more fat but don't reduce some carb calories to compensate. Increasing total calories is what causes weight gain.

[casual_cyclist]

Could diet affect mental health. A group of scientists think yes!

It is possible that eating certain foods upsets the balance of intestinal biome and this could lead to cravings to eat the foods that caused the imbalance in the first place. It is a vicious cycle and I have no doubt this accounts for some of the weight gain that is so common across the western world.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... in/6710902" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Nobody]

So on average my daily fat intake is less than half the ~30% that some are recommending as optimal, I don't assume eating more is bad in fact have no issue with it but it just doesn't fit into my diet without either eliminating some carb calories or increasing total calories.

I think where eating more is bad is that people eat more fat but don't reduce some carb calories to compensate. Increasing total calories is what causes weight gain.

Not challenging anything either of you said. Just adding another perspective.

At this stage I believe that daily average energy density is a key factor to body weight management. This may not be the case for everyone, but most should benefit by following Jeff Novick's guide to plant based food energy density. I've converted this to metric and removed an average nominal fibre content for more clarity. The note about animal products is derived from Greger's nutritionfacts.org articles.



A diet of 30% fat (by energy intake) should significantly increase average energy density and therefore contribute to difficulties in weight management. Especially when combined with plenty of bread, cereals, animal products and other higher density foods.

Nuts & seeds may be exempt from weight management issues according to the science.

[casual_cyclist]

A diet of 30% fat (by energy intake) should significantly increase average energy density and therefore contribute to difficulties in weight management. Especially when combined with plenty of bread, cereals, animal products and other higher density foods.

I doubt I could argue with that. Fat + plenty of bread, cereals, animal products and other higher density foods would definitely be a problem for weight management. But what if it is not the fat? What if it is the other things.

The reason I raise this is that when I first tried to improve my diet, I was eating a lot of salad, veges, some nuts, some legumes and maybe one slice of bread per day max. The problem was my weight didn't budge. I added coconut milk (the fatty kind, not the coconut water) to that exact mix and the weight started to move straight away. Maybe combining the right amount of the right kind of fat with the right kind of foods is actually beneficial for weight management. I'll let you know when I do it again next month

[Nobody]

But what if it is not the fat? What if it is the other things.

I can't say it is the fat. We both know that low carb, high fat diets work to lose weight (at least for some time, but not necessarily long-term). I think it's difficult to say conclusively whether HFLC vegetarian diets are healthier than HCLF or not because the science on it is still fairly new. Esselstyn would argue that a higher saturated fat component in a diet (like walnuts, 6.1g/100g) is a risk for those genetically susceptible to atherosclerosis, but he is OK with linseed (3.7g/100g). Although this is probably an over-simplification of the whole story. Greger may disagree with Esselstyn on nuts/seeds, but I won't know more about his personal opinions until his book arrives at the end of the year.

If I eat more than 34g of nuts & seeds at breakfast, I'll notice I'm more lethargic, so it also comes down to the genetics and tolerances of the individual. At the moment I'm eating 14g of linseed and ~18g of almonds a day as a short trial. It's about as much as I can easily handle. Yet I still won't meet the daily government spec for LA/omega-6. Although almonds have been shown in some studies to reduce cholesterol more than walnuts, walnuts are going to give more LA. I'll probably end up with a mix of the two again.

Chasing the ideal diet for an individual can be difficult, especially if there are diseases and food allergies to deal with. So in many cases probably not worth the effort. Far easier to get the diet 95+ % correct and then deal with any other symptomatic problems as they arise. Obviously B12 is the exception which needs to be correct and tested regularly to avoid irreversible neurological problems in the future.

[casual_cyclist]

If I eat more than 34g of nuts & seeds at breakfast, I'll notice I'm more lethargic, so it also comes down to the genetics and tolerances of the individual.

I'm thinking that it is this more than anything and maybe a lot more to do with intestinal biome than we ever thought. In my case, if I let my fat intake drop too low, my whole digestive system stops working properly. I can eat (literally) kilograms of vegetables and legumes and produce virtually nothing. What I mean by that is Type 1 on the Bristol stool chart. That's not good when eating mostly plants. However, if I add some fats too that, like coconut milk, it goes back to normal very quickly, within a day or 2. From that, I can only conclude that my intestinal biome like some fat. I don't go overboard. One tin of coconut milk lasts me about a week but it makes that much difference. So it could really vary depending on the individual's range of bacteria living in their guts!

[Nobody]

More infotainment from the 60 minutes program masquerading as factual. This time the presenter gets a CT calcification scan to find he has a problem. His doctor then tells him he needs to go on a paleo diet. This yet again proves doctors are not well educated about nutrition.

http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minute ... y-mammoth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

03:00 Presenter says he can't eat bread, potato, rice or pasta. Bread I can understand, but not the others. Especially if the pasta is wholemeal.

04:41 Have a look at Loren Cordain himself. Not the healthiest looking guy around, even for 64 yo. Sure, Ornish isn't the lightest either, but I don't think he's a strict vegetarian either.

05:07 Presenter says paleo is a meat heavy diet.

09:55 Six months later the presenter says he has lost about 4 belt notches which he recons is about 10kg. Then he says he hopes his arteries appreciate his change of diet. But in true infotainment style, he doesn't get another CT calcification scan to prove a benefit. I have my doubts there would be any improvement on a paleo diet in six months considering a reversal sometimes doesn't happen even on a WFPB diet.

For those who don't believe paleo (low carb) is dangerous.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/paleo-d ... -exercise/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/low-car ... lood-flow/

If you can be bothered, have a look at the hatchet job Cordain's site did on potatoes. I've lost plenty of weight (about 18kg) and gained health (BP 113/65, chol 6.5 to 3.8 ) eating large meals of potatoes.

[CKinnard]

But what if it is not the fat? What if it is the other things.

Until you carefully log your energy intake and activity, attributing weight loss to eating more chocolate or coconut is, in short.....goofy.
Get more objective boys and girls. Respect the scientific method.

[Nobody]

Get more objective boys and girls. Respect the scientific method.

Fair enough. My post edited.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

NIH study finds cutting dietary fat reduces body fat more than cutting carbs
Seems similar to one I posted some time ago.

I don't agree with the author's comments though.

“But the real world is more complicated than a research lab, and if you have obesity and want to lose weight, it may be more important to consider which type of diet you’ll be most likely to stick to over time.”

That sounds like a cop out to chase a low carb diet. That would be fine if there wasn't a health cost to the individual and medical system in general.

[CKinnard]

Nobody, that paper reaches a view that for weight loss, it's most important to get the Calorie deficit right, which I agree with.
This is still the elephant in the room.

Health authorities still have not dumbed down the deficit message. People are still quite clueless as to how much energy they burn, and even more so re the energy density of foods. So much of the weight loss and fitness industry is based on "joining a gym" to lose weight. As you and many others know, that's poppycock. The Biggest Loser has a lot to answer.

Until the message becomes "It's the deficit stupid", then a media hungry for a larger audience will still publish provocative headlines re weight loss and macro ratios.

So that's the weight loss side of things.

The which diet is healthiest is another story!

[Nobody]

Below is the reasoning for added salt. This mainly applies to those on a WFPB diet that omits salt, like me.


Below is the reasoning against added salt, also aimed at people on the same diet.


McDougall Newsletter on Salt

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/salt-ok ... ure-is-ok/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12856272

The videos above show why it is safer to just present the study results even if they are conflicting and let people decide for themselves. I wouldn't want to be even partly responsible for someone's lack of health in the future because of a mistake.

You can see why there is no much confusion out there. Particularly when it comes to salt and fat among people on WFPB diets. I'm still having a bit of a struggle to know exactly how much salt (if any) and fat (including types and amounts) to intake and I've already read and seen plenty about them. I think part of the problem is that most studies are done on people on standard first world diets rather than WFPB, which could change the results significantly. So at this stage I'm going to continue to try of few things and go on feel while keeping both on the lower side. I'm due to get another blood test for cholesterol panel next month. Should be telling.

[casual_cyclist]

But what if it is not the fat? What if it is the other things.

Until you carefully log your energy intake and activity, attributing weight loss to eating more chocolate or coconut is, in short.....goofy.
Get more objective boys and girls. Respect the scientific method.

It was an anecdote, not evidence

[Nobody]

Greger may disagree with Esselstyn on nuts/seeds, but I won't know more about his personal opinions until his book arrives at the end of the year.

Correction. Greger says at ~02:35 in this nut video that he recommends an ounce (28g) of nuts & seeds a day. The general message of the video is that certain nuts will do no harm and some should improve arterial function.

[CKinnard]

I'm thinking that it is this more than anything and maybe a lot more to do with intestinal biome than we ever thought. In my case, if I let my fat intake drop too low, my whole digestive system stops working properly. I can eat (literally) kilograms of vegetables and legumes and produce virtually nothing. What I mean by that is Type 1 on the Bristol stool chart. That's not good when eating mostly plants. However, if I add some fats too that, like coconut milk, it goes back to normal very quickly, within a day or 2. From that, I can only conclude that my intestinal biome like some fat. I don't go overboard. One tin of coconut milk lasts me about a week but it makes that much difference. So it could really vary depending on the individual's range of bacteria living in their guts!

Anecdote hey!?

Don't underestimate the importance of the following for fecal regularity:
- regular and ample hydration
- regular physical activity (to facilitate peristalsis)
- regular quality relaxation/sleep.

I seem to recall CC that you are a habitual night owl. That is associated with poor stool formation and peristalsis.

I'd be addressing the above before pointing the finger at a lack of dietary fat.
Keep in mind dietary fat is very efficiently absorbed in the small intestine, so very little passes through to the large intestine (excluding pathology such as a lack of pancreatic lipase, etc)
Further, resistant starch is broken down to SCFAs in the large intestine, but these too are absorbed very efficiently.

Faeces are around 75% water, 25% solids. Adequate water is needed for
- intestinal goblet cells to create enough mucus to help bind digestive waste.
- keep bacterial cells within stools hydrated.

[RhapsodyX]

NIH study finds cutting dietary fat reduces body fat more than cutting carbs
Seems similar to one I posted some time ago.

Not "similar" - it is the same study.

[casual_cyclist]

Anecdote hey!?

Don't underestimate the importance of the following for fecal regularity:
- regular and ample hydration
- regular physical activity (to facilitate peristalsis)
- regular quality relaxation/sleep.

I seem to recall CC that you are a habitual night owl. That is associated with poor stool formation and peristalsis.

I am a habitual night owl but that doesn't mean I don't get regular quality relaxation/sleep. If so, this would be a regular problem for me, not a very unusual occurrence (pun intended). Poor stool formation and (lack of) peristalsis is very unusual for me.

Years ago, before I switched to eating mainly plants, it was a problem for me and I chased all kinds of solutions. I went with the recommendations based on the best research - psyllium and water - and found that horrendous. I found all that did was give me an irritated gut. The best solution I found was a combination of resistant starch and fat. In my case, baked sweet potato, cooled in the fridge and eating in combination with coconut milk. That is like rocket fuel for my system.

Last time I had this issue (3 days in a row of type 1 on the Bristol chart), I was eating basically plants (most veg – cooked and raw, fruit, legumes, a little dairy). No added fat, no nuts, no fatty veggies. Heaps of water. I didn’t deliberately restrict fat, I was just eating what I had in the fridge. I was really surprised that I could eat close to a kilogram of raw veg salad for lunch and big salad with legumes for dinner (including roasted pumpkin and sweet potato) and then not produce very much at all.

Since intestinal microbiota is partly responsble for stool formation, it is interesting to note:

The interactions between dietary fatty acids (FA) and the intestinal microbiota were reviewed, with their possible relationships to colon and breast cancers. Free and esterified FA in the colon are from dietary, endogenous and microbial origin. Their quantity and quality vary according to dietary FA. Some FA but not all are powerful antimicrobial agents, and different bacteria exhibit distinct sensitivity to FA. These data converge to suggest that dietary FA could influence the biodiversity of the intestinal microbiota and its functions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16123009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also recall that:

Dietary FA can influence the secretion of bile and bile acids into the duodenum, the bile acid flux and/or concentration into the feces and that of cholesterol and its bacterial products.

My working hypothesis is that eating a diet with virtually no added fats and no fatty plants (nuts, seeds, vegetables etc) is going to cause problems. We are looking at impacts on intestinal microbiota, bile secretion and possibly transit time. I can test this out for you in September and report back. First week of September, I am going super low fat for a week. Week 2 will be the exact same food but adding in 1/2 cup of coconut milk a day. I don't know if a week is long enough but I'm not prepared to go super low fat for longer than that, after the problems I had last time.

[CKinnard]

what are your hydration habits CC?

The only time I get pellet poo is when dehydrated after a long bike ride or being so busy at work I forget to drink.
For the least 3 days I've eaten much less than 10% fat.
With the help of my green smoothie breakfast built on 1 liter of water, and my 1-2 liters of salad and 400g can of legumes, I usually cr@p 2-3 times before dinner.