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 May 10, 2016 12:45 pm

Baalzamon wrote: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
I find GPs generally don't have high health standards. I think this is because they are exposed to such a low health standard from their patients. GPs are almost always overweight themselves by middle age. Another reason to take control of your own health.
Are you going to get your hsCRP tested this time?
My urea was 2.4 mmol/L (3.0 - 8.0) last time it was checked. A common level for vegans.
The type of protein can effect acidity. Animal products have more sulfur and so are more acidic.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/protein ... -function/
Baalzamon wrote: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.
My understanding is that homocysteine is a byproduct of amino-acid processing. Less animal product consumption leads to less production of it.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/vitamin ... al-health/

Reducing your protein intake from 20% to 10% would probably make a difference to both homocysteine and urea. Changing protein type would likely also do the same.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue May 10, 2016 1:42 pm

Aussiebullet wrote: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.
Yes, that does make more sense. Given many can't look beyond vegan meaning "no-animal but sugar is O.K.", or Paleo meaning "bacon" or LCHF meaning < 150g/carbs per day (therefore, not ketogenic), "change diet" did suggest a simplistic high level change.

In the case of Baalzamon, the B-vitamins and folate makes sense in terms of the test results.

In my case, I eat so much green leafy and cruciate vegetables that I rarely lack any of the essential vitamins/minerals. But the ketogenic diet can restrict the B vitamins group if protein is being controlled, so in my case the occasional teaspoon of vegemite is consumed. Then again - who says the dietary guidelines are correct? Plus certain food combinations (or lack thereof) meaning that some nutrients aren't ingested correctly due to the metabolic pathways. Citric acid with iron bioavailability, for instance.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue May 10, 2016 3:08 pm

RhapsodyX wrote:Then again - who says the dietary guidelines are correct? Plus certain food combinations (or lack thereof) meaning that some nutrients aren't ingested correctly due to the metabolic pathways. Citric acid with iron bioavailability, for instance.
Interesting comment.

We already know the dietary guidelines are incorrect, but how incorrect and for who? Many countries disagree with each other and the WHO. If I had to go by one set, I'd back the WHO as it's less influenced by industry interests. Then there are individuality of absorption, intolerance etc. I used to worry more about this sort of stuff mainly because of external judgements on whether my diet was deemed healthy. But now I realize that in many cases the body adapts to a reduced intake levels and many still won't see deficiency symptoms. The fact that so many get by on the average US or AU diets is testimony itself that many deficiencies don't result in noticeable symptoms.

Having said that, if one wants to reduce the risk of cancer/leukemia, then maximising fruit and veg intake is the best way I know of. A topic closer to my heart after losing my mother to the complications of leukemia last year. Since I have to assume I'm next in line for it.
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/cancer-survival/
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/leukemia/
https://www.eattobeat.org/

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue May 10, 2016 3:16 pm

The main things I noticed when I went to a low fat diet (< 10% fat by calories) was that I dealt with lack of sleep better and I was a bit more awake during the working day. This seems to agree with the article below.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical ... li=AAgfDNO

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue May 10, 2016 4:04 pm

Nobody wrote:The main things I noticed when I went to a low fat diet (< 10% fat by calories) was that I dealt with lack of sleep better and I was a bit more awake during the working day. This seems to agree with the article below.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical ... li=AAgfDNO
The actual paper. The highest fat intake quartile were also the highest g/day of carbohydrates and also the highest BMI's. But the majority of the participants were overweight.

And speaking as a "keto" person - I average less than 6 hours of sleep a day because I just wake up after a certain number of hours, and I'm not sleepy during the day. When I (deliberately) drop out of ketosis, my sleep needs increase. N=1, of course - but it is a known (common?) ketosis side effect.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Tue May 10, 2016 11:37 pm

Nobody wrote:
Baalzamon wrote: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
I find GPs generally don't have high health standards. I think this is because they are exposed to such a low health standard from their patients. GPs are almost always overweight themselves by middle age. Another reason to take control of your own health.
Are you going to get your hsCRP tested this time?
My urea was 2.4 mmol/L (3.0 - 8.0) last time it was checked. A common level for vegans.
The type of protein can effect acidity. Animal products have more sulfur and so are more acidic.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/protein ... -function/
Baalzamon wrote: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.
My understanding is that homocysteine is a byproduct of amino-acid processing. Less animal product consumption leads to less production of it.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/vitamin ... al-health/

Reducing your protein intake from 20% to 10% would probably make a difference to both homocysteine and urea. Changing protein type would likely also do the same.
My urea was 3.2. Homocysteine is different to Urea. I suggest everyone gets their homocysteine checked.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed May 11, 2016 9:26 am

RhapsodyX wrote:The actual paper. The highest fat intake quartile were also the highest g/day of carbohydrates and also the highest BMI's. But the majority of the participants were overweight.
Not surprising. As you know, the average western diet has a lot of fat (by WFV standards) and a lot of carbs (by keto standards). Not usually good sources either.
RhapsodyX wrote:And speaking as a "keto" person...
Thanks for posting your experience. As usual, you seem to get good results.
What percentage of the population are keto, < 1% ? Vegans are approx 2% IIRC.
I posted it as I thought it was an interesting observation of how diet can effect our daily lives and it also appears to correlate with my experience. I didn't post it to have a go at keto, low-carb or paleo, as the subjects of the study were likely people with average type diets.
Baalzamon wrote:My urea was 3.2 ...
Maybe a bit high for a vegan (the highest I've seen is 3.3, the lowest 2.1) but on the low end of the normal scale for an omnivore. A bit high would be 8.3 from a GP's perspective. No reason for action on that result IMO.
Baalzamon wrote:I suggest everyone gets their homocysteine checked.
Probably a good idea for people to get many blood markers checked regularly as a motivator for change. But I probably won't get my homocysteine checked as I have a low hsCRP and I'm already making a reasonable effort to keep my homocysteine low. Which involves no animal products, getting enough veg for ample folate and B6 levels and taking a B12 supplement 3 times a week currently.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Wed May 11, 2016 10:10 am

nobody wrote:Probably a good idea for people to get many blood markers checked regularly. But I probably won't get homocysteine checked as I have a low hsCRP and I'm already making a reasonable effort to keep my homocysteine low. Which involves no animal products, getting enough veg for folate and B6 levels and taking a B12 supplement 3 times a week currently.
CRP and homocysteine levels have nothing in correlation. I've just checked chronometer and I'm getting almost 100% RDI intake of my B group vitamins except B5 (86%) and Folate (88%). In my short stint of reading about homocysteine in some cases just supplementing B group vitamins is not enough. You need TMG supplementation as well. What I'm going to do is get retested 1-2 months time. See has my Big H level changed or not. If it has dropped, continue doing what I'm doing. If it's stable then I'll hit TMG supplementation. Retest in 1-2 months again. Get 2 blood tests from my nutritionist. Get one blood test done next day, then wait a week but this time I'll supplement TMG 4hrs before my test to see if that changes the results.

As my weight is now starting to approach "ideal" weight, I'm might trial going from keto to paleo. Paleo is still under the ketogenic umbrella. I'll just need to test my glucose to ensure my blood glucose doesn't spike too high.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed May 11, 2016 10:36 am

Baalzamon wrote:CRP and homocysteine levels have nothing in correlation.
From the first link in the Google search for "homocysteine":
A high level of homocysteine in the blood (hyperhomocysteinemia) makes a person more prone to endothelial cell injury, which leads to inflammation in the blood vessels, which in turn may lead to atherogenesis, which can result in ischemic injury.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homocysteine

Plenty of other sites saying similar:
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=homo ... as_rights=

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Wed May 11, 2016 9:37 pm

That is what I thought Nobody. Emailed my nutritionist and she told me nope they weren't related.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu May 12, 2016 9:48 am

Well I'll be interested to see your hsCRP with a homocysteine of 16.

Next month I'm due for some more blood testing than usual. I should get the results late next month. If I can read the specialist's writing, I'm getting:

FBC, EUC, URATE, LFT, LDU (or LDH), FP, FE studies and CRP.

I don't know what some of them mean. Not that it matters, since I'll probably figure it out when I get a copy of the results. The CRP is usually hsCRP.

The last specialist was a stand-in. She seemed a bit more concerned than my usual specialist since she didn't know my history. It should be interesting to see the results.

Getting all these tests done multiple times a year is the only up side of having hemochromatosis. I'd obviously rather be normal, but it's interesting since I can change my diet in between tests and see a result in only 3 months. That's how I know I can't eat grean leafy veg anymore. It appears to spike my iron levels. I was tipped off about green leafy veg from another person with the same illness. But I know watermelon is OK, which also should give a high iron level because of the large amounts usually consumed. I tested it for 3 months to find my levels still low. Like with calorie density and weight gain. It often is more about the density of the mineral, rather than the amount consumed when it comes to absorption. At least in my case.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Sat May 14, 2016 11:40 pm

Here you go Nobody

btw someone I know has hemochromatosis and they are doing keto
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Sun May 15, 2016 8:13 am

Nobody wrote:The below video is long, but quite useful for people who want to lose weight (long term) on a plant based diet.



The video below is recommended in the above video. I haven't seen it since I'm introverted. So don't have the problem of trying to fit in while changing diet.
http://esteemdynamics.org/video/getting ... ing-along/

The energy density mentioned in the video is converted and explained below.
ImageDerived from:
http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/E ... nsity.html
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewt ... 032#p41322
2000-3000 calories daily with 4-5km walking. 108kg to 93kg

I'm saying it has more to do with insulin resistance promoting weight gain and needing to cure that insulin resistance to lose weight. My fasted insulin was 7, hate to think what it was 7 months ago.
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 » Mon May 16, 2016 3:15 pm

While looking at the effects of exercise on resting metabolic rate, I came across this :

Fasting Respiratory Exchange Rate is a predictor (albeit weak) of future obesity - [url=ttp://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1328091]Link[/url]. A low RER indicates a higher level of fat oxidation being undertaken. My fasting RER, when on a ketogenic diet, is around 0.7.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Wed May 18, 2016 9:56 am

Just a placeholder link on the "harmful" potato while I try and find the research.

Edit : and the (not unexpected) media response from (possibly?) vested interests saying that looking at foods in isolation isn't helpful.

Link to the study.

Edit II : Just skimming through, they think that the hypertension is either due to the high-GI load or due to weigh gain associated with potato consumption.

And in the conclusion :
These findings have potentially important public health ramifications, as they do not support a potential benefit from the inclusion of potatoes as vegetables in government food programs but instead support a harmful effect that is consistent with adverse effects of high carbohydrate intakes seen in controlled feeding studies.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed May 18, 2016 12:19 pm

RhapsodyX wrote:Link to the study.
Limitations of study

This study has several limitations. Firstly, random misclassification of potato intake could have occurred because all dietary assessment methods are imperfect; however, this type of random error in assessment of exposure would tend to attenuate our findings and therefore underestimate the true association. Secondly, participants self reported a diagnosis of hypertension and direct blood pressure measurements were not obtained. However, our method of ascertainment of hypertension (self report by trained health professionals of similar educational backgrounds) has been extensively validated in all three cohorts.12 13 14 Thirdly, our population consists mostly of non-Hispanic white people of a relatively uniform socioeconomic status. However, we have no reason to suspect that the biological response to diet is qualitatively different across ethnic groups. Fourthly, as with any observational study, our findings could be explained by residual confounding; for example, potatoes are often consumed with salt and added fat (such as butter or margarine). The increased sodium content could explain the association of boiled/baked potatoes with hypertension. However, our results did not materially change after we adjusted for intake of sodium or trans and saturated fat.
No surprises. This study is just a reflection of how potatoes are prepared and consumed in western societies. As such, they should be harmful. In western countries like the UK, USA and AU, potatoes are usually oven baked in animal fat and/or spayed with vegetable oil. Boiled potatoes are usually mashed or prepared with margarine/butter. Cold french fries and chips are usually commercial products sold in a packet. Fast food shop bought hot french fries and chips are usually deep fried. Hot chips can be dry baked in an oven at home from frozen, but they are usually prepared with vegetable oil from the manufacturer. Although possible, dry baked or boiled potatoes without added fat and/or salt won't be the norm in the average western household.

As for commercial packet chips,I just happen to have a container of Pringles Sour Cream & Onion chips here.
Qantity per 100g:
Sodium - 670mg
Carbohydrate : Fat : Protein
Grams - 53.4 : 31.8 : 4.0
Calories - 213.6 : 286.2 : 16 - total: 515.8
Macro Ratio - 41.4 : 55.5 : 3.1

Considering a basic boiled potato has 1% of calories as fat, 55% fat by calories is a big change. Yet it appears the potato is still the villain.


https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/jul/lessons.htm

Spud Fit (Andrew Taylor) seems to be doing OK just eating only potatoes with low fat condiments this year. But he doesn't add oil.
https://www.facebook.com/Spud-Fit-176361779065773/

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Wed May 18, 2016 1:08 pm

Nobody wrote:
Limitations of study

This study has several limitations. Firstly, random misclassification of potato intake could have occurred because all dietary assessment methods are imperfect; however, this type of random error in assessment of exposure would tend to attenuate our findings and therefore underestimate the true association. Secondly, participants self reported a diagnosis of hypertension and direct blood pressure measurements were not obtained. However, our method of ascertainment of hypertension (self report by trained health professionals of similar educational backgrounds) has been extensively validated in all three cohorts.12 13 14 Thirdly, our population consists mostly of non-Hispanic white people of a relatively uniform socioeconomic status. However, we have no reason to suspect that the biological response to diet is qualitatively different across ethnic groups. Fourthly, as with any observational study, our findings could be explained by residual confounding; for example, potatoes are often consumed with salt and added fat (such as butter or margarine). The increased sodium content could explain the association of boiled/baked potatoes with hypertension. However, our results did not materially change after we adjusted for intake of sodium or trans and saturated fat.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed May 18, 2016 3:41 pm


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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Wed May 18, 2016 11:09 pm

Not quite - red meat consumption and processed meats raise risk, white meat may have benefits and long term (>= 17 yr) vegetarian/vegan reduces various risks. The underlying paper is well worth the reading time, especially if people need incentive to reduce meat consumption.

But no real surprises, really. I gave up red meat a while back, except for the occasional lapse.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Fri May 20, 2016 1:38 pm

5:2 diet not looking so good study finds. But, it's a small study, therefore not necessarily meaningful.

Update : And a link to a discussion on intermittent fasting here, where the non-weight loss benefits of intermittent fasting come up. Meh... YMMV.
A few years back I tried 18:6, and my blood glucose fell so low I struggled to form a coherent sentence - it scared the crackers out of me. No such issues these days, my blood glucose is very stable unless I do insane levels of exercise.
INTERMITTENT FASTING (5:2 DIET) – A NEW WEIGHT LOSS APPROACH?



MARGIE CONLEY1, LAUREN LE FEVRE1, CILLA HAYWOOD2, JOSEPH PROIETTO2


1Austin Health, Australia


2University of Melbourne, Australia


The 5:2 diet (two non-consecutive days of 2460 kJ (600 calories) and five days of ad libitum eating per week) is becoming increasingly popular. This pilot study aimed to determine whether the 5:2 diet can achieve ≥5% weight loss and greater improvements in weight and biochemical markers than a standard calorie restricted diet (SCRD) in obese male war veterans. Twenty-four participants were randomised to consume either the 5:2 diet or a SCRD (2050 kJ (500 calories) reduction per day) for six months. Weight, waist circumference (WC), percentage body fat, fasting blood glucose, blood lipids, blood pressure and dietary intake were measured at baseline, three and six months by a blinded investigator. After six months, participants following either diet significantly reduced body weight (p = 0.000), WC (p = 0.000) and systolic blood pressure (p = 0.001). Mean weight loss and WC reduction for the 5:2 diet were 5.3 ± 3.0 kg (5.5 ± 3.2%) and 8.0 cm ± 4.5 cm, respectively. Mean weight loss and WC reduction for the SCRD were 5.5 ± 4.3 kg (5.4 ± 4.2%) and 6.4 ± 5.8 cm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss or WC reduction between the diet groups. There was no significant improvement in diastolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose or blood lipids in either dietary group. Results suggest that the 5:2 diet is a successful but not superior weight loss approach in male war veterans when compared to a SCRD. Future research is needed to determine the long-term effectiveness of the 5:2 diet and its effectiveness in other population groups.


Funding source: DAA small research grant

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun May 22, 2016 8:49 am


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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Sun May 22, 2016 11:53 am

So I'm a freak then that doesn't get hungry, skips lunch, can skip dinner and breakfast and lunch the next day. :roll:
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Sun May 22, 2016 12:21 pm

correct :mrgreen:
Your body is probably going "if I'm going to be fed that fatty bilge I haven't evolved to eat then I'd rather go without"
Dogs are the best people :wink:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Mon May 23, 2016 2:50 pm

To save people wasting their time - IMHO, it is a waste of time. A naturopath using youtube as a vehicle for their preferred view of the world, using an N=65 study as "proof" that a "calorie density" view of dieting was better than "high fat" (which version would that be?).

No better than hearsay. A waste of 10 minutes and 47 seconds of my life.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue May 24, 2016 4:25 pm

RhapsodyX wrote:
To save people wasting their time - IMHO, it is a waste of time. A naturopath using youtube as a vehicle for their preferred view of the world, using an N=65 study as "proof" that a "calorie density" view of dieting was better than "high fat" (which version would that be?).

No better than hearsay. A waste of 10 minutes and 47 seconds of my life.
Unbridled emotionalism.

The debate over which diet sates best is no doubt confounded by the dietary preferences of the study subjects. Presumably, those with a preference and history of SAD may be happier with hamburgers, cheese from a bottle, and ice cream.

Consider that plant based whole food eaters have healthier BMIs and greater longevity.
What does this tell us about satiety?
- To keep one's BMI within healthy limits long term is obviously dependent on satiety on a eucaloric diet.
- Therefore, it logically follows PBWF eaters are sated before overfeeding. Therefore, satiation advantage rests with the PBWF, as does longevity and low morbidity advantage.
END OF ARGUMENT
_______________________________

Pam Popper has earned a PhD and is highly regarded and employed by the US govt and many large private corporations. She is more qualified to give dietary advice than a medical physician. I've watched many of her presentations, and not one is out of line with the bulk of literature that shows the longevity advantage lies with PBWF, or that PBWF can reverse atherosclerosis.

Rhapsody, read the literature more broadly before giving others' advice about what is a waste of time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users