Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
creamyy
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:27 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby creamyy » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:17 am

It's a damn good thing I'm lactose intolerant then :(

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:18 am

Thanks CK. Concise,informative post.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:30 am

Another Michael Mosley article spreading misinformation while indirectly promoting his new book.
His proof of how well his diet works for him is below from a previous post where I saved the information from one of his shows. Someone who needs to be on medication for a diet related illness should disclose that in every public media encounter IMO. AFAIK he has said in another show that he is taking statin medication.

Age: 57
Height: 5'11" or 180cm
Waist: 84cm, WHtR: 0.467
BMI: 24 (overweight is 25+)

Blood Pressure: 133/84 (pre-high blood pressure)

Total chol: 6.34 (max 5.5)
HDL: 2.09
non-HDL: 4.25 (Borderline high according to this site.)
Trig: 1.23
LDL: 3.68 (max 3.5) (Calculated from Total,HDL & Trig)

Calculated risk of having a heart attack in next 10 years: 11.2% (So his GP says he should consider statins.)

CT coronary artery calcification scan with contrast confirms he should be on statins.
Last edited by Nobody on Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:42 am

warthog1 wrote:Dairy is the baby food of another (much larger) species.
It's not rocket science that we shouldn't eat much of it.
It's a good representation of the power the food industry has through concerted and sustained publicity/advertising and misinformation that it is so successful and consumed in such large qtys.
I agree totally - if you aren't prepared to drink dog or human milk, don't drink cows milk. We have been conditioned to think it is normal.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:48 am

:)
Having said that I drink soy milk.
Probably not that good for you either. I try to limit my consumption of it.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:51 am

CKinnard wrote:Dairy :
- increases risk of prostate and breast cancers, most likely due to dairy's IGF-1 content. The risk is the same for low fat or normal fat dairy intake. The risk is also related to the estrogens within milk, which are the overwhelming dietary source in humans. The breaking down of milk sugar lactose to galactose correlates with ovarian cancer.
- synthetic bovine growth hormone was used on Australian dairy cows until 2000, and was in dairy products. It's a hormone that can overstimulate tissue growth in humans. It was banned due to cancer causing capacity. So don't rely on science to know all of the adverse effects before it messes with nature.
- Continuing contaminants in dairy products include antibiotics fed to cows, pesticides, PCBs, melamine, alpha toxins, and dioxins.
- Type 1 Diabetes is related to dairy consumption in infancy, especially in the first 3 mths of life, and it is universally recommended children not be fed dairy protein in the first year of life.
- dairy is a major cause of colic in babies, and can increase if breastfeeding mothers take dairy.
- does nothing for bone density, and in fact can speed loss of bone.
- allergies are more common amongst dairy taking children.
- contribute to saturated fat and cholesterol intake.
No real disagreement, but where was your critique of the above video that in effect claimed that dairy gives you diabetes? These are all "relative risk" issues, not absolutes.

Re. children and "first year" - how does this fit with the new guidelines released in the last week or two re. exposure to allergens?
All infants should be given allergenic solid foods including peanut butter, cooked egg, dairy and wheat products in the first year of life. This includes infants at high risk of allergy.

User avatar
ItsDank
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby ItsDank » Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:33 am

What are the most appropriate carbs post exercise? I've been erring on the side of caution with plant based carbs like carrots, potatoes and peas after a late night Zwift session. There seems to be two parties, both with ample amounts of peer reviewed papers behind them.

On one side you have people advocating post ride recovery with processed carbs like wholegrain breads, pastas and on the other side you've got those who only advise to take unprocessed carbs like potatoes, carrots etc

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:02 pm

RhapsodyX wrote: No real disagreement, but where was your critique of the above video that in effect claimed that dairy gives you diabetes? These are all "relative risk" issues, not absolutes.

Re. children and "first year" - how does this fit with the new guidelines released in the last week or two re. exposure to allergens?
All infants should be given allergenic solid foods including peanut butter, cooked egg, dairy and wheat products in the first year of life. This includes infants at high risk of allergy.
all risks are relative. all smokers don't get lung cancer. does that mean smoking doesn't cause cancer?

the new guidelines are an experiment, and are specifically to reduce peanut allergy. nothing is mentioned in these guidelines about the increasing occurrence of diabetes type 1. i.e. see quoted text below. the new guidelines also reinforce what most people already do and that is introduce solids at 6 months. The T1D:dairy link is stronger when dairy is introduced earlier than 6mths

this kind of authoritarian intervention highlights the fundamental problem with reductionist research/interventions. they want to manipulate variable/s to get one result, without considering other risks.

"Katie Allen, from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Melbourne, acknowledges that it's difficult.

'It's awfully confusing. Parents have, over the last few decades, been given a whole raft of different guidelines from different specialists all around the world and here in Australia.'

The new guidelines, she says, are aimed squarely at halving the rate of peanut allergies in Australian children.

'The jury is out until we actually see what happens,' Allen says, 'but that is the hope.' "




the authorities also tell us dairy is good for us because of its calcium content. this is bollocks. in fact, it is most likely dairy calcium contributes heavily to calcific tendonosis, a very common degenerative presentation. vegetables have more than enough calcium.

" Children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes have been found to have increased levels of antibodies directed to several different cow-milk proteins.11-13

Antibodies against cow-milk protein (specifically bovine serum albumin and an ABBOS peptide of 17 amino acids) were found to react with a similar-looking sequence of amino acids on the beta cells of the pancreas in 100% of children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.1

Antibodies to insulin often appear in children who develop type 1 diabetes. This is caused by exposure of an infant (before the age of three months) to cow’s insulin (bovine insulin) found in the milk the child drinks.14 These antibodies to cow-milk also attack human insulin and may be the trigger for the autoimmune response that causes diabetes.

Immune cells, known as T-cells, have been found to proliferate in response to cow-milk proteins in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic children.9 These T-cells, once activated by cow-milk, then attack the beta cells of the pancreas and destroy them. Molecular mimicry appears to be involved.

Avoidance of cow-milk through exclusive breast feeding prevents the development of antibodies to cow-milk protein (beta casein).15 Only bottle-fed infants show reactions to cow-milk proteins. Increased levels of antibodies to these cow-milk proteins are found in children with type 1 diabetes. "
Last edited by CKinnard on Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:14 pm

ItsDank wrote:What are the most appropriate carbs post exercise? I've been erring on the side of caution with plant based carbs like carrots, potatoes and peas after a late night Zwift session. There seems to be two parties, both with ample amounts of peer reviewed papers behind them.

On one side you have people advocating post ride recovery with processed carbs like wholegrain breads, pastas and on the other side you've got those who only advise to take unprocessed carbs like potatoes, carrots etc
The main protagonists on here are older and not coming from a competitive aspect like your own.
I wouldn't expect following the advice here will be optimal for athletic performance.
The fact that Nobody is/has lost substantial weight without a significant exercise regime means the diet he is own does not liberate an excess of energy once digested. I suggest you take some general health principles from this thread but search elsewhere for specific dietary advice for competitive performance like you are after.
Just my thoughts on what I have trawled through on here so far.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
ItsDank
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby ItsDank » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:49 pm

warthog1 wrote:
ItsDank wrote:What are the most appropriate carbs post exercise? I've been erring on the side of caution with plant based carbs like carrots, potatoes and peas after a late night Zwift session. There seems to be two parties, both with ample amounts of peer reviewed papers behind them.

On one side you have people advocating post ride recovery with processed carbs like wholegrain breads, pastas and on the other side you've got those who only advise to take unprocessed carbs like potatoes, carrots etc
The main protagonists on here are older and not coming from a competitive aspect like your own.
I wouldn't expect following the advice here will be optimal for athletic performance.
The fact that Nobody is/has lost substantial weight without a significant exercise regime means the diet he is own does not liberate an excess of energy once digested. I suggest you take some general health principles from this thread but search elsewhere for specific dietary advice for competitive performance like you are after.
Just my thoughts on what I have trawled through on here so far.
Very true I guess. I've lost 5kg's since going from C grade to B grade without changing my diet so on an anecdotal slant, effort and intensity is probably initially of more importance. I suppose even if I wasn't coming from a competitive side, surely the need to recover effectively is somewhat important universally?

I guess I'll head back on Google to find the answers :)

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:49 pm

ItsDank wrote:
Very true I guess. I've lost 5kg's since going from C grade to B grade without changing my diet so on an anecdotal slant, effort and intensity is probably initially of more importance. I suppose even if I wasn't coming from a competitive side, surely the need to recover effectively is somewhat important universally?

I guess I'll head back on Google to find the answers :)

I too am aging and have lost most of my competitive drive.
I just do the odd fast bunch ride with the caliber of rider I have no business to be riding with really :oops: :lol:
The AIS normally have an evidence base for their published info, though I have no desire to enter into any argument (with other posters) about how contemporary that evidence is.

This may be of some help anyway :)
http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition ... _nutrition
Last edited by warthog1 on Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:51 pm

warthog1 wrote:The main protagonists on here are older and not coming from a competitive aspect like your own.
I wouldn't expect following the advice here will be optimal for athletic performance.
The fact that Nobody is/has lost substantial weight without a significant exercise regime means the diet he is own does not liberate an excess of energy once digested. I suggest you take some general health principles from this thread but search elsewhere for specific dietary advice for competitive performance like you are after.
Just my thoughts on what I have trawled through on here so far.
Dank is probably off to chase maximum performance on Google already, so I won't directly reply to him.

You make a valid point and I agree. Eating the same as those who get maximum performance makes sense. You couldn't specifically eat as I eat for maximum performance for a number of reasons. As you've said, I'm more interested in general health than performance, so I eat more in line with the scientific evidence for longevity and general health.

Speaking of which, I'm due to get a blood test done on Wednesday and should get the results a week later.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:16 am

ItsDank wrote:What are the most appropriate carbs post exercise? I've been erring on the side of caution with plant based carbs like carrots, potatoes and peas after a late night Zwift session. There seems to be two parties, both with ample amounts of peer reviewed papers behind them.

On one side you have people advocating post ride recovery with processed carbs like wholegrain breads, pastas and on the other side you've got those who only advise to take unprocessed carbs like potatoes, carrots etc
The least processed carbs are at all times preferable.
You may need to read up on the difference between starchy carbs and fibrous carbs. The former are more Calorie dense.
Here's some reading on the difference.

starchy carbs are grains and starchy vegetables
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitnes ... ables.html

fibrous carbs can be called non starchy vegetables.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitnes ... ables.html

As for getting your food intake timing optimal, that is a specialized task and you should see a sports dietitian.
You need to give very specific goals and training schedules. They are not going to do that for you.
I do this sort of analysis and recommendation but not for free, nor with strangers over the internet.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:44 pm

Yet another article which says that Mediterranean diet is better than a "low fat" diet. The problem with the statement below is the "low fat" diet was 37% fat, compared to the Mediterranean diet versions which were 41 & 42%. I think a diet's fat percentage should be under 15% of energy before it can be called low fat. No surprise then that many people are led to believe that low fat diets have no benefit.
A study published in The Lancet provides more evidence that a low-fat, low-calorie diet is not beneficial for weight loss, while a Mediterranean diet high in healthy fats could help.
To the article's credit, it does quote two experts disagreeing with the study's findings.

More evidence in favour of healthy fats for weight loss

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:10 pm

Nobody wrote:Yet another article which says that Mediterranean diet is better than a "low fat" diet. The problem with the statement below is the "low fat" diet was 37% fat, compared to the Mediterranean diet versions which were 41 & 42%. I think a diet's fat percentage should be under 15% of energy before it can be called low fat. No surprise then that many people are led to believe that low fat diets have no benefit.
A study published in The Lancet provides more evidence that a low-fat, low-calorie diet is not beneficial for weight loss, while a Mediterranean diet high in healthy fats could help.
To the article's credit, it does quote two experts disagreeing with the study's findings.

More evidence in favour of healthy fats for weight loss
It's just another study of a simplistic reductionist nature, considering one outcome, weight loss.
It doesn't consider long term effects on cardiovascular, cancer, and inflammatory effects.

One of the principles Michael Klaper keeps hammering us with at True North is - Diet and nutritional manipulation do not change one outcome. They have multiple effects. So essentially dietary studies that focus on one outcome should not be used in a clinical setting as to the ideal diet. They are experimental studies designed to elucidate specific biochemical pathways.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:46 am

Thanks CK.

It's just damaging for the general public to keep hearing of studies saying that "low fat" diets are bad for them when they are essentially high fat western diets. These studies just add noise. I often hear comments from people saying it's all too confusing because the message keeps changing. So they do whatever they want instead. It helps them with their excuses anyway. But as long as food industries are allowed to have influence, the confusing message will continue. In this case it's probably the sellers of olive oil and/or nuts. Not that I'm against nuts.

The Women's Health Initiative is another one. It only reduced fat from 38% to 29%. Then they said the 29% may have been under reporting.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:28 pm

I was cleaning up some bookmarks when I came across "The True Budwig Protocol". It's a dietary method to treat all types of cancers, which claims a 90% success rate.

It looks a bit like a low carb diet, but allowing fruit and a bit of honey. I remember seeing a low carb claim posted on here of shrinking cancer by starving of carbs. I've also seen the Campbell work of starving cancers with low protein. Having a look through the list of things allowed and banned suggests (from what we know now) that the list could probably be improved on. If you were to augment the Budwig Protocol with what has been learned from keto/low_carb, low protein, fasting and what the angiogenesis people have learned, you may be able to develop something to have an even higher success rate. Something I'll be seriously considering if I ever get diagnosed with cancer or leukemia (which is likely since my mother died of leukemia last year).

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:29 pm


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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:27 pm

Nobody wrote:I was cleaning up some bookmarks when I came across "The True Budwig Protocol". It's a dietary method to treat all types of cancers, which claims a 90% success rate.

It looks a bit like a low carb diet, but allowing fruit and a bit of honey. I remember seeing a low carb claim posted on here of shrinking cancer by starving of carbs. I've also seen the Campbell work of starving cancers with low protein. Having a look through the list of things allowed and banned suggests (from what we know now) that the list could probably be improved on. If you were to augment the Budwig Protocol with what has been learned from keto/low_carb, low protein, fasting and what the angiogenesis people have learned, you may be able to develop something to have an even higher success rate. Something I'll be seriously considering if I ever get diagnosed with cancer or leukemia (which is likely since my mother died of leukemia last year).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24403443
http://skepdic.com/naturalcures.html

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:03 pm

CKinnard wrote: ...
all risks are relative. all smokers don't get lung cancer. does that mean smoking doesn't cause cancer?
...
True. But cycling causes death, and I don't see people avoiding riding because they *might* get hit by a car or have a massive crash.


And sorry about the time it has taken me to get back to this, but a case of "rather busy".
Yes - there is a very strong link between smoking and cancer, but there isn't a strong link between Type 1 and milk exposure (though there definitely is an association), but that still doesn't address the claims in the linked video re. Type II.

Re. children and type 1, early exposure is a factor, but interestingly it's tied up with the genetics and which parent. Shades of grey again...

Some more recent analysis (mainly abstracts) than what appears to have been the source of your quote (Karjalainen, 1992?)

For:
1994 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8112184
2000 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11016449
2012 - https://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals ... t/70/9/509
2013 - http://www.ijbs.com/v09p0666.htm <--- This is a really interesting read!!!
2014 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract

Against :
1996 - http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=407096

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:01 am

Something a bit more informative re microbiome and health.

Catalyst - Special Edition : Gut Reaction Part

The second episode is interesting in that it features a gymnast living on junk food who was "fit" but having symptoms of insulin resistance. After being put on a healthy diet, there were some impressive changes.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Jun 19, 2016 12:23 pm

For the first time, more than 4 in 10 US women are obese

From the article, as of 2014, 38% of US adults are obese.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Policy/Mak ... ber-states

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:49 am

Nobody wrote:For the first time, more than 4 in 10 US women are obese

From the article, as of 2014, 38% of US adults are obese.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Policy/Mak ... ber-states
Huffington post had this to say earlier in the year : linky.

Beyond scary.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:53 am

More detail from one of those US obesity studies
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=2526639


"Results This report is based on data from 2638 adult men (mean age, 46.8 years) and 2817 women (mean age, 48.4 years) from the most recent 2 years (2013-2014) of NHANES and data from 21 013 participants in previous NHANES surveys from 2005 through 2012. For the years 2013-2014, the overall age-adjusted prevalence of obesity was 37.7% (95% CI, 35.8%-39.7%); among men, it was 35.0% (95% CI, 32.8%-37.3%); and among women, it was 40.4% (95% CI, 37.6%-43.3%). The corresponding prevalence of class 3 obesity overall was 7.7% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.3%); among men, it was 5.5% (95% CI, 4.0%-7.2%); and among women, it was 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5%-12.3%). Analyses of changes over the decade from 2005 through 2014, adjusted for age, race/Hispanic origin, smoking status, and education, showed significant increasing linear trends among women for overall obesity (P = .004) and for class 3 obesity (P = .01) but not among men (P = .30 for overall obesity; P = .14 for class 3 obesity).

Conclusions and Relevance In this nationally representative survey of adults in the United States, the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity in 2013-2014 was 35.0% among men and 40.4% among women. The corresponding values for class 3 obesity were 5.5% for men and 9.9% for women. For women, the prevalence of overall obesity and of class 3 obesity showed significant linear trends for increase between 2005 and 2014; there were no significant trends for men. Other studies are needed to determine the reasons for these trends."

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:49 am

There's another side to that as well though - can the world sustain a healthy aging population at the rate children are being born? At some level, isn't it just accepted (at the "planning" level) that economically it's better for "some" to die from preventable disease rather than strip developing nations of their young and healthy to support our aging populations?

The brother-in-law of a former co-worker is a company director for a very large Australian bank. As he was being "inducted", there was significant investment made in health assessments and dietary/exercise advice - these organisations really value their senior staff. But companies & governments don't value their consumers or their "average" workers. Just look at the contents of the vending machines that replaced workplace cafeterias.. and those lucky enough (?) to still have a workplace cafeteria are likely to encounter food almost as bad as major chain fast food.

What is the purpose of life other than to advance society and give your children better education and opportunities than your own? I invest my time & money in my children - they might not appreciate the effort now, but at some point will hopefully see the value of being educated in what "real food" is.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users