Diet Thread

[Tim]

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.

I had reason to visit (one of) our regional base hospitals and it's combined staff and public cafeteria yesterday (Sunday).
This is in Victoria's Latrobe Valley which, incidentally, has one of the highest obesity and overweight rates in the country.
Two vending machines; one softdrink (no juices), the other full of chocolate, chips and lollies.
The cafeteria bain-marie was overflowing with deep fried chips, dim sims, potatoe cakes and all the usual garbage.
A large freezer held a wide variety of ice creams. Counter well stocked with chocolate and lollies.
In a lonely corner was a small, glass encased fridge. In it were pre-packed sandwiches, mostly ham and processed meats with minimal added salad. A couple of prepared, aneamic looking salad meals.
I checked the labels for use-by/best before dates. To my surprise they had "Packed-On" dates, 4 days earlier, the previous Thursday!!!
Oh yes, there was also a token bowl of bruised apples and bananas on one end of the counter.
I felt sick. Stepped outside for some fresh air with all the smoking patients.

[RhapsodyX]

Metabolic adaptation to a high-fat diet is associated with a change in the gut microbiota.

First - the bad side. A "high fat, carbohydrate free" diet fed to genetically selected mice ended up with some very sick diabetic mice and some "O.K." mice. The good side - well... (1) it's mice and they aren't really can't cope with a fatty diet and (2) adding gluco-ogliosaccharides (to feed the microbiota in the large intestine) to another set of test mice "modulated" the "physiological characteristics".

The take home - maintain as much of a whole-food diet if you are going to try LCHF/VLCHF/VLCKD. And, possibly - get your diet sorted before doing something as drastic as going LC/VLC, as you might not be up to it.

[CKinnard]

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?

A populist but fallacious belief...

A healthy aging population is arguably the most powerful indicator of quality of life.
A nation with a high percentage of incapacitated is going to waste a higher percentage of GNI on patching up sick people - the proverbial ambulance waiting at the bottom of the hill. Australia already spends 25% of all tax revenue on health care. And 85-93% of that is spent on lifestyle diseases. How smart is that? How sustainable is that? Australia the clever country? Hardly. We invest bugger all in R&D and bringing home grown intellectual property to market.

Secondly, Australia's natural birth rate is not replacing the population. That indicates citizens on the whole do not enjoy a quality of life high enough to take the risk and expense of having children. But rather than our political elites address this problem, they take the easy road and entice migrants with a dream of a better life....when in fact, the dream for most does not match the reality.

Thirdly, as for the young and healthy of developing nations, I suggest everyone familiarize themselves with Muslim nations and the percentage of consanguineous marriages...and associated morbidity - birth defects, mental retardation and illness.
Some studies put the rate of inbreeding in Afghanistan at over half of all marriages...and the effect is compounded by multiple generations doing the same.

[RhapsodyX]

A populist but fallacious belief...

A healthy aging population is arguably the most powerful indicator of quality of life.
A nation with a high percentage of incapacitated is going to waste a higher percentage of GNI on patching up sick people - the proverbial ambulance waiting at the bottom of the hill. Australia already spends 25% of all tax revenue on health care. And 85-93% of that is spent on lifestyle diseases. How smart is that? How sustainable is that? Australia the clever country? Hardly. We invest bugger all in R&D and bringing home grown intellectual property to market.

Yes - but even when we treat people with lifestyle diseases, they still die before their time. And I don't think "healthy aging population" appears to be a concern for regulatory authorities. Even with Medicare as a universal right (?), those who can afford to pay privately have better outcomes.

Secondly, Australia's natural birth rate is not replacing the population. That indicates citizens on the whole do not enjoy a quality of life high enough to take the risk and expense of having children. But rather than our political elites address this problem, they take the easy road and entice migrants with a dream of a better life....when in fact, the dream for most does not match the reality.

Quality of life or economic standard of living? Many cannot afford to have children. Most first world countries do not have enough people to support the aged, hence significant *selective* immigration occurring world-wide.

Thirdly, as for the young and healthy of developing nations, I suggest everyone familiarize themselves with Muslim nations and the percentage of consanguineous marriages...and associated morbidity - birth defects, mental retardation and illness.
Some studies put the rate of inbreeding in Afghanistan at over half of all marriages...and the effect is compounded by multiple generations doing the same.

We (first world) are stripping the third world of the qualified people - many of them ending up providing aged care. Doctors, nurses, engineers, IT workers - the list goes on.

Given the decline in education outcomes, the refusal of "Government" to deal with smoking and dietary recommendations - you would have to wonder. Are the majority seen as disposable consumers?

[CKinnard]

I think many have outsourced personal responsibility for the pursuit of happiness, especially relative to health. More often, they choose short term happiness over long term, and expect that government to fork out for long term happiness, both health and financial security.

Personally, I think it is fraught with folly to rely heavily on government for anything.

[RhapsodyX]

Metabolic adaptation to a high-fat diet is associated with a change in the gut microbiota.

First - the bad side. A "high fat, carbohydrate free" diet fed to genetically selected mice ended up with some very sick diabetic mice and some "O.K." mice. The good side - well... (1) it's mice and they aren't really can't cope with a fatty diet and (2) adding gluco-ogliosaccharides (to feed the microbiota in the large intestine) to another set of test mice "modulated" the "physiological characteristics".

The take home - maintain as much of a whole-food diet if you are going to try LCHF/VLCHF/VLCKD. And, possibly - get your diet sorted before doing something as drastic as going LC/VLC, as you might not be up to it.

Ooops! Apparently mice prefer a high fat diet when allowed to self-select!

[RhapsodyX]

IGF-1 numbers came in - 11 nmol/L, normal is 9-29. About 30% of my protein is from the vegetables, I try and stay under 2g/lean kg per day total protein.

Edit : nmol not mmol.

[RhapsodyX]

Fibre and allergies. Whole foods, gut microbiota... damn those sports drinks! (which I don't use any more).

[RhapsodyX]

This was posted up in the other thread:

Finally, a diet of excess protein, especially animal sourced, can lead to toxic levels of ammonia, phenols, and hydrogen sulphide.
For an interesting overview :
"The Impact of Diet and Lifestyle on Gut Microbiota and Human Health"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/

I was interested in this one, because dietary changes are often accompanied by gaseous emissions, and I started wondering about "excess protein" part. The actual quote from the text is : "However, some protein fermentation products such as ammonia, phenols and hydrogen sulphide can also be toxic.", but there isn't a reference in the text for that comment.

It turns out that byproducts of protein fermentation is a bit of an emerging field, all of the studies I came across are really small, and indications are that "too much"/"too little" of various compounds (including hydrogen sulphide) can cause problems. For instance - NSAID's can reduce hydrogen sulphide production in the stomach and lead to mucosal injury - and doesn't the average "serious cyclist" have ibuprofen lying around the house?

Our favourite cow protein, casein, is also prominent in a lot of the research as a primary "food" for bacteria which produce gases and are linked to colorectal cancer yet again. ("Another coffee before we leave? Can't hurt, can it?")

So - at the end of the day... the AIS protein intake guidelines are probably fairly safe, but it should be spread over the meals to minimise fermentation in the colon. NOTE : most people eat way too much protein! It also appears that lots of fibre/resistant starch is important to avoid "putrefaction of protein in the distal colon" (colorectal cancer risk), which is associated with carbs being depleted before digestion of the proteins are complete.

Anyway - lots of small-scale research is out there for those interested, Google Scholar is your friend.

[CKinnard]

This was posted up in the other thread:

try this:

"The potential for protein to harm colorectal tissues is explicable using current knowledge. An increase in protein intake usually results in more of the macronutrient, and hence fermentable substrate, reaching the colon......However, unlike carbohydrates, fermentation of protein sources by the microbiota produces a much greater diversity of gases and metabolites, and increasing the nitrogenous substrate for the microbiota can also increase putrefactive fermentation products [85]. As digesta passes down the bowel its carbohydrate content dwindles and protein fermentation becomes progressively more important. Putrefactive fermentation has been implicated in the development and progression of many common bowel diseases given their greater prevalence in the distal colon [86], including c r c and IBD. Many of these protein fermentation endproducts, which include ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, amines, phenols, thiols and indoles, have been shown to be cytotoxins, genotoxins and carcinogens [87], in in vitro and animal models [88]. Generally, fecal levels of protein fermentation products, such as sulphide, are positively associated with dietary protein consumption in humans and there is evidence from rat studies that higher dietary protein intake (including higher red meat intake) is associated with greater DNA damage in colonic mucosa when dietary levels of fermentable carbohydrate are low [88–91]. Recently completed studies suggest that this relationship holds true for humans [92–94]."

[RhapsodyX]

Yes, but as alluded to above, some of these compounds are both "toxic" and essential to metabolic processes at the same time.

And red meat should be on everyone's "avoid" list, although both CSIRO research (their diet book) and (N=1) Michael Mosely's "meat" episode suggest that with sufficient fibre/resistant starch, you can sort of get away with it. In the case of the CSIRO, my recollection was a recommendation of having baked beans with red meat to reduce the DNA damage.

[Nobody]

How To Create A Superfood

Study Reveals That Eating 'In Moderation' Is A Fool's Errand

[CKinnard]

In your original treatise, you queried "excess protein". The quote I provided addressed that.
It also added that if sufficient carbohydrate reaches the terminal large intestine with a higher protein intake, then toxic effect may be limited.
However, the take home message is to avoid excess protein in the first instance.

Further, animal proteins are higher in sulphur (and methionine) containing amino acids which get metabolized to higher acid generating metabolites. These more so than plant based protein increase putrefication, gases, and bloating; in addition to requiring more calcium be used to buffer the acidity.

[CKinnard]

How To Create A Superfood

Study Reveals That Eating 'In Moderation' Is A Fool's Errand

Totally agree with the ambivalence of terms like moderation. Indeed, at Obesity Summits in the past, I have brought this up with the President of the Dietitions Association of Australia, only to be treated as if I am from Mars.

In my clinical experience, the people who need to change dietary habits most, WANT more prescriptive advice that can be more specifically actioned. Vague terminology is the antithesis of that. A specific number of servings of each food group is more in line with what the public seek, but for various reasons I won't elaborate on, this is resisted with great prejudice by our public health elites. Serving recommendations in alignment with one's weight and activity levels have been used by Western countries at varying times over the last 30 years in public health campaigns, but this is resisted now.

Anyway, the saying applies very much here, that in the face of an ever rising obesity epidemic, for public health authorities to keep doing as they have done and expect a different outcome, is quite mad.

[RhapsodyX]

In your original treatise, you queried "excess protein". The quote I provided addressed that.

Actually - it didn't. The word "excess" keeps being used without definition, and there aren't definitive studies (yet), and it's probably an N=1 situation anyway depending on an individuals bacterial mix.

The only human intervention study I could easily find is N=5, and the generation of sulphates was dose-dependent, therefore there is no such concept as "excess". Before anyone gets excited and says "It's the meat!" :

The main dietary contributor to protein intake in the present study was meat, but this relation between sulfide concentrations and meat may hold true for any protein source. Meat provides a ready source of protein for use in experimental studies. Silvester and Cummings (25) showed that it is the amount of protein in the diet rather than its source that determines the amount of protein reaching the colon.

I'll get back to your "acid generating metabolites" later.

[CKinnard]

In your original treatise, you queried "excess protein". The quote I provided addressed that.

Actually - it didn't. The word "excess" keeps being used without definition, and there aren't definitive studies (yet), and it's probably an N=1 situation anyway depending on an individuals bacterial mix.

The only human intervention study I could easily find is N=5, and the generation of sulphates was dose-dependent, therefore there is no such concept as "excess". Before anyone gets excited and says "It's the meat!" :

The main dietary contributor to protein intake in the present study was meat, but this relation between sulfide concentrations and meat may hold true for any protein source. Meat provides a ready source of protein for use in experimental studies. Silvester and Cummings (25) showed that it is the amount of protein in the diet rather than its source that determines the amount of protein reaching the colon.

I'll get back to your "acid generating metabolites" later.

You are missing the point, deliberately it would seem. There's enough in my last quote to demonstrate that sulphur containing protein has a toxic threshold as far as the bowel is concerned, unlike carbohydrate. It doesn't matter that the threshold might vary. Many toxins have an inter-subject variable threshold (opiates, alcohol, etc). And it doesn't matter that carbs can dampen protein toxicity. A protein toxic threshold exists and exceeding it has a causal association with common diseases of the bowel.

[Baalzamon]

The only human intervention study .

Now lets see who funded this study. Supported by the Medical Research Council and by a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Now in America this means it's supported by the grain association which backs said office and has an interest in it. $$$$ anyone?

[Nobody]

Anyway, the saying applies very much here, that in the face of an ever rising obesity epidemic, for public health authorities to keep doing as they have done and expect a different outcome, is quite mad.

Even if the authorities did change their message, I believe we've got to a critical mass point in the general population, where they're happy to all hold hands and jump off the cliff together. Certain food industries have won in their long campaign and "the horse has bolted" so to speak. The medical industry in general can rejoice at their increasing business. Only a minority can be saved from it who are willing to listen and change. At least for the foreseeable future.

I was talking to the nurse when getting bled last week who confirmed the meat and processed grain diet of the US, with the usual huge servings. Particularly when she went to Disney World (I think she said) she couldn't find anyone that sold a reasonable salad in the whole place.

She is an ex-vegetarian who now has to eat some beef because of anemia problems. I suggested more of a raw diet with a lot of green leafy veg, since green leafy (English spinach) messed up my iron levels. These days I limit anything with over 1mg/100g of iron, which is mainly nuts, seeds and legumes. Like calorie density, I believe absorption is strongly related to mineral density. Seems to be working for me so far.

[Nobody]

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24403443
http://skepdic.com/naturalcures.html

Thanks for posting this. It's good to see the evidence opposing it so people aren't led astray like I have been.

[Nobody]

The only human intervention study .

Now lets see who funded this study. Supported by the Medical Research Council and by a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Now in America this means it's supported by the grain association which backs said office and has an interest in it. $$$$ anyone?

It's my understanding, by mainly hearing/reading from people like Campbell and McDougall, that since the '80s most studies are funded by industry. Most people should be skeptical of individual studies until more independent studies confirm it. Until then, it's just a point of interest and a possible future direction for collective scientific knowledge. A good example was that recent Spanish study that showed a Mediterranean diet was better than a low fat diet. That would be OK if the "low fat" diet wasn't 37% fat by calories and essentially still a western diet. We all post studies because without doing studies ourselves, that's all we have.

I've had some benefits by doing some self studying by trying to control everything else then changing one thing between 3 monthly blood tests. That may not be useful to anyone else, but valuable to me. I've found that green leafy veg (English spinach) adds iron to my blood, where watermelon doesn't (even though total iron intake is high). I've used this to restrict foods with greater than 1mg/100g of iron, which appears to be working consistently well so far.

Also I kept a symptoms log while having some mild food intollerances (while down of vit-D levels last year). From that I found out more on what foods I'm better off avoiding. Also I found that vit-D levels do appear to effect my immune system, so I try to get daily midday sunlight when not working.

[RhapsodyX]

...
You are missing the point, deliberately it would seem. There's enough in my last quote to demonstrate that sulphur containing protein has a toxic threshold as far as the bowel is concerned, unlike carbohydrate. It doesn't matter that the threshold might vary. Many toxins have an inter-subject variable threshold (opiates, alcohol, etc). And it doesn't matter that carbs can dampen protein toxicity. A protein toxic threshold exists and exceeding it has a causal association with common diseases of the bowel.

So, given the sulfur is also bound up in the essential amino acids in the protein, where would you like to take this line of thought? We should all stop eating because food even at the minimum RDI's is toxic? And I didn't notice you jump in regarding the discussion about eggs and methionine being an approved chicken feed supplement, despite eggs being a significant sulphur source.

[CKinnard]

Do you understand what a threshold is Rx?
There's a difference between plant and animal based proteins for many reasons.
The higher sulphur content of the latter is one.

[RhapsodyX]

Then why do the Adventist pesco-vegetarians have the lower mortality rate, despite seafood being higher in sulfur content than both eggs and meat?

[Nobody]

Why your brain will always sabotage your diet

The linked Radio National audio feed (16 minutes):
https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pg ... ?play=true

I don't agree with all of it. Just another perspective.

[CKinnard]

Why your brain will always sabotage your diet

The linked Radio National audio feed (16 minutes):
https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pg ... ?play=true

I don't agree with all of it. Just another perspective.

I don't agree with most of it.
Just another reductionist overly influenced by personal anecdote.
A seriously poor position she has adopted, which confirms my view that many scientists are neither objective or humble.
According to her, bodyweight set points answer all. Really? Then why have set points changed over the last 50 years so much that there's an obesity epidemic?

Further, there's thousands of examples of people who adopt PBWF and Paleo eating, or swear off alcohol, who lose and keep off well over 10% of their previous bodyweight.

And then there's the prolonged fasting effect that she needs to explain. I recently completed a 40 day fast in which I was surviving on ketone bodies. I had no hunger pangs, no starvation state of emergency in which my brain used every means to get me to eat to meet a set point. I've been eating for a couple of weeks since ending the fast, and am very comfortably sated on 800-1200 Calories a day, which includes around 300-600 Calories of activity related thermogenesis. So I am losing weight still...but now at a rate of 1kg a week as opposed to 2kg a week when fasting.

It's amazing this woman cannot see the variable most likely to mess with appetite, is life stress.
Recently, it has been demonstrated that

- the noradrenalin released from enteric nerves into the large intestine during elevated stress states, stimulates intestinal bacteria to multiple dramatically, and thereby consume much of the short chain fatty acids required to maintain gut health. They also consume iron and vitamin d. Stress is now considered one of the strongest reasons why so many people suffer deficiencies of these two compounds.

- short chain fatty acids produced by plant fiber, have recently been show to block GPR43 receptor insulin signalling of white adipose tissue, thereby selectively inhibiting the intake of fat and glucose into these cells. This leads to dietary fat and glucose being taken up by other tissue which has not lost its insulin sensitivity. This partially explains why some people who overfeed on a plant based diet do not gain weight or gain but no where near as much as expected.

This is one neuroscientist who needs to read more broadly.