Diet Thread

[Nobody]

Regardless of what they measured and calculated, the end results are what matters and that is why I posted it. Reductionist science doesn't usually work because it's too focused. It often raises more questions than it effectively answers.

[Aussiebullet]

Regardless of what they measured and calculated, the end results are what matters and that is why I posted it. Reductionist science doesn't usually work because it's too focused. It often raises more questions than it effectively answers.

Exactly, the end result is what mattered, how hard is that to figure out, nit picking how you got there isn't going to change the score board lol.

[CKinnard]

To convert stored fat to energy requires oxidation. The study shows that fat oxidation increased on the LC diet, and decreased slightly on the LF diet. Despite this, the study concluded that because the difference between fat intake and fat oxidation was higher on the LF diet that it must result in "more long-term body fat loss than with the LC diet" despite fat oxidation being the indicator of body fat loss. The conclusion is not consistent with the study data, the study has not attempted to resolve this paradox. Perhaps they should have measured how much fat was being passed through the digestive tract without being absorbed while on the LC diet.

There's no paradox.
fat oxidation is not the indicator of "net" fat loss....rather, it is fat oxidation minus fat intake.

the advantage of a LF diet is the thermic effect of dietary carbs is higher than dietary fat.
in other words, it takes more energy to digest, absorb, and metabolize carbs.

Metabolism. 1985 Mar;34(3):285-93.
The thermic effect of carbohydrate versus fat feeding in man.
Schwartz RS, Ravussin E, Massari M, O'Connell M, Robbins DC.

Further, a range of carbs has more of the micronutrients essential to good health, than an energy equivalent amount of fat.

This whole preoccupation with consuming fat to burn more fat, because of the fat sparing nature of carbs, is a fallacy based on ignorance. The fat sparing nature of carbs ONLY applies when there is an EXCESS of carbs, which does not apply on a Calorie deficit.
The key to burning more bodyfat is to be on a Calorie deficit. To paraphrase, "It's the deficit stupid!"

Sacrificing nutritional quality to trick the body into burning a little more fat, when already on a Calorie deficit, is cutting one's nose off despite one's face. It's dough brained and unhealthy. Ensuring a high supply of the micronutrients in carbs while losing weight is imperative to avoid a host of issues associated with the catabolism of weight loss. i.e. gout attacks, kidney stones, gall stones, and cardiac arrhythmias.

[Nobody]

Below is a video which presents the idea of maco-nutrient timing or grouping. The idea is you can eat fatty foods like avocado, nuts and seeds only with fruit as a way to avoid or reduce gaining weight from the fat intake.



If you look at the titles of her other videos, you'll see she's an advocate of macro-nutrient timing in general, creating a diet plan called FruitAfter4. She is also clearly going after FL & DR's "Raw Till 4", saying it can cause weight gain, it's expensive and not very practical for everyday life.

[RhapsodyX]

To convert stored fat to energy requires oxidation. The study shows that fat oxidation increased on the LC diet, and decreased slightly on the LF diet. Despite this, the study concluded that because the difference between fat intake and fat oxidation was higher on the LF diet that it must result in "more long-term body fat loss than with the LC diet" despite fat oxidation being the indicator of body fat loss. The conclusion is not consistent with the study data, the study has not attempted to resolve this paradox. Perhaps they should have measured how much fat was being passed through the digestive tract without being absorbed while on the LC diet.

There's no paradox.
fat oxidation is not the indicator of "net" fat loss....rather, it is fat oxidation minus fat intake.

the advantage of a LF diet is the thermic effect of dietary carbs is higher than dietary fat.
in other words, it takes more energy to digest, absorb, and metabolize carbs.

Metabolism. 1985 Mar;34(3):285-93.
The thermic effect of carbohydrate versus fat feeding in man.
Schwartz RS, Ravussin E, Massari M, O'Connell M, Robbins DC.

Further, a range of carbs has more of the micronutrients essential to good health, than an energy equivalent amount of fat.

This whole preoccupation with consuming fat to burn more fat, because of the fat sparing nature of carbs, is a fallacy based on ignorance. The fat sparing nature of carbs ONLY applies when there is an EXCESS of carbs, which does not apply on a Calorie deficit.
The key to burning more bodyfat is to be on a Calorie deficit. To paraphrase, "It's the deficit stupid!"

Sacrificing nutritional quality to trick the body into burning a little more fat, when already on a Calorie deficit, is cutting one's nose off despite one's face. It's dough brained and unhealthy. Ensuring a high supply of the micronutrients in carbs while losing weight is imperative to avoid a host of issues associated with the catabolism of weight loss. i.e. gout attacks, kidney stones, gall stones, and cardiac arrhythmias.

Thank you for misrepresenting what I wrote.

[CKinnard]

Thank you for misrepresenting what I wrote.

ALL fat, whether stored or not, undergoes oxidation. That's why net fat loss can be estimated by subtracting fat intake from fat oxidation.
As I said, carbs are metabolically more costly to process, hence on a deficit, more energy reserves (stored fat) will be utilized

[RhapsodyX]

Thank you for misrepresenting what I wrote.

ALL fat, whether stored or not, undergoes oxidation. That's why net fat loss can be estimated by subtracting fat intake from fat oxidation.
As I said, carbs are metabolically more costly to process, hence on a deficit, more energy reserves (stored fat) will be utilized

Oxidation is part of the ATP cycle, direct lipid storage is not measured without a DEXA scan or hydrostatic weighing. In this study, lipid storage was derived from the difference between intake & measured lipid oxidation (RQ/BMR) and no allowance was made for loss (fat content of the stool).

However - I will concede I am wrong re. oxidation suppression meaning there is a paradox, as the unmeasured loss would (after a bit more digging) only be in the order of a few percent and purely in the context of this six day experiment, fat imbalance would have been higher on the LF diet. But the conclusion is "likely" incorrect given that there are numerous long-term studies that disagree.

[CKinnard]

Thank you for misrepresenting what I wrote.

ALL fat, whether stored or not, undergoes oxidation. That's why net fat loss can be estimated by subtracting fat intake from fat oxidation.
As I said, carbs are metabolically more costly to process, hence on a deficit, more energy reserves (stored fat) will be utilized

Oxidation is part of the ATP cycle, direct lipid storage is not measured without a DEXA scan or hydrostatic weighing. In this study, lipid storage was derived from the difference between intake & measured lipid oxidation (RQ/BMR) and no allowance was made for loss (fat content of the stool).

However - I will concede I am wrong re. oxidation suppression meaning there is a paradox, as the unmeasured loss would (after a bit more digging) only be in the order of a few percent and purely in the context of this six day experiment, fat imbalance would have been higher on the LF diet. But the conclusion is "likely" incorrect given that there are numerous long-term studies that disagree.

Well where I think their conclusion needs to be interpreted with caution is in the length of the study. One week is not long enough to account for adaptations in metabolism and exhaustion of glycogen. There's no mention made of how active these subjects were either. If you want to understand the subject better, read up on "respiratory quotient". This is a means of determining the relative amounts of fat and carb being utilized for energy via % of O2 consumed and CO2 exhaled.

As always, the most powerful dietary studies are longitudinal of large samples where non dietary factors can be matched. To date, the best of these are conducted on Seventh Day Adventists via Loma Linda University. Nutrition and energy metabolism is just too complex to drill down and try and tease out truths from manipulation of one of two variables at a time. The longitudinal studies pull back and consider the forest rather than a couple of trees. And the diet with the greatest longevity advantage to date is vegan with fish 2-4 times a fortnight, and a serve of another meat type no often than once every 2 months.

[singlespeedscott]

The longitudinal studies pull back and consider the forest rather than a couple of trees. And the diet with the greatest longevity advantage to date is vegan with fish 2-4 times a fortnight, and a serve of another meat type no often than once every 2 months.

Vegan with fish every few days and occasional meat is not Vegan is it?

It's just sensible eating.

[matagi]

The longitudinal studies pull back and consider the forest rather than a couple of trees. And the diet with the greatest longevity advantage to date is vegan with fish 2-4 times a fortnight, and a serve of another meat type no often than once every 2 months.

Vegan with fish every few days and occasional meat is not Vegan is it?

It's just sensible eating.

I assume he means that except for the 2-4 times a fortnight you eat fish or the once every 2 months you eat another type of meat, the remainder of the meals should be vegan - at least that's how I interpreted it.

[toolonglegs]

Sitting on the potty reading diet threads ... Must be the 3 or 5 times the recommended daily fiber intake!

[CKinnard]

Vegan with fish every few days and occasional meat is not Vegan is it?

Yes you're right. I shouldn't have been so slothful, and rather, wrote
eucaloric, low processed, fiber rich, highly varied plant based diet devoid of any animal derived matter (flesh, viscera, eggs, milk, secretions), other than 100-200g of fish a week, and 100g of meat 1x/month (preferably not red).

Further, "Vegan" has no agreed guidelines on macronutrient portions, degree and quantity of processing, organic %, avoiding artificial preservatives and flavorings, etc, which is why many if not most vegans don't eat a nutritionally balanced diet. And the study I referred to was of Seventh Day Adventists who have clearer guidelines than Veganism on these things.

It's just sensible eating.

it might be in your microcosm, but not in the 2/3's of Australians who are overweight or obese.

[Nobody]

And the diet with the greatest longevity advantage to date is vegan with fish 2-4 times a fortnight...

The advantage likely being that the fish is covering a deficiency (probably PUFAs) rather than being life extending by itself. The video below shows that only veg and nuts were shown to be life extending. Which you most likely know already, but for those who haven't seen it yet.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-p ... nded-life/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CKinnard]

the thing is people who aspergically base their beliefs and lifestyles on 'the science' don't appreciate that science hasn't studied every combination and permutation, and is therefore in a state of flux from year to year in what is best.

a study might come out next year or decade, revealing the highest longevity advantage is achieved by those who have maintained a disciplined organic plant based diet devoid of wheat, and refrained from competitive sport and high intensity exercise,and habitually do tai chi! but don't hold your breath. longitudinal studies are for obvious reasons, incredibly difficult and expensive to undertake...but carry much more punch than studies conducted over 6 days or even 6 months. In fact, the most powerful nutritional studies would be those carried out over multiple generations, because it can take generations for a nutritional advantage or disadvantage to become apparent.

besides, most of us have no inkling of how culturally blinkered and imprisoned we are. I remember when a surgeon told me when I was 16 I should never play rugby again....I was devastated. But in another culture, rugby would have meant nothing to me, and no doubt cycling.

[CKinnard]

And the diet with the greatest longevity advantage to date is vegan with fish 2-4 times a fortnight...

The advantage likely being that the fish is covering a deficiency (probably PUFAs) rather than being life extending by itself. The video below shows that only veg and nuts were shown to be life extending. Which you most likely know already, but for those who haven't seen it yet.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-p ... nded-life/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you could be right. as I said above, many vegans including SDA vegans, don't necessarily eat the best quality diet. Many I know are overweight and overdo starch and sweets, and under-do fibrous carbs and fruit....and many are too sedentary. The church actually encourages all SDAs to attend their CHIP program to learn what "the State" doesn't teach, through schools or other tax expenditure!!!

[Nobody]

This video is interesting because he sumarises a meta analysis on the subject of over eating and thermogenesis (or lack thereof) and why some people may put on more fat than others eating the same amount.

[warthog1]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -and-thin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw one of those soundbite interviews discussing intestinal bacteria on ABC24 today. The theory was eating a "Mediterranean diet" ie low in fat, meat and processed foods promotes the proliferation of healthy bacteria that predispose us to absorbing less calories by being less efficient at processing the food. Conversely eating a typical western diet promotes the presence of bacteria that process said food effeciently resulting in a higher calorific absorbtion, or words to that effect.
I could only find the above link on a brief google search.

I did watch one of these episodes and it's probably been on here already.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4067184.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4070977.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CKinnard]

This video is interesting because he sumarises a meta analysis on the subject of over eating and thermogenesis (or lack thereof) and why some people may put on more fat than others eating the same amount.

I read this paper and others in the field some time ago. What the DUrian Riders of the world don't comprehend is people can overfeed on all sorts of macronutrient mixes.
It is not a vegan carb thing.
This phenomena was the topic of a diet documentary a few years ago. They got a dozen or so younger English uni students to overfeed for a month or so.
Several did not put on the expected weight, and from memory, one did not put on anything at all.
One of the most accepted explanations is that some people will increase diet induced thermogenesis by increasing brown fat cell metabolism to do nothing other than generate heat. But the amount of brown adipose tissue varies significantly between people. Other people have a measureable increase in sympathetic nerve activity which also increases heat generation.

Another factor effecting weight gain is that fat is digested and absorbed very easily so that around 95% of excess fat consumed can be stored, as only 3-5% is required to digest, absorb, and store fat. On the other hand, carbohydrate requires much more processing to store as fat, in fact 30% of the excess carb intake.

Anyway, Durian Rider and Freelee and others pushing their paradigm ignore this research, and think weight gain by vegans is only possible if metabolism is damaged.

[Nobody]

This phenomena was the topic of a diet documentary a few years ago. They got a dozen or so younger English uni students to overfeed for a month or so.

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/45 ... le-not-fat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CKinnard]

This phenomena was the topic of a diet documentary a few years ago. They got a dozen or so younger English uni students to overfeed for a month or so.

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/45 ... le-not-fat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I cannot view that link, but this one's ok.



highlights:
- if you get fat in childhood, it's a lot harder to get slim for the rest of your life.
- after 4 weeks overfeeding, greatest weight gain 9.5% 6.5kg ; 2nd place 9% 5.5kg
- lowest weight gain 5.5%
- Asian guy increased weight by 8% 4.5kg appearance hasn't changed because most weight gain is in lean tissue. increased fat by 2.4%. his BMR increased by 30% due to increase in muscle which has higher metabolic rate. all this without doing strength and conditioning exercise. presumed to be genetically determined.
- 2 people put on comparatively little weight and BMR didn't increase much either. presumed they increased accessory activity via fidgeting etc.
- 2 people could not meet their excess Calorie intake due to feeling sick or vomiting. Would be hard for these people to put on weight.

[Nobody]

Below are some tables derived from Jeff Novick. The sources are in calories per pound which isn't very meaningful when most food panels or datasheets use per 100g units. Also being from the US, the carbs have included fibre, so I used the nominal fibre content from my WFPB diet and converted the values to get no_fibre_calories per 100g (NF_Cals/100g). The conversion factors used are listed below the tables.

So basically there is a list of observed results of what will generally happen to your weight depending on your diet's average energy density with exercise volume and a list of plant foods with their calorie ranges.





I've also changed my diet spreadsheet to show average no fibre calories per 100g (the big green number). This has made it clear to me what types of foods I need to regulate more and what I can eat as much as I like. I've filled out a typical day, although lately I've been skipping nuts most days and adding even more fruit some days.

In addition to this I've been trying Earthling Nutrition's idea (see video in post above) of eating nuts with fruit rather than starches. But I still eat the linseed with oats for breakfast.

Both modifications (overall calorie density modifications and macro-nutrient matching/timing) seem to be working as I've lost about 1.9 kg this month without extra exercise. WHtR is down to 0.425 again too.

Anyway my diet is a work in progress, so the details are likely to change further.

I hope the above helps to clarify why some people can make an eat_to_satisfaction whole food plant based diet work, while other can't. As far as I can tell, weight management is more about what you eat than how much.

If you want to compare animal products with food on the energy density scale, keep in mind that the body's insulin response is likely to be different than with plant foods and so animal products may put on more weight than their calorie density indicate.
http://www.drcarney.com/blog/entry/low- ... -is-flawed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also before someone asks, I put sugars and oils in different shades of red not only for their high energy densities, but also due to their negative effects on health. Sugar has been linked to NAFLD (fatty liver disease) and oils to atherosclerosis (heart disease). They are both processed foods.

[CKinnard]

Interesting Nobody. I think fruit and nuts is a good mix. For the last few months, I've had a work project take off, and am busy as a blue a fly....so am getting less time to prep a decent lunch. I'd been resorting to buying a ham and salad roll which isn't that bad, but more recently have started doing fruit and nuts. Gets me through the arvo just as well, if not better. I've always had a salad of some sort for lunch, so it's a new thing to be doing this. some mornings, I am also doing fruit, and a soy flat white. For dinner these days, I am enjoying hot soups, Vietnamese Pho is a fav currently....all home made with fresh spices..though i make a couple of liters of stock for several meals...love the star anise, cinnamon, cardamon, ginger, chili, and citrus flavors.

[singlespeedscott]

Below are some tables derived from Jeff Novick. The sources are in calories per pound which isn't very meaningful when most food panels or datasheets use per 100g units. Also being from the US, the carbs have included fibre, so I used the nominal fibre content from my WFPB diet and converted the values to get no_fibre_calories per 100g (NF_Cals/100g). The conversion factors used are listed below the tables.

So basically there is a list of observed results of what will generally happen to your weight depending on your diet's average energy density with exercise volume and a list of plant foods with their calorie ranges.





I've also changed my diet spreadsheet to show average no fibre calories per 100g (the big green number). This has made it clear to me what types of foods I need to regulate more and what I can eat as much as I like. I've filled out a typical day, although lately I've been skipping nuts most days and adding even more fruit some days.

In addition to this I've been trying Earthling Nutrition's idea (see video in post above) of eating nuts with fruit rather than starches. But I still eat the linseed with oats for breakfast.

Both modifications (overall calorie density modifications and macro-nutrient matching/timing) seem to be working as I've lost about 1.9 kg this month without extra exercise. WHtR is down to 0.425 again too.

Anyway my diet is a work in progress, so the details are likely to change further.

I hope the above helps to clarify why some people can make an eat_to_satisfaction whole food plant based diet work, while other can't. As far as I can tell, weight management is more about what you eat than how much.

If you want to compare animal products with food on the energy density scale, keep in mind that the body's insulin response is likely to be different than with plant foods and so animal products may put on more weight than their calorie density indicate.
http://www.drcarney.com/blog/entry/low- ... -is-flawed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also before someone asks, I put sugars and oils in different shades of red not only for their high energy densities, but also due to their negative effects on health. Sugar has been linked to NAFLD (fatty liver disease) and oils to atherosclerosis (heart disease). They are both processed foods.

.
Out of interest how is this food prepared for eating ?

[Nobody]

Out of interest how is this food prepared for eating ?

Batches of beans are soaked overnight then boiled, which are usually enough for a few days. Eaten cold. If I forget to process, then canned works.

Oats, fruit salad and linseed is just added together in a bowl and eaten like normal cold cereal with added cold water.

The rice, frozen veg, pasta and potatoes are boiled. Chopped raw onion added later (for rice) and/or some pepper, garlic powder etc.

The salad ingredients like tomato, cucumber etc are chopped and added to the rice cakes. I've got a pic somewhere in this thread of it.

Fruit is chopped, or eaten as is after washing.

Nuts are eaten as they come.

Basically the group division are meal divisions, other than the fruit and nuts which are whenever.

Like I've said before, I'm not too passionate about my food, which is an advantage with sticking to a blander died. You get used to it. I've had 21 months to get used to it. I started with meat substitutes like vege-burgers and bread, honey, jams, sauces, soy/rice milk, white rice and likely other stuff which I slowly ditched.

[singlespeedscott]

Boiled rice, blah. Why don't you use the steam absorption technique?

Your right about boring too. If I ate what your eating I would weigh less than you.