Diet Thread

[mikesbytes]

Interesting point CK, the meat has actually changed, what they ate in the 50's is different meat than nowadays due to farming techniques

[Nobody]

Mike,
I think your perception of what was typed is a little different to what I actually typed.

I'm finding this confusing. When I asked which meat was the healthier meat I was told that all meat is equally bad, as bad as booze and smokes.

Nobody, you certainly see chicken as the worse choice, for those who choose to eat meat, which meat should be their main choice?

That's like asking which type of alcohol or cigarettes are the best.

Not the same IMO. I avoided answering the question. I didn't say they were all equally bad. I have my ideas on what is better or worse, but I won't be recommending anything.

Then I'm presented with a graph that shows that meat consumption is similar to the 50's, only the type of meat has changed. Then I'm told that the problem is Chicken consumption, as the rise in chicken consumption matches the rise in consumption problems. So its contradicting itself, people in the 50's shouldn't of been so slim, unless there's a difference between beef, lamb, chicken and pork.

The below quote is from this post, before you asked the question about "which meat should be their main choice":

Nandos specializes in chicken which is the most obesegenic meat commonly available according to below. AKAIK the US are the biggest eaters of chicken. Which also says something about chicken's link to obesity.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/chicke ... d-obesity/

As you can see from what I said above, I had no intention to mislead or confuse. I was consistent that chicken is the most obesegenic commonly available meat. The link I initially posted (SMH article) showed a rise in total meat consumption. CK posted the graph which appeared to disagree with it. But I added up the results for different meats on CK's graph to find there was still a slight increase from 1950 to 2014. However it doesn't matter if the total consumption was flat if chicken is the problem (among many other problems).

[Nobody]

Interesting video, but I don't agree with the 30g/d of protein unless you are a particularly light sedentary woman. Even then if on a low calorie density diet where absorption is low, or more raw, I believe 30g wouldn't work. My blood tests showed a problem with about 50g/d or about 0.85g/kg bw at the time. Now getting more than 1g/kg or above 63g/d. My diet is about half raw and low density.

It seemed like an exaggeration to make a point IMO, since the WHO recommend about 0.83g/kg bw per day. Which would be about 40g/d for a 48 kg person.

[CKinnard]

I haven't watched Klaper's vid and am about to sleep, but in one lecture he brought up that the body's major source of protein is not dietary, but tissue recycling. Eating too much protein compromises the body's inherent capacity to turnover tissue proteins. This turnover is thought to be insurance against cancer and keeping organs functioning optimally i.e. when cells within a particular organ begin to malfunction via ageing or disease, they emit chemical signals that targets them for autophagy, and they are replaced by new cell lines. This preserves organ functional capacity for longer. It's an interesting field that I did read up on year's ago but forget the details.

[mikesbytes]

Those are low protein figures. Is he quoting gms/kg scale weight or gms/kg LBM?

Haven't come upon the concept of protein recycling before. Begs the question as to what happens to the cell when its properties are moved into the blood stream? Another point is that the body can't be 100% efficient in recycling the protein or otherwise we would need zero protein.

Hey this will make you laugh. Yesterday I had a 6.30am class followed by an 8.30am class at a different gym. I woke up a little early and decided to make some cheese sandwiches to have with my takeaway coffee but in a half asleep fashion I forgot to put the cheese in the sandwiches so I ended up having salad sandwiches for breakfast To compensate I got a cappuccino instead of a long black

[CKinnard]

When talking protein requirements, the science talks about grams / kg of total bodyweight.
Some in the weightlifting world talk about grams / kg of lean bodyweight.
Though in my view, if a male is genuinely into fitness and strength, they shouldn't have bodyfat higher than 15%.
Obese people though don't need protein requirements relating to their fat reserves, as the metabolic rate and protein requirements of fat cells is lower than for lean tissue.

Protein cycling, or more correctly amino acid recycling is universally accepted these days.
They say 1/6th of a person's daily amino acid requirements are required from the diet, and the bulk comes from recycling. Keep in mind it isn't always cells breaking down. Some times it is just used in chemical cascades within cell organelles that are reallocated.

Anyway, the recycling thing is a core concept of slowing the ageing process. When we fast, recycling is more efficient and dysfunctional stuff is cleaned up, including any small tumors.

So you got your dairy fix after all that. One day when you feel motivated, you might try going 90 days without dairy....just to see what it does to your health and wellbeing. Self experimentation is arguably the better teacher when it comes to nutrition.

[uart]

Just for a change of pace in this thread, here's a random food question.

Doing the grocery shopping yesterday I bought some crispbreads that were made with spelt instead of normal wheat. They were about the same size as the tiles in my bathroom and roughly the same texture to chew on (very hard). The taste was ok however.

So that's the question. Is spelt actually any healthier than normal wheat, of is it just another hipster gimmick?

[Nobody]

Is spelt actually any healthier than normal wheat, of is it just another hipster gimmick?

I believe for most people it's going to be another hipster gimmick. For people who have a problem with wheat, then other grains may be a solution. I believe there is about 1% of people are celiac within a total of about 6% who are subjectively intolerant IIRC. I've personally never had a problem with wheat or bread. Even when I stopped eating it for more than a year, then ate rolls at a work BBQ, I still didn't have a problem.

_______________________________________________________________________________

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/91 ... irty-truth
I saw this tonight. I'd already seen at least part of it before because the discussion around the criticism of T. Colin Campbell. Now I've seen the whole video, I don't believe the presenter was overly critical of Campbell in the end. The presenter was just being a creator of doubt. Correlation or association is not good enough for him. His loss as he will likely go on eating animal products and increase his risk of many chronic diseases.

Although the presenter talked about confirmation bias of others, I think the elephant in the room was his own confirmation bias. He ended the program by stating something along the lines of that he sided with the science and clean eating was devoid of scientific proof. About the same time he says that the NHS recommends that we should be eating dairy and limited amounts of meat and that the science supports this. Although I don't like the term "clean eating" myself, he did put vegan/plant_based (with the implication of whole foods) under that umbrella. I've posted a stack of studies (or videos that are linked to studies) showing the benefits of WFPB eating and the dangers of both dairy and meat consumption. So I believe his painting of WFPB to be devoid of proof to be laughable. However if I didn't know better, I'd conclude that all alternative eating was unproven and continue to eat a standard western diet.

I few days before I saw a documentary called "What The Health" which showed evidence opposite to the clean eating video. But I doubt you'll see that on free to air TV.

[mikesbytes]

Just for a change of pace in this thread, here's a random food question.

Doing the grocery shopping yesterday I bought some crispbreads that were made with spelt instead of normal wheat. They were about the same size as the tiles in my bathroom and roughly the same texture to chew on (very hard). The taste was ok however.

So that's the question. Is spelt actually any healthier than normal wheat, of is it just another hipster gimmick?

Spelt is an ancient variety of wheat. It's nutritional info is up on Wikipedia. For those who have health issues caused by modern grains, which are heavily modified from their original species, then its an alternative.

Personally I haven't tried it. As its sold as a health food product, I'm assuming that it is extremely expensive and is probably made into all sorts of unusual products. I'm curious as to whether your taste experience is indicative of spelt or due to what they made

[CKinnard]

So that's the question. Is spelt actually any healthier than normal wheat, of is it just another hipster gimmick?

Well spelt is probably healthier in that it won't cause as much inflammation in the vulnerable.
However, one is unlikely to notice a difference if the rest of their diet has even a mild qty of processed foods.
Like what's the point of buying spelt crispbread if you persist with normal breads and pasta?

The food industry's ruse is that by buying this or that 'processed health food', you will optimize your health.
This taps into wishful thinking and consumers' abundance of not wanting to confront the facts.

Health requires all systems be optimized - social connectivity, life meaning, stress mgt, ideal environs, appropriate activity levels, good posture, good sleep hygiene....and then you can start looking at diet....and regular fasting.

[CKinnard]

Dairy promotion exposes the culturally bound blinkered thinking, selective familiarity with the literature, and self reinforcing group think of health authorities. This is why I don't hesitate to doubt health authorities, including most scientific researchers. They think they are being paid to issue absolutist edicts from the mount, so as to inform and reassure the public what is best according to the science! In general, they fail miserably at this. How can government expect the public to trust what it has to say about anything, when one look no further than their approach to cyclist safety on roads!?

As some have said, dairy promotion is racist. It arrogantly dismisses that 75% of the world's population is lactose intolerant (or more PC, is not lactase persistent) after weaning.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdie ... ntolerance

[uart]

Worlds oldest living person (117 y.o.) ate three eggs per day.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-16/w ... 17/8446290

[uart]

I know individual "egg stories" like the above are highly anecdotal, but I still find it interesting. For many decades doctors have told us to minimize egg consumption due to cholesterol concerns, but I'm not convinced. Now they say that our body's cholesterol levels are virtually unaffected by the cholesterol that we eat, as opposed to cholesterol that our own bodies make.

What I find really interesting is that some studies have shown that egg consumption is positively correlated with heart disease in countries where the people generally believe that eggs are bad for you, and yet is negatively correlated with heart disease in countries where the belief is that eggs are good for you.

Apparently this occurs because in countries where the belief is that eggs are bad for you, then if you care about your health and have an otherwise healthy lifestyle then you are less likely to eat them. Conversely, in counties where people generally believe that eggs are good for you, then people who otherwise have healthy lifestyles are more likely to eat them. It really shows how tenuous it is to draw conclusions from correlations, when those correlations can originate merely from people's beliefs rather than any causal effect.

[ball bearing]

What I find really interesting is that some studies have shown that egg consumption is positively correlated with heart disease in countries where the people generally believe that eggs are bad for you, and yet is negatively correlated with heart disease in countries where the belief is that eggs are good for you.

I'd be interested in seeing these opposing studies.

I have not consumed eggs for over 44 years and my health is excellent. I am not convinced that I need any nutrients from eggs that I am not already getting from vegetable, fruits, beans and pulses.

I also try and avoid foods that are produced in a way that causes suffering.

[uart]

I'd be interested in seeing these opposing studies.

Sorry, I read that a while ago and I didn't save any links. The studies with the positive correlation to CVD were in the US and the ones with the negative correlation were from France and one of the Scandinavian countries (I think it was Finland). I think the effect is known as (or related to) the "healthy user bias".

I have not consumed eggs for over 44 years and my health is excellent. I am not convinced that I need any nutrients from eggs that I am not already getting from vegetable, fruits, beans and pulses.

Yes I wouldn't ague with that. I'm just saying that they probably wouldn't harm you either.

I also try and avoid foods that are produced in a way that causes suffering.

I respect that.

[Nobody]

Worlds oldest living person (117 y.o.) ate three eggs per day.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-16/w ... 17/8446290

Link doesn't work.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-16/w ... 17/8446290

I'd guess she didn't do any exercise either, so you can sell your bike(s) too.

I'd argue she lived 117 years despite her diet. Not everyone has the same genetics. By saying that some can eat whatever they want, therefore those foods are safe, only endangers those who listen to you but can't eat them safely. The ones who can't often find out when the damage is significant, since the medical industry's ability to predict is far from perfect. From that point on, the damage may not be reversible. Ischemic heart attacks and strokes come to mind.

https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/

[uart]

I'd guess she didn't do any exercise either, so you can sell your bike(s) too.

I wouldn't say that. There is a lot of evidence that exercise is important to longevity.

[CKinnard]

Worlds oldest living person (117 y.o.) ate three eggs per day.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-16/w ... 17/8446290

The counter argument is this woman may have lived to 125 if she didn't eat eggs, and in much better health for the final 30 years.

It is one thing to live a long time, but much more to live functionally independent and pain free for a long time.

And then it is something even more to achieve that while also living a rich and rewarding life making an outstanding contribution to family, community, country, and mankind.

[mikesbytes]

Personally I very much doubt that she could of lived to 125. It seems to me that the birth records of those claiming to live to 125 are difficult to verify and now we seem to be seeing the worlds oldest person being somewhere in the 110's, usually somewhere between 115 and 117. It's like s ceiling.

Assuming that the information is correct about the 3 eggs a day, then clearly it wasn't an issue for her. We don't have any info on what else she consumed, so the big picture is missing.

Looking at the nutritional info for eggs, it seems that one egg yolk is fine as part of the a daily diet and perhaps 3 egg whites but that's more debatable. As with anything in the diet, how good or bad it is depends on what is consumed instead of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_as_food

[warthog1]

Worlds oldest living person (117 y.o.) ate three eggs per day.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-16/w ... 17/8446290

Link doesn't work.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-16/w ... 17/8446290

I'd guess she didn't do any exercise either, so you can sell your bike(s) too.

I'd argue she lived 117 years despite her diet. Not everyone has the same genetics. By saying that some can eat whatever they want, therefore those foods are safe, only endangers those who listen to you but can't eat them safely. The ones who can't often find out when the damage is significant, since the medical industry's ability to predict is far from perfect. From that point on, the damage may not be reversible. Ischemic heart attacks and strokes come to mind.

https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/

I'm sure I'm going to leave this thread advised against egg consumption, however many of those toxins listed in the vegan site article would be related to the diet fed and the environment in, a commercial egg farm. My clean green girls are fed a grain mix from a local(ish) mill and vegie scraps. 3 eggs this morn. I prob have them a couple of times a week.

[CKinnard]

well Wartie, we are just discussing the science here, and reporting on self experimentation.

Forty years ago I became a strict ovo-lacto vegetarian and was that way for about 6 years.

I think I have bought eggs home twice in the last 3 years....and had eggs at a cafe maybe 4 times, but not in the last 6 mths. I honestly don't miss them.

I miss dairy even less and actually couldn't drink a cup of dairy milk if offered to me.

We used to keep 4 layers 20 years ago. We always had ample eggs. I tried not to have anymore than 4 a week. The rest of the family got into them. (they produced 20-25 a week). They had a good life those chooks. We let them out every afternoon to wander around the acreage, and interact with the golden retriever, who learned pretty quick they were not for eating. And we trained them to go back to the coop at twilight.

Incidentally, one of the tricks I learned at True North was a replacement for egg white for making merangue and baked goods. Believe it or not, if you take the fluid from a can of chick peas, and beat it in a bowl with egg beaters for 5-10 minutes, it thickens up and forms peaks like egg whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquafaba

[warthog1]

Interesting thanks CK.
I'm tipping my wife will continue baking with egg whites though. The convenience factor isn't there.
Not that I know much about baking

[Nobody]

I'm sure I'm going to leave this thread advised against egg consumption,

Well I wouldn't want to disappoint, so...

From:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/who-sa ... y-or-safe/
Which is from:
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/cholesterol/

however many of those toxins listed in the vegan site article would be related to the diet fed and the environment in, a commercial egg farm.

The article above doesn't mention toxins. Just saturated fat, cholesterol and salmonella.

...3 eggs this morn. I prob have them a couple of times a week.

Just as well that you're already in an ambulance a lot then.

[Baalzamon]

https://authoritynutrition.com/how-many ... d-you-eat/

Eggs make an animal so just how can they be bad. Surely if they were bad then the poor animal to be born would die very very quickly.

[CKinnard]

A very telling graph.



I'm pretty annoyed with the powers that be that have stood by and watched house prices grow well beyond the rate of GDP and wages. I've never heard a politician or the commentariat say anything that makes me feel they comprehend what has caused house price inflation.

And yet, the damage to society and contribution to poor health by ever greater household debt and housing expense cannot be denied by anyone half sane.

And it is all driven by regulatory and tax distortions of the market.

And could housing expense be one of the reasons many think eating healthy today is expensive, hence the preference for unhealthy processed and cheap fast food.

Actually, this chart could have been improved by including savings.