Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:16 am

CKinnard wrote: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.
Most would have property portfolios. If you want good government, you'd have to rid them of selfish interest. Since most are there for selfish interests, I doubt much will change. It will probably get worse in time.
CKinnard wrote:And it is all driven by regulatory and tax distortions of the market.
And some have argued continued high levels of immigration, foreign investment and also greed. I'm sure if you could measure greed and put it on the graph it would be significantly up since the '60s. It seems everyone wants to be well off and retire early. Personally I don't want to ever retire or be particularly well off for many reasons (although on a global scale I already am).
CKinnard wrote: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.
Probably a factor, but many have shown that you can still eat healthily for cheap if you know how. But that comes back to good dietary education and commitment, which appear to be in short supply these days.
Or could it be like many other processed goods - for example electronics and cars - that the efficiency is now higher so processed foods are now cheaper than traditional foods. Especially per calorie. I could probably live on KFC alone and not be particularly worse off financially.

I think some of this was discussed in The "cars are making us fat" thread.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:50 pm

Nobody wrote:And some have argued continued high levels of immigration, foreign investment and also greed. I'm sure if you could measure greed and put it on the graph it would be significantly up since the '60s. It seems everyone wants to be well off and retire early. Personally I don't want to ever retire or be particularly well off for many reasons (although on a global scale I already am).
We certainly have one of the highest rates of immigration in the developed world.
However, the fertility rate is not enough to sustain the population, at an average for the last 20 years ~1.8 per reproductive aged woman.
Combining migration and fertility rates, Australia has averaged around 1.5%pa growth in population for the last 30 years.

My view based on many decades reading property market reports :

1. popn growth of itself is not a main contributor to property inflation. rather it is supply being constrained from meeting demand. This expresses as LGA conflicting interest between, on the one hand :

- zoning for denser population housing, more strict building code and time consuming building approvals (esp for developers), frontloading headworks for new dev'ts thereby increasing cost of subdivided land (in the past headworks were recouped more so via rates easing the entry cost for first home buyers), more costly building approval processes.

and on the other hand
- preserving the character, architecture, and utility of a suburb or region (a case of those favoring migration not wanting it in their backyard!)

2. foreign nationals being allowed to take an ever greater slice of the Australian residential property. Some say this is money laundering or securing wealth out of the grip of, for instance, the Chinese Communist govt. The govt wasn't concerned about this until up market house prices were effected.

3. Negative gearing essentially compelling upper tax bracket earners to invest in property to pay the minimum legal amount of tax.

4. It could also be argued that the regional job market is very poor which has resulted in country folk moving to the capitals.

5. But by far the strongest driver of house price inflation in Australia has been a combination of
- Australian banking deregulation (looser capital reserve requirements)
- a RBA that has consistently held our cash rate higher than the rest of the developed world (and arguing from the mid 90s to 2013 that house price inflation is not a concern!) I have read one report after another warning that foreign investment in Australia has gone more so to inflating housing than to expanding production. But successive govts have welcomed high levels of credit because it masks that our economy is essentially flat or negative in growth. Take away the ever growing credit, and economic activity winds down.
- unprecedented money printing/credit expansion in other developed nations which sought out the best risk adjusted returns, which often targeted the Australian mortgage market.
This combination led to never seen before levels of cheap credit being made available to Australian lenders. The greed of the lenders and its impact on society has been unconscionable. I sought the cause of the noughties house price inflation back in 2004, and it took me many months of digging to find documents that began to reveal why. Our banking sector was relying more and more on foreign wholesale funding to maintain their profits. This essentially injected massive amounts of credit into our economy without increasing productivity. Hence, the rate of credit growth outpaced GDP growth at an unprecedented and destructive level. But all banking commentators, politicians, central bank reps, denied there was a problem. The damage high house prices has caused to younger generations is enormous. These events eroded more than anything else in my life trust and confidence in either side of govt and our most esteemed institutions.

A little substantiation of what I am saying
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/aust ... ing-2015-9
Nobody wrote:Probably a factor, but many have shown that you can still eat healthily for cheap if you know how. But that comes back to good dietary education and commitment, which appear to be in short supply these days.
Or could it be like many other processed goods - for example electronics and cars - that the efficiency is now higher so processed foods are now cheaper than traditional foods. Especially per calorie. I could probably live on KFC alone and not be particularly worse off financially.
I think house price inflation, poor town planning, poor public and private transport planning and provision all steal time, energy, and savings from families. This erodes quality of life, especially that to buy better ingredients and cook at home. Much of this could be overcome by the State moving the bulk of their operations away from capitals into regional towns (considering the public service provides more than half of all jobs). OK, I must check myself and stop ranting! :)

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:44 pm

Here's a question for anyone interested in diet to ponder.

When you lose weight, where does the fat go?

march83
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:14 pm

i imagine most of it comes out of my mouth in the form of moist expelled air - co2 and ho.

ball bearing
Posts: 951
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: Watching the ships on the Southern Ocean

Re: Diet Thread

Postby ball bearing » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:41 pm

This is interesting seeing Lance getting a bit of an education...

""MAN UP" - LANCE ARMSTRONG'S DIET WAKEUP CALL w/ RIP ESSELSTYNE"


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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:29 pm

march83 wrote:i imagine most of it comes out of my mouth in the form of moist expelled air - co2 and ho.
yeah you got it in one.
many who work in the field didn't. (I'd like to know which country this survey was done in).

ok, I recall now it was Rueben Meerman on one of the ABC shows who first presented this, so presume the survey of health pros was done in Australia.

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7257


Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:37 pm

ball bearing wrote:This is interesting seeing Lance getting a bit of an education...

""MAN UP" - LANCE ARMSTRONG'S DIET WAKEUP CALL w/ RIP ESSELSTYNE"
Wow Rip must be a good mate. Most avoid Lance like the plague when it comes to promotional stuff.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:29 pm

A topical video re blood glucose and artery damage.



It's clinically accepted post prandial blood glucose is an earlier indicator of insulin resistance than fasting blood glucose, and even HbA1c. And this vid backs that.

If you have a home BG monitor, I'd suggest tracking 2 hour post prandial BG for various meals to see which ones spike most.

Incidentally, one of the benefits of missing meals is you have less BG spikes.

warthog1
Posts: 14307
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:41 am

Nobody wrote:
warthog1 wrote: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/
warthog1 wrote: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.
warthog1 wrote:...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. :P
:( Another one torn asunder :lol:
I'll just eat em a bit less often maybe.
Dont have a familial hx of athersclerosis of either side.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:53 am

warthog1 wrote:
:( Another one torn asunder :lol:
I'll just eat em a bit less often maybe.
Dont have a familial hx of athersclerosis of either side.
hmmmm....atherosclerosis is behind the premature death of the majority of people living a western lifestyle.
Some on the low carb side say insulin resistance is the primary driver of atherosclerosis, and effects over 90% of the population of Westernized nations.
There is scientific pressure not to use the earlier indicator of insulin resistance and diabetes, which is a 5 hour glucose challenge test that monitors insulin levels. The pressure is there because most of the US population has been shown to be insulin resistant or 'pre-diabetic' via this test. As always, watch out for authorities who hide the truth, because "we can't handle it", or it goes against big pharma AND big farmer! :)

warthog1
Posts: 14307
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:52 pm

Well, I should have said IHD or stroke as a result of. We all have fatty deposits in our major vessels to some degree is my understanding.
You would imagine a vegan diet reduces this. I have no knowledge if this is the case.
Last edited by warthog1 on Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:00 pm

Ironically I was chatting about fast food and the person I was speaking to talked about salmonella in eggs and commented that it was a problem in a lot of countries except Australia, New Zealand and a couple of others. He said that was why the egg yokes at Macca's are hard cooked, due to the salmonella and Macca's desire to be consistent world wide
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:18 pm

warthog1 wrote:Well, I should have said IHD or stroke as a result of. We all have fatty deposits in our major vessels to some degree is my understanding.
You would imagine a vegan diet reduces this. I have no knowledge if this is the case.
Yes a vegan diet or more accurately a PBWF diet has been shown to reverse narrowed arteries.
However, there are multiple risk factors in addition to diet, most related to stress.
This article is good enough.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health ... sis/atrisk

At the end of the day, they don't know for sure what causes the condition, but if my goal was to outlive my age group and remain physically independent as late as possible, I've got a fair idea of what to do....but it would be boring to most.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:19 pm

Came upon a paper that does some serious number crunching and quantifies that cycle commuting significantly reduces your risk of death from Cancer, Heart issues etc.

http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456

Prior to reading it I'd assumed that a large contribute to that was that people who bike commute tend to have a better diet than sedentary types. However it states that the data has been adjusted for nutritional intake and specifies specific foods. What's your view on this?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:02 pm

My view is researchers are essentially 2 dimensional personalities.
And miss a lot of the subtleties of cause and effect.
A lot of people who don't cycle don't 'feel' virile enough to take the risk or expend the energy.
and that's a confounding variable difficult to screen out of a study.
That 'feeling' is likely to have an organic reason.

I say that because people who are high risk takers are generally physically superior.
Years ago, I did physiological testing of mountaineers and rock climbers. On all medical tests, they had superior health. If they didn't, they'd be less likely to put their bodies into high risk scenarios.

Same applies to cyclists.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:09 pm

Since we're talking about exercise, in the Youtube video linked below (about 04:10 - 09:10) describes an article in Scientific American magazine. According to Dr Lisle, the article states that larger amounts of exercise just taxes the energy for operation of other systems in the body, rather than adding significantly to the total calorie burn. I suppose that's the reason some say the body appears to be more efficient with more exercise. The point they were making was that beyond a small amount of exercise, there is reduced fat loss benefit to be had.

https://youtu.be/McRGtfIcbNQ?t=4m10s

Link to the article, but it's pay for view and nothing there to really see otherwise.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-paradox/

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:29 pm

Yes but to play devil's advocate, the study is not looking at people who do high levels of exercise, its looking at people who bike commute and I'd certainly hope that bike commuting isn't considered a high risk activity.

So my question remains, what do you think about the nutritional comments in this paper and the normalisation comment? I'm not trying to get into an argument about it, I'm simply curious as to what the comment means and trying to understand if bike commuting truly does give those benefits or is the analysis flawed as bike commuters are healthier than the general population due in part to other aspects of their lifestyles?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:07 pm

Mike to illustrate what I said earlier, if a person suffers from poor coordination or balance or vision or restorative sleep, they are less likely to have the confidence to cycle commute. Those conditions may co-exist with other physiological compromises that reduce longevity. So my point is people are reasonably good at self de-selecting from risk, when their bodies signal it wiser. Therefore, cycle commuters are very likely a self selected group with superior physiology.....and this is where their lower risk of various morbidity may be rooted.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:06 pm


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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:15 am

hmmm.... this is this the problem when young players cherry pick under the influence.....of confirmation bias.

When one finds an interesting paper by a key researcher in a field, it's a good idea to search for their follow up papers.....such as no. 8 below!

_______________________________________________

5.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 4500001471

Effects of isoenergetic overfeeding of either carbohydrate or fat in young men
British Journal of Nutrition / Volume 84 / Issue 02 / August 2000, pp 233-245
Ole Lammerta1, Niels Grunneta2 c1, Peter Fabera1, Kirsten Schroll Bjørnsboa1, John Dicha2, Lis Olesen Larsena3, Richard A. Neesea4, Marc K. Hellersteina4 and Bjørn Quistorffa2

Abstract
Ten pairs of normal men were overfed by 5 MJ/d for 21 d with either a carbohydrate-rich or a fat-rich diet (C- and F-group). The two subjects in each pair were requested to follow each other throughout the day to ensure similar physical activity and were otherwise allowed to maintain normal daily life. The increase in body weight, fat free mass and fat mass showed great variation, the mean increases being 1·5 kg, 0·6 kg and 0·9 kg respectively. No significant differences between the C- and F-group were observed. Heat production during sleep did not change during overfeeding. The RQ during sleep was 0·86 and 0·78 in the C- and F-group respectively. The accumulated faecal loss of energy, DM, carbohydrate and protein was significantly higher in the C- compared with the F-group (30, 44, 69 and 51 % higher respectively), whereas the fat loss was the same in the two groups. N balance was not different between the C- and F-group and was positive. Fractional contribution from hepatic de novolipogenesis, as measured by mass isotopomer distribution analysis after administration of [1-13C]acetate, was 0·20 and 0·03 in the C-group and the F-group respectively. Absolute hepatic de novo lipogenesis in the C-group was on average 211 g per 21 d. Whole-body de novo lipogenesis, as obtained by the difference between fat mass increase and dietary fat available for storage, was positive in six of the ten subjects in the C-group (mean 332 (SEM 191) g per 21 d). The change in plasma leptin concentration was positively correlated with the change in fat mass. Thus, fat storage during overfeeding of isoenergetic amounts of diets rich in carbohydrate or in fat was not significantly different, and carbohydrates seemed to be converted to fat by both hepatic and extrahepatic lipogenesis.

_______________________________________________________________

6.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/6/1774.short

Hepatic and whole-body fat synthesis in humans during carbohydrate overfeeding
A Aarsland, D Chinkes, and R R Wolfe
Am J Clin Nutr June 1997 vol. 65 no. 6 1774-1782

"We conclude that the liver plays a quantitatively minor role when surplus carbohydrate energy is converted into fat in the human body. The main site for fat synthesis is likely to be the adipose tissue."
________________________________________________________________

7.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/62/1/19.short

Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage.
Am J Clin Nutr July 1995 vol. 62 no. 1 19-29T J Horton, H Drougas, A Brachey, G W Reed, J C Peters, and J O Hill


"Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period."
________________________________________________________________

8.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/2/240.short

Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man
Am J Clin Nutr August 1988 vol. 48 no. 2 240-247
K J Acheson, Y Schutz, T Bessard, K Anantharaman, J P Flatt, and E Jéquier

"Glycogen storage capacity in man is approximately 15 g/kg body weight and can accommodate a gain of approximately 500 g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass. When the glycogen stores are saturated, massive intakes of carbohydrate are disposed of by high carbohydrate-oxidation rates and substantial de novo lipid synthesis (150 g lipid/d using approximately 475 g CHO/d) without postabsorptive hyperglycemia."


________________________________________________________________

9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC436949/

Stimulation of thermogenesis by carbohydrate overfeeding. Evidence against sympathetic nervous system mediation.
J Clin Invest. Apr 1983; 71(4): 916–925.
S Welle and R G Campbell

Daily carbohydrate intake of seven men with normal weight was limited to 220-265 g/d for 6 d and then increased to 620-770 g/d for 20 d, while intake of protein, fat, and sodium remained constant. Carbohydrate overfeeding increased body weight by 4.8%, basal oxygen consumption (VO2) by 7.4%, BMR by 11.5%, and serum triiodothyronine levels by 32%. Overfeeding did not affect the thermic effect of a standard meal.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:51 pm

Another appetite control mechanism discovered.
What is certain -- but you knew this already -- is that dieting is difficult. The discovery and study of mammalian NPGL helps explain why, and provides a plausible excuse for those whose good intentions fall short.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:29 pm

CKinnard wrote:hmmm.... this is this the problem when young players cherry pick under the influence.....of confirmation bias.

When one finds an interesting paper by a key researcher in a field, it's a good idea to search for their follow up papers.....such as no. 8 below!
Thanks for posting all the studies.

Yes embarrassing for her and also somewhat for me for posting it. But then I knew and probably posted before about de novo lipogenesis from too much carb consumption. I've also see the results of it myself, gaining about 100g/d. But still an interesting point of conversation, even if it was for how wrong it was.

_____________________________________________________________

I was having a look at an old Greger video on the what components of a Mediterranean diet extend life. In doing so I noticed that according to the study below, if you eat more than 450g of legumes a week (64g/d) you increase your hazard ratio by about 20%. On the surface, this appears to fly in the face of Greger's recommendation of 330g/d. I'm currently eating about 220g/d and gaining fat fairly quickly (as usual) so I should reduce or get off them again. Any thoughts on this study?

Video:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/which- ... nded-life/

Cited study:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaint ... le/1893921

Item 9 in results table:
Image

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:52 am

Thanks for posting those studies CK, I do often wonder with studies if the base population is normalised, as that's a difficult thing to do

I've spent the last 2 1/2 weeks in NZ, Auckland to be precise, staying with Mum. She is the perfect example of portion control and eats simply as cooking is now beyond her ability. Her diet consists of what can be eaten raw from the fridge, toasted or heated in the microwave, which is frozen meals my sister prepared. A typical meal might consist of 1 slice of Vogels toast (kept in the freezer) with margarine, raw carrot, cucumber and a small amount of cheese. Drink was black inca or instant coffee. She also has an electric can opener and opened the occasional tin, asparagus spears was one (though she couldn't open the cans that have handles in the lids, so those tins sit there until someone comes over).

Mum was talking about obesity saying that there was a direct inverse relationship to affluence and obesity, which I see more as an education thing but it was pretty clear in Auckland, the people in her area were much fatter than where I live in Sydney and much fatter than where my Sister lives in Auckland, which is a richer area.

Now Mum can only go out when someone takes her out so I made sure I have a car that was suitable for taking her out and when out, just once when out she wanted to go to a fast food place called Penny's, which was pretty similar to McDonald's say 5 years ago. What I noticed there was there wasn't any Kj figures like there are in Australia, so purchasing decisions were based entirely on the photos. Prominently displayed was meal deals (I hate the term) that were quite reasonably priced as they were smaller servings and while there wasn't any Kj info, my gut feeling was that I was looking at less Kj's than other places. There was also more expensive options that clearly where quite high in Kj's but I noticed that the customers went for the cheaper options, so hopefully lower Kj's.

I was ordering for a party of 6 and everyone wanted different things, making it a complex order. I ordered a Mexican styled dish and most others went for burgers. We also had one small soft drink and chips, which were shared. In the confusion I forgot to order myself a salad, so I missed the opportunity to give it a better comparison to the international chains. Oh and Mum got a free black coffee cos she's a pensioner :)
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:30 am

mikesbytes wrote:Mum was talking about obesity saying that there was a direct inverse relationship to affluence and obesity, which I see more as an education thing but it was pretty clear in Auckland, the people in her area were much fatter than where I live in Sydney and much fatter than where my Sister lives in Auckland, which is a richer area.
Although I agree there is a noticeable trend, I would say it's hard to pin on education alone. Especially considering that good dietary education is almost non-existent in most affluent societies. Taking the idea to the extreme. If affluence is associated with education and inversely associated with obesity, then well known billionaires would be some of the thinnest. Like some other aspects of life, good dietary education is usually only applied to those who see its value and therefore seek it out.

Also a lack of obesity doesn't necessarily mean good health. Plenty of BMI "normal weight" and "overweight" people around with chronic issues caused or exacerbated by poor dietary patterns.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:20 pm

Labeling is going to improve from the viewpoint of country of origin

http://www.foodlabels.industry.gov.au/? ... lsrc=aw.ds

I've heard they are also looking at labeling food as containing palm oil, which is often described as vegetable oil or just oil
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users