Diet Thread
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:07 pm
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/140/9/1669/T1.expansion
This is a quick and dirt post. I haven't checked anything in the study. So I'll leave the keto guys to find holes in it.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:47 pm
And yet here we all are, still waiting for you to show some shred of epidemiological proof that your anecdotal "high fat diets are strongly associated with gall bladder disease" statement is in some way factual, or counter the studies showing that low fat diets are associated with biliary sludge and stone formation (which is the majority case of "gall bladder disease"). You can keep avoiding the issue - but the ball has still in your court for a very long time now.CKinnard wrote:RhapsodyX wrote: Pot, kettle?
You referenced what, 9 abstracts of a total 257,000 papers on gall bladder disease; and are not educated in fundamental pathophysiology or stats sufficiently to weight appropriately what you read. I advised you to elaborate the mechanisms that cause gall bladder disease, particularly the role of the autonomic nervous system in its control over gall bladder emptying and sphincter of Oddi motility. If you were genuinely intent on comprehending the cause of gall bladder disease, rather than gloating about reading 8 abstracts, you might have learned something worth your time and effort, especially with your medical history. I could elaborate but you give the distinct impression it's not about learning for you, but brownie points.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:05 pm
Absolutely - Kresser comes across as biased. But that doesn't, in this case, make him wrong.CKinnard wrote:Do you understand what bias is Rhap? It seems not. If you criticize a study, and use a portion of all studies in the field, selectively, to base your criticism, that's bias. And that's what Kris Kresser did, and does habitually.RhapsodyX wrote:(personally - I have no idea, I have no interest in following any of the "diet personalities"), is merely referencing research by Dr Stanley Hazen. We are not talking "fringe opinion", it is peer reviewed science. If you have evidence that Dr Hazen is biased or can find alternative research that disagrees - you should quote it.
And it still doesn't, in this case, make him wrong. And it doesn't make you right.CKinnard wrote:Further, he does not display advanced comprehension of pathophysiological states, which is why his therapies for the universe of human morbidities is so limited. This is what happens when your health education doesn't include intensive time in hospitals dealing with acute and chronic illness across the life cycle, and you don't liaise regularly with health professionals across multiple disciplines. Medical practice doesn't all come from published studies, mate. The Australian Research Council and NH&MRC don't have limitless funds to keep reductionist lab boffins permanently beavering away....more like just shy of 1% of GDP. Remember that next time you do a lit search.
Besides which : where is there any proof that TMAO *causes* disease and isn't simply a marker? It's an association, after all.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:33 pm
Except you played the man instead of the ball. The chain of causation he came up with is tentative to say the least, you simply could have pointed that out.Nobody wrote:In the end, the convincing evidence that whole grains does harm or "may actually increase the risk of heart disease" has to be produced by those who make the claim. I don't have to produce evidence to the contrary since I'm not making a claim in this instance. I'm just flagging doubt, with a reason for that doubt. Which I'm entitled to do.RhapsodyX wrote:I'm just going to point out that you are engaging in "shooting the messenger". Kresser, who you are saying is unreliable because he is associated with "Paleo" (personally - I have no idea, I have no interest in following any of the "diet personalities"), is merely referencing research by Dr Stanley Hazen. We are not talking "fringe opinion", it is peer reviewed science. If you have evidence that Dr Hazen is biased or can find alternative research that disagrees - you should quote it.
Evidence that there's a direct association between whole grains and increased hsCRP? I very much doubt it - as above, the chain of causation is tentative and IMHO not very convincing.Nobody wrote:I'm sure someone can come up with some evidence. But I doubt it will be enough to convince me to stop me eating whole grains.
No - it's affected by exercise, in the end I couldn't see it being indicative given the number of hours I ride.Nobody wrote:Since you're a big veg eater on your keto diet, I'd be interested to know your hsCRP. Did you ever get it tested?
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:57 pm
Nah - there's plenty of holes in that one, but at the end of the day it's an example of quality food & exercise being a good thing. But clearly whole grain consumption is *associated* with lower hsCRP, not a cause. And definitely worth reading.Nobody wrote:Not that I require myself or anyone to produce evidence that whole grains don't increase CVD or inflammation. But I was having a look for something else associated with hsCRP when I just happened to stumble on the table below. It shows lowering hsCRP with increased whole grain intake in women.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/140/9/1669/T1.expansion
This is a quick and dirt post. I haven't checked anything in the study. So I'll leave the keto guys to find holes in it.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:25 am
Cited article in the video:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012294/
(This appears to be the full version. The one you see in the video is the first page only article unless logged in.)
Although the studies I've seen don't appear to bear that out, Roberts in the cited article argues that LDL is a better primary inflammation marker than hsCRP. My LDL is still over the maximum nominal safe level of 60 mg/dL or 1.55 mmol/L (mine at 85 mg/dL or 2.2 mmol/L). But then I've heard from Esselstyn that levels over the maximum are still safe if eating a WFPB diet.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Sun Dec 25, 2016 5:41 pm
This will make sense to those who paid attention :Nobody wrote:http://www.plantbasednews.org/post/medi ... rt-disease
Cited article in the video:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012294/
(This appears to be the full version. The one you see in the video is the first page only article unless logged in.)
Although the studies I've seen don't appear to bear that out, Roberts in the cited article argues that LDL is a better primary inflammation marker than hsCRP. My LDL is still over the maximum nominal safe level of 60 mg/dL or 1.55 mmol/L (mine at 85 mg/dL or 2.2 mmol/L). But then I've heard from Esselstyn that levels over the maximum are still safe if eating a WFPB diet.
Systemic artherosclerosis in dogs.
Thyroid removal?
If Mr Roberts got this wrong, what is reliable in his conclusion?Diet-induced atherosclerosis in the domestic cat.
Note : no mention of thyroid removal and the triglyceride conclusion.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:07 pm
I'd subjectively prefer Roberts to be wrong, as the world would make sense again to me.RhapsodyX wrote:This will make sense to those who paid attention :Systemic artherosclerosis in dogs.
Thyroid removal?If Mr Roberts got this wrong, what is reliable in his conclusion?Diet-induced atherosclerosis in the domestic cat.
Note : no mention of thyroid removal and the triglyceride conclusion.
However, isn't the cat study a study of LPL deficient cats? I already had the impression from other sources that carnivores (obviously normally functioning) can't get atherosclerosis.
From study:
Wikipedia:We have further evaluated the susceptibility of the domestic cat to diet-induced atherosclerosis, the ultimate intent being to discern the atherogenic risk due to lipoprotein lipase deficiency in an affected feline kindred with a phenotype very similar to that of the human form of this condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotein_lipaseLipoprotein lipase deficiency leads to hypertriglyceridemia (elevated levels of triglycerides in the bloodstream)
My limited understanding at this time is that herbivores normally get atherosclerosis when fed a high cholesterol diet, where the same results aren't usually seen in carnivores. Obviously you found some defective carnivores though. Humans have more of a 50:50 ratio for susceptibility to atherosclerosis. Some will, some won't, with an entire grey scale inbetween the extremes.
-
- Posts: 5470
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
- Location: Yangebup
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Baalzamon » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:19 pm
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:45 pm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 102202.htm
It's about the immune response trying to clear up too much arterial plaque creating its own problem. It still doesn't decisively answer the question of whether it's too much cholesterol in the system, or an immune_response/inflammation, or both. But it suggests inflammation is definitely a factor to me. But then maybe I'm just reading into it what I want to see.
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 1:30 am
Re: Diet Thread
Postby User Name » Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:17 pm
They go thusso:
"Are you putting YOUR health at risk by not eating enough whole grains? Whole grains can help protect you against diabetes, heart disease and obesity. To make the best choices for YOUR body, look for foods high or very high in whole grains the next time you're shopping"
Gimme a break
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:36 am
The claims may seem over the top, but they are technically correct. Especially compared to the average diet of their target audience, which is the standard western diet. Whole grains are higher in calorie density than most plant foods, so not an ideal choice for maximum weight loss compared to say fruit and vegetables. But they will protect against diabetes, heart disease and obesity. I dropped from 82kg to 65kg while still eating oats, wholegrain pasta and some "wholemeal" bread (only 50% wholemeal). I still eat oats daily and I'm leaner than most.User Name wrote:LOLZOES at the Grains and Legumes Council propaganda ads on 3aw. In fact, they annoy me, coz I reckon they're over the top.
They go thusso:
"Are you putting YOUR health at risk by not eating enough whole grains? Whole grains can help protect you against diabetes, heart disease and obesity. To make the best choices for YOUR body, look for foods high or very high in whole grains the next time you're shopping"
Gimme a break
For the average person, the two big things to lose if they want to reduce their risk of diabetes, heart disease and obesity are animal products and higher fat processed foods. Replacing these with whole grains would be a step in the right direction.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:20 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/weve-been ... tjxfx.htmlMaybe obesity is a physical expression of emotional distress?
What if we stopped worrying about obesity and started tackling exhaustion, stress and the constant competitive pressure to be the perfect parent, employee, physical specimen, citizen, friend and all-round high achiever. If we stopped spending 12 hours a day slumped over a desk (yes, even a standing one) I bet we'd all be thinner.
-
- Posts: 3459
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am
Re: Diet Thread
Postby CKinnard » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:39 pm
To add weight to that view, research the impact of chronic stress on cortisol levels, and their adverse effect on insulin sensitivity.
Then, research the effect of caffeine on insulin, via cortisol! A very good reason to lay off the caffeine if you want to retain or achieve insulin sensitivity.
Nevertheless, overcoming or minimizing stress will require painful choices, which include resisting cravings for an unbalanced diet.
On a personal note, I've been enjoying spending time in the kitchen adapting flavors and recipes to more plant based.
Several friends are really hooked on an adaptation of this Gordon Ramsay dish.
https://youtu.be/GgTuaBIW9Nc?list=FLPOk ... BQhgCwW8ng
My adaptations
- add a chili for a little heat
- add sliced mushrooms
- if you can't find pomegranate sauce or molasses, buy juice and reduce it yourself...or make a reduction of strawberries and pineapple chopped small bits and add lemon juice after taking off heat.
- add finely chopped basil after taking off heat and stir in....or replace mint with basil.
- squeeze fresh lime juice onto it just before serving.
- serve with steamed vege or salad.
- leave off the cheese for full vegan.
The flavors are much better fused 1-2 days later.
Adding sweetness to this dish esp with the heat of chili is a refreshing summery change to typically heavier Mediterranean bean dishes.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:07 am
A -> B and B -> C does not necessarily mean A -> C.CKinnard wrote:...To add weight to that view, research the impact of chronic stress on cortisol levels, and their adverse effect on insulin sensitivity.
Then, research the effect of caffeine on insulin, via cortisol! A very good reason to lay off the caffeine if you want to retain or achieve insulin sensitivity.
If you have a look at all of the recent research on caffeine and insulin sensitivity, both reductionist and epidemiological, and especially in regards to post exercise... I don't think you have a leg to stand on here in making this assertion.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:00 am
Some of the suggested changes are going to be challenging. But just like you need to execute an exercise program to get fitter, you need structural change of your diet if you actually want to see significant long term results.
Also I certainly don't have all the answers. What I've written about weight loss below is a summary of what I've learnt in the last 3 years from books, online reading/videos and through the experience of losing the weight myself and keeping it off. This is while doing less exercise than I did when overweight.
Subjects below are in no set order.
Weight "set points"
As a general rule - excluding gluttonous or addictive/emotional type eating - most people when eating to satiation, eat a set number of net calories per day (everything else being equal). This initially sounds like bad news, like we are doomed to be the same weight "set point"*. But it's not because - as much as people like to think all food calories are the same - the body/microbiome processes different foods and combinations differently. So the types of foods you eat (and their percentage of your total diet) have more influence over your "set point" than anything else.
* I don't believe in a rigid "set point", since I've drastically changed mine. However it does describe well the way many peoples bodies' tend to gravitate to a set weight on a set diet.
Lifestyle
This encompasses many patterns of behaviour that have noticeably changed in the last 40 years. People used to cook meals from scratch (no jars of process sauces etc). They used to eat less often (less grazing or snacking). Less processed foods. Less restaurant and take away food. The problems we have now are largely due to affluence, time restriction and/or laziness. Lifestyle is one of the big factors that needs to be changed if you want to be successful over the long term with controlling your weight/waist.
For example, I prepare/cook my own meals. Generally don't buy processed foods with more than one ingredient. Don't eat restaurant food unless I'm obligated to do so by family (which is usually annually). I even prepare and take food with me to social engagements.
Food addictions
This is likely most people's biggest problem without even realizing it. If you ever eat anything without being hungry, or you actually get strong cravings for certain foods, then likely you have a food addiction. Many processed foods are actually designed to be addictive. More in this post.
The best way to beat the addiction is - like with smoking and drinking alcohol - to cut the problem foods out completely. Don't bring them into your home and try to remove your easy access to them. A good way to initially remove them from your diet is to replace/substitute them with whole plant foods.
Calorie density
This is a model that is supposed to explain why low calorie density foods reduce body weight. Since it's supposed to make it easier for the body to meter and regulate food intake than more calorie dense foods. I personally found that fat intake over-rode it and added weight for me, even though my calorie density overall was quite low.
It is supposed to operate on the basis that the body monitors food weight as well as calories. What my food tracking found is that my body tracks calories absorbed so that as the calorie density gets lower, I eat not only more food by weight, but also more calories for the same satiation. I believe this is the case because my absorption of calories gets lower with the lower density. So my net calories remains the same (all else being equal).
Getting your calorie density lower should help to a degree. I found that once under 1 Cal/g, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to lower it further. At that point it's probably more productive to look at ways to lower fat and protein to reduce weight further. Gong too low in calorie density can make you feel bloated by the sheer volume of the food required.
At this stage I believe low calorie density is more of a pointer to eating whole plant foods like fruit and veg. Which do the weight loss work in various ways, which may not be fully understood yet. One of those ways is by changing your microbiome, or gut bacteria over time.
Fat intake
You only need about 1.1g of ALA (omega-3) and 6g of LA (omega-6) to avoid fat deficiency. You can get all this from < 30g of selected nuts and seeds like almonds, linseed and walnuts. So you don't need much fat in your diet.
From Neil Barnard MD, simply put, your body weight plateaus to your fat intake. If I get more than 40g of fat per day, my weight noticeably climbs, regardless of the average daily calorie density.
There has been the suggestion to separate overt fatty foods like nuts and seeds from carbohydrate intake since carbohydrate is a preferred fuel for the body, so excluding fat calories from being used as fuel. This may be over-simplistic. But it is something to keep in mind when trying to lose weight. I've tried it, but I can't say if it works because I was changing other eating patterns at the same time.
Macro-nutrient ratio
This is a guide to help get your diet on track. It describes the ratio of the 3 primary macro nutrients of carbohydrates, fat and protein. It may be possible to lose weight with any macro-nutrient ratio, but to be healthy and lose weight requires us to stay around certain guidelines. It is based on calorie intake rather than food weight and so you need to know how to calculate it (which is shown in bottom half of this post).
As an example, the standard American diet is C40:F40:P20*, which results in an average BMI of 28.8 (and rising each year).
From studying successful early civilisations, the ideal human diet is considered to be C80:F10:P10. By following this and therefore keeping fat and protein lower, you should expect to have a BMI under 25 (WHtR < 0.5) and more likely around 23 (WHtR 0.47).
* C = carbohydrate, F = fat, P = protein.
If you want to start experimenting with this, then get yourself some digital kitchen scales with a 1 gram resolution and join Cronometer.
Animal products
Animal products add weight in 3 ways:
- Even lean cuts of meat have 20% fat by calorie intake. Standard milk has 48% fat by calorie intake.
- Lean animal products can increase blood insulin levels, especially when combined with carbohydrates (which is how most people eat them). The average increase can be up to 43% compared to plant only eaters. Raised insulin levels are associated with adding body weight.
- Animal products are higher in calorie density, which has been shown to make it harder for your body to regulate your calorie intake.
Liquid calories
Only water or herbal teas if you want to lose weight fast. You don't want to consume any liquid calories because they are not metered well by the body. So those calories will most likely be under reported, especially if consumed fast. The exception to this is soup you eat slowly with a spoon.
While on the subject of beverages, caffeine or other stimulants are also not a good idea because you are adding another layer of up/down sensations which may add to cravings. Also Caffeine taken after lunch may interfere with sleep patterns and therefore make you eat more from being tired the next day.
Calorie restricting
This is the common way most people diet and some can make it work over the long term. My observation so far is that many will do this by cutting carbs (both processed and unprocessed) then eat mainly animal products, non-starchy salad and/or veg, and a maybe a smaller amount of bread. But historically 99% of people on a diet (most of them on this type) will fail by the 5 year mark, by not maintaining the weight loss. Some will (for whatever reason) even put more weight back on than they originally started with. I'm not going to speculate as to why this is the case. But I believe that combining all the methods listed above should be an easier way of controlling weight than calorie restricting by cutting carbs.
It could be useful to combine the diet structure listed above with general calorie restriction and/or intermittent feeding (below) for even faster weight loss.
Intermittent feeding
Some call this "intermittent fasting", but technically fasting requires for all your glycogen to be used up. This usually takes 2 days of water only intake to get there, according to Alan Goldhamer of TrueNorth Health Center.
Intermittent feeding is usually extended breaks between eating within a 24 hour period. Basically it's usually about shortening your daily feeding window so you are not eating for a large chunk of the day. Most people do this by eating dinner early and then skipping breakfast or eating it at lunch time. I found it to be an easy way to calorie restrict, since there is only so much food I can eat in a reduced feeding time window. Then when not eating for a while, I don't seem to get very hungry. I mainly found I got more hungry when I started to eat.
List of foods to avoid/restrict
In no particular order:
Processed grains - restrict
Processed foods (depends on how processed) - avoid/restrict
Restaurant/take away foods - avoid
All oils (highest calorie density foods available) - avoid
High fat foods (a small amount of selected nuts/seeds is a good idea if you're eating no other healthy overt fats) - restrict
High sugar foods, but not fruit. (Sugar is high calorie density, but fruit is low calorie density) - avoid
Caffeine/stimulants - avoid
Any liquid calories - avoid
Animal products (usually high in fat, high calorie density, insulin spiking) - avoid
High protein foods (yes these can be problematic for weight loss too and you can get too much protein) - restrict
I'll probably follow this up with a post about what I eat in an average day, which may help some committed losers.
-
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby march83 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:41 pm
I've spent the past 6 months following a pretty basic cal/gram rule: if it has more than 1cal/g then i will avoid or reduce it. Anything less than 1cal/g and i don't much care and will eat as much as i want.
This has inadvertently turned me into a vegetarian and I'm down about 15kg over 6 months and feeling great. So happy I am, that eating this way is no longer a diet, it's a lifestyle choice and I don't see any reason I would change from it, hence I have no fear of regaining weight.
I also think stress plays a far bigger role in weight control than people acknowledge whether through hormonal influence (ie, cortisol) or through impaired decision making (mental ie, food cravings and addictions). I've reduced my work hours amongst other lifestyle changes which I feel helps me to make better dietary choices.
Relating to stress, I have previously had success losing but not maintaining weight on a HFLC diet - I was very stressed at work when it all started to go wrong which leaves me wondering if the diet contributed to the stress or the stress contributed to the diet failing.
I burn an average of ~7000cals a week on the bike which makes maintaining a deficit much easier (simply more margin for error). YMMV.
Lastly, you will take my coffee from my cold, dead fingers, hopefully at a very old age 2 a day maximum because I enjoy it - if i feel like i NEED it then that's because something else is going on in my life that I need to remedy (get more sleep, get more recovery).
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:53 pm
Thanks.march83 wrote:Good post
Great result. I talk about structural diet change above, but like you say, it's really a lifestyle change. So keep the lifestyle and keep the weight loss.march83 wrote:I've spent the past 6 months following a pretty basic cal/gram rule: if it has more than 1cal/g then i will avoid or reduce it. Anything less than 1cal/g and i don't much care and will eat as much as i want.
This has inadvertently turned me into a vegetarian and I'm down about 15kg over 6 months and feeling great. So happy I am, that eating this way is no longer a diet, it's a lifestyle choice and I don't see any reason I would change from it, hence I have no fear of regaining weight.
The difference I noticed the most after changing to a plant based diet was how much calmer I was.march83 wrote:Relating to stress, I have previously had success losing but not maintaining weight on a HFLC diet - I was very stressed at work when it all started to go wrong which leaves me wondering if the diet contributed to the stress or the stress contributed to the diet failing.
I burn less than a third of that by cycling. Although exercise is healthy and helpful, my main message on the Loser Club thread is that weight loss is mainly about structural diet change. Which I think is good for people to be aware of, since there may be times in life when we can't rely on riding to control weight. I've managed to still lose weight for a couple of weeks that I didn't get out on the bike one winter period.march83 wrote:I burn an average of ~7000cals a week on the bike which makes maintaining a deficit much easier (simply more margin for error). YMMV.
Well that sounds like an addictive response.march83 wrote:Lastly, you will take my coffee from my cold, dead fingers, hopefully at a very old age
I was just talking about it potentially being a confounding variable to weight loss above. But there's another reason I avoid caffeine. That is I don't think I'm intelligent enough to sacrifice some cognitive ability for the sake of a beverage. I heard of a study where people on caffeine were compared to non-caffeine users. Although they bench-marked about the same, the caffeine drinkers would perform worse when the caffeine was out of their system. So when comparing the area under the curve (so to speak), the caffeine users would perform cognitively worse on average.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:22 pm
And once again - association is not cause, and the above video is as flawed as those prescribing statins to people who haven't had a coronary event. As far as I know, statins do not result in a lower all-cause mortality unless you have had a coronary event. In studies of a medication which reduces dietary uptake of cholesterol (non-statin), which resulted in lower blood cholesterol levels, it did *not* reduce all-cause mortality. Statins work in other ways than just cholesterol.
Eat healthy - yes. Imply that it *will* fix unfortunate genetics or individual responses - no.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:45 pm
As you know, I don't often dig too deep. So is your comment on trig a general comment or specifically from one of the linked studies?RhapsodyX wrote:Shame about the link between blood triglycerides and CHD though. I expect you could starve that number down, but on eucaloric/hypercaloric high-carbohydrate diet it would have to be a consideration.
The below study shows an interesting observation of trig levels when adjusted for risk factors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19903920
I suppose the question then is; do they wait for people do have the event, considering that a large number won't survive that initial event?RhapsodyX wrote:And once again - association is not cause, and the above video is as flawed as those prescribing statins to people who haven't had a coronary event.
Of course not. But even those who have really unfortunate genetics are still going to fare much better if they had eaten healthy from birth. But of course these people are almost fictional in western societies where not feeding your children animal products from weaning is considered bizarre at the least. Italy even proposed to make it illegal not to feed children animal products, considering it child abuse.RhapsodyX wrote:Imply that it *will* fix unfortunate genetics or individual responses - no.
... Animation removed. PM me if you want the link to what was here.
In some ways I appear to be one of the unfortunates since my LDL-C is quite high at 2.2 mmol/L considering my diet is very close to perfect for lowing cholesterol.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Diet Thread
Postby RhapsodyX » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:45 am
General comment. And still valid, because (if you read the actual full study, which is publicly available) they corrected for HDL-C & Non-HDL-C. The purpose of the study was "To assess major lipids and apolipoproteins in vascular risk". HCL-C & Non-HDL-C are formulae approximations of HDL/LDL, and can't be used to correct for the known sub-types to lipoproteins. For the purpose proposed, it's useful information, namely : "Lipid assessment in vascular disease can be simplified by measurement of either total and HDL cholesterol levels or apolipoproteins without the need to fast and without regard to triglyceride."Nobody wrote:As you know, I don't often dig too deep. So is your comment on trig a general comment or specifically from one of the linked studies?RhapsodyX wrote:Shame about the link between blood triglycerides and CHD though. I expect you could starve that number down, but on eucaloric/hypercaloric high-carbohydrate diet it would have to be a consideration.
The below study shows an interesting observation of trig levels when adjusted for risk factors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19903920
And again - statin prescription, according to the research, doesn't result in a decrease in all-cause mortality. People still die at the same rate, while taking a medication which often has side effects.Nobody wrote:I suppose the question then is; do they wait for people do have the event, considering that a large number won't survive that initial event?RhapsodyX wrote:And once again - association is not cause, and the above video is as flawed as those prescribing statins to people who haven't had a coronary event.
Ah, so only Vegan is healthy. I think you are in the wrong thread. And I do believe the SDA studies have proven your point wrong.Nobody wrote:Of course not. But even those who have really unfortunate genetics are still going to fare much better if they had eaten healthy from birth. But of course these people are almost fictional in western societies where not feeding your children animal products from weaning is considered bizarre at the least. Italy even proposed to make it illegal not to feed children animal products, considering it child abuse.RhapsodyX wrote:Imply that it *will* fix unfortunate genetics or individual responses - no.
Wasn't too bad until the "meat and dairy will make them fat and sick" - because that's an opinion, not a fact. If it was a fact, it would be easy to prove beyond doubt. But I guess it's more fun for him to preach to the converted.Nobody wrote:As you'd expect, the colourful McDougall has something to say about such issues.
....
Yes, but LDL-C is just an association, and as you yourself have stated, there are better measures of "healthy". Especially for people who don't fit within the bell curve for diet or exercise.Nobody wrote:In some ways I appear to be one of the unfortunates since my LDL-C is quite high at 2.2 mmol/L considering my diet is very close to perfect for lowing cholesterol.
- AUbicycles
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15589
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
- Contact:
Re: Diet Thread
Postby AUbicycles » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:38 am
Christopher / Admin
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:16 am
Thanks for the reply.RhapsodyX wrote:General comment. And still valid, because (if you read the actual full study, which is publicly available) they corrected for HDL-C & Non-HDL-C. The purpose of the study was "To assess major lipids and apolipoproteins in vascular risk". HCL-C & Non-HDL-C are formulae approximations of HDL/LDL, and can't be used to correct for the known sub-types to lipoproteins. For the purpose proposed, it's useful information, namely : "Lipid assessment in vascular disease can be simplified by measurement of either total and HDL cholesterol levels or apolipoproteins without the need to fast and without regard to triglyceride."
So why graph something that is worthless then?
True. Something I've read/heard before. I suppose I'm going with the GP mentality of something is better than nothing, when the only real answer is a healthier diet to effectively mitigate the risks. But then the general population aren't interested in that, so the death rate will continue. Some will have to rely on exercise alone.Nobody wrote:And again - statin prescription, according to the research, doesn't result in a decrease in all-cause mortality. People still die at the same rate, while taking a medication which often has side effects.
Not what I said. But it can be a good start if one avoids all processed foods, including all oils.Nobody wrote:Ah, so only Vegan is healthy.
I've found that some don't respect the boundaries of being in the right or wrong thread anyway.Nobody wrote:I think you are in the wrong thread. And I do believe the SDA studies have proven your point wrong.
Not that I was pushing hard on a point, the SDA studies as you know are people that make their choices on religious grounds. Although it may be useful to show that it's easier to get longevity by including fish, it's not comparing the pesco diets to the healthiest form of correctly planned, whole food, plant-only diet. Esselstyn is the only one I know who has done studies on this. Even then, some of his subjects could have done better from what I've read of it. His most recent study here.
In the end, there is an association between poor health outcomes and eating animal products. Just like there is an association between smoking and poor health outcomes. We still can't conclusively prove causation of smoking to various diseases in humans because the RCTs are unethical to carry out, expensive and would require too much time to get meaningful data. A fact which the cigarette companies have used to great effect.
As per above. Easier to observe an association, but hard to prove. Fortunately for me, association in observational studies is usually enough for me to make decisions. A lot of people are going to unnecessarily suffer and/or die early. The harm of animal products may never be proven as fact beyond doubt in humans.RhapsodyX wrote:Wasn't too bad until the "meat and dairy will make them fat and sick" - because that's an opinion, not a fact. If it was a fact, it would be easy to prove beyond doubt.
-
- Posts: 10329
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Diet Thread
Postby Nobody » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:32 am
Removed to keep the peace.AUbicycles wrote:Report received noting that the inclusion of content in the post about 'child abuse' (with regard to a child's diet) is not relevant / appropriate for this thread (and forum)...
Christopher / Admin
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.