Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
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 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:53 pm

CKinnard wrote:Here's something to contemplate.

Do you think McDonalds consults with dietitians in the creation of their menu?
The question is almost not applicable as whether they did or not is almost irrelevant to their cost/profit model. The ingredients are quite cheap being bulk purchased and mass produced. All that's required is to heat/fry on site plus make the odd coffee.

What is the real operational expense is labour and this is why the 'meal' concept came out as you can serve the customer quicker, they simply say the burger and the flavour of the soft drink. Then there's a quick marketing to increase the profitability by selling a large meal, which means a bigger serving of chips and soft drink. This is all about the profit model with no interest in nutrition. This is also the reason they have introduced touch screen ordering as it doesn't occur labour costs.

How the salad fits into above I'm not sure on the motive. If my 2 visits are typical then they are not selling many salads and by ordering salad instead of chips you are consuming labour time. Is the motive to improve their image? If so I'd agree that the image has been improved by it. Their could also be a labour saving over chips.

Now as per Nobody's comment about 1/3 of the population staying away, I see that McDonald's is missing the opportunity to broaden its client base simply by not having a wrap that is of lower Kj. They could leave their defaults for Burgers to chips and soft drink while changing the default for the lower Kj wraps to salad and water. That would mean that the broadened customer base would not consume staff time customising their order.

KFC, I suspect that what coats the chicken is much worse than the chicken itself. I was going to suggest that I could make next Tuesday's lunch one from KFC but looking at the menu online it looks even harder to find a suitable selection. If someone said to me "I'm going with my friend to McDonalds, what can I eat" I'd be able to give an answer but if they said the same about KFC I'd find the question much harder to answer.

So looking at their menu I can see there are burgers that despite that big coating on the chicken have slightly lower calorie counts than McDonald's burgers. But Woooo... their salad blows them out of the water, Kj wise its a meal in itself, about 9 times the calories of the McDonald's salad, only slightly less than the toastie I had at Macca's. The combination of the lowest Kj burger and the salad simply blows the Kj limit. To get around that I suppose you could buy the Salad with a single drum stick, that would give you about 2000Kj all up. Of if your really desperate the coleslaw with a single drum for around 1,300Kj. I'm not a fan of that kind of coleslaw. Past that there's the children's menu https://www.kfc.com.au/menu/kids-meals/ ... -wrap-meal.

Drinks - I didn't see Coffee or Tea on the menu, I'm assuming they must have it in some form. But if they don't then your choice is bottled water or diet soft drink
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 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:45 pm

And if I can ask another question of all.

Do you agree in government regulation of all food stuffs (fast food, processed meals) in order to make it healthier?

please think about and answer this question before looking at the ones below.









How do you accommodate the failure of other forms of "prohibition" such as alcohol in the USA, and to a lesser extent marijuana?




If you think govt regulation (prohibition type controls) of junk food is not a good idea, then would you change your mind if it could be proven that chronic consumers of fast food get chemically addicted to it?



If Australia did not have public health, and there was no material cost to you of others compromising their health via poor diet, would you hold to your above views?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:31 pm

CKinnard wrote:And if I can ask another question of all.
So the heavy questions come out. :)
CKinnard wrote:Do you agree in government regulation of all food stuffs (fast food, processed meals) in order to make it healthier?
Yes. Because as Michael Moore clearly showed in one of his documentaries, companies generally pass the tests to be considered psychopaths in personality. Companies need to be controlled otherwise we have the food situation we have now. That being food industry deception for generations of western populations by various means in the interests of profits over peoples' health and longevity. No different to the cigarette companies.
Also if companies were regulated well and populations better educated, we would already have a better selection of foods to choose from.
CKinnard wrote:How do you accommodate the failure of other forms of "prohibition" such as alcohol in the USA, and to a lesser extent marijuana?
Even if these addictive substances are legalised, they are usually still heavily regulated. I'm not talking about prohibition of certain foods, just better regulation as should be for known addictive substances.
CKinnard wrote:If Australia did not have public health, and there was no material cost to you of others compromising their health via poor diet, would you hold to your above views?
Yes.
People still need to be protected from greedy companies who place profit before peoples' health and longevity. Thanks to these companies, people have been and are going to be damaging their health (many times irreparably) before they fully understand enough to make an informed choice. I would have preferred to be educated as a child as to the truth about diet and lifestyle as I may have made better choices and have less problems today. But multi-generational deception and the infiltration of governments and science has caused us all to be deceived at least to some degree.

The medical industry hasn't been very helpful in turning the problems around, which I believe has much to do with them being beneficiaries of out chronic illnesses.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:45 pm

THanks for responding Nobody. Appreciated.

Can we develop the issue further?

Food manufacturers argue against regulation on the basis that no one meal makes an unhealthy diet. Rather it is the total diet. The manufacturers argue they are not espousing people eat fast food for 21 meals a week, or even 7. Rather, they want to complement a healthy diet with meals superior in convenience (frozen meals or fast food).

If govt want to regulate unhealthy food out of society, they would have to ban lollies, chocolate, biscuits, cake, refined flour products, processed meats, etc, etc. These things are occasional treats for some, but compulsive regular binges for others. Further, they are not unhealthy until a certain threshold of intake is transgessed. Why should treat foods be banned, if they are only a problem for the uneducated or impulsive, in which case the source issue may be a mental illness?

If government are concerned about things that damage our health, then they must also regulate as vigorously poor town planning (lack of green and recreational space for physical activity), house price inflation and the need for households to have two full incomes (this is a primary factor in reduced home cooking), poor public transport and congested roads (robs people of time for physical activity and home cooking time), hours worked per week, interest rates (higher mortgages = stronger need to work longer hours), unemployment (which can lead to depression and emotional eating).

When we talk about responsibility for education, where does the parents' stop and govt start? The govt make public very reasonable Dietary Guidelines that at least 98% of Australians do not respect.

Libertarians would argue that individual has ultimate sovereign agency over their lives, followed by family. Therefore it is the responsibility of each individual (and parent) to prioritize what is most important to them, and select from the market what they want. Food manufacturers would argue the same thing. They don't want to not make a profit, so they only make stuff people will buy, ergo the consumer drives what is on the shelves and in fast food outlets.

Government regulation is only necessary when individuals do not punish the free market (by not buying their unhealthy products).

At the end of the day, any solution is going to require better parental education and discipline, because the govt cannot spoon feed a family 21 times a week!

My view is that families have to take more responsibility for the future they want.
When I was younger, I was a health nut, and watched many of my high school mates get into a lifestyle of barbecues and excessive drinking. It was a hedonistic culture that they enjoyed mindless to their future health. I've watched all of that crowd suffer healthwise for it.

So where do I stand? I am probably biased by believing I am most responsible for my future health, and that I don't want to pay ever higher taxes for ever bigger govt to regulate or educate individuals who are slaves to the senses and hedonism.

And I suppose this issue is so controversial, because we are all free to pursue happiness...and for many that happiness means eating rubbish for immediate pleasure! :) And that's usually part of a larger hedonistic value system.

So the question has to be asked, can government regulate what value system an individual has?

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 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:03 pm

CKinnard wrote:And if I can ask another question of all.

Do you agree in government regulation of all food stuffs (fast food, processed meals) in order to make it healthier?

please think about and answer this question before looking at the ones below.
I'm going to answer 'I don't know' or more precisely 'I don't know what extensions to existing regulations we should adopt' Current major regulations is the GST applied and the requirement to include the Kj on the menu. No doubt there are some lesser well known ones, is there a maximum caffeine regulation?. None of the current regulations make any significant difference and we need a major change, food and inactivity are killing more than smoking nowadays.

What and how is a tricky question. Perhaps a progression of smaller steps. One step that comes to mind could be adopted from alcohol industry where they specify on the bottle the number of standard drinks within. As they already specify the Kj that could be expanded to a concept called 'standard meals' (there would be a better name) based on a Kj rating. Say for example the standard meal Kj was determined to be 2000Kj then this would be labeled as 2.2 standard meals
CKinnard wrote:How do you accommodate the failure of other forms of "prohibition" such as alcohol in the USA, and to a lesser extent marijuana?
Strategies to discourage consumption rather than ban. NZ has a ban on alcohol advertising
CKinnard wrote:If you think govt regulation (prohibition type controls) of junk food is not a good idea, then would you change your mind if it could be proven that chronic consumers of fast food get chemically addicted to it?
What regulations would prevent the food from providing that addiction? I'd probably want to apply a cost model, making the more addictive components more expensive which is a minefield. More info is needed to form a sound opinion.
CKinnard wrote:If Australia did not have public health, and there was no material cost to you of others compromising their health via poor diet, would you hold to your above views?
You have described China. Ciggies are dirt cheap and there is almost no health awareness. Not an issue to the Govt as they don't provide health care.

There's a term where one action causes a cost to someone else and my minds gone blank as to what it was
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 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:56 pm

CKinnard wrote:Can we develop the issue further?
Probably. But not without wading further into a non-PC swamp. :)
CKinnard wrote:Food manufacturers argue against regulation on the basis that no one meal makes an unhealthy diet. Rather it is the total diet. The manufacturers argue they are not espousing people eat fast food for 21 meals a week, or even 7. Rather, they want to complement a healthy diet with meals superior in convenience (frozen meals or fast food).
Disagree with their whole premise. The way we fix the problem of addictive foods is to cut them out completely. As for convenience, you can make healthy food fast and convenient. Just that almost nobody does it because they make more sales and profits on addictive type foods. Currently the people who want to eat as healthy as me are a small fraction of a percent, since vegan in AU is 0.5% and I'm in a subset of that being WFPO and SOS free.
CKinnard wrote:If govt want to regulate unhealthy food out of society, they would have to ban lollies, chocolate, biscuits, cake, refined flour products, processed meats, etc, etc. These things are occasional treats for some, but compulsive regular binges for others. Further, they are not unhealthy until a certain threshold of intake is transgessed. Why should treat foods be banned, if they are only a problem for the uneducated or impulsive, in which case the source issue may be a mental illness?
They don't have to ban them. But they should label them better for the addictive problem foods that they are. They should have warning labels about the possible long term health effects, like cigarettes do. The government should be harder on manufacturers with levels of components in foods that are well known to cause harm like certain fats (trans in particular), sugars, salt, highly processed components, artificial sweeteners, artificial products, MSG, etc, etc.
Yes, it's up to the individual to decide. But why allow health harming processed and addictive foods to be worse than necessary.
CKinnard wrote:If government are concerned about things that damage our health, then they must also regulate as vigorously poor town planning (lack of green and recreational space for physical activity), house price inflation and the need for households to have two full incomes (this is a primary factor in reduced home cooking), poor public transport and congested roads (robs people of time for physical activity and home cooking time), hours worked per week, interest rates (higher mortgages = stronger need to work longer hours), unemployment (which can lead to depression and emotional eating).
Yet another can of worms. There are a lot of countries (particularly in parts of Europe) that have far more responsible governments than in AU. To me it appears like the AU government(s) puts tax income, jobs growth and property price increase above the welfare of the people. So it's no surprise to see them allow food industries (and others) do the same.
CKinnard wrote:When we talk about responsibility for education, where does the parents' stop and govt start? The govt make public very reasonable Dietary Guidelines that at least 98% of Australians do not respect.
It should at least extend to good school dietary education, school canteens and government controlled organisations.
CKinnard wrote:Libertarians would argue that individual has ultimate sovereign agency over their lives, followed by family. Therefore it is the responsibility of each individual (and parent) to prioritize what is most important to them, and select from the market what they want. Food manufacturers would argue the same thing. They don't want to not make a profit, so they only make stuff people will buy, ergo the consumer drives what is on the shelves and in fast food outlets.
But we both know that food industries have manipulated many things for generations to the point where marketing and deception have brain washed the majority (with the help of t he medical industry issuing excuses for bad health) to the point we're at now. It's and artificial environment caused from many factors. Attitudes need to change with individual responsibility for health or it's going to send the country broke. In addition to the huge amount of suffering that could have been avoided with a bit of education and a cultural change to individual personal health responsibility. If the government can slowly change our attitudes to drink driving and smoking, then they can try harder with diet and lifestyle too IMO.
CKinnard wrote:Government regulation is only necessary when individuals do not punish the free market (by not buying their unhealthy products).
Which is exactly where we're at.
CKinnard wrote:At the end of the day, any solution is going to require better parental education and discipline, because the govt cannot spoon feed a family 21 times a week!
As you know, this is where it all falls apart because parents often rely on schools to educate their kids. They are too busy with their careers, overtime and just getting the basic chores done to do anything that isn't absolutely necessary.
CKinnard wrote:So the question has to be asked, can government regulate what value system an individual has?
They already do this all the time. They define the laws that control conduct and if an individual acts outside them, they are punished. But I take your point that it would need to get much more intrusive and personal to have any significant effect. Maybe similar tactics to drink driving and smoking may work.

I a video recently which suggested that people are less obese in China because of the social stigma and Chinese people's attitude about being blunt with conveying judgement about it. Maybe our society is too PC for it's own good. We're all content pretending that no-one is fat to the point of being unhealthy and/or unattractive.
Actually there's a stigma with thin males in this country about being homosexual. I've been mocked for being a "poof" by the ignorant because of my weight. So apparently the only males that care about their weight in AU are homosexual. It happened again a couple of days ago. I'm standing beside the road waiting for the lights to change, when some loser yells out "poof" from a passing car. :roll:
Last edited by Nobody on Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:24 pm

What interests me is where my parents got their values from, especially in relation to food.
I think my mother got some home economics at school in the 1940s, but there also seemed to be more homogeneity amongst people in those days, such that just about every household had copies of cookbooks put out by the CWA and Women's Weekly. Plus most of us came from a Euro UK culture, and inherited those recipes.

As for other values, like not striking women, not punching a guy from behind, a strong work ethic, not lying, doing business on a handshake, I think that was very much underwritten by UK culture and Christian values.

Life seemed more simple back then because there was not so much 'diversity' in cultural norms. Everyone was being raised with the same values, which permeated schools and homes.

So although I accept there's a role for govt to regulate food, I think the real revolution has to be in family and individual values. We all need to have an honest look at what we value most, and filter out the time and energy sapping crap that weakens our resolve to achieve what is important.

Nevertheless, I do accept that the child of an obese mother has an extremely difficult road ahead to maintain healthy bodyweight. The science says obese mothers who eat high fat crap diets during pregnancy throw the fetus's endocrine system and food preferences out of whack. It's probably a greater burden than fetal alcohol syndrome.

On a related note, I've been reading the literature manically for the last few months re insights into the cause of autism spectrum disorders. There's a very strong link between autoimmmune diseases and gut disturbances and ASD. Further, CNS inflammation markers are always elevated in ASD. I know personally of around 15 cases of people who had their child develop acute neurodevelopmental symptoms within 36 hours of vaccinations. I know the science says there's no association between ASD and vaccinations, but I think there's a lot more to be discovered about this topic. Wouldn't it be an inconvenient truth if we find out bad diet and gut inflammation are the cause of ASDs. I wonder what the government's response to regulation of unhealthy food would be then! Will they follow the precedent of making vaccinations compulsory, by making healthy diet compulsory?!

RANT OFF. and time for shut eye.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:31 pm

CKinnard wrote:On a related note, I've been reading the literature manically for the last few months re insights into the cause of autism spectrum disorders...

Patt0
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:31 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:07 am

At the transition from home prepared food to pre-prepared supermarket food humans were innocent and gullible. Their credulity probably because of the ingrained Christian values.

Advertising depicted perfect people buying perfect food. WIth no information warning of the dangers, few would resist. My father, for his own reasons, was one of those that abstained from the new world ideal pushed by Coles etc. He was cast in the mould of Grug Crood. It wasnt till old age that he ventured past Flemington markets and the delicatessen for food. It was with a friends, family at the age of 13, that I was introduced to mcdonalds. Incidentally it was a large family, if you know what I mean.

Suffering from health issues in my late teens, I sought reasons why. I put two and two together and never looked back and never suffered again.

My wonderful wife is Thai. She came to Australia to study, earned her second degree and now works very hard so we are able to vacate frequently to Thailand. Thailand is interesting in regards to the current topic. She comes from a professional middle class family and none of her extended family cook except for a few that are or were in the business of selling food. You cannot go anywhere in thailand for more than a few hundred metres without coming across a food vendor of some description.You are spoiled rotten for choice. Good wholesome foods to some not so wholesome. The cheapest is usually the most nutritious. I could go on and on with anecdotes but I wont. I want to make two points.

First, Thailand is undergoing a similar transition Australia went through in 60-80s. The expansion of supermarkets and western style fast food, all complete with seductive advertising. As you can imagine, corporate profits are not the only thing expanding.

Want to go do some gardening in the vege patch so number two will come tomorrow.
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:39 am

Patt, whenever a culture starts adopting Western fast food habits, there's a mix of motivations - to emulate the 'wealthier' lifestyle of the west, because people are more time pressed and don't have the time for traditional home cooking, because family units have become smaller so shared home cooked meals are fewer. Another reason is that time poorness is a form of stress, and stress can increase craving for the wrong foods - sugar, salt, fat, refined starch. I am thinking the masses will struggle to eat healthy again until they lead a less stressful and time poor lifestyle.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:50 am

thanks.
the gut asd association has been around for over 5 years, but I've never read of fecal transplants being tried.
interestingly, the lead researcher said gut disturbances are only coexistent with asd in 1/3 of cases.
That's a very low rate cf other studies I've read (70%), so google scholared and got this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359272/

I think it is highly plausible that gut disturbances with asd may be more driven by neural dysregulation of the gut, rather than the gut primarily driving asd. Anxiety and stress states are well known to upset gut function.
At this point, I think the most universal and upstream observation re asd, is that CNS inflammatory markers are elevated.
This raises questions about the patency of the blood brain barrier and chronic viral or bacterial infection, or an autoimmune state against CNS tissue.

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 Mar 04, 2017 1:48 pm

Interesting conversation. What is feasible in the short term is Govt paid marketing to encourage better nutritional choices. If you look at the history of the smoking they had adverts that implied it was healthy as Doctors smoked them, adverts targeted at children etc https://youtu.be/E8sT6ZA6gqY. From that time there have been steady little steps to wind back the tobacco industry. This is perhaps the same approach that needs to be done with food to encourage healthier choices - little regular steps
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 Mar 04, 2017 2:30 pm

Yes Mike, I think any big govt initiative that is going to challenge or restrict free choice has to be the proverbial boiling of the frog.

The 5 and 2 campaign has been quite effective in my view. Many kids and Mums I have queried at least know about it.

But I think there is sooo much more that science knows that could be utilized for positive role models and powerful persuasion. I think many people do not realize where their inappropriate cravings come from, and how they can be like a drug addiction. And they don't have clear strategies on how to kick those cravings. I also think the AIS, footy, MMA, weightlifting, swimming, and pro cycling teams could have higher public profiles and clearer guidelines on what they eat in a typical week. There's so much interest in this stuff but little actionable palatable info! I am often stunned at how many young people just don't know how to put together a simple home cooked meal. No idea of portions or how to make potato mash or cook a piece of meat properly. It's also sad to see athletic attractive adolescents blow out in their late teens and twenties primarily because they don't know what to eat, let alone the late nights and sedentary days!

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 Mar 05, 2017 9:07 am

Passing thought while on the topic of Govt regulation. What about a Kj tax? It would encourage to providers to reduce the Kj's in their products so to increase their profits
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 Mar 05, 2017 10:57 am

mikesbytes wrote:What about a Kj tax? It would encourage to providers to reduce the Kj's in their products so to increase their profits
Are you suggesting a kJ tax per meal, or per 100g? I think per 100g would be better. If per 100g, then it's effectively a kJ density tax. Although it should help people lose weight, some whole foods may get caught like nuts, seeds and avocados. Or are you only talking about a processed and fast food only tax?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:05 pm

A potential negative of a kJ tax would be some people may be disinclined to exercise because then they'd have to eat more!

As far as govt strategy goes, I favor carrots rather than sticks.
In my life time, the govt has never ever made a free easy to understand actionable guide to weight loss and maintenance. So, the consumer is left to the vagaries of the free market and its snake oil and confounding of the science.

What I've got in mind is a gov.au website that is the most scientifically up to date BMR and energy expenditure calculator. That would educate people about how many Calories they burn a day. From that, they could be given an appropriate weight loss weekly eating plan that accommodates all their food preferences (cultural, etc). This is all 95% of the population needs. It could be introduced in schools. I've mentioned this concept on BNA before. I've got the algorithms to do it, and did talk to the Fed govt around 2006 about it, but they had misgivings on whether it infringed on the dietitian profession. My counter argument was that the diet and health industry attracts $7 billion a year in Australia outside the health professions, and is mostly unsuccessful in attaining long term health goals. I could go on but.....

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:02 pm

CKinnard wrote:A potential negative of a kJ tax would be some people may be disinclined to exercise because then they'd have to eat more!
Not a problem for by far the majority of the population, since they don't do much, if any exercise anyway. Plus diet is more important for people's health than exercise to avoid chronic illnesses.
CKinnard wrote:As far as govt strategy goes, I favor carrots rather than sticks.
In my life time, the govt has never ever made a free easy to understand actionable guide to weight loss and maintenance. So, the consumer is left to the vagaries of the free market and its snake oil and confounding of the science.
Agree. Food industry influence might have something to do with that.

A cleaner at work wanted some more advice of how to lose the substantial gut he has. So I printed out what has been written in this thread and handed it to him. However I don't think I'll see much in the way of results, as I don't think he has the commitment to make it work. "You can lead a horse to water..."
CKinnard wrote:What I've got in mind is a gov.au website that is the most scientifically up to date BMR and energy expenditure calculator. That would educate people about how many Calories they burn a day. From that, they could be given an appropriate weight loss weekly eating plan that accommodates all their food preferences (cultural, etc). This is all 95% of the population needs. It could be introduced in schools. I've mentioned this concept on BNA before. I've got the algorithms to do it, and did talk to the Fed govt around 2006 about it, but they had misgivings on whether it infringed on the dietitian profession. My counter argument was that the diet and health industry attracts $7 billion a year in Australia outside the health professions, and is mostly unsuccessful in attaining long term health goals. I could go on but.....
So let people keep suffering and living shorter lives because it might tread on some dietitian's toes? :roll:

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:29 pm

Dr Jason Fung is a renal specialist with an interest in reversing diabetes t2 with fasting and low carb very low Cal diet.

He raises some good inductive reasoning as to what reverses diabetes below. I infer from his reasoning he doesn't believe it is intramyocellular lipid reduction. I don't necessarily agree with all of what he says, but it stimulated me to read more. i.e. One can reverse diabetes T2 by both LCHF and HCLF diets. The shared factor is a Calorie deficit which reduces carbs on both diets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcLoaVNQ3rc&t=1160s

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:56 pm

Interesting, thanks for posting.

I've only watched a small amount so far, but it reminded me or something McDougall recently said in his most recent diabetes video. He has a belief that T2D is a protection mechanism to inhibit you getting too fat. Jason Fungs' explanation so far appears to agree with this.

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 Mar 05, 2017 10:19 pm

CK with the BMR proposal to the Govt, are you thinking of something like this? http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/bmr_calculator.htm

Nobody I'm thinking of the Kj tax as a simple step to encourage food manufacturers to make some improvements to their offerings. As mentioned before we need to start simple and then make small progressive steps so I'd go for simply Kj's in the offering. I agree that it works a little counter against what one may call 'good calories', which is calories that have associated benefits with them, the avacoda being an example. I don't see it being enough cost to prevent people from purchasing food and therefor impacting the desire to burn energy, I see it more so as targeting the fast food industry as it will eat into their profits and therefor they will produce lower Kj meals to improve their profits.

In regards to Type II, from my exposure to people who have it the prime issue is obesity so the main objective is weight loss and as CK as mentioned in the Diet type A vs Diet type B the main issue is calorie deflect.
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 Mar 05, 2017 11:13 pm

Nobody, the most interesting thing from that vid is that insulin levels correct significantly immediately after gastric band or bariatric surgery, before significant weight loss starts. If one is still carrying very high levels of intramyocellular lipid, but gets a significant drop in insulin after surgery, then it is unlikely lipid levels are driving insulin levels. I haven't looked deeply into post surgery studies, but presume there is a fasting period after surgery, followed by liquid meals limited to very low Calorie intake. This fasting type protocol could lead to lower insulin levels alone. So I need to clarify what's going on here. I don't trust Dr. Fung's impartiality so don't take anything he says for granted. I looked at his stuff years ago and I felt he was presenting only one side of the story. Nevertheless, sometimes I think McDougall et al do the same! :)

Mike, BMR calculators are dependent on best fit linear regression equations derived from studies that test a lot of individuals with direct and indirect calorimetry and take vital stats. Most online and app BMR software use 1 of 3 equations. The three of them are outdated and are not a best fit for specific races i.e. Chinese, Negroid (scientific definition), and Pacific Islanders have very different body types and their best fit equations are different. Further, no one equation is a best fit for all age groups. My calculator is a composite of multiple equations, and the right ones are selected dependent on the sub population of the subject whose vital stats are entered. No other commercial software exists to do this, and I've seen pretty much everything available in sports physiology and dietetics. BMR can also be significantly effected by metabolic disturbances like hypothyroidism and whether one is dieting or fasting. I can accommodate this if a client measures their basal body temperature for at least a week. All of the above stuff reduces to a few variables on a web page that users select. It isn't as complicated as it seems. The intellectual effort has been in reading and interpreting the literature then building composite equations that are weighted to minimize variance.

But BMR is only one component. I also use a more accurate way of calculating TEA (thermic effect of activity). Most calculators just use a 4 or 5 level activity categorization from sedentary upwards. It is very inaccurate and useless for elite and pro endurance athletes who do 20+ hours of training a week.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:04 pm

It's been a while since I looked at the US Dietary Guidelines carefully.
the latest is a big doc at 120 pages.

They've included a helpful chart that is 'actionable' though I haven't analysed the details yet.
Below I've attached the vegetarian chart.
The USDA have included a similar chart in previous guidelines over the decades, sporadically. They seem to bring it in, then drop it, and repeat. which kind of confirms there's only so many ways to present diet info, and that whoever is running the show feels they have to keep changing things to justify they've made their mark. After all, who is going to think a bunch of managers from the USDA have earned their 6 figure salaries if they say, "nope, we don't need to make any changes to the guidelines this year. use last years'".



Image

Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:24 pm

OK, I've just had a closer look at the chart above.
and what a dog's breakfast. This is what happens when a govt committee designs something.
they could not have obfuscated what is a pretty simple thing more if they'd tried.

1. The columns are titled Daily Amount of Food
BUT then a proviso is included for SOME of the sub groups that the columns represent Weekly Amount of Food.

2. Legumes recommendation is split between vegetables and protein so you have to add both to know the total.

3. Measures heading each column and row are Cup equivalents and 3.5oz equivalents.
To my mind this is redundant obfuscating repetition. Just use Cups and oz, and make a footnote indicating "or equivalents".

4. Proteins units are oz equivalents.
Oil units are grams.
What!? Mixing metric and US Imperial for a US audience?

5. OK, now where the US guidelines deviate from the science most alarmingly is in their recommended daily intake of vegetables. The science says take a minimum of 5 cups a day. The US guidelines say 2.5 cups a day for a 2000 Cal diet. And that's for a vegetarian diet! Amazing!!! I'd love to work out the grams of protein in the 2000 Cal diet but .....

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 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:59 pm

Grams as a measurement seems to have been adopted in the US. The smallest imperial measurement of weight that is commonly known is the ounce and there's something like 28gms to the ounce, so grams are giving a unit without having to go to fractions of ounces.

From what you are saying about the US nutritional guidelines it seems that they have failed to make it sufficiently simple to be understood by the majority of the population
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:11 pm

Image

Was going to put this in the plant-based thread but thought they mightn't see the funny side.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users