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 Sep 23, 2016 12:34 pm

Nobody wrote:You can see from about 03:30 onward in the video below that animal products can double insulin response in the presence of carbs.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-whit ... out-china/
Is that one of the reasons for not having carbs that the Paleo diet promotes?
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 Sep 23, 2016 5:16 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Is that one of the reasons for not having carbs that the Paleo diet promotes?
My limited understanding of paleo and grains is that grains are a product of farming and so not allowed. As CK says, paleo is a diet style based only on a theory.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:03 pm

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/76 ... ugar-crash

Laughably single faceted. What about meat, dairy, vegetable oils/fats, salt and highly processed grains? I'm not a fan of sugar and generally eat none, but the producers could have painted a more complete picture. It seems to be fashionable of late to throw sugar under a bus, but there is a whole lot more to a good diet that just ditching sugar. Also Lustig isn't looking any healthier for all his avoidance of sugar. The positive take away from this video is people can learn to use sugar as a marker for processed foods. The comments about more (highly) processed foods arriving about 30 years ago (48:34) causing people to gain weight from there I agree with. But processed foods have more than one detrimental ingredient.

While I was watching, a McDonalds advert came on which I thought was ironic. Ditch sugar, brought to you by McDonalds. :roll:
Reminds me of that Super Size Me documentary. I believe if Spurlock kept his sugars to a minimum in Super Size Me, he still could have done some serious damage to his health, given enough time.

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 Sep 23, 2016 9:45 pm

The thing is that even base productions aren't original. Farmed animal products are quite different to what was around prior to civilisation and plant products, for example wheat have been evolved to the point where people have problems with them, such as gluten probs. In the meantime our genetics are pretty much the same as they were pre-civilisation.

We need to be smart about using the products available to us and not take them at face value based on historical consumption, cos its simply not the same product
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 Sep 23, 2016 10:17 pm

mikesbytes wrote:We need to be smart about using the products available to us and not take them at face value based on historical consumption, cos its simply not the same product
I agree. That is one reason why I don't get involved in any debate about the historical significance of a diet etc. Like you say, what matters is here and now with whatever genetics an individual has and whatever foods that are easily available. Working the known observational nutritional science into those factors and a person can work towards formulating their ideal diet.
My diet changes often as I try new things and I think I've made some progress recently. Time will tell.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:52 pm

Video on processed food addiction.



Wow. Learnt a lot from that video. It sure explains some behaviors. Some statements were surprising like about two thirds of the US population are food addicts, similar to the peak of smoking addiction and that fasting creates more cravings in the future.

I'll list some of her points below for those who don't want to view the video:
  1. Sugar and flour are like crystallised or powered alcohol.
    Reinforced by advertising, cheap prices and a lot of availablitity.
  2. The bread we know today is very processed. Far from traditional bread.
  3. Categories of addictive foods:
    - Sugar opens a dopamine pathway.
    - Grain flours enter the blood stream too fast and create signaling destabilization problems.
    - Gluten in bread opens an opiate pathway.
    - Processed fats activate same pathway as Cannabis.
    - Excessive salt opens the opiate pathways.
    - Caffeine blocks the nervous system.
    - Dairy has a naturally occurring morphine in it.
    Fast food is is a combination of the above.
  4. Food addiction has been proven to be real by the definition of addiction.
  5. Food addicts should avoid addictive food for life.
  6. Food addiction is a type of cognitive impairment or brain damage, but reversible.
  7. Emotional eating and cravings are actually food addiction.
  8. Processed food processing is similar to recreational drug processing.
Last edited by Nobody on Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:50 pm, edited 5 times in total.

big booty
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:39 am

I did try and suggest grains weren't good for you. Something only to be had in very limited quantities.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:06 am

big booty wrote:I did try and suggest grains weren't good for you.
Try to see the difference between processed and unprocessed. The level of processing matters. The above video is about processed foods.

big booty
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:15 am

Just when you think there was nothing left to patent Joan Ifland proves me wrong.

Methods and devices for maintaining a diet free from refined foods
US20090070139 A1

Apparently if you place unrefined foods into special colour coded plastic compartments it will help you rid yourself of food addiction. And low and behold Joan happens to have these special colour coded plastic containers for sale AND she will fill them with special selected foods. A fool and his money are soon parted.

Not saying what she is proposing is incorrect regards foods, the patent has me worried though. Just another WW, sliming world etc concept.
Last edited by big booty on Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

big booty
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:38 am

Nobody wrote:
big booty wrote:I did try and suggest grains weren't good for you.
Try to see the difference between processed and unprocessed. The level of processing matters. The above video is about processed foods.
I can appreciate the difference. I just choose not to incorporate them into my diet just like you choose to exclude certain foods from your diet.

I think your strict regimen is pretty atypical (take that as a compliment!). The vast majority of people that eat grains eat ones that are highly processed. Typically the fibre content is removed in the manufacturing process when flours are made as it plays havoc with the processing equipment further down the process chain. To get extra star ratings (and what a joke that system is) the fibre that was removed for ease of manufacture is now reintroduced in the final stages of manufacture. Yes technically a slice of bread has XX% of fibre added to it so that it can achieve a given star rating but is almost meaningless. The fibre is no longer locking up the carbs. The "complex" carbs have already been broken down into maltose before you've even had a chance to swallow that piece of bread.

If youre making your own "bread" as per Joan's take on the bible all well and good. I doubt most would go to that sort of trouble.

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 Sep 24, 2016 2:47 pm

big booty wrote:I did try and suggest grains weren't good for you. Something only to be had in very limited quantities.
Nobody wrote:
big booty wrote:I did try and suggest grains weren't good for you.
Try to see the difference between processed and unprocessed. The level of processing matters. The above video is about processed foods.
For many eating unprocessed grains will naturally limit the quantity eaten

Its also kinda like the saying "good calories" vs "bad calories" , which is implying the quality of food eaten with the calorie
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

big booty
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:50 pm

Has anyone done the CSIRO healthy diet survey? I think the algorithm is seriously flawed. I entered in the maximum serving of every "healthy" food possible. I would probably weigh 400+ kgs if I actually tried to eat that amount of food. To my surprise I scored 90/100. 14 servings of grains per day, 14 servings of fruit, 14 servings cruciferous veggies 14 servings of starchy veggies, 14 servings of lean meat, 14 servings of pulses, 14 servings of water etc. This is per day mind you. I need to mindlessly eat my way to health.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:27 pm

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Health/ ... Diet-Score

I got 69. No surprise and actually higher than I expected. I wanted to see how low a diet which is designed to avoid chronic diseases rates. The average is 59, so not too bad.

An example is below. This is just one day (yesterday) so I averaged the more grain days with the more veg days (like yesterday).
Image

big booty
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:04 am

The thing that annoys me is that (apparently??) no one at CSIRO has tested the program to make sure it doesn't output numbers that are just nonsense. After putting down the maximum servings (14) and maximum serving types (5+) of every "healthy" option my report came back with 90/100 and "I needed to increase my dairy and fat intake". Perhaps if I had 20 servings of dairy and fat per day I could have gotten 100/100. If I ate all of those servings I would be a very healthy 200+ kg person. Simply crazy. Ive emailed CSIRO, will be interesting whether they get back to me. the auto reply said they would. We shall see.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:12 pm

I see Diabetes UK now has a Low Carb diet planner.

Aussiebullet
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:00 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Aussiebullet » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:44 pm

big booty wrote:The thing that annoys me is that (apparently??) no one at CSIRO has tested the program to make sure it doesn't output numbers that are just nonsense. After putting down the maximum servings (14) and maximum serving types (5+) of every "healthy" option my report came back with 90/100 and "I needed to increase my dairy and fat intake". Perhaps if I had 20 servings of dairy and fat per day I could have gotten 100/100. If I ate all of those servings I would be a very healthy 200+ kg person. Simply crazy. Ive emailed CSIRO, will be interesting whether they get back to me. the auto reply said they would. We shall see.

I just completed the survey with my regular daily/monthly foods & amounts and it gave me a score of 95/100.
I suspect the reason it was not higher is because of the alcohol! I included 2 bottles wine each month.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:51 pm

I'm going to revisit my previous post on the CSIRO diet score as I got an e-mail from them and looked again at my report.

For recommendations, it showed a full bar for dairy & alternatives, a full bar for whole grains and a 90% bar for meat or alternatives. What I get from that is they think I don't get enough calcium, protein and I'm not sure what whole grains are supposed to do for me that fruit & veg can't. Whole grains have been shown to increase longevity, but that's studying omnivores. So I think the longevity of more grains is about the more grains, the less animal products.

As can be seen by my spreadsheet above, I'm in the medium range for calcium intake for the WHO recommendation and also in range for the 2016 China Health and Nutritional Survey study which was specific for plant based diets and reducing fracture risk. Getting more calcium will only increase my heart attack risk and bone fracture risk. So their recommendation is a negative. Also reductionism is a bogus pursuit as well.

The "Focus on meat or vegetarian alternatives" 90% bar is also a negative recommendation as according to my spreadsheet I get well in excess of the WHO's 0.83g/kg of body weight for protein. Why I need to get more protein to acidify my blood and draw minerals from my body to combat it doesn't make sense. I've found even too much plant protein tends to add body fat for me. As for the specifics of "Focus on meat..", only if I want to add body fat and reduce my health (for various reasons).

I've previously addressed the more grains versus fruit and veg in this post, but eats lots of (especially processed) grains if you want to add weight. Not that grains are bad, they just are higher in calorie density.

The CSIRO Diet Score may improve the health of those who have poor diets to start with. Sadly, poor diet is almost ubiquitous in Australia, so they may do much good. But in doing so they are also adding their credibility to entrenching the false and reductionist diet mentality that the food industries push. If I followed their recommendations, my diet would only get worse. Time for me to unsubscribe.

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 Sep 29, 2016 2:20 pm

Aussiebullet wrote:
big booty wrote:The thing that annoys me is that (apparently??) no one at CSIRO has tested the program to make sure it doesn't output numbers that are just nonsense. After putting down the maximum servings (14) and maximum serving types (5+) of every "healthy" option my report came back with 90/100 and "I needed to increase my dairy and fat intake". Perhaps if I had 20 servings of dairy and fat per day I could have gotten 100/100. If I ate all of those servings I would be a very healthy 200+ kg person. Simply crazy. Ive emailed CSIRO, will be interesting whether they get back to me. the auto reply said they would. We shall see.

I just completed the survey with my regular daily/monthly foods & amounts and it gave me a score of 95/100.
I suspect the reason it was not higher is because of the alcohol! I included 2 bottles wine each month.
If we were perfect, we would be perfectly boring

It does sound like there's something that needs adjusting in the CSIRO diet software.

The other problem is that we all have differing views as to what constitutes a perfect diet and your view may be similar or different to the logic that has been built into the CSIRO diet software
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

big booty
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:57 pm

A work colleague knows Dr Manny, he was less than complimentary. Well three days have passed and they haven't responded to me email even after the auto generated response said they would get back to me within 3 days. Funny that.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:11 pm

Nobody wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:We need to be smart about using the products available to us and not take them at face value based on historical consumption, cos its simply not the same product
I agree. That is one reason why I don't get involved in any debate about the historical significance of a diet etc. Like you say, what matters is here and now with whatever genetics an individual has and whatever foods that are easily available. Working the known observational nutritional science into those factors and a person can work towards formulating their ideal diet.
My diet changes often as I try new things and I think I've made some progress recently. Time will tell.
I was looking at this and considering if it was worthwhile.

But... my youngest two are identical twins (useful, eh?), one is normal weight and one overweight. 'H' (normal weight) spent more time on intubation and has always had texture issues with food and isn't that interested in food, 'R' (overweight) has always enjoyed his food... but the main trigger for his weight was living with his grandparents for about three weeks, with Grandpa being lazy and doing the junk food options when they were out and about (which was a lot). So just because we have the genes, doesn't mean they are expressed.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:28 pm

Interesting about you kids. Like almost all of western society, I suspect at least some of the differences in your kids may be learned behavior. But I have heard that even identical twins can have some differences in gene expression. Barnard often writes/talks about some genes being committees rather than dictators and lifestyle factors like diet can turn genes on or off.

I recently saw a SBS program where genetic tester (scientist IIRC) tested a bunch of overweight people for the FTO gene which is responsible for people being an average of 3kg heavier and 75% more likely to be obese. But the show proved that once people knew they had the gene, they actively avoided more bad foods, indicating that it can be beaten.

Another BBC doctors program with Mosley on it explored testing microbiome and stated that different people are better off eating different things. Maybe genetic factors affect the microbiome, but it can be somewhat changed too.

Genetic testing is interesting and I may get it one day if I think they really know enough for the results to make a solid difference. But at the moment, knowing my more complete DNA profile won't change my resolve with diet. I know enough about my parents to know I'm a high risk of stroke and leukemia. Plus I have haemochromatosis from the genetic test. They all point to no change on my current diet path. For me it would be irresponsible to do anything else considering my income is the only one supporting the family.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:43 am

Regarding genes vs environs for nutrition, I think the majority of broadly read scientists accept environs is behind the Western civilization alarming rise in obesity rate, which is lent support when
- high rates of Asians and other races are not obese until they move to the US.
- the rise in US obesity since the 70s includes all races, but is not equal between races or socioeconomic group.

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 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:53 am

Most of have to make some sort of adaption to our diets due to our genetics. Many unwisely use genetics as an excuse for their problems rather than addressing the problems.

Family history is something we all should pay attention to, how many of us has said "I don't want to end up like my father" or the like. It would be interesting to hear from those who have family history whether the genetic testing confirmed that the family history problem had been handed down or there was some other surprise
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

big booty
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:29 pm

I have received a "preliminary" response from CSIRO regarding their well being diet. Apparently it does not take into account total calorific intake in formulating your score. So if 5 serves of a healthy food option is good then 10 serves is better and 14 serves is best. Seems a little simplistic to me. Apparently I can over eat my way to 200kg and be very healthy while doing it.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:19 pm

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/26 ... ive-longer

Interesting video which is dated as 2012. I'm surprised I haven't seen it before.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users