Diet Thread

[big booty]

Here is an interesting thought to ponder. Which macro nutrient is not essential for life? Protein, fat or carbohydrate? Don't confuse this with micro nutrients, just interested in the macro nutrient. Which one can we do without?

[Baalzamon]

Here is an interesting thought to ponder. Which macro nutrient is not essential for life? Protein, fat or carbohydrate? Don't confuse this with micro nutrients, just interested in the macro nutrient. Which one can we do without?

Carbohydrates
There is no essential carbohydrate. There are essential fats and amino acids.

[warthog1]

Might be of interest. I only skimmed it thus far. Too busy to have a good look.

http://theconversation.com/healthy-guts ... 0they%20do

[CKinnard]

Here is an interesting thought to ponder. Which macro nutrient is not essential for life? Protein, fat or carbohydrate? Don't confuse this with micro nutrients, just interested in the macro nutrient. Which one can we do without?

The more interesting thought to ponder is which part of an animal is essential consumption for (human) life?

I will keep reiterating that all most of us have to do is look at the evidence for what the longest living eat (and how they live), and emulate it as best as possible.

[big booty]

SBS iview has a very interesting doco on gut flora. Well worth watching. Essentially by eating refined carbs what you end up doing is starving the lower intestine gut flora. Not good.

[big booty]

Here is an interesting thought to ponder. Which macro nutrient is not essential for life? Protein, fat or carbohydrate? Don't confuse this with micro nutrients, just interested in the macro nutrient. Which one can we do without?

The more interesting thought to ponder is which part of an animal is essential consumption for (human) life?

I will keep reiterating that all most of us have to do is look at the evidence for what the longest living eat (and how they live), and emulate it as best as possible.

CK, I know you've put forward the Okinawans with regards to longevity on more than one occasion (although the longevity advantage they once had is now no longer the case due to the adoption of western influences). Don't they eat fish and pork as part of their diet? Lots of green veggies, not so much rice and grains. Maybe Ive been following an Okinawan diet without realising it? I don't eat a lot of pork though (or any red meat for that matter) but I do like fish and lots of cruciferous veggies.

[march83]

When the Okinawans were at the peak of their measured longjevity they ate less fish than their mainland japanese contemporaries.

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

The dietary intake of Okinawans compared to other Japanese circa 1950 shows that Okinawans consumed: fewer total calories (1785 vs. 2068), less polyunsaturated fat (4.8% of calories vs. 8%), less rice (154g vs. 328g), significantly less wheat, barley and other grains (38g vs. 153g), less sugars (3g vs. 8g), more legumes (71g vs. 55g), significantly less fish (15g vs. 62g), significantly less meat and poultry (3g vs. 11g), less eggs (1g vs. 7g), less dairy (<1g vs. 8g), much more sweet potatoes (849g vs. 66g), less other potatoes (2g vs. 47g), less fruit (<1g vs. 44g), and no pickled vegetables (0g vs. 42g). [4] In short, the Okinawans circa 1950 ate sweet potatoes for 849 grams of the 1262 grams of food that they consumed, which constituted 69% of their total calories.[4]

69% of their daily calories from sweet potatoes. This is maybe a little trite, but I think I would be tempted to trade a few days of my life at the bitter end to not have to eat almost a kg of sweet potatoes every single day...

[big booty]

Sweet potatoes are the only potatoes I eat and its not that often. The other potato varieties I would touch with a ten foot pole. I suspect that a lot of their dietary intake was governed by circumstance rather than active choice. Hardly any fruit? 1785 Cal, they must be a tiny race of people. Whats their average weight? Would love to know how they would score on the CSIRO well being dietary questionnaire. probably as badly as I scored.

[big booty]

Just watched a clip with Gary Fettke talking about food and inflammation. Apparently in a "normal" person about 3% of the glucose you intake gets converted to fructose. Im assuming there is further processing and the fructose is eventually converted to fats and stored? In an unhealthy person the conversion is 30%. Any bio chemists out there? Why is the body doing this or is it an unfortunate side reaction that shouldn't be happening but is?

[CKinnard]

Here is an interesting thought to ponder. Which macro nutrient is not essential for life? Protein, fat or carbohydrate? Don't confuse this with micro nutrients, just interested in the macro nutrient. Which one can we do without?

The more interesting thought to ponder is which part of an animal is essential consumption for (human) life?

I will keep reiterating that all most of us have to do is look at the evidence for what the longest living eat (and how they live), and emulate it as best as possible.

CK, I know you've put forward the Okinawans with regards to longevity on more than one occasion (although the longevity advantage they once had is now no longer the case due to the adoption of western influences). Don't they eat fish and pork as part of their diet? Lots of green veggies, not so much rice and grains. Maybe Ive been following an Okinawan diet without realising it? I don't eat a lot of pork though (or any red meat for that matter) but I do like fish and lots of cruciferous veggies.

yep the okinawans eat a little animal produce, as do all Blue Zone populations. Even the seventh day adventist vegan population category allows for small amounts of animal produce. Keep in mind, the SDAs are the only culture living in an advanced industrial environment. i.e. they don't work 40 hours a week repeating the same tasks under the thumb of some a-hole 44 weeks a year, year in year out.

As I've said before, there's no long term (intergenerational) studies showing an absolute advantage to eating vegan, or 100% plant based whole food. The benefits of 100% PB are deduced from reductionist studies. That's why I cannot promote the health advantages of 100% plant based whole food eating carte blanche professionally. I've got to represent the science as it is, and currently the advantage rests with eating small amounts of animal produce, and getting on with sorting out all the other elements of a healthy lifestyle like relationships, life meaning, etc. i.e. the elements that we 21st century highly educated prefer to sweep under the carpet and ignore.

Regarding the stance of True North Health re water fasting and 100% PBWF SOS, I think they are doing important research. However, many of the benefits of water fasting can be achieved more gently on the body and mind via vege juice fasting. Indeed, most chronically ill people who go there are not allowed to do a water fast. This doesn't represent a change in my view from a few months ago. Just a refining of how to present it professionally in clinic. I have to be obviously very careful I am not letting my bias creep into my advice....unlike most of the medical profession!!!

[march83]

So I'm in the middle of dropping back down to climbing weight for the audax alpine classic next year. Everything's going really well. Only a few more kg to go til I get where I want to be. Anyway, I'm already eating very "clean" but in the quest to cut a few more calories I've recently started eliminating added fat from my diet - no butter, no cooking oils, no nuts or nut butters.

To people who eat very low fat, at what point do the cravings for fat and fatty foods stop and is there anything I can do to help the process along? Like I could literally eat a stick of butter and chase it with a jar of peanut butter at this point...

[CKinnard]

So I'm in the middle of dropping back down to climbing weight for the audax alpine classic next year. Everything's going really well. Only a few more kg to go til I get where I want to be. Anyway, I'm already eating very "clean" but in the quest to cut a few more calories I've recently started eliminating added fat from my diet - no butter, no cooking oils, no nuts or nut butters.

To people who eat very low fat, at what point do the cravings for fat and fatty foods stop and is there anything I can do to help the process along? Like I could literally eat a stick of butter and chase it with a jar of peanut butter at this point...

You will get excessive cravings if you have too few Calories of any sort, let alone fat.
What's too few Calories? In generalist terms, whatever creates >1000 Calorie per day deficit.

[Parker]

So I'm in the middle of dropping back down to climbing weight for the audax alpine classic next year. Everything's going really well. Only a few more kg to go til I get where I want to be. Anyway, I'm already eating very "clean" but in the quest to cut a few more calories I've recently started eliminating added fat from my diet - no butter, no cooking oils, no nuts or nut butters.

To people who eat very low fat, at what point do the cravings for fat and fatty foods stop and is there anything I can do to help the process along? Like I could literally eat a stick of butter and chase it with a jar of peanut butter at this point...

You will get excessive cravings if you have too few Calories of any sort, let alone fat.
What's too few Calories? In generalist terms, whatever creates >1000 Calorie per day deficit.

Anytime you remove or restrict a specific food you will crave it, that's just psychology.

[big booty]

So I'm in the middle of dropping back down to climbing weight for the audax alpine classic next year. Everything's going really well. Only a few more kg to go til I get where I want to be. Anyway, I'm already eating very "clean" but in the quest to cut a few more calories I've recently started eliminating added fat from my diet - no butter, no cooking oils, no nuts or nut butters.

To people who eat very low fat, at what point do the cravings for fat and fatty foods stop and is there anything I can do to help the process along? Like I could literally eat a stick of butter and chase it with a jar of peanut butter at this point...

Exactly how much are you eating now? Id be dropping the carbs and maintaining protein and fat if your goal is weight loss. Fats satiate you a lot better and longer than carbs. 1000 cal or fat/carb will make you feel "fuller" for longer compared to 1000 cal of carbs.

[CKinnard]

Fats satiate you a lot better and longer than carbs. 1000 cal or fat/carb will make you feel "fuller" for longer compared to 1000 cal of carbs.

The professional view is cravings are most settled by eating more fibrous carbs (vegetables, especially raw as salads), in addition to regular adequate water intake. This keeps a lower steady stream of energy crossing the small intestinal lumen without spiking insulin or blood glucose. The fibrous carbs slow the absorption of complex carbs more so than fat. Water helps to keep interstitial fluid level optimized which helps deliver nutrients to working tissue.

The two dietary points dieters don't get right is consistent water intake and high fibrous carb intake. Both of these are key to taking in adequate nutrient load and moving into dietary ketosis.

It is also important to manage stress levels, so cortisol and glucagon are not knocking insulin around, and causing sugar cravings. And early nights are important for that.

[big booty]

May be I should have been more specific and stated processed carbs. Namely my pet hate, any processed grain based carb; bread pasta pizza rice and starchy veggies like potatoes. Raw cruciferous veggies not a problem, top it off with a nice cheese and you wont be hungry for ages.

CK, how does stress impact on glucagon? I would have though that you'd want insulin low and glucagon levels high to get into fat burning mode?

Ghrelin is in part a "learnt" response. So like CK says drink lots, especially at meal times in lieu of actually having a meal. Works for me when I'm fasting. I drink like a drowning man on my fast days.

[Nobody]

So I'm in the middle of dropping back down to climbing weight for the audax alpine classic next year. Everything's going really well. Only a few more kg to go til I get where I want to be. Anyway, I'm already eating very "clean" but in the quest to cut a few more calories I've recently started eliminating added fat from my diet - no butter, no cooking oils, no nuts or nut butters.

Since you only want to lose "a few more kg" (3 kg? 27000 Cal) by next year (about 79 days) you need to pull about 340 calories out of your diet. You may have pulled out more calories than you realise, since fat is 9 Cal/g. Tracking calories daily is beneficial if you want to get more skilled at the weight loss game. Since the nuts haven't been proven to have a negative health detriment, try keeping them in. Also you need a minimum of PU essential fats according to the WHO, which nuts would help with.

To people who eat very low fat, at what point do the cravings for fat and fatty foods stop and is there anything I can do to help the process along?

3 weeks should help. Your microbiome is going to be in a state of change. Adding more calories from other sources may help with cravings during the first few weeks. According to Joan Ifland in the video posted previously in this thread, fat is one of the addictive foods. So cravings from ditching fatty foods "cold turkey" style is going to be normal.

[big booty]

Interesting concept nobody. Something which is essential for life is addictive.

[big booty]

In the interests of balance here is Prof Tim Noakes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5-9ZxamXc

[CKinnard]

Christ! Tim Noakes is hardly impartial!!!
He's essentially the spokesman for LCHF.

BB, have a look at Greger's video on what fat does to the kidneys.
Unfortunately, you cannot rely on LCHF reductionist advocates to consider the bigger nutritional and health sphere.
Reductionism is not something you want to stake your life and health on.

[Parker]

Christ! Tim Noakes is hardly impartial!!!
He's essentially the spokesman for LCHF.

He was also once the spokesman for HCLF... he changed his mind with extensive scientific research.

[CKinnard]

Christ! Tim Noakes is hardly impartial!!!
He's essentially the spokesman for LCHF.

He was also once the spokesman for HCLF... he changed his mind with extensive scientific research.

He changed his mind after personal experience of LCHF helping him reverse weight gain due to a poor diet.

He ignores mountains of evidence that contradict his new anecdote based belief system, which is LCHF = good, HCLF = bad.

[big booty]

Christ! Tim Noakes is hardly impartial!!!
He's essentially the spokesman for LCHF.

BB, have a look at Greger's video on what fat does to the kidneys.
Unfortunately, you cannot rely on LCHF reductionist advocates to consider the bigger nutritional and health sphere.
Reductionism is not something you want to stake your life and health on.

Im confused, why don't you classify Greger as a reductionist? No meat, fish, cheese, milk etc. Im sorry but he comes across as a zealot. I suppose you could argue that Tim is one too, least he doesn't come across as a creepy zealot. Are you old enough to remember the Irish comedian Dave Allan? The sketch where there are two opposing armies about to go into battle. Both are preying to God and both are convinced they will be victorious because THEY are righteous. Then the camera pans to God who shrugs his shoulders and flips a coin to see who will win. Am I the only one that sees the parallel?

Just as well I didn't post anything by Steve Phinney. I don't think I am a reductionist. I think I eat quite a wide range of foods, apart from processed grain based foods. And Im happy to listen to both sides and pick out what works for me and throw out the rest. I must sit down one day with a calculator and actually work out where I set on the LCHF HCLF spectrum with regards my diet.

My biochemistry is minimal. You did the reduced caloric intake at True North (I wont call it a fast) for weeks. The balance of that must have been met by endogenous fat but that's no problem for your kidney? Exogenous fat as long as its from plants is OK but from animals it isn't? Is that the take home message?

[CKinnard]

bb, regarding your original question about which macronutrient is essential, the dietitians association of australia says saturated fats are not.
http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart- ... ated-fats/
"Saturated fats are often referred to as ‘bad fats’ – they are not considered essential for good health, and have been linked with an increased risk of heart disease and total cholesterol levels in the body."

other links to clarify the fat story.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h ... d-and-good
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLi ... _-luiQ_bDc
https://heartfoundation.org.au/healthy- ... -trans-fat
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/th ... art-hazard
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... 45550?pg=2

Noakes and Greger are zealots, but Greger does a better job of interpreting the broader literature.
Noakes actively ignores the bulk of the literature such as supports the above links.
Keep in mind Noakes' dietary interest is not in what gives superior longevity and lower overall morbidity, but in what reduces bodyfat percentage in people who have already gained weight. But he doesn't promote his belief as that, but as the universal superior diet for all reasons.

[big booty]

From my layperson understanding cholesterol and fat are not problems per se'. If they are in high concentrations AND you have a high level of inflammation then you're in trouble. The "cargo" is then being delivered to the wrong "port". Agreed that there is a correlation but this is not the same as cause and effect. Solar flare activity has been increasing, obesity has been increasing, they are positively correlated, but can you then say solar flare activity causes obesity?

Following any zealot is a no win situation. It has to be. Once again Im reminded of Dave Allan. I feel that your more moderate approach of looking at different ethnic groups and what they eat is probably the "safest" route but even then its not the complete answer. Overall life style, emotional state, environment, genetic predisposition etc all contribute to the end result. I get the sense that you are torn between no animal products but then many of the real world context examples you give are of ethnic groups that do eat some meat products. You've dissed the Inuit diet (and Im not advocating it by any means) but Im suspecting that given their environment and lifestyle and genetics etc. whether or not it is the "best" diet for their circumstance? Lets pretend that they were all vegans and had access to the same caloric valued foods at the same irregular time intervals as their current diet. To my way of thinking I don't think they would have survived, at all. I think their longevity would have plummeted. So all this zealot thinking is a serious waste of time.