Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:36 am

march83 wrote:
CKinnard wrote: LGBTQIXYZ
You do yourself a disservice by saying things like this.
What's the latest iteration?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:09 am

mikesbytes wrote:Article doesn't explain the Danish Doctor's conclusion
Yes, the article doesn't explain Lund's conclusion well. But I think the following superficially covers it.
The problem is that poor food, which for example requires the addition of vitamin B12, can have serious consequences for children
Danish doctor warns: Vegan food may lead to mental retardation
One response could be:
Sorry, I can't reply to this because I'm too mentally retarded. :wink:
“Such a diet may involve developing different brain symptoms. With muscle weakness, poor contact and epilepsy. And in the long term mental retardation”, says chief physician Allan M. Lund to TV4.
Not that I agree with epilepsy as a symptom of deficiency on a vegan diet, but it sounds like he's referring to B12 deficiency, which is valid. A long term lack of DHA could also be a problem if omega 6:3 ratio isn't balanced, with no DHA supplement. More likely in older males. It just requires planning. So Lund is probably correct in the requirement to get (a plant based educated) dietitian's help. As much as we like to promote plant based eating for health in this thread, it does require more (self) education, planning and work than an omni diet to get/keep the overall health benefits long term. Like life in general, more benefit from more work.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:23 pm

Nobody wrote: As much as we like to promote plant based eating for health in this thread, it does require more (self) education, planning and work than an omni diet to get/keep the overall health benefits long term. Like life in general, more benefit from more work.
But where's the media's or good doctor's alarm and solution for:
- the 20% of Danish children who are overweight or obese
- Denmark's greatest killers - IHD, CVA, cancers?!
- Denmark's 7% rate of diabetes, which is doubling (per capita) every 10 years.

The unconscious effect the dill's in media and many hospitals have is to magnify the risk of the rare....and ignore the elephant in the room cos....... too hard and confirmation bias.

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 Dec 10, 2018 1:53 pm

CKinnard wrote:But where's the media's or good doctor's alarm and solution for:
- the 20% of Danish children who are overweight or obese
- Denmark's greatest killers - IHD, CVA, cancers?!
- Denmark's 7% rate of diabetes, which is doubling (per capita) every 10 years.
Yes something like this would of made it a more balanced article, perhaps the reporter should of asked these questions or perhaps they did and the editor trimmed the article

In regards to the vitamin B12 or any other deficiency in any diet, what are the views on giving supplements to children?
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 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:02 pm

CKinnard wrote:But where's the media's or good doctor's alarm and solution for:
- the 20% of Danish children who are overweight or obese
- Denmark's greatest killers - IHD, CVA, cancers?!
- Denmark's 7% rate of diabetes, which is doubling (per capita) every 10 years.
I would have thought the answer would be the same, as in to see a dietitian. Or be put on meds like statins with a 1.6% absolute benefit. But since the average dietitian hasn't been taught the real answer to the illnesses above, the results are going to be half baked.
CKinnard wrote:The unconscious effect the dill's in media and many hospitals have is to magnify the risk of the rare....and ignore the elephant in the room cos....... too hard and confirmation bias.
Good point. Discussion in this thread is typically about small minorities, so I missed that point. The elephant in the room also comes down to the acceptance that IHD, diabetes, cancer etc are often illnesses that a lot of people get later in life. So they become normalised. No news in yet another person having a heart attack, or getting cancer unless they are famous.
Last edited by Nobody on Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:07 pm

mikesbytes wrote:...or perhaps they did and the editor trimmed the article
It was a pretty short article. One of the shortest newspaper type articles I've ever read. It didn't need much trimming IMO.
mikesbytes wrote:In regards to the vitamin B12 or any other deficiency in any diet, what are the views on giving supplements to children?
Considering that supplements often increase cancer risk, I would only be giving kids what they absolutely need and nothing else.

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 Dec 10, 2018 5:22 pm

Nobody wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:...or perhaps they did and the editor trimmed the article
It was a pretty short article. One of the shortest newspaper type articles I've ever read. It didn't need much trimming IMO.
The shortness of the article is what gives me the impression it has been trimmed. When reporters write articles they write them in a way that they can be trimmed to size. Have a read of a long article in the newspaper one day and you will see how its got points where it can be cut off.
Nobody wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:In regards to the vitamin B12 or any other deficiency in any diet, what are the views on giving supplements to children?
Considering that supplements often increase cancer risk, I would only be giving kids what they absolutely need and nothing else.
Tell me more about the cancer risk
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 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:47 am

mikesbytes wrote:Tell me more about the cancer risk
I don't have a lot of information about it on hand. What I have learnt about it often comes from lengthy videos by T. Colin Campbell like this one. I've heard that even B12 supplementation doubles cancer risk. Fortunately we don't have to search far to find those recommending to reduce or avoid supplements in the interest of lowering cancer risk.
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/22108/ ... nd-cancer/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dietary-su ... ncer-risk/
The CBS link above recommends a multi if you have a known deficiency. I believe that if you can't fix the cause of the deficiency, then it's better to just take the minimum of whatever you are deficient in.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:56 am

mikesbytes wrote:Tell me more about the cancer risk
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 6#p1462916
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitami ... ncer-risk/
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/22108/ ... nd-cancer/


Anyway, there's lots more scary stuff to focus on, such as association of high protein diets and mortality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/

Low protein group : protein <= 10% of Calories
High protein group : protein >= 20% of Calories

Diabetes Risk assoc with higher protein
"Among subjects with no diabetes at baseline those in the high protein group had a 73-fold increase in risk (HR: 73.52; 95% CI: 4.47–1209.7), while those in the moderate protein category had an almost 23-fold increase in the risk of diabetes mortality (HR: 22.93; 95% CI: 1.31–400.7)."

Now that's a stunningly huge increase in risk of diabetes, and something you won't see presented via a low carb convention or youtube video. Interestingly, it surprised the study authors to the extent they felt the need to say the high protein group was being compared to a low protein group (which was actually a dietary guidelines protein intake group) which had an extremely low level of risk of developing diabetes. LOL


Cancer and All Cause Mortality risk assoc with higher protein
"Among those aged 50–65, higher protein levels were linked to significantly increased risks of all-cause and cancer mortality (Table 1). In this age range, subjects in the high protein group had a 74% increase in their relative risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.02–2.97), and were more than 4-times as likely to die of cancer (HR: 4.33; 95% CI: 1.96–9.56) when compared to those in the low protein group."

Not a study you are likely to hear about from the supplement industry, which profits from protein mythology.



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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:56 pm

When I was young, the medical community were pillars of society, with impeccable character.

Not anymore, sadly

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/heal ... WtLy3bNnsM

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:53 am

My last post got me curious about the robustness of ethics and scientific rigor of the gatekeepers of the science literature.

One would expect the more established journals with a long reputation of publishing groundbreaking studies, would filter out all but the most methodically robust studies.

But it appears ethics have not only deteriorated in the world of commerce over the last generation or two.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826185/
Björn Brembs*
Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018; 12: 37.

"Abstract
In which journal a scientist publishes is considered one of the most crucial factors determining their career. The underlying common assumption is that only the best scientists manage to publish in a highly selective tier of the most prestigious journals. However, data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, an accumulating body of evidence suggests the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank. The data supporting these conclusions circumvent confounding factors such as increased readership and scrutiny for these journals, focusing instead on quantifiable indicators of methodological soundness in the published literature, relying on, in part, semi-automated data extraction from often thousands of publications at a time. With the accumulating evidence over the last decade grew the realization that the very existence of scholarly journals, due to their inherent hierarchy, constitutes one of the major threats to publicly funded science: hiring, promoting and funding scientists who publish unreliable science eventually erodes public trust in science."

An interesting observation in this paper
"The most widely used metric to rank journals is Clarivate Analytics’ “Impact Factor” (IF), a measure based loosely on citations. Despite the numerous flaws described, the IF is an excellent and consistent descriptor of subjective journal hierarchy, i.e., the level of prestige scientists ascribe to the journals in their respective fields. That a measure so flawed still conforms to the expectations of the customers expected to pay for it, is remarkable in its own right. "

This observation of research fits with mine; that scientists, despite their self perception, are still very very human. And that they hold to their views with great rigor, and are not objective in their consideration of observations that conflict with their constructs.
This explains in great part why an 'industry' that is biased towards methodological reductionism struggles to take seriously studies reliant on non reductionist inquiry. And this is why medical progress and practice can seem such an ass, such as its response and management of 45 year long epidemics in obesity, diabetes, allergies, autoimmunity, and autism spectrum disorders.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:48 am

CKinnard wrote:
...

Anyway, there's lots more scary stuff to focus on, such as association of high protein diets and mortality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/

Low protein group : protein <= 10% of Calories
High protein group : protein >= 20% of Calories

Diabetes Risk assoc with higher protein
"Among subjects with no diabetes at baseline those in the high protein group had a 73-fold increase in risk (HR: 73.52; 95% CI: 4.47–1209.7), while those in the moderate protein category had an almost 23-fold increase in the risk of diabetes mortality (HR: 22.93; 95% CI: 1.31–400.7)."

Now that's a stunningly huge increase in risk of diabetes, and something you won't see presented via a low carb convention or youtube video. Interestingly, it surprised the study authors to the extent they felt the need to say the high protein group was being compared to a low protein group (which was actually a dietary guidelines protein intake group) which had an extremely low level of risk of developing diabetes. LOL


Cancer and All Cause Mortality risk assoc with higher protein
"Among those aged 50–65, higher protein levels were linked to significantly increased risks of all-cause and cancer mortality (Table 1). In this age range, subjects in the high protein group had a 74% increase in their relative risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.02–2.97), and were more than 4-times as likely to die of cancer (HR: 4.33; 95% CI: 1.96–9.56) when compared to those in the low protein group."

Not a study you are likely to hear about from the supplement industry, which profits from protein mythology.
...
I couldn't let this pass. Absolute risk vs. relative, anyone? Most of the info was in plain site in the document and the supporting materials.
We underline that our hazard ratios and confidence intervals may be inflated due to our sample size and the extremely low incidence of diabetes mortality in the low protein group. Overall, there were only 21 diabetes deaths among persons without diabetes at baseline—only 1 of which was from the low protein group.
Results
Using Cox Proportional Hazard models we found no association between protein
consumption and either all-cause, CVD, or cancer mortality (Table S2).
However, high
and moderate protein consumption were positively associated with diabetes-related
mortality.
Respondents (n=6,381) aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality during an 18 year follow up period. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.
High Protein (n=1,146)
The low protein group? -Only 437.
Mortality follow-up was available for all NHANES III participants through linkage with the National Death Index up until 2006 (DHHS, 2001). This provided the timing and cause of death. The follow up period for mortality covered 83,308 total person-years over 18 years, with 40% overall mortality, 19% cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, 10% cancer mortality, and about 1% diabetes-caused mortality.
Overall, there were only 21 diabetes deaths among persons without diabetes at baseline—only 1 of which was from the low protein group. Nevertheless, despite the small sample size, our results still show strong significant associations between increased protein intake and diabetes-related mortality.
In contrast to the findings above, among respondents who were 66 years of age and over at baseline, higher protein levels were associated with the opposite effect on overall and cancer mortality but a similar effect on diabetes mortality (Table 1). When compared to those with low protein consumption, subjects who consumed high amounts of protein had a 28% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55–0.94), while subjects who consumed moderate amounts of protein displayed a 21% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62–0.99). Furthermore, this was not affected by percent calories from fat, from carbohydrates, or from animal protein. Subjects with high protein consumption also had a 60% reduction in cancer mortality (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.23–0.71) compared to those with low protein diets, which was also not affected when controlling for other nutrient intake or protein source.
Notably, our results showed that the proportion of proteins derived from animal sources accounted for a significant proportion of the association between overall protein intake and all-cause and cancer mortality. These results are in agreement with recent findings on the association between red meat consumption and death from all-cause, CVD, and cancer.
Protein restriction or restriction of particular amino acids, such as methionine and tryptophan, may explain part of the effects of calorie restriction and GHRD mutations on longevity and disease risk, since protein restriction is sufficient to reduce IGF-1 levels, and can reduce cancer incidence or increase longevity in model organisms independently of calorie intake
So, 23 people died from diabetes out of 6,381. Not exactly a high-risk, is it?
And limit red meat intake... in fact, avoid any excessive protein consumption... unless you are older.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:51 am

More on dietary protein, both amount and source.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... le/2540540

Mingyang Song, MD, ScD1,2; Teresa T. Fung, ScD2,3; Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD2,4,5; et al Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH2,4,5; Valter D. Longo, PhD6,7; Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH1,5,8; Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD2,4,5
Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality
JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(10):1453-1463.

Lagiou P1, Sandin S, Weiderpass E, Lagiou A, Mucci L, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO.
Low carbohydrate-high protein diet and mortality in a cohort of Swedish women.
J Intern Med. 2007 Apr;261(4):366-74.

_______________________________


Can human breast milk offer guidance on optimal protein intake for children and adults?
Humans never grow faster than in the first 4-6 mths of life. Therefore anabolic need for protein hypothetically would never be higher than in this period.

[There's only one other high dietary protein situation humans endure, and that is for severe burns injuries; for which the recommended protein intake is 2g/kg bwt/day.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255093/
This is not a scenario subject to evolutionary selective pressures, as earlier humans with these injuries would have died quickly.]

In the first 4 mths of life, a human baby roughly doubles its bodyweight at an av. rate of 200g/wk, from av 3.2kg to 6.7kg.

Human Breast Milk composition /100mls
energy 280 kj 67 Cals
protein 1.3g 5.2Cals 7% (of total energy)
carbs 7.0g 28Cals 42%
fat 4.2g 38Cals 51%

Average daily breast milk intake between 1 and 6mths is 750mls.

For a 4 mth old baby, that's a daily protein intake of 750/100 * 1.3g = ~10 grams
-> 10g/6.7kg
= 1.5g/kg bwt/day

That's very close to the maximum rate of protein utilization determined in sports science (1.6g/kg/bwt)

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:24 pm

More warnings on Paleo & TMAO.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/healt ... b902c63d52

The article has the usual dietitian statement of:
...excluding whole groups of foods posed potential health risks.
Even if that food group is harmful in it's average form it appears.
IMO their message should be that it's important to be educated on the alternatives if you are going to avoid a food group. But dietitians prefer to dumb down the message to the above, which ends up being interpreted as a call to maintain the status-quo. Maybe that wasn't their intention, but that is how the message appears to be inferred.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:34 pm

Nobody wrote:More warnings on Paleo & TMAO.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/healt ... b902c63d52

The article has the usual dietitian statement of:
...excluding whole groups of foods posed potential health risks.
Even if that food group is harmful in it's average form it appears.
IMO their message should be that it's important to be educated on the alternatives if you are going to avoid a food group. But dietitians prefer to dumb down the message to the above, which ends up being interpreted as a call to maintain the status-quo. Maybe that wasn't their intention, but that is how the message appears to be inferred.
A bit old. CKinnard reported on that previously.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:01 pm

CKinnard wrote:In the first 4 mths of life, a human baby roughly doubles its bodyweight at an av. rate of 200g/wk, from av 3.2kg to 6.7kg.

Human Breast Milk composition /100mls
energy 280 kj 67 Cals
protein 1.3g 5.2Cals 7% (of total energy)
carbs 7.0g 28Cals 42%
fat 4.2g 38Cals 51%

Average daily breast milk intake between 1 and 6mths is 750mls.

For a 4 mth old baby, that's a daily protein intake of 750/100 * 1.3g = ~10 grams
-> 10g/6.7kg
= 1.5g/kg bwt/day

That's very close to the maximum rate of protein utilization determined in sports science (1.6g/kg/bwt)
Thanks for posting CK. Interesting.
It helps to dispel the myth that body builder's needing 1 gram per lb of body weight.
We know that the Americans have a macro close to that with C40:F40:P20 and they aren't the thinnest or healthiest adults in general.
The Cal density is also interesting, as it is so low. That's only just above what I eat at 60 Cal/100g. I estimate the average western diet has a Cal density of about 150 Cal/100g. Another reason for the higher body weight and that's without taking into account of the insulin spiking foods.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:48 pm

Nobody wrote: Thanks for posting CK. Interesting.
It helps to dispel the myth that body builder's needing 1 gram per lb of body weight.
We know that the Americans have a macro close to that with C40:F40:P20 and they aren't the thinnest or healthiest adults in general.
The Cal density is also interesting, as it is so low. That's only just above what I eat at 60 Cal/100g. I estimate the average western diet has a Cal density of about 150 Cal/100g. Another reason for the higher body weight and that's without taking into account of the insulin spiking foods.
It's interesting to explore these associations.
I cannot say I've ever read or heard in the bro or sports science, the nutrition and growth rate of babies!
Such comparisons are insightful.

Other inferences I drew regarding breast milk's comparatively high fat % is that a priority of babies once born is to increase bodyfat % (for better thermoregulation and as energy insurance for the oncoming 12 mths of rapid growth).
They are born with around 10% bodyfat, and within 6 mths are 25-30%.

Lower bodyfat at birth would serve two important purposes
- to prevent elevated core temperature in the womb.
- to minimize damage to mother's reproductive organs with labour.

One might also reasonably speculate that breast milk has a higher % of fat for several reasons:
- that it is the most dense energy source, and therefore the most efficient means of getting energy from mother's breast to baby's gut. It's possible a woman's breasts would swell significantly more if breast milk had a higher % carbs, and feeding would be required more regularly.
- that ideally carbs are more a slow absorption energy source, which requires fiber to slow absorption into the blood stream...and there's no sense in breast milk containing fiber.
- further, babies are not doing high intensity activities, so don't need large hits of simple carbs.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:41 am

Ice cream is mainly milk. Must be good.
Image

Baalzamon
Posts: 5470
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:56 am

Patt0 wrote:Ice cream is mainly milk. Must be good.
Icecream is full of fat and sugar. Hence tastes delicious. Is it good for you. Make up your own mind. I throw regular icecream in the bin and buy that expensive stuff called denada or make my own.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:10 am

Patt0 wrote:Ice cream is mainly milk. Must be good.
cow milk is meant for calfs which weigh 40kg at birth, and 330kg a year later...an 8 fold increase.
humans increase weight 3 fold over the same time.

how do you reconcile such a substance is appropriate for human adults?

milks of different species vary significantly, and are not designed for consumption once mature.

Image

Image

65% of the world's population is lactose intolerant after about 2 years old.

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 Dec 15, 2018 12:37 pm

Baalzamon wrote:
Patt0 wrote:Ice cream is mainly milk. Must be good.
Icecream is full of fat and sugar. Hence tastes delicious. Is it good for you. Make up your own mind. I throw regular icecream in the bin and buy that expensive stuff called denada or make my own.
What's denada?
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 Dec 15, 2018 1:10 pm

mikesbytes wrote:
Baalzamon wrote:
Patt0 wrote:Ice cream is mainly milk. Must be good.
Icecream is full of fat and sugar. Hence tastes delicious. Is it good for you. Make up your own mind. I throw regular icecream in the bin and buy that expensive stuff called denada or make my own.
What's denada?
https://www.denadaco.com/flavours/
Ingredients: Almond Milk, Coconut Milk, Cream, Xylitol, Whey Protein, Vanilla Extract, Guar Gum, Sea Salt

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 Dec 17, 2018 10:03 pm

One of my customers who does cycle classes with me, a younger lady told me she has lost 20kg in 10 weeks.

A quick discussion revealed that she had cut most sugar and some starch from her diet, so perhaps you could say a reduced carb diet, one of the common solutions out there.

Now where it got interesting is how she fixed her cravings (mainly chocolate) was by adding to her drink bottle electrolyte, which also contains sugar and drinking that instead of eating whatever. So she is using a small amount of sugar to combat her sugar craving
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 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:06 am

mikesbytes wrote:One of my customers who does cycle classes with me, a younger lady told me she has lost 20kg in 10 weeks.
Well I'll tell you now that between 7 and 10kg of her weight loss is NOT fat...it will be water and glycogen and reduced intestinal matter.
If you do the math on her energy expenditure and intake, you'll find she needs a Calorie deficit of 2200 Cals/day to lose 20kg of fat in 10 weeks. That is essentially impossible to achieve, unless you are in a very artificial environment, liike the Biggest Loser TV show.

And if she is not conditioning her appetite to a balanced diet, she will rebound.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:18 am

CKinnard wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:One of my customers who does cycle classes with me, a younger lady told me she has lost 20kg in 10 weeks.
...And if she is not conditioning her appetite to a balanced diet, she will rebound.
Agree with CK.

It's normal for the body to react a large weight loss, making it only useful to impress people. Not the best move over the long term. Especially going low-carb as people tend not to be able to sustain a large weight loss long term. So it's more likely to be struggle street for her from here, unless she still has a lot of weight to lose. If she had done a well structured WFPB diet and lost 20 kg over 20 weeks, she would end up healthier and be more weight stable. What she did was intuitive, but it wasn't the best approach to weight loss IMO.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: grt046