Diet Thread

[RhapsodyX]

Low density, high carb eating better for appetite control.

To save people wasting their time - IMHO, it is a waste of time. A naturopath using youtube as a vehicle for their preferred view of the world, using an N=65 study as "proof" that a "calorie density" view of dieting was better than "high fat" (which version would that be?).

No better than hearsay. A waste of 10 minutes and 47 seconds of my life.

Unbridled emotionalism.

The debate over which diet sates best is no doubt confounded by the dietary preferences of the study subjects. Presumably, those with a preference and history of SAD may be happier with hamburgers, cheese from a bottle, and ice cream.

Consider that plant based whole food eaters have healthier BMIs and greater longevity.
What does this tell us about satiety?
- To keep one's BMI within healthy limits long term is obviously dependent on satiety on a eucaloric diet.
- Therefore, it logically follows PBWF eaters are sated before overfeeding. Therefore, satiation advantage rests with the PBWF, as does longevity and low morbidity advantage.
END OF ARGUMENT

No - end of strawman. Once again, you divert attention from the subject at hand, which was the contents of video. No references, no supporting information - no credibility for the content.
_______________________________

Pam Popper has earned a PhD and is highly regarded and employed by the US govt and many large private corporations. She is more qualified to give dietary advice than a medical physician. I've watched many of her presentations, and not one is out of line with the bulk of literature that shows the longevity advantage lies with PBWF, or that PBWF can reverse atherosclerosis.

Rhapsody, read the literature more broadly before giving others' advice about what is a waste of time.

Lifted straight from her bio pages. Which University awarded the PhD? An online university, wasn't it? Run-ins with the Ohio authorities regarding giving dietary advice? Yes, highly qualified and regarded.

As for "Broad", I do believe the narrow view is from the other side of the fence. I, at least, have an open mind.

[RhapsodyX]

An interesting read.

[warthog1]

Pam Popper has earned a PhD and is highly regarded and employed by the US govt and many large private corporations. She is more qualified to give dietary advice than a medical physician. I've watched many of her presentations, and not one is out of line with the bulk of literature that shows the longevity advantage lies with PBWF, or that PBWF can reverse atherosclerosis.

Rhapsody, read the literature more broadly before giving others' advice about what is a waste of time.

Lifted straight from her bio pages. Which University awarded the PhD? An online university, wasn't it? Run-ins with the Ohio authorities regarding giving dietary advice? Yes, highly qualified and regarded.

As for "Broad", I do believe the narrow view is from the other side of the fence. I, at least, have an open mind.

Where is your dietary or nutritional PhD from?

You Broad? Open minded?
Welcome to the world of unifocal health measurement fat muncher style.
My BGL is good chowing down on lard, therefore it must be a good diet. Even though there is no evolutionary basis for its' consumption, and no longitudinal studies proving its' efficacy in improving longevity.

[warthog1]

An interesting read.

ARTICLE BY: BETH ERICKSON

I'm Beth Ann Erickson, a freelance writer, publisher, and skeptic. I live in Central Minnesota with my husband, son, and two rescue pups. Life is flippin' good.

Well that's 30 seconds of my life I won't get back. I did have a good laugh that you consider a random blogger with no health, nutrition, dietary or medical training whatsoever in any way relevant to dietary debate

[CKinnard]

No - end of strawman. Once again, you divert attention from the subject at hand, which was the contents of video. No references, no supporting information - no credibility for the content.


Lifted straight from her bio pages. Which University awarded the PhD? An online university, wasn't it? Run-ins with the Ohio authorities regarding giving dietary advice? Yes, highly qualified and regarded.

As for "Broad", I do believe the narrow view is from the other side of the fence. I, at least, have an open mind.

There was nothing incredulous in the video contents. As I said above, satiety is more likely a function of one's previous dietary preferences and state of damage to the body - distended stomach, dysregulated endocrine function. Many people who feel more comfortable eating HFLC have been habituated to dislike vegetables and fruit.

I am in the US for the next few months in a health center and have worked here off and on since the 80s. It is saying nothing that Pam had issues with the Ohio authorities. Suffice to say, Pam Popper is still giving nutritional advice in Ohio and across the USA, so the investigation and complaint brought by the regulatory board amounted to nothing.

Research the story on Howard Lyman, the guy who was sued by Texas cattle ranchers for his appearance on Oprah Winfrey.
Recall the trouble Jamie Oliver had trying to change the appallingly unhealthy canteen menus of schools in the US.

As for the panning of Campbell's China Study, yes it has holes but was done over 30 years ago.
In expanding the breadth of your reading, I suggest you get up to speed with Seventh Day Adventist studies which are amongst the most powerful statistically.

[RhapsodyX]

Where is your dietary or nutritional PhD from?

Apart from one posting in the other thread - I do not offer dietary advice and have not claimed relevant expertise or qualifications.

You Broad? Open minded?
Welcome to the world of unifocal health measurement fat muncher style.
My BGL is good chowing down on lard, therefore it must be a good diet. Even though there is no evolutionary basis for its' consumption, and no longitudinal studies proving its' efficacy in improving longevity.

Thanks for (once again) bringing up your pointless & ignorant critique of my dietary choices. Your continued use of pejorative terms such as "lard", once again reinforces why it would be a waste of my time engaging in discussion with you. Please see previous posts if you are confused.

[warthog1]

Ah you mean you have no answer still to the points I've raised

Your continued use of pejorative terms such as "lard", once again reinforces why it would be a waste of my time engaging in discussion with you

http://www.weedemandreap.com/top-reasons-eating-lard/

[RhapsodyX]

In expanding the breadth of your reading, I suggest you get up to speed with Seventh Day Adventist studies which are amongst the most powerful statistically.

And (from memory) included people who irregularly eat white meat as "vegetarian" and I believe, once excluding those from the data, the claimed life-span increase for vegetarian/vegan etc., was significantly reduced.
A quick search returns....

And for the record : no - I don't believe that a ketogenic diet is protective against cancer as claimed in some media reports.

[RhapsodyX]

Ah you mean you have no answer still to the points I've raised

Back about five pages...

Seriously - we "non believers of WFPB being the ONLY way" all get that you can't see past "Knives over Forks" and similar, but your inability to think outside the box is YOUR problem, not mine (ours?).
Over and out on this subject - it's been done to death.

[CKinnard]

In expanding the breadth of your reading, I suggest you get up to speed with Seventh Day Adventist studies which are amongst the most powerful statistically.

And (from memory) included people who irregularly eat white meat as "vegetarian" and I believe, once excluding those from the data, the claimed life-span increase for vegetarian/vegan etc., was significantly reduced.
A quick search returns....

And for the record : no - I don't believe that a ketogenic diet is protective against cancer as claimed in some media reports.

Whether lifespan was significantly reduced is the wrong question if it is still higher. The SDAs promote a plant based diet, not vegan or vegetarian. That is, meat is not banned. Rather they have stated before the research backed it, that there are health advantages to eating less meat, with the greatest advantages coming from full abstention. This was the advice of their founders who did not base it on science. I am close friends with two GPs who are life long SDAs. Their diet is essentially all plant based. However, if they go to a restaurant or are traveling and there is not a healthy PBWF option, they will eat fish. Personally, I find the dietary recommendations of the SDA church very sensible. They respect that an individual's diet is a matter of personal choice. The church just lays down what they believe has greater health benefits. This is why the boundaries between vegan, vegetarian, etc are not absolute amongst their members. I follow a similar mindset. I am not total plant based. I intermittently eat animal flesh, maybe 100-250g a month, primarily fish. However, I accept the literature shows significant health advantages for veganism. Why am I not 100% PB? Because I still enjoy flesh, especially when well prepared by a top restaurant. I also believe that eating 90-95% PBWF will offer most of the benefit of 100%. Lastly, I think there's more to health and longevity than diet alone, and too many people think veganism is all the have to do to be healthy and happy, and they ignore cultivating the mind, spirit, family and friends. Veganism is an elitist membership thing for many who feel lost, insecure, or outside mainstream society. I don't criticize anyone for thinking that, but I think it is important to be totally crystal clear about our motivations.

There's been many more papers published since 2003 that should help clarify the bigger picture for you.

[warthog1]

Ah you mean you have no answer still to the points I've raised

Back about five pages...

Seriously - we "non believers of WFPB being the ONLY way" all get that you can't see past "Knives over Forks" and similar, but your inability to think outside the box is YOUR problem, not mine (ours?).
Over and out on this subject - it's been done to death.

I just find the notion that chowing down on fat as a dietary choice ridiculous from an evolutionary perspective, and find the one eyed views of its' proponents mildly irritating.
It is a source of idle amusement to poke holes in it.

[RhapsodyX]

Ah you mean you have no answer still to the points I've raised

Back about five pages...

I just find the notion that chowing down on fat as a dietary choice ridiculous from an evolutionary perspective, and find the one eyed views of its' proponents mildly irritating.
It is a source of idle amusement to poke holes in it.

And yet the nutritionists and dieticians at the AIS, where I did my final lab session this morning (six weeks of resting metabolic rate "fun" is finally over), have no issue with it, and are researching and using cyclical low-carb diets with Olympics athletes, and were quite interested in how I had coped with the study. So - the only one-eyed person here appears to be you, and you still haven't come up with any basis for your opposition other than "I don't like it".

Then again, seeing as you have already said that you don't follow any particular dietary model, and admitted that you didn't bother reading the current research that I linked to - that just makes you a hypocrite in the classical sense. I draw your attention to the section on 'self deception'.

[RhapsodyX]

Whether lifespan was significantly reduced is the wrong question if it is still higher. The SDAs promote a plant based diet, not vegan or vegetarian. That is, meat is not banned. Rather they have stated before the research backed it, that there are health advantages to eating less meat, with the greatest advantages coming from full abstention. This was the advice of their founders who did not base it on science. I am close friends with two GPs who are life long SDAs. Their diet is essentially all plant based. However, if they go to a restaurant or are traveling and there is not a healthy PBWF option, they will eat fish. Personally, I find the dietary recommendations of the SDA church very sensible. They respect that an individual's diet is a matter of personal choice. The church just lays down what they believe has greater health benefits. This is why the boundaries between vegan, vegetarian, etc are not absolute amongst their members. I follow a similar mindset. I am not total plant based. I intermittently eat animal flesh, maybe 100-250g a month, primarily fish. However, I accept the literature shows significant health advantages for veganism. Why am I not 100% PB? Because I still enjoy flesh, especially when well prepared by a top restaurant. I also believe that eating 90-95% PBWF will offer most of the benefit of 100%. Lastly, I think there's more to health and longevity than diet alone, and too many people think veganism is all the have to do to be healthy and happy, and they ignore cultivating the mind, spirit, family and friends. Veganism is an elitist membership thing for many who feel lost, insecure, or outside mainstream society. I don't criticize anyone for thinking that, but I think it is important to be totally crystal clear about our motivations.

There's been many more papers published since 2003 that should help clarify the bigger picture for you.

I don't need to read more recent research, I'm reasonably aware of where the science currently is and what the research is hinting at.

I have no issue with WFPB, as a dietary intake it's better than what I am doing, and if (a) my insulin response wasn't screwed and (b) I didn't need to intake so many calories (3000 - 9000 kCal a day), I'd aim for plant based protein sources. But I don't believe that avocado, olives & nuts (and their oils) are 'bad' based on animal models and small scale research that "calorie density" is of any relevance to me. My "fat" is over 80% of my daily calorie intake, and I'm (as of this morning via DXA scan) at 11.5% body fat. Yes - N=1, but as it's "me", that's all I care about.

And re. mind/spirit, there is an Indian (or Pakistan?) research paper out there showing reversal of arteriosclerosis via vegetarian diet and meditation. I'll try and find the link later. I prefer to look at it from the sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system point of view, but that's because I'm into more conventional models.

edit: I was thinking of the Mount Abu Open Heart Trial. Small, but of interest none-the-less. And ties in with the "stress"/CVD hypothesis (cortisol/adrenaline etc.).

[warthog1]

Back about five pages...

I just find the notion that chowing down on fat as a dietary choice ridiculous from an evolutionary perspective, and find the one eyed views of its' proponents mildly irritating.
It is a source of idle amusement to poke holes in it.

And yet the nutritionists and dieticians at the AIS, where I did my final lab session this morning (six weeks of resting metabolic rate "fun" is finally over), have no issue with it, and are researching and using cyclical low-carb diets with Olympics athletes, and were quite interested in how I had coped with the study. So - the only one-eyed person here appears to be you, and you still haven't come up with any basis for your opposition other than "I don't like it".

You posted this link back on page 43 which basically discredits it as a strategy for maximal aerobic performance as would be required in a race;

There's heaps of small scale research (ie. n < 20), but have a look here at the AIS Page.

Then again, seeing as you have already said that you don't follow any particular dietary model, and admitted that you didn't bother reading the current research that I linked to - that just makes you a hypocrite in the classical sense. I draw your attention to the section on 'self deception'.

Perhaps I don't follow any particular dietary model as I haven't needed to. I don't need to focus on my weight, BP, cholesterol or RBG. They are all within normal limits.
I don't chow down on large qtys of processed carbs or meat and don't eat a lot of fatty foods.
Just because I'm not an acolyte of one particular dietary strategy, let alone one that has no evolutionary basis, doesn't mean my diet is causing me problems.
Exercise probably helps and I do a fair bit of that.
Thanks for the link on hypocrisy, even if given the above, it is more pertinent when applied to yourself

[Baalzamon]

Have you had your B12 checked, maybe check Homocysteine

[warthog1]

No.
There is no Hx of coronary artery disease in either side of the family and in any case I don't eat a lot of sugary or fatty foods.
Ca on the other hand is in both.

[Nobody]

Below is a 4 Corners episode on supplements. Worth viewing regardless of what diet you are on.

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/four-c ... 604H016S00
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 460291.htm

I only take 1000ug Methyl B-12 about 3 times a week, but the episode has made me consider the safety of the product I'm taking and therefore the integrity of the supplying company. The latest company I'm buying from is Jarrow Formulas which I'd seen a recommendation for here (which doesn't mean much but more reviews below). I can't verify functionality yet as I haven't had a blood test since changing to it. I changed brands and increased dose after the last brand let me down with lower blood test B-12 levels than the previous test.
http://www.dadamo.com/B2blogs/blogs/ind ... in?blog=27
http://www.methylcobalamininfo.com/meth ... cobalamin/\
http://www.iherb.com/product-reviews/Ja ... s/129/?p=1

[Baalzamon]

No.
There is no Hx of coronary artery disease in either side of the family and in any case I don't eat a lot of sugary or fatty foods.
Ca on the other hand is in both.

Homocysteine levels are not just about heart disease. I too have 0 history of heart disease in my family yet I have high levels. My grandmother did have dementia and alzheimers. Following quote is just a tip of the iceberg of what Big H is responsible for.

Many factors are thought to raise levels of homocysteine; among them are poor diet, poor lifestyle especially smoking and high coffee and alcohol intake, some prescription drugs, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and poor thyroid function. Raised levels are also associated with chronic inflammatory diseases in general, and some intestinal disorders such as coeliac and Crohn’s diseases. Levels increase with age and higher levels are more common in men than women. Levels of homocysteine can increase with oestrogen deficiency and with some long term medications, including corticosteroids. Strict vegetarians and vegans may also be at risk and people who suffer from stress. As with cholesterol, family history and genetic make-up can play a part in causing raised levels as can obesity and lack of exercise. Even people with an active, healthy lifestyle may still be at risk, if there is a family history of high levels of homocysteine or disease.
A rapidly increasing number of variations of the genes that regulate the enzymes that are involved in methionine metabolism have been identified. Reduction in the activity of genes such as the one that regulates the enzyme methyl-enetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) increases mean homocysteine levels. This gene is present in its homozygous form in about 10% of most European populations but the frequency varies widely geographically and between different ethnic populations.

Source = http://www.foodforthebrain.org/alzheime ... teine.aspx

[warthog1]

No.
There is no Hx of coronary artery disease in either side of the family and in any case I don't eat a lot of sugary or fatty foods.
Ca on the other hand is in both.

Homocysteine levels are not just about heart disease. I too have 0 history of heart disease in my family yet I have high levels. My grandmother did have dementia and alzheimers. Following quote is just a tip of the iceberg of what Big H is responsible for.

Many factors are thought to raise levels of homocysteine; among them are poor diet, poor lifestyle especially smoking and high coffee and alcohol intake, some prescription drugs, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and poor thyroid function. Raised levels are also associated with chronic inflammatory diseases in general, and some intestinal disorders such as coeliac and Crohn’s diseases. Levels increase with age and higher levels are more common in men than women. Levels of homocysteine can increase with oestrogen deficiency and with some long term medications, including corticosteroids. Strict vegetarians and vegans may also be at risk and people who suffer from stress. As with cholesterol, family history and genetic make-up can play a part in causing raised levels as can obesity and lack of exercise. Even people with an active, healthy lifestyle may still be at risk, if there is a family history of high levels of homocysteine or disease.
A rapidly increasing number of variations of the genes that regulate the enzymes that are involved in methionine metabolism have been identified. Reduction in the activity of genes such as the one that regulates the enzyme methyl-enetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) increases mean homocysteine levels. This gene is present in its homozygous form in about 10% of most European populations but the frequency varies widely geographically and between different ethnic populations.

Source = http://www.foodforthebrain.org/alzheime ... teine.aspx

I'll do some more reading thanks.
My memory is not what it once was. I blame rotating shift work and chronic tiredness at this stage.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health- ... cs/sdd/why
Not much dementia in my family but then we dont live that long either. One grandma had it.

[Baalzamon]

Also I might add that my B12 levels are fine, something else is going on, or my Big H levels where even higher and were coming down. I'll get retested in the next few months to ensure they are dropping!

[RhapsodyX]

A bit "left wing" (pro-paleo), but lots of info on Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth here. I was looking up retrograded starch (just to see where the research is at), and it came up I the search. Enjoy. Maybe...

[Nobody]

[RhapsodyX]

A youtube video

Ah, so a vegan says on YouTube that society has it wrong, and it's all down to animal protein and dairy. Yes, there are some funky interactions between insulin resistance with fatty acids, but if you don't overload your body with excess calories, it isn't quite the problem that is being made out. And if you aren't releasing FFA's into the bloodstream via lipolysis, you aren't going to lose weight.

As for dairy...
Increased dairy intake associated with REDUCED risk of Type 2 in men.
Increased dairy intake associated with REDUCED risk of Type 2 in women.

[warthog1]

Dairy is the baby food of another (much larger) species.
It's not rocket science that we shouldn't eat much of it.
It's a good representation of the power the food industry has through concerted and sustained publicity/advertising and misinformation that it is so successful and consumed in such large qtys.

[CKinnard]

Dairy :
- increases risk of prostate and breast cancers, most likely due to dairy's IGF-1 content. The risk is the same for low fat or normal fat dairy intake. The risk is also related to the estrogens within milk, which are the overwhelming dietary source in humans. The breaking down of milk sugar lactose to galactose correlates with ovarian cancer.
- synthetic bovine growth hormone was used on Australian dairy cows until 2000, and was in dairy products. It's a hormone that can overstimulate tissue growth in humans. It was banned due to cancer causing capacity. So don't rely on science to know all of the adverse effects before it messes with nature.
- Continuing contaminants in dairy products include antibiotics fed to cows, pesticides, PCBs, melamine, alpha toxins, and dioxins.
- Type 1 Diabetes is related to dairy consumption in infancy, especially in the first 3 mths of life, and it is universally recommended children not be fed dairy protein in the first year of life.
- dairy is a major cause of colic in babies, and can increase if breastfeeding mothers take dairy.
- does nothing for bone density, and in fact can speed loss of bone.
- allergies are more common amongst dairy taking children.
- contribute to saturated fat and cholesterol intake.