Diet Thread

[warthog1]

When I am not exercising at all, I find it very easy to lose weight. The problem is that 'weight' is fat and muscle. I'm not a big fan of losing lean muscle but the fact remains that the easiest way for me to 'lose weight' is to stop exercising, eat less and watch as my fat and muscle melt away before my eyes. I would describe it as effortless.

Healthy fat loss for me is a lot of work.

There is significant variance in the way we respond to exercise and diet then and it appears we are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Nobody]

More evidence of the common diet war on news.com.au with the article below. It starts off LCHF and ends HCLF.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health ... 7316009826" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It ends with:

A separate University of Sydney study published in 2014 suggested that a diet that consists of 15-20 per cent high quality protein, low in fat and high in good quality carbohydrate will deliver the best metabolic health and longest life.

Which is close to my energy ratio calculated the AU way.
carb / fat / protein
79.7 / 6.7 / 13.6

As for "high quality protein", plant protein is high quality for humans as can be seen by the blood test posted.

[CKinnard]

With your flat mate it isn't about plaques, it's about blood viscosity.

Why?

I don't know of any indicators of blood viscosity from the test results I am looking at but Haematocrit is 0.48 if that means anything to you.

Do some reading on blood viscosity, as an additive and independent risk factor for MI and stroke.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 5-0028.pdf
http://www.health.harvard.edu/family_he ... the-better" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://holisticprimarycare.net/topics/t ... actor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072759.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news ... ies?page=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

another reason I think poor hydration is a bigger problem than most appreciate.

[warthog1]

If we could all easily see into our arteries, I think there would be a lot of people making immediate diet and lifestyle changes.

My flatmate has seen into his arteries. He had to be awake during an operation for a heart attack and the surgeon showed him the arteries around his heart. They are very clean, and he is in his mid 50's. Actually, the surgeon commented that his arteries looked like the arteries of a much younger person. I find it interesting that there was no evidence of arteriosclerosis or visible evidence or arterial damage. I should note the cause of the heart attack was a congenital birth defect, not arteriosclerosis.

I would say he has had an angiogram. You don't actually "see" the inside of the arteries. You have a radio-opaque dye injected and you see this flowing through the coronary circulation. You will then see any narrowing or occlusion of the flow.

My flatmate was at Royal Perth within 15 minutes of first symptoms. The first thing they asked him was if he smoked or drank (no), had high cholesterol (no), overweight (no), high blood pressure (no)... I forget if there was anything else. At the same they checked he was actually having a heart attack (yes). So they immediately called the head of cardiology and explained that a person presented with a heart attack but he has no risk factors. The surgeon advised them to prep the patient for immediate surgery. He was in the OT in a couple of minutes. The reason he got immediate treatment was due to no risk factors. This is where diet and lifestyle is critical. I think first symptoms to out of surgery was about 45 minutes. As a result of fast action, diet and lifestyle, there was no damage to his heart at all. If you have a heart attack, you don't want it to damage your heart! .

He probably then had a stent.

[casual_cyclist]

With your flat mate it isn't about plaques, it's about blood viscosity.

Why?
I don't know of any indicators of blood viscosity from the test results I am looking at but Haematocrit is 0.48 if that means anything to you.

Do some reading on blood viscosity, as an additive and independent risk factor for MI and stroke.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 5-0028.pdf
http://www.health.harvard.edu/family_he ... the-better" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://holisticprimarycare.net/topics/t ... actor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072759.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news ... ies?page=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
another reason I think poor hydration is a bigger problem than most appreciate.

I don't see much in that lot about how fat increases blood viscosity, except the article about the meal high in saturated fat where the "good" HDL cholesterol's protective ability to prevent inflammation was also impaired, the researchers found. Inflammation has been linked to plaque buildup in the arteries. We have already established that there is no plaque buildup in his arteries (except at the site of the deformity, which has now been repaired), so this line of enquiry seems to be a dead end. In any case, he doesn't regularly eat any meals high in saturated fat, so I don't see that as an issue.

I think you are finally on the money with your comment about poor hydration. It seems that hydration is a lot more important than fat when it comes to blood viscosity. I can tell you that his heart attack was in the morning, when blood viscosity is higher. I know he was drinking because he was thirsty but I forget if it was coke or iced tea. Either way, thirst would a lack of hydration. The working theory is that the ticker blood dislodged the plaque and that caused the heart attack.

In the past, he was drinking 2 to 3 L of coke a day, which I am sure would not help with hydration. This has been replaced by a minimum of 2.5 to 3L of water per day, depending on the weather. I think that is an appropriate amount of water for a physically active person. I know he doesn't leave the house in the morning without drinking a glass of water. I do! Some mornings I ride to work without drinking or eating anything. Now I'm thinking that might be risky.

[casual_cyclist]

If we could all easily see into our arteries, I think there would be a lot of people making immediate diet and lifestyle changes.

My flatmate has seen into his arteries. He had to be awake during an operation for a heart attack and the surgeon showed him the arteries around his heart. They are very clean, and he is in his mid 50's. Actually, the surgeon commented that his arteries looked like the arteries of a much younger person. I find it interesting that there was no evidence of arteriosclerosis or visible evidence or arterial damage. I should note the cause of the heart attack was a congenital birth defect, not arteriosclerosis.

I would say he has had an angiogram. You don't actually "see" the inside of the arteries. You have a radio-opaque dye injected and you see this flowing through the coronary circulation. You will then see any narrowing or occlusion of the flow.[/img]
Perhaps. I was under the impression it was a video camera. I will have to check. And before you ask, yes, they do have video cameras that will fit inside arteries. I don't know how widely used they are though.

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/24/microsc ... -at-60fps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CKinnard]

I don't see much in that lot about how fat increases blood viscosity, except the article about the meal high in saturated fat where the "good" HDL cholesterol's protective ability to prevent inflammation was also impaired, the researchers found. Inflammation has been linked to plaque buildup in the arteries. We have already established that there is no plaque buildup in his arteries (except at the site of the deformity, which has now been repaired), so this line of enquiry seems to be a dead end. In any case, he doesn't regularly eat any meals high in saturated fat, so I don't see that as an issue.

I think you are finally on the money with your comment about poor hydration. It seems that hydration is a lot more important than fat when it comes to blood viscosity. I can tell you that his heart attack was in the morning, when blood viscosity is higher. I know he was drinking because he was thirsty but I forget if it was coke or iced tea. Either way, thirst would a lack of hydration. The working theory is that the ticker blood dislodged the plaque and that caused the heart attack.

In the past, he was drinking 2 to 3 L of coke a day, which I am sure would not help with hydration. This has been replaced by a minimum of 2.5 to 3L of water per day, depending on the weather. I think that is an appropriate amount of water for a physically active person. I know he doesn't leave the house in the morning without drinking a glass of water. I do! Some mornings I ride to work without drinking or eating anything. Now I'm thinking that might be risky.

I think there's enough meat to indicate the heavier the meal, the higher the risk of a CV event within 12 hours.
Heavy meals are usually considered higher in rich ingredients i.e. animal fat and protein.
And from my time working in labs, postprandial fat content of plasma is visibly obvious.

[casual_cyclist]

I think there's enough meat to indicate the heavier the meal, the higher the risk of a CV event within 12 hours.
Heavy meals are usually considered higher in rich ingredients i.e. animal fat and protein.
And from my time working in labs, postprandial fat content of plasma is visibly obvious.

Thank you CK. Very useful info.

[Nobody]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health ... 7316009826

It ends with:

A separate University of Sydney study published in 2014 suggested that a diet that consists of 15-20 per cent high quality protein, low in fat and high in good quality carbohydrate will deliver the best metabolic health and longest life.

There is often confusion about what is supposed to constitute a reasonably healthy diet in regard to the macro-nutrient ratio (protein, fat, carbohydrates). From the article quoted above I get a macro-nutrient ratio of say 15% of energy from protein and about 6% of energy from fat. Since it could be difficult to get essential fats under that. Which leaves about 79% for carbs, or a ratio of ~ 15:6:79. This isn't far removed from what Nathan Pritikin came up with of 10:10:80 in 1974, from studying different diets around the world. Or 11:11:78 with no fibre as calculated in AU, which I'm going to do here. This is still considered by many to be close to fairly optimal numbers for a human diet today.

The problem is the average person can't relate to this from what they see on the nutrition labels for food. So I thought I'd work it out an example I found to give some an idea of how it's calculated and what to expect.

A 320g frozen meal box labeled "Veal Cordon Bleu", which wasn't labeled low fat, so just what is considered to be an average meal by one manufacturer. Meat, veg, sauce etc. It listed 13.4g of carbs, 6g of protein and 8.4g of fat. Probably sounds reasonable to many people since they may have been taught in school home economics that less than 10g of fat per 100g of food is OK.

So with carbs being 4 Cals per gram, protein being 4 Cals per gram and fat being 9 Cals per gram, the Calories for this meal are:

Carbs: 13.4 * 4 = 53.6 Cals
Protein: 6 * 4 = 24 Cals
Fat: 8.4 * 9 = 75.6 Cals

From the sum of those, total = 153.2 Cals.

Now to get the energy or caloric ratio I divide the energy of each macro-nutrient by the total energy.

Carbs: 53.6 / 153.2 = 35%
Protein: 24 / 153.2 = 15.7%
Fat: 75.6 / 153.2 = 49.3%

So there you have a meal with a macro-nutrient ratio of (protein:fat:carbs) ~16:49:35, which is a long way from 11:11:78. Also the perception of 8.7% of fat now becomes the reality of 49% fat for the energy consumed.

Saturated fat:
3.5 * 9 = 31.5
31.5 / 153.2 = 20.6%

So the saturated fat is at least 3 times higher than "The American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of calories from saturated fat."

[BenGr]

Is it meant to be a meal by itself, or with sides. I'd be inclined to chuck some mashed spuds with it, which would even it out a little.

Serving sizes are almost useless, for me at least. Half the problem (on purpose or otherwise) is saying something is a side dish when a lot of people would just eat it with not much else.

I had to laugh when I grabbed a 400g pizza from the supermarket which was apparently 8 serves, I even had 2 of them sometimes. I was eating a lot but I definitely wasn't eating for 16 people.

[Nobody]

As you would know, the unrealistic small serving sizes is just a con to make their product look better. I don't know why anyone would want to look at the "Quantity per serving" part of the label anyway.
http://cspinet.org/new/201108021.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The example in my previous post was a serving size of 1, with 500 Cals per serving size. I got it wrong before on the total, posting the per 100g value by mistake. Late night post...edited now.

[Nobody]

Susan Levin, MS, RD, CSSD is director of nutrition education for the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a Washington, D.C.

She talks about what led her to a plant based diet, the benefits she's seen and the industry's influence of politics that inhibits/prevents the message getting out to benefit the general public.

[Nobody]

Here's my latest.


I've added saturated fat columns to find I'm eating more grams than I thought. Although the food items that have the most are usually also associated with lowering cholesterol. Still far below the American Heart Association's goal of 5 to 6% of energy.

In the "Energy" column I've added an "84% of total" or 84% of the total calories above. That is the true energy use of the body as a WFPB diet consumes an extra 16% energy to digest (Ref: Barnard, PCRM). So the 84% result is more representative of what the body has left to use. This approximately matches what I get on the below calculator for daily energy use for "Lightly Active".
http://www.calculator.net/calorie-calcu ... 0&x=61&y=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I ditched walnuts and upped my linseed a bit for about a week as an experiment in reducing omega 6:3 ratio and reducing saturated fat intake. I noticed I was more irritable after a day which settled, but then after a week I became very irritable, to the point I thought something was wrong. Then I reintroduced the walnuts and I felt calmer again. I could see why since I dropped my total omega6 fats from about 12g to 8g a day. Far below the recommended 13g. Since then I've kept the linseed higher and reduced the walnuts to 10g a day from 15g. When I tried 20g a day earlier, I was getting skin oiliness and more skin problems like acne. So for me there seems to be an optimum fat level from nuts/seeds. Hopefully I've found it now. My omega6:3 ratio is better than it was anyway.

I also replaced the US style macro-nutrient ratio (caloric ratio) results for AU style ratio (no fibre) so protein and fat results are a bit higher now.

This spreadsheet is also a bit more accurate as I've had another go at weighing things. It's still more likely to be the maximum I eat in a day rather than the average.

Results are still going in the right direction with a WHtR of 0.422 yesterday morning. I hope to get another blood test in a week or two for cholesterol. Although I don't expect results to be much lower, if any, since they were already 41% lower than my original.

[warthog1]

I was more irritable after a day which settled, but then after a week I became very irritable, to the point I thought something was wrong.

wt?

really? No can't be true

[Nobody]

I was more irritable after a day which settled, but then after a week I became very irritable, to the point I thought something was wrong.

wt?

really? No can't be true

Internally irritable. Well, hopefully. I remember having to walk around to calm down, with a strange feeling of being warmer inside. Anyway hopefully fixed now. If not, I'll just add more nuts.

For the few that may be interested, I've edited my latest post above to add an 84% result to the energy columns. Also an explanation in the text as to why energy in/out matches for me although they don't appear to on initial results.

[Aussiebullet]

Your over thinking this way too much.

[Nobody]

Your over thinking this way too much.

That may be true, but as a tech by occupation, it's my nature to do so. I've got a bike frame geometry spreadsheet too.

In the end, what matters are results. Since there are people around me who are watching in the hope I fail. This is just due to an out-group, confirmation bias problem. Same with motorists and cyclists. If I under think it, my results may not be as good.

[warthog1]

I don't mind you over thinking it.
Fantastic results and I'm absorbing a lot of the information that you have put in here in a condensed format, that you don't find elsewhere.
I'm going to have a go at that lunch today thanks.

[warthog1]

Internally irritable. Well, hopefully. I remember having to walk around to calm down, with a strange feeling of being warmer inside. Anyway hopefully fixed now. If not, I'll just add more nuts.

Not enough omega 6? Any other symptoms, concentration, drowsiness?

[Nobody]

I don't mind you over thinking it.
Fantastic results and I'm absorbing a lot of the information that you have put in here in a condensed format, that you don't find elsewhere.

Thanks.

I'm going to have a go at that lunch today thanks.

For others' benefit, below is the lunch WH1 is referring to, which is listed in my spreadsheet as dinner (I swap lunch and dinner depending on circumstances etc).


I load the baby spinach last just before I eat it, otherwise it falls off everywhere.

Not enough omega 6? Any other symptoms, concentration, drowsiness?

As you know being a shift worker, it's hard to get a point of reference as a shift worker for drowsiness and lack of concentration. But nothing significant than I can remember. But it was only a week. Although I did spend the first 6 months or so not eating seeds and nuts from memory and I was probably more irritable compared to now. But compared to my previous diet, in the first 6 months I was probably sharper and more awake generally. So for me, the seeds and nuts have just made me calmer AFAIK. Which makes sense since they are supposed to reduce inflammation, BP and cholesterol, among other things.

[warthog1]

Thanks. I need to keep that in mind on night shift. I don't need anything that increases my irritability. I'll end up sacked when I do my bottle at the inevitable entitled 3am time waster

[warthog1]

My Nobody inspired lunch today. Slipped some capsicum in there too. Not bad


Had to follow it up with a bowl of porridge though as I'm not accustomed to such a light lunch. So healthy my GIT is likely to implode

[Nobody]

Nice pics. Did you upgrade your phone?

The capsicum is a good idea. I sometimes do that.

Yeah, killing off the excess protein and fat takes some adjustments in gut bacteria and food volume. I eat about 3Kg or more of food a day and can still lose weight. If I was eating those frozen meals, it would only be about 1.4Kg for the similar useable energy intake.

[warthog1]

yes galaxy S5.

I just aim to eat more healthily, it remains to be seen how successful I am.

[CKinnard]

Wow, impressed with the choice of foods guys. though keep in mind anything more restrictive than a 1000 Calorie deficit every day is going to be hard yakka and burn a higher percentage of lean tissue.
WH1, I totally understand the porridge thing. Done that before!

I've hit a wall at the moment. New business venture on at the moment, so early starts late finishes. And confirms that it's mental emotional stress that stimulates my appetite more than riding...rode 220k on the weekend but it's work business that's seeing me stuff my mouth excessively.