Diet Thread

[CKinnard]

Yes Warthog, grammatical garbage there from me in the middle of the afternoon. I meant that these systems are subject to ageing, which might have been obvious from the rest of the post.

I am more like CC in that the more I exercise the more my appetite is stimulated.

Re weight, I am not grossly overweight at all, but my waist is still 95cm when it could be 84cm, which would get me to ideal race weight and form. In fact this morning, some cyclists I haven't seen for a while said I looked like I'd lost a stack of weight, and reckon I shouldn't lose any more. But like many, they base their judgement on the condition of my arms, which are a little slim these days...and they were influenced by the loose t-shirt and shorts I was wearing, rather than lycra. Nevertheless, 99.8% of Australians have no comprehension of what healthy bodyfat % looks like.

[casual_cyclist]

That is about what I average. I should have said fat. I am aware muscle tissue is denser than fat so weight can be unchanged as fat decreases.
However I am comparing us to the median population and I expect our BMI's, W/H are better than the median and must be better than if we didn't exercise. It sounds like we are at the same point. I have plateaued too and will need to tackle diet to lose more weight, but I have lost significant fat through exercise alone and kept it off, which is the point I am trying to debate.

I don't question that you have lost significant fat through exercise alone and kept it off. That's great! But it may not be the experience of many people. As stated above, I exercise a lot more than the average person but I'm not losing significant fat. I'm not really trying to. I am trying to get stronger. But if I wanted to or needed to lose fat, it would be by controlling my food intake.

In 2013 I "lost" around 20 kg over 6 months at a time when I was not able to exercise at all. All I did was deliberately choose to eat a modest amount of super healthy food. I certainly wasn't starving. Actually, my appetite dropped due to the volume of food. The weight just fell off me.

So for me, 100% food and 0% exercise (because I was not exercising at all at the time but I did lose significant fat). For you it may be 100% exercise and 0% food, although I doubt you eat a very poor diet. We're all different. Just because you lost significant fat through exercise alone, you should not dismiss the experience of people who lose significant fat through diet alone.

[casual_cyclist]

Re weight, I am not grossly overweight at all, but my waist is still 95cm when it could be 84cm, which would get me to ideal race weight and form. In fact this morning, some cyclists I haven't seen for a while said I looked like I'd lost a stack of weight, and reckon I shouldn't lose any more. But like many, they base their judgement on the condition of my arms, which are a little slim these days...and they were influenced by the loose t-shirt and shorts I was wearing, rather than lycra.

I caught up with a mate I haven't seen for a couple of month and he was exclaiming that I must have lot a "heap" of weight. I actually have not "lost" a single gram, but I am a lot less fat.

Nevertheless, 99.8% of Australians have no comprehension of what healthy bodyfat % looks like.

While I tend to agree, I find that there are a lot of misconceptions around body fat. A 'skinny' person will not necessarily be healthy and a 'fat' person will not necessarily be unhealthy, but yeah, they do tend to run together.

[warthog1]

Just because you lost significant fat through exercise alone, you should not dismiss the experience of people who lose significant fat through diet alone.

No I'm not trying to dimiss diet at all. Nobody and everybody else would shoot me to pieces
I'm just saying exercise is one path to weight/fat loss. Diet is probably a better one but exercise will generally achieve some loss.
My diet is ok I guess, but certainly has scope for improvement. I enjoy food. A side benefit of cycling is it allows me some indulgences from time to time.

[warthog1]

Yes Warthog, grammatical garbage there from me in the middle of the afternoon. I meant that these systems are subject to ageing, which might have been obvious from the rest of the post.

I am more like CC in that the more I exercise the more my appetite is stimulated.

Re weight, I am not grossly overweight at all, but my waist is still 95cm when it could be 84cm, which would get me to ideal race weight and form. In fact this morning, some cyclists I haven't seen for a while said I looked like I'd lost a stack of weight, and reckon I shouldn't lose any more. But like many, they base their judgement on the condition of my arms, which are a little slim these days...and they were influenced by the loose t-shirt and shorts I was wearing, rather than lycra. Nevertheless, 99.8% of Australians have no comprehension of what healthy bodyfat % looks like.

We're all different as you say. I'll try and shut up now. I was just arguing exercise can be effective. Diet is probably more so. Exercise is easier for me as I enjoy it.
Diet and exercise together? That has to be a winner.

[ball bearing]

We're all different as you say. I'll try and shut up now. I was just arguing exercise can be effective. Diet is probably more so. Exercise is easier for me as I enjoy it.

I always thought that you eat for weight and exercise for fitness. I enjoy both.

[warthog1]

Calories in v calories out.
Both can play a part.

[Nobody]

Personal experience; I probably started at 84Kg and lost 9Kg initially to get to 75Kg when I restarted cycling and then slowly put 7Kg back on over the next few years. I stayed at 82Kg for some years. Then I changed the diet and so far have lost about 19Kg to ~63Kg. I think I'm now static and probably wouldn't want to lose more weight, since I'm below the ideal weight for a female of my height according to some calculators.

Evidence that you can't out exercise a SAD diet.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/arterie ... s-runners/
CC version:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17518696" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Although they mention low-calorie vegans but the abstract doesn't say how many calories that is.)

So a reminder taken from the loser thread.

[casual_cyclist]

I'm just saying exercise is one path to weight/fat loss.

In some people, not all people. The options are:
1) diet but don't exercise (works)
2) exercise but don't diet (works for some people, the rest just compensate for the exercise by eating more)
3) diet and exercise (works for some people, the rest either stay weight stable or gain weight)

It might make a difference if you have previously been obese. I don't know if you have been, but I have. And I can't lose weight through exercising. It has to be through diet.

There are actually good reasons not to tell people that exercise helps them lose weight. Everyone should exercise but not everyone loses weight from exercising. We don't want them to stop exercising because they are not losing weight, because of all the other health benefits including:

Most people looking to lose weight are at high risk of diseases like heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Research shows that exercise can reduce these risks.

"People at risk of diabetes can halve their chances of the disease by doing moderate amounts of exercise," says Johnson.

Exercise has also been shown to help improve heart function and blood pressure.

The right type of exercise can also reduce depression and anxiety, improve bone health, and reduce risk of falls in old people, he adds.

"The message should move beyond weight loss and be more about actually doing sustainable exercise and doing it regularly for all these types of benefits."

Have a read, it also explains why some people don't lose weight from exercising. http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/s ... 162890.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally, I choose to eat a healthy, plant based diet and to also do a range of exercise including cycling, running (interval training), walking and resistance training. When it is time to get lighter, I will simply eat less. It's not that complicated.

[casual_cyclist]

For the other side, the dangers to telling people that exercising for weight loss doesn't work:

Exercising to lose weight is a waste of time and the only way to shed those unwanted kilos is to eat less. After years of studying kilojoule tables, Sydney exercise specialist John Glynn says it would take seven hours of walking every day for a week to lose just one kilogram and only then if the person ate no "bad" food the entire seven days.
...
Some experts agree that exercise alone will do little for the waistline, but they still advocate a combination of physical activity and diet. "I share some of the sense of [what Glynn is saying], but you can't send a signal that you don't need to exercise," says Dr Steve Hambleton, federal vice-president of the Australian Medical Association. "It is probably true to say that it is very tough to exercise your way out of being overweight. Anyone who has a pedometer is disappointed after they do the maths," he says.
...
Professor Jonathan Shaw, associate director of health services at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, says he is concerned that Glynn's message could be misinterpreted to mean that all exercise is pointless. "Exercise certainly has health benefits even if it doesn't lead to weight loss," he says.

http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/weight+lo ... eight,6739" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So clearly, the message needs to be that people should exercise. Exercise is important for health. We need to be telling people to get a handle on their diet for their weight and also to be physically active for their health. After all, "it's easier to cut 1,000 calories from a bloated diet than to burn off 1,000 calories through exercise"
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/e ... ive-truths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[warthog1]

After all, "it's easier to cut 1,000 calories from a bloated diet than to burn off 1,000 calories through exercise"

I cant really argue with that. It's a generalisation but It's probably reasonably accurate. My diet is reasonably good I guess but I dont put much effort into it.
I went from 184cm and 92 kg with regular weight training at the gym 7-8 years ago, to now 76 kg up from 74 over the last year. I've lost muscle and fat I reckon, certainly the shoulders and arms are smaller and I dont reckon I could leg press as much now.
I have noticed if I stop cycling for a period the weight starts going back on and comes off again slowly as I resume my normal regime.

[casual_cyclist]

I have noticed if I stop cycling for a period the weight starts going back on and comes off again slowly as I resume my normal regime.

Oh yeah, that is a really tricky thing. Currently I am intentionally physically active for 10 to 12 hours every week and I am eating to maintain my weight. If I had to stop that level of activity, I would have to cut back what I am eating to match. That's the hard part.

I should correct my post from yesterday too. I used the word "diet" where I meant healthy and suststainable, permanent lifestyle changes. One change I have made is aiming for 10 serves of veg a day. I plan to continue that indefinitely. I've permanently incorporated that change into my eating habits (lifestyle change) not temporarily (diet). Diet's dont work. Lifestyle modifications do.

If we accept that a "diet" is a temporary strategy to lose weight, as opposed to a healthy eating pattern, which is a permanent lifestyle change, the stats on diets are frightening.

about 95% of people who lose weight by dieting will regain it in 1-5 years. Since dieting, by definition, is a temporary food plan, it won't work in the long run. Moreover, the deprivation of restrictive diets may lead to a diet-overeat or diet-binge cycle. And since your body doesn't want you to starve, it responds to overly-restrictive diets by slowing your metabolism which of course makes it harder to lose weight.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ch ... -what-does" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should we even tell fat people to become thin?

Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention repeatedly find the lowest mortality rates among people whose body mass index puts them in the “overweight” and “mildly obese” categories. And recent research suggests that losing weight doesn’t actually improve health biomarkers such as blood pressure, fasting glucose, or triglyceride levels for most people.

More alarming than that,

The only study to follow subjects for more than five years, the 2013 Look AHEAD study, found that people with type 2 diabetes who lost weight had just as many heart attacks, strokes, and deaths as those who didn’t.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally, I think it is more important to help people make healthy eating choices and incorporate them into a sustainable lifestyle. I get the impression that is why Nobody started the thread in the first place. It seems to be more about heathly eating patterns as opposed to "dieting" as such. Incoporate healthy eating with an appropriate exercise program and people will be well on the way to better health.

[warthog1]

Personally, I think it is more important to help people make healthy eating choices and incorporate them into a sustainable lifestyle. I get the impression that is why Nobody started the thread in the first place. It seems to be more about heathly eating patterns as opposed to "dieting" as such. Incoporate healthy eating with an appropriate exercise program and people will be well on the way to better health.

Yeah I'll go with that.
That's what I'm trying to do but the food part is harder for me than the exercise part. I know I need to eat more plant based food, I'm slowly getting there and trying to drag the family along a bit too. Slowly slowly.
This thread and the weight loss one are invaluable for me as a ready source of information to back up the healthy choices.

[Nobody]

Should we even tell fat people to become thin?

Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention repeatedly find the lowest mortality rates among people whose body mass index puts them in the “overweight” and “mildly obese” categories. And recent research suggests that losing weight doesn’t actually improve health biomarkers such as blood pressure, fasting glucose, or triglyceride levels for most people.

There is plenty of evidence that it does for BP. My personal example included. My last three averaged 116/66. Previously 122/81.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3070038" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Or just ask Dr Google.
https://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=b ... mAWCi4GIBA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know about the other two results and don't care to chase. But as said before, such is the lack of credibility in science these days with funding by industry, that there is no shortage credible looking studies that back just about anything. That is not including the various "paid off" (sponsored but usually unbeknown to us) otherwise credible establishments.

I'm not going to tell people to lose weight. It's up to them. I have a family of obese people I live with. However I'm not going to say it's healthy to be an unhealthy weight either.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health ... 7176494786" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And no I don't want to continue arguing any points. So this should be my last post on this.

[casual_cyclist]

Should we even tell fat people to become thin?

Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention repeatedly find the lowest mortality rates among people whose body mass index puts them in the “overweight” and “mildly obese” categories. And recent research suggests that losing weight doesn’t actually improve health biomarkers such as blood pressure, fasting glucose, or triglyceride levels for most people.

There is plenty of evidence that it does for BP. My personal example included. My last three averaged 116/66. Previously 122/81.

Is that from eating more fruit, veg, wholegrains and legumes, or from losing weight, or both?

In my case, when I was eating vast amounts of sugar, I know when I switched to more plant based, my BP dropped before my weight dropped.

I'm not going to tell people to lose weight. It's up to them. I have a family of obese people I live with. However I'm not going to say it's healthy to be an unhealthy weight either.

Agree. Although the article did specify that there is a lower limit and upper limit for healthy weight. I don't see you as pushing a 'weight loss' agenda at all. I see you pushing an 'eat plants' agenda. IMO, that is the agenda with a most science behind it too. I am very much on board with the 'eat plants' message. If we could get people exercising and eating more plants, I'm sure a lot of their weight issues would resolve themselves.

And no I don't want to continue arguing any points. So this should be my last post on this.

Up to you. I'm not going to argue it either way, except that I think it is more beneficial to promote healthy lifestyle modifications rather than pushing a 'weight loss' agenda. I see you very much in the former camp - coaching and encouraging healthy lifestyle choices rather than the latter 'must lose weight at an cost' ideology.

[Nobody]

I'll start by saying I don't agree with much of what he says. But it's easy to see how someone uneducated in these things could be easily convinced by what he says.

This video is worth seeing for at least the first 23 minutes or so, plus seeing the graph at 34:25. Although you'll have to use full screen display to read the graphs. This guy is promoting a LCHF meat diet (similar to Atkins style). So why am I encouraging people to see it? Well, not for what he says but the graphs showing the results he got and how he thinks these are good results. Which they are compared to what he started with only. At no time does his weight or cholesterol actually reach the required goals that the doctors consider safe. He also shows a graph of people who cut sugar to find their cholesterol (with what he thinks are good results) to never get down to 150mg/dL or 3.87mmol/L (which is the safe level considered by Dr Esselstyn, doctors are happy with below 5.0 or 193mg/dL). The cholesterol graph at 34:25 clearly shows no coronary heart disease (CHD, also known as coronary artery disease (CAD)) under 150mg/dL. Who is Dr Esselstyn? For those who don't know, he has done the most successful trials into preventing and reversing CAD on genetically predisposed patients that I have seen or heard of. Here are the published results.

More on cholesterol being the only major risk factor for atherosclerosis and optimum levels here.
CC version here.

Cholesterol units converter in case you need it.

My points?

- A good example of LCHF meat diets working to a degree. But they don't get you into absolute safe territory when it comes to CHD/CAD if you have a genetic predisposition.

- It's a good example of the diet war that's going on between HCLF and LCHF. There are two sides and both believe they are right and have the science to back it.
[If you saw the bit about Ancel Keys and want to hear the other side of the story, go to plantpositive.com or his youtube channel.]

- Another example of Big Phama influencing scientific studies and sponsoring researchers for their own financial benefit, at the cost of the general public's health outcomes. Which should be no surprise to anyone with an interest in nutrition research.

[Nobody]

Thanks for your comments CC.

There is plenty of evidence that it does for BP. My personal example included. My last three averaged 116/66. Previously 122/81.

Is that from eating more fruit, veg, wholegrains and legumes, or from losing weight, or both?

I was digging through some old posts on here and found that number. It was a number of weeks after the diet change for the initial number. I'm hoping that my BP continues to drop for systolic at least, but it may not.

I'm not going to argue it either way, except that I think it is more beneficial to promote healthy lifestyle modifications rather than pushing a 'weight loss' agenda.

I'm not interested in pushing a weight loss agenda either, other than for myself currently. The reason for which is I'm being closely watched by people around me in the hope that I fail to get results. Therefore in some way justifying their lifestyle. For them I need to get good medically recorded results like BP and blood test results, especially cholesterol.

WHtR is a better health indicator anyway. People in the loser thread would be better off using it rather than weight as a measure of progress IMO.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22106927" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[casual_cyclist]

He also shows a graph of people who cut sugar to find their cholesterol (with what he thinks are good results) to never get down to 150mg/dL or 3.87mmol/L (which is the safe level considered by Dr Esselstyn, doctors are happy with below 5.0 or 193mg/dL). The cholesterol graph at 34:25 clearly shows no coronary heart disease (CHD, also known as coronary artery disease (CAD)) under 150mg/dL.

I need to get my cholesterol done again. My last reading was back when I was very overweight and inactive, eating mostly processed foods, no fruit and very little veg. Total cholesterol was 4.3, which is ok, but not great. I would like to see what it is now I am eating a lot more plants: heaps of veggies, legumes and also some fruit. Also lighter than back then and a lot less fat.

[casual_cyclist]

Thanks for your comments CC.

There is plenty of evidence that it does for BP. My personal example included. My last three averaged 116/66. Previously 122/81.

Is that from eating more fruit, veg, wholegrains and legumes, or from losing weight, or both?

I was digging through some old posts on here and found that number. It was a number of weeks after the diet change for the initial number. I'm hoping that my BP continues to drop for systolic at least, but it may not.

You are doing a lot better on BP than me. Does the timing correlate more to a change in diet first or weight loss first? Personally I think you have a double benefit of a drop from improved diet and a drop from being less fat. I know my BP went down before my weight went down.

My cholesterol is ok but BP may not be. Back when I was over 100 kg and eating mostly junk, it was 148/98 and my doc wanted to put me on BP meds. Instead, I started exercising and eating more plants. I saw that drop to 146/92. Some time after that I stopped eating most refined sugar and ate even more plants and it dropped to 137/91. Now I am exercising more and eating a lot more plants, I should get it done again.

I'm not going to argue it either way, except that I think it is more beneficial to promote healthy lifestyle modifications rather than pushing a 'weight loss' agenda.

I'm not interested in pushing a weight loss agenda either, other than for myself currently. The reason for which is I'm being closely watched by people around me in the hope that I fail to get results. Therefore in some way justifying their lifestyle. For them I need to get good medically recorded results like BP and blood test results, especially cholesterol.[/quote]
I don't really get that. I don't think that simply eating more plants is a 'huge' sacrifice. Actually, I quite enjoy my plant based meals!

WHtR is a better health indicator anyway. People in the loser thread would be better off using it rather than weight as a measure of progress IMO.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22106927" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed. It would have been good if the studies used WHtR instead of BMI. I would like to see them correlate the same health indicators with WHtR, because I am certain that if an 'at risk' person dropped their WHtR, they would see an improvement in those same health indicators.

I guess something I didn't really make clear is the importance of nutrition vs 'weight loss'. If a person cuts out some processed junk and ups their intake of plants (vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fruit, nuts), then they will see improved health indicators regardless of whether they 'lose weight'. If another person 'loses weight' by going on a starvation diet or an animal product heavy low carb diet, they might 'lose weight' but they won't necessarily see the same improvements in health indicators, even though they are lighter. Of course the ideal would that someone transitions to a whole-food plant-based diet and also becomes less fat. Then they would benefit both from improved nutrition and also from being less fat. I'm sure those people would see the biggest improvements in health indicators.

[Nobody]

You are doing a lot better on BP than me. Does the timing correlate more to a change in diet first or weight loss first? Personally I think you have a double benefit of a drop from improved diet and a drop from being less fat. I know my BP went down before my weight went down.

Change of diet first, but it didn't change the BP initially. I would have probably lost 2 to 4Kg by then.

BP and cholesterol appear to have a common link in diet, but can be isolated issues to a degree (from the little I understand about it so far). I know of two people at my work who are on meds for high BP but have low cholesterol (one has a total of 3.2mmol/L. )

Now I am exercising more and eating a lot more plants, I should get it done again.

Should be lower as I've read about many cases on these forums of exercise lowering BP. Plants should add to it.

[CKinnard]

When do you guys fit your riding in?
I was getting pangy around 3pm this arvo, so had an apple, then hopped back on the bike.... 95km all up for the day.
100g of chicken thawing out for a stir fry (4 cups of broccoli, carrot, red caps, snow peas, mushies, ginger - with honey, soy, ginger sauce), and rockmelon for dessert!

up early tomorrow for a 100+ and that should get me back on the way to a healthy waist.
BTW, I agree waist height ratio is the best anthropometric health measure we have currently. I wish they'd banish BMI back to the 20th Century.

[casual_cyclist]

When do you guys fit your riding in?
I was getting pangy around 3pm this arvo, so had an apple, then hopped back on the bike.... 95km all up for the day.

Do you mean when do I fit in my riding, walking, running, working out, pilates, yoga and stretching?

Boring rest day for me. I usually walk between 30 minutes and 60 minutes on a rest day. Today I did gardening. If you want to know why I need a rest day, refer above.

[warthog1]

With regard to BP people need to realize it is a dynamic measure and needs to be taken regularly to establish a trend. A single measure weeks apart is not always indicative of an improvement unless the trend shows the reading is regularly lower than the previous measurements. You simply may have been more relaxed when the lower BP was taken.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Condition ... rticle.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Nobody]

With regard to BP people need to realize it is a dynamic measure and needs to be taken regularly to establish a trend. A single measure weeks apart is not always indicative of an improvement unless the trend shows the reading is regularly lower than the previous measurements. You simply may have been more relaxed when the lower BP was taken.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Condition ... rticle.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, but the most recent three were each a month apart and averaged. The last one was 119/66 after they botched the machine twice before, so no surprise it was a bit higher for systolic. I could buy my own meter, but would anyone take the results seriously if a professional (or at least a professional machine) didn't do the measurements?


I was looking up graphs for CHD and cholesterol which brought up an interesting blog from 2011. It said:

A recent meta-analysis pooled together the results of 68 prospective studies including over 302,000 participants and found that LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides were all capable of predicting the risk of heart disease. When they combined them in a statistical model, however, triglycerides lost their predictive power and only LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol remained predictive (16):

I haven't pain too much attention to triglycerides up until now and it looks like I'll continue to do so.

On a side note, he also gave Esselstyn a serve about quoting the Framingham data, but that looks embarrassing for him now as Esselstyn has conclusively proven his point even further with his second study.

The Framingham data below showing no CHD under total cholesterol of 150mg/dL or 3.88mmol/L.

[warthog1]

the most recent three were each a month apart and averaged. The last one was 119/66 after they botched the machine twice before, so no surprise it was a bit higher for systolic. I could buy my own meter, but would anyone take the results seriously if a professional (or at least a professional machine) didn't do the measurements?

Your diastolic was a bit lower on the last averaged readings 66 v 81. I wouldn't worry about the small differnce in systolic its well within normal variance. In any case 119/66 is very good for a bloke of your age and is well within a healthy range. I dont believe getting it any lower than that is really a measure of improved cardiovascular health.
If you want to record it you can buy bp machines relatively cheaply. Buy a reasonably priced one and take it regularly to establish a trend if you wish but it is already very good
My BP has been as high as 140/90 and as low as 120/70 depending on the level of sympathetic tone I have at the time. I find some threads on here and some posters tend to push it toward the higher figure (this is not one of those threads and you are not one of those posters )