Plant Based Diet Thread

[Nobody]

...and I'm impressed with the care that Nobody takes in that regard.

Thanks.

On the up side, I got the first harvest from the lettuces in the garden this morning, so I've had some really nice tasting greens with my breakfast

Good for you. Probably one of the healthiest foods there is. Some say especially if it's home grown.
I'm back to eating green leafy in the form of iceberg lettuce after learning that it's relatively low in iron for the amount of nitrates it has.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/veg ... cts/2476/2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24964574

I'm also finding celery to be a good after ride recovery food. Maybe because of the high level of sodium nitrate to aid with re-hydration. Seems to work for me anyway.

[Nobody]

So lately I've been losing weight again at a reasonable rate considering my BMI. So I thought I'd share what I'm doing differently that may help some reduce the waist a bit:

- In the last week or so I've reduce my bean intake from 100g/d to 75g/d. For the last 3 days, that has become none. Which alone seems to have an effect. I can't say why it is the case, just an observation I've made in the past as well. My banana intake has also gone down which is high in protein and calorie density for a fruit. It probably won't work for the majority, but reducing high protein foods might help some. Total protein intake has gone long term from about 1.1g/kg bw to now about 0.8g/kg.

- I've reduced my main feeding periods to twice a day, with the little I eat in between meals during the day as being often celery, lettuce and low Cal fruit. By intermittent feeding, I'm trying to give my body more time in a day to burn fat. Like some others, I've also found the less I eat, to a degree the less I want to eat. Which is a bit strange.

- I've moved my nut intake to late at night, hours from my last meal to reduce the likelihood of the fat intake going straight to body fat.

I'll probably continue this for less than a month and end it before I get to an underweight BMI (one calculator says I'm already there for a male). The good news for me is I hopefully now have enough knowledge about my diet to easily control of my body weight for the rest of my life. That is assuming my body doesn't go into some starvation mode that I've heard about with some others like the Biggest Loser contestants. But since I'm not doing fasting, or even intermittent fasting, in theory it shouldn't. However on the up side, a body which is more efficient with calorie intake could help with food costs.

[CKinnard]

Nobody, what I'd be interested in more so when it comes to weight loss, is what you reduced your overall Calorie intake by.

I've cut back on legumes significantly in the last 2 weeks, from 10-14x/week. I was very gassy for the last couple of months and wanted to break from them for a bit. I am now doing sweet potato, corn, avocado and nuts more so.

[Nobody]

Nobody, what I'd be interested in more so when it comes to weight loss, is what you reduced your overall Calorie intake by.

Depends on the day. On cycling days I might be up to 1000 Cal lower, where the non-cycling days it might be as high as my historic norm of 2800 Cal. I don't know the overall average as although I track my calories on off days, I don't on working days. Whatever it is, it's enough of a reduction. Plus as said I'm targeting items I think may individually add weight, or time foods better. It's temporary. At the rate I'm going I'll be safely at my goal of BMI 19.X in two weeks. I don't want to get much lighter.
I'll try to put up today's speadsheet at the end, which should be a higher intake day.

I've cut back on legumes significantly in the last 2 weeks, from 10-14x/week. I was very gassy for the last couple of months and wanted to break from them for a bit. I am now doing sweet potato, corn, avocado and nuts more so.

I'm also still trying to get enough nuts & seeds, but only enough as I know they are problematic for me. I don't like avocado, so that's easy. I eat sweet potato regularly, but I haven't bought any lately. Just eating a regulated amount of potato instead with more fibrous veg.

Do you track daily what you eat or just estimate?

[CKinnard]

Is it worth tracking your energy intake accurately (with kitchen scales) if you don't track your energy expenditure accurately???!!!

I think you know I've developed a mostly volumetric means of 'tracking' energy intake.
It is accurate enough to reach desired weight loss goals over 1-2 weeks and longer.
I've used it for over 10 years, so know very well what 4 cups (1 liter = 100 Calories) of salad looks like.

I also track my energy expenditure, via METS. I know at the end of the day the deficit for the day +/- 150 Cals or ~7%.

I am going to have some more in depth med tests done soon. I have suffered multiple traumas in addition to cfs. I'd go into these tests in more detail but some malcontent with a barrow to push would end up using it as proof my ideas about diet (the literature) are wrong. It is only a bicycle forum after all.

[Nobody]

Is it worth tracking your energy intake accurately (with kitchen scales) if you don't track your energy expenditure accurately???!!!

I don't track my expenditure at all. But I still think it's worthwhile tracking input since BMR doesn't change that much and expediture on top of that isn't going to be too much. I believe my bike rides are about 600 Cal each.

When I track by weighing and logging, I get a very clear idea of what my intake is without just letting hunger be my guide. I can do a lot of "what if"s and figure some stuff out too.

I think you know I've developed a mostly volumetric means of 'tracking' energy intake.
It is accurate enough to reach desired weight loss goals over 1-2 weeks and longer.
I've used it for over 10 years, so know very well what 4 cups (1 liter = 100 Calories) of salad looks like.

I also track my energy expenditure, via METS. I know at the end of the day the deficit for the day +/- 150 Cals or ~7%.

I knew how you tracked intake, I just didn't know whether you were still doing it. Interesting that you track expenditure too. Not something for me at present. Just tracking my intake is enough work.

I am going to have some more in depth med tests done soon...

I've got more blood tests to do about late Nov, early Dec. The one I'm most interested in is omega-3 index. I'll also get A1C done for the first time for the record and HCY again to see if there's an improvement since upping the B12 to daily. That is on top of my usual hs-CRP and iron loading tests. Should be interesting for both of us then. Might as well get my yearly BP at the GP done too.

[CKinnard]

When you say your rides are 600 Calories, does that include BMR? (Most calculators include it)
If so, then you are going to be double counting BMR for the duration of the ride (BMR for you is probably around 70-80 Cals per hour.)

Further, the more intense the ride, the longer your metabolic rate remains elevated post ride (for tissue repair, growth, energy metabolism, and metabolic waste clearance).

Many calculators neglect to allow for TEF (thermic effect of food) which convention sets at 10% of energy intake. i.e. if you expend 2500 Cals in a day doing light activities, the Calorie intake required to maintain bodyweight is 2750 Cals.

[Baalzamon]

Yes the human body is an oven. It's official....

[Nobody]

When you say your rides are 600 Calories, does that include BMR? (Most calculators include it)
If so, then you are going to be double counting BMR for the duration of the ride (BMR for you is probably around 70-80 Cals per hour.)

Don't know. I just used bike calculator to get a guesstimate. My useage is going to be whatever it is. Just as long as I average less intake, I should be OK.
http://www.bikecalculator.com/

Many calculators neglect to allow for TEF (thermic effect of food) which convention sets at 10% of energy intake. i.e. if you expend 2500 Cals in a day doing light activities, the Calorie intake required to maintain bodyweight is 2750 Cals.

Barnard believes from a study that for WFPB, TEF is 16%.

Fourteen weeks later, the participants came back to the laboratory and had their metabolisms measured again. And we found that the average after-meal metabolism was now 16 percent higher than before.

http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/the-negative-calorie-effect

Anyway as said earlier and assuming I eat the nuts some time soon, below is today's diet. I wouldn't call it typical as the Mulberries threw the protein levels out. But the tree is in fruit at the moment, so...
I could have eaten both more and less today. As said, some non-cycling days are 2800, some are 2400. Yesterday was 1588 Cal according to Crono. So the approx average for two days is 2041 Cal with both day's Cal according to Crono (today 2494). If I take away 16% TEF, then that is 1714. So you can see why I'm dropping weight slowly.



To others reading this post without the history, the above spreadsheet is for my weight loss mode. A normal diet for me may have 100g+ of beans and maybe double the bananas. I could also be eating more grains and more starchy veg.
By the way, Cronometer with some RDAs modified to WHO specs or my body weight specs says I got everything I needed today.

[CKinnard]

The TEF of 10% is applied to a total day's energy expenditure, over 24 hours. i.e. if you expend 2000 Calories, you need 2200 Calories for a eucaloric intake. The Barnard report of 16% is TEF at an unstated time after a meal, and isn't the average increase in metabolic rate over 24 hours.

Regarding the bike calculator, no it doesn't include BMR, but nor does it include TEF.
It will also be inaccurate due to not estimating wind resistance and personal pedaling efficiency. Though I suppose the former isn't that important if you don't cycle fast

You could calculate more accurately by taking core body temp before arising in the mornings. This would indicate whether you are under or over the median BMR.

[Nobody]

The TEF of 10% is calculated over 24 hours.
The Barnard report of 16% is calculated for an unstated period after meals though less than 8 hours each time.

OK, thanks for clarifying that. So even at 10% TEF the two day average calculates as 1837 Cal.

As for body temp, I usually measure at 36 degC. But I don't really care that much about what my BMR is or how many Cals I burn a day. It could probably be calculated from long term Cronometer entries and my weight loss/gain over time. My food intake is my focus at the moment.

[CKinnard]

But I don't really care that much about what my BMR is or how many Cals I burn a day. It could probably be calculated from long term Cronometer entries and my weight loss/gain over time. My food intake is my focus at the moment.

The reason I raised the importance of energy expenditure is because you are attributing weight loss to small changes in diet
- 25g drop in legumes, a 25 Calorie variation
- change to banana intake, 0.9 Cal/g
- eating nuts at night, no change in Calorie intake if nut intake didn't change.

That's quixotic, at least to my mind. But carry on.

[Nobody]

The reason I raised the importance of energy expenditure is because you are attributing weight loss to small changes in diet
- 25g drop in legumes, a 25 Calorie variation

100g variation. I started at 100g, dropped to 75, then none for the last say 5 days. Not much of a change in total, but it appears to be more of a trigger than anything. Just reporting what I see. YMMV.

- change to banana intake, 0.9 Cal/g

0.6kg change in bananas is about 500 Cal.

- eating nuts at night, no change in Calorie intake if nut intake didn't change.

True, but I'm not placing high fat and high carb ("standard" diet style) in the same meal as much.

That's quixotic, at least to my mind. But carry on.

Fair enough and I will.
People that see me regularly are starting to notice now. But it took more than a 6% change in body weight for that to happen.
Yes I'm probably riding more regularly at closer to 3 times a week instead of once to twice a week over winter. And those days also correspond to skipping some food now, where they usually didn't in the past. Like I said I'm also trying to limit snacking which I didn't do in the past. What I'm doing is different, it just may not look that different in this thread.

[mikesbytes]

A lot of detail behind this discussion about energy expenditure and fine tuning's of diet. I prefer to look at it from a more simplistic view point.

Working in the fitness industry I see some remarkable claims as to energy burn in a given activity. Some of those figures are as high as 1,000 calories per hour. Once again the customers are looking for the silver bullet. I've also seen some real figures that are probably closer to the mark and show a wide variation between participants performing the same action, the example I'm thinking off was (off memory) 300-480 for females and 400-700 for males. CK made an interesting point, did the figure include basal calories, ie is the figure total calories or additional calories due to the activity?

The problem I see with being super specific about exercise calorie burn as a measurement of success is that its not taking into account what happens when you are not exercising and as one gets fitter, then ones energy expenditure increases when they are not specifically exercising. The end result is that it is very difficult to calculate what your calorie intake should be. The minor change that Nobody has made may be spot on, or it may be out and Nobody is best to judge that.

[CKinnard]

Well we all have to interpret what is written here via our life experience, and the accuracy of what is supplied, and Nobody just volunteered extra critical information to any recent weight loss. In fact, I am still unclear how much Nobody reduced his Calorie intake recently.

Most days I field questions from clients who want to know whether this or that brand new super food is going to help them achieve their weight loss and fitness goals. This kind of thinking is anathema to me when they put magic bullets ahead of more basic stuff, like a Calorie deficit, and 5 and 2.

As for the relative value of energy intake vs expenditure, all is important.
Most over-predict energy expenditure due to dodgy computers in gym machines, and a fitness industry with self serving bias towards exercise. As I've said several times in the past, middle aged people including myself can find weight loss more successful when they focus on managing stress via means other than exercise.

Anyway, I'll leave you guys to micromanage intake, and infer.

[Nobody]

Thanks for your comment Mike.

Yesterday I only ate breakfast as some in the family had a stomach bug and I was getting some pain too. So I thought it was wise to put off eating for the rest of the day. 763 Cal according to the spreadsheet.

Today should be a recovery/normal day so expecting about 2500 Cal, but not monitoring intake today.

[RhapsodyX]

Thanks for your comment Mike.

Yesterday I only ate breakfast as some in the family had a stomach bug and I was getting some pain too. So I thought it was wise to put off eating for the rest of the day. 763 Cal according to the spreadsheet.

Today should be a recovery/normal day so expecting about 2500 Cal, but not monitoring intake today.

One of the things I have learnt this year, using a FitBit, a power meter on the bike and a lot of detailed record keeping is that if I try and match intake to reported expenditure I lose about 1kg a week despite trying to be eucaloric. And, while being tortured for the AIS, I put on about 0.5kg in three weeks... but lost 2kg of body fat at the same time. The technology just isn't up to the required accuracy to match intake to expenditure. And lets not get started on energy lost due to frame flex between different bikes using the same power meter (yes, it is a real & measurable issue between my carbon and alloy frames).

At the end of the day, it's a guessing game as to whether or not the calories are actually being applied to the body, what is being burnt (and from fat or stored glycogen) - as that comes down to digestive enzymes, bacterial mix in the biome, power being generated etc. etc.

I guess scales & tape measure are the ultimate answer.

[mikesbytes]

Feeling sick can certainly zap ones desire to eat, hope your feeling better.

Interesting info about the power metre and frame loss. Could be worth starting another thread to share your experiences, I'd love to read more

I think this was discussed earlier, so appoligies if I'm bringing up a done topic. I'm wondering if there is any significance difference in energy absorption based on the bacterial composition in your digestive system. I've ready there is a difference but don't understand if its minor or significant

[Nobody]

At the end of the day, it's a guessing game as to whether or not the calories are actually being applied to the body, what is being burnt (and from fat or stored glycogen) - as that comes down to digestive enzymes, bacterial mix in the biome, power being generated etc. etc.

True. I don't pretend to know. I just go by what I'm observing. Which makes it simple.

I guess scales & tape measure are the ultimate answer.

Agree. The combination at least gives a general direction as the weeks pass by.

[Nobody]

Feeling sick can certainly zap ones desire to eat, hope your feeling better.

Thanks Mike.

I felt normal by this morning. I think the lack of eating helped to recover.
Pretty hungry today, I loosely estimate I ate about 3100 Cal. Still a two day average of < 2000 Cal/d, which is what has been happening in general. From that trend I estimate should lose close to a kg of body weight every two weeks. Time will tell...

I think this was discussed earlier, so appoligies if I'm bringing up a done topic. I'm wondering if there is any significance difference in energy absorption based on the bacterial composition in your digestive system. I've ready there is a difference but don't understand if its minor or significant

I don't know much about it other than it does make a difference. The amount is probably depends on a number of variables.
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/microbiome/

[Baalzamon]

Feeling sick can certainly zap ones desire to eat, hope your feeling better.

Interesting info about the power metre and frame loss. Could be worth starting another thread to share your experiences, I'd love to read more

I think this was discussed earlier, so appoligies if I'm bringing up a done topic. I'm wondering if there is any significance difference in energy absorption based on the bacterial composition in your digestive system. I've ready there is a difference but don't understand if its minor or significant

I'm waiting for ubiome to open up to australia. Then find out what bugs I want to be rid of and want I need. When I started lchf it took about 6 weeks for the gut to adapt to the higher fat intake. Had to be very careful I didn't have too much or GI distress kicked in. Say 2TBSP coconut oil. Now I can easily handle 3 with no issue. And yes there is a vegan keto you can do. Coconut based fats.

[mikesbytes]

I think this was discussed earlier, so appoligies if I'm bringing up a done topic. I'm wondering if there is any significance difference in energy absorption based on the bacterial composition in your digestive system. I've ready there is a difference but don't understand if its minor or significant

I don't know much about it other than it does make a difference. The amount is probably depends on a number of variables.
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/microbiome/

My feeling from reading that article is that's a more a case of the bacteria changing in accordance with your diet, so if you make a significant change in your diet, then it will be out of place for a small time until the bacteria adjusts

[RhapsodyX]

nteresting info about the power metre and frame loss. Could be worth starting another thread to share your experiences, I'd love to read more

Slightly OT, but given there's not much to say, and this sis a cycling forum...

Both bikes have repeatable energy expenditure for a particular climb (below aero velocities) at between 260kJ and 270kJ. There's about 2kg difference in weight, but the carbon bike is about 20 seconds quicker and the RPE is lower. The only explanation "we" could come up with is that, given the energy isn't being passed through the power meter, it's being used to flex the frame sideways. My guesstimate is about 20 watts being lost at 350w. It's really only a consideration at/above threshold as the loss will be lower at lower torque, but it does mean that (in general) I'm less efficient on the training bike - therefore the actual consumed calories *will* be higher than indicated. And it makes riding the carbon bike fun - it always feels so much easier.

[RhapsodyX]

I think this was discussed earlier, so appoligies if I'm bringing up a done topic. I'm wondering if there is any significance difference in energy absorption based on the bacterial composition in your digestive system. I've ready there is a difference but don't understand if its minor or significant

I don't know much about it other than it does make a difference. The amount is probably depends on a number of variables.
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/microbiome/

My feeling from reading that article is that's a more a case of the bacteria changing in accordance with your diet, so if you make a significant change in your diet, then it will be out of place for a small time until the bacteria adjusts

Reportedly, it's difficult to effect a real change in bacterial mix without a fecal material transplant into the colon. Most of the bacteria are established at birth and shortly after, and in our wonderful first-world the mix of bacteria is now restricted anyway, and often damaged by antibiotic use. You can increase the amount of resistant starch to better feed the "good" bacteria, and restrict protein overload to avoid putrefaction & sulphide production... but my understanding is that you need to perform a lot of work to try and "re-seed" the bowel.

[Nobody]

Now I've reached my WHtR and weight goals for the year, I thought I'd mention the extra things I did to get there which may help others looking to lose some weight.

First, I didn't drop my fat intake to do this. I just separated my nut intake from the rest of my meals so as to not eat high carb and high fat together as much.

I ate two main meals a day and limited snacking to the aforementioned small amount of nuts and other times with celery or lettuce. But I didn't really feel that hungry between meals when I got used to it. If I wasn't hungry when a meal time came, if practical, I would push the time back an hour at a time, then I would see how I felt.

I reduced my total calorie intake by eliminating beans and reduced the amount of grains, starchy veg and bananas in my diet. By doing this I not only reduced calories, but also the amount of protein from about 1.1g/kg bw to about 0.85g. I can only estimate that my two day average was reduced by about 600 Cal. Although I lost weight at the rate of at least 111g/d which suggests a higher calorie reduction than that.

I increased my exercise frequency. Not by a lot as I was still doing < 100 km per week on average. So exercise isn't a big component here IMO.

In summary, yes I did increase my activity and reduce my calorie intake. But I also reduced my feeding frequency and time which gave my body the need to use body fat.