Plant Based Diet Thread

[Nobody]

This one is to the point and he uses some unflattering language. But he does have a point if you look at it long term.

[Nobody]

I'm posting the video below because I think she got this wrong - possibly inadvertently - by encouraguig people to consume salt or sodium supplements. To me it sounds like she is encouraging people to add iodised salt to their diet with the goal to get people to consume more iodine.




Yes, iodine is important and can be scarce on a plant based diet. I know that my TSH had tested higher (bad) in the past and I estimated at the time that I was only getting about a quarter of the daily minimum of iodine. That is also assuming the foods actually had that amount, which may not be the case with modern farming practices. I also encourage people to take an iodine supplement if their TSH is a bit high as I believe that is better than the unknown of eating seaweed in which you won't know how much iodine you're getting. You can easily get too much iodine with seaweed, which is also a problem.

Anyway my point is that I disagree that people should be taking sodium supplements or salt. That should only be done if their blood test for sodium is low. My intake has been less than 500 mg per day long term (474 mg today) with no added salt and yet I've never tested low for sodium. In the video she says that people have been using alternative salts that don't have iodine added and therefore people are testing low with iodine. I agree that cruciferous vegetables are known to reduce absorption of iodine. Best to take your iodine separate from food for best absorption anyway.

Sodium is a vasal restrictor. It's considered to be both a short term and long term contributor to hypertension. It needs to be balanced with potassium intake with at least 5 times more potassium. That is usually only possible if sodium intake is less than 500mg/d, as in with no added salt at all. My potassium to sodium ratio today was 16:1 and my BP is typically 93/63 mm Hg. As per video below, lower sodium levels are not typically a health problem. Although some interests have tried to spread the J curve misinformation to say it is.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/sodium ... lt-debate/

On the subject of salt. Other than alternate salts that have potassium in them, alternate/"natural" salts are still just sodium cloride with other minerals in them (like iron) which give them their colour. They are no healthier and can be worse for those who like me should be avoiding iron.

[Nobody]

I find this guy interesting as he is on a campaign to counter misinformation - which I can relate to. He is saying that polyunsaturated oils don't cause cancer, but it's the style of processing of them that does. He also has a very unusual omega6 to omega 3 ratio of 0.5 (or 2 if you reverse it, which he has at bottom of image below). Most others recommend a omega 6:3 somewhere between 4 and 1:1.





As usual I'm posting this out of interest and don't necessarily agree with anything he says. I still believe that excessing fat of any type of saturation causes atherosclerosis in herbivores and humans technically don't need much. Yes, not a popular message. But I'm trying to post what I believe to be the truth, rather than what I'd prefer to believe.

[am50em]

. But I'm trying to post what I believe to be the truth, rather than what I'd prefer to believe.

How do you tell the difference?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Nobody]

Thanks for posting.

There were times some years ago when a lot of my posts would be challenged by the low-carbers. So it used to keep me pretty sharp with references. These days it's more tumble weeds and crickets around here.

As to your question. The results from personal blood testing which are posted in this thread. They are the most compelling for me. Other than that, the studies and work of people like Ornish, PRCM, McDougall, Kempner and Esselstyn. There are also the results of animal studies in regard to high fat diets and the development of atherosclerosis. I've seen/heard/read some compelling ones in the past. But I don't know if I can reproduce them now. I remember a saturated fat one where the scientists were well aware of what they needed to do to give monkeys atherosclerosis quickly so they could do some kind of cholesterol lowing study or such. They fed the monkeys coconut (85% saturated fat IIRC). If they wanted to speed it up further, they would also give the monkeys sugar. Although not releated to the monkeys, have a look at the links below.

http://dresselstyn.com/site/is_oil_healthy.pdf

https://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/view ... 0#p1508475

Everyone suffers to some degree from confirmation bias. But if I did to a large extent, then my opinion wouldn't have changed over the years with such things as the best sources of omega3, raw versus cooked food, "good fats" and "bad fats", and my view of potatoes. In fact I'd probably be in more serious health trouble now if I couldn't change.

[am50em]

Yes blood testing will definitely help to show what works for you. Just so many conflicting messages that can change over time. I just stick to vegetables, fruit, oats, nuts, fish, eggs some meat, low fat milk, cheese and cereals. Very little processed foods. But the only thing I try to be very strict about is intermittent fasting with just four hour eating window. This definitely makes me feel better than 3 meals a day.

[Nobody]

But the only thing I try to be very strict about is intermittent fasting with just four hour eating window. This definitely makes me feel better than 3 meals a day.

Yes I've done that too in the past. I may have read in Greger's book, "How Not To DIet" - my head is swimming with so much deiary information that it's hard to remember where it all came from - that the down side of bigger meals is that it raises cholesterol compared to spreading the same food out over the day.

[warthog1]

These days it's more tumble weeds and crickets around here.

That applies to the forum in general as compared to what it was 10 years or so ago.
Internet forums, as a popular source of interaction are in decline.
I assume largely due to other forms of social media like FB, instagram and whatever else is out there.
I "assume" as I don't use them much at all, but traffic on the several forums I am on has definitely reduced from a few years back.

[Nobody]

Just so many conflicting messages that can change over time. I just stick to vegetables, fruit, oats, nuts, fish, eggs some meat, low fat milk, cheese and cereals.

Take it from the thousands of posts I've put between here and the the Diet Thread that I have a clue about what I'm about to write. I can probably find references for the below, but it that will probably take hours. So ask if you need anything specific and I'll see what I can find.

The main reason the messages from science are conflicting and have changed over time is primarily due to the change in study funding over the years. Before the '80s, most studies were funded by governments. After the '80s most were funded by industry. Scientist can be just as corrupt as any other profession when a lot of money is involved. [Two groups of people that society places on pedestals are scientists and medical doctors. IMO neither should be.] Studies can be configured to deceive to get the results that the funder wants. For example, 90% of egg studies are funded by industry. The whole dietary education system has been setup by the food industries to deceive and has been that way from long ago. That started with the writing of books from 1915 in the U.S. IIRC. That is why it is so difficult to decipher the truth about what is truly healthy these days. Even if one is willing to dig into the science. After all many of the big processed food companies are owned by cigarette companies and they are known for saying that doubt is their product. If they can get people to doubt the science, then people won't change. They win.

When you go to a qualified dietician they will concentrate on you getting all the food groups and nutrient profile, rather than proritising the harm foods do over the benefit of their nutrients. You only have to look at the funding of the biggest dietetics association in the world to see the problem. The world generally follows the U.S. too.
Revealed: group shaping US nutrition receives millions from big food industry - The Guardian

Big pharma is also involved in influencing related industries.
Big pharma's cash splash on nurses, dietitians and pharmacists for services - ABC NEWS

So in summary, the food industries have deceived us over generations for profit by the construct of a system to gain our trust.


As I probably have written before; the optimum diet for an individual is one that is least harmful over the long term.

So in regard to the above, you are doing well to avoid most processed foods since ultra-processed foods in particular have been shown to be the biggest cause of weight gain and poor health. If you want to be healthier, consider removing or reducing foods that individually do more harm than give benefit from your diet. These are fish, eggs, meat, all forms of dairy and also boxed cereals and bread due to their ultra-processing. It's not just the poor macronutrient profile of these foods that does harm. But also the effect they have on the body's hormone balance, epigenetic expression and the toxins they introduce over the long term. Obviously you're unlikely to see the harm in the short term. But the danger is by the time you see the harm over the long term, it could be too late to reverse. I know this from first hand experience.

Most of the medical system is ignorant to the harm/benefits of diet because they aren't educated in it. Like big pharma, they also financially benefit from everyone's lack of knowledge and therefore poorer health. But not all, as Kaiser is a health insurance company in the US that uses a different model to most. It benefits financially with their customers' better health, so educates their practitioners to be able to educate their customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente

The guides below from Kaiser are a useful primer into healthy eating.
https://www.thepermanentejournal.org/do ... TPP/12-085
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991921/

[am50em]

Thanks, an interesting summary.

These are fish, eggs, meat, all forms of dairy

Sorry don't agree. In moderation I think they are fine. It would be hard to prove these foods do long term damage given the range of environmental factors that we are exposed to over a lifetime. I am more concerned about pesticides, genetically modified foods, antibiotics in food.

[warthog1]

I read that one.
I do love a good conspiracy theory
That one is not a theory though, it is a correct analysis of the food industry imo.
Good post.

[Nobody]

Thanks, an interesting summary.

These are fish, eggs, meat, all forms of dairy

Sorry don't agree. In moderation I think they are fine. It would be hard to prove these foods do long term damage given the range of environmental factors that we are exposed to over a lifetime.

Fair enough. We don't have to agree.

I'm not going to spend much time defending my position as the audience will now be for those others reading on. Those interested can go through the links below.

As Esselstyn puts it "moderation kills" especially for those particularly genetically susceptible to atherosclerosis.
https://www.dresselstyn.com/moderation_kills.htm

I'll let Nutrition Facts cover the particular topics for those interested. Plenty of evidence there in easy to learn video formats. They also have the linked studies in the "sources cited" tab of each video for those who want to dig a bit deeper.
Fish
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/fish/
Eggs
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/eggs/
Meat
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/
Dairy
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/dairy/

[Nobody]

I read that one.
I do love a good conspiracy theory
That one is not a theory though, it is a correct analysis of the food industry imo.
Good post.

Thanks WH1. It's nice to have some support.

[am50em]

Well I don't have coronary disease. I was diagnosed with SVT at beginning if year. I had no symptoms, just saw heart rate jumps while cycling. It's been that way since I started cycling again 15 years ago but was becoming more common. As a consequence I have had my heart checked thoroughly! Physically all good just extra electrical pathways. Don't think diet is responsible for that! Well maybe excess caffeine. Could be genetic, don't really know.

[am50em]

I should eat more cherries.

Consumption of cherries decreased markers for oxidative stress in 8/10 studies; inflammation in 11/16; exercise-induced muscle soreness and loss of strength in 8/9; blood pressure in 5/7; arthritis in 5/5, and improved sleep in 4/4. Cherries also decreased hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), Very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and triglycerides/high-density lipoprotein (TG/HDL) in diabetic women, and VLDL and TG/HDL in obese participants. These results suggest that consumption of sweet or tart cherries can promote health by preventing or decreasing oxidative stress and inflammation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872786/

[Tim]

I should eat more cherries.

Not this summer you won't. Unless you're rich.
"Cherry prices to skyrocket as weather wipes crops out"
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... prices-why

[am50em]

Doh!

[warthog1]

Grabbed a box from our local cherry gurus a couple of weeks back. Bing cherries. Highly recommended

https://blackwood-orchard.business.site/

correct thread this time

The bing cherries are bloody nice!

[Nobody]

I find this guy interesting as he is on a campaign to counter misinformation - which I can relate to. He is saying that polyunsaturated oils don't cause cancer, but it's the style of processing of them that does. He also has a very unusual omega6 to omega 3 ratio of 0.5 (or 2 if you reverse it, which he has at bottom of image below). Most others recommend a omega 6:3 somewhere between 4 and 1:1.





As usual I'm posting this out of interest and don't necessarily agree with anything he says. I still believe that excessing fat of any type of saturation causes atherosclerosis in herbivores and humans technically don't need much. Yes, not a popular message. But I'm trying to post what I believe to be the truth, rather than what I'd prefer to believe.

Back on to one of my favourite subjects. That is essential fats and what is healthy versus what isn't. Just to prove I haven't got a lot of confirmation bias on this, my opinion on this seems to change with each piece of new information.

According to the below - which runs for about 8 and a half minutes - Brian backs Udo above. That therefore changes my opinion on what I think I need over the long term. I was getting too little essential fats recently and now I'm taking flax/linseed again daily, even though I know if raises my cholesterol. It appears that yes, you can get too much of anything. But getting too little essential fats as we age is apparently worse. I still won't consume oils because the only good ones are virtually unobtainium. Like a lot of the dietary recommendations that Brian talks about. I think if you did everything Brian thought was ideal, it would send the average person broke and they'd have to spend plenty of time being a farmer and chasing ideal foods in this country at least. Maybe it would be easier to source some things in the US.

https://youtu.be/n_YnvZ9ye-o?si=yoGqIEvUbnMMWPq2&t=4812

There's also some other useful information on there. Amongst the questions at the end he goes into some detail on sleep supplements (video 01:45:15). Also he speaks more on why most fruit is bad (video 01:33:08). That should create some cognitive dissonance in most of us. Since most of us love fruit and we've been told it's good for us.

The presentation itself I found long and hard to understand due to the small images supplied. I had to watch it in multiple sessions.

[am50em]

I wrote:

Just so many conflicting messages that can change over time

Nobody wrote:

my opinion on this seems to change with each piece of new information

Sounds like we are in agreement

Nobody wrote:

It appears that yes, you can get too much of anything. But getting too little essential fats as we age is apparently worse.

Sounds like moderation but

As Esselstyn puts it "moderation kills"

[warthog1]

I am very appreciative of the information you post Nobody.
I don't comply with all of it but it is good to investigate and take on board.
I am firmly of the opinion large parts of the food industry provide flawed or incomplete information to make their product appear either healthy or to confuse over just how unhealthy it may be.

[Nobody]

I am very appreciative of the information you post Nobody.

Thanks for the encouragement.

I am firmly of the opinion large parts of the food industry provide flawed or incomplete information to make their product appear either healthy or to confuse over just how unhealthy it may be.

Agreed. Well said. It comes down to greed over integrity IMO.

[am50em]

This article sums up my thoughts on diet.

Whole-foods, plant-based diets prioritize plant foods and minimize processed ingredients and animal products. This eating pattern is environmentally friendly and may be associated with several health benefits.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pl ... diet-guide

[am50em]

Hunter-gatherers eat what nature and the land offer. This at times can be scarce, requiring periods of fasting. Diets primarily consist of plant-based foods, such as tubers, berries and fruit that are readily available.

Many studies have shown that plant-based diets and fasting can have many benefits for health.

https://theconversation.com/how-living- ... lth-208813

[Nobody]

Brenda Davis doing some summaries of studies on the nutrient break down of vegan vs vegetarian vs omnivore diets.



Obviously nurients do matter over the long term. However avoiding foods that harm us is more important to gain optimum health outcomes as we age. Or to put it another way, optimum health is often more about what we don't eat, than what we do eat.