Beyond first-world diets.

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re. insulin index. So, really, we would need to see a curve showing glucose level over time and insulin level over time for each of the foods.

Edit: Some light reading.

Sent from my iThingy...
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:43 pm

twizzle wrote:Re. insulin index. So, really, we would need to see a curve showing glucose level over time and insulin level over time for each of the foods.

Edit: Some light reading.

Sent from my iThingy...
I just finished reading the article properly. LOL - now I have an excuse for swapping food for alcohol in the morning. :)


Sent from my iThingy...
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:56 pm

sogood wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote:What do you mean by "specialty diets" in this context? Traditional diets?
...
With our world class health system, what could we achieve if our population adopted a healthy lifestyle?
Specialty diets as in all the various diets people proposes here.
Ah. They lack long term research, so I see your point.
sogood wrote:There's no direct data to know how much longer our population can live with a healthy lifestyle as none has achieved such. But it's only logical to strive for that goal. Our longevity may already be hard coded in our genes but by having a healthy lifestyle and diet, we should be able to increase our chances of hitting that genetic limit and improve the quality before that end date. That's my take.
The Blue Zone populations have (or had) a healthy lifestyle but lack(ed) a world class health system (with the exception of the Loma Linda vegetarians). The result is that those populations are (or were) the longest lived on the planet. We should be able to achieve longer lives if we live a healthy lifestyle, backed up by a great health system. Unfortunately, the way our society is structured a healthy lifestyle is becoming more difficult to maintain.
<removed by request>

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby sogood » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:07 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:Unfortunately, the way our society is structured a healthy lifestyle is becoming more difficult to maintain.
Or fortunately. Increasing longevity of our present society is but adding burden to our off-springs and the environment in general. Maybe we should continue to "enjoy" our lives and see our end at a suitable age. No need to aim for that 'semi-demented octogenerian life style'. :wink: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:09 pm

twizzle wrote:
twizzle wrote:Re. insulin index. So, really, we would need to see a curve showing glucose level over time and insulin level over time for each of the foods.

Edit: Some light reading.

Sent from my iThingy...
I just finished reading the article properly. LOL - now I have an excuse for swapping food for alcohol in the morning. :)
Wow!
But you shouldn’t just cut out everything that leads to insulin release! Insulin is important, and too little is just as bad as too much. Even small drops in daily insulin levels can affect us negatively. For example, dieters often experience depression around 2 weeks after they begin cutting high-glycemic foods like carbohydrates out of their diet. Why? Because they have much lower levels of insulin than they did before. Decreased insulin means decreased amino acid uptake, and because the level of other amino acids affects how well tryptophan crosses the blood brain barrier, decreased insulin means less serotonin which leads to, in layman’s terms, feeling like crap. While you should monitor the GI of your meals to reduce insulin spikes, you shouldn’t go for rock bottom either. At least you shouldn’t if you want to be happy about it!
I did not know that! :shock:
<removed by request>

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:35 pm

I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:39 am

The 2012 Cochrane review had a slightly different conclusion.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"The findings are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on modification of dietary fat, but not reduction of total fat, in longer trials. Lifestyle advice to all those at risk of cardiovascular disease and to lower risk population groups, should continue to include permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat and partial replacement by unsaturates. The ideal type of unsaturated fat is unclear."

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:54 am

Interesting article in the on-line version of The Australian this morning. Seems to be in response to the latest book about the evils of vegetable oils. Talks about the proliferation of books on nutrition released by people with dubious backgrounds and based on very little evidence.

"So who do you believe and how do you spot a fad? Common sense should prevail, but the following questions may help. Does the author have recognised qualifications in nutrition? Does the book recommend a balance of foods in the diet? Are the recommendations consistent with the recommendations of major health related organisations (such as the Heart Foundation or NHMRC)? Are the recommendations based on scientific evidence?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you may have a fad nutrition book and should think carefully before reading it."

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby sogood » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:20 am

Venus62 wrote:Interesting article in the on-line version of The Australian this morning. Seems to be in response to the latest book about the evils of vegetable oils. Talks about the proliferation of books on nutrition released by people with dubious backgrounds and based on very little evidence...
There's certainly no shortage of people in the society who just love snake oil.
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:24 am

Venus62 wrote:The 2012 Cochrane review had a slightly different conclusion. ...
I like the bit in the "plain language" summary : "There are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods (reducing the total amount of fat we eat)."

Now, the other bit I picked up is that they were looking at changes in outcomes for people who have _changed_ their fat intakes. It is a review of studies where people were altering their diet? As opposed to the one I linked which just looked at long-term outcome relative to diet? Is the Chochrane review like the often mentioned : "people who take vitamins have higher mortality, because there is something already wrong with them and that's why they were taking vitamins in the first place"?
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:49 am

twizzle wrote:
Venus62 wrote:The 2012 Cochrane review had a slightly different conclusion. ...
I like the bit in the "plain language" summary : "There are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods (reducing the total amount of fat we eat)."

Now, the other bit I picked up is that they were looking at changes in outcomes for people who have _changed_ their fat intakes. It is a review of studies where people were altering their diet? As opposed to the one I linked which just looked at long-term outcome relative to diet? Is the Chochrane review like the often mentioned : "people who take vitamins have higher mortality, because there is something already wrong with them and that's why they were taking vitamins in the first place"?
There's no doubt humans are complex organisms with all sorts of confounding factors. Certainly both the Cochrane review and the paper you cited are a long way from the hysteria of the past regarding saturated fats.

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:55 am

Venus62 wrote:Interesting article in the on-line version of The Australian this morning. ...
She's sticking the boot into "Toxic Oils" despite it appearing to be relying on scientific evidence. Is a dietician qualified to pass such judgement? I might be damned good in my fields in IT, but I'm completely unqualified to pass judgement on the science side of the business.
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:21 pm

I personally trust a dietician who has 4 years training in biochemistry and metabolism than a corporate lawyer who is making bucket loads out of inflammatory titles such as Sweet Poison and Toxic Oils.

I believe many of these authors cherry pick information to make it more "scary". I like to get information from journal articles and review papers. David Gillpspie is not without his critics. http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:49 pm

Venus62 wrote:Interesting article in the on-line version of The Australian this morning. Seems to be in response to the latest book about the evils of vegetable oils. Talks about the proliferation of books on nutrition released by people with dubious backgrounds and based on very little evidence.

"So who do you believe and how do you spot a fad? Common sense should prevail, but the following questions may help. Does the author have recognised qualifications in nutrition? Does the book recommend a balance of foods in the diet? Are the recommendations consistent with the recommendations of major health related organisations (such as the Heart Foundation or NHMRC)? Are the recommendations based on scientific evidence?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you may have a fad nutrition book and should think carefully before reading it."
Are the Australian Heart Foundation recommendations based on scientific evidence? I note there are conflicts between the advice provided by the Australian Heart Foundation and American Heart Foundation. I think any organisation that sells a tick for junk food should be viewed with suspicion (Australian Heart Foundation Tick).
<removed by request>

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:07 pm

Venus62 wrote:I personally trust a dietician who has 4 years training in biochemistry and metabolism than a corporate lawyer who is making bucket loads out of inflammatory titles such as Sweet Poison and Toxic Oils.

I believe many of these authors cherry pick information to make it more "scary". I like to get information from journal articles and review papers. David Gillpspie is not without his critics. http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have run across that guy before and I would consider him an internet super troll. He accuses David Gillpspie of cherry picking information to prove a case without any solid evidence and then cherry picks information himself to prove his case. This guy insists hysterically that exercise is effective for weight loss. However, he has cherry picked the best "evidence" he can find which does not clearly support his assertion that "Science DOES support using Exercise for Weight Loss!". Some examples from the studies he cites to support his assertion:

"Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients".

"Prospective studies, however, find little evidence of the more physically active members of a population gaining less excess weight than those who are the least physically active."

http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/32 ... ight-loss/

I do not find him convincing at all!
<removed by request>

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:17 pm

casual_cyclist wrote: I have run across that guy before and I would consider him an internet super troll. He accuses David Gillpspie of cherry picking information to prove a case without any solid evidence and then cherry picks information himself to prove his case. This guy insists hysterically that exercise is effective for weight loss. However, he has cherry picked the best "evidence" he can find which does not clearly support his assertion that "Science DOES support using Exercise for Weight Loss!". Some examples from the studies he cites to support his assertion:

"Our results show that isolated aerobic exercise is not an effective weight loss therapy in these patients".

"Prospective studies, however, find little evidence of the more physically active members of a population gaining less excess weight than those who are the least physically active."

http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/32 ... ight-loss/

I do not find him convincing at all!
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then, as I found his arguments quite compelling. Less of an Internet troll and more someone frustrated with the hysterical misrepresentation of science.

Sorry, I couldn't follow what you were trying to say about exercise and weight loss. As I saw it, he was arguing against the claim that exercise had no role in weight loss. This is also disputed by the Cochrane review into the area.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure it says the losses are greater when combined with dietary changes, but exercise alone will also cause modest reduction in weight, as well as significant improvements in other health areas.

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:18 pm

Venus62 wrote:I personally trust a dietician who has 4 years training in biochemistry and metabolism than a corporate lawyer who is making bucket loads out of inflammatory titles such as Sweet Poison and Toxic Oils.

I believe many of these authors cherry pick information to make it more "scary". I like to get information from journal articles and review papers. David Gillpspie is not without his critics. http://davidgillespiesbigfatlies.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm just looking at the linked website... not very impressive in the rebuttal.

Dunno Venus62, if I was to say to you that you should only use (for instance) grape seed oil in all your cooking, because it's got the heart foundation tick-of-approval, would you do that given the whole macular degeneration argument (very first linked study)? Which direction should people go it they want to sit on the fence?
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:32 pm

twizzle wrote:Dunno Venus62, if I was to say to you that you should only use (for instance) grape seed oil in all your cooking, because it's got the heart foundation tick-of-approval, would you do that given the whole macular degeneration argument (very first linked study)? Which direction should people go it they want to sit on the fence?
Just because something has the heart foundation tick, doesn't mean it's ok to use in large quantities, or exclusively. The heart foundation is looking at foods that affect cardiovascular risk, not other factors. I think there is enough good information on diet out there without people freaking out about everything they put in their mouths. I don't think David Gillespie's books add anything useful.

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:58 pm

Venus62 wrote:
twizzle wrote:Dunno Venus62, if I was to say to you that you should only use (for instance) grape seed oil in all your cooking, because it's got the heart foundation tick-of-approval, would you do that given the whole macular degeneration argument (very first linked study)? Which direction should people go it they want to sit on the fence?
Just because something has the heart foundation tick, doesn't mean it's ok to use in large quantities, or exclusively. The heart foundation is looking at foods that affect cardiovascular risk, not other factors. I think there is enough good information on diet out there without people freaking out about everything they put in their mouths. I don't think David Gillespie's books add anything useful.
After much consideration of your response... you are sitting on the fence re. my question about sitting on the fence? :P
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:06 pm

twizzle wrote:
After much consideration of your response... you are sitting on the fence re. my question about sitting on the fence? :P
Maybe; I'm quite a balanced person :D

Which is why I don't like titles like Sweet Poison and Toxic Oil. They use fear that is largely unfounded. Fructose in whole fruit is fine, just don't quaff litres of juice and think you are being healthy. Oils containing omega 6s are OK in moderation, just make sure you keep you omega 3s up (which dieticians have been recommending for years). There are all sorts of things we do in life that increase our risk of something or other (cycling and falling off, for example), some while also decreasing risks of other things. A life lived in fear is a life half lived.

User avatar
twizzle
Posts: 6402
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Highlands of Wales.

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby twizzle » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:24 pm

I agree on the titles, but the content is thought provoking.
I ride, therefore I am. But don't ride into harm's way.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:08 pm

It interesting that people would say that they trust a nutritionist because they have training but they wouldn't trust someone with a book because they are trying to make money. This reminds me of the paper "The Australian Paradox" published by Professor Jennie Brand-Miller and Dr Alan Barclay. http://www.theaustralianparadox.com.au/index.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Professor Brand-Miller has a PhD in Nutrition? http://sydney.edu.au/science/molecular_ ... tlight.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and insists that sugars consumption in Australia have substantially declined in the last 30 years http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

A trip to the supermarket and a look at packaged foods would appear to contradict this thesis. However, the paper was published in peer reviewed journal by a qualified nutritionist, so it must be true, right?

Who is Professor Brand-Miller and should we trust her? Professor Brand-Miller is the author of many books on low GI. A search of the Book Depository lists 121 results for current books for sale by Professor Brand-Miller (may have duplications) and a search of Amazon.com lists 274 results (may have duplications).

The title of one book is "The Low GI Diet Revolution: The Definitive Science-Based Weight Loss Plan". So, where is the evidence for low GI and weight loss?

"Although low-GI diets do not seem to be superior to any other diet for weight loss..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22098806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Evidence from intervention studies using a low-GI approach for weight loss produced inconsistent results, especially for longer-term studies."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19793508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Professor Brand-Miller has staked her reputation and career on low GI for weight loss but as far as I can tell, the science simply isn't there to support this position.

Enter Rosemary Stanton. Rosemary Stanton is also a Nutritionist and Dietician. A search of the Book Depository lists 55 results for current books for sale by Rosemary Stanton (may have duplications) and a search of Amazon.com lists 82 results (may have duplications).

What does Rosemary Stanton have to say about the reduction of sugar consumption in Australia?
But Stanton says it's impossible to know exactly how much sugar people are eating "because we haven't collected the data".

"I am unable to say whether we are eating more or less sugar and I believe that no-one can say are we eating more or less sugar. I would doubt we are eating less ... but I can't say for sure because we have no data."
http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/s ... 578541.htm

So, we have one respected, qualified and experienced nutritionist insisting that there has been a substantial decline in sugar consumption in Australia in the past 30 years and another respected, qualified and experienced nutritionist insisting that the data has not been collected to say for sure.

The "Australian Paradox" paper is not without it's critics. Rory Robertson, an Australian Economist had a look at the economic data (imports/exports/consumption etc) and reached very different conclusions to Professor Brand-Miller. Mr Robertson concluded that:
...the available information – including (a) abundant “sugar availability” and rising sugary imports; (b) national dietary surveys and (c) industry data on soft-drink consumption – confirm that there has been plenty of sugar available to fuel Australia’s trends towards obesity.
http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Di ... 032012.pdf

It could be argued that nutritionists are not qualified to interpret availability (economic) data and accordingly had no business publishing a paper that did not hold up to scrutiny.

Applying the same arguments that nutritionists use to discredit non-nutritionist authors - they have books, so they are just protecting their interests to make bucket loads from selling books. I really think this is a spurious argument and that claims should be evaluated on their merits and against the available evidence.

http://www.bookdepository.com/search?se ... =Find+book

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... and-Miller

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_ ... ry+stanton

http://www.bookdepository.com/search/ad ... ry+Stanton

http://www.australianparadox.com/
<removed by request>

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:12 pm

By the way, Rosemary Stanton is one of my heroes. I love how she rips into "big food" in this article:
The PLoS Medicine article is critical of those who believe they can improve the food supply through partnerships with Big Food. Conflicts of interest will always occur and professional groups will not risk upsetting their food industry partners.

Big Food pays lip-service to wanting to be part of the solution, but improving health would entail moving away from the highly processed, unhealthy foods that are the most profitable in its armoury.

“Value padding” is the name of the game. You can spot it easily in the breakfast cereal aisle. A handful of basic nutritious grains have been turned into several hundred products, processed to blandness, then flavoured with sugar and salt and “fortified” with some of the nutrients destroyed by the processing.

The more highly processed the product and the more sugar it contains (which is usually cheaper than the cereal it replaces), the higher the cost.
http://www.mjainsight.com.au/view?post= ... at=comment

EDIT: I just started reading the paper referred to in the article. It is scathing! :lol:
This coexistence of food insecurity and obesity may seem like a paradox [5], but over- and undernutrition reflect two facets of malnutrition [6]. Underlying both is a common factor: food systems are not driven to deliver optimal human diets but to maximize profits.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.1001242
Last edited by casual_cyclist on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<removed by request>

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby sogood » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:13 pm

Venus62 wrote:Fructose in whole fruit is fine, just don't quaff litres of juice and think you are being healthy...
As pointed out early in my career by the biochemistry lecturer, Fructose is a key constituent of that other important 's fluid'. Said to be quite enticing and healthy! It must be good! :wink:
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

Venus62
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:55 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Beyond first-world diets.

Postby Venus62 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:22 pm

Absolutely agree that scientists, including dieticians, sometimes contradict each other. I'd still trust the opinion of one over a corporate lawyer.

As I said before, I think there is enough good information that can be found without forking over good money for ANYONE'S wonderful new diet book.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users