Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
Nobody
Posts: 8503
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:13 pm

CKinnard wrote:Mike take your pick :...

Another to add is that blended/processed nuts for example have 12% higher food density IIRC. Higher average food density leads to higher weight gain on a WFPB diet according to Jeff Novick, McDougall, etc.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:06 pm

Nobody wrote:
CKinnard wrote:Mike take your pick :...

Another to add is that blended/processed nuts for example have 12% higher food density IIRC. Higher average food density leads to higher weight gain on a WFPB diet according to Jeff Novick, McDougall, etc.


In addition, you can have 100g of unprocessed wheat and same grams of wheat flour with same Calories.
However the flour will spike your blood sugar higher (and insulin), AND also the glycemic load will be higher, meaning you have extracted more glucose from the flour than you would from the whole wheat.

The extra carbs you extract from flour's powderized fiber would otherwise go to the large intestine and be used by good bacteria to make short chain fatty acids.
Some authorities estimate 50% of scfa's produced by bacteria are absorbed through the large intestine and used as an energy substrate.
This source of fat may actually partially explain why high carb diets are also good for long term satiation.

SCFA's also have many other beneficial effects on the GUT and body generally researchers only partially understand.
i.e. fat cells have a receptor called GPR43 for SCFAs. When the FA's connect, they can make the fat cells insulin resistant, and thereby inhibit the fat cells specifically from absorbing fat (while not effecting muscle uptake of glucose), and increase their dumping of fat into the blood stream. This is thought to inhibit fat storage related weight gain.

Cooking whole foods also increases energy absorbed by as much as 100% over raw food.
Our ancestors benefited from this due to the need to extract as much energy from food as possible due to scarcity and expense.

Often, the devil's in the detail! :shock:

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18442
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:30 pm

Yes, increasing the calorie availability is one of the key things that got humans where they are now, first by cooking and then by farming and then by ever increasing yields. It also reduced the amount of time needed towards food releasing resources to build structures and fight wars.

My guests tonight were low carb vegetarians, so yet another type of catering for me to handle...
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8503
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:32 pm


User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:04 pm

yeah I caught that 'debate' somewhere on utube.

the thing I learned most was how ignorant and disingenuous the show's doctors are.
they were misrepresenting what the documentary said, and even worse ignoring the literature.

I just cannot believe the arrogance and confidence of many doctors, who broadcast a message without having done appropriate study. I honestly think sometimes the wrong personalities are getting into medicine, driven too often by status and wealth. Getting to the bottom of complex cases requires subtlety of mind, conferring with those who know more, regular reading of the literature, and the self honesty and internal strength not to project one's inadequacies into their job.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:10 pm

and not meaning to snipe, but take a look at Jimmy Moore from a recent presentation!
This guy is the pin up boy of the low carb movement.
It looks to me like has doubled his weight in the last 12 mths.


User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:18 pm

yikes!!!


Nobody
Posts: 8503
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:50 pm

CKinnard wrote:and not meaning to snipe, but take a look at Jimmy Moore from a recent presentation!

Yeah his weight is "the elephant in the room" kind of problem. Yet people still listen to him. I find that strange. Is it because people are so used to seeing overweight/obese people? Or is his fame so great that it doesn't matter if he's an obese, weight loss guru?

_____________________________________________________

We were talking about gimmicky fads in the Plant Based thread. This appears to be related to both that and my previous post.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:22 pm

hmmm. Garth could have stayed away from global warming, I mean climate change....it's virtually impossible to get anything climate related broadcast that goes against the party line. And anyone who dares is ridiculed. And that's not science.

Further, Garth's yet another PBWF advocate who keeps pushing this falsity
https://youtu.be/2irH0CMchEE?t=11m4s
Garth, carbs can make you fat. They can make geese fat, they can make mice fat, horses, cattle, etc, etc.
I also had to hold my tongue with Dr. K numerous times as he emphatically laid down his law that carbs don't make you fat. It just isn't true.

Nobody
Posts: 8503
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:38 pm

He didn't say carbs couldn't. But he did say it was very difficult. As you know it can't be that difficult as I was adding over 100g per day of weight and I'm pretty sure it wasn't muscle. Mainly from overeating dates. Beans helped too.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:30 pm

Nobody wrote:He didn't say carbs couldn't. But he did say it was very difficult. As you know it can't be that difficult as I was adding over 100g per day of weight and I'm pretty sure it wasn't muscle. Mainly from overeating dates. Beans helped too.


click that link in my last post!!!

Nobody
Posts: 8503
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:30 am

It's funny what specifics we remember. I remember this bit:
https://youtu.be/2irH0CMchEE?t=12m5s
But yes, you are still correct. He's pushing a strong line that the conversion can only be done under extreme circumstances and it's inefficient. I disagree with him in my case. But maybe mine is an extreme case.

Patt0
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:31 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:56 am

Snake oil salesmen.

You can over consume for a while without gaining fat/weight. Right until your body starts to store the extra calories. The BB's who do keto or LCHF and are successful, are either lucky or micro-manage their diet.
Image

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:39 pm

Nobody wrote:It's funny what specifics we remember. I remember this bit:
https://youtu.be/2irH0CMchEE?t=12m5s
But yes, you are still correct. He's pushing a strong line that the conversion can only be done under extreme circumstances and it's inefficient. I disagree with him in my case. But maybe mine is an extreme case.


whoa!!! Nobody, you should have seen Garth burying himself in that quote you linked to.
He said one of the criteria for converting carbs to fat is eating too much....which he then said doesn't happen that often!!! :lol:
Mate, he's just stuck a big fat label on his forehead saying, I live in LaLa Land!

Nobody, I have to tell you I haven't met a high profile high or low carber authority yet who is up on the science as much as some of the younger hungrier types, including Renae who we discussed some time ago (She is doing post grad studies at Loma Linda). John McDougall, Michael Klaper, Alan Goldhammer, Doug Lisle, Neal Barnard, etc....they've all got their skewed perspective. Most of them just don't do the reading required. And I'll add Garth to that list now!!! :)

Garth also overplayed the metabolic expense of converting carbs to fat, which is around 13-15%....

Rant Off!

Nobody
Posts: 8503
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:15 pm

CKinnard wrote:Garth also overplayed the metabolic expense of converting carbs to fat, which is around 13-15%....

I've heard 30% of expense in the past. Could you please link a study specifying it? It would be good to have a reference for the future.
Thanks.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18442
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:48 pm

When they quote the calories of an item of food, is that before or after metabolic expense? And is the metabolic expense % different depending on what the body is doing with the food?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

march83
Posts: 619
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:15 am

Before. I'll let someone who is more up to speed on the exact numbers but the notable points are that protein has a high thermic effect of food (TEF) (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action). It takes a considerable amount of energy to prepare and use protein for use in metabolic pathways. Also, there are other factors like the availability of calories in certain foods which reduce the number of actual calories they provide. Nnuts for example - if you eat a lot then they pass straight through your GI tract undigested, the calories un-utilised.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:16 am

Nobody wrote:
CKinnard wrote:Garth also overplayed the metabolic expense of converting carbs to fat, which is around 13-15%....

I've heard 30% of expense in the past. Could you please link a study specifying it? It would be good to have a reference for the future.
Thanks.


I'll try and dig up something by the weekend.
Estimates up to 30% metabolic cost for DNL do not consistently account for energy lost via
- brown adipose tissue (BAT) heat production
- digestive energy overhead for larger meals
- energy lost via feces
- frank DNL

BAT volume and responsiveness to feeding, decline with age, and is highly variable between subjects...which is why some people gain much less weight than predicted in overfeeding studies.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:26 am

mikesbytes wrote:When they quote the calories of an item of food, is that before or after metabolic expense? And is the metabolic expense % different depending on what the body is doing with the food?


before metabolic expense.

digestion, absorption, and metabolism of food is a major % of BMR. So if someone expends 2000 Cals/day, they need to eat 2000 Calories a day to maintain weight.

however, the energy available to humans from short chain fatty acids created by gut bacteria is not accounted for equally via various nutrition authorities. some estimate humans absorb about 50% of the SCFA created by bacteria.

march83
Posts: 619
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:47 am

CKinnard wrote:however, the energy available to humans from short chain fatty acids created by gut bacteria is not accounted for equally via various nutrition authorities. some estimate humans absorb about 50% of the SCFA created by bacteria.


Source? Interested to read more on this. Interested to know how significant fibre intake is on rate of SCFA production and what role that might have in dieting...

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:29 am

march83 wrote:
CKinnard wrote:however, the energy available to humans from short chain fatty acids created by gut bacteria is not accounted for equally via various nutrition authorities. some estimate humans absorb about 50% of the SCFA created by bacteria.


Source? Interested to read more on this. Interested to know how significant fibre intake is on rate of SCFA production and what role that might have in dieting...



I got the 50% human usage of bacteria produced SCFA from a video presentation, and it was meant to be a working estimate for other purposes. The author said the studies just haven't been done to quantify what the exact percentage is. Further, the % would vary with diet composition.


http://physrev.physiology.org/content/70/2/567
Current estimates are that VFA contribute approximately 70% to the caloric requirements of ruminants, such as sheep and cattle, approximately 10% for humans, and approximately 20-30% for several other omnivorous or herbivorous animals. The amount of fiber in the diet undoubtedly affects the amount of VFA produced, and thus the contribution of VFA to the energy needs of the body could become considerably greater as the dietary fiber increases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 932/#bib31
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 56104/#B19

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18442
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:04 pm

This is very interesting CK, if I'm understanding correctly the calories available to the body will vary depending on where those calories have come from and fibre will decrease the amount of available calories from a given source. Have I understood correctly?

The gut bacteria thing then adds another level of complexity to the calculations
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:20 pm

mikesbytes wrote:This is very interesting CK, if I'm understanding correctly the calories available to the body will vary depending on where those calories have come from and fibre will decrease the amount of available calories from a given source. Have I understood correctly?

The gut bacteria thing then adds another level of complexity to the calculations


well the take home is human energy absorption is facilitated by bacteria feasting on fiber, that our small intestines have not been able to digest.

If we eat a higher fiber diet, then presumably our bacteria will breed more, and produce more SCFAs, and we will absorb more.
However, that doesn't mean we'll get fatter, because we are less likely to overfeed on a genuinely high fiber diet.
The bacterial synthesis of SCFA that we absorb to use as fuel is a very interesting field..there's a lot of amazing snippets coming out of all the associated health promoting benefits.

I've been having a look for info about humans absorbing 50% of SCFA's produced by bacteria. All I've got at this point is

https://fiberfacts.org/fibers-count-cal ... ohydrates/
" The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that fibers fermented by bacteria provide about 2 calories per gram of fiber. Insoluble fibers travel to the intestine with very little change. Instead of being digested, insoluble fibers increase bulk, soften stool, and shorten transit time through the gastro-intestinal tract. Because these fibers are not digested at all, the FDA estimates that insoluble fibers do not contribute any calories."

but that doesn't directly specify whether the 2Cals/g of fiber is what is absorbed by humans, or shared with bacteria.
the point to remember though is the carb energy from the fiber is converted fatty acids, so has no effect on blood sugar and insulin.
You also want to keep in mind most humans don't eat a lot of fiber, most get less than 50 grams a day so we are not talking a massive amount of energy intake. I will have to read up on this because I'd like to know how the 10% of total Calories from fiber is derived when most humans eat so little fiber.

Nobody
Posts: 8503
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:27 am

The average AU consumption of fibre is 2.2% of total energy. Which works out to be 13g a day.

My spreadsheet tells me I got 112 grams of fibre yesterday, which is 15% of total energy.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:41 am

Nobody wrote:The average AU consumption of fibre is 2.2% of total energy. Which works out to be 13g a day.

My spreadsheet tells me I got 112 grams of fibre yesterday, which is 15% of total energy.


and they say our Paleolithic ancestors would have eaten 150g fiber/day...though Paleo diet advocates have got Buckleys of getting that much.
Australia and the US recommend a minimum 30grams per day, but I believe PBWF authorities say 50grams minimum.

I think I'll add fiber to my reading over the next few weeks, as dietary fiber has always been a fuzzy concept to me.
To appreciate how fuzzy, read the first few paragraphs here:
https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/dietary-fibre

Last I heard there were moves to include resistant starch within dietary fiber in food labeling.
My understanding is resistant starch has similar health benefits and physiological effects to dietary fiber.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users