Diet Thread

[CKinnard]

I'm H63D. So whether homo or hetero, it's rare to have iron loading. I'm rare apparently. But I could have told you that before the test.

I brought this up before, but you could kill three birds with one stone, by doing a few 4-7 day fasts a couple of times a year.
As well as reducing iron stores, you'd catabolize some of the scar tissue and other damage done by ROS, in addition to reducing iron stores.

[Nobody]

I'm H63D. So whether homo or hetero, it's rare to have iron loading. I'm rare apparently. But I could have told you that before the test.

I brought this up before, but you could kill three birds with one stone, by doing a few 4-7 day fasts a couple of times a year.
As well as reducing iron stores, you'd catabolize some of the scar tissue and other damage done by ROS, in addition to reducing iron stores.

OK thanks for the suggestion. I won't be doing that anytime soon because I don't have that much weight to lose and my family already thinks I'm weird enough. We have car problems at the moment and so that means working on the car a lot and not as eating much. My cars usually only go to the mechanic for rego inspections. As of this morning I'm 59.7 kg, or BMI 20.2. Another activity I could do to lose the iron is cycle more. I might try to fit in a ride today.

[CKinnard]

OK thanks for the suggestion. I won't be doing that anytime soon because I don't have that much weight to lose and my family already thinks I'm weird enough. We have car problems at the moment and so that means working on the car a lot and not as eating much. My cars usually only go to the mechanic for rego inspections. As of this morning I'm 59.7 kg, or BMI 20.2. Another activity I could do to lose the iron is cycle more. I might try to fit in a ride today.

The weight loss is an understandable misconception.
Yeah sure you lose weight, but it's insignificant over 7 days, and you put it back on quickly because it's mainly glycogen, extraneous tissue and deposits, and faulty cells.
Waste and inappropriate deposits are more efficiently removed from joints, tendons, and the brain.

When you begin eating again, you stimulate new cell growth.

Further, if you lose 20% bwt on a fast, you don't lose 20% of your eyes, kidneys, and brain.
The body is smart enough to catabolyse extraneous and damaged tissue first.

Anyway, your perspective is from within the matrix....and it's difficult to comprehend the benefits from there.
My guess is within 20-30 years, fasting will become as accepted as WFPB diet is now, which is about 1.5%!

I just noted 20% of the Australian population is hetero H63D, and the risk of iron overload is 'probably' nil...which drives home the holes in science's grasp of the subject.

[Nobody]

Anyway, your perspective is from within the matrix....and it's difficult to comprehend the benefits from there.

Alan Goldhamer you would consider to be outside the matrix. Yet I've heard him say on a video that intermittent feeding gives you most of the benefits of fasting.

My guess is within 20-30 years, fasting will become as accepted as WFPB diet is now, which is about 1.5%!

Doesn't sound like a lot. Still, I would have thought that WFPO would be a lot less than that in AU. Or are you speaking globally?

I just noted 20% of the Australian population is hetero H63D, and the risk of iron overload is 'probably' nil...which drives home the holes in science's grasp of the subject.

And as you know, I've got even less faith in the medical establishment on this subject than I do in the science. Not many - if any - would die of this condition these days. Those that have recently died with significantly shortened life spans from this illness were most likely un-diagnosed and/or refusing treatment. Therefore the amount of money to study it I guess would be pretty small compared to say something like cancer.

[Nobody]

Three charts on: how and what Australians eat (hint: it’s not good) - The Conversation

More than one-third of Australians’ energy intake comes from junk foods.

The prevalence of overweight and obesity remains high, reaching 81% for males aged 51–70.

Oh and I did the CSIRO Healthy Diet Survey again (in the article above). This time I got a score of 70%. Which means that the CSIRO can't identify a truly healthy diet. Since they said I need to "Focus on more dairy or alternatives", "Eat wholegrains" and "Focus on meat or vegetarian alternatives". I know they mean well, but it pays to know what you're talking about if you're going to act like a dietary authority. Especially considering that peoples' health is in the balance. But considering most people's attitude towards diet is poor, CSIRO's ignorance probably won't change much for the worse. Just a missed opportunity to obtain a better result for many, since they are trying to steer me to a less healthy diet.

Just for future record, below is the diet that they thought was 70%. 133 grams of fibre, 24 standard serves of veg (none starchy), 22 serves of fruit, very low fat, 1.2 g/kg of body weight in protein, an excellent omega 6:3 ratio and a Cal density of just 48 Cal/100g.

[CKinnard]

Anyway, your perspective is from within the matrix....and it's difficult to comprehend the benefits from there.

Alan Goldhamer you would consider to be outside the matrix. Yet I've heard him say on a video that intermittent feeding gives you most of the benefits of fasting.

My guess is within 20-30 years, fasting will become as accepted as WFPB diet is now, which is about 1.5%!

Doesn't sound like a lot. Still, I would have thought that WFPO would be a lot less than that in AU. Or are you speaking globally?

I just noted 20% of the Australian population is hetero H63D, and the risk of iron overload is 'probably' nil...which drives home the holes in science's grasp of the subject.

And as you know, I've got even less faith in the medical establishment on this subject than I do in the science. Not many - if any - would die of this condition these days. Those that have recently died with significantly shortened life spans from this illness were most likely un-diagnosed and/or refusing treatment. Therefore the amount of money to study it I guess would be pretty small compared to say something like cancer.

There's lots of space outside the matrix! Alan Goldhamer deserves credit for going where most fear to tread. However, I got inside his head enough to see the many cognitive holes and walls!

Re 1.5%, the research says there's more vegan types than that, but I'm talking WFPB or healthy vegan, which would be <10% of all vegans ime.
Some stats
https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/tags/research

[CKinnard]

Three charts on: how and what Australians eat (hint: it’s not good) - The Conversation

More than one-third of Australians’ energy intake comes from junk foods.

The prevalence of overweight and obesity remains high, reaching 81% for males aged 51–70.

Oh and I did the CSIRO Healthy Diet Survey again (in the article above). This time I got a score of 70%. Which means that the CSIRO can't identify a truly healthy diet. Since they said I need to "Focus on more dairy or alternatives", "Eat wholegrains" and "Focus on meat or vegetarian alternatives". I know they mean well, but it pays to know what you're talking about if you're going to act like a dietary authority. Especially considering that peoples' health is in the balance. But considering most people's attitude towards diet is poor, CSIRO's ignorance probably won't change much for the worse. Just a missed opportunity to obtain a better result for many, since they are trying to steer me to a less healthy diet.

Just for future record, below is the diet that they thought was 70%. 133 grams of fibre, 24 standard serves of veg (none starchy), 22 serves of fruit, very low fat, 1.2 g/kg of body weight in protein, an excellent omega 6:3 ratio and a Cal density of just 48 Cal/100g.

CSIRO went down a rabbit hole, a low carb rabbit hole. And are disturbingly ignorant re the broader health benefits of non low carb nutrition.
Manny Noakes led the way, and I don't think highly of her. Incidentally, she is no relative of Tim Noakes the prestigious sports scientist from South Africa, who also got into low carb.

Nobody, do they test special liver enzymes when assessing your iron stuff? (I ask because liver damage are prime casualties of hemochromatosis.) And did they ever do liver imaging?

[Nobody]

CSIRO went down a rabbit hole, a low carb rabbit hole. And are disturbingly ignorant re the broader health benefits of non low carb nutrition...

Yes, their recommendation to focus on meat and dairy sounds more like the USDA than an organisation interested in improving people's health. Well at least the meat, dairy, medical and weight loss industries should be pleased with the increased business. It's just sad that there is almost no organisation - no matter how official, or government linked - that can be trusted when it comes to diet.

Nobody, do they test special liver enzymes when assessing your iron stuff? (I ask because liver damage are prime casualties of hemochromatosis.) And did they ever do liver imaging?

No, just the standard biochemistry ones like ALT, AST. They occasionally have thrown in a specific cancer indicator AFP (probably since people with haemo are about 200 times more likely to get cancer) but they are usually pretty focused on the iron studies. They want me to get an echo of my liver every 5 years. Last echo was clear. I see the specialist annually and I'm booked 6 monthly for bleeds.

[Nobody]

There's lots of space outside the matrix!...

Thanks. Something for me to keep in mind.

Re 1.5%, the research says there's more vegan types than that, but I'm talking WFPB or healthy vegan, which would be <10% of all vegans ime.
Some stats
https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/tags/research

Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning. I suppose in a backwater like AU we can't expect to find much in the way of more specific estimates.

[CKinnard]

There's lots of space outside the matrix!...

Thanks. Something for me to keep in mind.

and good science will help clarify where best to be outside the matrix.

Re 1.5%, the research says there's more vegan types than that, but I'm talking WFPB or healthy vegan, which would be <10% of all vegans ime.
Some stats
https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/tags/research

Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning. I suppose in a backwater like AU we can't expect to find much in the way of more specific estimates.

Inside the matrix!

less than 2% of Australians get the minimum recommended vegetables and fruit....no matter whether people label themselves vegan or WFPB.



http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... 20beans~10
https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/abou ... statistics



____________________

From the latest Federal Govt AIHW 56 page report on Australia's Health 2018 (which mentions vegetables once).
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/austral ... ents/about

"We’re not eating a healthy diet or doing enough exercise
Eating a healthy diet and getting enough exercise can reduce the risk of
overweight and obesity, high blood pressure and developing chronic conditions.
However, more than 99% of all children and 96% of adults do not eat the
recommended amount of vegetables. Additionally, more than two-thirds of
children and almost half of adults do not follow the recommendation to limit
their consumption of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake.
Australians are not doing the recommended amount of exercise for their
age each week. This is most pronounced among adolescents (aged 13–17),
where 92% do not get the recommended amount of exercise."

[Nobody]

Thanks for posting the info CK.

...less than 2% of Australians get the minimum recommended vegetables and fruit....no matter whether people label themselves vegan or WFPB.

That's why I think of only a fraction of a percent are eating for maximum health. Because one can easily get that 5 & 2 which is about 300 Cal. That still leaves a lot of calories to get wrong.

We'll I may not be outside the matrix when it comes to fasting, but at least I'm not drinking the dietary cool-aid of the 98%. Most of them would think they have a healthy diet. They probably think it's low fat too. I used to when I ate the average diet.

From the latest Federal Govt AIHW 56 page report on Australia's Health 2018 (which mentions vegetables once).
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/austral ... ents/about

"We’re not eating a healthy diet or doing enough exercise
Eating a healthy diet and getting enough exercise can reduce the risk of
overweight and obesity, high blood pressure and developing chronic conditions.
However, more than 99% of all children and 96% of adults do not eat the
recommended amount of vegetables. Additionally, more than two-thirds of
children and almost half of adults do not follow the recommendation to limit
their consumption of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake.
Australians are not doing the recommended amount of exercise for their
age each week. This is most pronounced among adolescents (aged 13–17),
where 92% do not get the recommended amount of exercise."

People think we're different to the US. If we are, from the above it doesn't appear to be a lot different anyway. 97% of the US don't get enough fibre. 96% of AU don't get enough veg and the average AU fibre intake is less than half the recommended 30g/d, which was 12.7g IIRC.

[CKinnard]

Since getting back to Brisbane some weeks ago, I've been in my garden more....growing lots of stuff.
I was motivated to do it after really enjoying a lot of home grown (permaculture) vege from a local in Mildura when away. The vege were just so much better than any organic or store stuff I've bought in years....and the leafy greens stayed fresh for at least a week. I was amazed.

So I've got tomatoes, cucumber, capsicum, radishes, red cabbage, kale, arugula, and 2 varieties of spinach growing.
I'm also getting into microgreens. I always knew they were healthy, but their nutritional density is up to 50 times what a mature plant is, which nearly floored me.

Anyone prioritizing a more nutrient dense diet should consider growing their own microgreens.
I've got a few trays of legumes growing too, and some in garden beds. The leaves don't have problems with phytates or lectins so can be eaten liberally as a microgreen.
They grow quick and help add nitrogen back into the soil, and are a great cover crop to stop weeds.

some intro reading (even though it is by a hyrdoponic store)
https://www.hydrocentre.com.au/blog/gro ... crogreens/

[mikesbytes]

Correct me if I'm wrong CK, the microgreens are somewhere inbetween sprouts and normal greens and give a higher concentration of nutrients than sprouts and normal greens

[CKinnard]

Correct me if I'm wrong CK, the microgreens are somewhere inbetween sprouts and normal greens and give a higher concentration of nutrients than sprouts and normal greens

Mike, yes sprouts, microgreens, baby, and full sized plants all come from the same seed.
Sprouts are usually soaked in a bottle for a few hours, then rinsed 1-2x a day until appropriate size.
Microgreens are grown in trays hydroponically or in seeding soil, compost, or similar until big enough to look cute This is generally about 8-14 days depending on heat and which plant.
The commercial operations I´ve looked into only harvest/cut micros once, then compost the rest.

Some of the reading I´ve done recently has stunned me in how much more nutrient dense they are.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7514001513
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22812633

You could argue itś a lot more work to keep a continuous supply of mircos rolling, but itś pretty foolproof to set up.

If I had kids at home, I'd get them into a routine of growing: Every 3-4 days a new tray is prepped, watered once a day, harvested twice a week after ~10 days grow. Simple. and you don´t need a garden.

And for kids who don't particularly like vege, eating micros would ensure they get a lot more nutrients into their bellies than if they ate similar volume of mature vege.

[Nobody]

Can eating organic foods keep cancer away? - SMH article
JAMA study abstract

I think organic - although having its benefits - is a distraction from the main message. That main message being to eat more fruit & veg. However I still found it an interesting read and thought others might too. I agree with the statement below.

"It has to be born in mind that an overall healthy nutritionally diet (rich in fruit and vegetables etc.), whatever the farming system (organic or conventional), as well as high physical activity are important documented protective factors against certain cancers and other diseases," lead study author Julia Baudry of the French Institute of Health and Medical Research INSERM in Paris told Reuters.

[mikesbytes]

Great find about the micro greens CK. I'm asking myself why the nutrition is so concentrated and I've got a couple of guesses;
1. They are being grown in highly nutritional substrate, ie in alignment about your soil comments in past posts
2. The small plant concentrates the nutrition and then if allowed to grow into a larger plant kinda stretches what its got, more fibre etc etc but not much more nutrition. There's probably a better way of writing what I'm thinking

BTY I've been quoting the 81% of Males 51-70 are overweight of obese here and there, its a nice snip of info to entertain the healthy. I'm assuming that its based on BMI, which makes an assumption of muscle mass. Now while there are those who have higher muscle mass which makes them overweight even though their BF is way lower than the assumption, statically that could be counteracted by those who have low muscle mass putting them in the healthy range of BMI even though their fat levels would put them above the line. I kinda suspect that the % in the healthy BMI range who have too much fat is higher than those in the unhealthy range due to too much muscle, ie the real figure of 81% could actually be higher than that

[march83]

I can pretty much guarantee that you don't know anyone who breaks BMI. The people for whom BMI doesn't work are elite weightlifters, people who have run ana cycles, line backers, NRL 2nd rowers, The Rock, etc. The amount of work it takes to break BMI is insane, it doesn't happen by accident and these people are raw as hens teeth.

[CKinnard]

Another insightful article on HOME GROWN microgreens, especially highlighted bit.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28386543

Front Nutr. 2017 Mar 23;4:7.
Broccoli Microgreens: A Mineral-Rich Crop That Can Diversify Food Systems.
Weber CF1.

Current malnourishment statistics are high and are exacerbated by contemporary agricultural practices that damage the very environments on which the production of nutritious food depends. As the World's population grows at an unprecedented rate, food systems must be revised to provide adequate nutrition while minimizing environmental impacts. One specific nutritional problem that needs attention is mineral (e.g., Fe and Zn) malnutrition, which impacts over two-thirds of the World's people living in countries of every economic status. Microgreens, the edible cotyledons of many vegetables, herbs, and flowers, is a newly emerging crop that may be a dense source of nutrition and has the potential to be produced in just about any locale. This study examined the mineral concentration of broccoli microgreens produced using compost-based and hydroponic growing methods that are easily implemented in one's own home. The nutritional value of the resulting microgreens was quantitatively compared to published nutritional data for the mature vegetable. Nutritional data were also considered in the context of the resource demands (i.e., water, fertilizer, and energy) of producing microgreens in order to gain insights into the potential for local microgreen production to diversify food systems, particularly for urban areas, while minimizing the overall environmental impacts of broccoli farming. Regardless of how they were grown, microgreens had larger quantities of Mg, Mn, Cu, and Zn than the vegetable. However, compost-grown (C) microgreens had higher P, K, Mg, Mn, Zn, Fe, Ca, Na, and Cu concentrations than the vegetable. For eight nutritionally important minerals (P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Zn, and Na), the average C microgreen:vegetable nutrient ratio was 1.73. Extrapolation from experimental data presented here indicates that broccoli microgreens would require 158-236 times less water than it does to grow a nutritionally equivalent amount of mature vegetable in the fields of California's Central Valley in 93-95% less time and without the need for fertilizer, pesticides, or energy-demanding transport from farm to table. The results of this study suggest that broccoli microgreens have the potential to be a rich source of minerals that can be produced by individuals, even in urban settings, providing better access to adequate nutrition.

__________

I have never thought about it before, but when buying mature vege, it would be wise to buy the smaller sizes in preference to large, due to the higher nutrition density of the former.

[mikesbytes]

I can pretty much guarantee that you don't know anyone who breaks BMI. The people for whom BMI doesn't work are elite weightlifters, people who have run ana cycles, line backers, NRL 2nd rowers, The Rock, etc. The amount of work it takes to break BMI is insane, it doesn't happen by accident and these people are raw as hens teeth.

Interesting comment, myself for one. I suspect that we live in different walks of life. However there a lot more that break BMI by not having enough muscle so BMI gives them the thumbs up when they actually have too much fat.

As I stated before BMI works reasonably well (not perfectly) as a statistic and regardless of what we read into it, its showing the shocking condition of the average Australian

[RhapsodyX]

I can pretty much guarantee that you don't know anyone who breaks BMI. The people for whom BMI doesn't work are elite weightlifters, people who have run ana cycles, line backers, NRL 2nd rowers, The Rock, etc. The amount of work it takes to break BMI is insane, it doesn't happen by accident and these people are raw as hens teeth.

Interesting comment, myself for one. I suspect that we live in different walks of life. However there a lot more that break BMI by not having enough muscle so BMI gives them the thumbs up when they actually have too much fat.

As I stated before BMI works reasonably well (not perfectly) as a statistic and regardless of what we read into it, its showing the shocking condition of the average Australian

I had a BMI of 23 at 11.5% BF. And I have almost no fast-twitch - my <= 2 minute power was classed as "untrained".

[Nobody]

Interesting comment, myself for one.

Interesting, but not totally unexpected in your line of work. Just out of interest - and if it isn't somehow considered an invasion of privacy - could you please either post, or PM me your WHtR? Cases like yours are why I believe that WHtR is more universally meaningful, as I've highlighted in the Loser Club thread's original post here.

However there a lot more that break BMI by not having enough muscle so BMI gives them the thumbs up when they actually have too much fat.

Tend to agree. But I haven't got any proof, just anecdotes from who I've known and what I see. "Break" is a strong word, but skewing the results are definitely happening for anyone very tall (reads too high), very short (reads too low), very muscled, or frail. WHtR is less influenced by such extremes. Although my current belief from anecdotes and Wikipedia are that females on average have lower WHtR scores than men for the same height.

...regardless of what we read into it, its showing the shocking condition of the average Australian

Agree. Such are the lifestyle changes that have occurred in a single generation. People who "go with the flow" are very likely to be inactive and eating poorly moving forward. What is a little surprising about the age group of 51 - 70 yo - which I'll be among in about 2.5 months - is that these people grew up eating less junk food and getting exercise or doing sport for much of their entertainment.

[CKinnard]

Regarding exercise, in case anyone overlooked the Fed Govt "Australia's Health 2018" report,

"Australians are not doing the recommended amount of exercise for their
age each week. This is most pronounced among adolescents (aged 13–17),
where 92% do not get the recommended amount of exercise."

92% of Aussie kids are not active enough.
I wouldn't have thought it was that high, but I suppose most kids live in an urban setting, and are overly movement oppressed by parents, school authorities, and built environment.
Before and after school, I see a lot of school kids hanging around shopping malls, presumably because there's not a parent at home. So dual income and single parent households result in kids having less balanced lives and opportunities. This is one reason I think elites need to have a clue regarding the importance of credit creation (which pushes mortgages to a level that depend on dual income), and individual values (which are the most critical variable for marital harmony and success).

[Nobody]

Regarding exercise, in case anyone overlooked the Fed Govt "Australia's Health 2018" report...

There are a host of factors at play. Having two - now adult - children who are both as inactive as they get, I would say parental influence (not so much mine) and electronic distractions - like TV, games, social media, computers - are some of the biggest factors. I suppose you didn't get a response to the sad children stat because these days it's a given. Unless you go to specific sports grounds you're not going to see many kids doing exercise. TBH it suits me as I get the bike paths almost to myself rather than having to ride on the roads because the paths are littered with kids darting all over the place. Selfish I know, but there is an upside to kids inactivity in a big city like Sydney.

[CKinnard]

Regarding exercise, in case anyone overlooked the Fed Govt "Australia's Health 2018" report...

There are a host of factors at play. Having two - now adult - children who are both as inactive as they get, I would say parental influence (not so much mine) and electronic distractions - like TV, games, social media, computers - are some of the biggest factors. I suppose you didn't get a response to the sad children stat because these days it's a given. Unless you go to specific sports grounds you're not going to see many kids doing exercise. TBH it suits me as I get the bike paths almost to myself rather than having to ride on the roads because the paths are littered with kids darting all over the place. Selfish I know, but there is an upside to kids inactivity in a big city like Sydney.

If I had young kids now, they'd have very concrete limits on social media. They can't miss what they've never had....same logic that applies to good vs bad diet.
I have never enjoyed living in dense urban spaces, apart from the social stimulation and access to better paid jobs.
I prefer a bit of space and nature around me.
If I was in my 20s now, I'd prioritize setting up home on 20-50 acres 40-70km out of Brisbane....and get into regenerative mixed farming.
My view re kids and good habits is not to just take away time wasting bad stuff (social media).....but to crowd it out with better opportunities.

[Patt0]

I have stumbled upon another super food in disguise.

Gummy lollies. High in gelatine and glucose. Fuel and joint and bone support in a tasty little treat.