Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
march83
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:36 am

eggs: america's test kitchen have the right answer. https://www.kcet.org/food/weekend-recip ... fried-eggs

hot pan, hot oil, break the egg in and cover for 1m, then remove the heat and stand for 15s (runny) up to 45s (firm). The egg effectively fries at the bottom, steams at the top and is cooked very quickly.

I can live without them, but runny eggs on toast is definitely something that i loved to eat prior to going vegan. I could eat them guilt free from my own backyard chooks, but I choose not to.

big booty
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:41 pm

@Nobody. I tried a myopic diet but it didn't suit me. :-) Im very receptive to change. Ask me what I used to eat 3 years ago and its very different to what I eat now. Its not the same as what you eat, but I think there is a fair amount of overlap. Can I put a caveat on your statement: "However, the healthiest diet is one that is proven to give humans maximum health benefits." That is only true if you can get the person to eat it. Had a very interesting meeting with our research brethren in Sydney from the Institute for Choice. They mathematically model human behaviour. Really interesting conversation. If you have a healthy diet and no one eats it, is it really that healthy for you? Anyways Im getting too philosophical.

Nobody
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:15 pm

big booty wrote:@Nobody. I tried a myopic diet but it didn't suit me. :-)

You can imply that a healthy diet is shortsighted or narrow-minded. It won't change the truth.

big booty wrote:If you have a healthy diet and no one eats it, is it really that healthy for you?

It's not a diet's fault if some people don't apply it. It's the same as saying that exercise isn't good for you because you don't do it.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:22 pm

BB, having worked in international ad agencies for 13 years before changing to health, I am amused at those who think they can predict human behavior. Let's have a look at your statement "if you have a healthy diet and no one eats it..."

Now your statement needs qualification. Are you talking no one at all eats it, and won't....fovever and ever?
- that's a non sequitur because it ignores that a lot of people need to eat it for science to establish it is healthy.
- now on the forever and ever angle, 40 years ago, vegetarianism was scoffed at in Australia, and vegans were serious fringe dwellers. 15 years ago, a steep rise in the popularity of veganism kicked in and anyone who saw it coming and ramped up goods and services for such has done very well.
- by the same token 50 years ago, 2/3's of Aussies weren't overweight....now who saw the change coming, and how big if would be? no company or govt that I know of.

Health authorities have used the excuse that there's no point promoting a low fat PBWF diet because people wouldn't eat it. This is when the big brother rot sets in. They are determining that the taxpayers who pay their big salaries are too stupid and ignorant and weak willed to respect what the science has to say. I would argue until I am blue in the face, it is not the role of bureaucrats to determine what science is suppressed. The decision of individuals to choose the healthiest diet science knows of remains the individual's decision. The decision cannot be subversively taken away by bureaucratic dimwits who didn't see the obesity epidemic coming, or the uptrend in veganism....and I should include GPs in that because they are at the coal face with the most power to inform what the science says about health diet, followed by dietitians.

Further, when health authorities bury the science on healthy diets, it leaves a vacuum for profiteers to come in and confuse the hell out of consumers, and offer up tasty treats that people have no idea how bad are, because they don't have a yardstick on what constitutes a healthy diet, courtesy of a moronic fascist govt.

So this is what happens when authorities make presumptions like "no one would ever eat a healthy diet". Even if only 1% eat it, no one can predict when 20% and 80% will be eating it.

BTW, this isn't a personal attack on you. I have actually sat in govt meetings about public health promotion, and had powerful public servants say exactly what you said...and the arrogance and ignorance stunned me. Further, US authorities have used the same excuses to not promote Dean Ornish's dietary findings. It is a truly evil path for a govt to go down.

big booty
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:07 pm

You throw a bit of burley in the water and....
I tip my chapeau to you guys for trying to change peoples eating habits. A hard ask indeed.

Had some conversations with some academics from Sydney. They research among other things how people make choices on what they buy and they try and mathematically model it. I think things have progressed nefariously an long way since you were in the add agency business CK. We are not very far away from the following and it is being trialled already. Everyone has a mobile phone so that part is already done. Shopping trollies will have GPS locators inbuilt that couple to your phone. So they know who is pushing the trolley and where you are located. The shelves will have face recognition cameras and eye movement tracking sensors. So how you arrive at making a food selection will be tracked. We are not far away from this scenario. Personally I find that scary. To say that multinationals having that information will not influence what you buy is naïve.

My wife has a loyalty card for Coles and Woolworths. I threw mine in the bin years ago. I explained how the concept works and she said that she wouldn't fall for such a blatant trap. The other day she got a text saying the local Coles had OMO on special, Oh look its on special I might nip down and buy some. To which I said, I thought you wouldn't fall for such a blatant trap. But its on special.

I can appreciate that there is a counter flow to big food multinationals happening at the moment but the simple facts are that highly processed foods provide a nice profit margin. Healthy eating reduces that profit margin. Multinationals aren't going to accept a fall in profits without a fight. Now why would you produce a product that eventually kills you prematurely? Surely that is counter productive in the long run and will impact your profits? A good question to which I don't have a good answer.

With respect to governments don't get me started. True democratic decisions enacted by governments for the people is a slowly dying concept. We are increasingly being exposed to an oligarchic system. How does one change that? Don't know. Usually such situations have historically resolved themselves by the masses storming the castle with pitchforks.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:33 am

big booty wrote:You throw a bit of burley in the water and....


hehe...that wasn't burley!

To clarify, I'm well aware of all the games played and tech used to manipulate consumer behavior BB. I have a few serious tech head mates who keep me abreast of it all.

And I more than most get that processed food has bigger profit margins, hence the pressure to grow food processing, and why the supermarkets are not in the business of doing bulk unprocessed foods.

Nevertheless, read the history of Wholefoods in the US. If what you say is right, then the supermarket powers could not have so misread the market as to allow such a strong and quick success story as Wholefoods which Amazon recently acquired for $16B.

Those who think the current trajectory of Western economies is sustainable will also get caught out. The technological marvels of our time are not going to deliver. For some including me, the marketing tricks and manipulation are nothing more than noise. I buy my fruit and vege from a specialist provider, growingly pay a premium for produce from organic farmers' markets, and grow leafy greens in my back yard. The fastest growth I have seen in food supply has been at the Northey Street Markets in Brisbane, an organic farmers' market. The queues are mindnumbing.

I buy groceries from wherever is convenient and is influenced by ethics, 50% Aldi, 25% IGA, 25% Woolies and Coles. I don't trust Woolies anymore but used to buy 80-90% of my stuff there. That's me the consumer adapting my behavior against the will and tech of the supermarket industry. All the tech in the world isn't going to work if I am not walking in the door as often, and my average dollar spend has decreased.

RhapsodyX
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:33 am


ball bearing
Posts: 915
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: Watching the ships on the Southern Ocean

Re: Diet Thread

Postby ball bearing » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:44 am

RhapsodyX wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/05/could-a-drug-that-mimics-a-zero-carb-diet-help-us-live-longer-healthier-lives

It is hard to believe that The Lancet published this study. One self-reporting questionnaire only at the start of study detailing a persons diet over the last year. No questions about the type of carbohydrates (Tim Tams? potatoes? Oreos? hot chips?) but the type of fats are differentiated. 18 countries and no adjustment for local diets....junk science.

big booty
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:39 pm

@CK. Don't get me started on Amazon. My other passing interest is geo-politico economics. Agreed Western diets and economics are not sustainable. Anyone that thinks it is, is living in la-la land. Im not sure if our decline has hit rock bottom yet or if it has a ways more to fall? Im all for grocers markets. We have started shopping at them in the last year or so mostly for the veg but my wife also loves her Carlton ware cups and saucers and there are odds and sods stalls as well.

True that all the tech in the world wont work if you don't walk into the store. Trust me pressure will be ramped up as soon as grocers markets etc. rise above the noise level impact on profit margins of the multinationals. Its coming, of this I am certain. All of a sudden parks and community ovals wont be made available by councils. There will be crackdowns on "unsafe" practices, food control regulations will ramp up etc. And then all you'll need to do is check who is donating "concerned money" to the councils enforcing these regulations. Saw a similar occurrence where I live where a family booze outlet took 3 years to overcome "industry concerns" from Dan Murphy.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:34 pm

yeah the multinationals will kick up a stink, but I think the average Aussie is waking up to the games of these supreme hypocrites. Google for instance is getting about censoring conservative views off utube and the internet in general, playing at being the big social conscience nice guy with a liberal political agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Google is arguably the biggest tax evader and most unethical corporation providing a service to Australia. Anyone using their ad services pays to Singapore, to halve the tax Google would pay if their office was incorporated and located in Australia.
They can play liberal politics all they like, but their business practices reveal their forked tongue and totalitarian ways.

Google used to have a slogan "Don't be evil" which was aimed at corporations with more power.
Now that they have ultimate power, they are the most evil corporation on the planet....and I really mean that. They are the biggest threat to free speech and democracy in the last 100 years.

big booty
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:53 pm

We now return you to your normal dietary program. We thank you for your patience.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18335
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:05 pm

big booty wrote:We now return you to your normal dietary program. We thank you for your patience.
LOL

I understand CK's passion, the Google example is an analogy and I could put a few in there myself.

Remember how hard the tobacco industry thought to repel plain packaging? Stating that it was an erosion of your rights? Well the product is still available, just without the glossy marketing. Now food kills almost double the people that ciggies do so perhaps some of the restrictions placed on ciggies should also be placed on food, for example plain packaging
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:56 pm

Plain packaging could be an advantage for McDonalds, since IMO their customers are the worst polluters of food packaging. If they went plain I wouldn't know the stuff that I have to clean up off my verge came from them. Having both a McDonalds and a school within walking distance doesn't help.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:41 am

Mike, you prompted me to review Australia's leading causes of death.

Smoking doesn't have its own category in the 2015 table, but was reported to cause 15,000 deaths.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... Smoking~24

Interestingly, IHD and strokes decreased in the 10 years prior to the 2015 study. This may just be due to better acute care (first aid awareness, paramedic and hospital care) and drug therapy. It would be nice to think diet and exercise awareness has also improved, but doesn't seem likely considering the obesity trend. It's possible the rate of ageing smokers decreased in the period, which could explain the drop.

One of the largest increases is dementia. I wonder if that is due mostly to category reallocation by doctors. Dementia most often doesn't directly cause death...see below


http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... ,%202015~3
Image

https://www.fightdementia.org.au/about- ... f-dementia
Causes of death
The actual death of a person with dementia may be caused by another condition. They are likely to be frail towards the end. Their ability to cope with infection and other physical problems will be impaired due to the progress of dementia. In many cases death may be hastened by an acute illness such as pneumonia.
Based on Later stages of dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease Society, UK.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18335
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:47 am

It's difficult to infer exactly what caused the death, we need to make some assumption, for example various cancers, but not all.

Egg not as perfect this morning as the other day but not far off it. What's the view on baked beans? Dirt cheap, something like 65c for a can.
Image
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:06 am

Baked beans are a comparatively healthy processed food, though added salt and sugar varies.
Consider making your own. http://www.taste.com.au/search-recipes/?q=baked+beans
Incidentally, that looks like 350 Calories on your plate.....and 11.3grams of saturated fat! :)

BTW, I have finally sorted the bean flatus issue. I've had a few sizable servings over the last 3 days, and essentially no notable issue.
Changes include
- 30 minutes in the pressure cooker up from 15 minutes. This included the original batch of mixed beans with dark red kidney beans. I had to kick myself on p.cooker cooking time because many authoritative resources on the net talk about a minimum 10 minutes of boiling or pressure cooking....BUT my pressure cooker has a cooking time graphic on the side of it (that I'd overlooked) indicating 25-30 minutes for legumes!!! :?
- some of the serves included rice and others didn't.
- Have also drank 500mls before those meals.

Obviously this is bordering on obsessive, but I am delighted to have found a solution. Flatus is a major reason people avoid beans but as far as unprocessed plant foods go, they contain the highest protein:energy ratio, and therefore are an important addition to a Calorie deficit diet, in which a higher load of protein is recommended to reduce lean tissue losses.

big booty
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:02 am

@MB. I suspect that the health benefits from your diet stem primarily from the energy expenditure used in just presenting your food. :-). I was a canned bean/legume person but have converted to dried. Actually due to my wife who doesn't like that mushy texture. Soak overnight and then cook. It takes slightly more effort but nowhere as much effort as your "beautiful presentation".

RhapsodyX
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:41 pm

ball bearing wrote:
RhapsodyX wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/05/could-a-drug-that-mimics-a-zero-carb-diet-help-us-live-longer-healthier-lives

It is hard to believe that The Lancet published this study. One self-reporting questionnaire only at the start of study detailing a persons diet over the last year. No questions about the type of carbohydrates (Tim Tams? potatoes? Oreos? hot chips?) but the type of fats are differentiated. 18 countries and no adjustment for local diets....junk science.


Sorry... but what the hell are you talking about? The studies were published in Cell Journal and Cell Metabolism, not The Lancet. And it's a mouse study. Mice don't tend to fill out questionnaires.

ball bearing
Posts: 915
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: Watching the ships on the Southern Ocean

Re: Diet Thread

Postby ball bearing » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:37 pm

RhapsodyX wrote:
ball bearing wrote:
RhapsodyX wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/05/could-a-drug-that-mimics-a-zero-carb-diet-help-us-live-longer-healthier-lives

It is hard to believe that The Lancet published this study. One self-reporting questionnaire only at the start of study detailing a persons diet over the last year. No questions about the type of carbohydrates (Tim Tams? potatoes? Oreos? hot chips?) but the type of fats are differentiated. 18 countries and no adjustment for local diets....junk science.


Sorry... but what the hell are you talking about? The studies were published in Cell Journal and Cell Metabolism, not The Lancet. And it's a mouse study. Mice don't tend to fill out questionnaires.


Settle down - I assumed you linked to this: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017 ... -fat-study

Which happens to be all over the net. I feel sorry for the people who don't get past the headlines.

Oh, about those mice...

"...Stephen O’Rahilly, director of the Metabolic Research Laboratories at Cambridge University, said high-fat diets drive up LDL or “bad” cholesterol in humans, and so raise the risk of heart disease. “Mice don’t really use LDL cholesterol in the first place, so it doesn’t have that bad impact on them,” he said...."

Nobody
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:39 pm

CKinnard wrote:http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2015~Main%20Features~Australia's%20leading%20causes%20of%20death,%202015~3
Image

The mean ages of those diseases IMO don't do anything to encouraging people to adopt a healthy diet. Most of the problems average over 80 yo. If I didn't know how rubbish I would feel by eating poorly, especially for the last 10 to 20 years, I'd probably go back to SAD eating by looking at those numbers.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:29 pm

Nobody wrote:The mean ages of those diseases IMO don't do anything to encouraging people to adopt a healthy diet. Most of the problems average over 80 yo. If I didn't know how rubbish I would feel by eating poorly, especially for the last 10 to 20 years, I'd probably go back to SAD eating by looking at those numbers.


that's the problem with averages of any sort....they don't paint the picture a frequency distribution does.

Patt0
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:31 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:54 am

mikesbytes wrote: What's the view on baked beans? Dirt cheap, something like 65c for a can.


My father ate peas, lentils and beans 6 days a week for life. He said the canned stuff was junk. It was likely he just though his own prep was best :wink: .
Image

Patt0
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:31 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:52 am

Blood tests results are back.

Influenza A, positive
total Chol, 5.2mmol/L
trig., 0.6mmol/L
HDL, 1.82mmol/L
LDL, 2.24mmol/L
Gluc., 5.9mmol/L
Image

Nobody
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:06 pm

Patt0 wrote:Blood tests results are back.

Influenza A, positive
total Chol, 5.2mmol/L
trig., 0.6mmol/L
HDL, 1.82mmol/L
LDL, 2.24mmol/L
Gluc., 5.9mmol/L

Thanks for posting. This is a reminder for me to get some blood tests done soon, once I'm fully over the flu.

Results appear to be mixed.
Trig is particularly low/good, but may be because you are still calorie restricting.
TC should be below 3.88 to make sure you avoid CAD (if susceptible). The GP probably told you it was fine though.
High HDL appears good, but recent studies have pointed to high HDL being unprotective in reality. That's why TC still matters.
LDL is OK, which matters. It would have been good to see hsCRP results as well, which would have told more.
The problem is lipid results are more relative to the person than something that can easily be compared to others. For example, my TC is 3.7, which isn't that good, but considering it used to be 6.5 means it's very good for me.
If a fasting result, glucose could have been better. Under 5 would have been better. As a comparison I got a random one 2 hours or so after breakfast and it was still 4.8. I should get a fasting one.

Patt0
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:31 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:27 pm

Glucose was a bit of a surprise. It is 12hr fasting. Last year it was 5.1. The preceding 2 weeks I had been eating less than a teaspoon of sugar and 100g carbs total/day.
Image

Return to “Cycling Health”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users