Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18337
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:50 am

I'm certainly not recommending rapid weight loss, I'm just noting it as technique to aid in changing the muscle to total body weight ratio. Its a controversial topic with info out there both supporting and dismissing the process.

The body building example you give is saying the same thing about adjusting the activity to preserve the muscle while the body gets lighter. Conversely the BB's use the opposite technique to put muscle on, deliberately over eating to fatten up
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:01 am

mikesbytes wrote:The human body is designed to be efficient and muscles that are larger than they need to be are inefficient.


Maybe you could ask the designer why they did such a piss poor job :D .

In regards to muscle efficiency and size etc. Composition is as relevant as size. Muscle size becomes a factor when the supporting systems can no longer keep up with their demands.


I mentioned in the weight loss thread I may talk about fat loss here. Here is titbit one.

Fat loss is greatly accelerated with anaerobic exercise. Widely published but really hit home when I started to add in some squats. The fat literally melted off me. Previously I had maintained low BF with surfing and swimming sprints. I actually gained fat when I stopped those and just cycled.
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:39 am

Patt0 wrote:Fat loss is greatly accelerated with anaerobic exercise. Widely published but really hit home when I started to add in some squats. The fat literally melted off me. Previously I had maintained low BF with surfing and swimming sprints. I actually gained fat when I stopped those and just cycled.


I presume you mean resistance exercise as opposed to sprinting 100 meters, which is also anaerobic.
Though you are right in that resistance work gives us squirts of the fat mobilizers and anabolics adrenalin, growth hormone, IGF-1; and suppresses the catabolic cortisol. And building or preserving muscle ensures we have a bigger glucose sink which helps control blood glucose better. It also improves insulin sensitivity.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:17 am

@CK. I once posed the idea that different people could respond differently to the same foods. I hope Im not misquoting you but you essentially said no. Watched a clip by Eran Elinav, are you familiar with his work at all? The response to the same foods is different for different individuals. Now whether this has to do with the difference in our DNA or in the gut biome or some other factors is unclear to me.

User avatar
ValleyForge
Posts: 1468
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:37 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby ValleyForge » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:43 am

CKinnard wrote:
Patt0 wrote:Fat loss is greatly accelerated with anaerobic exercise. Widely published but really hit home when I started to add in some squats. The fat literally melted off me. Previously I had maintained low BF with surfing and swimming sprints. I actually gained fat when I stopped those and just cycled.


I presume you mean resistance exercise as opposed to sprinting 100 meters, which is also anaerobic.
Though you are right in that resistance work gives us squirts of the fat mobilizers and anabolics adrenalin, growth hormone, IGF-1; and suppresses the catabolic cortisol. And building or preserving muscle ensures we have a bigger glucose sink which helps control blood glucose better. It also improves insulin sensitivity.

Fat loss is not "greatly accelerated" by anaerobic exercise. Any additional exercise will cause catabolism - to lose fat you will want catabolism of the triglycerides in the adipocytes. Anaerobic exercise does not do this directly - it relies on muscle glycogen. Aerobic exercise does this however, and promotes this pathway long after the aerobic exercise has finished.
Ha ha ha! Cookies on dowels.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:56 am

big booty wrote:@CK. I once posed the idea that different people could respond differently to the same foods. I hope Im not misquoting you but you essentially said no. Watched a clip by Eran Elinav, are you familiar with his work at all? The response to the same foods is different for different individuals. Now whether this has to do with the difference in our DNA or in the gut biome or some other factors is unclear to me.


I have never thought people carte blanche cannot respond differently to the same foods.

I can think of half a dozen examples off the top of my head:
- 2 people weighing the same but with very different lean tissue % can respond differently due to different hormone synthesis and metabolic rates of fat and sk. muscle.
- brown adipose tissue levels vary widely.
- the metabolic regulator variation of thyroid and sympathetics can confound thermic effect of food.
- microbiome differences
- malabsorption
- and when you say 'people could respond differently', are you allowing for autoimmune triggering by various food sensitivities/allergies.

It's a given that people of similar weight can overfeed to the same degree and not put on weight at the same rate.
why? because of the variation in brown adipose tissue and SNS response.

and if you compare two people both 70kg, one 20yo and the other 80yo, both with similar lean tissue portions, they will respond to the same meal differently because the body's digestion, absorption, and metabolizing functions wear with age just like all other systems.

And then drilling down, the SNS and PNS are known to decrease and increase insulin secretion dramatically, so there's your path for psychoemotional energy to play havoc with the insulin sensitivity. There's been some brilliant studies recently on how powerfully the autonomics effect insulin....along with brilliant insights into how inflammation might be the earliest culprit in compromising pancreatic beta cell function....so a person who has been chowing down a more inflammatory diet might set themselves up for insulin resistance which effects how the body responds to different foods.

Further, selection pressure can favors strengthening of the metabolic pathways for an extreme diet, such as with the Innuit.
And epi-genetics will vary met pathways in the shorter term, so that we can adapt to diets of variable macro ratios. i.e. people adopting low carb diets adapt to the higher intake of fat in such a way that it isn't as toxic a year later, according to Steven Phinney, Tim Noakes and Peter Brukner.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:07 pm

Attempted action on reducing and preventing obesity.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/19/government-faces-fresh-calls-sugar-tax

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/experts-say-gov-must-get-tougher-on-junk-food-and-soft-drinks/8958184

http://www.opc.org.au/tipping-the-scales.aspx

At least they are trying, but although they have some practical ideas, I think it's the case of too little, too late. That's assuming the federal government were to apply it, which is unlikely.

march83
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:41 pm

Ignoring the fact that no Coalition government would pass it, and ignoring the fact that Labor might pass it but probably don't want to die on that hill, I'm all for it. Better still, if the revenue were funneled into reducing prices of healthier foods and drinks. Education is so so so difficult on this topic. It can't be overlooked as it's essential to keep trying to get through to people, but public education programs and advertising can't be viewed as an answer to the problem.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:53 pm

Whats a sugar tax?
does it just tax sugar?
what about high fructose corn syrup?
frozen orange juice concentrate?
canned pineapple juice?
fructose?
honey?
will it tax sugar bought in a paper bag meant for home cooking?
or just the teaspoons of sugar added to processed foods

just tax unhealthy fast food, confectionery, processed foods, whether it is sugar, salt, refined carbs, or fat.
and reduce welfare pmts and give them food stamps for healthy foods only

march83
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:39 pm

CKinnard wrote:Whats a sugar tax?

This one was very clearly defined as a 20% tax on drinks which contain added "sugar" (definition not provided but using your imagination you would assume that includes anything which is added as a sweetener and contains calories). It clearly excluded milk (but not milk with added sweeteners) and 100% juice.

does it just tax sugar?

No, as I understand it they want to tax drinks (not sugar) which contain added sweeteners (but not calorie free sweeteners)

what about high fructose corn syrup?

if it's added to a drink, yes

frozen orange juice concentrate?

if it doesn't contain added sweetener it should be fine

canned pineapple juice?

if it doesn't contain added sweetener it should be fine

fructose?

on its own, it's fine. Add it to whatever you want without fearing a tax hike

honey?

on its own, it's fine.

will it tax sugar bought in a paper bag meant for home cooking?

No

or just the teaspoons of sugar added to processed foods

Drinks only

just tax unhealthy fast food, confectionery, processed foods, whether it is sugar, salt, refined carbs, or fat.
and reduce welfare pmts and give them food stamps for healthy foods only

This is a first step, there's a long way to go to get public support for shaping healthy choices by targeting unhealthy foods with taxes.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18337
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:10 pm

Salt, sugar and fat are the 3 pillars of the food industry.

Recently there's been a bit of discussion on diet on JJJ, an ABC radio station. Not much detail, they kept it simple talking about cleaning up one's diet. I like simple discussions like that as it keeps it within reach of those embarking on a nutrition journey by not making the first step too hard. After that they can get more complex if their journey continues
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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:39 pm

march83 wrote:just tax unhealthy fast food, confectionery, processed foods, whether it is sugar, salt, refined carbs, or fat.
and reduce welfare pmts and give them food stamps for healthy foods only

This is a first step, there's a long way to go to get public support for shaping healthy choices by targeting unhealthy foods with taxes.[/quote]

unfortunately, it will be too easy for the food industry to push back in the courts based on your understanding.
it's like trying to reduce the road toll by banning motorbikes only (because more people die on motorbikes pro rata), even though the majority are killed by cars.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:55 am


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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:52 am

Nobody wrote:Attempted action on reducing and preventing obesity.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/19/government-faces-fresh-calls-sugar-tax

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/experts-say-gov-must-get-tougher-on-junk-food-and-soft-drinks/8958184

http://www.opc.org.au/tipping-the-scales.aspx

At least they are trying, but although they have some practical ideas, I think it's the case of too little, too late. That's assuming the federal government were to apply it, which is unlikely.


Do nothing and nothing will happen. I suspect they were saying the same thing about cigarettes. The last of the diehard supporters I suppose still support cigarette smoking but the general consensus is that most do not. Do you think we as a society would have ended up in this position is not dragged kicking and screaming? 50 years from now people will be saying, what was all the fuss about introducing a sugar tax. If you make crap food alternatives more expensive than real food it will change consumption patterns. Now we can debate the nuances of the definition of what sugar is and what constitutes added ad nauseam, lets just make a start and see what happens. If we get it wrong, by all means adjust it. I go into Coles and a 2L bottle of spring water is $5 and a 2L bottle of Coke is $1. If I change that so its Water = $1 and Coke = $5, its probably going to change my buying habits.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18337
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:26 am

If Doctors smoke ciggies then they must be good for you


And we need to get that message across to the children too
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 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:17 am

big booty wrote:Do nothing and nothing will happen. I suspect they were saying the same thing about cigarettes.

I'm by no means against what they are trying to do. IMO they should go a lot further, but I didn't elaborate since even what they have won't get through. But if they had started in the 80s, then it might be having a significant impact by now. Like with smoking, it's going to take decades to turn the problems around to a large degree. People need to grow up with a different mindset. It becomes a generational problem. One which is still currently getting worse.

All I can say is get ready for some heavy health care taxes and even more prohibitory pricing on private health care. Since diet is already doing more damage than smoking in the US and we appear to be 5 to 10 years behind them with affluenza lifestyle changes.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:26 am

mikesbytes wrote:If Doctors smoke ciggies then they must be good for you

Plenty of overweight and obese doctors around these days. So probably not the best people to put on a pedestal when it comes to dietary advice. If one is going to ask the doctor for dietary advice, he/she might as well ask anyone in the waiting room as well.

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby big booty » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:21 am

@Nobody. I wasnt having a go at you at all. You have all these libertarians coming out of the woodwork about personal freedoms etc. and how a tax on sugar erodes that freedom. I know that this is an extreme example but most (not all) people think that slavery is a bad thing. That was once not the case. Changing peoples concept of what is acceptable needs to happen. Cigarettes, debate is over, end of story. Sugar, debate has started and will pick up speed....

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:18 pm

big booty wrote:Cigarettes, debate is over, end of story. Sugar, debate has started and will pick up speed....

Salt debate over the years has worked to some degree. "The white death" my father jokingly called it, but still added it.
We also need a debates on:
processed
high calorie density (of which sugars are a part)
high fat
low fiber
...

Most appear willing to throw sugar under a bus. But sugar is just part of the problem IMO. CK would argue diet is also a symptom of a bigger modern lifestyle problem.

Neddysmith
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Neddysmith » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:56 pm

Sugar tax, what a joke of an idea.

User avatar
kb
Posts: 2286
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby kb » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:01 pm

big booty wrote:@Nobody. I wasnt having a go at you at all. You have all these libertarians coming out of the woodwork about personal freedoms etc. and how a tax on sugar erodes that freedom. I know that this is an extreme example but most (not all) people think that slavery is a bad thing. That was once not the case. Changing peoples concept of what is acceptable needs to happen. Cigarettes, debate is over, end of story. Sugar, debate has started and will pick up speed....

Dangers of passive smoking helped it along a bit though..
Image

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

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:46 pm

I'd like to see health insurance premiums reward healthy lifestyle choices, but the bleeding hearts always come in and put the wrong spin on it.

I could make a good case that govt should focus on doing everything it can to reduce the cost of housing and food....and this will do more to reduce the obesity epidemic than anything else. Until we do, we're all stressed via longer commutes to jobs we don't enjoy so as to pay cost of living expenses that continue to grow more rapidly than wages.
We keep offshoring jobs so people have to huddle in capital cities and compete for part time work that doesn't allow one to get ahead financially.
On top of that, you have parents who are well and truly nutrition zombies with both feet in the pleasure trap, and bringing up kids the same way.
There's nothing clever about what's happening currently. It's an early death by hedonism for the majority.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18337
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:51 pm

Nobody wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:If Doctors smoke ciggies then they must be good for you

Plenty of overweight and obese doctors around these days. So probably not the best people to put on a pedestal when it comes to dietary advice. If one is going to ask the doctor for dietary advice, he/she might as well ask anyone in the waiting room as well.

My comment was more along the lines of the marketing suggesting their product is healthy when it isn't and also the marketing to children.

For one of many examples, how much sugar is required to deliver healthy bacteria? https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/66313/yakult-probiotic-drink?googleshop=1&cmpid=smaf014 It seems to me that the sugar is there to make the product taste sweet, so a product that is marketed as being healthy for you is loaded with sugar.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18337
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:54 pm

CKinnard wrote:I'd like to see health insurance premiums reward healthy lifestyle choices, but the bleeding hearts always come in and put the wrong spin on it.

I could make a good case that govt should focus on doing everything it can to reduce the cost of housing and food....and this will do more to reduce the obesity epidemic than anything else. Until we do, we're all stressed via longer commutes to jobs we don't enjoy so as to pay cost of living expenses that continue to grow more rapidly than wages.
We keep offshoring jobs so people have to huddle in capital cities and compete for part time work that doesn't allow one to get ahead financially.
On top of that, you have parents who are well and truly nutrition zombies with both feet in the pleasure trap, and bringing up kids the same way. a
There's nothing clever about what's happening currently. It's an early death by hedonism for the majority.
Am I correct in saying that the only differential currently is smoker/non smoker?
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 21, 2017 3:01 pm

As you guys know, I've been smashing the low carb resources to get the details on all their excitement.
Had a laugh this morning when listening to a QnA by a few of their heavyweights.
An Aussie medico challenged them to be more nuanced in their promoting of being able to eat bacon (for instance) because it is undisputably associated with colorectal cancer.

One of the gurus and others in the audience contested that, one guy saying many vegetables have more nitrates than bacon.....people clapped and laughed.

I thought, thanks Dr Greger, for pointing out that it isn't nitrates or nitrites that are a problem.
It's nitrates getting converted to the carcinogens nitrosamines. In the case of bacon this happens before we eat it. It's the reaction between nitrates and the amino acids in meat protein.

So I am certainly seeing that nutrition is a huge field..and hence there's a lot of posturing and belief built on lop sided platforms. Honestly, I've never known a medico over 30yo and working full time, who can read the literature regularly and intensively. If they a training in a specialty and have kids and an average social life, then there just isn't enough hours in the week. I do a lot more reading than anyone else I know because i have been working part time off and on for the last few years. But coming to terms with two camps on either side of a battlefield would be a lot easier if both sides evolved their stances based on all the science. The confusion kicks in when they don't understand each others' experiential realm.

I'm actually getting a lot out of studying the low carb thing. It's motivating me to dig deeper into proof for my partiality to PBWF. As I've said before, the low carbers seem to ignore the adverse effects of postprandial hyperlipemia, and that long lived cultures are invariably low fat eaters.

Return to “Cycling Health”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users