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: 19140
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:45 am

Yes I too have seen many cases of those who don't understand what calories they consume, while I'm having a long black they are having a hot chocolate.

A friend of mine, a middle aged strong fit asian lady who is carry a little more than she should asked me about cutting carbs from her diet. I suggested she set up a food log so to see where she is consuming the calories, many years ago I did that for myself and over 3 months Iearn't more about diet than I would of in years. Must see how she went with that one
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

RhapsodyX
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RhapsodyX » Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:27 am

CKinnard wrote:Bit of a thing at the moment re whether low carb diets shorten lifespans.

This paper says low carb diets have higher mortality risk.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093812.htm
However, it also says eating a high carb diet has increased risk too.
Unfortunately, the study doesn't discriminate between cake and sweet potato, or sugar and brown rice!
stunning!!!


"Diet quality" didn't seem to be a concern when you linked to the "Low carb diets and all cause mortality" study.

RobertL
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby RobertL » Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:40 am

mikesbytes wrote:Yes I too have seen many cases of those who don't understand what calories they consume, while I'm having a long black they are having a hot chocolate.


I know a woman who has studied naturopathy and nutrition and put herself on a sugar-free diet. So at the coffee shop she would order a ginger beer because she believed it to have no sugar. :shock: :shock: :shock:
Image

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19140
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:51 pm

RobertL wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Yes I too have seen many cases of those who don't understand what calories they consume, while I'm having a long black they are having a hot chocolate.


I know a woman who has studied naturopathy and nutrition and put herself on a sugar-free diet. So at the coffee shop she would order a ginger beer because she believed it to have no sugar. :shock: :shock: :shock:


LOL there was a time when I thought that muffins were healthy :oops:
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

CKinnard
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:52 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Yes I too have seen many cases of those who don't understand what calories they consume, while I'm having a long black they are having a hot chocolate.


I would say a major contributor to the obesity epidemic is the resolute failure of government and medical initiatives to dumb down the Calorie content of foods to a level a hyperactive 10 year old can grasp.

One of the best decisions in the last 20 years has been to make fast food chains advertise kJ on their menu boards.
But even 5000kJ for a fast food item doesn't scare many obese people off.

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:59 pm

mikesbytes wrote:LOL there was a time when I thought that muffins were healthy :oops:

There was a time when I thought most foods were reasonably healthy and I think most people are still that way. We've been marketed to over our lifetimes and our parents before us.

CKinnard wrote:One of the best decisions in the last 20 years has been to make fast food chains advertise kJ on their menu boards.
But even 5000kJ for a fast food item doesn't scare many obese people off.

First they'd have to know what 5000 kJ means (or about 1200 Cal). But most likely they aren't even looking past their addiction to notice.
Having said that, 5000 kJ in the right form doesn't scare me either. But as you know, that could be 2+ kg of food for something very healthy.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19140
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:42 pm

CKinnard wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Yes I too have seen many cases of those who don't understand what calories they consume, while I'm having a long black they are having a hot chocolate.


I would say a major contributor to the obesity epidemic is the resolute failure of government and medical initiatives to dumb down the Calorie content of foods to a level a hyperactive 10 year old can grasp.

One of the best decisions in the last 20 years has been to make fast food chains advertise kJ on their menu boards.
But even 5000kJ for a fast food item doesn't scare many obese people off.

From what I've seen at the fast food business's is that most don't care what their energy intake is. No amount of information be it easy or hard to understand is going to help if they aren't interested. To use an analogy, we have had a constant campaign plus tightening regulations and we still have 15% of the adult population smoking.

Incidentally when I was in NZ I checked out the fast food chains there, which were mainly the same as here and there was only one (I forget which, might of been Macca's) that was displaying the Kj's.

<rant> The lack of the Govt State and Federal) doing anything to improve the health in Australia is astounding. There is almost no advertising to eat healthy and almost nothing to promote activity, NSW is spending Billions on new motorways and only a couple of billboards to encourage exercise, even less to eat healthy. Only one bridge for cycling/walking in Sydney, the largest city in Australia </rant>

Having said that NT is proposing bringing in a minimum cost of $1.30 [check my figure?] for a standard drink. A bottle of wine at Aldi is $2.80, how many standard drinks is that? is it 4? 4 * $1.30 = $5.20
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:26 pm

CKinnard wrote:Nobody, here's another low carb take on insulin.

...https://youtu.be/wBsnk2PtPeo...

That guy would have us all convinced that carbs are evil and you live longer on low-carb.

In particular the fructose_is_evil part near the end. Fatty liver and AGEs. Really? Not enough about packaging and the cooking processes IMO. Typical of a MD in regard to reductionism.
I eat more fruit than anyone I know. Half of my diet is fruit by calories and most by weight. If anyone should have fatty liver from fructose consumption, it's me. Since I also have haemo, I get ultrasounds every so often for liver damage. No indication of fatty liver both times. A normal liver last time.
My simple understanding of AGEs is that you have to high heat foods to get them. Interesting take that he blames fructose primarily for this problem, while NF blames mainly animal products.
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/ages/

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19140
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:59 pm

For the vast majority of the population who don't want to log their diet and eat to a formula, I see the message as cut back on refined carbs while increasing vegetable intake, which of course includes carbs.

There's an old phrase "good calories vs bad calories" which means considering what the calories come with and I'm yet to hear a better saying that's simple and to the point. I'm sure there's one out there and will be pleased to see it.

Fruit is only an issue if there's extreme consumption, though there are some choices that are better than others and there are those who make your healthy choices look not as healthy as you thought, for example a guy who peals an apple, eats the apple skin and throws away the rest of the apple.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

CKinnard
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:29 pm

Nobody wrote:
CKinnard wrote:Nobody, here's another low carb take on insulin.

...https://youtu.be/wBsnk2PtPeo...

That guy would have us all convinced that carbs are evil and you live longer on low-carb.


yeah, I can tell pretty much the line of reading he has done, and hasn't done by his paradigm.
there's a whole universe of studies he has totally ignored in developing his nutritional reality.
I looked up his bio as I am always interested in what drives GPs to get hooked on nutrition.
I don't know how much clinic he has done, because he's got three undergrad degrees (physiotherapy, occupational medicine, and med)

Either way, like many clinicians and researchers, he's unaware of his biases....and that reductionist approaches to nutritional science are fraught with peril, and should be balanced by looking at large scale observationals like the Adventist Health Study II, and studies of traditional cultures/diets such as Blue Zones.
Studies of complex systems using primitive technologies (which current nutritional techniques are) needs to be appreciated for its limitations.
And those who think science in its current iteration is worthy of blind faith, are simply, MAD....and worshipping false gods.

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:18 am

mikesbytes wrote:There's an old phrase "good calories vs bad calories" which means considering what the calories come with and I'm yet to hear a better saying that's simple and to the point. I'm sure there's one out there and will be pleased to see it.

Can't say I like attaching moral words to food. I don't like the fairly meaningless term "clean eating" either. I prefer unhealthy versus healthy, or healthier. It's often about the packaging, or wholeness.

As for simple sayings, "chase the fibre" is a term I've heard and when applied properly (with whole foods) seems to work. I got 130 grams yesterday (typically > 100g) and my diet is as healthy as I know how to make it (for new readers, read extremely healthy).

mikesbytes wrote:Fruit is only an issue if there's extreme consumption...

I agree only past the point that fruit consumption limits foods that are going to give you something more or different. That you would otherwise be deficient in. Which works out to be protein and some minerals (selenium, sodium). That is one of a few reasons why I don't have an all fruit diet. Other than that, if you can afford it and your teeth can handle it, there isn't much of an upper limit for fruit. Couldn't say the same for many other food groups though. IIRC, according to Fuhrman, fruit generally has the second highest nutrient density level behind green leafy veg (which I can't eat due to the iron content) and equal with many types of veg. So maybe mothers should be telling their kids to "eat your fruit" as much as "eat your vegies".
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/
https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/eat-t ... y-of-foods

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:04 am

CKinnard wrote:Either way, like many clinicians and researchers, he's unaware of his biases....and that reductionist approaches to nutritional science are fraught with peril, and should be balanced by looking at large scale observationals like the Adventist Health Study II, and studies of traditional cultures/diets such as Blue Zones.

Although I don't follow them, I take heed of their message and therefore try to supplement what I may be missing. It may be egotistical, but I think that I can - on average - do better diet wise than the blue zones by tuning my diet the best I can. At least to the knowledge we have available at this time. Hopefully it's enough. Time will tell I suppose. I've heard lots of vegans do fail long term.

CKinnard wrote:Studies of complex systems using primitive technologies (which current nutritional techniques are) needs to be appreciated for its limitations.
And those who think science in its current iteration is worthy of blind faith, are simply, MAD....and worshipping false gods.

Agree. Although I've been prone to falling for single studies myself. More sceptical now.
The low-carb movement seems to capture a lot of smart people who then fall into this faith trap. WFPB/O is counter intuitive in some ways, but often gets the long term results if one can work through the challenges along the way.

I thought Goji's take down of some pro-dairy guy showed a reasonable attitude toward the science and its limitations.

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:13 am

Nobody wrote:
CKinnard wrote:Nobody, here's another low carb take on insulin.

...https://youtu.be/wBsnk2PtPeo...

That guy would have us all convinced that carbs are evil and you live longer on low-carb...

For those who remain convinced that fructose is a problem, even in its natural form.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/if-fructose-is-bad-what-about-fruit/

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:40 am

A fairly long winded video below, but he cites a fairly recent study, with a quote from the abstract.

From Abstract:

We present evidence that A1 β-casein cows’ milk protein is a primary causal trigger of type 1 diabetes in individuals with genetic risk factors.
.... Within this framework, removal of a dominant dietary trigger may profoundly affect type 1 diabetes incidence. We present epidemiological, animal-based, in vitro and theoretical evidence for A1 β-casein and its β-casomorphin-7 derivative as dominant causal triggers of type 1 diabetes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5518798/



Two of my second cousins have T1D and I remember when all our kids were small at the beginning of this century, that their mother didn't breast feed. I remember thinking at the time (maybe 18 years ago) that avoiding breast feeding was a risk factor for T1D. A sad outcome for all and one of the reasons I'm re-posting this warning. IMO the worst diet related diseases are the irreversible ones, like auto-immune and cancer. Even CVD/atherosclerosis can be irreversible in some people.

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:57 pm

SBS documentary on vitamins linked. Better than I thought it was going to be. You need to login to view. It goes for about 1.5 hours.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1289275459730/vitamania

It says at the end that if you're going to take vitamins, then take it seriously. Which I do. I plan to be blood tested for a range of markers during this year to see what I need to change.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19140
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:44 pm

Nobody wrote:SBS documentary on vitamins linked. Better than I thought it was going to be. You need to login to view. It goes for about 1.5 hours.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1289275459730/vitamania

It says at the end that if you're going to take vitamins, then take it seriously. Which I do. I plan to be blood tested for a range of markers during this year to see what I need to change.


Um 1.5 hours, I'll go with your summary. Today someone told me that if taking Magnesium supplement, that if you get night cramps [and you suspect that you have low magnesium levels] then you should take the Magnesium tablet(s) just before going to bed. Any info on this timing here or elsewhere?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

CKinnard
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:01 pm

mikesbytes wrote:
Nobody wrote:SBS documentary on vitamins linked. Better than I thought it was going to be. You need to login to view. It goes for about 1.5 hours.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1289275459730/vitamania

It says at the end that if you're going to take vitamins, then take it seriously. Which I do. I plan to be blood tested for a range of markers during this year to see what I need to change.


Um 1.5 hours, I'll go with your summary. Today someone told me that if taking Magnesium supplement, that if you get night cramps [and you suspect that you have low magnesium levels] then you should take the Magnesium tablet(s) just before going to bed. Any info on this timing here or elsewhere?


I've lost count of the number of patients and alternative health practitioners who tell me magnesium supplementation is the be and end all.
The universal solution for night cramps, muscle spasms, all musculoskeletal aches and pains, etc.
However, taking high doses of any mineral or nutrient alone is unnatural.
Magnesium is meant to be balanced with calcium, so taking too much can lead to increased excretion of calcium....so no woman should be taking excessive magnesium regularly for a start.
People should just eat more vegetables, then they'd get all the minerals they need.
The rabid supplement pushers I know think supps compensate a poor diet, not that they even know they are eating a poor diet.

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:13 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Today someone told me that if taking Magnesium supplement, that if you get night cramps [and you suspect that you have low magnesium levels] then you should take the Magnesium tablet(s) just before going to bed. Any info on this timing here or elsewhere?

Nothing in the vitamin video about magnesium. I remember one of those Mosley "Trust me, I'm a Doctor" documentaries that said cramps were more to do with muscle fatigue than anything else.

CKinnard wrote:However, taking high doses of any mineral or nutrient alone is unnatural.

Agree. As you said, taking one mineral makes too much competition for the absorption of some other mineral. So then you run the risk of deficiency in the other. I take calcium and zinc to compete with my high iron absorption. But taking too much zinc (like 25+ mg) can also lead to a copper deficiency. So I keep my added zinc down to 12 mg/d and my calcium at 300 mg/d at this stage. If I didn't have the haemo, I probably wouldn't be taking calcium or zinc at all. I'll see if it makes a difference to my ferritin when tested again in Nov/Dec.

CKinnard wrote:People should just eat more vegetables, then they'd get all the minerals they need.

Agree with the exception of iodine for general WFPO eaters (without seaweed) which Greger mentions in his book. I tried to work out what I was getting and it looked like only about 40 ug/d - IIRC March83 found he was similar - where according to NRV, the RDI should be 150 ug/d. Since my TSH has increased 66% in 4 years, I now take 225 ug/d and will get TSH tested again later in the year. I considered seaweed - which Greger recommends - but I thought it was too hit & miss, has a greater cost, is another food item I have to source (where the supp lasts over a year) and may come with other pollutants/problems.

CKinnard wrote:The rabid supplement pushers I know think supps compensate a poor diet, not that they even know they are eating a poor diet.

Yeah, my family has been like that for years and they look to be getting worse. I suppose I'm not helping their biases toward supplements with my supplement taking either.

CKinnard
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:30 pm

Nobody wrote:Agree with the exception of iodine for general WFPO eaters (without seaweed) which Greger mentions in his book. I tried to work out what I was getting and it looked like only about 40 ug/d - IIRC March83 found he was similar - where according to NRV, the RDI should be 150 ug/d. Since my TSH has increased 66% in 4 years, I now take 225 ug/d and will get TSH tested again later in the year. I considered seaweed - which Greger recommends - but I thought it was too hit & miss, has a greater cost, is another food item I have to source (where the supp lasts over a year) and may come with other pollutants/problems.


yeah I should have qualified just eat vegetables grown in "complete organic soils".
Considering our need for iodine, and the fact iodine levels in inland soils are low, that's a strong point that homo sapien sapien evolved mostly by the coastlines, where soil iodine levels are higher.

CKinnard
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:08 pm

hmmm....yes well, finally some sensible statistical analysis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45283401

march83
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:46 am

Nobody wrote:Agree with the exception of iodine for general WFPO eaters (without seaweed) which Greger mentions in his book. I tried to work out what I was getting and it looked like only about 40 ug/d - IIRC March83 found he was similar - where according to NRV, the RDI should be 150 ug/d. Since my TSH has increased 66% in 4 years, I now take 225 ug/d and will get TSH tested again later in the year. I considered seaweed - which Greger recommends - but I thought it was too hit & miss, has a greater cost, is another food item I have to source (where the supp lasts over a year) and may come with other pollutants/problems.


Yeah, even worse for me - without supplementation I basically get no iodine if cronometer is to be trusted.

I don't react well to higher doses though. I tried an off the shelf supplement a while back not really considering the dose too much. I was taking 1mg/day for about a month which is way above RDI, but within the range of healthy populations (the japanese for example eat a lot more than this - average of 5mg/day I believe). There are also plenty of people out there in the "holistic" fields who take doses 10, 20 and even 50 times this. The 1mg/day dose caused a great deal of water retention, bloating and subsequent weight gain. I tried this twice because I wanted verification and the same thing happened. The same thing happened a few months later when I added a lot of kombu to my diet not considering the iodine impact - whoops. Casting my mind back I had previously had a similar issue ~5years ago when I was snacking on a lot of nori and dieting. At that time I had some hypothyroid symptoms too - always cold, low energy, weight gain despite very low calorie intake, etc. Seems I just don't react well to moderate/high doses, but at times when I've been able to lose significant amounts of weight I have always had a semi regular intake (sushi 2 or 3 times a week).

For now, I'm on a multi which gives me 75ug and a 150ug kelp tablet (yay - worst of both worlds. pollution AND an extra tablet) from which I haven't noticed any negatives. I persist because I'm looking for any help I can get to keep my metabolism turning over as I get closer to race weight. I think this is the Goldilocks zone, but we'll see...

As for the general discussion of supplements, I'm currently doing half a good multi, C with my green meals, 5000u of D (I was working indoors a lot, but I'm getting a lot more sun now so probably unnecessary) and Zinc. I also add salt to 1 meal per day because I'm spending ~3hrs/day on the bike at the moment and although it's cold there's still a lot of fluid turn over.
Image

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Nobody's Supplement List, Winter 2018

Postby Nobody » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:27 am

Nobody's Supplement List, Winter 2018:

New readers please note - The following is a list is specific to me and my particular age, problems, plant only diet and absorption rates. I recommend that everyone continue to do their own research, get blood tests and figure out what they individually do or don't require long term. Which depends on their age, sex, diet and genetics. The only essential on the list below for plant only eaters is B12. The research and tests are worth the effort if eating a plant only diet to avoid long term problems and therefore failure to continue on a healthier eating path.

march83 wrote:Yeah, even worse for me - without supplementation I basically get no iodine if cronometer is to be trusted...

Thanks for sharing your experiences. :)
Below is the list of what I'm currently taking. It will probably change toward the end of the year due to blood test results and other factors. The iodine will probably remain the same and I expect my TSH to fall. Zinc and calcium might disappear if they don't prove to be worth the reduction in my ferritin (iron) level. Linseed (flax) and B12 are constants. D-3 may end up just being seasonal depending on blood test results. I'm taking a lot at the moment because I'm trying to rid myself of seasonal eczema symptoms, which appears to be working. The DHA is long term insurance against brain shrinkage and eye problems as I age. I'll be interested to see what my next omega-3 index test says. If it doesn't change much, it might go too. I prefer generally lower doses - as you've shown and the vitamin documentary above brings out - high doses can be just as harmful as deficiencies.

Code: Select all

TYPE               DAILY AMOUNT      RECOMMENDED (ADULT, MALE)

B12 Methyl           1 mg            1 to 2 mg for methyl   - VH
Calcium             ~300 mg          0 for > 500 mg/d from food - WHO
D-3                  2000 IU         400 IU, UL 3200 IU - NRV | 600 IU, UL 4000 IU - VH
DHA                  200 mg          200-300 mg every 2-3 days - VH
Iodine               225 ug          150 ug, 1100 ug - NRV   
Linseed ground       12 g            7+ g, or 1 to 2 tbsp - Esselstyn, Greger, various
Zinc                 12 mg           14 mg - NRV


VH = Vegan Health / Jack Norris
NRV = Nutritent Reference Values (AU)
WHO = World Health Organization
UL = Upper Limit
ug = mcg or micro grams


[I'll also post this on the Plant Based Diet Thread as well since the information is more specific to plant based eaters.]

Nobody
Posts: 8936
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:03 am

CKinnard wrote:hmmm....yes well, finally some sensible statistical analysis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45283401

Thanks for posting.
I saw this re-posted in The Gardian yesterday. But since we don't have many drinkers here, I didn't know if anyone was interested. So I just saved the link for the original paper for future discussions.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext
Good to see these results as it strengthens my resolve not to even have one drink a year. Like I used to at work to keep the colleagues happier. I'm more comfortable with not fitting in than I used to be. Whether that's a factor that ends my job earlier, I care progressively less as I get older.

CKinnard
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:55 pm

Nobody, the older I get the more I realize the great majority of people, even the super smart, are very unconsciously locked into cultural norms.

I started a Ph.D and was a research assistant years ago, and met several of the world's leading researchers in brain and spinal processing of pain
( i.e. Melzack and Wall https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676495/ )
My supervisor did his post doc work in their lab in England, and maintained a close relationship.
The short and long of it is these guys just didn't think about nutrition. They just ate what was the dominant paradigm for their vintage.

When in advertising, I worked with Australia's best (Leo Schofield, John Singleton). They too for all their wealth and wit, were slaves to nutrition culture.

As for my nutrition journey, I have to say it was my more sensitive nature, chronic fatigue, and lack of success with conventional medicine that had me questioning early in life what really was an ideal diet.
I suppose if some people don't feel particularly horrible, they keep doing what they always have.

Anyway, to challenge convention is often a path walked alone....but I think there are many out there the same. When I go to True North, I certainly feel among resonant beings. At some stage Nobody, you want to think about doing talks to WFPB groups about your journey. Sure, you'll get asked a lot of silly questions, but you'll be doing great good.

march83
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:43 pm

CKinnard wrote:As for my nutrition journey, I have to say it was my more sensitive nature, chronic fatigue, and lack of success with conventional medicine that had me questioning early in life what really was an ideal diet.
I suppose if some people don't feel particularly horrible, they keep doing what they always have.


I think this is a significant point. Trying to remain modest, I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but I still persevered with a standard diet for the better part of 30 years. I always had the nagging question "why am I tired when others aren't" in the back of my mind but never really considered diet could be responsible for that. It's just the way I am, I thought.

Ultimately though, I have something if an inclination to seek the alternatives and do things in my own way, it just seemed to take a very long time to apply that approach to dieting and wellbeing.

Leap forward a few years and a lot of personal experimentation and I find myself in a place where I'm more energetic and able to do things the envy of others. People think there's something special about me to be able to do the things that I do but there's not, I've just tried very hard to learn how to make the most of my body.

Back to your point though, CK, I think people are some combination of 3 categories: A) people who don't think they're doing too badly so don't seek to improve themselves; B) people who don't know that their diet is something that can be altered to improve their quality of life or C) people who prioritise instant gratification above long term success. I was a B. Most people are C's I think...
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users