Plant Based Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:11 am

This thread is a place to post information that may be of interest to people on a plant based/vegan diet.

This thread is NOT intended to be a place to discuss/argue about different types of diets. If comparisons are made between different diets - which is inevitable since the science does that - that is not an invitation to defend the other diet. Please start another thread on whatever diet is your preference and defend it there. Or take it to the Diet Thread which was made for that purpose.

If you want to discuss other types of diets, please start another thread.


Below is the popular definition of a whole food plant based (WFPB) diet, which is considered the ideal.
http://www.wholefoodsplantbasedhealth.c ... wfpb-diet/
Some definitions allow some animal products, but that is not the focus of this thread.

On whole foods:
In reality, not many people's diets by strict definition will be totally whole, including mine. There is a small amount of processing that goes into many foods we commonly buy in AU, like tomato paste, ground seeds and spices, rolled oats, rice, pasta, dried fruit, bread, etc. We also process further when we prepare and cook. That is why the thread is called "Plant Based" and not WFPB, to be more broad and inclusive. The idea is to keep the processing and additives to a minimum, but it isn't a necessity. I gained almost all of my health and weight loss benefits while still eating more processed plant foods like bread etc. The avoidance of animal products and fats were the main things that benefited me.

I plan to copy some of the more useful information from the diet thread into this one.

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:07 pm

From the first 5 pages of the Diet Thread:

Video below shows the biggest risk factor for CHD/CAD/CVD is a total cholesterol (TC) over 150 mg/dL, or 3.88 mmol/L. Optimal LDL-C is 50 to 70 mg/dL, or 1.29 to 1.8 mmol/L.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/optimal-cholesterol-level/

Below is data from the Framingham study witch shows no CHD under a TC of 150 mg/dL, or 3.88 mmol/L.
Image

The relevance for plant based eating is there is no dietary cholesterol in plant products and generally little saturated fat (with the exception of coconut). Both of which have been shown to raise blood cholesterol.

Personally, my TC went from 6.5 to 3.7 mmol/L (147mg/dL, a 43% drop) by just changing diet, without meds.
Last edited by Nobody on Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

zill
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:34 pm

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby zill » Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:21 pm

Currently, cutting out meats. Only non plant based foods seem to be milk powder and cheese. The only problem with this diet is if you then have meat after not having it for a while, it becomes very hard to digest it and your stomach feels clotted.

Nobody, you seem very scientific in your nutrition analysis do you have a science background? Or did you pick up all the food science knowledge later?

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:03 pm

No, I'm an international telecommunications tech. I just have a nerd/logical/introvert mindset which I exercise a bit here. I can't say I know much about science. Anyway, this thread shouldn't be about me, even though it's hard to avoid if I'm going to give personal results as examples.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

More from the first 5 pages:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19351712
Mean BMI was lowest in vegans (23.6 kg/m(2)) and incrementally higher in lacto-ovo vegetarians (25.7 kg/m(2)), pesco-vegetarians (26.3 kg/m(2)), semi-vegetarians (27.3 kg/m(2)), and nonvegetarians (28.8 kg/m(2)).
Choose your average type of diet and therefore choose your future average weight.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592131
With adjustment for estimated energy intake, an increase in meat intake of 250 g/d (eg, one steak at approximately 450 kcal) would lead to a 2-kg higher weight gain after 5 y (95% CI: 1.5, 2.7 kg).
The interesting thing about this study is that the diet comparison was adjusted for energy intake. So it shows the resultant weight gain of meat consumers was higher, although total calorie intake was equal to the non-meat eaters. There are many factors for this which you will see discussed below.

Some of the differences are usually:
Fibre content of food of up to 13%.
The greater energy use in digestion of whole plant foods which is said to be 16%.
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/the-negative-calorie-effect
Possible differences in absorption due to the calorie density of food.
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=89413#p1338489

Whatever the reason, The China Project showed that rural Chinese were eating more calories than the Americans and had a lower BMI. Which gets back to the message of what you eat can more important than how much for weight management (within reasonable limits).
Last edited by Nobody on Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bigfriendlyvegan
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: Denistone, NSW
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby bigfriendlyvegan » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:20 pm

Nobody wrote:The interesting thing about this study is that the diet comparison was adjusted for energy intake, so it shows the resultant weight gain is more than just Cal in versus Cal out.


So a dietary study shows that thermodynamics is wrong? You're going to have to do a lot more to convince the world about that. Now if you start saying calories absorbed and calories used, you're getting closer to making a sensible statement. Veggie diets, generally, consist of more fibre and indigestible components and have a shorter transit time, so there are probably less calories absorbed compared to expenditure. Calorie values of food determined by a calorimeter do not necessarily reflect the energy absorbed by the human body. In the end, however it all comes down to energy balance.

Do you know of any actual metabolic chamber studies of this sort of stuff, or is it all self-reported?

Not trying to derail your vegan train, but a vegan diet isn't some sort of magic state of being and you cannae change the laws of physics. [Source: 20+ year vegan and physicist].

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:56 pm

bigfriendlyvegan wrote:So a dietary study shows that thermodynamics is wrong? You're going to have to do a lot more to convince the world about that.
I'm just relating the science, draw you own conclusions. :)
Not my observation, below is a video on it.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/meat-and-weight-gain-in-the-panacea-study/

________________________________________________________________________________

More from Diet Thread:

I realize that some would rather deal in the number of servings of particular foods for a good grounding in health as it may be easier to calculate, understand and follow. If this is your preferance, then if you follow the AU dietary recommendations and take all the vegan options, it's hard to go wrong.
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/de ... eating.pdf
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-ess ... ves-adults
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-ess ... erve-sizes

For those who want to calculate what they are currently eating and to see how they can manipulate it to be healthier, then it's helpful to know how to calculate the macronutrient ratio or caloric ratio (protein, fat, carbohydrates). Before I show how to calculate it, it's a good idea to know what a reasonable goal is. Nathan Pritikin came up with of 10:10:80 in 1974 from studying different diets around the world. Which is 80% carbs, 10% fat and 10% protein. I'm going to display it as C80:F10:P10. This is still considered by many to be fairly optimal numbers for the human diet today. McDougall's diet is C80:F8:P12 for comparison.

The problem is the average person can't relate to this from what they see on the nutrition labels for food. So I thought I'd work out an example from a label, to show how it's calculated and what to expect.

A 320g frozen meal box labeled "Veal Cordon Bleu", which is considered to be an average meal by one manufacturer. Meat, veg, sauce etc. The label under "Ave. QUANTITY per 100g" listed 13.4g of carbs, 6g of protein and 8.4g of fat. Probably sounds reasonable to many people since they may have been taught in school home economics that less than 10g of fat per 100g of food is OK.

So with carbs being 4 Cals per gram, protein being 4 Cals per gram and fat being 9 Cals per gram, the Calories for this meal are:

Carbs: 13.4 * 4 = 53.6 Cals
Protein: 6 * 4 = 24 Cals
Fat: 8.4 * 9 = 75.6 Cals

From the sum of those, total = 153.2 Cals.

Now to get the energy or caloric ratio I divide the energy of each macro-nutrient by the total energy.

Carbs: 53.6 / 153.2 = 35%
Protein: 24 / 153.2 = 15.7%
Fat: 75.6 / 153.2 = 49.3%

So there you have a meal with a macro-nutrient ratio of C35:F49:P16) which is a long way from C80:F10:P10. Also the perception of 8.4% of fat now becomes the reality of 49% fat for the energy consumed.

Saturated fat:
3.5g * 9 = 31.5 Cal
31.5 / 153.2 = 20.6%

So the saturated fat is at least 3 times higher than "The American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of calories from saturated fat."

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2345
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:32 pm

bigfriendlyvegan wrote:Not trying to derail your vegan train, but a vegan diet isn't some sort of magic state of being and you cannae change the laws of physics. [Source: 20+ year vegan and physicist].


There's a myriad of poorly understood phenomena that make weight management vary with energy in/out calculus.

1. the role of brown adipose fat tissue and the sympathetic nervous system.
BAT tissue appears to have no other purpose than to generate heat when one approaches or exceeds eucaloric intake. The SNS has a similar effect but variable effect in people, probably related to the health of their adrenal glands and vital energy. I have a friend who is restricted from overeating because his body super heats, especially around the gut, neck, and head, which is very uncomfortable for him. These hot flushes are similar to those experienced by women experiencing PMT or menopause.

2. influence of mind state on appetite and cravings. serotonin precursor foods and stimulants are known to be craved by people who are anxious or depressed or lonely.

3. other hormone/nerve imbalances - reduced adrenalin and SNS activity, insulin resistance, leptin/ghrelin imbalance, stretched stomach, anorexia disturbances, thyroid, pituitary imbalances.

4. gut absorption efficiency. emotional state can radically influence this. i.e. when aborigines die after having the bone pointed at them, one proven mechanism is by a shutting down of intestinal absorption. No matter how much they are force fed, they continue to waste away. It is only when they are given IV feeds that their strength returns.

5. fatigue level. if you eat when very tired or late at night, you are less likely to absorb maximum energy from your meal.

6. if you persist in a negative fluid volume state for long periods, you will not have enough water in and around your gut to facilitate digestion and absorption.

7. if you exercise soon after a meal, you will shunt blood and fluid away from the gut and compromise digestion and absorption.
Last edited by CKinnard on Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18319
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:34 pm

Nobody, you've provided some great information over several nutritional based threads. Be careful that you don't overdo the science communication otherwise your audience switch off and you will end up simply communicating to the converted.

As a fitness instructor I get asked quite often about loosing weight and amongst the feedback I give I often tell them to eat vegetables with every meal (including breakfast), in particular green leafy veges and point out that one of the benefits is that the vegetable fibre takes a long time to digest meaning that you don't end up feeling hungry before the next meal as your stomach is occupied.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
bigfriendlyvegan
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: Denistone, NSW
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby bigfriendlyvegan » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:42 pm

Nobody wrote:
bigfriendlyvegan wrote:So a dietary study shows that thermodynamics is wrong? You're going to have to do a lot more to convince the world about that.
I'm just relating the science, draw you own conclusions. :)
Not my observation, below is a video on it.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/meat-and-weight-gain-in-the-panacea-study/


Nope, that video shows nothing about it. I agree that you are talking about scientific studies, but your conclusion that it's more than calories in/calories out is just plain wrong. You're doing a good job of presenting a pro-plant based diet argument, but when you make out that it's magic you start to sound like the hippy weirdo vegan stereotype, which unfortunately poisons all of the previous work you've done.

User avatar
bigfriendlyvegan
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: Denistone, NSW
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby bigfriendlyvegan » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:47 pm

CKinnard wrote:
bigfriendlyvegan wrote:Not trying to derail your vegan train, but a vegan diet isn't some sort of magic state of being and you cannae change the laws of physics. [Source: 20+ year vegan and physicist].


There's a myriad of poorly understood phenomena that make weight management vary with energy in/out calculus.

1. the role of brown adipose fat tissue and the sympathetic nervous system.
BAT tissue appears to have no other purpose than to generate heat when one approaches or exceeds eucaloric intake. The SNS has a similar effect but variable effect in people, probably related to the health of their adrenal glands and vital energy. I have a friend who is restricted from overeating because his body super heats, especially around the gut, neck, and head, which is very uncomfortable for him. These hot flushes are similar to those experienced by women experiencing PMT or menopause.

2. influence of mind state on appetite and cravings. serotonin precursor foods and stimulants are known to be craved by people who are anxious or depressed or lonely.

3. other hormone/nerve imbalances - reduced adrenalin and SNS activity, insulin resistance, leptin/ghrelin imbalance, stretched stomach, anorexia disturbances, thyroid, pituitary imbalances.

4. gut absorption efficiency. emotional state can radically influence this. i.e. when aborigines die after having the bone pointed at them, one proven mechanism is by a shutting down of intestinal absorption. No matter how much they are force fed, they continue to waste away. It is only when they are given IV feeds that their strength returns.

5. fatigue level. if you eat when very tired or late at night, you are less likely to absorb maximum energy from your meal.

6. if you persist in a negative fluid volume state for long periods, you will not have enough water in and around your gut to facilitate digestion and absorption.

7. if you exercise soon after a meal, you will shunt blood and fluid away from the gut and compromise digestion and absorption.


Even though the calculus is difficult, it's still energy in/energy out. As I pointed out before, the total calorimeter measured energy that goes in your mouth is not what gets absorbed by your body, and there are processes in your body that will use more or less energy and, as you mentioned, complicate the calculus. BUT energy balance is still what we're talking about and saying it isn't is untrue.

TheShadow
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:45 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby TheShadow » Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:57 pm

If as part of a PBD, your only source of fat was walnuts, almonds, avocado and the small amount of fat in soy-based products, would this supply all you need nutritionally from the fat you eat? Seems to me it could only be an improvement, nutritionally, over consuming the same amount of fat (in Kilojoules) from animal-based and hydrogenated fats. Lead to better cellular repair processes, not to mention faster and easier digestion?

With fat, seems to me it's hard to dispute a little goes a long way. Nobody points out it has high energy value for its weight, and it's very compact and dense (heavy) also. I read one of Henry Osieki's books years ago and he figured an athlete doing 4-6 hours hard training needs only about 9 serves of fat (at the uppper scale) per day. Each serve was about 5 grams, or one teaspoon.

My approach to fat is it slows down digestion/metabolisation. Yes a little is necessary, but more than a minimum gets in the way of digesting and absorbing the carbs I need to fuel the next workout. The rate you can generate blood sugar from either your stomach or body fat reserves is very, very slow compared to the rate that can be done with your glycogen reserves, or carbs in your stomach. That's why you can't go out and burn off noticeable lump of stomach fat in a single workout, but you could lose a measurable weight of muscle and liver glycogen.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2345
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:02 pm

bigfriendlyvegan wrote:
Even though the calculus is difficult, it's still energy in/energy out. As I pointed out before, the total calorimeter measured energy that goes in your mouth is not what gets absorbed by your body, and there are processes in your body that will use more or less energy and, as you mentioned, complicate the calculus. BUT energy balance is still what we're talking about and saying it isn't is untrue.


If you read the method and results of the study Nobody linked to, no direct measurement of energy in/out took place. It's all questionnaires and follow up self reports.
No matter how hard they control for confounders statistically, they are not going to represent thermodynamics well.
I know of no method that can measure thermodynamics accurately outside an indirect calorimetry metabolic cart.

I think the thing to remember is science is a work in progress, and has not unveiled the truth about all and sundry.
The diet wars won't be complete until other variables like life stressors are considered. It's likely the Durian Riders and Freelee Banana Girls of the world have poorer health than tranquil Buddhist Monks who occasionally eat animal produce. The body is after all a veritable cocktail of hormones and nerve impulses, and anything that results in discord and excessive emotional imbalance will lead to sub system dysregulation. The less we veer significantly away from homeostasis, the less (wasted?) energy required to re-establish it.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2345
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:16 pm

TheShadow wrote:I read one of Henry Osieki's books years ago and he figured an athlete doing 4-6 hours hard training needs only about 9 serves of fat (at the uppper scale) per day. Each serve was about 5 grams, or one teaspoon.


I knew Henry in the late 70s. He had a role at the Heart Beat Centre in Baroona Rd, Milton, where I was a member for several years.
I spoke to him about vegetarian diet on a number of occasions and he didn't seem that well informed.
But I suppose he was a university educated product of the dearth of studies at the time. Back then, vegetarianism was not recommended under the Australian Dietary Guidelines...and veganism even less so.
I recall he was big on supplements and protein.

Henry was rotund then, and based on a google image search just now, has been ever since.
My impression of him then was he was more interested in making a buck out of nutrition than doing good research.
It appears his career and business interests back that up.

TheShadow
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:45 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby TheShadow » Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:23 pm

CKinnard wrote:
TheShadow wrote: I recall he was big on supplements and protein.

My impression of him then was he was more interested in making a buck out of nutrition than doing good research.
It appears his career and business interests back that up.


Oh, yes. The supplements. :lol: He's very big on those....$. Natural and the ridiculously expensive ones that come in plastic tubs. :roll: Waste of time and money (imho). But I was all very impressed at the time. :roll: For all his virtual tsunami of 'facts' in the book I guess I got a few basic pointers that were helpful to begin with. I wouldn't consider him an expert now. That whole supplement pushing of one kind of another to give miracle results does not build credibility.

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:51 pm

bigfriendlyvegan wrote:Nope, that video shows nothing about it. I agree that you are talking about scientific studies, but your conclusion that it's more than calories in/calories out is just plain wrong. You're doing a good job of presenting a pro-plant based diet argument, but when you make out that it's magic you start to sound like the hippy weirdo vegan stereotype, which unfortunately poisons all of the previous work you've done.

I don't know which video you saw then. At 00:50 the video shows the same conclusion as the study paper and at 01:03 it highlight in yellow "total energy intake". At 02:45 it shows a section of the study on the screen which says "The association persisted after adjustment for total calorie intake". So two people eat the same calories and one person puts on weight more than the other like they ate more calories. So the calories in doesn't equal the results seen. As you mentioned there is fibre (13%+ in my case), then there is the higher digestive burn of 16% of whole plant foods compared to standard diet, also calorie density versus absorption may be a factor. That is without the list that CK provided. The net calories I'm NOT talking about, I'm talking about calories into the mouth versus observable change that points to the results.

The video seems pretty clear to me. If you want to argue further about semantics, that's up to you. But the net effect is the same and this will be my last post on it.
Last edited by Nobody on Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:07 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:17 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Nobody, you've provided some great information over several nutritional based threads.
Thanks.
mikesbytes wrote:Be careful that you don't overdo the science communication otherwise your audience switch off and you will end up simply communicating to the converted.
I'm counting on it since I started this thread to get away from the arguments on the Diet Thread. I'll copy the best of the information I posted there to this thread, of which some won't have seen before, since it appears not many read threads from the beginning anyway. I don't expect to really change anyone, so I'm going to post here to the like minded and those who may be mildly interested in making some changes to improve health.

mikesbytes wrote:As a fitness instructor I get asked quite often about loosing weight and amongst the feedback I give I often tell them to eat vegetables with every meal (including breakfast), in particular green leafy veges and point out that one of the benefits is that the vegetable fibre takes a long time to digest meaning that you don't end up feeling hungry before the next meal as your stomach is occupied.
Probably better than the advice I'd give because your clients are more likely to adopt it, than cut back on animal products, overt fats and only drink water or herbal teas. They will end up cutting back on that stuff anyway by following your advice, but they won't realize it. Clever. :)

User avatar
bigfriendlyvegan
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: Denistone, NSW
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby bigfriendlyvegan » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:31 pm

Nobody wrote:The video seems pretty clear to me. If you want to argue further about semantics, that's up to you. But the net effect is the same and this will be my last post on it.


OK, so it's going to be another Nobody and CK thread. I'll not participate then.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18319
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:15 pm

Nobody wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:As a fitness instructor I get asked quite often about loosing weight and amongst the feedback I give I often tell them to eat vegetables with every meal (including breakfast), in particular green leafy veges and point out that one of the benefits is that the vegetable fibre takes a long time to digest meaning that you don't end up feeling hungry before the next meal as your stomach is occupied.
Probably better than the advice I'd give because your clients are more likely to adopt it, than cut back on animal products, overt fats and only drink water or herbal teas. They will end up cutting back on that stuff anyway by following your advice, but they won't realize it. Clever. :)

Spot on, if they are eating more of the good stuff they usually end up eating less of the bad stuff by default

It becomes a mindset thingie, once they have their head around the first step the can take the next step.

Anyway I'm a little off topic.

Back on topic. What's your view on the various nuts and I'll throw peanuts in there too, though technically not a nut. Is there any particular ones that are significantly different to others?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2345
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:23 pm

bigfriendlyvegan wrote:
Nobody wrote:The video seems pretty clear to me. If you want to argue further about semantics, that's up to you. But the net effect is the same and this will be my last post on it.


OK, so it's going to be another Nobody and CK thread. I'll not participate then.


fair go BFV. I'm not a major contributor to this thread anymore.
Nobody, you, and everyone else spends a lot of time posting on these threads.
But it is wearying when the bigger picture is not held foremost in mind, and smaller points go back and forth over and over.

What's the end game here? In my view to distill and concentrate the essence of the literature regarding diet, with particular attention the strengths or otherwise of plant based eating.

There's no doubt in my mind PB diet is superior. That is based on growing scientific body of knowledge, but also on the Eastern spiritual teachers I had 40 years ago.

We are at a point in history where medicine is not passing onto the masses the science. Why? Because scientists and doctors say "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH".
amazing!!! and that's only when they know what the science says. And if a doctor is not living this stuff himself, then he is not going to be an effective advocate.

You are an exceptional person BFV for having taken the journey you have. Very few people your age have done that. It says a lot about the strength and independence of your spirit and mind. Use your powers for even greater good! All of us here recognize there's something profound in PBWF diet. Let's keep the big picture foremost, and not sweat the detail. The science won't permit it in our lifetimes, because the research still won't be watertight in that period.

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:48 pm

mikesbytes wrote:What's your view on the various nuts... Is there any particular ones that are significantly different to others?
Yes, if you are chasing the highest efficiency of fat intake versus essential fat intake. Walnuts are the best for omega-6. Linseed are the best for omega-3. Brazil nuts are the highest in selenium (which is hard to get from other foods) but I've read you can eat too many and overdose on selenium. According to Greger you only need about 4 Brazil nuts a month.

Generally all nuts are good for you and studies say they are not fattening. I don't fully believe the science in my case. That's why I try to eat the most essential fat efficient nuts & seeds. For my diet that means I only need to eat very small amounts, usually < 6g of both linseed and walnuts to supplement my diet to WHO RDI levels. McDougall says that all nuts and seeds are fattening and recommends none, saying that there are no real cases of documented fat deficiency other than a baby formula problem decades ago. Having said that, I find meeting the WHO minimum is better for me as an anecdote.

What I've read and seen so far indicates that if you're on a standard diet, then the more you eat, the healthier you get, especially walnuts. Keep in mind that most nuts studies are done on people with poor diets.
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/14/nuts-may-extend-your-lifespan-by-about-2-years/

But if you're on a WFPB then other than getting minimums, it won't make much difference.
The following thread not only may cause you to become more of a nut benefit skeptic, but also more of a study skeptic.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/view ... ea81a63d84

I don't have a list of healthiest to unhealthiest. Some are better in the treatment of certain conditions than others. You can look up different studies on different types of nuts on Nutrition Facts if you have a type in mind. From memory though, peanuts usually rate pretty low compared to others.
http://nutritionfacts.org/
Last edited by Nobody on Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:39 pm

A repost from page 10 of Diet Thread. Worthwhile posting because food energy density is a factor. My current belief is that it's more of a pointer to better foods rather than a big weight loss factor in itself. From what I've experimented with, if less than 1 Cal/g (including fibre) then it doesn't make much difference to reduce it further. I didn't lose more weight by lowering further.

In Potato Strong's "This week In Plants", he touches on energy density and weight gain or loss with this post he found by Jeff Novick, of which almost all is quoted below:
JeffN wrote:Unlimited does not mean unlimited in the sense that you can eat all you want of anything.

What it means is that if you follow the principles of the program, especially of the Maximum Weight Loss program, you will be able to eat all you want of the recommended foods, until you are comfortably full, and still lose weight.

The reason, as TominTN pointed out is due to calorie density. Many many studies have been done in the last few decades confirming this. If you allow people to eat "ad libitum" or all they want till the are comfortably full, from low calorie dense foods, they will lose weight, not be hungry and do not have to count calories.

Of course, calories still count, but it becomes almost impossible to over consume calories from the foods you choose if you follow these recommendations.

The numbers Tom gave are very close, so let me adjust them slightly

These are averages that I use for each category that I think covers the range of the category fairly well and if anything, errs on the side of caution.

Fresh Veggies are around 100 cal/lb
Fresh Fruits around 250-300 cal/lb
Starchy Veggies/Intact Whole Grains around 450-500 cal/lb
Legumes around 550-600 cal/lb
Processed Grains (even if their Whole grain) around 1200-1500 cal/lb
Nuts/Seeds around 2800 cal/lb
Oils around 4000 cal/lb

What I have found is if the calorie density of the food is below ~400 calories per pound, not matter how much they eat, they will lost weight.

Between ~400-~800 calories per pound, with some moderate exercise, they all lost weight.

Between ~800-~1200 calories per pound, people gained weight, except for those with very high activity levels

Over ~1200 calories per pound, everyone seems to gain weight.

Remember, the physical sensation of "fullness" is influenced in a large part by the filling of the stomach and the triggering of the stretch receptors. This would happen regardless of the calorie density of the food, as long as enough food was consumed.

However, between 400-800 calories per pound is the range where people either maintained, gained or lost a little. It was the area that I call the "cut-off" zone and the results depending on the person and their activity level. The mid point of the range is around 600 cal/lb

I would not worry to much about the exact numbers when you are trying to apply this to yourself but would be more concerned about the principles as I would not want anyone to weigh and measure their food. The calorie density numbers I give for food groups are "averages" and dont apply exactly to each food in the group.

If you follow the MWL program, you will be applying the principles of calorie density. If it is not working as well as you would like then you can adjust the calorie density of your intake by making slight adjustments in your food choices.

These numbers are also inline with other recommendations.

The recent WCF/AICR report on cancer recommends that the average calorie density of our diets be around 567 calories per pound, to avoid obesity and weight problems which is 100% in line with my experience.

The Okinawan diet, before Western influence, was around 600-650 calories per pound

So, knowing all this, if you look at the numbers, it all makes sense.

A starch based diet, made up of starchy vegetables and intact whole grains along with some fruit and veggies, will have a calorie density under 500 calories per pound and maybe even 400 calorie per pound. It would be near impossible to overeat.

You can also see the problem with many of the "low fat" diets that focused on processed whole grains, like whole wheat bread, crackers, dry cereals. At 1200-1500 calories per pound, if they become a large part of the diet, they can raise the overall calorie density and make it much easier to overeat on calories and easy to gain weight and/or not lose weight, even with a higher activity level. Hence the principles of the MWL program is to avoid those foods, or really limit them.

In Health
Jeff


Image

My spreadsheet above which is trying to put more meaning into Jeff's scale for local use. To add fibre into the numbers, multiply the numbers in the spreadsheet by 1.13. But sugar and oil as processed foods don't have fibre, so no need to do that to them.

For example as a random day today:
Av NF_Cal/100g = 62
Av Cal/100g = 71 (0.71 Cal/g)

So av Cal/100g was < 100 Cal or < 1 Cal/g.

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:54 pm

A bit more from the Diet Thread. Up to page 13 now.

Interesting article on GI.
http://www.ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2015/05/discover-the-s-h-about-the-gi/



"You cannot out run a bad diet." Starts at 07:58, but the earlier part on spinning cancer statistics is interesting too.







Yearly report from Dr Greger.

Interesting parallels drawn by him on (industry driven) attitudes toward diet now versus smoking in the '50s. Since diet in America has bumped off smoking as the No.1 killer (starts at 56:00).

Nobody
Posts: 8455
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:33 pm

More useful stuff from diet thread:



http://nutritionfacts.org/video/everything-in-moderation-even-heart-disease/

I like this person's approach to identifying and fixing cardiac problems. He mentions the importance of a coronary arterial calcification CT scan as a tool for early detection and to motivate his patients to change.




For anyone who wants to know the specifics of recommended veg serves per day etc:
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-ess ... ves-adults
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-ess ... erve-sizes
http://www.healthyactive.gov.au/interne ... d5book.pdf


The following thread not only may cause you to become more of a nut benefit skeptic, but also more of a study skeptic.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/view ... ea81a63d84

Details about hsCRP as a good blood indicator of inflammation and therefore atherosclerosis.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/108/12/e81.full
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/16/1955.full

If anyone had any doubts about how little nutritional training MDs get.



This one is about deception with the government dietary guidelines and food industries designing studies to get the results they want. Starts at 5:18



WHO recommendations for essential fats:
WHO wrote:The minimum intake levels for essential fatty acids to prevent deficiency symptoms are estimated at a convincing level to be 2.5%E LA plus 0.5%E ALA.
Their bold. Where %E is "percent of energy". I am going to assume that includes fibre for simplicity.
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA ... lusion.pdf

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2345
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:53 pm

Linked below are studies and vids I used for a presentation to 60 GPs regarding the association between poor circulation and chronic low back pain.

http://australianintegratedhealth.blogs ... rosis.html






defy1
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby defy1 » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:13 pm

so sick and tired of hearing how on a HCLF vegan diet, you can eat UNLIMITED calories and still lose weight. Total garbage.

Return to “Cycling Health”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users