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: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:45 pm

Fair enough. Even though the video is negative toward supplementation, you can see I'm not. However, I thought it was worth posting as information so people can weigh up their choices.

Yes, a lot of the nutrient reference values that are used on NUTTAB are dated back in the '80s. I can't help but think they would be lower now unless the farmers are adding to their soil. Having said that I still won't use a multi even though it's cheaper, as I need to avoid iron (haemo & amyloid plaque) and want to avoid copper (amyloid plaque). Also I'm interested in tuning individual levels after reading up on what is more likely to be ideal, rather than taking the multi manufacturer's standard level.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:58 pm

Nobody wrote:Fair enough. Even though the video is negative toward supplementation, you can see I'm not. However, I thought it was worth posting as information so people can weigh up their choices.

Yes, a lot of the nutrient reference values that are used on NUTTAB are dated back in the '80s. I can't help but think they would be lower now unless the farmers are adding to their soil. Having said that I still won't use a multi even though it's cheaper, as I need to avoid iron (haemo & amyloid plaque) and want to avoid copper (amyloid plaque). Also I'm interested in tuning individual levels after reading up on what is more likely to be ideal, rather than taking the multi manufacturer's standard level.


Yeah, my point is that I think research to date is not good or comprehensive....and the supps industry is full of unethical profiteers.
Nevertheless, I can imagine a time way off in the future after many more millions of manhours of great science are completed, when based on your genome, you will have a diet and supplementation regimen that optimizes your health and longevity, as long as you simultaneously get the life meaning and goals thing nailed!!

Interestingly, I am at a point in life when many of the best people I've known have passed, and I seem to have less in common with popular culture and the majority enslavened to it. That tends to make the goal of longevity less desirable!!
One of my most dearest friends died suddenly at the age of 68 last year. It was totally unexpected.She had lived a noble and sober life.
It was a reminder that it's not necessarily all about living longer.....but maybe living more fully for the time we're here.
That's not an attack on questing to be as healthy as possible....more a reflection on being true to your deepest self, and breaking a few eggs to make an omelet if that's what's called for.

Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:14 pm

The following video shows how meticulous with diet some plant based eaters have to be to get their cholesterol down. I being one of them. In the end he had to go on the Esselstyn diet to move the numbers lower. Which is basically no oil, salt, sugar, or nuts. Plenty of veg and 1 or 2 table spoons of linseed for ALAs. He appeared to have a problem getting the oil out of his diet. Once he did that, the numbers changed.

Screen shot from about the 6 minute mark of the video.
His most recent numbers converted below. Mine in brackets as comparison. This is only after a month, so after a year his should be lower. Mine have slowly dropped over the years.
TC: 3.7 (3.4)
Trig: 1.0 (1.1)
HDL: 0.9 (0.9)
LDL: 2.3 (2.0)

Image

I notice that his HDL has been fairly static. That has been my experience also.

The first 6 minutes or so are the most useful. After that it's more or less rattle-on.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Nobody wrote:The following video shows how meticulous with diet some plant based eaters have to be to get their cholesterol down. I being one of them. In the end he had to go on the Esselstyn diet to move the numbers lower. Which is basically no oil, salt, sugar, or nuts. Plenty of veg and 1 or 2 table spoons of linseed for ALAs. He appeared to have a problem getting the oil out of his diet. Once he did that, the numbers changed.

Screen shot from about the 6 minute mark of the video.
His most recent numbers converted below. Mine in brackets as comparison. This is only after a month, so after a year his should be lower. Mine have slowly dropped over the years.
TC: 3.7 (3.4)
Trig: 1.0 (1.1)
HDL: 0.9 (0.9)
LDL: 2.3 (2.0)

I notice that his HDL has been fairly static. That has been my experience also.

The first 6 minutes or so are the most useful. After that it's more or less rattle-on.


Interesting.

I almost reflexively go into red flag mode nowadays when I hear someone say they are vegan, in that I presume they don't eat a healthy balanced diet, with appropriate supplements.

Prior to Esselstyn, Chris
- listed all the ways he was using oil for cooking.
- 8:55 pre Esselstyn he had cravings (chocolate every day I'll presume vegan chocolate, sweets, processed foods)
- 9:13 says he ate 'healthy' before, but lost 15lbs on Esselstyn diet.
- 10:00 says before, he craved fat and was eating bulk avocados and nut sauces.

You have to wonder what his definition of 'healthy eating' and a balanced diet is.
I would also suggest Chris was insulin resistant (15 lbs of visceral adiposity?); and when he went Esselstyn, without consciously planning it, he was on a Calorie deficit which would have began to restore insulin sensitivity. IR is very much correlated with bodyfat %.

To me, the overwhelming diet improvement vegans can make is to eat more fiber, in all its forms (salads, vegetables, legumes, unrefined carbs, and fruit). Fiber reduces absorption of dietary fat and the body's synthesis of cholesterol.

__________________________________________

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257631/
Effects of Dietary Fiber and Its Components on Metabolic Health

"Risk factors for CHD include hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, obesity and type two diabetes. It is speculated that the control and treatment of these risk factors underlie the mechanisms behind DF and CHD prevention.
First, soluble fibers have been shown to increase the rate of bile excretion therefore reducing serum total and LDL cholesterol [12].
Second, short chain fatty acid production, specifically propionate, has been shown to inhibit cholesterol synthesis [13].
Third, dietary fiber demonstrates the ability to regulate energy intake thus enhancing weight loss or maintenance of a healthier body weight.
Fourth, either through glycemic control or reduced energy intake, dietary fiber has been shown to lower the risk for type two diabetes.
Fifth, DF has been shown to decrease pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-18 which may have an effect on plaque stability [14].
Sixth, increasing DF intake has been show to decrease circulating levels of C-Reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation and a predictor for CHD [15]."


https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 3-0519-4_9
Dietary Fiber and Lipid Absorption
"The regulation of lipid absorption by dietary means is a reasonable approach in reducing plasma lipids, particularly cholesterol. Among various dietary factors that interfere with lipid absorption, certain dietary fibers have a substantial hypolipidemic effect through interaction with lipids in the intestine (Kay, 1982; Kritchevsky, 1985; Miettinen, 1987; Vahouny, 1982, 1985a; Vahouny and Cassidy, 1985, 1986). Although the lipid-lowering effect of dietary fibers is rather moderate compared to synthetic compounds such as cholestyramine or colestipol, they usually exert no or otherwise negligible side effects (Cassidy et al., 1986, Furda, 1983). In addition, dietary fiber is relatively easily accepted as a constituent of regular meals. It has been shown that in low-fat diets recommended for the reduction of serum cholesterol, the effect of nonfat components such as protein, carbohydrate, and fiber of the diet on cholesterol lowering may become more important than the type of fat consumed (American Heart Association, 1986; Grundy, 1986; Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program, 1988)."

Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:52 pm

Thanks for the effort you put into the post.

So if I read correctly, you think it's more a whole food or whole fibre issue than one of oil/fat content. Either way, or both ways, the drop appears to be caused by less processed food. Too bad he didn't keep a Cronometer account to show us, or something. Ufortunately some of these YouTubers seem to be more interested in self promotion than keeping accurate accounts of how they arrive at their results.

When it comes to making assumptions about the quality of one's diet and resulting level of one's health, he was among an almost ubiquitous majority. Vegan or not. That's why I like to encourage people to get blood tests, in the hope that the test results reality might give them enough of a shake to change.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:50 am

Nobody wrote:Thanks for the effort you put into the post.

So if I read correctly, you think it's more a whole food or whole fibre issue than one of oil/fat content. Either way, or both ways, the drop appears to be caused by less processed food. Too bad he didn't keep a Cronometer account to show us, or something. Ufortunately some of these YouTubers seem to be more interested in self promotion than keeping accurate accounts of how they arrive at their results.

When it comes to making assumptions about the quality of one's diet and resulting level of one's health, he was among an almost ubiquitous majority. Vegan or not. That's why I like to encourage people to get blood tests, in the hope that the test results reality might give them enough of a shake to change.


I think Chris like most vegans I meet or observe, do not eat adequate fiber, and in Chris' case it seems he was likely eating a lot of fat.
He also had cravings for sugar/chocolate and refined carbs, which is a strong sign of insulin resistance.

That his change in appetite and weight loss was so significant after changing to Esselstyn speaks volumes about how 'healthy' his prior diet was.....not very!
I think this is why we also need to be cautious in interpreting studies of vegans.

In short, I think his cholesterol results pre Esselstyn are not reflective of a healthy vegan diet. How much was due to excess dietary fat, or not enough fiber (and associated insulin resistance and excess bodyfat), I cannot elaborate.
I think vegans like Chris are poorly informed and self deluded.

Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:03 pm


Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:33 am

I just saw a video on from "Mic. the Vegan" on carbs which I won't post as there is at least one area I disagree on. But what it did highlight to me of how some areas of old, or non science based recommendations are still echoing around. Three of those are:
- deficiencies (which I've harped on enough about in previous posts)
- intramyocellular lipids (or fat in the muscle)
- nuts and atherosclerosis

Sure, Barnard should be credited for identifying the "robust" association between intramyocelluar lipids and diabetes. But as CK has mentioned from "low carb" or fasting research and even in the recent ABC video that it appears to be the fat accumulation in the liver and pancreas which matters the most. These levels can be changed quite quickly with weight loss of 8% or more, by any means and in some casing fasting can get results in just days. Where in that short time fat levels in the rest of the body may not have changed much. So maybe in the end intramyocelluar lipids have a robust association with the outcome. But some further evidence suggests it may not be the cause.

Esselstyn has done some studies that have got some of the best results for showing the effectiveness of a strict WFPB diet. But his stance on nuts for his patients (no nuts) - which probably is good for his patients at least for psychological stance - doesn't appear to agree with the more recent science, or benefit the general WFPB population. I've never seen data from Esselstyn or anyone recently to show that tree nuts are bad for atherosclerosis. The opposite in studies is usually the case. Even the video in the previous post from PCRM disagrees with Esselstyn and I've never personally seen my cholesterol rise from eating more nuts. The reasoning for Esselstyn is the amount of saturated fat in the diet as can be seen in this video in 2014. Popper agrees that too much beneficial fat in the diet can be a bad thing (for weight gain?). But I haven't seen anything specific from Popper supporting her position either.

I suppose what I'm really trying to say is, if newer evidence presents itself and is credible, can we just move on.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:46 pm

Nobody wrote:I just saw a video on from "Mic. the Vegan" on carbs which I won't post as there is at least one area I disagree on. But what it did highlight to me of how some areas of old, or non science based recommendations are still echoing around. Three of those are:
- deficiencies (which I've harped on enough about in previous posts)
- intramyocellular lipids (or fat in the muscle)
- nuts and atherosclerosis


Yes, the "IMCL causes insulin resistance" thing is not the complete picture.
I talked to resident and visiting doctors at TNH about this, but they were all entrenched in Barnard's paradigm, sadly....which ignores about 10 years of studies that elaborate a more intricate picture.

This point is the primary that motivated me to get a debate between the WFPB and LCHF camps.
Once they start reading the literature from each others' perspective, they could only both improve the nuances of their positions.
In the mean time, they are both very vulnerable to being contradicted by each others' selective lit readings.

Generally, insulin resistance does not become an issue until an individual reaches their fat storage threshold point, resulting in fat spillover and ectopic deposition where fat shouldn't be - liver, pancreas, adrenal glands, muscles, arteries, eyes, skin etc.
There's a significant range of fat storage capacities very much determined by genetics.
Additional fat storage before getting insulin resistance is determined by one's capacity to create more adipocytes (fat cells).
Each fat cell can only store so much fat. To store more dietary fat, or DNL fat, once one's current fat cells reach saturation, is determined by one's ability to create new fat cells.
This is why a relatively slim person can get diabetes type 2, and some obese people can avoid it.

Nevertheless there are other inputs for T2D.
-Psychoemotional stress can dysregulate adrenalin and cortisol, and this can interfere with insulin regulation and mobilziing fat reserves.
- A sedentary lifestyle will also deprive fat tissue of normal circulation. To get fat mobilized and used for energy, hormones and blood must flow liberally through our fat stores. If you are sitting on an adipose bottom for most of the day, you are not getting a lot of blood flow through those fat reserves.


A for nuts and atherosclerosis, I think studies that attempt to determine causal relationships at this level are pushing the proverbial up hill.
The effect of nuts, and the fats within them, has to be considered extremely sensitively against one's fat spillover threshold, existing insulin sensitivity, etc. Studies are just not done with this level of care.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19074
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:16 pm

CK, like the term "fat storage threshold point" I'm trying think of a simple way of communicating it. Please correct me if I've got it wrong or misleading.

"fat storage threshold point" is the point where the fat cells are saturated and the ability to create new fat cells has also been hit. The body then places the new fat storage around the vital organs and often becomes insulin resistant making them venerable to type 2 diabetes. This can also happen to slim people.

BTW LCHF, I'm going to be naughty and use LCHFibre he he.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:01 pm

yes Mike, you are expressing it correctly.
some clarifications though.
1. the stimulus to make more fat cells (adipocytes) will require regular excessive energy intake.
you will not make new fat cells if you are eating isocalorically.
2. similarly, storing fat ectopically requires eating excess Calories.

as for terminology, what I find works in clinic is the term 'fat spillover' where you describe spillover as what happens when one's fat cells cannot store anymore fat. you can then explain the fat stays in the blood and keeps circulating until it can be deposited in various tissues around the body.
Most health pros have never heard of the concept of fat spillover, but it is a good descriptor imho.
These concepts are all cutting edge in insulin resistance research.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19074
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:33 pm

Thanks CK, fat spillover is an even better simplistic term, I'll use that one

I recall a lady I worked with a slim lady a while back who ate chips with gravy for lunch. I never asked her but I suspect she was trying to put on some weight. In hindsight she could of been one of those persons who didn't add fat cells and therefor was at risk without being fat
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:30 pm

mikesbytes wrote:I recall a lady I worked with a slim lady a while back who ate chips with gravy for lunch. I never asked her but I suspect she was trying to put on some weight. In hindsight she could of been one of those persons who didn't add fat cells and therefor was at risk without being fat


Most people who have issues gaining weight, either muscle or fat, have a strong thermic response when they overeat.
In other words, their metabolic rate ramps right up in response to overeating.
This is driven mostly by the sympathetic nerves and brown adipose tissue.
This response decreases in most with age, leading to middle age spread.

However, for some, they retain the thermogenic response throughout life and have difficulty gaining muscle or fat.
These people tend to have strong adrenals and superior health.

I've noted people who lose the ability tend to have gone through a lot of stress that knocks around their adrenals and sympathetics.
Personally, I could overeat anything until 37, and not gain weight.
So the stress response can knock this around.

People who live more relaxed lives can also regain the strong thermogenic effect and keep weight off. I'd put Freelee and Durianrider in this category.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:28 am

worth a listen re salt intake


Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:14 pm

CKinnard wrote:worth a listen re salt intake...

Thanks for posting.

Sodium interferes or competes with calcium absorption which is handy to know. But most metals appear to compete for absorption, which is why balance is important. I didn't know about the increased risk of stomach cancer.

Starting at 02:36 he brings up a fairly contentious topic IMO of atherosclerosis being caused by a cholesterol problem and not much else. I believe there have been some strong associations with other causes shown since then. But I'll leave that alone.

Using salt for iodine intake is not the best idea as (according to below) a gram of iodised salt only gives you 20% or so of daily intake of iodine. If concerned about it, it's more effective to take an iodine supplement - which I do at 226 ug/d IIRC - which is very cheap insurance. IMO a supplement is better than seaweed as the ideal intake window is fairly small (150 - 1100 ug) and seaweed is going to be harder to get an exact intake from. Also seaweed is more expensive and if grown in the sea/ocean is going to come with toxins from the world's sewer.
http://saxa.com.au/PDF/SAXA_Report.pdf
https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/iodine

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19074
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:08 pm

Mmm didn't know about the relationship between salt and calcium. The iodine angle is complex, what's the levels in Australian whole foods? Or does it vary considerably depending on where its grown within Australia?

Once again the message goes out to avoid processed foods.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:16 pm

mikesbytes wrote:The iodine angle is complex, what's the levels in Australian whole foods? Or does it vary considerably depending on where its grown within Australia?

I've only got TSH to go off. But my TSH in late 2014 after been vegan for a year was 1.38. Then earlier this year it was 2.29. AFAIK lower is better and that is a 66% increase. I somehow doubt the TSH increase would be due to too much iodine, considering iodine is one of the deficiencies vegans have and should be tested for. So that's why I started supplementation. I'll probably get tested again at the end of the year to see if there's been any decline. I guess there probably will be. So that then should go some way to answering your question about whole food iodine content.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:42 pm

Excess sodium does adversely impact potassium and calcium.
But most people don't get enough potassium (due to low plant intake).

I am comfortable to take in a little iodized salt to complement the iodine I get in the 7+ cups of vege I get most days especially considering I am heavier than the average adult dietary guidelines are aimed at, am more physically active and sweat more. My BP is 100-110/65-75 so the salt I take is not causing fluid retention that adversely impacts BP. My toal salt intake is still very much at the minimum RDI.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Jul 22, 2018 2:37 pm

I think there's a lot to be said for testing insulin sensitivity over 5 hours pos prandially.
Joseph Craft is the champion of this.
Catherine Crofts a pharmacist with PhD has analysed the data and expanded on it.
Her paper makes interesting reading;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708305/

Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:38 pm

CKinnard wrote:I am comfortable to take in a little iodized salt to complement the iodine I get in the 7+ cups of vege I get most days especially considering I am heavier than the average adult dietary guidelines are aimed at, am more physically active and sweat more. My BP is 100-110/65-75 so the salt I take is not causing fluid retention that adversely impacts BP. My toal salt intake is still very much at the minimum RDI.

Can I take it that your cups of veg are measured before cooking? That's how mine are and I assume most would do it that way.

If 150g of veg = 1 cup, then I got 10 cups today with potato included and 7+ cups without. 6 of those cups are cruciferous.

As for salt I only add it to my post ride water and then probably half a gram or less. So that makes my sodium intake about 460 mg on non riding days and about 600+ on riding days. I don't know who's minimum RDI you use, but the AU NRV is 2000 mg for their SDT. If I lived in somewhere hot I'd expect to eat more salt per year.

BP for me has been 110/70 lately with full hydration. It took me over 4 years of eating well to get to that point though. 5 years is coming up in October which is a milestone for me, since I should have most of the benefits by then.

Could you please post up the Farcebook WFPB group link? Although I'm unlikely to become a Farcebook member (trust issues), it could be an interesting read for me and others.

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Jul 22, 2018 9:01 pm

Nobody wrote:Could you please post up the Farcebook WFPB group link? Although I'm unlikely to become a Farcebook member (trust issues), it could be an interesting read for me and others.


I should have said AI (adequate intake) not RDI.
http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/natio ... pertension

Yes my vege cups are raw. The guidelines say 1 cup of raw = 1/2 cup of cooked.
But imho the only thing that reduces in volume that much is leafys.
I only lightly steam my vege, or stir fry, or add to soup minimally cooked.
I don't include starches (carbs) like potatoes in my vege quotient (they are all fibrous).

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PlantBasedAussies/

Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun Jul 22, 2018 9:34 pm

CKinnard wrote:https://www.facebook.com/groups/PlantBasedAussies/

Thanks. Can't see it without joining Farce. Might help others though.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19074
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:34 pm

CKinnard wrote:Yes my vege cups are raw. The guidelines say 1 cup of raw = 1/2 cup of cooked.
But imho the only thing that reduces in volume that much is leafys.
I only lightly steam my vege, or stir fry, or add to soup minimally cooked.
I don't include starches (carbs) like potatoes in my vege quotient (they are all fibrous)


When they say 5 serves of vegetables and 2 serves of fruit, does a serve of vegetables translate to a cup? I'm thinking about the 1 cup raw = 1/2 cup cooked, whether the communication is the same regardless of whether its cooked or not

Agree on not counting the potatoes, add to that rice + others. Would still count carrots, tomatoes
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

CKinnard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:45 am

mikesbytes wrote:When they say 5 serves of vegetables and 2 serves of fruit, does a serve of vegetables translate to a cup? I'm thinking about the 1 cup raw = 1/2 cup cooked, whether the communication is the same regardless of whether its cooked or not

Agree on not counting the potatoes, add to that rice + others. Would still count carrots, tomatoes


The guidelines page re this is here
https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-es ... umes-beans

They've made a total muff job of it by including starchy vegetable carbs (and legumes) in the same servings category as fibrous carbs.
Why? because the energy densities of fibrous vs starch and legumes are miles apart.
The overridnig criteria of this class is roughly 75g per serve.
The decision to group these foods together was obviously politically motivated. No scientifically robust thought process would end up with this grouping.

Nobody
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Plant Based Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:37 am

CKinnard wrote:The overridnig criteria of this class is roughly 75g per serve.

I believe they made the serving size 75g because generally it's cooked. But like you and I, most are going to measure/weigh veg raw. I think they should have made the serving size 150g (measured raw) like fruit.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: march83