Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

If your topic has nothing to do with Spyderco, you can post it here.
User avatar
Donut
Member
Posts: 9568
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: Virginia Beach, VA, USA

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#41

Post by Donut »

I wasn't sure if you'd have an argument against mult-vitamins that was similar to your argument about artificial fiber sources.


I don't really believe everything I hear about how much protein you should be taking in. I've read and heard everything from 1 gram per kg to 1 gram per pound to even higher. I find that two x 2/3 scoops of whey powder and fairly minimal food makes me feel just as good as plenty more. I take enough protein as I need to recover from my workouts in a timely manner and feel good.

I ran into a kidney stone a while back when I was supplementing with Tuna fish and whey. The doctors blamed it on the protein.
-Brian
A distinguished lurker.
Waiting on a Squeak and Pingo with a Split Spring!
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#42

Post by tvenuto »

Donut wrote:I wasn't sure if you'd have an argument against mult-vitamins that was similar to your argument about artificial fiber sources.


I don't really believe everything I hear about how much protein you should be taking in. I've read and heard everything from 1 gram per kg to 1 gram per pound to even higher. I find that two x 2/3 scoops of whey powder and fairly minimal food makes me feel just as good as plenty more. I take enough protein as I need to recover from my workouts in a timely manner and feel good.

I ran into a kidney stone a while back when I was supplementing with Tuna fish and whey. The doctors blamed it on the protein.
Yea different issue, fiber isn't a "nutrient" per se. In general I think natural sources are best, but many of these things are really only needed in trace amounts so it doesn't hurt to supplement.

There's "you" and then there's you. I think I've established that I'm much more comfortable talking about you than "you." As you say, if you're recovering from your workouts, achieving your athletic/body composition goals, and feel satisfied then I'd say you're on the right track.

There are many many types of kidney stones, and protein is a potential cause. I hate to say it but in general doctors really don't spend much time or energy trying to figure out why anything happens, western medicine is about treating the symptoms (and moving on to the next patient). Hopefully they do a differential diagnosis and rule out various possibilities, with follow up analysis to see if dietary modification produced the expected changes, but I'd be a little surprised if they go into that much depth for every case. I'm sure there's a standard pamphlet they give you? Obviously none of this makes them wrong, just pointing out the regrettable attitude of western medicine. Not blaming the doctors either, they are working within the system they've been given.
User avatar
Donut
Member
Posts: 9568
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: Virginia Beach, VA, USA

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#43

Post by Donut »

Good point on the nutrients. It's not like I'm going to spend an hour trying to figure out how I can naturally get another 30% of my Zinc.

I'm pretty happy and I'm definitely at a point where I can't complain. I am typically into the 1% group (1 out of 100 people are stronger than I am) at the gyms I go to or have been to. I'm skinnier than other people at my level, but I think that's genetics. (I am 6'2" and the scale read 238 lbs the other day, but I don't think I look "huge" like you would think with those numbers.) I would rather be "skinnier than I should be" compared to "bigger than I should be". I want to work on some things that I don't think will make a big difference, things that I've been pushing out of the way.


I didn't get a pamphlet, I got some general statements and a couple prescriptions. Medicine is a business, they can't waste money making sure they're right.
-Brian
A distinguished lurker.
Waiting on a Squeak and Pingo with a Split Spring!
twinboysdad
Member
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:23 pm

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#44

Post by twinboysdad »

I go back to this a lot, but if Tyler Durden were standing over you with a gun over your head and orders to clean up your diet or the next visit would be death, one would make easy steps to comply. I am at a training this week with my company's leadership. Meals have lots of options and are buffet style. Guess what? The fatties eat large portions of crap and drink sodas. The health conscious work around the crap and end up with reasonable portions of the best options. It is just not hard. Factor taste even with nutrition and it gets easier. I have to wonder if some are uneducated about food or just don't care. I am a vain enough person that looking athletic and bordering on ripped matters to me
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#45

Post by tvenuto »

twinboysdad wrote:I have to wonder if some are uneducated about food or just don't care. I am a vain enough person that looking athletic and bordering on ripped matters to me
I feel like people have been so bombarded with what they should or shouldn't eat, they've developed a perverse relationship with food. I was at a Mongolian BBQ place, probably rushing up to get my third bowl, and a guy was explaining to a lady how it worked. He said: "here you can get your meat and veggies, or your noodles and rice. Wait, are you low fat or low carb?" And she replied "I'm low, fat low carb, low everything!" How silly is that? This lady actually thinks that all food will hurt her, she's just forced into eating and better do the minimum amount to avoid injury. So she feels guilty about everything she puts in her mouth, so why the heck not just feel guilty about the stuff that tastes good? So she's eating the wrong things AND stressed about it. Totally perverse, and a terrible way to go through life.

Unfortunately, we've lost all semblance of cultural mores around food, and we can barely discern what's in season, so we really are rudderless when it comes to diet. I re-watched that SP episode, and the USDA guy says "without us people would be eating dirt...or chairs...or something!" It's ridiculous but not far off, we feel we need a **** food pyramid or "my plate" to make food decisions.

Another insidious concept is that getting fat is just what happens to you as you age, and only the vain, or lucky, or insanely dedicated can avoid it. It's the same phenomenon that makes people try to convince their friends not to study and go to the bar in college; the people who have their life squared away have a way of "holding up the mirror" to those who are fooling around. I just try to surround myself with others with the same values and work ethic as I do. This has become easier now that I don't have a day job.
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#46

Post by tvenuto »

Speaking of how long you live well, check out this old man doing ridiculously strong things. Seriously, you actually don't even understand how difficult some of the things he's doing are. Find a kettlebell and attempt to do a "bottoms up" press. Start with 20# (those are 53# each btw)...or less.

https://youtu.be/1u0RVFpRNKU
Cliff Stamp
Member
Posts: 3852
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#47

Post by Cliff Stamp »

tvenuto wrote:... no one has been able to show me that whole wheat flower is materially "better" than white flour
What do you mean by this exactly, that they have the same nutrient profile and the biochemical response in the body is the same?
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#48

Post by tvenuto »

Cliff Stamp wrote:
tvenuto wrote:... no one has been able to show me that whole wheat flower is materially "better" than white flour
What do you mean by this exactly, that they have the same nutrient profile and the biochemical response in the body is the same?
Well, obviously they are not exactly the same, and there must be some difference in nutrient profile and biochemical response. Perhaps I should have said "no one has been able to show me that whole wheat flower will fix a problem that white flower is causing that could not be better fixed by substituting both for something else."
Cliff Stamp
Member
Posts: 3852
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#49

Post by Cliff Stamp »

tvenuto wrote:Perhaps I should have said "no one has been able to show me that whole wheat flower will fix a problem that white flower is causing that could not be better fixed by substituting both for something else."
Food, aside from some things which are directly toxic which are arguable to be called food anyway, doesn't in general cause problems to everyone. Issues with diet intolerance are typically either due to people with specific issues such as Coeliac disease, allergies or people who have a diet which is not well balanced with their level/type of activity. Foods can be very well suited to some combination of those and very poorly suited to another.

Even some of the classically "bad" foods like fructose are not always a poor choice for everyone in all situations. While the data is clear that a high fructose diet in a sedentary individual who is eating at or above their metabolic balance can cause problems linked to the specific metabolic response to fructose over other simple sugars, not everyone falls in that category. For example, fructose is a suitable choice for an individual who has an extreme metabolic load and needs to quickly replenish liver glycogen or in general for anyone under a metabolic balance by force.

When the argument is made that it is bad, this means for most people under most conditions. Most people don't want the whole truth which they have to process, evaluation and then make a decision - they want simple directions. If someone asks you for a good sharpening stone how do you answer? If you pick almost any stone you can find a knife / style of sharpening which is well suited. But to get to this level of response you need a lot of information from the individual who may not even care to that extent. It isn't unreasonable to give a fairly generic response like Norton Crystolon as that works well in many cases and is forgiving when used outside its ideal steels/methods of grinding.

Advice on food is much the same. If you know the exact health of the individual, and you know exactly what they will be doing, and you know exactly what they can afford / is available - well in this case you can give a fairly focused response. However most people tend to not want that level of a reply and are looking for generic answers like that sharpening stone question. Why are whole grain foods better? Because they have a higher nutrient density and lower glycemic response. As a general rule, for most people in most situations, their health would improve if they ate whole grain wheat products vs refined white ones.

The argument for whole grain products isn't of course that it is the perfect food to eat and no better choice could be made and there is no use for refined white flour or even simple sugars. But again as some kind of general rule when utilized by a mass populace, then one would produce a better health response than the other. Now "whole wheat" has become a kind of nebulous label and whole wheat products have for example been tested to have the same glycemic index as white flour products. The FDA requires that more than 50% of the grains are retained to be classified as whole grained, hence whole grain would be a better choice to look for, again in the general sense that it has a higher nutrient profile and lower glycemic response.
Enkidude
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:02 am
Location: The Great State of Texas

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#50

Post by Enkidude »

When trying to calculate macronutrient ratios, would you try to get the ratio you are aiming for with each meal or the total consumption for each day?
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#51

Post by tvenuto »

Enkidude wrote:When trying to calculate macronutrient ratios, would you try to get the ratio you are aiming for with each meal or the total consumption for each day?
That would depend on the person, but in general I'd say per day, with the caveat that I'd like to see protein in every meal.

An athlete for example might have a relatively "normal" macro ratio throughout the day, except for the post workout shake which would be very carb heavy, and might skew his overall macros.

Someone looking to get their diet in line might benefit from being required to have all macros present at all meals/snacks.
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#52

Post by tvenuto »

Cliff Stamp wrote:Even some of the classically "bad" foods like fructose are not always a poor choice for everyone in all situations. While the data is clear that a high fructose diet in a sedentary individual who is eating at or above their metabolic balance can cause problems linked to the specific metabolic response to fructose over other simple sugars, not everyone falls in that category. For example, fructose is a suitable choice for an individual who has an extreme metabolic load and needs to quickly replenish liver glycogen or in general for anyone under a metabolic balance by force.
Agreed, all diet choices are situational, just like my powerlifting example: it fit my goals. I'm not sure what you mean by "metabolic balance by force" but we agree that different individuals will respond differently.
Cliff Stamp wrote:Why are whole grain foods better? Because they have a higher nutrient density and lower glycemic response. As a general rule, for most people in most situations, their health would improve if they ate whole grain wheat products vs refined white ones.
I would agree in principle, but I would argue this difference is overstated, and ignores the possibility of replacing grains entirely. If I may stretch your knife analogy further, the difference between "whole" grain (still refined, just includes stuff they used to throw away) and "refined" grain is like the difference between blade steels. The difference between eating veggies versus eating grain at all is like the difference in edge geometry. You can't stamp edge geometry on the side of the knife so people focus on the steel. You can't sell grain products if you recommend against it, so that possibility is not entertained.
Cliff Stamp wrote:The FDA requires that more than 50% of the grains are retained to be classified as whole grained, hence whole grain would be a better choice to look for, again in the general sense that it has a higher nutrient profile and lower glycemic response.
Again, only in comparison to "refined" grain. We're all eager to care about "nutrient profile" and "low glycemic response" until someone suggests cutting out grains entirely for just those reasons, and then it's labeled "an extreme diet!" Similar to the cognitive dissonance required to read statements like "Almonds are healthy, yes we know they're mostly fat, but the fat in them is good for you, as long as you avoid fat in general, but no, seriously, this fat is ok, just this time, avoid ALL OTHER fat like the plague bleah bleah."

I really hate to sound like a conspiracy theory person, but the USDA exists to sell agricultural products. See below for their "Strategic Plan Framework"
USDA has created a strategic plan to implement its vision. The framework of this plan depends on these key activities: expanding markets for agricultural products and support international economic development, further developing alternative markets for agricultural products and activities, providing financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural America, enhancing food safety by taking steps to reduce the prevalence of foodborne hazards from farm to table, improving nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion, and managing and protecting America's public and private lands working cooperatively with other levels of government and the private sector.
I bolded those sections. Conflict of interest much?
Cliff Stamp
Member
Posts: 3852
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#53

Post by Cliff Stamp »

tvenuto wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "metabolic balance by force" ...
Not a choice, they simply don't have food available.
I would agree in principle, but I would argue this difference is overstated, and ignores the possibility of replacing grains entirely.
I noted that in the above, it isn't argued that whole grains are the ideal food, they are simply "better" than refined grains in the manner noted. Is there a "better" food again? It there some kind of ideal food? It depends on how you can evaluating it. From an evolutionary point of view it is obvious that we are not evolved to eat a substantial amount of grains. They are a part of many cultures simply because of the ease at which they can be mass produced and utilized. From a historical perspective, the ability to produce grains had a tremendous influence on transforming nomadic cultures to allow forming cities. We owe a lot to the simple grain.

Are they "bad"? It certainly isn't trivial to make the argument that whole grains can not be part of a functional diet especially when you consider caloric intake per dollar and preparation time and storage requirements. Is it an extreme position to take a no-grain approach? Those kind of labels are not overly useful because they are undefined. Is 10V an extreme blade steel? Is the Suehiro Ryu an extreme stone? I don't even know that those even mean. You can obviously move further. A no-carb approach helps a lot of people, is it necessary in general, obviously not.

Can you make a healthy diet in general and eat white sugar, of course you can. The argument is only that it is easier for most people if you substitute with whole grains. There is simply a lower risk of health issues in general looking at populations. It is no different than you can sharpen a knife on a rock, however for most people a Sharpmaker has benefits and will reduce some of the problems of using a rock. If you have the skill, experience and dedication can you make due with a rock, sure. It isn't necessary to use a Sharpmaker but that doesn't mean there isn't value there.

From a strict necessary point of view, what you have to eat is restricted to essential nutrients your body can't make from other things, vitamin C for example. There is little we are forced to eat on that basis hence why people can be extremely healthy even with varied diets. Aside from a minor percentage with hormone issues, most health problems come from nothing more than a metabolic excess and lack of exercise and high demands on stress and/or environmental toxins. The entire concept of nutrient profile is very new however is modern man really physically more capable? Eugen Sandow would have about as much of an idea on carbohydrates vs protein vs fats as he would have on quantum field theory.

Most people get way to much focused on the small details vs the reality. People were perfectly fine 100 years ago when they didn't know the difference between a carb or protein. Is the real difference in health now that people don't have omega-3's or simply that there is a metablic excess and lack of physical activity? Now on an elite level do you have to take things more seriously? Of course. If you are in competition and you have to take off 15 lbs in 24 hours then you have to look even at the electrolyte balance in water to prevent fluid retention. But for most people in most situations the real issues are not what brand of water you drink.
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#54

Post by tvenuto »

Cliff Stamp wrote:We owe a lot to the simple grain.
We (Americans) also owe a lot to slavery and smallpox.
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#55

Post by tvenuto »

Cliff Stamp wrote:Are they "bad"? It certainly isn't trivial to make the argument that whole grains can not be part of a functional diet especially when you consider caloric intake per dollar and preparation time and storage requirements. Is it an extreme position to take a no-grain approach? Those kind of labels are not overly useful because they are undefined. Is 10V an extreme blade steel? Is the Suehiro Ryu an extreme stone? I don't even know that those even mean. You can obviously move further. A no-carb approach helps a lot of people, is it necessary in general, obviously not.
I agree that "bad" and "extreme" lack any sort of rigorous definition. However they aren't my words, they're the words of doctors, and health authors, and all the people who are so...ingrained...in the system that they can't see the forest for the trees. We had a T1 diabetic client, who went sugar and grain free, and instantly lost fat, gained muscle and absolutely slashed his insulin requirements. At his doctors visit, after being praised copiously for improving both internal and external bio-markers for health so suddenly and miraculously, he was told that his diet was a fad diet that was extreme and unsafe. Now, you might sit in a doctors office and demand logical reasoning for this statement, but most people treat their doctors as absolute authorities, and the statements that they make carry weight. I mean, almost every workout regimen or product says: "Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise regimen."
Cliff Stamp wrote:Can you make a healthy diet in general and eat white sugar, of course you can. The argument is only that it is easier for most people if you substitute with whole grains. There is simply a lower risk of health issues in general looking at populations. It is no different than you can sharpen a knife on a rock, however for most people a Sharpmaker has benefits and will reduce some of the problems of using a rock. If you have the skill, experience and dedication can you make due with a rock, sure. It isn't necessary to use a Sharpmaker but that doesn't mean there isn't value there.
I think we're pretty much agreeing here so it feels like mincing words, but I would say that if white sugar is like a rock, whole grains are like a somewhat flat rock. You can not eat whole grains ad libitum any more than you can "refined" sugar. If you do, the outcome will be less bad, but only compared to the worse outcomes associated with sugar. Unfortunately, that's all that really gets studied, due to the conflict of interest I noted above.
Cliff Stamp wrote:From a strict necessary point of view, what you have to eat is restricted to essential nutrients your body can't make from other things, vitamin C for example. There is little we are forced to eat on that basis hence why people can be extremely healthy even with varied diets.
My friend's wife has a PhD in Public Health from John's Hopkins university which is either the #1 or #2 school in that field (UNC is the other), and she lives under the belief that whole grains are a necessary part of the diet, and removing them is dangerous at worst, and not supported by the science at best. By saying you "need X servings of whole grains" it actually makes people seek out carbs, which I feel is deleterious given our current food situation. Asking her what exactly these whole grains are imparting that vegetables could not goes rather like the conversation below:

https://youtu.be/-Vw2CrY9Igs
Cliff Stamp wrote:The entire concept of nutrient profile is very new however is modern man really physically more capable? Eugen Sandow would have about as much of an idea on carbohydrates vs protein vs fats as he would have on quantum field theory.
Yes and no, and yes and no. There were some amazing physical feats and amazing athletes in the past, but that largely relied on the chance confluence of exceptional genetics and exceptional resolve/training. Of course, any discussion on this is confounded by PEDs, but I would say that there is a larger population of higher performing individuals now than any other time in human history. This is MORE than balanced by the absolute sh*ttyness of the rest of the population, and it's largely impossible to verify, but I would guess it's true.

Regarding Eugen Sandow, who was "the first modern bodybuilder" for those of you who don't know, I disagree. Arthur Saxon, who was a contemporary of Sandow, wrote a book called The Development of Physical Power, and in it, there is a section on diet. Granted, it is far less detailed than our modern understanding, but he doesn't list any of the physical mechanisms behind his weight lifting either (actin/myosin vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, for instance), but you can hardly say that he doesn't have any ideas about weight lifting. For anyone interested in fitness, that book is actually ridiculously practical and awesome, I highly recommend reading it (which takes all of an hour).
Cliff Stamp wrote:Most people get way to much focused on the small details vs the reality. People were perfectly fine 100 years ago when they didn't know the difference between a carb or protein. Is the real difference in health now that people don't have omega-3's or simply that there is a metablic excess and lack of physical activity?
Once again, I agree, and I don't. Firstly, people get too focused on details, yes that's true. Often we get overfat trainees asking about what supplements they should be taking as a first step, when obviously their diet is not in line. However, many of the foods that I am telling clients to avoid were not available 100 years ago. You don't need to know the difference between carb and a protein when you eat some meat, potatoes, collard greens and maybe some home made bread, the ratios and calories will be reasonable. Eat hotpockets and cheetos? You might have to watch out for that. Also, seemingly similar foods, like chicken or beef for example, are very different now than they were 100 years ago. Those chickens and cows had more omega 3 fats due to their diet, so yes, you didn't need to supplement that 100 years ago. It's not because we didn't know about it, it's because we hadn't screwed it up yet.

The Great Depression had lasting effects on our agricultural policy. Essentially, since the depression America has been obsessed with producing as many calories as possible as cheaply as possible. Income spent on food went from something like 25% to less than 10%. Do less people starve? Yes, which is good, but there are other consequences. One of those consequences is that, if we look at all edible products as "food" and on the same playing field, you need to control things. People do not just randomly "eat too much" as many people would like to boil the issue down to. The issue is that the things we eat f**k with the mechanisms inside our body that tell the food where to go, and how much of it to eat. Past generations didn't need to think about it because they weren't dealing with that factor. Also, they labored for the most part, so yes, exercise is important.
Cliff Stamp
Member
Posts: 3852
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#56

Post by Cliff Stamp »

tvenuto wrote:
I mean, almost every workout regimen or product says: "Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise regimen."
Because we live in a society where people are willing to leverage ignorance for personal gain and hence there has to be some mechanism (or mechanisms) to protect consumers and a mechanism to protect people actually doing productive work. If you, in a professional capacity, advise someone of action then they can take legal action against you because of your claimed expert status. The reason most people put the "talk to your doctor" there is because doctors have some measure of competency in that area and just as, or more important, have large liability insurance and they want to be able to use that in their defense if they get sued to shift the blame to the doctor.

Now of course asking a Doctor about nutrition is like asking a knife maker about metallurgy, it makes little sense but it might be the only option and is more sensible than asking a plumber. It is only recently that certification is in place for dietitians and there are still quite a lot of people giving advice which isn't based on any formal training, is not reflective of the literature and the kindest thing that can be said about it is that it is "bro science" at best. How often have you heard someone make an argument and if the justification is requested it turns out to be as sparse as one time one person did something and noticed an effect, hence the conclusion had to be that thing they did caused that effect and becomes "the truth".

Do people say things like "extreme diet" sure, just like they say "super steel", it isn't helpful to use in a discussion as it is meaningless expect in the most basic sense. Is it an extreme diet to never eat grains, I don't know, what do you mean by extreme. I am fairly close to vegan aside from the fact I drink cows milk. I don't buy it to eat it, but I don't avoid it. Is this extreme, well it isn't to me, but most people would consider it to be so. I don't see any point to such labels, they don't get you anywhere. An interesting question would be is it necessary for health. I don't think it is, I don't do it for that reason (it is religious based for me as my partner is a Hindu).
You can not eat whole grains ad libitum any more than you can "refined" sugar. If you do, the outcome will be less bad, but only compared to the worse outcomes associated with sugar.
Yes but the same can be said for many foods. The GI of potatoes is much higher than whole grains and the nutrient profile for them, especially peeled and boiled is fairly low especially for white potatoes. Does this mean that you also can't eat a potato and it can't be part of a healthy diet and that the only diet is some kind of ultra optimized ideal one which maximizes nutrient profile and allows maximum over eating with minimal metabolic over taxing? I would find it hard to see any argument which could support such a claim. Why are potatoes such a valuable food :

-they are extremely cheap per calorie
-very easy to cook
-versatile
-generally decent in nutrition profile

Now if you are having metabolic struggles, if you have an issue with insulin sensitivity, if your appetite to metabolic balance isn't well regulated, ..., well a boiled potato isn't a great option but does that mean that everyone has to stop eating a potato?
By saying you "need X servings of whole grains" it actually makes people seek out carbs, which I feel is deleterious given our current food situation.
The problem here is one of basic education and also language. Grains are the seed part of plants, carrots and potato are the root part of plants, other parts typically eaten are the leaves most people eat the leaf of kale and throw away the stalk. They are all vegetables, seed, root and leaf as vegetables just means the food part of a plant. Why do we eat the seed part, because it is very easy to harvest, it stores very well, and most importantly, it makes flour and that has tremendous benefit for practical nutrition.

Now could you make an argument that if you ate mainly the leafy part, with some tuber/root parts and minimized or excluded the seed part that you would be healthier? Possibly, but it isn't trivial to do cost wise or practical wise and you don't have any kind of easy argument to make for a general populace that the benefit to cost is even significant when compared to other health factors. In many cases you would be advocating something similar to putting on sunscreen before going into combat.

Is it of benefit, maybe in an absolute sense, but is it the critical part most people need to be focused on, is it the difference that is going to show up in their health? Is that really where their attention needs to be focused?

Of course, any discussion on this is confounded by PEDs, but I would say that there is a larger population of higher performing individuals now than any other time in human history. This is MORE than balanced by the absolute sh*ttyness of the rest of the population, and it's largely impossible to verify, but I would guess it's true.
Modern performance is ruled by drugs, and the abilities of drug to produce performance dominates not only nutrition but even exercise. If you strip away the drugs then how much have athletes progressed - not very much at all. The life time drug free raw benchpress is ~20% higher now than Hepburn did in the early fifties. Was Hepburn on anabolics? It is possible as testosterone was synthesized earlier (1935) however even the most stringent drug histories argue that the onset came with the anabolic steroids which came much later because large amounts of pure testosterone have pretty massive and immediate side effects.

But this entire argument is moot because it is a fantasy for a normal person to be thinking about what an Olympic level athletes eats. Even if you forget about the drugs, what is a critical difference to them isn't for a normal person. In the extreme range of performance, the ability to have your weight within a 1/4 lbs in a given day can mean a win or a DQ. A regular guy looking at that kind of information is like when someone wants a knife and asks for what a Navy Seal carries. Unless you are a Navy Seal that is kind of a pointless question.

But even beyond that of course we have higher performing athletes now, there is far more money in it, we have a huge population and we have selection processes in place which catch kids with talent and shuttle them into specialized training programs. Our knowledge of training has increased and people not actually dedicate their lives often from a very young age into just that one thing. Statistically all of this has to produce greater performance. How much of this is training vs nutrition, that is kind of a hard question to answer as what would you be looking at really things like the detriment of being in a catabolic state due to lack of nutrition vs inability to retain balance due to stimulus over load? How would you even measure this to know which one is worse, wrong exercise or nutrition.

On a fundamental level nutrition is secondary to exercise because if you want to improve your 100m sprint then you need to run. Someone with an ideal diet but who does no training will never compete with someone with ideal training with absolutely no care to diet. But someone with no food is dead so if you look at it that way nutrition is more important. But I think those kinds of discussions are pointless as no one ever defines what they are talking about in how you would measure what is "better".
Also, seemingly similar foods, like chicken or beef for example, are very different now than they were 100 years ago.
Yes and fish now has high levels of heavy metals - and guess what so does the air, it is full of toxins, especially if you are in a city. Now if someone is really into trying to improve their diet then you could say things like to try to trim away fats from some of those fish (concentrates the metals) and to avoid predatory fish (which eat other fish and those have higher levels). But take a look at the studies and get an idea for just how small an effect you are talking about. The vast issues with health in Western society are not due with the fact that the beef has growth hormones but the fact that they are in a constant state of metabolic excess, hormone imbalance due to glycogen glutting and have little to no active exercise.

Now are these ideas useful, sure, in ideal conditions is it better to eat small farm chickens who eat natural foods, sure. However is that really the critical problem for a mother of two whose kids are eating Kraft Dinner? When people say "eat whole grains". It is speaking to that audience and it means "instead of potato chips" not "instead of a serving of leafy vegetables". Just think about how you would describe sharpening to someone who has no idea. That is what the general "eat X servings of whole grains" is trying to so, get some kind of starting point. When someone gets beyond that, when they ask about trying to get an edge to push cut newsprint then you need to start looking at some critical details.
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#57

Post by tvenuto »

Cliff Stamp wrote:Now are these ideas useful, sure, in ideal conditions is it better to eat small farm chickens who eat natural foods, sure. However is that really the critical problem for a mother of two whose kids are eating Kraft Dinner?
Image

And we've come full circle!

Absolutely not, the critical problem to her is how to feed her kids, and we know exactly what she's going to do: feed them (and herself) as cheaply as possible. However, the inherent assumption in your example is that the Kraft Dinner is less expensive than eating the unprocessed foods, which is why she's eating the Kraft Dinner even though no one told her to do so. The only reason this package is cheaper than the veggies, with no package, or advertising, or cartoon spokesperson, is that the grains are subsidized by tax dollars. If the carrot was cheaper per cal than the Kraft meal the poor mother of two would be buying that. How could she not? In an ideal world, the TV dinner would be $75 due to the actual costs of making it and all the negative externalities associated with it (more trash, weighting down the healthcare system, etc).
Cliff Stamp wrote:When people say "eat whole grains". It is speaking to that audience and it means "instead of potato chips" not "instead of a serving of leafy vegetables". Just think about how you would describe sharpening to someone who has no idea. That is what the general "eat X servings of whole grains" is trying to so, get some kind of starting point. When someone gets beyond that, when they ask about trying to get an edge to push cut newsprint then you need to start looking at some critical details.
Again my argument is that it's not at all better to sub whole grain cheetos for the chips, but I might even be OK with this if eating whole grains then led to eating actually veggies as your knife example suggests, but it does not. It just means buying a different package with different words, and it's an ending point, not a starting point. See below for America's best effort so far:

Image

Is there some sort of Phase 2 My Plate, or My Plate Black Belt I was unaware of? Nope that IS the recommendation, and people are following it, to their detriment. Or is the argument that they aren't following it? Because if we're still mired in a health epidemic (which we are), then either the recommendations are flawed, or the people are just blatantly ignoring them. If only someone...

Oh, here we go: in 2010 a report was written by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee (DGAC). This committee was formed in response to the obvious fact that our heath is only getting worse, even though we've assumably been getting the best advice science can offer. Unfortunately, they moved the report, but their conclusion was that people just weren't listening, and that the low fat/high carb diet was sound. They then folded their hands and hoped nervously that there would be no follow-up questions. Unfortunately for them, someone was there to call BS, in the form of several scientists who actually decided to look at the numbers. Their response can be found here. In short: people are following the recommendations, to their detriment. (It's actually a relatively easy read if you're interested in this kind of stuff.)

In the end, I can scream until I'm blue in the face about it, but it won't change much because people follow incentives and currently those incentives are set up counter to my recommendations. This is why I've installed myself in a position where: people are listening, people can afford it, and people are invested in it, so my words don't fall on deaf ears.
Cliff Stamp
Member
Posts: 3852
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#58

Post by Cliff Stamp »

tvenuto wrote:
However, the inherent assumption in your example is that the Kraft Dinner is less expensive than eating the unprocessed foods ...


It isn't simply because the cost is lower. It is also because kids actually will eat it, it cooks very easily so easily kids can be quickly taught to prepare it themselves, it stores very easily, and it can be combined very easily with various other foods. And most important to a lot of people, they just want to eat it. As David Suzuki noted in a recent article in Readers Digest when someone complained after he was seen buying it, he just liked it, it was comfort food. Yes he knows it isn't ideal, but he isn't perfect and mandating some kind of ideal diet simply isn't going to work for that reason.

Again the argument for use of whole grains is that a diet which uses whole grains vs refined grains is healthier, the article you study even supports that and shows the benefits of low GI diets and shows how low carb diets have lower attrition rates in some studies. Even Gary Taubes who has become one of the loudest proponents of the hormone response hypothesis of obesity clearly notes that the strongest data comes from refined sugars and especially fructose due to the very different metabolic pathway and hormone response. There are scads of studies showing strong correlations to both on systematic health problems :

-Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment, Lee S Gross, Li Li, Earl S Ford, and Simin Liu

However what happens if you try to look at something much more general like carbohydrate fraction, the data isn't nearly as clear :

"Carbohydrate intake and obesity.", van Dam RM, Seidell JC.

"There is no clear evidence that altering the proportion of total carbohydrate in the diet is an important determinant of energy intake. However, there is evidence that sugar-sweetened beverages do not induce satiety to the same extent as solid forms of carbohydrate, and that increases in sugar-sweetened soft drink consumption are associated with weight gain. Findings from studies on the effect of the dietary glycemic index on body weight have not been consistent. Dietary fiber is associated with a lesser degree of weight gain in observational studies. Although it is difficult to establish with certainty that fiber rather than other dietary attributes are responsible, whole-grain cereals, vegetables, legumes and fruits seem to be the most appropriate sources of dietary carbohydrate."

and very large scale studies often show problems with low carbohydrate diets :

"Carbohydrate intake and overweight and obesity among healthy adults.", Merchant AT, Vatanparast H, Barlas S, Dehghan M, Shah SM, De Koning L, Steck SE.

"Consuming a low-carbohydrate (approximately <47% energy) diet is associated with greater likelihood of being overweight or obese among healthy, free-living adults. Lowest risk may be obtained by consuming 47% to 64% energy from carbohydrates."

Why is there often lack of consistency in the correlations? Because what you have is a very large multi-variate function which has a large number of highly correlated variables. If you just look at one and ignore all the others you can end up with very strong correlations which are being influenced by the factors you are not actually controlling hence the correlations are subject to random scatter. In defense of such research it is very difficult to actually get all the data and in many cases it isn't possible at all because the money isn't there and you end up doing what is essentially polling.

The real problem is that what happens is that camps develop where the parties pick one of the variables and that is what they see as the causal effect and they ignore all others and then cherry pick data which supports it and ignores all of the others. This then ends up with large groups making different arguments which leaves the dude on the street wondering who they are supposed to listen to in all the contradictory advice. They can't read the literature (or won't) and so they pick the person they want to listen to and try that.

Can you make an argument that if you switched from whole grains to the leafy parts of plants then healthy would improve - probably. However there is no need to stop there. You can go one step further and restrict diet to below the baseline and produce a severe caloric restriction so the body is in a constant state of metabolic suppression. There is extremely strong evidence that if you are looking for some kind of ultimate diet, especially in terms of lifespan, severe caloric restriction is the answer. But does this mean that is the solution that should be proposed for everyone?
User avatar
tvenuto
Member
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:16 am
Location: South Baltimore

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#59

Post by tvenuto »

Cliff Stamp wrote:It isn't simply because the cost is lower. It is also because kids actually will eat it, it cooks very easily so easily kids can be quickly taught to prepare it themselves, it stores very easily, and it can be combined very easily with various other foods. And most important to a lot of people, they just want to eat it. As David Suzuki noted in a recent article in Readers Digest when someone complained after he was seen buying it, he just liked it, it was comfort food. Yes he knows it isn't ideal, but he isn't perfect and mandating some kind of ideal diet simply isn't going to work for that reason.
I just want a V12 Vanquish, but I'm not driving around in one because I'm forced to pay the actual cost of owning it. Would our parents only eat the TV dinner? No, they ate what the heck their mom made for them. Yes convenience, yes taste, yes comfort, but again, it's about cost. That Vanquish is 100% better in almost every respect than my V6 Accord, but that didn't factor into my buying decision because I can't afford the darn thing in the first place. I have no way of figuring out the actual cost of that TV dinner, but I'd stake my reputation on upwards of $50. Does the kale CEO own an NFL team?

Image
Cliff Stamp wrote:"There is no clear evidence that altering the proportion of total carbohydrate in the diet is an important determinant of energy intake."
...except for the entire American population.

Image
Cliff Stamp wrote:You can go one step further and restrict diet to below the baseline and produce a severe caloric restriction so the body is in a constant state of metabolic suppression. There is extremely strong evidence that if you are looking for some kind of ultimate diet, especially in terms of lifespan, severe caloric restriction is the answer. But does this mean that is the solution that should be proposed for everyone?
Pretty much only in terms of lifespan. And even then that's if you avoid injury and sickness like...well, the plague. Before we decided to go 20 rounds, an esteemed colleague of ours noted that it's not how long he wants to live, but how long he wants to live well, and I think that's what most people really want, not longevity in the absolute sense.

It's been fun sparring. Some interesting discussion points.

Image
Cliff Stamp
Member
Posts: 3852
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Diet and nutrition, assorted topics

#60

Post by Cliff Stamp »

tvenuto wrote:
No, they ate what the heck their mom made for them. Yes convenience, yes taste, yes comfort, but again, it's about cost.
It is about cost sure, but it isn't just cost. If you look at lowest cost items per calorie, then it is dominated (depends on area) by things like potato and beans. Locally you can buy 50 lbs of potato for as low as $5, even not on sale 10 lbs is routinely ~$2.50. If you go to the real rural areas here then the price of vegetables plummets as people just sell them from personal farms. There are no taxes and for $20 you can get literally grocery bags full of carrots, beets, potato, turnip, and lately even fancy things like bok choy. Still, there are a lot of people buying Kraft Dinner because trying to get a kid to eat a bunch of asparagus often doesn't go well. Plus the time to prepare them is much higher. To make Kraft Dinner literally takes less than a minute of time and it isn't subject to much maintenance. In contrast, trying to maximize the nutrients of a potato by scrubbing it to preserve the peel, then baking it, well it is obvious the time is much higher. Plus there is maintenance. You can shop for things like that once a month. Most people don't have the ability to store vegetables for a month.
...except for the entire American population.
That is the response to multiple peer reviewed studies?

Well if that is how you want to know things, ok, no real point in any further discussion on nutrition then.
Pretty much only in terms of lifespan. And even then that's if you avoid injury and sickness like...well, the plague.
Immune response is generally improved as there is less taxing on the body due to optimizing metabolic function. Hence why in general there is a very strong correlation between people who not only life very long lives, but remain very active in their late age. The correlation is far more towards total caloric intake than actual macro nutrients. But from an evolutionary perspective this is what you expect. We evolved to be able to survive on just about any food, but we never evolved at all to withstand a constant glut of food because it simply rarely if ever happened when you are hunter/gathered. This is the big problem with mass scale farming. It removed the nomadic lifestyle and allowed people for the first time to constantly have a glut of food.

However, general physical capability is restricted on a caloric deficit. For people who want to maintain some kind of uber-active lifestyle this isn't ideal. In general it is always going to be fringe aside from people who are really focused on it. There is also the argument that you could actually be out living a life vs spending a lot of time on diet/exercise so you could live longer. At what point does this become self defeating unless you enjoy that in and of itself in which case, go for it.
Post Reply