Stupid diet tricks

[haha]

No. Was it the one to Palm Oil? Yeah, that was a typo on my part. I know that Palm & Coconut oils are not the same thing... other than the similar chemical makeup. BTW, Avocado Oil would also fit in that group.

No, I really know nothing about oils that is not hearsay.

Here is more information, from one of the principal investigators.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Ha

 

[RAE]

Diabetes Study Ends Early With a Surprising Result

I suspect that the reason they got poor results is the diet they chose for the participants. Sure, they restricted calories, but as we have discussed before, calories from different sources are treated very differently once they enter the human body. From an article I just read describing the study:

" The recommended diet is based on guidelines of the ADA and National Cholesterol Education program and includes a maximum of 30% of total calories from total fat, a maximum of 10% of total calories from saturated fat, and a minimum of 15% of total calories from protein."

This means that at least 55% (and probably more) of the diet came from carbs, which is way too high for optimum health for most people, based on a lot of the latest research. To eat that many carbs, you're likely consuming a lot of bread, pasta, baked goods, crackers, etc (highly processed grain-based products). Alternatively, eating a diet of mostly "real food" (meat, fish, veggies, healthy fats.......avoiding most grain-based products and all things that come in a box) would result in consuming a mix closer to 35-40% fat, 35-40% protein, 20-25% carbs.

Had they put the participants on that type of diet, I suspect the results would have been a lot different.

 

[JoeWras]

RAE, it is going to take a lot of UNlearning for many of us to see what you are saying.

I've been spending the last few years unlearning that eating a few boxes of "Snackwells" is not healthy heating. "Look Ma, no fat! I can have all I want!"

All you have to do is look around and see what this white carb teaching from our govt. has done to America's waistlines.

A few weeks ago we were in a casual tourist area as a "base camp" for a hike in the mountains. It honestly scared me to see the people walking the streets. America is a disastrously unhealthy. Seemed like everyone had a cigarette in hand, and were barely able to walk across the street.

 

[RonBoyd]

... would result in consuming a mix closer to 35-40% fat, 35-40% protein, 20-25% carbs.

Had they put the participants on that type of diet, I suspect the results would have been a lot different.

I completely agree. However, I would adjust the ratios a bit -- that is still too many Carbs and the Protein should be adjusted downward quite a bit. (Due to the lack of Carbs, the body will convert Protein to Glucose -- sugar -- to compensate. That's why a thigh of the chicken is better for you than the breast.) This would leave the Fat % around 80% or so -- just what the body needs to be healthy.

 

[RonBoyd]

RAE, it is going to take a lot of UNlearning for many of us to see what you are saying.

...

All you have to do is look around and see what this white carb teaching from our govt. has done to America's waistlines.

And even after "unlearning," it took me quite awhile to trust my conclusions.

 

[RonBoyd]

Here is more information, from one of the principal investigators.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Ha

Oh! Nice catch. I will listen to it in the morning... it's been a long day.

 

[Nords]

A few weeks ago we were in a casual tourist area as a "base camp" for a hike in the mountains. It honestly scared me to see the people walking the streets. America is a disastrously unhealthy. Seemed like everyone had a cigarette in hand, and were barely able to walk across the street.

Apparently the educational effort may turn out to be too late... does this make the problem self-correcting?

 

[Tigger]

Only that Seth throws this out with reference to olive oil: " given that olive oil appears worse than nothing. "

So assuming this is based on something, I would like to know what. But I can't find a search functon, or any mention of olive oil in his listing of topics

A site-specific Google search can help:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=...worse+than+nothing"+site:blog.sethroberts.net

EDIT:
In a post from 2007 Seth wrote:
"The difference between flaxseed oil and olive oil was larger than the difference between flaxseed oil and nothing, implying that olive oil is worse than nothing."
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2007/07/03/science-in-action-omega-3-what-the-results-mean/

A conclusion that probably came from this post about his self-experimentation with oils and their effect on his ability to stay in balance on one foot on a board atop a metal cylinder (?!)
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2007/04/21/science-in-action-omega-3-flaxseed-oil-vs-olive-oil/

 

[RonBoyd]

Here is more information, from one of the principal investigators.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Okay. I listened to it twice and then read the transcript. I still want to hear from those more qualified than I. Primarily because it seemed to me she was trying awfully hard to justify the study itself.

Let me get back to you

Interestingly, in the "Print" version of the above, there is a Link to the Abstract of the Trial from 2010 (?).

Lifestyle interventions produce short-term improvements in glycemia and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but no long-term data are available.

 

[RonBoyd]

In a post from 2007 Seth wrote:
"The difference between flaxseed oil and olive oil was larger than the difference between flaxseed oil and nothing, implying that olive oil is worse than nothing."
Seth's Blog » Blog Archive » Science in Action: Omega-3 (what the results mean)

A conclusion that probably came from this post about his self-experimentation with oils and their effect on his ability to stay in balance on one foot on a board atop a metal cylinder (?!)
Seth's Blog » Blog Archive » Science in Action: Omega-3 (flaxseed oil vs. olive oil)

Okay, now it is beginning to make sense. Seth is someone who goes into these weird experiments to explain health "problems" in order to come up with a cure. His book "The Shangri La Diet," for instance, featured swallowing a quantity of straight Olive Oil daily for weight loss. (It's been many years since I read it so don't quote me but that is typical of his experiments.) Standing on one foot for extended periods to cure insomnia is another example. In addition, he documents his experiments quite extensively -- almost to the point of logging every minute of every day during the experiment.

Anyway, here is his response to my question:

RonBoyd: Seth, I don’t know what this sentence means. Please explain.

“I have not compared omega-6 to nothing but I suspect it would produce worse results, given that olive oil appears worse than nothing. ”

Seth: In Expt A I compared flaxseed oil to olive oil. In Expt B, I compared flaxseed oil to nothing. Expts A and B were very similar. Comparing olive oil in Expt A to nothing in Expt B, olive oil was worse than nothing.

The next question of Seth after mine was this:

David Johnston: So ELOO worked for weight loss in the Shangri La diet, but not for achieving fast speeds in cognitive speed tests. Is that a correct interpretation of your data?

Seth: Yes.

 

[RAE]

And even after "unlearning," it took me quite awhile to trust my conclusions.

Yes, me too. The proof was in how my health (and my wife's) improved after we switched to eating mostly real food, and got rid of all the junk that comes in a box/package, with a list of ingredients on the side. Our weight came down to normal levels, our blood test numbers all improved, blood pressure improved, we both felt great.......obviously, something about the new way of eating was working.

My percentages for fat/protein/carbs are just estimates, and they will of course vary somewhat by individual. I can eat more carbs than my wife can, for example, and still maintain my desired weight. But neither of us really counts carbs anymore, or calories, or anything else for that matter. If you just eat real food (mostly meat, fish, veggies, healthy fats), and get all the processed junk food out of your house (things made from flour, things that come in a box, industrial seed oils), you don't need to worry about the other stuff. And since fats are very satiating, you don't really need to worry about eating too much fat. Just make sure you eat the right fats - coconut oil, pastured butter or ghee, palm oil, and olive oil. Get rid of all the industrial seed oils that are made using a chemical extraction process and are very unhealthy (soy, corn, vegetable, even canola).

That is the way we eat now, anyway. I highly recommend it to anyone who is trying to improve their health and/or lose some weight.

RAE

 

[Tyro]

Where's that "thumbs up" Smiley when I need it.

 

[RonBoyd]

I agree with every single word. Especially this:

My percentages for fat/protein/carbs are just estimates, and they will of course vary somewhat by individual.

I should have not come across as so "hard & fast" -- should have better said that fat % should be in the 65% to 80% range.

Just to explain a little further:

About seven years ago, I was diagnosed with Atrial Fibrillation. Since this was the first time in my life that anything serious healthwise had happened, I panicked. I weighed around 210 at 5'10½". The first thing I did was go on a exercise regimen -- walking a couple three miles a day, etc. And even though my doctor said my weight was "in line" and my blood work showed "normal" results, particularly the lipids which were very low. And because I was active and felt good about it, I should not change my diet.

Well, I didn't feel so good about my weight... particularly when looking into a mirror. So I jumped into the "weight loss" frenzy -- reading everything I could. Finally, deciding that the USDA and the medical community should know more than anyone else, I went with the mainstream -- low fat/high carb. Long story short:

Two years later I weighed 237 pounds and was hungry all the time. My A1C had gone from 5.1 to 6.1. Clearly, this diet was not for me. So I went with a high fat/close to zero carb regimin. The first thing I found was a lack of appetite -- in fact, it was easy to forget to eat. (Well, that was after I gave up the exercise routine.) The weight was dropping off me in huge amounts. Again, long story short: six months later I weighed 180 pounds and have remained at that for three years now. My A1C is back down to the low 5s and my cholesteral/triglycerides remains in the "very good" (my Cardiologist's words) range.

FWIW, the first thing I discovered that over the years of eating the wrong foods (particularly grains), I had destroyed my body's ability to process glucose -- yeah, this is the definition of Diabetes but remember this was a self-diagnosis. Anyway, it was easy to then think of sugar as a poison. The next step was to discover how sugar hides itself in the English language. Any word that ends in "ose" is sugar -- Glocose, lactose, fructose, etc. I found, for instance, that the Banana I had eaten every morning for over 35 years was almost pure sugar. The bowl of cereal that had replaced the Eggs and Bacon was a double whammy -- Milk (lactose) and cereal (glucose) are pure sugar. No wonder I gained weight.

And I was hungry because my body was starving. Essentially it goes like this: The body considers four things food; Fat, Protein, Carbohydrates, and Alcohol. It doesn't, however, consider them as equals. The body's preference is in this order:

1. Alcohol -- will process alcohol before all other food. (this the cause of Cirrosis.) Unfortunately, although it is preferred, it has no nutritional value. (damn it.)
2. Fat -- This is what your body runs on.
3. Protein -- Needed to rebuild -- muscle, particularly.
4. Carbohydrates -- has no known benefit. ("There are essential Amino Acids (Protein) and Essential Fatty Acids but there are no necessary Carbohydrates.")

Since Carbohydrates have no real food value, they are stored away for "times of starvation" -- internally (viscerally) first (shows up as the "beer belly") and then whereever it can. This is why a person is always hungry when on a high carb diet.

Anyway, in a nutshell, (and certainly an incomplete explanation) of where my thinking is today.

 

[RonBoyd]

Yup. That's the one. Thank you.

 

[JoeWras]

RonBoyd: I agree with about 95% of what you are saying. DW and I have traveled a very similar path (without the At Fib).

I know a lot of people reading this are thinking we're crazy. Fats? Eggs? Really?

Yes. Really.

 

[W2R]

. The bowl of cereal that had replaced the Eggs and Bacon was a double whammy -- Milk (lactose) and cereal (glucose) are pure sugar.

Besides, I just checked and one slice of bacon is only 40 calories. I did not realize that! A half cup portion of old fashioned oatmeal (probably a cup after cooking) is 150 calories, not to mention the milk.

I am not going all low carb, but I am getting off the low fat bandwagon a little and going towards more exercise and smaller portions with correspondingly fewer calories instead of either low fat or low carb. Most of the fat that I consume is in foods cooked with or containing olive oil. Like you, I find I am much less hungry with lower carbs.

 

[haha]

Okay. I listened to it twice and then read the transcript. I still want to hear from those more qualified than I. Primarily because it seemed to me she was trying awfully hard to justify the study itself.

Let me get back to you

Interestingly, in the "Print" version of the above, there is a Link to the Abstract of the Trial from 2010 (?).

Interesting. Seems to say the opposite of this trial that was just abandoned.

Thanks Tigger and Ron for the Seth links about olive oil.

Ha

 

[Chuckanut]

The bowl of cereal that had replaced the Eggs and Bacon was a double whammy -- Milk (lactose) and cereal (glucose) are pure sugar. No wonder I gained weight.

I think we agree that to much sugar is a big problem with today's diet. But, I must mention that glucose on its own is not bad for us. It is the fuel of life. Every cell in our body needs it to operate. What is bad is the high amounts of fructose that often comes along with glucose in sugary, manufactured foods.

The best explanation of this is here:

Warning: the video lecture is for medical professionals and not the common lay person. It may be hard to understand in places.

 

[rgarling]

Chuckanut -- interested in the link to Lustig's talk, but didn't find it in your post. Glucose is a double edge sword. The body needs it and has a way to make it; however, too much is toxic. There is only about 2 scant teaspoons of glucose in the blood normally. A can of soda has about 10 teaspoons of sugar.

 

[RonBoyd]

Besides, I just checked and one slice of bacon is only 40 calories. I did not realize that! A half cup portion of old fashioned oatmeal (probably a cup after cooking) is 150 calories, not to mention the milk.

I am not going all low carb, but I am getting off the low fat bandwagon a little and going towards more exercise and smaller portions with correspondingly fewer calories instead of either low fat or low carb. Most of the fat that I consume is in foods cooked with or containing olive oil. Like you, I find I am much less hungry with lower carbs.

Well, let me say that with a low carb diet, calories don't count and it is a waste of time and energy to even be concerned with them. If... you eat the proper food. Think about it, fat which your body burns up or carbs which the body stores -- healthy weight or the fourth chin. Therefore, portion control is a non-starter. I eat more now than I ever did in the past.

Several years ago, in some thread along these lines I quoted Gary Taubes showing the best (most healthy) fat (by far) is lard. Yeah, pure pork fat. You might search for that post for clarification.

 

[RonBoyd]

RonBoyd: I agree with about 95% of what you are saying.

Yeah, there I went speaking in absolutes again. 95% is as close to complete agreement as one can ever get.

 

[Chuckanut]

Chuckanut -- interested in the link to Lustig's talk, but didn't find it in your post. Glucose is a double edge sword. The body needs it and has a way to make it; however, too much is toxic. There is only about 2 scant teaspoons of glucose in the blood normally. A can of soda has about 10 teaspoons of sugar.

Yes, sugared drinks have far to much sugar for our good. I don't question that at all.

Here is the link to Dr. Lustig's talk. The low carb folks will be particularly interested in minutes 34-42 where he talks about LDL cholesterol, fat and carbs.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth - YouTube

 

[RonBoyd]

What is bad is the high amounts of fructose that often comes along with glucose in sugary, manufactured foods

Or even a Plain Jane Apple which has ~19 grams of sugar (and very little else). That's about 5 teaspons of pure Sugar (fructose).

How Do I Convert Grams to Teaspoons?

People often want to convert sugar from grams to teaspoons because grams are listed on the Nutrient Fact labels of processed foods, and it's easier for those of us who are used to Imperial units to mentally picture a teaspoonful of sugar instead of a gram of sugar. One teaspoon of granulated white sugar is close to four grams. If you buy a bottle of cola with 44 grams of sugar, you would divide 44 by 4, which is equal to 11 teaspoons of sugar. That's a lot of sugar - and a lot of calories with no additional nutritional value.

 

[RonBoyd]

Here is one look at the Look AHEAD Trial:

Hyperlipid: Look AHEAD trial stopped

However the massive omission, from the quick look I've managed, is of any intention to report the all cause mortality. It seems very likely to me that more people died in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but p was > 0.05.

Call me a cynic, but I think they stopped the trial because they could see where that p number was heading. Has anyone seen a body count from anywhere in the trial?

And something I also wondered (Proud of a ten pound weight loss?)

Also, what might the outcome have been if the intervention group had been repeatedly bullied, harassed and indoctrinated to maintain a normoglycaemic, low grade ketogenic diet for 13.5 years? Say to an HbA1c of around 5%?

And like all BLOGS, the Comments can be as (or more) enlightening... if you filter successfully.

 

[Tyro]

Or even a Plain Jane Apple which has ~19 grams of sugar (and very little else).

Those charts don't tell the whole story.

Health benefits of apple

• Delicious and crunchy apple fruit is notable for its impressive list of phtyto-nutrients, and anti-oxidants. Studies suggest that its components are essential for normal growth, development and overall well-being.
• Apples are low in calories; 100 g of fresh fruit slices provide only 50 calories. They, however, contain no saturated fats or cholesterol. Nonetheless, the fruit is rich in dietary fiber, which helps prevent absorption of dietary-LDL or bad cholesterol in the gut. The fiber also saves the colon mucous membrane from exposure to toxic substances by binding to cancer-causing chemicals inside the colon.
• Apples are rich in antioxidant phyto-nutrients flavonoids and polyphenolics.The total measured anti-oxidant strength (ORAC value) of 100 g apple fruit is 5900 TE. Some of the important flavonoids in apples are quercetin, epicatechin, and procyanidin B2. Additionally, they are also good in tartaric acid that gives tart flavor to them. Altogether, these compounds help the body protect from deleterious effects of free radicals.
• Apple fruit contains good quantities of vitamin-C and beta-carotene. Vitamin C is a powerful natural antioxidant. Consumption of foods rich in vitamin C helps the body develop resistance against infectious agents and scavenge harmful, pro-inflammatory free radicals from the body.
• Further, apple fruit is a good source of B-complex vitamins such as riboflavin, thiamin, and pyridoxine (vitamin B-6). Together these vitamins help as co-factors for enzymes in metabolism as well as in various synthetic functions inside the body.
• Apple also contains a small amount of minerals like potassium, phosphorus, and calcium. Potassium is an important component of cell and body fluids helps controlling heart rate and blood pressure; thus, counters the bad influences of sodium.
• Apple fruit nutrition facts and health benefits