Plant Based Diets

Discussion in 'Geek Food' started by tobes, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Mathuisella

    Mathuisella Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,540
    Location:
    in your gearbox...grindin
    because there's no off switch in our brains for sugar. Since it's so rare in nature, anything sweet and we pack it in as "winter is coming" and we don't know when the next meal is coming...
     
  2. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,106
    Location:
    Canberra
    Sugar consumption in the US is supposed to have peaked about 12 years ago (or something).

    However I truly believe that because some of the cheapest calories (and highest margin sales) are chips - they are *everywhere* if you try to eat out and portion sizes are basically insane - that this, particularly combined with people whom are insulin resistant (i.e overweight) and the still abundance of soda (also super cheap, high margin).

    When I transitioned back from my carnivore diet (no calorie or portion tracking, just steak till I was satisfied for 6 months) the first things I noticed was;

    1. Chips are everywhere and constituted the bulk of calories in a meal. (I was already excluding all soft drink).
    2. Portion sizes in general were far too big for me now. I struggle to eat more than say a big Mac on its own.

    Transitioning out I was hyper aware of calorie intake as I moved from 0/33/66 (carb/protein/fat) to (30/40/30). And if you just accept meals as paired, you can really only eat 1.5 meals per day.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2019
  3. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,709
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Do they count high fructose corn syrup in their figures.

    All my trips to the U.S I leave the chips until last and eat the 'main' thing i'm after. Every single time we go out the locals "Get it to go" while I try to order something with the most salad on the plate. The venue's need to reduce portion size by 25% and people would still have too much on their plate.
     
    NSanity likes this.
  4. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,106
    Location:
    Canberra
    Yep.

    I think it's b.s or a shitty sample or something. But not living in the US it's hard to quantify
     
  5. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,709
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I find it VERY hard to believe then. I think it was the doco King Corn that showed how many products in a standard U.S supermarket had HFCS in it. it was something stupid like 90%(don't quote me on that number)

    Seems the report you read was off:

    https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/...and-the-effects-of-sugar-on-americans-health/

    They are still at the top of the list.......AUS is 5th
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2019
  6. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,106
    Location:
    Canberra
    the argument that people put up that calories don't matter is wrong.



    They basically are sourcing it under the idea that because different macros are less bio-available (they require energy input to convert to usable energy - e.g 100g of Glucose is basically ready to go, 100g of ribeye requires a fair amount of effort to be used), and that as you begin to lose mass, your body goes into a defence mode to keep mass on you (we starvin' bro!). So in essence that because you use less calories as you lose mass (both by proxy of weighing less, and the bodies self defence from starvation) apparently you can't measure this. Wrong. They can, and do, measure for this.

     
  7. peg

    peg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yeah American's love their fries and soda (diet soda hello) with everything but they're also consuming more meat than everyone else which isn't helping their collective waistline.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption_per_capita

    If this is true then why is it so hard to get people to eat fruit? It's not true, that's why.

    So long as they're still super sizing their overweight rate is going to continue to climb, ain't rocket science.
     
  8. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,482
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Are you reading anything that's written, or just posting off the cuff?

    Energy builds fat. Look at the relative energy densities of foods, not whether some poor cow had to die for it.

    Super sizing their fries and soft drink, yes.
     
  9. peg

    peg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Melbourne
    That's means nothing.

    It's not just fast food joints that super size, huge portion sizes are the norm over there.
     
  10. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,482
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Oh, but "fried chicken is the most fattening because Americans eat lots of it" is meaningful?

    Yes I know, I've spent a bit of time there myself. What do you think makes up the majority of those portion sizes?

    Hint: It's mostly potato starch and their sweet sugary breads.
     
    frnak likes this.
  11. peg

    peg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Are we pretending that KFC is a health food now? It's just the diet coke and chips that are fattening not the grease laden chicken. Deep fried chicken is low carb so it must be healthy, right?
     
  12. frnak

    frnak Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    211
    I totally agree. The problem with western fast foods isn't the meat. It's the energy density and bio-availability of easily digested carbohydrates together with a bad macronutrient profile.
     
  13. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,106
    Location:
    Canberra
    Its because everything else you can have has been hyper-sweetened (firing that dirty dopamine receptors) to encourage preference, mixed with modern supermarkets not providing "Fresh-as-in-off-the-tree-right-now" fruit, but snap-frozen, chemically ripened/stunted, eetc Fruit to maintain the all-year round availability and just-in-time delivery.

    Fruit in other countries tastes infinitely better. Same deal, to an extent, with seasonal produce at farmer's markets.

    Why eat Fruit in Australia, most of it is off/spoiled before you get a chance to eat it, and even if it isn't, its pretty average.

    for something to be fattening, it literally needs to be an excess of calories.

    There are people punching 10,000 kcal and *losing* mass.

    Repeat after me - Macro's do not dictate whether something is fattening or not. Calories do.

    Malnutrition is separate. You need Protein. You need Fats. You need some vitamins and minerals. Then you just need maintenance calories. There is no such thing as essential fibre. That doesn't mean that there might not be benefits to consuming some - but its also complicated - because there is compromises to consuming some too.

    Its also high GI foods - because you're hungry soon after, because your body experiences a blood sugar crash.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2019
  14. peg

    peg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Interesting opinions, you live up to your name.

    This I think is totally wrong, our brains are hardwired to respond to certain tastes.

    High sugar and fat foods like cake or ice cream are foods we seek out and are prone to overeating. High fat foods like cheese or pure sugar foods, eg jelly beans are not quite on the same level.

    But I agree that energy balance matters above anything else.
     
  15. Mathuisella

    Mathuisella Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,540
    Location:
    in your gearbox...grindin
    because of fibre in the fruit balances it out.
     
  16. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,106
    Location:
    Canberra
    You're confusing a lack of discipline/will power with an energy quantity.

    Here is "clean eating" vs "if it fits your macros"


    Layne is rocking 100+ grams of sugar a day. But he is specifically controlling his calories (and macros in his case because he's attempting to achieve certain goals in body building.)

    Tons of people think that foods marketed as "lite" or "diet" and so forth are "free" and can consume as much as they desire. With many foods, this isn't the case, its just that they usually are less in some macro, or in calories overall.

    If you want to lose weight, you need to cut calories. Messing about with your macro's will do *nothing*. Eating "clean" will do *nothing*.

    If you eat 5000kcal of Brown rice, beans and boiled chicken and you only need 2000kcal, you will gain weight.

    Absolutely - note the sugar content.

    https://www.nutritionix.com/food/chocolate-cake
    https://www.nutritionix.com/food/vanilla-ice-cream-cone

    High Fat foods yes, because fat is very satiating - again - sit in front of a block of butter and tell me how you go.

    But plenty of people can crush a bag of sweets - which is a problem. The problem is compounded when the people uses the bag of sweets, or the coke, or the poptarts or whatever as a "treat" or "snack" and then proceeds to eat their typically calorie surplus diet as normal. So before they had that coke - they were already 10-15% over their calorie requirements. Now they are 20-25%. And there is still a half dozen cokes in the fridge for the rest of the week.

    Obviously you can do the same, snacking on fried chicken. But there is something about Keto/Paleo/Carnivore etc - all LCHF diets.

    My take is that Its such a dramatic change from how people have been eating - and the foods make them feel fuller, sooner, for longer - making it easier to achieve a calorie deficit without feeling like you're going without, then combined with the fact that carrying less carbs, means you carry less water - almost instantly giving a significant result (and thus reinforcement that they should continue) to help them continue.

    Veganism (taking this back to the thread) has a similar encouragement - people think they are doing good for the planet/animals/whatever.

    But most of the time on both diets, people have taken a diet where they have tracked nothing, replaced it with either a diet where they track everything, or a meal plan (which also tracks everything) - and the overriding theme here is that you have cut calories.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
  17. Mathuisella

    Mathuisella Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,540
    Location:
    in your gearbox...grindin

    Saw a picture online that every almond nut takes 4 litres of water to produce
     
  18. peg

    peg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Sort of contradicting yourself here and that first line is dead wrong:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7900695

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27001260

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805252

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224414002386

    -

    Whole food (starchy) carbs are generally considered more filling than dietary fats.

    And of particular concern is the fact that obese people seem to be suffering from a 'blunting effect' from digesting fats. In other words they have impaired postprandial leptin signalling, which is a fancy way of saying they don't get the same sensation of fullness from eating fats that healthy and lean individuals do.
     
  19. peg

    peg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Also Layne is probably "enhanced" so yeah, not a great example for the average dieter.
     
  20. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,106
    Location:
    Canberra
    Except none of what you posted explains the absolute explosion of success of Keto, Primal, Paleo and Carnivore (then again, they don't cite specifically chasing ketosis). All of which are LCHF diets. People when moving from Carbohydrates as their primary source of energy to ketones - and I'm one of them - cite;

    * Increased Focus and concentration - both peaks and sustained
    * Reduced Consumption
    * Elimination of the need/desire to "snack"
    * Reduced Sleep requirements
    * Increased quality of Sleep
    * Increased Energy
    * Significant weight loss

    Note all the way back there I said I don't think one solution fits all, and I also said that my take is that its a combination of an early visible improvement (shedding of water weight required for carbs), relative ease of adherence (most people like fatty foods such as bacon, steak, advocado, etc), which is quickly followed up by the benefits I listed above. Guided with a calorie deficit that certainly for literally everyone I've spoken to about it was easier to obtain than with a HCLF diet (many keto advocates have come from vegetarianism, veganism and other hclf diets).

    Of course I could only be speaking to people who do or have done Keto, thus there is some confirmation bias going on - but the contrast is people who are clearly overweight, doing nothing (or were unable to adhere and maintain weight-loss medium to long term - like 95% of people who diet) who are telling people who are losing weight and performing better that what they are doing is unhealthy, based on John Kelloggs marketing campaign and whatever bullshit they learned in school that was also driven by marketing and an agenda.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: