Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: ozaytheyellow on April 17, 2017, 02:31:01 AM

Title: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: ozaytheyellow on April 17, 2017, 02:31:01 AM
Hello everyone!
Long time listener, and new to the forums. I don't usually join forums, but I registered because I wanted to see if this topic had been discussed before here. The search resulted in no hits, so here goes:

I am pretty sure I am heading towards diabetes and as I was researching I stumbled upon this:
https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet (https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet)
Actually, I found an article talking about it first, but it led me there.
As far as my limited understanding of it goes, it looks promising but my non-experience at looking into these studies has me at a disadvantage.
I don't plan on buying from the website, there are a few recipes around the internet that mimic what the website is selling and will probably try with that first.

What do you, SGU hivemind, think of the validity in this?

I appreciate any insight that can be had!
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 09:53:50 AM
Looks like woo to me. You're eating food but your body does not recognize that you're eating? So it does not engage in digestion? The nutrients that they claim the diet has are not absorbed? You get no actual calories from all this "healthy" food?

If you think you are heading towards diabetes, I recommend seeing a doctor. (NOT a naturopath!) If you are overweight you'll need to lose weight. If you are sedentary, you'll probably need to exercise. If you smoke you should quit. Eating healthy food is very good, but you don't need a fly-by-night meal-delivery company for that. You just need to visit the fruit and vegetable section of your grocery store, and maybe fill less of your cart from the cookies & potato chips aisle.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 11:42:40 AM
On nutrition and weight loss the advice you get from most doctors these days is probably just as bad, if not worse, than the advice from naturopaths.

It's just not something they study. 

As for this plan, I'd avoid it. It seems like a way to monetize diet advice. If you want to avoid T2D, nothing has been found to be more effective than a LCHF ketogenic diet.


Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Friendly Angel on April 17, 2017, 11:45:40 AM
On nutrition and weight loss the advice you get from most doctors these days is probably just as bad, if not worse, than the advice from naturopaths.

It's just not something they study. 

Maybe not, but what they do is refer you to a nutritionist and diabetes educator.  https://www.diabeteseducator.org/
Those folks know their stuff... and they're cheaper than doctors.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 12:06:38 PM
On nutrition and weight loss the advice you get from most doctors these days is probably just as bad, if not worse, than the advice from naturopaths.

It's just not something they study. 

Maybe not, but what they do is refer you to a nutritionist and diabetes educator.  https://www.diabeteseducator.org/
Those folks know their stuff... and they're cheaper than doctors.

This is true. They do refer you to nutritionists and diabetes educators. And they indeed to know "their stuff."

But their stuff is not based on science.

What little science they cite to support their claims and practices came long after they began making their claims and doing their interventions; their most fundamental claims (avoid dietary cholesterol; avoid sodium; avoid saturated fats) have been debunked for years, yet they are only now starting to modify their practice and even then it's too little too late. Other claims and practices (eat whole grains; keep carbs at 45 to 65% of caloric intakes; follow a low-fat diet; avoid red meat) have also been debunked or were never supported by good science, and yet they show no sign of modifying their practices.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Johnny Slick on April 17, 2017, 12:24:16 PM
I just don't think there's an easy fix. If you want to lose weight, you need to burn more calories than you take in. Usually that's going to make you hungry or tired or both and these are perfectly natural reactions by your body to the situation you're putting it in. All I can say is that once you reach stasis it'll get a lot easier. Also, there are drugs out there that make you feel less hungry, so that might be a thing to try (on a *really* short term basis though; stimulants tend to have some really nasty side effects, especially if you abuse them) (although caffeine is one of those drugs). There are also diets like low-carb that restrict your food choices and as such make it harder to consume a lot of calories (low-carb can have a pretty big effect just because it makes you stay away from some of the worst sources of empty calories there are in the form of sweets and starchy foods) but you're going to be faced with the calories in, calories out conundrum. This particular site looks pretty BSy to me, no offense.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 01:13:49 PM
The assertion that LCHF is healthy, is a controversial one, with most health professionals recommending a balanced diet, and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific. There are also a few outliers at the other end recommending a low-fat diet, though that was more popular a few decades ago.

The conservation of energy is a bitch if you're trying to lose weight. Calories are a measure of the energy in food, and that energy has to go somewhere. You can poop it out undigested, but that's a tiny part of the calories you eat; you can burn it through metabolism; or you can store it as fat.

Increasing exercise is the healthy way to burn more calories, and has other benefits besides. There are chemical ways to increase metabolism but they are fraught with very nasty side effects and are addictive. At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Johnny Slick on April 17, 2017, 01:51:36 PM
The assertion that LCHF is healthy, is a controversial one, with most health professionals recommending a balanced diet, and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific. There are also a few outliers at the other end recommending a low-fat diet, though that was more popular a few decades ago.

The conservation of energy is a bitch if you're trying to lose weight. Calories are a measure of the energy in food, and that energy has to go somewhere. You can poop it out undigested, but that's a tiny part of the calories you eat; you can burn it through metabolism; or you can store it as fat.

Increasing exercise is the healthy way to burn more calories, and has other benefits besides. There are chemical ways to increase metabolism but they are fraught with very nasty side effects and are addictive. At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.
I think the controversial bit is that by getting into ketosis you enter this magical weight-losing paradigm in which you can eat all the steak you want or something and not lose weight. It's not *terribly* controversial that if you go to extreme measures to restrict your calories, you'll lose weight if you consume less than you use up. And anecdotally I've known a few guys who lost a *lot* of weight on Atkins. I do think that it has many of the same issues that other diets have - namely, that if you just use it to lose weight and then go off of it, you're probably going to gain that weight right back - but in the sense that it gets people to eat less, sure, it seems to work pretty well.

Also, it is all but impossible to lose weight only or primarily by exercising more. If you're very overweight and you can't work out strenuously for more than let's say half an hour, you might only burn 2-300 calories compared to your resting metabolism. And to make matters worse, it's been shown time and time again that people who work out, especially those who are kind of new to working out, tend to cut corners at other things (for instance, taking the elevator instead of walking up the stairs) so that a lot of the benefit of the exercise is mitigated. I mean, you *also* can't just expect to lose weight by dropping to 1000 calories a day - all a starvation diet is going to do is mess up your metabolism - but at the very least you need to do *both* the exercise and the diet if you want to lose weight, and I guess if you really, really wanted to dump one of them (which you shouldn't IMO). The ideal way, I guess, is to get yourself to a point that's close enough to stasis that you don't feel hungry all the time (or for that matter send your body crashing into starvation mode) but maybe still just a bit below and then just let the weight come off over time. We don't really live in a culture that approves of that, though, so it's tough.

Personally, I'm generally a fan of the idea that people should be more active just because it allows you to do more things in general. This applies whether you're morbidly obese or if you're HWP. Finding stuff that burns calories and elevates your heart rate is sometimes not easy and not fun but I think that most people would benefit from doing more of it.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 02:40:13 PM
Apparently, if you are sufficiently motivated to lose weight, pretty much any diet will work. As noted above, you just have to eat fewer calories than you burn. And of course, it's generally necessary to cut calories and exercise, both.

But there are people (including at least two regulars here) who assert that LCHF is a healthy diet overall, regardless of whether you're trying to lose weight or not. This is what I was referring to when I said that most health professionals disagree, and the LCHF proponents assert that such professionals are uneducated or unscientific.

Most dieters fail in the long term. Successful weight loss requires lifestyle changes, not diet plans.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 02:58:43 PM
The assertion that LCHF is healthy, is a controversial one, with most health professionals recommending a balanced diet, and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific.

Not sure how you can measure consensus here. There are a large number of health practitioners who are advocating LCHF diets. The ADA is including it in recommendations as a weightless strategy. It's the Low Fat diehard outliers (Dean Ornish) who are the only ones claiming it's unhealthy.

Quote
and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific.

In the field of nutrition. And the claim is supported by looking at the science. We embarked on a population-wide intervention without good science to support it (The Dietary Guidelines) and the result has been a hockey-stick like spike in rates of overweight; obesity; and T2D. Those guidelines and the practice of dietitians (who are not scientist and not health professionals) was not supported by science then or now or ever.

Quote
The conservation of energy is a bitch if you're trying to lose weight. Calories are a measure of the energy in food, and that energy has to go somewhere. You can poop it out undigested, but that's a tiny part of the calories you eat; you can burn it through metabolism; or you can store it as fat.

The idea you can poop out calories is very misleading. When the caloric content of food as reported on the labels is based on the Atwater values which account for the amount of calories in poop, urine, sweat, respiration, etc.

Quote
or you can store it as fat.

You can also build muscle and other lean tissue and store it that way.

Quote
Increasing exercise is the healthy way to burn more calories, and has other benefits besides.

Exercise is great for many health issues, but it's just not an effective way to burn more calories.

Quote
There are chemical ways to increase metabolism but they are fraught with very nasty side effects and are addictive. At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.


That's true. Both my sister and I went on Fenn/Phen for a time and both went off it before it was too late. A friend from high school died from heart damage caused by that diet drug. (She was trying to lose weight for our class reunion)

Quote
At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.

That is true for nearly every weightloss  strategy (including LCHF). To lose weight and keep it off one needs to make a lifelong lifestyle change.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Johnny Slick on April 17, 2017, 04:55:12 PM
Apparently, if you are sufficiently motivated to lose weight, pretty much any diet will work. As noted above, you just have to eat fewer calories than you burn. And of course, it's generally necessary to cut calories and exercise, both.

But there are people (including at least two regulars here) who assert that LCHF is a healthy diet overall, regardless of whether you're trying to lose weight or not. This is what I was referring to when I said that most health professionals disagree, and the LCHF proponents assert that such professionals are uneducated or unscientific.

Most dieters fail in the long term. Successful weight loss requires lifestyle changes, not diet plans.
Well, yeah, and that's why we're responding here, because if we don't then those two will just troll up the thread some more and make it look like skepticism = LCHF. I will say that I don't know that health professionals are necessarily saying that it's *unhealthy* either (although it probably is for some populations), just that it's not necessarily the *only* healthy choice when it comes to diet.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 05:44:43 PM
Apparently, if you are sufficiently motivated to lose weight, pretty much any diet will work. As noted above, you just have to eat fewer calories than you burn. And of course, it's generally necessary to cut calories and exercise, both.

But there are people (including at least two regulars here) who assert that LCHF is a healthy diet overall, regardless of whether you're trying to lose weight or not. This is what I was referring to when I said that most health professionals disagree, and the LCHF proponents assert that such professionals are uneducated or unscientific.

Most dieters fail in the long term. Successful weight loss requires lifestyle changes, not diet plans.
Well, yeah, and that's why we're responding here, because if we don't then those two will just troll up the thread some more and make it look like skepticism = LCHF.

I don't know what you're saying here. We can move the discussion to the LC diet ghetto threads or keep going here. 

Skeptisim is not equal to LCHF diets. There are plenty of LCHF advocates who I wouldn't call skeptics at all.

But I don't think a skeptic can be a believer in the theory and practice of diet and nutrition that dietitians are following in the US today, which adheres to the the previous (out dated) version of the USDA dietary guidelines and provides advice with zero support from science.

Quote
I will say that I don't know that health professionals are necessarily saying that it's *unhealthy* either (although it probably is for some populations), just that it's not necessarily the *only* healthy choice when it comes to diet.

I don't think I've ever said it was the *only* healthy choice when it comes to diet in general or even weightloss diet specifically. I have said for nearly everyone it's most likely to be the healthiest and most likely to be the most effective and should be the default option diet option provided.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 08:08:26 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 08:19:59 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.

None of this is relevant, of course. How many LCHF advocates are in these forums; your perception of how many; the number of health professionals you've spoken with are anecdotes of second and third hand evidence.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 18, 2017, 12:29:46 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.

None of this is relevant, of course. How many LCHF advocates are in these forums; your perception of how many; the number of health professionals you've spoken with are anecdotes of second and third hand evidence.



It's true that the number of LCHF advocates on this forum does not prove anything. But it is telling that among a community of skeptics, so few buy into the notion that all the major health organizations are so completely wrong on such an important matter.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 18, 2017, 01:41:35 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.

None of this is relevant, of course. How many LCHF advocates are in these forums; your perception of how many; the number of health professionals you've spoken with are anecdotes of second and third hand evidence.



It's true that the number of LCHF advocates on this forum does not prove anything. But it is telling that among a community of skeptics, so few buy into the notion that all the major health organizations are so completely wrong on such an important matter.

That's true. That might tell us something about the the community of skeptics here.

My opinion (which is just as relevant or irrelevant as yours) is that for the most part, medicine follows the science quite well, and while the scientific standards vary from field to field, for different reasons, for the most part you can rely on medicine to follow science fairly closely and come up with the best understanding/diagnoses/treatment and outcome.

But, nutrition is different. One of the basic tenants of nutrition science for the last 60 years or so (the lipid hypothesis; the diet heart hypothesis) was based on biased, cherry picked and epidemiological studies with no trials or experiments to support it. (7 Countries Study)

From there, a US Senate committee drafted the dietary guidelines (aka: Balanced diet; food pyramid; my plate). Those guidelines were drafted by a non-scientist, following a woo-vegetarian diet (not saying all vegetarian diets are woo, but his was). They were passed by the Senate and implemented over the objections of the government's own scientists, because they hadn't been tested or verified, nor had the underlying science. (and still haven't been to this day).

The result is that the US dietary guidelines are more influenced by political and commercial interests than by science or medicine.

Following the implementation of the USDA guidelines Americans changed their eating habits and consumed significantly more carbohydrates (as per the guidelines and their concept of "balance") and a significantly smaller percentage of calories from fat (as per the guidelines). 

The result of this population wide intervention has been an obesity epidemic. From newborns on up, and an epidemic in T2 Diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

Another result is that the medical and scientific communities, when concerned with diet (which, except for those in the field is best described as "casual") assume that the scientific standards for supporting the recommendations and guidelines are based on solid science, just like other areas of medicine. They're not.

And now nutrition science is a hot mess, and the USDA scientific advisory committee is recommending we ditch advice on macronutrient proportions in the dietary guidelines in favor of diets based on the weakest science (epidemiological studies) to develop healthy eating patterns.

The fact that the majority of skeptics here are skeptical of the current state of mainstream nutrition and science and how we got here tells us more about the majority of skeptics here than it does about the science.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Alex Simmons on April 18, 2017, 11:24:27 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9RfT7IWsAA-ATl.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 18, 2017, 11:45:10 PM
And that's part of the problem.


Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: DG on April 19, 2017, 01:23:49 AM
What I don't understand (and I am going to regret this) is how some can argue that calorie deficit is the only necessity but at the same time blame a particular approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

On any nutrition plan, if you eat more than you use - you look like me.

I have some colleagues and family members who have found success with the fasting mimicking diet (including one who has reversed a diabetes diagnosis). I neither endorse or reject this approach.

I have tried various approaches, the things that I find most difficult/impractical, is portion management and dining out (especially when calorie counting). Exercise is the easy bit (Additionally, I suspect, based on short term experiements, my metabolic rate is much lower than expected by calculators in the vicinity of 400cal per day).
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 19, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
What I don't understand (and I am going to regret this)

Why will you regret that question?

Quote
is how some can argue that calorie deficit is the only necessity but at the same time blame a particular approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

Your question has this backwards. I'm not claiming that calorie deficit is the only necessity, and I am blaming a specific approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

It's those who are claiming calorie deficit is the only necessity who are not blaming any specific approach.

Let's say you ate a perfectly energy balanced and nutritionally balanced diet. And suppose someone followed you around and gave you a dose of insulin after every meal, enough to lower your blood sugar by, say 10 points. What do you think would happen?

The extra insulin would force your body to store fat and would prevent your body from using stored fat. You would not have enough fuel to metabolize, so your body would signal you to bring in more energy (hunger) and would decrease your energy output (lethargy). Do that for a few years and, hey presto! obesity.

That's exactly what happens on a diet high in carbs, with significant fast simple carbs (sugars; processed flour; pasta). It is exactly the same effect. The response to the blood glucose spice that comes from a high carb diet with significant simple carbs is just like an injection of insulin.

Quote
On any nutrition plan, if you eat more than you use - you look like me.

Or Arnold Schwartzeneggar. Or Kareem Abdul Jabaar. The difference is that some of us store the extra energy in muscle and other lean tissue and some store it in fat.

The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet. The knee-jerk response is "energy surplus" or "calories in, calories out" but children, especially newborns, infants and toddlers, eat when they're hungry stop when they're full and they ate that way throughout human history up to today. 

Quote
I have some colleagues and family members who have found success with the fasting mimicking diet (including one who has reversed a diabetes diagnosis). I neither endorse or reject this approach.

I'm curious are you referring to the patented diet referred to in OP, or are you referring to intermittent fasting or one of the other diets that's been around for some time?

Quote
I have tried various approaches, the things that I find most difficult/impractical, is portion management and dining out (especially when calorie counting).

I'm guessing you haven't tried a LCHF Ketogenic diet. (Saying that, there are some that claim to be LCHF, but don't reduce carbs nearly enough for ketosis and allow too many simple carbs in the food mix.)

One advantage to that form of a weight loss diet is you eat when you're hungry, whenever you're hungry, and keep eating until you're full. You don't worry about portion control.

Quote
Exercise is the easy bit (Additionally, I suspect, based on short term experiements, my metabolic rate is much lower than expected by calculators in the vicinity of 400cal per day).

Right, but exercise doesn't help with weight loss much, if at all. (Though it does have other benefits)

As for your basal metabolic rate, it could well be off by that much. As in most of nutrition, it's not an exact science.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 19, 2017, 03:22:39 PM
... The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet.

Well, another plausible answer is diet AND exercise. When I was a kid, we used to play outside. Now kids play video games. And on the diet side, perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 19, 2017, 05:51:46 PM
... The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet.

Well, another plausible answer is diet AND exercise. When I was a kid, we used to play outside. Now kids play video games. And on the diet side, perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

I've never seen a toddler or a newborn play a video game.

The food environment is the answer.

Exercise is a good thing, but isn't effective in controlling weight as one would imagine.

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

As for adults, I don't think my either of my parents owned a pair of tennis shoes until later in life when they became physically active, and that anecdote is fairly typical for my generation.

Quote
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

Problem is blaming the obesity epidemic on "far too much fat" isn't supported by the evidence. Once the country got started on the low-fat fad, it took hold and exploded. Fat as a percentage of calories dropped and carbs, as a percentage of calories soared, especially the consumption of the worst carbs (sugars and refined grain products).

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: DG on April 19, 2017, 07:45:16 PM
(click to show/hide)
Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet. The knee-jerk response is "energy surplus" or "calories in, calories out" but children, especially newborns, infants and toddlers, eat when they're hungry stop when they're full and they ate that way throughout human history up to today. 
(click to show/hide)
One advantage to that form of a weight loss diet is you eat when you're hungry, whenever you're hungry, and keep eating until you're full. You don't worry about portion control.

(click to show/hide)

This may be a personally anomaly, but I have never had that point. As a baby, living off breast milk alone, I managed to get so fat that I was unable to breathe properly and was placed on a "diet" with measured portions. It caused my parents significant angst that I would constantly try to eat (and cry with hunger) at that age. Growing up, and into adulthood, I have had that same issue. I have never (in my recollection) gotten to the point that I did not desire to eat more food. The idea of "eating until full" is completely alien to me - I would just keep eating until the physical discomfort of the food in my digestive system before ceasing to feel the desire to eat more.

As I have gotten older I am trying to "learn" the difference between the desire for more food and being hungry, but I am really unable to do so. I am trying to convince myself that there is some line (even trying to tell myself that I never feel hungry, it's always just a desire for food). The only thing that worked for me, having tried various supervised and unsupervised dietary programs, was a strict portion and calorie controlled diet (lost some 30kgs). It's hard work and not really practical for long term sustainable eating (hence the issues identified above), but from what appears to be various limitations of my own philology (and perhaps psychology), it's the one that works for me.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 19, 2017, 08:36:09 PM

This may be a personally anomaly, but I have never had that point. As a baby, living off breast milk alone, I managed to get so fat that I was unable to breathe properly and was placed on a "diet" with measured portions. It caused my parents significant angst that I would constantly try to eat (and cry with hunger) at that age. Growing up, and into adulthood, I have had that same issue. I have never (in my recollection) gotten to the point that I did not desire to eat more food. The idea of "eating until full" is completely alien to me - I would just keep eating until the physical discomfort of the food in my digestive system before ceasing to feel the desire to eat more.

As I have gotten older I am trying to "learn" the difference between the desire for more food and being hungry, but I am really unable to do so. I am trying to convince myself that there is some line (even trying to tell myself that I never feel hungry, it's always just a desire for food). The only thing that worked for me, having tried various supervised and unsupervised dietary programs, was a strict portion and calorie controlled diet (lost some 30kgs). It's hard work and not really practical for long term sustainable eating (hence the issues identified above), but from what appears to be various limitations of my own philology (and perhaps psychology), it's the one that works for me.

Your anecdote is not anomalous. In fact it's fairly typical. Too typical.

Not to go too far into the weeds, but there is a hypothesis for exactly what you described.

It's basically insulin resistance. When your pancreas sees glucose it makes insulin. The insulin is expected to lower blood sugar and then insulin levels drop. It lowers the blood sugar by moving glucose into cells where it is burned or stored as glucagon.

If your body doesn't respond to the insulin by lowering blood sugar, then the pancreas produces more insulin.

And while your muscles and lean tissues may not be responding to the insulin by up taking more glucose, your fat cells are. Insulin causes your body's free fatty acids in circulation to be moved into fat cells and formed into triglycerides, which insulin prevents from breaking up. Triglycerides can't pass through cell membranes, so all the excess fat we store on our bodies is in the form of triglycerides held in cells by insulin.

So, little infant/child/teenager DG's body was confused, because the food environment our bodies evolved in did not equip us to handle this high carb food environment. Your muscles and lean tissue aren't getting enough glucose for fuel; you can't burn ketones or fat because the fat is being stored, so without enough readily available energy, your body tells you to eat more. You do eat more and the cycle continues and gets worse when you eat high carb foods.

It just so happens that most of the overweight and obese children we see today all have insulin resistance. It's a very strong correlation, and it was relatively rare before the obesity epidemic (<5% of the pop).

This is the most workable hypothesis that I've seen that explains everything but the root cause of insulin resistance. And that is a mystery that's being worked on.

I know you say you were born that way, and the insatiable hunger began before you ate your first donut, and you that's absolutely true. This began in utero.  You were directly effected by the high carb food environment your mother lived in. When her blood sugar rose, your blood sugar rose. When her insulin spiked, your insulin spiked. When her body stored more excess fat than it needed to your body stored excess, all in the womb. (And please don't think I'm blaming your mother, I am absolutely not. She was probably following the best mainstream medical advice and probably eating the foods and diets the doctors were telling her to eat. She is as much of a victim of the food environment as you.)

While I've been characterized here as some kind of woo-peddling crank, all of the above is perfectly in sync with the mainstream theories about nutrition and the role of insulin in regulating fat storage and energy transport. Not a spec of woo.

The part the mainstream doesn't agree with is:

Your scenario at every age (pregnancy; infancy; childhood; adolescence; adulthood) is where the LCHF Ketogenic diet does best (to a point). You eat the bare minimum of carbs, moderate protein and all the fat you want. Your blood sugar stays moderate; it never spikes. Your insulin stays low to moderate; low enough for your fat cells to release fat and for your liver to make ketones from fat.

Instead of being fueled nearly exclusively by glucose your body will be fueled by glucose, ketones and FFAs. The excess fat stored on your body will fairly rapidly burn away. You won't be hungry all the time and you'll have great food to eat when you do get hungry. And you can eat as much as you want.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: jt512 on April 19, 2017, 10:32:00 PM

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

Bullshit.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 20, 2017, 09:48:43 AM
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

What in the world are you talking about??? Look at the line you quoted:

"perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs."

I've added emphasis to draw your attention that I blamed both carbs and fat. The real emphasis of my statement, is that it's calories!

The real issue here is this: Who is better able to read the full literature on the subject and draw valid conclusions: A couple of posters on this board who are not medical professionals, or Dr. Novella and the entire medical profession? And note please that nobody outside of a few fringe outliers is still recommending a low-fat diet, so that's a straw man. Kids today are eating a lot more sugar than kids used to, and they are eating a lot more fat than kids used to, and they are getting a lot less exercise than they used to. It is indeed possible to lose weight without exercise, but it's much more difficult to do so. Caveat: There is genetic diversity: some people store fat easily, some burn calories easily. The former do well in times of famine; the latter do well in times of abundance. These people will gain weight, or lose it, respectively, pretty much regardless what they eat. The former will have great difficulty losing weight  in times of abundance; the latter will have great difficulty finding enough to survive in times of famine.

But it's still calories in vs. calories out. In early 21st century America people with high metabolism thrive, and people with low metabolism struggle. People with high metabolism can eat pretty much anything they like, and people with low metabolism need to exercise and apply great self-control in their portion sizes. And the majority somewhere in the middle have some difficulty both in times of famine and in times of abundance, and since we are in a time of abundance right now in North America, most of us need to control our portion sizes and exercise.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 20, 2017, 03:22:11 PM

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

Bullshit.

Since you didn't elaborate, I assume you're referring to that single review you linked to previously that looked at the results from several studies (none of which found a significant weight loss effect for exercise without dietary restrictions, BTW) and did an analysis using partial results from most (all?) of the studies which showed a modest weightless benefit from exercise. But even then, some (all?) of the studies they included did have dietary restrictions. The dieters were told not to increase calorie intake above baseline. So, even though exercise made them hungry, the dietary restrictions prevented them from behaving the way they would if they weren't being studied.

Also, it's interesting that the only science that actually supports the exercise to lose weight mantra that mainstream nutrition science has been preaching for more than 40 years, comes so late in the game.

What science was that advice based on from the 1970's through the 20-teens?

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 20, 2017, 03:42:55 PM
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

What in the world are you talking about??? Look at the line you quoted:

"perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs."

I've added emphasis to draw your attention that I blamed both carbs and fat. The real emphasis of my statement, is that it's calories!

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?
Quote

The real issue here is this: Who is better able to read the full literature on the subject and draw valid conclusions: A couple of posters on this board who are not medical professionals, or Dr. Novella and the entire medical profession?

I wouldn't listen to just me either. First, Dr. Novella is not a nutrition expert. That's not his specialty.  It is the specialty of Dr. Eric Westman, who runs the Obesity Clinic at Duke University; Dr. Richard Feinman (not that Feinman) who teaches biology at a New York university; Dr. Rober Lustig, who runs a juvenile obesity clinic and teaches at a San Francisco University; and numerous others.

It's like with climate change, we give more weight to the opinions of climate scientists than scientists in other fields, right? Shouldn't nutrition be the same?



Quote

And note please that nobody outside of a few fringe outliers is still recommending a low-fat diet, so that's a straw man.

I think you're misusing the word "outliers." That comes to statistics and refers to a few anomalous results far away from where the bulk of the results are.

Unless you know of some actual statistics on the opinions of Nutrition experts, outlier is the wrong word.

And, while it is true that low-fat weight loss diets have been found lacking, it's far more than a fringe who recommend them. Further, I was not speaking soley of low-fat weight loss diets but of the low-fat orientation of the dietary guidelines and general diet and nutrition advice that has been prevalent in the country since the 1970s.

And that is still going strong.

Quote
Kids today are eating a lot more sugar than kids used to, and they are eating a lot more fat than kids used to, and they are getting a lot less exercise than they used to.

And I'd like to see some actual data that supports those assertions. I agree that kids are consuming significantly more sugar. I do not agree that they are consuming significantly more fat.

Quote
It is indeed possible to lose weight without exercise, but it's much more difficult to do so.

And once again that claim has been studied and been debunked.

Quote
Caveat: There is genetic diversity: some people store fat easily, some burn calories easily. The former do well in times of famine; the latter do well in times of abundance. These people will gain weight, or lose it, respectively, pretty much regardless what they eat. The former will have great difficulty losing weight  in times of abundance; the latter will have great difficulty finding enough to survive in times of famine.

There is diversity, but genetics does not account for all of it, and there is doubt that it accounts for a significant amount of those differences.


Genetics is one of those special pleading that nutrition science uses to say "here be dragons and we can't do anything about it."

I would suggest that the genetic make-up of americans didn't not change between the 1950s and today to the extent that obesity rates went from <5% to over 50% and over-weight rates went from <15% to over 75%.

Quote
But it's still calories in vs. calories out. In early 21st century America people with high metabolism thrive, and people with low metabolism struggle. People with high metabolism can eat pretty much anything they like, and people with low metabolism need to exercise and apply great self-control in their portion sizes. And the majority somewhere in the middle have some difficulty both in times of famine and in times of abundance, and since we are in a time of abundance right now in North America, most of us need to control our portion sizes and exercise.

Yawn.

Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat.

And how are we supposed to manage caloric balance with kids? With newborns? With infants and toddlers? They are growing, they need to consume more calories than they burn in order to grow. How does the calories in vs. calories out mantra help us here?

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 20, 2017, 04:18:23 PM

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?

So you're upset because I put in a comma. Let me clarify: I regard excess carbs and excess fat equally. I admit that perhaps I should have left out the comma. You and I have no disagreement whatsoever concerning the negative health effects of excess carbs.

... Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat. ...

There's really no place else excess calories can go. If you don't burn them, you store them as fat.

Building muscle is a process that requires resistance work, and if you do that resistance work, and get enough protein, you'll build muscle, whether your calories came from carbs, fat, or both. But not even Arnie can go on building muscle forever. There comes a point when you have to return to caloric balance if you want to maintain your weight.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 20, 2017, 05:35:00 PM

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?

So you're upset because I put in a comma. Let me clarify: I regard excess carbs and excess fat equally. I admit that perhaps I should have left out the comma. You and I have no disagreement whatsoever concerning the negative health effects of excess carbs.

It's not the coma that shows the anti-fat bias it's the words in the context.  I see bias in this language.

Quote
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.
But if you say it wasn't intentional fine.
Quote
... Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat. ...

There's really no place else excess calories can go. If you don't burn them, you store them as fat.

Muscle? Lean tissue?

Quote
Building muscle is a process that requires resistance work, and if you do that resistance work, and get enough protein, you'll build muscle, whether your calories came from carbs, fat, or both. But not even Arnie can go on building muscle forever. There comes a point when you have to return to caloric balance if you want to maintain your weight.

Muscle (and other tissue) are always breaking down. (Looks at Arnold today). You need to constantly store calories as muscle in order to maintain.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Gerbig on April 20, 2017, 10:57:17 PM
Really, the only thing you can eat that doesnt result in your metabolism and other factors rising and falling is water.

Sugar free gum, calorie free things, even inedible objects result in your bodies digestive processes starting up, even if they dont do much.
I dont think the diet in the OP makes sense based on that.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on April 21, 2017, 10:30:33 AM
Muscle (and other tissue) are always breaking down. (Looks at Arnold today). You need to constantly store calories as muscle in order to maintain.
But you can only do that so much. Beyond that maintenance level, further excess calories still get stored as fat.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: The Latinist on April 21, 2017, 11:13:20 AM
But not if you reach the magical state of nirvana ketosis.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 21, 2017, 01:16:44 PM
But not if you reach the magical state of nirvana ketosis.

Even in the scientifically and medically documented state of nutritional ketosis, it's very difficult to reduce body fat percentage below a fairly reasonable threshold.

20 - 25%, for someone who was obese.

The higher one's peak body fat percentage, the higher the minimal stable body fat percentage would be.

This is not unique to LCHF Ketogenic diets, BTW. Even bariatric surgery patients report the same. Short of fasting (actual fasting not mimicking fasting) or lipo-suction I don't believe any diet plan can consistently do better.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: WeeDavie on May 19, 2017, 09:42:08 AM
Why is it always the same debate on ketosis by folk who have no knowledge of the actual science?

low carb - Low protein - High Fat diet triggers a unique metabolic state that causes the consumption of less calories and weight loss, its established science with dozens upon dozens of studies proving it. PubMed is your friend.

The trigger for vertebrates physiology to enter starvation is not the lack of food but the consumption of body fat, burn just body fat and the physiology goes into starvation mode and limits the intake of ones own body fat to a minimum. The state can be easily triggered by simply eating nothing but the rendered down body fat of other vertebrates i.e. lard. Then your appetite goes to a minimal and you lose weight without feeling very hungry.

It works, but its awful and adding protein into it does make it tasty but simply results in the excess protein being converted sugar, and the metabolic state being switched off again. That's why the Aitkens diet doesn't work and no-one in their right mind will pay someone to feed them nothing lard with vitamins and minerals in it but we can happily force mice to do it.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on May 19, 2017, 01:45:38 PM
Why is it always the same debate on ketosis by folk who have no knowledge of the actual science?

Well, there is a serious disagreement  on ketosis and diet and nutrition within the scientific community where one side (who currently seem to have the consensus opinion) refuse to even recognize that anyone who disagrees with them is anything but a crank and charlatan. (And, no, I'm not referring to myself, here, I'm referring to a large number of scientists, physicians (including many specializing in obesity), researchers and academicians who are critical of the consensus opinion and promote a well supported alternative theory). Yes, PubMed is your friend.

Quote
low carb - Low protein - High Fat diet triggers a unique metabolic state that causes the consumption of less calories and weight loss, its established science with dozens upon dozens of studies proving it.

I know of no one who's promoting a low carb - Low protein - High Fat diet. The LCHF diets promoted by Atkins, including ketogenic diets, all have moderate protein, not low protein.

To achieve moderate protein in practice is pretty simple. Avoid high protein, low fat foods. Most of the food and food combinations approved for those diets are high fat with moderate to high protein, but with other high fat foods, the net effect is moderate protein.

Quote
The trigger for vertebrates physiology to enter starvation is not the lack of food but the consumption of body fat, burn just body fat and the physiology goes into starvation mode and limits the intake of ones own body fat to a minimum. The state can be easily triggered by simply eating nothing but the rendered down body fat of other vertebrates i.e. lard. Then your appetite goes to a minimal and you lose weight without feeling very hungry.

No one is advocating a diet that causes one to "burn just body fat" (except those who advocate fasting and intermittent fasting). What's being advocated is a diet that keeps insulin levels moderate, and causes the body to release more stored fat than it stores. The body then burns the released fat, along with fat consumed, and moderate amounts of glucose from the small amounts consumed and the glucose converted from protein.

Starvation mode is not the same as nutritional ketosis.

Quote
It works, but its awful and adding protein into it does make it tasty but simply results in the excess protein being converted sugar, and the metabolic state being switched off again. That's why the Aitkens diet doesn't work and no-one in their right mind will pay someone to feed them nothing lard with vitamins and minerals in it but we can happily force mice to do it.

Also, Atkins is not being fed nothing but lard with vitamins and minerals.

Where do you get the idea that the Atkins diet doesn't work? It's been tested and shown to work as well or better than any other diet strategy. Again, pubmed is your friend too.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 26, 2017, 02:10:54 AM
Just fast.  Time tested and works a treat, even if one is not trying to lose weight. 

I like an eight hour eating window.   I eat as much as I like, weight stable, lots of energy and very healthy mitochondria.  Easy. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 26, 2017, 03:42:37 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 26, 2017, 05:19:29 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

I'm healthy. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on May 26, 2017, 07:43:26 AM
Such impeccable logic.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 26, 2017, 08:20:17 PM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

I'm healthy.

(http://i.imgur.com/l7mefs2.gif)
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 27, 2017, 04:03:55 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 27, 2017, 09:53:34 PM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 28, 2017, 12:47:52 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.

Mitochondria benefit from autophagy. Intermittent fasting encourages autophagy. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 28, 2017, 02:22:45 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.

Mitochondria benefit from autophagy. Intermittent fasting encourages autophagy.
Again, this is an answer to a question I did not ask.

The question I asked was "how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?"

You might be doing all of the things that are supposed to benefit the health of your mitochondria, and yet they're still unhealthy because of something else. My question was how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy? You claim that they are healthy, which means that you must have some method of determining or measuring their health. What is that method?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 28, 2017, 05:10:28 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.

Mitochondria benefit from autophagy. Intermittent fasting encourages autophagy.
Again, this is an answer to a question I did not ask.

The question I asked was "how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?"

You might be doing all of the things that are supposed to benefit the health of your mitochondria, and yet they're still unhealthy because of something else. My question was how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy? You claim that they are healthy, which means that you must have some method of determining or measuring their health. What is that method?

I am not about to wait 50 years for peer reviewed publications to decide what will protect my health.  I will use methods that seem to be effective and be very sceptical of what passes as conventional good advice.  It isn't difficult to poke holes in the low fat, whole grains, calories in calories out, lower your cholesterol arguments. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 28, 2017, 05:41:44 AM
I am not about to wait 50 years for peer reviewed publications to decide what will protect my health.  I will use methods that seem to be effective and be very sceptical of what passes as conventional good advice.  It isn't difficult to poke holes in the low fat, whole grains, calories in calories out, lower your cholesterol arguments.

Well, for a start, you should. How else do you know what's real and what's just a scam?

Also, thank you for acknowledging that you actually don't have a method for measuring the health of your mitochondria, and that earlier when you claimed that your mitochondria are healthy it was based not on evidence but on supposition, assumption and hope.
Title: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 06, 2017, 10:01:18 AM
I find this quite amusing. It is very well documented that the dietary guidelines lines used in the US and then around the world for the last fifty years were drafted by non-scientists then implemented in law because we didn't have time to wait for the science to come in. Now after following the same guidelines has not only failed to protect us from the chronic diseases they were intended to, they have made those diseases worse and caused increases in other chronic diseases, some to epidemic proportions. Yet someone is being criticized here for not waiting 50 years for the science to stop following those same guidelines.


Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on June 06, 2017, 11:21:56 AM
I find this quite amusing. It is very well documented that the dietary guidelines lines used in the US and then around the world for the last fifty years were drafted by non-scientists then implemented in law because we didn't have time to wait for the science to come in. Now after following the same guidelines has not only failed to protect us from the chronic diseases they were intended to, they have made those diseases worse and caused increases in other chronic diseases, some to epidemic proportions. Yet someone is being criticized here for not waiting 50 years for the science to stop following those same guidelines.

Your mileage may vary.

Have the dietary guidelines caused our present health woes, or has the failure of people to adhere to those guidelines caused them? I'm not sure that eating vast quantities of fast food, french fries, breakfast cereals made primarily of sugar, and drinking gallons of soda pop while getting virtually no exercise is entirely within conformity to the guidelines.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 06, 2017, 03:51:57 PM
I find this quite amusing. It is very well documented that the dietary guidelines lines used in the US and then around the world for the last fifty years were drafted by non-scientists then implemented in law because we didn't have time to wait for the science to come in. Now after following the same guidelines has not only failed to protect us from the chronic diseases they were intended to, they have made those diseases worse and caused increases in other chronic diseases, some to epidemic proportions. Yet someone is being criticized here for not waiting 50 years for the science to stop following those same guidelines.

Your mileage may vary.

Have the dietary guidelines caused our present health woes, or has the failure of people to adhere to those guidelines caused them? I'm not sure that eating vast quantities of fast food, french fries, breakfast cereals made primarily of sugar, and drinking gallons of soda pop while getting virtually no exercise is entirely within conformity to the guidelines.

No. The population in general has changed its eating patterns and are largely in line with the dietary guidelines. This has also been documented.

People don't get fat because they eat vast quantities of food. People eat more and more food because they get fatter and fatter. Most people become obese by adding 5 to 10 lbs per year (five at first, 10 later.) That's 40 to 80 extra calories per day.

Breakfast cereals, where the calories come mostly from sugar and other carbs are perfectly within the scope of the dietary guidelines, as are sweetened carbonated beverages, french fries and nearly every meal menu at fast food restaurants is compliant with the dietary guidelines.

 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 06, 2017, 04:05:59 PM
sweetened carbonated beverages, french fries and nearly every meal menu at fast food restaurants is compliant with the dietary guidelines.
[citation needed]
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 06, 2017, 04:32:37 PM
sweetened carbonated beverages, french fries and nearly every meal menu at fast food restaurants is compliant with the dietary guidelines.
[citation needed]

So, I'm responding to a comment made with no citation or reference of even a suggestion of such, but you need a citation from me, but are fine with the unsubstantiated claim I'm responding to. Right?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 06, 2017, 06:09:44 PM
You're the one making the extraordinary claim, so yes, I'm asking for you to provide a citation.

If you want someone else to do so as well, go ahead and ask for a citation. I'm not stopping you.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on June 06, 2017, 07:03:33 PM
As for me, I didn't make a claim. I stated an opinion. That is, I don't think that the horrid American diet is within the guidelines. I am open to being corrected upon presentation of evidence. If it turns out that I am wrong, and a diet of sugar and French fries is within the guidelines, then I will argue that the guidelines are wrong. But again, I am of the opinion that the guidelines call for eating lots of fruits and veggies, and a wide variety of foods in moderation, what I would call a balanced diet.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 06, 2017, 07:48:56 PM
As for me, I didn't make a claim. I stated an opinion.

That doesn't get anyone off the hook.

Quote
That is, I don't think that the horrid American diet is within the guidelines.

That is a claim. 

Quote
I am open to being corrected upon presentation of evidence.


So it's only an opinion, not based on fact and not supported by any evidence, but if anyone wants to discuss it with you they have to present evidence. Got it.

Quote
If it turns out that I am wrong, and a diet of sugar and French fries is within the guidelines, then I will argue that the guidelines are wrong.

Yes, you are wrong and yes the dietary guidelines are wrong.

It's hard to get a good result if you ignore science, and that's exactly what was done when the guidelines were first drafted by a US Senate staffer (a non-scientist). They were passed out of committee and became law over the objections of the government science advisors. There was no evidence to support them then, in the intervening years they have not been supported by science, and, to the contrary, science directly contradicts many parts of the guidelines.

Quote
But again, I am of the opinion that the guidelines call for eating lots of fruits and veggies, and a wide variety of foods in moderation, what I would call a balanced diet.


The guidelines have changed in recent years. They have always called for fruits and vegetables. French fries (which they count as a vegetable) have always been included, and it's only very very recently that they have suggested that sugar be limited. (Actually I don't think the current guidelines limit sugar, I think the scientific advisory committee recommends the new guidelines limit sugar but I don't think the new guidelines are complete yet.)


As for "balance" under the guidelines you can eat 65% of your calories from carbs, and that's pretty hard to do without a lot of sugar and or flour.

Basically they're balancing something that you don't need to consume at all (carbs) with things that have made up the bulk of the human diet (fat and protein) until fairly recently.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 06, 2017, 08:04:21 PM
So no actual citations. Gotcha.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 06, 2017, 09:06:26 PM
sweetened carbonated beverages, french fries and nearly every meal menu at fast food restaurants is compliant with the dietary guidelines.
[citation needed]

Which claim do you consider extraordinary?

I know you're a relative new comer here, a ways back we actually covered this topic before and after multiple sources, including someone downloading the macdonalds menu and analyzing the nutrition data.

The short answer was that their typical meal had more sodium than the guidelines called for, but beyond that they were well within the guideline parameters.

People don't get obese by eating too much salt. (Except that makes them thirsty and they buy more sugar-sweetened soft drinks).
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 06, 2017, 09:18:29 PM
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find the post where that happened.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 06, 2017, 10:02:38 PM

McDonald's Nutrition Facts
https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1

Here's a fairly typical McDonald's meal. Big Mac, large fries, medium Dr. Pepper.

None of the values are totally out of line with the dietary guidelines, and the key point is the macro-nutrient proportions (carbs/fat/protein) fit the guidelines to a tee.

This meal is obesigenic.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 06, 2017, 11:02:26 PM

McDonald's Nutrition Facts
https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1

Here's a fairly typical McDonald's meal. Big Mac, large fries, medium Dr. Pepper.

None of the values are totally out of line with the dietary guidelines, and the key point is the macro-nutrient proportions (carbs/fat/protein) fit the guidelines to a tee.

This meal is obesigenic.
How is it not out of line with dietary guidelines to get 80% of your daily fat allowance (and 68% for saturated fat), along with more than half your carbs, in one meal?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 06, 2017, 11:11:16 PM

McDonald's Nutrition Facts
https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1

Here's a fairly typical McDonald's meal. Big Mac, large fries, medium Dr. Pepper.

None of the values are totally out of line with the dietary guidelines, and the key point is the macro-nutrient proportions (carbs/fat/protein) fit the guidelines to a tee.

This meal is obesigenic.
How is it not out of line with dietary guidelines to get 80% of your daily fat allowance (and 68% for saturated fat), along with more than half your carbs, in one meal?

That's pretty much how people eat. Not all meals are the same size.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 12:10:47 AM
Nobody typically eats a lunch that's five times bigger than their other two meals combined, but that's what they'd need to do to avoid exceeding the recommended amount of fat.

And you claimed the micronutrient ratios were right on the dot, but last I checked 57 was not the same as 80, so you'll have to explain what you mean by that. If 100% of the fat recommendation means not getting enough protein or total calories, it would seem that the proportions in fact do not fit the guidelines to a tee.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 12:33:01 AM
Nobody typically eats a lunch that's five times bigger than their other two meals combined, but that's what they'd need to do to avoid exceeding the recommended amount of fat.

And you claimed the micronutrient ratios were right on the dot, but last I checked 57 was not the same as 80, so you'll have to explain what you mean by that. If 100% of the fat recommendation means not getting enough protein or total calories, it would seem that the proportions in fact do not fit the guidelines to a tee.

People often eat a dinner larger than their other two meals, people often skip breakfast, and no, your math is all wrong. The lunch doesn't have to be 5 times bigger than the other meals.

Plus, this is for a 2000k calories per day that's the RDA for a fairly small person. (RDA, by the way, is not the same as the Dietary Guidelines).

As for the macronutrient ratios, they are right on the dot. I have no idea what your saying about 57  and 80. I wasn't saying the macronutrient proportions in the McDonalds menu were equal. I was saying they were perfectly in line with the macronutrient proportions recommended in the dietary guidelines.

From the dietary guidelines:

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf

taBle 2-4. recommended Macronutrient Proportions by age

Young children (1–3 years)
carbohydrate: 45–65%
Protein: 5–20%
Fat: 30–40%

Older children and adolescents (4–18 years)
carbohydrate: 45–65%
Protein: 10–30%
Fat: 25–35%

Adults (19 years and older)
carbohydrate: 45–65%
Protein: 10–35%
Fat: 20–35%

Source: Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 07:32:24 AM
Okay, four times larger rather than five times larger. That's still a much bigger difference between lunch and dinner than is typical.

And I mentioned the percentages of RDA because if the nutrient proportion was equal to the recommended amounts, then the percentages would be the same. I thought I clarified that when I further pointed out how getting to 100% for fat wouldn't be enough of anything else.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: jt512 on June 07, 2017, 08:07:45 AM

McDonald's Nutrition Facts
https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1 (https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1)

Here's a fairly typical McDonald's meal. Big Mac, large fries, medium Dr. Pepper.

None of the values are totally out of line with the dietary guidelines, and the key point is the macro-nutrient proportions (carbs/fat/protein) fit the guidelines to a tee.

This meal is obesigenic.

Of course it's obsesigenic.  It contains 63% of an average person's daily energy requirements.  How many times a day can you eat a meal that big and not get fat?  Yet that is pretty much what many Americans eat three times a day.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 10:22:12 AM
Okay, four times larger rather than five times larger. That's still a much bigger difference between lunch and dinner than is typical.
No, your error is assuming that the proportions of this meal would be identical to all the other meals.
Quote
And I mentioned the percentages of RDA because if the nutrient proportion was equal to the recommended amounts, then the percentages would be the same. I thought I clarified that when I further pointed out how getting to 100% for fat wouldn't be enough of anything else.

Again, the RDA is not the same as the dietary guidelines. You're comparing an exact recommendation (number of grams of each macronutrient) to a range of percentages for each macronutrient.

My point was that the MacDonalds menus were designed to meet the Dietary Guidelines. They were. I didn't mention the RDA.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 10:43:53 AM
I explained what I meant about percentages because you didn't understand it the first time.

And if all meals comply with guidelines, all meals would have similar fractions of nutrients.

But fine just consider one at a time. It's still unreasonable to assume people get 80% of their daily fat from a meal with only half their daily calories.

Also that meal is more than 35% fat by calories.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 10:55:39 AM

McDonald's Nutrition Facts
https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1 (https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1)

Here's a fairly typical McDonald's meal. Big Mac, large fries, medium Dr. Pepper.

None of the values are totally out of line with the dietary guidelines, and the key point is the macro-nutrient proportions (carbs/fat/protein) fit the guidelines to a tee.

This meal is obesigenic.

Of course it's obsesigenic.  It contains 63% of an average person's daily energy requirements.  How many times a day can you eat a meal that big and not get fat?  Yet that is pretty much what many Americans eat three times a day.

Again, this is for a 2,000 cal diet.

Here is a description of a normal BMI male, whose RDA would be 2,000 calories:

Quote
A 35 year old man, 4ft 6in / 137cm tall, with a weight of 100.0lbs. A somewhat active lifestyle.
Body Mass Index (BMI): 24.2

The "normal" BMI for an adult man of that height is 18.5 to 24.9.

Daily Energy Expenditure:    2017 kcal   ( 8445 kJ)

And, again, the claim is not that the menu is consistent with the RDA, but with the dietary guidelines, specifically with the macronutrient proportions of the dietary guidelines.

Try this, calculate your height, weight and activity level and see what your daily calories requirements are.

Here are mine:

Quote
You are a 58 year old man, 6ft 0in / 183cm tall, with a current weight of 195.0lbs. You lead an active lifestyle.

Body Mass Index (BMI): 26.4
 
The "normal" BMI for an adult man of your height is 18.5 to 24.9. This translates to a healthy weight range of 137 to 184 lbs.

Daily Energy Expenditure:    3064 kcal   ( 12828 kJ)

BMI & Calorie Calculator
http://nutritiondata.self.com/tools/calories-burned

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 11:14:57 AM
I explained what I meant about percentages because you didn't understand it the first time.

I did understand it, but your were wrong and I pointed out your were wrong and you didn't understand (perhaps because these details about nutrition are new to you?) or refused to admit you made a mistake.

Quote
And if all meals comply with guidelines, all meals would have similar fractions of nutrients.

No, because the Dietary Guidelines provide a wide range percentage of calories from the various macronutrients. For carbs it's between 45 and 65%. My claim is that menus meet the proportions of the foods in the Dietary Guidelines. You're comparing them to the RDA which is not the same.

Quote
But fine just consider one at a time. It's still unreasonable to assume people get 80% of their daily fat from a meal with only half their daily calories.

And, again, that's assuming a 2,000 calorie per day diet. Most people require more calories. (see my post above)
Quote
Also that meal is more than 35% fat by calories.

Well, you got me there, sort of. That's 35.5% of 1260 calorie meal. Of course, with nutrition, and they're always rounding off.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 12:31:37 PM
I explained what I meant about percentages because you didn't understand it the first time.

I did understand it
When you say, "I have no idea what your saying", you don't get to be surprised when people believe you didn't understand something.

Quote
your were wrong and I pointed out your were wrong and you didn't understand (perhaps because these details about nutrition are new to you?) or refused to admit you made a mistake.
I did understand what you said, about how the guidelines you're talking about aren't the same as the RDA values. As I explained right there in the bit you quoted, I reiterated the point about percentages because you said you had "no idea" what I was saying, so I wanted to clarify that. Yes, I was clarifying a part of my post about RDA values, and yes I know that's not what you were talking about, but I thought I would nevertheless be helpful and explain something you clearly didn't understand, because, once again, that's what "I have no idea what your saying" indicates.

Quote
Quote
But fine just consider one at a time. It's still unreasonable to assume people get 80% of their daily fat from a meal with only half their daily calories.
And, again, that's assuming a 2,000 calorie per day diet. Most people require more calories. (see my post above)
Fine, then let's talk about a 2500 Cal/day diet. This meal is half their daily calories but 64% of their daily fat RDA. (And yes, I still know that the guidelines and RDA are not the same.)

Quote
Quote
Also that meal is more than 35% fat by calories.
Well, you got me there, sort of. That's 35.5% of 1260 calorie meal. Of course, with nutrition, and they're always rounding off.
37%, but apparently typing numbers correctly into a calculator is beyond you.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 01:00:07 PM
Source: Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids.
That source (https://www.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fnic_uploads//energy_full_report.pdf) has some other interesting things to say.

For example, for someone with a 2800 Calorie daily intake, a maximum of 72g of added sugars complies with the food guide pyramid. A single medium soda has about 60g, and a large Coke at McDonald's has 77g. So fast food meals don't comply with the guidelines for sugar, even for someone burning 2800 Calories per day, even for someone who eats very little sugar apart from that one soda.

The 52g of fat in the meal you posted accounts for 56% of what a 2800 Cal/day diet should include, but only 45% of the total calories that person needs. The rest of those calories would have to come in at 24% from fat in order to comply, which is difficult to do with fast food.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: jt512 on June 07, 2017, 01:08:16 PM

McDonald's Nutrition Facts
https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1 (https://fastfoodnutrition.org/calcresults?rest=10&items%5B%5D=1889_1&items%5B%5D=1819_1&items%5B%5D=1904_1)

Here's a fairly typical McDonald's meal. Big Mac, large fries, medium Dr. Pepper.

None of the values are totally out of line with the dietary guidelines, and the key point is the macro-nutrient proportions (carbs/fat/protein) fit the guidelines to a tee.

This meal is obesigenic.

Of course it's obsesigenic.  It contains 63% of an average person's daily energy requirements.  How many times a day can you eat a meal that big and not get fat?  Yet that is pretty much what many Americans eat three times a day.

Again, this is for a 2,000 cal diet.

Here is a description of a normal BMI male, whose RDA would be 2,000 calories:

Quote
A 35 year old man, 4ft 6in / 137cm tall, with a weight of 100.0lbs. A somewhat active lifestyle.
Body Mass Index (BMI): 24.2

The "normal" BMI for an adult man of that height is 18.5 to 24.9.

Daily Energy Expenditure:    2017 kcal   ( 8445 kJ)

And, again, the claim is not that the menu is consistent with the RDA, but with the dietary guidelines, specifically with the macronutrient proportions of the dietary guidelines.

Try this, calculate your height, weight and activity level and see what your daily calories requirements are.

Here are mine:

Quote
You are a 58 year old man, 6ft 0in / 183cm tall, with a current weight of 195.0lbs. You lead an active lifestyle.

Body Mass Index (BMI): 26.4
 
The "normal" BMI for an adult man of your height is 18.5 to 24.9. This translates to a healthy weight range of 137 to 184 lbs.

Daily Energy Expenditure:    3064 kcal   ( 12828 kJ)

BMI & Calorie Calculator
http://nutritiondata.self.com/tools/calories-burned (http://nutritiondata.self.com/tools/calories-burned)

Ok, so using that calculator I get 2300 kcal for a rather average, sedentary male, and 1800 for kcal for a rather average, sedentary female, which averages out to 2050 lb, which proves my point: for the average person, a diet comprising meals like the McDonalds meal you posted is "obesigenic" for the same reason that any "obesigenic" diet is "obesigenic."  It contains too many calories.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: jt512 on June 07, 2017, 01:15:20 PM
Guys, it is nonsensical to talk about whether a single meal complies with the US dietary guidelines, because the guidelines are for a whole diet, not a single meal.  You can eat a McDonalds meal and still be within the guidelines if you compensate for all the saturated fat, sugar, etc. the rest of the day.  On the other hand, if that McDonalds meal is typical of the meals you eat, then your diet will be be (way) outside the guidelines.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 01:26:22 PM
Source: Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids.
That source (https://www.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fnic_uploads//energy_full_report.pdf) has some other interesting things to say.

First, it's kind of interesting, that the USDA dietary guidelines use that source as a source for their macronutrient proportions, because that source uses the USDA dietary guidelines as a source for their macronutrient proportions.


Quote
For example, for someone with a 2800 Calorie daily intake, a maximum of 72g of added sugars complies with the food guide pyramid. A single medium soda has about 60g, and a large Coke at McDonald's has 77g. So fast food meals don't comply with the guidelines for sugar, even for someone burning 2800 Calories per day, even for someone who eats very little sugar apart from that one soda.

Again, that is not the USDA dietary guidelines. That is a recommendation that is compatible with the dietary guidelines, as is the menu at McDonalds.

I am not claiming the menu at McDonalds is compatible with the RDA.


Quote
The 52g of fat in the meal you posted accounts for 56% of what a 2800 Cal/day diet should include, but only 45% of the total calories that person needs. The rest of those calories would have to come in at 24% from fat in order to comply, which is difficult to do with fast food.

Maybe you want to read what you type before you post, unless you think that makes any sense at all.

(Unless, of course, you're still basing your comments on the RDA rather than the USDA Dietary Guidelines, in which case don't bother.)
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 01:31:13 PM
Quote
The 52g of fat in the meal you posted accounts for 56% of what a 2800 Cal/day diet should include, but only 45% of the total calories that person needs. The rest of those calories would have to come in at 24% from fat in order to comply, which is difficult to do with fast food.
Maybe you want to read what you type before you post, unless you think that makes any sense at all.
What part of that do you need more carefully explained?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 01:38:06 PM
Guys, it is nonsensical to talk about whether a single meal complies with the US dietary guidelines, because the guidelines are for a whole diet, not a single meal.  You can eat a McDonalds meal and still be within the guidelines if you compensate for all the saturated fat, sugar, etc. the rest of the day.  On the other hand, if that McDonalds meal is typical of the meals you eat, then your diet will be be (way) outside the guidelines.

No, not really. If you calculate your BMR and from that derive your daily caloric intake, you could, without much effort, eat three meals a day at McDonalds and remain within the parameters of the dietary guidelines for calories and macronutrient proportions.

You could also, without much effort, order food that puts you outside the guidelines, of course.

 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 01:44:22 PM
Quote

Ok, so using that calculator I get 2300 kcal for a rather average, sedentary male, and 1800 for kcal for a rather average, sedentary female, which averages out to 2050 lb, which proves my point: for the average person, a diet comprising meals like the McDonalds meal you posted is "obesigenic" for the same reason that any "obesigenic" diet is "obesigenic."  It contains too many calories.

Please provide the rest of the details for those. (Height, weight, BMI).

And, no, you never average caloric intake for two different individuals to arrive at a single intake.

And, for that meal to be considered too high in calories you have to assume that the rest of the food eaten during that day contains a specific amount of calories.

Also, if you substitute a medium fries for the large fries, all of these issues disappear. The fat content is well below the the Dietary Guidelines percentage and the calories drop significantly.

But, it's still obesigenic.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 01:47:53 PM
Quote
The 52g of fat in the meal you posted accounts for 56% of what a 2800 Cal/day diet should include, but only 45% of the total calories that person needs. The rest of those calories would have to come in at 24% from fat in order to comply, which is difficult to do with fast food.
Maybe you want to read what you type before you post, unless you think that makes any sense at all.
What part of that do you need more carefully explained?

Well, first, are you basing that on the RDA or the Dietary Guidelines. Or do you even know the difference?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 02:23:19 PM
I'm basing that on the source I linked to in the post. I would have thought that was fairly obvious but I guess in the future I'll try to spell it out more clearly.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 02:28:28 PM
I'm basing that on the source I linked to in the post. I would have thought that was fairly obvious but I guess in the future I'll try to spell it out more clearly.

So not the USDA Dietary Guidelines. Got it.

My claim was the USDA Dietary Guidelines were used for the menus (and to be spell it out for you, the dietary guidelines that were in effect from the 70s through 2010, I'm not blaming guidelines that had been adjusted after the fact for the obesity epidemic).
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 02:35:09 PM
Are you saying the USDA Food Guide Pyramid does not comply with the USDA Dietary Guidelines?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 02:38:47 PM
(Also, we're allowed to discuss more than one thing. I incorrectly assumed that by explicitly linking to the source I was discussing, it would be clear that that was what I was talking about.)
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 04:46:49 PM
Are you saying the USDA Food Guide Pyramid does not comply with the USDA Dietary Guidelines?

No
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 04:48:49 PM
(Also, we're allowed to discuss more than one thing. I incorrectly assumed that by explicitly linking to the source I was discussing, it would be clear that that was what I was talking about.)

So now we're talking about three things? The dietary guidelines; RDA; the Food Pyramid. (FWIW, the food pyramid is long been deprecated, but it inflicted plenty of damage on our health back in the day).
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 04:57:05 PM
Are you saying the USDA Food Guide Pyramid does not comply with the USDA Dietary Guidelines?

No
Then why is a description of pyramid-based food intake off topic in an argument about the dietary guidelines?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 05:15:30 PM
Are you saying the USDA Food Guide Pyramid does not comply with the USDA Dietary Guidelines?

No
Then why is a description of pyramid-based food intake off topic in an argument about the dietary guidelines?

The food pyramid is a visual representation of the the dietary guidelines.

(Also, FWIW, I don't think the source you linked to was the food pyramid, it referenced the food pyramid.)

But the reason it's off topic in this discussion is that I made a very specific claim, that fast food restaurants have adapted their menus to fit the Dietary Guidelines. You asked for evidence and I provided it.

You have repeated question the evidence with claims that it violated the RDA, which is a different thing than the Dietary Guidelines. That has become a straw man in this discussion.

Now you're shifting to a the Food Pyramid (which I'd be happy to discuss) but it's still moving further away from the claim that McDonalds and other fast food restaurants adjusted their menus to meet the dietary guidelines.

I also see that I made a mistake in the sample menu I provided, using a large fries instead of a medium fries.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 05:43:30 PM
Sure, if you reduce portion sizes, fast food meals become healthier. That's no surprise.

However, the fact that it's possible to have meals at McDonald's that fit a set of guidelines is not evidence that the menu was adapted for those guidelines, nor is it evidence that most fast food meals fit them (though of course most individual meals from any source can be part of a total diet that does fit).

And I know the document I listed wasn't just the food pyramid. I'm not sure how you think that's relevant. This forum isn't the dietary guidelines, but that doesn't mean it can't contain true statements about them.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 06:00:19 PM
Sure, if you reduce portion sizes, fast food meals become healthier. That's no surprise.

However, the fact that it's possible to have meals at McDonald's that fit a set of guidelines is not evidence that the menu was adapted for those guidelines, nor is it evidence that most fast food meals fit them (though of course most individual meals from any source can be part of a total diet that does fit).

And I know the document I listed wasn't just the food pyramid. I'm not sure how you think that's relevant. This forum isn't the dietary guidelines, but that doesn't mean it can't contain true statements about them.

Again, I thought you were trying to refute my claim, but using another source and another set of parameters, again.

As it is, my claim pretty much stands.

Beyond that, the document you listed simply referred to the food pyramid, you were mistaking that work with the pyramid itself, which was on its way out when that document was published.

As far as the limits on added sugars go, those were only introduced after they year 2000. Too little, too late. The damage had already been done.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 06:08:45 PM
I was not mistaking anything for anything else. I don't know what you think "the pyramid itself" would look like as a thousand-page document, but for my part I was and am aware that the document I linked wasn't it.

Your claim that most fast food meals fit the guidelines isn't confirmed with one example of one fast food meal that (almost) does, and neither is your claim that restaurants adapted their meals to fit.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 07:39:05 PM
I was not mistaking anything for anything else. I don't know what you think "the pyramid itself" would look like as a thousand-page document, but for my part I was and am aware that the document I linked wasn't it.

Of course, you're never wrong. Although you did refer to your link as the pyramid and based on the pyramid (neither is true) but go ahead and deflect and deny.


(click to show/hide)

The food pyramid was introduced in the early 90s and was been replaced twice and has been removed. It's interesting that the first version had Fruits and Vegetables at the base but the USDA changed that to grains as a result of political pressure.

That's some scientific method you're defending here.

Quote
Your claim that most fast food meals fit the guidelines isn't confirmed with one example of one fast food meal that (almost) does, and neither is your claim that restaurants adapted their meals to fit.

As far as the macronutrient proportions it is. Twice now I corrected my example. I used large fries instead of medium. If you make that change it fits well within the parameters of the Dietary Guidelines.

In addition to their menus many of the fast food places, including McDonalds have meal plans and healthy eating guides which suggest food combinations that fully comply with the dietary guidelines and they have updated them (and their menus) as new guidelines are released.

The other issue is, of course the obesity epidemic. While the guidelines were first published in 1980, the fundamentals of the guidelines were know by the mid-70s, when the fat phobia began in earnest.

But for all this quibbling about the calories of the meals going over the dietary recommendations, they never had calorie recommendations until 2000. Just vague warning about not eating too much. And even then there wasn't specific information for various body types until 2005.

So for the first 25 to 30 years of the dietary recommendations being publicized and adapted in the US, there were no calorie limits included.


Dietary Guidelines Through the Decades


DG 1985
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/DG1985pub.pdf

1990_DGA_Brochure
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/1990_DGA_Brochure.pdf

1995 DG Consumer Brochure
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/1995DGConsumerBrochure.pdf

Dietary Guidelines -- 2000 | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Dietary-Guidelines-2000

DG overview
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/2000DGSummaryTable.pdf

2000 DG BrochureHowMuch

https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/2000DGBrochureHowMuch.pdf

Dietary Guidelines -- 2005 | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines-2005

Dietary Guidelines -- 2010
| Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines-2010

Dietary Guidelines for Americans - History
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/history.htm

Dietary Guidelines -- Previous Guidelines | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/1980thin.pdf
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 08:10:48 PM
I've never defended the pyramid or any other part of the entire body of recommendations the USDA has made over the years.

I've also never claimed the document I listed was entirely restricted to analysis of the pyramid or any other particular USDA guidelines.

I merely pointed out that, according to said document (which as you may recall, you listed as the ultimate source of the nutrient ratio guidelines you quoted), a person who eats 2800 Cal/day and who follows the Food Guide Pyramid would stick to those amounts of fat and added sugar, and that the meal you linked to (or even just the soda portion of it) would not be compatible with those amounts.

If you want to argue that that is not relevant to your claim, then fine, but please stop pretending it's because I don't understand that what I linked to isn't the Food Guide Pyramid or because I think the USDA has only ever made good and healthy science-based sets of guidelines.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 08:35:13 PM
I've never defended the pyramid or any other part of the entire body of recommendations the USDA has made over the years.

Well good. Because that damn things are indefensible.

Quote
I've also never claimed the document I listed was entirely restricted to analysis of the pyramid or any other particular USDA guidelines.

No, you simply referred to it as the Pyramid. (Which it's not).

Quote
I merely pointed out that, according to said document (which as you may recall, you listed as the ultimate source of the nutrient ratio guidelines you quoted)

Not me, that was you. I posted a link to the current guidelines. From there you linked to a page they linked to as a source (and that page linked back to a previous version the guidelines).

Quote
A person who eats 2800 Cal/day and who follows the Food Guide Pyramid would stick to those amounts of fat and added sugar, and that the meal you linked to (or even just the soda portion of it) would not be compatible with those amounts.

Well, we disagree on that. You could eat all day at McDonalds, and with that meal included. If you don't swap out the large fries for medium you might be a few calories over the max, but not many.

Quote
If you want to argue that that is not relevant to your claim, then fine, but please stop pretending it's because I don't understand that what I linked to isn't the Food Guide Pyramid or because I think the USDA has only ever made good and healthy science-based sets of guidelines.


Well I think you've may have learned to tell the difference. Glad to help. 

But I've never made any claims about what you may or may not think.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 07, 2017, 08:59:35 PM
Quote
I've also never claimed the document I listed was entirely restricted to analysis of the pyramid or any other particular USDA guidelines.

No, you simply referred to it as the Pyramid. (Which it's not).
No, I didn't. I reported what it said about the pyramid, but I didn't call that document the pyramid.

Quote
Quote
I merely pointed out that, according to said document (which as you may recall, you listed as the ultimate source of the nutrient ratio guidelines you quoted)

Not me, that was you. I posted a link to the current guidelines. From there you linked to a page they linked to as a source (and that page linked back to a previous version the guidelines).
I copied and pasted part of your post into a Google search to find that source. You can tell, because it had your quote box around it and everything.

Quote
Quote
A person who eats 2800 Cal/day and who follows the Food Guide Pyramid would stick to those amounts of fat and added sugar, and that the meal you linked to (or even just the soda portion of it) would not be compatible with those amounts.
Well, we disagree on that.
Meaning you disagree with the document I linked, and what it says about the food pyramid.

Quote
Well I think you've may have learned to tell the difference. Glad to help.
I've learned to tell what difference? Apart from the difference between the guidelines and the RDA numbers, which was clarified in our first exchange, I haven't learned anything from you in this thread (including how obnoxious it is trying to pin you down to any particular statement, which is something I learned long ago).
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 07, 2017, 10:12:35 PM
Not me, that was you. I posted a link to the current guidelines. From there you linked to a page they linked to as a source (and that page linked back to a previous version the guidelines).
I copied and pasted part of your post into a Google search to find that source. You can tell, because it had your quote box around it and everything.
[/quote]

Seriously? From the guidelines that I've linked to, I quoted a table to prove a particular point. That was the USDA's source for the data in that table, as copy and pasted. If you had looked that the link I posted you would have known that.

And, as I've pointed out for fourth time now, I included that source info because the dietary guidelines used that as a source for their micronutrient proportions, but that group itself uses previous versions of the dietary guidelines as their source.

Quote
A person who eats 2800 Cal/day and who follows the Food Guide Pyramid would stick to those amounts of fat and added sugar, and that the meal you linked to (or even just the soda portion of it) would not be compatible with those amounts.

That meal (as amended, repeatedly now, with medium fries) is fully compatible with that. And depending on the person's height and weight and age and activity level, 2800 calories per day, with 45-65% coming from carbs could very well be obesegenic.

And even for an individual whose height and weight is appropriate for a 2800 calorie daily intake, that could still be obesigenic with the high carb content. The carbs would spike insulin levels and the insulin would take an unusually large portion of those calories and store it as fat. The individual would want to eat more or decrease their energy expenditure to make up for the energy deficit. Keep that going every day for a year, that adds up. Keep that going every year for a decade it adds up even more. Keep that going across the population and you have an obesity epidemic.

Thanks to the power of your pyramid?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 08, 2017, 12:17:53 AM
I quoted a table to prove a particular point. That was the USDA's source for the data in that table, as copy and pasted. If you had looked that the link I posted you would have known that.
I did know that. It's why I said "ultimate source". The immediate source was the page you linked, and their source was the document I linked.

Quote
And, as I've pointed out for fourth time now, I included that source info because the dietary guidelines used that as a source for their micronutrient proportions, but that group itself uses previous versions of the dietary guidelines as their source.
You didn't seem to know that until you looked at the document I linked, so it can't be the reason you included it.

Quote
Quote
A person who eats 2800 Cal/day and who follows the Food Guide Pyramid would stick to those amounts of fat and added sugar, and that the meal you linked to (or even just the soda portion of it) would not be compatible with those amounts.
That meal (as amended, repeatedly now, with medium fries) is fully compatible with that. And depending on the person's height and weight and age and activity level, 2800 calories per day, with 45-65% coming from carbs could very well be obesegenic.
Yes, 2800 calories is too much for some people and could make them obese. Is that supposed to demonstrate a point of some kind?

Quote
And even for an individual whose height and weight is appropriate for a 2800 calorie daily intake, that could still be obesigenic with the high carb content. The carbs would spike insulin levels and the insulin would take an unusually large portion of those calories and store it as fat. The individual would want to eat more or decrease their energy expenditure to make up for the energy deficit. Keep that going every day for a year, that adds up. Keep that going every year for a decade it adds up even more. Keep that going across the population and you have an obesity epidemic.
If the individual does eat more or decrease their energy expenditure, then said individual is no longer both needing and getting 2800 calories. Of course they'll gain weight if they need less but still eat that much, or if they need that much but start eating more.

Again, what point do you think any of that demonstrates?

Quote
Thanks to the power of your pyramid?
What would it take for you to understand that I'm not defending (nor do I even particularly care about one way or the other) the Food Guide Pyramid?

You brought up USDA guidelines. You named the document I linked to. It included a table of servings of different things for different caloric intakes, according to the Food Guide Pyramid which was also a USDA thing, and which I assumed therefore would be in line with the USDA guidelines you keep talking about.

---

Again, if you or others have lost track, the original claim I questioned was
Quote
sweetened carbonated beverages, french fries and nearly every meal menu at fast food restaurants is compliant with the dietary guidelines.
Putting together one McDonald's meal that fits the guidelines doesn't demonstrate that. You said "nearly every meal" (well, what you actually said was "nearly every meal menu", which doesn't make sense, but I decided to be charitable and assume you meant the closest thing to that which does make sense). Changing the size of the fries can make it non-compliant. Changing the size of the drink can make it non-compliant. Changing the sandwich can make it non-compliant. How does that translate to "nearly every"?

Also, even the 1985 version of the guidelines says things like "limit your intake of fats and oils" and "broil, bake, or boil rather than fry" and "moderate your use of foods that contain fat, such as breaded and deep-fried foods", none of which seem to work well with fries. It also says "use less of all sugars and foods containing large amounts of sugars... Examples include soft drinks", which would seem to indicate that the soda is also a problem according to the guidelines you claimed the meal complied with.
---
If the only thing you really meant was that lots of fast food meals (but definitely not "nearly every meal") comply with the recommended macronutrient ratios, then you should have just stuck with that much narrower claim. But then, that wouldn't have supported your point nearly as much, because I haven't seen anywhere that says something like, "If you eat foods in these ratios, you'll be thin and healthy even if you ignore literally every other page of these guidelines."
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 08, 2017, 02:05:05 AM
I quoted a table to prove a particular point. That was the USDA's source for the data in that table, as copy and pasted. If you had looked that the link I posted you would have known that.
I did know that. It's why I said "ultimate source". The immediate source was the page you linked, and their source was the document I linked.

Quote
And, as I've pointed out for fourth time now, I included that source info because the dietary guidelines used that as a source for their micronutrient proportions, but that group itself uses previous versions of the dietary guidelines as their source.

Quote
You didn't seem to know that until you looked at the document I linked, so it can't be the reason you included it.
Well, no, that's thing that's been pointed out before.


Quote
Quote
A person who eats 2800 Cal/day and who follows the Food Guide Pyramid would stick to those amounts of fat and added sugar, and that the meal you linked to (or even just the soda portion of it) would not be compatible with those amounts.
That meal (as amended, repeatedly now, with medium fries) is fully compatible with that. And depending on the person's height and weight and age and activity level, 2800 calories per day, with 45-65% coming from carbs could very well be obesegenic.

Quote
Yes, 2800 calories is too much for some people and could make them obese. Is that supposed to demonstrate a point of some kind?
Quote
And even for an individual whose height and weight is appropriate for a 2800 calorie daily intake, that could still be obesigenic with the high carb content. The carbs would spike insulin levels and the insulin would take an unusually large portion of those calories and store it as fat. The individual would want to eat more or decrease their energy expenditure to make up for the energy deficit. Keep that going every day for a year, that adds up. Keep that going every year for a decade it adds up even more. Keep that going across the population and you have an obesity epidemic.

Quote
If the individual does eat more or decrease their energy expenditure, then said individual is no longer both needing and getting 2800 calories. Of course they'll gain weight if they need less but still eat that much, or if they need that much but start eating more.

Again, you have no clue. If the individual does eat more then obviously they're getting 2800 calories.

When the body reduces its energy expenditure, it does so because needs more fuel for its current activity levels.

Insulin takes available energy away from the body and locks it into stored fat.

Quote
Again, what point do you think any of that demonstrates?

If you don't know at this point I can't help you.


Quote
Thanks to the power of your pyramid?
Quote
What would it take for you to understand that I'm not defending (nor do I even particularly care about one way or the other) the Food Guide Pyramid?

Or know much about them or even understand them.



Quote
sweetened carbonated beverages, french fries and nearly every meal menu at fast food restaurants is compliant with the dietary guidelines.
Quote
Putting together one McDonald's meal that fits the guidelines doesn't demonstrate that. You said "nearly every meal" (well, what you actually said was "nearly every meal menu", which doesn't make sense, but I decided to be charitable and assume you meant the closest thing to that which does make sense). Changing the size of the fries can make it non-compliant. Changing the size of the drink can make it non-compliant. Changing the sandwich can make it non-compliant. How does that translate to "nearly every"?

Again, as I said before McDonalds puts together meals and suggests food plans for healthy eating. You can eat all day at McDonalds following their meal plans and remain within the nutritional guidelines. Nearly every meal.

https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html


Quote
Also, even the 1985 version of the guidelines says things like "limit your intake of fats and oils" and "broil, bake, or boil rather than fry" and "moderate your use of foods that contain fat, such as breaded and deep-fried foods", none of which seem to work well with fries.

Yes, those are just some of the stupid things the guidelines say. And in their detailed advice to dietitians they spelled out specifically what they meant and McDonald's and other fast food places, along with major restaurant chains, hospitals, school cafeterias, etc. all changed their recipes and menus to be consistent with the guidelines. Also cooking schools and cookbook publishers got on board, as well as the media and schools. The whole country started believing fat was bad and that we needed more carbs and grains and whole grains.

McDonalds is just the tip of the ice berg.
Quote
It also says "use less of all sugars and foods containing large amounts of sugars... Examples include soft drinks", which would seem to indicate that the soda is also a problem according to the guidelines you claimed the meal complied with.

Yes, and to comply McDonalds suggested medium soft drinks, and that fit within their guidelines.

Quote
If the only thing you really meant was that lots of fast food meals (but definitely not "nearly every meal") comply with the recommended macronutrient ratios, then you should have just stuck with that much narrower claim.

Look at the meal plans they're suggesting. Nearly every one complies with the nutritional guidelines in total, and I haven't found one yet that did not comply with the macronutrient ratios.

Quote
But then, that wouldn't have supported your point nearly as much, because I haven't seen anywhere that says something like, "If you eat foods in these ratios, you'll be thin and healthy even if you ignore literally every other page of these guidelines."


Still not sure what you're saying.

Nothing in those meals ignores the rest of the guidelines.

That, by the way, is the problem. It's the guidelines themselves that were supposed to show people how to eat healthily that are screwed up.

We should be eating more fat, no sugars and cut way back on starches and other high carb foods.

Exactly the opposite of what the guidelines say.

Edited to fix quote tags
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 08, 2017, 08:19:14 AM
Still haven't figured out quote tags I see.

I never said any particular thing in the 1985 guidelines (or the guidelines for other years or the food pyramid) was good advice. I simply pointed out the parts that rule out fries and soft drinks.

In the end, it does appear your only point was about ratios. McDonald's changed their recommended meals so most of them fit the ratios (most of the recommended meals, that is; many of the other typical meals people actually do order don't fit). But if people actually followed the rest of the guidelines, they wouldn't get the fries and sugary drink.

I'm not saying they would definitely be healthy and lose weight, mind you, I'm just saying they would avoid or reduce the two least healthy parts of a typical fast food meal.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 08, 2017, 10:34:15 AM
Still haven't figured out quote tags I see.

I never said any particular thing in the 1985 guidelines (or the guidelines for other years or the food pyramid) was good advice. I simply pointed out the parts that rule out fries and soft drinks.

Neither of those were ruled out by the food pyramids or the dietary guidelines.

For most of the decades of the obesity epidemic the guidelines (and pyramids) did not offer specific amounts, they used vague terms like less, for which switching from large to medium would be sufficient. In fact, the meal that I first linked to where I used a large fry rather than a medium fry proved that, as it was slightly over the fat percentage. Switching to medium fries fixed that.


Quote
In the end, it does appear your only point was about ratios. McDonald's changed their recommended meals so most of them fit the ratios (most of the recommended meals, that is; many of the other typical meals people actually do order don't fit). But if people actually followed the rest of the guidelines, they wouldn't get the fries and sugary drink.

They could be and still would be within the guidelines even with those foods.

But even then, it's not just the macronutrient proportions that McDonalds (and the rest of the institutional meal providers) met, it's also the macronutrients and the calories. By the guidelines one could get fully sufficient nutrition from meals at fast food restaurants across the country, even if they went beyond the calorie counts.


FWIW, the soft drinks (and other sugary foods and drinks), buns (and other breads) are the least healthy menu items. French fries (and other starchy foods) are a close second.
 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 08, 2017, 11:25:41 AM
FWIW, the soft drinks (and other sugary foods and drinks), buns (and other breads) are the least healthy menu items. French fries (and other starchy foods) are a close second.
The buns may be unhealthy, but assuming you order actual menu items (rather than asking for off-menu items like the burger without the bun), are you claiming that the burger as a whole is more unhealthy than the fries?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: SkeptiQueer on June 08, 2017, 01:06:39 PM
I find this quite amusing. It is very well documented that the dietary guidelines lines used in the US and then around the world for the last fifty years were drafted by non-scientists then implemented in law because we didn't have time to wait for the science to come in. Now after following the same guidelines has not only failed to protect us from the chronic diseases they were intended to, they have made those diseases worse and caused increases in other chronic diseases, some to epidemic proportions. Yet someone is being criticized here for not waiting 50 years for the science to stop following those same guidelines.


Your mileage may vary.
I find it interesting that after acknowledging that getting ahead of the science lead to bad decisions, you're trying to chide us for pointing out that getting ahead of the science can lead to bad decisions.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 08, 2017, 01:31:39 PM
FWIW, the soft drinks (and other sugary foods and drinks), buns (and other breads) are the least healthy menu items. French fries (and other starchy foods) are a close second.
The buns may be unhealthy, but assuming you order actual menu items (rather than asking for off-menu items like the burger without the bun), are you claiming that the burger as a whole is more unhealthy than the fries?

Yes. The starch in potatoes is more complex than the starch in the bun and there's less, so it doesn't raise blood sugar as much or as fast. The starch in the buns is from highly refined flour and its GI is actually higher than sugar.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 08, 2017, 01:37:43 PM
I find this quite amusing. It is very well documented that the dietary guidelines lines used in the US and then around the world for the last fifty years were drafted by non-scientists then implemented in law because we didn't have time to wait for the science to come in. Now after following the same guidelines has not only failed to protect us from the chronic diseases they were intended to, they have made those diseases worse and caused increases in other chronic diseases, some to epidemic proportions. Yet someone is being criticized here for not waiting 50 years for the science to stop following those same guidelines.


Your mileage may vary.
I find it interesting that after acknowledging that getting ahead of the science lead to bad decisions, you're trying to chide us for pointing out that getting ahead of the science can lead to bad decisions.

Yes. I find that interesting too. Maybe even ironic.

The point is that the mainstream position on diet and nutrition, as shaped and represented by the dietary guidelines, was embraced by the scientific community, despite being unsupported by good science. For the decades the guidelines have been inflicted on the population they still have not found scientific support, which lead to a horrific outcome (the obesity epidemic).

But, when an effort is made to end the catastrophic population-wide intervention that never had scientific support, the argument is that we must stay with the current unscientific position until all the science is in.

Interesting, indeed.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on June 08, 2017, 02:59:44 PM
Since people are apparently back to discussing this exchange directly:
Again, this is an answer to a question I did not ask.

The question I asked was "how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?"

You might be doing all of the things that are supposed to benefit the health of your mitochondria, and yet they're still unhealthy because of something else. My question was how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy? You claim that they are healthy, which means that you must have some method of determining or measuring their health. What is that method?

I am not about to wait 50 years for peer reviewed publications to decide what will protect my health.  I will use methods that seem to be effective and be very sceptical of what passes as conventional good advice.  It isn't difficult to poke holes in the low fat, whole grains, calories in calories out, lower your cholesterol arguments.
That is still addressing a question other than the one arthwollipot asked. Even if the science were in and we knew that whatever you're doing definitely tends to lead to healthy mitochondria, that doesn't mean you can conclude you have healthy mitochondria because you're doing that thing.

We know that never smoking is beneficial to the health of your lungs, but you can't say, "I know my lungs are healthy because I don't smoke," because you don't actually know that.

So the question, once again, was
How can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?

(It was NOT, "How can you be reasonably confident that your mitochondria are probably healthy?", nor was it, "How can you tell that you're doing things which are good for your mitochondria?")
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 08, 2017, 05:24:09 PM
Since people are apparently back to discussing this exchange directly:
Again, this is an answer to a question I did not ask.

The question I asked was "how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?"

You might be doing all of the things that are supposed to benefit the health of your mitochondria, and yet they're still unhealthy because of something else. My question was how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy? You claim that they are healthy, which means that you must have some method of determining or measuring their health. What is that method?

I am not about to wait 50 years for peer reviewed publications to decide what will protect my health.  I will use methods that seem to be effective and be very sceptical of what passes as conventional good advice.  It isn't difficult to poke holes in the low fat, whole grains, calories in calories out, lower your cholesterol arguments.
That is still addressing a question other than the one arthwollipot asked. Even if the science were in and we knew that whatever you're doing definitely tends to lead to healthy mitochondria, that doesn't mean you can conclude you have healthy mitochondria because you're doing that thing.

We know that never smoking is beneficial to the health of your lungs, but you can't say, "I know my lungs are healthy because I don't smoke," because you don't actually know that.

So the question, once again, was
How can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?

(It was NOT, "How can you be reasonably confident that your mitochondria are probably healthy?", nor was it, "How can you tell that you're doing things which are good for your mitochondria?")

Nor was the question "How do you know that your  mitochondria are healthy?

You may like his answer for how he is able to tell, but that's the answer he gave.

Whether the criteria he used is 100% valid or accurate is a different question, but he did answer the question as to how he can tell.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on June 08, 2017, 07:06:00 PM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

I'm healthy.

Actually, that's a pretty good response. If your mitochondria are not healthy, then you're not healthy. (Of course, if you're not healthy that doesn't mean it's your mitochondria, it could well be something else.

Possible Symptoms – UMDF (https://www.umdf.org/what-is-mitochondrial-disease/possible-symptoms/)