Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: Quetzalcoatl on September 24, 2018, 03:56:00 PM

Title: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on September 24, 2018, 03:56:00 PM
Back in 2005 (Antiquity by Internet standards), Steve wrote an article called The Skeptic’s Diet (https://theness.com/index.php/the-skeptics-diet/) about how to eat healthy. However, it focuses mostly on weight loss. And that article is from 2005, so maybe the data has changed since?

I'd like to know if there is any article, by Steve or anyone else, that summarizes a healthy diet from a scientific point of view. Such information is spread out on various SGU episodes and NeurologicaBlog posts, so that's why it would be handy to have a single summary or reference to go to.

The spread-out data I have picked up over the years are, as I can think of right now:

- Eat a varied diet.
- Eat lots of vegetables.
- Eat meat only occasionally.
- Don't fall for various fad diets, they are often not scientifically based.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 24, 2018, 09:55:53 PM
Back in 2005 (Antiquity by Internet standards), Steve wrote an article called The Skeptic’s Diet (https://theness.com/index.php/the-skeptics-diet/) about how to eat healthy. However, it focuses mostly on weight loss. And that article is from 2005, so maybe the data has changed since?

I'd like to know if there is any article, by Steve or anyone else, that summarizes a healthy diet from a scientific point of view. Such information is spread out on various SGU episodes and NeurologicaBlog posts, so that's why it would be handy to have a single summary or reference to go to.

The spread-out data I have picked up over the years are, as I can think of right now:

- Eat a varied diet.
- Eat lots of vegetables.
- Eat meat only occasionally.
- Don't fall for various fad diets, they are often not scientifically based.


I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: arthwollipot on September 24, 2018, 10:20:23 PM
Eat a variety of food, not too much, mostly plants.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: haudace on September 24, 2018, 11:48:42 PM
Eating in moderation, complemented with a healthy dose of exercise.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on September 25, 2018, 02:18:18 PM
Eat a variety of food, not too much, mostly plants.

Would that mean that various meat-substitutes, around here mostly soy-based, are a good thing? Or do they bring the problems of meat even though they are not meat? They are meant to substitute meat after all.

For example, just recently I ate potato wegdes, oumph (https://oumph.se/en/), and broccoli for dinner. Was that an improvement compared to if I had eaten meat instead of oumph?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: arthwollipot on September 25, 2018, 07:15:10 PM
Eat a variety of food, not too much, mostly plants.

Would that mean that various meat-substitutes, around here mostly soy-based, are a good thing? Or do they bring the problems of meat even though they are not meat? They are meant to substitute meat after all.

For example, just recently I ate potato wegdes, oumph (https://oumph.se/en/), and broccoli for dinner. Was that an improvement compared to if I had eaten meat instead of oumph?

I suggest you ask CarbShark and bachfiend for their answers to that question.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 25, 2018, 10:58:10 PM
Eat a variety of food, not too much, mostly plants.

Would that mean that various meat-substitutes, around here mostly soy-based, are a good thing? Or do they bring the problems of meat even though they are not meat? They are meant to substitute meat after all.

For example, just recently I ate potato wegdes, oumph (https://oumph.se/en/), and broccoli for dinner. Was that an improvement compared to if I had eaten meat instead of oumph?

I suggest you ask CarbShark and bachfiend for their answers to that question.

I am doing my best to restrain myself...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on September 26, 2018, 01:06:06 PM
Eat a variety of food, not too much, mostly plants.

Would that mean that various meat-substitutes, around here mostly soy-based, are a good thing? Or do they bring the problems of meat even though they are not meat? They are meant to substitute meat after all.

For example, just recently I ate potato wegdes, oumph (https://oumph.se/en/), and broccoli for dinner. Was that an improvement compared to if I had eaten meat instead of oumph?

I suggest you ask CarbShark and bachfiend for their answers to that question.

I am doing my best to restrain myself...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please don't.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 02:48:44 PM
OK, what's below is based on evidence and science. The first link is a pretty good summary of Low Carb High Fat diets* the second is a list of foods to avoid. These are not necessarily weight loss diets, but if you have excess stored fat, and switch to a LCHF Ketogenic diet you will lose weight until your body reaches homeostasis, when your weight and body fat will stabilize. At what weight and body fat percentage your body will reach homeostasis is not really up to you.

The biggest determinant of homeostasis is insulin resistance/sensitivity.



A Low-Carb Diet Meal Plan and Menu That Can Save Your Life (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/low-carb-diet-meal-plan-and-menu)

Quote
A low-carb diet is a diet that restricts carbohydrates, such as those found in sugary foods, pasta and bread. It is high in protein, fat and healthy vegetables.

There are many different types of low-carb diets, and studies show that they can cause weight loss and improve health.

This is a detailed meal plan for a low-carb diet. It explains what to eat, what to avoid and includes a sample low-carb menu for one week.

* The one quibble I have with that page is it didn't make clear that whole grains should also be avoided. The list below, linked from that page, and from the same website, does make it clear.



14 Foods to Avoid (or Limit) on a Low-Carb Diet (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/14-foods-to-avoid-on-low-carb)
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 02:54:05 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."

The most recent example is the study he authored making the claim that low carb diets increase the risk all-cause mortality.

That study did not support that claim.

Also, you're mistaken about the "Traditional Mediterranean Diet." It included a significant amount of red meat, mostly lamb, but some beef and pork as well.

Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on September 26, 2018, 02:59:24 PM
Thanks for the link, but there was a lot of meat in those recommendations. Doesn't that contradict what Steve, arthwolliport, etc, are saying?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 03:03:33 PM
Eat a variety of food, not too much, mostly plants.

This is a modified version of Michael Pollan's famous quote: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Pollan goes further, explaining what he means by "food."  He doesn't consider processed food "food." 

If it's something your grandparents (actually his and my grandparents; probably the great grandparents or great-great grandparents of most readers here) would recognize as food, it's food. If it wouldn't look like food to them, then don't eat it. (and I think the implication is that if they lived more like farmers, less like French Royalty)

The LCHF Ketogenic version of this quote would be:

"When you're hungry eat real food. Meat and non-starchy vegetables. When you're not hungry don't eat. When you're full or satisfied, stop eating."
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 03:05:06 PM
Thanks for the link, but there was a lot of meat in those recommendations. Doesn't that contradict what Steve, arthwolliport, etc, are saying?

Yes. Meat is a perfectly healthy source of nutrition. Humans evolved eating meat as their primary source of nutrients.

Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 26, 2018, 03:45:04 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."

The most recent example is the study he authored making the claim that low carb diets increase the risk all-cause mortality.

That study did not support that claim.

Also, you're mistaken about the "Traditional Mediterranean Diet." It included a significant amount of red meat, mostly lamb, but some beef and pork as well.

As much as you dislike the study in the Lancet claiming a U-shaped mortality curve to the proportion of carbohydrates in the diet, with lowest mortality at around 50% and mortality increasing steeply with lower carbohydrates and less steeply with higher carbohydrates, the study did support the claim that low carbohydrate diets increases all-cause mortality.

Agreed.  The study is flawed.  And as you’ve noted, it really doesn’t look at very low carbohydrate diets, such as your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet.  But the study did show a U-shaped mortality curve, which has to mean something.  If you’re claiming that your very low carbohydrate diet produces decreased mortality and longer life expectancy, then you’re hypothesising that if the study is extended, the U-shaped curve would become an N-shaped curve, for which there’s no evidence.  I’m not aware of any studies showing lower mortality and increased life expectancy with low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets.

I’m very much agnostic about diets.  There’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  Humans are natural omnivores, evolved to eat a wide range of foods.  Humans in the past have eaten whatever is easily available.  The curse of modern times is that in developed countries, there’s an abundance of cheap readily available food, a lot of it not so good nutritionally with ‘empty’ calories, which are often heavily advertised.

I consider any diet acceptable provided it supplies adequate, but not excessive calories, adequate amounts of essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins.  Best health comes from not being overweight or obese, not being sedentary and getting some exercise each day, and also getting periods of adequate relaxation and sleep.

A good set of bathroom scales is more important than kitchen scales.  The risk factors for type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary or consuming excessive simple sugars such as cane sugar and fructose.  The proportion of complex carbohydrates or fat as the main source of calories in the diet aren’t risk factors.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 04:30:08 PM
This is a pretty good analysis of that study.

Low carb diets could shorten life (really?!) – Zoë Harcombe (http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2018/08/low-carb-diets-could-shorten-life-really/)

Quote
Let’s look at the ‘science’…

We need to make a critical point up front: every headline using the words “low carb” was wrong. The first sentence of the paper was “Low carbohydrate diets…” This was also wrong. The full paper used the words “low carbohydrate” 40 times. That was also wrong – 40 times. Low carb diets have not been studied by this paper. Full stop. The average carbohydrate intake of the lowest fifth of people studied was 37%. That’s a high carb diet to anyone who eats a low carb diet. As we will see below, the researchers managed to find just 315 people out of over 15,000 who consumed less than 30% of their diet in the form of carbohydrate. The average carb intake of these 315 people was still over 26%. Not even these people were anywhere near low carb eating. Hence, if you do eat a low carbohydrate diet, don’t worry – this paper has nothing to do with you.

Here's a link to the study:

Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis - The Lancet Public Health (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext#articleInformation)
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 26, 2018, 04:49:49 PM
This is a pretty good analysis of that study.

Low carb diets could shorten life (really?!) – Zoë Harcombe (http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2018/08/low-carb-diets-could-shorten-life-really/)

Quote
Let’s look at the ‘science’…

We need to make a critical point up front: every headline using the words “low carb” was wrong. The first sentence of the paper was “Low carbohydrate diets…” This was also wrong. The full paper used the words “low carbohydrate” 40 times. That was also wrong – 40 times. Low carb diets have not been studied by this paper. Full stop. The average carbohydrate intake of the lowest fifth of people studied was 37%. That’s a high carb diet to anyone who eats a low carb diet. As we will see below, the researchers managed to find just 315 people out of over 15,000 who consumed less than 30% of their diet in the form of carbohydrate. The average carb intake of these 315 people was still over 26%. Not even these people were anywhere near low carb eating. Hence, if you do eat a low carbohydrate diet, don’t worry – this paper has nothing to do with you.

Here's a link to the study:

Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis - The Lancet Public Health (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext#articleInformation)

Agreed, the Lancet study isn’t looking at your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, which I noted in my comment.  Do you have any studies showing that your diet results in decreased mortality and longer life expectancy?  The study, although deeply flawed, did show a U-shaped mortality curve, which has to mean something.

You seem to be hypothesising that if the study is extended to separate out very low carbohydrate diets the U-shaped curve would become an N-shaped curve, with a very sharp fall in mortality (and increase in life expectancy) with very low carbohydrate diets compared to moderate carbohydrate diets, for which you don’t have any evidence.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 26, 2018, 05:40:54 PM
Anyway.  To give the answer, there’s a very good report summarising the science of healthy diets.

It’s the 8th edition of ‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-20’, a 144 page guide published by the USDA.  It’s free and readily available on the Internet.  There’s a lot of good information and gives plenty of choices.

People like CarbShark persistently commit the ecological fallacy in asserting that because the recommendations don’t suit their ideology, and because the incidence of obesity and type 2 diabetes is increasing in developed countries such as America and Australia, then the recommendations must be changed and replaced with their diet.

Whereas the problem is that most people don’t follow the recommendations.  If people followed health recommendations, then no one would smoke cigarettes.  But they do, despite the warnings.  And cigarette companies are very profitable.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: haudace on September 26, 2018, 05:42:55 PM
More stuff on keto diet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsLGoU7eQsM.

He's man pretty but he's also a real doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. He should have some authority on the issue.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 06:03:49 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.



Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 26, 2018, 07:33:57 PM
More stuff on keto diet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsLGoU7eQsM.

He's man pretty but he's also a real doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. He should have some authority on the issue.

A real doctor?  Of osteopathic medicine?  Yes, he does have ‘some authority’ on the issue.  Very little to minimal authority.

Although, actually I don’t recognise ‘authorities’, just experts, and whether there’s adequate evidence or not for their pronouncements and recommendations.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 07:39:12 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 07:41:47 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 08:13:50 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 08:20:49 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.


What specific work of his "seems" biased to you?  What is the statistical or scientific source of the bias?



Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: arthwollipot on September 26, 2018, 08:32:13 PM
I just want to point out that "healthy diet" and "keto diet" are not absolute synonyms. There are healthy diets that are not keto.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
I just want to point out that "healthy diet" and "keto diet" are not absolute synonyms. There are healthy diets that are not keto.


Point out to whom?  Everybody knows that. 
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: arthwollipot on September 26, 2018, 08:43:07 PM
I just want to point out that "healthy diet" and "keto diet" are not absolute synonyms. There are healthy diets that are not keto.


Point out to whom?  Everybody knows that.

CarbShark doesn't seem to.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: haudace on September 26, 2018, 08:43:14 PM
More stuff on keto diet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsLGoU7eQsM.

He's man pretty but he's also a real doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. He should have some authority on the issue.

A real doctor?  Of osteopathic medicine?  Yes, he does have ‘some authority’ on the issue.  Very little to minimal authority.

Although, actually I don’t recognise ‘authorities’, just experts, and whether there’s adequate evidence or not for their pronouncements and recommendations.

1. It would be difficult to practice his type of medicine without knowing how the body builds and maintain such body structures. In fact, do you realize Osteopathy crosses into other medical disciplines far and wide as well?

2. Can you point out the parts where he is incorrect?
For now I will leave you the following link to his Atlantic Health System profile (https://findadoctor.atlantichealth.org/provider/Mikhail+Varshavski/639510?name=Mikhail%20Varshavski&sort=networks%2Crelevance#provider-details-experience). He has also been featured in NYIT blog (https://www.nyit.edu/box/features/nyit_doctors_are_the_faces_of_osteopathic_medicine#). I wouldn't so readily dismiss his credentials.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 08:45:30 PM
I just want to point out that "healthy diet" and "keto diet" are not absolute synonyms. There are healthy diets that are not keto.


Point out to whom?  Everybody knows that.

CarbShark doesn't seem to.


True.  But we all know that too.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: arthwollipot on September 26, 2018, 08:49:00 PM
I just want to point out that "healthy diet" and "keto diet" are not absolute synonyms. There are healthy diets that are not keto.


Point out to whom?  Everybody knows that.

CarbShark doesn't seem to.


True.  But we all know that too.

I guess so.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 09:14:07 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.


What specific work of his "seems" biased to you?  What is the statistical or scientific source of the bias?
In a Venn diagram there would be a lot of overlap



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 09:17:53 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.


What specific work of his "seems" biased to you?  What is the statistical or scientific source of the bias?
The study linked to above. He is a co author. Read Hardcombe’s post on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 09:18:40 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.


What specific work of his "seems" biased to you?  What is the statistical or scientific source of the bias?
In a Venn diagram there would be a lot of overlap



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I won't bother asking you to present evidence supporting that, because we all know such evidence does not exist.  You're just stating an opinion.  When you make unsupported and supportable statements like this, you undermine your own credibility when you do attempt to make a scientifically defensible point.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 09:30:40 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.


What specific work of his "seems" biased to you?  What is the statistical or scientific source of the bias?
The study linked to above. He is a co author. Read Hardcombe’s post on it.


Despite the fact that Zoe is not qualified to assess the study, I read her article back when the study came out.  My vague recollection of it is that, as expected, she had little if anything valid to say.  Since my memory of it was vague I started to read it again, and got this far:

"Can you remember what you ate last year? How standard were your portions? Did you have 5-6 ‘pats’ of butter a week or did it tip over to 1 a day? What’s a pat anyway? Did your diet then stay the same for 20-25 years?"

That confirms that she has a poor understanding of the methodology that she is criticizing, so I'm going to waste my time rereading the rest of the article.  If there are specific points in the article that you think are worthwhile, let me know, and I'll consider commenting on them.


ETA: In contrast to the first four sentences, her fifth sentence does hint at a limitation of the study, namely, that changes in diet after the initial assessment (or 2 assessments) are not accounted for.  Zoe does not explain, of course, how failure to account for those changes could result in a false U-shaped relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality, and it is hard to imagine how it could.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 26, 2018, 09:57:15 PM
Walter Willett has written a book ‘Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: the Harvard Medical School to Healthy Eating,’ which I’ve just purchased.

He’s certainly biased, provided ‘biased’ is defined as disagreeing with CarbShark’s belief that low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets are best for good health and long term survival.

Insisting on evidence does have a tendency to make people ‘biased.’

He seems to be agreeing with many of the things I’ve been saying.  That there’s no single ‘best’ diet, and that there’s a range of acceptable diets.  That maintaining a healthy body weight and exercising daily are most important (and form the base of his food pyramid).  I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.  From my experience, it doesn’t happen, at least for me.  I don’t actually feel hunger on a very high carbohydrate/high bread diet, and my BMI is almost at the lower end of the healthy range at 19 kg/m^2.  And I’m leaner than when I was 20 over 40 years ago, eating meat, eggs, and fast foods from MacDonalds.  Before I became a vegetarian.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 26, 2018, 10:29:15 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.


What specific work of his "seems" biased to you?  What is the statistical or scientific source of the bias?
The study linked to above. He is a co author. Read Hardcombe’s post on it.


Despite the fact that Zoe is not qualified to assess the study, I read her article back when the study came out.  My vague recollection of it is that, as expected, she had little if anything valid to say.  Since my memory of it was vague I started to read it again, and got this far:

"Can you remember what you ate last year? How standard were your portions? Did you have 5-6 ‘pats’ of butter a week or did it tip over to 1 a day? What’s a pat anyway? Did your diet then stay the same for 20-25 years?"

That confirms that she has a poor understanding of the methodology that she is criticizing, so I'm going to waste my time rereading the rest of the article.  If there are specific points in the article that you think are worthwhile, let me know, and I'll consider commenting on them.


ETA: In contrast to the first four sentences, her fifth sentence does hint at a limitation of the study, namely, that changes in diet after the initial assessment (or 2 assessments) are not accounted for.  Zoe does not explain, of course, how failure to account for those changes could result in a false U-shaped relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality, and it is hard to imagine how it could.
Just read the entire paper. She is qualified, but this is a paper meant for the public so you may have quibbles with her language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 10:33:41 PM
I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.


The nutritional arguments against white bread are twofold: Firstly, it has a high glycemic index (GI), with about the same GI as table sugar.  Second, it is a junk food: most of the nutrients have been removed during processing, leaving primarily the calories behind.  Of course, commercial bakers add back some of the lost nutrients, so that eating white bread is approximately equivalent to eating a comparable amount of table sugar and taking a multivitamin.


Although the latter criticism is valid for sourdough bread, the former isn't.  For some reason, unlike other white breads, sourdough has a low glycemic index.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 10:38:32 PM
I think the most sensible, objective, evidence-based nutrition info consistently comes from Walter Willett and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health.  Essentially, the confluence of the evidence suggests that the best approach for the average person would be to consume a traditional Mediterranean diet. Whole-food, plant based, little to no red or processed meat. Amount of fat and carbohydrate is less important than the quality: fats should predominantly be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated; carbohydrate should be whole grain.

Willet is a vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and while that's nothing to disqualify him, it's clear that his work shows a clear bias in favor of vegetarianism over consumption of meat and other animal products. I certainly wouldn't call him "objective."


Walter Willett is not a vegetarian, and I've never known him to recommend eliminating all meat from the diet.  You're nuts (see what I did there) if you think "his" work (the two largest epidemiologic studies in the U.S.) is biased toward vegetarian diets.  You've literally just made this up.

I may be mistaken about him being a vegetarian/vegan, but no I didn't make that up. I may have confused him with someone else. 

As for bias I should have specified I was referring to numerous papers, articles he has written, conferences he's participated in, and policies he's advocated.

I would not say that those two large epidemiological studies were biased. Their value may be questionable, but I am not claiming they show a vegetarian bias.


In other words, you had no valid basis for anything you said about Willett.

No, I'd say much of the work he does seems biased.


What specific work of his "seems" biased to you?  What is the statistical or scientific source of the bias?
The study linked to above. He is a co author. Read Hardcombe’s post on it.


Despite the fact that Zoe is not qualified to assess the study, I read her article back when the study came out.  My vague recollection of it is that, as expected, she had little if anything valid to say.  Since my memory of it was vague I started to read it again, and got this far:

"Can you remember what you ate last year? How standard were your portions? Did you have 5-6 ‘pats’ of butter a week or did it tip over to 1 a day? What’s a pat anyway? Did your diet then stay the same for 20-25 years?"

That confirms that she has a poor understanding of the methodology that she is criticizing, so I'm going to waste my time rereading the rest of the article.  If there are specific points in the article that you think are worthwhile, let me know, and I'll consider commenting on them.


ETA: In contrast to the first four sentences, her fifth sentence does hint at a limitation of the study, namely, that changes in diet after the initial assessment (or 2 assessments) are not accounted for.  Zoe does not explain, of course, how failure to account for those changes could result in a false U-shaped relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality, and it is hard to imagine how it could.
Just read the entire paper. She is qualified, but this is a paper meant for the public so you may have quibbles with her language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


She is absolutely not qualified in nutritional epidemiology.  To someone who is, that is obvious from her article.  As I've said, I have read the entire article, although for the life of me, I have no idea why I bothered.

ETA:  I don't have "quibbles about her language."  She doesn't know what she's talking about.
ETA2: I have reread a little more of her article.  What she writes is utter nonsense.  She is completely clueless.  She might actually know less about nutritional epidemiology than you do.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 26, 2018, 11:07:50 PM
I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.


The nutritional arguments against white bread are twofold: Firstly, it has a high glycemic index (GI), with about the same GI as table sugar.  Second, it is a junk food: most of the nutrients have been removed during processing, leaving primarily the calories behind.  Of course, commercial bakers add back some of the lost nutrients, so that eating white bread is approximately equivalent to eating a comparable amount of table sugar and taking a multivitamin.


Although the latter criticism is valid for sourdough bread, the former isn't.  For some reason, unlike other white breads, sourdough has a low glycemic index.

Actually, sourdough bread is pretty good nutritionally.  It’s a good source of protein, iron and B vitamins.  I don’t demonise white bread as a junk food, as you do.  Bread is the staff of life, and in past times, it formed a staple food.  I’ll eat white bread for its calories if I can’t get sourdough bread or wholemeal bread (it’s my third preference).

I think the glycaemic index is flawed.  It’s calculated by giving a fasting person a small amount of food containing carbohydrate which is easily digestible and absorbable (the equivalent of 75 g of glucose), and measuring blood sugar levels compared to a fasting blood sugar test over the subsequent 2 hours.  But no one just eats that small amount of food on itself at a meal.  It’s not much more than half a bread roll.  At my first meal of the day, generally after 3 pm, I eat around 350 g of sourdough bread, a banana, an apple, perhaps some skim milk yoghurt, with walnuts.  It takes many hours for me to digest this meal.  If I’m travelling, I often don’t eat till after 5 pm, and I don’t need to eat till the next day (and if I’m not careful, I run the risk of losing weight despite not needing or wanting to)
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 11:19:30 PM
I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.

The nutritional arguments against white bread are twofold: Firstly, it has a high glycemic index (GI), with about the same GI as table sugar.  Second, it is a junk food: most of the nutrients have been removed during processing, leaving primarily the calories behind.  Of course, commercial bakers add back some of the lost nutrients, so that eating white bread is approximately equivalent to eating a comparable amount of table sugar and taking a multivitamin.

Although the latter criticism is valid for sourdough bread, the former isn't.  For some reason, unlike other white breads, sourdough has a low glycemic index.

Actually, sourdough bread is pretty good nutritionally.

In terms of its nutrient content, it is indistinguishable from any other form of white bread.  Most of the vitamins and minerals have been removed in processing, and some have been added back by fortification.

Quote
I don’t demonise white bread as a junk food, as you do.  Bread is the staff of life...

Seriously, you're using a biblical aphorism to justify your diet?  You and Jordan Peterson should collaborate on a diet book.

Quote
I’ll eat white bread for its calories if I can’t get sourdough bread or wholemeal bread (it’s my third preference).

Sourdough bread is white bread.  It is made from white (as opposed to whole wheat) flour.

Quote
I think the glycaemic index is flawed.

Thoughts are great; everybody should have them.  But evidence is better.  Evidence says that the glycemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease, as predicted by metabolic models.  But the GI of sourdough bread is low anyway.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 26, 2018, 11:47:24 PM
I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.

The nutritional arguments against white bread are twofold: Firstly, it has a high glycemic index (GI), with about the same GI as table sugar.  Second, it is a junk food: most of the nutrients have been removed during processing, leaving primarily the calories behind.  Of course, commercial bakers add back some of the lost nutrients, so that eating white bread is approximately equivalent to eating a comparable amount of table sugar and taking a multivitamin.

Although the latter criticism is valid for sourdough bread, the former isn't.  For some reason, unlike other white breads, sourdough has a low glycemic index.

Actually, sourdough bread is pretty good nutritionally.

In terms of its nutrient content, it is indistinguishable from any other form of white bread.  Most of the vitamins and minerals have been removed in processing, and some have been added back by fortification.

Quote
I don’t demonise white bread as a junk food, as you do.  Bread is the staff of life...

Seriously, you're using a biblical aphorism to justify your diet?  You and Jordan Peterson should collaborate on a diet book.

Quote
I’ll eat white bread for its calories if I can’t get sourdough bread or wholemeal bread (it’s my third preference).

Sourdough bread is white bread.  It is made from white (as opposed to whole wheat) flour.

Quote
I think the glycaemic index is flawed.

Thoughts are great; everybody should have them.  But evidence is better.  Evidence says that the glycemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease, as predicted by metabolic models.  But the GI of sourdough bread is low anyway.

Evidence that the glycaemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease?  The correlation is with being overweight or obese, being sedentary or consuming excessive simple sugars, such as cane sugar or fructose.  Agreed, there does seem to be an optimum amount of complex carbohydrate in the diet with the U-shaped curve of mortality increasing steeply with lower carbohydrate diets and less steeply with higher carbohydrate diets, with the optimum being around 50% calories from carbohydrates.

A while back, CarbShark linked to a graph showing blood sugar and insulin levels over much of a day in a person on a more normal diet.  Now that would be useful information to have.  Does a normal meal cause rapid hyperglycaemia followed by rapid hypoglycaemia and hunger?  No one doubts that if you’re after a quick snack to satisfy hunger when the next meal is a few hours off, you’re better having an apple instead of a chocolate bar or worse, a bottle of sugared soft drink or fruit juice.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 26, 2018, 11:54:40 PM
I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.

The nutritional arguments against white bread are twofold: Firstly, it has a high glycemic index (GI), with about the same GI as table sugar.  Second, it is a junk food: most of the nutrients have been removed during processing, leaving primarily the calories behind.  Of course, commercial bakers add back some of the lost nutrients, so that eating white bread is approximately equivalent to eating a comparable amount of table sugar and taking a multivitamin.

Although the latter criticism is valid for sourdough bread, the former isn't.  For some reason, unlike other white breads, sourdough has a low glycemic index.

Actually, sourdough bread is pretty good nutritionally.

In terms of its nutrient content, it is indistinguishable from any other form of white bread.  Most of the vitamins and minerals have been removed in processing, and some have been added back by fortification.

Quote
I don’t demonise white bread as a junk food, as you do.  Bread is the staff of life...

Seriously, you're using a biblical aphorism to justify your diet?  You and Jordan Peterson should collaborate on a diet book.

Quote
I’ll eat white bread for its calories if I can’t get sourdough bread or wholemeal bread (it’s my third preference).

Sourdough bread is white bread.  It is made from white (as opposed to whole wheat) flour.

Quote
I think the glycaemic index is flawed.

Thoughts are great; everybody should have them.  But evidence is better.  Evidence says that the glycemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease, as predicted by metabolic models.  But the GI of sourdough bread is low anyway.

Evidence that the glycaemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease?  The correlation is with being overweight or obese, being sedentary or consuming excessive simple sugars, such as cane sugar or fructose.


1. Citation needed. 


2.  I have no idea what you think the metabolic difference is between starch and simple sugars.  Nutritionally, this classification is outmoded.  There is essentially no metabolic difference between starch and glucose.  Sucrose, which is fructo-glucose, is arguably less detrimental than starch.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 03:15:59 AM
I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.

The nutritional arguments against white bread are twofold: Firstly, it has a high glycemic index (GI), with about the same GI as table sugar.  Second, it is a junk food: most of the nutrients have been removed during processing, leaving primarily the calories behind.  Of course, commercial bakers add back some of the lost nutrients, so that eating white bread is approximately equivalent to eating a comparable amount of table sugar and taking a multivitamin.

Although the latter criticism is valid for sourdough bread, the former isn't.  For some reason, unlike other white breads, sourdough has a low glycemic index.

Actually, sourdough bread is pretty good nutritionally.

In terms of its nutrient content, it is indistinguishable from any other form of white bread.  Most of the vitamins and minerals have been removed in processing, and some have been added back by fortification.

Quote
I don’t demonise white bread as a junk food, as you do.  Bread is the staff of life...

Seriously, you're using a biblical aphorism to justify your diet?  You and Jordan Peterson should collaborate on a diet book.

Quote
I’ll eat white bread for its calories if I can’t get sourdough bread or wholemeal bread (it’s my third preference).

Sourdough bread is white bread.  It is made from white (as opposed to whole wheat) flour.

Quote
I think the glycaemic index is flawed.

Thoughts are great; everybody should have them.  But evidence is better.  Evidence says that the glycemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease, as predicted by metabolic models.  But the GI of sourdough bread is low anyway.

Evidence that the glycaemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease?  The correlation is with being overweight or obese, being sedentary or consuming excessive simple sugars, such as cane sugar or fructose.


1. Citation needed. 


2.  I have no idea what you think the metabolic difference is between starch and simple sugars.  Nutritionally, this classification is outmoded.  There is essentially no metabolic difference between starch and glucose.  Sucrose, which is fructo-glucose, is arguably less detrimental than starch.

jt,

What citation do you require.

I didn’t use the term ‘starch’.  I used the term ‘complex carbohydrate’, to distinguish it from simple sugars.  Complex carbohydrates are polymers of monosaccharides, and have to be digested into monosaccharides before being absorbed, which takes time, unlike simple sugars, which are monosaccharides, such as glucose (there are people who consume this), or disaccharides, such as sucrose or fructose, which are more rapidly digested and absorbed.  And more often consumed in concentrated form in heavily sugared soft drinks or fruit juices (even fruit juices without added sugar).

If you think that sugar is arguably less detrimental than starch (one form of complex carbohydrate), then I think you would certainly get some argument.  Although, you’re partly right.  Starches tend to be found in tubers such as potatoes, and potatoes are not recommended in diets, at least they don’t count as one of the recommended 5 daily servings of vegetables.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 27, 2018, 10:33:14 AM
I won't bother asking you to present evidence supporting that, because we all know such evidence does not exist.  You're just stating an opinion.  When you make unsupported and supportable statements like this, you undermine your own credibility when you do attempt to make a scientifically defensible point.

FWIW, I goofed and quoted the wrong message in my Venn Diagram post.

Here's the post I meant quote:


I just want to point out that "healthy diet" and "keto diet" are not absolute synonyms. There are healthy diets that are not keto.
Point out to whom?  Everybody knows that.

CarbShark doesn't seem to.

True.  But we all know that too.

To that I should have replied: In a Venn diagram there would be a lot of overlap.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 10:40:58 AM
I do break some of his recommendations, including the one against white bread.  Fully 1/2 of my calories come from sourdough bread, and I really don’t want to change, since I enjoy it so much.  The argument against white bread is because it has a high glycaemic index, resulting in a rapid increase in blood sugar and insulin, followed by a rapid drop in blood sugar and hunger.

The nutritional arguments against white bread are twofold: Firstly, it has a high glycemic index (GI), with about the same GI as table sugar.  Second, it is a junk food: most of the nutrients have been removed during processing, leaving primarily the calories behind.  Of course, commercial bakers add back some of the lost nutrients, so that eating white bread is approximately equivalent to eating a comparable amount of table sugar and taking a multivitamin.

Although the latter criticism is valid for sourdough bread, the former isn't.  For some reason, unlike other white breads, sourdough has a low glycemic index.

Actually, sourdough bread is pretty good nutritionally.

In terms of its nutrient content, it is indistinguishable from any other form of white bread.  Most of the vitamins and minerals have been removed in processing, and some have been added back by fortification.

Quote
I don’t demonise white bread as a junk food, as you do.  Bread is the staff of life...

Seriously, you're using a biblical aphorism to justify your diet?  You and Jordan Peterson should collaborate on a diet book.

Quote
I’ll eat white bread for its calories if I can’t get sourdough bread or wholemeal bread (it’s my third preference).

Sourdough bread is white bread.  It is made from white (as opposed to whole wheat) flour.

Quote
I think the glycaemic index is flawed.

Thoughts are great; everybody should have them.  But evidence is better.  Evidence says that the glycemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease, as predicted by metabolic models.  But the GI of sourdough bread is low anyway.

Evidence that the glycaemic load of the diet correlates with risk of chronic disease?  The correlation is with being overweight or obese, being sedentary or consuming excessive simple sugars, such as cane sugar or fructose.


1. Citation needed. 


2.  I have no idea what you think the metabolic difference is between starch and simple sugars.  Nutritionally, this classification is outmoded.  There is essentially no metabolic difference between starch and glucose.  Sucrose, which is fructo-glucose, is arguably less detrimental than starch.

jt,

What citation do you require.

Evidence to support your claim that the link between glycemic load and chronic disease is mediated by overweight and obesity.  But, thinking about this a little more, you could be at least partially right.  It would be interesting to see how much of the relation is mediated by overweight and obesity.

Quote
I didn’t use the term ‘starch’.  I used the term ‘complex carbohydrate’, to distinguish it from simple sugars.

Regardless of your prefered term, since we're talking about white bread, the specific complex carbohydrate we're talking about is starch.

Quote
Complex carbohydrates are polymers of monosaccharides, and have to be digested into monosaccharides before being absorbed, which takes time, unlike simple sugars, which are monosaccharides, such as glucose (there are people who consume this), or disaccharides, such as sucrose or fructose, which are more rapidly digested and absorbed.  And more often consumed in concentrated form in heavily sugared soft drinks or fruit juices (even fruit juices without added sugar).

The rate of absorption of a carbohydrate is indicated by its glycemic index.  The glycemic index of the type of starch in most white bread is about 70, which is actually a little higher than sucrose (~65), but less than glucose (100).  So, the glycosidic bond between glucose monomers slows the digestion and absorption of starch in white bread by 30% relative to glucose.  But typical white bread is still a high-GI food, even higher than sucrose (or, perhaps comparable, taking the "error bars" into account).  See the GI table here (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/12/2281) (Table 1). And by the way, fructose is a monosaccharide.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 03:47:50 PM
jt,

Walter Willett in ‘Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy’ lists as the factors important in aiding good health and avoiding chronic disease as 1.  Avoiding being overweight or obese. 2. Exercising daily 3. Avoiding excessive consumption of simple sugars, limiting them to less than 10% of calories and preferably less than 5%.

This is the order in which I’ve previously stated, and also what every other reputable guide to health and diet I’ve read states.

He also adds consuming a diet with low glycaemic score/low glycaemic load foods - if you’re overweight or obese.

I’m certainly not overweight, exercising daily in a gym and with a BMI of 19 kg/m^2.  I’m thinner and leaner than I was when I was 20.  Really, I could eat anything I want.  I can ignore the glycaemic score/load.  But I really enjoy bread.  Particularly warm fresh bread and its smell, which i can recreate at home by microwaving it in a microwave oven before eating it (I’ve noticed that i don’t enjoy bread as much when I’m travelling, when I can’t get warm bread, and eating becomes just a chore).

Willett also notes that you shouldn’t be putting on body weight or body fat even if you’re staying in the normal range for BMI.  He states that going from a BMI of 20 to 25 (both in the normal range) is as bad for your health as being overweight.  If you accept that it’s normal to put on body weight and body fat as you age, and allow it to happen, then you’re condemning yourself to a lifetime of increased risk of chronic disease.

I’ve previously argued in a different thread against the idea that it’s normal to put on weight and body fat with ageing as admitting defeat.  But there’s also evidence that it’s bad for your health too.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 04:11:11 PM
jt,

Walter Willett in ‘Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy’ lists as the factors important in aiding good health and avoiding chronic disease as 1.  Avoiding being overweight or obese. 2. Exercising daily 3. Avoiding excessive consumption of simple sugars, limiting them to less than 10% of calories and preferably less than 5%.


White bread is high-GI junk food with most of the nutrients removed during processing, and not particularly distinguishable metabolically from sugar.

I've never known Willett to advocate eating refined grains; only whole-grains.  Maybe you should read the book more carefully.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 04:33:56 PM
jt,

Walter Willett in ‘Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy’ lists as the factors important in aiding good health and avoiding chronic disease as 1.  Avoiding being overweight or obese. 2. Exercising daily 3. Avoiding excessive consumption of simple sugars, limiting them to less than 10% of calories and preferably less than 5%.

Your reading of Willett's book seems to be remarkably selective.  Here is what the Harvard webpage (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2017/10/15/eat-drink-and-be-healthy-willett/) for the 2017 edition of the book says (emphasis mine):

"The emphasis remains on a healthy diet as a whole, with each food component contributing its role, rather than focusing on any magic-bullet “superfoods.” After highlighting the whys of what to eat, a comprehensive recipe section helps answer the question of how to eat. A primary emphasis remains on reducing one’s intake of refined starches and sugars, while allowing some healthful fatsdaily. Willett does not demonize all carbohydrates; in fact his recipes are abundant in minimally processed carbohydrates from whole intact grains, whole fruits, legumes, beans, and some starchy vegetables like . Animal meats are included but poultry and seafood are the only types featured, alongside plenty of vegetarian and vegan recipes. Vegetables—the one food category many Americans are still struggling to eat more of—are included in most of the recipes in ways that make them aspirational."
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 04:47:34 PM
And here's an excerpt from the introduction (http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Eat-Drink-and-Be-Healthy/Walter-Willett/9781501164774) to Willett's book (emphasis mine):

• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, but limit fruit juices and corn, and hold the potatoes.

• Eat more good fats (these mostly come from plants) and fewer bad fats (these mostly come from meat and dairy foods).
Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates and fewer refined-grain carbohydrates.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, limit your consumption of red meat, and don’t eat processed meat.
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay; sugar-sweetened soda and other beverages aren’t.
• Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.
[/url]
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 27, 2018, 04:51:00 PM
And here's an excerpt from the introduction to Willett's book (emphasis mine):

• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, but limit fruit juices and corn, and hold the potatoes.

• Eat more good fats (these mostly come from plants) and fewer bad fats (these mostly come from meat and dairy foods).
Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates and fewer refined-grain carbohydrates.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, limit your consumption of red meat, and don’t eat processed meat.
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay; sugar-sweetened soda and other beverages aren’t.
• Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.


Is there any science at all that shows it's more healthy to eat whole-grains than no grains at all?

Clearly whole grains are healthier than refined-grains, just as filtered cigarettes were healthier than unfiltered cigarettes.

Even the GI page you linked to doesn't show that much of a difference.

Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 05:01:38 PM
And here's an excerpt from the introduction to Willett's book (emphasis mine):

• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, but limit fruit juices and corn, and hold the potatoes.

• Eat more good fats (these mostly come from plants) and fewer bad fats (these mostly come from meat and dairy foods).
Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates and fewer refined-grain carbohydrates.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, limit your consumption of red meat, and don’t eat processed meat.
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay; sugar-sweetened soda and other beverages aren’t.
• Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.


Is there any science at all that shows it's more healthy to eat whole-grains than no grains at all?


Your question needs to be refined (so to speak).  You can't talk about the health effect of eliminating a food that provides calories, because the calories have to be replaced by another food.  So, you have to talk about the effect of substituting one food for another.  If you replace whole grains with bacon, I think the consequences would be detrimental.  If you replaced the whole grains nuts or fish, that might be a wash or even an improvement.  I don't know that the question has ever been addressed by research.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 05:24:01 PM
jt,

Agreed.  Willett does recommend whole grain bread, despite it having a similar glycaemic index to white bread.  But he also includes consuming a high glycaemic load diet as a risk factor for chronic disease - if you’re overweight or obese.  If.  You’re. Overweight. Or.  Obese.

I’ve just taken the corollary, and noted that if you’re not overweight, then the glycaemic score is irrelevant as a risk factor for chronic disease, and the risk factors remain being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars.  And if you’re overweight or obese, which applies to more than 50% of Americans and Australians, then the glycaemic index of the diet becomes a risk factor for chronic disease.  And if you accept that it’s normal to put on body weight and body fat as you age, and don’t try to prevent it, you’re not only admitting defeat, but you’re also increased your risk of chronic disease, just as if you’re overweight, and the glycaemic load also becomes a factor.

I might be wrong about the glycaemic index and glycaemic load concepts being flawed.  It mightn’t matter for me because, as you’ve noted, sourdough bread has a low glycaemic index.  I don’t know if it does or not.  I don’t eat it for its health benefits.  I eat it because I enjoy it.  I can afford to ignore the glycaemic score and load.  For me, it’s irrelevant.

Even if bread is fortified with vitamins to make it nutritious, it still contains the vitamins, and is nutritious.  Willett also recommends taking a daily multivitamin tablet daily, just in case, which I wouldn’t agree with.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 27, 2018, 05:31:20 PM
And here's an excerpt from the introduction to Willett's book (emphasis mine):

• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, but limit fruit juices and corn, and hold the potatoes.

• Eat more good fats (these mostly come from plants) and fewer bad fats (these mostly come from meat and dairy foods).
Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates and fewer refined-grain carbohydrates.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, limit your consumption of red meat, and don’t eat processed meat.
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay; sugar-sweetened soda and other beverages aren’t.
• Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.


Is there any science at all that shows it's more healthy to eat whole-grains than no grains at all?


Your question needs to be refined (so to speak).  You can't talk about the health effect of eliminating a food that provides calories, because the calories have to be replaced by another food.  So, you have to talk about the effect of substituting one food for another.  If you replace whole grains with bacon, I think the consequences would be detrimental.  If you replaced the whole grains nuts or fish, that might be a wash or even an improvement.  I don't know that the question has ever been addressed by research.

Lets say you remove grains from the diet and replace the calories by increasing proportionally the calories from the rest of the food in your diet.

Also, if you ate ad libitum you may consume fewer calories, not replacing all calories from grain at all.

Either way, to say it's healthier to "Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates" is not supported by science. Eating fewer refined-grain carbohydrates is, but as you say that question has not been addressed by research.

In my diet I replaced whole grains with bacon and the only detrimental consequence was encouraging others to do the same. ;)

Willet's advice, by the way, is ver similar (90%?) to a LCHF Keto diet. Remove the bit about more whole grains; rewrite the good fats bad fats part; eliminate the limiting meat part, and you're there.

This is what the LCHF version would look like

• Eat plenty of non-starchy vegetables and fruits
• Aviod fruit juices
• Avoid sugar-sweetened beverages.
• Eat more good fats (including saturated fats) and try to achieve a balance between OM3 and OM6
• Avoid trans fats
• Avoid grains
• Avoid sugar-sweetened food and foods high in sugar
• Avoid starchy fruits and vegetables (corn; potatoes; bananas).
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay
• Avoid beer; other low carb alcoholic beverages (wine; most liquors) are okay in moderation
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 06:06:07 PM
jt,

Agreed.  Willett does recommend whole grain bread, despite it having a similar glycaemic index to white bread.  But he also includes consuming a high glycaemic load diet as a risk factor for chronic disease - if you’re overweight or obese.  If.  You’re. Overweight. Or.  Obese.


Willett recommends reducing or eliminating refined grains and consuming whole grains for everybody, whether they are overweight or not.  Ev. Er. Y. Bod. Y.

Quote
I’ve just taken the corollary, and noted that if you’re not overweight, then the glycaemic score is irrelevant as a risk factor for chronic disease, and the risk factors remain being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars.


So, even if GI is unimportant for normal-weight individuals (and I suspect that it is important), Willett would say reduce your intake of white bread and increase your intake of whole-wheat bread.  Refined grains are bad because they're refined.  They've had the bran and the germ removed, and with them the fiber and most of the micronutrients, leaving behind empty calories to which synthetic versions of a handful of nutrients have been added back.

Quote
And if you’re overweight or obese, which applies to more than 50% of Americans and Australians, then the glycaemic index of the diet becomes a risk factor for chronic disease.

The fact that high-glycemic diets are risk factors for becoming overweight breaks your assertion that GI doesn't matter for normal-weight individuals.

Quote
I might be wrong about the glycaemic index and glycaemic load concepts being flawed.

According to the evidence, you are indeed wrong.

Quote
Even if bread is fortified with vitamins to make it nutritious, it still contains the vitamins, and is nutritious.

In contains whatever has been added back, doesn't contain what hasn't, and what has been added back is not necessarily in the form found in the original food.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 06:17:57 PM
And here's an excerpt from the introduction to Willett's book (emphasis mine):

• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, but limit fruit juices and corn, and hold the potatoes.

• Eat more good fats (these mostly come from plants) and fewer bad fats (these mostly come from meat and dairy foods).
Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates and fewer refined-grain carbohydrates.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, limit your consumption of red meat, and don’t eat processed meat.
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay; sugar-sweetened soda and other beverages aren’t.
• Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.


Is there any science at all that shows it's more healthy to eat whole-grains than no grains at all?


Your question needs to be refined (so to speak).  You can't talk about the health effect of eliminating a food that provides calories, because the calories have to be replaced by another food.  So, you have to talk about the effect of substituting one food for another.  If you replace whole grains with bacon, I think the consequences would be detrimental.  If you replaced the whole grains nuts or fish, that might be a wash or even an improvement.  I don't know that the question has ever been addressed by research.

Lets say you remove grains from the diet and replace the calories by increasing proportionally the calories from the rest of the food in your diet.

Also, if you ate ad libitum you may consume fewer calories, not replacing all calories from grain at all.

Either way, to say it's healthier to "Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates" is not supported by science. Eating fewer refined-grain carbohydrates is, but as you say that question has not been addressed by research.


There is plenty of scientific support for the assertion that whole-grains are good for you.  The question you asked is what would happen if you eliminated whole grains from the diet, and I said that that question depends on what you substitute for them.  No one has done exactly that study, that I am aware of, but we can infer what the answer, at least approximately, from other research, which is how I was able to answer your question.

Quote
In my diet I replaced whole grains with bacon and the only detrimental consequence was encouraging others to do the same. ;)


But seriously, you don't know what harm is going on under the hood.  Pretty much all the research says you should have replaced the grains with low-carbohydrate plant-based foods and maybe some fish.

Quote
Willet's advice, by the way, is ver similar (90%?) to a LCHF Keto diet. Remove the bit about more whole grains; rewrite the good fats bad fats part; eliminate the limiting meat part, and you're there.

This is what the LCHF version would look like

• Eat plenty of non-starchy vegetables and fruits
• Aviod fruit juices
• Avoid sugar-sweetened beverages.
• Eat more good fats (including saturated fats) and try to achieve a balance between OM3 and OM6
• Avoid trans fats
• Avoid grains
• Avoid sugar-sweetened food and foods high in sugar
• Avoid starchy fruits and vegetables (corn; potatoes; bananas).
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay
• Avoid beer; other low carb alcoholic beverages (wine; most liquors) are okay in moderation
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.


There really is no LCHF version of Willett's diet, since he explicitly recommends whole-grain foods.  Additionally, he specifically recommends reducing saturated fat intake, limiting red meat intake, and eliminating processed meat entirely.  Willett would never call saturated fat "good."
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 27, 2018, 06:29:01 PM
And here's an excerpt from the introduction to Willett's book (emphasis mine):

• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, but limit fruit juices and corn, and hold the potatoes.

• Eat more good fats (these mostly come from plants) and fewer bad fats (these mostly come from meat and dairy foods).
Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates and fewer refined-grain carbohydrates.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, limit your consumption of red meat, and don’t eat processed meat.
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay; sugar-sweetened soda and other beverages aren’t.
• Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.


Is there any science at all that shows it's more healthy to eat whole-grains than no grains at all?


Your question needs to be refined (so to speak).  You can't talk about the health effect of eliminating a food that provides calories, because the calories have to be replaced by another food.  So, you have to talk about the effect of substituting one food for another.  If you replace whole grains with bacon, I think the consequences would be detrimental.  If you replaced the whole grains nuts or fish, that might be a wash or even an improvement.  I don't know that the question has ever been addressed by research.

Lets say you remove grains from the diet and replace the calories by increasing proportionally the calories from the rest of the food in your diet.

Also, if you ate ad libitum you may consume fewer calories, not replacing all calories from grain at all.

Either way, to say it's healthier to "Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates" is not supported by science. Eating fewer refined-grain carbohydrates is, but as you say that question has not been addressed by research.


There is plenty of scientific support for the assertion that whole-grains are good for you. 

I'd like to see that. I'd say that there is plenty of scientific support for the assertion that whole-grains are better for you (or not as bad for you) than refined grains. I don't think there's any study showing that adding whole-grains to a grain-free diet is good for you; or the converse, that a diet with whole-grains is healthier than a grain free diet. 

Quote


The question you asked is what would happen if you eliminated whole grains from the diet, and I said that that question depends on what you substitute for them.  No one has done exactly that study, that I am aware of, but we can infer what the answer, at least approximately, from other research, which is how I was able to answer your question.

Whole-grains are healthier (or not as unhealthy) as refined grains. To say more than that is going beyond science.


Quote



Quote
In my diet I replaced whole grains with bacon and the only detrimental consequence was encouraging others to do the same. ;)


Quote
But seriously, you don't know what harm is going on under the hood.  Pretty much all the research says you should have replaced the grains with low-carbohydrate plant-based foods and maybe some fish.

Not one single RCT supports that. Conclusions drawn from Epidemiological studies not supported by RCTs are suspect, to say the least.

Quote
There really is no LCHF version of Willett's diet, since he explicitly recommends whole-grain foods.  Additionally, he specifically recommends reducing saturated fat intake, limiting red meat intake, and eliminating processed meat entirely.  Willett would never call saturated fat "good."

Well there are plenty of plant sources of saturated fats, but in those bullet points he does not limit them, and actually encourages.

Can you explain why whole-grain foods are good and refined grains are bad?

The difference in the GI index is not that big. In some cases they're just about equal.

What is it that make one healthier than the other?

(I can explain it in the context of a LCHF diet, but I'm wondering what your theory is).
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 07:09:54 PM
And here's an excerpt from the introduction to Willett's book (emphasis mine):

• Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, but limit fruit juices and corn, and hold the potatoes.

• Eat more good fats (these mostly come from plants) and fewer bad fats (these mostly come from meat and dairy foods).
Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates and fewer refined-grain carbohydrates.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, limit your consumption of red meat, and don’t eat processed meat.
• Drink more water. Coffee and tea are okay; sugar-sweetened soda and other beverages aren’t.
• Drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.
• Take a multivitamin for insurance, just in case you aren’t getting the vitamins and minerals you need from the foods you eat. Make sure it delivers at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D.


Is there any science at all that shows it's more healthy to eat whole-grains than no grains at all?


Your question needs to be refined (so to speak).  You can't talk about the health effect of eliminating a food that provides calories, because the calories have to be replaced by another food.  So, you have to talk about the effect of substituting one food for another.  If you replace whole grains with bacon, I think the consequences would be detrimental.  If you replaced the whole grains nuts or fish, that might be a wash or even an improvement.  I don't know that the question has ever been addressed by research.

Lets say you remove grains from the diet and replace the calories by increasing proportionally the calories from the rest of the food in your diet.

Also, if you ate ad libitum you may consume fewer calories, not replacing all calories from grain at all.

Either way, to say it's healthier to "Eat more whole-grain carbohydrates" is not supported by science. Eating fewer refined-grain carbohydrates is, but as you say that question has not been addressed by research.


There is plenty of scientific support for the assertion that whole-grains are good for you. 

I'd like to see that.

Here's one recent study:

Quote
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Mar;175(3):373-84. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6283.

Association between dietary whole grain intake and risk of mortality: two large prospective studies in US men and women.

Wu H(1), Flint AJ(1), Qi Q(2), van Dam RM(3), Sampson LA(4), Rimm EB(5), Holmes MD(6), Willett WC(5), Hu FB(5), Sun Q(4).

IMPORTANCE: Higher intake of whole grains has been associated with a lower risk of major chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD), although limited prospective evidence exists regarding whole grains' association with mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between dietary whole grain consumption and risk of mortality.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We investigated 74 341 women from the Nurses' Health Study (1984-2010) and 43 744 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2010), 2 large prospective cohort studies. All patients were free of CVD and cancer at baseline.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HRs) for total mortality and mortality due to CVD and cancer according to quintiles of whole grain consumption, which was updated every 2 or 4 years by using validated food frequency questionnaires.

RESULTS: We documented 26 920 deaths during 2 727 006 person-years of follow-up. After multivariate adjustment for potential confounders, including age, smoking, body mass index, physical activity, and modified Alternate Healthy Eating Index score, higher whole grain intake was associated with lower total and CVD mortality but not cancer mortality: the pooled HRs for quintiles 1 through 5, respectively, of whole grain intake were 1 (reference), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.02), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-1.02), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.93-1.01), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) for total mortality (P fortrend < .001); 1 (reference), 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01), 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.92) for CVD mortality (P fortrend < .001); and 1 (reference), 1.02 (95% CI, 0.96-1.08), 1.05 (95% CI, 0.99-1.12), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.11), and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.91-1.04) for cancer mortality (P fortrend = .43). We further estimated that every serving (28 g/d) of whole grain consumption was associated with a 5% (95% CI, 2%-7%) lower total morality or a 9% (95% CI, 4%-13%) lower CVD mortality, whereas the same intake level was nonsignificantly associated with lower cancer mortality (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.02). Similar inverse associations were observed between bran intake and CVD mortality, with a pooled HR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87; P fortrend < .001), whereas germ intake was not associated with CVD mortality after adjustment for bran intake.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These data indicate that higher whole grain consumption is associated with lower total and CVD mortality in US men and women, independent of other dietary and lifestyle factors. These results are in line with recommendations that promote increased whole grain consumption to facilitate disease prevention.

Quote
Well there are plenty of plant sources of saturated fats, but in those bullet points he does not limit them, and actually encourages.

Willett explicitly says to reduce saturated fat intake from all sources.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 27, 2018, 07:37:28 PM
These epidemiological studies are observations that show correlations. They are not experiments. They are not the scientific method.

They have validity but by themselves are not sufficient. Their observations of correlations need to be confirmed in RCTs.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 07:40:22 PM
jt,

I’m really agnostic about diets.  I think that there are a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets, even CarbShark’s low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet.  I don’t think that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  Nor do I proselytise about my high carbohydrate/low fat vegetarian diet.

Willett’s ‘Harvard Healthy Eating Pyramid’ ‘based on solid science, offers better guidance for healthy eating than advice from the USDA’ includes as its base daily exercise and weight control.  Yes!  That I regard as the most important fact in a healthy diet, followed closely by restricting the amount of added simple sugars.  After that, I regard the proportions of macronutrients and food stuffs to be minor.

I think you’re being a little inconsistent in rejecting the fortification of bread with vitamins on the basis that they’re synthetic, but aren’t willing to criticise Willett for recommending a daily multivitamin tablet.  Where do you think the vitamins in multivitamin tablets come from?

And anyway.  I need my bread, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to obtain sufficient calories.  As a vegetarian, where am I going to obtain sufficient convenient calories in a food that’s also nutritious?  And don’t be offensive and suggest that i should eat fish.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 07:56:59 PM
These epidemiological studies are observations that show correlations. They are not experiments. They are not the scientific method.

They have validity but by themselves are not sufficient. Their observations of correlations need to be confirmed in RCTs.

By their very nature, it’s impossible, even in theory, to do RCTs (random controlled trials) with dietary manipulations.  How are you going to be able randomly allocate one group to consuming whole-grain foods and another group to avoiding them, and actually have the groups persist with them for the years or decades necessary to determine if there’s a difference in life expectancy and mortality?

Observational studies, even though flawed, are the only practical way of coming to a provisional conclusion (and everything in science is provisional).  As I’ve noted many times - we need the data, including the observational outcomes of people committed and following particular diets for the years or decades necessary to determine the long term effects of diet on health and life expectancy.  Not short term studies of months looking at proxies of risk such as blood fat profiles.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 27, 2018, 09:36:17 PM
These epidemiological studies are observations that show correlations. They are not experiments. They are not the scientific method.

They have validity but by themselves are not sufficient. Their observations of correlations need to be confirmed in RCTs.

By their very nature, it’s impossible, even in theory, to do RCTs (random controlled trials) with dietary manipulations.  How are you going to be able randomly allocate one group to consuming whole-grain foods and another group to avoiding them, and actually have the groups persist with them for the years or decades necessary to determine if there’s a difference in life expectancy and mortality?

Observational studies, even though flawed, are the only practical way of coming to a provisional conclusion (and everything in science is provisional).  As I’ve noted many times - we need the data, including the observational outcomes of people committed and following particular diets for the years or decades necessary to determine the long term effects of diet on health and life expectancy.  Not short term studies of months looking at proxies of risk such as blood fat profiles.


Simple. You use the data gathered in the epidemiological studies as observations to form hypotheses.

In this case the hypotheses could be:

Replacing refined grains with whole grains is healthy

Removing all  grains from diet is healthy

Adding whole grains to a grain free diet is unhealthy

Then you test each of these with long term (6 month) RCTs and closely track all risk factors for the specific conditions where correlations were observed.

Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: arthwollipot on September 27, 2018, 09:52:27 PM
I suggest you ask CarbShark and bachfiend for their answers to that question.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/47CvsUWHvbmgg/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 10:00:40 PM
These epidemiological studies are observations that show correlations. They are not experiments. They are not the scientific method.

They have validity but by themselves are not sufficient. Their observations of correlations need to be confirmed in RCTs.


CS, they're never experiments.  Get over it.  It is infeasible to run a dietary experiment long enough to detect effects on hard chronic disease endpoints.  The best nutritional data we have come from a combination of epidemiology and basic science.  That is the scientific evidence on which we have to make determinations.  It may be imperfect, but it's the best there is.  If you're not basing scientific judgments on the best available data, then what exactly are you basing them on?  Hunches?  Philosophy?  Religion?  Anecdoctes?  The taste of sourdough bread?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 10:31:49 PM
These epidemiological studies are observations that show correlations. They are not experiments. They are not the scientific method.

They have validity but by themselves are not sufficient. Their observations of correlations need to be confirmed in RCTs.

By their very nature, it’s impossible, even in theory, to do RCTs (random controlled trials) with dietary manipulations.  How are you going to be able randomly allocate one group to consuming whole-grain foods and another group to avoiding them, and actually have the groups persist with them for the years or decades necessary to determine if there’s a difference in life expectancy and mortality?

Observational studies, even though flawed, are the only practical way of coming to a provisional conclusion (and everything in science is provisional).  As I’ve noted many times - we need the data, including the observational outcomes of people committed and following particular diets for the years or decades necessary to determine the long term effects of diet on health and life expectancy.  Not short term studies of months looking at proxies of risk such as blood fat profiles.


Simple. You use the data gathered in the epidemiological studies as observations to form hypotheses.

In this case the hypotheses could be:

Replacing refined grains with whole grains is healthy

Removing all  grains from diet is healthy

Adding whole grains to a grain free diet is unhealthy

Then you test each of these with long term (6 month) RCTs and closely track all risk factors for the specific conditions where correlations were observed.

CarbShark,

Six months isn’t ‘long term.’  If you’re trying to determine if consuming whole grains or not is healthy or not, associated with a higher or lower life expectancy or a lower or higher mortality, then you have to do long term studies over many years if not decades.

Short term interventional studies on small populations (which would be the case if you manage to recruit the willing participants) are useless in determining mortality and life expectancy because there’d be so few if any deaths in either group.  ‘Risk factors’ for disease are only proxies for the risk of disease.  If you’re trying to decide whether an intervention has an effect, such as reducing deaths, you have to look at the effect, in this case - deaths.  If you’re looking at proxies, then all you’re demonstrating is that your intervention isn’t obviously immediately lethal.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 10:49:07 PM
I suggest you ask CarbShark and bachfiend for their answers to that question.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/47CvsUWHvbmgg/giphy.gif)

I’ve already answered that question.  You’re not paying attention.  My answer was ‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-20.’  The argument subsequently has deteriorated into one concerning the recommendations of Walter Willett of Harvard University.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 10:53:53 PM
I think you’re being a little inconsistent in rejecting the fortification of bread with vitamins on the basis that they’re synthetic, but aren’t willing to criticise Willett for recommending a daily multivitamin tablet.  Where do you think the vitamins in multivitamin tablets come from?


I don't "reject" fortification.  Certainly fortified white bread is better than non-fortified white bread.  I'm saying that whole-grain bread is superior to fortified white bread.  In fact, the more fortified white bread you eat, the more you probably should take a multivitamin, since the multivitamin might contain some nutrient that the fortified white bread does not.

Quote
And anyway.  I need my bread, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to obtain sufficient calories.  As a vegetarian, where am I going to obtain sufficient convenient calories in a food that’s also nutritious?  And don’t be offensive and suggest that i should eat fish.


Um, switching from white bread to whole-grain bread?  Sorry, was it a trick question?  There are also nuts and a plethora of legumes and whole grains, tofu, and olive oil.  I have known a lot of vegetarians, and I have even studied vegetarian nutrition.  You're the only vegetarian I've ever heard of who consumes half his calories from any bread, nevermind white bread.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 27, 2018, 11:23:42 PM
I think you’re being a little inconsistent in rejecting the fortification of bread with vitamins on the basis that they’re synthetic, but aren’t willing to criticise Willett for recommending a daily multivitamin tablet.  Where do you think the vitamins in multivitamin tablets come from?


I don't "reject" fortification.  Certainly fortified white bread is better than non-fortified white bread.  I'm saying that whole-grain bread is superior to fortified white bread.  In fact, the more fortified white bread you eat, the more you probably should take a multivitamin, since the multivitamin might contain some nutrient that the fortified white bread does not.

Quote
And anyway.  I need my bread, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to obtain sufficient calories.  As a vegetarian, where am I going to obtain sufficient convenient calories in a food that’s also nutritious?  And don’t be offensive and suggest that i should eat fish.


Um, switching from white bread to whole-grain bread?  Sorry, was it a trick question?  There are also nuts and a plethora of legumes and whole grains, tofu, and olive oil.  I have known a lot of vegetarians, and I have even studied vegetarian nutrition.  You're the only vegetarian I've ever heard of who consumes half his calories from any bread, nevermind white bread.

When I was using ‘Carb Manager’ to assess my diet, I found that I was getting all of the RDA of vitamins and minerals from the 9 different vegetables in the vegetable casserole I consume daily, along with the skim milk and skim milk yoghurt, and egg.  Whatever was in the sourdough bread wasn’t actually necessary, but it was quite a lot too.

Sourdough bread is a convenient and readily available source of needed calories.  I’ve tried to get my baker to produce wholemeal sourdough bread, but he’s not interested in doing so.

I also do eat tofu and nuts.  Quite a lot, actually.

As I’ve noted many times - I’m agnostic about diet.  I might be unusual today with consuming half my calories in bread, but I certainly wouldn’t be unusual in past times when bread formed a much larger component of people’s diets because it was cheap, readily available and kept well.  And then people got affluent and became sedentary and adopted diets higher in animal products, and became obese with increasing rates of chronic diseases.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 27, 2018, 11:37:25 PM
I think you’re being a little inconsistent in rejecting the fortification of bread with vitamins on the basis that they’re synthetic, but aren’t willing to criticise Willett for recommending a daily multivitamin tablet.  Where do you think the vitamins in multivitamin tablets come from?

I don't "reject" fortification.  Certainly fortified white bread is better than non-fortified white bread.  I'm saying that whole-grain bread is superior to fortified white bread.  In fact, the more fortified white bread you eat, the more you probably should take a multivitamin, since the multivitamin might contain some nutrient that the fortified white bread does not.

Quote
And anyway.  I need my bread, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to obtain sufficient calories.  As a vegetarian, where am I going to obtain sufficient convenient calories in a food that’s also nutritious?  And don’t be offensive and suggest that i should eat fish.


Um, switching from white bread to whole-grain bread?  Sorry, was it a trick question?  There are also nuts and a plethora of legumes and whole grains, tofu, and olive oil.  I have known a lot of vegetarians, and I have even studied vegetarian nutrition.  You're the only vegetarian I've ever heard of who consumes half his calories from any bread, nevermind white bread.

When I was using ‘Carb Manager’ to assess my diet, I found that I was getting all of the RDA of vitamins and minerals from the 9 different vegetables in the vegetable casserole I consume daily, along with the skim milk and skim milk yoghurt, and egg.  Whatever was in the sourdough bread wasn’t actually necessary, but it was quite a lot too.

Sourdough bread is a convenient and readily available source of needed calories.  I’ve tried to get my baker to produce wholemeal sourdough bread, but he’s not interested in doing so.

I also do eat tofu and nuts.  Quite a lot, actually.

As I’ve noted many times - I’m agnostic about diet.  I might be unusual today with consuming half my calories in bread, but I certainly wouldn’t be unusual in past times when bread formed a much larger component of people’s diets because it was cheap, readily available and kept well.  And then people got affluent and became sedentary and adopted diets higher in animal products, and became obese with increasing rates of chronic diseases.

I'd be curious if you have any scientific information that any group of humans ever obtained half their calories from bread.  And if any group did, what their health was.

I'm pretty agnostic about the amounts of fats and carbohydrate in the diet, about which there is no scientific consensus.  But not about the quality of carbohydrate and fat in the diet, where there is scientific consensus.  Fats should be mono- and polyunsaturated with an emphasis of n-3 fatty acids.  Carbohydrate should be low-GI and whole-grain. 

You and carbshark have one thing in common: you are consuming extreme diets that the best nutritional evidence says are unhealthy in some major respect: CS eats too much red meat and saturated fat; you eat too much refined carbohydrate. 
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 28, 2018, 12:17:14 AM
jt,

So?... as I’ve noted many times, I eat bread for its necessary calories.  Bread is a very good calorie rich food.  To get the calories I need and get from 350 g of sourdough bread I’d need to eat kilograms of my vegetable casserole, otherwise I’d be losing weight, which I certainly don’t need to do.

I’d happily compare my physical condition and health against yours any day.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 28, 2018, 12:21:31 AM
jt,

So?... as I’ve noted many times, I eat bread for its necessary calories.  Bread is a very good [correction by jt512] calorie rich food.  To get the calories I need and get from 350 g of sourdough bread I’d need to eat kilograms of my vegetable casserole, otherwise I’d be losing weight, which I certainly don’t need to do.

I’d happily compare my physical condition and health against yours any day.

In case you are unaware of it, there are other vegetarian foods besides your vegetable casserole and your white bread.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 28, 2018, 03:22:32 AM
jt,

So?... as I’ve noted many times, I eat bread for its necessary calories.  Bread is a very good [correction by jt512] calorie rich food.  To get the calories I need and get from 350 g of sourdough bread I’d need to eat kilograms of my vegetable casserole, otherwise I’d be losing weight, which I certainly don’t need to do.

I’d happily compare my physical condition and health against yours any day.

In case you are unaware of it, there are other vegetarian foods besides your vegetable casserole and your white bread.

This discussion is irritating me considerably.

Let’s put it this way - I know my diet is extreme.  Unlike CarbShark I don’t proselytise about it.  I don’t recommend it as the best diet for maintenance of a healthy body weight and good health.  I think that there are wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.

I offer my diet with its 70/12/18 breakdown of C/F/P as a diet at the opposite extreme to CarbShark’s other extreme of less than 5% carbohydrate diet, and I get all the benefits he claims occurs with a ketogenic diet with a low BMI, no hunger, and perfectly normal blood chemistry.

Or to put it another way.  I’m very active physically.  I consume 2800 kcals per day, 1400 kcals coming from bread, and I maintain my body weight of 61 kg and a BMI of slightly over 19 - just.  Any fewer calories, and I’d be losing weight, which I can’t afford to do.  The average diet contains around 2000 kcals a day.  So I’m actually consuming an average vegetarian diet, with all the minerals and vitamins I need, plus an extra 800 kcals from sourdough bread to maintain my body weight.

There aren’t too many foods around that are as calorie rich in such a small volume.  I could eat an extra 8 bananas or apples. Or 10 eggs.  Or what ever combination of vegetarian foods you might suggest, but there’s nothing that comes close to bread in its convenience.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 28, 2018, 10:18:34 AM
These epidemiological studies are observations that show correlations. They are not experiments. They are not the scientific method.

They have validity but by themselves are not sufficient. Their observations of correlations need to be confirmed in RCTs.


CS, they're never experiments. 
RCTs are not experiments?

Quote
It is infeasible to run a dietary experiment long enough to detect effects on hard chronic disease endpoints. 

Most chronic diseases affected by diet (CVD; TIID; metabolic syndrome, etc.) have well known markers and indicators that can be tracked in RCTs. Further, RCTs of various dietary interventions with extended follow up can track larger changes over time.


Quote
The best nutritional data we have come from a combination of epidemiology and basic science. 

That's flat out false. The large scale epidemiological studies based on Food Frequency questionnaires provide extremely week data, can at best show correlations, and are hampered by numerous weaknesses of the data gathering method (FFQ).

Quote
That is the scientific evidence on which we have to make determinations.  It may be imperfect, but it's the best there is.  If you're not basing scientific judgments on the best available data, then what exactly are you basing them on?  Hunches?  Philosophy?  Religion?  Anecdoctes?  The taste of sourdough bread?

Why ignore the hundreds of RCTs that have been done on diet and nutrition? That is scientific evidence. 
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 28, 2018, 06:00:16 PM
CarbShark,

There are no random controlled trials on diet and nutrition.  At best, they’re semi-random (the participants have to know which manipulation they’re being requested to follow, and they have to be motivated to actually follow the manipulation) and semi-controlled (for the same reasons).

In true RCTs, the participants don’t know which treatment they’re receiving, nor do the investigators.  In trials of statins, for example, half of a test group receive the drug being investigated and the other half receive a placebo or another accepted statin, and the two groups are then treated identically.  And at the end of the trial, the results are collated to see if there’s a difference in the results for the two groups.

It’s possible to check for compliance by counting the number of tablets to ensure that the participants are taking the tablets.

None of this applies to trials of diet.  The participants know which diet they’re on.  They’re not treated identically.  If the manipulation is something radical, such as your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, then the participants get more counselling, even if it’s only which foods to avoid, and which to eat.  Willett suggested that one of the ways diets work is by making the dieter think about the food eaten.

The ‘markers’ of chronic disease, such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome (which, by the way, were determined by observational studies of large populations) are only proxies of the risk of disease.  Determining whether a dietary manipulation reduces the risk of chronic disease requires determining whether the incidence of chronic disease is reduced.  And the only way of doing that is long term observational studies of large populations.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 28, 2018, 06:17:59 PM
CarbShark,

There are no random controlled trials on diet and nutrition.  At best, they’re semi-random (the participants have to know which manipulation they’re being requested to follow, and they have to be motivated to actually follow the manipulation) and semi-controlled (for the same reasons).

In true RCTs, the participants don’t know which treatment they’re receiving, nor do the investigators.  In trials of statins, for example, half of a test group receive the drug being investigated and the other half receive a placebo or another accepted statin, and the two groups are then treated identically.  And at the end of the trial, the results are collated to see if there’s a difference in the results for the two groups.

You are conflating two disparate concepts: randomization and blinding.  A trial is randomized when subjects are assigned to treatments via a random process.  Trials may be either randomized or not.  Trials, whether randomized or not, may be single blind, double blind, triple blind, or open label.  In a single-blind trial, subjects do not know what treatment they are receiving; in a double-blind trial, neither do the investigators; in a triple-blind trial, neither do the data analysts.  In an open-label trial, everybody knows everything.

There have been, and there continue to be, lots of dietary randomized controlled trials, some even double blind.  What there have been very few of are long-term diet trials, that is, on a time scale (years to decades) needed to ascertain the effects of diet on hard chronic disease endpoints.  The problem, with such trials, as you have explained, is compliance.  Subjects will not stick to an assigned diet for a decade.  That's why effects of diet on chronic disease have to be ascertained by using a combination of basic science, short-term metabolic trials, and long-term observational studies.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 28, 2018, 06:33:04 PM
CarbShark,

There are no random controlled trials on diet and nutrition.  At best, they’re semi-random (the participants have to know which manipulation they’re being requested to follow, and they have to be motivated to actually follow the manipulation) and semi-controlled (for the same reasons).

In true RCTs, the participants don’t know which treatment they’re receiving, nor do the investigators.  In trials of statins, for example, half of a test group receive the drug being investigated and the other half receive a placebo or another accepted statin, and the two groups are then treated identically.  And at the end of the trial, the results are collated to see if there’s a difference in the results for the two groups.

You are conflating two disparate concepts: randomization and blinding.  A trial is randomized when subjects are assigned to treatments via a random process.  Trials may be either randomized or not.  Trials, whether randomized or not, may be single blind, double blind, triple blind, or open label.  In a single-blind trial, subjects do not know what treatment they are receiving; in a double-blind trial, neither do the investigators; in a triple-blind trial, neither do the data analysts.  In an open-label trial, everybody knows everything.

There have been, and there continue to be, lots of dietary randomized controlled trials, some even double blind.  What there have been very few of are long-term diet trials, that is, on a time scale (years to decades) needed to ascertain the effects of diet on hard chronic disease endpoints.  The problem, with such trials, as you have explained, is compliance.  Subjects will not stick to an assigned diet for a decade.  That's why effects of diet on chronic disease have to be ascertained by using a combination of basic science, short-term metabolic trials, and long-term observational studies.

At best, long term observational studies will only show correlations, and in part due to the weakness of the methodology (FFQ; few samples for each subject; limited follow up) they are not suited for a complex field like nutrition, and certainly not suited for proving causation between specific foods and chronic diseases.

When they show correlations, there must be followup with further studies (RCTs, etc.) to show any causation. That's not just true for nutrition, but anywhere long-term observational studies are used.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 28, 2018, 08:37:47 PM
CarbShark,

There are no random controlled trials on diet and nutrition.  At best, they’re semi-random (the participants have to know which manipulation they’re being requested to follow, and they have to be motivated to actually follow the manipulation) and semi-controlled (for the same reasons).

In true RCTs, the participants don’t know which treatment they’re receiving, nor do the investigators.  In trials of statins, for example, half of a test group receive the drug being investigated and the other half receive a placebo or another accepted statin, and the two groups are then treated identically.  And at the end of the trial, the results are collated to see if there’s a difference in the results for the two groups.

You are conflating two disparate concepts: randomization and blinding.  A trial is randomized when subjects are assigned to treatments via a random process.  Trials may be either randomized or not.  Trials, whether randomized or not, may be single blind, double blind, triple blind, or open label.  In a single-blind trial, subjects do not know what treatment they are receiving; in a double-blind trial, neither do the investigators; in a triple-blind trial, neither do the data analysts.  In an open-label trial, everybody knows everything.

There have been, and there continue to be, lots of dietary randomized controlled trials, some even double blind.  What there have been very few of are long-term diet trials, that is, on a time scale (years to decades) needed to ascertain the effects of diet on hard chronic disease endpoints.  The problem, with such trials, as you have explained, is compliance.  Subjects will not stick to an assigned diet for a decade.  That's why effects of diet on chronic disease have to be ascertained by using a combination of basic science, short-term metabolic trials, and long-term observational studies.

No, I’m not conflating blinded random controlled trials with random controlled trials.  And how do you have a double blind dietary trial?  Dietary trials are at best semi-random (the participants can make the decision to drop out or not comply if the diet is too onerous) and semi-controlled (the investigators have limited means of ensuring compliance).

Really, long term observational studies are the only way of determining the health effects of diet, when the end points are chronic disease or death.  Basic science and short term metabolic studies are interesting, but hardly conclusive.  Steve Novella has warned against using basic science to extrapolate to results in complex systems, because science simplifies systems, and there’s always added factors you haven’t considered.  And metabolic trials only demonstrate proxies of risk, not the risk itself.  If your aim is to reduce the incidence of chronic disease or increase life expectancy by some dietary manipulation, then you need to actually show that it happens.

Anyway.  I’m wasting too much time on this thread.  My view regarding diet is expressed in my third comment on page 2 when I recommended ‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-20’ as a good reference for the science of diet and health.  If I’m recommending ‘the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-20’ I’m also recommending the guidelines.  If more people followed the guidelines, then we’d be better off.  Willett wrote in his book that the ‘Guidelines’ are finally getting the science much closer to right by removing vested interests such as food producers from the editing process.

People such as CarbShark want the guidelines to be chucked out and replaced by recommendations for their extreme low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets.  I know my diet is extreme, at the other end of the spectrum, but I’m not claiming that it’s healthier.  Nor am I recommending it to other people or demanding that it ought to be included in the ‘Guidelines.’

I’m just pointing out that I’m getting all the benefits claimed for low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets (no feelings of hunger during the day, low BMI and body fat and perfect blood chemistry) on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 28, 2018, 09:36:01 PM
CarbShark,

There are no random controlled trials on diet and nutrition.  At best, they’re semi-random (the participants have to know which manipulation they’re being requested to follow, and they have to be motivated to actually follow the manipulation) and semi-controlled (for the same reasons).

In true RCTs, the participants don’t know which treatment they’re receiving, nor do the investigators.  In trials of statins, for example, half of a test group receive the drug being investigated and the other half receive a placebo or another accepted statin, and the two groups are then treated identically.  And at the end of the trial, the results are collated to see if there’s a difference in the results for the two groups.

You are conflating two disparate concepts: randomization and blinding.  A trial is randomized when subjects are assigned to treatments via a random process.  Trials may be either randomized or not.  Trials, whether randomized or not, may be single blind, double blind, triple blind, or open label.  In a single-blind trial, subjects do not know what treatment they are receiving; in a double-blind trial, neither do the investigators; in a triple-blind trial, neither do the data analysts.  In an open-label trial, everybody knows everything.

There have been, and there continue to be, lots of dietary randomized controlled trials, some even double blind.  What there have been very few of are long-term diet trials, that is, on a time scale (years to decades) needed to ascertain the effects of diet on hard chronic disease endpoints.  The problem, with such trials, as you have explained, is compliance.  Subjects will not stick to an assigned diet for a decade.  That's why effects of diet on chronic disease have to be ascertained by using a combination of basic science, short-term metabolic trials, and long-term observational studies.

At best, long term observational studies will only show correlations, and in part due to the weakness of the methodology (FFQ; few samples for each subject; limited follow up) they are not suited for a complex field like nutrition, and certainly not suited for proving causation between specific foods and chronic diseases.


At best, observational studies demonstrate causation.  That's what all that controlling for confounders is all about.

Quote
When they show correlations, there must be followup with further studies (RCTs, etc.) to show any causation. That's not just true for nutrition, but anywhere long-term observational studies are used.


Why do you keep saying that when it has been explained to you over and over again that long-term RCTs are not feasible in nutrition.  For the umpteenth time, the effects of nutrition on chronic diseases can ONLY be ascertained by using a combination of basic science, short-term metabolic studies, and long-term observational studies.  Those are THE tools.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 28, 2018, 10:02:20 PM
CarbShark,

There are no random controlled trials on diet and nutrition.  At best, they’re semi-random (the participants have to know which manipulation they’re being requested to follow, and they have to be motivated to actually follow the manipulation) and semi-controlled (for the same reasons).

In true RCTs, the participants don’t know which treatment they’re receiving, nor do the investigators.  In trials of statins, for example, half of a test group receive the drug being investigated and the other half receive a placebo or another accepted statin, and the two groups are then treated identically.  And at the end of the trial, the results are collated to see if there’s a difference in the results for the two groups.

You are conflating two disparate concepts: randomization and blinding.  A trial is randomized when subjects are assigned to treatments via a random process.  Trials may be either randomized or not.  Trials, whether randomized or not, may be single blind, double blind, triple blind, or open label.  In a single-blind trial, subjects do not know what treatment they are receiving; in a double-blind trial, neither do the investigators; in a triple-blind trial, neither do the data analysts.  In an open-label trial, everybody knows everything.

There have been, and there continue to be, lots of dietary randomized controlled trials, some even double blind.  What there have been very few of are long-term diet trials, that is, on a time scale (years to decades) needed to ascertain the effects of diet on hard chronic disease endpoints.  The problem, with such trials, as you have explained, is compliance.  Subjects will not stick to an assigned diet for a decade.  That's why effects of diet on chronic disease have to be ascertained by using a combination of basic science, short-term metabolic trials, and long-term observational studies.

No, I’m not conflating blinded random controlled trials with random controlled trials.

Did you actually read what you wrote?  I did, and you conflated blinding and randomization.  They are independent concepts: trials can employ either, neither, or both.

Quote
And how do you have a double blind dietary trial?

The same way you have double blind drug trials.  Except instead of drugs, you have meals.  Meals in the two arms are formulated to be indistinguishable, and investigators are not privy to which meals are being fed to which subjects.

Quote
Dietary trials are at best semi-random (the participants can make the decision to drop out or not comply if the diet is too onerous) and semi-controlled (the investigators have limited means of ensuring compliance).

Subjects in any study doop out if the intervention is too onerous as well as a myriad of other reasons.  And in a strictly controlled diet trial, investigators have at least as much control over compliance as in a drug trial.  We can feed every subject every meal in a metabolic ward and encourage them to eat everything.  We can even keep them in a metabolic ward for the duration of the study to insure they eat nothing else.  Clearly, such studies cannot go on for years to decades, but they can and do go on for weeks.

Quote
Really, long term observational studies are the only way of determining the health effects of diet, when the end points are chronic disease or death.  Basic science and short term metabolic studies are interesting, but hardly conclusive.

But none of these types of studies alone is usually conclusive.  We need basic science and metabolic studies to back up results from observational studies.  We look for consistency of results among all these studies.  If the studies consistently back each other up, then that is a good indication that we've discovered a causal relationship; if observational studies disagree with more basic science, then something somewhere is wrong, and there is more work to do.

Quote
Steve Novella has warned against using basic science to extrapolate to results in complex systems, because science simplifies systems, and there’s always added factors you haven’t considered.

You are again misapplying what Novella is talking about.  Basic science and metabolic studies are integral to discovering cause-and-effect relationships between diet and disease. 

Quote
And metabolic trials only demonstrate proxies of risk, not the risk itself.  If your aim is to reduce the incidence of chronic disease or increase life expectancy by some dietary manipulation, then you need to actually show that it happens.

But "showing that it happens" using observational studies is rarely sufficient due to the difficulty in interpreting observational studies.  To "show that it happens" convincingly, basic science, metabolic trials, and observational studies have to paint a coherent etiologic picture.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 28, 2018, 10:16:51 PM
jt,

And I insist that the ONLY way the effects of nutrition on chronic diseases can be ascertained is by long-term observational studies.  If long-term observational studies show NO effect on the incidence of chronic disease, mortality or life expectancy, then that’s the end of the question.  Period (unless newer larger better studies are carried out).

If long-term observational studies do ascertain an effect, then you can look at determining causation, which could be explained by basic science or short-term metabolic effects.  Obviously though, basic science has to inform you of what dietary manipulations are worth trying.  Getting the participants to face north when eating would hardly be a plausible dietary manipulation.  Getting the participants to chew 20 times before swallowing would be.

Basic science and short-term metabolic studies leave out the psychology of the person.

I’m very much a behaviourist.  The most important factors associated with chronic disease such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary or consuming excessive amounts of simple sugars.  Most people who are overweight or obese are so because of bad habits indulged in for years or decades.  Losing weight, and maintaining a healthy body weight, requires losing the bad habits and acquiring good habits.

Basic science and short-term metabolic studies are incapable of predicting psychology.  And can’t predict unpredictable or unintended consequences.  There’s some evidence that high fat diets increase the incidence of some cancers such as prostatic.  It would be hardly a benefit for a person to die earlier of cancer, unpredictable with basic science or short-term metabolic studies, but with absolutely ‘clean’ coronary arteries.

Which is the reason for studies such as that one in the Lancet, which was looking at all-cause mortality.

And I’m not confused and conflating random controlled trials with blinded random controlled trials.  I wrote that they are at best semi-random and semi-controlled trials.  The investigator might randomly allocate participants to various dietary arms, but the participants can self-select and drop out or not participate if the proscribed diet doesn’t suit, removing some of the randomness.  For example, you might decide to do a study of the health benefits of fish in the diet, and randomly allocate me to the ‘fish’ arm.  I’d refuse, or take part (and just not consume any fish to ruin your results).
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 28, 2018, 11:13:02 PM
jt,

And I insist that the ONLY way the effects of nutrition on chronic diseases can be ascertained is by long-term observational studies.  If long-term observational studies show NO effect on the incidence of chronic disease, mortality or life expectancy, then that’s the end of the question.  Period (unless newer larger better studies are carried out).

It's not that black and white.  Observational studies can fail to show a true exposure-disease relation for numerous methodological reasons, and if the basic science is felt to be strong enough, it will outweigh the epidemiology.  A case in point is that of saturated fat and heart disease.  Observational studies do not consistently support this connection, yet because the underlying basic science is as strong as it is, most health authorities believe, and recommend, that saturated fat intake should be reduced.

Quote
If long-term observational studies do ascertain an effect, then you can look at determining causation, which could be explained by basic science or short-term metabolic effects.


Are you aware that almost always it's the other way around: that observational studies are undertaken to test whether an exposure-disease relationship suggested by basic science is true?

Quote
And I’m not confused and conflating random controlled trials with blinded random controlled trials.

Anyone can read your post and see for themselves that you are.

Quote
The investigator might randomly allocate participants to various dietary arms, but the participants can self-select and drop out or not participate if the proscribed diet doesn’t suit, removing some of the randomness.  For example, you might decide to do a study of the health benefits of fish in the diet, and randomly allocate me to the ‘fish’ arm.  I’d refuse, or take part (and just not consume any fish to ruin your results).

The investigator might randomly allocate participants to various drug arms, but the participants can self-select and drop out or not participate if the prescribed drug doesn’t suit, removing some of the randomness.  For example, you might decide to do a study of the health benefits of statins, and randomly allocate me to the statin arm.  I’d refuse, or take part (and just not consume any statins to ruin your results).


(BTW, if you didn't eat the fish, we'd know.)
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 12:25:37 AM
jt,

How would you know that I didn’t eat the fish?

Anyway, you’ve got it around the wrong way.  First comes the observational studies, then comes the basic science.  People observe that lung cancer seems to be more common in smokers, they do larger observational studies, determine that it is, then do the basic science to see if there’s a mechanism which could explain it.  People see that there’s a group in the population that is using a special diet, and swears by it, and wonder if the diet is effective.  So they do an observational study to see if there’s any effect.  And if there is, then they wonder - why?

There’s an almost infinite number of possible diets and dietary manipulations which are possible and could have some effect on consideration of basic science.  You can’t test all of them.  You can only test the ones that are being already used.

And I never claimed that random controlled trials need to be blinded.  I never wrote that random controlled trials are actually at best semi-random semi-controlled trials because they’re non-blinded.

And if reducing saturated fat in the diet can’t be demonstrated to have any effect in reducing mortality in good long-term observational studies, then regardless of whether the basic science indicates that it should, then it’s not worth doing it.  And the medical authorities are wrong.  Thomas Huxley’s comment that a single ugly fact has destroyed many beautiful theories applies here.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 12:57:29 AM
jt,

How would you know that I didn’t eat the fish?

Biomarkers.

Quote
Anyway, you’ve got it around the wrong way.  First comes the observational studies, then comes the basic science.  People observe that lung cancer seems to be more common in smokers, they do larger observational studies, determine that it is, then do the basic science to see if there’s a mechanism which could explain it.

Cigarette smoking was determined to cause lung cancer without any long-term observational studies, so your example is not applicable to the question.  Long-term epidemiological studies of an hypothesized exposure-disease relationship cannot, by definition, be conducted until there is actually such a hypothesis.  The hypothesis has to come from somewhere other than long-term observational studies. 

Quote
And I never claimed that random controlled trials need to be blinded.

Reread what you wrote.  You claimed that by definition they are.

Quote
I never wrote that random controlled trials are actually at best semi-random semi-controlled trials because they’re non-blinded.

I'm certainly glad to hear that!

Quote
And if reducing saturated fat in the diet can’t be demonstrated to have any effect in reducing mortality in good long-term observational studies, then regardless of whether the basic science indicates that it should, then it’s not worth doing it.  And the medical authorities are wrong.

There's a difference between "can't" and "haven't been," and there are limits to how "good" good nutritional epidemiology is.  The best long-term prospective cohort studies can fail to find a true diet-disease relation for many methodological reasons.  When basic science conflicts with epidemiology, then one or the other has to be wrong.  But there is no obvious reason to presume it is the epidemiology.  Rationally, you must consider the strengths and limitations of each.  Strong evidence from metabolic studies should increase your probability that a hypothesized diet-disease relationship is true, negative results from observational studies should decrease it, but to determine how much, you really need to weigh the strengths and limitations of the studies.  You're very naive about nutritional epidemiologic methodology if you think that strong results from metabolic studies should be ignored in light of null results from nutritional epidemiology.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 03:52:41 AM
kt,

I never wrote that the harm of cigarette was first examined  with long-term observational studies.  I wrote that first it was observed that lung cancer appeared to be more common in cigarette smokers.  First comes the observation, then more observation, and then the studies to determine the mechanism.

And I wrote that if good long-time observational studies (and they have to be good) fail to demonstrate a benefit of reducing dietary saturated fat intake intake, then it’s not worth restricting saturated fat intake.  It’s an indication you need to do larger, better, bigger studies.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 10:54:52 AM
kt,

I never wrote that the harm of cigarette was first examined  with long-term observational studies.  I wrote that first it was observed that lung cancer appeared to be more common in cigarette smokers.  First comes the observation, then more observation, and then the studies to determine the mechanism.


We were not talking about casual observation.  We were talking about long-term observational studies.  They are big and expensive, and are thus normally undertaken to follow-up on hypotheses that are already supported by basic science and shorter, cheaper metabolic studies.

Quote
And I wrote that if good long-time observational studies (and they have to be good) fail to demonstrate a benefit of reducing dietary saturated fat intake intake, then it’s not worth restricting saturated fat intake.


Then either you and CarbShark are wrong, or just about everybody else is.  Maybe you should reconsider your understanding of nutritional epidemiology.

Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 03:17:20 PM
jt,

Unless you, or more relevantly medical authorities, can convincingly demonstrate that there’s a benefit in restricting dietary intake of saturated fat on health and life expectancy, people like CarbShark will be able to claim that the nutritional guidelines published by medical authorities are wrong, and should be replaced with guidelines more in keeping with their ideology including their low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets.

And you can’t base dietary recommendations just on basic science and short-term metabolic studies, even if both are completely correct.  If long-term observational demonstrates consistently fail to demonstrate a benefit, then it means that either 1.  There’s some basic science you’ve failed to consider, which has negated the basic science you’ve used to develop your hypothesis, or 2. Reducing saturated fat has had some other non-metabolic effect increasing mortality, or there’s some other reason increasing mortality despite some causes being reduced, or 3. You need better, bigger studies to demonstrate that there’s a benefit in reducing dietary saturated fat intake.

I’m not doubting that there’s a benefit in restricting dietary saturated fat intake.  I’m on a low fat diet after all.  And it’s not true that nutritional advice was initially based on basic science and short-term metabolic studies.  It all started with the Framingham study in 1948, which was a purely observational study when very little were known about risk factors, and atherosclerosis, hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia were assumed to be normal concomitant of ageing.

There’s a similar study going on just down the coast from me in Busselton.

First comes the observations, then the basic science.  To give one of your pet obsessions, no one developed the hypothesis that the ratio of omega-3/omega-6 fatty acids was important in health based on the basic science of the biochemistry of essential fatty acids and their conversion into various inflammatory autacoids, some beneficial, some damaging.  And developed the hypothesis that manipulating the ratios in the diet might influence health.  And examined the ratio in various foods and discovered that oily fish seemed to have the right ratio.  And then did the long-term observation on dietary fish.

No.  First came the observation that fish eaters seemed to be healthier.  Followed by larger observational studies.  Then followed by the basic studies.

You’ve got a distorted view of science, perhaps produced by your reading of the science journals, which presents the work in a misleadingly way.  Most really significant scientific studies are made as a result  of a surprising observation, demanding new hypotheses.  Such as Kepler’s Supernova in 1604, which challenged the ruling picture of a central unmoving Earth and a perfect unchanging cosmos, with the movement of the planets influencing the life of humans on Earth (and astrology was a science).
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 03:49:06 PM
I should think about starting a new thread.  There was a very interesting article in this morning’s ‘Sunday Age’ reporting that the Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) zoo has been forced to remove fruit from the diets of many of their animals because they’re becoming obese.  The fruit have become too sweet and sugary after thousands of years of selective breeding to suit human tastes, and the captive animals share the drive to gain a calorie rich nutrient which otherwise was limited or difficult to find naturally.

There’s no returning to the diet eaten by humans before the agricultural revolution, even if there was a single diet - which there wasn’t.  Almost everything we eat has been genetically modified, both selectively and inadvertently, including the oceanic fish we eat, which have become smaller and maturing reproductively earlier in response to overfishing and the benefit (to the fish) of individual fish being able to reproduce earlier having an advantage over fish reproducing later (because the latter get caught before they get a chance to reproduce).
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: PANTS! on September 29, 2018, 04:07:11 PM
Eat a variety of food, not too much, mostly plants.

Would that mean that various meat-substitutes, around here mostly soy-based, are a good thing? Or do they bring the problems of meat even though they are not meat? They are meant to substitute meat after all.

For example, just recently I ate potato wegdes, oumph (https://oumph.se/en/), and broccoli for dinner. Was that an improvement compared to if I had eaten meat instead of oumph?

I suggest you ask CarbShark and bachfiend for their answers to that question.

Boy you just gave him both barrels didn't you.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 04:12:13 PM

Unless you, or more relevantly medical authorities, can convincingly demonstrate that there’s a benefit in restricting dietary intake of saturated fat on health and life expectancy, people like CarbShark will be able to claim that the nutritional guidelines published by medical authorities are wrong, and should be replaced with guidelines more in keeping with their ideology including their low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets.


So?

Quote
And you can’t base dietary recommendations just on basic science and short-term metabolic studies, even if both are completely correct.


You can't?  Given the inconsistent findings on the relation between saturated fat and heart disease form long-term observational studies, that is precisely what public health officials around the world are doing.  You'd better let them know they can't!


Quote
If long-term observational demonstrates consistently fail to demonstrate a benefit, then it means that either 1.  There’s some basic science you’ve failed to consider, which has negated the basic science you’ve used to develop your hypothesis, or 2. Reducing saturated fat has had some other non-metabolic effect increasing mortality, or there’s some other reason increasing mortality despite some causes being reduced, or 3. You need better, bigger studies to demonstrate that there’s a benefit in reducing dietary saturated fat intake.


Right.  So what?  When did you forget how Bayesian inference works?

Quote
I’m not doubting that there’s a benefit in restricting dietary saturated fat intake.


Wait, what?  If you're not doubting the benefit, but the epidemiology doesn't clearly show one, then you must be basing your opinion on basic science?  Unless you're just being irrational.


Quote
And it’s not true that nutritional advice was initially based on basic science and short-term metabolic studies.  It all started with the Framingham study in 1948, which was a purely observational study when very little were known about risk factors, and atherosclerosis, hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia were assumed to be normal concomitant of ageing.


That's a valid example, but it's not 1948 any more.  Modern long-term nutritional epidemiological studies are primarily used to test associations suggested by cheaper, more-preliminary research.  In fact, the items selected for inclusion in modern FFQs are not intended to represent a person's complete diet, but rather are specifically chosen because of their likelihood of being risk factors for disease or (confounders that need to be controlled for) based on prior research and current hypotheses.  Moreover, it is important for statistical validity that the hypothesis tested in long-term epidemiological studies be determined a priori, rather than being the result of exploratory digging through the data.

Quote
First comes the observations, then the basic science.  To give one of your pet obsessions, no one developed the hypothesis that the ratio of omega-3/omega-6 fatty acids was important in health based on the basic science of the biochemistry of essential fatty acids and their conversion into various inflammatory autacoids, some beneficial, some damaging.


Citation needed.

Quote
You’ve got a distorted view of science, perhaps produced by your reading of the science journals, which presents the work in a misleadingly way.


Quoted for posterity.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 29, 2018, 05:00:59 PM
Hey, Moderators, this very interesting conversation about a healthy diet has been derailed by an interesting discussion about the science of epidemiological studies vs. RCTs.

Maybe someone could move these posts into a new thread?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 05:01:31 PM
To see whether prospective cohort studies are hypothesis generating, as you suggest, or intended to confirm diet-disease relationships suggested by cheaper, shorter studies, I searched Pumbed for "Willett WC" and took the following excerpts from first (most recent) three reports from prospective cohort studies.  Here are the results.


1. Liu X, Li Y, Tobias DK, Wang DD, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in
Types of Dietary Fats Influence Long-term Weight Change in US Women and Men. J
Nutr. 2018 Sep 22. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxy183. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID:
30247611.

Previous weight-loss trials have examined the effectiveness of varying amounts of macronutrients on weight loss and maintenance over short periods of time. However, these trials cannot be generalized to long-term weight gain prevention in the general population. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the associations between changes in intakes of varying types of dietary fat and long-term weight gain in women and men from 3 independent prospective cohort studies.


2. Tahir MJ, Michels KB, Willett WC, Forman MR. Age at Introduction of Solid Food
and Obesity Throughout the Life Course. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2018 Sep 11.
doi: 10.1002/oby.22277. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30204942.

Studies evaluating the association between age at SF introduction and obesity have inconsistent results. Research has shown higher odds of increased weight for age in infancy (8) and childhood overweight and obesity (9, 10) with earlier SF introduction, whereas other studies have demonstrated null associations in childhood and adolescence (11, 12). Results from one study indicated the association between early SF introduction and childhood obesity existed only among formula‐fed infants (13). Other research has suggested that delayed introduction of SF beyond 6 months may in fact increase the risk of childhood obesity (14, 15). Several of these studies have been limited by their relatively small sample sizes and an inability to adjust for multiple confounding variables or track results into adolescence or adulthood. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate the association between age at introduction of SF and obesity at different stages of the life course using a large ambidirectional cohort study with exposure and outcome data from two independent sources and adjustment for potential confounders.


3. Seidelmann SB, Claggett B, Cheng S, Henglin M, Shah A, Steffen LM, Folsom AR,
Rimm EB, Willett WC, Solomon SD. Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a
prospective cohort study and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2018
Sep;3(9):e419-e428. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30135-X. Epub 2018 Aug 17. PubMed
PMID: 30122560.

This paper, which we've discussed before, actually contains a section entitled, "Evidence Before This Study."  It begins, "Although many randomised controlled trials of low carbohydrate diets suggest beneficial short-term weight loss and improvements in cardiometabolic risk, mortality risk has typically not been investigated in light of the practical challenges posed by studies involving very long durations of follow-up.


Each paper was intended to clarify or resolve a question left open by short-term RCTs and/or more-limited observational studies.

Nowadays you can't even get funding for a major cohort study unless you can justify it on the basis that prior research.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 05:04:01 PM
Hey, Moderators, this very interesting conversation about a healthy diet has been derailed by an interesting discussion about the science of epidemiological studies vs. RCTs.

Maybe someone could move these posts into a new thread?

I think the discussion is relevant.  The OP asked if there are scientifically valid articles on diets.  Were discussing the validity of the science.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 05:07:59 PM
jt,

You’re very, very confused.  I’m not arguing that if a single, or even a number of, long-term observational studies fail to show a benefit in restricting dietary saturated fat intake, that medical authorities ought to drop their guideline advising that it’s restricted.

Obviously, you have to consider ALL studies, and do a Bayesian analysis.  But if you can’t demonstrate a benefit in any study, regardless of what the basic science says, you can’t recommend that intervention.

And I’m not being inconsistent when I note that I do it anyway.  I decided to cut down on fat decades ago when I was trying to lose weight from a previous 86 kg (and a BMI getting dangerously close to the obese 30 kg/m^2).  My tastes have subsequently changed as a result.  I just don’t like the taste of fatty foods.  I find skim milk perfectly palatable, and whole milk too rich.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 05:12:17 PM
jt,

You’re very, very confused.  I’m not arguing that if a single, or even a number of, long-term observational studies fail to show a benefit in restricting dietary saturated fat intake, that medical authorities ought to drop their guideline advising that it’s restricted.

Actually, that's pretty much what you said.

Quote
Obviously, you have to consider ALL studies, and do a Bayesian analysis.  But if you can’t demonstrate a benefit in any study, regardless of what the basic science says, you can’t recommend that intervention.

And you just said it again.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Hey, Moderators, this very interesting conversation about a healthy diet has been derailed by an interesting discussion about the science of epidemiological studies vs. RCTs.

Maybe someone could move these posts into a new thread?

Well, why don’t you do it?  Anyone can start a new thread.  I started one this morning concerning the Melbourne zoo having to stop feeding their animals fruit because they’re getting too obese.  So the zoo animals are overweight, probably too sedentary and eating too much sugar.  I wonder if their risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes is also increasing?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 29, 2018, 08:08:28 PM
Hey, Moderators, this very interesting conversation about a healthy diet has been derailed by an interesting discussion about the science of epidemiological studies vs. RCTs.

Maybe someone could move these posts into a new thread?

Well, why don’t you do it?  Anyone can start a new thread.  I started one this morning concerning the Melbourne zoo having to stop feeding their animals fruit because they’re getting too obese.  So the zoo animals are overweight, probably too sedentary and eating too much sugar.  I wonder if their risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes is also increasing?

I can start a thread but can't move posts.

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 08:38:22 PM
Hey, Moderators, this very interesting conversation about a healthy diet has been derailed by an interesting discussion about the science of epidemiological studies vs. RCTs.

Maybe someone could move these posts into a new thread?

Well, why don’t you do it?  Anyone can start a new thread.  I started one this morning concerning the Melbourne zoo having to stop feeding their animals fruit because they’re getting too obese.  So the zoo animals are overweight, probably too sedentary and eating too much sugar.  I wonder if their risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes is also increasing?

I can start a thread but can't move posts.

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...  what do the guidelines recommend?  Two serves of fruit and 5 serves of vegetables?  You don’t have to follow the guidelines, but you should be aware of them, and you should be aware of when you break them, as I do.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 29, 2018, 09:06:52 PM
If they're replacing some of that bread that could explain the weight loss.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 09:12:04 PM
If they're replacing some of that bread that could explain the weight loss.

No, I’m still eating the same amount of bread.  I think I’ve actually reduced the amount of vegetables.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 10:09:14 PM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal. 
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 29, 2018, 10:21:27 PM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 29, 2018, 11:43:16 PM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?


Oh, you're right.  It's "obesogenic."  My spell checker didn't like either spelling, so I just went with the one that Carbshark used.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2018, 10:50:07 AM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?


So which is it? Fruit is causing increased obesity in zoo animals or its not obesogenic?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 30, 2018, 11:07:32 AM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?

So which is it? Fruit is causing increased obesity in zoo animals or its not obesogenic?

It's neither.  Excess calorie consumption relative to energy expenditures is causing the animals to gain weight.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2018, 11:34:31 AM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?

So which is it? Fruit is causing increased obesity in zoo animals or its not obesogenic?

It's neither.  Excess calorie consumption relative to energy expenditures is causing the animals to gain weight.

That's more of an effect than a cause. Excess stored fat is calories that have been consumed but not burned, you're saying that caused by calories being consumed but not burned.

The question is what's causing that? And, more importantly, what's changed in the last few years to cause that now?

And are the Zookeepers wrong to withhold fruit?

Apparently replacing fruit with other foods works, why is that?

Why do some foods cause excess calories to be consumed but not burned while others do not?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: jt512 on September 30, 2018, 11:43:29 AM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?

So which is it? Fruit is causing increased obesity in zoo animals or its not obesogenic?

It's neither.  Excess calorie consumption relative to energy expenditures is causing the animals to gain weight.

That's more of an effect than a cause. Excess stored fat is calories that have been consumed but not burned, you're saying that caused by calories being consumed but not burned.

The question is what's causing that? And, more importantly, what's changed in the last few years to cause that now?

And are the Zookeepers wrong to withhold fruit?

Apparently replacing fruit with other foods works, why is that?

Assuming it actually does "work," it would due to effects on appetite or satiety.  Also, limiting the variety of available foods reduces consumption in humans. Don't know about non-humans.[/quote]

Quote
Why do some foods cause excess calories to be consumed but not burned while others do not?

They don't.  It's just calories in vs. calories out.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 30, 2018, 12:35:27 PM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?


So which is it? Fruit is causing increased obesity in zoo animals or its not obesogenic?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As jt has noted, it’s just ‘calories in, versus calories out.’   A calorie is a calorie, is a calorie.  The zoo animals are sedentary, not having to work for their food.  In the wild, they’d have to work for their food, climbing trees, to find fruits that were smaller and less sweet, and tougher to digest.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2018, 05:12:30 PM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?


So which is it? Fruit is causing increased obesity in zoo animals or its not obesogenic?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As jt has noted, it’s just ‘calories in, versus calories out.’   A calorie is a calorie, is a calorie.  The zoo animals are sedentary, not having to work for their food.  In the wild, they’d have to work for their food, climbing trees, to find fruits that were smaller and less sweet, and tougher to digest.
Your source on this says it’s a recent phenomenon. Have zoo animals discovered you tube and cable TV in the last 20 years? 

You’re actually arguing with yourself again. And your source.

So, fruit is sweeter but it doesn’t matter because calories are all that matter and the zookeepers are wrong. That’s what you’re saying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 30, 2018, 08:27:28 PM
Quote

Yes, fruit is obesigenic. I'm sure some of them do suffer from other diseases caused by high carb intake. Your point? Maybe Zookeepers are smarter than those who promote the USDA dietary guidelines?  I'm there with you.

Well, you can still start a new thread.  I thought you’d invented a new word with ‘obesigenic,’ but I find that obesogenic is a perfectly acceptable word.

Strawberries recently have come into season in Australia, and there’s also been a contamination panic with unknown miscreants inserting needles into rare berries, so the growers have been forced to either dump their strawberries or slash their prices, so strawberries have become very cheap, and I’ve been eating a lot of them (previously I hadn’t bought them, considering them overpriced compared to other fruits) as much as 500 g a day, and I love them.  And haven’t felt better.  And they’re an excellent food item, being low in calories for their weight.

The trouble is, they’re replacing other foods which are more calorie dense, so I’m losing weight...


Yeah, there's nothing obesigenic about fruit.  A medium-sized apple contains 95 kcal.  You'd have eat 21 of them to obtain 2000 kcal.

Agreed.  Although apples aren’t particularly nutritious.  There are better fruits around.  I eat two a day, including everything - the skin, the core, the seeds, the stalk, even the label sometimes (I claim that it increases dietary fibre)...  it’s ‘obesogenic’ by the way, not ‘obesigenic.’  Is it an American spelling or the American pronunciation?


So which is it? Fruit is causing increased obesity in zoo animals or its not obesogenic?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As jt has noted, it’s just ‘calories in, versus calories out.’   A calorie is a calorie, is a calorie.  The zoo animals are sedentary, not having to work for their food.  In the wild, they’d have to work for their food, climbing trees, to find fruits that were smaller and less sweet, and tougher to digest.
Your source on this says it’s a recent phenomenon. Have zoo animals discovered you tube and cable TV in the last 20 years? 

You’re actually arguing with yourself again. And your source.

So, fruit is sweeter but it doesn’t matter because calories are all that matter and the zookeepers are wrong. That’s what you’re saying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You still have difficulties in reading comprehension.  The zoo was offering their animals a variety of foods, including fruit, and the animals were preferentially selecting the fruit, some varieties of which incidentally have become sweeter recently by selective breeding.  Some of the animals are becoming obese as a result of their consuming more calories than they expend, added to the fact that they’re sedentary compared to their wild relatives, is probably setting them up for chronic disease.

The dietary guidelines for zoo animals are not the same as those for humans.  And they can change.  Eating fruit is good for humans, with considerable health benefits.  Americans and Australians aren’t becoming overweight or obese because they’re eating fruit.  The majority aren’t eating even the recommended minimum in the guidelines, instead consuming far too much sugar and fruit juices.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2018, 09:02:02 PM
You still have difficulties in reading comprehension.  The zoo was offering their animals a variety of foods, including fruit, and the animals were preferentially selecting the fruit, some varieties of which incidentally have become sweeter recently by selective breeding.  Some of the animals are becoming obese as a result of their consuming more calories than they expend, added to the fact that they’re sedentary compared to their wild relatives, is probably setting them up for chronic disease.

No. That's not what the article said at all. There was no mention of calories whatsoever. Reading comprehension doesn't include reading words not in the article and adding your own ideas.
Quote
The dietary guidelines for zoo animals are not the same as those for humans.  And they can change.  Eating fruit is good for humans, with considerable health benefits.  Americans and Australians aren’t becoming overweight or obese because they’re eating fruit.  The majority aren’t eating even the recommended minimum in the guidelines, instead consuming far too much sugar and fruit juices.

False, false, and false.  Consuming fruit, in excess, is just as bad (if not worse) for humans as it is for animals.

Although I can't say about Australia, most people's diets in the US actually match what the USDA guidelines have said for years. (The latest guidelines are a mess, but prior guidelines certainly, and the 2018 guidelines haven't been in effect long enough to make any difference).

And even as far as consuming too much, the guidelines don't tell you how much to eat, beyond meeting your basic requirements based on your weight, and most people do that.

Until the latest version the USDA guidelines did not limit sugar or fruit juices, and the high consumption of sugar in the US was well within
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on September 30, 2018, 10:43:31 PM
You still have difficulties in reading comprehension.  The zoo was offering their animals a variety of foods, including fruit, and the animals were preferentially selecting the fruit, some varieties of which incidentally have become sweeter recently by selective breeding.  Some of the animals are becoming obese as a result of their consuming more calories than they expend, added to the fact that they’re sedentary compared to their wild relatives, is probably setting them up for chronic disease.

No. That's not what the article said at all. There was no mention of calories whatsoever. Reading comprehension doesn't include reading words not in the article and adding your own ideas.
Quote
The dietary guidelines for zoo animals are not the same as those for humans.  And they can change.  Eating fruit is good for humans, with considerable health benefits.  Americans and Australians aren’t becoming overweight or obese because they’re eating fruit.  The majority aren’t eating even the recommended minimum in the guidelines, instead consuming far too much sugar and fruit juices.

False, false, and false.  Consuming fruit, in excess, is just as bad (if not worse) for humans as it is for animals.

Although I can't say about Australia, most people's diets in the US actually match what the USDA guidelines have said for years. (The latest guidelines are a mess, but prior guidelines certainly, and the 2018 guidelines haven't been in effect long enough to make any difference).

And even as far as consuming too much, the guidelines don't tell you how much to eat, beyond meeting your basic requirements based on your weight, and most people do that.

Until the latest version the USDA guidelines did not limit sugar or fruit juices, and the high consumption of sugar in the US was well within

People (and other animals) become overweight or obese because they eat food containing more calories than they expend.  It’s such an obvious fact that it doesn’t need to be mentioned, along with the fact that there’s an evolutionary drive to seek out sugar, a rare item naturally, as a calorie rich energy source.

Denying this doesn’t make your belief that there are foods that are going to make you fat regardless of calories true.  Or even plausible.

Willett noted that the 2015-20 guidelines are far better than previous ones, getting closer to what the science actually indicates, with previous editions having food producers being able to edit the guidelines, removing a recommendation to reduce animal-based foods and replacing it with one to eat lean meat instead.

But the 2015-20 guidelines did include sections on how Americans were matching the recommended guidelines of previous reports, and only about half were managing to reach even the minimum recommendation for fruit and vegetables.

The guidelines include 1.  Follow a healthy eating pattern across the lifespan.  All food and beverage choices matter.  Choose a healthy eating pattern at an appropriate calorie level to help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight, support nutrient adequacy, and reduce the risk of chronic disease (page xii). 

This is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.  Don’t be overweight.  Bathroom scales are more useful than kitchen scales.  Don’t put on weight and body fat as you age.  If you think this is normal or desirable, then you’re setting yourself for a lifetime of increased risk for chronic disease.

But they’re guidelines, not compulsory commandments.  You’re not going to be dragged off by the secret police to the gulag if you break them.  You don’t get to replace them with guidelines suited to your preferred diet just because you don’t like them.  I cheerfully break many of the guidelines, including consuming considerably more than the recommended quantity of bread, fruit and vegetables, but without harm, because I manage to meet Willett’s two most fundamental bases of the Harvard pyramid - not being overweight and exercising daily.

But I’ve read the guidelines.  They’re entirely sensible.  We’d be better off if more people followed them.  As Willett has noted, one reason why diets work is because they make the person think about the food being eaten.  The guidelines do exactly the same thing - make the person think before eating.  The trouble is - most people don’t.

Or as I also put it - people are overweight or obese because of a lifetime of bad habits.  They need to get rid of the bad habits and replace them with good habits. ‘Special’ diets are a way of doing this, and the best diets are the ones that can be followed for years and decades.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: John Albert on October 01, 2018, 04:43:12 AM
We really needed another one of these threads?
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: bachfiend on October 01, 2018, 04:46:39 AM
We really needed another one of these threads?

Unfortunately, yes we do.  People who are driven by ideology and live in an echo chamber populated by ideologues, such as CarbShark, need to be challenged concerning their nonsense whenever they surface.
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on October 01, 2018, 02:20:54 PM
This thread, well, escalated. I truly hope that Steve sees it an writes an appropriate blogpost. :steve: ;)
Title: Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
Post by: CarbShark on October 01, 2018, 03:31:45 PM
This thread, well, escalated. I truly hope that Steve sees it an writes an appropriate blogpost. :steve: ;)

I don't think Steve or the Rogues follow these threads. You may try emailing them if there's a topic you want them to address.