Author Topic: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?  (Read 4284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #30 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
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #31 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
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
    • jt512
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #32 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.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
    • jt512
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #33 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.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 09:40:10 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2073
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #34 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.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #35 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
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
    • jt512
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #36 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.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
    • jt512
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #37 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.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 11:03:44 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2073
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #38 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)
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
    • jt512
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #39 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.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2073
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #40 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.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
    • jt512
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #41 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.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2073
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #42 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.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11957
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #43 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.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
    • jt512
Re: Any science-based article summarizing a healthy diet?
« Reply #44 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 (Table 1). And by the way, fructose is a monosaccharide.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2018, 11:33:00 AM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

 

personate-rain