xep @ xep @discuss.online

Posts

1

Comments

15

Joined

1 wk. ago

Moderating

---

This factor alone must confound so many studies that try to reduce "caloric intake" with regards to some health outcome. Makes sense that the other way around would be better! Try to overfeed the subjects and see what happens. I hope more studies are done that way, but it looks like the subjects become very uncomfortable over the course of the study haha

Thank you for sharing this very educational video.

Personal Fat Threshold and Genetic/Ethnic Variation: Each individual has a personal fat threshold determined by their ability to create new fat cells (hyperplasia). Once this threshold is surpassed, hypertrophy and insulin resistance ensue. Ethnic differences, such as the smaller, more numerous fat cells in Caucasians versus fewer, larger fat cells in South Asians, explain why some populations develop diabetes and metabolic disease at lower BMI. This insight demands personalized approaches to obesity and metabolic disease risk.

A long-held view that I had was that metabolic health in Japan was better than other parts of the world on a Standard American Diet, but after listening to this lecture I've been forced to reconsider this view entirely, because it's entirely possible to be pre-diabetic and in very poor metabolic health without looking obese at all. I was the same way: although I merely looked "chubby" I had NAFLD. I'm really glad I decided to do something about it...

Those pesky ethics committees...

It is remarkable that such physiological changes occur even after a comparatively short period of only twenty-one days. Having tried all three also, my experience has been consistent with this in general; however I do not have asthma, and I was noticeably much more irritable on low-fat and very-low-fat vegan.

I'm curious as to how he "reset" his body state to keep the starting point consistent for the study. It would've also been interesting if he'd also adopted a high-fat animal-sources-only diet as part of this trial.

The limitations of this study include just one subject was studied, and he was generally in good health and exercised regularly, so these findings may not apply to a individuals with medical problems. Additionally, these results may not extrapolate to ALL types of low-carb or low-fat diets, as there is a wide range of food choices within each of these general diet descriptions.

I also appreciate that the limitations are clearly stated. Interesting study!

I love the writing style, she described the effects of the diet in such an amicable manner. Her improved mood shines through her writing. The coffee ... ah, fixation, yeah... three weeks in, I haven't needed that.

256 = 200 + 56, initially they only wanted 200 people in a chatroom but decided 56 more was even better, so it's very oddly specific indeed.

Nobody says that all vegetables are ultraprocessed, that would be a silly statement to make. However, UPFs are mostly made with plant material.

There's nothing uplifting about more UPFs.

Have you had Lassi? I believe they taste similar. It's a tangy milk-like flavour, very delicious.

I had a cup of it and it tasted very creamy and not as tangy as I expected. Is this the lack of a second ferment?

I'll add my voice to this too. You should eat no UPF whatsoever.

Every major health organisation in the world says they're linked to cardiovascular disease and should be limited in diets

The reasons for this make for interesting reading, when you have the time.

All I need to fall off the wagon is a single croissant... If I were to buy one I'm pretty sure at that point I'd buy many more things at the bakery.

You may misinterpreting the terms used. The "foods" within quotation marks are a specific industrially processed product:

From Taraz Foods:

After extraction, the juice is taken through an evaporation process where much of the water is extracted. Most times, this is performed under low heat to make sure the flavor and all other nutritious components within are preserved. What results from the process is a thick, concentrated liquid, usually then pasteurized to eliminate unwanted bacteria. Finally, it’s packaged and shipped off to be used in various products.

This isn't fruit juice that has been reduced using kitchenware.

Mechanically separated meat:

Mechanically separated meat (MSM), mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), or mechanically deboned meat (MDM) is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing pureed or ground beef, pork, mutton, turkey or chicken under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. When poultry is used, it is sometimes called white slime as an analog to meat-additive pink slime and to meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems, both of which are different processes. The process entails pureeing or grinding the carcass left after the manual removal of meat from the bones and then forcing the slurry through a sieve under pressure.

The resulting product is a blend primarily consisting of tissues not generally considered meat, along with a much smaller amount of actual meat (muscle tissue). In some countries such as the United States, these non-meat materials are processed separately for human and non-human uses and consumption.[1] The process is controversial; Forbes, for example, called it a "not-so-appetizing meat production process".[2]

Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products, such as hot dogs and bologna sausage,[2] since the late 1960s. However, not all such meat products are manufactured using an MSM process.

This isn't meat that has been cut up or even ground up using tools in the kitchen.

foods that are not heavily processed and are benign for your health to be labeled as unhealthy

With respect, which foods, according to whom, on the basis of what?

more evidence of how atrocious the whole field of nutrition is

I agree. Even studies that account for socioeconomic status and relative fitness levels are still not science, but that's epidemiological studies for you. To quote @jet@hackertalks.com, "Epidemiology is not science, it's the start of science, but it cannot establish causation." And yes, they are epidemiological studies, but Nova class 4 is is the class associated with all the chronic metabolic diseases, and yet not Nova class 1 through 3.

The Nova classification is far better than any current mainstream "dietary recommendation" or guidelines. It's a large step in the right direction, so I wouldn't brush it off as "arbitrary" just because it's not perfect. At the very least, it's useful as a tool to flag a class of products that are designed and marketed to promote overconsumption and that displace whole foods, and it needn't be the only tool we use.

It's not arbitrary. The definition is very clear. Group 4, classified as ultraprocessed. I've broken it up to make it easier to read:

Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). Group 1 foods are absent or represent a small proportion of the ingredients in the formulation.

Processes enabling the manufacture of ultra-processed foods include industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; application of additives including those whose function is to make the final product palatable or hyperpalatable such as flavours, colourants, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers; and sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials.

Processes and ingredients here are designed to create highly profitable (low-cost ingredients, long shelf-life, emphatic branding), convenient (ready-to-(h)eat or to drink), tasteful alternatives to all other Nova food groups and to freshly prepared dishes and meals.

Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.