A boat full of carbs

Ryath

Swear filter broke your link

Edit and mine!

AstraMonti

Oops, that should do it: http://tinyurl.com/mxh27yy

ford2600

kennyb3 wrote: »

@ ford2600, as someone only a couple of months bit down the rabbit hole so far on this lchf diet, did your ldl numbers level off or have you still concerns about them. I know all your other figures are excellent. Does the high ldl concern you - given you can't get your particle size tested here? Or are you just taking it on trust they are big? Or is it a case of everything else is great so why worry?

(sorry for the hi-jack)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14564088


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11092292


http://www.lipidcenter.com/pdf/TG_HDL_Ratio.pdf

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jat/10/3/10_3_186/_pdf

mp31

This got me laughing ... http://anthonycolpo.com/announcing-the-most-effective-fat-burning-device-ever-invented/

I'm only in this game a short while so I'm not sure if this guy is being sarcastic or genuine. All I wanted to do was re-read the 'Coffee with butter/coconut oil for breakfast' thing that I read in this thread a while ago... or was it somewhere else

petethedrummer

Probably a bulletproof coffee. Dave Asprey developed it. He uses MCT oil.

MCT oil can cause a mild allergic reaction in some people. I think it's something in the processing of the coconut oil. I read about it but can't remember the ins and outs of it. I haven't used MCT oil, it's expensive. I like butter in mine. Tried coconut oil but I don't like the taste in coffee.

TheBlaaMan

Does any outlet in Dublin or beyond sell a prepared bulletproof coffee? My curiosity tells me to try a few before I shell out on the means to make my own.......

smcclaw

This IT article mentions a place on Mount St that does them

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/food-and-drink/butter-coffee-as-disgusting-as-it-sounds-1.1844659

AstraMonti

http://athlete.io/5084/why-breakfast-is-nothing-but-a-scam/

Love the battle on the comments, nutrition is one of these things that make people go mental when debating.

kennyb3

On the bulletproof coffee - I don't drink them, not a fan, but have a question - why unsalted butter? There's not really a huge amount of salt in butter and when you've cut out added salt (shaker) and processed food sugar - surely there isn't too much to worry about salt wise?

Do people use unsalted butter for frying? I've just been using this

Also my go to dish if I'm not in the mood for meat or fish (rare) is a bowl of berries (blueberries, raspberries and strawberries) covered in double cream - any other suggestions welcome. Eat plenty of cheese too but feel i need a bit more variation without too much complication.

kennyb3

Also I found this nugget on the CSS website hilarious;

CARBOHYDRATES – ESSENTIAL BODY FUEL

As with any sport, it is important to maintain energy levels, prevent fatigue and maintain blood glucose levels. Carbohydrates are the most efficient fuel for energy production, and as they can be stored in the liver and muscles they function as a readily available energy source for prolonged strenuous exercise.
Complex carbohydrates such as rice, pasta, couscous, bread and noodles should make up at least 50 per cent of the energy content of your diet. Currently, as a population we are consuming only 42 per cent of energy as carbohydrate and making up the difference by eating more fat.

Yep we all need to up our carb intake - the world isn't fat enough yet.

Ryath

kennyb3 wrote: »

On the bulletproof coffee - I don't drink them, not a fan, but have a question - why unsalted butter? There's not really a huge amount of salt in butter and when you've cut out added salt (shaker) and processed food sugar - surely there isn't too much to worry about salt wise?

Do people use unsalted butter for frying? I've just been using this

Also my go to dish if I'm not in the mood for meat or fish (rare) is a bowl of berries (blueberries, raspberries and strawberries) covered in double cream - any other suggestions welcome. Eat plenty of cheese too but feel i need a bit more variation without too much complication.

Tried it with salted butter didn't like it must try it with unsalted or coconut oil. Coconut oil is good for frying doesn't work with some things though because of the flavour. You can get it cheap in an Asian market.

You eat nut's? Eat a lot of brazil, pecan and walnuts. Lidl is good for these. Nice to add to some berries and greek yogurt

duffyshuffle

Salted butter tastes horrible in bp coffee, makes it taste gone off, unsalted glenstal butter the best i've used. Frying eggs and veg its salted butter all the way, with some maldron salt added too I think its all a taste thing rather than a dropping salt thing

kennyb3 wrote: »

On the bulletproof coffee - I don't drink them, not a fan, but have a question - why unsalted butter? There's not really a huge amount of salt in butter and when you've cut out added salt (shaker) and processed food sugar - surely there isn't too much to worry about salt wise?

Do people use unsalted butter for frying? I've just been using this

Also my go to dish if I'm not in the mood for meat or fish (rare) is a bowl of berries (blueberries, raspberries and strawberries) covered in double cream - any other suggestions welcome. Eat plenty of cheese too but feel i need a bit more variation without too much complication.

kennyb3

Ryath wrote: »

Tried it with salted butter didn't like it must try it with unsalted or coconut oil. Coconut oil is good for frying doesn't work with some things though because of the flavour. You can get it cheap in an Asian market.

You eat nut's? Eat a lot of brazil, pecan and walnuts. Lidl is good for these. Nice to add to some berries and greek yogurt

Cheers, yeah eat plenty of nuts (macadmia's, brazil and walnuts as snack in work).

Usually add a spoon or two of greek yogurt to the bowl of cream and berries.Yum yum!

kennyb3

duffyshuffle wrote: »

Salted butter tastes horrible in bp coffee, makes it taste gone off, unsalted glenstal butter the best i've used. Frying eggs and veg its salted butter all the way, with some maldron salt added too I think its all a taste thing rather than a dropping salt thing

Cheers that explains it so.

petethedrummer

Even the daily mail agrees now. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2695030/I-wrong-feasting-FAT-says-The-Fast-Diet-author-DR-MICHAEL-MOSLEY.html

duffyshuffle

petethedrummer wrote: »

Even the daily mail agrees now. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2695030/I-wrong-feasting-FAT-says-The-Fast-Diet-author-DR-MICHAEL-MOSLEY.html

Classic that almost all the pics are butter smothered on carbs though! Nice to see some kind of message is getting places though!

DaithiMC

duffyshuffle wrote: »

Classic that almost all the pics are butter smothered on carbs though! Nice to see some kind of message is getting places though!

...and soon it will come full circle that ALL macronutrients in the ratio and amount required to achieve the particular goals of the "dieter" are to be considered equally important. Carbs are NOT evil, nor are fats or proteins, we are designed to deal with all three groups and depending on whether your goals are fat loss, muscle gain, fat gain, muscle loss, etc.. they can all be tuned to have the required effect. What is becoming more evident is that focus on ONE of the macronutrient groups as a sustainable lifestyle is not necessarily a panacea to cure all ills.

pprendeville

DaithiMC wrote: »

...and soon it will come full circle that ALL macronutrients in the ratio and amount required to achieve the particular goals of the "dieter" are to be considered equally important. Carbs are NOT evil, nor are fats or proteins, we are designed to deal with all three groups and depending on whether your goals are fat loss, muscle gain, fat gain, muscle loss, etc.. they can all be tuned to have the required effect. What is becoming more evident is that focus on ONE of the macronutrient groups as a sustainable lifestyle is not necessarily a panacea to cure all ills.

A lot to be said for common sense and this comment has plenty of that.

duffyshuffle

DaithiMC wrote: »

...and soon it will come full circle that ALL macronutrients in the ratio and amount required to achieve the particular goals of the "dieter" are to be considered equally important. Carbs are NOT evil, nor are fats or proteins, we are designed to deal with all three groups and depending on whether your goals are fat loss, muscle gain, fat gain, muscle loss, etc.. they can all be tuned to have the required effect. What is becoming more evident is that focus on ONE of the macronutrient groups as a sustainable lifestyle is not necessarily a panacea to cure all ills.

I'm not low carb and would fully agree carb is important especially when eaten at appropriate times, and I don't think they're evil, but I don't think bread is something that has any real health benefits to it and the first photo in the pic is butter smothered on toast. I would say it is delicious however...

AFAIK people tend to recommend carb with protein and lower fat on active days, and protein and fat on less active days, and that the fat/carb mix is the one to avoid. Common man might read that article and double their butter on their toast and sandwiches and expect to improve health/weight, which was what I was referring to

AstraMonti

If you mean carbs like pasta, wheat, sugar then I can't personally find a single benefit for them and I could argue for days that they are pointless to be in anyones diets.

On the other hand if you mean vegetable/fruit carbs and very very specific low gi ones (like sweet potato) then I would say for sure.

And low-fat products are idiotic, there is no middle ground there.

AstraMonti

Just found this gem: http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2014/05/13/salt-is-good-for-you/

ford2600

AstraMonti wrote: »

Just found this gem: http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2014/05/13/salt-is-good-for-you/

Have you read his book?

Volek and Pinney and also Peter Attia strongly recommend adding salt to your diet as on high fat your kidneys dump salt.

If you eat a lot of bacon your probably good to go.

petethedrummer

ford2600 wrote: »

Have you read his book?

His book is excellent. The epilogue in particular.

Gary Taubes also did an article on salt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't restrict salt at all and my blood pressure is fine. Had it measured a fair few times while in for surgery recently.

petethedrummer

Taubes did another article on salt in 1998. I think it was his first dietary article. http://garytaubes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/science-political-science-of-salt.pdf

ford2600

petethedrummer wrote: »

His book is excellent. The epilogue in particular.

The bit that said alcohol is good!

Ole Rodrigo

ford2600 wrote: »

The bit that said alcohol is good!

What did he say about booze ?

Its gas that any discussion Ive had with anyone about diet, they always leave booze out of it. Critisizing those pints at the weekend - well thats taking things too far ffs. If a man can't have his few pints then what can he have ? etc etc :pac:.

ford2600

ror_74 wrote: »

What did he say about booze ?

Its gas that any discussion Ive had with anyone about diet, they always leave booze out of it. Critisizing those pints at the weekend - well thats taking things too far ffs. If a man can't have his few pints then what can he have ? etc etc :pac:.

In a nutshell stress causes heart disease, all kinds of stress.

Enjoy food, a drink or two, exercise some, make plenty friendd enjoy your work, and ride plenty (I might have added that bit).

petethedrummer

ror_74 wrote: »

What did he say about booze ?

"If you don't drink, start. If you do drink, drink regularly - don't binge drink - and make you sure you enjoy what you drink. Drink with friends, drink sociably; don't drink to get drunk." - Malcolm Kendrick.

TheBlaaMan

This is a good read and a lot of sense.
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2011/11/the-pursuit-of-leanness/

DaithiMC

AstraMonti wrote: »

If you mean carbs like pasta, wheat, sugar then I can't personally find a single benefit for them and I could argue for days that they are pointless to be in anyones diets.

On the other hand if you mean vegetable/fruit carbs and very very specific low gi ones (like sweet potato) then I would say for sure.

And low-fat products are idiotic, there is no middle ground there.

Well, if I was a starving individual I might see a benefit in anything that is edible, or if I am a diabetic with a sugar low I might see a benefit in a "fast" or high GI sugar! OK - they're extreme examples but the point is that it probably is more important to come at this from the objectives perspective, i.e., what is the overall objective or outcome sought, and then align the proportion of macronutrients, and even the types required.

Many pro racers are regularly seen swigging high sugar drinks during and at the end of races so they and their training staff clearly see a benefit. For most cyclist who cycle at below their maximum sustainable efforts, this kind of replenishment is probably of lower or similar benefit to low GI carbs so with that "objective" in mind I would agree with you. I was recently at a seminar in which a speaker illustrated, after an exhaustive search of the available literature (1200+ papers whittled to 200+ relevant papers), that it is the carb-load that may be more important than the "quality" of the carb - which is kind of where I am coming from when I consider the "objective" more important as an up front consideration.

AstraMonti

http://authoritynutrition.com/18-low-carb-breakfast-recipes/

All great ideas.

AstraMonti

Have a read on this as well: Dietary Carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management. Critical review and evidence base

12 sprocket

AstraMonti wrote: »

Have a read on this as well: Dietary Carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management. Critical review and evidence base

I don't think there's anything new in restricting sugars/ carbs in Diabetes management.. sugarless jams are available for diabetics for many years as far as I am aware

ford2600

Normally when we eat food, in particular carbohydrates (starches and
sugars) the level of glucose in our blood increases. In response to this
the pancreas produces insulin which brings the level of glucose back to
normal. Insulin is a hormone which is produced by a small organ in the
body called the pancreas.

Include a starchy carbohydrate food such as bread, cereal, potato, rice
or pasta (eat the appropriate portion) at each meal.

Both quotes taken from
http://www.diabetes.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Healthy-Eating-Type-2-Booklet-July-12.pdf

DaithiMC

Something to add to the thought process.... we are complex animals, difficult to get those laboratory conditions correct I suppose.... http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28797106

ford2600

DaithiMC wrote: »

Something to add to the thought process.... we are complex animals, difficult to get those laboratory conditions correct I suppose.... http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28797106

If studies show that unprocessed red meat is bad for you after controlling for meat eaters who smoke, drink too much, don't eat enough fish, get enough sleep etc then I'll have a good look at it.

Eat about 55- 60% fat without eating much meat at all

doozerie

DaithiMC wrote: »

Something to add to the thought process.... we are complex animals, difficult to get those laboratory conditions correct I suppose.... http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28797106

If nothing else, adopting a LCHF diet has made me question many more aspects of dietary studies/reports/advice. So while before I might have read that BBC article and come away from it thinking that yes of course, saturated fat is implicitly bad for you, and that someone putting on weight was clearly an undesirable consequence of eating more meat as the article author suggests, nowadays I look at a sentence like:

After a month of bacon sandwiches and burgers I had piled on the weight and my blood pressure and cholesterol levels both soared.

…and instead of concluding/accepting that eating lots of meat makes you fat and less healthy, I start to wonder how much the increased carb intake implied by “sandwich” and “burger” contributed to the (implied) negative outcomes. I’ve absolutely no idea how to answer such questions, but the fact that such questions are not even mentioned in the article makes me question the quality of the content and the reliability of any conclusions or suggestions contained within it.

So an LCHF diet certainly continues to offer me health benefits that I value, but leaves me fretting over far more stuff that I simply (and ignorantly, for the most part) took for granted before. All that fretting increases my risk of stress-related illness by 10% (study group of 1), shortening my expected life span by 30 minutes per year (the accuracy of this claim by me has been “independently” verified by me). So my new diet is healthier (for me), but is killing me faster. I shall generalise wildly and conclude that good health is bad for you and invite Horizon to make a program on that. (Contact me quick Horizon, I'm dying here you know! ).

kennyb3

+1, those eating all the extra meat will no doubt be having Steak and chips or fry ups with beans (10g of sugar per half can), break and ketchup.

These studies are plain ridiculous really. Way way way too many factors influencing the outcome.

DaithiMC

kennyb3 wrote: »

+1, those eating all the extra meat will no doubt be having Steak and chips or fry ups with beans (10g of sugar per half can), break and ketchup.

These studies are plain ridiculous really. Way way way too many factors influencing the outcome.

Well the problem with saying "these studies are plain ridiculous" is that we are seeing this reported through a documentary which summarises and simplifies the studies. It is impossible to go back to the original studies without the specific references to them and assess whether they were ward controlled of "free humans", the latter of course being completely uncontrolled.

When I see a disparity in conclusions such at this, effectively indicating that North Americans and Europeans are different species, I immediately am suspicious about the experimental design. What I am trying to figure out at this stage in my life is how to grow old healthily, i.e., I'd rather just "stop" one day than have a slow lingering meander through a chronic, progressively debilitating disease. Making the presumption that I get to "stop" I need to therefore be mobile and compos mentis, so being overweight challenges the physical, and eating the wrong composition, I believe, challenges the neural side. This is probably why I am practicing my descending on the bike so much!

Ole Rodrigo

DaithiMC wrote: »

and eating the wrong composition, I believe, challenges the neural side.

What do you mean by this Daithi?

DaithiMC

ror_74 wrote: »

What do you mean by this Daithi?

If you are looking at your overall health, you need to consider physical as well as mental health. Most discussions about eating healthy focus more on the physical and not on the mental health. At this point in my life (mid-40s) I am thinking of the long-term, short-termism when looking at health, I believe, drives behaviours like yo-yo dieting and also overtraining, which are unsustainable.

As we grow older the top health risks are usually cited as cardiovascular disease, heart disease, strokes, etc. and we tend (at least I do) consider dementia and other neural disorders as diseases of the really aged. I think what we eat today has a potentially big impact on our risk of neural disease. Eating too much (quantity) drives short-term changes physically but in this mode, most macro-nutrient groups are likely to be above adequate. However, if we undereat (quality) on any one particular group, aside from losing weight, you probably also cause potential harm to mental health, and doing this for an extended period has the implication of increasing neural health risk. The article points to some research indicating people who avoid red meat may be deficient in this way.

It might be enough to take on Vitamin supplements if the diet is focused on one or two macronutrient groups. Some say vitamin supplements are a waste of time as they have been shown to be dispelled in almost as high a concentration as they have been added to the diet but I'd rather have them circulating in excess and used as and when needed than to have them in insufficient concentrations.

One other point, the brain is a huge consumer of glucose so, even in the short-term, deficiencies in this can lead to bad decision making - note the crashes in long stages of bike races where the commentators put this down to the riders being "tired" - its likely the concentration required is being affected by sugar lows of one or two riders who underestimated their carb need.

pprendeville

AstraMonti wrote: »

http://authoritynutrition.com/18-low-carb-breakfast-recipes/

All great ideas.

Great link Astra. Going to tuck into a few of these over the impending winter in which I'll be commuting a lot.

ford2600

pprendeville wrote: »

Great link Astra. Going to tuck into a few of these over the impending winter in which I'll be commuting a lot.

How long is your commutte? Can you eat at work?

doozerie

DaithiMC wrote: »

Well the problem with saying "these studies are plain ridiculous" is that we are seeing this reported through a documentary which summarises and simplifies the studies. It is impossible to go back to the original studies without the specific references to them and assess whether they were ward controlled of "free humans", the latter of course being completely uncontrolled.

The odd thing about that Horizon program is that, based entirely on the article, it appears to be looking at studies and presenting info based on them, which would be interesting I think, but they seem to have tacked on the bit about the presenter trying a particular type of diet and making what seem like broad conclusions on the basis of perceived results. It seems an odd thing to throw into the program and to me seems to dilute the value of the core part of the program. Or perhaps the program is separate to the dietary trial by the presenter, maybe I'm just misreading the article (brain fade, I may need more carbs ).

DaithiMC wrote:

What I am trying to figure out at this stage in my life is how to grow old healthily, i.e., I'd rather just "stop" one day than have a slow lingering meander through a chronic, progressively debilitating disease.

I share your concerns and aims. For quite a while I've been trying to address this in other aspects of my life (e.g. I stretch regularly as I believe it'll contribute to better mobility for longer later in life) but for far too long I've been very casual about really considering the long term impacts of my diet. That's one of the positive side effects of my trying to adopt a LCHF diet, it has made me think more about the consequences of what I eat - I'm pretty sure I'm a long way still from an "ideal" diet, whatever that might be, but making a conscious effort to figure out what that should be feels like half the battle.

DaithiMC

doozerie wrote: »

The odd thing about that Horizon program is that, based entirely on the article, it appears to be looking at studies and presenting info based on them, which would be interesting I think, but they seem to have tacked on the bit about the presenter trying a particular type of diet and making what seem like broad conclusions on the basis of perceived results. It seems an odd thing to throw into the program and to me seems to dilute the value of the core part of the program. Or perhaps the program is separate to the dietary trial by the presenter, maybe I'm just misreading the article (brain fade, I may need more carbs ).

I share your concerns and aims. For quite a while I've been trying to address this in other aspects of my life (e.g. I stretch regularly as I believe it'll contribute to better mobility for longer later in life) but for far too long I've been very casual about really considering the long term impacts of my diet. That's one of the positive side effects of my trying to adopt a LCHF diet, it has made me think more about the consequences of what I eat - I'm pretty sure I'm a long way still from an "ideal" diet, whatever that might be, but making a conscious effort to figure out what that should be feels like half the battle.

Yes, I think carrying out "experiments" on top of an already simplified summary of the science can make the science seem unimportant. One of the principal problems of course is that he is a population of one. He is a trained medical doctor though and tries to interpret the outputs by engaging in a practical way but the outputs of these studies are so longitudinally focused that I don't know what he can achieve in a month. He did a better job of interpreting the Intermittent Fasting research which unfortunately though, gave rise to the fad 5:2 diet.

From what I have studied so far on nutrition - which has slowed down as I have changed work and so am not involved so much in medical diagnostics anymore, here are some observations (not facts!!):

1) Caloric Restriction: best recommended way for weight loss (no qualifier on dietary composition so "weight loss" can mean varying compositions of fat and lean mass loss).
2) Intermittent Fasting: good for weight loss (not as good as CR), short-term fasts appear to emphasise more fat loss than lean mass. Potentially (though the potential looks good) better for chronic disease control as fasting reduces the number of cycles of inflammatory processes and promotes cellular repair rather than cellular replacement.
3) Volume: large volumes of food obviously drive weight gain and also the inflammatory process, even if the large volume is biased towards only one or two groups so high protein diets will still give rise to weight gain if there is a significantly higher caloric value in the volume taken in. Gorging in intermittent fasting regimes doesn't show up as having long-term adverse health effects (yet! ) but I have read one study indicating that taking in a daily calorific quantity in one evening meal can lead to higher risk of CVD.
3) Quality: We all intuitively know about the more Fruit and Veg but this is in the context of including it in the mix, not adding it to the volume, of what is already being eaten. The "five a day" doesn't mean "at least" five a day - so 45 items of a healthy food will still drive adverse health! In relation specifically to sugar I saw one review of the literature looking at the types of sugar (fructose v glucose v galactose) which indicates again, that the quantity of the sugar (carb load) is likely more detrimental than the type of sugar.

One other area that is attracting interest which may reveal that low carb diets, from a health (physical and mental) perspective have merit is the area of Advanced Glycated Endproducts - effectively proteins to which sugars become irreversibly bound. Some of these proteins have functions which become blocked by these bound sugars so effectively become inert in our circulation and are deposited over time in ways that it is supposed can lead to premature aging including neural disorders, so keeping your sugars on the equilibrium point for immediate use by your body means that these proteins can function as designed and are not "mopping up" excess sugars.

I can now only study this stuff in my spare time so this will remain the sum-total of my observations for a while yet!

pprendeville

ford2600 wrote: »

How long is your commutte? Can you eat at work?

About 42k one way. I suppose I could do that alright.

ford2600

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ie/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html


Good article from a really good writer. Haven't seen it before here. More rounded view of things

DaithiMC

ford2600 wrote: »

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ie/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html


Good article from a really good writer. Haven't seen it before here. More rounded view of things

Interestingly.... in news today.... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140825185319.htm

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/08/21/1409638111

kennyb3

Hoping this might be best place to ask;

Macadamia nuts - okay to eat unroasted & unsalted?

Considerable more expensive when they are roasted & salted.

No exact quantity mentioned here. Reason to be concerned.

I eat plenty of nuts every day - I struggle to get enough fat in otherwise - end up eating large quantities of meat and possibly too much protein.

AstraMonti

I eat about 20-25 (rough estimate) of unsalted macadamia nuts per day plus some pecans and walnuts. I think it's fair to say not to go nuts with nuts, nothing is good in extreme portions. How come you are struggling with fat? Do you like/eat cheese?

Btw I was for ten days in the states and I completely ignored my eating, went in a carb fest, came back with 3.5kgs extra, damn!