Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

Right, so when I argue that our bodies do not behave identically, you say I'm being as dense as a flat earther.

Are you going to argue we all experience the same amount of hunger, too? Like, if two people of equal size, who both have identical diets, and identical lifestyles, will get hungry at the exact same time, and with the same amount of hunger pain.

Because we're all fucking robots made out of wires and computers, deep down underneath all the messy veins and whatnot.

I can help you when you start paying attention.

[OngBonga]

I'm not going to reread that pointless discussion to find out why I'm off on a different tangent to you. I don't care.

Do you think I ever pay attention? I just argue for the sake of it, it doesn't even matter what we're arguing about. I'm defending fat people here, do you think I actually give a fuck about fat people? No. I just like arguing.

[wufwugy]

About fat shaming:

If everywhere you looked, fat was praised, if it was considered hot and virtuous to be fat, do you think more people would be fat than they are today?

The answer is yes, yes you do think that, because it is correct and you like being correct.

By transverse, it must be true that making being fat socially unacceptable would result in fewer fat people.

Fact: fat shaming is godly work. It makes the world a better place by corralling people into living happier lives. I bet I wouldn't have gained the excess fat I did if I thought it would have meant a great deal of ridicule. In fact, when I chose to neglect my health and gain weight, part of the rationale behind it was "it doesn't matter, nobody's gonna treat me differently." The irony is that people did actually treat me differently, just in a very passive way. I was never once fat shamed, but the way people treated me (like how attracted women were to me or how respectfully men treated me) changed significantly.

Moral of the story: Western culture needs about 30 years of masculine-infused testosterone injections in order to recover from its extreme wussification.

[wufwugy]

I'm not going to reread that pointless discussion to find out why I'm off on a different tangent to you. I don't care.

Do you think I ever pay attention? I just argue for the sake of it, it doesn't even matter what we're arguing about. I'm defending fat people here, do you think I actually give a fuck about fat people? No. I just like arguing.

I know. Because I realized this, I don't debate you.

[OngBonga]

I know. Because I realized this, I don't debate you.

But you've been debating me for years!

[wufwugy]

But you've been debating me for years!

You had me thinking you were legit for years.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If everywhere you looked, fat was praised, if it was considered hot and virtuous to be fat, do you think more people would be fat than they are today?

The answer is yes, yes you do think that, because it is correct and you like being correct.

By transverse, it must be true that making being fat socially unacceptable would result in fewer fat people.

It's like you've never opened a single history book or looked at a single statistic, yet you claim to be some kind of biological truth-divining machine when it comes to human nature.

This is nearly as funny as the tape commercial but with all the laughing on the inside and none of it expressed audibly.
The hubris of wufwugy cannot be muffled!

[OngBonga]

You had me thinking you were legit for years.

I'm legit sometimes. In fact, probably most times.

[wufwugy]

It's like you've never opened a single history book or looked at a single statistic, yet you claim to be some kind of biological truth-divining machine when it comes to human nature.

This is nearly as funny as the tape commercial but with all the laughing on the inside and none of it expressed audibly.
The hubris of wufwugy cannot be muffled!

I fashioned the post specifically to get a rise out of you. How does it feel? You know, gettin' wuf'd? Not everybody experiences the pleasure of gettin' wuf'd. Moms love it!

Seriously though, it's not like I said anything that's wrong. Imagine I'm John Goodman in Big Lebowski. Sure, I didn't prove my point, but am I wrong? Am I wrong?

[wufwugy]

I'm legit sometimes. In fact, probably most times.

The tell is when your points show that you read what the other person said.

[wufwugy]

BEST

[MadMojoMonkey]

I fashioned the post specifically to get a rise out of you. How does it feel? You know, gettin' wuf'd? Not everybody experiences the pleasure of gettin' wuf'd. Moms love it!

[wufwugy]

[rong]

It's like you've never opened a single history book or looked at a single statistic, yet you claim to be some kind of biological truth-divining machine when it comes to human nature.

This is nearly as funny as the tape commercial but with all the laughing on the inside and none of it expressed audibly.
The hubris of wufwugy cannot be muffled!

Haha I real lol'd.

[NightGizmo]

I'm not an expert on the physiological affects of nutrition, but I'm pretty sure that you can't just count calories and think you're healthy. All calories are not created equally when applied to the human body.

Simple example: how the body processes the two most basic sugars, glucose and fructose. Extra glucose is kept in the bloodstream as a backup supply of energy, eventually being shuttled to fat stores when glucose blood levels get too high. But fructose goes a completely different pathway -- it's either immediately used for energy or it's immediately stored as fat.

So if you eat a high-sugar diet every day and then sit around for a few hours before getting any exercise, chances are that the type of sugar in that meal will have a pretty significant impact on your body fat %.

[wufwugy]

I'm not an expert on the physiological affects of nutrition, but I'm pretty sure that you can't just count calories and think you're healthy. All calories are not created equally when applied to the human body.

Simple example: how the body processes the two most basic sugars, glucose and fructose. Extra glucose is kept in the bloodstream as a backup supply of energy, eventually being shuttled to fat stores when glucose blood levels get too high. But fructose goes a completely different pathway -- it's either immediately used for energy or it's immediately stored as fat.

So if you eat a high-sugar diet every day and then sit around for a few hours before getting any exercise, chances are that the type of sugar in that meal will have a pretty significant impact on your body fat %.

Metabolism is often described as the most complex and nonsensical known system in the universe. There have been all sorts of hypotheses regarding how certain types of calories could have certain types of effects on body composition, yet when the studies are conducted, the effects don't appear.

When it comes to body composition, after the nutritional baseline is accounted for, research does not show that it matters the source of calories beyond that. Even with things like alcohol, where consumption of it supposedly means that every other calorie in the system is stored as fat, the research just doesn't show that it yields a body composition change if it doesn't provide a calorie change first. If we use our common sense about metabolism, the absolute last thing anybody should do while trying to lose weight is consume alcohol; but the studies just don't back that idea up. Due to the extreme complexity of metabolism, we're not really even sure why (IIRC).

That said, there are a bunch of dietary protocols that can be used that more successfully hit the calorie points dieters aim at. This is why people like ketogenic diets. They make it easier to keep calories low. But if those people instead of consuming all that extra fat instead consumed a bunch of extra carbs (at the same calorie levels), studies show that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

It may be great to keep in mind what calories are. They're units of energy, nothing else. The same way an inch is an inch is an inch, a calorie is a calorie. There aren't any metabolic tricks that allow a body to use less energy than it needs. It doesn't seem to matter where the body sends the energy it receives; if it needs to burn tissue to make up for a caloric deficit, it will do it.

[Poopadoop]

I'd first like to know what studies say a calorie is a calorie. The truth is that a fair percentage (around 25%) of protein calories are converted to heat during digestion. Not the case for fats or carbs. Moreover, there is a big difference between how calories affect satiety depending on their source, which you seem to understand but which also contradicts your argument somewhat.

Second, the keto diet is a bad diet. It was originally designed for treating intractable epilepsy in children. It also happens to make overweight people lose weight because fat calories are more filling than calories that come from refined carbs. So they eat less calories. The same effect would happen if you replaced a high carb diet with eating tree bark. You'd soon get full and eat less calories. The Atkins diet has the same premise but emphasizes protein and fat as replacements for carbs rather than just fat alone.

The problem with any of those three solutions to weight loss is that they're not sustainable. This is because the diet is essentially unbalanced. For one, your body has a hard time digesting protein and fats, the former causing strain on the liver in particular. For another, neither protein nor fat contain much of the vitamins one needs to be healthy, such as vitamin A, many of the B vitamins, C, and K, that are found in fresh fruit and veg. If you severely restrict protein as well you'll lose even more nutrients. So while you may lose weight and sustain that weight loss using one of the above diets, you will suffer from the same nutritional deficiencies as the obese person who gets all their carbs from sugar and starches. You'll be less sick than they are because you're not fat and not having the same blood sugar swings but you'll be sick all the same.

A healthy, balanced diet consists of a lot of fresh fruits and veg and some whole grains, nuts and legumes, with smaller portions of meat and dairy. These provide a balanced nutrition. Because the complex carbs contained in such a diet don't lead to swings in blood sugar, they also don't lead to the extra hunger associated with the more typical western style diet high in processed foods. Therefore one will maintain a healthy weight.

The reason people like the keto or Atkins diets is because they see themselves quickly losing weight and feeling better. What they don't feel until it happens are the long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies and/or excess protein/fat consumption. They also like the idea of eating rich, tasty foods while losing weight a lot better than eating low-calorie high fibre foods that are actually much better for them and have the same effects on their waistline. Given the choice between eating bacon and eggs cooked in lard and iced with peanut butter and some celery, carrots and an apple, it's not surprising the keto and Atkins diets have an appeal. But like I said, they're not sustainable for anyone who actually wants to be slim and healthy as opposed to just slim.

[wufwugy]

My comments are not about healthy diet, but changes in body composition.

Keto has a hunger blunting effect. The long term negatives you discuss are not known. Lots of keto dieters can easily get higher vitamins and minerals than conventional dieters.

A calorie is still a calorie regardless of the thermic effect of food (TEF). 1000 calories of protein still gives you 1000 calories. It's just that metabolizing it expends more calories than other types of packaging, so the net ends up being lower than with other types of calories. Saying that 1000 calories of protein is like 750 calories is shorthand and not technically accurate. Diet protocols include TEF, which accounts for this. If you're on a high protein diet, your caloric expenditure calculations increase; it is not that you can mislabel your intake as lower. Regardless, the effect is marginal. It is extremely hard and unreasonable to achieve much of an increased deficit by switching more macros to protein.

[wufwugy]

Let me add a clarification.

The common statement from fat loss specialists that "a calorie is a calorie" is more about combating common ideas claiming otherwise. For example, people claim that on certain diets their bodies are more effective at burning calories. That's not true, at least not beyond a baseline of nutrition. Or people say things like certain types of food turn to fat more easily therefore not all calories are the same regarding fat loss. That too isn't true. You can think of fat as excess calories. It doesn't matter if you eat a certain food that goes more directly to fat stores because if you're at a calorie deficit, the body pulls that deficit out of fat stores. You'll lose more weight on 1000 calories of pizza than 1500 calories of broccoli.

[wufwugy]

Continuing the last bit.

You'll lose more weight on 1500 calories of broccoli and chicken than 1500 calories of pizza. But it will be very little (usually not even noticeable), and it will be because the body is expending more calories.

[Poopadoop]

I know a keto diet will make a person lose weight - i said as much. So will the tree bark diet, and so will the Atkins diet, so will forced starvation. The point was it's a bad diet like the others are because it isn't balanced. It's that simple.

"Lots of keto dieters can easily get higher vitamins and minerals than conventional dieters." Based on what scientific study? Again you should try to back up what you say with some evidence. I find it hard to imagine someone eating virtually no carbs is getting adequate (i.e., any) fiber, or vitamins A or C from fats.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I know a keto diet will make a person lose weight - i said as much. So will the tree bark diet, and so will the Atkins diet, so will forced starvation. The point was it's a bad diet like the others are because it isn't balanced. It's that simple.

"Lots of keto dieters can easily get higher vitamins and minerals than conventional dieters." Based on what scientific study? Again you should try to back up what you say with some evidence. I find it hard to imagine someone eating virtually no carbs is getting adequate (i.e., any) fiber, or vitamins A or C from fats.

What scientific studies are you citing to support your claims?

[wufwugy]

I know a keto diet will make a person lose weight - i said as much. So will the tree bark diet, and so will the Atkins diet, so will forced starvation. The point was it's a bad diet like the others are because it isn't balanced. It's that simple.

Balanced according to what?

"Lots of keto dieters can easily get higher vitamins and minerals than conventional dieters." Based on what scientific study? Again you should try to back up what you say with some evidence. I find it hard to imagine someone eating virtually no carbs is getting adequate (i.e., any) fiber, or vitamins A or C from fats.

Keto is not zero carb (although it can be).

There isn't any evidence that very low carb has negative long term effects. However, there are reasons to believe that it could. Even Eskimos consume moderate carbs (from fresh raw meat). We just don't have the data to know its effects on humans over a lifetime.

However, the data we do have suggests that there shouldn't be anything wrong with a "normal" keto diet, which comes to an average of maybe 50 grams of carbs a day (probably higher, actually). This because most people can sustain keto at <50 grams of carbs and refeeds, which make for much more than 50 grams of carbs, are typical.

Personally, my longest stint of keto averaged 25 grams of carbs/day and my vegetable intake was much higher than normal. Keto doesn't recommend replacing needed nutrients with fat; it recommends that after nutrients are satisfied to make up the remaining energy needs (calories) with fat. Keto is about getting the molecule the body uses for energy (ATP) from different sources; this isn't about vitamins and minerals. Most of what we eat serves the purpose of providing energy, not of providing vitamins/minerals.

[Poopadoop]

Do I need scientific proof that vitamins and minerals are good for you? And that some of them are only found in fruit and veg?

Sorry I will have to look up my sub to 1928 journals of nutrition.

[Poopadoop]

Balanced according to what?



Keto is not zero carb (although it can be).

There isn't any evidence that very low carb has negative long term effects. However, there are reasons to believe that it could. Even Eskimos consume moderate carbs (from fresh raw meat). We just don't have the data to know its effects on humans over a lifetime.

However, the data we do have suggests that there shouldn't be anything wrong with a "normal" keto diet, which comes to an average of maybe 50 grams of carbs a day (probably higher, actually). This because most people can sustain keto at <50 grams of carbs and refeeds, which make for much more than 50 grams of carbs, are typical.

Personally, my longest stint of keto averaged 25 grams of carbs/day and my vegetable intake was much higher than normal. Keto doesn't recommend replacing needed nutrients with fat; it recommends that after nutrients are satisfied to make up the remaining energy needs (calories) with fat. Keto is about getting the molecule the body uses for energy (ATP) from different sources; this isn't about vitamins and minerals. Most of what we eat serves the purpose of providing energy, not of providing vitamins/minerals.

Balanced according to having appropriate levels of nutrients, such as the things I mentioned (vitamins, minerals, fiber).

It doesn't matter what most of what you eat does, if you lack in certain things you are going to suffer.

[Poopadoop]

Personally, my longest stint of keto averaged 25 grams of carbs/day and my vegetable intake was much higher than normal.

Wait, 100 of your calories came from carbs and you were eating MORE vegetables than usual? Please tell us what you were eating before...there's 147 cal in one cup of cooked veg btw.

How about fruit - i take it there wasn't any room for that in your keto diet?

Even better, just take us through a typical food intake for one day on your keto diet. I think that would be really enlightening.

[wufwugy]

Wait, 100 of your calories came from carbs and you were eating MORE vegetables than usual? Please tell us what you were eating before...there's 147 cal in one cup of cooked veg btw.

How about fruit - i take it there wasn't any room for that in your keto diet?

Even better, just take us through a typical food intake for one day on your keto diet. I think that would be really enlightening.

I've never been a fruit person, but it can be had in very low quantities. Still, there aren't any known needed nutrients exclusive to fruit. The smart thing, however, is to include some level of fruit just in case there are.

My typical keto diet is a lot of meat and broccoli, mushrooms, onions, cabbage, lettuce. This is because I do a lot of stir fry and salads on keto. When not on keto, well, I tend to eat more typically, which reduces the vegetables because there's not that many in burgers, burritos, or whatever.

[wufwugy]

Macros and micros are different. When we talk carbs, we're talking macros. There isn't any evidence that humans need dietary carbs, but there also isnt enough to conclude that we don't. Still, ketones and fat oxidization for energy covers every form of energy the body needs other than some small amount of glycogen for the brain (which the body naturally can supply through gluconeogenesis).

[Poopadoop]

Well you can't have both 25g of carbs a day and 'a lot' of anything with carbs. Maybe two servings of veg a day and one of fruit. Forget grains entirely.

Here's a guy promoting a 20g carb diet. Note most of the things he calls one name are actually another (e.g., pancakes with no flour in them).

http://www.ibreatheimhungry.com/2014...menu-plan.html

Day 1: Cream cheese, eggs, bacon and coffee with heavy cream for breakfast. Cheese strings for a snack. Ham and cheese rolled in cream cheese and eggs with mayo and a little bit of spinach for lunch. (I'll just stop there).

Does this really seem like a healthy diet?

[Poopadoop]

I know the difference between macros and micros. But I'm not sure you understand the significance of micros to a healthy diet. I don't think anyone's ever tried to argue that you need carbohydrates per se to survive. It's the other things that tend to be bundled in with them in their natural form that seem pretty important. If the carbs were all that mattered a person would be just as healthy eating x servings of sugar a day as the same amount of fruit and veg. Don't hear anyone arguing that's the case, and obviously most would argue the very opposite.

[OngBonga]

Nutrition is bollocks. I mean if you want peak health, then sure you need all the vitamins and minerals, but "need" is a funny word... my diet is utter shite, and I'm healthy, and fit enough to walk for miles, or cycle across a county.

Let's see... on a good day...

Breakfast... 2 eggs with 4 slices of granary toast, tea
Lunch... maybe some cheese and crackers, tea
Dinner... maybe cottage pie and mash, or fish and chips, or lasagne, tea

Snacks... chocoloate, tea, biscuits, tea, tea

I eat hardly any fruit or veg. There might be some peas and carrots in my cottage pie, or some onion and tomato in my lasagne, but it's small quantities. I'm not dead.

So bollocks to what the so called experts say. The secret to good health is clearly tea.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do I need scientific proof that vitamins and minerals are good for you? And that some of them are only found in fruit and veg?

Yes, absolutely.
You demand scientific evidence to refute your claims, therefore you need to cite the scientific data which supports your claims.

Whether or not your claims are "common sense" or "sound right" is scientific nonsense. The whole point of scientific method is to accept this and develop a rigorous systems to root out the BS we are so ridiculously prone to believe as a species. There's plenty of evidence to support the fact that the scientific method only works at all when we're at our utmost diligent to not be persuaded to believe anything on the basis of whether it "feels right."

So, please. Cite the scientific data which supports your view or rephrase your argument away from the scientific angle and onto your own feelings and what you understand. If you're not actually educated by the science, then don't claim to the veracity of your beliefs as though you are.

Sorry I will have to look up my sub to 1928 journals of nutrition.

It's all good. No need to apologize.

I'm sure there's plenty to scrutinize, given the almost 100 years of advances to physiology and medicine since the 20's.

[OngBonga]

You demand scientific evidence to refute your claims, therefore you need to cite the scientific data which supports your claims.

Give him an inch, he can just say "there's common consensus amongst the vast majority of respectable scientists" and not have to back anything up, that's a cheeky back door for anyone who wants to be lazy while using "science" to support their case.

[wufwugy]

Well you can't have both 25g of carbs a day and 'a lot' of anything with carbs. Maybe two servings of veg a day and one of fruit. Forget grains entirely.

Or many servings of low carb vegetables. Which provide the micros and fiber one doesn't get in meat.

Here's a guy promoting a 20g carb diet. Note most of the things he calls one name are actually another (e.g., pancakes with no flour in them).

http://www.ibreatheimhungry.com/2014...menu-plan.html

Day 1: Cream cheese, eggs, bacon and coffee with heavy cream for breakfast. Cheese strings for a snack. Ham and cheese rolled in cream cheese and eggs with mayo and a little bit of spinach for lunch. (I'll just stop there).

Does this really seem like a healthy diet?

This is one iteration of unnecessarily low carbs.

I know the difference between macros and micros. But I'm not sure you understand the significance of micros to a healthy diet. I don't think anyone's ever tried to argue that you need carbohydrates per se to survive. It's the other things that tend to be bundled in with them in their natural form that seem pretty important. If the carbs were all that mattered a person would be just as healthy eating x servings of sugar a day as the same amount of fruit and veg. Don't hear anyone arguing that's the case, and obviously most would argue the very opposite.

I addressed this. It is easy to go beyond micro needs with a keto diet.

[Poopadoop]

Here you go then.

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/4/506.full

Pretty nitty if you ask me. If I claim the Earth is round or other "common sense" things you'll forgive me if I don't have a reference handy.

[OngBonga]

I say I'm healthy but I've got a bitch of a cough. Cold + smoking = cough.

Tea soothes though. Tea heals the bad things that smoking does. Tea is the antidote to smoking. It's undoing all the bad.

Blissful naivity is a wonderful thing.

[Poopadoop]

This is one iteration of unnecessarily low carbs.

You've only added 5 grams or 20 cal of carbs to what's 'unnecessarily low'.

[Poopadoop]

Give him an inch, he can just say "there's common consensus amongst the vast majority of respectable scientists" and not have to back anything up, that's a cheeky back door for anyone who wants to be lazy while using "science" to support their case.

Alternately, I could just talk a load of shite from the beginning, never back any of it up, and insist I'm right regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. Not that that ever happens on the internet.

[OngBonga]

Alternately, I could just talk a load of shite from the beginning, never back any of it up, and insist I'm right regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. Not that that ever happens on the internet.

I know you're having a dig at wuf here, but this describes me more accurately.

[Poopadoop]

Actually it's a dig at everyone including myself.

[wufwugy]

Nutrition is bollocks. I mean if you want peak health, then sure you need all the vitamins and minerals, but "need" is a funny word... my diet is utter shite, and I'm healthy, and fit enough to walk for miles, or cycle across a county.

Let's see... on a good day...

Breakfast... 2 eggs with 4 slices of granary toast, tea
Lunch... maybe some cheese and crackers, tea
Dinner... maybe cottage pie and mash, or fish and chips, or lasagne, tea

Snacks... chocoloate, tea, biscuits, tea, tea

I eat hardly any fruit or veg. There might be some peas and carrots in my cottage pie, or some onion and tomato in my lasagne, but it's small quantities. I'm not dead.

So bollocks to what the so called experts say. The secret to good health is clearly tea.

You're not as far off as one may think.

The micros humans need are pretty basic. Most everything beyond that is just for energy (you can think of the body tissues themselves as energy too).

We know very little about what micronutrient choices can be made to improve longevity and health. Outside of basic malnutrition, health and longevity seem to boil down to genetics and body composition.

[Poopadoop]

Outside of basic malnutrition, health and longevity seem to boil down to genetics and body composition.

So are you saying that as long as you don't starve yourself, health and longevity depend entirely on genetics and body composition?

[Poopadoop]

By the way Wuf, how much is Donald Trump going to win the election by?

[wufwugy]

Here you go then.

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/4/506.full

Pretty nitty if you ask me. If I claim the Earth is round or other "common sense" things you'll forgive me if I don't have a reference handy.

FWIW this study is saying something a bit different than you may think. I can maybe explain later. The short of it is that the studies evaluated here don't (at least for the most part) show that vegetables and fruits are healthy. They show associations (not causality), and when you dig into the details of a lot of the elements, even the associations are really weak. For example, the abstract mentions vegetables and fruits are viewed as healthy because antioxidants. Well guess what there is little (or no, IIRC) research that shows antioxidants in diet do things like prevent cancer. That stuff is in vitro.

You've only added 5 grams or 20 cal of carbs to what's 'unnecessarily low'.

When did I do that? I stated that keto can exist at ~50g carbs/day and I've stated that one of my own versions has a much different breakdown than the one you presented.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Epidemiologic studies support that dietary fiber is linked to less CVD and probably has a role in obesity prevention. Because fruit and vegetable intake is so low in U.S. studies, it is not possible to isolate the effects of any particular fruit or vegetable fiber or category of fruits or vegetable (fresh, processed, starchy, etc.) on health outcomes in these studies. Fiber is most concentrated in dried fruits and cooked vegetables, just because water is removed and fiber concentrated. Fruits, vegetables, and legumes vary widely in nutrient content so should not be expected to have similar physiological effects. Although dietary guidance is supportive of a more vegetarian eating pattern, including increased servings of fruits and vegetables, the scientific support for these recommendations is mixed in an evidence-based review. Prospective cohort studies find weak support for the protectiveness of fruits and vegetables against chronic diseases, yet intake of fruits and vegetables in U.S. cohorts is low. Additionally, few randomized controlled trials have been published on the addition of fruits and vegetables to the diet and changes in biomarkers or health status. Nutrients in fruits and vegetables, such as dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals, including polyphenols, all provide support for the biological plausibility that fruits and vegetables play a role in health.

Food form may play a role in satiety. Fiber added to drinks appears less effective than whole fruits or vegetables in enhancing satiety. Limited studies suggest that whole-fiber foods may slow gastric emptying compared with liquid foods with added fiber.

Both epidemiologic and experimental fiber studies are linked to improved health status. Fiber is an accepted nutrient and a short-fall nutrient, so public health messages to increase fiber consumption are warranted. Intakes of fruits and vegetables are also widely promoted, both for the content of fiber and other nutrients. Whenever possible, the entire fruit or vegetable, i.e., peel and membrane, should be consumed to increase fiber consumption. Satiety studies also suggest that closer to “whole” may have advantages, although the mechanisms for this effectiveness are not known. Fiber is definitely an active component of fruits and vegetables and a reason to continue to support their consumption.

This is not actually saying anything.

[Poopadoop]

Um, here?

Personally, my longest stint of keto averaged 25 grams of carbs/day

[Poopadoop]

This is not actually saying anything.

You're a scientist right? You understand that people have to understate their conclusions as part of the culture, right?

[wufwugy]

So are you saying that as long as you don't starve yourself, health and longevity depend entirely on genetics and body composition?

No. I'm saying that there isn't evidence to conclude (there's barely even evidence to suggest it) that beyond basic nutritional needs doing things like eating more vegetables will make you live longer or healthier. Researchers have found extremely wide dietary choices not really changing much. Body composition and genes do change much, however (wait and exercise I think).

An example is that I don't know of any examples of studies that show people who eat a certain special diet live longer because of it. There are tons of confounding factors in the research. Also it appears that if there are differences made from dietary choices, they're relatively small. It would be something like two groups of people with the same genes, basic nutrition, exercise, body composition, and environments, but one consumes lots of fish oil, maybe the fish oil one lives a year or so longer, but really we just don't have the evidence to say that; we just know that it could maybe be true.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Pretty nitty if you ask me. If I claim the Earth is round or other "common sense" things you'll forgive me if I don't have a reference handy.

Seems not nitty, since you linked to something not relevant to your claims.
This suggests that you don't have any scientific studies you are familiar with which motivate your position.

I am a physicist. We absolutely demanded substantial amounts of proof that the Earth is round, which was first provided when Eratosthenes measured the circumference in ~240 BC.
I can cite more recent references if you like.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're a scientist right? You understand that people have to understate their conclusions as part of the culture, right?

Yes, but the study you cite is at most laying the groundwork for future studies. At most it's saying there is a dearth of scientific conclusions here and here and here and here.

[Poopadoop]

But ok, just for fun let's unpack it a bit more:


"Epidemiologic studies support that dietary fiber is linked to less CVD"

seems pretty unequivocal: more fiber = less cardiovascular disease.


"... and probably has a role in obesity prevention. "

guardedly positive.


"Because fruit and vegetable intake is so low in U.S. studies, it is not possible to isolate the effects of any particular fruit or vegetable fiber or category of fruits or vegetable (fresh, processed, starchy, etc.) on health outcomes in these studies."

You can't say which fruit or veg is better than others for providing quality fiber.


" Fiber is most concentrated in dried fruits and cooked vegetables, just because water is removed and fiber concentrated. Fruits, vegetables, and legumes vary widely in nutrient content so should not be expected to have similar physiological effects. Although dietary guidance is supportive of a more vegetarian eating pattern, including increased servings of fruits and vegetables, the scientific support for these recommendations is mixed in an evidence-based review. "

Irrelevant.


"Prospective cohort studies find weak support for the protectiveness of fruits and vegetables against chronic diseases,"

Weak support, so not conclusive. But not evidence against either. Does not diminish the value of fiber against CVD.


"... yet intake of fruits and vegetables in U.S. cohorts is low."

The argument here I think is that since people eat low numbers of fruit and veg there is a floor effect that may make the evidence harder to determine statistically (I think - not sure why else it's worth mentioning).


" Additionally, few randomized controlled trials have been published on the addition of fruits and vegetables to the diet and changes in biomarkers or health status. "

Because these studies aren't done, that means there is insufficient evidence one way or the other.


"Nutrients in fruits and vegetables, such as dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals, including polyphenols, all provide support for the biological plausibility that fruits and vegetables play a role in health."

We know (or believe at least) that these things are good for you and they're found in high levels in fruit and veg.


"Food form may play a role in satiety. Fiber added to drinks appears less effective than whole fruits or vegetables in enhancing satiety. Limited studies suggest that whole-fiber foods may slow gastric emptying compared with liquid foods with added fiber."

Fiber fills you up.


"Both epidemiologic and experimental fiber studies are linked to improved health status. Fiber is an accepted nutrient and a short-fall nutrient, so public health messages to increase fiber consumption are warranted. Intakes of fruits and vegetables are also widely promoted, both for the content of fiber and other nutrients. Whenever possible, the entire fruit or vegetable, i.e., peel and membrane, should be consumed to increase fiber consumption. Satiety studies also suggest that closer to “whole” may have advantages, although the mechanisms for this effectiveness are not known. Fiber is definitely an active component of fruits and vegetables and a reason to continue to support their consumption."

Based on fiber content alone, it is reasonable to promote eating fruit and veg.

[Poopadoop]

We absolutely demanded substantial amounts of proof that the Earth is round.

And you should when dealing with a relatively simple question. When we're talking nutrition there are too many variables to draw perfectly airtight conclusions from. So one can at best make reasonable educated arguments. Or just talk shite.

p.s. Actually the earth isn't strictly round since it bulges at the equator due to the centrifugal force from rotation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It is no accident they said "is linked to less" and not "reduces." The difference is that one is playing to a hope and the other is calling to statistical significance.

"probably" means not based on any known data, but "feels right"

If you can't say, then what are you even saying?

Weak support is, again, not a statistically significant result, but they're going to mention it, anyway.

Providing support for plausibility is not a scientific conclusion.

Fiber filling you up is not shown by anything in this report to have data behind it suggesting it's a good thing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And you should when dealing with a relatively simple question. When we're talking nutrition there are too many variables to draw perfectly airtight conclusions from. So one can at best make reasonable educated arguments. Or just talk shite.

Exactly. So your "reasonable educated arguments" are subjective and you are talking about your feelings and what you understand, and not scientific conclusions, so the veracity with which you asserted your claims was, perhaps, hyperbolic... or just shite. Am I right?

p.s. Actually the earth isn't strictly round since it bulges at the equator due to the centrifugal force from rotation.

I know, right!

[Poopadoop]

It is no accident they said "is linked to less" and not "reduces." The difference is that one is playing to a hope and the other is calling to statistical significance.

<<< noooo. One is science humble talk, the other is arrogant brashness. At no point do they mention anything about statistical significance (which itself is a dubious means of determining 'truth'). You can't prove things in nutrition with the same certainty as you can in physics. So you can't apply the same language of surety in your arguments.


"probably" means not based on any known data, but "feels right"

<<< That's your interpretation, it's not mine. But I agree it's open to interpretation.


If you can't say, then what are you even saying?

<<< You're saying it's not known. What's wrong with that?


Weak support is, again, not a statistically significant result, but they're going to mention it, anyway.

<<< It's unclear what 'weak support' means in this context. It can mean the results are varied, the effects are generally small, or that the methods employed are open to question. The fact that it's weak support means you cannot draw strong conclusions, not that you're conclusions must be wrong.


"Providing support for plausibility is not a scientific conclusion."

<<< True.


Fiber filling you up is not shown by anything in this report to have data behind it suggesting it's a good thing.

<<< Given the previous discussion on the benefits of eating fruit and veg. vs. keto diets on weight loss, fiber filling you up becomes relevant. When you're full you eat less (this is the idea behind Keto and Atkins diets). So by filling you up, fiber has an incidental health benefit of weight control. They probably don't explain this all in that article because it's commonly understood (or at least commonly believed) .

[OngBonga]

mojo, now do the same with global warming.

[Poopadoop]

Exactly. So your "reasonable educated arguments" are subjective and you are talking about your feelings and what you understand, and not scientific conclusions, so the veracity with which you asserted your claims was, perhaps, hyperbolic... or just shite. Am I right?

Reasonable educated arguments could be argued to be 'speculative', but calling them 'subjective' implies they weren't reasonable or educated, but based on emotions.There may be varied amounts and qualities of evidence but the best current conclusion is still one based on an objective weighing of the available evidence.

So, based on my understanding of nutrition, there are good reasons to think a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is healthier than a diet high in fat, yes.



back at ya.

[wufwugy]

By the way Wuf, how much is Donald Trump going to win the election by?

My back of napkin: 80% chance he wins >50% of the vote, 50% chance he wins >53% of the vote, 20% chance he wins >56% of the vote.

[wufwugy]

Um, here?

I don't follow the diet you were referencing. Not all keto is bacon and cream. You can do keto with chicken and a dumptruck of bok choy and mushrooms.

[Poopadoop]

mojo, now do the same with global warming.

I don't think we can actually prove it's not just normal temperature fluctuation at the moment, can we? I'm sure Wuf knows.

[Poopadoop]

This is a better article on fruit and veg than the first one i posted.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...es-and-fruits/

[wufwugy]

Instead of bogging things down by getting comprehensive, I'll respond to one point with a point that has relevance to everything else.

"Epidemiologic studies support that dietary fiber is linked to less CVD"

seems pretty unequivocal: more fiber = less cardiovascular disease.

This is not unequivocal. "Linked to" means that the researchers found that populations that had one thing also had another. That's it. "Link" is what I meant by association.

Body composition is a common confounding variable in studies that show links between diet and health. Obviously, better studies control for that variable, but not as many studies do this as one might think, and it's only one of innumerable variables. Add to this the fact that the study methods are not the highest level of study type (double-blind), but are pretty low types (I forget the technical terms for them, but assessments of procured data instead of conduction of trials). Add to this that the biological sciences can be said to up to 66% "fail rate" in producing correct results. Cool link. The situation is just hairy.

If it interests you, learning how to read scientific literature was a skill I had to develop. I remember back when I learned virtually the very first logical lesson I've ever learned, that correlation /= causation. My mind was blown. I needed to know what other logic mistakes I was making.

[wufwugy]

I don't think we can actually prove it's not just normal temperature fluctuation at the moment, can we? I'm sure Wuf knows.

I like you.

[wufwugy]

When we're talking nutrition there are too many variables to draw perfectly airtight conclusions from. So one can at best make reasonable educated arguments.

I've been wondering about this, because wrong is wrong regardless. I see a good deal of bias in the types of guesses people make. For example, we tend to think that vegetables are healthy; therefore, when we see inconclusive data on the health of vegetables, we tend to assume if the data were conclusive it would probably show that they're healthy at least to some degree. But the fact of the matter is that they could simply be not healthy; the data isn't telling us one way or another. Like MMM said, the data is telling us that we need more data and that this is one of the first places we should look.

If we're going with associations, we should all move to Japan, be poor, female, and eat little other than fish. Or something like that.

I'm not kidding. A confounding variable in the longevity of certain Japanese types really is that maybe they're not as stressed out as the rest of us, for whatever reason. It could have nothing to do with what they eat. Or it could have everything to do with it. We just don't know.

[wufwugy]

This is a better article on fruit and veg than the first one i posted.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...es-and-fruits/

The first section, the one on cardiovascular disease, doesn't claim any controlling for confounding variables. It appears that all the people who ate "better" could also have exercised more too.


FWIW, I would love to find research that suggests vegetables improve health. If you showed me some studies that demonstrated that eating 7 servings of vegetables a day instead of 2 raises IQ by 5 points, I'd be all over that shit.

[wufwugy]

BTW MMM you might really dig that link I posted. It strikes me as something you would like.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Reasonable educated arguments could be argued to be 'speculative', but calling them 'subjective' implies they weren't reasonable or educated, but based on emotions.

Not necessarily based on emotions, but personal, nonetheless. Wuf and I could cite a year's worth of reading where we each thought we were being reasonable, while the other was not.

The educated angle in interesting. People of "equal" education may not agree on things. I know that physicists argue like feral cats when put in a closed room with only each other for company. We are pretty united on most physics, but the boundaries inspire heated emotions. None of our opinions are "unreasonable" but we put different weights on different aspects of complicated subjects. The point is that we argue because we don't know, yet. Once we know, it's not worth arguing anymore. That's nothing to do with our reason or education and everything to do with being a human with a different background and specific training than every other human.

Subjective just means that it's not a scientific finding. Some topics defy a truly scientific level of study. Control groups among human populations are practically a fantasy, which causes massive slow-downs and false positives.

There may be varied amounts and qualities of evidence but the best current conclusion is still one based on an objective weighing of the available evidence.

When it comes to nutrition, the experts are divided. There are many camps saying different things and none of them seems to have "the most" credibility... I mean... we're restricting this to a discussion of experts with equal credibility.

So, based on my understanding of nutrition, there are good reasons to think a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is healthier than a diet high in fat, yes.

My man!

[MadMojoMonkey]

BTW MMM you might really dig that link I posted. It strikes me as something you would like.

I'm a huge fan of Derek Muller and Veritasium.

I've read his Doctoral thesis. It's about multi-media presentations in physics, the data behind it, and the data needed. Pretty central to what I do, and he's posting regular content on YouTube, so I'm a big fan.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is a better article on fruit and veg than the first one i posted.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...es-and-fruits/

It's still still, "... can ...," and not "... does ..." over and over.

I prefer your first article, actually.
At least the first article was pointing in a direction of further studies.

[Poopadoop]

When it comes to nutrition, the experts are divided. There are many camps saying different things and none of them seems to have "the most" credibility... I mean... we're restricting this to a discussion of experts with equal credibility.

I wouldn't say experts on nutrition are 'divided'. I don't know of any experts who say fruits and vegetables aren't important, for example. They may argue over what the guidelines should emphasize the most or how they're worded but they agree on the basics as far as I can tell.

[wufwugy]

A point that may be interesting: as far as I recall, studies don't even show that we need fiber for proper bowel function. It could just be that people who eat more fiber also consume more water and micros like magnesium, and thus have better bowel function.

[Poopadoop]

It's still still, "... can ...," and not "... does ..." over and over.

I prefer your first article, actually.
At least the first article was pointing in a direction of further studies.

I think the evidence on balance favours my view. I know it isn't completely unequivocal but as I've said there's limitations to what they can prove given all the variables involved.

I'm curious to what would satisfy you in terms of evidence? A longitudinal study over an entire lifetime with all participants matched in all respects? Half would eat 5 fruit and veg a day and the other half none? Because that study's not going to happen...

[wufwugy]

I wouldn't say experts on nutrition are 'divided'. I don't know of any experts who say fruits and vegetables aren't important, for example. They may argue over what the guidelines should emphasize the most or how they're worded but they agree on the basics as far as I can tell.

Aubrey de Grey is an example of a biologist (albeit not a dietician) who claims something along the lines of there not being evidence that we can improve our longevity and health through diet (outside of the basics, like making sure we're having bowel movements without developing hemorrhoids).

I love me some Aubrey de Grey. If I was a billionaire, I'd fund his research and we'd defeat the diseases susceptible from aging because of it.

[wufwugy]

I'm curious to what would satisfy you in terms of evidence? A longitudinal study over an entire lifetime with all participants matched in all respects? Half would eat 5 fruit and veg a day and the other half none? Because that study's not going to happen...

Meet the research biologist's Joker.

[wufwugy]

I'm a huge fan of Derek Muller and Veritasium.

I've read his Doctoral thesis. It's about multi-media presentations in physics, the data behind it, and the data needed. Pretty central to what I do, and he's posting regular content on YouTube, so I'm a big fan.

Cool fava. It sounds like his youtube content may be related very much to his field of study? Correct?

Maybe I should watch his channel. I only saw that video because of reddit.