Forums: Climbing Information: Technique & Training:
Nutrition
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Technique & Training

Premier Sponsor:

 


climbernic


Jun 5, 2011, 2:11 AM
Post #1 of 74 (8316 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 3, 2011
Posts: 12

Nutrition
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hi there

I'm pretty new to climbing and wondering what you climbers eat and if you have to stick to a Diet especially if you want to train and get stronger?
I find that I am getting stronger but slowly and I find I take a lot longer to recover. I've also find I'm tired all the time and on my climbing days I'm tired during my climbing session to. Does this have to do with what I eat? my diet is pretty crap being a poor student so I was wondering if you guys have any tips on Nutrition?


sungam


Jun 5, 2011, 2:47 AM
Post #2 of 74 (8311 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26618

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Long recovery times and low energy almost certainly have to do either with your diet or your sleep pattern. Make sure you're getting plenty of sleep.
As for your diet, that's a little more involved. How much carbohydrate and protein do you get in your diet?

If you're training or climbing hard and often, you are going to need more carbs during or directly after (within about 40 minutes) exercise to replace the glycogen that has been used in your muscles.

If you want some more information, I recommend Gold Medal Nutrition By Glen Cardwell. Link.


Dave MacLeod's 9 Out of 10 Climbers Make the Same Mistakes also has some good nutritional advice, if I remember correctly. It's also just a fantastic read. Link.


herites


Jun 5, 2011, 11:43 AM
Post #3 of 74 (8213 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2011
Posts: 210

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

The info sungam gave is correct, though one thing caught my mind: how does being a poor student stopping you from having a proper diet? I'm in the same boat (poor student) and since I cant afford pizza/eating out I have to cook at home. This leads to having a more balanced diet than eating junk food in the city Of course you still need some nutrition basics for that, but eating white meat (chicken) with vegetables and rice is a good (though boring) diet. Throw some food supplement (I'm eating a multivitamin pill each day) and you can't go wrong.


sungam


Jun 5, 2011, 11:49 AM
Post #4 of 74 (8211 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26618

Re: [herites] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

herites wrote:
The info sungam gave is correct, though one thing caught my mind: how does being a poor student stopping you from having a proper diet? I'm in the same boat
Me too. I manage to eat just fine. Except for the ice cream... and the cookies.


climbernic


Jun 5, 2011, 4:29 PM
Post #5 of 74 (8167 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 3, 2011
Posts: 12

Re: [sungam] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks for the info will definitely look into trying to change my diet but for sleeping I'm a real light sleeper so I do struggle to get good sleep since I flat with three other students... something I need to sort out myself I think??. Eating good food is hard when you now live in New Zealand the food here is so expensive and having to pay rent and buy good food is hard. But if you have any recommended foods that are worth buying? please let me know? thanks for your feed back =)

cheers.


climbernic


Jun 5, 2011, 4:33 PM
Post #6 of 74 (8164 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 3, 2011
Posts: 12

Re: [herites] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

herites wrote:
The info sungam gave is correct, though one thing caught my mind: how does being a poor student stopping you from having a proper diet? I'm in the same boat (poor student) and since I cant afford pizza/eating out I have to cook at home. This leads to having a more balanced diet than eating junk food in the city Of course you still need some nutrition basics for that, but eating white meat (chicken) with vegetables and rice is a good (though boring) diet. Throw some food supplement (I'm eating a multivitamin pill each day) and you can't go wrong.

Thanks for that I do enjoy rice and veges but didn't think about the chicken I sometimes put tuna with it instead? but chicken sounds nice. I have supplements each day I normally have a Vitamins and fish oil one? not to sure if they help though...


sungam


Jun 5, 2011, 5:08 PM
Post #7 of 74 (8149 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26618

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

For sleep I picked up the (somewhat addictive) habit of sleeping with a strong fan on when I shared a flat with some more... nocturnally interested individuals. The white noise from the fan cancelled out a whole lot of the noise, and kinda lulls you to sleep.

As far as keeping a good diet goes, making things from scratch saves a lot of money. If you make large batches and freeze/refridgerate it then it's very convinient as well.

For some cheap but reasonably healthy stuff look into rice, baked beans, other beans, quinoa, oatmeal (don't get the instant stuff - it's a complete waste of money. Get the normal stuff and nuke it just like you would the instant, then add honey/sugar/syrup/chocolate/whatever as desired), brocolli (frozen brocolli generally has more nutrition in it then fresh), cous cous, pasta (search online for some cheap, easy, and healthy tomato based sauces).

My diet kinda consists of porridge for brekfast every day (unless coco pops are on sale!), then for lunch I usually bring a tuppawear of whatever I have leftovers of and nuke it but sometimes I just make a sammich (cheese and pickle, PB+J, egg extra-lite-mayo), or if I'm at home sometimes an omolette with grated potatoes, onions etc., and for dinner I kinda cycle through pasta with tomato sauce, slow-cooked stews (put vegetables in pot of boiling water. add gravy powder. slow cook for a couple hours), and pizza that I either buy frozen on sale and add vege toppings to or I make the whole thing myself.

Unfortunately my diet also contains fair quantities of ice cream, my GF's AMAZING home made choc chip cookies, and other such crap. So, uh... Do as I say, not as I do and all that. It really doesn't work out as all that expensive. Try exploring some bulk-buying stores in your area (costco, bookers, etc.) for some really rad prices.

Whoah, that was a ramble!


climbernic


Jun 5, 2011, 6:29 PM
Post #8 of 74 (8129 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 3, 2011
Posts: 12

Re: [sungam] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wow thanks man thats means a lot! I need to write this down. but that stuff sounds real good and cheap! lucky I got food shopping tonight,, time for a change in diet =) thank you heaps again.

Ps. sounds like you have a good girl friend that looks after you! ha

Thanks again


flesh


Jun 6, 2011, 1:52 PM
Post #9 of 74 (8031 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 418

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbernic wrote:
Wow thanks man thats means a lot! I need to write this down. but that stuff sounds real good and cheap! lucky I got food shopping tonight,, time for a change in diet =) thank you heaps again.

Ps. sounds like you have a good girl friend that looks after you! ha

Thanks again


Ear plugs FTW. Get the little gooey ones that you squish in your ear so it's form fitting. make sure it's totally dark in the room.

As an athlete you need 9-10hrs of sleep a night.

I sleep 9 hrs 5 days/week and 10hrs 2/days a week.

If you aren't recovering eat more MAN TEin aka protein, lol. Sleep aids recovery of course.

Sometimes though your bodies just run down and u need rest.... I'll just usually campus 5 or 6 sets on these days and call it a day.


climbernic


Jun 6, 2011, 3:27 PM
Post #10 of 74 (8005 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 3, 2011
Posts: 12

Re: [flesh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey man thats such a good idea, ear plugs are known to fall out though? but i will definitely get some of though's as soon as i can thanks a lot! you feed back is awesome =)


wonderwoman


Jun 6, 2011, 7:28 PM
Post #11 of 74 (7981 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4269

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbernic wrote:
Hey man thats such a good idea, ear plugs are known to fall out though? but i will definitely get some of though's as soon as i can thanks a lot! you feed back is awesome =)

While you're at it, get one of those night time eye masks. I am a super light sleeper and wake up at the first sign of sunlight. The eye mask has increased the amount of shut-eye I get.

As far as nutrition goes, magnus & others gave you some good advice. Make your food from scratch and be able to identify and pronounce your ingredients.


squierbypetzl
Moderator

Jun 6, 2011, 11:23 PM
Post #12 of 74 (7957 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Eggs are good cheap protein, just don't everydo it if you have a history of cholesterol problems. Potatoes are also a good, cheap, easy to make food. And pasta, well it doesn't get much easier than that (tons of salsa recipes online). If you have access to an oven and a tray, try making your own pizza, it´s seriously not that hard and, though not dirt cheap, about 1/5 of the price you pay for fast food ones.

Pasta and meatballs with and egg center (get a "b grade" meat at the supermarket; b grade not meaning spoiled, just not prime beef).

I'll get ya some links tomorrow.


climbernic


Jun 6, 2011, 11:39 PM
Post #13 of 74 (7951 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 3, 2011
Posts: 12

Re: [squierbypetzl] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey That would be awesome if you could =) every tip helps aye. thanks so much.


herites


Jun 7, 2011, 6:20 AM
Post #14 of 74 (7919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2011
Posts: 210

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Another cheap, tasty and healthy food for you:

Get some veggies (anything will do, tho tomato and bell pepper is the best), some eggs and a sausage (meat is skipable, I use sausage and bacon)

Chop up the veggies and the meat, throw the veggies into a pan, simmer them a bit till they let some fluid loose. Now throw in the meat, scramble up the eggs and put the eggs into pan too. Stir it up, so it wont become something like an omelette. When you're satisfied with eggs, eat it (I like it a bit gooey and eating it with egg barley)

It's super quick to make and relatively fool-proof.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 5:59 AM
Post #15 of 74 (7720 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [herites] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I'm a big fan of the Paleo style diets (no grains, lots of veggies, fruits, meats, and nuts). I believe that diets high in grains and added sugars are inflammatory. High systemic inflammation increases recovery time, and brings on all sorts of problems. Hell, it even looks like wheat gluten might be responsible for all sorts of auto-immune related issues.

I find the diet to be very easily maintainable. I can eat as many veggies as I want. I eat lots of awesome meats (mostly free range and wild). I eat a healthy amount of fruit and nuts as well. If I want something starchy, I'll grab a potatoe or banana. The only foods I really avoid are grains, most dairy (I only consume full-fat dairy), and legumes (peanuts/beans). I am leaner than I've ever been and I feel like I haven't put much effort into maintaining this diet at all.


sungam


Jun 10, 2011, 7:03 AM
Post #16 of 74 (7708 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26618

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
The only foods I really avoid are grains, most dairy (I only consume full-fat dairy).
Can I ask why? Just curious. I am asking about why you avoid most dairy and why you will only consume full fat dairy.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:11 AM
Post #17 of 74 (7704 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [sungam] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.


michael1245


Jun 10, 2011, 7:16 AM
Post #18 of 74 (7701 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 247

Re: [climbernic] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbernic wrote:
my diet is pretty crap being a poor student so I was wondering if you guys have any tips on Nutrition?

raman and easy-mac ain't puttin no nutrition in that body of yours.

proper diet...you know, blance of meat, veggies, carbs, etc.

nothing like an egg, cheese, and bacon on a fresh bagel before a long day of climbing!


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:16 AM
Post #19 of 74 (7701 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
I'm a big fan of the Paleo style diets (no grains, lots of veggies, fruits, meats, and nuts). I believe that diets high in grains and added sugars are inflammatory. High systemic inflammation increases recovery time, and brings on all sorts of problems. Hell, it even looks like wheat gluten might be responsible for all sorts of auto-immune related issues.

I find the diet to be very easily maintainable. I can eat as many veggies as I want. I eat lots of awesome meats (mostly free range and wild). I eat a healthy amount of fruit and nuts as well. If I want something starchy, I'll grab a potatoe or banana. The only foods I really avoid are grains, most dairy (I only consume full-fat dairy), and legumes (peanuts/beans). I am leaner than I've ever been and I feel like I haven't put much effort into maintaining this diet at all.


I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I think you have things backwards. While we don't know exactly what causes Celiac Sprue, evidence points to an auto-immune reaction due to proteins in gluten resembling proteins in our own bodies. This is different than gluten causing "all sorts of auto-immune related issues". It'll only happen in predisposed people, and as far as I understand, its only ONE auto-immune related issue caused by gluten. Yes, people with auto-immune issues tend to have a few different auto-immune diseases, but this is a base problem with their immune system, not with gluten per se. We see the same thing in people with auto-immune disease but no Celiac. And there are MANY fewer people with Celiac than people think. Much like with lactose, the number of people who don't digest wheat products well is much greater than the number of people with Celiac's, a true auto-immune disease requiring very specific anti-bodies causing very specific visible changes to the small intestines.

As far as I'm aware, there is no good evidence to show that, on the whole, grains and added sugars are inflammatory.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:17 AM
Post #20 of 74 (7700 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.

Out of curiosity, what dangers are you referring to?


sungam


Jun 10, 2011, 7:27 AM
Post #21 of 74 (7695 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26618

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well, fair enough I guess. I put away around 4 pints of mik a day easily, so I stick to non-fat.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:29 AM
Post #22 of 74 (7694 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
patrickh wrote:
I'm a big fan of the Paleo style diets (no grains, lots of veggies, fruits, meats, and nuts). I believe that diets high in grains and added sugars are inflammatory. High systemic inflammation increases recovery time, and brings on all sorts of problems. Hell, it even looks like wheat gluten might be responsible for all sorts of auto-immune related issues.

I find the diet to be very easily maintainable. I can eat as many veggies as I want. I eat lots of awesome meats (mostly free range and wild). I eat a healthy amount of fruit and nuts as well. If I want something starchy, I'll grab a potatoe or banana. The only foods I really avoid are grains, most dairy (I only consume full-fat dairy), and legumes (peanuts/beans). I am leaner than I've ever been and I feel like I haven't put much effort into maintaining this diet at all.


I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I think you have things backwards. While we don't know exactly what causes Celiac Sprue, evidence points to an auto-immune reaction due to proteins in gluten resembling proteins in our own bodies. This is different than gluten causing "all sorts of auto-immune related issues". It'll only happen in predisposed people, and as far as I understand, its only ONE auto-immune related issue caused by gluten. Yes, people with auto-immune issues tend to have a few different auto-immune diseases, but this is a base problem with their immune system, not with gluten per se. We see the same thing in people with auto-immune disease but no Celiac. And there are MANY fewer people with Celiac than people think. Much like with lactose, the number of people who don't digest wheat products well is much greater than the number of people with Celiac's, a true auto-immune disease requiring very specific anti-bodies causing very specific visible changes to the small intestines.

As far as I'm aware, there is no good evidence to show that, on the whole, grains and added sugars are inflammatory.

Correlations with other diseases have been made and are now being studied. That being said, correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. The problem is as you mentioned. Gluten resembles proteins in our own bodies. It has the ability to pass through the gut directly into the bloodstream. There, it is easily transported to just about any tissue in the body due to the fact that it resembles certain proteins. When the body detects the foreign glycoprotein it may initiate an immune response.

It's actually a well established fact that grains specifically are pro-inflammatory. There are many glycoproteins within grains that were designed specifically to keep animals and humans from eating them. Grains have evolved to be scattered by the wind, not consumed such as the seeds from fruits.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:31 AM
Post #23 of 74 (7691 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.

Out of curiosity, what dangers are you referring to?

Sorry, I was referring specifically to the supposed dangers of saturated fat. High saturated fat is only dangerous/unhealthy when taken in context.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:34 AM
Post #24 of 74 (7689 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:

Correlations with other diseases have been made and are now being studied. That being said, correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. The problem is as you mentioned. Gluten resembles proteins in our own bodies. It has the ability to pass through the gut directly into the bloodstream. There, it is easily transported to just about any tissue in the body due to the fact that it resembles certain proteins. When the body detects the foreign glycoprotein it may initiate an immune response.

It's actually a well established fact that grains specifically are pro-inflammatory. There are many glycoproteins within grains that were designed specifically to keep animals and humans from eating them. Grains have evolved to be scattered by the wind, not consumed such as the seeds from fruits.

How is this different than anything else we eat? Except for the correction there that it passes into the portal circulation, where it passes through the liver before getting into the general circulation. And if this was truly a problem, why don't we see the inflammatory response in these other tissues like we do in the small intestine of people with Celiac?


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:35 AM
Post #25 of 74 (7688 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
altelis wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.

Out of curiosity, what dangers are you referring to?

Sorry, I was referring specifically to the supposed dangers of saturated fat. High saturated fat is only dangerous/unhealthy when taken in context.

I'm confused...what context exactly is that?


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:49 AM
Post #26 of 74 (2790 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
How is this different than anything else we eat? Except for the correction there that it passes into the portal circulation, where it passes through the liver before getting into the general circulation. And if this was truly a problem, why don't we see the inflammatory response in these other tissues like we do in the small intestine of people with Celiac?

It's very different. Gluten doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver. It can pass directly into the blood stream through the lining of the intenstines. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe it does cause inflammation in other tissues. The idea is just now starting to be studied. Gluten is the only problem with grains. The relative low amounts of micronutrients, its affect on gut flora, and its impact on blood ph all contribute as well.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:53 AM
Post #27 of 74 (2788 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
altelis wrote:
How is this different than anything else we eat? Except for the correction there that it passes into the portal circulation, where it passes through the liver before getting into the general circulation. And if this was truly a problem, why don't we see the inflammatory response in these other tissues like we do in the small intestine of people with Celiac?

It's very different. Gluten doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver. It can pass directly into the blood stream through the lining of the intenstines. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe it does cause inflammation in other tissues. The idea is just now starting to be studied. Gluten is the only problem with grains. The relative low amounts of micronutrients, its affect on gut flora, and its impact on blood ph all contribute as well.

Explain to me, how:

1) making it to the blood stream through the lining of the intestines is different than other nutrients

2) how it doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver even though it is passing into the blood supply of the intestines

Some sort of link to these studies, or mention of the ideas of these studies, would be much appreciated.

What effect does it have on gut flora?


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:53 AM
Post #28 of 74 (2788 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
I'm confused...what context exactly is that?

That's the point. Context defines whether or not saturated fat is contributing to poor health. If your sendentary and insuline resistant, eat a ton of saturated fat may not be the best decision. However, if you're relatively lean and active, adequate saturated fat intake is essential to proper hormon and neurological function. I believe the amounts a healthy indnividual could/should consume is a good bit higher than the FDA recommends.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 8:02 AM
Post #29 of 74 (2782 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
altelis wrote:
I'm confused...what context exactly is that?

That's the point. Context defines whether or not saturated fat is contributing to poor health. If your sendentary and insuline resistant, eat a ton of saturated fat may not be the best decision. However, if you're relatively lean and active, adequate saturated fat intake is essential to proper hormon and neurological function. I believe the amounts a healthy indnividual could/should consume is a good bit higher than the FDA recommends.

The literature is litered with papers demonstrating that atherosclerotic precursor lesions ("fatty streaks") start developing in the arteries of people between the ages of 10-15. This happens in people who are lean as well as not, active as well as sedentary, and the best correlations to fatty streak formation and progression is dietary saturated fats.

It is, in fact, this processes of fatty streak progression to atherosclerosis in lean men with high saturated fat intake that best explains frailty in the elderly. This is the very specific condition of an otherwise seemingly health older person (usually lean men) having a rapid decline in health. It is now understood that this is due to underlying atherosclerosis.

You may feel all you want, the evidence is not in your favor.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 10:22 AM
Post #30 of 74 (2751 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:

Explain to me, how:

1) making it to the blood stream through the lining of the intestines is different than other nutrients

2) how it doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver even though it is passing into the blood supply of the intestines

Some sort of link to these studies, or mention of the ideas of these studies, would be much appreciated.

What effect does it have on gut flora?

1) I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining this. Gluten increases gut permeability even in those without celiac's.

-http://www.nutramed.com/celiac/celiacpermref.htm

In reply to:
Gluten causes gastrointestinal symptoms in subjects without celiac disease: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Biesiekierski JR, Newnham ED, Irving PM, Barrett JS, Haines M, Doecke JD, Shepherd SJ, Muir JG, Gibson PR.

Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Mar;106(3):508-14; quiz 515. Epub 2011 Jan 11.

2) See number 1

Here's a few to support the general inflammatory nature of gluten/lectins/grains:

In reply to:
J Physiol Biochem. 2010 Jun;66(2):153-9. Epub 2010 Jun 1.

Gliadins induce TNFalpha production through cAMP-dependent protein kinase A activation in intestinal cells (Caco-2).



Laparra Llopis JM, Sanz Herranz Y.



Microbial Ecophysiology and Nutrition Group, Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), Apartado 73, 46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spain. mlaparra@iata.csic.es

Abstract



Celiac disease is an autoimmune enteropathy caused by a permanent intolerance to gliadins. In this study the effects of two gliadin-derived peptides (PA2, PQPQLPYPQPQLP and PA9, QLQPFPQPQLPY) on TNFalpha production by intestinal epithelial cells (Caco-2) and whether these effects were related to protein kinase A (PKA) and/or -C (PKC) activities have been evaluated. Caco-2 cell cultures were challenged with several sets of gliadin peptides solutions (0.25 mg/mL), with/without different activators of PKA or PKC, bradykinin (Brdkn) and pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate (PDTC). The gliadin-derived peptides assayed represent the two major immunodominant epitopes of the peptide 33-mer of alpha-gliadin (56-88) (LQLQPFPQPQLPYPQPQLPYPQPQLPYPQPQPF). Both peptides induced the TNFalpha production triggering the inflammatory cell responses, the PA2 being more effective. The addition of the peptides in the presence of dibutyril cyclic AMP (cAMP), Brdkn or PDTC, inhibited the TNFalpha production. The PKC-activator phorbol 12-myristate 13-diacetate additionally increased the PA2- and PA9-induced TNFalpha production. These results link the gliadin-derived peptides induced TNFalpha production through cAMP-dependent PKA activation, where ion channels controlling calcium influx into cells could play a protective role, and requires NF-kappaB activation.



PMID: 20514534

In reply to:
J Cell Biochem. 2010 Mar 1;109(4):801-7.

Bifidobacteria inhibit the inflammatory response induced by gliadins in intestinal epithelial cells via modifications of toxic peptide generation during digestion.



Laparra JM, Sanz Y.



Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), Burjassot (Valencia), Spain.

Abstract



Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic enteropathy triggered by intake of gliadin, the toxic component of gluten. This study aims at evaluating the capacity of different Bifidobacterium strains to counteract the inflammatory effects of gliadin-derived peptides in intestinal epithelial (Caco-2) cells. A commercial extract of several gliadin (Gld) types (alpha, beta, gamma, [symbol: see text] ) was subjected to in vitro gastrointestinal digestion (pepsin at pH 3, pancreatin-bile at pH 6), inoculated or not with cell suspensions (10(8) colony forming units/ml) of either B. animalis IATA-A2, B. longum IATA-ES1, or B. bifidum IATA-ES2, in a bicameral system. The generated gliadin-derived peptides were identified by reverse phase-HPLC-ESI-MS/MS. Caco-2 cell cultures were exposed to the different gliadin peptide digestions (0.25 mg protein/ml), and the mRNA expression of nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-kappaB), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), and chemokine CXCR3 receptor were analyzed by semi-quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in stimulated cells. The production of the pro-inflammatory markers NF-kappaB p50, TNF-alpha, and IL-1beta (interleukine 1beta) by Caco-2 cells was also determined by ELISA. The peptides from gliadin digestions inoculated with bifidobacteria did not exhibit the toxic amino acid sequences identified in those noninoculated (alpha/beta-Gld [158-164] and alpha/beta-Gld [122-141]). The RT-PCR analysis evidenced a down-regulation in mRNA expression of pro-inflammatory biomarkers. Consistent with these results the production of NF-kappaB, TNF-alpha, and IL-1beta was reduced (18.2-22.4%, 28.0-64.8%, and abolished, respectively) in cell cultures exposed to gliadin digestions inoculated with bifidobacteria. Therefore, bifidobacteria change the gliadin-derived peptide pattern and, thereby, attenuate their pro-inflammatory effects on Caco-2 cells.

(c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.



PMID: 20052669

In reply to:
Int J Biol Macromol. 2010 Nov 1;47(4):458-64. Epub 2010 Jul 14.

Dietary glycosaminoglycans interfere in bacterial adhesion and gliadin-induced pro-inflammatory response in intestinal epithelial (Caco-2) cells.



Laparra JM, López-Rubio A, Lagaron JM, Sanz Y.



Institute of Agrochemistry and Food Technology, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), PO Box 73, 46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spain. mlaparra@iata.csic.es

Abstract



Dietary components may have an important role in maintaining a balanced gut microbiota composition. Celiac disease is an autoimmune enteropathy caused by gliadins, and has been associated with a reduced proportion of Bifidobacterium in gut microbiota. This study evaluates the influence of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) on bacterial adhesion and their contribution in the gliadins-induced inflammatory response. The adhesion of potential probiotic (Bifidobacterium longum CECT 7347 and Bifidobacterium bifidum CECT 7365), commensal (Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis) and pathogenic (Salmonella enterica CECT 443 and Listeria monocytogenes CECT 935) bacteria to mucin and Caco-2 cell cultures was determined. Gliadins were subjected to in vitro digestion (pepsin/pancreatin-bile), with/out GAGs, and the presence or not of cell suspensions of B. longum (10(8) CFU/ml). B. longum, E. coli, and L. monocytogenes, markedly interact with the high-sulphur-containing fraction of GAGs. The GAGs reduced the gliadins-mediated production of interleukin-1β, but not tumour necrosis factor-α. The results suggest that GAGs may ameliorate gliadin-induced inflammatory response, though they also slightly interfere with the action of B. longum.

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.



PMID: 20637226


(This post was edited by patrickh on Jun 10, 2011, 10:23 AM)


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 10:27 AM
Post #31 of 74 (2747 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
The literature is litered with papers demonstrating that atherosclerotic precursor lesions ("fatty streaks") start developing in the arteries of people between the ages of 10-15. This happens in people who are lean as well as not, active as well as sedentary, and the best correlations to fatty streak formation and progression is dietary saturated fats.

It is, in fact, this processes of fatty streak progression to atherosclerosis in lean men with high saturated fat intake that best explains frailty in the elderly. This is the very specific condition of an otherwise seemingly health older person (usually lean men) having a rapid decline in health. It is now understood that this is due to underlying atherosclerosis.

You may feel all you want, the evidence is not in your favor.

There's no need to be "inflammatory". ;-)

This isn't about feelings. This is about belief based on the evidence I've seen. I completely disagree here. Let me state again that correlation does not equal cause and effect. I have yet to see one study that establishes a direct cause/effect relation ship between high saturated fat intake alone and poor health. Most of the individuals studied live on diets high in grains and refined sugars. Would I let that alone convince me that a grain free diet is best? No, of course not.


(This post was edited by patrickh on Jun 10, 2011, 10:28 AM)


jt512


Jun 10, 2011, 11:37 AM
Post #32 of 74 (2735 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.

Boy, have you been sold a load of goods.

Jay


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 11:47 AM
Post #33 of 74 (2729 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.

Boy, have you been sold a load of goods.

Jay

1) do you truely not have anything better to do than to start fights on the Internet?
2) who are you to say what works better for me?
3) do you ever provide any support for your attacks?


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 12:15 PM
Post #34 of 74 (2719 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

In response to my belief that high fat is better than low fat:

In reply to:
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2005 Oct;32(10):825-31.
High-fat diet prevents cardiac hypertrophy and improves contractile function in the hypertensive dahl salt-sensitive rat.

Okere IC, Chess DJ, McElfresh TA, Johnson J, Rennison J, Ernsberger P, Hoit BD, Chandler MP, Stanley WC.

Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

1. The role that dietary lipid and plasma fatty acid concentration play in the development of cardiac hypertrophy in response to hypertension is not clear. 2. In the present study, we treated Dahl salt-sensitive rats with either normal chow (NC), normal chow with salt added (NC + salt) or a diet high in long-chain saturated fatty acids with added salt (HFD + salt). Cardiac function was assessed by echocardiography and left ventricular (LV) catheterization. 3. The HFD + salt group had significantly higher plasma free fatty acid concentrations and myocardial triglyceride content compared with the NC + salt group, but did not upregulate the activity of the fatty acid oxidation enzyme medium chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase. Systolic blood pressure was elevated to a similar extent in the NC + salt and HFD + salt groups compared with the NC group. Although LV mass was increased in the NC + salt group compared with the NC group, LV mass in the HFD + salt group did not differ from that of the NC group and was significantly lower than that in the NC + salt group. 4. There was no evidence of cardiac dysfunction in the NC + salt group compared with the NC group; however, high fat feeding significantly increased LV contractile performance (e.g. increased cardiac output and peak dP/dt). 5. In conclusion, the HFD + salt diet prevented the hypertrophic response to hypertension and improved the contractile performance of the heart. It remains to be determined whether preventing cardiac hypertrophic adaptations would be deleterious to the heart if the hypertensive stress is maintained long term.

PMID: 16173943

In reply to:
Am J Hypertens. 2007 Apr;20(4):403-9.
High fructose diet increases mortality in hypertensive rats compared to a complex carbohydrate or high fat diet.

Sharma N, Okere IC, Duda MK, Johnson J, Yuan CL, Chandler MP, Ernsberger P, Hoit BD, Stanley WC.

Department of Nutrition, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-4970, USA.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hypertension leads to cardiac hypertrophy, heart failure, and premature death. Little is known about the impact of dietary macronutrient composition on hypertension-induced cardiac hypertrophy and mortality. We investigated the effects of consuming either a high complex carbohydrate diet, a high simple sugar diet, or a high fat diet on cardiac hypertrophy and mortality in hypertensive Dahl salt-sensitive (DSS) rats. METHODS: Rats were assigned to four diets: complex carbohydrate (CC; 70% starch, 10% fat, 20% protein by energy), high fat (FAT; 20% carbohydrates, 60% fat, 20% protein), high fructose (FRU; 70% fructose, 10% fat, 20% protein), and "western" (WES; 35% fructose, 45% fat, 20% protein). Hypertension was initiated by adding 6% NaCl (+S) to the chow of half the animals within each diet (n = 10 to 13/group). Tail cuff blood pressure measurements were assessed after 5 and 11 weeks of treatment, and echocardiography were assessed after 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: All rats fed a high salt diet had similar levels of hypertension (CC+S 220 +/-2 mm Hg, FAT+S 221 +/- 3 mm Hg, FRU+S 221 +/- 1 mm Hg, WES+S 226 +/- 3 mm Hg). Echocardiography results show that the addition of salt to FRU resulted in increased regional wall thickness that was not observed in other dietary groups. All rats fed a low salt diet (CC, FAT, FRU, WES) and the FAT+S group survived 90 days. On the other hand, there was 90-day mortality in the WES+S group (18% mortality) and the CC+S group (30% mortality). In addition, FRU+S rats started dying after 45 days of salt feeding, and only 15% survived the full 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that a high fructose diet consumed during hypertension increases mortality and left ventricular (LV) wall thickness compared to either a high fat, high starch, or a "western" diet.

PMID: 17386347

Now that said, these were rat studies and I understand there are physiological differences between rat and human metabolism, but I do find these interesting.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 12:45 PM
Post #35 of 74 (2710 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

What's interesting is that a quick glance at the articles you posted in response to me look like they are on point, and I'd like to take some time to read them more thouroughly.

However, the articles you posted in response to Jay are rediculous. The problem is not, as you point out, the rat models. The problem is that (I'm assuming) you are not a population that can be extrapolated to. You seem to be implying that diets high in saturated fats are healthier, and specifically for already healthy athletic people. But the studies were looking at the effects of diet on cardiac remodeling in the face of chronic hypertension. Unless you are using an extremely narrow and uncommon definition of healthy (namely, decreased cardiac hypertrophy in the setting of chronic hypertension), those studies are completely off topic.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 12:51 PM
Post #36 of 74 (2709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
What's interesting is that a quick glance at the articles you posted in response to me look like they are on point, and I'd like to take some time to read them more thouroughly.

However, the articles you posted in response to Jay are rediculous. The problem is not, as you point out, the rat models. The problem is that (I'm assuming) you are not a population that can be extrapolated to. You seem to be implying that diets high in saturated fats are healthier, and specifically for already healthy athletic people. But the studies were looking at the effects of diet on cardiac remodeling in the face of chronic hypertension. Unless you are using an extremely narrow and uncommon definition of healthy (namely, decreased cardiac hypertrophy in the setting of chronic hypertension), those studies are completely off topic.

I'm not saying that diets high in saturated fats are necessarily healthier for active individuals. What I'm saying is that I believe that diets too low in saturated fats might actually be unhealthy. I am also saying that without confounding factors such as hypertension and insulin resistance, the amount of saturated fats one could safely consume is probably a good bit higher than what the FDA considers optimal. The two studies I posted were just a few of the ones I found regarding meat consumption and high fat diets. I just found those particularly interesting.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 12:55 PM
Post #37 of 74 (2705 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

In regards to the grain free diet I am currently using:

I know the Paleo diet is very trendy right now, and I'd suggest everyone be leary of such things. However, there is data to support it's use, and it makes sense from a biological/evolutionary stand point. I decided a few months ago, to give this sort of diet a 30 day trial. That's all I'd suggest anyone else do. This is purely anecdotal, but I feel better than ever, and I've been able to maintain a very low BF level almost without effort.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 12:55 PM
Post #38 of 74 (2705 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'll definitely grant you they are interesting. But you posted them in response to Jay, and in a way that implied you were using them to provide support to any one of your claims on saturated fats. Those studies, in no way, can be used to support any of your claims about saturated fats.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 12:59 PM
Post #39 of 74 (2698 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
I'll definitely grant you they are interesting. But you posted them in response to Jay, and in a way that implied you were using them to provide support to any one of your claims on saturated fats. Those studies, in no way, can be used to support any of your claims about saturated fats.

I just realized that the second one I posted was the wrong study. However, the first study definitely supports my beliefs..atleast for rats

In reply to:
however, high fat feeding significantly increased LV contractile performance (e.g. increased cardiac output and peak dP/dt). 5. In conclusion, the HFD + salt diet prevented the hypertrophic response to hypertension and improved the contractile performance of the heart.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 1:11 PM
Post #40 of 74 (2692 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:

I just realized that the second one I posted was the wrong study. However, the first study definitely supports my beliefs..atleast for rats

In reply to:
however, high fat feeding significantly increased LV contractile performance (e.g. increased cardiac output and peak dP/dt). 5. In conclusion, the HFD + salt diet prevented the hypertrophic response to hypertension and improved the contractile performance of the heart.

No, it very much doesn't. See the bolded part. Again, unless you are saying this diet is a healthier option for people with hypertension, it doesn't support your claim. And if you think its healthy in people without hypertension, you certainly haven't provided any reason to suppose those results are applicable to populations with normal blood pressures. And I'm doubtful this could be done, seeing that the benefit to the fats in the face of hypertension is that it prevents a detrimental response to a pathological condition. That has no real ramifications to the healthy state.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 1:19 PM
Post #41 of 74 (2687 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
[No, it very much doesn't. See the bolded part. Again, unless you are saying this diet is a healthier option for people with hypertension, it doesn't support your claim. And if you think its healthy in people without hypertension, you certainly haven't provided any reason to suppose those results are applicable to populations with normal blood pressures. And I'm doubtful this could be done, seeing that the benefit to the fats in the face of hypertension is that it prevents a detrimental response to a pathological condition. That has no real ramifications to the healthy state.

The HFD was protective of the heart during hypertension. I think to most people, that would say a lot. It speaks volumes to the idea that HFD's are unhealthy. What you're asking for doesn't exist. If healthy individuals are studied and remained healthy afterwards, it's very hard to draw the conclusion that the HFD made them healthy. There are such studies, but you can only argue that the diet didn't contribute to poor health. Almost all of these sorts of studies are and will be done on unhealthy individuals.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 1:37 PM
Post #42 of 74 (2659 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Here's a study that points to processed meats being highly correlated to stroke risk with no increased risk associated with fresh red meats

In reply to:
Red meat consumption and risk of stroke in Swedish men.
Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A.
SourceDivision of Nutritional Epidemiology, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden and the Department of Chronic Disease Prevention, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Red and processed meat consumption has been implicated in several diseases. However, data on meat consumption in relation to stroke incidence are sparse.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the associations of red meat and processed meat consumption with stroke incidence in men.

DESIGN: We prospectively followed 40,291 men aged 45-79 y who had no history of cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. Meat consumption was assessed with a self-administered questionnaire in 1997.

RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 10.1 y, 2409 incident cases of stroke (1849 cerebral infarctions, 350 hemorrhagic strokes, and 210 unspecified strokes) were identified from the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry. Consumption of processed meat, but not of fresh red meat, was positively associated with risk of stroke. The multivariable relative risks (RRs) of total stroke for the highest compared with the lowest quintiles of consumption were 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.40; P for trend = 0.004) for processed meat and 1.07 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.24; P for trend = 0.77) for fresh red meat. Processed meat consumption was also positively associated with risk of cerebral infarction in a comparison of the highest with the lowest quintile (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38; P for trend = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this prospective cohort of men indicate that processed meat consumption is positively associated with risk of stroke. The Cohort of Swedish Men is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01127711.

PMID:21653800[PubMed - as supplied by publisher

Here's a good read: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

In reply to:
Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 1:38 PM
Post #43 of 74 (2657 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Here's two more:

In reply to:
JAMA. 1997 Dec 24-31;278(24):2145-50.
Inverse association of dietary fat with development of ischemic stroke in men.
Gillman MW, Cupples LA, Millen BE, Ellison RC, Wolf PA.
Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

CONTEXT: A few ecological and cohort studies in Asian populations suggest an inverse association of the intake of both fat and saturated fat with risk of stroke. However, data among western populations are scant. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of stroke incidence with intake of fat and type of fat among middle-aged US men during 20 years of follow-up. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Framingham Heart Study, a population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 832 men, aged 45 through 65 years, who were free of cardiovascular disease at baseline (1966-1969). MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS: The diet of each subject was assessed at baseline by a single 24-hour dietary recall, from which intakes of energy and macronutrients were estimated. In Kaplan-Meier analyses, we calculated age-adjusted cumulative incidence rates of stroke. Using Cox regression, we estimated stroke incidence relative risks during 20 years of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of ischemic stroke, which occurred in 61 subjects during the follow-up period. RESULTS: Mean intakes were 10975 kJ for energy; 114 g (39% of energy) for total fat; 44 g (15%) for saturated fat; 46 g (16%) for monounsaturated fat; and 16 g (5%) for polyunsaturated fat. Risk of ischemic stroke declined across the increasing quintile of total fat (log-rank trend P=.008), saturated fat (P=.002), and monounsaturated fat (P=.008) but not polyunsaturated fat (P=.33). The age- and energy-adjusted relative risk for each increment of 3% of energy from total fat was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.94); for an increment of 1% from saturated fat, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98); and for 1% from monounsaturated fat, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Adjustment for cigarette smoking, glucose intolerance, body mass index, blood pressure, blood cholesterol level, physical activity, and intake of vegetables and fruits and alcohol did not materially change the results. Too few cases of hemorrhagic stroke (n=14) occurred to draw inferences. CONCLUSION: Intakes of fat, saturated fat, and monounsaturated fat were associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke in men.

PMID: 9417007



In reply to:
BMJ. 2003 Oct 4;327(7418):777-82.
Dietary fat intake and risk of stroke in male US healthcare professionals: 14 year prospective cohort study.

He K, Merchant A, Rimm EB, Rosner BA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Ascherio A.
Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. hpkhe@channing.harvard.edu


OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between intake of total fat, specific types of fat, and cholesterol and risk of stroke in men. Design and setting Health professional follow up study with 14 year follow up. PARTICIPANTS: 43,732 men aged 40-75 years who were free from cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in 1986. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke according to intake of total fat, cholesterol, and specific types of fat. RESULTS: During the 14 year follow up 725 cases of stroke occurred, including 455 ischaemic strokes, 125 haemorrhagic stokes, and 145 strokes of unknown type. After adjustment for age, smoking, and other potential confounders, no evidence was found that the amount or type of dietary fat affects the risk of developing ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. Comparing the highest fifth of intake with the lowest fifth, the multivariate relative risk of ischaemic stroke was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.28; P for trend = 0.77) for total fat, 1.20 (0.84 to 1.70; P = 0.47) for animal fat, 1.07 (0.77 to 1.47; P = 0.66) for vegetable fat, 1.16 (0.81 to 1.65; P = 0.59) for saturated fat, 0.91 (0.65 to 1.28; P = 0.83) for monounsaturated fat, 0.88 (0.64 to 1.21; P = 0.25) for polyunsaturated fat, 0.87 (0.62 to 1.22; P = 0.42) for trans unsaturated fat, and 1.02 (0.75 to 1.39; P = 0.99) for dietary cholesterol. Intakes of red meats, high fat dairy products, nuts, and eggs were also not appreciably related to risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men.

PMID: 14525873


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 1:45 PM
Post #44 of 74 (2651 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
altelis wrote:
[No, it very much doesn't. See the bolded part. Again, unless you are saying this diet is a healthier option for people with hypertension, it doesn't support your claim. And if you think its healthy in people without hypertension, you certainly haven't provided any reason to suppose those results are applicable to populations with normal blood pressures. And I'm doubtful this could be done, seeing that the benefit to the fats in the face of hypertension is that it prevents a detrimental response to a pathological condition. That has no real ramifications to the healthy state.

The HFD was protective of the heart during hypertension. I think to most people, that would say a lot. It speaks volumes to the idea that HFD's are unhealthy. What you're asking for doesn't exist. If healthy individuals are studied and remained healthy afterwards, it's very hard to draw the conclusion that the HFD made them healthy. There are such studies, but you can only argue that the diet didn't contribute to poor health. Almost all of these sorts of studies are and will be done on unhealthy individuals.

The heart, in response to chronic hypertension, remodels. The remodeling process includes left ventricular hypertrophy, which in turn leads to decreased LV volume and increased wall thickness. The decreased LV volume leads to decreased cardiac output both due to decreased absolute volumes and, eventually, decreased ejection fraction due to decreased preload. The increased wall thickness both increases oxygen demand as well as decreases blood flow to the subendocardium due to increased diastolic pressures in the coronary arteries.

Apparently, in rats, saturated fats help to prevent hypertrophy and increase contractility. The inhibition of a detrimental response to a pathological condition isn't the same as healthy. Being not unhealthy is not the same as being healthy.

And the types of studies I was referring to DO exist. They are case-control and cohort studies. Looking at 2 populations of subjects, both healthy, one with high saturated dietary fats and the other without. Pick your end-points (hypertension, CAD, stroke, all-cause morbidity...I don't care....), gather your data, and calculate the RR/OR/AR what-have-you.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 1:47 PM
Post #45 of 74 (2649 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:

And the types of studies I was referring to DO exist. They are case-control and cohort studies. Looking at 2 populations of subjects, both healthy, one with high saturated dietary fats and the other without. Pick your end-points (hypertension, CAD, stroke, all-cause morbidity...I don't care....), gather your data, and calculate the RR/OR/AR what-have-you.

Well, then provide them. You haven't provided one well controlled study that supports your theory. While you're at it, read the three or four other studies I just posted.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jun 10, 2011, 1:50 PM
Post #46 of 74 (2647 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
In regards to the grain free diet I am currently using:

I know the Paleo diet is very trendy right now, and I'd suggest everyone be leary of such things. However, there is data to support it's use, and it makes sense from a biological/evolutionary stand point. I decided a few months ago, to give this sort of diet a 30 day trial. That's all I'd suggest anyone else do. This is purely anecdotal, but I feel better than ever, and I've been able to maintain a very low BF level almost without effort.

Since you have provided such good links on the biology, would you mind providing some support from an evolutionary stand point? By my quick check, we have had grains for 1/2 of our time as a species


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 1:53 PM
Post #47 of 74 (2645 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
patrickh wrote:
In regards to the grain free diet I am currently using:

I know the Paleo diet is very trendy right now, and I'd suggest everyone be leary of such things. However, there is data to support it's use, and it makes sense from a biological/evolutionary stand point. I decided a few months ago, to give this sort of diet a 30 day trial. That's all I'd suggest anyone else do. This is purely anecdotal, but I feel better than ever, and I've been able to maintain a very low BF level almost without effort.

Since you have provided such good links on the biology, would you mind providing some support from an evolutionary stand point? By my quick check, we have had grains for 1/2 of our time as a species

Our species has been around for well over 100,000 years. We've only been consuming grains for the last 10,000 or so. Some cultures have been consuming them for less time. As an example, those with Irish ancestories have a very high incidence of celiacs. Coincidentally, they have followed the hunter gather diet for a deal longer than the rest of the world.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 1:54 PM
Post #48 of 74 (2644 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I wanted to add that even though humans have been consuming grains for approximately 10,000 years (some evidence suggests longer for certain cultures). It wasn't until the 20th century that they started becoming the staple that they are today.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jun 10, 2011, 2:05 PM
Post #49 of 74 (2639 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
patrickh wrote:
In regards to the grain free diet I am currently using:

I know the Paleo diet is very trendy right now, and I'd suggest everyone be leary of such things. However, there is data to support it's use, and it makes sense from a biological/evolutionary stand point. I decided a few months ago, to give this sort of diet a 30 day trial. That's all I'd suggest anyone else do. This is purely anecdotal, but I feel better than ever, and I've been able to maintain a very low BF level almost without effort.

Since you have provided such good links on the biology, would you mind providing some support from an evolutionary stand point? By my quick check, we have had grains for 1/2 of our time as a species

Our species has been around for well over 100,000 years. We've only been consuming grains for the last 10,000 or so. Some cultures have been consuming them for less time. As an example, those with Irish ancestories have a very high incidence of celiacs. Coincidentally, they have followed the hunter gather diet for a deal longer than the rest of the world.

We've been consuming grains for 100,000 plus years. Like I said, got some good backup for the evolutionary evidence?


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 2:44 PM
Post #50 of 74 (2629 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
patrickh wrote:
In regards to the grain free diet I am currently using:

I know the Paleo diet is very trendy right now, and I'd suggest everyone be leary of such things. However, there is data to support it's use, and it makes sense from a biological/evolutionary stand point. I decided a few months ago, to give this sort of diet a 30 day trial. That's all I'd suggest anyone else do. This is purely anecdotal, but I feel better than ever, and I've been able to maintain a very low BF level almost without effort.

Since you have provided such good links on the biology, would you mind providing some support from an evolutionary stand point? By my quick check, we have had grains for 1/2 of our time as a species

Our species has been around for well over 100,000 years. We've only been consuming grains for the last 10,000 or so. Some cultures have been consuming them for less time. As an example, those with Irish ancestories have a very high incidence of celiacs. Coincidentally, they have followed the hunter gather diet for a deal longer than the rest of the world.

We've been consuming grains for 100,000 plus years. Like I said, got some good backup for the evolutionary evidence?

You're wrong. Humans have only been consuming grains for about 10,000 years.

In reply to:
The first evidence of a calorically important domesticated crop I'm aware of was about 11,500 years ago in the fertile crescent. They were cultivating an early ancestor of wheat called emmer. Other grains popped up independently in what is now China (rice; ~10,000 years ago), and central America (corn; ~9,000 years ago). That's why people say humans have been eating grains for about 10,000 years.

-http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-human-evolution.html

I won't spend much time on this, because it's a well accepted fact and not debated. The neolithic age began about 10,000 years ago. What seperated the paleolithic from the neolithic age? ...modern agriculture (primarily the milling of grains).

Humans have been around for about 250,000 years

In reply to:
H. sapiens

Main article: Archaic Homo sapiens

H. sapiens (the adjective sapiens is Latin for "wise" or "intelligent") have lived from about 250,000 years ago to the present. Between 400,000 years ago and the second interglacial period in the Middle Pleistocene, around 250,000 years ago, the trend in skull expansion and the elaboration of stone tool technologies developed, providing evidence for a transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens. The direct evidence suggests there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa. A subsequent migration within and out of Africa eventually replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. This migration and origin theory is usually referred to as the recent single origin or Out of Africa theory. Current evidence does not preclude some multiregional evolution or some admixture of the migrant H. sapiens with existing Homo populations. This is a hotly debated area of paleoanthropology.

Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[45][46][47] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes.

H. sapiens idaltu, from Ethiopia, is an extinct sub-species who lived about 160,000 years ago.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

So, as you can clearly see, we've only been consuming grains for about 1/25th of our existance. I don't believe that has given evolution enough time for us adapt to a diet high in grains. Compounding the fact is that we have consumed grains in the amounts we do today for only a couple of centuries.


jt512


Jun 10, 2011, 2:53 PM
Post #51 of 74 (2658 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
jt512 wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.

Boy, have you been sold a load of goods.

Jay

1) do you truely not have anything better to do than to start fights on the Internet?

Actually, I was just making a comment.

In reply to:
2) who are you to say what works better for me?

I didn't say what works better for you.

In reply to:
3) do you ever provide any support for your attacks?

Like I said, I was just making a comment.

Jay


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jun 10, 2011, 4:30 PM
Post #52 of 74 (2641 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
You're wrong. Humans have only been consuming grains for about 10,000 years.

(snip)

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-human-evolution.html


Try again with some facts:

Source: Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1680
In reply to:
The role of starchy plants in early hominin diets and when the culinary processing of starches began have been difficult to track archaeologically. Seed collecting is conventionally perceived to have been an irrelevant activity among the Pleistocene foragers of southern Africa, on the grounds of both technological difficulty in the processing of grains and the belief that roots, fruits, and nuts, not cereals, were the basis for subsistence for the past 100,000 years and further back in time. A large assemblage of starch granules has been retrieved from the surfaces of Middle Stone Age stone tools from Mozambique, showing that early Homo sapiens relied on grass seeds starting at least 105,000 years ago, including those of sorghum grasses.

Or another one earlier than the 10k you gave:

http://news.discovery.com/...rs-neanderthals.html

In reply to:
She and her colleagues analyzed mortar and pestle-type stones that were found at three sites: Bilancino II in the Megello Valley of Italy, Kostenki 16 at Pokrovsky Valley, Russia; and Pavlov VI in southern Moravia, Czech Republic. Since modern humans as well as Neanderthals inhabited these regions, the researchers think it's possible that either or both groups had cooking know-how.

The food preparation tools were found to contain the remains of starch grains from various wild plants, including cattail rhizomes, cattail leaves, moonworts, the ternate grapefern, lady's mantle, burdock, lettuce roots, rye, burr chervil root, parts of edible grasses, edible seeds and more.


patrickh wrote:
I won't spend much time on this, because it's a well accepted fact and not debated. The neolithic age began about 10,000 years ago. What seperated the paleolithic from the neolithic age? ...modern agriculture (primarily the milling of grains).

Humans have been around for about 250,000 years

So, as you can clearly see, we've only been consuming grains for about 1/25th of our existance. I don't believe that has given evolution enough time for us adapt to a diet high in grains. Compounding the fact is that we have consumed grains in the amounts we do today for only a couple of centuries.

Just because something is "well accepted" in non-scientific circles, doesn't make it so.

Based on newer science (evidence of grain usage prior to 10k) - care to change your opinion that people didn't eat grains for about half of our existence? Or at least, that it is a possibility?

Now, if you want to debate the percentages of grains of the diets of early humans, I would love to see some evidence.


enigma


Jun 10, 2011, 5:19 PM
Post #53 of 74 (2638 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
patrickh wrote:
altelis wrote:
How is this different than anything else we eat? Except for the correction there that it passes into the portal circulation, where it passes through the liver before getting into the general circulation. And if this was truly a problem, why don't we see the inflammatory response in these other tissues like we do in the small intestine of people with Celiac?

It's very different. Gluten doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver. It can pass directly into the blood stream through the lining of the intenstines. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe it does cause inflammation in other tissues. The idea is just now starting to be studied. Gluten is the only problem with grains. The relative low amounts of micronutrients, its affect on gut flora, and its impact on blood ph all contribute as well.

Explain to me, how:

1) making it to the blood stream through the lining of the intestines is different than other nutrients

2) how it doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver even though it is passing into the blood supply of the intestines

Some sort of link to these studies, or mention of the ideas of these studies, would be much appreciated.

What effect does it have on gut flora?

Is this what you learned from all those student loans I've been paying for?


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 5:37 PM
Post #54 of 74 (2634 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

The grains mentioned in your paper differ greatly from the strains of wheat and barely we consume today. I can't read the full text of your first article and the second mentions dates only 30,000 years back. The seeds from cattails are not the same as the genetically engineered wheat that makes up a great portion of our cereals today.

Do you have any evidence to suggest what proportions of early human diet came from grain? The problem is that different cultures differ greatly in what is eaten even to this day. What people ate during the paleolithic era was based on calorie density and ease of access. I highly doubt that in most areas it was easy to gather a bunch a grains, grind them up, etc. than it was to slaughter one grazing animal that likely provided many more calories.

Here we see that worldwide averages for hunter/gatherer diets are low CHO, but grains aren't even mentioned.

In reply to:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92.

Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.

Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.


Source

Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. cordain@cahs.colostate.edu


Abstract

Both anthropologists and nutritionists have long recognized that the diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers may represent a reference standard for modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain diseases of affluence. Because the hunter-gatherer way of life is now probably extinct in its purely un-Westernized form, nutritionists and anthropologists must rely on indirect procedures to reconstruct the traditional diet of preagricultural humans. In this analysis, we incorporate the most recent ethnographic compilation of plant-to-animal economic subsistence patterns of hunter-gatherers to estimate likely dietary macronutrient intakes (% of energy) for environmentally diverse hunter-gatherer populations. Furthermore, we show how differences in the percentage of body fat in prey animals would alter protein intakes in hunter-gatherers and how a maximal protein ceiling influences the selection of other macronutrients. Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22-40% of energy).


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 5:40 PM
Post #55 of 74 (2632 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [enigma] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

enigma wrote:

Is this what you learned from all those student loans I've been paying for?

Was this in response to me or Altelis? Either way, it's highly innapropriate.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 5:56 PM
Post #56 of 74 (2626 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

She was responding to me. I'm a medical student, and she has some pretty far-out ideas about how we pay for school, supposed perks we get, admission practices, etc. She also has some of the most idiotic views on science, life, and necessity of logic I've ever seen.

She is too ignorant to realize that my inability to understand what you were talking about was because I actually do understand the physiology and anatomy at issue. You did provide info on the increase absorption in light of gluten, but you still didn't show how the liver was bypassed- ie how are nutrients in the portal system getting past the liver?

I will say, patrickh, while I don't really agree with a lot of the conclusions you've drawn, I do appreciate that you have at least done some significant research into these things, and for the most part use good sources. Again, I don't think you are drawing reasonable conclusions from all these sources, but unlike most of the pissing matches on here about nutrition, exercise phys, etc., I think this one is pretty interesting and civil. Cheers all (except of course one, um, riddle of a user-HA).


jt512


Jun 10, 2011, 6:11 PM
Post #57 of 74 (2623 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
I will say, patrickh, while I don't really agree with a lot of the conclusions you've drawn, I do appreciate that you have at least done some significant research into these things, and for the most part use good sources.

All he is doing is cherry-picking the literature for sources that support his belief. That's not doing valid research.

Jay


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 6:13 PM
Post #58 of 74 (2619 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

No its not, and like I said, even given the cherry picking he is drawing some far out conclusions not supported by the articles.

But, even given all that, its better than most pissing matches on here. That said, enigma's joined the convo, so that may have just signaled the beginning of the end.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:32 PM
Post #59 of 74 (2607 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

All he is doing is cherry-picking the literature for sources that support his belief. That's not doing valid research.

Jay

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is pure bullshit. I've don't hours worth of pubmed searches. The problem is there aren't any well controlled studies that show that saturated fat consumption is the primary cause for CVD, stroke, etc. You haven't contributed anything more to this discussion that insults.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:37 PM
Post #60 of 74 (2604 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dietary fats aren't the primary factor associated w/ CVD; hypercholesterolemia is. You are, as far as I understand, correct there.

You are, however, forgetting that there are other deadly problems that are directly related to diets high in saturated fats.

to start...
In reply to:
Saturated fat, vitamin C and smoking predict long-term population all-cause mortality rates in the Seven Countries Study
Daan Kromhouta, Bennie Bloemberga, Edith Feskensa, Alessandro Menottia,b, Aulikki Nissinenc and for the Seven Countries Study Group
+ Author Affiliations

aDivision of Public Health Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
bDivision of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
cDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, University of Kuopio, Finland.
Reprint requests to: Prof. Daan Kromhout, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Division of Public Health Research, PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: daan.kromhout@RIVM.nl
Accepted August 23, 1999.
Abstract

Background The Seven Countries Study has shown that population mortality rates for various chronic diseases are related to diet and smoking. This paper addresses the associations between diet, smoking and 25-year all-cause mortality.

Methods Baseline surveys were carried out between 1958 and 1964 on 12 763 middle-aged men constituting 16 cohorts in seven countries. In 1987/88 equivalent food composites representing the average food intake of each cohort at baseline were collected and chemically analysed in one central laboratory. During 25 years of follow-up 5973 men died and age-adjusted population mortality rates were calculated for each cohort.

Results Multivariate linear regression analyses showed that the population intake of saturated fat and the prevalence of smoking were positively associated with population all-cause mortality rates. Population vitamin C intake was inversely associated with all-cause mortality. It was calculated that a reduction in saturated fat intake of 5% of energy, a 20 mg/d increase in vitamin C and a 10% decrease in the prevalence of smokers may decrease the 25-year all-cause population mortality rate by 12.4% (95% CI : 5.6, 19.4%) at an average population all-cause mortality rate of 45%.

Conclusion At the population level saturated fat, vitamin C and cigarette smoking are important determinants of all-cause mortality.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:38 PM
Post #61 of 74 (2604 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
No its not, and like I said, even given the cherry picking he is drawing some far out conclusions not supported by the articles.

Which conclusions were "far out" and "not supported" by the studies I posted? We disagreed about the merits of the hypertensive study, but I'd hardly call that conclusion "far out". However, I posted quite a few well controlled studies that show directly that HFD's and saturated fat haven't been correlated to stroke and CVD. You have yet to post a single well controlled study that contradicts this.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:40 PM
Post #62 of 74 (2599 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you go back and look at the logic of what you are trying to demonstrate with the hypertension studies, you'll see your conclusions really are far out.

And you'll see I just posted (probably while you were posting) that I agree, most studies show there isn't a clear link between dietary saturated fat and CVD. But there are strong links between saturated fats and morbidity and mortality. And I posted up a paper too...


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:42 PM
Post #63 of 74 (2599 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
Dietary fats aren't the primary factor associated w/ CVD; hypercholesterolemia is. You are, as far as I understand, correct there.

You are, however, forgetting that there are other deadly problems that are directly related to diets high in saturated fats.

to start...
In reply to:
Saturated fat, vitamin C and smoking predict long-term population all-cause mortality rates in the Seven Countries Study
Daan Kromhouta, Bennie Bloemberga, Edith Feskensa, Alessandro Menottia,b, Aulikki Nissinenc and for the Seven Countries Study Group
+ Author Affiliations

aDivision of Public Health Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
bDivision of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
cDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, University of Kuopio, Finland.
Reprint requests to: Prof. Daan Kromhout, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Division of Public Health Research, PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: daan.kromhout@RIVM.nl
Accepted August 23, 1999.
Abstract

Background The Seven Countries Study has shown that population mortality rates for various chronic diseases are related to diet and smoking. This paper addresses the associations between diet, smoking and 25-year all-cause mortality.

Methods Baseline surveys were carried out between 1958 and 1964 on 12 763 middle-aged men constituting 16 cohorts in seven countries. In 1987/88 equivalent food composites representing the average food intake of each cohort at baseline were collected and chemically analysed in one central laboratory. During 25 years of follow-up 5973 men died and age-adjusted population mortality rates were calculated for each cohort.

Results Multivariate linear regression analyses showed that the population intake of saturated fat and the prevalence of smoking were positively associated with population all-cause mortality rates. Population vitamin C intake was inversely associated with all-cause mortality. It was calculated that a reduction in saturated fat intake of 5% of energy, a 20 mg/d increase in vitamin C and a 10% decrease in the prevalence of smokers may decrease the 25-year all-cause population mortality rate by 12.4% (95% CI : 5.6, 19.4%) at an average population all-cause mortality rate of 45%.

Conclusion At the population level saturated fat, vitamin C and cigarette smoking are important determinants of all-cause mortality.

This is my last post on the subject.

Your study is weak to say the least. It's based on a survey from half a decade ago. It is far from well controlled and relies entirely on the honesty and accuracy of the individuals surveyed. They show correlation, but not cause and effect. Additionally, they don't controll for other factors that may show even stronger correlations to mortality.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:43 PM
Post #64 of 74 (2595 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
If you go back and look at the logic of what you are trying to demonstrate with the hypertension studies, you'll see your conclusions really are far out.

And you'll see I just posted (probably while you were posting) that I agree, most studies show there isn't a clear link between dietary saturated fat and CVD. But there are strong links between saturated fats and morbidity and mortality. And I posted up a paper too...

Now, you're just being absurd. I don't agree with you, so my conclusions are far out.

Peace out. Have a good weekend.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:48 PM
Post #65 of 74 (2592 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you were to go back and look at my post history, you'll see that, in the face of good evidence and logic, I have changed what I believe. I have no dog in this fight. Its not about it being different than my perspective, its about being logical and evidence based.

And as far as the article I've posted, in conjunction with some of the other things you've said, you MAY understand what bench research can show, but you clearly don't understand the power and techniques and accepted conclusions that can and can't be drawn from large scale epidemiological cohort studies.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Jun 10, 2011, 8:56 PM
Post #66 of 74 (2572 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9645

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Gentlemen, thank you for keeping it civil. I did receive the complaint and feel that her posts are always a lot out there, but in this case doesn't warrant a reaction from moderators, but this thread will be watched. Please send me a PM if there is something I need to take a look at.


jt512


Jun 10, 2011, 9:06 PM
Post #67 of 74 (2571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
No its not, and like I said, even given the cherry picking he is drawing some far out conclusions not supported by the articles.

But, even given all that, its better than most pissing matches on here.

True. Unfortunately it is exactly like every argument I've ever had on any nutrition forum with a Paleo diet believer (or a believer in any diet that starts with a capital letter, for that matter). They're all True Believers, they all have their one-sided Pubmed searches to back them up, and there is nothing that can change their minds. Did you see what Patrickh did about the grains?

Patrickh: Humans have only been eating grains for 10,000 years.

Toast: No, anthropology has shown that hominins ate grains over 100,000 years ago.

Prtrickh: Those grains were different.

You will not win—not in the sense that you will convince him of anything. However, if you scored the exchange like an Intelligence² debate, where the winner is decided by the percentage of the audience who changed their beliefs as a result of the debate, you won long ago.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 11, 2011, 12:20 AM)


altelis


Jun 11, 2011, 6:32 AM
Post #68 of 74 (2547 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've heard of the Intelligence Squared debates, but must admit I really know nothing about them. That sounds like a really interesting way to score a debate.

What did you think of the US News & World Report ranking of diets?


altelis


Jun 11, 2011, 6:36 AM
Post #69 of 74 (2545 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [climbs4fun] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I just want to be clear here, that I didn't report Enigma's post.

It is ridiculous, but hardly report worthy. Taken at face value (ie ignoring the smarminess), I took it as pride, like she is happy that (at least in her mind), she's had the privilege to "buy me" such a great education.

Thanks Enigma, I owe you one!Cool


jt512


Jun 11, 2011, 9:15 AM
Post #70 of 74 (2537 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
I've heard of the Intelligence Squared debates, but must admit I really know nothing about them.

They're often very good. I think all the past ones are online.

In reply to:
That sounds like a really interesting way to score a debate.

Their voting procedure is good in concept but badly flawed as implemented, the result being a bias in favor of the side of the argument with the most support pre-debate.

The way they do it is they take a vote before the debate and a vote after, and compare the results to determine the winner. Say, for instance that the pre-debate numbers were 200 people in favor of the motion, 1000 opposed. And let's say that, as a result of the debate, 100% of the in-favor group opposed the motion in the final vote, and 30% of the original opposed group switched to in-favor. Then the only sensible conclusion to draw would be that the team arguing against the motion won; however, the team arguing for the motion would be declared the winner, because of the final numbers: 300 in favor, 900 opposed.

In reply to:
What did you think of the US News & World Report ranking of diets?

I'd never heard of it. The idea sounds rather preposterous.

Jay


herites


Jun 11, 2011, 11:32 AM
Post #71 of 74 (2521 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2011
Posts: 210

Re: [herites] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Posting a recipe for lecso, and this happens a few days later. Awesome. "Hungarian food is hot." has a new meaning.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jun 13, 2011, 5:20 AM
Post #72 of 74 (2493 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
The grains mentioned in your paper differ greatly from the strains of wheat and barely we consume today. I can't read the full text of your first article and the second mentions dates only 30,000 years back. The seeds from cattails are not the same as the genetically engineered wheat that makes up a great portion of our cereals today.

While JT pointed out how this isn't refuting the evidence that humans ate grains far longer than you (and the non scientific source said), I want to point out there is one food in your local megamart which is genetically identical to, and was eaten by early humans: oysters. I would say snails a well, but eating snails the right way (butter, cheese, garlic, shallots, herbs) disqualifies it.

patrickh wrote:

Do you have any evidence to suggest what proportions of early human diet came from grain? The problem is that different cultures differ greatly in what is eaten even to this day. What people ate during the paleolithic era was based on calorie density and ease of access. I highly doubt that in most areas it was easy to gather a bunch a grains, grind them up, etc. than it was to slaughter one grazing animal that likely provided many more calories.

Why should anyone listen to what you think on this issue? You don't have a grasp on the latest discoveries and seem you seem unable to process new evidence. I need JT's link showing how people who aren't experts think they know more than they they do. What is that effect again?


slackwareuser


Jun 28, 2011, 2:26 AM
Post #73 of 74 (2407 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: 11

Re: [herites] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

herites wrote:
Posting a recipe for lecso, and this happens a few days later. Awesome. "Hungarian food is hot." has a new meaning.

To be precise, you did not post a recepie of lecsó Smile

First of all, the recepie of any Hungarian food - with the (possible Tongue ) exceprion of cakes - begins with "chop an onion into tiny pieces and simmer". I mean, how could you possibly make lecsó without onion??

Secondly, "any veggies will do" is just not true. Lecsó is based on paprika (50-90%), and always has tomato in it (up to 50%, but a friend of mine who hates the taste of tomato puts just 1 small tomato in lecso - but it has to be there), and some (but not all) other veggies can be added.

Like you said, bacon or sausage is optional, but it is always a relatively small amount, chopped into small pieces/rings, and if you use bacon, it goes in the pan first, and you use the fat from it instead of oil to simmer the onion pieces on.

Finally, eggs are not part of the lecsó proper. Lecsó is the "veggie stew" (onion, paprika, tomato + possible other veggies and optional bacon/sausage pieces, simmered until the whole thing is kind of boiling a little in the water from the veggies). If you add scrambled eggs, it's lecsó and scrambled eggs.

Hope this helps clear up some of the debated things in this thread Tongue

(And no, it's not off topic! This thread is called "Nutrition"...)


herites


Jun 28, 2011, 4:01 AM
Post #74 of 74 (2400 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2011
Posts: 210

Re: [slackwareuser] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Now lets start the debate about which chowder is better, the one which is made near Tisza, or the other near the Danube ;) Also, the proper recipe for Wiener Schnitzel (no, it can't be pork)


Forums : Climbing Information : Technique & Training

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook