Obesity and Ozempic and more (1 Viewer)

[Sparky Polastri]

Simply knowing the portion size and the corresponding caloric value is a sliver of the picture. If thats all youre reading, you arent doing it correctly. It matters far more what the components are that make up the caloric value and these values can change from one packaging run to the next meaning you have to read the label every single time. Of course if you stay away from those processed foods, you dont have to worry about them.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Theres a reason the calorie number is significantly larger font than serving size and its not transparency. Its psychology.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you're looking for the perfect breakfast food it's pasture raised, organic eggs. It's about as perfect a food as you can eat. I had 4 medium boiled this morning with a little salt. Virtually all cereal is just pure crap. It's better than fast food but what isn't?

Yes. Super easy too. Granted, not as easy as a bowl of 235 calories from a bowl of cereal. But not much more difficult.

Gonna have to disagree here. Eggs offer complete protein, which may or not be a good thing, and a few other nutrients. That’s about it.

But they are high in dietary cholesterol, and four in one meal is probably excessive, especially if you have vascular disease. Added salt isn’t good for you either.

A better breakfast for overall health: whole grain oatmeal + chia and fruit, like blue/black/raspberries. And black coffee, or green tea.

Agree that processed cereals are largely unhealthy, but I’d much rather eat the fiber and micronutrient rich breakfast I described than a fistful of eggs. And it’s also easy to prepare.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you're looking for the perfect breakfast food it's pasture raised, organic eggs. It's about as perfect a food as you can eat. I had 4 medium boiled this morning with a little salt. Virtually all cereal is just pure crap. It's better than fast food but what isn't?

Yes. Super easy too. Granted, not as easy as a bowl of 235 calories from a bowl of cereal. But not much more difficult.

I do not focus on calories but on the types and quality of food I eat. Those 235 calories from Honey Nut Cheerios or whatever contain the triple play of heart disease (sugar, seed oils, processed/enriched grains) where as pasture-raised, organic eggs are almost, if not the most nutrient dense, healthy food there is. We have been duped our entire lives regarding fats/saturated fats and dietary cholesterol being the cause of heart disease. The main culprit has been sugar this whole time. Put a grass fed steak topped with butter on one side of the table and a Dr. Pepper on the other side other table and ask the average person to point to the thing that will clog your arteries. The vast majority will point to the steak and they couldn't be more wrong.

Neither the Dr. Pepper, nor steak and butter are healthy.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I'm not sure how they could be more simple or transparent.

If people don't care enough to spend two seconds reading the clear and simple label, I'm not sure what they can do.

But it's not transparent. General Mills gives Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios different serving sizes so that when the consumer spends two seconds reading the label, they see fewer calories on Honey Nut and buy that one even though it's far worse for them.

They're not fooling you or me that way, but people on a fantasy football message board are probably like 99th percentile when it comes to prorating numbers. Lots of the general public is bad at math and is gonna fall for tricks like that.

Don’t be condescending about people’s math, please

 

[Willie Neslon]

If you're looking for the perfect breakfast food it's pasture raised, organic eggs. It's about as perfect a food as you can eat. I had 4 medium boiled this morning with a little salt. Virtually all cereal is just pure crap. It's better than fast food but what isn't?

Yes. Super easy too. Granted, not as easy as a bowl of 235 calories from a bowl of cereal. But not much more difficult.

Gonna have to disagree here. Eggs offer complete protein, which may or not be a good thing, and a few other nutrients. That’s about it.

But they are high in dietary cholesterol, and four in one meal is probably excessive, especially if you have vascular disease. Added salt isn’t good for you either.

A better breakfast for overall health: whole grain oatmeal + chia and fruit, like blue/black/raspberries. And black coffee, or green tea.

Agree that processed cereals are largely unhealthy, but I’d much rather eat the fiber and micronutrient rich breakfast I described than a fistful of eggs. And it’s also easy to prepare.

Dietary cholesterol is not associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Pasture-raised, organic eggs contain high levels of folate, b12 and choline as well. 4 P-RO eggs are absolutely not excessive.

I would also disagree on your claim that whole grain oatmeal is healthier than pasture-raised organic eggs. Not a ton or fiber and about 10% of your required nutrients per serving. Not exactly nutrient dense. It's high in carbs, doesn't contain a ton of protein and it's not a complete protein either.

 

[Willie Neslon]

If you're looking for the perfect breakfast food it's pasture raised, organic eggs. It's about as perfect a food as you can eat. I had 4 medium boiled this morning with a little salt. Virtually all cereal is just pure crap. It's better than fast food but what isn't?

Yes. Super easy too. Granted, not as easy as a bowl of 235 calories from a bowl of cereal. But not much more difficult.

I do not focus on calories but on the types and quality of food I eat. Those 235 calories from Honey Nut Cheerios or whatever contain the triple play of heart disease (sugar, seed oils, processed/enriched grains) where as pasture-raised, organic eggs are almost, if not the most nutrient dense, healthy food there is. We have been duped our entire lives regarding fats/saturated fats and dietary cholesterol being the cause of heart disease. The main culprit has been sugar this whole time. Put a grass fed steak topped with butter on one side of the table and a Dr. Pepper on the other side other table and ask the average person to point to the thing that will clog your arteries. The vast majority will point to the steak and they couldn't be more wrong.

Neither the Dr. Pepper, nor steak and butter are healthy.

Wrong again.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Another thought on this.

I wonder how much of this is the fact many of us now can live without ever being even slightly uncomfortable. Air conditioned, amazing vehicle, instacart grocery shops for us, Amazon delivers next day.

The idea of being hungry seems unfathomable to many.

I haven’t read it, but there’s a book The Comfort Crisis which talks exactly about this modern dilemma.

I’m a huge fan of volitional suffering, and making things less convenient. Granted, it’s very different than involuntary suffering.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Here's an actual heart surgeon's take on red meat and cholesterol.

Debunking Red Meat Myths: What You Need to Know!

Dr. Philip Ovadia discusses the misconceptions about red meat and metabolic health. He emphasizes the benefits of understanding cholesterol's role and highli...

www.youtube.com

 

[Willie Neslon]

Our good friend Sten Ekberg tells you all you need to know about pasture-raised, organic eggs and why they're great.

What If You Ate 4 EGGS A Day With The YOLKS For 30 Days?

Get the Highest Quality Electrolyte https://euvexia.com . Have you ever wondered how many egg yolks you can eat in a day? Will eggs clog your arteries and ...

www.youtube.com

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you're looking for the perfect breakfast food it's pasture raised, organic eggs. It's about as perfect a food as you can eat. I had 4 medium boiled this morning with a little salt. Virtually all cereal is just pure crap. It's better than fast food but what isn't?

Yes. Super easy too. Granted, not as easy as a bowl of 235 calories from a bowl of cereal. But not much more difficult.

Gonna have to disagree here. Eggs offer complete protein, which may or not be a good thing, and a few other nutrients. That’s about it.

But they are high in dietary cholesterol, and four in one meal is probably excessive, especially if you have vascular disease. Added salt isn’t good for you either.

A better breakfast for overall health: whole grain oatmeal + chia and fruit, like blue/black/raspberries. And black coffee, or green tea.

Agree that processed cereals are largely unhealthy, but I’d much rather eat the fiber and micronutrient rich breakfast I described than a fistful of eggs. And it’s also easy to prepare.

Dietary cholesterol is not associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Pasture-raised, organic eggs contain high levels of folate, b12 and choline as well. 4 P-RO eggs are absolutely not excessive.

I would also disagree on your claim that whole grain oatmeal is healthier than pasture-raised organic eggs. Not a ton or fiber and about 10% of your required nutrients per serving. Not exactly nutrient dense. It's high is carbs, doesn't contain a ton of protein and it's not a complete protein either.

Dietary cholesterol does impact total cholesterol, even if it isn’t as important as we once thought. One or two eggs a day is the max the AHA recommends. Hardly a perfect food.

I’m not suggesting someone just eat plain oatmeal, nor do I consider it a perfect food, either. Diversity of healthful nutrients is most important; in that regard, my berry-chia oatmeal easily surpasses your salted eggs.

And whole grains are not carbohydrates of concern, even though people seem to conflate nearly every carbohydrate with added sugar/ultra processed foods.

Carbohydrates, I repeat, carbohydrates are not all bad. Carbohydrates can (should?) form the backbone of a healthy diet, providing somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60% of total caloric intake, and possibly more. Not sugar. Fruits, veggies, whole grains.

On the flip side, protein is the contemporary “halo” macronutrient, and people have become obsessed with it. It’s important, sure, but just like everything else the body utilizes, there’s a balance. And Americans are going overboard with all the added protein, imo.

I won’t dissect the complete protein comment in too much detail, except to say some amino acids (eg. methionine), especially those abundant in animal protein, promote mechanism of aging. That’s not to say you should avoid them altogether, but too much is potentially unhealthy.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you're looking for the perfect breakfast food it's pasture raised, organic eggs. It's about as perfect a food as you can eat. I had 4 medium boiled this morning with a little salt. Virtually all cereal is just pure crap. It's better than fast food but what isn't?

Yes. Super easy too. Granted, not as easy as a bowl of 235 calories from a bowl of cereal. But not much more difficult.

I do not focus on calories but on the types and quality of food I eat. Those 235 calories from Honey Nut Cheerios or whatever contain the triple play of heart disease (sugar, seed oils, processed/enriched grains) where as pasture-raised, organic eggs are almost, if not the most nutrient dense, healthy food there is. We have been duped our entire lives regarding fats/saturated fats and dietary cholesterol being the cause of heart disease. The main culprit has been sugar this whole time. Put a grass fed steak topped with butter on one side of the table and a Dr. Pepper on the other side other table and ask the average person to point to the thing that will clog your arteries. The vast majority will point to the steak and they couldn't be more wrong.

Neither the Dr. Pepper, nor steak and butter are healthy.

Wrong again.

@Joe Bryant, regardless of the specifics of this back-and-forth between Willie and I, do you still think most people understand what constitutes a healthy diet?

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you’re not interested in going down the rabbit-hole of youtube scientists, here is a statement from the AHA.

Although previous federal dietary guidelines recommended limiting consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 milligrams per day, the current guidelines instead suggest keeping dietary cholesterol consumption "as low as possible without compromising the nutritional adequacy of the diet." The good news is, that leaves room for flexibility. But it is not a free pass to eat all the dietary cholesterol you want.

But focusing on a number, or the lack of evidence linking dietary cholesterol to health risks, could be a misstep, Van Horn said. That's because foods high in dietary cholesterol also tend to be high in saturated fat. The exceptions are eggs and shellfish, such as shrimp and lobster. Despite being high in dietary cholesterol, shellfish is relatively healthy when not fried.

Overall, Van Horn said, "research has shown that you really cannot isolate dietary cholesterol from that total fat intake." And eating too much saturated fat – along with too much sugar and sodium, and too little fiber – raises the risk of heart disease.

Instead of thinking about how much dietary cholesterol you can get away with, try thinking about eating an all-around healthy diet, with lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, healthy sources of protein and low-fat or fat-free dairy products, Van Horn said.

Put another way: If you're eating a healthy diet, Van Horn said, a little butter now and then (and its 31 mg of dietary cholesterol per tablespoon) on your toast should not pose a major risk.

While cholesterol-rich foods are not recommended, she said, "they are better tolerated as a food source when they are the exception and not the rule."

 

[Willie Neslon]

If you’re not interested in going down the rabbit-hole of youtube scientists, here is a statement from the AHA.

Although previous federal dietary guidelines recommended limiting consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 milligrams per day, the current guidelines instead suggest keeping dietary cholesterol consumption "as low as possible without compromising the nutritional adequacy of the diet." The good news is, that leaves room for flexibility. But it is not a free pass to eat all the dietary cholesterol you want.

But focusing on a number, or the lack of evidence linking dietary cholesterol to health risks, could be a misstep, Van Horn said. That's because foods high in dietary cholesterol also tend to be high in saturated fat. The exceptions are eggs and shellfish, such as shrimp and lobster. Despite being high in dietary cholesterol, shellfish is relatively healthy when not fried.

Overall, Van Horn said, "research has shown that you really cannot isolate dietary cholesterol from that total fat intake." And eating too much saturated fat – along with too much sugar and sodium, and too little fiber – raises the risk of heart disease.

Instead of thinking about how much dietary cholesterol you can get away with, try thinking about eating an all-around healthy diet, with lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, healthy sources of protein and low-fat or fat-free dairy products, Van Horn said.

Put another way: If you're eating a healthy diet, Van Horn said, a little butter now and then (and its 31 mg of dietary cholesterol per tablespoon) on your toast should not pose a major risk.

While cholesterol-rich foods are not recommended, she said, "they are better tolerated as a food source when they are the exception and not the rule."

Bodies like the AHA are always late to adjust guidelines even in the face a numerous studies disputing their positions. I wonder why? They actually recommend fat-free dairy products here and vilify butter (but not the toast). It's long since debunked, Eisenhower era hypotheses. The same stuff we grew up believing in the 70's and 80's. These are the people who believe your LDL cholesterol should be under 100, even if you're otherwise metabolically healthy. Eggs in moderation but take this pill everyday that raises your risk of Type 2 diabetes (which correlates with cardio-vascular disease). Makes perfect sense.

 

[Terminalxylem]

You know what I find extremely difficult and will sound dumb. Drinking water.

I only have water when eating lunch but to drink it throughout the day is extremely hard for me

Water is the worst.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you’re not interested in going down the rabbit-hole of youtube scientists, here is a statement from the AHA.

Although previous federal dietary guidelines recommended limiting consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 milligrams per day, the current guidelines instead suggest keeping dietary cholesterol consumption "as low as possible without compromising the nutritional adequacy of the diet." The good news is, that leaves room for flexibility. But it is not a free pass to eat all the dietary cholesterol you want.

But focusing on a number, or the lack of evidence linking dietary cholesterol to health risks, could be a misstep, Van Horn said. That's because foods high in dietary cholesterol also tend to be high in saturated fat. The exceptions are eggs and shellfish, such as shrimp and lobster. Despite being high in dietary cholesterol, shellfish is relatively healthy when not fried.

Overall, Van Horn said, "research has shown that you really cannot isolate dietary cholesterol from that total fat intake." And eating too much saturated fat – along with too much sugar and sodium, and too little fiber – raises the risk of heart disease.

Instead of thinking about how much dietary cholesterol you can get away with, try thinking about eating an all-around healthy diet, with lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, healthy sources of protein and low-fat or fat-free dairy products, Van Horn said.

Put another way: If you're eating a healthy diet, Van Horn said, a little butter now and then (and its 31 mg of dietary cholesterol per tablespoon) on your toast should not pose a major risk.

While cholesterol-rich foods are not recommended, she said, "they are better tolerated as a food source when they are the exception and not the rule."

Bodies like the AHA are always late to adjust guidelines even in the face a numerous studies disputing their positions. I wonder why? They actually recommend fat-free dairy products here and vilify butter (but not the toast). It's long since debunked, Eisenhower era hypotheses. The same stuff we grew up believing in the 70's and 80's. These are the people who believe your LDL cholesterol should be under 100, even if you're otherwise metabolically healthy. Eggs in moderation but take this pill everyday that raises your risk of Type 2 diabetes (which correlates with cardio-vascular disease). Makes perfect sense.

While some of what you say is true about professional organizations, I’d still trust the AHA over the opinions of a few rogue YouTube health “experts”.

I am not saying eggs are horribly unhealthy. But they’re hardly the perfect breakfast food either. At best, kinda neutral on the spectrum of nutrition. In moderation, maybe a few per week, they probably won’t impact health one way or the other.

If you were to ask 100 nutritionists, or 100 cardiologists, which breakfast is better for you, 4 eggs, or whole grain oatmeal with chia and berries, how many would pick the eggs? I bet very few, but probably more than would get behind the butter-slathered steak you’re also advocating.

And to be clear, I’m not talking about Quaker instant oats, or related ultra processed garbage. Steel cut oats without added sugar, except the fructose from the fresh berries.

Out of curiosity, how do you define “metabolically healthy”?

 

[RCon]

If you were to ask 100 nutritionists, or 100 cardiologists, which breakfast is better for you, 4 eggs, or whole grain oatmeal with chia and berries, how many would pick the eggs? I bet very few, but probably more than would get behind the butter-slathered steak you’re also advocating.

To be fair, he didn't recommend a butter-slathered steak as a healthy item. He stated that it was not the artery clogging monster people believe it to be, especially when compared to a can of soda.

Relative healthiness (or unhealthiness) of choices is important. Simply avoiding the worst stuff (soda) can go a long way towards improvement, even if it isn't perfection.

 

[notoriousbill]

Magic Spoon review. https://www.bonappetit.com/story/magic-spoon-cereal-review

This seems like a great business idea.

Good to know. I bought 4 boxes on Amazon of the PB flavor...

 

[notoriousbill]

I've used MyFitnessPal for past 3+ years. I am OCD on entering my foods...

When I first started my weight loss journey, My Fitness Pal was instrumental in the change. I've shied away lately but I do jump back on occasionally when I veer off the path a little too far.

I just redownloaded to get back on the wagon

Is the subscription worth it?

I just use free version. Works fine for me. In the 'olden days", the free version allowed you to scan in barcodes, Now you have to manually enter it if it's not already entered.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If you were to ask 100 nutritionists, or 100 cardiologists, which breakfast is better for you, 4 eggs, or whole grain oatmeal with chia and berries, how many would pick the eggs? I bet very few, but probably more than would get behind the butter-slathered steak you’re also advocating.

To be fair, he didn't recommend a butter-slathered steak as a healthy item. He stated that it was not the artery clogging monster people believe it to be, especially when compared to a can of soda.

Relative healthiness (or unhealthiness) of choices is important. Simply avoiding the worst stuff (soda) can go a long way towards improvement, even if it isn't perfection.

He said “wrong again” in response to me declaring both the steak and Dr. Pepper unhealthy. He also linked a video extolling the healthfulness of red meat.

I recalls posts of his from other threads as well. I’d characterize him as a staunch anti-carbohydrate carnivore, biased toward anything that sounds “natural”.

I’m not saying eating that way is a guaranteed ticket to an untimely demise, but it’s not remotely in-line with mainstream nutrition, and a great example of opinions of healthy food being all over the map.

 

[Doug B]

... a great example of opinions of healthy food being all over the map.

This. So much this.

This is something of a side topic for this thread, but I will just lay out a few topics that have popped up in this thread so far.

Water: No one doubts that plain water is healthful. But past that? It's hammerlocked now that "Eight 8 oz glasses of pure H2O a day!" is simply untrue as stated, correct? Supposedly now, it's some quantity of non-carbonated, non-sugary beverages, correct? Black coffee. Tea. Broth. Watery foods like watermelon. All that adds up as your necessary water intake, right? And related to water intake ...

Artificial sweeteners: Crystal Light in water OK? No? Yes? Very hard for the layman to distinguish between "pure woo" and "cutting-edge, locked-in, accepted-by-all hard science". I thought Diet Cokes (for example) were bad for other reasons besides the artificial sweetener they contain. When did artificial sweeteners become the devil? Does it have something to do with tricking the body that you've had real sugar and affecting insulin or other hormones? If so, how conclusive have the studies been? Also again, how firm and accepted is the science by (say) stodgy old scientific organizations? Woo here. Hard science there. Gray area in between. Where does "Artificial sweeteners are bad, m'kay?" fall?

Eggs: The layman's target of choice when talking about how science reporting confuses the heck out of everyone not hip-deep in the field. I believe that today, they're understood to be generally fine. But the cholesterol angle is hard to suss. In the 1980s? Cholesterol BAD! Today? Some good, some bad ... watch my YouTube video to learn more!

...

So ... yeah. Common sense! Everyone knows this stuff! Why isn't it easy for everyone? C'mon now.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Not to derail the thread much further, but this study is super interesting. It basically compiles available evidence to estimate how much changes in individual food consumption away from the standard American diet impact lifespan. While the methodology isn’t exactly ironclad, it provides some insight into foods which promote health.

Looking at Figures 1-3, the biggest longevity bang-for-the-buck can be achieved by increasing consumption of legumes, whole grains, and nuts, while eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages, red, and processed meats.

FTR, changes in egg consumption had no meaningful impact on lifespan.

An optimal diet had substantially higher intake than a typical diet of whole grains, legumes, fish, fruits, vegetables, and included a handful of nuts, while reducing red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and refined grains.

 

[Doug B]

He said “wrong again” in response to me declaring both the steak and Dr. Pepper unhealthy.

How can you have your drink? If you won't eat your meat!

 

[Terminalxylem]

He said “wrong again” in response to me declaring both the steak and Dr. Pepper unhealthy.

How can you have your drink? If you won't eat your meat!

I was thinking grass-fed tofu steak and chia pudding

 

[JAA]

10-12% is not normal

12-15% is more along the lines of normal.

Fat is a critical component to the longevity of the human race

10-12 is a lower, healthy bf percentage, not uncommon among young males, and some older recreational athletes. I think @DA RAIDERS identifies as the latter, which is why I picked that as a goal. I wanted to show the target weight he believed unrealistic wasn’t completely off the mark. I mean, he weighed that much when he was younger, so clearly it’s possible.

Actually, it’s always interesting hearing people dismiss target weights, often followed by “I haven’t weighed that much since college!?!” Ummmm, OK, how do you think body composition should change from young adulthood to middle age? We don’t typically gain muscle or bone mass after college, so what’s left?

Also, can you expound upon the longevity comment?

10% body fat is simply not "healthy" for today, it is more of a workout warrior. Here is a good article on fat and the evolution of the human race: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ns-piled-pounds-lost-muscle-mass-evolved.html

When I say longevity, I mean the human race would have died out without fat (as noted above). Fat is where we store our energy. We require stored energy to be able to endure chasing our prey, day after day, tiring them out, then eating them. Carbs are great for quickly converting energy, but arent the right solution for continuing the human race.

 

[Doug B]

He said “wrong again” in response to me declaring both the steak and Dr. Pepper unhealthy.

How can you have your drink? If you won't eat your meat!

I was thinking grass-fed tofu steak and chia pudding

That must be the "Stand still, laddie! " part

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Not to derail the thread much further, but this study is super interesting. It basically compiles available evidence to estimate how much changes in individual food consumption away from the standard American diet impact lifespan. While the methodology isn’t exactly ironclad, it provides some insight into foods which promote health.

Looking at Figures 1-3, the biggest longevity bang-for-the-buck can be achieved by increasing consumption of legumes, whole grains, and nuts, while eliminating sugar-sweetened beverages, red, and processed meats.

FTR, changes in egg consumption had no meaningful impact on lifespan.

An optimal diet had substantially higher intake than a typical diet of whole grains, legumes, fish, fruits, vegetables, and included a handful of nuts, while reducing red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, and refined grains.

This dovetails with all the research showing the Mediterranean diet is best for longevity. Of course, in the US, our food supply system is not set up for that. Plus, many of its components are expensive, making people at lower incomes less likely to be able to follow it.

 

[Doug B]

We require stored energy to be able to endure chasing our prey, day after day, tiring them out, then eating them.

(Not aimed at JAA)

That reminds me: Is the bolded the "no one wants to be uncomfortable anymore" part?

 

[Terminalxylem]

10-12% is not normal

12-15% is more along the lines of normal.

Fat is a critical component to the longevity of the human race

10-12 is a lower, healthy bf percentage, not uncommon among young males, and some older recreational athletes. I think @DA RAIDERS identifies as the latter, which is why I picked that as a goal. I wanted to show the target weight he believed unrealistic wasn’t completely off the mark. I mean, he weighed that much when he was younger, so clearly it’s possible.

Actually, it’s always interesting hearing people dismiss target weights, often followed by “I haven’t weighed that much since college!?!” Ummmm, OK, how do you think body composition should change from young adulthood to middle age? We don’t typically gain muscle or bone mass after college, so what’s left?

Also, can you expound upon the longevity comment?

10% body fat is simply not "healthy" for today, it is more of a workout warrior. Here is a good article on fat and the evolution of the human race: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ns-piled-pounds-lost-muscle-mass-evolved.html

When I say longevity, I mean the human race would have died out without fat (as noted above). Fat is where we store our energy. We require stored energy to be able to endure chasing our prey, day after day, tiring them out, then eating them. Carbs are great for quickly converting energy, but arent the right solution for continuing the human race.

Agree some fat is essential for survival, but I don’t think the optimal amount for modern living conditions is known. But yes, I was describing low-end %, to a poster who has repeatedly mentioned his commitment to regular exercise, while settling on ~20% body fat. Essentially, the body fat I’d expect from a workout warrior.

Strongly disagree about the importance of carbohydrates for continuing our race. Most of the healthiest food are carbohydrate-rich (fruits and veggies), but the hyper-protein, “good fat” keto craze has thrown out that factoid with the bath water of processed foods.

Every diet of long-lived populations includes at least half its calories from carbohydrates. Traditional Okinawans, at one point the longest lived people on the planet, consume over 80%, with roughly 2/3 of their calories coming a single, carbohydrate-rich food: sweet potatoes.

 

[Doug B]

Not to derail the thread much further, but this study is super interesting. It basically compiles available evidence to estimate how much changes in individual food consumption away from the standard American diet impact lifespan. While the methodology isn’t exactly ironclad, it provides some insight into foods which promote health.

One good thing about that paper is that it "does the math" for what they call a "feasibility approach" to improving the diet -- an approach halfway between the "typical Western diet" and the "optimal diet" (the study's terms).

If I'm looking at the data right (if casually) ... it looks like the feasibility-approach diet gets you much of the longevity benefits that the optimal diet does. For example, by their Figure 1, a 60-year-old male starting the feasible diet averages another 27 years of life, while a 60-year-old male starting the optimal diet averages another 31 years of life.

The methodology and math can't be ironclad -- there are simply too many chaotic confounding factors at the individual level -- but the overall paper is an interesting read nonetheless.

 

[JAA]

10-12% is not normal

12-15% is more along the lines of normal.

Fat is a critical component to the longevity of the human race

10-12 is a lower, healthy bf percentage, not uncommon among young males, and some older recreational athletes. I think @DA RAIDERS identifies as the latter, which is why I picked that as a goal. I wanted to show the target weight he believed unrealistic wasn’t completely off the mark. I mean, he weighed that much when he was younger, so clearly it’s possible.

Actually, it’s always interesting hearing people dismiss target weights, often followed by “I haven’t weighed that much since college!?!” Ummmm, OK, how do you think body composition should change from young adulthood to middle age? We don’t typically gain muscle or bone mass after college, so what’s left?

Also, can you expound upon the longevity comment?

10% body fat is simply not "healthy" for today, it is more of a workout warrior. Here is a good article on fat and the evolution of the human race: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ns-piled-pounds-lost-muscle-mass-evolved.html

When I say longevity, I mean the human race would have died out without fat (as noted above). Fat is where we store our energy. We require stored energy to be able to endure chasing our prey, day after day, tiring them out, then eating them. Carbs are great for quickly converting energy, but arent the right solution for continuing the human race.

Agree some fat is essential for survival, but I don’t think the optimal amount for modern living conditions is known. But yes, I was describing low-end %, to a poster who has repeatedly mentioned his commitment to regular exercise, while settling on ~20% body fat. Essentially, the body fat I’d expect from a workout warrior.

Strongly disagree about the importance of carbohydrates for continuing our race. Most of the healthiest food are carbohydrate-rich (fruits and veggies), but the hyper-protein, “good fat” keto craze has thrown out that factoid with the bath water of processed foods.

Every diet of long-lived populations includes at least half its calories from carbohydrates. Traditional Okinawans, at one point the longest live people on the planet, consume over 80%, with roughly 2/3 of their calories coming a single, carbohydrate-rich food: sweet potatoes.

Carbs are important. We /should/ be getting our carbs from fiber rich foods. Instead though, we are getting our carbs from processed grain and sugar. That is bad, very bad.

We should be eating some lean protein in 1-2 handful amounts and getting the rest of our nutrients from fiber rich foods like whole fruit and vegetables.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Not to derail the thread much further, but this study is super interesting. It basically compiles available evidence to estimate how much changes in individual food consumption away from the standard American diet impact lifespan. While the methodology isn’t exactly ironclad, it provides some insight into foods which promote health.

One good thing about that paper is that it "does the math" for what they call a "feasibility approach" to improving the diet -- an approach halfway between the "typical Western diet" and the "optimal diet" (the study's terms).

If I'm looking at the data right (if casually) ... it looks like the feasibility-approach diet gets you much of the longevity benefits that the optimal diet does. For example, by their Figure 1, a 60-year-old male starting the feasible diet averages another 27 years of life, while a 60-year-old male starting the optimal diet averages another 31 years of life.

The methodology and math can't be ironclad -- there are simply too many chaotic confounding factors at the individual level -- but the overall paper is an interesting read nonetheless.

Yep. I fully realize it’s not a blueprint for living forever, but it points you in the right direction, based on a lot more data than you’ll find in the typical Youtube video. Not ideal, I know, but all nutrition research is plagued by confounders.

 

[Doug B]

Another thought on this.

I wonder how much of this is the fact many of us now can live without ever being even slightly uncomfortable. Air conditioned, amazing vehicle, instacart grocery shops for us, Amazon delivers next day.

The idea of being hungry seems unfathomable to many.

I haven’t read it, but there’s a book The Comfort Crisis which talks exactly about this modern dilemma.

I’m a huge fan of volitional suffering, and making things less convenient. Granted, it’s very different than involuntary suffering.

This is yet another side topic, but since you and Joe both brought it up:

How do you avoid a volitional suffering arms race? What I mean by that you and Joe might ... secretly disrespect?** ... people who won't let themselves feel hunger at least once per day. Or who won't get in however many steps per day. Or whatever volitional suffering you feel is necessary to "do the right thing", "be correct" or whatever positive value you assign to it.

So. What do you guys do when faced with, say, competitive triathletes or bodybuilders who might put you down because you're not making the choices they make? Aren't they engaging in volitional discomfort much more often than you are (I'm assuming here)? If so ... can they fairly say they're "better" than you? And are they -- do you accept that "yep, they volitionally suffer more than me, ergo, they're better than me"?

I'm arguing into absurdity to make a point: What the hypothetical critical, jerky triathlete could be to you is what you could look like to an obese person. If you're asking an obese person to volitionally suffer, how are you avoiding the implicit value judgment? @Terminalxylem, I know you deal with real people in real medical settings -- my assumption is that these kinds of considerations frequently keep doctors from leaning hard into "tough love" diet and exercise advice. For most doctors, there will be a point where they stop advocating and back down after making an initial point to a patient about diet & exercise. Belaboring the point probably demonstrably decreases (in the short term) an obese patient's voluntary engagement with health care in general.

And that's where the truly tough part about attacking societal obesity truly lies. Invoking voluntary suffering won't work. Calling them "lazy" won't work. Generally ... the whip won't work. What remains?


** I thought "look down on" might be putting it too strongly. I have to cop to something re: this topic. One of my hangups is that I see harsh value judgments in what's meant to be constructive criticism, and I have a lot of trouble separating the two. To be fair to myself, I've found it common for people to use "constructive criticism" as a cudgel to put down others and make oneself feel better about one's choices and activities. Others' mileage will certainly vary.

 

[Terminalxylem]

10-12% is not normal

12-15% is more along the lines of normal.

Fat is a critical component to the longevity of the human race

10-12 is a lower, healthy bf percentage, not uncommon among young males, and some older recreational athletes. I think @DA RAIDERS identifies as the latter, which is why I picked that as a goal. I wanted to show the target weight he believed unrealistic wasn’t completely off the mark. I mean, he weighed that much when he was younger, so clearly it’s possible.

Actually, it’s always interesting hearing people dismiss target weights, often followed by “I haven’t weighed that much since college!?!” Ummmm, OK, how do you think body composition should change from young adulthood to middle age? We don’t typically gain muscle or bone mass after college, so what’s left?

Also, can you expound upon the longevity comment?

10% body fat is simply not "healthy" for today, it is more of a workout warrior. Here is a good article on fat and the evolution of the human race: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ns-piled-pounds-lost-muscle-mass-evolved.html

When I say longevity, I mean the human race would have died out without fat (as noted above). Fat is where we store our energy. We require stored energy to be able to endure chasing our prey, day after day, tiring them out, then eating them. Carbs are great for quickly converting energy, but arent the right solution for continuing the human race.

Agree some fat is essential for survival, but I don’t think the optimal amount for modern living conditions is known. But yes, I was describing low-end %, to a poster who has repeatedly mentioned his commitment to regular exercise, while settling on ~20% body fat. Essentially, the body fat I’d expect from a workout warrior.

Strongly disagree about the importance of carbohydrates for continuing our race. Most of the healthiest food are carbohydrate-rich (fruits and veggies), but the hyper-protein, “good fat” keto craze has thrown out that factoid with the bath water of processed foods.

Every diet of long-lived populations includes at least half its calories from carbohydrates. Traditional Okinawans, at one point the longest live people on the planet, consume over 80%, with roughly 2/3 of their calories coming a single, carbohydrate-rich food: sweet potatoes.

Carbs are important. We /should/ be getting our carbs from fiber rich foods. Instead though, we are getting our carbs from processed grain and sugar. That is bad, very bad.

We should be eating some lean protein in 1-2 handful amounts and getting the rest of our nutrients from fiber rich foods like whole fruit and vegetables.

I’m not even sure a couple handfuls of lean protein (per day, presumably) is necessary. Okinawans eat less than 10% of their calories from protein, with roughly 10:1 carbohydrate to protein ratio.

I realize they are an extreme, but using them as an example is much less of a stretch than saying carbohydrates (again, not sugary, processed garbage) aren’t the right solution for continuing the human race.

 

[JAA]

10-12% is not normal

12-15% is more along the lines of normal.

Fat is a critical component to the longevity of the human race

10-12 is a lower, healthy bf percentage, not uncommon among young males, and some older recreational athletes. I think @DA RAIDERS identifies as the latter, which is why I picked that as a goal. I wanted to show the target weight he believed unrealistic wasn’t completely off the mark. I mean, he weighed that much when he was younger, so clearly it’s possible.

Actually, it’s always interesting hearing people dismiss target weights, often followed by “I haven’t weighed that much since college!?!” Ummmm, OK, how do you think body composition should change from young adulthood to middle age? We don’t typically gain muscle or bone mass after college, so what’s left?

Also, can you expound upon the longevity comment?

10% body fat is simply not "healthy" for today, it is more of a workout warrior. Here is a good article on fat and the evolution of the human race: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ns-piled-pounds-lost-muscle-mass-evolved.html

When I say longevity, I mean the human race would have died out without fat (as noted above). Fat is where we store our energy. We require stored energy to be able to endure chasing our prey, day after day, tiring them out, then eating them. Carbs are great for quickly converting energy, but arent the right solution for continuing the human race.

Agree some fat is essential for survival, but I don’t think the optimal amount for modern living conditions is known. But yes, I was describing low-end %, to a poster who has repeatedly mentioned his commitment to regular exercise, while settling on ~20% body fat. Essentially, the body fat I’d expect from a workout warrior.

Strongly disagree about the importance of carbohydrates for continuing our race. Most of the healthiest food are carbohydrate-rich (fruits and veggies), but the hyper-protein, “good fat” keto craze has thrown out that factoid with the bath water of processed foods.

Every diet of long-lived populations includes at least half its calories from carbohydrates. Traditional Okinawans, at one point the longest live people on the planet, consume over 80%, with roughly 2/3 of their calories coming a single, carbohydrate-rich food: sweet potatoes.

Carbs are important. We /should/ be getting our carbs from fiber rich foods. Instead though, we are getting our carbs from processed grain and sugar. That is bad, very bad.

We should be eating some lean protein in 1-2 handful amounts and getting the rest of our nutrients from fiber rich foods like whole fruit and vegetables.

I’m not even sure a couple handfuls of lean protein (per day, presumably) is necessary. Okinawans eat less than 10% of their calories from protein, with roughly 10:1 carbohydrate to protein ratio.

I realize they are an extreme, but using them as an example is much less of a stretch than saying carbohydrates (again, not sugary, processed garbage) aren’t the right solution for continuing the human race.

https://www.science.org/content/article/iceman-s-last-meal-was-high-fat-feast

 

[DA RAIDERS]

10-12% is not normal

12-15% is more along the lines of normal.

Fat is a critical component to the longevity of the human race

10-12 is a lower, healthy bf percentage, not uncommon among young males, and some older recreational athletes. I think @DA RAIDERS identifies as the latter, which is why I picked that as a goal. I wanted to show the target weight he believed unrealistic wasn’t completely off the mark. I mean, he weighed that much when he was younger, so clearly it’s possible.

Actually, it’s always interesting hearing people dismiss target weights, often followed by “I haven’t weighed that much since college!?!” Ummmm, OK, how do you think body composition should change from young adulthood to middle age? We don’t typically gain muscle or bone mass after college, so what’s left?

Also, can you expound upon the longevity comment?

10% body fat is simply not "healthy" for today, it is more of a workout warrior. Here is a good article on fat and the evolution of the human race: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ns-piled-pounds-lost-muscle-mass-evolved.html

When I say longevity, I mean the human race would have died out without fat (as noted above). Fat is where we store our energy. We require stored energy to be able to endure chasing our prey, day after day, tiring them out, then eating them. Carbs are great for quickly converting energy, but arent the right solution for continuing the human race.

Agree some fat is essential for survival, but I don’t think the optimal amount for modern living conditions is known. But yes, I was describing low-end %, to a poster who has repeatedly mentioned his commitment to regular exercise, while settling on ~20% body fat. Essentially, the body fat I’d expect from a workout warrior.

Strongly disagree about the importance of carbohydrates for continuing our race. Most of the healthiest food are carbohydrate-rich (fruits and veggies), but the hyper-protein, “good fat” keto craze has thrown out that factoid with the bath water of processed foods.

Every diet of long-lived populations includes at least half its calories from carbohydrates. Traditional Okinawans, at one point the longest lived people on the planet, consume over 80%, with roughly 2/3 of their calories coming a single, carbohydrate-rich food: sweet potatoes.

Sub 20% guy…..

 

[Doug B]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

Term and I have met irl. He’s one of my internet boyfriends as my wife likes to say.

For me, and this applies to nearly everything, as long as there’s no proselytizing about “their” methodology I don’t care. Whatever works for you. I got some blowback earlier in this thread for using the phrase “in other news, water is wet” in reference to the statement that there might be additives in prepackaged food and that in places where there is high amount of prepackaged food, obesity is higher. Something that is plainly obvious to me, might not be to others. Some took offense to my candor. and As I get older I really don’t care to correct anyone. You think 1+1=5? Cool

Side note: 20 years ago, My PCP Dr, who happened to be Asian, told me to cut back on red meat. and to only eat it once a month or once every 6 weeks would be better. At the time I in the middle of a 15 year run working at high end steak houses. I thought he was a loon. Fast forward to today, I almost never eat red meat.

Term still thinks I’m a fatty though.

 

[Doug B]

Term still thinks I’m a fatty though.

That's alright. There's some ultra-marathoners out there somewhere that would think you're BOTH lazy slobs.

 

[Sand]

What the hypothetical critical, jerky triathlete could be to you is what you could look like to an obese person.

10k thread peeps incoming.

 

[Doug B]

10k thread peeps incoming.

(There's an inadvertent misquote in there -- those are my words, not Joe's)

 

[JAA]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

I’m low 50s sometimes in the high 40s. No clue on VO2 max

 

[JAA]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

I’m low 50s sometimes in the high 40s. No clue on VO2 max

high 40s is excellent, efficient system. VO2 max will be aerobic threshold, ie how long can you chase the antelope.

 

[3C's]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

I’m low 50s sometimes in the high 40s. No clue on VO2 max

Does nighttime count? Oura says my resting HR is 48/49 overnight and vo2 is "high" for an old fart. I'll take it.

 

[3C's]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

I’m low 50s sometimes in the high 40s. No clue on VO2 max

high 40s is excellent, efficient system. VO2 max will be aerobic threshold, ie how long can you chase the antelope.

Well crap, I'm not chasing any antelopes. Artificial hip and the other one needs to be replaced. Nice knowing you guys...

 

[SWC]

serious question what is the stock you should buy that would rise from ozompic sales or other similar drugs because the way americans live in the just take a pill for it mindset this thing has to be a rocketship take that to the bank brohans

 

[notoriousbill]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

 

[JAA]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

I’m low 50s sometimes in the high 40s. No clue on VO2 max

Does nighttime count? Oura says my resting HR is 48/49 overnight and vo2 is "high" for an old fart. I'll take it.

I was taught to take HR first thing when you wake up in the morning. At the time I was using a pulsometer, which will also should your O2 saturation (should be 99, 98 ok)

 

[belljr]

had a cold brew with milk and flavor 200 calories. had some bread, chicken and baked potato.....

And somehow I;m done for the day of 1400 calories.

eek

O)ther than the flavor to the coffee - I though I was doing pretty good. No wonder people are fat