What’s wrong with the Mediterranean diet? (1 Viewer)

[Desert_Power]

At the risk of really beating this horse, smoked meat is processed, by definition. High temperature/flame grilling also poses health risks. Moreover, any way you package a bunch of saturated fat and red meat, it’s not good for you.

At best, the butcher prepped smoked sausage is a lesser of two evils.

@Terminalxylem I don't understand how smoking equals processed? When I refer to smoking I'm referring to cooking meat that is seasoned with salt and pepper and maybe chili flake over low to medium heat provided by actual wood. No fillers, no curing agents, just meat, seasoning, and fire. Any kind of meat. It could be chicken, fish, beef, duck, pork, goat, lamb, etc. Are you saying any of those, even fish, if smoked is now processed and bad for you?

Yes, smoking as a form of cooking is not good for you. Even fish.

The smoking process creates carcinogens and has been linked to certain forms of cancer. That was his point that it doesn't matter if the meat is "natural" or not, that the meat itself (red meat) isn't healthy overall AND that particular cooking process makes it worse. Sure, it is likely healthier than what you get in the store, but it's still not healthy.

The most appropriate response.

 

[MAC_32]

How much fish is too much fish? Been traversing Ireland for about a week and it's been the center piece of every meal since day 1's lamb shanks. My wife isn't too happy with the odor I just left behind from lunch, it's definitely worsened the last couple days.

 

[acarey50]

@Terminalxylem what's the verdict on wild game? I'm a hunter and have quite a bit of venison. It's red meat, but very lean and low saturated fat. Does that carry the same risk as other red meat? It's often contradictory when i see it mentioned as both healthy and unhealthy (red meat).

AFAIK, no well designed studies have compared game to other meat. More importantly, a diet high in game meat hasn’t been compared directly to a plant-based alternative, like the Mediterranean diet.

On the plus side, there’s much less saturated fat, hormone and antibiotic exposure in game than factory raised animals. Less pesticides and herbicides as well, along with other environmental contaminants, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

For downside, there are concerns for lead exposure among chronic consumers of game (if shot). Food borne illness can also occur, if it isn’t dressed appropriately. Lastly, all grilled, charred, and smoked meats introduce a host of disease-causing chemicals.

In general, unprocessed red meat consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular and cancer risk, as well as all cause mortality. It may contribute to diabetes as well. This is thought to be multifactorial, related to saturated fat, heme iron, trimethyamine, and higher concentrations of amino acids which activate aging pathways (e.g. branched chain amino acids, methionine).

So, venison is probably healthier than most red meat, but I wouldn’t call it healthy. There’s no long lived population for which game meat is a dietary staple, and game shares enough characteristics with store bought meat to extrapolate the potential for harm, imo.

I wasn't aware that bcaa's and methionine promoted aging, that's interesting. Atleast in my case method of harvest and preparation aren't a concern, but the possibility of harvesting an animal that survived a previous shot with lead is always a possibility and one I've never really thought about.

Thanks for the response, it's good food for thought.

Yes, methionine and bcaa’s, especially leucine iirc, are activators of anabolic pathways involving insulin-like growth factor and mTOR. That’s great for building muscle, but also increases cellular waste, and impairs its removal by inhibiting something called autophagy. When waste builds up, it stimulates inflammation, and aging.

In addition to limiting calories, protein and amino acid restriction are well described promoters of longevity. Granted, pretty much all the data is in animals and lower organisms, but aging pathways are some of the most conserved/consistent throughout nature. Humans have the same hormones and regulators of metabolism, so it stands to reason amino acid/protein/caloric restriction (within reason) should work in us as well.

Although it’s nearly impossible to carry out longevity studies in humans, the differential amino acid content between animal and plant protein may help to explain why plants form the basis of all the healthiest diets. It also explains my broken record ranting about the possibility of consuming too much protein, especially when it’s derived from animals.

I’ve posted this before, but here’s a decent review of the science behind nutrition and longevity.

So would fasting be a way to attenuate the increased cellular waste? I know fasting will promote autophagy, but is that enough to offset high protein intake? You mention calorie restriction along with lowering animal protein, but on its own with high animal protein is there a meaningful difference?

Interesting stuff.

It's the caloric restriction that promotes autophagy, not fasting - fasting is just a method to help with caloric restriction. And autophagy is nothing magical, just another natural process of the body.

It is one of my biggest pet peeves with the promoters of fasting/intermittent fasting, which I have used myself to help with caloric restriction, is that the vast majority of the claims that they associate with fasting are really attributable to the caloric restriction. When controlled for calories, there is essentially no difference in results between fasting or spreading calories over 3-5 meals throughout the day. And one of the potential risks with intermittent fasting/fasting is that there can be a greater chance of binging over your desired calorie levels because of the hunger that is associated with prolonged periods with no food.

Instagram Post from Layne Norton on it

"
There are many health benefits that have been ascribed to intermittent fasting (IF) & indeed IF does help weight fat loss & improvement in insulin sensitivity compared to ‘normal’ or ‘baseline’ diets. But what about compared to normal calorie restricted diets when the calories are equal between IF & a normal diet? A recent scoping review (PMID: 39543378) looked at IF compared to CR on weight loss & age related outcomes. What they found was that both CR & IF produced equivalent outcomes in age related factors & weight loss

In that vein, another new study was published that examined IF vs. daily calorie restriction (DCR) or IF plus a probiotic supplement (IF+P) & their effects on fat loss & health markers in obese women with PCOS. All groups were equated for calories. The researchers found that all 3 treatments were equally effective at facilitating fat loss & improvements in metabolic health with no difference between the groups.

These studies add to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that IF is not magic, but rather an effective tool for reducing calories, which has a myriad of benefits. Additionally, it is also NOT superior for autophagy compared to DCR when calories are equated (PMID: 34135111)

This does NOT mean that I’m saying IF is useless, it certainly isn’t. It has been shown to produce a myriad of benefits. But these benefits aren’t due to a magic effect of time restriction, but rather simply from calorie restriction. If IF helps you limit your calorie intake & adhere to your diet then it may be a great tool for you as an individual"

 

[Scoresman]

At the risk of really beating this horse, smoked meat is processed, by definition. High temperature/flame grilling also poses health risks. Moreover, any way you package a bunch of saturated fat and red meat, it’s not good for you.

At best, the butcher prepped smoked sausage is a lesser of two evils.

@Terminalxylem I don't understand how smoking equals processed? When I refer to smoking I'm referring to cooking meat that is seasoned with salt and pepper and maybe chili flake over low to medium heat provided by actual wood. No fillers, no curing agents, just meat, seasoning, and fire. Any kind of meat. It could be chicken, fish, beef, duck, pork, goat, lamb, etc. Are you saying any of those, even fish, if smoked is now processed and bad for you?

Yes, smoking as a form of cooking is not good for you. Even fish.

The smoking process creates carcinogens and has been linked to certain forms of cancer. That was his point that it doesn't matter if the meat is "natural" or not, that the meat itself (red meat) isn't healthy overall AND that particular cooking process makes it worse. Sure, it is likely healthier than what you get in the store, but it's still not healthy.

Is this one of those situations where it's a carcinogen, but you have to eat ridiculous quantities for it to be a real danger?

Like with Diet Coke. For a while, all everyone was saying was that aspertame causes cancer, but it turned out you needed to be drinking a 12 pack a day for it to really be a threat.

Whenever I hear that something is a carcinogen this is always my first question.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

@Terminalxylem what's the verdict on wild game? I'm a hunter and have quite a bit of venison. It's red meat, but very lean and low saturated fat. Does that carry the same risk as other red meat? It's often contradictory when i see it mentioned as both healthy and unhealthy (red meat).

AFAIK, no well designed studies have compared game to other meat. More importantly, a diet high in game meat hasn’t been compared directly to a plant-based alternative, like the Mediterranean diet.

On the plus side, there’s much less saturated fat, hormone and antibiotic exposure in game than factory raised animals. Less pesticides and herbicides as well, along with other environmental contaminants, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

For downside, there are concerns for lead exposure among chronic consumers of game (if shot). Food borne illness can also occur, if it isn’t dressed appropriately. Lastly, all grilled, charred, and smoked meats introduce a host of disease-causing chemicals.

In general, unprocessed red meat consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular and cancer risk, as well as all cause mortality. It may contribute to diabetes as well. This is thought to be multifactorial, related to saturated fat, heme iron, trimethyamine, and higher concentrations of amino acids which activate aging pathways (e.g. branched chain amino acids, methionine).

So, venison is probably healthier than most red meat, but I wouldn’t call it healthy. There’s no long lived population for which game meat is a dietary staple, and game shares enough characteristics with store bought meat to extrapolate the potential for harm, imo.

I wasn't aware that bcaa's and methionine promoted aging, that's interesting. Atleast in my case method of harvest and preparation aren't a concern, but the possibility of harvesting an animal that survived a previous shot with lead is always a possibility and one I've never really thought about.

Thanks for the response, it's good food for thought.

Yes, methionine and bcaa’s, especially leucine iirc, are activators of anabolic pathways involving insulin-like growth factor and mTOR. That’s great for building muscle, but also increases cellular waste, and impairs its removal by inhibiting something called autophagy. When waste builds up, it stimulates inflammation, and aging.

In addition to limiting calories, protein and amino acid restriction are well described promoters of longevity. Granted, pretty much all the data is in animals and lower organisms, but aging pathways are some of the most conserved/consistent throughout nature. Humans have the same hormones and regulators of metabolism, so it stands to reason amino acid/protein/caloric restriction (within reason) should work in us as well.

Although it’s nearly impossible to carry out longevity studies in humans, the differential amino acid content between animal and plant protein may help to explain why plants form the basis of all the healthiest diets. It also explains my broken record ranting about the possibility of consuming too much protein, especially when it’s derived from animals.

I’ve posted this before, but here’s a decent review of the science behind nutrition and longevity.

So would fasting be a way to attenuate the increased cellular waste? I know fasting will promote autophagy, but is that enough to offset high protein intake? You mention calorie restriction along with lowering animal protein, but on its own with high animal protein is there a meaningful difference?

Interesting stuff.

It's the caloric restriction that promotes autophagy, not fasting - fasting is just a method to help with caloric restriction. And autophagy is nothing magical, just another natural process of the body.

It is one of my biggest pet peeves with the promoters of fasting/intermittent fasting, which I have used myself to help with caloric restriction, is that the vast majority of the claims that they associate with fasting are really attributable to the caloric restriction. When controlled for calories, there is essentially no difference in results between fasting or spreading calories over 3-5 meals throughout the day. And one of the potential risks with intermittent fasting/fasting is that there can be a greater chance of binging over your desired calorie levels because of the hunger that is associated with prolonged periods with no food.

Instagram Post from Layne Norton on it

"
There are many health benefits that have been ascribed to intermittent fasting (IF) & indeed IF does help weight fat loss & improvement in insulin sensitivity compared to ‘normal’ or ‘baseline’ diets. But what about compared to normal calorie restricted diets when the calories are equal between IF & a normal diet? A recent scoping review (PMID: 39543378) looked at IF compared to CR on weight loss & age related outcomes. What they found was that both CR & IF produced equivalent outcomes in age related factors & weight loss

In that vein, another new study was published that examined IF vs. daily calorie restriction (DCR) or IF plus a probiotic supplement (IF+P) & their effects on fat loss & health markers in obese women with PCOS. All groups were equated for calories. The researchers found that all 3 treatments were equally effective at facilitating fat loss & improvements in metabolic health with no difference between the groups.

These studies add to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that IF is not magic, but rather an effective tool for reducing calories, which has a myriad of benefits. Additionally, it is also NOT superior for autophagy compared to DCR when calories are equated (PMID: 34135111)

This does NOT mean that I’m saying IF is useless, it certainly isn’t. It has been shown to produce a myriad of benefits. But these benefits aren’t due to a magic effect of time restriction, but rather simply from calorie restriction. If IF helps you limit your calorie intake & adhere to your diet then it may be a great tool for you as an individual"

Interesting, I was under the impression fasting (extended not necessary IF) had benefits beyond calorie restriction and autophagy (with you there, nothing magical), like being beneficial to gut mucosa lining and reduction in inflammation for example. So my question is are those even realistic benefits and if so does DCR provide the same effect?

Any benefits when working out in a fasted state? IF, or extended (36 hrs+)? Or are fasted workouts a waste of time and a fully fueled effort being superior?

I kind of naturally IF, but will do an extended fast from time to time. Most recently as you describe as a way to be accountable for calorie restriction.

 

[Chaos34]

What's wrong with the Med Diet. It's been mentioned a few times but it is the horse worth beating. It's just too expensive. Younger generations with great jobs that used to buy homes for single income families cannot buy homes with two incomes. Prices are through the roof. Rents are worse. Food prices are way up. A family of four could easily spend 5-10k more a year trying this diet. It's so expensive it's regularly promoted in a snobby elitist way. Just look at the presentations of dishes out there on the socials. So fancy. So high brow. So expensive. Olive oil prices are ridiculous atm. The expense alone makes this diet unrealistic for mass adoption. The diet has its historical roots in the most affordable way of eating in the region. Residents of Italy, Greece, France and Spain foraged for edible greens, berries, and roots. Food that grew wild there back in the day. What they couldn't find they farmed. They even made their own wines and served them watered down. Anyone with a net could catch fish. All this has changed and those items are expensive here compared to less healthy options pushed by the food industry.

That's why in the hijack of the other thread I said taking on big ag is a problem, but it needs to happen.

 

[Chaos34]

@Terminalxylem what's the verdict on wild game? I'm a hunter and have quite a bit of venison. It's red meat, but very lean and low saturated fat. Does that carry the same risk as other red meat? It's often contradictory when i see it mentioned as both healthy and unhealthy (red meat).

AFAIK, no well designed studies have compared game to other meat. More importantly, a diet high in game meat hasn’t been compared directly to a plant-based alternative, like the Mediterranean diet.

On the plus side, there’s much less saturated fat, hormone and antibiotic exposure in game than factory raised animals. Less pesticides and herbicides as well, along with other environmental contaminants, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

For downside, there are concerns for lead exposure among chronic consumers of game (if shot). Food borne illness can also occur, if it isn’t dressed appropriately. Lastly, all grilled, charred, and smoked meats introduce a host of disease-causing chemicals.

In general, unprocessed red meat consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular and cancer risk, as well as all cause mortality. It may contribute to diabetes as well. This is thought to be multifactorial, related to saturated fat, heme iron, trimethyamine, and higher concentrations of amino acids which activate aging pathways (e.g. branched chain amino acids, methionine).

So, venison is probably healthier than most red meat, but I wouldn’t call it healthy. There’s no long lived population for which game meat is a dietary staple, and game shares enough characteristics with store bought meat to extrapolate the potential for harm, imo.

I wasn't aware that bcaa's and methionine promoted aging, that's interesting. Atleast in my case method of harvest and preparation aren't a concern, but the possibility of harvesting an animal that survived a previous shot with lead is always a possibility and one I've never really thought about.

Thanks for the response, it's good food for thought.

Yes, methionine and bcaa’s, especially leucine iirc, are activators of anabolic pathways involving insulin-like growth factor and mTOR. That’s great for building muscle, but also increases cellular waste, and impairs its removal by inhibiting something called autophagy. When waste builds up, it stimulates inflammation, and aging.

In addition to limiting calories, protein and amino acid restriction are well described promoters of longevity. Granted, pretty much all the data is in animals and lower organisms, but aging pathways are some of the most conserved/consistent throughout nature. Humans have the same hormones and regulators of metabolism, so it stands to reason amino acid/protein/caloric restriction (within reason) should work in us as well.

Although it’s nearly impossible to carry out longevity studies in humans, the differential amino acid content between animal and plant protein may help to explain why plants form the basis of all the healthiest diets. It also explains my broken record ranting about the possibility of consuming too much protein, especially when it’s derived from animals.

I’ve posted this before, but here’s a decent review of the science behind nutrition and longevity.

So would fasting be a way to attenuate the increased cellular waste? I know fasting will promote autophagy, but is that enough to offset high protein intake? You mention calorie restriction along with lowering animal protein, but on its own with high animal protein is there a meaningful difference?

Interesting stuff.

It's the caloric restriction that promotes autophagy, not fasting - fasting is just a method to help with caloric restriction. And autophagy is nothing magical, just another natural process of the body.

It is one of my biggest pet peeves with the promoters of fasting/intermittent fasting, which I have used myself to help with caloric restriction, is that the vast majority of the claims that they associate with fasting are really attributable to the caloric restriction. When controlled for calories, there is essentially no difference in results between fasting or spreading calories over 3-5 meals throughout the day. And one of the potential risks with intermittent fasting/fasting is that there can be a greater chance of binging over your desired calorie levels because of the hunger that is associated with prolonged periods with no food.

Instagram Post from Layne Norton on it

"
There are many health benefits that have been ascribed to intermittent fasting (IF) & indeed IF does help weight fat loss & improvement in insulin sensitivity compared to ‘normal’ or ‘baseline’ diets. But what about compared to normal calorie restricted diets when the calories are equal between IF & a normal diet? A recent scoping review (PMID: 39543378) looked at IF compared to CR on weight loss & age related outcomes. What they found was that both CR & IF produced equivalent outcomes in age related factors & weight loss

In that vein, another new study was published that examined IF vs. daily calorie restriction (DCR) or IF plus a probiotic supplement (IF+P) & their effects on fat loss & health markers in obese women with PCOS. All groups were equated for calories. The researchers found that all 3 treatments were equally effective at facilitating fat loss & improvements in metabolic health with no difference between the groups.

These studies add to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that IF is not magic, but rather an effective tool for reducing calories, which has a myriad of benefits. Additionally, it is also NOT superior for autophagy compared to DCR when calories are equated (PMID: 34135111)

This does NOT mean that I’m saying IF is useless, it certainly isn’t. It has been shown to produce a myriad of benefits. But these benefits aren’t due to a magic effect of time restriction, but rather simply from calorie restriction. If IF helps you limit your calorie intake & adhere to your diet then it may be a great tool for you as an individual"

Good post. I IF as a lifestyle. I water fast for a day here and there every month. I needed to lose a lot of weight in the 00s and these along with long ketogenic phases finally did the trick and became habits. I preached all that for awhile, but ultimately something my dad preached to my fat mom in the 60s is what I've come to believe is simply all there is to it. CICO. Calories in vs Calories out. I think there's been compelling arguments against it, but I'm not convinced. Calorie restriction in whatever way works for you is the key to weight loss and better health outcomes. imho.

Find what works for you. Everyone's different. For me eating 3-5 meals a day is what leads to snacking and over-consumption. So I IF. It's not magic. It's no big deal. But it keeps me in line, and I think I'm one of those former fatties who needs to stay calorie restricted for maintenance more than someone who never got fat.

 

[acarey50]

@Terminalxylem what's the verdict on wild game? I'm a hunter and have quite a bit of venison. It's red meat, but very lean and low saturated fat. Does that carry the same risk as other red meat? It's often contradictory when i see it mentioned as both healthy and unhealthy (red meat).

AFAIK, no well designed studies have compared game to other meat. More importantly, a diet high in game meat hasn’t been compared directly to a plant-based alternative, like the Mediterranean diet.

On the plus side, there’s much less saturated fat, hormone and antibiotic exposure in game than factory raised animals. Less pesticides and herbicides as well, along with other environmental contaminants, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

For downside, there are concerns for lead exposure among chronic consumers of game (if shot). Food borne illness can also occur, if it isn’t dressed appropriately. Lastly, all grilled, charred, and smoked meats introduce a host of disease-causing chemicals.

In general, unprocessed red meat consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular and cancer risk, as well as all cause mortality. It may contribute to diabetes as well. This is thought to be multifactorial, related to saturated fat, heme iron, trimethyamine, and higher concentrations of amino acids which activate aging pathways (e.g. branched chain amino acids, methionine).

So, venison is probably healthier than most red meat, but I wouldn’t call it healthy. There’s no long lived population for which game meat is a dietary staple, and game shares enough characteristics with store bought meat to extrapolate the potential for harm, imo.

I wasn't aware that bcaa's and methionine promoted aging, that's interesting. Atleast in my case method of harvest and preparation aren't a concern, but the possibility of harvesting an animal that survived a previous shot with lead is always a possibility and one I've never really thought about.

Thanks for the response, it's good food for thought.

Yes, methionine and bcaa’s, especially leucine iirc, are activators of anabolic pathways involving insulin-like growth factor and mTOR. That’s great for building muscle, but also increases cellular waste, and impairs its removal by inhibiting something called autophagy. When waste builds up, it stimulates inflammation, and aging.

In addition to limiting calories, protein and amino acid restriction are well described promoters of longevity. Granted, pretty much all the data is in animals and lower organisms, but aging pathways are some of the most conserved/consistent throughout nature. Humans have the same hormones and regulators of metabolism, so it stands to reason amino acid/protein/caloric restriction (within reason) should work in us as well.

Although it’s nearly impossible to carry out longevity studies in humans, the differential amino acid content between animal and plant protein may help to explain why plants form the basis of all the healthiest diets. It also explains my broken record ranting about the possibility of consuming too much protein, especially when it’s derived from animals.

I’ve posted this before, but here’s a decent review of the science behind nutrition and longevity.

So would fasting be a way to attenuate the increased cellular waste? I know fasting will promote autophagy, but is that enough to offset high protein intake? You mention calorie restriction along with lowering animal protein, but on its own with high animal protein is there a meaningful difference?

Interesting stuff.

It's the caloric restriction that promotes autophagy, not fasting - fasting is just a method to help with caloric restriction. And autophagy is nothing magical, just another natural process of the body.

It is one of my biggest pet peeves with the promoters of fasting/intermittent fasting, which I have used myself to help with caloric restriction, is that the vast majority of the claims that they associate with fasting are really attributable to the caloric restriction. When controlled for calories, there is essentially no difference in results between fasting or spreading calories over 3-5 meals throughout the day. And one of the potential risks with intermittent fasting/fasting is that there can be a greater chance of binging over your desired calorie levels because of the hunger that is associated with prolonged periods with no food.

Instagram Post from Layne Norton on it

"
There are many health benefits that have been ascribed to intermittent fasting (IF) & indeed IF does help weight fat loss & improvement in insulin sensitivity compared to ‘normal’ or ‘baseline’ diets. But what about compared to normal calorie restricted diets when the calories are equal between IF & a normal diet? A recent scoping review (PMID: 39543378) looked at IF compared to CR on weight loss & age related outcomes. What they found was that both CR & IF produced equivalent outcomes in age related factors & weight loss

In that vein, another new study was published that examined IF vs. daily calorie restriction (DCR) or IF plus a probiotic supplement (IF+P) & their effects on fat loss & health markers in obese women with PCOS. All groups were equated for calories. The researchers found that all 3 treatments were equally effective at facilitating fat loss & improvements in metabolic health with no difference between the groups.

These studies add to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that IF is not magic, but rather an effective tool for reducing calories, which has a myriad of benefits. Additionally, it is also NOT superior for autophagy compared to DCR when calories are equated (PMID: 34135111)

This does NOT mean that I’m saying IF is useless, it certainly isn’t. It has been shown to produce a myriad of benefits. But these benefits aren’t due to a magic effect of time restriction, but rather simply from calorie restriction. If IF helps you limit your calorie intake & adhere to your diet then it may be a great tool for you as an individual"

Interesting, I was under the impression fasting (extended not necessary IF) had benefits beyond calorie restriction and autophagy (with you there, nothing magical), like being beneficial to gut mucosa lining and reduction in inflammation for example. So my question is are those even realistic benefits and if so does DCR provide the same effect?

Any benefits when working out in a fasted state? IF, or extended (36 hrs+)? Or are fasted workouts a waste of time and a fully fueled effort being superior?

I kind of naturally IF, but will do an extended fast from time to time. Most recently as you describe as a way to be accountable for calorie restriction.

Sorry, I'm only on a quick break from work, but basically no, there is none, at least based on actual studies. And for purposes of fat loss, there is basically zero difference in net fat loss between fasted vs. fed.... so do what works best for you.

That said, if you are trying to maximize performance, like say for playing a sport, in a fasted state, you realistically will not be able to perform at your maximum capabilities without food to fuel you.

Layne Norton again -

First off, what is this? Are we still stuck in 2001? How many times does this **** need to get debunked before people stop regurgitating it?

Yes, if you do fasted cardio, you burn more fat during the exercise period itself.

Big freaking whoop

Fat burning is not the same thing as losing body fat. It’s only part of the story. Fat balance (the loss or gain of body fat) is determined by the following equation:

Fat balance = fat stored - fat burned (aka oxidized)

Yes, if you do fasted cardio, you will burn more fat during that time you are exercising. However, your body compensates by reducing your fat oxidation the remainder of the day. Contrarily, if you exercise in the Fed state, you burn less fat during the exercise itself, but your body compensates by burning more fat the remainder of the day

The net difference when calories & work are equated between groups is ZERO!

A systematic review demonstrated that none of the studies showed a difference in fat loss between these two protocols.

Citations - Hackett et al 2017 & @bradschoenfeldphd 2014

In every study…

Now I’m not saying fasted cardio doesn’t work. I’m not saying you can’t lose fat using fasted cardio. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do fasted cardio. I’m just saying that you don’t need to do fasted cardio, and it’s not superior to Fed cardio. Since both methodologies appear equally effective, you should use the methodology that you personally prefer

Me? I’ll eat some damn food

 

[acarey50]

@Terminalxylem what's the verdict on wild game? I'm a hunter and have quite a bit of venison. It's red meat, but very lean and low saturated fat. Does that carry the same risk as other red meat? It's often contradictory when i see it mentioned as both healthy and unhealthy (red meat).

AFAIK, no well designed studies have compared game to other meat. More importantly, a diet high in game meat hasn’t been compared directly to a plant-based alternative, like the Mediterranean diet.

On the plus side, there’s much less saturated fat, hormone and antibiotic exposure in game than factory raised animals. Less pesticides and herbicides as well, along with other environmental contaminants, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

For downside, there are concerns for lead exposure among chronic consumers of game (if shot). Food borne illness can also occur, if it isn’t dressed appropriately. Lastly, all grilled, charred, and smoked meats introduce a host of disease-causing chemicals.

In general, unprocessed red meat consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular and cancer risk, as well as all cause mortality. It may contribute to diabetes as well. This is thought to be multifactorial, related to saturated fat, heme iron, trimethyamine, and higher concentrations of amino acids which activate aging pathways (e.g. branched chain amino acids, methionine).

So, venison is probably healthier than most red meat, but I wouldn’t call it healthy. There’s no long lived population for which game meat is a dietary staple, and game shares enough characteristics with store bought meat to extrapolate the potential for harm, imo.

I wasn't aware that bcaa's and methionine promoted aging, that's interesting. Atleast in my case method of harvest and preparation aren't a concern, but the possibility of harvesting an animal that survived a previous shot with lead is always a possibility and one I've never really thought about.

Thanks for the response, it's good food for thought.

Yes, methionine and bcaa’s, especially leucine iirc, are activators of anabolic pathways involving insulin-like growth factor and mTOR. That’s great for building muscle, but also increases cellular waste, and impairs its removal by inhibiting something called autophagy. When waste builds up, it stimulates inflammation, and aging.

In addition to limiting calories, protein and amino acid restriction are well described promoters of longevity. Granted, pretty much all the data is in animals and lower organisms, but aging pathways are some of the most conserved/consistent throughout nature. Humans have the same hormones and regulators of metabolism, so it stands to reason amino acid/protein/caloric restriction (within reason) should work in us as well.

Although it’s nearly impossible to carry out longevity studies in humans, the differential amino acid content between animal and plant protein may help to explain why plants form the basis of all the healthiest diets. It also explains my broken record ranting about the possibility of consuming too much protein, especially when it’s derived from animals.

I’ve posted this before, but here’s a decent review of the science behind nutrition and longevity.

So would fasting be a way to attenuate the increased cellular waste? I know fasting will promote autophagy, but is that enough to offset high protein intake? You mention calorie restriction along with lowering animal protein, but on its own with high animal protein is there a meaningful difference?

Interesting stuff.

It's the caloric restriction that promotes autophagy, not fasting - fasting is just a method to help with caloric restriction. And autophagy is nothing magical, just another natural process of the body.

It is one of my biggest pet peeves with the promoters of fasting/intermittent fasting, which I have used myself to help with caloric restriction, is that the vast majority of the claims that they associate with fasting are really attributable to the caloric restriction. When controlled for calories, there is essentially no difference in results between fasting or spreading calories over 3-5 meals throughout the day. And one of the potential risks with intermittent fasting/fasting is that there can be a greater chance of binging over your desired calorie levels because of the hunger that is associated with prolonged periods with no food.

Instagram Post from Layne Norton on it

"
There are many health benefits that have been ascribed to intermittent fasting (IF) & indeed IF does help weight fat loss & improvement in insulin sensitivity compared to ‘normal’ or ‘baseline’ diets. But what about compared to normal calorie restricted diets when the calories are equal between IF & a normal diet? A recent scoping review (PMID: 39543378) looked at IF compared to CR on weight loss & age related outcomes. What they found was that both CR & IF produced equivalent outcomes in age related factors & weight loss

In that vein, another new study was published that examined IF vs. daily calorie restriction (DCR) or IF plus a probiotic supplement (IF+P) & their effects on fat loss & health markers in obese women with PCOS. All groups were equated for calories. The researchers found that all 3 treatments were equally effective at facilitating fat loss & improvements in metabolic health with no difference between the groups.

These studies add to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that IF is not magic, but rather an effective tool for reducing calories, which has a myriad of benefits. Additionally, it is also NOT superior for autophagy compared to DCR when calories are equated (PMID: 34135111)

This does NOT mean that I’m saying IF is useless, it certainly isn’t. It has been shown to produce a myriad of benefits. But these benefits aren’t due to a magic effect of time restriction, but rather simply from calorie restriction. If IF helps you limit your calorie intake & adhere to your diet then it may be a great tool for you as an individual"

Good post. I IF as a lifestyle. I water fast for a day here and there every month. I needed to lose a lot of weight in the 00s and these along with long ketogenic phases finally did the trick and became habits. I preached all that for awhile, but ultimately something my dad preached to my fat mom in the 60s is what I've come to believe is simply all there is to it. CICO. Calories in vs Calories out. I think there's been compelling arguments against it, but I'm not convinced. Calorie restriction in whatever way works for you is the key to weight loss and better health outcomes. imho.

Find what works for you. Everyone's different. For me eating 3-5 meals a day is what leads to snacking and over-consumption. So I IF. It's not magic. It's no big deal. But it keeps me in line, and I think I'm one of those former fatties who needs to stay calorie restricted for maintenance more than someone who never got fat.

This is essentially me as well. I am one that responds well to IF, but I also know that if I either am going to have a particular taxing work day, or plan to do something athletic (defining that very loosely today), I will perform better without at least something to eat, usually something like some eggs and an english muffin, or for example, as I am planning to play pickup basketball later tonight, I'm having a tuna sandwich with some celery right now, and will eat at least 1 or 2 smaller meals/snacks before then - I don't want to feel stuffed, but I know in order to not crash out while playing I need food in my system.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

@Terminalxylem what's the verdict on wild game? I'm a hunter and have quite a bit of venison. It's red meat, but very lean and low saturated fat. Does that carry the same risk as other red meat? It's often contradictory when i see it mentioned as both healthy and unhealthy (red meat).

AFAIK, no well designed studies have compared game to other meat. More importantly, a diet high in game meat hasn’t been compared directly to a plant-based alternative, like the Mediterranean diet.

On the plus side, there’s much less saturated fat, hormone and antibiotic exposure in game than factory raised animals. Less pesticides and herbicides as well, along with other environmental contaminants, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

For downside, there are concerns for lead exposure among chronic consumers of game (if shot). Food borne illness can also occur, if it isn’t dressed appropriately. Lastly, all grilled, charred, and smoked meats introduce a host of disease-causing chemicals.

In general, unprocessed red meat consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular and cancer risk, as well as all cause mortality. It may contribute to diabetes as well. This is thought to be multifactorial, related to saturated fat, heme iron, trimethyamine, and higher concentrations of amino acids which activate aging pathways (e.g. branched chain amino acids, methionine).

So, venison is probably healthier than most red meat, but I wouldn’t call it healthy. There’s no long lived population for which game meat is a dietary staple, and game shares enough characteristics with store bought meat to extrapolate the potential for harm, imo.

I wasn't aware that bcaa's and methionine promoted aging, that's interesting. Atleast in my case method of harvest and preparation aren't a concern, but the possibility of harvesting an animal that survived a previous shot with lead is always a possibility and one I've never really thought about.

Thanks for the response, it's good food for thought.

Yes, methionine and bcaa’s, especially leucine iirc, are activators of anabolic pathways involving insulin-like growth factor and mTOR. That’s great for building muscle, but also increases cellular waste, and impairs its removal by inhibiting something called autophagy. When waste builds up, it stimulates inflammation, and aging.

In addition to limiting calories, protein and amino acid restriction are well described promoters of longevity. Granted, pretty much all the data is in animals and lower organisms, but aging pathways are some of the most conserved/consistent throughout nature. Humans have the same hormones and regulators of metabolism, so it stands to reason amino acid/protein/caloric restriction (within reason) should work in us as well.

Although it’s nearly impossible to carry out longevity studies in humans, the differential amino acid content between animal and plant protein may help to explain why plants form the basis of all the healthiest diets. It also explains my broken record ranting about the possibility of consuming too much protein, especially when it’s derived from animals.

I’ve posted this before, but here’s a decent review of the science behind nutrition and longevity.

So would fasting be a way to attenuate the increased cellular waste? I know fasting will promote autophagy, but is that enough to offset high protein intake? You mention calorie restriction along with lowering animal protein, but on its own with high animal protein is there a meaningful difference?

Interesting stuff.

It's the caloric restriction that promotes autophagy, not fasting - fasting is just a method to help with caloric restriction. And autophagy is nothing magical, just another natural process of the body.

It is one of my biggest pet peeves with the promoters of fasting/intermittent fasting, which I have used myself to help with caloric restriction, is that the vast majority of the claims that they associate with fasting are really attributable to the caloric restriction. When controlled for calories, there is essentially no difference in results between fasting or spreading calories over 3-5 meals throughout the day. And one of the potential risks with intermittent fasting/fasting is that there can be a greater chance of binging over your desired calorie levels because of the hunger that is associated with prolonged periods with no food.

Instagram Post from Layne Norton on it

"
There are many health benefits that have been ascribed to intermittent fasting (IF) & indeed IF does help weight fat loss & improvement in insulin sensitivity compared to ‘normal’ or ‘baseline’ diets. But what about compared to normal calorie restricted diets when the calories are equal between IF & a normal diet? A recent scoping review (PMID: 39543378) looked at IF compared to CR on weight loss & age related outcomes. What they found was that both CR & IF produced equivalent outcomes in age related factors & weight loss

In that vein, another new study was published that examined IF vs. daily calorie restriction (DCR) or IF plus a probiotic supplement (IF+P) & their effects on fat loss & health markers in obese women with PCOS. All groups were equated for calories. The researchers found that all 3 treatments were equally effective at facilitating fat loss & improvements in metabolic health with no difference between the groups.

These studies add to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that IF is not magic, but rather an effective tool for reducing calories, which has a myriad of benefits. Additionally, it is also NOT superior for autophagy compared to DCR when calories are equated (PMID: 34135111)

This does NOT mean that I’m saying IF is useless, it certainly isn’t. It has been shown to produce a myriad of benefits. But these benefits aren’t due to a magic effect of time restriction, but rather simply from calorie restriction. If IF helps you limit your calorie intake & adhere to your diet then it may be a great tool for you as an individual"

Interesting, I was under the impression fasting (extended not necessary IF) had benefits beyond calorie restriction and autophagy (with you there, nothing magical), like being beneficial to gut mucosa lining and reduction in inflammation for example. So my question is are those even realistic benefits and if so does DCR provide the same effect?

Any benefits when working out in a fasted state? IF, or extended (36 hrs+)? Or are fasted workouts a waste of time and a fully fueled effort being superior?

I kind of naturally IF, but will do an extended fast from time to time. Most recently as you describe as a way to be accountable for calorie restriction.

Sorry, I'm only on a quick break from work, but basically no, there is none, at least based on actual studies. And for purposes of fat loss, there is basically zero difference in net fat loss between fasted vs. fed.... so do what works best for you.

That said, if you are trying to maximize performance, like say for playing a sport, in a fasted state, you realistically will not be able to perform at your maximum capabilities without food to fuel you.

Layne Norton again -

First off, what is this? Are we still stuck in 2001? How many times does this **** need to get debunked before people stop regurgitating it?

Yes, if you do fasted cardio, you burn more fat during the exercise period itself.

Big freaking whoop

Fat burning is not the same thing as losing body fat. It’s only part of the story. Fat balance (the loss or gain of body fat) is determined by the following equation:

Fat balance = fat stored - fat burned (aka oxidized)

Yes, if you do fasted cardio, you will burn more fat during that time you are exercising. However, your body compensates by reducing your fat oxidation the remainder of the day. Contrarily, if you exercise in the Fed state, you burn less fat during the exercise itself, but your body compensates by burning more fat the remainder of the day

The net difference when calories & work are equated between groups is ZERO!

A systematic review demonstrated that none of the studies showed a difference in fat loss between these two protocols.

Citations - Hackett et al 2017 & @bradschoenfeldphd 2014

In every study…

Now I’m not saying fasted cardio doesn’t work. I’m not saying you can’t lose fat using fasted cardio. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do fasted cardio. I’m just saying that you don’t need to do fasted cardio, and it’s not superior to Fed cardio. Since both methodologies appear equally effective, you should use the methodology that you personally prefer

Me? I’ll eat some damn food

Thanks for the follow-up. I think my motivation is similar to yours and chaos34. The reason i asked about working out is that I IF naturally (not really hungry when i first get up) and typically get my workouts in first thing, so was curious if that offered any additional benefits. As far as athletic performance for competition i absolutely make sure I'm fully fueled. Thanks again for the info.

 

[Mister CIA]

:NO CARDIO:

 

[Terminalxylem]

A family of four could easily spend 5-10k more a year trying this diet.

Do you have a source for this estimate?

What I’ve read suggests Med diet is only a few hundred dollars extra a year per person, and become cheaper the more veggie centric one becomes.

Seafood and olive oil certainly aren’t cheap, but neither are meat and eggs. Regardless, one should probably factor long term healthcare savings into the equation.

That’s not practical when living paycheck to paycheck, of course. Still, I posed the question here, where few are struggling financially.

A low-fat vegan diet cuts food costs by 19%, or $1.80 per day, when compared with a standard American diet that included meat, dairy, and other animal products, according to new research by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine published in JAMA Network Open. The study also found that a Mediterranean diet cost 60 cents more per day when compared with the standard American diet. Total foods costs were 25% lower, $2.40 per day, on a vegan diet, compared with the Mediterranean diet.

 

[Northern Voice]

The responses in this thread is what's wrong with the Mediterranean Diet, no one wants to give up their grilled meats.

I admire OPs patience as everyone tries to take the plant/fish based diet discussion to talk of sausages, chicken and smoking/grilling.

Maybe I'll go talk IPAs in the sober thread.

 

[Terminalxylem]

The responses in this thread is what's wrong with the Mediterranean Diet, no one wants to give up their grilled meats.

I admire OPs patience as everyone tries to take the plant/fish based diet discussion to talk of sausages, chicken and smoking/grilling.

Maybe I'll go talk IPAs in the sober thread.

I think you’re right, but it’s interesting to see the mental gymnastics as people attempt to skirt the issue. Some of those same people may eventually “see the light” after a health scare, while simultaneously lamenting how bad we are at preventative care.

And it doesn’t help that multiple industrIes are working hard to maintain the status quo, while gurus du jour poo-poo the validity of the entire field of nutrition.

Still, I’m glad the message about processed food and added sugar being terrible have become mainstream. Those were never a part of the Mediterranean diet, of course.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The responses in this thread is what's wrong with the Mediterranean Diet, no one wants to give up their grilled meats.

I admire OPs patience as everyone tries to take the plant/fish based diet discussion to talk of sausages, chicken and smoking/grilling.

Maybe I'll go talk IPAs in the sober thread.

 

[Terminalxylem]

At the risk of really beating this horse, smoked meat is processed, by definition. High temperature/flame grilling also poses health risks. Moreover, any way you package a bunch of saturated fat and red meat, it’s not good for you.

At best, the butcher prepped smoked sausage is a lesser of two evils.

@Terminalxylem I don't understand how smoking equals processed? When I refer to smoking I'm referring to cooking meat that is seasoned with salt and pepper and maybe chili flake over low to medium heat provided by actual wood. No fillers, no curing agents, just meat, seasoning, and fire. Any kind of meat. It could be chicken, fish, beef, duck, pork, goat, lamb, etc. Are you saying any of those, even fish, if smoked is now processed and bad for you?

Yes, smoking as a form of cooking is not good for you. Even fish.

The smoking process creates carcinogens and has been linked to certain forms of cancer. That was his point that it doesn't matter if the meat is "natural" or not, that the meat itself (red meat) isn't healthy overall AND that particular cooking process makes it worse. Sure, it is likely healthier than what you get in the store, but it's still not healthy.

Is this one of those situations where it's a carcinogen, but you have to eat ridiculous quantities for it to be a real danger?

Like with Diet Coke. For a while, all everyone was saying was that aspertame causes cancer, but it turned out you needed to be drinking a 12 pack a day for it to really be a threat.

Whenever I hear that something is a carcinogen this is always my first question.

ChatGPT says:

Smoked meat risk comes from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs), and nitrosamines (especially if cured). The data come mostly from observational studies and meta-analyses.

Exposure	Associated Risk	Dose-Response Evidence
≥50 g/day of smoked or processed meat	↑ Colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, CVD	~18% ↑ CRC risk per 50 g/day (WHO, IARC 2015)
1–2 servings/week	Small but measurable ↑ GI cancer risk	Risk accumulates over decades
Occasional (≤1–2/month)	Minimal observed risk	Comparable to background diet

Note: One standard serving ≈ 50–75 g (1.5–2.5 oz).
Heavy intake (≥100 g/day) is associated with substantially higher risks for GI cancers and cardiovascular mortality.

 

[Desert_Power]

The responses in this thread is what's wrong with the Mediterranean Diet, no one wants to give up their grilled meats.

I admire OPs patience as everyone tries to take the plant/fish based diet discussion to talk of sausages, chicken and smoking/grilling.

Maybe I'll go talk IPAs in the sober thread.

The grilling stuff doesn't really come up as much when discussing with my doctor. So, jokes aside, I do appreciate what y'all are sharing.

 

[Terminalxylem]

The responses in this thread is what's wrong with the Mediterranean Diet, no one wants to give up their grilled meats.

I admire OPs patience as everyone tries to take the plant/fish based diet discussion to talk of sausages, chicken and smoking/grilling.

Maybe I'll go talk IPAs in the sober thread.

The grilling stuff doesn't really come up as much when discussing with my doctor. So, jokes aside, I do appreciate what y'all are sharing.

Yeah, for most people, intake of grilled meats isn’t enough to move the needle much. My comments were mostly to clarify that grilled/smoked meats are indeed processed, and not particularly healthy, by any metric.

And while I generally agree with avoiding making perfect enemy of the good, everyone’s definition of “good enough” is different.

This is an interesting study on the subject. In it, they compiled data from multiple sources/meta analyses to estimate years gained from an optimal diet, in comparison to the standard American diet. They also modeled a “feasibility approach”, that was somewhere in between the two.

They found these dietary changes resulted in the greatest gains in life expectancy:

1. Increasing legumes from 0 to 200 grams daily - add 2.5 years
2. Increasing whole grains from 50 to 200 grams - add 2.3
3. Increasing nuts from 0 to 25 grams - add 2
4. Eliminating sugar sweetened beverages (from baseline 500g) - add 1.3
5. Eliminating red meat (baseline 100g) - add 1.9
6. Eliminating processed meat (baseline 50g) - add 1.9

For a 20 year old male who adopted all the changes suggested by their model, they predicted 13 years gained life expectancy. For a 40 year old, 11.7 years: age 60, 8.8. Meanwhile, the “feasibility” approach yielded 7.3, 6.5, and 4.8 years gained, respectively, versus SAD.

Of note, nothing else they looked at, including “optimal” fish, poultry, fruit, vegetable, dairy, refined grain, and egg intake reached statistical significance. This could be related to the thresholds created by their experimental model, or inconsistency in nutrition studies. It doesn’t mean there’s zero health impact from these foods; just the literature doesn’t convincingly demonstrate all cause mortality benefit.

How many of these changes are mentioned regularly in diet threads? Which are dismissed? Why don’t we spend more time discussing whole grains, nuts, and lentils, instead of extolling the virtues of butcher-prepped grilled sausage?

Personally, I think all 6 changes are low hanging fruit, and hardly a sacrifice, for roughly twice the longevity benefit. And that says nothing about quality of life, but other studies have shown healthy habits compress the duration of suffering at life’s end. So it’s not a stretch to expect an increase in both life- and healthspan by adopting the optimal approach.

I also think recent insights into aging, in concert with rapidly developing AI, make meaningful gains in health/lifespan through science an achievable goal in the near future. I’d like to do everything in reason to live as long as possible, just in case we reach “longevity escape velocity” in our lifetime. YMMV, of course.