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.

 

[culdeus]

The real answer here is mostly that the world can't supply the diet to all people. There isn't anywhere near enough olive production, and fish production isnt scalable to the extent it would need to be. Nuts. Same story.

This further discounts the shift in getting fruits and veggies transported and scaled along with the environmental damage that all of these would drive by moving products accelerating climate change and making it yet harder to deal with.

 

[Mister CIA]

I saw a recipe for brisket burgers on my youtube feed and thought of this thread.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

In the technical sense of the term all food that's cooked (baked, boiled, steamed, ect) and even seasoned with spices is processed. Any alteration from its natural state is processing.

 

[Desert_Power]

I saw a recipe for brisket burgers on my youtube feed and thought of this thread.

I've had sushi for two meals since reading the link posted earlier. Now I'm getting mercury poisoning.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

In the technical sense of the term all food that's cooked (baked, boiled, steamed, ect) and even seasoned with spices is processed. Any alteration from its natural state is processing.

Thanks. I'd agree then, using this definition, grilled salmon filet is processed, indeed. Thanks.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

As several have said here, these items you list are pretty much universally accepted as eating healthy.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

Is anyone saying these things are not healthy? As I said, I bought the book for this Mediterranean Diet years ago when it was the rage. It literally did sell. Like many things, topics come and go and it's been a while since the book was the hot thing, but it's pretty basic stuff.

Or maybe I'm missing it - are there a lot of people saying the 6 things above are not good?

You could add getting good sleep, cutting back or avoiding alcohol, getting sunlight, regular movement and walking etc to the list. I don't see anyone arguing these are not good things. But maybe I'm overlooking them.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

In the technical sense of the term all food that's cooked (baked, boiled, steamed, ect) and even seasoned with spices is processed. Any alteration from its natural state is processing.

Thanks. I'd agree then, using this definition, grilled salmon filet is processed, indeed. Thanks.

Like a lot of things there's levels. Baked salmon is better than grilled, grilled salmon is likely better than smoked. Minimally processed is better than ultraprocessed, but unless you're eating all your food raw and unseasoned it's technically processed. If someone wanted to take it even further you could say the act of chewing is processing

I like to think i know where the line is and even at that moderation is usually key. I'm assuming most others can do the same.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

In the technical sense of the term all food that's cooked (baked, boiled, steamed, ect) and even seasoned with spices is processed. Any alteration from its natural state is processing.

Thanks. I'd agree then, using this definition, grilled salmon filet is processed, indeed. Thanks.

Like a lot of things there's levels. Baked salmon is better than grilled, grilled salmon is likely better than smoked. Minimally processed is better than ultraprocessed, but unless you're eating all your food raw and unseasoned it's technically processed. If someone wanted to take it even further you could say the act of chewing is processing

I like to think i know where the line is and even at that moderation is usually key. I'm assuming most others can do the same.

Thanks. I had just never heard the defintion of cooking as being processed. But I can see that if any other state than raw is considered processed.

I tend to think of processed as having additives and preservatives and other things added. But I'm also fine with anything that is cooked being called processed. All good.

 

[nirad3]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

In the technical sense of the term all food that's cooked (baked, boiled, steamed, ect) and even seasoned with spices is processed. Any alteration from its natural state is processing.

Thanks. I'd agree then, using this definition, grilled salmon filet is processed, indeed. Thanks.

Like a lot of things there's levels. Baked salmon is better than grilled, grilled salmon is likely better than smoked. Minimally processed is better than ultraprocessed, but unless you're eating all your food raw and unseasoned it's technically processed. If someone wanted to take it even further you could say the act of chewing is processing

I like to think i know where the line is and even at that moderation is usually key. I'm assuming most others can do the same.

Thanks. I had just never heard the defintion of cooking as being processed. But I can see that if any other state than raw is considered processed.

I tend to think of processed as having additives and preservatives and other things added. But I'm also fine with anything that is cooked being called processed. All good.

This was always my line of thinking, too.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

In the technical sense of the term all food that's cooked (baked, boiled, steamed, ect) and even seasoned with spices is processed. Any alteration from its natural state is processing.

You are correct, heating to high temperatures changes the chemical composition of food. However, the health risk of most cooking methods is probably inconsequential, and partially offset by preventing some food borne illnesses.

Grilling meat, even fish, creates a couple of carcinogens - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and heterocyclic amines (HCA). Both increase the risk of cancer (esp. colorectal, but also linked to breast, prostate, bladder and other cancers). Some data also suggests HCA can promote atherogenesis (blood vessel narrowing, as occurs in heart disease.)

These risks can be mitigated by slow cooking at lower temperature, cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling, as it decreases precursors to PAH and HCA.

For the record, these substances derived from grilling “natural” foods have more evidence to support a role in cancer than almost every synthetic food additive, but they are all lumped together when classifying “processed” meat as a definite human carcinogen.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

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.

To make sure I understand your definition, a grilled salmon filet is processed?

In the technical sense of the term all food that's cooked (baked, boiled, steamed, ect) and even seasoned with spices is processed. Any alteration from its natural state is processing.

Thanks. I'd agree then, using this definition, grilled salmon filet is processed, indeed. Thanks.

Like a lot of things there's levels. Baked salmon is better than grilled, grilled salmon is likely better than smoked. Minimally processed is better than ultraprocessed, but unless you're eating all your food raw and unseasoned it's technically processed. If someone wanted to take it even further you could say the act of chewing is processing

I like to think i know where the line is and even at that moderation is usually key. I'm assuming most others can do the same.

Thanks. I had just never heard the defintion of cooking as being processed. But I can see that if any other state than raw is considered processed.

I tend to think of processed as having additives and preservatives and other things added. But I'm also fine with anything that is cooked being called processed. All good.

I'm agreeing with you, sorry if it seemed otherwise. I also think of processing as additives and all kinds of chemical garbage vs age old cooking techniques. I guess that's what I mean with levels to it.

I'm not always sure where people want to draw the line, so technically processing is very broad.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

As several have said here, these items you list are pretty much universally accepted as eating healthy.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

Is anyone saying these things are not healthy? As I said, I bought the book for this Mediterranean Diet years ago when it was the rage. It literally did sell. Like many things, topics come and go and it's been a while since the book was the hot thing, but it's pretty basic stuff.

Or maybe I'm missing it - are there a lot of people saying the 6 things above are not good?

You could add getting good sleep, cutting back or avoiding alcohol, getting sunlight, regular movement and walking etc to the list. I don't see anyone arguing these are not good things. But maybe I'm overlooking them.

People aren’t saying that stuff is bad, by and large, but evidence-based dietary fundamentals are taking a backseat to advice which is less healthy and/or unproven. Moreover, people are diminishing the importance of a plant-based diet by focusing on “bad carbs” and protein. Or they say nutrition literature can’t be trusted, period.

Look at the half dozen diet threads on the forum. What percentage of posts mention any of the components of a Mediterranean diet?

But to get back to the point of the thread, as a person who acknowledges the Mediterranean is healthy, what barriers do you see for people adopting it?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

 

[the moops]

Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling

Definitely not food experts

 

[Terminalxylem]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort. And besting ultraprocessed food isn’t a high enough bar to consider something “healthy.”

Moreover, lumping in ultraprocessed foods with healthy carbohydrates is one of the major confounders in nutrition studies. The mental shortcut “carbs are bad” is promoting a lot of unhealthful eating, imo.

*ETA Occasional grilled meat isn’t the end of the world, of course. The grilling discussion started after people were assigning dubious value to meat preparation, while misunderstanding basic terminology.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort. And besting ultraprocessed food isn’t a high enough bar to consider something “healthy.”

Moreover, lumping in ultraprocessed foods with healthy carbohydrates is one of the major confounders in nutrition studies. The mental shortcut “carbs are bad” is promoting a lot of unhealthful eating, imo.

*ETA Occasional grilled meat isn’t the end of the world, of course. The grilling discussion started after people were assigning dubious value to meat preparation, while misunderstanding basic terminology.

I agree that it's pretty easy to do. I eat a pretty textbook version myself, lots of complex carbs, fish, modest meat intake, and typically exceed the recommended daily intake of fiber by a fair amount.

From my point of view it's the ultraprocessed food that's enemy number one. A big factor in a sustainable diet is the ability to stick to it. Strict dieting typically falls flat in that regard, so when critiquing eating habits that should be factored in. Grilling is processing and not as healthy as steaming, but still superior to ultraprocessed (which as has been discussed is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic in the developed world and all of the maladies that go along with it). So again as I see it there's levels and as has been mentioned don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Charring and smoking food has been a part of the human diet since we first harnessed fire and is as much cultural phenomenon as it is dietary. There's a fine line to walk when we're talking diet and reducing the intake of added sugar and ultraprocessed is a great start for most Americans even if that means the occasional grilling. I'm fine being wrong if this is incorrect, but I've seen way too many people go strict only to fall back into terrible habits because it isn't sustainable. So if you need to grill your asparagus or salmon to get it in I think that's likely better than not eating it at all.

 

[Terminalxylem]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort. And besting ultraprocessed food isn’t a high enough bar to consider something “healthy.”

Moreover, lumping in ultraprocessed foods with healthy carbohydrates is one of the major confounders in nutrition studies. The mental shortcut “carbs are bad” is promoting a lot of unhealthful eating, imo.

*ETA Occasional grilled meat isn’t the end of the world, of course. The grilling discussion started after people were assigning dubious value to meat preparation, while misunderstanding basic terminology.

I agree that it's pretty easy to do. I eat a pretty textbook version myself, lots of complex carbs, fish, modest meat intake, and typically exceed the recommended daily intake of fiber by a fair amount.

From my point of view it's the ultraprocessed food that's enemy number one. A big factor in a sustainable diet is the ability to stick to it. Strict dieting typically falls flat in that regard, so when critiquing eating habits that should be factored in. Grilling is processing and not as healthy as steaming, but still superior to ultraprocessed (which as has been discussed is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic in the developed world and all of the maladies that go along with it). So again as I see it there's levels and as has been mentioned don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Charring and smoking food has been a part of the human diet since we first harnessed fire and is as much cultural phenomenon as it is dietary. There's a fine line to walk when we're talking diet and reducing the intake of added sugar and ultraprocessed is a great start for most Americans even if that means the occasional grilling. I'm fine being wrong if this is incorrect, but I've seen way too many people go strict only to fall back into terrible habits because it isn't sustainable. So if you need to grill your asparagus or salmon to get it in I think that's likely better than not eating it at all.

I see the (simplified) continuum of healthfulness like this:

Ultraprocessed junk food <<< meat heavy, high animal saturated fat/protein, low fruit/veggie/legume/nuts/fiber <<< Mediterranean/DASH/plant heavy diet

Pop nutrition has fostered the idea the middle group is good enough, maybe even healthy (eg. grass fed beef, keto, carnivores). I reject that premise, even though any diet which facilitates achieving/maintaining a healthy weight is probably better than the alternative.

Still, I don’t view those plant-based diets (including Med) as particularly strict. No one is forbidding occasional grilling, dessert, or other indiscretion, though “moderation” has a way of becoming excessive.

Basically, we agree. Eliminating UPF is a great harm mitigation strategy. I’d just prefer people not stop there.

 

[zoobird]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort. And besting ultraprocessed food isn’t a high enough bar to consider something “healthy.”

Moreover, lumping in ultraprocessed foods with healthy carbohydrates is one of the major confounders in nutrition studies. The mental shortcut “carbs are bad” is promoting a lot of unhealthful eating, imo.

*ETA Occasional grilled meat isn’t the end of the world, of course. The grilling discussion started after people were assigning dubious value to meat preparation, while misunderstanding basic terminology.

I agree that it's pretty easy to do. I eat a pretty textbook version myself, lots of complex carbs, fish, modest meat intake, and typically exceed the recommended daily intake of fiber by a fair amount.

From my point of view it's the ultraprocessed food that's enemy number one. A big factor in a sustainable diet is the ability to stick to it. Strict dieting typically falls flat in that regard, so when critiquing eating habits that should be factored in. Grilling is processing and not as healthy as steaming, but still superior to ultraprocessed (which as has been discussed is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic in the developed world and all of the maladies that go along with it). So again as I see it there's levels and as has been mentioned don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Charring and smoking food has been a part of the human diet since we first harnessed fire and is as much cultural phenomenon as it is dietary. There's a fine line to walk when we're talking diet and reducing the intake of added sugar and ultraprocessed is a great start for most Americans even if that means the occasional grilling. I'm fine being wrong if this is incorrect, but I've seen way too many people go strict only to fall back into terrible habits because it isn't sustainable. So if you need to grill your asparagus or salmon to get it in I think that's likely better than not eating it at all.

I see the (simplified) continuum of healthfulness like this:

Ultraprocessed junk food <<< meat heavy, high animal saturated fat/protein, low fruit/veggie/legume/nuts/fiber <<< Mediterranean/DASH/plant heavy diet

Pop nutrition has fostered the idea the middle group is good enough, maybe even healthy (eg. grass fed beef, keto, carnivores). I reject that premise, even though any diet which facilitates achieving/maintaining a healthy weight is probably better than the alternative.

Still, I don’t view those plant-based diets (including Med) as particularly strict. No one is forbidding occasional grilling, dessert, or other indiscretion, though “moderation” has a way of becoming excessive.

Basically, we agree. Eliminating UPF is a great harm mitigation strategy. I’d just prefer people not stop there.

I think you're ignoring the group that a lot of the people on this board probably fall into - restrict carbs (especially processed carbs), high meat AND high veggie. Not sure that lumping that in with your middle group (which is low veggie) is really fair. Not saying it's as good as Med diet, but probably would be the next step to the left on your continuum

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort. And besting ultraprocessed food isn’t a high enough bar to consider something “healthy.”

Moreover, lumping in ultraprocessed foods with healthy carbohydrates is one of the major confounders in nutrition studies. The mental shortcut “carbs are bad” is promoting a lot of unhealthful eating, imo.

*ETA Occasional grilled meat isn’t the end of the world, of course. The grilling discussion started after people were assigning dubious value to meat preparation, while misunderstanding basic terminology.

I agree that it's pretty easy to do. I eat a pretty textbook version myself, lots of complex carbs, fish, modest meat intake, and typically exceed the recommended daily intake of fiber by a fair amount.

From my point of view it's the ultraprocessed food that's enemy number one. A big factor in a sustainable diet is the ability to stick to it. Strict dieting typically falls flat in that regard, so when critiquing eating habits that should be factored in. Grilling is processing and not as healthy as steaming, but still superior to ultraprocessed (which as has been discussed is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic in the developed world and all of the maladies that go along with it). So again as I see it there's levels and as has been mentioned don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Charring and smoking food has been a part of the human diet since we first harnessed fire and is as much cultural phenomenon as it is dietary. There's a fine line to walk when we're talking diet and reducing the intake of added sugar and ultraprocessed is a great start for most Americans even if that means the occasional grilling. I'm fine being wrong if this is incorrect, but I've seen way too many people go strict only to fall back into terrible habits because it isn't sustainable. So if you need to grill your asparagus or salmon to get it in I think that's likely better than not eating it at all.

I see the (simplified) continuum of healthfulness like this:

Ultraprocessed junk food <<< meat heavy, high animal saturated fat/protein, low fruit/veggie/legume/nuts/fiber <<< Mediterranean/DASH/plant heavy diet

Pop nutrition has fostered the idea the middle group is good enough, maybe even healthy (eg. grass fed beef, keto, carnivores). I reject that premise, even though any diet which facilitates achieving/maintaining a healthy weight is probably better than the alternative.

Still, I don’t view those plant-based diets (including Med) as particularly strict. No one is forbidding occasional grilling, dessert, or other indiscretion, though “moderation” has a way of becoming excessive.

Basically, we agree. Eliminating UPF is a great harm mitigation strategy. I’d just prefer people not stop there.

Yes, i do want to be clear that I'm fully on board with what you're saying, my only caveat is that diet advice has to be sustainable to the intended audience. Grilling, smoking, a little brown sugar in your preferred rub are OK in moderation (this part is key), when combined with an otherwise healthy (all the ones you've mentioned) diet.

Again, not trying to be combative, it's just something i think is worth mentioning as the conversation seemed to be headed in an "either or" direction, but there can be a middle ground when taking the approach that the best lifestyle modification is the one you'll stick with.

 

[zoobird]

@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.

I’ve been highly skeptical of the benefits of intermittent fasting beyond it making caloric restriction easier since I realized that “fasting for 16 hours per day” is the same as eating meals at 9am, noon and 5pm, which doesn’t really seem very out of the ordinary.

 

[Terminalxylem]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort. And besting ultraprocessed food isn’t a high enough bar to consider something “healthy.”

Moreover, lumping in ultraprocessed foods with healthy carbohydrates is one of the major confounders in nutrition studies. The mental shortcut “carbs are bad” is promoting a lot of unhealthful eating, imo.

*ETA Occasional grilled meat isn’t the end of the world, of course. The grilling discussion started after people were assigning dubious value to meat preparation, while misunderstanding basic terminology.

I agree that it's pretty easy to do. I eat a pretty textbook version myself, lots of complex carbs, fish, modest meat intake, and typically exceed the recommended daily intake of fiber by a fair amount.

From my point of view it's the ultraprocessed food that's enemy number one. A big factor in a sustainable diet is the ability to stick to it. Strict dieting typically falls flat in that regard, so when critiquing eating habits that should be factored in. Grilling is processing and not as healthy as steaming, but still superior to ultraprocessed (which as has been discussed is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic in the developed world and all of the maladies that go along with it). So again as I see it there's levels and as has been mentioned don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Charring and smoking food has been a part of the human diet since we first harnessed fire and is as much cultural phenomenon as it is dietary. There's a fine line to walk when we're talking diet and reducing the intake of added sugar and ultraprocessed is a great start for most Americans even if that means the occasional grilling. I'm fine being wrong if this is incorrect, but I've seen way too many people go strict only to fall back into terrible habits because it isn't sustainable. So if you need to grill your asparagus or salmon to get it in I think that's likely better than not eating it at all.

I see the (simplified) continuum of healthfulness like this:

Ultraprocessed junk food <<< meat heavy, high animal saturated fat/protein, low fruit/veggie/legume/nuts/fiber <<< Mediterranean/DASH/plant heavy diet

Pop nutrition has fostered the idea the middle group is good enough, maybe even healthy (eg. grass fed beef, keto, carnivores). I reject that premise, even though any diet which facilitates achieving/maintaining a healthy weight is probably better than the alternative.

Still, I don’t view those plant-based diets (including Med) as particularly strict. No one is forbidding occasional grilling, dessert, or other indiscretion, though “moderation” has a way of becoming excessive.

Basically, we agree. Eliminating UPF is a great harm mitigation strategy. I’d just prefer people not stop there.

I think you're ignoring the group that a lot of the people on this board probably fall into - restrict carbs (especially processed carbs), high meat AND high veggie. Not sure that lumping that in with your middle group (which is low veggie) is really fair. Not saying it's as good as Med diet, but probably would be the next step to the left on your continuum

I don’t get the impression people are eating a ton of veggies. Seems like most eat like I did growing up: meat (especially beef) is the centerpiece most meals, plus 2 or 3 fruit/veggies, over the course of the day. Not 5+, as is recommended.

Maybe they’re eating more, and just aren’t discussing it. But emphasizing low carbohydrates limits one’s options.

As proxy, we know Americans don’t eat enough fiber. You shouldn’t see that, if someone consuming a lot of plants.

 

[AAABatteries]

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort.

We’ve had this discussion for years. There’s 100’s of millions of obese people around the world that I’d like to enter in to evidence that it’s harder for people than you make it out. Should they, absolutely but if it were as easy as you seem to think it is then I don’t think we’d even be having this discussion.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

cutting off the char, trimming fat/catching juices before they are combusted, and marinating meats. Some experts even recommend microwaving before grilling,

You're right, there's no arguing that, but who's realistically doing this?

Imo there comes a point where it's not realistic expectations. People make an effort and though it's not perfect it's pretty good. Grilling vegetables and smoking salmon might not be ideal to the finest detail, but it's still pretty good and moderation is key there. We know not all "natural" food is healthy. I was surprised to find out venison is likely just as bad as the beef they sell at the grocery store when comparing red meat, but I can accept that. I still think a once a week meal of grilled venison backstraps beats the drive through at McDonald's.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but expectations for how people eat "healthy" should also be realistic.

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort. And besting ultraprocessed food isn’t a high enough bar to consider something “healthy.”

Moreover, lumping in ultraprocessed foods with healthy carbohydrates is one of the major confounders in nutrition studies. The mental shortcut “carbs are bad” is promoting a lot of unhealthful eating, imo.

*ETA Occasional grilled meat isn’t the end of the world, of course. The grilling discussion started after people were assigning dubious value to meat preparation, while misunderstanding basic terminology.

I agree that it's pretty easy to do. I eat a pretty textbook version myself, lots of complex carbs, fish, modest meat intake, and typically exceed the recommended daily intake of fiber by a fair amount.

From my point of view it's the ultraprocessed food that's enemy number one. A big factor in a sustainable diet is the ability to stick to it. Strict dieting typically falls flat in that regard, so when critiquing eating habits that should be factored in. Grilling is processing and not as healthy as steaming, but still superior to ultraprocessed (which as has been discussed is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic in the developed world and all of the maladies that go along with it). So again as I see it there's levels and as has been mentioned don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Charring and smoking food has been a part of the human diet since we first harnessed fire and is as much cultural phenomenon as it is dietary. There's a fine line to walk when we're talking diet and reducing the intake of added sugar and ultraprocessed is a great start for most Americans even if that means the occasional grilling. I'm fine being wrong if this is incorrect, but I've seen way too many people go strict only to fall back into terrible habits because it isn't sustainable. So if you need to grill your asparagus or salmon to get it in I think that's likely better than not eating it at all.

I see the (simplified) continuum of healthfulness like this:

Ultraprocessed junk food <<< meat heavy, high animal saturated fat/protein, low fruit/veggie/legume/nuts/fiber <<< Mediterranean/DASH/plant heavy diet

Pop nutrition has fostered the idea the middle group is good enough, maybe even healthy (eg. grass fed beef, keto, carnivores). I reject that premise, even though any diet which facilitates achieving/maintaining a healthy weight is probably better than the alternative.

Still, I don’t view those plant-based diets (including Med) as particularly strict. No one is forbidding occasional grilling, dessert, or other indiscretion, though “moderation” has a way of becoming excessive.

Basically, we agree. Eliminating UPF is a great harm mitigation strategy. I’d just prefer people not stop there.

I think you're ignoring the group that a lot of the people on this board probably fall into - restrict carbs (especially processed carbs), high meat AND high veggie. Not sure that lumping that in with your middle group (which is low veggie) is really fair. Not saying it's as good as Med diet, but probably would be the next step to the left on your continuum

I don’t get the impression people are eating a ton of veggies. Seems like most eat like I did growing up: meat (especially beef) is the centerpiece most meals, plus 2 or 3 fruit/veggies, over the course of the day. Not 5+, as is recommended.

Maybe they’re eating more, and just aren’t discussing it. But emphasizing low carbohydrates limits one’s options.

As proxy, we know Americans don’t eat enough fiber. You shouldn’t see that, if someone consuming a lot of plants.

I think you're likely right. Maybe I'm arguing the finer details without taking that into consideration. I've already bought in. I was fortunate to be raised in a family that ate a ton of vegetables, never really drank pop, ate fish and wild game (though we also ate plenty of beef), made our meals at home. I just think messaging is important when trying to bring others to the kind of eating habits we're discussing. It's a fine line when bringing people in vs pushing them away. I see it here, there's some push back to it being complex, or expensive which i don't really think it has to be either. Offering less rigid solutions instead of hard and firm facts (ofcourse data and facts matter I'm not trying to say they don't) to get the ball rolling is also beneficial and productive.

I've enjoyed the conversation and all the perspectives. I'm not above admitting I've learned here and have changed my thinking around a few things. This thread and others.

Eta. Sorry, this wasn't a response to me. Misread and didn't mean to butt in. I'll let the post stand on it's own.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort.

We’ve had this discussion for years. There’s 100’s of millions of obese people around the world that I’d like to enter in to evidence that it’s harder for people than you make it out. Should they, absolutely but if it were as easy as you seem to think it is then I don’t think we’d even be having this discussion.

This is kind of my point. Do your best and pat youself on the back for the effort. It doesn't have to be perfect to be effective.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort.

We’ve had this discussion for years. There’s 100’s of millions of obese people around the world that I’d like to enter in to evidence that it’s harder for people than you make it out. Should they, absolutely but if it were as easy as you seem to think it is then I don’t think we’d even be having this discussion.

I think economics play into it a little, for the general population (not FBGs). But I also think education is a bigger factor than posters here might recognize, and pop diets/health “gurus” are doing their part to cloud the issue.

Mostly though, I believe it’s cultural, where many people just won’t try something unfamiliar. It does require some effort.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort.

We’ve had this discussion for years. There’s 100’s of millions of obese people around the world that I’d like to enter in to evidence that it’s harder for people than you make it out. Should they, absolutely but if it were as easy as you seem to think it is then I don’t think we’d even be having this discussion.

This is kind of my point. Do your best and pat youself on the back for the effort. It doesn't have to be perfect to be effective.

Yes, you need to meet people where they are. As rigid as I may appear here, I’m far more of a “do what you can, as anything is better than nothing” guy irl.

I still think it’s worthwhile to push back on stuff that isn’t evidence based in this forum though.

And if it isn’t abundantly clear, I loath the appeal to nature fallacy about as much as @rockaction hates ad personam arguments.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Agreed, to a point, as I don’t believe eating a Mediterranean diet is a Herculean effort.

We’ve had this discussion for years. There’s 100’s of millions of obese people around the world that I’d like to enter in to evidence that it’s harder for people than you make it out. Should they, absolutely but if it were as easy as you seem to think it is then I don’t think we’d even be having this discussion.

This is kind of my point. Do your best and pat youself on the back for the effort. It doesn't have to be perfect to be effective.

Yes, you need to meet people where they are. As rigid as I may appear here, I’m far more of a “do what you can, as anything is better than nothing” guy irl.

I still think it’s worthwhile to push back on stuff that isn’t evidence based in this forum though.

And if it isn’t abundantly clear, I loath the appeal to nature fallacy about as much as @rockaction hates ad personam arguments.

As the screen name suggests I've been around this forum for quite awhile, but as a relatively new poster it's different conversing vs just following along, so I'm still getting to know the posting styles and who stands where on things. I understand that on a forum like this taking a hard stance isn't always a bad thing compared to irl. I'll take the bolded into account before i jump into counterpoints. We're all mostly anonymous here, but that helps.

 

[rockaction]

I don’t really hate the appeal to nature fallacy and would remind you that it’s new and that acting in accordance with one’s nature, if we’re thinking of it like Aristotle, is a very good thing.

It is an informal fallacy (much like ad hominem is) and I can see where it drives people in the medical field bonkers. In fact, every time I run into somebody weird about “unnatural” medicine I actually have to admit that I consider that person to be unintelligent and not grounded. I realized I was that kind of guy in high school with these not-too-bright metalhead friends I had who would fall for this line of thinking. ‘90s comedians used this fallacy for laughs. “Man made beer, God made weed. Who do you trust?” which has so many problems in construction and truth but clearly actually leans into this fallacy as if it were a truism!

“Hi, my name is moron,” said the comedian. And people would laugh as if this were wise. I don’t drink anymore so barkeep, please insert God’s name in vain here and make it his son. Much obliged!

Now, I hated the sneering leftist jagoff with the “I ****ing love science” sticker on his laptop in my Administrative Law class in 2012 because I was pretty damn sure we weren’t emotionally, politically, or spiritually meant to even say hello to each other, so I can only suppose that both sides of this coin have their village idiots. But the “natural” ones are more prevalent so you pick your battles.

That was a digression, huh? Must be the whole informal fallacy thing. Writing books here.

 

[Joe Schmo]

1

Now, I hated the sneering leftist jagoff with the “I ****ing love science” sticker in my Administrative Law class in 2012 because I was pretty damn sure we weren’t emotionally, politically, or spiritually meant to even say hello to each other, so I can only suppose that both sides of that coin have their village idiots. But the “natural” ones are more prevalent so you pick your battles.

If this isn't an invitation to an open dialogue I don't know what is. Rock, you have an amazing talent for finding leftist/rightist ideological underpinnings in any conversation, sort of like a friend of mine who can't wait to pick open the scab of today's political world anytime we're together. Which is mainly why I don't find my way to see him *** often as before. You and I surely weren't meant to say hello to each other, I can tell, but Hi none the less.

 

[rockaction]

1

Now, I hated the sneering leftist jagoff with the “I ****ing love science” sticker in my Administrative Law class in 2012 because I was pretty damn sure we weren’t emotionally, politically, or spiritually meant to even say hello to each other, so I can only suppose that both sides of that coin have their village idiots. But the “natural” ones are more prevalent so you pick your battles.

If this isn't an invitation to an open dialogue I don't know what is. Rock, you have an amazing talent for finding leftist/rightist ideological underpinnings in any conversation, sort of like a friend of mine who can't wait to pick open the scab of today's political world anytime we're together. Which is mainly why I don't find my way to see him *** often as before. You and I surely weren't meant to say hello to each other, I can tell, but Hi none the less.

It was sort of obvious when discussing cases and given the creationism/new atheism debates at the time and given his other stickers, it was a pretty easy inference.

I don’t find left and right in everything. In fact, I don’t even know where I am on the spectrum, so if you can tell me where I reside I’d love it!

That said, hello! Pleased to make your acquaintance!

 

[Acrobat7]

In addition to the recipes and dishes, you should also bear in mind that life "in the Mediterranean" (in quotation marks, as there are 20+ countries with sometimes VERY different cuisines!) is often different to the USA. You go out to eat very often, be it with family or friends, since it’s often a very social society, and you also simply walk around more. In addition, you have less appetite in the heat. This is coming from someone who lives 10 months a year in Andalusia and 2 in Croatia. And when it comes to alcohol, it's a bit more than the OP stated… I am off to dinner and wine on Hvar in 2 hours