Healthy Eating Today

I’ve just got finished reading “The diabetes code” by Jason Fung. Very interesting book.

The book is basically about the misuse of insulin to treat type two diabetes and the massive role carbs and insulin have to play in the disease and fat gain - the fat gain mainly due to denovo lipogenesis in the liver (excess carbs transformed into lipids).

Considering the huge impact carbs have and subsequently insulin on fat gain and progression of type 2 diabetes, I was wondering whether low carb/keto would be the best way to minimise fat gain while bulking? Whether you’re on a bulk to gain muscle or are eating way too much as a type 2 diabetic, both are in a caloric surplus and the person bulking will surely be eating more carbs than they need to meet a calorie goal. Does the same process of high calorie, high carb intake as seen in type 2 patients carry over to bulking?

I know a surplus is usually required to build appreciable amounts of muscle, and that because of the muscle building process excess carbs/glucose will not occur in the same magnitude as in an obese diabetic person with severe insulin resistance, but you do gain some fat on a bulk. If you’re gaining fat in any amount, surely what we know about type 2 diabetes tells us that if a lot of that surplus is from carbs, it has a very high chance of being converted into a lot of fat. Insulin toxicity due to high blood glucose causes fat gain in T2 diabetes, so why wouldn’t the same be true with a surplus and a lot of carbs in a different scenario like bulking?

Cheers.

During the summer after my senior year of high school, my boyfriend opened my eyes to a harsh truth about myself. He laughed as I was complaining about being stuck in the house, as I didn’t have a license at the time, and told me that I was “such a busybody.” I was taken aback at first, but soon realized he was right. I have a really hard time just doing nothing.

A year and a half later, quite a bit has changed. I started college as a music major and quickly found an on-campus job in the student mailroom. A few months into school, a professor asked me if I would be his TA, a position which I started this past fall. And a few months after starting that job, I picked up a second major — this time in English and a minor in creative writing. And the minute winter break was over, I started emailing around for a third on-campus job, and quickly found one as a writer for the University Communications department. Oh, and I got my driver’s license! But the most important change out of all of these is my thinking towards my being a busybody. And I’ve come to see the positives to this part of my personality.

1. It’s turned me into an amazing planner.

While my boyfriend likes to tease me for my need to always be doing something, he is the one who reaps the most benefit from it. We go to school in two different states, and I work full time when I’m home for the summer, so we get limited time together right now. Because of this, I have a lot of time to think of fun, memory-making, inexpensive ideas for things for us to do when we’re together. I have a list of date and trip ideas that I’ve shared with him on Google Drive, and it has come in handy many times when we’re not sure what to do for an afternoon. My favorite memory that came off this listed was a day trip we took to a high-ropes course at the end of the summer.

2. It helps me see the value almost every activity.

Money is not the only thing of value in the world. When I was seeking out my new writing job, I knew I wasn’t going to be making much more money because I’m only allowed to work so many hours with my university. I took the job because I wanted practice working remotely and try to get a writing resume started. After years of not knowing what I wanted to do, I have decided that I would like to work as a writer and/or editor. I was able to recognize that just a few extra hours a week would allow me to test out this type of work before making myself available as a freelancer.

3. It makes my best my default setting.

Busybodies don’t just work all the time. We work hard, without question. And sometimes, it’s exhausting to want to do your best. But ultimately, it pays off. I’ve made so many professional relationships with my professors by working hard in my classes, and one of those relationships got me my TA job. This work ethic is also what has me on track (*knock on wood*) to take over the student manager position in the mailroom next year. And I will continue through college and beyond to apply my best self to my work, family, and relationships.

4. It taught me that sometimes, I just have to say no.

When you work all the time, you sometimes overbook yourself. One of my least favorite times in any semester is Advising and Scheduling Weeks. This fortnight comes in the middle of each semester, and always sends me into a frenzy trying to plan the right workload while making sure that I get into the classes that I need for each of my majors, as well as all my other requirements. And sometimes, I sign up for one too many classes. Last semester, I thought I was going to have to drop a class that I actually really enjoyed because I had a lot on my plate. But my mom urged me to evaluate my options, and see if dropping the class would make my life harder later. Ultimately, she was right. I kept the class, and I was able to learn a lot while also fulfilling a GenEd requirement.

This semester, I was not so lucky. Every student at my university has a community service requirement that they must do before they graduate. So, during last semester’s Advising and Scheduling Weeks, I signed up to do my service semester this spring. Unfortunately, I realized when I actually started going through my classes that I would not have to time in the day to complete the service and get all my work for classes and jobs done to the best of my ability. So, I took the leap and dropped the class. I immediately felt relieved that I would now be able to put my best foot forward during the coming weeks.

5. It helps me make the most out of the time I have.

During my first year of college, I was very lonely. Like I said before, my boyfriend and I live in two different states most of the time, and for a while, I fell into the common trap with long-distance relationships of spending more time texting him than going out and making friends. This year, I decided that I wouldn’t make the same mistake. I worked not only to make a friend group, but I also now make sure that we see each other regularly and use my date-idea skills to help us come up with fun, frugal things we can do on a Friday night, making the most of a small town in Ohio that doesn’t have any Lyfts out past 9 o’clock.

*****

So there you have it. Like with most things, my boyfriend was right. I am a busybody. But what he was wrong about is that it’s something to laugh at. Working hard, both professionally and in relationships, has given me more opportunities than I ever imagined just two short years ago. And I can’t to see where it takes me two years from now.

Emma Seibert is currently a student at Wittenberg University. She enjoys performing and listening to music, reading and discussing words, and writing both.

Image via Unsplash

Like this story? Follow The Financial Diet on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for daily tips and inspiration, and sign up for our email newsletter here.

Source: https://thefinancialdiet.com/5-ways-my-busybody-personality-has-actually-helped-me/

Vegan diets are the best for athletes: Review reveals cutting out meat 'boosts heart health, endurance and recovery'

• Venus Williams, Lewis Hamilton, David Haye and Derrick Morgan are already fans
• Doctors in the US reviewed the current evidence for the trendy diet
• High intake of vitamins and minerals keeps inflammation low, experts said 
• The diet can improve performance by reducing body fat and providing energy

By Vanessa Chalmers Health Reporter For Mailonline

Published: 14:16 GMT, 11 January 2019 | Updated: 17:22 GMT, 11 January 2019

Depression has been called the common cold of psychiatric disorders, and at this point, huge numbers of Americans take antidepressant drugs. But there may be a better way, since resistance training treats depression.

Depression is common

Antidepressant drug use is widespread, and 11% of Americans over the age of 12 take one. When broken down by age group and sex, we find that 23% of women in their 40s and 50s take antidepressants. See graph below. (Full discussion here.)

The use of antidepressants could in theory either under- or overestimate the number of people with depression.

But either way, a large number of people, and their doctors, believe they are depressed.

However, a good deal of evidence points to the probability that antidepressants are little more, if at all, than placebos.

They may also have serious side effects.

Is there a better way to treat depression, one with only benefits and no adverse effects?

Resistance training

Resistance training is the catch-all term for strength training or weight lifting. (Since machines or bodyweight can be used, not all cases of resistance training mean lifting weights, as in barbells or dumbbells.)

It’s long been known that exercise treats depression. A recent meta-analysis found that exercise was effective at treating depression, as much as cognitive behavioral therapy. (Ref)

Given the bias in mainstream circles in favor of “aerobic” exercise, it’s reasonable to ask whether resistance training has the same effect on depression.

A meta-analysis recently published in JAMA Psychiatry found that it does, with an effect size similar to other forms of exercise. (Ref.)

Of interest, resistance training improved symptoms of depression “regardless of health status, total prescribed volume of RET, or significant improvements in strength.”

That raises some questions. For example, maybe resistance training acts like a placebo, since any amount in any person seems to work. Indeed, the placebo effect may be at work in other treatments, such as antidepressant drugs (as noted above) or psychological therapy. Professional training in psychotherapy may make little difference in effectiveness, which may indicate a placebo effect. (Ref.)

However, there are reasons to think that resistance training may work by decreasing inflammation. Depression is an inflammatory disease, so reducing inflammation should have a treatment effect. (Decreasing inflammation may be behind the efficacy of antidepressants, that is, the efficacy they may have beyond the placebo effect.)

No studies needed?

Most people who lift weights won’t need any studies to confirm the efficacy of resistance training.

The effect is that obvious.

One trip to the gym for a weightlifting session clears the mind and improves mood. It would seem to follow that frequent sessions could improve mood over the longer term.

Anxiety is closely related to depression. So resistance training, and other forms of exercise, ought to improve anxiety.

Desire to exercise

A common response that I hear when I discuss the fact that exercise can treat depression is that depressed people don’t want to exercise.

While that may be true, it’s an obstacle that must be overcome.

Which comes first, not wanting to exercise, or depression?

Many people defend their weaknesses and illnesses, because that relieves them of personal responsibility. If something is out of your control, it follows that doing something about it is pointless. And they get angry at anyone who suggests otherwise.

Conclusion

Resistance training treats depression with an approximate effect size close to therapy and antidepressants.

Virtually anyone, of any age or health status, can do resistance training, as I took pains to emphasize in my book, Muscle Up. (Some people may require supervision.)

So what are you waiting for?

PS: If you need to lose weight and you want to save yourself years of poor results with bad information, I’ve put everything in a simple guide for you. The World’s Simplest Fat-Loss Plan.

Well today... I'm heading up to Auckland to babysit Steve 'n' Bex's kids so they can go out to his end of year work do.

Before I leave I have to make sure I have everything ready to go for tomorrow's market.  

Then when I get home there will be nothing to do until first thing Saturday morning, when we head off to Tamahere.  The Saturday Christmas Market is from 10 - 2, so it won't be a mad rush in the morning.

I'm taking up Christmas presents this trip too... slowly getting them all out of my house!

Lacy is due home today sometime, shame I won't be home to see how wrecked she is from a couple of days hanging out with friends!  What a life eh?  Party party party.

Soooooo.... I might just get outta bed, put stuff in the car, and leave around 10 am.  That way I will miss all the 'going to work' traffic.

Catch ya later.

ONWARD...

Editor's note: In the often-confusing world of nutrition research, I have a simple personal rule of thumb: Never do anything — eat a certain food, stop eating a food, take a vitamin — based on just one study. Wait for replication, for consensus, for gold-standard trials. But Nutrition Action, the newsletter of the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest, recently published a fascinating article highlighting five pivotal studies so game-changing that they're worth heeding on their own. Here it is, written by the center's director of nutrition, Bonnie Liebman, and re-posted with permission.

Faulty. Flawed. Messy. Untrustworthy. The science behind most experts’ advice on diet and health is a popular target these days (Thanks, in part, to the food industry). One frequent attack: The advice is based on weak “observational” studies that can’t prove cause and effect. Wrong and wrong. Those types of studies are not necessarily weak, and most advice is also based on randomized clinical trials, the gold standard of scientific research. Here are five game changers.

1.  The Dash Studies

The first DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) study was published in 1997. And it’s still the bedrock of today’s advice from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, American Cancer Society and others: Eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, include low-fat dairy, poultry, fish, beans, whole grains, oils, and nuts, and limit sweets, sugar-sweetened beverages, and red meats.

How did DASH happen?

“The study started with observations of populations where there’s very little high blood pressure and very little rise in blood pressure with age,” says co-author Frank Sacks, professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

In contrast, roughly one out of two U.S. adults now have high blood pressure, or hypertension. It’s a major risk factor for strokes and heart attacks.

“Also, studies on vegetarians suggested that diet plays a large role in blood pressure,” Sacks says.

“So scientists at NHLBI— the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute —decided that we needed a definitive clinical trial to see whether the DASH dietary pattern would lower blood pressure.”

The trial randomly assigned 459 adults — most had higher-than-normal blood pressure — to eat one of three diets:

• a typical American diet,
• a typical American diet with extra fruits and vegetables (instead of snacks and sweets), or,
• a DASH diet (a typical American diet with extra fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy and less saturated fat and cholesterol)

The researchers prepared all the food for the participants. (That’s part of what made the study “well controlled.”)

“After eight weeks, the fruits and vegetables had lowered blood pressure significantly” compared to 
the typical American diet, Sacks says, “but only about half as much as the DASH diet lowered 
pressure.”

Why?

“Even now, we don’t fully understand how those changes — switching from high-fat to low-fat dairy, from beef and pork to fish and chicken, and from butter to oils — lowered blood pressure more than fruits and vegetables alone,” says Sacks.

The next study: DASH-Sodium.

Since all three diets in the DASH study had the same amount of sodium, “The NHLBI scientists thought we should see what happens if you reduce sodium in both the DASH diet and the typical American diet,” Sacks explains.

So researchers randomly assigned 412 people to eat one of those two diets with high levels of sodium (3,300 milligrams a day), with intermediate levels (2,400 mg a day), or with low levels (1,500 mg a day).

“The blood pressure reduction from cutting salt was substantial, especially in older people,” says Sacks. And if you add the drop from switching to a DASH diet, the difference was huge.

“The DASH diet alone can lower blood pressure as much as taking a blood-pressure-lowering drug,” says Sacks. “If you also cut salt, it can be superior to drug treatment.”

But the researchers had yet another question.

“We wondered what would happen if you took away some of the carbs in DASH and replaced them with 
unsaturated fats or protein,” says Sacks. (More than half of the extra protein would come from plant foods like beans and nuts.)

That led to a third DASH study, known as OmniHeart.

“Replacing some of the carbohydrate with protein or unsaturated fat lowered blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides more than the original DASH diet,” says Sacks.

“But bear in mind that it wasn’t just a diet in which everything was slathered with cheese or oil,” Sacks notes. “It was the same healthy DASH dietary pattern."

2.  The Sat Fat Trials

How do we know that saturated fats raise — and unsaturated fats lower — LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, a major 
risk factor for heart disease?

Early observational studies like the Seven Countries Study reported higher rates of heart disease in people who ate more sat fat.

“But what really made an impression were two parallel series of trials testing which fats raised or lowered 
blood cholesterol,” says Martijn Katan, a cardiovascular disease expert and emeritus professor of nutrition at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam.

“By 1965 at the latest, it was beyond a reasonable doubt that if you replace saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats, you get a substantial lowering of total cholesterol,” says Katan.

Then, in the early 1970s, researchers started to look at LDL cholesterol separately. By 2016, a 
World Health Organization report had looked at 91 trials.

“There wasn’t one single experiment,” says Katan. “There was a mass of well-organized experiments that all showed the same thing: If you replace saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats, LDL goes down.”

And is there any reason to think that lowering LDL might not protect the heart?
“Absolutely not,” says Katan. “The effect of LDL on heart disease risk is one of the best established facts in the whole of medical science.”

The data testing statins or other drugs that slash LDL is massive.

“The latest summary included 27 trials involving 174,000 patients,” says Katan.
“That’s a staggering number.”
But there’s even more evidence that lower LDL means less heart disease.

“There’s a whole bunch of genetic variants that raise or lower LDL, and they all raise or lower coronary risk,” says Katan.

“So the evidence is coming from all directions, and there’s really no way to explain it all, except by assuming that lowering LDL lowers the risk of coronary heart disease.”

And it’s not just the cholesterol trials.

Several randomized clinical trials from the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s looked not just at LDL but also at heart attacks and strokes.

“If you look at the four highest-quality trials together, they provide direct evidence that replacing a diet high in saturated fat with a diet high in polyunsaturated fat prevents heart attacks and strokes,” says Sacks.

3.  The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP)

One out of three adults now have prediabetes. Nine out of ten don’t know it.

“The good news is that if you have prediabetes, the CDC-led National Diabetes Prevention Program can help you make lifestyle changes to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems,” says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Through the program, you can lower your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by as much as 58 percent (71 percent if you’re over age 60).”

Those results come from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a trial that randomly assigned 3,234 people with prediabetes to take a placebo or metformin (a drug that lowers blood sugar), or to a “lifestyle” group.

The lifestyle goals: Lose excess weight and exercise for at least 2½ hours a week.

“The DPP participants counted the grams of fat they ate because it was easier for them to calculate than counting calories,” says DPP researcher Judith Wylie-Rosett, who heads the division of health promotion and nutrition research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

After nearly three years, the average lifestyle participant had lost only 12 pounds, and only 58 percent
 had met the exercise goal.

Yet that was enough to slash the risk of diabetes by 58 percent, far more than metformin, which trimmed the risk by 31 percent.

“And people in the lifestyle group still had a 27 percent lower risk of diabetes than the placebo 
group 15 years later, even though many had regained the lost weight,” says Wylie-Rosett.

Researchers are still tracking the participants’ risk of diabetes, along with their risk of cancer and
 memory loss.

“It’s truly amazing to me that we’ve gone from doing a trial to having a lifestyle program that’s 
reimbursed by Medicare,” says Wylie-Rosett. “How often does that happen?”

4.  The DRINK Study

Do sugary drinks make people gain weight? The DRINK trial answered that question in 2012.

Researchers randomly assigned 641 mostly normal-weight Dutch children who usually drank sugary beverages to get a daily 8 oz. drink sweetened with either sugar (104 calories) or artificial sweeteners (0 calories) at school each day. Neither the children nor the investigators knew who got which drinks.

“The question was whether the children who got zero calories would sense the difference and compensate by eating more calories from some other source,” says Katan. “Would those kids come home and say, ‘Mom, I’m hungry. I want a snack,’ or would they just have their usual lunch and dinner?”

The result: After 1½ years, the average child who got the sugary drinks had gained roughly two pounds more than the average child who got the sugar-free drinks. And the chubbier kids gained about three pounds more if they got their usual sugary drinks.

“Even the thinnest children were not immune to the effect of sugary drinks,” says Katan. “But heavier kids may be less likely to sense when they’re eating fewer calories and when they’re overeating.”

More evidence that some people are more vulnerable than others: An observational study published on
 the same day as the DRINK trial that tracked roughly 11,000 nurses and health professionals for 12 to 18 years.

Among men and women with a genetic risk of obesity, those who drank at least one sugary drink a day were four times more likely to become obese than those who drank less than one sugary drink a month.

“Sugary drinks make you fat. They circumvent your innate mechanisms for keeping your body weight stable,” says Katan. 
“If you eat beans or whole wheat bread, they’re not fattening because you feel full, so you don’t eat other things.”

In contrast, “If you drink sugary drinks, including fruit juices — there’s no difference between fruit juices and soda — they will simply slip in through the back door and you’ll just keep eating as much as you usually do.

“They’re burglars who will rob you of your leanness because you don’t notice them coming in.”

5.  Pounds Lost

When you’re trying to lose weight, what matters more: Cutting fat, cutting protein or cutting carbs?

Pounds Lost — which began in 2004 — wasn’t the first or the last study to explore that question. But it was one of the largest.

“We enrolled over 800 people so we could compare the effect of diets higher or lower in carbohydrate, fat, or protein,” says Harvard University’s Frank Sacks.

Pounds Lost was also one of the longest diet trials.

“We did a two-year study, which was quite unusual at the time, because body weight reaches a low 
point after about six months in a weight-loss program and then you have weight regain,” says Sacks.

Participants got daily meal plans and went to individual and group sessions where they learned what to eat. Each of the diets cut about 750 calories a day.

“We came up with a very simple but somewhat unexpected result,” says Sacks. “The composition of fat, carbohydrate, and protein in a healthy diet had no effect whatsoever on weight loss or regain.” Nor did it affect hunger.

Most other studies — they typically tested low-carb versus low-fat diets — have had similar results.

The most recent: DIETFITS randomly assigned 609 people to cut as much fat or carbs as possible from their diets, rather than count calories.

After one year, each group had lost roughly the same weight — about 12 pounds. And that’s no surprise, since both groups ended up cutting a similar number of calories — about 500 to 600 a day, on average.

“We expected people with insulin resistance to do better on a low-carb diet, but they didn’t,” says lead investigator Christopher Gardner, professor of medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine. (People with insulin resistance have an increased risk of diabetes.)

Maybe that’s because both diets were healthy.

“Nobody was supposed to eat added sugars or refined grains, and everybody was supposed to eat vegetables,” says Gardner. “Americans get a quarter of their calories from added sugars and refined grains and a woefully low number of calories from vegetables ... if you don’t count potatoes.

“If we could just get people to make those changes,” Gardner says, “we’d be well on our way.”

Researchers from the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Seville have recently published a study in which they state that diets supplemented with aqueous extract of Annona muricata L. leaves can prevent the symptoms associated with fibromyalgia, so improving the lives of these patients.

We were surprised to hear this Radio New Zealand interview with Jim Mann regarding a Chinese study he co-authored.[1] In it he predicts various terrible things for people eating LCHF diets, which we think is out of line and not supported by the study.

In fact, the LCHF and Paleo community have been warning about exactly the type of diet that was used in the study – high in energy from soybean oil, rice, and wheat – for years, and Jim Mann’s crowd have attacked us for that, while the NZ Ministry of Health and Heart Foundation they advise has actively promoted such a diet. So it’s ironic that, as soon as we’re proved right, this is presented as evidence against our own, quite different advice – rather than being acknowledged as the humbling result it is for those supporting the current guidelines.

Professor Jim Mann of Otago University Department of Human Nutrition and Medicine

“Of particular interest was what happened to the bacterial flora of the gut, the microbiome underwent radical changes in these three different groups.
The low fat group had a bacterial profile which was compatible with low risk of a number of western diseases: heart disease and cancer.
The high fat group had a very different profile of bacteria in their gut, one more compatible with an increased risk of bowel cancer and also a much higher risk of inflammation leading to cardiovascular disease, heart disease and possibly diabetes,” Prof Mann says.
The results, he says, were pretty “pretty scary.”
“It’s a strong message for what is happening in China, but I believe also a strong message for New Zealand and other similar countries where at least some people believe there are benefits to a high fat diet.”
All three groups had consistent and similar intake of vegetables, he says.
“A lot of people have argued you can have a high fat diet as long as you have a lot of veggies, I think that’s a serious misapprehension. If you are having a really high fat diet you’re not going to get a high fibre diet at the level of fibre that will be protective against these diseases.”

So what was the study?

“In a 6-month randomised controlled-feeding trial, 217 healthy young adults (aged 18–35 years; body mass index <28 kg/m2; 52% women) who completed the whole trial were included. All the foods were provided during the intervention period. The three isocaloric diets were: a lower-fat diet (fat 20% energy), a moderate-fat diet (fat 30% energy) and a higher-fat diet (fat 40% energy). The effects of the dietary interventions on the gut microbiota, faecal metabolomics and plasma inflammatory factors were investigated.”

The most important part of the paper is this statement:

Notably, the predicted lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis and arachidonic acid metabolism pathways were also increased in response to the higher-fat diet. Lipopolysaccharide is known to induce the release of arachidonic acid and its inflammation-involving metabolites, such as prostaglandins, thromboxane and leukotrienes. It should be noted that the intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) was relatively high in the higher-fat diet group (24% of total energy) owing to exclusive use of soybean oil, which is rich in n-6 PUFA. A higher intake of n-6 PUFA has been reported to have proinflammatory effects.

In the interview, host Jessie Mulligan, who is a chef and knows his oils, does a great job of extracting this part of the story from Prof Mann. The n-6 (omega-6) PUFA in soy and other seed oils is linoleic acid; linoleic acid is the precursor of arachidonic acid (AA) and high levels drive AA synthesis. Lipopolysaccharide is also known as endotoxin and is a product of gram-negative bacteria that stimulates an immune response if it enters the bloodstream; a little endotoxin seems to be beneficial, but a lot can drive inflammatory diseases by activating the TLR4 receptor on immune cells.[2]

Now, the traditional Chinese diet varies across regions so that it is hard to generalise, but the low fat Southern version looks like this – lots of green and coloured vegetables ( a very wide diversity, not just a large quantity), nose-to-tail meat (mostly pork and chicken), eggs, legumes, and white rice. Though low in fat, it can be relatively high in cholesterol due to the use of organ meats. Cooking can be by steaming, or stir-frying using small amounts of various oils. The dietary transition has seen more deep-frying in oils and the use of more oils in processed foods. Most of this is soybean oil (the majority of the soy grown in the former Amazon rainforest is now exported to China where it is used to make oil and soy protein, some of which is no doubt exported to NZ and the Pacific).

The equivalent of a 40% seed oil diet in NZ would be deep fried meals from KFC, plus Best Foods mayonnaise – popular foods in the more deprived areas of NZ.

Now, why would a high fat diet be bad for the microbiome? A moment’s thought will show that this doesn’t make sense as a generalisation. The microbiome is established in infancy, starting with birth when bacteria are transferred from the mother. The diet in infancy for mammals is, by definition, milk, a food always high in saturated fat and low in polyunsaturated fat. At day 16, human breast milk is 54% fat; of this fat 44.6% is saturated, 37.6% is monounsaturated, 14.6% is polyunsaturated omega-6 and 3.1% is omega-3.[3] in hunter-gatherer populations without access to seed oils the omega-6 content is lower – e.g. 10% in the Tsimane of Bolivia vs 18% in the population of Cincinnati, USA.[4]

Breast milk contains small amounts of soluble fibre, and lactose which lactobacillus can ferment but which is mostly absorbed and used for energy and growth.
However – lactobacillus also metabolise saturated fats. And some lactobacillus species make saturated fats that many other bacteria rely on between meals – these are the odd-chain fatty acids, C15 and C17, which you’ll find in dairy, beef, and lamb fat, but other dietary saturated fats can substitute for C15 and C17 when their production is disrupted by alcohol.[5]

Supplementation of saturated long-chain fatty acids maintains intestinal eubiosis* and reduces ethanol-induced liver injury in mice.
(*Eubiotics (Greek eu = good/healthy, bios = life) is the science of hygienic/healthy living. The term is used in the feed industry where it refers to a healthy balance of the microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract.)

And really, this should be obvious – if you buy yoghurt, the original probiotic food, you will only find two types to choose from – that made from milk (the animal food highest in saturated fat), and the vegan yoghurt made from coconut (the plant food highest in saturated fat).

Don’t blame the butter for what the soyabean did.

It has been known since 1945 that polyunsaturated fatty acids are toxic to lactobacillus and other gram-positive bacteria.[6] In the China trial, the high soybean diet decreased levels of the gram-positive bacteria, Faecalibacterium, and increased levels of the gram-negative bacteria Bacteroides and Alistipes.[1]  A 2018 review [7] stated that:

Linoleic acid and the other two major unsaturated FAs in SBO, oleic acid (18:1), and alpha-linolenic acid (18:3), are known to be bacteriostatic and/or bactericidal to small intestinal bacteria as non-esterified (free) fatty acids in vitro at concentrations found in the small intestine (Kabara et al., 1972; Kankaanpää et al., 2001; Kodicek, 1945; Nieman, 1954). The primary modes of killing include permeabilization of cell membranes (Greenway and Dyke, 1979) and interference with FA metabolism (Zheng et al., 2005). Affected microbes are predominantly Gram-positive bacteria including the genus Lactobacillus (Nieman, 1954). Lactobacilli are particularly important as they are considered beneficial members of the human small intestine (Walsh et al., 2008; Walter et al., 2007; Walter et al., 2011). They have been shown to be growth inhibited by the specific FAs present in SBO (Boyaval et al., 1995; De Weirdt et al., 2013; Jenkins and Courtney, 2003; Jiang et al., 1998; Kabara et al., 1972; Kankaanpää et al., 2001; Kodicek, 1945; Raychowdhury et al., 1985). It is interesting to note that the human-associated L. reuteri underwent a population bottleneck that coincides with the increase in SBO consumption in the U.S. and is far less prevalent than it was in the past (Walter et al., 2011).  In the 1960’s and 1970’s prior to the emergence of SBO as a major dietary fat source, L. reuteri was recovered from the intestinal tract of 50% of subjects surveyed and was considered a dominant Lactobacillus species of the human gut (Reuter, 2001). Today, however, it is found in less than 10% of humans in the USA and Europe (Molin et al., 1993; Qin et al., 2010; Walter et al., 2011), yet it is present at a reported 100% prevalence in rural Papua New Guineans (Martínez et al., 2015).

Yet the paper Jim Mann co-authored cites none of this research. There is only one reference in it (46) to the possibility that a high omega-6 intake can be inflammatory,  and this review does not mention the effect on the microbiome – despite being written by microbiologists.

This sort of thing is all-too common – a lack of curiosity in nutrition research. To plan an experiment like the Chinese soybean oil trial takes years. If you’re planning to feed an unusual amount of linoleic acid – 24% of energy – to people and measure its effects on the microbiome, why are you not curious enough to search for the evidence about the effect of linoleic acid on the microbiome? If you think more fat is bad fat, whatever its composition, you might miss this step. It’s possible that reference 46 and the comment about linoleic acid was added by a reviewer and was not even part of the paper as originally submitted. Or, it might have been included by Jim Mann, who is not a complete fool and who has long been exposed to Paleo arguments about omega-6, but went over the heads of his coauthors, the microbiologists.

So the microbiome results are no surprise to us (though predicting disease from the microbiome at our present stage of knowledge would be about as reliable as predicting it from tea leaves or tarot cards, gram-positive lactobacillus and bifidus probiotics have been well-tested and are for example associated with a reduction in rehospitalization for mania in bipolar disorder, HR 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10, .69; P = .007)[8].
But what is surprising, and should have surprised Jim Mann, is that LDL cholesterol did not go down on the high-PUFA diet. After all, the effect of PUFA on cholesterol has been the excuse for promoting these oils. There is increasing doubt about whether the effects of fat (amount or type) on LDL cholesterol counts has any important influence on CVD risk in the first place, but the news that soybean oil has no effect on LDL in a real world experiment means that there is no longer any rationale for recommending it.

So come on. This isn’t good interpretation of the results. The results of this high-soybean oil study say nothing about the effects of high fat diets when those fats are traditional fats that are not toxic to beneficial bacteria. The results of this study, where more energy came from carbs (mainly wheat and rice) than from fat, can say nothing about LCHF diets where wheat and rice are avoided or limited. Jim Mann’s comments about “the level of fibre that will be protective against these diseases” are based on epidemiology where very high levels of fibre are associated, not with IBD as in the real world, but with protection against all sorts of diseases. But we have news for him – very high levels of linoleic acid were also protective in epidemiology. Just not in the real world. The majority of associational results discovered in epidemiology are not borne out by later experiments, because associational epidemiology is inherently inaccurate, and can reflect the bias of epidemiologists, who are today also influencers of the populations they study.[9]

References

[1] Wan Y, Wang F, Yuan J, et al Effects of dietary fat on gut microbiota and faecal metabolites, and their relationship with cardiometabolic risk factors: a 6-month randomised controlled-feeding trial. Gut Published Online First: 19 February 2019. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317609

[2] Marshall JC. Lipopolysaccharide: an endotoxin or an exogenous hormone? Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;41 Suppl 7:S470-80.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/41/Supplement_7/S470/666706

[3] Jensen RG. Lipids in human milk. Lipids 1999 Dec;34(12):1243–71. http://pmid.us/10652985

[4] Martin MA, Lassek WD, Gaulin SJ, et al. Fatty acid composition in the mature milk of Bolivian forager-horticulturalists: controlled comparisons with a US sample. Matern Child Nutr. 2012;8(3):404-18.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3851016/

[5] Chen P, Torralba M, Tan J, et al. Supplementation of saturated long-chain fatty acids maintains intestinal eubiosis and reduces ethanol-induced liver injury in mice. Gastroenterology. 2014;148(1):203-214.e16.

[6] Kodicek E. The effect of unsaturated fatty acids on Lactobacillus helveticus and other Gram-positive micro-organisms. Biochem J. 1945;39(1):78-85.

[7] Di Rienzi SC, Jacobson J, Kennedy EA, et al. Resilience of small intestinal beneficial bacteria to the toxicity of soybean oil fatty acids. Elife. 2018;7:e32581. Published 2018 Mar 27. doi:10.7554/eLife.32581

[8] Dickerson F, Adamos M, Katsafanas E. Adjunctive probiotic microorganisms to prevent rehospitalization in patients with acute mania: A randomized controlled trial.
Bipolar Disord. 2018 Nov;20(7):614-621. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12652. Epub 2018 Apr 25.

[9] Ioannidis JPA. The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research. JAMA. 2018;320(10):969–970. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.11025

Política de cookies

Chris Pratt is shedding some pounds before his wedding. The Guardians of the Galaxy star, who recently announced his engagement to Katherine Schwarzenegger, is following the Daniel Fast, an eating plan inspired by the Bible.

The fast – which some have called “extreme” – is inspired by the period that the Biblical Daniel spent living on just vegetables and water. Adherents say it’s a religious experience that also allows you to rethink your relationship with food. But some nutritionists say that while the fast might have spiritual benefits, it’s not necessarily a good weight loss plan.

The Daniel Fast is inspired by the Bible

Pratt announced in early January that he was on day three of the Daniel Fast, describing it as “21 days of prayer and fasting.” The fast has its roots in the Bible and is inspired by the prophet Daniel in the Old Testament. The modern version seems to date back to 2007, which is when Susan Gregory launched The Daniel Fast blog. Since then, it has caught on with many Christians, who often fast in the first part of the new year.

How do you do the Daniel Fast?

First, it’s important to understand that the Daniel Fast is not really a weight-loss plan. However, you may lose weight if you complete it. USA Today describes it as a “spiritual and physical detoxification” through prayer and fasting. The fast “is designed to turn mundane moments like eating into an opportunity to listen for guidance from God.”

The fast is “is similar to a vegan diet with additional restrictions,” according to the Daniel Fast blog. People who do the fast follow a strict diet that allows only “foods grown from seed.” Vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, whole grains, legumes, and liquid oils (like olive or canola) are allowed. The only beverage you can drink is water. Meat, dairy, sugar, leavened bread, and all refined and processed food are on the do-not-eat list.

What do nutritionists think of the fast?

Nutritionists’ opinions on the Daniel Fast appear to be mixed. Liz Weinandy, who is a dietician at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, told Men’s Health that “It’s really not a good idea to do.” She said the Daniel Fast was lacking in certain nutrients like protein and essential fats.

Keri Gans, a registered dietitian nutritionist and author of The Small Change Diet, told Prevention that one positive of the Daniel Fast was that people would likely boost their fruit and vegetable intake. She also said that in a healthy individual, the fast was probably safe. However, some people might experience side effects like headaches and irritability.

Richard Bloomer, who is dead of the University of Memphis’ School of Health Studies, has researched the Daniel Fast and has a more positive interpretation. He’s found the fast might lower high blood pressure and cholesterol. By avoiding processed products and eating more whole foods, people might lose weight and see other health benefits.

“There’s a lot of potential health benefits from adopting this approach,” Bloomer told Time.

Is the Daniel Fast sustainable?

View this post on Instagram

Mediterranean Quinoa Salad, this salad is great for a quick easy lunch or dinner! This can be prepped beforehand and can stay in the fridge for up to 3 days, just add the dressing when you are ready to eat.You can add chopped up grilled chicken to it or have it as a side with any other favorite protein. To save time you can buy the quinoa precooked. I know in the US @traderjoes sells a great one in their freezer section. Ingredients 1 cup uncooked quinoa (red, white or tri-color) 2 cups water 1 English cucumber chopped into small pieces ½ small red onion, chopped finely 18 grape or cherry tomatoes, cut in half 1 yellow bell pepper, finely chopped 1 (15 ounce) can garbanzo beans, drained and rinsed ¼ cup minced fresh mint leaves 2 tablespoon fresh oregano leaves (or ½ teaspoon dried) 3- 4 oz of your favorite protein (optional) Vinaigrette 5 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil 3 tablespoon lemon juice Kosher or sea salt, black pepper 1-2 garlic cloves, minced 1. Place quinoa in a sieve, and rinse well under cold running water. Place rinsed quinoa in a small (2 quart) pan, and add 2 cups water. Bring to a boil. Cover pan with a tight-fitting lid and turn heat to low. Cook quinoa for 18minutes. Move the pan off the stove, and allow to sit for about 7 minutes. Fluff the quinoa with a fork and allow to cool. 2. Cut the cucumbers, halve the olives, chop the onion into very small cubes. Halve the tomatoes. Finely chop the bell pepper. 3. When quinoa is cool, place in a large bowl. Add the vegetables and mix gently and optional protein. Whisk Vinaigrette ingredients together. Serve dressing on the side. If you would like to add feta it is optional, opt for goats milk as it is easily more digestible than cows milk for many people.

A post shared by The Daniel Plan (@thedanielplan) on Jan 16, 2019 at 12:20pm PST

The Daniel Fast is not intended to be a long-term diet. However, there is an eating plan inspired by the Biblical Daniel’s fast that is designed to encourage more lasting change in your eating habits. Mega-church pastor Rick Warren created the Daniel Plan after realizing he and his congregants needed to lose weight.

The Daniel Plan is less restrictive than the short-term fast. The focus is on “healthier, fresher and more natural foods,” Warren told USA Today. “The line we use is: ‘If it grows on a plant, it’s healthy. If it’s made in a plant, don’t eat it.’ My rule is no snacks, no sweets, no seconds.” In addition to food, the other four key parts of the plan are fitness, focus, faith, and friends. According to the plan’s website, “It’s about abundance, not deprivation, and this is why the plan is both transformational and sustainable.”

Check out The Cheat Sheet on Facebook!