I'm posting this here as it's important stuff..Diet etc

[Gearoidmuar]

This is information that needs to disseminated as widely as possible. It will be of benefit to any cyclist who is overweight. There is not a category suitable for it, so as this is the first, I've put it here.

This very important information is slowly getting around and sharing this will speed it up. It is not happy clappy stuff but serious science and if adopted widely will wipe out obesity and type 2 diabetes and will greatly reduce heart disease. I put this together myself. I’ve always had an interest in this area because it was the great puzzle of modern medicine. Just before I retired it was starting to surface. In terms of sheer weight of people it’ll help, it dwarfs every other advance in my lifetime in medicine.

The cause of obesity, hypertension, coronary disease and gallbladder disease is NOT what most people thought.
It’s in fact what they were advised to do by most medical associations for the last 40 years. A low fat high carbohydrate sugar-rich diet is the enemy. Dr.Atkins was right all along and in fact the Low Carbohydrate High Fat Moderate Protein diet (which is what stone-age man ate) prevents all these ills. Numerous numerous studies show this but some drug-company sponsored departments will hold out till the bitter end. This is NOT bullpoop. The Harvard Public Health Medical department has acknowledged this (after being on the opposite tack for the last 40 years) and Sweden is now the first country promoting it.
Sugar is really bad. It rots teeth, causes obesity and in the long term causes type 2 diabetes. It causes fatty change in the liver, hypertension and gallstones. It has no merit as a foodstuff. The Americans (the sensible) are recommending a max intake in all foodstuff per day of 6 tsp. This is easily surpassed by one can of a sugary drink, Coke, Pepsi, Fanta, whatever.
Cholesterol in the blood does NOT represent cholesterol intake, and it is NOT the cause of heart disease. The cause of heart disease is inflamed arteries due to a high blood sugar and corresponding rise in insulin. This allows the cholesterol etc. to seep into the arteries. The HIGH cholesterol in heart disease (in some cases) is a reaction to the disease, not the CAUSE.
There is a direct correlation between sugar intake per annum, diabetes type 2, coronary artery disease etc. The presence of fatty change in the liver with hypertension (raised blood pressure) etc. is called the metabolic syndrome. If your BMI (Body Mass Index which is your weight in Kg divided by your height in Metres Squared) is more than 25 this suggests that you have some measure of that, though probably only slight. Some races can get diabetes with a lower BMI than that.
The longterm results of a high carb (sugar plus starch) diet is a raised blood glucose, sometimes heading to diabetes and a raised blood insulin. Insulin stores ingested carbohydrate excess to muscular requirements in the liver and other areas and this cannot get out as a high insulin blocks the fat from coming out. This makes the individual hungry and he eats more and this vicious circle leads to obesity.
Eliminate the starch and sugar, replace with fat and in this case the fat can readily exit the cells, the appetite is lowered and the person gradually loses his extra weight, WITHOUT getting hungry. This also leads to an all-round improvement in blood lipid profiles. If you want to know the details: it lowers triglycerides, raises HDL (high density lipoprotein), raises big particle Low Density lipoprotein and lower the small particle type (the bad one). In contrast a high carb low fat diet lowers HDL and raises the small particle LDL, worsening your prognosis. It was long noticed in a longterm study of the population of Framingham in Massachusetts that the men who at the most fat were the leanest.

The fat hypothesis for coronary disease was based on a fraudulent study by an American biochemist Ansel Keys. He picked and chose countries that appeared to support the theory and left out the numerous ones which contradicted it. He was instrumental in poo-hooing the great British doctor scientist John Yudkin whose book based on huge research on his part, Pure White and Deadly correctly identified sugar as the mortal enemy. This was about 35 years before one by one, top doctors began to realise that he was right. The so-called food pyramid was believe it or not made up by an unqualified clerk on a committee in America. It has as much of a scientific basis as Darby O'Gill and the little people,-.
All the time during that period, scientists were doing their level best to put a square peg into a round hole. Anything that contradicted the results of their opinions was a paradox. There was the French paradox. The French ate tons of fat and got almost no heart disease. The Inuit got no heart disease, the Swiss etc. If you look at all these paradoxes, the evidence is so obvious. All of them are explained by the theory being the opposite of what was the truth. Fat (animal fat ) butter, olive oil, coconut oil and cream are good. What was recommended, such as Sunflower oil, vegetable oils etc., are not only not good, but downright bad. They should be thrown out.

What to eat.
Fat meat, any fish, cheese, full fat yoghourt with no sugar added, green vegetables (essential to prevent constipation as well as for some vitamins), some berries, limited amounts of sugary fruit such as apples (1.5 a day is max), unlimited mushrooms, onions, tomatoes, avocados etc etc.
Put butter on anything you want. Fry ideally in butter or coconut oil, or olive oil (less good than the others for frying, for chemical reasons), lard suet etc.
Throw out vegetable oil. Bad.
Use butter. Margarine is bad. Out

No bread, though you can make bread from flaxseed etc. I’ve done it to see and it’s soft but very tasty.
No porridge (if you want some you'll have to count the carbs).
NO BEER. If you drink, don’t drink much and stick to wine or spirits.

=========================================================================

What are the benefits of this regime?

Weight loss.People have lost 40kg and so on in a year and IF THEY STAY ON IT, they keep it off.
Improved blood lipid profile.
Sometimes complete control of type 2 diabetes with elimination of the need for drugs. UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION. You don't want a hypo.
Improved control of diabetes, again UNDER MEDICAL supervision..
Fall in blood pressure
Better more even mood. Improved concentration.
Can cure migraines, irritable bowel syndrome, headaches, indigestion of various types, even gastric ulcers, reflux, allergies, and chronic fatigue syndrome in some cases.

How does it square with exercise?
One of the main proponents of it is Prof.Tim. Noakes, the most famous exercise scientist on the planet, from South Africa. He used to preach that athletes needed a high carb diet, but now he says that this is not so and that he and other athletes do better on LCHF and further evaluation of it is being done. It may well be that it is superior to the high carb diet for all athletes but that is being evaluated.
I cycle a lot. How do I find it? (I’ve been on it at the time of writing, partially for the first two weeks, in that I cut out all things with sugar in them first) and fully for two and a half weeks). I find that I seldom need to eat when cycling now and not only that, my legs recover a lot quicker from a cycle. I think that it suits me.

=========================================================================

Does everyone need to go on this?
Well you can say that this is the original diet and that it will do no-one harm, but people who are very tolerant of carbohydrate may not need to go on it. They are people who can eat lots of it and don’t get fat. In some countries they eat a lot of it, like in Japan and China. But rice may be different to wheat or oats etc. Experiments have shown that comparatively people put on weight and belly fat from eating wheat versus rice or oats of flaxseed. A trial getting people to eat at least six slices of wholewheat bread a day as a preventive measure after coronaries had the result of increasing their mortality.
It sounds that, for all its pervasiveness in food around the world, that wheat isn’t great. I ate very little bread for years (just one small brown roll a day) so I’ve given it up totally, very easily.

If you’re fat (BMI >25 (mine’s 26) this diet will benefit you. If you have type 2 diabetes in the family then it could completely prevent you from getting it. The genes for this type of diabetes are those that make you more insulin resistant (fat-trapping) than other people but you will only develop this disease by over-eating sugar and fat.

You want to know more?
Look up LCHF, Noakes Diet, Banting Diet, New Atkins Diet.
The Paleo diet is similar but not identical and includes a lot of fruit.

Ansel Keys, unwittingly, has probably killed more people than many of the great wars. Had John Yudkin been listened to, it would’ve been a different story. I would love to see John Yudkin get a posthumous Nobel Prize but I don’t thing they do that.


Garry Lee/Gearóid Ó Laoi.

[rfryer]

Interesting stuff!

I've tried the Atkins diet a couple of times, and found it very successful at weight loss. However, I do enjoy beer, bread and pasta, and eventually concluded that (for me) quality of life is improved by a more balanced diet, even though weight loss is more of an effort.

At the time I was last on the diet, I was doing a lot of mountain walking, so was interested in how the diet afffected my fitness. My perception was that I never felt "full of beans", always a bit weary. Having said that that, I was always able to keep up with other walkers, so I can't cite any objective change in performance. And, as you are experiencing, it was possible to keep going for the day with minimal food intake (just a few nuts on the summit).

Good luck with the diet, and I hope you don't get bored with it as quickly as I did!

[Gearoidmuar]

I tried the Atkins diet years ago as well and found as you did.
However, this is different.
Firstly the LCHF as espoused by Tim Noakes is more varied and fat is stressed as against protein. It's very varied if you make it so. I think that the extra fat is crucial. On Atkins I was sluggish. I'm not on this. Yesterday I had my breakfast before 7am. I went cycling at 11, some hard terrain and was back at 2, having touched nothing in the meantime. I'd also cycled 35 miles the previous day. I'd have got the hunger knock on day two on my previous diet..

This morning for breakfast I had..
Fillet of smoked mackerel with an avocado, two slices of home-made flaxseed bread (really tasty) with a load of butter and a full fat Greek yoghourt with some flaxseed in it.
Yesterday I had scrambled eggs with some cheese, an apple and a Greek Yoghourt.
The day before I had 3 rashers, a boiled egg and some chorizo.

In fact, what I'm eating is more varied than my diet until I started it.
Last night I had exactly the same as my wife, but no spuds..

[iviehoff]

You imply a level of certainty for what you say that simply is not scientifically supportable. People have been studying this for ages, and there has not suddenly been a huge improvement in our scientific knowledge in the area which enables such a level of certainty suddenly to emerge.

The correct scientific position is

We know little about the effect of diet on health.

Read http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6300
David Colquhoun is a scientist who is passionate about rooting out ill-supported claims, and has been behind several successful campaigns to root out pseudo-science and the consequent deception it incurs. I'll leave you to explore his exceedingly important website.

[mjr]

You imply a level of certainty for what you say that simply is not scientifically supportable. People have been studying this for ages, and there has not suddenly been a huge improvement in our scientific knowledge in the area which enables such a level of certainty suddenly to emerge.

I've an extremely strong personal interest in this and so I've been sort of studying diet off and on for two decades and the above is the closest thing to a certainty that you will get.

Sadly, people in general love certainty, so there's a lot of unusual diets that are proclaimed as the best thing for everyone, whether that's LCHF, UCLP, 52IF or some other ETLA.

Also, some people love to rebel, so the best-supported hypotheses are decried as false. In this case, it's the lipid hypothesis and the Framlingham study, which are frequent targets of attack. Yes, they're imperfect, but they're very old and there have been other studies since and the lipid hypothesis may not have been proved, but it still looks more likely than any alternative yet. We're very lucky in the UK that we have the NHS and http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/ which is open for you to search if you want to find later studies in detail and NHS Choices often summarises diet topics in easy-to-read terms like http://www.nhs.uk/News/Pages/NewsArticl ... ood%2fdiet or in detail like http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01january/p ... -work.aspx

And importantly - and maybe this is what leaves the door open to all this bad reporting of diet news - many (most?) people don't understand the food that they eat. For example, margarine is decried as almost plastic (it's not: that's an old myth) while butter is called natural (it's not: did you ever see a cow skim and churn its own milk and add salt? And let's not get started on some of the "spreadable butter"...). Probably the single step that would make the biggest improvement to anyone's diet is to start reading the labels, looking up any ingredients that you don't know and thinking about what you're eating.

Cyclists are lucky in one way: there are enough cyclists with strong health interests that many cycling-specialist foods are pretty clean, except for a few go-faster/last-longer/recover-easier snake oils which come and go every so often.

Finally, remember: stress is pretty bad for you, so don't worry yourself into an early grave about this...

[Gearoidmuar]

You imply a level of certainty for what you say that simply is not scientifically supportable. People have been studying this for ages, and there has not suddenly been a huge improvement in our scientific knowledge in the area which enables such a level of certainty suddenly to emerge.

The correct scientific position is

We know little about the effect of diet on health.

Read http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6300
David Colquhoun is a scientist who is passionate about rooting out ill-supported claims, and has been behind several successful campaigns to root out pseudo-science and the consequent deception it incurs. I'll leave you to explore his exceedingly important website.

Colquhoun praises Gary Taubes to the skies because of his scientific approach. Taubes supports it.
Noakes, one of world's most published scientist who was a skeptic is fanatical about it. Read his stuff.
The populations of France and Switzerland have been a huge lab. They get a small fraction of the coronaries of the British. British most obese in Europe, US very obese. There's a message there.
Yudkin had all this worked out 35 years ago. I've read his book. He laid out the role of insulin etc. He had all of it right, waiting to be accepted.
Billions of dollars have failed to prove any harm in saturated fat.
On comparative trials, despite the skepticism of the doctors it outperforms other diets AND fixes the blood lipid profiles.
I'm not a whim man. I've been reading this stuff for all my career and I understand it.
The French paradox is not a paradox. It's the reality. Fat is not dangerous.

Read Noakes stuff.. 400 publications, one of world's top medical scientists and hugely respected.
Somebody like DC would tell you that eventually the answer appears. It's been there all the time, hidden.

[barrym]

.... Probably the single step that would make the biggest improvement to anyone's diet is to start reading the labels, looking up any ingredients that you don't know and thinking about what you're eating.

+1 on this, I'm a fan of eating food that doesn't need a label of ingredients. How often do you see ingredients on a bag of apples, a cabbage, pork chops,...... Obviously it would be restrictive to do this 100%, but it ain't a bad starting point.

That said, I am quite persuaded by the LCHF theory. There's a Swedish doctor who correlates the world obesity with the initial concerns over cholesterol back in the '70s when we switched diet from fats to carbs in a big way. If you are interested watch the video here http://www.dietdoctor.com/about, makes you think.

[Pompey Monkey]

NO BEER.

I am not a nutritional scientist and have not done anything like the amount of reading to be able to cast any kind of informed, critical, comment on Gearoidmuar's hypothesis.

However, from my recent return to cycling and my parallel efforts to lose weight, I am absolutely convinced that cutting out BEER is a key factor for me. I used to drink a ****load when depressed for years and my weight steadily rose.
Now that I am riding again, I notice that if I abstain from beer completely for 6 days a week or more, my weight steadily falls, even when riding modest mileages. If I drink 2-3 nights a week, even in small quantities (a couple of pints or thereabouts), my weight just refuses to drop, even when upping the miles.
Sure, I get fitter, but the weight just does not go if I regularly consume BEER.

It's just not fair!

[Ayesha]

My Consultant Urologist who X-rays my kidneys for stones every 12 months said,

“Eat less, exercise more.”

[rfryer]

My Consultant Urologist who X-rays my kidneys for stones every 12 months said,

“Eat less, exercise more.”

I think it's more accurate to say,

“Eat less of what you are eating now, exercise more.”

However, that fails to point out that by intelligent selection of foods, you could also benefit (in terms of weight loss) while eating more, or alternatively could eat less without feeling hungrier.

[StellaLdn.]

Wow, this made for an interesting read.

Personally, I dislike anything with the tag 'diet' as it is bound to be unhealthy. Be it Atkins or whatever other weight-loss promising programme. I've always been a supporter of butter as I hate the taste of margarine, and I don't do low fat, unless it's yogurt. I eat what I want/like, and I have sugar in my tea. It's about portion control and moderation, and that's what people are struggling with. Most overweight or obese people stuff their faces to fill a void, compensate for something, shut up an inner voice; and they do it mostly with processed food.
Carbs are sugar, essentially, so they wear off fast. Good for sprinters, bad for cyclists. I eat some lean bacon and omelette, before I go riding.
And yes, I'm overweight, too.(A rough estimate says BMI of 27) Lost 10kg last year (6 months) just by increasing the exercises and portion control (roughly 1500 to 2000 kcal a day). The weight fell off. And I'm losing the next 10kg till May, applying the same. BMI, too, isn't always as reliable as one thinks. Muscles weigh more than fat. So you may be lean, but still have a BMI of over 25.

Nobody can tell me that eating fatty meat is healthy and eating fruit is unhealthy. Not in a million years will I buy that. Meat--protein--yes, is good for my body. So are oily fish, eggs and other fatty vegetables, but I prefer to stick to lean meat. And I eat wholegrain, wholemeal bread.

The rule is: input to output. To me there's only one right way: eat considerably and exercise.

I wish people would stop promoting 'one way'. The cavemen may have lived on that diet, but they didn't reach a high age, so there's a warning in there somewhere.

[mjr]

If your BMI (Basal Metabolic Index which is your weight in Kg divided by your height in Metres Squared) is more than 25 this suggests that you have some measure of that, though probably only slight.

The mention of BMI in a reply reminded me to correct this: weight/(height*height) is Body Mass Index (most often measured in kg/sq.m). Basal Metabolic Index refers to the energy consumed by your body at rest to maintain its body heat and other basic functions (measured in something like J/sq.m of body surface), which you can't work out like that.

In contrast a high carb low fat diet lowers HDL and raises the small particle LDL, worsening your prognosis.

And while I'm writing: even that isn't a certainty. Some people have high amounts of very Low Density Lipoprotein (vLDL) because of liver-related abnormalities and in their cases, restricting fat intake does lower it. The carbohydrate aspect is not completely related and not all carbs are equal. If you are concerned, go get a cholesterol test: they're available at many pharmacies (home tests don't give a breakdown, as far as I know). If the test comes out odd, please go see a doctor rather than just messing with diet without asking.

[ukdodger]

My Consultant Urologist who X-rays my kidneys for stones every 12 months said,

“Eat less, exercise more.”

Or as Ann Widdicombe says. Her book on weight loss would only have two pages. On one would be the word "eat" and on the other "less".

[ukdodger]

Wow, this made for an interesting read.

Personally, I dislike anything with the tag 'diet' as it is bound to be unhealthy. Be it Atkins or whatever other weight-loss promising programme. I've always been a supporter of butter as I hate the taste of margarine, and I don't do low fat, unless it's yogurt. I eat what I want/like, and I have sugar in my tea. It's about portion control and moderation, and that's what people are struggling with. Most overweight or obese people stuff their faces to fill a void, compensate for something, shut up an inner voice; and they do it mostly with processed food.
Carbs are sugar, essentially, so they wear off fast. Good for sprinters, bad for cyclists. I eat some lean bacon and omelette, before I go riding.
And yes, I'm overweight, too.(A rough estimate says BMI of 27) Lost 10kg last year (6 months) just by increasing the exercises and portion control (roughly 1500 to 2000 kcal a day). The weight fell off. And I'm losing the next 10kg till May, applying the same. BMI, too, isn't always as reliable as one thinks. Muscles weigh more than fat. So you may be lean, but still have a BMI of over 25.

Nobody can tell me that eating fatty meat is healthy and eating fruit is unhealthy. Not in a million years will I buy that. Meat--protein--yes, is good for my body. So are oily fish, eggs and other fatty vegetables, but I prefer to stick to lean meat. And I eat wholegrain, wholemeal bread.

The rule is: input to output. To me there's only one right way: eat considerably and exercise.

I wish people would stop promoting 'one way'. The cavemen may have lived on that diet, but they didn't reach a high age, so there's a warning in there somewhere.

Even simpler than that Stella. Breakfast like a King, Lunch like a Prince, Supper like a pauper. For most people it's the other was around. For my money that and sugar which is in everything is at the heart of the problem.

[TrevA]

I've been following a calorie controlled diet for the last month and have managed to lose a stone. I've become much more aware of how calorie-rich some carb foods such as pasta and rice are, so I now eat much less of them or don't eat them at all. I've also drastically cut down on bread - 1 slice of bread on it's own is around 100 calories before you start putting butter and jam on it. I found I couldn't cut out carbs altogether as I started getting "the bonk" on rides, so on days when I'm riding a lot, I'll have cereals for breakfast and some carbs the night before and perhaps a couple of slices of toast at the cafe stop.

I've been having about 1700 cals a day and it seems to be working Ok so far. Easy to incorporate a few carbs where necessary, so long as you take account of the calories. For lunch and dinner, i'll have chicken, meat or fish and salad or vegetables, rather than potatoes, rice or pasta.