The Off Topic Thread...

rubadub · 30-11-2009 3:30pm #1

This thread is for any off-topic subjects & chat. If threads are going off topic the mods will move those posts into here. Any (light-hearted!) arguments should be here -just keep it civil and within the charter rules....

Khannie wrote: »

Anyway, the only real difference that I can see versus normal white bread is that you're fermenting your own yeast instead of using packaged yeast.

There was a thread a good while ago saying sourdough had lower GI figures, maybe even lower than brown.

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

It seems the store bought sourdough isn't fermented so it's good your making it yourself.

The only widely available one I have seen is "la brea" which is got in tesco.

Khannie · 30-11-2009 4:21pm

rubadub wrote: »

There was a thread a good while ago saying sourdough had lower GI figures, maybe even lower than brown.

I'd be mighty surprised. It's still 3/4's white flour.

El_Dangeroso · 30-11-2009 4:36pm

Yeah, it is, but lets not mention the war

Khannie · 30-11-2009 4:43pm

Off topic alert!

Ah we should just sort it out once and for all. I'm interested. Both sides of that debate said things that made sense to me.

For the most part I think the sensible thing is to generally avoid simple carbs and eat a LOT of veg and fruit. Beyond that I think your lifestyle should dictate what percentage of your macronutrients are carbs.

El_Dangeroso · 30-11-2009 5:10pm

LOL, I enjoy the debates too, but I don't think anything gets sorted once and for all when two people have opposing views that they are quite keen on keeping. Members of the nutritional science community often disagree with one another, and there are huge gaps in the science still, so all we can do is give our different interpretations of the evidence that is there, and that's never going to be conclusive.

corkcomp · 30-11-2009 5:29pm

Khannie wrote: »

Off topic alert!

Ah we should just sort it out once and for all. I'm interested. Both sides of that debate said things that made sense to me.

For the most part I think the sensible thing is to generally avoid simple carbs and eat a LOT of veg and fruit. Beyond that I think your lifestyle should dictate what percentage of your macronutrients are carbs.

TBH I still think that there should be an off topic thread where these debates could go on all day! i reckon it can be very frustrating for a lot of people when topics get dragged down the low carb vs otherwise road .. it is clear by now that both sides of the fence feel strongly

El_Dangeroso · 30-11-2009 5:40pm

Off you go and start one then.. pubmed at the ready

Khannie · 30-11-2009 5:42pm

I think there should be a thread about how to use pubmed. Worst site in the history of the internet IMO.

corkcomp · 30-11-2009 5:48pm

Khannie wrote: »

I think there should be a thread about how to use pubmed. Worst site in the history of the internet IMO.

+1 !!

seriously , can we have an O/T thread?

Khannie · 30-11-2009 6:03pm

Not my call. I'd say just start one though. I don't see any harm.

rubadub · 30-11-2009 6:04pm

As per request!

El_Dangeroso · 30-11-2009 6:14pm

Khannie wrote: »

I think there should be a thread about how to use pubmed. Worst site in the history of the internet IMO.

It's not so bad when you get used to it. It's best to search via MeSH headings to get more relevant results. Good aul' google scholar isn't too bad, you have to dig a bit more though.

Here's a tutorial:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/pubmedtutorial/020_720.html

Don't know how helpful that would be.

Sapsorrow · 20-12-2009 3:48pm

Great idea this thread about time! Sticky sticky sticky!

El_Dangeroso · 20-12-2009 6:53pm

Ok, I'll start with a quasi-controversial statement. Someone mentioned to me on another forum that you could view obesity as a consequence of malnutrition, rather than excess calorie consumption, or rather one causes the other.

It makes sense as there are traditional cultures around the world that consume radically different diets, but they all have a few things in common, they maximise their intake of nutrients (minerals, vitamins, essential amino acids and essential fats in the correct ratios) and minimise their intake of anti-nutrients (lectins, phytates, and I would add gluten and oxidised fat to that list too).

It seems plausible that if a body does not get the requisite nutrients from the calories it consumes then the body will continue to send the signal to eat food as a way of procuring the necessary vitamins and minerals.

Let's look at what has happened to the food chain in the past century:

Vast increase in the consumption of processed food that is completely vitamin depleted.
Most vegetables are grown in soil that has been leached of minerals due to intensive farming practices.
Most fish is farmed with drastically reduces it's Omega 3 content, wild fish contains mercury and other heavy metals.
Traditional fats such as butter, lard, olive and coconut oils have been replaced with industrially extracted vegetable oils, destroying fat soluble vitamins and potentially becoming oxidised. This along with an increase in refined sugar consumption will burn up any anti-oxidant vitamins that are available.
Vast increase in the gluten content of bread.
Introduction of unfermented soy products (phytates) into lots of processed food (check the labels it's in almost every thing nowadays)
Animals being fed an unnatural diet in a confined cruel setting

It's an intriguing theory which I think is worthy of discussion.

The story of the Pima Native American Indian tribe illustrates the point well.

In 1846 the tribe was documented as extremely affluent due to their trading with the new settlers, they hunted and fished extensively and had an abundance of food, enough to trade the excess. They were observed to be 'sprightly and in excellent health'.

Fast-forward 100 years and after being marginalised to a reservation and forced to live off government rations of beans and wheat flour, 2/3 Pima indians are obese and 1/2 is diabetic. Women do the majority of the physical labour and yet exhibit the highest rates of obesity. Children are incredibly thin from malnutrition despite having obese mothers.

Now you can either believe that these mothers are starving their children while stuffing their own faces, or you can see that malnutrition and obesity are intrinsically related.

Any thoughts?

corkcomp · 20-12-2009 7:07pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Ok, I'll start with a quasi-controversial statement. Someone mentioned to me on another forum that you could view obesity as a consequence of malnutrition, rather than excess calorie consumption, or rather one causes the other.

It makes sense as there are traditional cultures around the world that consume radically different diets, but they all have a few things in common, they maximise their intake of nutrients (minerals, vitamins, essential amino acids and essential fats in the correct ratios) and minimise their intake of anti-nutrients (lectins, phytates, and I would add gluten and oxidised fat to that list too).

It seems plausible that if a body does not get the requisite nutrients from the calories it consumes then the body will continue to send the signal to eat food as a way of procuring the necessary vitamins and minerals.

Let's look at what has happened to the food chain in the past century:
Vast increase in the consumption of processed food that is completely vitamin depleted.

Most vegetables are grown in soil that has been leached of minerals due to intensive farming practices.

Most fish is farmed with drastically reduces it's Omega 3 content, wild fish contains mercury and other heavy metals.

Traditional fats such as butter, lard, olive and coconut oils have been replaced with industrially extracted vegetable oils, destroying fat soluble vitamins and potentially becoming oxidised. This along with an increase in refined sugar consumption will burn up any anti-oxidant vitamins that are available.

Vast increase in the gluten content of bread.

Introduction of unfermented soy products (phytates) into lots of processed food (check the labels it's in almost every thing nowadays)

Animals being fed an unnatural diet in a confined cruel setting

It's an intriguing theory which I think is worthy of discussion.

The story of the Pima Native American Indian tribe illustrates the point well.

In 1846 the tribe was documented as extremely affluent due to their trading with the new settlers, they hunted and fished extensively and had an abundance of food, enough to trade the excess. They were observed to be 'sprightly and in excellent health'.

Fast-forward 100 years and after being marginalised to a reservation and forced to live off government rations of beans and wheat flour, 2/3 Pima indians are obese and 1/2 is diabetic. Women do the majority of the physical labour and yet exhibit the highest rates of obesity. Children are incredibly thin from malnutrition despite having obese mothers.

Now you can either believe that these mothers are starving their children while stuffing their own faces, or you can see that malnutrition and obesity are intrinsically related.

Any thoughts?

obesity is a result of excess calories though, whether the consumption of these calories is related to the body crying out for nutrients or not is a matter of opinion.

IMO (aside from major lack of physical activity nowdays) one of the main causes of obesity is excess calories from processed and convenience foods. If you roll back 50 years to a typical dinner of bacon, cabbage and a couple of potatoes - this would prob set you back 400cals at most where as some of the micro meals i have seen are nearly hitting 1000cals and you are probably getting a smaller portion of food ...

Sapsorrow · 20-12-2009 7:07pm

It's not an area I've done much on but it makes sense in a not particularly scientific way to me.
We're frequently reminded in college that obesity and malnutrition often coexist in particular in the third world.
When you consider pica and other seemingly bizarre eating habits observed in animals and humans alike (like eating clay etc..) it's not hard to comprehend that on a biochemical level the body responds to deficiencies or nutritional needs by instigating cravings or hunger sensations and I don't see why it might not be a plausable explanation behind over eating by some people.
Theres always the potential for micronutrient deificency to play a role in obesity by interfering with other functions such as gene expression that may play a role in weight gain or appetite regulation. It's not as simple as people over consuming calories though, I eat a much healthier and lower calorie diet that some other people my age and despite their not excercising at all really enough of them are much slimmer than me. If it was that simple I don't think it'd be such a problem worldwide. It's a multifactoral condition with many elements feeding into it's development like nearly all topics in nutrition. Genetics is a significant part of the story,anyone with a moderately curvy mum and two sisters all with the same body fat distribution pattern (who all exercise lots and are total health freaks) can testify to that.

rubadub · 20-12-2009 7:16pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

It seems plausible that if a body does not get the requisite nutrients from the calories it consumes then the body will continue to send the signal to eat food as a way of procuring the necessary vitamins and minerals.

That makes sense to me and I have heard it put forward before. It should then logically follow that multivitamin pills could act as appetite suppressants, but I have not heard of this being examined.

El_Dangeroso · 20-12-2009 7:45pm

corkcomp wrote: »

obesity is a result of excess calories though, whether the consumption of these calories is related to the body crying out for nutrients or not is a matter of opinion.

IMO (aside from major lack of physical activity nowdays) one of the main causes of obesity is excess calories from processed and convenience foods. If you roll back 50 years to a typical dinner of bacon, cabbage and a couple of potatoes - this would prob set you back 400cals at most where as some of the micro meals i have seen are nearly hitting 1000cals and you are probably getting a smaller portion of food ...

You're right in the sense that if you took a survey of 100 obese people today they'd be eating more calories than people of normal weight.

What is driving that excess calorie consumption though?

I'd dispute that a dinner of bacon and cabbage would be 400cals though, my grandmother used to make it all the time and the whole family would eat the fatty parts of the bacon and cover their potatoes and cabbage in butter. People were not afraid of fat 60 years ago, they used it liberally. Here is a graph that illustrates fat consumption in the last 30 years:

So as total fat consumption has dropped we have been eating less calorically dense food, but more of it. You could blame fast food portions, but they did a study that showed people consumed on average 200 fewer calories when eating a meal at mcdonalds than when eating a home-prepared meal. My theory is the home prepared meal would contain far more nutrients that would satisfy the body for a much longer time and be less likely to disrupt endochine signalling.

A robust scientific theory should be able to explain all observations. The case of the Pima indians is one of many examples where the cals in cals out theory comes up short. Another example would be people who can't gain weight despite stuffing their faces. Or people with thyroid issues who cannot lose weight on an isocaloric diet.

I would argue that fat accumulation and energy expenditure is ultimately controlled by hormones, and hormones are affected by the quality of food and nutrient intake. This seems to be an adequate explanation for all the observations.

El_Dangeroso · 20-12-2009 7:56pm

rubadub wrote: »

That makes sense to me and I have heard it put forward before. It should then logically follow that multivitamin pills could act as appetite suppressants, but I have not heard of this being examined.

This occurred to me too. But a multivitamin would encompass a very limited spectrum of required nutrients though, and would be neutralized completely if enough anti-nutrients were consumed. I don't even think we are aware of all the nutrients the body requires, the importance of vitamin K has only recently come to light. Plus vitamins are in symbiotic doses in food (for example A and D). There is so much we don't know that it will be a while before we could formulate a nutritionally complete synthetic diet, in the mean time, it's best to eat real food.

But some nutrients do have a measurable effect on appetite, magnesium and chromium along with several amino-acids.

El_Dangeroso · 20-12-2009 8:32pm

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Genetics is a significant part of the story,anyone with a moderately curvy mum and two sisters all with the same body fat distribution pattern (who all exercise lots and are total health freaks) can testify to that.

Oh very good point, and don't forget that food intake can actually influence genetics for generations to come. For example, in the animal kingdom, if you feed cats an improper diet, the first generation will have infertility rates of about 20%, the second generation about 70% and the third generation will be almost completely infertile. I think the saying 'genetics loads the gun but lifestyle pulls the trigger' is apt in that case and dietary choices have the potential to reverberate across generations. I think each generation has the potential to become fatter than the last, that is what has happened in America, and we'll see the same thing happen here, unless something is changed, which given how backwards I believe the current guidelines are, is unlikely.

I was a complete sugar-fiend as a kid, it was literally a drug for me, it would be all I would use my money to buy and I was skinny as a rake. I think a lot of kids nowadays have the metabolic and food environment cards stacked against them.

corkcomp · 20-12-2009 8:56pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

You're right in the sense that if you took a survey of 100 obese people today they'd be eating more calories than people of normal weight.

What is driving that excess calorie consumption though?

I'd dispute that a dinner of bacon and cabbage would be 400cals though, my grandmother used to make it all the time and the whole family would eat the fatty parts of the bacon and cover their potatoes and cabbage in butter. People were not afraid of fat 60 years ago, they used it liberally. Here is a graph that illustrates fat consumption in the last 30 years:

So as total fat consumption has dropped we have been eating less calorically dense food, but more of it. You could blame fast food portions, but they did a study that showed people consumed on average 200 fewer calories when eating a meal at mcdonalds than when eating a home-prepared meal. My theory is the home prepared meal would contain far more nutrients that would satisfy the body for a much longer time and be less likely to disrupt endochine signalling.

A robust scientific theory should be able to explain all observations. The case of the Pima indians is one of many examples where the cals in cals out theory comes up short. Another example would be people who can't gain weight despite stuffing their faces. Or people with thyroid issues who cannot lose weight on an isocaloric diet.

I would argue that fat accumulation and energy expenditure is ultimately controlled by hormones, and hormones are affected by the quality of food and nutrient intake. This seems to be an adequate explanation for all the observations.

I wasnt implying that people followed low fat diets previously, but if you look at calorie consumption trends overall there is a huge increase in calorie consumption. Its also fair to say that a lot of the people consuming very high ammounts of calories from ready meals and other crap are not in the least bit afraid of fat!

Sapsorrow · 20-12-2009 8:59pm

It's been observed in the past that a lot of very obese people don't actually eat as many calories as normal weight people and yet they fail to lose weight despite their best efforts to go to the gym so what's that all about!
My boyf is 33 in Jan and is in the dangerously underweight BMI category and I stuff him silly! His brothers and dad are the exact same and they eat loads of junk so I can't imagine that genetics doesn't play a part in predisposing you to being obese or skinny. It's just not fair for some :mad:

El_Dangeroso · 20-12-2009 11:08pm

corkcomp wrote: »

I wasnt implying that people followed low fat diets previously, but if you look at calorie consumption trends overall there is a huge increase in calorie consumption. Its also fair to say that a lot of the people consuming very high ammounts of calories from ready meals and other crap are not in the least bit afraid of fat!

Here is a surprising graph from the statistics on the British Heart Foundation Statistics Database at http://www.heartstats.org/

This is the amount of kilocalories consumed per person in the UK since 1975 and it really shocked me, because like you I believe weight gain occurs in a positive energy balance, although we may disagree about how that occurs.

But then I started to think that both the graph and the the positive energy balance could be true at the same time.

Because energy in and energy out are not independent variables. Because the body can control 'energy out' far beyond us just deciding going to the gym everyday. Energy out can be increased or decreased by increasing body temperature a few degrees, excreting calories or increasing energy levels, diverting fats and proteins to repair muscle and organs.

If you think that all those functions wouldn't compare in calorie consumption to hardcore exercise, realise that the body consumes as many extra calories sitting naked in a cold room as it does flat out running. So a few degrees difference in body temp can burn up 100's of extra calories.

If you think about it, 'too many calories' is a circular argument. If you eat a certain amount of calories and you gain weight, then you are eating too many calories. But if you eat the exact same amount and stay the same weight then you are deemed to be eating the right amount of calories. 'Too many calories' is defined by the fact that you are gaining weight.

The decision to accumulate excess fat is not decided by calories, but by hormones. It makes complete sense to think that if you eat too much, you're body will store the extra in the adipose tissue for using later and this happens to an extent, but there are hormones that have complete control over this process and regulate the fat tissue in the same way your body regulates body temperature.

We don't have to go around constantly making sure we are always in a room at the right temperature when our body is functioning correctly, if it's slightly chilly then our body will use more energy to maintain the internal temp of 37.5. Similarly we don't have to constantly make sure we are eating the correct amount of food if the system is working correctly. If we consume more energy than we need then the body will use it up or waste it, if (and this is a very big if) the hormones are in balance.

We constantly see examples of what happens when this balance of hormones is disrupted.

T1 Diabetics will lose weight if they don't take sufficient insulin (sometimes teenage T1 girls do this deliberately sadly and dangerously)

Women gain weight on the contraceptive pill

Women gain weight or find it very difficult to lose weight after menopause.

Men who have been castrated gain weight.:eek:

SSRI's like prozac cause weight gain.

Chronic stress causes high cortisol which causes weight gain.

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome is caused by a hormonal imbalance and one of the symptoms is weight gain.

All hormones have an effect on weight. Growth hormone, endorphins, testosterone, estrogen, thyroxine, epinephrine, cortisol, seratonin, melatonin, insulin, leptin, ghrelin and glucagon to name a few of the major players.

Your conscious mind may decide to pick up the food and put it in your mouth but it was hormones that created the desire for it in the first place and it's your hormones that decide what to do with it and are ultimately affected by it's quality.

Anyway.. that's my meandering theory on the subject!

rubadub · 20-12-2009 11:34pm

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

This is the amount of kilocalories consumed per person in the UK since 1975 and it really shocked me, because like you I believe weight gain occurs in a positive energy balance, although we may disagree about how that occurs.

Have you a link to the page on the website where this graph is from? the figures seem extraordinarily low, I had read before the average intake for adults in Ireland was 3400kcal.

El_Dangeroso · 21-12-2009 1:38am

rubadub wrote: »

Have you a link to the page on the website where this graph is from? the figures seem extraordinarily low, I had read before the average intake for adults in Ireland was 3400kcal.

I know, I was really surprised too..

http://www.heartstats.org/temp/DopaspChaptersp1spDietspweb06.pdf - Page 18

All the graphs I have seen for the US show the opposite trend. .

I know in the US it's done on a formula of total food purchased minus an estimated average wastage. In this case it's survey based. Neither are the most reliable things in the world, but I guess they might be considered 'consistently unreliable' for the purposes of establishing trends.

Khannie · 22-12-2009 11:24am

So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

(*raises hand*)

Sapsorrow · 22-12-2009 12:22pm

Khannie wrote: »

So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

(*raises hand*)

Lol Just got a big box of munchies in the post from my parents so I had homemade chocolate chip cookies and those posh health food shop crisps for breakfast :eek:!

corkcomp · 22-12-2009 12:24pm

Khannie wrote: »

So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

(*raises hand*)

of course not.. well, seeing as were being honest, YES!

celestial · 22-12-2009 1:37pm

Interesting discussion. I reckon it comes down to a number of societal factors - changes that have occurred over the past 20-30 years or so. Think about it:

-More junk food on our shelves than ever before.

-2 for 1 offers to beat the band on the same kind of junk in shops

-More TV advertising for junk food than ever before (did you know that Hunky Dorys sponsor Pro Box live on RTE 2 and even UFC pro-MMA have Burger King sponsorship?!)

-Bigger portion sizes ('super size me' / 'go large' offers in the likes of McDonald's, extra large Snickers/Mars bars in Spar etc).

-Massive infiltration of 'low fat' products on supermarket shelves and a largely ignorant public blissfully unaware that in its place they've just bumped up the quantity of a far more deadly ingredient - sugar.

-Food producers messing with our food - MSG, high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, the list goes on - bound to have an effect on our hormones, etc

-Increased alcohol consumption leading to greater consumption of junk food

-Less exercise being taken overall due to the following:

--Less need for manual work, new inventions replacing human effort, manufacturing plants closing down, heavy machinery replacing human effort etc

--Better public transport and increased car usage meaning fewer people anywhere anymore

Think about this one - over the past couple of decades the amount of TV channels has EXPLODED! It's something you might miss in a discussion like this but people are just watching a lot more TV, sat on their couch with their 2 for 1 offers and low fat sugary food

El_Dangeroso · 22-12-2009 2:43pm

Khannie wrote: »

So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

(*raises hand*)

Not pigging out just yet.. have been sort of sliding off the wagon gradually over the last week, having nibbles of this and that..I will however be indulging on Christmas day in potatoes roasted in duck fat, sage and onion stuffing and cherry trifle. I fully expect to feel fecking awful by new years!

Jwacqui · 22-12-2009 4:16pm

Khannie wrote: »

So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

(*raises hand*)

Thats a bit more like it! OT I mean not the pigging out!

I'm not just yet! Have 2treat day over 3week xmas period (No weightwatchers for 2weeks). So I've yet to have them! Looks good so far! I want to lose over xmas! Hoping to hit the 60lb mark over xmas! Even maybe get 63lb which would be 4.5st! But think thats a big ask!

The Off Topic Thread...

Comments