The Nutrition Science thread

[Hopeless Sinner]

^^I don’t ever order hemoglobin A1C anywhere near Thanksgiving or Christmas. Too much alcohol and cheesecake.

That's understandable. Will work on it and retest in a couple months.

[Trackhead]

But, they're still better off with metformin and Wegovy and no lifestyle changes than nothing at all. If they were addicted to heroin instead of junk food we'd tell them to fuck off and come back when they can piss clean for soda.

In all fairness, we try to prescribe Suboxone for opioid addiction, but often it is not unlike treating diabetes, where we just throw more pharma at the issue in hopes something will work.

[PeachesNCream]

I see zero effect from L-theanine FWIW.

Little late here but may be helpful regardless to you or whoever else and theanine has been one of the very few supplements I've found helpful. I've found a noticeable difference depending on brand, specifically ones with "suntheanine" seem to work significantly better. Haven't tried it with coffee but I take l-theanine whenever I might have some extra nerves/anxiety like a presentation, first date, hungover, etc. and I can notice a difference. I also feel more focused (probably because of the reduced ADD you get from nerves/anxiety). Its the only supplement I've noticed that makes a difference, most "calming" supplements just make me more anxious.

I use this one: https://www.amazon.com/Suntheanine%C...NsaWNrPXRydWU=

[Dantheman]

My numbers are all very good, but A1C is just a bit high and it went up slightly last week.
....
I used to be less active, have more stress, sleep less, weigh more, eat worse yet the A1C was never high - does the pancreas just slow down or are there other factors involved too?

Define "slightly." All lab tests have margin of error of at least 10-25%. I wouldn't get worked up about your A1C fluctuating by up to ~0.5% in one test, especially in the absence of other data like fasting glucose, glucose tolerance, etc. I'd ask about getting a continuous glucose monitor for a while so you can refine your strategy.

Basic diabetes progression is this: Cells become resistant to insulin, pancreas pumps out more insulin to compensate, insulin resistance worsens, overworked islet cells can't maintain the required insulin output and start shutting down due to burnout, islet cells die completely and you cannot produce insulin at all. If you make it to the final stage yer fucked, but it's all reversible before that point.

In all fairness, we try to prescribe Suboxone for opioid addiction, but often it is not unlike treating diabetes, where we just throw more pharma at the issue in hopes something will work.

True, things like employment and public housing are where people are more likely to get kicked to the curb.

[Tech Tonics]

I hate to hijack the conversation, but I’m pretty much a newb to this topic. And this thread is dense.

Realizing I need more protein in my diet. I eat very well but meat comes in high quality/low quantity.

The CrossFit and paleo folks say I should be getting ~170g of protein a day. I don’t even get 1/2 that.

What is a good source for a quality protein supplement? Would be great if it was from grass-fed cows or even veggie-sourced.

I currently use the “Ancient Nutrition” brand but at ~$2 / 20g serving it’s pretty expensive. I use the “chocolate” flavor which is ok in a smoothie but the stevia flavoring is pretty gross

What is the go-to protein supplement? That ideally isn’t from feed-lot cattle?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Dantheman]

1.6 g/kg/day is all you need. 170 g/day is a lot. Whey isolate is marginally better than concentrate, but more expensive. Coming from grass fed cows and shit is irrelevant when you're talking about purified protein.

[Tech Tonics]

Thanks. That would make it around 120g/day which is still quite a bit more than I’m getting with just diet

I know that the source (feed lot v. grass fed/smaller ranches) is irrelevant when it comes to nutrition, but I try to support companies that use more ethical practices. (Even if it only makes me feel better. )


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TBS]

Just finished this book


Excellent, and very readable

Takeaways
1. You cannot exercise your way to weight loss. Men’s bodies want to burn about 3000 cals per day regardless of caloric intake. Our brain (hypothalamus) will cause reduced body functions (reproduction, immune, liver) if we exceed that workload without more calories in.

2. We evolved as opportunistic Hunter gatherers - our Paleo ancestors consumed more carbs than we do now (IOW the theory behind Paleo Diet is bullshit)

3. Whatever the diet - Keto, Paleo, low fat, vegan, junk food - the only thing that matters is calories. Unless you are diabetic, then low carb may be necessary due to insulin sensitivity.

4. Modern packaged foods make your brain tell you to overeat - incredibly dense nutritionally and literally designed to fuck with your brain’s responses to reward & satiety. Eat whole, unprocessed foods and lots of protein to increase satiety per calorie. And not a lot of different foods - a smorgasbord really fucks with brain reward systems

5. Even though you won’t lose weight just by exercising, it’s still incredibly good for us - blood flow, reduced inflammation response, reduced stress response, the list is huge.

6. The max human workload is roughly 2.5x base metabolic rate. Your cell mitochondria can’t make ATP any faster. For reference, that’s what a woman burns during pregnancy.

[Grange]

I hate to hijack the conversation, but I’m pretty much a newb to this topic. And this thread is dense.

Realizing I need more protein in my diet. I eat very well but meat comes in high quality/low quantity.

The CrossFit and paleo folks say I should be getting ~170g of protein a day. I don’t even get 1/2 that.

What is a good source for a quality protein supplement? Would be great if it was from grass-fed cows or even veggie-sourced.

I currently use the “Ancient Nutrition” brand but at ~$2 / 20g serving it’s pretty expensive. I use the “chocolate” flavor which is ok in a smoothie but the stevia flavoring is pretty gross

What is the go-to protein supplement? That ideally isn’t from feed-lot cattle?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

My favorite brand is Dymatize Iso100 protein isolate, but it has gotten expensive recently. I like that is uses Stevia as the sweetener.

I bought a couple big bottles of Nutricost whey isolate on Black Friday because it was a good deal. Mixes well enough, but doesn't taste as good. I tried their grass fed version in the past, but didn't notice any difference other than being more expensive.

Costco is currently running a good sale on protein powder, but it's a mix of isolate and concentrate. The carb content is still low however.

[Dantheman]

Obesity impairs the neurological response to nutrient intake, and short-term weight loss does not restore the response.

https://www.statnews.com/2023/06/12/...trients-study/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-023-00816-9

1.6 g/kg/day is all you need.

I've revised my stance on this after listening to Peter Attia's interview with Don Layman (https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/). 1.6 g/kg/day should be the absolute minimum, especially for anyone over 30, and there's no downside up to at least 2.2 g/kg/day. Also, get at least 30 g/meal to maximize leucine signaling (detailed in the interview, TL; DL version is that hitting a minimum threshold of leucine intake stimulates muscle protein synthesis independent of exercise).

[J. Barron DeJong]

Obesity impairs the neurological response to nutrient intake, and short-term weight loss does not restore the response.

https://www.statnews.com/2023/06/12/...trients-study/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-023-00816-9

I’m not sure this final quote is shown from the study:

“When you consume certain foods that result in weight gain, that can actually remodel the brain and how the brain works and those changes can be very long-lasting,” said Kenny, who was not involved in the new paper. “And those long-lasting changes presumably are influencing your choices regarding food in the future.”

It’s possible the obese groups brains were always wired that way, which led to becoming obese in the first place, right?

[Dantheman]

Yeah that feels like he's speculating beyond what this study's data can support. It's a little hard to say since the full text isn't available and maybe they tried to account for that. But, a prospective study seems like the only way you could say so definitively. Still, interesting data nonetheless.

[Woodsy]

correlation isnt causation part 79

[Trackhead]

It’s possible the obese groups brains were always wired that way, which led to becoming obese in the first place, right?

Every creature on planet earth is wired that way. Only difference is, food abundance for wild animals doesn't include convenience stores, grocery stores, and endless accessible Cheetos.

Look at a brown or black bear fattening up for winter on salmon....that's like the only time a wild animal gets to gorge like a fat human at a grocery store. They do it for survival though, we do it because of convenience.

We have yet to evolve into a creature that eats to satiety. Likely never will.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Every creature on planet earth is wired that way. Only difference is, food abundance for wild animals doesn't include convenience stores, grocery stores, and endless accessible Cheetos.

Look at a brown or black bear fattening up for winter on salmon....that's like the only time a wild animal gets to gorge like a fat human at a grocery store. They do it for survival though, we do it because of convenience.

We have yet to evolve into a creature that eats to satiety. Likely never will.

But the two groups brains DID respond differently - are wired differently - which is interesting.

It’s just not clear to me that becoming obese was the cause of the difference in wiring. Seems like it could be that they were born with that wiring, leading to being obese.

[californiagrown]

But the two groups brains DID respond differently - are wired differently - which is interesting.

It’s just not clear to me that becoming obese was the cause of the difference in wiring. Seems like it could be that they were born with that wiring, leading to being obese.

Do you think large percentages of the population were born with differently wired brains now than populations born 20, 30, 50, 100 years ago? Previous generations didnt have nearly the amount of obese people even generations with abundant food available.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Do you think large percentages of the population were born with differently wired brains now than populations born 20, 30, 50, 100 years ago? Previous generations didnt have nearly the amount of obese people even generations with abundant food available.

No, not saying that the wiring has changed. Having access to, and the means to purchase, larger quantities of food obviously has something to do with the increasing obesity rates.

I just think from a treatment standpoint it’s important to know that there is a real physiological difference between people here. It’s not simply that some people are making better choices, or have stronger willpower, etc.

[californiagrown]

I just think from a treatment standpoint it’s important to know that there is a real physiological difference between people here. It’s not simply that some people are making better choices, or have stronger willpower, etc.

The authors of the study contend/conclude that the physiological difference in brain wiring was caused by extended abuse of food and poor choices regarding food. Why do you conclude the opposite- that the brain wiring caused the eating problem, and not that the eating problem caused the brain wiring?

Doesnt all economic data say that americans have less and less buying power now than previous generations, so theoretically we have less means to purchase larger quantities of food than previous generations. I guess newer generations just spend more on food, and go into more debt because of food?

[J. Barron DeJong]

The authors of the study contend/conclude that the physiological difference in brain wiring was caused by extended abuse of food and poor choices regarding food. Why do you conclude the opposite?

Well that’s my specific question about the study. It sounds like they themselves, or at least the guy commenting on their study, are claiming the changes occurred due to obesity, but unless they ran the tests on those same individuals prior to them becoming obese, how do they know that the physiological differences were caused by obesity and not pre-existing?

Doesnt all economic data say that americans have less and less buying power now than previous generations, so theoretically we have less means to purchase larger quantities of food than previous generations. I guess newer generations just spend more on food, and go into more debt because of food?

No. All economic data says Americans today have more spending power than during any previous decade.



If your news sources are leading you to believe otherwise, I’d strongly suggest looking for alternate sources.

[californiagrown]

No. All economic data says Americans today have more spending power than during any previous decade.



If your news sources are leading you to believe otherwise, I’d strongly suggest looking for alternate sources.

Interesting. Lines up with observational data but goes against quite a few popular narratives.

Regardless, It seems that people have chosen to spend their extra money on quantity instead of quality. And that goes for pretty much everything across the board from fashion, to food, to furniture to ski passes. MOAAAARRR!

[old goat]

I’m not sure this final quote is shown from the study:

“When you consume certain foods that result in weight gain, that can actually remodel the brain and how the brain works and those changes can be very long-lasting,” said Kenny, who was not involved in the new paper. “And those long-lasting changes presumably are influencing your choices regarding food in the future.”

It’s possible the obese groups brains were always wired that way, which led to becoming obese in the first place, right?

exactly.

Meanwhile there's this. https://wapo.st/3P8DMvQ Not all calories created equal. Simple sugars are rapidly absorbed. More complex calories make it to the gut where some are consumed but gut bacteria. It's not how many calories go into the mouth, it's how many are absorbed into the bloodstream.

[californiagrown]

Meanwhile there's this. https://wapo.st/3P8DMvQ Not all calories created equal. Simple sugars are rapidly absorbed. More complex calories make it to the gut where some are consumed but gut bacteria. It's not how many calories go into the mouth, it's how many are absorbed into the bloodstream.

So the study participants lost 100 Kcals/day more on a diet specifically designed to feed gut bacteria vs a diet specifically designed to not feed gut bacteria. Thats a difference of less than 2 oreos with diets specifically designed to create the largest difference possible. Its an interesting bit of information, and if put into action it will likely have a much larger add-on benefit of making people eat more fiber-rich foods, thus increasing satiety and resulting in less food eaten overall. Regardless, the same diet advice would apply to those who want to lose weight, no matter what they eat... eat less than you are right now. It is that simple, and it annoys me when people argue against that very simple concept by majoring in the minors (not saying you are doing this, i just personally know people that do).

[Dantheman]

So the study participants lost 100 Kcals/day more on a diet specifically designed to feed gut bacteria vs a diet specifically designed to not feed gut bacteria. Thats a difference of less than 2 oreos with diets specifically designed to create the largest difference possible. Its an interesting bit of information, and if put into action it will likely have a much larger add-on benefit of making people eat more fiber-rich foods, thus increasing satiety and resulting in less food eaten overall. Regardless, the same diet advice would apply to those who want to lose weight, no matter what they eat... eat less than you are right now. It is that simple.

100 kcal/day is not trivial, that's potentially 10 lbs of weight not gained.

This goes way beyond fiber though. Even when you control for fiber intake (by spiking people's beverages with Metamucil), ad libitum feeding of unprocessed vs. highly processed diets results in a 500 kcal/day difference in energy intake: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism...19)30248-7.pdf

[californiagrown]

100 kcal/day is not trivial, that's potentially 10 lbs of weight not gained.

This goes way beyond fiber though. Even when you control for fiber intake (by spiking people's beverages with Metamucil), ad libitum feeding of unprocessed vs. highly processed diets results in a 500 kcal/day difference in energy intake: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism...19)30248-7.pdf

I disagree about how trivial this particular 100kcal/day is, but that argument would sidetrack the thread.

What was the difference in the two studies (one you quoted and the one OG quoted) that resulted in a 400kcal difference? THAT is a large difference between studies that appear to be studying the same/similar things? and i do agree that 500kcals is a significant amount.

[Trackhead]

It’s an interesting study, but one also must consider individual differences in opioid receptors/reward systems when consuming what would be considered hedonistic foods (salt, fat, sugar). I don’t think money has anything to do with obesity, as we do often see those with the lowest financial means and the greatest preponderance of obesity.

There is no simple answer. Sedentary lives, easy food access of poor nutritional quality, etc. Modern life doesn’t exactly lend itself to inherent or mandatory movement like it did in centuries or even decades past.