Personalized dieting?? Maybe we really are all special snowflakes ;)

Options
1246

Replies

  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
    When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.

    I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.

    Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.

    Bingo.
    I take it, then, that's you've considered this idea. What are your action items as a result of that consideration?
    The idea that we're all special snowflakes?
    I eat the way I know works for me. And...will continue to.
  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    Here's why I agree with the "majoring in the minors" concept regarding personalized dieting of this nature.

    If 2 people eat diets identical in calories, macros, & micros, i.e. the same foods and same amounts, how much do you think their experience will differ in terms of health? I'm positing that it will be minor, if any, and it would be even smaller if you isolate out the differences due to allergens, metabolic conditions, etc. and focus solely on the differences due to gut flora.

    I'm not dismissive of the research being done, but I'm dismissive of any claims that such research has given us any type of conclusive evidence.

    It's interesting to talk about, but way to early to make statements like:
    Seems reasonable that nutrition and diet would work differently depending on the individual.
    or
    that some people need more or less of certain macros than others
    or
    it could influence whether you develop diabetes or heart disease or many other diseases

    ETA: I should clarify that I'm actually on board with nuanced differences in the micro/macro needs of individuals, but I'm skeptical of any claims that the differences are anything more than nuanced.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    Here's why I agree with the "majoring in the minors" concept regarding personalized dieting of this nature.

    If 2 people eat diets identical in calories, macros, & micros, i.e. the same foods and same amounts, how much do you think their experience will differ in terms of health? I'm positing that it will be minor, if any, and it would be even smaller if you isolate out the differences due to allergens, metabolic conditions, etc. and focus solely on the differences due to gut flora.

    I'm not dismissive of the research being done, but I'm dismissive of any claims that such research has given us any type of conclusive evidence.

    It's interesting to talk about, but way to early to make statements like:
    Seems reasonable that nutrition and diet would work differently depending on the individual.
    or
    that some people need more or less of certain macros than others
    or
    it could influence whether you develop diabetes or heart disease or many other diseases

    ETA: I should clarify that I'm actually on board with nuanced differences in the micro/macro needs of individuals, but I'm skeptical of any claims that the differences are anything more than nuanced.

    I'm sure there are studies showing that there are small, but probably numerous, differences. I've not seen studies, other than sibling/twin studies, but I can't imagine they don't exist.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
    When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.

    I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.

    Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.

    Bingo.
    I take it, then, that's you've considered this idea. What are your action items as a result of that consideration?
    The idea that we're all special snowflakes?
    I eat the way I know works for me. And...will continue to.
    Your consideration of the ideas from the article netted you "we're all special snowflakes"? That explains a lot.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
    When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.

    I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.

    Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.

    Bingo.
    I take it, then, that's you've considered this idea. What are your action items as a result of that consideration?
    The idea that we're all special snowflakes?
    I eat the way I know works for me. And...will continue to.
    Your consideration of the ideas from the article netted you "we're all special snowflakes"? That explains a lot.

    Insult all you like. As per usual.
  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    Here's why I agree with the "majoring in the minors" concept regarding personalized dieting of this nature.

    If 2 people eat diets identical in calories, macros, & micros, i.e. the same foods and same amounts, how much do you think their experience will differ in terms of health? I'm positing that it will be minor, if any, and it would be even smaller if you isolate out the differences due to allergens, metabolic conditions, etc. and focus solely on the differences due to gut flora.

    I'm not dismissive of the research being done, but I'm dismissive of any claims that such research has given us any type of conclusive evidence.

    It's interesting to talk about, but way to early to make statements like:
    Seems reasonable that nutrition and diet would work differently depending on the individual.
    or
    that some people need more or less of certain macros than others
    or
    it could influence whether you develop diabetes or heart disease or many other diseases

    ETA: I should clarify that I'm actually on board with nuanced differences in the micro/macro needs of individuals, but I'm skeptical of any claims that the differences are anything more than nuanced.

    I'm sure there are studies showing that there are small, but probably numerous, differences. I've not seen studies, other than sibling/twin studies, but I can't imagine they don't exist.

    Ok, this is interesting...

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791857/

    "It has recently become evident that such microbiota, specifically within the gut, can greatly influence many physiological parameters, including cognitive functions, such as learning, memory and decision making processes."
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    I kind of take issue with the "obesity is a symptom of a health problem." Obesity is a symptom of eating more calories than you burn for an extended time period. Health problems can affect how much your body burns, but you still wouldn't become obese without the excess calories.

    Moi - I think it's a leap because we know obesity plays a large role in those health issues yet we don't know a) the extent to which blood sugar plays a role in causing diabetes and heart disease (although I'm open to reading up on it you have material to the contrary), b) whether there even are significant differences in our individual metabolic processes related to blood sugar, and c) if those differences do exist, whether they are great enough to cause a change in the probability of a person coming down with those diseases.

    It's all speculation at this point when it comes to "special snowflake hypothesis*" whereas we know that controlling weight will lower a person's likelihood of diabetes and heart problems.

    *I'm not actually calling anyone a special snowflake; I'm just using the term for convenience.

    There are a lot of thin people with diabetes, so it seems obvious that there is more to this than simply weight. That's why the research continues...to get a better understanding of ALL the relevant factors and how they interact.

    It seems extremely short sighted to ignore the research just because every question has not yet been answered.

    There were people with diabetes before the current period, of course. The issue right now is that the rate has gone way up, almost certainly due to the obesity rate. What percentage of people with diabetes currently aren't obese or overweight? It would be interesting to compare that to the more traditional rate of diabetes in this society (and perhaps in some others)?

    Also, how is the diabetes rate in societies with a traditional low fat/high carb diet, like Japan? (And no, pointing to changes related to countries adopting a more western diet isn't the issue, I'm asking about with their traditional diet.)

    Given the wide range of traditional diets and macro percentages -- more higher carb than very low carb -- I think the endless obsession at MFP with macro percentage being all that and the preaching about low carb being healthier is tiresome. If it works for you, great. More likely the reason low carb seems healthier for some is that it helps them eat a healthier and more calorie appropriate diet within the context of the current environment, and not some inherent problem with carbs (which is basically to say with plant-based foods).

    This thread is not about low carb diets at all, so I'm honestly not sure what your response is even about or how to respond to it.

    The thread is not, but I perceived your comment to be -- specifically the comment about special diets being necessary for specific people with certain family histories and the focus on diabetes.

    There's no one perfect diet, of course, but what we also know is that a huge range of different diets seem to lead to positive health outcomes for human populations. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to worry about an ideal diet for health. For pleasure and sustainability, sure, but the human body is on the whole more forgiving that you are giving it credit for -- humans can adjust and thrive on a wide range of diets (although the SAD, at least as typically defined, may not be one such example).

    Your perception is wrong. The entire point of every comment I made in this thread is that different people may very well have different ideal diets, as this particular research seems to indicate, so you are way off base.
  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    Here's why I agree with the "majoring in the minors" concept regarding personalized dieting of this nature.

    If 2 people eat diets identical in calories, macros, & micros, i.e. the same foods and same amounts, how much do you think their experience will differ in terms of health? I'm positing that it will be minor, if any, and it would be even smaller if you isolate out the differences due to allergens, metabolic conditions, etc. and focus solely on the differences due to gut flora.

    I'm not dismissive of the research being done, but I'm dismissive of any claims that such research has given us any type of conclusive evidence.

    It's interesting to talk about, but way to early to make statements like:
    Seems reasonable that nutrition and diet would work differently depending on the individual.
    or
    that some people need more or less of certain macros than others
    or
    it could influence whether you develop diabetes or heart disease or many other diseases

    ETA: I should clarify that I'm actually on board with nuanced differences in the micro/macro needs of individuals, but I'm skeptical of any claims that the differences are anything more than nuanced.

    I'm sure there are studies showing that there are small, but probably numerous, differences. I've not seen studies, other than sibling/twin studies, but I can't imagine they don't exist.

    Ok, this is interesting...

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791857/

    "It has recently become evident that such microbiota, specifically within the gut, can greatly influence many physiological parameters, including cognitive functions, such as learning, memory and decision making processes."

    This as well...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gut-bacteria-microbiome-influence-weight-heart-health/

    "They identified 34 different types of bacteria that played a role in the differences in body fat (BMI) and blood lipids, such as triglycerides and the good cholesterol known as high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Most of these were new discoveries.

    The researchers found that gut bacteria contributed to 4.6 percent of the difference in BMI, 6 percent in triglycerides and 4 percent in HDL. The study authors said they were surprised to find that gut microbes had little to do with low-density lipoproteins (LDL) -- the so-called bad cholesterol -- or total cholesterol levels."
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    You know, weight loss considerations aside, doesn't it seem like this area of research is opening up all kinds of potential avenues for better understanding of human health? Maybe it's all hype but I think it's kind of exciting.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    missblondi2u wrote: »
    Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I'm not a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I just think that the research is interesting and that it's too early to be dismissive of it.
    When it's unproven is exactly the time for us to be dismissive of it. There may turn out to be something to it -- which isn't affected by one iota if I dismiss it today -- but there isn't now.

    I mean, fusion may turn out to be totally awesome as a power source, but if someone wanted me to invest in it today, I think I'd pass. That doesn't mean I think people should abandon the research. It just means that talk about the potential benefits are somewhat premature.

    Dismissive is defined as "feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration." I think this is worth considering.

    Bingo.
    I take it, then, that's you've considered this idea. What are your action items as a result of that consideration?
    The idea that we're all special snowflakes?
    I eat the way I know works for me. And...will continue to.
    Your consideration of the ideas from the article netted you "we're all special snowflakes"? That explains a lot.

    Insult all you like. As per usual.
    You're the one who that's what your consideration yielded, didn't you? How's it an insult to point it out?

  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    Jruzer wrote: »
    You know, weight loss considerations aside, doesn't it seem like this area of research is opening up all kinds of potential avenues for better understanding of human health? Maybe it's all hype but I think it's kind of exciting.

    Agreed!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Jruzer wrote: »
    You know, weight loss considerations aside, doesn't it seem like this area of research is opening up all kinds of potential avenues for better understanding of human health? Maybe it's all hype but I think it's kind of exciting.

    Oh, there's many things that are very interesting to research for researchers. And most of those are completely irrelevant for day to day use because "significant" in research terms doesn't mean the same as "significant" for you and me.
  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    goldthistime wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    goldthistime wrote: »
    Interesting stuff. The problem with paying what I imagine would be a hefty price for an individualized diet plan based on your stool sample is that your gut bacteria can change, based on diet among other things. But I have to say that I am fascinated by this stuff. One of my daughter's classes last year was on gut bacteria and I'm tempted to take it myself.

    Yeah, they even do gut bacteria transplants.
    I do think genetic testing may one day show tendencies for some gut bacteria over others.
    I think genetic testing for what to eat for health will be the big individualization.

    I have read about fecal transplants. I would do in a heartbeat if I found myself with a c. diff infection. Or an IBS bout that I couldn't shake.

    Our genetic makeup may be well be the best predictor of which diet plan we should follow, but maybe not. I have read that your gut bacteria composition will change if you follow a certain kind of diet for a period of time (low fat, low carb, more meat, no meat etc). One of the reasons I believe it, is that there is a transition period when you start to follow a strange new way of eating, but after a while, it feels normal. My gut reaction to this, :smiley: , is that a change in your gut flora is a big part of establishing your new normal. How much can we alter our genetic predisposition to have certain types/quantities of gut bacteria? (The classic nature/nurture debate. Often I side on the nature/genetic predisposition side, this time I'm leaning toward the environment side). Not sure that science can tell us yet, but if you come across any studies on the topic, please share.

    You might find this interesting:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gut-bacteria-microbiome-influence-weight-heart-health/

    "So how can you improve your gut's microbiome?

    "There are a couple of things you can do. Obviously, your diet affects it. Eating a diet that's high in fruits and vegetables, lower in red meat, and high in fiber," Narula said. "Also prebiotics and probiotics can help."

    But she points out that your gut's microbiome is created over time from the day you're born. "Even whether you're a cesarean section versus a vaginal delivery starts to affect the bacteria in your gut," she explained. "Then whether you're breast fed or formula fed, and then the diet you eat throughout your life."
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    Here's why I agree with the "majoring in the minors" concept regarding personalized dieting of this nature.

    If 2 people eat diets identical in calories, macros, & micros, i.e. the same foods and same amounts, how much do you think their experience will differ in terms of health? I'm positing that it will be minor, if any, and it would be even smaller if you isolate out the differences due to allergens, metabolic conditions, etc. and focus solely on the differences due to gut flora.

    I'm not dismissive of the research being done, but I'm dismissive of any claims that such research has given us any type of conclusive evidence.

    It's interesting to talk about, but way to early to make statements like:
    Seems reasonable that nutrition and diet would work differently depending on the individual.
    or
    that some people need more or less of certain macros than others
    or
    it could influence whether you develop diabetes or heart disease or many other diseases

    ETA: I should clarify that I'm actually on board with nuanced differences in the micro/macro needs of individuals, but I'm skeptical of any claims that the differences are anything more than nuanced.
    I'd like to point out that I didn't state that different people have different macro requirements. I said I wondered if they might find that out because I think it might be possible. I also said that it might be wishful thinking on my part.

    It was in no way related to intestinal flora. I began thinking this before I heard of these intestinal flora studies and will continue to think about it whether or not intestinal flora becomes a thing.

    You kind of clipped things and used them out of context there.

    Studying intestinal flora and replacement may be majoring in the minors, but that's what science does and why it is so great. If it turns out that they can successfully replace them and get rid of what they don't want in there...that could save lives. So, what is seen as minor to one person is quite major to another. How it may or may not relate to diet may turn out to be very important and may not. But even if it doesn't, if it's saving lives and ending suffering, YAY that. Might not be of any interest to dieters but will be of a great deal of interest to others.
  • Azuriaz
    Azuriaz Posts: 785 Member
    Options
    Some of the foods included on the “approved” list were not exactly the foods you might expect. “For some people it included chocolate, ice cream, pizza — things a dietitian would not prescribe,” Segal said. (Plenty of others didn’t, of course, and stuck to things like whole grains or veggies.)

    One step closer to the day everyone can stop sniping at everyone else over our different food choices. However I do note with some concern that what works for me (low carb) wasn't mentioned. Hopefully that didn't mean it was left out of the research.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    I kind of take issue with the "obesity is a symptom of a health problem." Obesity is a symptom of eating more calories than you burn for an extended time period. Health problems can affect how much your body burns, but you still wouldn't become obese without the excess calories.

    Moi - I think it's a leap because we know obesity plays a large role in those health issues yet we don't know a) the extent to which blood sugar plays a role in causing diabetes and heart disease (although I'm open to reading up on it you have material to the contrary), b) whether there even are significant differences in our individual metabolic processes related to blood sugar, and c) if those differences do exist, whether they are great enough to cause a change in the probability of a person coming down with those diseases.

    It's all speculation at this point when it comes to "special snowflake hypothesis*" whereas we know that controlling weight will lower a person's likelihood of diabetes and heart problems.

    *I'm not actually calling anyone a special snowflake; I'm just using the term for convenience.

    There are a lot of thin people with diabetes, so it seems obvious that there is more to this than simply weight. That's why the research continues...to get a better understanding of ALL the relevant factors and how they interact.

    It seems extremely short sighted to ignore the research just because every question has not yet been answered.

    There were people with diabetes before the current period, of course. The issue right now is that the rate has gone way up, almost certainly due to the obesity rate. What percentage of people with diabetes currently aren't obese or overweight? It would be interesting to compare that to the more traditional rate of diabetes in this society (and perhaps in some others)?

    Also, how is the diabetes rate in societies with a traditional low fat/high carb diet, like Japan? (And no, pointing to changes related to countries adopting a more western diet isn't the issue, I'm asking about with their traditional diet.)

    Given the wide range of traditional diets and macro percentages -- more higher carb than very low carb -- I think the endless obsession at MFP with macro percentage being all that and the preaching about low carb being healthier is tiresome. If it works for you, great. More likely the reason low carb seems healthier for some is that it helps them eat a healthier and more calorie appropriate diet within the context of the current environment, and not some inherent problem with carbs (which is basically to say with plant-based foods).

    This thread is not about low carb diets at all, so I'm honestly not sure what your response is even about or how to respond to it.

    The thread is not, but I perceived your comment to be -- specifically the comment about special diets being necessary for specific people with certain family histories and the focus on diabetes.

    There's no one perfect diet, of course, but what we also know is that a huge range of different diets seem to lead to positive health outcomes for human populations. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to worry about an ideal diet for health. For pleasure and sustainability, sure, but the human body is on the whole more forgiving that you are giving it credit for -- humans can adjust and thrive on a wide range of diets (although the SAD, at least as typically defined, may not be one such example).

    Your perception is wrong. The entire point of every comment I made in this thread is that different people may very well have different ideal diets, as this particular research seems to indicate, so you are way off base.

    Yes, and I'm disagreeing with the idea that anyone (barring a specific health condition, of course) has an "ideal diet" from a health perspective--the evidence is that there are a wide range of diets that work for human beings (that is, which would work well for the same human being if that human being were born in, say, traditional Japan or among the Maasai or Crete before more contemporary influences started to play a role, etc. So how am I misunderstanding your comments?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    I'd like to point out that I didn't state that different people have different macro requirements. I said I wondered if they might find that out because I think it might be possible. I also said that it might be wishful thinking on my part.

    I suspect the actual macro *requirements* are extremely broad and likely don't differ much (in terms of what we can survive on). What we feel best on probably does differ a lot (and likely is affected by food preferences and environment and what we ate growing up and our current gut flora, sure -- although again that can change as anyone who has started eating a lot more veggies after not eating them for a while can likely attest). But I'm just guessing (based on various evidence and observations) too.

    (Just so it's clear, I am not intending to disagree with you here, just commenting on the topic.)
    Studying intestinal flora and replacement may be majoring in the minors, but that's what science does and why it is so great.

    Of course. But I think when people say something is majoring in the minors in the context of a thread like this it's referring to trying to use studies to make choices about how to eat--for example, worrying about whether you must eat most of your calories at breakfast or not eat after 5 pm because of some studies about rats who eat during the day being thinner than rats who eat at night or worrying about eating protein and carbs within 30 minutes of exercise because of some study. In most cases, people are better off focusing on what's sustainable for them and making it simpler. That by no means means that scientists shouldn't study it or that the studies aren't interesting. The media reports about the studies are often ridiculous, however, which is why a lot of people feel confused about what to eat or think we have no idea what's a healthy diet or that the advice changes dramatically from year to year (which it really doesn't). And, sigh, why we keep getting posters who are worried that eating fruit is unhealthy.
  • umayster
    umayster Posts: 651 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    SingRunTing wrote: »
    It's majoring in the minors. May have some small effect, but most people struggling with weight loss are just eating too much. No point in tweaking until you've got the big stuff right.

    You're missing a big part of the point...It's not just about obesity...that's just one area of interest...it's about health in general. How a food impacts you doesn't just influence your weight, it could influence whether you develop diabetes or heart disease or many other diseases. That's hardly majoring in the minors.

    That bolded bit is a pretty huge leap.

    oh
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    I'd like to point out that I didn't state that different people have different macro requirements. I said I wondered if they might find that out because I think it might be possible. I also said that it might be wishful thinking on my part.

    I suspect the actual macro *requirements* are extremely broad and likely don't differ much (in terms of what we can survive on). What we feel best on probably does differ a lot (and likely is affected by food preferences and environment and what we ate growing up and our current gut flora, sure -- although again that can change as anyone who has started eating a lot more veggies after not eating them for a while can likely attest). But I'm just guessing (based on various evidence and observations) too.

    (Just so it's clear, I am not intending to disagree with you here, just commenting on the topic.)
    You cannot disagree with me as (again) I didn't make a point or state anything as a fact. I said that I wonder what they'll find out. That's kind of why I said that. The idea that I stated it as fact was done with a little clip from my post that was taken out of context.

    I have this idea in my head that people might have different requirements. I know that they might not. I also know that I would LOVE that to be the case because it would relieve me of my protein burden. It could be wishful thinking on my part.

    But I do NOT (and did not) state that it's a fact or that even I am convinced of it.

    There is nothing to disagree with. I'm curious, not convinced. I just wonder What If and Maybe and stuff like that.

  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    I kind of take issue with the "obesity is a symptom of a health problem." Obesity is a symptom of eating more calories than you burn for an extended time period. Health problems can affect how much your body burns, but you still wouldn't become obese without the excess calories.

    Moi - I think it's a leap because we know obesity plays a large role in those health issues yet we don't know a) the extent to which blood sugar plays a role in causing diabetes and heart disease (although I'm open to reading up on it you have material to the contrary), b) whether there even are significant differences in our individual metabolic processes related to blood sugar, and c) if those differences do exist, whether they are great enough to cause a change in the probability of a person coming down with those diseases.

    It's all speculation at this point when it comes to "special snowflake hypothesis*" whereas we know that controlling weight will lower a person's likelihood of diabetes and heart problems.

    *I'm not actually calling anyone a special snowflake; I'm just using the term for convenience.

    There are a lot of thin people with diabetes, so it seems obvious that there is more to this than simply weight. That's why the research continues...to get a better understanding of ALL the relevant factors and how they interact.

    It seems extremely short sighted to ignore the research just because every question has not yet been answered.

    There were people with diabetes before the current period, of course. The issue right now is that the rate has gone way up, almost certainly due to the obesity rate. What percentage of people with diabetes currently aren't obese or overweight? It would be interesting to compare that to the more traditional rate of diabetes in this society (and perhaps in some others)?

    Also, how is the diabetes rate in societies with a traditional low fat/high carb diet, like Japan? (And no, pointing to changes related to countries adopting a more western diet isn't the issue, I'm asking about with their traditional diet.)

    Given the wide range of traditional diets and macro percentages -- more higher carb than very low carb -- I think the endless obsession at MFP with macro percentage being all that and the preaching about low carb being healthier is tiresome. If it works for you, great. More likely the reason low carb seems healthier for some is that it helps them eat a healthier and more calorie appropriate diet within the context of the current environment, and not some inherent problem with carbs (which is basically to say with plant-based foods).

    This thread is not about low carb diets at all, so I'm honestly not sure what your response is even about or how to respond to it.

    The thread is not, but I perceived your comment to be -- specifically the comment about special diets being necessary for specific people with certain family histories and the focus on diabetes.

    There's no one perfect diet, of course, but what we also know is that a huge range of different diets seem to lead to positive health outcomes for human populations. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to worry about an ideal diet for health. For pleasure and sustainability, sure, but the human body is on the whole more forgiving that you are giving it credit for -- humans can adjust and thrive on a wide range of diets (although the SAD, at least as typically defined, may not be one such example).

    Your perception is wrong. The entire point of every comment I made in this thread is that different people may very well have different ideal diets, as this particular research seems to indicate, so you are way off base.

    Yes, and I'm disagreeing with the idea that anyone (barring a specific health condition, of course) has an "ideal diet" from a health perspective--the evidence is that there are a wide range of diets that work for human beings (that is, which would work well for the same human being if that human being were born in, say, traditional Japan or among the Maasai or Crete before more contemporary influences started to play a role, etc. So how am I misunderstanding your comments?

    You claimed that I was pushing low carb, when I never even mentioned ANY specific diet. So please comment on what I actually write. Did you even read the article the OP linked? The entire point of it is that one food can affect different people in very different ways...even when they don't have a specific condition. So the implication is that different people may, in fact, have very different ideal diets.

    If you disagree with the research, that is fine, although it would be nice if you provided some evidence to contradict their study instead of just saying that evidence exists. But please don't claim I said things I didn't. And please stick to the topic of the thread.

Categories