Personalized dieting?? Maybe we really are all special snowflakes ;)
Options
Replies
-
missblondi2u wrote: »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:
orSeems reasonable that nutrition and diet would work differently depending on the individual.
orthat some people need more or less of certain macros than othersit 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."
I'd need to see the study because CBS is playing weasel words. While they say difference in the part you quoted, earlier, they said the research was about associations. If it is just associations, you can't say the bacteria caused the difference, only that the bacteria are present with the difference. As gut bacteria can change with time this could just represent that people with a particular diet that causes health difference Y also causes change in gut flora X. This would make it look like f(x) = y, but that isn't the relation, it is diet Z with f(z) = x and f(z) = y.0 -
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.
I know. I wish the moderation people would stop telling everyone they're going to break into houses and force people to eat ice cream. Why do they do that? It's weird.0 -
You cannot disagree with me as (again) I didn't make a point or state anything as a fact.lemurcat12 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.)
I don't disagree -- I just wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to argue or thinking that you had, just joining the conversation.The idea that I stated it as fact was done with a little clip from my post that was taken out of context.
I didn't read it that way or think you were stating it as fact. You said you hadn't in what I quoted, after all.
I just had some thoughts on the topic.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »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.
No, I explained that my prior comment was based on a perception that you were. I think that was a reasonable perception, but I wasn't arguing about that point in the post you responded to.So please comment on what I actually write.
I did -- please reread. I don't agree that there's an "ideal diet" that's right for any specific individual (barring certain health conditions that might have required diets), in terms of health results. I think there's a broad range of diets that humans -- individual humans -- can adjust to and thrive on, as we can see by comparing traditional diets. Therefore, this notion that science will identify ideal diets for each of us, or that there are wide differences between us as to what those diets would be, is IMO not likely. Are there diets that may feel ideal for other reasons, like personal preference? Sure, but that's different than the claim that health requires such specific differences.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.
Yes, I read it. I don't think it's that strong -- that there are individual differences in what specific foods spike blood sugar for diabetes is, for example, well known, but not that meaningful. The foods are within a broad category and have similarities and we are talking about people with health conditions, and further NOT saying that they must have different macros from each other. As for the gut flora -- as I have already said a couple of times -- gut flora changes based on what you eat and that's why people can have difficulties with foods or diets they are not used to at first and then adjust.
You (and the reporter) are reading much more into the research than is there. Or perhaps it's more ominous and related to David Katz's argument that we do know generally what healthy eating is but sadly people stand to make money by encouraging confusion and emphasizing differences between diets and wars about what macros are bad and the idea that it's really complicated and requires individualized advice or reading the most recent book on the topic from the diet doctor du jour.
If humans were so delicate that we needed to eat an ideal diet, you'd see lots of diet-related illnesses in most societies, and yet you don't. Traditional societies with vastly different macros and food options and so on do just fine.
(And I made these points above, in response to the article. You chose to ignore them and pretend like I was arguing about what you said.)0 -
i think its hard to say how each body works.. my dude is 25 has been a professional athlete since he was 16 rides a bike many hours a day, has a rock hard body, 15% bf and had has high blood pressure since he was 21 and ever male in his family has died or had a heart attack before the age of 50. so weight doesnt mean ur free and clear of diabetes and blood pressure.0
-
Going back to the beginning of this discussion, I trained as a ruminant nutritionist in the 1980s. Back then, there was tremendous interest in gut microflora in cattle and sheep. The general ecology of the gut was highly correllated with diet, and if there was one thing I learned, it was make any changes to the diet gradually. This allows the gut microflora to adapt gently. A sudden change in diet can actually kill a cow, beause the gut microbial balance gets badly upset, resulting in too much acid entering the blood stream. I wonder if we have so many choices of different things to eat nowadays, that we sometimes end up assaulting our gut microbes?0
-
Different people have different needs and desires, so OF COURSE everyone needs their own plan.
I have this theory that some people need more or less of certain macros than others. It could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I wonder about it. Will they find, one day, that some people don't need quite as much protein as others? I lean toward Yes, lol.
As time goes on, they're going to learn new stuff and whatever it is will be interesting.
I agree, we already know this to be true; concerning water intake. Not everyone needs at least 8, 8 Ounce cups of water per day. I wonder how many people, are being water poisoned; by believing in this myth?0 -
Probably pretty close to, if not, zero.MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »Different people have different needs and desires, so OF COURSE everyone needs their own plan.
I have this theory that some people need more or less of certain macros than others. It could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I wonder about it. Will they find, one day, that some people don't need quite as much protein as others? I lean toward Yes, lol.
As time goes on, they're going to learn new stuff and whatever it is will be interesting.
I agree, we already know this to be true; concerning water intake. Not everyone needs at least 8, 8 Ounce cups of water per day. I wonder how many people, are being water poisoned; by believing in this myth?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Probably pretty close to, if not, zero.MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »Different people have different needs and desires, so OF COURSE everyone needs their own plan.
I have this theory that some people need more or less of certain macros than others. It could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I wonder about it. Will they find, one day, that some people don't need quite as much protein as others? I lean toward Yes, lol.
As time goes on, they're going to learn new stuff and whatever it is will be interesting.
I agree, we already know this to be true; concerning water intake. Not everyone needs at least 8, 8 Ounce cups of water per day. I wonder how many people, are being water poisoned; by believing in this myth?
According to wikipedia, death from accidental water intoxication is rare, but has happened. Generally, the factors associated with accidental deaths include prolonged physical activity and drug use. Other deaths that were not necessarily accidental include fraternity hazing rituals, children being punished (or rather tortured), or competitive eating/drinking. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
However, one instance did stand out to me-- Jacqueline Henson, a 40-year-old British woman, died after drinking four liters of water in under two hours as part of her LighterLife diet plan.
My company recently purchased fitbits for employees as part of our wellness program. The HR manager indicated that she wanted to have contests among employees on things like steps taken, active minutes, and "who logs the most water." I immediately told her that competitive water drinking was a bad idea.0 -
Going back to the beginning of this discussion, I trained as a ruminant nutritionist in the 1980s. Back then, there was tremendous interest in gut microflora in cattle and sheep. The general ecology of the gut was highly correllated with diet, and if there was one thing I learned, it was make any changes to the diet gradually. This allows the gut microflora to adapt gently. A sudden change in diet can actually kill a cow, beause the gut microbial balance gets badly upset, resulting in too much acid entering the blood stream. I wonder if we have so many choices of different things to eat nowadays, that we sometimes end up assaulting our gut microbes?
This is an interesting idea, especially given the research that says gut microbia can change in as little as one day after altering your diet.0 -
That's not 64 ounces of water, though.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Probably pretty close to, if not, zero.MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »Different people have different needs and desires, so OF COURSE everyone needs their own plan.
I have this theory that some people need more or less of certain macros than others. It could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I wonder about it. Will they find, one day, that some people don't need quite as much protein as others? I lean toward Yes, lol.
As time goes on, they're going to learn new stuff and whatever it is will be interesting.
I agree, we already know this to be true; concerning water intake. Not everyone needs at least 8, 8 Ounce cups of water per day. I wonder how many people, are being water poisoned; by believing in this myth?
According to wikipedia, death from accidental water intoxication is rare, but has happened. Generally, the factors associated with accidental deaths include prolonged physical activity and drug use. Other deaths that were not necessarily accidental include fraternity hazing rituals, children being punished (or rather tortured), or competitive eating/drinking. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
However, one instance did stand out to me-- Jacqueline Henson, a 40-year-old British woman, died after drinking four liters of water in under two hours as part of her LighterLife diet plan.
My company recently purchased fitbits for employees as part of our wellness program. The HR manager indicated that she wanted to have contests among employees on things like steps taken, active minutes, and "who logs the most water." I immediately told her that competitive water drinking was a bad idea.
I'd be surprised if any, let alone more than a handful of, adults in the history of the world have died from water poisoning because of the "8, 8 Ounce cups of water per day...myth."
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's not 64 ounces of water, though.missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Probably pretty close to, if not, zero.MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »Different people have different needs and desires, so OF COURSE everyone needs their own plan.
I have this theory that some people need more or less of certain macros than others. It could just be wishful thinking on my part, but I wonder about it. Will they find, one day, that some people don't need quite as much protein as others? I lean toward Yes, lol.
As time goes on, they're going to learn new stuff and whatever it is will be interesting.
I agree, we already know this to be true; concerning water intake. Not everyone needs at least 8, 8 Ounce cups of water per day. I wonder how many people, are being water poisoned; by believing in this myth?
According to wikipedia, death from accidental water intoxication is rare, but has happened. Generally, the factors associated with accidental deaths include prolonged physical activity and drug use. Other deaths that were not necessarily accidental include fraternity hazing rituals, children being punished (or rather tortured), or competitive eating/drinking. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
However, one instance did stand out to me-- Jacqueline Henson, a 40-year-old British woman, died after drinking four liters of water in under two hours as part of her LighterLife diet plan.
My company recently purchased fitbits for employees as part of our wellness program. The HR manager indicated that she wanted to have contests among employees on things like steps taken, active minutes, and "who logs the most water." I immediately told her that competitive water drinking was a bad idea.
I'd be surprised if any, let alone more than a handful of, adults in the history of the world have died from water poisoning because of the "8, 8 Ounce cups of water per day...myth."
Although wikipedia only mentioned deaths from water intoxication, and had no info on water intoxication that did not result in actual death, I think you're probably right here. I doubt 64 ounces in 24 hours would be enough to poison a person, unless they were a small child. However, the take-away that I know many people have from the 8 cups a day recommendation (my HR manager included) is just that "more water = healthier." I think this could lead to some poor results.0 -
Regardless of the amount that ends up causing the intoxication, competitive water consumption is a bad idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDND#.22Hold_Your_Wee_for_a_Wii.22_contest
These DJs held a "Hold Your Wee For a Wii" contest and it didn't turn out so well.0 -
Yeah, overdoing the water just for the sake of it probably leads to some poor results, just like overdoing anything from fruit to steak to cardio.
I wasn't trying to defend any particular level of water intake. I was just pointing out that drinking 64 ounces of water in a day isn't going to kill anyone who doesn't have some massive underlying issue. If then. Almost surely, more people have drowned in 64 ounces of water.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah, overdoing the water just for the sake of it probably leads to some poor results, just like overdoing anything from fruit to steak to cardio.
I wasn't trying to defend any particular level of water intake. I was just pointing out that drinking 64 ounces of water in a day isn't going to kill anyone who doesn't have some massive underlying issue. If then. Almost surely, more people have drowned in 64 ounces of water.
Yeah, agreed. I don't think any adult would have a problem drinking 64oz of water in a day. It's when they try to drink 164oz in a day that it becomes a problem!0 -
For small people who don't live where it's going to be fricking 97 degrees in mid-October, maybe. I was over 200 ounces yesterday.tincanonastring wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah, overdoing the water just for the sake of it probably leads to some poor results, just like overdoing anything from fruit to steak to cardio.
I wasn't trying to defend any particular level of water intake. I was just pointing out that drinking 64 ounces of water in a day isn't going to kill anyone who doesn't have some massive underlying issue. If then. Almost surely, more people have drowned in 64 ounces of water.
Yeah, agreed. I don't think any adult would have a problem drinking 64oz of water in a day. It's when they try to drink 164oz in a day that it becomes a problem!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Regardless of the amount that ends up causing the intoxication, competitive water consumption is a bad idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDND#.22Hold_Your_Wee_for_a_Wii.22_contest
These DJs held a "Hold Your Wee For a Wii" contest and it didn't turn out so well.
Yeah, a jury awarded her husband $16M for the radio station's negligence. As my company's in house counsel, I made sure my HR manager knew about this case.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
For small people who don't live where it's going to be fricking 97 degrees in mid-October, maybe. I was over 200 ounces yesterday.tincanonastring wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah, overdoing the water just for the sake of it probably leads to some poor results, just like overdoing anything from fruit to steak to cardio.
I wasn't trying to defend any particular level of water intake. I was just pointing out that drinking 64 ounces of water in a day isn't going to kill anyone who doesn't have some massive underlying issue. If then. Almost surely, more people have drowned in 64 ounces of water.
Yeah, agreed. I don't think any adult would have a problem drinking 64oz of water in a day. It's when they try to drink 164oz in a day that it becomes a problem!
That's just awful, man. I'm so sorry. We're finally in the mid-50's here. I would move.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
For small people who don't live where it's going to be fricking 97 degrees in mid-October, maybe. I was over 200 ounces yesterday.tincanonastring wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah, overdoing the water just for the sake of it probably leads to some poor results, just like overdoing anything from fruit to steak to cardio.
I wasn't trying to defend any particular level of water intake. I was just pointing out that drinking 64 ounces of water in a day isn't going to kill anyone who doesn't have some massive underlying issue. If then. Almost surely, more people have drowned in 64 ounces of water.
Yeah, agreed. I don't think any adult would have a problem drinking 64oz of water in a day. It's when they try to drink 164oz in a day that it becomes a problem!
I understand! I was in Key West this week for work, and it was in the mid 90's with like 500% humidity. I drank so much water I could have floated away.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
For small people who don't live where it's going to be fricking 97 degrees in mid-October, maybe. I was over 200 ounces yesterday.tincanonastring wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah, overdoing the water just for the sake of it probably leads to some poor results, just like overdoing anything from fruit to steak to cardio.
I wasn't trying to defend any particular level of water intake. I was just pointing out that drinking 64 ounces of water in a day isn't going to kill anyone who doesn't have some massive underlying issue. If then. Almost surely, more people have drowned in 64 ounces of water.
Yeah, agreed. I don't think any adult would have a problem drinking 64oz of water in a day. It's when they try to drink 164oz in a day that it becomes a problem!
200oz? Having you considered just getting a 'still suit like in Dune?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 940 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions