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

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 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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.)

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?

MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »

Kalikel 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?

Probably pretty close to, if not, zero.