https://optimisingnutrition.wordpress.com/

There is a lot of information here, makes interesting reading for me. I'm sure some of you have seen it, for those who have not....

I checked it out. Ain't my cup of tea. He's all about fiber, nutrient density, and some other ideas that don't cut it in my view. Some of it is pretty good but it's kinda brought down by the stuff that ain't so good. For example, he's got one post where he explains stuff to lose weight. Basically it's all about calorie restriction, so low calorie density. But then he's got another post about a guy who's lean and eats high calorie density, then he says "high calorie density is not a problem since he's lean". Well, that doesn't make sense. Either he's naturally lean so calorie density doesn't matter, or it does matter and that's what keeps him lean. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter if we're fat to begin with. If it does matter, then that's how we should eat if we're fat to begin with. This is in contradiction to his other post about calorie density - calorie restriction - to get leaner when you're fat. Maybe he's just exploring possibilities, who knows.

The thing about fiber. A priori, fiber gives us exactly no benefit that I can see. We can't digest it so we can't absorb any nutrition contained therein. So, anything else we say about fiber must consider this fact. For example, if we say fiber is good for gut health, we have to explain how a thing which we can't digest is good for gut health. See? One argument in favor of fiber is that it helps bowel movement. Well, that argument is in the context of constipation, and constipation is the state of slowed digestion, and too much fecal matter in there as a result of this slow digestion. Adding more fecal matter in the form of indigestible fiber can only make things worse, cuz there's already too much, cuz that's the problem, and we're adding more on top of that. Rather, we have to explain how adding more when there's already too much will help move things along. See? Maybe it's all about gut bugs and how they eat the fiber and somehow transfer some benefit to us. Maybe. But this is done through fermentation and fermentation produces gases and gases actually hinder bowel movement cuz the gut is a pump designed to move solids and semi-solids. When gases are introduced in that kind of pump, the solids can't come into contact with the pump's surfaces (it's a bit more involved than that but this will suffice as a primer on solids pumps), the solids can't move along. And we're right back to constipation, where there's slowed digestion, and too much fecal matter in there, as a direct result of adding more fecal matter in the form of indigestible fiber, which we believed was our salvation. Rather, we have to explain how introducing fermentation therefore gases in the gut is going to help us in any way. See? Then you gotta ask, where does fiber come from? Well, it so happens that 100% of it come from plants. So here, we gotta explain how plants can be so good for us when they contain stuff that ain't so good for us. Rather, we have to explain how fiber can suddenly become good for us just because it comes from plants, which we believe are good for us. See? If fiber was good for us, it would actually be good for us. But that's just my opinion.

Marty Kendall takes his engineering background and applies its structured analysis to foods most appropriate for his wife with T1 diabetes. His work on the Insulin Index for foods has been helpful, especially for members who follow Dr Jason Fung. Marty has joined this forum and occasionally posts when there is traffic from here. Read his "Manifesto" and his comments about Insulin Load also, you will find other threads in the Diabetes sub-forum about this insulin index, know some posts were in the Dr Fung thread.
Here's one from this sub-forum where he explained more about the food values:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=467885

Well, newloc, I'm always interested in information about nutritional theories, but I only had the patience to glance at this. Thanks, anyway. Years into LC practice, I still embrace "simple" as my best hope for success. I enjoyed seeing the smiling photo of Dr. Atkins with his skilletful of colorful food.

Regardless of theory, Atkins has always been my go-to guy for cheerful encouragement. I think that's the best quality most dietary gurus bring to the table. Everyone finds his or her own way, and with luck and persistence, can make a success of it.

Martin, ya got something to say about fiber, or what??

Barbara - Even though this post gets pretty complex with multiple analyses at the end there are links to simple lists of nutrient dense foods for different goals. I find this interesting since very low carb eaters don't seem to pay a whole lot of attention to micronutrients while I try to factor them in. This gets tricky when trying to keep carbs low. I wish there was more research into it in the low carb scientific community. I'm glad to see it being discussed and grateful for his simple lists since I am interested in the practical whereas the scientific tends to make my head spin.

Jean

Jean, thanks for the suggestion. I took a look at the lists. I still don't exactly understand the detail, but it was interesting to compare what I actually eat (or aim to eat) with the lists he proposes. Seems like I'm right on target for diabetic (I'm not) or nutritional ketosis (my aim). I was surprised to note that the "athlete" list seems short on vegetables. I thought veggies were good for everybody!

Best wishes.

I have developed an amazing new sense of the importance of minerals from reading this board, and following the leads they have provided.

I've also relaxed about vegetable intake, since large amounts don't seem to agree with me, and stuff like avocados and berries and seafood, does.

I really like Marty's blog even though he goes into the "nuts and bolts" of low-carbing in quite a bit of detail (loves those charts!). His Manifesto is excellent, and the insulin index information is very valuable (for instance--did you know protein raised insulin that much?!). If you follow Dr. Fung, as Jey says, and believe that insulin levels are a very important part of the weight loss/blood sugar dysfunction issue, the info on his blog is very helpful.

I think a very good case can be made for soluble fiber (not so much insoluble), acting as a prebiotic for beneficial gut bacteria. Many beneficial compounds, including vitamins, are generated this way. The digestive tract can actually "move along" a fair amount of gas before it becomes an issue. This makes a good case for eating a consistent diet, not changing things up drastically (hackers!).

A lot there, most over my head, I like the insulin index information.

If Leucine and Lysine are ketogenic, would it help to supplment with these amino acids?

In October, I only ate eggs, salmon and a little tuna, salad and vegetables. I went from 270, to 254 in ten days! Why I quit is a mystery to me. I notice I can overeat beef and pork, but fish not so.

I'm lost in the information now. The truth is if I eat low carb, moderate protein, and high fat, I will lose weight.

Like buying a treadmill, no one can make you get on it.

Thanks for the kind words about the site.

I'm just getting back into the blog after having to focus on work for a bit.

I'm updating the food lists and trying to share some more nutrient dense low carb recipes which seem to resonate with a wider audience.

I understand that fibre can be a controversial topic. For people who have SIBO dropping all carbs and fibre can be helpful to reset gut bacteria and starve the bad bacteria. Seems that long term low net carb fibre is beneficial to feed the gut bacteria (not us). The insulin index data also indicates that fibre does not cause an insulin response so filling up on low net carb fibres can help us reduce the insulin load.

Regarding calories, it seems a low insulin load approach will help reduce insulin and allow us to burn body fat which will lead to spontaneous calorie reduction and weight loss. For someone who is lean and active then fueling with a high fat diet makes a lot of sense while for someone who wants to lose weight can use their stored body fat for fuel rather than having to supplement with extra dietary fat which may lead to a calorie excess.

Oh, you caught that, did ya? Lol! I guess it's become my pet peeve or something.

Marty, don't take anything I say personally. It's just the way I discuss things. I always seem to focus on what's wrong from my point of view. For example, that idea of nutrient density. I had stumbled on Joel's equation a while back and figured it was plain BS. So I figured an equation of my own, but starting with different foundations. To summarize, if we start with an equation, we don't get anywhere. But if we start with actual facts as foundations, we can eventually produce an equation that will then get us somewhere. Take this idea of nutrient density, it's not exactly a fact, it's just an idea. Instead, start with facts found in experiments, deduce nutrient density from it, then produce an equation which can get us where we wanna go. Here's the problem with nutrient density. If we put it against calories, we can end up with a food that contains zero calories, cuz that's the best nutrient/calorie ratio we can get. That's Joel's equation by the way. If instead we say we need some calories, we can end up with mostly carbs as the source of those calories, cuz carbs contain half as much calories as fat. Then there's fat-soluble nutrients which can only be absorbed when fat is present, so you and I agree on that part at least. So here no matter how densely those fat-soluble nutrient are packed (vs calories), none of it will be of any use to us since there's no fat to absorb any of it. All these problems come when we start with an equation based on some idea, and we get rid of all those problems when instead we start with facts derived from experiments, like the A-TO-Z experiment by Chris Gardner or the famous Minnesota semi-starvation experiment for example. So, for the A-TO-Z experiment, the best diet actually increased energy density, while in the Minnesota experiment, they actually decreased energy density. That's for energy, so what happens to nutrients, do they follow this same density trend? Maybe, but at this point it doesn't matter, the best diet seems to be most energy dense regardless of nutrient density. Incidentally, the best diet in the A-TO-Z experiment had less total calories than the diet used for the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment, but produced none of the neurosis reported in the latter. How can this be?

That's a good point about moving gases. But, while gases move forward (and backward too as it happens cuz of how the gut works), solids stay put. So, when solids stay put - when they should instead move to and fro from the gut's motions - they don't get mixed up as much, we don't get as much nutrition from it, cuz less of it comes into contact with the gut's surfaces. We could say gases remain a problem until they're expelled.

As for soluble vs insoluble, I agree. Between the two, the one most likely to give us any benefit is the one that can be broken down.

No offence taken Martin. I was in a rush to get out the door so I might have been a bit short.

I agree that Furhman’s work has lots of holes in it, particularly when it comes to the issue of fat soluble vitamins and the importance of aminos and fats.

I think Lalonde did good job of progressing Fuhrman’s nutrient density concept. I’ve tried to kick that ball down the road a little bit more but looking at nutrient density in terms of weight and calories.

I came across the same issue of ND / calories giving garbage results which is where the addition of fibre / weight and fibre / calorie helps give more sensible results. Lots of people don't agree with the standard recommendations for fibre but I think we can find low carb non-starchy veggies that will meet our goals.

The A-to-Z trial found that the best diet for people who were insulin resistant was a low carb / low insulin load diet. For people who weren’t insulin resistant they just needed to drop calories. I’ve designed a low calorie density approach for people who are overweight but not insulin resistant (potentially a small population) which I think will get me off side with some low carbers. In the end though the 'fat loss' approach is still pretty low carb compared to the typical western diet.

If you take fats and aminos into account the optimal foods are much higher in protein and fat than Furhman’s vitamin-only approach.

The problem then is that you end up with a very high protein approach (50%) so that’s where the insulin load helps to bring it back to something we can realistically eat and our pancreas can keep up with.

I would welcome any specific comments on these posts:

https://optimisingnutrition.wordpre...nse-superfoods/

https://optimisingnutrition.wordpre...ifferent-goals/

Marty, I'm not sure about this statement here;



Because it suggests to me the white-knuckled variety of calorie-counting. I thought the difference shown between insulin sensitive/insulin resistant was for the low fat and low carb arms specifically--the two diets where calorie restriction as such isn't recommended--there's an expected decrease in appetite, but eating to satiety is written into the plans.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3504183/






This paper looks at adherence between insulin resistant and insulin sensitive groups in the A to Z study in the Atkins and Ornish arms. It looks like it comes down to compliance--the insulin resistant folk on the low fat Ornish diet were the least compliant at 12 months, with very little change in fat or carbohydrate intake from pre-diet levels.