When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
That is, the simple hypothesis that carbs drive insulin production drives fat storage has been falsified, by a study that was organized by "Mr. Insulin" himself, Gary Taubes.
The hypothesis of the "metabolic advantage" (metabolism is raised in a person doing a ketogenic diet), has been been falsified.
However it did show that the first 5 days of a ketogenic diet caused rapid fat loss, but the rate of loss slowed down over time. So maybe the bodybuilders who do a "cyclic ketogenic diet" have it right all along.
What was not tested, was the hypothesis that appetite is suppressed when a person goes very low carb, making it easier to eat less and go into calorie deficit. This hypothesis has been supported by other studies.
This one's for Jason. Turns out it's not your guy microbiome, it's your DNA. (Or, at least, that's the trend we're trying to start at the moment.)
HABIT WILL OFFER PERSONALIZED DNA-BASED DIETS DELIVERED TO YOUR DOOR
Habit will be launching its healthy meal service in January of 2017 and all their recipes will contain one special ingredient: your genetics.
Charles Costa Oct 27, 2016
Dieting is one of the hottest industries in the world, filled with tens of thousands of products promising to help users live longer, longer lives and lose significant amounts of weight. The common goal, when it comes to most people’s diets, is pretty simple: they’re looking to become “healthier.” How they go about reaching their goals, however, varies wildly in both style and complexity. For most, dieting is significant challenge, made even more challenging by the one thing we’re stuck with: our genetics.
To address this often-overlooked layer of complexity, there is a developing field of science known as, nutrigenomics. Eating Well has a good in-depth discussion on the topic, but the science boils down to an appreciation and application of the fact that genetics have a significant impact on metabolism, appetite, and other characteristics critical to the necessary inputs and eventual outputs of dieting.
A new startup is placing this science at the heart of its service: Habit. Their plan is to provide personalized diets to people using their DNA to drive the menus. Their offering also tries to boil down the science to bits and bites, allowing users to discover their unique scientific characteristics in a language they speak—like ideal ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins, and general nutritional statuses via biomarkers such as Vitamin A, carotenoids, and omega-3 fatty acids.
To use the service, users first collect their own DNA sample (don’t worry, there are instructions and timers and stuff). The sample is sent over to a partner company that processes the specimen in a CLIA and CAP certified lab. Applying proprietary algorithms, Habit’s Nutrition Intelligence Engine identifies the user diet type and recommends foods and nutrients based on the profile. From there a team of chefs creates fresh meals and delivers them to each doorstep.
If they so choose, users can download and use Habit’s companion mobile app to share details of their meals, experience and progress. Fact: People on health kicks love to share (their thoughts, not their food).
Habit’s program is based on a few key elements:
DNA: Genotype determines whether genes are turned on or off. When they’re expressed, the genetic information is used to make proteins, including enzymes and polypeptide hormones which impact metabolism.
Phenotype: The observable expression of user genes, it describes how internal (physical) and external influences (food) affect the body’s biology. Weight, activity levels, age, and core measurement are just a few essential metrics.
Phenotype Flexibility: This is an analysis used to understand how the body responds to food. Habit replaces a user meal with the shake, and then measures several nutrition biomarkers after consumption. This provides more granular insight into how the body reacts to fats, carbs, and protein.
Habits and Goals: Habit not only works with your DNA but with your personal goals, employing registered dietitians and offering “coaching” services to achieve a generally healthy lifestyle.
Nutrition Intelligence Engine: Proprietary algorithms and decision trees are applied based on nutrition biomarkers, body basics, genetic variations in the user DNA, activity level, health goals, and food preferences. This is the brain that creates the personalized diets for each end user.
There’s a lot going on there, but at the end of the day, the company promises a pretty straight forward final product: a delicious meal.
Habit was founded by Neil Grimmer (who also founded Plum Organics back in 2005) and has an advisory board that includes a few members of the Institute of Systems Biology and the Vice President of Global Nutrition and Health at Campbell Soup Company. Habit will be launching their Beta program in select locations in January 2017. You can sign up for the waitlist on their website.
What's in your chicken sandwich? DNA test shows Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken
Marketplace had chicken from 5 major fast food restaurants tested
By Pete Evans and Eric Szeto, CBC News Posted: Feb 24, 2017 8:00 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 24, 2017 8:00 PM ET
Subway's oven-roasted chicken sandwich patty contained about 50 per cent chicken DNA, according to Marketplace's tests.
If you're one of many Canadians who opt for chicken sandwiches at your favourite fast food restaurant, you may find the results of a CBC Marketplace investigation into what's in the meat a little hard to swallow.
A DNA analysis of the poultry in several popular grilled chicken sandwiches and wraps found at least one fast food restaurant isn't serving up nearly as much of the key ingredient as people may think.
In the case of two popular Subway sandwiches, the chicken was found to contain only about half chicken DNA.
Will Mahood, a loyal customer who considered Subway chicken sandwiches a lunchtime staple, was alarmed by the findings. To Mahood, messages from fast food companies can make it sound like "you're taking it straight from a farm and it's just a fresh piece of meat."
DNA researcher Matt Harnden at Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory tested the poultry in six popular chicken sandwiches.
An unadulterated piece of chicken from the store should come in at 100 per cent chicken DNA. Seasoning, marinating or processing meat would bring that number down, so fast food samples seasoned for taste wouldn't be expected to hit that 100 per cent target.
The Peterborough, Ont.-based team tested the meat in:
NOTE: The tests were on the meat samples alone, without sauces or condiments.
In the first round of tests, the lab tested two samples of five of the meat products, and one sample of the Subway strips. From each of those samples, the researchers isolated three smaller samples and tested each of those.
They were all DNA tested and the score was then averaged for each sandwich. Most of the scores were "very close" to 100 per cent chicken DNA, Harnden says.
A&W Chicken Grill Deluxe averaged 89.4 per cent chicken DNA
McDonald's Country Chicken - Grilled averaged 84.9 per cent chicken DNA
Tim Hortons Chipotle Chicken Grilled Wrap averaged 86.5 per cent chicken DNA
Wendy's Grilled Chicken Sandwich averaged 88.5 per cent chicken DNA
Subway's results were such an outlier that the team decided to test them again, biopsying five new oven roasted chicken pieces, and five new orders of chicken strips.
Those results were averaged: the oven roasted chicken scored 53.6 per cent chicken DNA, and the chicken strips were found to have just 42.8 per cent chicken DNA. The majority of the remaining DNA? Soy.
"That's misrepresentation," Irena Valenta, a Toronto resident who participated in a Marketplace taste test, said after seeing the test results.
"Our recipe calls for one per cent or less of soy protein in our chicken products."
"We will look into this again with our supplier to ensure that the chicken is meeting the high standard we set for all of our menu items and ingredients."
What else is in there?
On the whole, Marketplace's testing revealed that once the ingredients are factored in, the fast food chicken had about a quarter less protein than you would get in its home-cooked equivalent. And overall, the sodium levels were between seven and 10 times what they would be in a piece of unadulterated chicken.
Grilled chicken products are often marketed as the healthy alternative, but consumers may not always know what they are biting into.
Ben Bohrer, a food scientist at the University of Guelph, doesn't know exactly how the chicken products Marketplace tested are made, but he's very familiar with what the fast food industry calls "restructured products".
Restructured products are essentially smaller pieces of meat or ground meat, bound together with other ingredients to make them last longer, taste better and, as Bohrer puts it, "add value" — restaurant speak for cheaper.
The sandwiches tested contain a combined total of about 50 ingredients in the chicken alone, each with an average of 16 ingredients. The ingredients run the gamut from things you would find in your home such as honey and onion powder to industrial ingredients — all of which, Bohrer insists, are safe and government approved for human consumption.
McDonald's, A&W and Wendy's wouldn't break down exactly what ingredients are used in what proportions, citing proprietary information. Tim Hortons had no comment and directed Marketplace to their website.
Healthy alternative?
Nutritionist and registered dietitian Christy Brissette notes that most products in that alphabet soup ingredient list are simply variants on salt or sugar, the latter of which can elevate the carbohydrate level of a chicken breast to well above where it should be: zero per cent.
Before they saw the test results, both Valenta and Mahood said they chose chicken because they thought they were making a healthier choice — "the chicken is supposed to be the healthier type of meat," as Valenta put it.
But Brissette says it's important for consumers to not allow themselves to buy into the "halo" of health around such products.
"People think they're doing themselves a favour and making themselves a healthy choice," she says. "But from a sodium perspective you might as well eat a big portion of poutine."
“I’m a very clean person. I like cleanliness. I think you’re better off going there than someplace you have no idea where the food is coming from. It’s a certain standard,” Trump explained.
"Better Off" can be defined in a lot of different ways. I don't think they are defining it as healthier. I can say my wallet it better off after eating at McDonalds then Black Bean Company.
When Gluten Is The Villain, Could A Common Virus Be The Trigger?
April 8, 2017 Allison Aubrey
For people with celiac disease gluten-free food is a must. A new study suggests that a common virus may trigger the onset of the disease.
A new study raises a novel idea about what might trigger celiac disease, a condition that makes patients unable to tolerate foods containing gluten.
The study suggests that a common virus may be to blame.
For people with celiac disease, gluten can wreak havoc on their digestive systems. Their immune systems mistake gluten as a dangerous substance.
Scientists have known for a while that genetics predisposes some people to celiac. About 30 percent of Americans carry the genes that make them more susceptible to the disease. And yet, only about one percent of Americans have celiac.
Researchers wondered why not everyone with the risk genes gets the disease.
The answer is likely complicated, but one theory has emerged. Perhaps a "viral infection can serve as a trigger to celiac," explains Dr. Terence Dermody, who chairs the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, and is an author of the new study published in Science.
He and a team of collaborators, led by Bana Jabri of the University of Chicago, decided to test this in experimental mice. They had been studying reovirus – a common virus that infects most Americans beginning in childhood, yet isn't considered dangerous. The researchers genetically engineered the mice to be more susceptible to celiac disease. Then they exposed mice to reovirus. At the same time they also fed gluten to the mice.
It turns out their hunch had been right. The mice developed "an immunological response against gluten that mimics the features of humans with celiac disease," Dermody says. The symptoms of celiac disease include diarrhea and other signs of gastrointestinal distress.
"It's all about the timing," Dermody says. The idea is that when the virus and gluten are introduced at the same time, the immune system mistakes the gluten-containing food as dangerous.
Transmission electron micrograph of a cell infected with reovirus (red). The virus is very common and not considered dangerous. Scientists now think it may have a role to play in triggering celiac disease.
But could this be true in humans too?
The second phase of the new study suggests an answer. Dermody and his collaborators analyzed the antibody levels to various viruses in a group of people. They found people who have celiac disease have two- to five-fold higher levels of reovirus-specific antibodies.
"It's a clue that people who have celiac may have been exposed to reovirus before the development of their disease," Dermody says. But, he stresses that "it's just a clue."
It will take a long time to figure out if there's a causal link between reovirus infections and the onset of celiac disease. Dermody envisions a study involving thousands of children who would be followed for several years. For now, he and his collaborators have some grant funds from the National Institutes of Health to continue their research.
The upside of understanding this possible connection is significant, explains Dr. Bana Jabri, of the University of Chicago, who is a co-author of the new study.
If it's true that the virus can trigger celiac disease, then young children who carry the risk genes for celiac could be vaccinated against Reovirus. "It may be useful to start thinking about vaccinating people who are at a high risk of celiac disease against [these] types of viruses," she says.
Links between viral infection and the development of auto-immune disorders such as celiac disease have been proposed before, "but this is the first tractable experimental model to tackle this question," says Julie Pfeiffer, an Associate Professor of Microbiology at University of Texas Southwestern, who has followed the research, but is not involved in the new study. Given the interest and the findings, "more studies in humans are warranted," she says.
As awareness of celiac disease has grown, so too has the number of people experimenting with gluten-free diets due to concerns about gluten sensitivities. This is evident from the growth in gluten-free food sales and most recently, the introduction of gluten-free dining halls on two college campuses.
Thought JasonC might enjoy this. It continues to demonize grains, while involving gut microbiome and a conspiracy theory which hinges upon the US Parent & Trademark Office being used as intended to explain why:
Gluten Intolerance is really GLYPHOSATE POISONING
What if...."gluten intolerance" is really "glyphosate poisoning"?
Gluten has been in wheat since it was first grown. Sure, there have always been folks who have problems digesting wheat or grains with gluten. Today, about 50% of the world have problems with gluten. (1) Something has changed.
That "something" is glyphosate.
Glyphosate has only been on this planet since Monsanto patented it as "Roundup" in 1973. This chemical herbicide goes by 32 or more tradenames and, now that the patent protection expired in 2000, is made by nine chemical companies -- most of whom, not coincidentally, are also in the drug business. Over 200 million pounds of it is used all over the world every year. That's 100,000 tons! Roundup brings in half of Monsanto's yearly profits. Like vaccines, each manufacturer can add its own extra ingredients called adjuvants or surfactants. Some data suggests that the adjuvants are even more toxic than the glyphosate. (2)
The original use of glyphosate was to prevent weeds. Somewhere along the way, it was discovered that a pre-harvest spraying of glyphosate directly onto the crops made for an easier harvest, as it desiccates the material. WHEAT and CANE SUGAR are the two foods most often treated in this manner. What foods have wheat and sugar? Take a walk down the cereal aisle, the one with the pretty boxes that beckon to your children. See the cookies, crackers, breads, cakes -- all those things that have gluten -- as well as a double dose of glyphosate.
Nice.
And I really, really mean "nice." Etymology: Middle English, foolish, wanton, from Old French, from Latin nescius ignorant, from nescire not to know.
Monsanto applied for the patent on glyphosate with full knowledge that it worked by blocking the shikimate pathway of plants and certain bacteria. Therefore, since people are not plants or bacteria, glyphosate must be safe, they told the FDA.
What Monsanto did not disclose is that the bacteria in a human gut all have shikimate pathways. This is huge. Without gut bacteria, people become very ill and malnourished, develop antibodies to their own organs, mentally depressed, full of yeast and other pathogenic bacteria, and mineral deficient. Nerve transmission fails and energy is gone. The mind cannot focus. Children get labeled at school as having behavior problems. Adults think they are crazy and run to the Prozac. This could only have happened if the scientists at Monsanto and FDA are malevolent and the worst sort of facinorous psychopaths. They are not nice guys, not ignorant of their deeds; let us call them what they are: Murderers.
I submit: You do not have gluten intolerance; that is a symptom. You have been poisoned by glyphosate, therefore you have GLYPHOSATE POISONING. The first step to healing is calling something what it is. Using euphemisms and hiding wickedness behind medicalese and nebulous diagnoses does no one any good. The guilty go free and the victims are denied proper treatment and timely justice.
Footnotes:
(1) Dr. Ford, a pediatrician in Christchurch, New Zealand and author of The Gluten Syndrome, says he believes the percentage of people who are gluten-sensitive actually could be between 30% and 50%. Source: http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/gl...ensitivity.htm
(2) "...with respect to glyphosate formulations, experimental studies suggest that the toxicity of the surfactant, polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), is greater than the toxicity of glyphosate alone and commercial formulations alone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyet...d_tallow_amine
I have seen the hypothesis that glyphosate and gluten act synergistically to increase gut permeability (the factor that causes all manner of immunogenic responses), but I haven't seen a study that shows that the trace amounts of glyphosate in produce result in a measurable effect on the gut's permeability.
Regarding carbs and obesity, I have seen a recent study that low-carbing is distinctly more effective at curbing *appetite* (and thus spontaneously reducing caloric intake), in individuals with blood sugar regulation issues; less so in those with good regulation.
This thread kind of derailed last year (I'm largely to blame for that) and then sputtered out. Now that JasonC has gone inactive on the forum, I've pruned some of my more provocative (and less then useful) posts from the last page, as this actually is a topic which interests me.
Came across an interesting article in The Times recently, which seems to throw more fuel on the fire (and decrease clarity even further) insofar as answering the "which calories matter" question.
Which Kinds of Foods Make Us Fat?
By Gretchen Reynolds Sept. 25, 2018
One fundamental and unanswered question in obesity research is what kind of foods contribute most to the condition. Experts variously blame, for example, fatty or sugary fare or foods that lack protein, which may prompt us, unconsciously, to overeat. Plenty of anecdotal evidence can be marshaled against any of the culprits, but there has been little long-term, large-scale experimental research on people’s comparative eating habits. It is neither ethical nor practical to have healthy subjects gorge themselves on one diet for years until they are obese.
It is possible, though, to conduct this sort of experiment on mice. For a diet study published this summer in Cell Metabolism, researchers randomly assigned one of 29 different diets to hundreds of adult male mice. (The scientists hope to include female mice in later experiments.) Some diets supplied up to 80 percent of their calories in the form of saturated and unsaturated fats, with few carbohydrates; others included little fat and consisted largely of refined carbohydrates, mostly from grains and corn syrup, although in some variations the carbs came from sugar. Yet other diets were characterized by extremely high or low percentages of protein. The mice stayed on the same diet for three months — estimated to be the equivalent of roughly nine human years — while being allowed to eat and move about their cages at will. The mice were then measured by weight and body composition, and their brain tissue was examined for evidence of altered gene activity.
Only some of the mice became obese — almost every one of which had been on a high-fat diet. These mice showed signs of changes in the activity of certain genes too, in areas of the brain related to processing rewards; fatty kibble made them happy, apparently. None of the other diets, including those rich in sugar, led to significant weight gain or changed gene expression in the same way. Even super-high-fat diets, consisting of more than 60 percent fat, did not lead to significant weight gains, and the mice on those diets consumed less food over all than their counterparts, presumably because they simply could not stomach so much fat. These findings were replicated in subsequent experiments with four other murine breeds. Male mice on relatively high fat diets became obese. The others did not.
“It looks like consuming high-fat diets, if they aren’t extremely high fat, leads to weight gain, if you are a mouse,” says John Speakman, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, who oversaw the study. Speakman and his co-authors believe that the fatty meals stimulated and altered parts of the brains, causing the mice to want fatty food so much that they ignored other bodily signals indicating that they had already consumed enough energy.
The study was focused on weight gain, not loss, and its subjects were mice, of course, not humans. But the results are suggestive. Sugar did not make the mice fat, and neither did protein deficits. Only fat made them fat.
It's interesting to see this data published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. Their conclusion, specifically that "It looks like consuming high-fat diets, if they aren’t extremely high fat, leads to weight gain, if you are a mouse," kind of supports the results which I observed during a highly unscientific, n=1 study in 2013-14.
Also, @IB Nolan , the[indent] function is still causing my text to grey out unless I specifically override it with a [color=#000000] tag.
Also, in the sentance above, there is a space between the word "the" and the word "[indent]", however it's vanishing in the actual post. Also, [noparse] is still broken.
05-12-2016, 10:42 AM
0
