Sugar control and food labelling...

[BigStar]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

the guys i know who do a lot of exercise quit keto or intermittent fasting, they just kept bonking

I don't think keto or intermittent fasting was ever required for bonking. In fact, "the guys" (one of our ANF Longevity Science Principles, BTW) could probably bonk if they also stopped exercising. Otherwise, the entire populations of most Western countries, at least, would have died out.

Edited February 28, 2023 by BigStar

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, h90 said:

not too bad but too much carbohydrates, specially if the fruits are also sweet. And too little fat. Absolute no reason to limit red meat, cheese, dairy, milk, butter. Some claim that canola oil is bad, but I never read into it, so don't know if it is true. I use mostly lard and olive oil.

I enjoy my carbs, cereal and especially bread & pastry ... making bread now (no sugar).   Have to go easy on cheese,  too bounding, unless on a taco or salad.  Cut back on butter intake also.  Dairy being my worst vice, food wise.  Ice Cream, usually once a week @ Swensen's Tues, 2/1 scoops, and now 2 instead of 3 or 4 scoops.

 

Milk (whole only), I've cut way back on, as 1 liter a day is a sip for me ????  Limit 1 cup for my cereal & cappuccino.   Maybe wash down a pastry, which I no longer eat 2 or 3 times a day ????  Once or twice week.  For sweet tooth, peanut butter (homemade) and jelly works for me.

 

Red meat seems to only be burger, couple a month, with an occasional ribeye if at Hua Hin, once a month, maybe @ You Hunt We Cook.

 

Seem to eat a lot of skinless chicken breasts.  Pasta instead of rice.  All in all. much healthier than last year.  Eating healthier since Oct 2022.  Alcohol intake isn't worth mentioning, the past 10ish years.  Most drink more in 1 sitting than I do in 1 month.

 

Above & blood work mentioned before, but all good.  Blood sugar still top limits of normal.  Cholesterol normal now, actually quite good.  Taking a statin (only 10mg), so can't take all the credit for that.  Stopped my liver from making krap cholesterol.

 

 

[BigStar]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

I'm happy with all the regular testing i do incl HbA1c.

The study led by Chang Villacreses found that the A1C test missed 73 percent of the diabetes cases later detected by the glucose tolerance test.

 

“The A1C test said these people had normal glucose levels when they didn’t,” she said. “Our results indicated that the prevalence of diabetes and normal glucose tolerance defined solely by A1C is highly unreliable, with a significant tendency for underestimation of the prevalence of diabetes and overestimation of normal glucose tolerance.”

     --https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-blood-test-is-best-for-diagnosing-diabetes

 

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

It's not as if I'm the only one doing HCLF, results well documented

I wouldn't take refuge in a crowd. It's about you, not them.

[asf6]

6 minutes ago, BigStar said:

I don't think keto or intermittent fasting were ever required for bonking. In fact, "the guys" (one of our ANF Longevity Science Principles, BTW) could probably bonk if they also stopped exercising. Otherwise, the entire populations of most Western countries, at least, would have died out.

A different kind of bonking. ????  The one you're referring to is pleasurable, the one scubascuba3 referred to is a different kind (hitting the wall) and is not much fun at all . But maybe you knew that. 

[scubascuba3]

24 minutes ago, BigStar said:

I don't think keto or intermittent fasting was ever required for bonking. In fact, "the guys" (one of our ANF Longevity Science Principles, BTW) could probably bonk if they also stopped exercising. Otherwise, the entire populations of most Western countries, at least, would have died out.

bonking in cycling terms means a complete loss of energy and get dropped \ can't keep up

[BigStar]

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

guys i know who do a lot of exercise quit keto or intermittent fasting, they just kept bonking

You may read about a larger number of guys here:

 

https://reddit.com/r/ketoendurance/

 

But for a lot of endurance exercise where "bonking," is a concern, keto would seem a harder diet. I never recommend it anyway and regard it as a last resort for weight loss after all other diets have failed--or for diabetes, getting off meds, then adding carbs back in as tolerated.

 

Low carb should work, however, which you probably confuse with keto, not really knowing much about either. I don't see a problem with intermittent fasting, but it would depend on the variation.

 

Again, we're talking serious endurance exercise or sport. I'm no longer a believer in its benefits anyway, having done my share. (I could see cycling in areas friendly to cycling--for fun.) This article gives some of the reasons: A Case Against Cardio (from a Former Mileage King)  but omits the injuries including, notably, repetitive motion injury. You can achieve a fit cardiovascular system without bothering with classic Ken Cooper (Jane Fonda) aerobics, and much more efficiently.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by BigStar

[Maestro]

2 hours ago, h90 said:

I am somewhere 63-66kg range...no idea, but my jean I wear is size 31 and a bit too big. That does not make me fat I guess. Blood results...no idea and not interested in it, wasn't at any doctor for decades.

Size numbers mean different things in different countries and with different brands. Waist circumference in inches or centimetres, on the other hand, are specific and meaningful.

[h90]

11 minutes ago, Maestro said:

Size numbers mean different things in different countries and with different brands. Waist circumference in inches or centimetres, on the other hand, are specific and meaningful.

Well Levis Jean in Thailand...I always thought that sizes are globally the same....I remember in Austria they were somewhat the same...but it is so long ago I might be wrong.

[h90]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

I enjoy my carbs, cereal and especially bread & pastry ... making bread now (no sugar).   Have to go easy on cheese,  too bounding, unless on a taco or salad.  Cut back on butter intake also.  Dairy being my worst vice, food wise.  Ice Cream, usually once a week @ Swensen's Tues, 2/1 scoops, and now 2 instead of 3 or 4 scoops.

 

Milk (whole only), I've cut way back on, as 1 liter a day is a sip for me ????  Limit 1 cup for my cereal & cappuccino.   Maybe wash down a pastry, which I no longer eat 2 or 3 times a day ????  Once or twice week.  For sweet tooth, peanut butter (homemade) and jelly works for me.

 

Red meat seems to only be burger, couple a month, with an occasional ribeye if at Hua Hin, once a month, maybe @ You Hunt We Cook.

 

Seem to eat a lot of skinless chicken breasts.  Pasta instead of rice.  All in all. much healthier than last year.  Eating healthier since Oct 2022.  Alcohol intake isn't worth mentioning, the past 10ish years.  Most drink more in 1 sitting than I do in 1 month.

 

Above & blood work mentioned before, but all good.  Blood sugar still top limits of normal.  Cholesterol normal now, actually quite good.  Taking a statin (only 10mg), so can't take all the credit for that.  Stopped my liver from making krap cholesterol.

 

 

Whole fat milk is a bit "dangerous" because you can drink a liter or two without problems....easy to gain weight....Having the essential fatty acids is important. So having enough fat is important. But you can live perfectly without eating any carbohydrates and they tend to make people fat. If you don't get fat from them, by all means enjoy them. But when I gain weight it is where I start to reduce....so I would rather skip the bread under the butter instead of the butter. But what works works....if it is working for you, your way than it is the right thing to do.....
I need to watch my beer consumption.......I don't drink much now, but it is a challenge for me.

[h90]

1 hour ago, BigStar said:

Best get a comprehensive blood workup. Pre-empt any issues before they become more serious.

Nope....I keep as far away from doctors as possible.....so do my parents, over 80 now....But also I am not afraid of dying....

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, h90 said:

I am somewhere 63-66kg range...no idea, but my jean I wear is size 31 and a bit too big. That does not make me fat I guess. Blood results...no idea and not interested in it, wasn't at any doctor for decades.

On the face of it that looks low, but you could be a midget 3 ft tall. I certainly wouldn't want to be below 70kg (22 bmi) just looks too low.

 

I could easily get from 72 to 80 no problem by eating junk food and drinking too much 

[scubascuba3]

Just now, h90 said:

Nope....I keep as far away from doctors as possible.....so do my parents, over 80 now....But also I am not afraid of dying....

so no PSA testing for you it seems?

[asf6]

51 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Again, we're talking serious endurance exercise or sport. I'm no longer a believer in its benefits anyway, having done my share. (I could see cycling in areas friendly to cycling--for fun.) This article gives some of the reasons: A Case Against Cardio (from a Former Mileage King)  but omits the injuries including, notably, repetitive motion injury. You can achieve a fit cardiovascular system without bothering with classic Ken Cooper (Jane Fonda) aerobics, and much more efficiently.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with serious endurance exercise or sport. The problem with the guy in the article that you linked to, "Case Against Cardio", is that he was doing it the stupid way, the way most people are told not to do it. I have never hear of his so-called "popular wisdom of the past 40 years – that we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity" and to "aerobicize at the chronic and sustained high intensities". 

 

Now after 40 years he has realised that he was doing it wrong. Good for him, but he must have had his head in the sand for 40 years and trained in a very closed group that did not learn anything in those 40 years.

 

Did someone really tell him to do it that way? I have never heard that or read that in the last 40 years. 

 

Anyway, for weight loss, I believe that, like most things, different things work for different people. Walking does nothing for me for weight loss, even if I walk 10-12 miles daily I stay the same weight. However, I know someone who lost a lot of weight from doing the exact same thing. For me, running 40-50 miles a week does help me lose weight but running 20-25 miles a week is not enough for me to lose weight. 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by asf6

[h90]

16 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

On the face of it that looks low, but you could be a midget 3 ft tall. I certainly wouldn't want to be below 70kg (22 bmi) just looks too low.

 

I could easily get from 72 to 80 no problem by eating junk food and drinking too much 

1.70 cm...drinking too much that is also a problem

[Sheryl]

A  number of flaming/trolling/unhelpful posts have been removed along with replies to them

[h90]

16 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

so no PSA testing for you it seems?

nope the only doc visit is for my work permit...where they check narcotics, blood pressure, listen to the lung and some rare diseases.....blood pressure is always what it should be...no wonder when I do some endurance sport almost every day. But nothing else....Also I never saw my wife going to the doctor in the 20 years we are married....
(everything excluding dentists....But beside dental cleaning there is never anything to do)

[scubascuba3]

2 minutes ago, h90 said:

nope the only doc visit is for my work permit...

Fair enough, there is a view that it's best not to get PSA tests, i posted a link for that but got deleted

[asf6]

PSA tests are useful but they are not accurate 100% of the time. 

[BigStar]

18 minutes ago, h90 said:

But also I am not afraid of dying....

It's mainly about healthspan, not lifespan. Read up on compression of morbidity.

 

The Relative is one of the Principles mighty ANF Poster Longevity Science, so we hear it often around here.

 

3.   The Relative

A relative of mine did nothing special and lived to 95. Oh, I will too.

 

But

Scientists reported on Tuesday that genes accounted for well under 7 percent of people’s life span, versus the 20 to 30 percent of most previous estimates.

    -- https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/06/life-span-genes-ancestry-database/

 

It's part of a general assertion of Genetics Voodoo. I dunno why our Believers try to thwart the Voodoo by taking meds. Seems hypocritical, don't it. Let it work, man.

 

So did you get them longevity genes? How would you know?

 

I dunno. I try to cover all the bases, just in case. Working well so far--as verified by the numbers.

[Puccini]

2 hours ago, asf6 said:

I see both but nutritional information per serving seems to be the most common. See below. 

If the serving size is defined on the label, this presents no real problem, but it makes the comparison between products more complicated, at least for me.

 

In Thailand, the value per 100 g is perhaps a regulatory requirement and the value per serving is added optioslly gor the convenience of consumers 

 

The package of cereals I am looking at right now has

– 500 g net

– servings per package 11

– serving size 45 g

– sugars per serving: 1.0 g

– sugars per 100 g: 2.2 g

[BigStar]

1 hour ago, asf6 said:

I have never hear of his so-called "popular wisdom of the past 40 years – that we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity" and to "aerobicize at the chronic and sustained high intensities". 

 

That idea comes, as he says, from Ken Cooper:

 

Being the type A that I am, I read Ken Cooper’s seminal 1968 book Aerobics and celebrated the idea that you got to award yourself “points” for time spent at a high heart rate. The more points, the healthier your cardiovascular system would become.

 

And, yes, the points system led to (if wrongly) excessive intensity for longer periods than would be optimal by enthusiasts, including Mark Sisson, who ran competitively for a time, a real athlete. The craze for marathon running and triathlons started here. Crossfit encourages it and is a notorious source of injury. In any case, the injuries he describes here are pretty typical of the average person doing excessive, unnecessary aerobics.

 

He has a lot more writing about cardio on his blog:

 

https://www.marksdailyapple.com/?s=cardio

 

1 hour ago, asf6 said:

There's nothing wrong with serious endurance exercise or sport.

No one's arguing a moral issue here. But the newer paradigm is "less is more" and "work smarter, not harder" and "avoid unproductive wastes of time," unless you're just really enjoying yourself. Now I've stayed fit for more than 40 years, but I've never particularly enjoyed exercise, so I'm happy to have learned to do MUCH less for about the same reward, a la the Pareto Principle. Jack LaLanne never enjoyed weightlifting, BTW.

 

1 hour ago, asf6 said:

However, I know someone who lost a lot of weight from doing the exact same thing. For me, running 40-50 miles【80 km】 a week does help me lose weight but running 20-25 miles【40 km】 a week is not enough for me to lose weight. 

Lot of work for little reward. Much more efficient to lose weight, and keep it off, via diet and fasting. 40 -50 mi/wk is asking for injury,sorry, esp if it's on asphalt or concrete. I stay aerobically fit via 2x10 min interval sessions a week, or only 3 min of actual intensity. You may read the first of many studies here:

 

https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19520603/10-minute-sprint-interval-workout-benefits/

 

Encouraging study on octogenarians w/ co-morbidities here:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8350218/

 

But my resistance training is quite intense, and I walk on the beach maybe 3 times a week, 20 - 30 min. It all leads to calculated V02Max of 40, which is excellent for my age. So, works.

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by BigStar

[asf6]

14 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Lot of work for little reward. Much more efficient to lose weight, and keep it off, via diet and fasting. 40 -50 mi/wk is asking for injury,sorry, esp if it's on asphalt or concrete. 

 

I stay aerobically fit via 2x10 min interval sessions a week, or only 3 min of actual intensity. 

 

 

Lot of work for little reward? Not at all. I wasn't actually doing it to lose weight, I was doing it because I wanted to get better at running, which I did. The weight loss just happened at the same time. 

 

Enjoy your HIIT, but I don't think High‐intensity interval training is suitable for everybody, but we are drifting off topic so I'll stop here. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by asf6

[KhunLA]

19 hours ago, Puccini said:

If the serving size is defined on the label, this presents no real problem, but it makes the comparison between products more complicated, at least for me.

 

In Thailand, the value per 100 g is perhaps a regulatory requirement and the value per serving is added optioslly gor the convenience of consumers 

 

The package of cereals I am looking at right now has

– 500 g net

– servings per package 11

– serving size 45 g

– sugars per serving: 1.0 g

– sugars per 100 g: 2.2 g

Bored & curious, so weighed my morning/1st meal of the day, as I prepped it.

 

Damn healthy, and only iffy part is the milk, although, 1 cup seems to be my new daily intake, 150 w/cereal & 50ml with my coffee, if making a 'flat white'

 

[h90]

20 hours ago, BigStar said:

It's mainly about healthspan, not lifespan. Read up on compression of morbidity.

 

The Relative is one of the Principles mighty ANF Poster Longevity Science, so we hear it often around here.

 

3.   The Relative

A relative of mine did nothing special and lived to 95. Oh, I will too.

 

But

Scientists reported on Tuesday that genes accounted for well under 7 percent of people’s life span, versus the 20 to 30 percent of most previous estimates.

    -- https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/06/life-span-genes-ancestry-database/

 

It's part of a general assertion of Genetics Voodoo. I dunno why our Believers try to thwart the Voodoo by taking meds. Seems hypocritical, don't it. Let it work, man.

 

So did you get them longevity genes? How would you know?

 

I dunno. I try to cover all the bases, just in case. Working well so far--as verified by the numbers.

That 7% genetic means that it is more important how we live than what genetic we have....kind of obvious...I try to live healthy, but without being too paranoid.
We don't have any cancer in the family so I guess I am lucky on that....but plenty of strokes so I should worry more about that.
(Mostly motherside everyone dies from strokes, from the fatherside they mostly died from Hitler, can't say how they would have aged...)
 

[scubascuba3]

11 minutes ago, h90 said:

That 7% genetic means that it is more important how we live than what genetic we have....kind of obvious...I try to live healthy, but without being too paranoid.
We don't have any cancer in the family so I guess I am lucky on that....but plenty of strokes so I should worry more about that.
(Mostly motherside everyone dies from strokes, from the fatherside they mostly died from Hitler, can't say how they would have aged...)
 

Strokes seem a worse outcome than death so worth taking the risk seriously

[h90]

20 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Strokes seem a worse outcome than death so worth taking the risk seriously

yes it is heartbreaking and also terrible for the relatives. We all end as complete idiots with a shot brain....
We have very high blood pressure when being nervous in the family....doing lots of endurance sports is my solution. Actually I like the sport I would also do it if there is no reason for it.

[BigStar]

On 2/28/2023 at 12:13 PM, scubascuba3 said:

yeah carbs are good, the guys i know who do a lot of exercise quit keto or intermittent fasting, they just kept bonking

OK, you probably need to send the guys the memo:

 

Highly trained competitive middle-aged athletes underwent two 31-day isocaloric diets (HCLF or LCHF) in a randomized, counterbalanced, and crossover design while controlling calories and training load. . . . .

 

We demonstrated: (i) equivalent high-intensity performance (@~85%VO2max), fasting insulin, hsCRP, and HbA1c without significant body composition changes across groups; (ii) record high peak fat oxidation rates (LCHF:1.58 ± 0.33g/min @ 86.40 ± 6.24%VO2max; 30% subjects > 1.85 g/min); (iii) higher total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol on LCHF; (iv) reduced glucose mean/median and variability on LCHF. . . . 

 

These results: (i) challenge whether higher carbohydrate intake is superior for athletic performance, even during shorter-duration, higher-intensity exercise; (ii) demonstrate that lower carbohydrate intake may be a therapeutic strategy to independently improve glycemic control, particularly in those at risk for diabetes; (iii) demonstrate a unique relationship between continuous glycemic parameters and systemic metabolism.

     --Low and high carbohydrate isocaloric diets on performance, fat oxidation, glucose and cardiometabolic health in middle age males

 

Note the glycemic control improvement. Also higher HDL. On lower carb, higher LDL can be discounted.

[scubascuba3]

19 minutes ago, BigStar said:

OK, you probably need to send the guys the memo:

 

Highly trained competitive middle-aged athletes underwent two 31-day isocaloric diets (HCLF or LCHF) in a randomized, counterbalanced, and crossover design while controlling calories and training load. . . . .

 

We demonstrated: (i) equivalent high-intensity performance (@~85%VO2max), fasting insulin, hsCRP, and HbA1c without significant body composition changes across groups; (ii) record high peak fat oxidation rates (LCHF:1.58 ± 0.33g/min @ 86.40 ± 6.24%VO2max; 30% subjects > 1.85 g/min); (iii) higher total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol on LCHF; (iv) reduced glucose mean/median and variability on LCHF. . . . 

 

These results: (i) challenge whether higher carbohydrate intake is superior for athletic performance, even during shorter-duration, higher-intensity exercise; (ii) demonstrate that lower carbohydrate intake may be a therapeutic strategy to independently improve glycemic control, particularly in those at risk for diabetes; (iii) demonstrate a unique relationship between continuous glycemic parameters and systemic metabolism.

     --Low and high carbohydrate isocaloric diets on performance, fat oxidation, glucose and cardiometabolic health in middle age males

 

Note the glycemic control improvement. Also higher HDL. On lower carb, higher LDL can be discounted.

You've probably spent hours trying to find something that backs your agenda up. I'm talking about real life friend examples, not everyone reacts the same, one kept bonking so quit IF now balanced diet eating more often, the other quit low carb, his running performance improved when he smashed in the carbs

[BigStar]

44 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

You've probably spent hours trying to find something that backs your agenda up.

Not at all, though there's much more. I happened to run across it today as a new study in Agingdoc1's Twitter feed.

 

44 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

I'm talking about real life friend examples, not everyone reacts the same, one kept bonking so quit IF now balanced diet eating more often, the other quit low carb, his running performance improved when he smashed in the carbs

I pay more attn to science than anecdotes. Who knows what really happened? If one was practicing IF, or even low carb, but say a few hours before the probability of a bonk, he "carbo loaded," then he probably wouldn't have bonked; and thereafter continued as usual.

 

But I gave you a reddit forum where you can read contrary anecdotes. Nor does supposed improved running performance necessarily justify high carb diets. In one study, 30% of middle aged runners tested out as prediabetic.

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by BigStar

[asf6]

32 minutes ago, BigStar said:

In one study, 30% of middle aged runners tested out as prediabetic.

 

Which compares favourably to the general population in the US and is about the same as the general population of the UK.