What's the current scientific consensus on what constitutes a healthy diet?
What tips are actually backed up by science, and aren't just food woo inferred from a single correlational study?
Well from the hundreds of sources of internet science and bro science everyone agrees in the end that refined sugar and flour is bad for you in large quantities.
>>36479084
Are sugars bad for any other reasons than them just being more calorie dense and therefore easier to overeat than other nutrients?
>>36479072
There's not really a single scientific study that shows which diet is exactly the best one. The problem is that there are too many degrees of freedom and people are too different from each other, so you need extremely high statistics. The best you can get are maybe studies that examine small aspects of diets. Anyway, it's a good idea to do the following every day:
About [body weight in kg] grams of protein. More is okay.
About [body weight in kg] grams of fat.
2:1 saturated : unsaturated fats. Fats from various sources (i.e. nuts, fish, olive oil etc)
Eat lots of vegetables (in particular carrots, broccoli, beans, sweer potatoes, tomatoes, paprica, spinach, mushrooms), some fruits (bananas and oranges are great).
Avoid everything that contains refined sugar. 99.5% chance that it's worthless, empty shit food.
>>36479117
They fuck your insulin up senpai
>>36479072
get your vitamins from actual food, multivitamins are shit and you wind up pissing most of it out.
>>36479153
I went to a TDEEA calculator, and it told me to eat 246 g protein a day.
That cant be real, can it?
>>36479072
Veggies and meat.
No pre packaged shit
No instant anything.
No artificial sweeteners etc.
Just eat shit nature produces.
On the all isn't the #1 diet the Okinawa chink one purely from a stand point of they have the lowest incidence of heart disease, cancer, etc.
Do people still rate the Mediterranean diet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet
> People from the Ryukyu Islands (of which Okinawa is the largest) have a life expectancy among the highest in the world,[2] although the male life expectancy rank among Japanese prefectures has plummeted in recent years.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801
> Research has shown that the traditional Mediterranean diet reduces the risk of heart disease. In fact, an analysis of more than 1.5 million healthy adults demonstrated that following a Mediterranean diet was associated with a reduced risk of death from heart disease and cancer, as well as a reduced incidence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.
Those are just both obviously the first results off google, but they'll provide a jumping off point.
>>36479180
No, literally nobody needs that much protein. By far most people, even those that work out, are just fine with 100 grams of protein every day. [body weight in kg] grams of course only works if your body weight is NOT mostly fat (say, if your body fat percentage is in the 10-20% range). If you are fatter than that, just aim at 50-100 grams.
>>36479169
Could anyone explain why that is bad?
>>36479072
The scientific consensus is that calories matter more than anything else.
Meet your micro- and macro-nutrient requirements and after that it literally doesn't matter what you eat.
However if you have the choice between
>my eating habits cause the suffering and death of billions of animals
and
>my eating habits don't cause suffering or death of anyone
you would have to be a massive prick to pick the first.
>>36479217
>What's the current scientific consensus on what constitutes a healthy diet?
HEALTHY.
Not how to lose weight or gain weight.
How to into HEALTH.
>>36479220
Yes, so? What's your point.
If you're implying a person who gets more vitamins that he needs is "healthier" than a person who just hits his needs and then stuffs himself with chocolate, I would like to see a scientific source for that.
After hitting your micro- and macro-nutritional needs, calories are all that matter.
>>36479212
diabeetusss, senpai
>>36479220
A healthy diet necessarily causes your weight to converge to an optimum. If you are fat and are not currently losing weight, your diet is not healthy, period.
>>36479247
> Actually trying to pass CICO off as including micro nutrients as well to order to cover your own ass.
Yeah, no.
>>36479255
Not related to topic at hand, literally just you trying to find a way to come in and say
> muh CICO.
For the record I agree with CICO, but it's limitations are to losing & gaining weight not optimising health.
Thanks.
>>36479217
are you the vegan guy from that thread
did you ever post your gains
i bet you don't have any tho
>>36479267
That's literally the first thing I said in my first post.
Are you retarded?
>>36479212
Insulin is a signal molecule that turns off the signal of glucagon. Glucagon tells cells to export stored sugars and to catable other cell strucutres. When blood sugar gets too high, insulin is released to signal cells to start uptaking sugars and to store energy or do anabolic stuff. Too much insulin released over time leads to pancreatic fatigue and the development of insulin resistance by cells. The inability to to make or respond to insulin is called Diabetes. It ends with your cells being unable to turn off Glucagon pathways and eventually necrotizing themselves.
>>36479275
> The scientific consensus is that calories matter more than anything else.
You then tack
> but only if you meet your nutrient requirements that is
As a pointless addendum, basically nullifying your first point.
The topic is
> What's the current scientific consensus on what constitutes a healthy diet?
Not
> Lets talk about CICO/IIFYM
>>36479279
Thanks man, really appreciate the explanation.
My next diddly pr will be for you.
>>36479284
A simple "yes" would have sufficed.
>>36479273
Your body weight is part of your health. You didn't ask for a somewhat healthy diet, you asked for an optimal diet, and an optimal diet will lead to a optimal body weight. If you believe anything else you have some fundamental misconceptions about how your body works.
>>36479295
Cya kid.
>>36479301
> What's the current scientific consensus on what constitutes a healthy diet?
> HEALTH
You fucking retards take literally any opportunity to jump on the CICO/IIFYM dogma.
> bb-but weight
Nigga nobody said anything about weight, nobody gave you a case study of an obese individual to work a diet out for.
The question is what is HEALTHY diet
And your answer is: any diet that causes weight loss.
> If you believe anything else you have some fundamental misconceptions about how your body works.
Bro, you have at best a tenuous grasp of what you're talking about.
In b4 you try to derail like the other retard above and go with
> well it calories #1 .. as long as you like .. count all the micros and macros ..
>>36479220
/thread
>>36479323
>And your answer is: any diet that causes weight loss.
If your diet does not cause weight loss, then you eat too much, it's simple as that. You don't need a special diet to lose weight. I'm not saying that any diet that has the correct macros is healthy, I'm saying it's definitely a VERY important aspect of a healthy diet. Other than that, your question has already been answered. Now you just sound like a fat fuck who wants to find an excuse.
>>36479072
Current largely agreed upon things include:
>don't get fat (via too many calories)
>don't get super skinny (via not enough calories)
>eat plenty of vegetables and some fruits for vitamins and minerals and dietary fibre (eat a small amount of veggies with every meal ideally)
>get enough protein but you don't need heaps
>get at least 10g of fibre per 1000kcals consumed
>don't eat too much salt (don't add salt to meals and don't eat lots of bread - surprising amount of salt in bread)
>don't have heaps of sugar unless you're a very active athlete (even then may be bad, complicated issue)
>don't have heaps of saturated fat (some is ok but lots is bad, keep under 10%kcals from saturated fat)
>don't eat any transfat if you can avoid it
>don't have heaps of processed food
>don't have heaps of meat, some is good and recommended but don't have it every day and especially don't have red meat every day
>most girls are iron deficient so they should be supplementing iron or eating more iron rich foods
>if vegan, you'll slowly develop several deficiencies if you aren't careful or don't supplement. Watch out for b12 in particular. They get plenty of protein though.
>probably other obvious things I'm forgetting
Sauce: almost got degree in nutrition, focussing mainly on diet and disease.
Basically just eat heaps of veggies, not too much junk and don't get fat and you're fine. GMOs are fine and so are most other foods/food groups people are freaking out about
>>36479408
Also:
>omega 3s are good and fish oil is a cheap and valuable supplement
If you're not regularly eating oily fish, I'd recommend taking about 2 or 3 grams of fish oil a day
>>36479398
Bruh, I can't even deal with how dumb you are t b h.
Nigga you didn't even know what the topic of the thread was, now you're scrambling to save face however you can.
Just stop typing bro it's easy.
>>36479422
You can't even explain what your problem is. I know why. Because you have no fucking idea.
>>36479169
By that retard logic protein also 'fucks up your insulin'
>>36479153
>sweer potatoes
YOU JUST HAD TO GO THERE
NUGGER
>>36479323
>>36479504
HEY GUISE WATS A HEALTHY DIET
NO NOT THAT, I DONT WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT
NO NOT THAT I LIKE SUGAR
YOU RETARDS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING !!!!
>>36479541
The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.
>>36479153
I very much disagree with your saturated:unsaturated fats recommendation and also believe that refined sugar is relatively harmless in small amounts. I also somewhat disagree with your blanket fat/kg recommendation though I will acknowledge this is a good amount for some people, but I wouldn't give it as a general recommendation. I would like to see your reasoning/citations for these points. I don't like it when people are wrong on the internet.
>>36479197
If you're looking for diets that have a name, I believe the DASH diet is generally considered one of the best
>>36479583
Refined sugar may be harmless, but most products containing it in substantial amounts are not. You are better of avoiding them. It's not really about refined sugar itself, but the way it is used in food.
The rest are just vague guidelines that I put together from various sources over the years. It's obviously only appropriate for people in the normal weight range. Fat fucks should definitely not eat their bodyweight in grams of protein nor fat. I'm not claiming those are optimal, I'm claiming those are not far off and easy to memorise/calculate.
>>36479541
You realise you're quoting 2 different people to enormous spastic cunt?
Inject air cunt.
>>36479642
It's nice when people are reasonable on the internet :3
I'll agree that, yes, most products containing high amounts of refined sugar are garbage nutritionally, but you can afford to eat an ice cream sandwich once a fortnight if you plan some of your other eating habits for the day around this. I think avoiding refined sugars is fine as a guideline, but not an absolute rule.
The fat/kg thing isn't super scientific and isn't a great rule for everyone to follow, but I'll give that it's easy to remember and likely won't do too much damage to anyone who's a healthy weight with an average metabolism.
Still not seeing any rationale for sat fats-unsat fats ratio. Aside from a few fatties trying to argue their right to eat bacon, most health experts agree that saturated fat shouldn't be eaten in large amounts, and that most fats should be mono and polyunsaturated fats from intrinsic sources.
>>36479448
The problem is the topic SPECIFIC DIETS that are HEALTHY.
Not, count calories to lose weight.
There's not just ONE FUCKING DIET in the entire world.
Why else do physicians prescribe different diets for: weight loss, diabetes, hypertension, coronary disease, allergen free, kidney failure, neuro-degenerative diseases, and so on.
Why don't they just say: hurr durr just count your calories and you'll be fine xD.
Because it's about being HEALTHY not just at a GOOD WEIGHT.
Holy fuck you are the saddest cunt on this website.
Standard fucking /fit/ response to a question about science - only things linked are mayoclinic and wikipedia
Problem is that there is no single 'health' box you can tick, so you need to ask more specific questions if you want the literature to really be able to tell you anything
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351?utm_content=bufferf1f99&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&
>>36479679
>Still not seeing any rationale for sat fats-unsat fats ratio.
You are actually right, I got it wrong. I mixed up a few numbers. Common consensus seems to recommend to get as many unsaturated fats as possible (which is probably more like 1:2).
>>36479684
Dude, you asked for a healthy diet, and a healthy diet contains a reasonable amount of calories, I don't see your problem. Nobody is asking you to crash diet.
>>36479699
>complains about mayoclinic and wikipedia
>cites Katz
ayy lmfao
>>36479703
Yeah, cool.
Good contribution.
>>36479699
ay fuck you white boy I just linked mayo and wiki because -- like i said -- its a jumping off point for further research
to my recollection okinawa diet and med are two of the recognized healthiest diets in the world.
im not gonna trawl through fucking literature to give OP the answer to his question.
teach a man to fish.
>>36479706
DESU I did that with about 30s of google scholaring; if there was an actual question here then Cochrane might answer it but having the research question as 'what a'gonna make me done healthy' isn't a thing
>>36479072
look at the studies done for long living diets like the Okinawa diet.
>>36479217
You have to be a moron to think that any western diet is free of causing suffering to others.
Enjoying your Bolivian Quinoa, faggot?
>>36479117
Sugar is bad because it contains fructose which is basically a poison. Fruit has it too but less of it and mixed with other good stuff so it's a net win. With refined sugar you get more of the poison and none of the benefits.
There's not a great deal of consensus about much at all regarding diet.
It seems to change every 5 or 10 years... Not just tweaks to nutritional info that makes everyone healthy, I'm talking 180 degree flip flops on nutritional gospel.
Carbs are bad, carbs are good, sat fat is bad, sat fat is good, cholesterol is bad, cholesterol doesn't mean shit and so on...
Basically just try and eat whole foods, fresh fruits and veg, lay off salt and too much sugar and exercise regularly.
I really think given our evolutionary background different foods work better for different people. One person might thrive on a high protein, high fat diet where another might thrive on a low fat, high carb diet simply because more of their genetic background comes from people who lived in a certain environment where those food types were more common.
I don't expect some coastal dwelling south american whose entire family line has lived on coconuts and sea fish to have the same reaction to drinking lots of whole milk and eating lots of red meat as someone whose ancestry comes from a cold climate with zero tropical fruit and only fresh water fish.
The systemic problem in the field of nutrition science is that for the last 60+ years they've been trying to find the one diet to rule them all when really the only diet that matters is the one that makes you feel healthy. And then there's just what in retrospect is just pure bad advice like a few decades ago when they were making pamphlets that pretty much said "Instead of eating fatty foods, try eating sugar by the spoonful instead." Good general recommendations regardless of the dietary paradigm (usually based on preferred protein source or main/dump macronutrient in the case of the more extreme diets) you prescribe to reducing glycemic load as much as possible while maximizing nutrients, especially those that are hard to come by in general in your diet. Plant foods should preferably be non-starchy vegetables, not grains. If fruits are eaten they should be antioxidant rich fruits such as pomegranates or various berries and some amount of citrus. Fruit juice should generally be avoided as it generally contains the least nutritious portions of the fruits. The research on fat has been stunted by demonization. There are pros and cons to both saturated fats and unsaturated fats and both should be included. As far for as the omega fatty acids go, Omega-3 should be consumed in larger amounts than omega-6. Protein sources are discretionary but in general, you require less than you might think, but it is still very important Aim for a complete amino acid profile regardless of your preferred source.Listen to your body. It knows what you need. You just need to learn its language. If your worried about overeating or it is an issue with you, start by reducing your glycemic load. If you are to eat high GI foods, prefer those that are fibrous such as whole grains over those that aren't as blood sugar spikes are less severe and are spread out over a larger time, and lets face it, nothing feels better than taking a nice shit
>>36479217
Aww, that's cute that you think anyone gives a shit about your opinions.
>>36479684
>The problem is the topic SPECIFIC DIETS that are HEALTHY.
No it fucking isn't. OP asked what constitutes a healthy diet. And the answer is: the right amount of calories and nutrients.
>>36479859
Joke's on you, I'm a breatharian.
>>36480198
You cared enough to reply m8.
I also have a question about insulin / pancreas
I watched some program on a low carb high fat diet where people (who are allegedly scientists) said that now they look at overall insulin response, not how quick/high it is.
So a complex carb will still require a similar amount of insulin, so the fact that it's smaller at any given time is cancelled out by the fact that it goes on for longer, so the pancreas has to work just as much - ie. if you consider the volume of work.
So their conclusion was that all carbs are bad (except vegetables), and even complex carbs should be significantly minimised
Is ther
>>36480417
*is there any truth to this?
>>36479913
>Sugar is bad because it contains fructose
>which is basically a poison
What the fuck.
Fructose is literally fruit sugar. Normal refined sugar is just sucrose (not fructose).
Also, a lot of things are "literally poison", it just depends on how much you take.
Just stop giving advice.
>>36480542
Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose. It is split into it's constituents by sucrase. Fructose really is pretty shitty stuff.
>>36479153
lol saturated fats are terrible for you in large quantities, you want more unsaturated fats than saturated
I think that everyone can agree that oily fish, vegetables and fruit are good for you
fill rest of your diet with whatever you want with moderation
>>36479117
sugar is both calorie dense and devoid of nutrients, main problem being the complete lack of nutrients
also sugars are what's commonly called "simple carbs" which means that they break down faster, thus releasing energy faster, which leads to that energy being stored as fat more easily. This also spikes your insulin which can lead to various problems in long run it excess consumption of sugar.
>>36479212
metabolic syndrome which can lead up to diabetus, increased cholesterol levels (the "bad" kind of) and inflammatory diseases
>>36480417
sure, if you eat too much complex carbs then you'll end up with diabetes and other problems all the same
however most complex carb foods are also full of nutrients and importantly fiber which is very filling, so you're not as likely to overeat those foods
but sure there's bunch of starchy foods that aren't especially filling while loaded with carbs, like potatoes, corn and white beans
>>36480417
>>36480431
This is broscience on par with the Brenner hypothesis that protein causes kidney disease from the extra 'work' emplaced metabolizing amino acids. In fact this 'work' is desirable as it is trophic to kidney function and a similar story is seen with insulin biosynthetic and excretion demand. I'd suggest you go read an actual textbook if you're interested in this stuff, as beta cell failure is a lot more complicated than what the garden-variety low carb crank documentary would lead you to believe.
OP, the only consensus scientifically is that people don't eat enough fruits and veggies, and nitrates in meat are bad. As you can see from this thread, literally nothing else is agreed on to the degree you want. You're never going to have several, reproducible, causative studies showing that a certain food is "good" our "bad" because of practical and ethical reasons, so nutritional science is always going to remain a joke.
Your best bet is eat whole foods as often as possible, and make sure a lot of that is veggies.
>>36480983
this
also veggies >>> fruits
afaik whfoods lists sources for their claims. Also I think it is important to maintain a healthy bodyweight, changing the signal for your body to adapt (aka bulking and cutting) places stress on you.
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Basically the current scientific conscious.
>>36480983
Looked into the nitrate thing recently and even that's not cut-and-dry. Apparently nitrates should be mostly avoided by children and pregnant women. Everyone else, baring a medical reason, can have nitrates in quantities found within cured food without additional health risk so long as they're eating a balanced diet.
>>36481057
Do you have a source?
>>36481057
>even that's not cut-and-dry
nope http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
red meat is probably carcinogenic (group 2a), while processed meat are carcinogenic (group 1)
>>36480615
Post peer review of actual harm fructose does to people or stfu already. Enough of this retarded fructose hate train. You guys are goddamn idiots.
>>36479072
> he fell for the "I need science to dictate my life to me" meme
science doesn't work with everything or science simply hasn't touched stuff due to not being funded.
So now you have to do what you fedoras dread the most, make your own decisions and try new things.
Try a high fiber, high protein and moderate fat and carb diet to begin
Stay away from super processed foods, eat whole grains and suck my dick.
>>36481114
Didn't spend much time looking, but here's one meta-analysis to read through.
"Dietary Nitrates, Nitrites, and Nitrosamines Intake and the Risk of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690057/
"5. Conclusions
In summary, this meta-analysis suggested that dietary nitrates intake was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer, and high consumption of nitrites and NDMA could increase the risk. Considering the limitations and confounding factors, we could not absolutely confirm the reliability of these findings. More well-designed large prospective studies are needed to help us understand these substances in the etiology of gastric cancer."
>>36481146
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/5/911.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC552336/
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/25/12/2451
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109715049074
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693348
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26178027
is being vegan better for u or is that total bullshit
I read a review done on behalf of the government here in Norway. It was extremely comprehensive and very well done, at least in my opinion. It was also amusing to see how you start with this massive amount of usually inconclusive and often contradictory science, which in turn is reduced to some general guidelines and finally into to the few points of ridiculous dietary advice that the government gives us.
After reading all of it I realized that we don't really know shit. We have some general ideas about groups of food that are probably good for us.
>>36481200
witnessed, but that is gastric cancer and using a conclusion that says the results are not confirmed are very suspicious.
Everything causes and prevents cancer at the same time, you can just pick the lobby you want to listen to.
http://www.sciencealert.com/everything-we-eat-both-causes-and-prevents-cancer
>>36481240
marginally, eating lots of veggies is a good rule of thumb.
Generally X diet. is just a grouping of some good foods which are considered good. There are other nutritious foods out there, no need to restrict yourself.
>>36481114
The added nitrates and nitrites are what is carcinogenic. Also you're proving my point to OP here. Ask five people and you'll get six answers and twelve contradicting studies.
>>36479072
all these fucking neckbeards in the thread.
the healthiest undisputed diet at the moment of writing is the mediterranean diet,and the second best is the nordic,as in the gourmet kind of nordic.
>>36481627
>nordic diet
you know that is made up right? the us "nordic diet" concept is just based on the nutritional guide lines used in nordic countries
actual nordic diet is dominantly pork, potatoes, flour, butter and salt with deserts made of sugar, gelatine and some berries for color
>>36481710
thats why i specified "as in the gourmet kind of nordic"
this is based on harvard's diet research based on the famous swedish restaurant "NOMA" that currently has 2 michelin stars.
>>36481738
i derped,its in denmark.
>>36479918
There are correlations where an indigenous people have become civilized in the past 50yrs or so, where getting sick from eating a western diet (probably high carbs a lot of meat). A nutritionist suggested suggested they go back to their original diets from before and wala they are healthy and not sick anymore. It was a snippet of a documentary on netflix I think called "how we eat"
>>36483033
Nothing to do with genes. The participants were of mixed origin, some being aboriginal auzzies and some from euro descent. The results were the same throughout the group.
>>36479072
>What's the current scientific consensus on what constitutes a healthy diet?
There is none.
/thread
New to trying to be /fit/. Discovered that if I limit carbs drastically I can basically stuff myself on meat and vegetables and have what people tell me is too much of a calorie deficit (like 50%). So I guess I need to ease off a little to get my deficit to about 25%.
What's a good carbs:protein:fat ratio?
>>36485277
30%/45%/25%
>>36479211
what are you talking about? the rule of thumb is [Lean Body Mass (lbs)] grams protein daily.
>>36486227
more like .8 of that. 1g/lb is too much and it'll just be wasted
