Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. edmundsj


    It looks delicious, what else is in it?. ๐Ÿ˜
  2. edmundsj

    Olive oil? Healthy or not?!

    Zucchini? Do you mean the food with even lower calorie density and higher nutrient density per calorie than strawberries? ๐Ÿ˜ฎ Perhaps you're right - it's too high of a bar. What would be a more sensical bar to clear is the marginal opportunity cost of adding olive oil to your diet, or substituting it for another source of calories. If you are already meeting your nutritional requirements (no need to go from 400% vit. K to 600%), it could provide higher marginal benefit than other, nominally more nutrient-dense, foods. I like you, you actually cite sources and can think critically. And I like the PREDIMED trial, it has its flaws obviously (all science must by its nature be incomplete) but a 7k person RCT is damn expensive and hard to pull off. The main limitation of relevance to this discussion which I don't see you address in your earlier post is that this work (and most of the other trials I see) were done on individuals with >= 3 risk factors for CVD and a rather high BMI. That's very much not a group I'm a part of, nor I think most of the people on this forum xD. Now it's better than no data, but I'd be cautious extrapolating to other groups, certainly not enough to issue a recommendation with confidence (although the epidemiological data points in the same direction). Pls link me if you are aware of similar studies in healthier populations. EVOO being comparable to nuts is surprising and interesting.
  3. edmundsj

    Olive oil? Healthy or not?!

    It seems this thread could use some context. Specifically, let's put this in context of the question: "How can I eat and sustain a calorically restricted diet while maintaining optimal nutrition?". EVOO is almost completely empty calories, period. According to the USDA's database queried by our lord and savior Cron-o-meter 1tbsp (120kcal) of EVOO contains a negligible amount of virtually every nutrient and mineral, with the exception of Iron (a whopping 1% of male adult RDI), Vitamin K (7%) and Vitamin E (14%), for the mere cost of about 15% of your daily calories. In other words, by consuming EVOO, you are incurring a rather massive opportunity cost in other ways you could have spent those calories. In food context, this translates into a large bowl of fruit (about 200g of the stuff). So the question should not be "Is EVOO healthy?" but "is EVOO the best use of the limited calories I have to spend?". Even though EVOO is nutritionally impotent, in principle it's also possible it contains some compound that could dramatically improve human health. Even if this was the case, however, the effect would have to be fairly large to justify the opportunity cost. As for the Science, let's take a relatively recent moderately-powered meta analysis (3000 subjects), studying EVOO on CVD risk factors [1]. They found a moderate decrease in CRP levels (0.6mg/L) for those consuming EVOO compared to the control group. However, the "control groups" consisted of people eating animal fat and other forms of fat - not those abstaining from those foods. This is also studying EVOO on the underlying risk factors, not on the incidence of heart disease, or fatal coronary events. It's also just one cause of death. You might reasonably ask is there something else that can give a similar effect that actually had nutrients? I'm glad you asked! Looks like berries [2] are such a food - in a similarly powered meta-analysis of RCTs we also get some decrease in various biomarkers of CVD. And with the same number of calories (~120), not only do you get to consume much more volume of food (200g), but you also get some nutrition too! (131% of vitamin C, 3% calcium, 11% copper, 34% manganese, 7% magnesium, etc. etc.). EVOO advocates not only need to clear the barrier of no harm (which they have only done in comparison to some other sources of fat), but also need to demonstrate that EVOO is better than other ways of spending your limited and precious calories. This is an extremely high bar to clear, and at least in my opinion it hasn't been cleared. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10408398.2018.1470491 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23625
  4. edmundsj

    Hello from a new member

    The line was meant in jest ๐Ÿ™‚ Thought the yo mamma insertion would have made that clear. Apologies :)p
  5. edmundsj

    Hello from a new member

    Your fancy words don't scare me [insert tasteful joke regarding your mother or your intelligence]. I'll reply directly on the EVOO thread.
  6. edmundsj

    Is there a bioimpedance scale like that?

    Bioimpedance data is pretty much garbage. It can be off (and regularly is) by ~10% (absolute, not relative) in each body composition category. If you want a snapshot, the gold standard is a DEXA scan (very low-dose, ~1/100 a dental scan, x-ray absorption, will cost you about $50). To give you an order of magnitude, my bio-impedance scale at home says my body fat percentage is 15% (compared to DEXA of 22.2%), visceral fat is 5lbs (compared to DEXA of 0.02lbs). EDIT: Don't expect too much of DEXA either, especially in regards to body fat percentage. 95% confidence interval deviates by +/- 34% from the true absolute fat mass value [1]. [1] Clasey, Jody L., Mark L. Hartman, Jill Kanaley, L. A. U. R. I. E. Wideman, C. David Teates, Claude Bouchard, and Arthur Weltman. "Body composition by DEXA in older adults: accuracy and influence of scan mode." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 29 (1997): 560-567.
  7. edmundsj

    Hello from a new member

    Good to hear from everyone! I don't see any such links on recommended bloodwork on the homepage. I'm pretty uneducated in this regard, any papers you can provide on which biomarkers / bloodwork to get done would be helpful. Academic papers are the key to my heart. From watching Fontana's lecture it looks like CRP / TNF1-alpha, IL6, as well as a lipid profile. Also blood pressure and DEXA for body composition (already got one of those). Anything else? On a practical note, how do I go about getting this type of bloodwork? My understanding is that usually doctors need to order bloodwork for a specific reason and are hesitant to prescribe this type of prophylactic bloodwork. God bless this app, this is so much easier than the Excel spreadsheet I was using. There's not much to "believe", as far as I know it's just empty calories. My understanding is that it just so happens that people who eat a bunch of other healthy foods (i.e. the Mediterranian diet) also eat olive oil, so it gets associated with health outcomes. Michael Greger also isn't a fan. Yeah, there's not a snowball's chance in hell I'll stop exercising. The literature base is so old and large it's going to start rivaling physics for the #sigma we are certain exercise promotes longevity. I prefer walks / hikes, but I get in my MET-hours. I do some strength training, mostly right now to keep myself sane. You, sir, sound like a true academic! xD I'll be trolling the forums in my free time over the next few weeks. Thanks, and nice to meet you! Very helpful! About halfway through watching it now.
  8. Do you have the full set of references from this presentation? I'm familiar with some (i.e. CALERIE) but having a hard time finding others (i.e. Li 2016 BMJ).
  9. The research on exercise is unequivocal: compared to a sedentary lifestyle, an active lifestyle (as quantified by MET-hours, or Metabolic Equivalents of task, an estimate of calories burned), reduces your risk for disease and all-cause mortality even after correcting for BMI in a dose-dependent manner. See Williams 2012 and 2014, attached. These risk reductions are not small, between 20 and 40% for some of the big-name killers (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease). Whether more intense exercise is "better" or "worse" it's not clear, as long as you get in the MET-hours it doesn't seem to much matter. As for the effects of whether running causes conditions like osteoarthritis, the answer is a definitive maybe [3], if you do it competitively. If you're just getting in the MET-hours, it appears to be protective. [3] Alentorn-Geli, Eduard, Kristian Samuelsson, Volker Musahl, Cynthia L. Green, Mohit Bhandari, and Jรณn Karlsson. "The association of recreational and competitive running with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis." journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy 47, no. 6 (2017): 373-390. Williams_2014_150K-Runners-Study.pdf Williams_2012_Running-CHD-30k.pdf
  10. edmundsj

    CR 3rd attempt

    Perhaps instead of multiple abortive attempts with a radical lifestyle change, which sounds like it is filling the void more of a religion than out of a desire to live a healthful life, try first to make smaller lifestyle changes (think eat more plants, get regular exercise, make healthy friendships) and make them last more than a few days or weeks.
  11. I believe the USDA's database [1] is the one referred to pretty heavily by other sites (not sure about Cronometer), but it's the engine behind SELF's nutrition data website [2], which has the AA breakdown for many (not all) foods. [1] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/ [2] https://nutritiondata.self.com/
  12. Incoming fist to the face (re: duking it out). All in good fun. Fiat Lux! No. Wrong. First of all, chubby folks are still badly penalized by increased risk for chronic disease (diabetes, CVD), which modern medicine is barely a band-aid for. We've gotten great at curing bacterial disease, keeping a lid on some viral diseases, and we're ok-ish at treating very few forms of cancer. Testicular, thyroid, and child leukemia come to mind. We're also pretty good at orthopedic surgery. Other than that, modern medicine is absolute garbage at providing treatment and cures for chronic diseases. We can't even get rid of plaque buildup in arteries. Second, when inferring longevity from BMI, you have to be very careful because of one major problem: reverse causation. People with exceptionally low BMI's are much more likely to have that BMI because of some type of wasting disease, or just advancing age, or have achieved that BMI in response to a disease. For this reason, when trying to infer the independent effect of BMI on health you need to be careful to exclude prior chronic disease, and then incorporate the effect of BMI on the development of that disease. This was done in a review by Fontana [1] (attached) in 2014, who found monotonically decreasing risk of developing chronic disease with decreasing BMI down to a BMI of <21 using a pooled analysis of individual data from ~2M people. The Danish study you refer to was a total of ~10K people and only corrected for smoking. Weak power, weaker methodology. [1] Fontana, Luigi, and Frank B. Hu. "Optimal body weight for health and longevity: bridging basic, clinical, and population research." Aging cell 13, no. 3 (2014): 391-400. Fontana_2014_Optimal-body-weight-caloric-restriction.pdf
  13. edmundsj

    Hello from a new member

    Hello from California! I'm Jordan, a Ph.D. student in electrical engineering at UC Berkeley. Also a bit (ok, more than a bit) of a health nerd. I recently found this forum from a paper I was reading (Most 2017, attached), which had a section on "CRONies". I was like "WOW! There are actually humans on the internet crazy enough to practice caloric restriction? How do I join?!". I've been interested in CR since I first heard about some of the 1950 studies in rats a few years ago, and over the last few years have been slowly improving my lifestyle via diet and exercise (I'm also a follower of Michael Greger's work, provides great evidence-based nutrition guidelines). My diet is now plant-based with relatively little meat (this from the starting point of an average of ~2 burgers/day a couple years ago), I'm meeting or close to meeting all the RDIs I have data for, and my BMI is now down to 24 from 27. More recently I started reviewing the CR literature in humans and primates and the evidence base is much larger than I had previously known. I've been hesitant to pull the CR trigger primarily because 1) It seems really really difficult (see CALERIE-1 and CALERIE-2 compliance, CALERIE-2 targeted 25% CR and by year 2 was down to ~9%) and 2) I'm moderately concerned about side-effects, including weakness, fatigue, and cold sensitivity. I'm fairly active and would like to stay that way, and not turn into a sedentary mole rat. Hoping to meet and get to know people also interested in CR, make some friends, and benefit from the practical wisdom of people who actually practice it. I'm open to suggestions about how to start and will be poking around the forum in the coming weeks. Nice to meet you all! Most_2017_Caloric-restriction-update.pdf Fontana_2014_Optimal-body-weight-caloric-restriction.pdf