Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 322 posts

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#311

Post by collyw »

jackhack wrote: post #235
cageface wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saturated fat has a lot of downsides and usually comes along with extra cholesterol. Stick to unsaturated (i.e. vegetable) fats for the sake of your cardiovascular system.

The thinking on this has completely inverted in the past 5 years. The correlation between dietary consumption of cholesterol and serum (blood level) cholesterol is limited at best. Studies which showed a linear relationship were flawed. Put simply, it is now thought that cholesterol is a plaster over the arterial inflammation caused by sugars. It is a symptom, not a cause of plaques.

"The thinking on this has completely inverted in the past 5 years."

Has it really?

I see a lot of new contradictory results, but I am not aware that the medical consensus has changed (yet). I have seen articles blame fat as the, blame carbs as the bad guy and even some blaming protein. Refined sugar does seem to be particularly bad, but I have yet to see anything conclusive about carbohydrates as a food group (I searched pubmed a few months back).

Personally I am more confused than ever.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#312

Post by TheCoelacanth »

eru wrote: post #126
BjoernKW wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is peanut butter unhealthy? Obviously excluding the crappy ones that have added sugar. It's mostly fat with lots of salt, which is a pretty good recipe for future cardiovascular disease if eaten excessively.

Peanut butter is pretty good. It's basically half fat, quarter protein, quarter carbs. Salt can be added or not. They use it fortified as 'plumpy nut' to feed undernourished children in the third world back to health. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy%27nut )

I think that only applies to some styles of peanut butter. Jif, for instance, is more like three-quarters carbs (half of that sugar), one-quarter fat and negligible amounts of protein.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#313

Post by christophilus »

dhimes wrote: post #282
christophilus wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's begun to change. I anecdotally know a lot of people on a high-fat diet (Keto and such) and it has really worked for them. Inflammation is way down, energy is way up, weight is down, blood pressure is down, cholesterol is down, etc. Sugars / refined starches seem to be the nutrition villains, not natural, saturated fats. (But who knows! The recommendations change almost daily, it seems.)

How do you measure inflammation?

In the anecdotal cases I mentioned, inflammation is a catch-all. More specifically, congestion and joint pain decreased significantly. In one case, I know someone who had many days where she wasn't able to walk due to joint pain. Those days appear to be gone.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#314

Post by RepressedEmu »

meuk wrote: post #159
dvt wrote: post #4

This is only tangentially related, but I've been practicing intermittent fasting for the past year, and I cannot recommend it enough -- it honestly changed my life. I feel better, I sleep more regularly, I have more energy, and my mind is more alert. I only eat from 12PM to 8PM. IF is also supposed to have an impact on your microbiome, reduce inflammation, and encourage autophagy (especially in the brain). PS: Please…

I am amazed at this. I eat 3-4 times a day, and often go to bed hungry and wake up hungry. I eat quite a lot, but am still quite skinny (on the other hand, I run 2-3 times a week and I never heat my apartment, which might be reasons for my appetite). I might give IF a try, but am afraid that I will be in eternal hunger.

What is it like living without heat? My heat went out in my apt for a week recently and although coming out from a hot shower was noticeably unpleasant the rest of my routine was unaffected since I'm normally wrapped up in cozy blankets on the couch anyways. I'd be very interested in the caloric impact of living without heat too.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#315

Post by eru »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #312
eru wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peanut butter is pretty good. It's basically half fat, quarter protein, quarter carbs. Salt can be added or not. They use it fortified as 'plumpy nut' to feed undernourished children in the third world back to health. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy%27nut )

I think that only applies to some styles of peanut butter. Jif, for instance, is more like three-quarters carbs (half of that sugar), one-quarter fat and negligible amounts of protein.

Oh, I was assuming that without further qualifiers peanut butter means just peanut and at most a bit of extra salt.

But I am not aware of how peanut butter is sold in eg the US. I am going by the German and British market here.

So, yes, if you eat sugary stuff, it's gonna be not great for you. Agreed.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#316

Post by tinymollusk »

Najtmare wrote: post #167
tinymollusk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a similar situation I've felt subjectively less hungry / performed better if I take some branch chain amino acids in the AM. Dunno if this makes the IF "invalid" -- I never felt significantly different during an IF. But commuting on my bike, I frequently felt weak if I was fasting, and BCAA stopped that. YMMV.

Anything besides water breaks the IF period.

Pardon my ignorance, but how does the research account for the benefits of caloric reduction? How do we know if it's the disciplined fasting, or if simple caloric reduction is part of the equation?

That information would help me decide whether I have to be strict about no eating. Much of the advice I've seen amounts to allowing some leeway in small caloric inputs.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#317

Post by oil7abibi »

pascalxus wrote: post #261
oil7abibi wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah there, bananas and potatoes are not similar foods at all. Yes they both primarily provide carbs, but the glycemic index of bananas is 48, while potatoes are at from 82-111 ( https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce... ). Don’t make incorrect assertions.

Yes, but just to play devils advocate for the potato, don't forget, it rates much higher in satiety than just about anything, source: (holt satiety studies) https://scottabelfitness.com/potato-and-the-satiety-index/

Interesting, thanks for the info.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#318

Post by sn9 »

cageface wrote: post #300
sn9 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://examine.com/nutrition/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-me/ Actual studies linked within.

The conclusion from the very first review cited in your article ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20351774 ): These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA in place of SFA reduces CHD events in RCTs. i.e. replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease, which was my original claim. From your article: Saturated fats do increase cholesterol levels relative to polyuns…

Something being less bad than an alternative is not the same as being actively bad for you.

Going 20 mph is slower than going 30 mph but it is not going in reverse.

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#319

Post by drdrey »

jnordwick wrote: post #275
jnordwick wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2000? The standard estimate of net calories burned (cals above basal rate) is 0.98 kg km (i think it is 0.98, i usually round up to 1). You might enjoy this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/running

That should read 0.98 × kg × km

0.98 x 73 x 25.75 = 1842 kcal, not too far off

Re: Exercise Alters Our Microbiome

#320

Post by drdrey »

tinymollusk wrote: post #71
drdrey wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran 16 miles this morning, burned over 2000 calories. But I won't lose any weight, I am going to eat those calories right back.

That is indeed a substantial amount of exercise! Awesome work. In a thought experiment (where it's possible to know the exact amounts) -- do you think consuming exactly 2k kcal is perfectly even with burning exactly 2k kcal? IE, is there overhead to transform the energy? Does it account for physical/energy waste?

I don't know, anecdotally it seems that if I spent X calories exercising, my hunger will adjust until I consume roughly X extra calories.

The energy expenditure does account for waste, I think only about 20-25% of the energy spent is turned into mechanical output

Post reply on HN