Thoughts on the potato diet

Post by ska » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

zwaps wrote: post #505

ska wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have to rely on fortified products and supplements. I appreciate your input, but this level of categorical statement seems to fly in the face of historic and current diets which are vegan or vegan-like and have not relied on supplements, or at least not the type we are talking about here. At any rate I'd review other dietitians/scientists as well; while it's been a long time since I read the literature on this…

The point I am trying to impress is rather that there is a clear scientific consensus, and you are giving potentially harmful advice contrary to that - based on things you have read a long time ago. I provided a source that systemically goes through available evidence (including anecdotal points about vegan cultures). I think that is fair and it does not imply any value statements about a vegan diet.

Post by monktastic1 » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #453

monktastic1 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is "given the same calories, you'll be full longer." The other is "given fewer calories, you'll be full for as long." Surely those aren't orthogonal?

That seems like it'd be the definition of orthogonal; "length of fullness" and "caloric input" are separate variables, and each of those statements entails altering one of those variables independently from the other.

Post by BizarroLand » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:22 PM UTC

bergenty wrote: post #503

BizarroLand wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be confusing satiety with being "full". You can eat 500 calories of butter and not feel even slightly full, but 500 calories of raw potato would have you full to bursting.

But satiety is defined as the state of being full. The satiety index should be based on volume not calories. Otherwise it’s not just unintuitive, it’s incorrect. You don’t have to consume a certain number of calories to be full. You just need a large enough volume. Competitive eaters eat a huge amount of lettuce to feel “full” but it has almost no calories.

Post by code_duck » Thu, Jul 14, 2022, 5:02 AM UTC

jrvarela56 wrote: post #469

code_duck wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel you need to change your food intake, and how do you interpret your CGM results? If you don't have a form of diabetes it doesn't really make a difference. Your glucose will go back down to 85 fairly soon.

Family history of developing type 2 diabetes. I take the CGM results as a sign of my pancreas having to pump out insulin to counter the blood sugar. From what I understand, consistently exceeding certain level (110/120? forgot) for prolonged periods (an hour was the warning given by the device) eventually leads to insulin resistance.

Post by code_duck » Thu, Jul 14, 2022, 5:09 AM UTC

jrvarela56 wrote: post #510

nostrebored wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve put on weight and I find the cgm to be a way more objective and practical metric than calorie counting. It’s simply hard to consume enough low GI foods to put on weight. There are certain foods that my body seems to process poorly. My blood glucose spikes as much from crackers and rice as it does from more traditional sweets. My heuristics for other foods that I assumed were sweet (often fatty foods with mild sw…

Have you tried taking a fiber supplement before meals? If you're still using the cgm I recommend you try and measure - I was impressed! I noticed the effect with salads and figured the fiber could help in a similar way.