# Better Breakfasts.



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Krou said:


> damn that Ne
> tbh I find it hard to have big debates because I lose focus on the main issue (my math teacher hated me for that because whenever I tried to solve an equation I frequently stopped and said "umm what are we looking for again?" )
> 
> I read about coco-oil in wiki, I suppose you may be right about it being a good saturated source, but I doubt it can combat the effects of unsaturated oils like olive oil. But, I don't connect coco-oil with the things I say below necessarily, maybe that's why we got confused.
> ...


Okay so I felt like decaying my brain with nothing but humor for a couple days.
Today, I'm focused man.

Ha... anyway. "Combating the effects" like unsaturated fats.
I don't really know what that refers to. 
I am not arguing that coconut oil is better for you then olive oil or something like that because it depends on the application. And comparing two things which are healthy for you is a bit like comparing spinach and liver.
Both are good for you for various reasons one might have more benefits in a certain way but that doesn't mean the other is less beneficial for health.

Coconut oil is a saturated fat primarily lauric acid has been shown to have a favorable effect on health. I could link studies on it but that's a drag isn't it? (It reminds me of linking studies to talk about the electron transport chain or something) Basically it creates a favorable profile by increasing the HDL the LDL is raised too but not very big a deal. Coconut oil is associated with a beneficial lipid profile in pre-menopausal women in the Philippines. | ResearchGate

There are tons of different things actually, one interesting thing is this:
An open-label pilot study to assess the effic... [ISRN Pharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Now that's a study where you go but the people were obese and their waist decreased.
You'll notice it said their lipid profile didn't change which is contrary to the other study, but from my perspective that makes sense as they are obese and it's only 4 weeks. The thing I love is that it's showing if you consume a fat you lose size in your waist and I've personally experienced this when I started taking coconut oil as well and I was not obese but had trouble losing weight in my midsection.

Anyhow that's a vain topic, lets get back. Coconut oil is a saturated fat and as I've shown lauric acid isn't considered bad for you health at all it's beneficial. Now on to the other reason coconut oil is healthy for you: Medium chain triglycerides. The idea that triglycerides are bad for you is also antiquated these are super beneficial for health. The reason I brought up hydrogenating fats is they hydrogenated coconut oil for years turning it into trans fat that's completely different then virgin coconut oil and is crap for health. 

The most interesting reason MCTs are beneficial for health in my opinion is they are ketogenic. Meaning they produce ketones which are going to give your brain energy. What's been shown is that in diabetics for instance is that there is an impairment of normal glucose mechanisms to get glucose to the brain. This stuff is kinda old by now: 
Brain glucose sensing and body energy homeostasis: role in obesity and diabetes
You can find more stuff on it but I feel like I am re-writing textbooks.

Anyway a big thing that's come out recently is that some researchers want to call alzheimers diabetes type 3. The reason? Resistance to insulin (note -not diabetes necessarily) has been shown to be a problem in the brain as well as the brain produces insulin which means you can get hyperglycemia in the brain. 

Tie this into the etiology of diabetes - insulin impairment -> hyperglycemia -> cells starve as glucose remains in blood. So you starve brain cells because they can't get glucose -> plaques develop -> alzheimers 
Type 3 Diabetes

Tangent? No - you'd want an alternative pathway to get energy to the brain because they are starving, enter MCT which produce ketone bodies which will feed your brain and help prevent the cells from starving. 
There are studies looking at how MCT help cognition in people with diabetes: 
Medium-chain fatty acids improve cognitive function... [Diabetes. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

And as I've explained some of the physiology it's to no one's surprise that it's being used in alzheimers patients:
OPTIMIZING DIAGNOSIS AND MANANGEMENT ... [Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Now the real thing gets back #1 how many people have insulin resistance in their brain without being diabetic? It's not the same thing afterall. So I view it as a measure of sound prevention people should eat coconut oil. If you're diabetic or especially if you have alzheimers you should definitely take some. 

There other benefits to coconut oil as well including it being anti-viral, anti-fungal, and anti-bacterial. All kinda good things? heh.

In terms of your meat eater studies there are simple problems.
They are talking about grain fed red meat which the majority of red meat is.
That changes the composition of a more favorable higher omega-3 content to a higher omega-6 content.
Omega-6 is inflammatory and leads to health problems, that's well established.
Also I know with those studies they have to control for other factors as they are simply observation studies.
But the thing is how can you distinguish between someone who prepares their red meat on a grill vs someone who prepares it in a frying pan? How can you distinguish between someone who eats hamburger meat vs someone who eats steak? How can you compare those who eat liver - ie. a superfood, and those that eat some fatty piece of grain fed beef? How do you compare those taht ate red meat primarily with a home cooked meal vs those that went to mcdonalds for theirs? Of course my question is rhetorical because they can't. 

And it's the same thing as saying "saturated fat is bad for you" it's far too general and it's antiquated. 
And as far as the Mediterranean diet goes that's just an opinion then. Perhaps there is truth to it but beliefs don't suffice as providing evidence. Nothing that you presented stated that meat should be limited to 2-3 times per month.

Oh yeah and one beneficial application of coconut oil over olive oil? Cooking.
Saturated fats are more heat stable then things like olive oil, especially extra virgin as it's easily damaged by the heat. So you're better off cooking with a coconut oil and leaving the extra virgin olive oil for salad dressings, etc.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> Okay so I felt like decaying my brain with nothing but humor for a couple days.
> Today, I'm focused man.
> 
> Ha... anyway. "Combating the effects" like unsaturated fats.
> ...


The comparison I did between coco-oil and olive oil were about their effect on blood lipids, olive oil has an recognized and established positive effect, while coconut may or may not be beneficial on that. Yes of course it's better than other saturated fats, so if that's what you can find or like it's better than others. The second study doesn't have a very detailed abstract, we don't know if they changed other things in their diets in that month, or if by eating coconut oil they just changed their energy balance and thus lost waist weight. 
Lipid profile can change in a month if you eat right, but we don't know if the methodology used was good. Anyway, it's vain like you said.




> Anyhow that's a vain topic, lets get back. Coconut oil is a saturated fat and as I've shown lauric acid isn't considered bad for you health at all it's beneficial. Now on to the other reason coconut oil is healthy for you: Medium chain triglycerides. The idea that triglycerides are bad for you is also antiquated these are super beneficial for health. The reason I brought up hydrogenating fats is they hydrogenated coconut oil for years turning it into trans fat that's completely different then virgin coconut oil and is crap for health.
> 
> The most interesting reason MCTs are beneficial for health in my opinion is they are ketogenic. Meaning they produce ketones which are going to give your brain energy. What's been shown is that in diabetics for instance is that there is an impairment of normal glucose mechanisms to get glucose to the brain. This stuff is kinda old by now:
> Brain glucose sensing and body energy homeostasis: role in obesity and diabetes
> ...


I like talking about diabetes and I've done a big essay about it which was fun. What I learned is that in diabetes you definitely don't want ketogenesis. In undiagnosed diabetic patients, it can be fatal since it lowers the blood pH. Yes the brain can use ketone bodies when it can't utilize glucose, but that is not considered a favourable thing for a diabetic. What you want to achieve in diabetes is to return to a normal glucose absorption function as much as possible. 
I checked about MCTs on wikipedia, and found this
_Medium-chain triglycerides are generally considered a good biologically inert source of energy that the human body finds reasonably easy to metabolize. They have potentially beneficial attributes in protein metabolism but may be *contraindicated in some situations due to their tendency to induce ketogenesis and metabolic acidosis.[11]* *Their use is not recommended for diabetics* unless under supervised medical treatment and those with liver problems due to the added stress they may put on the organ.[10]_
They are not useless of course, but not exactly a solution either, they can be combined with other forms of treatment. As for the type 3 diabetes, it's the first time I heard it so I can't comment on that now.



> In terms of your meat eater studies there are simple problems.
> They are talking about grain fed red meat which the majority of red meat is.
> That changes the composition of a more favorable higher omega-3 content to a higher omega-6 content.
> Omega-6 is inflammatory and leads to health problems, that's well established.
> ...


Your questions are valid, but maybe in those researches they check those variables but we can't read the whole text. Or maybe it's just as vain as the one we talked above.





> And it's the same thing as saying "saturated fat is bad for you" it's far too general and it's antiquated.
> And as far as the Mediterranean diet goes that's just an opinion then. Perhaps there is truth to it but beliefs don't suffice as providing evidence. Nothing that you presented stated that meat should be limited to 2-3 times per month.
> 
> Oh yeah and one beneficial application of coconut oil over olive oil? Cooking.
> Saturated fats are more heat stable then things like olive oil, especially extra virgin as it's easily damaged by the heat. So you're better off cooking with a coconut oil and leaving the extra virgin olive oil for salad dressings, etc.



It's not exactly an opinion, we're talking about 50 years of observation by the Dietetic Community. I showed you the mediterranean diet pyramid, it shows red meat consumption to the top, meaning monthly.

Actually olive oil has a much higher smoke point than coconut, reaching 207 Celcius for the high quality extra virgin!
Smoke point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here in Greece we use olive oil in all cooking except maybe deep frying (because it has a heavy taste), but even then some use olive.


PS. are you INTJ or INTP?


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Krou said:


> The comparison I did between coco-oil and olive oil were about *their effect on blood lipids*, olive oil has an recognized and established positive effect, while coconut may or *may not* be beneficial on that. Yes of course it's better than other saturated fats, so if that's what you can find or like it's better than others. The second study doesn't have a very detailed abstract, we don't know if they changed other things in their diets in that month, or if by eating coconut oil they just changed their energy balance and thus lost waist weight.
> Lipid profile can change in a month if you eat right, but we don't know if the methodology used was good. Anyway, it's vain like you said.


If that's what you're comparing that's fine. But because olive oil has a recognized and positive effect doesn't mean that coconut oil does not, it just means not many are aware of it. I assumed you were wiki'ing your information and what you wrote kind of concludes that but if that's the case you should have already read that coconut oil increases HDL and that's already accepted. The idea that coconut oil *COULD* raise CAD thought other methods is something that is what we'd call "requires further study/speculation" but the results of the study show that *coconut oil specifically lauric acid increases HDL* the most out of any substance they measured. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/77/5/1146.full.pdf+html

And just to hammer home the point: 


> Lauric acid—a major component of tropical oils such
> as coconut and palm kernel fat—has the *largest cholesterol-raising
> effect of all fatty acids, but much of this is due to HDL* cholesterol.
> As a result, lauric acid had a more favorable effect on
> ...


In terms of your speculation that they dropped caloric intake.. and that's why they lost weight. I don't mean to be rude but if they did something that simple they wouldn't have published the study in a scientific journal. That's kinda obvious you have to control for calories ingested. But I'll provide another study anyway just to overcome that speculation.



> I like talking about diabetes and I've done a big essay about it which was fun. What I learned is that in diabetes you definitely don't want ketogenesis. In undiagnosed diabetic patients, it can be fatal since it lowers the blood pH. Yes the brain can use ketone bodies when it can't utilize glucose, but that is not considered a favourable thing for a diabetic. What you want to achieve in diabetes is to return to a normal glucose absorption function as much as possible.
> I checked about MCTs on wikipedia, and found this
> _Medium-chain triglycerides are generally considered a good biologically inert source of energy that the human body finds reasonably easy to metabolize. They have potentially beneficial attributes in protein metabolism but may be *contraindicated in some situations due to their tendency to induce ketogenesis and metabolic acidosis.[11]* *Their use is not recommended for diabetics* unless under supervised medical treatment and those with liver problems due to the added stress they may put on the organ.[10]_
> They are not useless of course, but not exactly a solution either, they can be combined with other forms of treatment. As for the type 3 diabetes, it's the first time I heard it so I can't comment on that now.


You have a bit to learn about diabetes. I've written papers on it too lol. You seem to have some concepts mixed up. Ketoacidosis is the thing you want to prevent in diabetes, that process happens when insulin the body stops producing insulin that leads to the breakdown of fatty acids and that leads to ketones being produced. 

The issue is really about the body not getting sugar into the cells of the body and the body essentially starving even when you eat food. The byproduct of that is ketone bodies which can be smelled on the breath, it's a sign that your insulin is screwed up. It's not that the ketone bodies themselves are bad it's the fact that it occurred as a secondary pathway to create energy because the primary means - glucose has shut down. 

The wiki article you quoted is speculation once again. The fact is ketogenesis occurs in healthy people regularly it's just what happens when you break down fatty acids. Ketosis is just a name for a state of elevated ketones in the body, a lot of the time it occurs because of a lack of sugar in the body - say for example you don't eat carbs at all your body starts to break down fatty acids for energy instead and you go into ketosis. You can also have "ketosis" by introducing ketone bodies into your body... but the more proper name would be ketogenic diets, but even people who use that term are referring to something like an akins diet again. What I am referring to is a diet where you are not limiting your intake of glucose to something like under 30g of carb you are simply introducing ketogenic foods into your diet. It's a completely different thing from what goes on in diabetics.

More and more people diabetic and what not are understanding this now, so to hammer home a point again:
Dietary substitution of medium-chain triglycerides ... [Diabetes. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI


> Thus, *MCT-containing diets increased insulin-mediated glucose metabolism in both diabetic patients and nondiabetic subjects*.





> Your questions are valid, but maybe in those researches they check those variables but we can't read the whole text. Or maybe it's just as vain as the one we talked above.


And just to go back to abdominal weight loss for a second: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437058Notice the group that took coconut oil had more HDL and a better HDL/LDL ration, further confirming the other study and also notice:


> It appears that dietetic supplementation with coconut oil does not cause dyslipidemia and seems to promote a reduction in abdominal obesity.


Hehe.


I'll respond to the other stuff later I got a meeting.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> If that's what you're comparing that's fine. But because olive oil has a recognized and positive effect doesn't mean that coconut oil does not, it just means not many are aware of it. I assumed you were wiki'ing your information and what you wrote kind of concludes that but if that's the case you should have already read that coconut oil increases HDL and that's already accepted. The idea that coconut oil *COULD* raise CAD thought other methods is something that is what we'd call "requires further study/speculation" but the results of the study show that *coconut oil specifically lauric acid increases HDL* the most out of any substance they measured. Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials


I read the article a bit, yes lauric acid does raise HDL, that's something I agreed upon before, but it also raises total cholesterol which isn't something we'd want for long-term. 
From the same article:
_The situation is much clearer for replacement of SFAs with cis
unsaturated fatty acids. In that case, the effects on surrogate lipid
markers (Tables 1 and 2), the epidemiologic findings (89), and the
results of controlled clinical trials (104) all suggest that replacement of SFAs with cis unsaturated fatty acids reduces CAD risk._

So, it is established that in general, to lower CAD risk you need to reduce SFAs, which was my initial statement that started our debate, right?
it's just that lauric acid is a bit of a special case because of it's effect on HDL.



> And just to hammer home the point:
> 
> In terms of your speculation that they dropped caloric intake.. and that's why they lost weight. I don't mean to be rude but if they did something that simple they wouldn't have published the study in a scientific journal. That's kinda obvious you have to control for calories ingested. But I'll provide another study anyway just to overcome that speculation.


Unless we have the whole text we can't be sure. Publishing in a scientific journal isn't that sophisticated since you usually have to pay, it doesn't mean that your research is sound.




> You have a bit to learn about diabetes. I've written papers on it too lol. You seem to have some concepts mixed up. Ketoacidosis is the thing you want to prevent in diabetes, that process happens when insulin the body stops producing insulin that leads to the breakdown of fatty acids and that leads to ketones being produced.
> 
> The issue is really about the body not getting sugar into the cells of the body and the body essentially starving even when you eat food. The byproduct of that is ketone bodies which can be smelled on the breath, it's a sign that your insulin is screwed up. It's not that the ketone bodies themselves are bad it's the fact that it occurred as a secondary pathway to create energy because the primary means - glucose has shut down.


I don't really understand what you are saying here and how it's different from what I said. Ketone bodies are acids, and in high concentrations they can lower the blood pH and cause ketoacidosis. To prevent ketoacidosis in diabetics you have to either give them insulin if they are type 1 or other medication and diet if they are type 2. Now if they are being medicated, and their brains still are insulin-resistant and you might want to give them more fats to feed their brains that's another thing and I don't know about that. 



> The wiki article you quoted is speculation once again. The fact is ketogenesis occurs in healthy people regularly it's just what happens when you break down fatty acids. Ketosis is just a name for a state of elevated ketones in the body, a lot of the time it occurs because of a lack of sugar in the body - say for example you don't eat carbs at all your body starts to break down fatty acids for energy instead and you go into ketosis. You can also have "ketosis" by introducing ketone bodies into your body... but the more proper name would be ketogenic diets, but even people who use that term are referring to something like an akins diet again. What I am referring to is a diet where you are not limiting your intake of glucose to something like under 30g of carb you are simply introducing ketogenic foods into your diet. It's a completely different thing from what goes on in diabetics.
> 
> More and more people diabetic and what not are understanding this now, so to hammer home a point again:
> Dietary substitution of medium-chain triglycerides ... [Diabetes. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI


Yea I know it's a normal thing for the body to produce ketones, but you mentioned diabetics and that's why I commented on that. I'm not sure I understand the conclusion of that research, it says glucose metabolism is increased but then it says on diabetics it's also disposed... it's a bit confusing.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Krou said:


> I read the article a bit, yes lauric acid does raise HDL, that's something I agreed upon before, but it also raises total cholesterol which isn't something we'd want for long-term.
> From the same article:
> _The situation is much clearer for replacement of SFAs with cis
> unsaturated fatty acids. In that case, the effects on surrogate lipid
> ...


Total cholesterol is simply: HDL + LDL + triglycerides/5 (I think it's divided by 5 anyway)
If you eat a food that is high in HDL (good) + LDL + Medium Chain Triglycerides (also good as I will shown in even more studies) and your total cholesterol goes up..... Shouldn't take a lot of brain work to figure out the total cholesterol is not a great measurement.

That article that is referred to in your quote is this study:
Types of Dietary Fat and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review

As you can see in that study.... "replacing saturated fats" is too general that indicates that you should *eliminate/replace* saturated fat in your diet. You can see that stearic acid essentially acts like a unsaturated fat in the body. And lauric acid increases HDL more then the unsaturated fats. Just looking at the diagram should see that you if you ate something like coconut oil and stearic acid, both saturated fats... you'd have a favorable ratio. That alone eliminates this idea that you should "replace" saturated fats. The better way to say it is: _You should eat good fat!_ Lauric acid is good, stearic acid is good, and of course unsaturated fats are good, but that brings me back to another of my original points... Blood lipids are only one measurement which is why I mentioned medium chain triglycerides and their health benefits and how that's very specific to coconut oil. 



> Unless we have the whole text we can't be sure. Publishing in a scientific journal isn't that sophisticated since you usually have to pay, it doesn't mean that your research is sound.


That's not how scientific studies work when they're peer reviewed. They would have thrown out a study like that. I mean think about how ridiculous that would be.. "We're going to check how good this substance is in helping you lose weight and to test that we're going to lower your caloric intake and not compare that with anything"... wouldn't fly. And besides it's a moot point as I provided another study confirming the same results anyhow.



> I don't really understand what you are saying here and how it's different from what I said. Ketone bodies are acids, and in high concentrations they can lower the blood pH and cause ketoacidosis. To prevent ketoacidosis in diabetics you have to either give them insulin if they are type 1 or other medication and diet if they are type 2. Now if they are being medicated, and their brains still are insulin-resistant and you might want to give them more fats to feed their brains that's another thing and I don't know about that.


What I am saying is pretty simple, ketoacidosis is full blown insulin screw up. It's not the same as eating food with ketones. Ketoacidosis is the FORMATION of excessive ketones. Acidity is not only from diet but much more because of the excess excretion of glucose and ketone bodies via urination. You have a increased number of H+ in the plasma in a decreased volume of plasma and that can cause severe acidosis... that's what gets you. That's why you need to give them something to get the glucose out of the blood and into the cell. It's a medical emergency and not representative of how pH is effected by ketone bodies in diabetics.



> Yea I know it's a normal thing for the body to produce ketones, but you mentioned diabetics and that's why I commented on that. I'm not sure I understand the conclusion of that research, it says glucose metabolism is increased but then it says on diabetics it's also disposed... it's a bit confusing.


The conclusion of the research is simply saying: MCT improve insulin mediated glucose metabolism - good.

But if you want another way of saying it then here you go:
Medium chain fatty acids Functional lipids for the prevention and treatment of the metabolic syndrome pdf free ebook download from www.meltbutteryspread.com



> Recently, Han et al. reported that the consumption of MCT at
> 18 g/day as part of daily food intake for 90 days resulted in reduced
> body weight, waist circumference and a homeostasis model assess-
> ment of insulin resistance in moderately overweight, subjects
> ...


Just read the entire section on MCT and diabetes lol.
I just decided to show you the trump card


----------



## Linos (Dec 6, 2012)

DC! I have a question, is there a personal/medical reason why you don't eat potatoes? 

I'm enjoying this discussion immensely, keep it going 

I'm going to make a comment for the OP. 






Before I give you more, do you like chocolate, oatmeal, walnuts and bananas?


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Linos said:


> DC! I have a question, is there a personal/medical reason why you don't eat potatoes?
> 
> I'm enjoying this discussion immensely, keep it going
> 
> ...


Well I personally don't eat regular potatoes because they are too high in starch -> carbs and I try to keep my carbs down.
I do a sort of carb cycle where I'll eat a high amount of carbs every other day but I'll eat sweet potatoes.

The reason people on the paleo diet (there are variations) say not to eat potatoes are due to lectins, it's the same with legumes.
But the interesting thing is that nuts and seeds also have legumes and are paleo friendly.
So it might be due to differing levels or the type, I am not sure.

I really don't eat nuts, seeds, or legumes either.... but again that's mainly because of the carbs.
I don't feel guilty eating any of the aforementioned foods minus regular potatoes and legumes.
They just don't react well with my body, so while not "medically necessary" I don't see any benefit.


----------



## dottywine (Feb 7, 2011)

If you have a friend who sells one of those nutritional shakes, ask to try some. If you like it, it could be a great meal replacement since it contains a lot of vitamins and macronutrients you need for the day.

You can get in the habit of making an omelet in the morning. It probably takes, literally, 5 minutes. But you just don't want to deal with it. 

You can start experimenting with making different salads (with fruits, nuts, etc in it) for breakfast.

You can have a light breakfast that is fast and easy on your way out (yogurt, bagel, etc) and remember to bring a container so you can eat again a bit later if you feel hungry.


----------



## SorkBoard (Dec 31, 2012)

Threads for sure. If I need to cook for myself in the morning the only healthy paleo thing I can make is an omelet


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

goodgracesbadinfluence said:


> Somewhere in my college career, I've discovered if I have an 8am class (which I do, twice a week this semester and I will next semester too), it's more convenient to get a drive through breakfast... specifically, a chicken biscuit from Chick-Fil-A. Today I looked up the nutrition information for said biscuit, and since I'm trying to lose weight I'm not really sure if I should be eating them anymore.
> 
> Chick-fil-A
> 
> ...


I usually have a breakfast of fiber rich cereal and a cup of green tea. I love green tea anyway but it is also very beneficial to fat loss which makes it even better.


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Lentil soup.


----------



## ewerk (Sep 22, 2012)

I have green smoothies for breakfast and they give me tons of energy and is a source of all the essential vitamins and minerals. I use the Greens plus powder and blend with a cup of almond milk, a banana and some berries.

Another favorite breakfast that's super healthy and easy to make is steel cut oatmeal with banana, sliced almonds and agave syrup.


----------



## Zilchopincho (May 8, 2012)

As far as being full goes, just try and eat smaller portions. Your stomach will adjust in about a week and you will get full faster. Most people eat bigger portions than they need to anyways.


----------

