#Thyme and Zero are there but not relevant

[thejoyofseax]

Féile na nÚll Menu & Analysis

I had really meant to publish the menu before the event, but ingredient acquisition took more time and effort than expected. In particular, chestnut flour, which I wanted as a thickener for various gluten-free dishes, just could not be found anywhere I tried. I didn't find that out with enough lead time to order it online. Almond flour substituted, and was fine.

Anyway. Here's the full menu, which fed varying numbers of people, but I think about 45 for the feast.

Travellers' Fare (Friday evening): Beef stew with bread and butter (vegan stew on the side, plant butter available, GF bread available).

Saturday Breakfast was produced by the inimitable Lady Meadhbh Rois inghean Uí Chaoimh.

Saturday Lunch: Chicken soup (vegan soup alongside), bread, fruit.

Feast: Roast pork (vegan nut roast on side), Frumenty (rice on side), apple sauce, green sauce, meat pies (mushroom pie on side), creamed leeks (with fake cream), buttered turnips (with plant butter), roasted onions, purple carrots (with plant butter), olives, anchovies, apple pies, blackberry and apple pies (all pies with GF/vegan versions as well, where possible).

Sunday breakfast: Porridge with cream and fruit, stewed apples, boiled eggs, cold ham, and various leftovers, mostly fruit pies.

The emphasis here wasn't on any particular production of period dishes, but on making sure everyone got good solid food. It's also an entirely plausible English Tudor menu, including the frumenty and green sauce as dishes that didn't make it through the Early Modern. As far as I can make out, everyone enjoyed it (although nobody ever tells the cook they didn't). The coeliac and vegan/vegetarian folk expressed particular approval, which was important. Anything I could make GF and vegan was made so (plant butter and almond flour are the two main tricks here).

Gabrielle and Katie were in the kitchen every hour I was, and possibly a few more, and a great deal of credit for the weekend's food being on the tables on time is due to them. Katie also set in, with very limited prior experience, to making pastry for the non-gluten-free pies, and produced some of the best I've ever encountered. She's been designated Head Pastrychef in Perpetuity as a consequence. There were also many other kitchen helpers, who've been thanked appropriately on Facebook. The relevant note here is that we had 4-5 people in the kitchen at most times, which was more than enough, and kept everyone relaxed. The SCA Kitchen playlist (85% mine, 15% Gabrielle's) was also helpful.

So. The first thing that I want to improve is the gluten-free pastry. Making it vegan as well was trivial; replace the lard/dripping with plant butter, and it's absolutely fine. Any fat will do for that, it seems, although since the traditional use for the pastry is the raised pork pie, the meat fats help match the taste. The gluten-free flour, however, could only be persuaded to make a paste, not a pastry - trying to roll it out into sheets simply didn't work. It would take the form of a sheet, alright, but if I went to pick it up, it just broke. An experimental version that Gabrielle and I did before the event could be sort-of lifted into place on baking parchment, but it broke over the contents of the pie. In theory, with a very dense, relatively smooth pie filling (such as a meat pie that's been well-packed), you could get a coherent crust, but I don't know what would happen to that as the contents shrink in baking. Xanthan gum appeared to make zero difference.

So we've some more experimentation to do there. One suggestion is to use an egg or two, which will take it away from being vegan - but a vegan pastry, using plant butter instead, should not be a problem to produce as an ordinary cold pastry. Various things will be trialled.

The green sauce came out particularly well. Órlaith did her usual superlative job of chopping herbs, primarily sorrel and mint, with some basil and thyme, some black pepper, and garlic salt. The liquid base was about 2 parts olive oil to one part white wine vinegar. We only made a small amount, but nearly all of it was eaten. Green sauce is basically a table condiment for the latter end of the SCA period in Western Europe, and I have vague plans to make and bottle some at some stage, to see how it keeps and matures in the longer term.

I made far too much of the frumenty. Bulgur wheat isn't terribly expensive, so I don't feel too bad about it, and the carbohydrates are absolutely the area in which to over-provide. But for my future reference, about 400g of dry bulgur will provide enough for about 30 people without difficulty.

The roasted onions were surprisingly popular. I think we did 11 whole onions, and only one and a half came back to the kitchen.

The meat pies disappeared in their entirety, as far as I can tell. One was a combination of minced pork, minced lamb, and whatever vegetables were to hand; the other was filled with the remnants of Friday's beef stew. I was very pleased to be able to integrate leftovers into the feast; I am completely certain that a rolling use of leftovers in subsequent days' dishes was a standard feature of any period cookery, and we don't often get to do that over a weekend.

The purple carrots were entertaining. I can't detect any difference in taste from orange carrots, but they stain everything they touch a nice shade of purple-blue. I'll get them again if I can just for that.

Overall, I'm pleased with how things came out, and I'll do either of the Arabic or Pre-Norman Irish menus I had partially worked out for next year.

[fishermariawo]

Dear Mark: Low-Fat Beats “High-Fat”; Prunes for Bone Health

For today’s edition of Dear Mark I’m answering a pair of great questions. First, Vaughn asks me about a recent study where ethnic Chinese participants were placed on several different diets, and those on the “low-carb, high-fat” one actually did worse than those on higher carbs and lower fat. Should you give up your low-carb approach? Then, I explore the bone-strengthening effects of prunes and discuss the Simon and Garfunkel diet.

Let’s go:

Hi Mark,

What are your thoughts on this study from China where a low-fat diet beat out a high-fat diet in healhy adults? http://ift.tt/2v9ULT8

Vaughn

Interesting paper. Thanks for the tip.

It sounds damning.

Chinese adults were split into three groups, each receiving different diets. One group ate high-carb, low-fat. One ate moderate carb, moderate fat. One ate high-fat, low-carb. Protein was the same across all three groups.

After six months on their respective diets, the high-carb group had the best metabolic outcomes. They lost the most weight, the most inches off their waists, and saw the biggest improvements to their blood markers. The next best was the moderate carb/fat diet. The worst was the high-fat/low-carb diet.

Oh man, Sisson. You mean to tell me that the LCHF group subjects were eating more fat and had the worst results. That’s that. I’m out. This is all a sham.

Hold on a minute. Something in the study design caught my eye.

By replacing a proportion of energy derived from carbohydrates (white rice and wheat flour, the most consumed carbohydrate sources in China contributing to 70% and 17% total carbohydrate respectively) with fats (soybean oil, the most consumed edible oil in China rich in unsaturated fatty acids), we achieved the required distribution of fats and carbohydrates in the three diet groups, which represented macronutrient transition in the past 30 years in China.

They replaced carbs with pure soybean oil. That’s how they modified the macros—taking a little flour away and pouring an isocaloric glug of soybean oil all over everything. Anyone else feeling nauseated?

As stated, however, this intervention does reflect the dietary trends in China. It also reflects the trends in the standard American diet. Americans (and everyone else the world over) are eating far more soybean oil than ever before. From 1909 to 1999, American consumption of soybean oil rose more than 1000-fold. Yes: Those are three zeros.

But it’s not relevant to most of my readers.

Something else jumped out at me. High-fat and low-carb were actually higher-fat and lower—carb. That’s an important distinction. Relative to the other diets, folks in the third group were eat fewer carbs and more fat. Relative to the Primal eating plan, they weren’t. At 40% fat, 46% carb, they weren’t low-carb or high-fat in an absolute sense.

Forty-six percent carb isn’t low-carb by any stretch of the imagination. The results from this study probably don’t apply to someone eating 20% carbs.

All that said, I find it plausible that ethnic Chinese would have genetic adaptations to a higher carb diet. They tend to produce high levels of salivary amylase—an oral version of the digestive enzyme responsible for digesting starch—which is an indication of ancestral exposure to starch. People who make more salivary amylase have better metabolic responses to starch intake. In the context of higher-carb diets, they’re also less likely to be obese.

Maybe not, though. A 2015 paper found positive relationships between starchy carb consumption and metabolic syndrome prevalence among Chinese adults. Carbs from other sources—fruits and veggies—had no such relationshp to metabolic syndrome.

Confusing stuff, eh? There’s always some new wrinkle to explore.

JTB asked:

Mark, if you do a follow up piece, consider looking into the studies on dried plums, and perhaps also the study on the “Scarborough Fair” diet, which also showed positive bone-health results for the group using a specific set of herbs, fruits and vegetables.

You’ve got it, JTB. Everyone overlooks prunes, and I’m a big Simon and Garfunkel fan. I accept your proposal.

What’s the deal with prunes? Most people only think of them as tools to fight constipation. And, boy, do they. Prunes work so well that prune juice has become a joke. C’mon, what’s the first thing you thought of after reading the word “prunes”? Exactly.

Prunes are great for the gut, but they don’t just instigate excellent defecation. They actually promote good gut health by increasing the growth of beneficial microbes and inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microbes. They may help prevent colon cancer by acting as a prebiotic.

Animal and cell culture studies do indicate benefits to bone turnover. There are different theories as to why. Prune polyphenols are nice but probably not responsible for the effects on bone health. My guess is it’s the prebiotic effect, given that we know from last week’s post that probiotics can improve bone health.

If these effects hold in humans, and I think they will, prunes are an excellent choice. They don’t even spike blood glucose all that much, despite being dried fruit quite high in carbs. 

Now let’s look at the Scarborough Fair Diet. First, open this in a new tab and turn the volume up.

The Scarborough Fair Diet’s quite interesting. Researchers constructed it from all the fruits, vegetables, and herbs that have been shown in animal studies to improve bone health. Most were extremely high in phytochemicals. This diet was pitted against a diet containing basic fruits, vegetables and herbs. Both diets had the same amount of plant foods.

Where the Scarborough Fair Diet had parsley, sage, rosemary, thyme, and garlic, the regular diet had mint, basil, and oregano.

The SFD had prunes and oranges; the regular diet had apples and bananas.

The SFD gave bok choy, rocket, red cabbage, and lettuce; the regular diet gave spinach, silver beet, and white cabbage.

The SFD gave broccoli, onions, tomatoes, mushrooms, green beans, cucumbers, and leeks. The regular diet gave carrot, pumpkin, courgette, peas, and cauliflower.

Both contained very nutritious foods. I’m a big fan of most of them. But only the SFD improved bone turnover markers and calcium retention in postmenopausal women. That’s a very cool effect, and it suggests that the various nutrition-based bone health interventions in animal studies likely carry over into humans, too.

That’s it for me, everyone. Thanks for the great questions. Be sure to help out with your input down below or throw a few more questions my way. Always happy to help.

Take care!

Want to make fat loss easier? Try the Definitive Guide for Troubleshooting Weight Loss for free here.

[milenasanchezmk]

Dear Mark: Low-Fat Beats “High-Fat”; Prunes for Bone Health

For today’s edition of Dear Mark I’m answering a pair of great questions. First, Vaughn asks me about a recent study where ethnic Chinese participants were placed on several different diets, and those on the “low-carb, high-fat” one actually did worse than those on higher carbs and lower fat. Should you give up your low-carb approach? Then, I explore the bone-strengthening effects of prunes and discuss the Simon and Garfunkel diet.

Let’s go:

Hi Mark,

What are your thoughts on this study from China where a low-fat diet beat out a high-fat diet in healhy adults? http://ift.tt/2v9ULT8

Vaughn

Interesting paper. Thanks for the tip.

It sounds damning.

Chinese adults were split into three groups, each receiving different diets. One group ate high-carb, low-fat. One ate moderate carb, moderate fat. One ate high-fat, low-carb. Protein was the same across all three groups.

After six months on their respective diets, the high-carb group had the best metabolic outcomes. They lost the most weight, the most inches off their waists, and saw the biggest improvements to their blood markers. The next best was the moderate carb/fat diet. The worst was the high-fat/low-carb diet.

Oh man, Sisson. You mean to tell me that the LCHF group subjects were eating more fat and had the worst results. That’s that. I’m out. This is all a sham.

Hold on a minute. Something in the study design caught my eye.

By replacing a proportion of energy derived from carbohydrates (white rice and wheat flour, the most consumed carbohydrate sources in China contributing to 70% and 17% total carbohydrate respectively) with fats (soybean oil, the most consumed edible oil in China rich in unsaturated fatty acids), we achieved the required distribution of fats and carbohydrates in the three diet groups, which represented macronutrient transition in the past 30 years in China.

They replaced carbs with pure soybean oil. That’s how they modified the macros—taking a little flour away and pouring an isocaloric glug of soybean oil all over everything. Anyone else feeling nauseated?

As stated, however, this intervention does reflect the dietary trends in China. It also reflects the trends in the standard American diet. Americans (and everyone else the world over) are eating far more soybean oil than ever before. From 1909 to 1999, American consumption of soybean oil rose more than 1000-fold. Yes: Those are three zeros.

But it’s not relevant to most of my readers.

Something else jumped out at me. High-fat and low-carb were actually higher-fat and lower—carb. That’s an important distinction. Relative to the other diets, folks in the third group were eat fewer carbs and more fat. Relative to the Primal eating plan, they weren’t. At 40% fat, 46% carb, they weren’t low-carb or high-fat in an absolute sense.

Forty-six percent carb isn’t low-carb by any stretch of the imagination. The results from this study probably don’t apply to someone eating 20% carbs.

All that said, I find it plausible that ethnic Chinese would have genetic adaptations to a higher carb diet. They tend to produce high levels of salivary amylase—an oral version of the digestive enzyme responsible for digesting starch—which is an indication of ancestral exposure to starch. People who make more salivary amylase have better metabolic responses to starch intake. In the context of higher-carb diets, they’re also less likely to be obese.

Maybe not, though. A 2015 paper found positive relationships between starchy carb consumption and metabolic syndrome prevalence among Chinese adults. Carbs from other sources—fruits and veggies—had no such relationshp to metabolic syndrome.

Confusing stuff, eh? There’s always some new wrinkle to explore.

JTB asked:

Mark, if you do a follow up piece, consider looking into the studies on dried plums, and perhaps also the study on the “Scarborough Fair” diet, which also showed positive bone-health results for the group using a specific set of herbs, fruits and vegetables.

You’ve got it, JTB. Everyone overlooks prunes, and I’m a big Simon and Garfunkel fan. I accept your proposal.

What’s the deal with prunes? Most people only think of them as tools to fight constipation. And, boy, do they. Prunes work so well that prune juice has become a joke. C’mon, what’s the first thing you thought of after reading the word “prunes”? Exactly.

Prunes are great for the gut, but they don’t just instigate excellent defecation. They actually promote good gut health by increasing the growth of beneficial microbes and inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microbes. They may help prevent colon cancer by acting as a prebiotic.

Animal and cell culture studies do indicate benefits to bone turnover. There are different theories as to why. Prune polyphenols are nice but probably not responsible for the effects on bone health. My guess is it’s the prebiotic effect, given that we know from last week’s post that probiotics can improve bone health.

If these effects hold in humans, and I think they will, prunes are an excellent choice. They don’t even spike blood glucose all that much, despite being dried fruit quite high in carbs. 

Now let’s look at the Scarborough Fair Diet. First, open this in a new tab and turn the volume up.

The Scarborough Fair Diet’s quite interesting. Researchers constructed it from all the fruits, vegetables, and herbs that have been shown in animal studies to improve bone health. Most were extremely high in phytochemicals. This diet was pitted against a diet containing basic fruits, vegetables and herbs. Both diets had the same amount of plant foods.

Where the Scarborough Fair Diet had parsley, sage, rosemary, thyme, and garlic, the regular diet had mint, basil, and oregano.

The SFD had prunes and oranges; the regular diet had apples and bananas.

The SFD gave bok choy, rocket, red cabbage, and lettuce; the regular diet gave spinach, silver beet, and white cabbage.

The SFD gave broccoli, onions, tomatoes, mushrooms, green beans, cucumbers, and leeks. The regular diet gave carrot, pumpkin, courgette, peas, and cauliflower.

Both contained very nutritious foods. I’m a big fan of most of them. But only the SFD improved bone turnover markers and calcium retention in postmenopausal women. That’s a very cool effect, and it suggests that the various nutrition-based bone health interventions in animal studies likely carry over into humans, too.

That’s it for me, everyone. Thanks for the great questions. Be sure to help out with your input down below or throw a few more questions my way. Always happy to help.

Take care!

Want to make fat loss easier? Try the Definitive Guide for Troubleshooting Weight Loss for free here.

[cristinajourdanqp]

Dear Mark: Low-Fat Beats “High-Fat”; Prunes for Bone Health

For today’s edition of Dear Mark I’m answering a pair of great questions. First, Vaughn asks me about a recent study where ethnic Chinese participants were placed on several different diets, and those on the “low-carb, high-fat” one actually did worse than those on higher carbs and lower fat. Should you give up your low-carb approach? Then, I explore the bone-strengthening effects of prunes and discuss the Simon and Garfunkel diet.

Let’s go:

Hi Mark,

What are your thoughts on this study from China where a low-fat diet beat out a high-fat diet in healhy adults? http://ift.tt/2v9ULT8

Vaughn

Interesting paper. Thanks for the tip.

It sounds damning.

Chinese adults were split into three groups, each receiving different diets. One group ate high-carb, low-fat. One ate moderate carb, moderate fat. One ate high-fat, low-carb. Protein was the same across all three groups.

After six months on their respective diets, the high-carb group had the best metabolic outcomes. They lost the most weight, the most inches off their waists, and saw the biggest improvements to their blood markers. The next best was the moderate carb/fat diet. The worst was the high-fat/low-carb diet.

Oh man, Sisson. You mean to tell me that the LCHF group subjects were eating more fat and had the worst results. That’s that. I’m out. This is all a sham.

Hold on a minute. Something in the study design caught my eye.

By replacing a proportion of energy derived from carbohydrates (white rice and wheat flour, the most consumed carbohydrate sources in China contributing to 70% and 17% total carbohydrate respectively) with fats (soybean oil, the most consumed edible oil in China rich in unsaturated fatty acids), we achieved the required distribution of fats and carbohydrates in the three diet groups, which represented macronutrient transition in the past 30 years in China.

They replaced carbs with pure soybean oil. That’s how they modified the macros—taking a little flour away and pouring an isocaloric glug of soybean oil all over everything. Anyone else feeling nauseated?

As stated, however, this intervention does reflect the dietary trends in China. It also reflects the trends in the standard American diet. Americans (and everyone else the world over) are eating far more soybean oil than ever before. From 1909 to 1999, American consumption of soybean oil rose more than 1000-fold. Yes: Those are three zeros.

But it’s not relevant to most of my readers.

Something else jumped out at me. High-fat and low-carb were actually higher-fat and lower—carb. That’s an important distinction. Relative to the other diets, folks in the third group were eat fewer carbs and more fat. Relative to the Primal eating plan, they weren’t. At 40% fat, 46% carb, they weren’t low-carb or high-fat in an absolute sense.

Forty-six percent carb isn’t low-carb by any stretch of the imagination. The results from this study probably don’t apply to someone eating 20% carbs.

All that said, I find it plausible that ethnic Chinese would have genetic adaptations to a higher carb diet. They tend to produce high levels of salivary amylase—an oral version of the digestive enzyme responsible for digesting starch—which is an indication of ancestral exposure to starch. People who make more salivary amylase have better metabolic responses to starch intake. In the context of higher-carb diets, they’re also less likely to be obese.

Maybe not, though. A 2015 paper found positive relationships between starchy carb consumption and metabolic syndrome prevalence among Chinese adults. Carbs from other sources—fruits and veggies—had no such relationshp to metabolic syndrome.

Confusing stuff, eh? There’s always some new wrinkle to explore.

JTB asked:

Mark, if you do a follow up piece, consider looking into the studies on dried plums, and perhaps also the study on the “Scarborough Fair” diet, which also showed positive bone-health results for the group using a specific set of herbs, fruits and vegetables.

You’ve got it, JTB. Everyone overlooks prunes, and I’m a big Simon and Garfunkel fan. I accept your proposal.

What’s the deal with prunes? Most people only think of them as tools to fight constipation. And, boy, do they. Prunes work so well that prune juice has become a joke. C’mon, what’s the first thing you thought of after reading the word “prunes”? Exactly.

Prunes are great for the gut, but they don’t just instigate excellent defecation. They actually promote good gut health by increasing the growth of beneficial microbes and inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microbes. They may help prevent colon cancer by acting as a prebiotic.

Animal and cell culture studies do indicate benefits to bone turnover. There are different theories as to why. Prune polyphenols are nice but probably not responsible for the effects on bone health. My guess is it’s the prebiotic effect, given that we know from last week’s post that probiotics can improve bone health.

If these effects hold in humans, and I think they will, prunes are an excellent choice. They don’t even spike blood glucose all that much, despite being dried fruit quite high in carbs. 

Now let’s look at the Scarborough Fair Diet. First, open this in a new tab and turn the volume up.

The Scarborough Fair Diet’s quite interesting. Researchers constructed it from all the fruits, vegetables, and herbs that have been shown in animal studies to improve bone health. Most were extremely high in phytochemicals. This diet was pitted against a diet containing basic fruits, vegetables and herbs. Both diets had the same amount of plant foods.

Where the Scarborough Fair Diet had parsley, sage, rosemary, thyme, and garlic, the regular diet had mint, basil, and oregano.

The SFD had prunes and oranges; the regular diet had apples and bananas.

The SFD gave bok choy, rocket, red cabbage, and lettuce; the regular diet gave spinach, silver beet, and white cabbage.

The SFD gave broccoli, onions, tomatoes, mushrooms, green beans, cucumbers, and leeks. The regular diet gave carrot, pumpkin, courgette, peas, and cauliflower.

Both contained very nutritious foods. I’m a big fan of most of them. But only the SFD improved bone turnover markers and calcium retention in postmenopausal women. That’s a very cool effect, and it suggests that the various nutrition-based bone health interventions in animal studies likely carry over into humans, too.

That’s it for me, everyone. Thanks for the great questions. Be sure to help out with your input down below or throw a few more questions my way. Always happy to help.

Take care!

Want to make fat loss easier? Try the Definitive Guide for Troubleshooting Weight Loss for free here.

[watsonrodriquezie]

Dear Mark: Low-Fat Beats “High-Fat”; Prunes for Bone Health

For today’s edition of Dear Mark I’m answering a pair of great questions. First, Vaughn asks me about a recent study where ethnic Chinese participants were placed on several different diets, and those on the “low-carb, high-fat” one actually did worse than those on higher carbs and lower fat. Should you give up your low-carb approach? Then, I explore the bone-strengthening effects of prunes and discuss the Simon and Garfunkel diet.

Let’s go:

Hi Mark,

What are your thoughts on this study from China where a low-fat diet beat out a high-fat diet in healhy adults? http://ift.tt/2v9ULT8

Vaughn

Interesting paper. Thanks for the tip.

It sounds damning.

Chinese adults were split into three groups, each receiving different diets. One group ate high-carb, low-fat. One ate moderate carb, moderate fat. One ate high-fat, low-carb. Protein was the same across all three groups.

After six months on their respective diets, the high-carb group had the best metabolic outcomes. They lost the most weight, the most inches off their waists, and saw the biggest improvements to their blood markers. The next best was the moderate carb/fat diet. The worst was the high-fat/low-carb diet.

Oh man, Sisson. You mean to tell me that the LCHF group subjects were eating more fat and had the worst results. That’s that. I’m out. This is all a sham.

Hold on a minute. Something in the study design caught my eye.

By replacing a proportion of energy derived from carbohydrates (white rice and wheat flour, the most consumed carbohydrate sources in China contributing to 70% and 17% total carbohydrate respectively) with fats (soybean oil, the most consumed edible oil in China rich in unsaturated fatty acids), we achieved the required distribution of fats and carbohydrates in the three diet groups, which represented macronutrient transition in the past 30 years in China.

They replaced carbs with pure soybean oil. That’s how they modified the macros—taking a little flour away and pouring an isocaloric glug of soybean oil all over everything. Anyone else feeling nauseated?

As stated, however, this intervention does reflect the dietary trends in China. It also reflects the trends in the standard American diet. Americans (and everyone else the world over) are eating far more soybean oil than ever before. From 1909 to 1999, American consumption of soybean oil rose more than 1000-fold. Yes: Those are three zeros.

But it’s not relevant to most of my readers.

Something else jumped out at me. High-fat and low-carb were actually higher-fat and lower—carb. That’s an important distinction. Relative to the other diets, folks in the third group were eat fewer carbs and more fat. Relative to the Primal eating plan, they weren’t. At 40% fat, 46% carb, they weren’t low-carb or high-fat in an absolute sense.

Forty-six percent carb isn’t low-carb by any stretch of the imagination. The results from this study probably don’t apply to someone eating 20% carbs.

All that said, I find it plausible that ethnic Chinese would have genetic adaptations to a higher carb diet. They tend to produce high levels of salivary amylase—an oral version of the digestive enzyme responsible for digesting starch—which is an indication of ancestral exposure to starch. People who make more salivary amylase have better metabolic responses to starch intake. In the context of higher-carb diets, they’re also less likely to be obese.

Maybe not, though. A 2015 paper found positive relationships between starchy carb consumption and metabolic syndrome prevalence among Chinese adults. Carbs from other sources—fruits and veggies—had no such relationshp to metabolic syndrome.

Confusing stuff, eh? There’s always some new wrinkle to explore.

JTB asked:

Mark, if you do a follow up piece, consider looking into the studies on dried plums, and perhaps also the study on the “Scarborough Fair” diet, which also showed positive bone-health results for the group using a specific set of herbs, fruits and vegetables.

You’ve got it, JTB. Everyone overlooks prunes, and I’m a big Simon and Garfunkel fan. I accept your proposal.

What’s the deal with prunes? Most people only think of them as tools to fight constipation. And, boy, do they. Prunes work so well that prune juice has become a joke. C’mon, what’s the first thing you thought of after reading the word “prunes”? Exactly.

Prunes are great for the gut, but they don’t just instigate excellent defecation. They actually promote good gut health by increasing the growth of beneficial microbes and inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microbes. They may help prevent colon cancer by acting as a prebiotic.

Animal and cell culture studies do indicate benefits to bone turnover. There are different theories as to why. Prune polyphenols are nice but probably not responsible for the effects on bone health. My guess is it’s the prebiotic effect, given that we know from last week’s post that probiotics can improve bone health.

If these effects hold in humans, and I think they will, prunes are an excellent choice. They don’t even spike blood glucose all that much, despite being dried fruit quite high in carbs. 

Now let’s look at the Scarborough Fair Diet. First, open this in a new tab and turn the volume up.

The Scarborough Fair Diet’s quite interesting. Researchers constructed it from all the fruits, vegetables, and herbs that have been shown in animal studies to improve bone health. Most were extremely high in phytochemicals. This diet was pitted against a diet containing basic fruits, vegetables and herbs. Both diets had the same amount of plant foods.

Where the Scarborough Fair Diet had parsley, sage, rosemary, thyme, and garlic, the regular diet had mint, basil, and oregano.

The SFD had prunes and oranges; the regular diet had apples and bananas.

The SFD gave bok choy, rocket, red cabbage, and lettuce; the regular diet gave spinach, silver beet, and white cabbage.

The SFD gave broccoli, onions, tomatoes, mushrooms, green beans, cucumbers, and leeks. The regular diet gave carrot, pumpkin, courgette, peas, and cauliflower.

Both contained very nutritious foods. I’m a big fan of most of them. But only the SFD improved bone turnover markers and calcium retention in postmenopausal women. That’s a very cool effect, and it suggests that the various nutrition-based bone health interventions in animal studies likely carry over into humans, too.

That’s it for me, everyone. Thanks for the great questions. Be sure to help out with your input down below or throw a few more questions my way. Always happy to help.

Take care!

Want to make fat loss easier? Try the Definitive Guide for Troubleshooting Weight Loss for free here.

[cynthiamwashington]

Dear Mark: Low-Fat Beats “High-Fat”; Prunes for Bone Health

For today’s edition of Dear Mark I’m answering a pair of great questions. First, Vaughn asks me about a recent study where ethnic Chinese participants were placed on several different diets, and those on the “low-carb, high-fat” one actually did worse than those on higher carbs and lower fat. Should you give up your low-carb approach? Then, I explore the bone-strengthening effects of prunes and discuss the Simon and Garfunkel diet.

Let’s go:

Hi Mark,

What are your thoughts on this study from China where a low-fat diet beat out a high-fat diet in healhy adults? http://ift.tt/2v9ULT8

Vaughn

Interesting paper. Thanks for the tip.

It sounds damning.

Chinese adults were split into three groups, each receiving different diets. One group ate high-carb, low-fat. One ate moderate carb, moderate fat. One ate high-fat, low-carb. Protein was the same across all three groups.

After six months on their respective diets, the high-carb group had the best metabolic outcomes. They lost the most weight, the most inches off their waists, and saw the biggest improvements to their blood markers. The next best was the moderate carb/fat diet. The worst was the high-fat/low-carb diet.

Oh man, Sisson. You mean to tell me that the LCHF group subjects were eating more fat and had the worst results. That’s that. I’m out. This is all a sham.

Hold on a minute. Something in the study design caught my eye.

By replacing a proportion of energy derived from carbohydrates (white rice and wheat flour, the most consumed carbohydrate sources in China contributing to 70% and 17% total carbohydrate respectively) with fats (soybean oil, the most consumed edible oil in China rich in unsaturated fatty acids), we achieved the required distribution of fats and carbohydrates in the three diet groups, which represented macronutrient transition in the past 30 years in China.

They replaced carbs with pure soybean oil. That’s how they modified the macros—taking a little flour away and pouring an isocaloric glug of soybean oil all over everything. Anyone else feeling nauseated?

As stated, however, this intervention does reflect the dietary trends in China. It also reflects the trends in the standard American diet. Americans (and everyone else the world over) are eating far more soybean oil than ever before. From 1909 to 1999, American consumption of soybean oil rose more than 1000-fold. Yes: Those are three zeros.

But it’s not relevant to most of my readers.

Something else jumped out at me. High-fat and low-carb were actually higher-fat and lower—carb. That’s an important distinction. Relative to the other diets, folks in the third group were eat fewer carbs and more fat. Relative to the Primal eating plan, they weren’t. At 40% fat, 46% carb, they weren’t low-carb or high-fat in an absolute sense.

Forty-six percent carb isn’t low-carb by any stretch of the imagination. The results from this study probably don’t apply to someone eating 20% carbs.

All that said, I find it plausible that ethnic Chinese would have genetic adaptations to a higher carb diet. They tend to produce high levels of salivary amylase—an oral version of the digestive enzyme responsible for digesting starch—which is an indication of ancestral exposure to starch. People who make more salivary amylase have better metabolic responses to starch intake. In the context of higher-carb diets, they’re also less likely to be obese.

Maybe not, though. A 2015 paper found positive relationships between starchy carb consumption and metabolic syndrome prevalence among Chinese adults. Carbs from other sources—fruits and veggies—had no such relationshp to metabolic syndrome.

Confusing stuff, eh? There’s always some new wrinkle to explore.

JTB asked:

Mark, if you do a follow up piece, consider looking into the studies on dried plums, and perhaps also the study on the “Scarborough Fair” diet, which also showed positive bone-health results for the group using a specific set of herbs, fruits and vegetables.

You’ve got it, JTB. Everyone overlooks prunes, and I’m a big Simon and Garfunkel fan. I accept your proposal.

What’s the deal with prunes? Most people only think of them as tools to fight constipation. And, boy, do they. Prunes work so well that prune juice has become a joke. C’mon, what’s the first thing you thought of after reading the word “prunes”? Exactly.

Prunes are great for the gut, but they don’t just instigate excellent defecation. They actually promote good gut health by increasing the growth of beneficial microbes and inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microbes. They may help prevent colon cancer by acting as a prebiotic.

Animal and cell culture studies do indicate benefits to bone turnover. There are different theories as to why. Prune polyphenols are nice but probably not responsible for the effects on bone health. My guess is it’s the prebiotic effect, given that we know from last week’s post that probiotics can improve bone health.

If these effects hold in humans, and I think they will, prunes are an excellent choice. They don’t even spike blood glucose all that much, despite being dried fruit quite high in carbs. 

Now let’s look at the Scarborough Fair Diet. First, open this in a new tab and turn the volume up.

The Scarborough Fair Diet’s quite interesting. Researchers constructed it from all the fruits, vegetables, and herbs that have been shown in animal studies to improve bone health. Most were extremely high in phytochemicals. This diet was pitted against a diet containing basic fruits, vegetables and herbs. Both diets had the same amount of plant foods.

Where the Scarborough Fair Diet had parsley, sage, rosemary, thyme, and garlic, the regular diet had mint, basil, and oregano.

The SFD had prunes and oranges; the regular diet had apples and bananas.

The SFD gave bok choy, rocket, red cabbage, and lettuce; the regular diet gave spinach, silver beet, and white cabbage.

The SFD gave broccoli, onions, tomatoes, mushrooms, green beans, cucumbers, and leeks. The regular diet gave carrot, pumpkin, courgette, peas, and cauliflower.

Both contained very nutritious foods. I’m a big fan of most of them. But only the SFD improved bone turnover markers and calcium retention in postmenopausal women. That’s a very cool effect, and it suggests that the various nutrition-based bone health interventions in animal studies likely carry over into humans, too.

That’s it for me, everyone. Thanks for the great questions. Be sure to help out with your input down below or throw a few more questions my way. Always happy to help.

Take care!

Want to make fat loss easier? Try the Definitive Guide for Troubleshooting Weight Loss for free here.

The post Dear Mark: Low-Fat Beats “High-Fat”; Prunes for Bone Health appeared first on Mark's Daily Apple.

Article source here:Marks’s Daily Apple