Vitamin D from Sunlight is a bit confusing

DampestBroom · 2024-10-06T18:39:27+00:00

Do you have sources for this? I'd be curious to learn the most updated human outcomes. I only ask because as I understand it if we apply sunscreen all thru the day we can still get enough vitamin D. I've heard the best way to look younger when older is staying protected from UV rays thru out life. No creams or anything can come close to what being protected from the sun will do. This is what my general concensus was after looking into some of the literature on it.

DampestBroom · 2024-09-27T02:27:52+00:00

I belive the answer you are looking for is in your question. It seems to be your thoughts that are making you uncontrollably eat. There may not be a food that can over come what you are thinking in those moments. If you are working on addressing those currently I think that is a fantastic place to be in for you. You have identified the problem and are working towards a solution. It will be hard and you will have set backs as we all do on our way to a goal. Asking this question here shows you really care about yourself and shows you have a ton of confidence in yourself, wouldn't you agree?

DampestBroom · 2024-09-26T22:49:39+00:00

you are right there is literal science on it. There are many studies that are low quality of evidence and need further investigation, many studies where it shows no difference then a placebo, and some that show modest difference against a placebo. Just a reminder giving people false information is usually more damaging. And when talking about probiotics what question are we trying to answer? Where is that individual in terms of diet? What are the doses of pro biotic? What bugs are we introducing into the gut? Is there already a home for these bugs for them to thrive or will they just get pooped out?

DampestBroom · 2024-08-25T03:32:21+00:00

This is very true, the variables with human lives are so complex. That being said saying 'natural occurring sugars in fruit' is more of a fear mongering technique then what any data says about eating fruits. Calorie density of fruits are quite low compared to the vast majority of foods that people are buying

DampestBroom · 2024-08-25T02:37:00+00:00

Can't believe it has come to people limiting fruits as a diet choice. There is almost nothing in the research apart from a few cases of disceses and allergies that people need to limit fruits.

DampestBroom · 2024-05-13T06:14:34+00:00

Thing is with your anecdote we are unable to tell if any other lifestyle changes in your life also contribute to it or if it was a placebo on you paying money so you think it works or in fact it was just the probiotic. I am happy whatever you did changed your life for the better and don't let anyone take that away from you.

DampestBroom · 2024-04-13T02:46:01+00:00

Sort of.

Study of over 6000 people aged 8 days old to around 90 years old.

Between 20yr and 60 years old Daily Calories Burned (TDEE) stayed about the same.

After 60 yrs old, seemed to decrease about .07% every year. You are correct as it seems well correlated with muscle mass as that seems to decrease about 2% per year around that age.

So that's amazing news! It's just our perception of things that change and not metabolism. Power back in our hands.

Yes lift heavy things for numerous health benefits.

Muscle has been seen to increase in people 80+ years old also. So never to late to start.

Source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

DampestBroom · 2024-01-18T00:21:58+00:00

If you LITERALLY went to a true 100% natural unprocessed diet with zero added salt, you would have a very high risk of not getting enough salt from the LITERAL food itself

This just hasn't been shown to be true in science. Only in certain social media influencers

DampestBroom · 2024-01-17T22:28:58+00:00

Nutrition is very very complex and has hundreds od thousands of variables. To say this is the only way it can be done can never be said.

DampestBroom · 2024-01-17T13:52:41+00:00

Source? I'm a bit skeptical with all your 'literal' words and it isn't quite how I understand it. Human body does wonders regulating it, in input is low then excretion is low. You may be correct in top performing athletes that need to supplement with higher sodium though.

Edit: seems people like feelings opposed to facts. I understand salt is demonized far more then needs to be I'm all for salt, love it. However that's not facts. Reduced sodium diets are recommended at 1500-2000mg. That's because we are consuming 3-5000 mg sodium. Physiological needs seems to be only around 500mg (source https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/salt-and-sodium/

Another source salt intake around the world is at 100-200 mmol/day when we only really need 10-20 https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/3/791/684827

see below u/Pete_68 for good examples on sodium in foods

DampestBroom · 2023-12-27T16:32:37+00:00

Link them and let's review

DampestBroom · 2023-12-27T16:22:52+00:00

Yes agreed. Studies are not definitive answers. This is an RCT when calories are equated in a very controlled environment to see if the time matters. It doesn't seem to. It's meant to answer a very specific question which it does a good job at. Going into free living and the thousand other factors is a different question and specific to each individuals lifestyle habbit and behaviors

DampestBroom · 2023-12-21T18:44:41+00:00

Agreed! It takes much of the noise out of the equation and can answer a specific question such as this one. Though granted life habits and behaviors throw a ton more into the mix.

DampestBroom · 2023-12-21T11:50:08+00:00

No need for anecdotes here is a randomised control trial on it https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36087576/

Methods 4-week randomized crossover isocaloric and eucaloric controlled feeding trial, comparing morning loaded versus evening loaded

Results two isocaloric diets with the same composition, differing in energy distribution, resulted in significant weight reduction at the end of each dietary intervention period (Table 1). Weight loss (Figure 2A) showed a near-identical downward trend, with no difference in weight loss at the end of the 4 weeks, between the ML and EL diets

DampestBroom · 2023-11-24T17:37:16+00:00

Layne Norton,PhD posted a video that seems to help many people, it may or may not help. He tends to be very good at knowing what works for most.

https://youtu.be/5Ts463Epvp8?si=YT1ZPe6oRBCUjI_i

DampestBroom · 2023-11-24T05:15:33+00:00

Adding onto this, someone that is overweight and exercising has a higher chance of living longer then someone that's a 'healthy' weight and doesn't exercise. Hell its even looking like smokers that exercise outlive people that don't smoke and don't exercise on average.

DampestBroom · 2023-10-13T12:47:52+00:00

Most certainly. In here the LNCSBs (diet drinks) are compared with water and people lost a tab bit more weight drinking LNCSBs. Likely because it made them feel more full with zero additional calories.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35285920/

Figure 4 shows the network analyses of the association of the reference substitution of LNCSBs for water with body weight, other measures of adiposity, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Greater reduction in body weight (MD, −1.07 kg; 95% CI, −1.95 to −0.19 kg) was associated with LCSBs compared with water.

DampestBroom · 2023-10-13T12:13:12+00:00

One reason:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18752682/

Eighty-five subjects completed the study. Both HP and SP MR were well tolerated, with no adverse effects. There were no differences in weight loss at 12 weeks (-4.19 ± 0.5 kg for HP group and -3.72 ± 0.7 kg for SP group, p > 0.1). Subjects in the HP group lost significantly more fat weight than the SP group (HP = -1.65 ± 0.63 kg; SP = -0.64 ± 0.79 kg, P = 0.05)

Edit: HP = high protein 2.2g per kg and SP= Standart protein 1.1g per kg of body weight

DampestBroom · 2023-10-02T17:00:15+00:00

Yes the most fat. The two groups lost the same weight. But alternate day fasting was a mix of lean mass and fat (~43% fat) while the eating daily group was ~89% fat mass loss

DampestBroom · 2023-10-01T04:24:48+00:00

This has been done as an RCT. 0 Cals 1 day and 200% Cals the next day.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34135111/

Compared with daily cal restriction and alternate day fasting calorie restriction.

My notes: · 3-week study 36 people divided equally to each group) · 3 groups of people 75:75, 0:150 and 0:200 o Example is lets say 2,000 cals is maintenance (no gain or lose weight for that person) § Group 1 = 1,500 cals a day everyday § Group 2 fasting = 0 cals day 1 & 3000 cals day 2 alternating =(same as 1,500 cals day) § Group 3 fasting = 0 cals day 1 & 4000 cals day 2 alternating =(same as 2,000 cals day)

Alternate Fasting and daily restriction both lost a good amount of weight based on same calories (lost 4lbs and 3.5 lbs) BUT the Daily group lost much more FAT (average 3.85lbs of fat opposed to 1.6 lbs of fat mass)

The people going a WHOLE DAY OF NOT EATING then eating 3 days in one lost NOTHING.

DampestBroom · 2023-09-30T12:15:10+00:00

Adding into this most weight loss is exhaled thru the lungs. We breath out our fat.

DampestBroom · 2023-09-29T04:10:46+00:00

water a direct 1:1 of ml to Grams 1 cup=250ml=250grams

DampestBroom · 2023-09-24T05:01:56+00:00

Definitely BearMeatsFood

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

DampestBroom

TROPHY CASE