Comment by bdesimone | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdesimone | Hacker News Reader

> Am I missing other major downsides to taking a more proactive approach to managing my own health? Are there other things I should consider looking at to get a complete picture of my health?

A potential downside is the tendency is to shift from being proactive about your health to diagnosing (or worse -- treating) yourself based on independent research. I get that it's tempting to fire up google scholar, pubmed, uptodate etc to get a better understanding of what's going on -- just don't go the next step and start diagnosing and treating yourself.

See a specialist. See a domain specialist if you can. Get another opinion. Ask questions and air your concerns. If your doctor doesn't adequately answer your questions and concerns, see another doctor. Your greatest asset -- and the one you should be focused on-- is the ability to get multiple opinions from people who have trained for decades on a topic.

It seems like you need to see a new doctor -- not order your own tests.

There's also a risk of becoming hyper-aware of stuff that just doesn't matter.

Your heart tends to just do it's thing. But if you concentrate on it you might start noticing weirdnesses. These probably aren't your heart, but now you're anxious, so you think about seeing a doctor. But you don't want to waste the doctor's time, so you look around on the Internet to see what it is. And now you're really worried even though you know you don't have any of those things. So you go and see a doctor, and sure enough you don't have anything wrong.

Except now you caught some cold / flu bug from someone in the waiting room.

This happened to me with cars & funny noises. I noticed a noise in my first car that, two years later, turned into a spun bearing & rod knock. Ever since I pay super close attention to every noise my vehicles make! Problem is, vehicles make a lot of noises, even when they are operating correctly. Drives me crazy

The issue is that doctors give you muddled advice too. I had my blood test done last year and I was told that I should cut down on eating any meat and switch to a plant based diet. He also vaguely told me to do more exercise. Yet, I eat incredibly lean food, albeit high protein mainly because I weight lift. I also run 4.5 miles every other day. He couldn't go into more detail apart from this general warning. I could switch to a more plant, low fat diet. However, would that mean that I would be overall healthy considering that any resistance training would essentially be diminished because I am not getting enough protein in my diet? Should I run more than 15 miles a week and potentially screw my knees. He wasn't sure.

The claim that you can't get sufficient protein for pretty much any level of exercise from a plant-based diet is utterly specious. For example, quinoa is 14% complete protein, and chia is almost 17% — also complete protein — with an Ω3-to-Ω6 ratio of around 3:1, almost exactly the inverse of beef.

Source: I'm a vegetarian, and I pay scrupulous attention to this stuff.

Sure. I am not denying that. It is just inefficient. Let us do some math. I try to hit 150 gms of protein per day while also staying within my calorie limit. I can do that right now while staying under a 1800 calorie limit.

From Google, 1 ounce of Chia seeds is 4.7 gms of protein, 138 calories. I would have to eat 31 ounces of Chia seeds to get 150 gms of protein. That is 4030 calories per day. Guess what happens then? I gain weight.

> Quinoa is 14% complete protein, and chia is almost 17%

Quinoa provides 3.8 grams of protein per 100kcal of energy [1]. Boneless skinless chicken breast provides 18.8 grams of protein per 100kcal of energy [2].

A weightlifter who wished to consume 100 grams of protein per day would have to eat 2632 kcal of quinoa, vs. 532 kcal of chicken breast.

[1] http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6383

[2] http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/1018

http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/how-to-build-muscle-mass...

Just as a quick look to see details as to what would be required. Quinoa is hardly the only source of non-meat protein.

Now, yes that does include a lot of protein shake stuff, that's not that unusual for most weightlifting diets. That's also a vegan diet, so you might be able to add eggs, cheese and milk to that diet and cut back on the powder in the meals if you just wanted to be vegetarian.

The powder is of course to solve the issue you pointed out already.

Most of the protein shake stuff would not solve the issue for a vegan diet. Most of the protein shake stuff is made from Whey or Casein or egg whites which IIRC are not vegan. There is pea protein or hemp protein but my quick googling tells me is high carb and low protein and can easily throw you off your calorie limits.

Both pea protein and soy protein products with comparable protein to kcal ratios are available from the company I buy my protein from.

I'm not vegan, so I've never bothered trying them, but it doesn't seem like it'd be a big problem.

My concern (see my other comment) would be that the diet shown certainly is extremely high calorie, and it looks like it'd be pretty much all nasty shakes to get it down to a more normal level with the same amount of protein.

(EDIT: Note, this would only really be an issue if you do heavy resistance training, as the protein level in that diet is very high for someone who isn't doing weight lifting)

Defatted peanut flour is high protein/low calorie.

The biggest problem I see with that meal plan is that it is planned for someone with a ridiculous activity level - it reaches "only" 207g protein for 3387kcal.

For comparison, I'm a powerlifter. I'm 238lbs currently. My maintenance calorie intake is roughly 2450kcal on average. I aim for about 2800kcal on training days, and equivalently lower on rest days to roughly meet that average. Fitting 220g or so of protein in that is not that hard: I can eat 400g lean chicken and get 100g protein for <900kcal. I can tack on 100g beef jerky and get another 50g protein for less than <300kcal; which leaves it almost hard not to meet the protein target within my calorie goals.

If I were to eat 3387kcal to meet 207g protein, I'd be adding 1-2kg a week.

That's well in excess of the protein synthesis a typical human male body is capable of. In other words: A substantial percentage would be fat. Quite possibly I might end up adding 1.5kg of fat a week on a diet like that, which would get me quite a lot less protein than what I do on my current diet.

For a body builder exercising heavily 2-3 hours a day, on steroids (otherwise lifting heavily for that long every day would just be a total waste of time), that calorie intake might be reasonable. Or for someone who combines the exercise with a highly active job, like say, construction.

It'd be interesting to see that diet brought down to 2400kcal or below with the same protein levels. I suspect it would look a whole lot less pleasant (and that diet looks awful to me in the first place, but I love my meat).

(Now, protein amounts this high are in the "might as well, just in case" level - the possible incremental benefits hinted at in the literature are as far as I know quite marginal - so a lower protein intake would not necessarily be bad, and then it'd quickly become a lot easier to meet it with a reasonable calorie intake)

You're not going to get much protein from vegetables without a lot of carbs unless you eat protein powder. The two foods you cite are good examples. Quinoa is 71% carb, 14% fat, and 15% protein by calorie. Chia is 36% carbs, 53% fat and 11% protein. If you eat protein powder than it works out fine. (I'm vegan and weightlift).

See Page 4 for alternative plant based protein amounts

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4anS4KxXuQdUlo3NEtUZ0xROFU...

Human bodies are really complicated. Doctors can always be better informed, but in the end they're still playing the statistics game, and we have pretty poor statistics on this stuff (especially with diet, which is almost always self-reported in any large study). For most people, beyond smoking, weight management, and maybe exercise and sleep, we've found basically nothing that will move your risk factors more than a handful of percentage points in either direction. You can easily negate those benefits by having a stressful few months in your job or in your marriage, and meanwhile you very well might die of cancer in the few years you bought yourself.

We're not going to "solve" the problem until we have a ton more data (maybe sensors in everyone along with the understanding of the markers to look for) so we can fit you to an optimal path based on a lot of observed variables. But even then we're just going to be playing percentages off each other, and contrary to the life-extender crowd out there, it may turn out that there is no 110-year optimal path for most of us, at least until we start reengineering the body at a more fundamental level.

Sure, I understand no one has the answers yet. The good thing about being able to understand some stats is that I can read these medical papers that doctors also read. It just surprised me to hear this coming from this specific doctor who is well respected sports doctor who also works with the Giants.

Hence the get a second opinion.

You can get enough protein for weight training on a vegetarian diet btw.

Please share what you've found, as the sibling poster who also made this claim did not make a very convincing case.

So what if your GP is not a leading expert on nutrition? He is a GP. Not a nutrionist. Would you expect on-point LAMP design recommendations from an IT worker?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com