Top products from r/ScientificNutrition

We found 18 product mentions on r/ScientificNutrition. We ranked the 17 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/ScientificNutrition:

u/thedevilstemperature · 6 pointsr/ScientificNutrition

I don't rely on "paleo" evidence to determine appropriate human diets, but I do like reading it. I think the best application for it is learning about the environment that our basic systems evolved within. But the maximum you can conclude from the best paleo evidence is that whatever diet was consumed was sufficient for reproductive success under the conditions that existed at the time. The milieu of human evolution involved: a specific environment and climate (African savannah); a spectrum of foods eaten; a certain amount of exercise (lots, constantly); frequent parasitic infection and physical wounds that had to be survived; whatever microbiome we had then; food scarcity; complex cultural factors; and selection pressure to have many children and see them into adulthood, but not to live a long time.

Whatever we can conclude about diet applies only to that environment. If some of the variables change, uncertainty is introduced. A trait or strategy that was beneficial could become the opposite, or could be completely irrelevant. Thus, I prefer to look to human populations from the last 100 years. Not only do they live in an environment much more similar to mine, but we can actually gather accurate data on their dietary patterns and their health outcomes.

That said, I like this book for thoughts on dietary animal products and macronutrient ratios: The Paleoanthropology and Archaeology of Big-Game Hunting

A short paper as a reminder that all "just so stories" should be questioned, because even the most basic "paleo" hypothesis, the thrifty genotype, is contested: Evolutionary Perspectives on the Obesity Epidemic

This one is fascinating for social factors: Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy

And this one is just a great ethnology, especially for considering gender roles and what makes us happy: Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman

u/dreiter · 3 pointsr/ScientificNutrition

> homozygous for C677T....Might this be what OP has?

Essentially there are two genes (that we currently know of) that impact how your body processes folate. One is *677 and the other is *1298 (where the * can be A, C, or T depending on the mutation). You can inherit the mutation in one or both of these genes from one or both parents. 'Homozygous' for one of those genes means you inherited two defective copies of that gene, one from each parent. 'Heterozygous' means you only inherited one defective copy. But each gene is treated separately and carries various risks and nutrient concerns. So the permutations are:

C677C = normal MTHFR gene #1

C677T = heterozygous mutation (one mutation)

T677T = homozygous mutation (two mutations)

A1298A = normal MTHFR gene #2

A1298C = heterozygous mutation (one mutation)

C1298C = homozygous mutation (two mutations)

OP said:

>I have one copy each of the two heterozygous MTHFR mutations

This means she is heterozygous for both genes, so she has C677T and A1298C together. I don't know the status of your 1298 gene, but your statement indicates you have the T677T variant which is two mutations of the 677 gene, one from each parent. If you also had a defect in your 1298 gene, the doctor probably would have noted it (although it doesn't hurt to confirm). The level of mutation you have will determine how much of an impact there will be on your dietary needs. From the Masterjohn page:

>There’s a good chance you have an MTHFR polymorphism. In some populations, the percentage of people who do not have either at least one C677T allele or one A1298C allele is only 15%! Most of the research is on the homozygous C677T allele because it’s the strongest variant. But actually the two alleles and their combinations simply cause a graded decrease in the activity of the MTHFR enzyme. One A1298C allele decreases its activity by 17%. One C677T decreases it 33%. Two A198C decrease it by 39%. One of each decreases it 53%. Two C677T decrease it by 75%.

So OP (according to these numbers) has a 53% decrease in their MTHFR activity (folate conversion) while you have a 75% decrease.

For more reading, here is another page discussing the variants.

As for the prescription, you can get a very similar product for much cheaper from non-prescription brands like Jarrow (here or here). If you are trying to match the product you were prescribed, look for a product with 3000 mcg methylfolate, 35 mg of P5P B6, and 2000 mcg of methylcobalamin (B12). Note that the dosing of folate is quite high in that product which some researchers (like Masterjohn) don't find terribly useful. Read around on his page for a bit and decide for yourself what you think is best, but if it was me (not medical advice!) I would replace that prescription with something cheaper and very likely just as effective. You can also look into choline supplementation since that is likely to be an issue for you as well with such a strong mutation.

u/Autistic_Reeeeeeeeee · 1 pointr/ScientificNutrition

>Doesn't our body make all the cholesterol and saturated fats needed for optimal health?

No, The only reason humans lower their cholesterol is to help reverse heart disease without changing their diet.

Treating the symptom not the cause.

The body makes many things and even recycles cholesterol in the brain. Your body will actually sacrifice other functions to a certain extent to get your cholesterol to a level it likes.

>And if not, are children more in need of those two since they're growing?

Yeah, Breast milk is quite rich in saturated animal fat and Cholesterol. It is extremely important for their diets.

But there are a lot of of other very important components as well.

This is why bottle feeding babies plant based formula has had such bad effects on their health.

Look at these ingredients. It is criminal. Here is the brand and here are the ingredients. Ingredients and Nutritional Profile.

As you can see it is severely lacking. Babies need cholesterol. Plant based mothers can not produce an adequate amount of it through their breast milk either.

u/nickandre15 · 1 pointr/ScientificNutrition

The metric is effectively average LDL size. There’s a lot of study of LDL size, specifically using the CardioIQ series of tests which is an ion mobility test which produces a detailed graph of concentration by particle size. The guy who licensed the test to Quest is named Dr. Ron Krauss and has a number of papers published on the topic from that test and one of an earlier generation. I met him at the Weight of the Nation conference in San Francisco last year and he’s quite a cool guy.

One reason these findings aren’t talked about a lot is because most of the findings tend to correlate a high concentration of small-dense LDL particles with higher incidence of CVD. The “problem” is that the small-dense LDL pattern is also associated with low fat, high carbohydrate dietary patterns and seems to get better on a high fat, low carbohydrate diet. In that fashion the finding is actually diametrically opposed to the traditional diet-heart hypothesis which is that fat and SFA in particular => LDL-C => CVD and therefore both cannot be true.

The general topic of CVD and cause w.r.t. lipoproteins is pretty interesting because it exposes the possibility that small dense LDL is strongly correlated with hyperinsulinemia. Krauss contended that he had seen counterexamples in his data but I didn’t get further details at the time.

If you’re interested more in CVD I would recommend Subbotin and Constantin Velican though sadly I appear to have bought the last reasonably priced used copy of his book — he also has a series of papers published in the journal Atherosclerosis from the late 60s through the 80s and performed hundreds of autopsies to develop an understanding of the time series progression of the disease.

u/hansern · 1 pointr/ScientificNutrition

Thanks for the response! Is this the one you’re talking about?:

2 of them has almost 600 mg of DHA+EPA. So you take 1 of them (~300 mg) 3-4 times a week? I’m trying to learn how to incorporate DHA.

u/Grok22 · 2 pointsr/ScientificNutrition

That supplement would be fine.

It contains:

-methylated folate
-Pyridoxal phosphate(active form of b6)

You may be able to find them all separately for less money.

Or the Jarrow B complex is commonly reccomend, and contains the B vitamins in the same form. You'd have to compare dosages though.

Jarrow Formulas B-right Complex, Supports Engery, Brain and Cardiovascular Health, 100 Veggie Caps

u/exceptionalfield · 3 pointsr/ScientificNutrition

I realize that methionine may be an issue, but whey still has less than beef. Also, pea protein has even more than the whey I posted above. Since protein in larger amounts is required for me, it seems I have to deal with it.

u/vferderer · 1 pointr/ScientificNutrition

Cummins is one of the biggest deniers in the scene. He has absolutely no idea. I already told you how it works. I also named you two books which are very good.

u/wild_vegan · 1 pointr/ScientificNutrition

I'm not an ethical vegan, that's just icing on the health cake. I sympathize with the Fat Ad-Libitum mice though, since I've already gained a couple of pounds on a high-fat diet.

Humans did not evolve on a high meat and fat diet, but arguments from evolution, as it pertains to what we should be eating today, are mostly just-so stories anyway. (Only a person who's never tried to hunt, is unaware of edible wild foods, and is unaware of how most primitive cultures live would believe the story anyway.) I hope to do better than a caveman, regardless of their diet. The rest of your arguments don't directly apply to the mechanism being studied. They weren't testing whether or not a high-fat or low-fat diet is better for obesity, they were testing the effects of IF on obesogenic and normal diets. The mice would have to be fattened up on a diet that fattens them up, regardless of what the diet was.

Still, gimme 100 humans, and I'll fatten them all up on a high-fat diet, just like the mice. The only mitigating factor might be that a high-fat diet eventually becomes disgusting, at least in my experience. Otherwise, you're talking about doubling the calorie density of a diet, even without ease of fat storage or any other mechanism. (I'm just one person, but my diet, which is ad libitum, has gone from an average 2050 calories at 12% fat, to 3430 @ 40%. I was also much more satiated on the low-fat diet.)