Ketogenic diet
Replies
-
Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.
Glucose is the body's preferred fuel source...ketones are the evolutionary backup plan...if what you said were true then ketones wouldn't be the backup plan...12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.
Glucose is the body's preferred fuel source...ketones are the evolutionary backup plan...if what you said were true then ketones wouldn't be the backup plan...
And you wouldn't have to follow a defined level of carbs to "get into ketosis" if it was the natural order of things.5 -
Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.
Coffee with butter/coconut oil, "fat bombs", pork rinds and bacon are the most "natural and best fuel for your body"? Lol.
(Not that I'm saying bacon is a bad thing, mind you. Because mmmmmm, bacon.)
Bacon IS the best thing for my body. Period.
*I am now closing my eyes and plugging my ears repeating, "La la la, I'm not listening!"5 -
Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.
Coffee with butter/coconut oil, "fat bombs", pork rinds and bacon are the most "natural and best fuel for your body"? Lol.
(Not that I'm saying bacon is a bad thing, mind you. Because mmmmmm, bacon.)
Bacon IS the best thing for my body. Period.
*I am now closing my eyes and plugging my ears repeating, "La la la, I'm not listening!"
Bacon + steak > Steak > Bacon IMO.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Excuse me while I enjoy some jerky and pork rinds. You can keep your boring old potato chips.
Lol...I love how keto people immediately jump to carbs = junk and that if you're not keto then you're eating a bunch of "junk" food...and for the record, potato chips contain a fair amount of fat as well.
Personally, I'm enjoying some jerk chicken with some sauteed spinach and a baked sweet potato. Tonight I'm having coconut curried red lentils and potatoes with roasted cauliflower...all them "junk" carbs ya know?
I think that was more to point out that keto has some tasty "junk food" too. I think.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Keto as it's the most natural and best fuel for the body. The body requires zero carbs. Only reason to have them is for vitamins and nutrients in vegetables.
Glucose is the body's preferred fuel source...ketones are the evolutionary backup plan...if what you said were true then ketones wouldn't be the backup plan...
And you wouldn't have to follow a defined level of carbs to "get into ketosis" if it was the natural order of things.
Or you can look at it that one must eat a certain level of carbs to get thrown out of a natural, common, metabolic state - ketosis. One could say that we need to use glucose as fuel first in order to maintain the low level of blood glucose (about 4 teaspoons I think) that our body needs to survive; almost a safety mechanism.
Just a matter of perspective.
8 -
Yeah it can. The headaches and the flu is an electrolyte imbalance from falling insulin levels. Stinky breath is often from dehydration and off electrolyte levels as well, although high protein can cause it too. There are a few who get bad breath from keto, but it is not common.
But I agree that electrolyte imbalances are not a good state to be in.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
Yes I agree with you that adequate protein is important for less muscle waste.
To the bolded, fat does create power and it has nothing to do with momentum. It's true that you are having to "lift" more weight when you are fat, but this is precisely why it means being stronger and having higher lean mass. Being fat means carrying around extra weight that challenges the muscles all day, not just during lifting sessions. That's why fat people usually have higher lean mass than normal weight people all things equal. That's also why tables like these exist where even untrained people are at an advantage if they're heavier and that's why there are weight categories in powerlifting to make things more fair, and lifters often try to stay at the very top of their weight category. I'm not trying to be contradictory, I just find this fascinating and thought you would too. (This is for one rep max based accumulated performance data, not predictions)
2 -
crisscott11 wrote: »Yes? No? Why?
Yes! Going on 190+ days. I like it because I no longer need willpower to stick to a calorie deficit. I am no longer addicted to food/carbs/sugar. I'm only hungry when my body is physically hungry. I lost 23 pounds. I'm still working on eating nutrient rich foods 100% of the time, but I don't crave pasta, bread, cake, etc. etc. ever.5 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
Google "the honeymoon phase of dieting"Well. I wasn't thinking at all that I'll go with this kind of diet.. Carb cut!!?.. No way in hell..
But this is my fifth day.. And i feel awesome.
The great thing about fat loss is that it happens when you're in a consistent calorie deficit. You don't have to rely on hope. Actually, fat does not react to hope, only to calorie deficit.Hope it will help me shedding those stubborn fats
The great thing about a calorie deficit, is that you can pick any diet that provides you with one. It's smart to pick one you like.
The great thing about the last few punds, is that they don't pose a health risk, usually merely an annoyance.
The strange thing about the last few pounds is that they are elusive - you decide which ones are the last, and when you've lost them, can you be sure that they really were the last?
The not so great thing about the last few pounds, is that they are really really slow. You have to be accurate and patient if you want them gone.
haha.. I spent 43 years using hope. Now I do Keto which is the only thing that has allowed me to be consistent with a calorie deficit.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
Yes I agree with you that adequate protein is important for less muscle waste.
To the bolded, fat does create power and it has nothing to do with momentum. It's true that you are having to "lift" more weight when you are fat, but this is precisely why it means being stronger and having higher lean mass. Being fat means carrying around extra weight that challenges the muscles all day, not just during lifting sessions. That's why fat people usually have higher lean mass than normal weight people all things equal. That's also why tables like these exist where even untrained people are at an advantage if they're heavier and that's why there are weight categories in powerlifting to make things more fair, and lifters often try to stay at the very top of their weight category. I'm not trying to be contradictory, I just find this fascinating and thought you would too. (This is for one rep max based accumulated performance data, not predictions)
Yes, that is interesting. Most powerlifters I know just say they don't want to lose strength, so they always eat in excess.
And I know what you mean about carrying around extra weight. I've been fat my whole life; fat and strong.0 -
Yeah it can. The headaches and the flu is an electrolyte imbalance from falling insulin levels. Stinky breath is often from dehydration and off electrolyte levels as well, although high protein can cause it too. There are a few who get bad breath from keto, but it is not common.
But I agree that electrolyte imbalances are not a good state to be in.
This is my 3rd time doing keto. Never had bad breath or flu symptoms. Just bodyaches and a mild headache for the first 2 weeks. But from about the 3rd day foreward my energy level is through the roof.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
Believe it or not but 155 pounds used to be a pretty average weight, so the 56~ grams was in line with 0.8 g/kg for an average person. Nowadays of course...
Anyway, I'm going to quote wikipedia (sue me) for the definition of the RDA.
"Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), the daily dietary intake level of a nutrient considered sufficient by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine to meet the requirements of 97.5% of healthy individuals in each life-stage and sex group. The definition implies that the intake level would cause a harmful nutrient deficiency in just 2.5%. It is calculated based on the EAR and is usually approximately 20% higher than the EAR (See Calculating the RDA)."
Meaning it's a sufficient amount for almost anyone, and lighter people would be fine on even less and depending on personal circumstance higher weight people too. So you'd definitely not be losing a majority of your muscle if you're staying just under the RDA but have to undercut it severely, to amounts around a consistent 20 grams or so. Provided you're not dieting in which case protein needs are increased as was said.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
Do you realize how difficult it would be to est 10 to 20g of protein a day. You would literally have to be a very low calorie vegan who doesn't understand protein sources. I could accidently get that what 1 serving of cheese. Suggesting that is what your dad was eating is short sighted. If anything, he was probably at or over the RDA, which isnt for a person losing weight. At that stage you need more; of which meta analyses suggest 1.5 to 2.2g/kg.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
Do you realize how difficult it would be to est 10 to 20g of protein a day. You would literally have to be a very low calorie vegan who doesn't understand protein sources. I could accidently get that what 1 serving of cheese. Suggesting that is what your dad was eating is short sighted. If anything, he was probably at or over the RDA, which isnt for a person losing weight. At that stage you need more; of which meta analyses suggest 1.5 to 2.2g/kg.
Exactly. That was my point. I originally stated that I thought the USDA RDA was too low. I stated that my dad switched to a low protein macronutrient diet and lost quite a bit of muscle. I'm guessing it was somewhere in the neighborhood of the RDA or a little less. @stevencloser suggested that in order to lose muscle dietary protein would have to be at 10-20g/day. I believe catabolizm can occur at a much higher protein intake than that.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
Do you realize how difficult it would be to est 10 to 20g of protein a day. You would literally have to be a very low calorie vegan who doesn't understand protein sources. I could accidently get that what 1 serving of cheese. Suggesting that is what your dad was eating is short sighted. If anything, he was probably at or over the RDA, which isnt for a person losing weight. At that stage you need more; of which meta analyses suggest 1.5 to 2.2g/kg.
Exactly. That was my point. I originally stated that I thought the USDA RDA was too low. I stated that my dad switched to a low protein macronutrient diet and lost quite a bit of muscle. I'm guessing it was somewhere in the neighborhood of the RDA or a little less. @stevencloser suggested that in order to lose muscle dietary protein would have to be at 10-20g/day. I believe catabolizm can occur at a much higher protein intake than that.
Its probable that your dad or anyone losing weight will lose muscle too, but your body isnt just going to catabolize muscle. Certainly, its less than you think. Even of low calorie studies i have seen (like 800 calorie diets), its only a few lbs and that is with no exercise or just cardio.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
The RDA to not become deficient in a normal person is a measly ~50ish grams. 200 calories. 10% of calories for a 2000 a day person. And the way RDA works is that that has a safety buffer so the actual amount you'd need is likely a good bit lower. Even on a low protein diet, which was nowhere ever promoted as healthy on a large scale as far as I've seen, you'd get that much. You'd have to get consistently something like no more than 10-20 grams of protein a day to actually have your muscles waste away like that. That's not a diet, that's stupidity.
I don't give a whole lot of weight to anything the USDA says, including their RDA. Luise Light, former USDA Director of Nutrition Research writes extensively about why their guidelines should not be trusted.
I especially diagree with the RDA of protein/day. I don't believe it is nearly enough to meet the body's amino acid needs (at a healthy level) let alone maintain any degree of muscle mass. Haven't read any studies on it, but I have observed the negative effects of low protein in others.
For one example: A few years ago parents went on some kind of macronutrient diet, with the only meat being a small piece of fish maybe once/week. Lots of rice, legumes and veggies though. My mom lost weight and looked like she did before gaining weight. But I watched my dad's fairly muscular frame waste away and now he looks quite thin...I would almost say frail.
She criticizes them for the amount of grains recommended in the old food pyramid. I also think the amount was excessive, but I think it had more to do with grains being a traditional staple food and cost than any of the other assumptions about reasoning -- in societies where food is scarce, not overeaten, grains (and legumes) are an obvious staple and that way of eating can be consistent with a healthy diet. It's problematic when people are eating too many calories and are sedentary.
More significantly, it's important to look at what else Light criticized:For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products.... The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard).
Also, what was the nod to processed foods? Apparently including things like crackers and cereal and white bread in the grains section (in the list and picture) and "changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
My comment on this: I think a lot of what she says is sensible, actually, BUT the veg and fruit rec WAS increased and people still don't meet them (or even the lower rec in many cases) so to claim that's because they are carefully following the food pyramid or updated version is, IMO, just false or self delusion. People who actually eat like the pyramid recommends in a lot of ways tend to score well on those longitudinal studies, although it could be that people who bother to follow health advise just tend to be healthier for other reasons. I also think that if you decide that "avoid too much" means "eat as much as I want" then you aren't seriously following the rules, and every version of the guidelines I've seen specifically recommend making sure the grains are at least from half whole grain sources and that added sugar should be limited (although only the new ones have a number on that).
Beyond that, as someone who grew up in the '70s and '80s, everyone knows that lean meat/fish, vegetables and fruit, whole grains and legumes are considered a healthy diet, not a sausage on a white bun, no veg. Similarly, people knew plenty well that sweets weren't supposed to be eaten in huge amounts. Anyone who claims to have eaten a diet consisting mainly of sugar (in cereal and something like donuts, that includes fat) and refined/white grains and fries and fatty meat, no fruit and veg, etc. -- and thereby getting macros of say 15% protein, 35% fat, 50% carbs (which might be okay macros with different foods) -- is not legitimately confused, but lying. Maybe lying to themselves, but no one really thinks that's healthy.
I agree that most people who just eat whatever they want would improve their health if they followed the USDA's recommendations. However, it falls short of what all of Light's research concluded. An organization that changes it's health recommendations to please an industry that is only interested in profit should not be trusted at all IMO. There are far better guides out there.
The USDA' protein RDA may be fine for some that have a average/low muscle mass. I'm sure my mom didn't get much more than the 46g/day and she did fine. I'm sure my dad got the 56g/day, but he lost muscle. I know if I went on 56g/day protein my 180lbs LBM would decline steadily.
Here is Luise Light's food pyramid, which I think is closer to what she wanted in the 90's:
http://www.luiselight.com/IMAG003.JPG
Have you considered the possibility that your mom needed fewer calories than your dad and both eating the same may have resulted in your dad severely undereating? Another thing is that fat CAN look like muscle if distributed a certain way. Losing a whole bunch of muscle, even on a very restricted diet, is unlikely. Sure muscle loss happens, but it's not as severe as people imagine. The reason many prefer to retain as much of it as possible is because it's very hard to build back up. In most cases when someone loses a whole bunch of muscle it's either that they didn't have that much muscle to begin with, just "looked" like they did, or they have some other issues going on causing atrophy.
I should clarify that the diet they were on limited the type of food they ate, not the quantity- other than protein. My dad stated that he never felt hungry.
Also, my dad was almost famous for his "Popeye" forearms. There was no mistake that he was muscular and not fat. My goal as a teenager was always to beat him at arm wrestling which didn't happen until I had built a significant amount of muscle.
Do you know of any studies that would specifically a dress how much dietary protein is needed to prevent catabolism based on individual muscle mass? Apart from seeing several studies proving it, I won't be convinced. I've seen too many people lose muscle on low protein diets(vegan, vegetarian, etc.). I'm specifically referring to men who started with a fairly high muscle mass.
The problem with this is it's based on a recall when you were a child. It's not based on anything quantifiable. The body has fat reserves and can store up to 500g + of glycogen.. so it's not just going to catabolize muscle. Second, there is a huge associate of strength loss when you lose weight. Look at power lifters and how many are just fat (they have tons of muscle, but overfat none the less). Why? Because weight can create power.
The body has amino acid needs. It cannot create amino acids from fat or glycogen. If protein intake is not sufficient to meet those needs, it will catabloize muscle. Everything I have read points to a minimum of 0.8g/kg of bodyweight in dietary protein to avoid muscle loss. The RDA of 56g/day may be fine if you are a 155 lbs. I still haven't seen any evidence that the body will not catabloize muscle unless it consistently gets only 10-20g/day as was stated earlier. I'll stick with the 0.8g/kg until I see some consistent scientific evidence otherwise.
Powerlifters are not "fat" because "weight creates power". That would only be the case if momentum were involved. For lifts like squat and deadlift, extra fat is just extra weight that needs to be lifted. However, since cutting causes strength loss, powerlifters don't do it.
Do you realize how difficult it would be to est 10 to 20g of protein a day. You would literally have to be a very low calorie vegan who doesn't understand protein sources. I could accidently get that what 1 serving of cheese. Suggesting that is what your dad was eating is short sighted. If anything, he was probably at or over the RDA, which isnt for a person losing weight. At that stage you need more; of which meta analyses suggest 1.5 to 2.2g/kg.
Exactly. That was my point. I originally stated that I thought the USDA RDA was too low. I stated that my dad switched to a low protein macronutrient diet and lost quite a bit of muscle. I'm guessing it was somewhere in the neighborhood of the RDA or a little less. @stevencloser suggested that in order to lose muscle dietary protein would have to be at 10-20g/day. I believe catabolizm can occur at a much higher protein intake than that.
Its probable that your dad or anyone losing weight will lose muscle too, but your body isnt just going to catabolize muscle. Certainly, its less than you think. Even of low calorie studies i have seen (like 800 calorie diets), its only a few lbs and that is with no exercise or just cardio.
I don't believe catabolism is based on caloric intake, but rather protein intake. I'm curious what the protein intake was in those 800 cal diets and if it was based on their LBM. Also what was the duration of those studies? If they lost a few lbs muscle over the course of the study, I think it's reasonable that someone could lose 15lbs of muscle in a couple years.0 -
Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.0
-
mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
not full Keto, but isn't crossfit pretty big on Paleo? Which is also an ultra low-carb diet?1 -
mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
not full Keto, but isn't crossfit pretty big on Paleo? Which is also an ultra low-carb diet?
Paleo is "low-ish" carb.
Honestly, paleo can't seem to make up it's mind...8 -
mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
not full Keto, but isn't crossfit pretty big on Paleo? Which is also an ultra low-carb diet?
Paleo is "low-ish" carb.
Honestly, paleo can't seem to make up it's mind...
yeah, it's basically "we want to be low carb.....but sweet potatoes exist, so we have a problem"7 -
mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.5 -
mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
not full Keto, but isn't crossfit pretty big on Paleo? Which is also an ultra low-carb diet?
Paleo need not be low carb.
I used to do crossfit and the "box" (yeah, I know) was big on challenges where you gave up grains and sugar and so on, but would also have nutrition talks that would go on about eating enough carbs (and especially sweet potatoes, which they were really into).
It's also well known by CFers IMO that the ones who actually compete at the highest levels in the various CF competitions don't eat paleo.
Before paleo CF was apparently all about Zone.1 -
mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
not full Keto, but isn't crossfit pretty big on Paleo? Which is also an ultra low-carb diet?
Paleo is "low-ish" carb.
Honestly, paleo can't seem to make up it's mind...
yeah, it's basically "we want to be low carb.....but sweet potatoes exist, so we have a problem"
Hahahaha... yeah something like that. So they change the name to "Primal" and all is good...6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.
Utilizing fat stores on the body for energy is universal amongst humans - it's not something solely restricted to Keto Magic.8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »mineirinhonj wrote: »Wouldn't work for me. I crossfit and in order for you to perform well you need carbs, energy! Never heard of anyone who crossfit and doesn't eat carbs.
I do not crossfit, but I do run and lift weights and eat very low carb. It takes time to become fat adapted (efficient at oxidizing fat to the level where skeletal muscles are primarily using fat for energy), but those who are normally have a lot of energy available to access... they are carrying it around right on their body.
Utilizing fat stores on the body for energy is universal amongst humans - it's not something solely restricted to Keto Magic.
Yes, but those of us who are "fat adapted" become efficient at using fat during endurance activities. We can use fat at a higher rate than someone who eats SAD.
For many years, it was believed that the most elite athletes were never able to oxidize more than 1g/min. of fat for energy... and most athletes are closer to the 0.4g-0.6g range. More recent science has studied fat adapted athletes and found rates as high as 1.8g/min.; though many fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at rates around 1.2g/min. - 1.5 g/min. 1.8g/min. is the high end of what I've seen from study results thus far and I'm acknowledging it is an elite example. Nonetheless, even non-elite fat adapted athletes are oxidizing fat at higher levels than the level previously believed to be the max possible rate.9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions