Ketogenic diet
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.
It doesn't seem counterintuitive at all if you understand substrate utilization during exercise and how ATP is synthesized, utilized and replenished. It makes perfect sense.7 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.
No, it makes a lot of sense. Fat adapted athletes can oxidize fat at rates much higher than most people, so they rarely 'bonk' or run out of energy during long distances. The down-side is that fat oxidation requires oxygen. That's why it isn't good for sprinters, who need every bit of oxygen for short duration at high speed.
In the case of those trying to build strength on a very low carb diet, a very high level of protein consumption is necessary in order to build muscle and still have enough dietary protein left over to convert to glucose for the brain / central nervous system - which can't directly oxidize fat, unlike skeletal muscles.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.
It doesn't seem counterintuitive at all if you understand substrate utilization during exercise and how ATP is synthesized, utilized and replenished. It makes perfect sense.
these are not things that a person who has not studied nutrition would intuit. Therefor, counter-intuitive. Most people associate endurance exercise with carbs and weight training with meat.
I don't doubt the validity, not even for a second. Just pointing out that to a layman it SEEMS backwards.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.
It doesn't seem counterintuitive at all if you understand substrate utilization during exercise and how ATP is synthesized, utilized and replenished. It makes perfect sense.
these are not things that a person who has not studied nutrition would intuit. Therefor, counter-intuitive. Most people associate endurance exercise with carbs and weight training with meat.
I have not ran across hardly any professional athletes who are practitioners of fad diets. I am sure It would be an epic occurrence for bloggers and the various fad diet reddits if that were to happen, but if it has I have not run across it. About the closest thing to that I have seen is ex-professional athletes and/or sports commentators doing paid ads for programs like Nutrisystem.2 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.
It doesn't seem counterintuitive at all if you understand substrate utilization during exercise and how ATP is synthesized, utilized and replenished. It makes perfect sense.
these are not things that a person who has not studied nutrition would intuit. Therefor, counter-intuitive. Most people associate endurance exercise with carbs and weight training with meat.
I have not ran across hardly any professional athletes who are practitioners of fad diets. I am sure It would be an epic occurrence for bloggers and the various fad diet reddits if this were to happen, but if it has I have not run across it. About the closest thing to that I have seen is ex-professional athletes and/or sports commentators doing paid ads for programs like Nutrisystem.
I would be surprised to see a professional athlete adopting and talking about a "fad" diet as well. What would not surprise me, because you see it quite often, is a professional athlete adhering to the same basic principles as a diet that now has a fancy name, a bunch of books, and a million blogs. And they were probably doing it years before it became a "fad." Dr. Atkins didn't invent low carb diets, and whoever popularized "keto" didn't invent those either. They just put a name and marketing spin on things that some people who pay a great deal of attention to their diets were already doing.5 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »
you see keto occasionally among endurance athletes, almost never among strength athletes. Which ironically seems counter-intuitive.
It doesn't seem counterintuitive at all if you understand substrate utilization during exercise and how ATP is synthesized, utilized and replenished. It makes perfect sense.
these are not things that a person who has not studied nutrition would intuit. Therefor, counter-intuitive. Most people associate endurance exercise with carbs and weight training with meat.
I have not ran across hardly any professional athletes who are practitioners of fad diets. I am sure It would be an epic occurrence for bloggers and the various fad diet reddits if this were to happen, but if it has I have not run across it. About the closest thing to that I have seen is ex-professional athletes and/or sports commentators doing paid ads for programs like Nutrisystem.
The example most frequently thrown out by keto believers is Chris Froome (professional cyclist), based upon an article posted (cherry picked, actually) on some keto propaganda site. But when you research it further, the truth is that Froome occasionally does low-carb training to enhance his body's ability to utilize fat for energy - but he stresses the importance of LOTS of carbs while actually racing, to maintain his energy levels. Other than the times he's specifically training depleted, his diet is high in carbs.
Some bodybuilders use low-carb diets as part of contest prep to deplete water, but you don't hear of many who subsist on keto diets because keto basically sucks for weight training/bodybuilding. Which, again, goes to substrate utilization (and other factors).7 -
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.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.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.
I have "popeye arms", particularly forearms (12 inch nicely shaped forearms) but I'm just fat. It's just the way I'm built. For muscle maintenance while dieting (but not exceptionally active) the consensus, bar for a few extremes, is about 1-1.5 grams per kg of goal weight, which is likely higher than what your dad ate.0 -
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.
I have "popeye arms", particularly forearms (12 inch nicely shaped forearms) but I'm just fat. It's just the way I'm built. For muscle maintenance while dieting (but not exceptionally active) the consensus, bar for a few extremes, is about 1-1.5 grams per kg of goal weight, which is likely higher than what your dad ate.
No way he was getting that much. He was about 85kg when he started the diet. When I was growing up he was a runner an was fit at about 75kg. No way he got 75kg of protein. But according to the USDA a man only needs 56g/day.
Found an article that breaks it down by body type and has quite a list of sources:
"Obese people can maintain their muscle mass while eating 800 calories per day, if they eat about 1.2 g/kg of protein and lift weights.26
Most studies indicate that leaner athletes may need more protein to prevent muscle loss when dieting to lower body fat levels.27,28 The most recent and comprehensive review, authored by Eric Helms, indicates that lean athletes need around 2.3-3.1 grams per kilogram of lean body mass to avoid losing muscle while dieting.6
That might seem like a lot, but it’s actually not that much more than obese people when you adjust for their body composition. For example, in one study obese women ate 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of total body weight. When you apply this same amount to their lean body mass, however, it’s actually 3.2 grams per kilogram.19"
https://completehumanperformance.com/dieting-protein-needs/
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »1) Ketogenic diets are a fad diet. While they have therapeutic benefit for some, for the vast majority of people it's just a way of restricting calories. For short term weight loss, sure try it out; but if you're tired of yo-yo dieting, this won't be the lifestyle hack that will keep you at a low weight for life.
2) When did we stop distinguishing between complex carbs and simple carbs? Most people feel like crap after a lot of refined sugar, but that's different from eating a banana or a pile of broccoli or a side of rice.
3) When did we lose sight of moderation? It's possible to have like, a NORMAL life and eat NORMAL foods in NORMAL quantities (based on your activity level and body weight) and be healthy.
The pseudoscience pushing back on CICO and peddling extreme diets like ketogenic diet (and yes it's extreme, your body is not supposed to run on ketones) is harmful and just plain wrong.
That being said, sure, try it. You won't die, probably.
One of the things that drives me batty is seeing people who have read low carb sites come on here and start blasting things like rice and potatoes and calling them "simple carbs".
Primer:
Carbs are saccharides (sugars). A monosaccharide is a simple carb. Sugar in all its forms is a mono (single)
saccharide. Table sugar is a simple carb. So is fruit.
Starches are di (double) saccharides. They are complex carbs. These can be refined or whole, but they are still starches. Potatoes and white rice are both complex carbs. Both white and wheat bread are complex carbs.
In discussions, I think language should be clear. There is a difference between complex and simple carbs, and a distinction between refined and unrefined carbs. A lot of people use simple vs. complex when they really mean refined vs. unrefined.
Table sugar is a disaccharide, starches are poly
4 -
No one reasonably thinks that Americans, on average, undereat protein (or eat anything like the RDA). I think the US diet would be better if calories were lower and protein was a higher percentage, but current gram numbers are fine.
Estimates for US calorie intake range from around 2700 to 3400. If the average American eats between 15 and 20% protein (which is generally estimated), we are talking around 100 to 170 g, on average.
People in many other countries with much better obesity stats eat far less, including all those blue zones.
I'm a fan of eating more protein as one way to manage the excess of calories that are so easy to overeat in the US (although you obviously can't just rely on that), but that (1) has nothing to do with keto vs non keto diets as one can increase protein without keto and many keto recs are lower protein (although not the studies that show positive results), and (2) it's kind of crazy to say the problem with the US diet and the reason for it's winning the world "who can be fattest" challenge is that we eat too little protein when the US tends to be among the highest in protein consumption.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No one reasonably thinks that Americans, on average, undereat protein (or eat anything like the RDA). I think the US diet would be better if calories were lower and protein was a higher percentage, but current gram numbers are fine.
Totally agree. My comment was more refering to the assertion that protein intake would have to be consistantly at 10-20g/day to lose muscle.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No one reasonably thinks that Americans, on average, undereat protein (or eat anything like the RDA). I think the US diet would be better if calories were lower and protein was a higher percentage, but current gram numbers are fine.
Estimates for US calorie intake range from around 2700 to 3400. If the average American eats between 15 and 20% protein (which is generally estimated), we are talking around 100 to 170 g, on average.
People in many other countries with much better obesity stats eat far less, including all those blue zones.
I'm a fan of eating more protein as one way to manage the excess of calories that are so easy to overeat in the US (although you obviously can't just rely on that), but that (1) has nothing to do with keto vs non keto diets as one can increase protein without keto and many keto recs are lower protein (although not the studies that show positive results), and (2) it's kind of crazy to say the problem with the US diet and the reason for it's winning the world "who can be fattest" challenge is that we eat too little protein when the US tends to be among the highest in protein consumption.
If anything, the US has one of the highest average protein intake levels (among everything else).1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No one reasonably thinks that Americans, on average, undereat protein (or eat anything like the RDA). I think the US diet would be better if calories were lower and protein was a higher percentage, but current gram numbers are fine.
Totally agree. My comment was more refering to the assertion that protein intake would have to be consistantly at 10-20g/day to lose muscle.
You will not lose huge amounts of muscle eating at RDA if you're not a bodybuilder who suddenly stops all forms of exercise or eating an unreasonably large deficit, in both of which cases it's not the protein's fault you're losing lost of muscle.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one reasonably thinks that Americans, on average, undereat protein (or eat anything like the RDA). I think the US diet would be better if calories were lower and protein was a higher percentage, but current gram numbers are fine.
Totally agree. My comment was more refering to the assertion that protein intake would have to be consistantly at 10-20g/day to lose muscle.
You will not lose huge amounts of muscle eating at RDA if you're not a bodybuilder who suddenly stops all forms of exercise or eating an unreasonably large deficit, in both of which cases it's not the protein's fault you're losing lost of muscle.
Do you have references to back that up?
As far as "huge", I guess that's relative. For my dad it was over the course of about a year or 2 and my guess is that he lost about 15lbs of muscle.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one reasonably thinks that Americans, on average, undereat protein (or eat anything like the RDA). I think the US diet would be better if calories were lower and protein was a higher percentage, but current gram numbers are fine.
Totally agree. My comment was more refering to the assertion that protein intake would have to be consistantly at 10-20g/day to lose muscle.
You will not lose huge amounts of muscle eating at RDA if you're not a bodybuilder who suddenly stops all forms of exercise or eating an unreasonably large deficit, in both of which cases it's not the protein's fault you're losing lost of muscle.
Do you have references to back that up?
As far as "huge", I guess that's relative. For my dad it was over the course of about a year or 2 and my guess is that he lost about 15lbs of muscle.
General scientific consensus is that you need above RDA protein if you're elderly, an athlete trying to gain muscle (duh), or dieting and trying to keep it, with more being advantageous the higher the deficit. However, it is also inversely proportional to the amount of fat the person has, meaning the higher the bf%, the less you have to worry about losing muscle.
And that information is not secret or anything, you can read that up pretty much anywhere. So a reasonably muscular man like I assume your dad to be only eating a small piece of fish once per week or what it was is entirely on him.
The RDA is based on the average person, and the average person is neither an athlete nor trying to lose weight, so for normal people just eating at maintenance, eating the RDA is not going to be a problem.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425
Two of your initial points were that you think the RDA is not enough to sustain nitrogen balance and that you have seen people lose "the majority of their muscle" on low protein diets. To both of which I say this isn't the case eating a reasonable deficit or maintenance.
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »1) Ketogenic diets are a fad diet. While they have therapeutic benefit for some, for the vast majority of people it's just a way of restricting calories. For short term weight loss, sure try it out; but if you're tired of yo-yo dieting, this won't be the lifestyle hack that will keep you at a low weight for life.
2) When did we stop distinguishing between complex carbs and simple carbs? Most people feel like crap after a lot of refined sugar, but that's different from eating a banana or a pile of broccoli or a side of rice.
3) When did we lose sight of moderation? It's possible to have like, a NORMAL life and eat NORMAL foods in NORMAL quantities (based on your activity level and body weight) and be healthy.
The pseudoscience pushing back on CICO and peddling extreme diets like ketogenic diet (and yes it's extreme, your body is not supposed to run on ketones) is harmful and just plain wrong.
That being said, sure, try it. You won't die, probably.
One of the things that drives me batty is seeing people who have read low carb sites come on here and start blasting things like rice and potatoes and calling them "simple carbs".
Primer:
Carbs are saccharides (sugars). A monosaccharide is a simple carb. Sugar in all its forms is a mono (single)
saccharide. Table sugar is a simple carb. So is fruit.
Starches are di (double) saccharides. They are complex carbs. These can be refined or whole, but they are still starches. Potatoes and white rice are both complex carbs. Both white and wheat bread are complex carbs.
In discussions, I think language should be clear. There is a difference between complex and simple carbs, and a distinction between refined and unrefined carbs. A lot of people use simple vs. complex when they really mean refined vs. unrefined.
Table sugar is a disaccharide, starches are poly
Oy. Thanks for correcting me!3 -
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?6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions