Of refeeds and diet breaks

Options
1…170171173175176…221

Replies

  • anubis609
    anubis609 Posts: 3,966 Member
    edited January 2018
    Options
    Minimum as in essential fatty acid? 1g from DHA/EPA is essential. But survivability =/= optimal.

    I generally just play it safe at 0.3g/lb as a floor for everyone. Though, some diets have thrived on 8g of fat per day.

    For comfortability, 0.5-1g/lb can still be effective for fat loss, assuming that’s the goal.

    Fiber is subjective, though the general range is 25-35g/day on higher carb diets to ensure that not all carb intake is pure trash. On carnivore diets, animal fiber (tendon, cartilage, digestible bones) substitutes plant fiber.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,940 Member
    Options
    anubis609 wrote: »
    On carnivore diets, animal fiber (tendon, cartilage, digestible bones) substitutes plant fiber.

    Meaow!
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    You know @mph323 I have heard conflicting stuff regarding best weight range for those over a certain age. Some things show folks on the thinner end of the scale living longer, but I've also heard what you were told, that a little extra weight is important if you get sick. Not sure if the real science is actually conflicting though, or just what the media has reported on. Just don't get sick and it won't matter I guess :wink:
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Ooooh, like the new profile pic @Psychgrrl!! I don't think I've seen one of you as an adult before :D

    And only one protein shake a day?? I've just had one for afternoon snackus (choc with dark choc peanut butter), and have another logged for bedtime snackus, double sized strawberry with berry sorbet. It has been suggested that I need a shake intervention...

    Thanks, Nony!

    Usually one, sometimes two if I know the schedule is crazy and it’s a yoga day. Drinking one right before doesn’t hurt my practice the way other food can.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    @Psychgrrl there is something different about you today!!!! :confounded:

    You’re so observant! :lol:
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »

    Strangely I've had someone that keeps coming back and friend requesting me again and again after a while of kicking me out, but I think they are mental and forgetting.
    In that case I even got other people commenting how low her diary was and not really a good idea.

    Maybe the lack of food has made them forgetful! :wink:
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    anubis609 wrote: »
    I'm hardly as engaging on my wall feed as I am in the forums, so if anyone is under eating, it slips by me. I'm only aware if they post something that warrants a reason to even look at their diary. Or if I'm bored enough, I may randomly look at a diary or two.

    It was the comments in my feed that gave me pause. Then I looked at the user names and a few open diaries.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    You know @mph323 I have heard conflicting stuff regarding best weight range for those over a certain age. Some things show folks on the thinner end of the scale living longer, but I've also heard what you were told, that a little extra weight is important if you get sick. Not sure if the real science is actually conflicting though, or just what the media has reported on. Just don't get sick and it won't matter I guess :wink:

    I've also read some articles that talked about greater life expectancy for people who are in the lower end of their weight range, but I have no idea what kind of science (if any) would back that up, and honestly it makes sense that a little extra fat is good insurance in case of sickness (but not too much!). I feel like there should be some golden calculation where you just factor in your height, weight, age and gender and out pops a little program that tells you exactly how much you should weigh and exactly what your body fat percent should be.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    @mph323 How much does the technician really know about what’s healthiest for you regarding weight range and body fat?

    You’re a lean, mean weight-lifting machine! :smiley: I think it’s awesome!

  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    @mph323 How much does the technician really know about what’s healthiest for you regarding weight range and body fat?

    You’re a lean, mean weight-lifting machine! :smiley: I think it’s awesome!

    Thanks! <3
  • HDBKLM
    HDBKLM Posts: 466 Member
    Options
    Thanks @anubis609 I get it now. I appreciate the thoroughness of your response!
  • alteredsteve175
    alteredsteve175 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »

    I'm dying here! Without knowing the context, unless you used it in the sentence "Since you are older than dirt, here's my suggestion..." that seems a little...extreme.

    Thanks for the chuckle, @mph323. :DOlder Than Dirt is my screen name in a couple of fantasy football leagues. I embrace it as well.

  • anubis609
    anubis609 Posts: 3,966 Member
    Options
    I can only view optimal bf% from a metabolic standpoint, though that may include cardiovascular and oncology, depending on someone's definition. The optimal range of body fat is going to largely play into one's overall well-being, outlook on life, subjective happiness, etc. That said, when people are in the lean/athletic range of body fat, they actually have a bit of a buffer to better handle some of the more deleterious effects of disease development since their bodies are primed for adapting to any changes in either direction. Compare the prevalence of disease development of a lean athlete to that of a normal weight, sedentary individual. More often than not, epidemiological studies will favor the lean athlete for longevity in mortality rates, but epidemiological studies aren't accurate in the sense that so many factors are at play and taking apart one or two causes are not indicative of others. They're just a tool to "try" and include as much of the population as possible without being nitpicky.

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/9/9/1009/pdf

    So, I wouldn't haphazardly advise someone to just gain more body fat without context. But I also couldn't recommend anyone to lose more if they don't need to. You can always maintain your current body fat and just focus on enjoying life in a healthy and active way.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,940 Member
    edited January 2018
    Options
    While these guys found that low overweight BMIs were good for longevity, especially in more recent decades:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1555137
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2520627

    These guys published, in the summer of 2016, a "stick to normal bmi levels" review study:
    thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30175-1/abstract
  • anubis609
    anubis609 Posts: 3,966 Member
    Options
    Those are good studies, but BMI =/= bf%. I can use myself as an example. I'm overweight in my BMI calculation (176.8 lbs and 5'9"), but 12.2% skulpt measured (which is probably 16-17% bf at the moment).

    Also, epidemiology / all-cause mortality rates have a wild range of factors from gender, socioeconomic status, activity level, environment, genetic predisoposition, cultural difference, diet, and other multivariate factors that can contribute to that result. Which is why it's nice to use as a discussion model but need to be specified in contextual application. Even my own citation which used actual bf% cutoffs wasn't very strong in supporting evidence to recommend whether someone should gain or lose fat if measured at the border of lean/average range.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,940 Member
    Options
    @anubis609 I think that all I have concluded from the above studies is that it is too close to call anytime you have a combined lean mass and body fat amount around the high normal level. Plus or minus a couple of points.

    In other words other considerations maybe more important at that point of time.

Categories