80/10/10--I'm doing it!

jonnythan

How is dietary cholesterol not a necessary nutrient if it's found in every cell membrane in the body? Are you aware that the body's synthesis of cholesterol is a very ineffective process because we have evolved or were created to eat cholesterol? Cholesterol and saturated fat are our friends not to be shunned or avoided.

Cholesterol is manufactured no problem in the body. You don't need any dietary cholesterol.

neanderthin

Here's my stance on cholesterol, for all who are confused:

A) Dietary cholesterol has not been proven to cause health problems.

Dietary cholesterol has not been proven to be a necessary nutrient.

C) While it is uncommon, some individuals are sensitive to dietary cholesterol and should restrict it. People with family histories of this condition should watch their cholesterol levels closely even when at a healthy weight.

D) While it is uncommon, some individuals have difficulty synthesizing cholesterol in the liver and they should consume an adequate amount of dietary cholesterol for health. People with a family history of this condition should be very cautious about pursuing a vegan diet and should watch their levels closely.

With the caveat that I've only heard about points C and D through anecdotal experience and they may very well be wrong.

There you go.

Not consuming any cholesterol will activate certain enzymes (HMG Co-A Reductase) which signals the liver to produce more cholesterol and it's quite common for the liver to over produce which shows up in the blood. The other symptom that is related to not consuming cholesterol in the diet is the lack of saturated fat and generally an increase in carboydrates, and when saturated fat is replaced with carbohydrates, triglycerides increase, ApoB lipoproteins increase, those are the small dense LDL's and HDL is reduced....... which Dr's will tell us are indicators for CVD.

holothuroidea

Here's my stance on cholesterol, for all who are confused:

A) Dietary cholesterol has not been proven to cause health problems.

Dietary cholesterol has not been proven to be a necessary nutrient.

C) While it is uncommon, some individuals are sensitive to dietary cholesterol and should restrict it. People with family histories of this condition should watch their cholesterol levels closely even when at a healthy weight.

D) While it is uncommon, some individuals have difficulty synthesizing cholesterol in the liver and they should consume an adequate amount of dietary cholesterol for health. People with a family history of this condition should be very cautious about pursuing a vegan diet and should watch their levels closely.

With the caveat that I've only heard about points C and D through anecdotal experience and they may very well be wrong.

There you go.

How is dietary cholesterol not a necessary nutrient if it's found in every cell membrane in the body? Are you aware that the body's synthesis of cholesterol is a very ineffective process because we have evolved or were created to eat cholesterol? Cholesterol and saturated fat are our friends not to be shunned or avoided.

Cholesterol is found in every cell membrane in every animal body, not all animals have to eat cholesterol. So far, it seems that human bodies are capable of synthesizing all the cholesterol it needs. Even people who consume a lot of cholesterol never come close to eating the amount that their bodies produce all on their own. Not to mention that dietary cholesterol is very poorly absorbed, as most of it is esterified during digestion.

While there have been some outlier studies that support your claim that it's a necessary nutrient, there has not been nearly enough evidence to prove it.

What our bodies evolved to eat is up in the air. While I understand the reasoning, there is very little evidence of what our ancestors ate and how that affected our evolution.

I don't think cholesterol or saturated fats should be avoided for health reasons, except in cases of individual sensitivity.

dewsmom78

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

Not balanced at all. You will not build any muscle eating only 10% protein. In fact you will probably lose a lot of muscle mass And your body needs more fat than that. I am eating 40/30/30.

holothuroidea

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

Not balanced at all. You will not build any muscle eating only 10% protein. In fact you will probably lose a lot of muscle mass And your body needs more fat than that. I am eating 40/30/30.

It depends on how many calories you eat.

I mean, if you're 80/10/10 and you eat 4000 calories you'd get 100g of protein. This would be enough for muscle building for an average sized woman.

I'm not saying it's not crazy, but it is possible to build muscle that way.

Sarauk2sf

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

Not balanced at all. You will not build any muscle eating only 10% protein. In fact you will probably lose a lot of muscle mass And your body needs more fat than that. I am eating 40/30/30.

It depends on how many calories you eat.

I mean, if you're 80/10/10 and you eat 4000 calories you'd get 100g of protein. This would be enough for muscle building for an average sized woman.

I'm not saying it's not crazy, but it is possible to build muscle that way.

What average sized woman eats 4,000 calories a day?

jonnythan

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

Not balanced at all. You will not build any muscle eating only 10% protein. In fact you will probably lose a lot of muscle mass And your body needs more fat than that. I am eating 40/30/30.

It depends on how many calories you eat.

I mean, if you're 80/10/10 and you eat 4000 calories you'd get 100g of protein. This would be enough for muscle building for an average sized woman.

I'm not saying it's not crazy, but it is possible to build muscle that way.

What average sized woman eats 4,000 calories a day?

Jessica Ennis?

Sarauk2sf

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

Not balanced at all. You will not build any muscle eating only 10% protein. In fact you will probably lose a lot of muscle mass And your body needs more fat than that. I am eating 40/30/30.

It depends on how many calories you eat.

I mean, if you're 80/10/10 and you eat 4000 calories you'd get 100g of protein. This would be enough for muscle building for an average sized woman.

I'm not saying it's not crazy, but it is possible to build muscle that way.

What average sized woman eats 4,000 calories a day?

Jessica Ennis?

I am pretty sure she is not on a 80/10/10 diet.

fuzzymop55

Even if I wasn't a meat eater, I agree to your comment. There are always going to be fad diets but this one takes the cake. Say goodbye to fertility. How much you want to bet they will still find a way to sneak chocolate and oils in their diet? I'f you're going to be a caveman hippy they didn't do the things modern people to in order to create healthy palatable meals.

holothuroidea

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

Not balanced at all. You will not build any muscle eating only 10% protein. In fact you will probably lose a lot of muscle mass And your body needs more fat than that. I am eating 40/30/30.

It depends on how many calories you eat.

I mean, if you're 80/10/10 and you eat 4000 calories you'd get 100g of protein. This would be enough for muscle building for an average sized woman.

I'm not saying it's not crazy, but it is possible to build muscle that way.

What average sized woman eats 4,000 calories a day?

Well, I've seen 80/10/10 dieters recommend to get at least 2.5k calories per day for an average woman (that would be 62g of protein, which is reasonable) . Of course they say, "don't forget to exercise!"

Yeah, no kidding.

Not a great diet for long term, nor for weight loss.

neanderthin

It's a diet that follows the idea of the ratio of nutrients to support health is 80% carbohydrates, 10% protein and 10% fat.

Not balanced at all. You will not build any muscle eating only 10% protein. In fact you will probably lose a lot of muscle mass And your body needs more fat than that. I am eating 40/30/30.

It depends on how many calories you eat.

I mean, if you're 80/10/10 and you eat 4000 calories you'd get 100g of protein. This would be enough for muscle building for an average sized woman.

I'm not saying it's not crazy, but it is possible to build muscle that way.

What average sized woman eats 4,000 calories a day?

Well, I've seen 80/10/10 dieters recommend to get at least 2.5k calories per day for an average woman (that would be 62g of protein, which is reasonable) . Of course they say, "don't forget to exercise!"

Yeah, no kidding.

Not a great diet for long term, nor for weight loss.

Not the best for the notorious 1200 calorie diet that every female seems to be on lately.

albertabeefy

How is dietary cholesterol not a necessary nutrient if it's found in every cell membrane in the body? Are you aware that the body's synthesis of cholesterol is a very ineffective process because we have evolved or were created to eat cholesterol? Cholesterol and saturated fat are our friends not to be shunned or avoided.

Amazingly, regardless of the intake of dietary cholesterol, in most people with normal liver functions the liver itself synthesizes 80-85% of the serum cholesterol that circulates in our bloodstream. The rest (15-20%) is ultimately delivered via dietary cholesterol intake.

However, that doesn't mean that a complete elimination of dietary cholesterol would result in a cholesterol-deficiency. Just like the elimination of carbohydrate causes the body to synthesize glucose, the elimination dietary cholesterol seems to step up the cholesterol production in a healthy person - from what we know now.

However, when it comes to 80/10/10 it's not cholesterol that's the dangerous issue, it's the levels of protein and fat. (And for some with metabolic disorders, the high-levels of carbohydrate).

Taking in only 10% of calories from fat will, through all science we know today, lead to serious nutrient deficiencies. Dietary fat is essential for healthy people in quantities well-above 10% of calories.

Similarly for protein requirements - for any active individual, 10% is simply not enough. It's pretty close to a bare-minimum for a sedentary individual, and as such lean-mass will likely be catabolized.

And if a person eats a caloric surplus (above TDEE) to try to get recommended protein or fat levels... well, that person is going to experience weight (adipose tissue, ie: FAT) gain.

It's a BAD idea, 80/10/10. It may "feel" good to those who start it (probably due to cleaner eating and an abundance of sugar) but will result in serious complications over the long term, as those who've tried it, suffered the consequences, and left it in the dust will attest to. (There's several forums dedicated to EX-raw-vegan and EX-80/10/10 people.)

SanteMulberry

How is dietary cholesterol not a necessary nutrient if it's found in every cell membrane in the body? Are you aware that the body's synthesis of cholesterol is a very ineffective process because we have evolved or were created to eat cholesterol? Cholesterol and saturated fat are our friends not to be shunned or avoided.

Amazingly, regardless of the intake of dietary cholesterol, in most people with normal liver functions the liver itself synthesizes 80-85% of the serum cholesterol that circulates in our bloodstream. The rest (15-20%) is ultimately delivered via dietary cholesterol intake.

However, that doesn't mean that a complete elimination of dietary cholesterol would result in a cholesterol-deficiency. Just like the elimination of carbohydrate causes the body to synthesize glucose, the elimination dietary cholesterol seems to step up the cholesterol production in a healthy person - from what we know now.

However, when it comes to 80/10/10 it's not cholesterol that's the dangerous issue, it's the levels of protein and fat. (And for some with metabolic disorders, the high-levels of carbohydrate).

Taking in only 10% of calories from fat will, through all science we know today, lead to serious nutrient deficiencies. Dietary fat is essential for healthy people in quantities well-above 10% of calories.

Similarly for protein requirements - for any active individual, 10% is simply not enough. It's pretty close to a bare-minimum for a sedentary individual, and as such lean-mass will likely be catabolized.

And if a person eats a caloric surplus (above TDEE) to try to get recommended protein or fat levels... well, that person is going to experience weight (adipose tissue, ie: FAT) gain.

It's a BAD idea, 80/10/10. It may "feel" good to those who start it (probably due to cleaner eating and an abundance of sugar) but will result in serious complications over the long term, as those who've tried it, suffered the consequences, and left it in the dust will attest to. (There's several forums dedicated to EX-raw-vegan and EX-80/10/10 people.)

Yeah--I can attest to that. I gained the most weight in the shortest amount of time when I was a vegetarian. :frown:

Because the 80-10-10 is so low in protein and fat, it would be a TERRIBLE diet for me. My base calories are set at 1,380. That would mean I could only eat 15 grams of fat per day---not even close to the 35 grams of fat that people need to keep everything (hormones, etc.) working properly. And that scarcity of protein would force my body to catabolize my skeletal muscle to keep me going. Ever really look at those women who follow the 80-10-10? Their muscles are wasted away.

kit_rose

Reading some of these comments is increasing my frustration towards the negative associations with people on a vegan diet.
If you find a diet that works for your system then by all means stick to it, but that doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. I'm all for cutting out animal products (I'm vegan), but it is obvious our systems were meant to process an omnivorous diet. Animal products are not 'toxic', maybe a little more risky to eat in the current era as they are more complex to farm, but that doesn't mean we are not meant to eat them. Some people find the best health including animal products, others find animal products can use too much of their energy to process. Either way, a universal perfect balance is hard to achieve with any diet.

I'm on the 80-10-10 raw diet and would have to agree that it probably isn't for those who are cutting calories below ~1500/day. Below that, and you would only have a very small portion of fat in maybe one meal, not enough to help the fat-soluble micronutrients absorb efficiently. Even with supplementation, fats and proteins would have to be monitored very precisely as they would be cut down to levels too low for people without an efficient metabolism (and I mean EFFICIENT not HIGH).

Nevertheless, even if your calorie intake is high on 811, you must supplement with b-complex or include something like nutritional yeast (unless you somehow include soil particles in your raw food). 811 has been one of the best lifestyle changes for me, and has cleared up many health issues I have had (ex. kidney cysts/stones from too much protein and calcium) but my meals (more like lots of snacks) are very carefully thought out, and I get bloodwork done every 2 weeks.

I would also suggest eating as many veggies as possible so your blood sugar levels are a little more controlled and you can cram as many micronutrients in as possible. Again, it worked well for me but someone else might be affected differently.

jonlefave

Reading some of these comments is increasing my frustration towards the negative associations with people on a vegan diet.
If you find a diet that works for your system then by all means stick to it, but that doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. I'm all for cutting out animal products (I'm vegan), but it is obvious our systems were meant to process an omnivorous diet. Animal products are not 'toxic', maybe a little more risky to eat in the current era as they are more complex to farm, but that doesn't mean we are not meant to eat them. Some people find the best health including animal products, others find animal products can use too much of their energy to process. Either way, a universal perfect balance is hard to achieve with any diet.

I'm on the 80-10-10 raw diet and would have to agree that it probably isn't for those who are cutting calories below ~1500/day. Below that, and you would only have a very small portion of fat in maybe one meal, not enough to help the fat-soluble micronutrients absorb efficiently. Even with supplementation, fats and proteins would have to be monitored very precisely as they would be cut down to levels too low for people without an efficient metabolism (and I mean EFFICIENT not HIGH).

Nevertheless, even if your calorie intake is high on 811, you must supplement with b-complex or include something like nutritional yeast (unless you somehow include soil particles in your raw food). 811 has been one of the best lifestyle changes for me, and has cleared up many health issues I have had (ex. kidney cysts/stones from too much protein and calcium) but my meals (more like lots of snacks) are very carefully thought out, and I get bloodwork done every 2 weeks.

I would also suggest eating as many veggies as possible so your blood sugar levels are a little more controlled and you can cram as many micronutrients in as possible. Again, it worked well for me but someone else might be affected differently.

Wow, thanks for the well-rounded post.

Usually you get vegans that say "WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO EAT MEAT. SHAME ON YOU!".

80/10/10 is a sustainable diet, depending on your goals. It's obviously not for everyone. There is no such thing as a "diet for everyone". If someone claims so, then call them out on their BS.

Personally, I've been experimenting on different diets, and while I've been trying to lean towards veggie/vegan lifestyle, I stay away from soy products (my digestion doesn't agree with them)... so it's hard to be animal-product free. Especially considering my bodybuilding goals.

Just do what makes you feel healthier.

HoneydewLouu

I follow 80/10/10!

Helloitsdan

I follow 80/10/10!

How are you getting all of your amino acids and whats your overall protein intake during the day?
And how the hell did this post get brought back to life???

jofjltncb6

Just do what makes you feel healthier.

I think I'd rather do what actually makes me healthier, not just makes me *feel* healthier. (For example, the temporary survival instinct euphoria from a prolonged fast is misinterpreted by many as being physically beneficial.)

Helloitsdan

I follow 80/10/10!

I'll ask this reverse question:

What are the benefits of eating 80% carbs and 10% protein.
And
Are there benefits to eating higher protein, 30-40%, over higher carbs?

The answer lies within cell metabolism and health.
Humans are made of protein so critical thinking tells me that the more protein I eat, the healthier my cells will be.
We haven't even started scratching the surface of the importance of fats and hormonal influence....


Food for thought.

ameyls

Wow. OP here. I don't know why I never checked up on this thread more than a week after I posted it, but I just did, and I'm frankly a bit alarmed at the direction the discussion went. So much vitriol, so much hate, so many rude exchanges (I know--welcome to teh internets, right?). In the spirit of open dialogue, here's my response to everything that has been said:

First, a report on my experience with the 80/10/10 approach. It worked, until it didn't--meaning, I felt great physically, but lost socially. I couldn't eat out anywhere, with anyone. I had to watch as all my friends and family enjoyed foods that I couldn't enjoy. It made me feel unbearably isolated, and it also led me down a path of orthorexia that left me sobbing when confronted with a plate of pasta. So no, it didn't last, and I don't see myself going back to it (or a raw foods diet) ever.

Second, this thread really illustrates the problem with how we talk about food in this country. For some reason, food has become one of those subjects like abortion or religion or gun control--we just can't talk about it sensibly anymore, because everyone believes that there is only one right way, and that their way IS the right way. It's sad, because it leads people like me to believe that every food choice is either "right" or "wrong" and that we need a strict plan designed by an "expert" with lots of rules to know whether we're "good" or "bad." I was drawn to both raw foods and 80/10/10 because it was incredibly strict, and I felt like some sort of food superhero for being able to "stick it out" when others couldn't. Those sorts of strict plans also absolved me of all responsibility for listening to my body, a skill I'm still working to re-learn.

Third, this shouldn't be a revelation, but life is very short, and FOOD IS JUST FOOD. If I can't enjoy a slice of cake at my son's birthday party without having a nervous breakdown, something has gone horribly wrong. I've spent my entire life giving food more power than it really had, and I've paid a tremendous price for it. Food is not going to ruin my health. It's not going to kill me. In fact, if I listen to my body--really listen!--it's going to do the exact opposite. It's going to nourish me, both physically and mentally, and it's going to be a part of some of the most wonderful experiences I'll ever have on this planet.

So that's what I know now. Maybe 80/10/10 was a valuable experience after all, even if the outcome wasn't what I had in mind at the time.

brower47

I've never seen a two year old thread necroed by the OP before. Fascinating, both it's existence and hearing about the consequences the diet had. So rare. I feel like I just caught a snipe.

srslybritt

Whoa. Awesome reflection post, OP. And double whoa at how old this thread is.

nomeejerome

wow

jofjltncb6

Thanks for the unexpected update, OP.

I didn't go back through the thread, but if I'm interpreting your post correctly, you're saying that the naysayers were right? Or am I misinterpreting?

jonnythan

Thanks for updating and being honest. Well done.