People, get to know your CARBS!

good assessment steve..different boxes for different people!

Bump to read more later. I hate to see sweet potatoes on the rarely eat list, as they are my go-to carb source with dinner :frown:

Not to hijack this thread about carbs, but.

Could you explain about protein intake per meal etc.
I've heard the body doesn't process more than 30grams of protein per meal, or I saw another reference to process 10 grams per hour.
I'm trying to get ~225grams protein daily, and I've been maxing myself out at about 40-45 grams per meal.

You won't find a universally accepted upper limit of protein intake per meal. For starters, the available research simply doesn't spell it out and of what's available, the idea of an upper limit per meal simply isn't supported. Secondly, just as some people will fare better with regards to fat loss eating higher carbs vs. lower carbs... protein needs also vary on an individual basis.

What's funny is this myth almost certainly accompanies the myth of eating many small meals per day to "stoke the metabolic fire" which is utterly ridiculous. Think of it like this: Do you think cavemen ate many small meals throughout the day? Or one giant feast when they happened to kill a saber tooth or deer? Hint: It's most probably the latter.

These people most likely got huge doses of protein in one sitting and if they were as void in protein as some would suggest (since supposedly they'd only be digesting and utilizing 20-30 grams of the 100-200 they were getting) I doubt humans would still be around.

The same reason the "stoke the metabolic rate" myth is bunk is the same reason the protein upper limit myth is bunk - rate/speed of digestion will vary based on the load placed upon the digestive system. By that, I mean large doses of food/protein will simply take longer to work it's way "through the system" than the time it'd take a smaller meal.

The take home point is don't get too hung up on the meal to meal nuances. Worry about your daily totals. The RDA puts protein requirements at .8 g/kg. For a sedentary person, that's most likely adequate, which even that is questionable. For someone who's dieting, exercising, interested in persevering/building lean body mass, etc... something closer to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is most likely more suitable.

Dude, you kick serious *kitten*! I'm so glad I agree with you because you're fact based logic and reasoning is as close to flawless as I can find.

I don't know if it's just me being beaten down by the years on here or what, but I realized that 2 years ago, I would have put out all the research I found yesterday on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and insulin response (there were about 25 that I found yesterday based on clinical studies) but I just didn't have the energy to cite and summarize them. So thank you, and let me know if you want me to forward some to you (although it sounds like you've probably already read them), I can dig them up again if you like.

Dude, you kick serious *kitten*! I'm so glad I agree with you because you're fact based logic and reasoning is as close to flawless as I can find.

I don't know if it's just me being beaten down by the years on here or what, but I realized that 2 years ago, I would have put out all the research I found yesterday on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and insulin response (there were about 25 that I found yesterday based on clinical studies) but I just didn't have the energy to cite and summarize them.

Thanks man. From what I've seen from you... I like the things you have to say as well as the way you interpret research.

I'm going to rant a bit here...

The issue is we have a topic (fat loss and health) that has massive public appeal. Most everyone in this country, let alone world, has an interest in improving health and optimizing body composition. Knowing this, many folks and businesses are drawn to this industry to act authoritatively. If said draw is not fueled by the desire to make a quick buck... it's typically fueled by the yearning for a stroked ego. Especially with the Internet, nowadays people can proclaim expertise and start preaching without a hint of a background in this stuff and as long as they use big words, "the masses" are going to listen without objectivity. Without question.

Very rarely do you find someone entering this industry or proclaiming expertise who values integrity - integrity of self and integrity of information. Very few in this industry concern themselves with the soundness of what they're saying/selling. Rather it's how much money is it making me, how smart is it making me look, how many people are following my advice, etc. Money and/or ego.

And that's a problem. Especially once you factor in how many emotionally sensitive people are desperately seeking "The Answers." It's hard to assess advice and information objectively when you're being led by distraught, frustrated emotions and that's exactly what most "consumers" do. And that's exactly what most "authorities" prey on.

I certainly don't consider myself an expert. Hopefully I never do - I enjoy the idea of being a student throughout my entire life. I place an enormous premium on objective, rational skepticism and research. When combined, these two things net out to unbiased and accurate information and advice.

I'm not afraid of being wrong. I welcome challenges as hopefully they either i) reaffirm what I originally knew to be true or ii) prove my original thought process and ideology incorrect at which point I learn something. Either way it's a win-win.

I don't research to confirm my beliefs. Quite contrarily, I research to understand whys. I research to uncover "the truth" as defined by the scientific method. I want to see all the available data for and against what I'm examining. I also want to see how researchers reached their conclusions. How many test subjects were used? Are we talking human or animal research? How were the experiments performed? What was the collection process for data? On and on it goes.

It's important to note that "the truth" isn't set in stone, either. It's not gospel or religious rhetoric. It's a continually working model used to explain why things happen in our world. Science doesn't define our world. It explains it to the best of its current ability. This means everything the body of research points to today is up for challenge. As brighter minds enter the picture, as technology advances, as funds grow.... theories can and do change and expand. That's the beauty of the scientific method.

The falsifiability of the theories we test and study are what make science work. It's not that we want our ideas to be wrong. It's that we want things to be as accurate as possible and that's what the scientific method assures assuming good science is applied. This process is something I can respect as it's not rooted in money or ego.

Unfortunately this isn't how most "authorities" go about business.

Through their "preachings" they prove time and time again their inability to avoid tripping over confirmation biases. If (and that's a huge if, by the way) they actually study the subject (by way of peer-reviewed research, journals, seminars, structured schooling, texts, etc) they do so with a biased eye. In doing so, they go into their "research" in hopes of confirming what they think they know.

They're more interested in sounding or being right than they are about educating folks and learning themselves. Their minds are shut off to the idea that they could be wrong and they don't even realize it more often than not. Because of this, assuming they do research to begin with, they're going to be very selective in what they'll read. The science that confirms their point will count while the science that opposes it won't. Cherry picking if you will.

Thus they're left with false conclusions backed with loads of conviction. That's not a very productive recipe!

More often than not it's a fight not worth fighting, too. No matter how much logic or objective data you throw into the mix, it's the equivalent of blowing into the winds of a hurricane.

I completely understand where you're coming from when you say what used to draw you in for discussion/debate is now something you avoid. Reason being: very few "authorities are actually interested in listening. They'll talk at you rather than with you. They'll use what you say as more reason to sound off about their jaded and biased beliefs. They'll repeat over and over their tired philosophy without any consideration to counter-points.

It's the definition of a losing proposition.

For some reason, and I'm not quite sure why, this field like no other attracts or creates zealots and sycophants by the dozen. The Dunning-Kruger effect comes to mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=dunning kruger

I'm sure most stopped reading paragraphs ago... and that's fine. If you did make it this far, though... the point is...

Practice skepticism above all else. There's too much BS floating around to do anything different. When you've got people saying "why bash someone who's here to teach" or whatever... I'd say we have real problems. Teachers aren't always right, ya know. And when said teachers refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, it's time to move onto the next person who's pitching information as there's an endless supply, some worthy... many not.

And I'm not speaking to or about anyone directly. I'm speaking about a process of thinking that hopefully gets picked up on by more people. At the very least... more "authorities."

So thank you, and let me know if you want me to forward some to you (although it sounds like you've probably already read them), I can dig them up again if you like.

I've probably seen them as I've researched this niche quite extensively... but thanks for the offer. Do you have easy access to full papers? I used to at university but now I rely primarily on a few doctors and students I know as well as a few research based forums I belong to.

Bump! Don't have time to read this one right now, but definitely want to! :flowerforyou:

I've probably seen them as I've researched this niche quite extensively... but thanks for the offer. Do you have easy access to full papers? I used to at university but now I rely primarily on a few doctors and students I know as well as a few research based forums I belong to.

I actually got 6 or 7 of them from the ajcn.org website, which has a lot of the clinical trials on this stuff, you just have to be really good at picking out the right keywords and/or at boolean searches (my Computer Science degree helps a little there for me), there are tricks to getting a database to search for what you really want. I can do some re-querying and I'll post em for you, I'll do that at lunch. See if you can use any of em. The ajcn.org site has both the abstracts and the full trial results including methods, subjects, timelines, and techniques used so 90% of the time you get to follow the science and not just the thought process (fortunately, as there were more than one that I came to different conclusions on because the science was a bit unclear).

OK here are a few that I found, not all directly relate, but most had at least some relevance to the topic of carbs.

http://tinyurl.com/38drbrv


http://tinyurl.com/28x6bm7
Small sample size on this one, but still a cool study.


http://tinyurl.com/2wv4uvm
really liked this one.


http://tinyurl.com/249khfl
this one points towards different people having different results with different diet types.


http://tinyurl.com/cbcz9o
and one more

OK here are a few that I found, not all directly relate, but most had at least some relevance to the topic of carbs.

http://tinyurl.com/38drbrv


http://tinyurl.com/28x6bm7
Small sample size on this one, but still a cool study.


http://tinyurl.com/2wv4uvm
really liked this one.


http://tinyurl.com/249khfl
this one points towards different people having different results with different diet types.


http://tinyurl.com/cbcz9o
and one more

Thanks for taking the time to dig up what you were looking at. I have read each of those. Here are a few others worthy of checking out:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/short/ajcn.2008.27326v1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15632335 - i don't have this full paper on this computer. I believe I do on my home server which I'll check if you haven't seen it

http://www.annals.org/content/140/10/778.full.pdf+html

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/21/2082

Do you have access to pubmed? That's typically what I have to bug my buddies for... when there's a paper on there I need.

Aren't apples also OK??

I won't really join the actual fight about carbs here, but I just want to point out something:
The reason some people may also be upset with your post could be from the title alone, which, to me, almost seems like you're screaming "YOU'RE AN IDIOT!" into my face.

But then again, that's just me. Who knows.

I appreciate people dropping some knowledge on us from time to time- but I just want to go on record and say there are a lot of factors to a balanced diet, and there is nothing wrong with a low two digit body fat percentage- ( double digits can be healthy). I personally need a lot of fiber to live my life right, and I sometimes get that from some plain oatmeal in the morning- which you put on the avoid list. , and some raw veggies and fruits throughout the day

I am sure you know your stuff about carbs- but I think that if a banana makes me happy, it's a much better and healthier choice than the junk many folks eat. I know this is not your point- that you are being specific about carb education, but some of the things on the "worse" list seemed like things that you described as low on the GI- so on that point I am a bit confused.

I'd have to agree with this as well. This information is potentially useful to someone looking to get to a point in their fitness where they can compete, or whittle down their body fat percentage to the lowest number possible.

But most people are just looking to get to a point where they are healthy, and a double-digit percentage CAN be healthy.

At the end of the day, the advice contained within this tread aren't the only means to this particular end. I know plenty of very healthy, physically fit individuals who eat a bowl of oatmeal every single morning. I am also a regular reader of Oxygen, a fan of clean eating, and a follower of Tosca Reno's. And she (and a lot of other women and men) are able to whittle down their body fat quite nicely while still eating a balanced diet (and consuming carbs). There are many personal trainers who disagree that it's necessary to so drastically reduce your intake of carbs. So, to each their own.

You won't find a universally accepted upper limit of protein intake per meal. For starters, the available research simply doesn't spell it out and of what's available, the idea of an upper limit per meal simply isn't supported. Secondly, just as some people will fare better with regards to fat loss eating higher carbs vs. lower carbs... protein needs also vary on an individual basis.

What's funny is this myth almost certainly accompanies the myth of eating many small meals per day to "stoke the metabolic fire" which is utterly ridiculous. Think of it like this: Do you think cavemen ate many small meals throughout the day? Or one giant feast when they happened to kill a saber tooth or deer? Hint: It's most probably the latter.

These people most likely got huge doses of protein in one sitting and if they were as void in protein as some would suggest (since supposedly they'd only be digesting and utilizing 20-30 grams of the 100-200 they were getting) I doubt humans would still be around.

The same reason the "stoke the metabolic rate" myth is bunk is the same reason the protein upper limit myth is bunk - rate/speed of digestion will vary based on the load placed upon the digestive system. By that, I mean large doses of food/protein will simply take longer to work it's way "through the system" than the time it'd take a smaller meal.

The take home point is don't get too hung up on the meal to meal nuances. Worry about your daily totals. The RDA puts protein requirements at .8 g/kg. For a sedentary person, that's most likely adequate, which even that is questionable. For someone who's dieting, exercising, interested in persevering/building lean body mass, etc... something closer to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is most likely more suitable.

Dude, you kick serious *kitten*! I'm so glad I agree with you because you're fact based logic and reasoning is as close to flawless as I can find.

I don't know if it's just me being beaten down by the years on here or what, but I realized that 2 years ago, I would have put out all the research I found yesterday on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and insulin response (there were about 25 that I found yesterday based on clinical studies) but I just didn't have the energy to cite and summarize them. So thank you, and let me know if you want me to forward some to you (although it sounds like you've probably already read them), I can dig them up again if you like.

I have to say you both kick serious *kitten*. Seriously.

And are both living breathing proof of what I was trying to get across. There are other fit, healthy, intelligent and educated people out there who DO eat their carbs. Which proves to me that carbs aren't the enemy.

At the end of the day anyone can find a perfect 'example' to 'prove' the point they want to get across. We have here different well-educated and informed people, on different sides of a topic. Each of you has found success, but in different ways. Therefore, there is more than one right path to get where we want to go. Choose what works for you.

stroutman81

i love what he has to say all the time everything is so fresh and so real to me. that it makes perfectly sense. he explains it and give example and it makes it to my understanding

so glad we got someone like him to keep the great knowledge going

thanks :drinker:

Why is everyone getting so angry?

That said, I just was wondering what comparisons to caveman ancestors can really tell us? Yeah, they probably just ate when food was available and their bodies were great at using that large, single shot of energy. But wasn't it great at storing that energy in reserve as fat so that the body could make it to the next feast? And isn't that fat storage exactly what we are trying to avoid?

Firstly, I appreciate the question.

You're convoluting two issues:

1) Limits to nutrient absorption and utilization per meal.

2) Calories in vs. calories out.

With regards to #1... the point of bringing up cavemen, which admittedly isn't the greatest example, was that they obviously would eat huge servings of lean protein in one sitting as they would take what they could get from a kill. More then likely, that would be their only major source of protein for the day... if not the week... speaking only hypothetically. If there was this true 20-30 gram limit per feeding.... that means cavemen would have only been getting 20-30 grams per day. That would be well below most any existing guidelines today for maintenance of health.

The more important factor is the evidence for the load-responsiveness of the digestive system and the lack of evidence supporting an upper limit to nutrient absorption.

With regards to #2... cavemen would no doubt gorge on ANY food they could when found... especially closer to winter in order to store as much fat as possible. This storage depot of energy is what would keep them alive during the cold months when all the food withered away or headed for the equator.

Sure, if the cavemen ate a full saber tooth every single day... he'd get fat. But if he ate a large chunk of a saber tooth today and wouldn't get another major hit for a week or a month... he wouldn't get fat. You see the differentiation between nutrient use and calories in vs. calories out?

Put differently... you can eat a pile of nutrients in one sitting that's above the supposed upper limits yet, for the day, be in a caloric deficit, thus leading to no net gain in weight.

Of course this is very simplified as nutrient composition of the diet will influence body composition... but we're speaking very generally here.

Personally speaking, I don't buy the idea that eating every 2-3 hours is "stoking" the metabolism and I'm sure that I could probably survive on the same number of calories given in just 1 meal a day or even 1 meal every couple of days. I just know that I seem to feel hungry 2-3 hours after a meal no matter WHAT size it was, regardless of how much clean protein and fibrous carbohydrates it contains. So, I have to spread my calories out throughout the day. Not because I think it helps me lose fat, but rather that it keeps me from wanting to gnaw my hand off.

Smart woman.

Yea, hunger is a very individual thing. Some people fast all day long only to eat all their calories during the PM hours around their training as this is what gives them the best results in terms of body composition and satiety. Check out all the buzz around intermittent fasting. There's some solid stuff there. Certainly not for everyone. But ideal for others.

On the other hand you have the folks that control hunger best by eating many small meals throughout the day. I'm actually in this camp. I eat 5-6 meals per day.

For those who are interested, I wrote an article about the meal frequency myth that you can find here in my MFP blog:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/meal-frequency-28437

Finally, I have access to all kinds of medical journals, if you need me to try to get an article for you. :happy:

Oh nice! I can always use another resource. I'm pretty well covered but don't be surprised if I hit you up eventually. I really appreciate the offer... thanks!