Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This would not cover me for protein needs. If I was going by the restricted intake it definitely would not cover my needs. I am not a large guy and wouldn't need over 2000 calories and that is where I or anyone on a a lower calorie diet would run into a problem. (1200 calories is a basic diet number you can check )
The 10% figure assumes a normal food intake, my comments don't relate to crazy diet schemes. As I pointed out, there are two ways to determine your protein recommendations. One is based on your lean body mass and the other based on a percent of calories, the two methods will come to similar numbers so long as the individual is consuming a normal diet.
People don't need that much protein, 10% of diet (or similarly .8 grams per kilogram of lean body mass) is more than adequate. Human breast milk is only 5% protein and that supports human development when its most rapid!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opsimathia
Safe for Okinawan. Thats just something I want to point out. We have to look at the ethnic links in these failures and successes. Especially when dealing with cultures that have survived hardships.
Okinawans aren't a special race of people, they are just people. I brought them up as an example of a society that is not just surviving, but doing better than those in the West, on a diet that is much lower than the recommendations I cited....recommendations that you said "weren't healthy". You can find numerous societies throughout the world that subsist on diets that are 15% or less in fat.
To say it again, I'm not recommending the Okinawan diet, just using them as an example to show that very low-fat intakes are safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opsimathia
With the low fat high carb diet like the Okinawan there is also the risk of developing diabetes from overworking your system to process the carbs.
There is no such risk, the Okinwans have much lower rates of diabetes than those in the west. You don't see problems with diabetes in any society that consumes a high carbohydrate diet and for good reason, high carbohydrate diets don't cause diabetes. Diabetes is caused by the pancreas' inability to produce insulin (type 1) or your cells becoming resistant to insulin (type 2). So while carbohydrates are on issue for people that have developed diabetes, carbohydrates aren't what causes the condition.
Diabetes rates are increasing in Asia though, that is because they are starting to abandoned their high carbohydrate/low fat diets with diets higher in fat and animal products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opsimathia
Another ancient diet that came to light again was the Mediterranean diet.Which is a fat friendly one. It came to light after mummies had signs of heart disease when eating a similar diet. Then you have to ask was it the diet?
This isn't how it came to light, instead by the observation the people on the Island of Crete had lower rates of disease than those in other parts of Europe. While the Mediterranean diet isn't low-fat, its relatively high in carbohydrates. People love to focus on the fats, but what is left out is that the traditional Mediterranean diet is rich is legumes, whole grains, fruits and vegetables and low in meat.
These observations were made decades ago when people on Crete consumed a more traditional diet, today their diet is higher in meat, fat, etc and their rates of heart disease, etc are increasing.
The only carb in my diet that I am concerned about are the carbs from lentils and beans since I eat those almost every day. Over the past week I've only had a couple handfuls of oats and I've only ate about half of the loaf of whole wheat bread I have.
The distinction between simple and complex carbohydrates isn't that important, fruits are filled with simple carbohydrates yet are great for you. Refined pasta on the other hand is filled with complex carbohydrates and isn't so great.
The two critical issues for carbohydrates are 1. ) Do they occur in their original, and hence natural, package? 2.) Are they low or high glycemic?
Though #2 is only important for those with a malfunctioning insulin response (e.g., type 2 diabetes), a healthy person should be able to eat both low and high glycemic carbohydrates without any problems.
Regardless, lentils and beans are natural sources of carbohydrates and are low-glycemic, than are rather ideal sources of carbohydrates.
Why would you assume that people with "more than average fat" are eating a lot of carbohydrates? The average American diet is relatively high in fat, high in animal protein and moderate in carbohydrates.
I
I am a 40 year old 6'2 male, and was 247 lbs over the holiday season. I used to eat a 300-500 grams of carbs per day. I went into Primal/Paleo style eating at the beginning of the year with a macro ratio of 15% carb, 30% protein, and 55% fat give or take a few percentages per day with calories in the 1200-1500 per day range. I currently weight 201 lbs. I cut out grains, dairy, sugar and the fat has literally fallen right off of me, as well as having significantly more energy.
You're on a calorie restricting diet, your under eating by around 1,000 calories a day and you're going to attribute your weight loss to the macro-nutrient ratio of your diet? You could be eating twinkies and you'd still be losing weight.
Many people achieve short-term weight loss, what is far less common is long-term weight loss because it requires long-term life-style changes and the way people want to eat (high fat, a lot of meat), etc aren't conductive to long-term weight loss.
My body spent many years in great shape so it likely reverted with more ease than someone that was overweight for most of their life. I had to work hard at wrong choices to gain that weight lol. There are thousands of examples in Paleo/Primal of people that have kept the weight off for years and improved their health. Our ancestors predating the agricultural society did not consume carbs at near the level of people today as their diet consisted mainly of basic plant and animal life. We are adapted to burn fat as an efficient fuel source be it stored or ingested. If I find I need to adjust the ratios down the road, then I will as there is a certain level of experimentation required. At the end of the day, getting away from processed junk in a prepackaged box, ordering pizzas and other standards, and eating sugar in/on virtually everything are likely the most significant factors. Primal keeps it simple with eating whole foods when you are hungry.
Let's say a person has a lean body mass of 150 lbs and are also carrying 50 lbs of body fat. Their total body weight would be 200 lbs with 25% body fat levels.
For sake of argument, lets say that person ate 5 twinkies every day for one month.
A trip over to calorieking.com tells us that 1 twinkie has, 27g of carbs + 1g of protein + 4.5g of fats.
Multiplied by 5 those macros adjust to 135g of carbs + 5g of protein + 22.5g of fat.
135g of carbs is 540 calories
5g of protein is 20 calories
22.5g of fat is 202.5 calories
Total calories consumed per day would be 762.5
So, this 200 lb person with 25% body fat eating only 762.5 calories per day would INDEED lose "weight".
The question is WHERE is that "weight" being lost from? Their 50lbs of body fat? Or, from their 150 lbs of lean body mass?
Which is more healthy to lose in this scenario? Muscle? or fat?
There are thousands of examples in Paleo/Primal of people that have kept the weight off for years and improved their health.
I'm sure there are some people that lose weight, etc on this diet, but in your case you're restricting your calories by 1,000+ calories a day. A starvation diet really....and you'd be losing weight regardless of what you were eating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacredgrooves
Our ancestors predating the agricultural society did not consume carbs at near the level of people today as their diet consisted mainly of basic plant and animal life. We are adapted to burn fat as an efficient fuel source be it stored or ingested.
"Our ancestors" were not a single group of people with a single diet, "our ancestors" varied greatly and had different diets depending on where they lived and what time period. 1~2 million years ago "our ancestors" had diets very similar to our closet relatives, that is almost entirely plants, and then "our ancestors" started to include more animal products. But how much? How common? Nobody knows the answer to these questions. So meat eating is relatively new in our evolutionary tree, did we ever become well adapted to it? That can't be answered by talking about our evolutionary past, we have to do studies. There is virtual no research supporting the paleo diet, its merely "an idea". Also, in terms of fat consumption, high fat foods are relatively rare in nature. Those fatty cuts of meat people like today didn't exist in the past, wild animals are lean...usually very lean. Where did all the fat come from? So even if "our ancestors" were consuming a good deal of meat, their diet would have still be low in fat. I'm not sure what you mean by "basic plant", but our ancestors would have had access to numerous fruits, tubers, vegetables, and.....even grains (wild ancestors to today's domestic corps). As for as the level of carbohydrate consumption in "our ancestors" nobody knows the answer to this, you'll find no agreement among anthropologists because there just isn't sufficient evidence either way. But more importantly, we aren't "our ancestors". Evolution didn't stop 1 million, 20,000 or 10,000 years ago....
If carbohydrates, or rather "excessive" carbohydrates, were bad for human health why do populations of people that consume high carbohydrate diets not experience problems? Not only do they not have populations, but they have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, etc than Americans who eat less carbohydrates.
As for as being adapted to burn fat as an efficient fuel source, yep, we are adapted to use fat as a fuel source. But we are also adapted to use glucose as a fuel source and glucose, not fat, is the only fuel that can be rapidly oxidized for high energy demands (running, etc). So we can use both for fuel, though only glucose for high demand energy needs, so what does that say about diet? Not too much.
So, this 200 lb person with 25% body fat eating only 762.5 calories per day would INDEED lose "weight".
The question is WHERE is that "weight" being lost from? Their 50lbs of body fat? Or, from their 150 lbs of lean body mass?
My example of a twinkie diet was tongue-in-cheek, merely to point out that you'll lose weight regardless of what you're eating if you create a big calorie deficit.
As for the question, the weight will be lost mostly from fat but some muscle mass would be lost as well since the twinkies don't supply enough so the body would turn to its muscles for a protein source. So in a serious starvation diet (if there is such a thing...) one would want to ensure adequate protein intake.
As a side note, losing some lean body mass when losing weight is natural. If someone goes from 200 to 150 they have a lot less weight to carry around so they don't need as much lean body mass. The most important thing is that you remain your strength relative to your body weight. Can you do the same number of push ups, pull-ups, etc is more important than whether you can bench-press the same amount.
My example of a twinkie diet was tongue-in-cheek, merely to point out that you'll lose weight regardless of what you're eating if you create a big calorie deficit.
I understand. I only want to illustrate to readers the difference between saying they want to lose "weight" when "body fat" would be more appropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
As for the question, the weight will be lost mostly from fat but some muscle mass would be lost as well since the twinkies don't supply enough so the body would turn to its muscles for a protein source. So in a serious starvation diet (if there is such a thing...) one would want to ensure adequate protein intake.
Indeed, for those who medically must adhere to a very low calorie diet (starvation diet) the bare minimums of protein and healthy fats must be adherered to. For health AND muscle preservation.
In your opinion, why would think it is mostly lost from fat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
As a side note, losing some lean body mass when losing weight is natural. If someone goes from 200 to 150 they have a lot less weight to carry around so they don't need as much lean body mass. The most important thing is that you remain your strength relative to your body weight. Can you do the same number of push ups, pull-ups, etc is more important than whether you can bench-press the same amount.
That 200 lb individual may not need the muscle but they may choose to keep it to achieve an athletic look.
Absolutely agree with your last sentence as well. When dieting maintaining ones strength is a good indicator that they are in fact maintaining one's muscle. It isn't an absolute truth but it's much cheaper than getting DEXA scan readings throughout the dieting phase.
An obese person would definitely lose alot of muscle with their fat loss. As their fat increased to those obese levels their muscle mass also increased too. So it is that muscle they are losing, ideally.
In your opinion, why would think it is mostly lost from fat?
Because what you're mostly missing is energy and your body fat will supply that, on the other hand your body will adapt to some degree to the lower protein and only break down the proteins in your muscle if necessary (to rebuild critical organs, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by william_ns
That 200 lb individual may not need the muscle but they may choose to keep it to achieve an athletic look.
To some degree, though it probably would be hard to keep it all. But they aren't going to keep it by simply consuming a lot of protein, they will have to weight lift.
Regardless, so yes, one should ensure adequate protein intake even when "dieting" but our protein needs are pretty modest. For the average American that is consuming meat on a daily basis, protein isn't an issue even when dieting. Same goes with essential fats, but those requirements are low.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
