My outlook on diet. (Critique Please)

[Zr1]

This is how i see a diet for weight training.

Instead of concentrating on how much fat and carbohydrates you can eat, simply pay attention to what you need. For example, we know you should consume 1g of protein per LBM. So, you should make sure you have at least that amount of protein daily and your carbs/fats can be spread out accordingly through convenience and satiety. Now, you should get your fats from EFA's and your carbohydrates from better sources. (From a healthy perspective) But, in the end it really doesn't matter when your body breaks it down. Some people eat high protein, high fat, others eat high protein, low fat. Do what your comfortable with and as long as your protein is sufficient, you should still see gains. (This is also assuming you stay away from trans fat) Although, it's not 100% that this would matter either. I believe trans fat should be avoided, irrelevant if their is a difference or not.

I'm sure their is some type of metabolic advantage to eating healthier carbs/fats, but who eats terrible like this all the time? Try to eat the best you can and keep protein up. Yes, having pizza and cheeseburgers are fine as long as it fits into calorie budget.

Summary: Eat 1g of protein per LBM and don't stress out over the rest. Try to eat healthy, but having bad meals while still being in your calorie budget doesn't make a difference.

 

[UKStrength]

I agree with you in the context of the 'average person', it doesn't really matter all that much where the rest of the food comes from, as long as certain dietary 'factors' (in my opinion) are in place:

1. Moderate/High amount of protein (at least a standard portion at most meals)
2. High fibre intake from fruits and vegetables
3. Most of carbohydrate intake derived from fruits, vegetables (both starchy and leafy), with a small amount from whole, unprocessed grains.
4. Oily fish intake at least 3 times a week or a fish oil supplement daily.
5. A balance of fats from the diet with a tendency towards monounsaturated and omega-3 fatty acid sources.

In terms of sports performance or physique athletes, unfortunately I cannot agree with you wholeheartedly.

Some individuals are genetically-blessed and can simply eat a 'normal' (whatever that is) diet, train a little harder and they will grow a magnificent physique.

But for the vast majority of trainees, you have to be a bit more cautious around the macronutrients you put into your body, often resulting in specific intakes for fat, protein and carbohydrate to meet their training/physique goals.

Simply stating that 'it doesn't make a difference' in very basic terms is true, but in my experience the best results come from those individuals who take control of their diet and make it work for their goals.

 

[Zr1]

Their is no science to back up your claim.

Show me an article that proves if protein is sufficient, it makes a difference how fats and carbohydrates are split?

It's optimal to eat better carbs and EFA's, but doesn't change body composition if your calorie budget is in check. Health reason yes, but not composition.

Fruits contain fructose, which isn't great either. Fructose immediately converts to fat and any fat produced in excess of the needs of the liver will be shipped out as LDL precursor particles, raising both LDL and TC. Furthermore, because fructose doesn't require insulin in order to be metabolized, the postprandial satiety that insulin evokes in healthy lean individuals is absent, so it's very, very easy to continue to over consume not just the fructose, but food in general...

 

[PublicEnemy]

Their is no science to back up your claim.

Show me an article that proves if protein is sufficient, it makes a difference how fats and carbohydrates are split?

Do you have any studies to back up the above claim?

It's optimal to eat better carbs and EFA's, but doesn't change body composition if your calorie budget is in check. Health reason yes, but not composition.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you there. IMO the calorie budget is an outdated throwback by the ADA. Each macro is utilized differently by the body and I totally believe it would be possible to create an unfavorable body composition even if you are eating below maintainence.

Do what your comfortable with and as long as your protein is sufficient, you should still see gains. (This is also assuming you stay away from trans fat)

If you have a study supporting the effect of trans fat consumption on the breakdown of muscle mass I'd be interested in seeing that. I just checked pubmed and couldn't find anything pertaining to that.

Fruits contain fructose, which isn't great either.

I'm not a fan of HFCS by any means, but the fructose content in fruits is significantly lower than compared HFCS sweetened foods. There is quite a disparity between the effects of a can of cola to LDL levels and an apple, which is also going to have phytochemicals and fiber.

 

[UKStrength]

Sorry for the late reply, although I believe my good friend above me has already addressed most of your questions.

Their is no science to back up your claim.

There was none really backing yours up either, I had no idea this was a contest of literature. Your statement regarding protein intake is wrong, the recommendations in strength and power athletes are based on per kg lean body mass (lbm) (Tipton and Witard, 2007) and are set at 1.4-1.8g/kg/lbm, big difference between that and pounds of lbm.

Show me an article that proves if protein is sufficient, it makes a difference how fats and carbohydrates are split?

The best I can provide for you at this ridiculous hour, is observations of weight loss in obese patients fed isocaloric diets where they changed the ratio of fat to carbohydrates, those on the higher carbohydrate diet slowed down their rate of fat loss, yet they both took in the same amount of calories? (Gilbert and Cloutier, 1987)

If your theory was true, weight loss should have been the same, but the opposite was true. The macronutrients all have a multitude of physiological effects on the body outwith simply being digested and stored/utilised for energy. You seem like an educated person, so you should know that a combination of chronic hyperglycaemia and insulinaemia has a negative effect on body composition (just look at my diabetic patients! They hate taking insulin because it makes them put on weight!).

It's optimal to eat better carbs and EFA's, but doesn't change body composition if your calorie budget is in check. Health reason yes, but not composition.

In absolutely basic terms 'yes' I agree with you, you won't lose weight/gain weight without a negative/positive energy balance. However you're overlooking all the other small, but significant effects eating a healthful diet has on your body and how it functions. Over time the amalgamation of these improvements will definitely have an effect on body composition.

Example: Eating a diet high in resistant starch (RS) leads to an increase in lipid oxidation through a slowing of gastric emptying (Higgins et al. 2004). Therefore a high RS diet over time will lead to less absorption of fat, hence, less overall storage (since dietary fat is easily stored).

Fruits contain fructose, which isn't great either. Fructose immediately converts to fat and any fat produced in excess of the needs of the liver will be shipped out as LDL precursor particles, raising both LDL and TC. Furthermore, because fructose doesn't require insulin in order to be metabolized, the postprandial satiety that insulin evokes in healthy lean individuals is absent, so it's very, very easy to continue to over consume not just the fructose, but food in general...

The majority of people's intake of fructose is not from fresh fruit and vegetables (perhaps a third at most) it's from HFCS in soft drinks and table sugar in the form of sucrose. Fruit and vegetables are also high in RS, requiring a longer GI transit, so the sugar isn't absorbed as quickly.

I'm sorry but your theory on insulin is incorrect, go try drinking a sugary drink and see how full you feel afterwards. Hyperinsulinaemia does not promote satiety in humans (Woo, Kissilef and Sunyer, 1981), that's been known for a long time.

 

[Zr1]

I'll read the posts later, busy at work.

Quickly, i'll note that this isn't a contest! Sorry, i tend to sound like i'm arguing, but i'm not! I didn't mean to come off that way, but this is how i learn.

I'll reply later.

 

[Zr1]

Their is plenty of proof and research that has been done to prove a calorie is a calorie within the guidelines i mentioned...(Adequate protein) Obviously, 2000 calories of snickers vs a stable 2000 calorie diet will be different...But, that wasn't my original point at all. The only change a person eating fast food often will see compared to a healthy dieter will be (possible) food cravings. But, this is irrelevent since i was talking about monitoring calories...These is including athletes. It doesn't matter how they split fat and carbs. Please, show me a study on this. I'll provide you with plenty of research on my claim. Simply look over this site in general and you will learn a lot.

"Once again, my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesn’t appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) don’t seem to make a huge amount of difference either. The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out; it’s simply that it may be easier to affect calories in (food intake) or calories out (through activity) with different macronutrient breakdowns.

As well, the source of calories can affect other aspects of physiology beyond body composition. Health, energy levels, hunger/appetite and all the rest interact here. So while a calorie controlled diet of jelly beans, butter and protein powder might very well work to lose weight/fat, it probably wouldn’t be as healthy compared to a diet of low GI carbohydrates, healthier oils and lean protein sources."

Source: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

 

[UKStrength]

Lyle's an interesting nutritionist, you've taken away great ideas from that article but ultimately you've overlooked what is ultimately the most important point (and my argument), the second law of thermodynamics, which is law that drives chemical reactions (dissipation law).

Secondly, if you don't alter protein intake, the ratio of carbohydrates to fats is important due to the thermic effect of feeding, the thermic effect being 6-8% for carbohydrates (even greater for high-fibre sources), 2-3% for lipids and 25-30% for protein (Feinman and Fine, 2004).

If you alter your intake of carbohydrates and fat you will alter the original energy balance equation (1st law of thermodynamics) through the differences in thermic effects between the nutrients. This ultimately will lead to a difference in body composition through a difference in energy balance (all other factors being constant) even though your 'measured' calorie intake is the same.

Secondly, you assume that energy intake is only affected by food intake. This isn't true, homeostatic mechanisms come into play to conserve energy within the body if you only alter calorie intake, this is why the total composition of the diet matters and the ratio of carbohydrates to fat do matter. If your body is expending more energy to break down the food it consumes you'll stay in a 'negative' energy balance whilst consuming an isocaloric diet.

Physical activity is the most pertinent issue because it will lead to physiological changes that will improve the handling of macronutrients within the body and in the short-term, calorie intake is the most important facet of diet if weight loss/gain is the goal.

However in the long-term, complete disregard to the ratio of carbohydrate to fat intake is not optimal, you want the best physique you can attain, start watching the ratios and see for yourself.

Whilst I respect Lyle, I prefer John Berardi or Lonnie Lowery for a more complete view on nutrition.

 

[PublicEnemy]

I'll provide you with plenty of research on my claim.

I'm interested in seeing that.

"Once again, my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesn’t appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) don’t seem to make a huge amount of difference either.

I welcome you to go and ask any dedicated bodybuilder who does strict diet monitoring that question.

The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out; it’s simply that it may be easier to affect calories in (food intake) or calories out (through activity) with different macronutrient breakdowns.

Agreed, weight loss is a calories in/calories out equation. But the notion that a calorie is a calorie is flawed because it assumes that all macro's have equal status for metabolism. And while all macros can be converted into ATP in the TCA Cycle, different ones do have preferiential status, determined by genetics, macronutrient intake, and relevant enzymes. This is the exact reason as to why when I lower my carbohydrate intake and raised my fat intake, i experienced better body composition than if my CHO intake is high.

EDIT: And looking at the website you cited, he has absolutely no citations, or even references the studies he is talking about. I do not doubt his expertise but the fact that he has no citations for the studies he is disproving doesn't validate his claims to me.