[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally posted by DarCSA
I agree with what you are saying Bobo, YJ, and JB. We can all find things to differ opinions. I can find more articles and so can Bobo. Bobo I know you are a strong proponent of keto based diets. I have seen what you say in long and short term based ideas and studies. Everything we currently believe about nutrition can be based in myth and lore if we want it to be. You have helped me learn about keto based diets. The purpose of them is simple to lose weight. Low Carbs or high carbs or low protein or high protein. We could look and in no time have hundreds even thousands of articles that could agree or disagree with what we believe to be true. We must take all of these refrences and opinions with a grain of salt and use what personally works for us. I personally am a opponent of such fad based or high protein diets (whatever you want to call them). We have now started to redesign the food pyramid. Let's see how the American public looks in another generation based upon what we now believe to be fact. It maybe fiction for all we know in 20 years. The whole key of this concept man was to learn I did so and I hope you did as well in the process. We have shown a lot of informative articles here and there are more out there. There are two sides to this whole debate. We may all learn in the process of finding what is best for the human race in general. As long as we open our eyes and see that we are an overweight nation that needs to take the blinders off and look at what the future holds for us if we are not nutritionally minded. We are entitled to our own opinions and we have both made ours clear. Proponent or advocate on any side of the issue must be willing to accept what the other side has to say. I know that the refrences I made were ones that said words like might or maybe but we always have to keep these in mind, the articles you posted as well held these words as well. Now we need to sit and wait it out and see how America and the rest of the world responds. There will be all of those out there like you and I who will long for the most ideal body we can obtain. Now that all of this is said I would like to end the mindless drama that we have drawn out. I offer to draw a line in the sand and offer a hand of friendship. I am open to hear what you have to say as well as I hope you are open to what I and others who believe what we believe or what you believe can work together to help make the people around us more nutritionally aware and in better physical condition. We both have the same goal here to make this world a more nutrionally minded one where there will be a day when diets are not needed at all. It maybe a little far fetched but it has to start somewhere. Instead of bickering about diet plans lets work together to change the minds of individuals who have never thought along these lines at all. I am personally tired of seeing an obese nation. We need to stop it in its tracks before it gets worse. I have seen it more times than I care to see. I would love for this world to be a fit and thin minded one but we all need to work together to inform and educate. We have only now been able to map the human genome. We must be able to figure it out as well to help those other individuals who need genetic help to lose weight. Let's make this our goal - A thinner and healthier world for all of those who live in it. Thank You for the time to let me type this and express my opinion.

I agree in general with your statement overall but there still some things you still fail to understand. Its not because you aren't capable, its just that you still have this idea that these diets are fad diets or gimmicks. They are not. They have using diets like these for centuries but since the FDA and every other federal gov program has been telling you since pre-school that the food pyramid and carb based diets are they way to go and FAT is bad, your are going to naturally have a bias towards them. Thats understandable. Has the FDA ever proven these diets to be harmful? No. Even the American Heart Associatiation just admitted that they are beneficial when followed correctly. These arne't opinions, they are facts. Not because I say so, but because the studies say so. They contradict the "might, could, maybe" theories most nutritionalists have. Everyone has the right to be a skeptic. You have you opinions and I have mine. Truthfully I get tired of explaining the same thing over and over again because on this board if you want to argue keto, I'm your target. I don't mind that at all but could everyone who reads this do me a favor and understand the diet your bashing. These articles don't even acknowledge the fact that they are not no-carb diets. They have plenty of veggies, fruits and other types which in the diet plan are NOT counted. Post workout is NOT counted in your total carb intake. NONE of these articles take that into account whatsoever. THey don't even understand that on the Atkins diet, once you achieve the weight loss you wanted, carbs are incorporated back into your diet. Nobody ever said eliminate carbs for the rest of your life. Everyone's concpetion of keto diets is most fat, high protein, no carb. Thats it and thats just not fair. Now enough of the lecture


Dar I appreciate you taking the time to argue this point. At times I get frustrated because most people like you just don't understand the concepts behing these diets. They just go by what others have said and thats fine. At least your taking the time to read the material. I accept being the target for these types of debates because I think I can hold my own and provide suitable evidence to back up my points. I've looked at both sides. I seen the evidence from all sides and considering the new found studies I believe they are not a danger to your health and can be very beneficial if followed properly. Ok I'm off to do cardio...I tihnk we can all agree that exercise is important in any diet? At least I hope so....

[migs]

bobo, one of the articles u posted suggestes an intake of 1g/lb, do you know anyone that really does that ?

*other than me*

[IHateGymMorons]

Bobos studies are much more credible and the results are not skewed to make the FDA and AHA happy. The only problem with excessevely high protein diets can be when someone has a pre-existing renal dysfunction. That's it! That's the only thing I've ever read. Eat your protein and drink your water.
Also, remember, high protein diets don't always mean low carb diets. You can easily eat a decent amount of carbs and have high protein at the same time. It's stupid that people think high protein diets automatically translate into no carbs.

[WYD02]

Yep, LOL.... Consider a diet that has a cup of cottage cheese, 4 hard boiled eggs, and a protein shake for breakfast. Maybe a bag of nuts, some beef jerky for snack. A salad with 2 chicken breasts for another meal... A post workout shake. A steak with veggies for dinner, a couple table spoons of natty peanut butter and turkey/cheese rollups for another snack and a casein blend before bed.... Count that up ...

[TheUsual]

Originally Posted by migs

bobo, one of the articles u posted suggestes an intake of 1g/lb, do you know anyone that really does that ?

*other than me*

Of course, in fact that is rather low by BBing standards. Try reading some of Doggcrapp's posts, I think he recommends 3g/lb :-o

[migs]

if bobo recommended 1g/lb then we go back to the main essence of the thread, will eating more protein make you gain more muscle and faster ?


bobo, do u recommend 1g/lb to ur clients ?

[dirlewanger]

I think that 1g/lb is a pretty good guideline for strength training individuals. However i think that when anabolics or peptide hormones (IGF, GH etc) are being used, then there is a need for more protein. My question however is how much more? Even with the use of anabolics i do not beleive that the body can utilize say 500g protein/day even if you are a 250lb man. I just wonder how much of this extra protein is actually used once you go into the ultra high ranges of protein intake, since the body has no way of storing protein like it does for fat or carbohydrates. If anyone has any insight on this it would be great.

[IHateGymMorons]

All of it is used, you really don't poop out undigested protein (unless you have some digestive complications) its just a matter of what it's used for. Most of it either forms new muscle tissue or is converted through gluconeogenesis. It takes many metabolic steps before protein can be stored as fat. So fat storage from protein is the least likely. It CAN happen but you have to eat way above your caloric requirements.

[.9mm]

Wow, interesting posts. I can say one thing if you see an article/study that says one thing is good, I promise you will find an article/study that says that same thing is bad. No doubt about it. Look at all the people/studies who say squats are bad, then look at all the people/studies that say they are good. Maybe for some people high protein is bad, for others its good. I'm guessing ya just gotta find out what works for you.

[skoal]

Sorry if this seems like I'm taking an overly simplistic view of this but look at the evidenceavaiable. Since we, and by we I mean the people on this board, tend to eat higher amounts of protien then the general public, wouldn't we all be suffering from similar problems? Where's the group call "Renal Problems"?

I've also heard the notion that your body can only digest x number of grams of protien at a given time. If this were true it would be great. Think about it, those would be free calories. Once you ate that number of grams of protien if your body can't digest any more, all the protien in that next pound of steak is free, can't digest it then the calories don't count. However we all know this to be false.

Also, the RDA is a terrible source for determining the correct amount of nutrients. What they offer is the minimum required to prevent disease. Weightlifters put a higher stress on their systems then most people. Protien repairs the system, can you make the leap from there?

If you are really worried about high amount of protien hurting your system, just don't eat that much. But please don't post that you're not making progress.

[stefan3482]

but that level of intake is still less than the oft recommended minimum of 1g/lb bodyweight.

Originally Posted by Bobo

IS INCREASED DIETARY PROTEIN NECESSARY OR BENEFICIAL FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH A PHYSICALLY ACTIVE LIFESTYLE?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lemon (1) wrote an overview on protein metabolism and the effects of physical activity on protein requirements. He reviewed existing research on protein intake for strength athletes and endurance athletes, as well as addressed the possible negative health concerns of high protein diets.

FINDINGS: Overall, research on strength athletes suggests that an optimal intake of protein for building muscle mass is 1.7-1.8 g/kg of bodyweight per day. The optimal intake for endurance athletes appears to be 1.2-1.4 g/kg of bodyweight per day. These recommendations are significantly greater than the RDA of .8 g/kg and are only valid if caloric needs are being met. These recommendations are also based upon research on college-aged males consuming adequate energy intake. Protein requirements may be different for individuals on lower calorie diets, females, individuals of different age groups (such as elderly individuals, children or adolescents experiencing rapid growth, or pregnant women), and individuals less likely to consume an optimal mixture of nutrients (such as vegetarians).

The idea that high protein intakes can cause kidney problems appears to be a myth. This idea has been taken from research done on individuals with preexisting kidney disorders; however, such research cannot be extrapolated to healthy individuals. Numerous strength athletes consume diets extremely high in protein; if high protein diets caused kidney problems, one would see a much higher prevalence of kidney disorders in this population, which is not the case. In addition, animal studies utilizing very high protein intakes have not shown kidney problems. The increased nitrogen load placed upon the kidney by increased protein intake does not pose a potential threat to a healthy kidney.

When protein intake is high, water loss may be increased due to the excretion of additional nitrogen. Individuals must ensure that water intake is high to prevent dehydration.

The potential for high protein diets to increase calcium loss appears to be only a problem in purified protein. The high phosphate content of food protein negates any effect of protein on calcium.

IMPLICATIONS: Strength athletes should consume 1.7-1.8 g/kg body weight of protein a day, and endurance athletes should consume 1.2-1.4 g/kg body weight of protein a day, assuming that caloric needs are being met.

1. Lemon, P.W. Is Increased Dietary Protein Necessary or Beneficial for Individuals with a Physically Active Lifestyle? Nutr. Rev. 54(4):S169-S175. 1996.

[stefan3482]

In the short term, there appears to be no harm, but there needs to be evidence (as the burden of proof rests upon the person advocating such diets) that it is safe in the long term.

Originally Posted by Bobo

Wrong again.

Effects of a Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diet

Program Compared With a Low-Fat, Low-

Cholesterol, Reduced-Calorie Diet (NASSO

Young Investigator Award Finalist)

W. S. Yancy Jr., R. Bakst, W. Bryson, K. F. Tomlin,

C. E. Perkins, E. C. Westman, Duke University

Medical Center, Durham, NC


These represent randomized controlled trial comparing the Atkins Diet with a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate plan that restricted daily caloric intake to 1200-1500 kcal for women and 1500-1800 kcal for men.[10] The study included 63 obese (BMI 33.8 ? 3.4 kg/m2 ) males and females who were randomized to 1 of the 2 diets. Subjects received an initial session with a dietitian to explain the assigned diet program. At 12 weeks, the researchers found that the Atkins group had a lower rate of attrition (12%) compared with that of the conventional program (30%). In addition, subjects in the Atkins group lost significantly more weight (8.5 ? 3.7%) compared with the conventional group (3.7 ? 4.0%). In terms of serum lipids, the Atkins group demonstrated slight increases in total cholesterol (TC; 2.2 ? 16.6%) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (6.6 ? 20.7%), whereas the conventional group showed significant decreases in these measures (TC -8.2 ? 11.5%; LDL -11.1 ? 19.4%). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol significantly increased in the Atkins group (11.5 ? 20.6%) but did not change in the conventional group, whereas triglycerides showed a significant decrease for the Atkins group (-21.7 ? 27.9%) and no change in the conventional group. At 26 weeks, these changes persisted in both groups even though the sample size was smaller. The researchers concluded that the Atkins Diet produced favorable effects on weight, HDL, triglycerides, and retention compared with a conventional low-fat, low-calorie program, whereas the conventional plan was associated with more favorable effects on TC and LDL cholesterol.

[stefan3482]

It still needs to be demonstrated that it's safe in the long term however, and we need to have consistent findings over time, good study designs, and adequate sample sizes. How much can we generalize to the greater population from looking at a study with 51 people? Maybe if there were numerous studies with full blown randomized double blinded clinical trials you'd have a case, but I'm not convinced that it has been demonstrated to be safe in the long term.

Originally Posted by Bobo

I'll give her this. She was right about a long term study as it wasn't conducted yet, but she was wrong about short term effects. Here's the 6 month study.

Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program.

Westman EC, Yancy WS, Edman JS, Tomlin KF, Perkins CE.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, 2200 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. ewestman~duke.edu

To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters. Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (<25 g/d), with no limit on caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research clinic. The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values, 24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects. Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (+/- SD) body weight decreased 10.3% +/- 5.9% (P <0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 +/- 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2)). The mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% +/- 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P <0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 +/- 2.4 mmol/L (P <0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 +/- 4 mg/dL (P <0.001). Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 +/- 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 +/- 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 +/- 45 mg/dL (P <0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 +/- 8 mg/dL (P <0.001), and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 +/- 0.6 units (P <0.001). There were no serious adverse effects , but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated. A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period . Further controlled research is warranted

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by stefan3482

but that level of intake is still less than the oft recommended minimum of 1g/lb bodyweight.

Its 1g/kg, not lb.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by stefan3482

In the short term, there appears to be no harm, but there needs to be evidence (as the burden of proof rests upon the person advocating such diets) that it is safe in the long term.

So when the 30 year study is published, I will post it.