Nutritional myths - AnabolicMinds.com

Nutritional myths

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,362
    Rep Power
    802

    Reputation

    Nutritional myths


    I pulled this from some site a pretty good while ago. Enjoy:

    Nutritional Mythology
    By Joel Marion
    Previously published in Muscle Media, April 2003
    Once upon a time, in a place far, far away, a medical doctor, a registered dietician, and a college nutrition professor all gathered at the local pub after a hard days work. Bored, and longing for excitement, the three jolly fellows put their heads together and compiled the world's very first book of nutritional folklores. The book consisted of four wonderful "myths," and although completely fictional, they were amazingly convincing; all those who read the book believed the tales to be true. Some time later, the book was brought to the attention of the town governor. After reviewing its contents, he declared the bound pages as nutritional gospel and demanded that it be replicated and distributed amongst the townspeople. Afraid to go against the governor's wishes, the three authors remained silent and allowed for the mythological writings to be treated as fact. As the years passed on, hard copies of the book became scarce and eventually nonexistent; however, the tales therein have been passed down from generation to generation and are still believed today.
    Okay, okay, I'll admit, that was a load of crap. But for whatever reason, these myths are incredibly popular, and they must be exposed...now!

    Myth Number 1: A calorie is a calorie; if you consume less than you burn, you'll lose fat.
    The Real Deal: The numeric value of an individual's caloric intake is not the only factor that affects body composition. The following must also be considered:

    The thermic effect of the food ingested. The thermic effect of food (TEF) measures the amount of energy that is required to support the processes of digesting, absorbing, and assimilating food nutrients as well as the energy expended as a result of the central nervous system's stimulatory effect on metabolism when food is ingested [9]. Of the three macronutrients, protein carries the highest thermic effect.
    The fiber content of the food ingested. Due to its chemical makeup, fiber is classified as a carbohydrate; however, it is unlike other carbohydrates in that it is an indigestible nutrient [9]. Even though each gram of fiber contains four calories, these calories will remain undigested and will not be absorbed. Therefore, if one were to consume 300 calories of red beans (a food in which nearly 1/3 of the caloric content is from fiber), approximately 100 of these calories would pass through the intestinal tract undigested.
    The glycemic and insulin indices of the food ingested. The glycemic and insulin indices are scaled numbers that refer to how quickly a particular carbohydrate source enters the bloodstream as sugar and how much insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream, respectively. Generally speaking, there is a positive relationship between the two; that is, the quicker sugar enters the bloodstream, the more insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream. When high levels of insulin are present within the blood, fat burning is brought to a screeching halt, which is anything but desirable for those whose goal is to obtain a lean, muscular physique.
    The macronutrients present in the food ingested. Although insulin's primary function is to shuttle glucose (sugar) into skeletal muscle, it also carries many other nutrients to their respective storage sites; this includes lipids (fat). Since carbohydrate ingestion stimulates a large insulin response and fat ingestion gives rise to blood lipid levels, the two, when consumed together, promote the greatest fat storage.
    The size, frequency, and time of ingested meals. Large, infrequent meals tend to promote storage of the ingested nutrients as the body is unsure as to when the next feeding will take place. Conversely, consuming smaller, frequent meals will result in an increase in metabolism and utilization of the ingested nutrients. Also, ingesting a large amount of carbohydrates before bed spikes insulin, deters nocturnal thermogenesis, and increases fat storage during sleep. On the contrary, consuming a great deal of calories early in the day does not bring about this problem; rather, these calories are likely to be used as energy to support daily activities.

    As you can see, someone could be eating a relatively small amount of calories daily, but at the same time promoting a great deal of fat storage by 1) making poor food choices, 2) combining macronutrients in a nonproductive fashion, and 3) consuming food infrequently and at inopportune times. To illustrate this further, let's take a look at a recent study conducted by Demling et al which analyzed the diets of 38 police officers [10]. Demling found that although the officers were consuming a hypocaloric diet (fewer calories than they burn), they all had unhealthy levels of body fat and had been gaining fat mass over the past five years. If all you had to do to lose fat was consume fewer calories than you burn, then these individuals would be losing fat, not gaining it! And to confirm the importance of the factors that I previously mentioned, let's take a look at some of the other things that Demling noted:

    Only 15% of their diet consisted of protein, the macronutrient with the greatest TEF.
    Their diet contained very little fiber.
    Over 50% of their carbohydrate intake was derived from simple sugars, which have very high glycemic and insulin indices.
    They didn't note this, but I'm willing to bet that they didn't avoid the fat-carb combo.
    They ate infrequently, only 10% of their caloric intake was consumed at breakfast, and over 50% was consumed right before bed.
    By now, it should be obvious that fat loss isn't just a matter of calories in, calories out.

    Myth Number 2: Dietary intake of cholesterol is highly correlated to blood cholesterol levels.
    The Real Deal: The amount of cholesterol that you consume has a negligible impact on serum cholesterol levels, and for good reason. The cholesterol in our blood is made up of both the cholesterol that we ingest and the cholesterol that is synthesized by the liver and other tissues within the body. When cholesterol intake is decreased, the liver will compensate by producing more cholesterol, leaving total cholesterol levels relatively unchanged. In the same way, if cholesterol consumption is increased, the liver will produce less cholesterol, and again, total cholesterol values will not be substantially altered. In reality, changes made in dietary intake of cholesterol will alter total cholesterol levels by a few percent at best. To illustrate this, subjects in one study who decreased their cholesterol consumption by 35% only experienced a 2-3% decrease in blood cholesterol levels [1].
    Also, research has shown that individuals on a high fat, high protein, low carbohydrate diet, consuming much more than the 300mg RDA for cholesterol daily actually improved their blood lipid profiles during the testing period [2,3,4]. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL, the "bad" cholesterol) levels went down, while high-density lipoprotein (HDL, the "good" cholesterol) increased. If dietary intake of cholesterol is really correlated to blood cholesterol levels, then the levels of these individuals would be through the roof; instead, as verified by the research, they actually decreased.
    So, if cholesterol intake isn't the culprit, then what is? Well, from a dietary standpoint, it seems to be the ingestion of trans-fatty acids that has the greatest detrimental effect on serum cholesterol levels [5,6,7,8]. A trans-fatty acid occurs when one of the hydrogen atoms along the restructured carbon chain moves from its naturally occurring position (cis position) to the opposite side of the double bond that separates two carbon atoms (trans position) [9]. Trans- fats are "created" by:

    The bubbling of hydrogen through naturally occurring cis-fatty acids (aka hydrogenation)- this is a process widely used by manufacturers to increase the shelf life of their products.
    Deep-frying- when fat is exposed to extreme heat, such as when deep-frying, some of the fats will be converted to trans-fats.

    Because trans-fats do not occur naturally (with a few rare exceptions), our bodies are not equipped to "deal" with them. Therefore, when ingested, they cannot be used for any biological function and cause numerous undesirable physiological reactions to take place within the body. And perhaps what is most paradoxical about the whole dietary cholesterol/trans-fatty acid misconception is that products that make label claims such as "cholesterol free" tend to have the highest trans-fatty acid content!
    So how does one know if a product contains trans-fats or not? Well, currently, the FDA has not made it mandatory that manufacturers list the trans-fatty acid content of their products; so, until that information becomes readily available on the label, the best we can do is avoid foods that have been deep fried and/or any product containing "partially hydrogenated" or "hydrogenated" oils in its list of ingredients.
    So, the next time someone wants to scold you for eating a few eggs, take a look at the ingredients on the products in their cupboard and teach them a thing or two.

    Myth Number 3: A high protein intake is dangerous!
    The Real Deal: There is not anything dangerous about a high protein intake; in fact I'll dispel each and every argument against it right now:

    A high protein intake causes kidney and liver dysfunction. Well, your not going to see any references in this paragraph; know why? Take a guess at how many studies have concluded that a high protein intake causes renal damage in healthy individuals. If you guessed any number higher than zero, you're wrong. This whole argument is based on theory that doesn't add up in the real world along with a few studies conducted on individuals who already had some sort of pre-existing renal disorder. If a high protein intake really caused renal failure, then there would be a nationwide epidemic of liver and kidney conditions among athletes, bodybuilders, and high protein dieters?but, there's not; in fact, it's unheard of.
    A high protein intake puts individuals at greater risk for osteoporosis. This argument is based on the premise that a high protein intake leeches calcium from bones, which is true. However, the amount of calcium excreted in a single day is so minute that it can be replaced with the amount of calcium contained in a single tablespoon of milk [15]. The average high protein dieter consumes more than enough calcium daily to combat such a loss due to their consumption of milk and/or milk protein products (cottage cheese, whey and casein containing powders, bars, etc). Not only that, but if you are reading this magazine, I'm going to assume that you regularly perform some sort of resistance training, which by itself increases bone density.
    A high protein intake puts individuals at greater risk to develop kidney stones. Again, there are no studies to prove that a high protein intake causes kidney stone formation. Out of all the people you know consuming a high protein diet, how many of them ever developed a kidney stone? This is only true for individuals who previously had a kidney stone in that it may put them at greater risk for reoccurrence. I say "may" because this is only the case if the kidney stone was of the uric acid variety, and only 20% of all stones are uric acid stones. Regardless, unless you have a family history or some sort of pre-existing medical condition that makes you susceptible to stone formation, it's not even an issue.
    A high protein intake causes dehydration. When the nitrogen-containing portion of an amino acid is removed in the liver, the chemical compound urea is formed and then excreted. Because urea must be dissolved in water before it is removed from the body, a high protein intake will result in minor fluid loss. The simple solution: drink more water.

    When all the BS theory and poorly constructed arguments are thrown aside, and the real world data is analyzed, a high protein intake is safer than the FBI's witness protection program.

    Myth Number 4: A high sodium intake causes high blood pressure and should be avoided.
    The Real Deal: A high sodium intake does not cause hypertension (high blood pressure). The hormone aldosterone acts on the kidneys to conserve sodium for bodily functions; however, when sodium is consumed in high amounts, aldosterone release is blunted and any excess sodium will simply be excreted [9]. As a result, sodium balance remains normal. This is the case with all apparently healthy individuals who do not already have a blood pressure condition. The only circumstance in which individuals may benefit by monitoring their sodium intake is if they have already been clinically diagnosed as suffering from hypertension and are also salt sensitive [11]. I stress "and" because only 20% of the population is salt sensitive; so for 4 out of every 5 people suffering from hypertension, lowering sodium intake isn't going to do much, if anything at all. And even for those that are salt sensitive, the actual magnitude of the decrease in blood pressure as a result of the lowered intake may not even be substantial enough to warrant decreasing sodium consumption as a method to treat high blood pressure [12,13,14].
    Now, I normally wouldn't kick a myth when it's down, but a high sodium intake will actually benefit athletes and bodybuilders for the following reasons:

    A higher sodium intake yields a greater overall blood volume and blood flow to the working muscles. With increased blood flow, the amount of oxygen and nutrients delivered to the working muscles is maximized. This is particularly important when an amino acid containing beverage is consumed prior to the workout, as more aminos will be delivered to the working muscles, resulting in greater rates of protein synthesis (muscle growth). Also, increased blood flow will actually increase performance in that removal of various fatigue toxins (lactic acid, CO2, etc) will occur at a faster rate.
    It is the responsibility of sodium to deliver potassium into the cell membrane of muscle tissue. If not enough sodium is present, the body is forced to deliver the potassium via "active transport" across the membrane. In this case, active transport is not the preferred method of transportation and as a result less potassium will be transported across the membrane less often.

    And yet another myth about sodium is that a high intake causes tons of water retention and a bloated appearance. While, yes, increased sodium intake will cause some initial water retention, the retention is only temporary. As soon as the body becomes accustomed to the higher intake, aldosterone release will be blunted and the excess water will be excreted.
    So no, consuming high amounts of sodium does not cause hypertension (and is rarely effective by itself in treating the condition) and is actually a good idea if you want to optimize growth and performance. Shoot for an intake of around 2g per liter of water consumed daily, ala the recommendations of precontest diet guru Scott Abel.
    Having said all that, if you still are uneasy about the increase in sodium adversely affecting your blood pressure, pay attention to the BP readings you receive when you visit the doc (more than likely, the uneasiness will fade).
    Conclusion
    After reading this article, you've probably come to see that there isn't any more truth to the above myths than there was to my little introductory folklore. And while I admitted that that was a load of crap, advocators of these nutritional fairytales won't be so quick to relinquish their views. But, at least now you know the truth, and the next time someone tries to tell you something different, you can hit 'em with the information you just learned (I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you want to interpret that literally).

    References
    1. Holub, B. Fats, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Annual Ontario Exercise Physiology Conference. Barrie, Ontario, 2002.
    2. Newbold, HL. Reducing the serum cholesterol level with a diet high in animal fat. South Med J. Jan;81(1):61-3, 1988.
    3. Volek, Jeff S., et al. A Ketogenic Diet Favorably Affects Serum Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Disease in Normal-Weight Men. J. Nutr. 132:1879-1885, 2002.
    4. Westman, EC., et al. Effects of a Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diet with Nutritional Supplementation in Overweight Individuals. Journal of General Internal Medicine 15 (s2), 11-12, 2000.
    5. Aro, A., et al. Stearic acid, trans fatty acids, and dairy fat: effects on serum and lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, lipoprotein (a), and lipid transfer proteins in healthy subjects. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65: 1419, 1997.
    6. ASCN/AIN Task Force on Trans Fatty Acids: Position paper on trans fatty acids. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 63:663, 1996.
    7. Hunger, JE, and Applewhite, T.H. Reassessment of trans fatty acid availability in the U.S. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 54:363, 1991.
    8. Troisi, R., et al. Trans-fatty acid intake in relation to serum lipid concentrations in adult men. Am. J. clin. Nutri., 56:1019, 1992.
    9. McArdle, WD et al. Sports & Exercise Nutrition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999.
    10. Demling, RH, et al. Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers.
    Ann Nutr Metab., 44(1):21-9, 2000.
    11. Stamler, J. The INTERSALT study: background, methods, findings, and implications. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65(Suppl):626S, 1997.
    12. Ely, DL., Overview of dietary sodium effects on and interactions with cardiovascular and neuroendocrine functions. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65(Suppl):594S, 1997.
    13. Luft, GS et al. Heterogeneous responses to changes in dietary salt intake: the salt-sensitivity paradigm. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65(Suppl):626S, 1997.
    14. Midgley, JP., et al. Effect of reduced dietary sodium on blood pressure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA, 275:1590, 1996.
    15. Experimental Biology Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana, 2002.

    © 2003-2004 Rugged Magazine, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

  2. lozgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    660
    Rep Power
    455

    Reputation

    Very good and accurate read.
  3. whitedevil74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    554
    Rep Power
    376

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne View Post
    I pulled this from some site a pretty good while ago. Enjoy:

    Nutritional Mythology
    By Joel Marion
    Previously published in Muscle Media, April 2003
    Once upon a time, in a place far, far away, a medical doctor, a registered dietician, and a college nutrition professor all gathered at the local pub after a hard days work. Bored, and longing for excitement, the three jolly fellows put their heads together and compiled the world's very first book of nutritional folklores. The book consisted of four wonderful "myths," and although completely fictional, they were amazingly convincing; all those who read the book believed the tales to be true. Some time later, the book was brought to the attention of the town governor. After reviewing its contents, he declared the bound pages as nutritional gospel and demanded that it be replicated and distributed amongst the townspeople. Afraid to go against the governor's wishes, the three authors remained silent and allowed for the mythological writings to be treated as fact. As the years passed on, hard copies of the book became scarce and eventually nonexistent; however, the tales therein have been passed down from generation to generation and are still believed today.
    Okay, okay, I'll admit, that was a load of crap. But for whatever reason, these myths are incredibly popular, and they must be exposed...now!

    Myth Number 1: A calorie is a calorie; if you consume less than you burn, you'll lose fat.
    The Real Deal: The numeric value of an individual's caloric intake is not the only factor that affects body composition. The following must also be considered:

    The thermic effect of the food ingested. The thermic effect of food (TEF) measures the amount of energy that is required to support the processes of digesting, absorbing, and assimilating food nutrients as well as the energy expended as a result of the central nervous system's stimulatory effect on metabolism when food is ingested [9]. Of the three macronutrients, protein carries the highest thermic effect.
    The fiber content of the food ingested. Due to its chemical makeup, fiber is classified as a carbohydrate; however, it is unlike other carbohydrates in that it is an indigestible nutrient [9]. Even though each gram of fiber contains four calories, these calories will remain undigested and will not be absorbed. Therefore, if one were to consume 300 calories of red beans (a food in which nearly 1/3 of the caloric content is from fiber), approximately 100 of these calories would pass through the intestinal tract undigested.
    The glycemic and insulin indices of the food ingested. The glycemic and insulin indices are scaled numbers that refer to how quickly a particular carbohydrate source enters the bloodstream as sugar and how much insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream, respectively. Generally speaking, there is a positive relationship between the two; that is, the quicker sugar enters the bloodstream, the more insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream. When high levels of insulin are present within the blood, fat burning is brought to a screeching halt, which is anything but desirable for those whose goal is to obtain a lean, muscular physique.
    The macronutrients present in the food ingested. Although insulin's primary function is to shuttle glucose (sugar) into skeletal muscle, it also carries many other nutrients to their respective storage sites; this includes lipids (fat). Since carbohydrate ingestion stimulates a large insulin response and fat ingestion gives rise to blood lipid levels, the two, when consumed together, promote the greatest fat storage.
    The size, frequency, and time of ingested meals. Large, infrequent meals tend to promote storage of the ingested nutrients as the body is unsure as to when the next feeding will take place. Conversely, consuming smaller, frequent meals will result in an increase in metabolism and utilization of the ingested nutrients. Also, ingesting a large amount of carbohydrates before bed spikes insulin, deters nocturnal thermogenesis, and increases fat storage during sleep. On the contrary, consuming a great deal of calories early in the day does not bring about this problem; rather, these calories are likely to be used as energy to support daily activities.

    As you can see, someone could be eating a relatively small amount of calories daily, but at the same time promoting a great deal of fat storage by 1) making poor food choices, 2) combining macronutrients in a nonproductive fashion, and 3) consuming food infrequently and at inopportune times. To illustrate this further, let's take a look at a recent study conducted by Demling et al which analyzed the diets of 38 police officers [10]. Demling found that although the officers were consuming a hypocaloric diet (fewer calories than they burn), they all had unhealthy levels of body fat and had been gaining fat mass over the past five years. If all you had to do to lose fat was consume fewer calories than you burn, then these individuals would be losing fat, not gaining it! And to confirm the importance of the factors that I previously mentioned, let's take a look at some of the other things that Demling noted:

    Only 15% of their diet consisted of protein, the macronutrient with the greatest TEF.
    Their diet contained very little fiber.
    Over 50% of their carbohydrate intake was derived from simple sugars, which have very high glycemic and insulin indices.
    They didn't note this, but I'm willing to bet that they didn't avoid the fat-carb combo.
    They ate infrequently, only 10% of their caloric intake was consumed at breakfast, and over 50% was consumed right before bed.
    By now, it should be obvious that fat loss isn't just a matter of calories in, calories out.

    Myth Number 2: Dietary intake of cholesterol is highly correlated to blood cholesterol levels.
    The Real Deal: The amount of cholesterol that you consume has a negligible impact on serum cholesterol levels, and for good reason. The cholesterol in our blood is made up of both the cholesterol that we ingest and the cholesterol that is synthesized by the liver and other tissues within the body. When cholesterol intake is decreased, the liver will compensate by producing more cholesterol, leaving total cholesterol levels relatively unchanged. In the same way, if cholesterol consumption is increased, the liver will produce less cholesterol, and again, total cholesterol values will not be substantially altered. In reality, changes made in dietary intake of cholesterol will alter total cholesterol levels by a few percent at best. To illustrate this, subjects in one study who decreased their cholesterol consumption by 35% only experienced a 2-3% decrease in blood cholesterol levels [1].
    Also, research has shown that individuals on a high fat, high protein, low carbohydrate diet, consuming much more than the 300mg RDA for cholesterol daily actually improved their blood lipid profiles during the testing period [2,3,4]. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL, the "bad" cholesterol) levels went down, while high-density lipoprotein (HDL, the "good" cholesterol) increased. If dietary intake of cholesterol is really correlated to blood cholesterol levels, then the levels of these individuals would be through the roof; instead, as verified by the research, they actually decreased.
    So, if cholesterol intake isn't the culprit, then what is? Well, from a dietary standpoint, it seems to be the ingestion of trans-fatty acids that has the greatest detrimental effect on serum cholesterol levels [5,6,7,8]. A trans-fatty acid occurs when one of the hydrogen atoms along the restructured carbon chain moves from its naturally occurring position (cis position) to the opposite side of the double bond that separates two carbon atoms (trans position) [9]. Trans- fats are "created" by:

    The bubbling of hydrogen through naturally occurring cis-fatty acids (aka hydrogenation)- this is a process widely used by manufacturers to increase the shelf life of their products.
    Deep-frying- when fat is exposed to extreme heat, such as when deep-frying, some of the fats will be converted to trans-fats.

    Because trans-fats do not occur naturally (with a few rare exceptions), our bodies are not equipped to "deal" with them. Therefore, when ingested, they cannot be used for any biological function and cause numerous undesirable physiological reactions to take place within the body. And perhaps what is most paradoxical about the whole dietary cholesterol/trans-fatty acid misconception is that products that make label claims such as "cholesterol free" tend to have the highest trans-fatty acid content!
    So how does one know if a product contains trans-fats or not? Well, currently, the FDA has not made it mandatory that manufacturers list the trans-fatty acid content of their products; so, until that information becomes readily available on the label, the best we can do is avoid foods that have been deep fried and/or any product containing "partially hydrogenated" or "hydrogenated" oils in its list of ingredients.
    So, the next time someone wants to scold you for eating a few eggs, take a look at the ingredients on the products in their cupboard and teach them a thing or two.

    Myth Number 3: A high protein intake is dangerous!
    The Real Deal: There is not anything dangerous about a high protein intake; in fact I'll dispel each and every argument against it right now:

    A high protein intake causes kidney and liver dysfunction. Well, your not going to see any references in this paragraph; know why? Take a guess at how many studies have concluded that a high protein intake causes renal damage in healthy individuals. If you guessed any number higher than zero, you're wrong. This whole argument is based on theory that doesn't add up in the real world along with a few studies conducted on individuals who already had some sort of pre-existing renal disorder. If a high protein intake really caused renal failure, then there would be a nationwide epidemic of liver and kidney conditions among athletes, bodybuilders, and high protein dieters?but, there's not; in fact, it's unheard of.
    A high protein intake puts individuals at greater risk for osteoporosis. This argument is based on the premise that a high protein intake leeches calcium from bones, which is true. However, the amount of calcium excreted in a single day is so minute that it can be replaced with the amount of calcium contained in a single tablespoon of milk [15]. The average high protein dieter consumes more than enough calcium daily to combat such a loss due to their consumption of milk and/or milk protein products (cottage cheese, whey and casein containing powders, bars, etc). Not only that, but if you are reading this magazine, I'm going to assume that you regularly perform some sort of resistance training, which by itself increases bone density.
    A high protein intake puts individuals at greater risk to develop kidney stones. Again, there are no studies to prove that a high protein intake causes kidney stone formation. Out of all the people you know consuming a high protein diet, how many of them ever developed a kidney stone? This is only true for individuals who previously had a kidney stone in that it may put them at greater risk for reoccurrence. I say "may" because this is only the case if the kidney stone was of the uric acid variety, and only 20% of all stones are uric acid stones. Regardless, unless you have a family history or some sort of pre-existing medical condition that makes you susceptible to stone formation, it's not even an issue.
    A high protein intake causes dehydration. When the nitrogen-containing portion of an amino acid is removed in the liver, the chemical compound urea is formed and then excreted. Because urea must be dissolved in water before it is removed from the body, a high protein intake will result in minor fluid loss. The simple solution: drink more water.

    When all the BS theory and poorly constructed arguments are thrown aside, and the real world data is analyzed, a high protein intake is safer than the FBI's witness protection program.

    Myth Number 4: A high sodium intake causes high blood pressure and should be avoided.
    The Real Deal: A high sodium intake does not cause hypertension (high blood pressure). The hormone aldosterone acts on the kidneys to conserve sodium for bodily functions; however, when sodium is consumed in high amounts, aldosterone release is blunted and any excess sodium will simply be excreted [9]. As a result, sodium balance remains normal. This is the case with all apparently healthy individuals who do not already have a blood pressure condition. The only circumstance in which individuals may benefit by monitoring their sodium intake is if they have already been clinically diagnosed as suffering from hypertension and are also salt sensitive [11]. I stress "and" because only 20% of the population is salt sensitive; so for 4 out of every 5 people suffering from hypertension, lowering sodium intake isn't going to do much, if anything at all. And even for those that are salt sensitive, the actual magnitude of the decrease in blood pressure as a result of the lowered intake may not even be substantial enough to warrant decreasing sodium consumption as a method to treat high blood pressure [12,13,14].
    Now, I normally wouldn't kick a myth when it's down, but a high sodium intake will actually benefit athletes and bodybuilders for the following reasons:

    A higher sodium intake yields a greater overall blood volume and blood flow to the working muscles. With increased blood flow, the amount of oxygen and nutrients delivered to the working muscles is maximized. This is particularly important when an amino acid containing beverage is consumed prior to the workout, as more aminos will be delivered to the working muscles, resulting in greater rates of protein synthesis (muscle growth). Also, increased blood flow will actually increase performance in that removal of various fatigue toxins (lactic acid, CO2, etc) will occur at a faster rate.
    It is the responsibility of sodium to deliver potassium into the cell membrane of muscle tissue. If not enough sodium is present, the body is forced to deliver the potassium via "active transport" across the membrane. In this case, active transport is not the preferred method of transportation and as a result less potassium will be transported across the membrane less often.

    And yet another myth about sodium is that a high intake causes tons of water retention and a bloated appearance. While, yes, increased sodium intake will cause some initial water retention, the retention is only temporary. As soon as the body becomes accustomed to the higher intake, aldosterone release will be blunted and the excess water will be excreted.
    So no, consuming high amounts of sodium does not cause hypertension (and is rarely effective by itself in treating the condition) and is actually a good idea if you want to optimize growth and performance. Shoot for an intake of around 2g per liter of water consumed daily, ala the recommendations of precontest diet guru Scott Abel.
    Having said all that, if you still are uneasy about the increase in sodium adversely affecting your blood pressure, pay attention to the BP readings you receive when you visit the doc (more than likely, the uneasiness will fade).
    Conclusion
    After reading this article, you've probably come to see that there isn't any more truth to the above myths than there was to my little introductory folklore. And while I admitted that that was a load of crap, advocators of these nutritional fairytales won't be so quick to relinquish their views. But, at least now you know the truth, and the next time someone tries to tell you something different, you can hit 'em with the information you just learned (I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you want to interpret that literally).

    References
    1. Holub, B. Fats, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Annual Ontario Exercise Physiology Conference. Barrie, Ontario, 2002.
    2. Newbold, HL. Reducing the serum cholesterol level with a diet high in animal fat. South Med J. Jan;81(1):61-3, 1988.
    3. Volek, Jeff S., et al. A Ketogenic Diet Favorably Affects Serum Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Disease in Normal-Weight Men. J. Nutr. 132:1879-1885, 2002.
    4. Westman, EC., et al. Effects of a Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diet with Nutritional Supplementation in Overweight Individuals. Journal of General Internal Medicine 15 (s2), 11-12, 2000.
    5. Aro, A., et al. Stearic acid, trans fatty acids, and dairy fat: effects on serum and lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, lipoprotein (a), and lipid transfer proteins in healthy subjects. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65: 1419, 1997.
    6. ASCN/AIN Task Force on Trans Fatty Acids: Position paper on trans fatty acids. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 63:663, 1996.
    7. Hunger, JE, and Applewhite, T.H. Reassessment of trans fatty acid availability in the U.S. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 54:363, 1991.
    8. Troisi, R., et al. Trans-fatty acid intake in relation to serum lipid concentrations in adult men. Am. J. clin. Nutri., 56:1019, 1992.
    9. McArdle, WD et al. Sports & Exercise Nutrition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999.
    10. Demling, RH, et al. Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers.
    Ann Nutr Metab., 44(1):21-9, 2000.
    11. Stamler, J. The INTERSALT study: background, methods, findings, and implications. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65(Suppl):626S, 1997.
    12. Ely, DL., Overview of dietary sodium effects on and interactions with cardiovascular and neuroendocrine functions. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65(Suppl):594S, 1997.
    13. Luft, GS et al. Heterogeneous responses to changes in dietary salt intake: the salt-sensitivity paradigm. Am. J. Clin. Nutri., 65(Suppl):626S, 1997.
    14. Midgley, JP., et al. Effect of reduced dietary sodium on blood pressure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA, 275:1590, 1996.
    15. Experimental Biology Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana, 2002.

    © 2003-2004 Rugged Magazine, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
    Great read, I know this is old, but I am starting to pay much more attention to my diet than to supplmentation. Nutrition is not as sexy, but much more reliable and loyal.
    •   
       

  4. Nitrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    801

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by whitedevil74 View Post
    Great read, I know this is old, but I am starting to pay much more attention to my diet than to supplmentation. Nutrition is not as sexy, but much more reliable and loyal.
  5. TeamSavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Except GI is supposed to refer to how quickly something enters the bloodstream, with the theory being that slower entry will produce a lesser insulin response. But in fact, some foods have a low GI because they trigger a large insulin response and blood sugar is then quickly cleared. The whole theory behind GI is flawed. (Plus there are studies showing that weightloss on high GI vs. low GI diets is the same.)

    People should forget about GI and just focus on the insulin index.
  6. CDB
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by TeamSavage View Post
    People should forget about GI and just focus on the insulin index.
    Other than the Dave Mendosa page referenced in the Insulin Index page on Wiki, I haven't been able to find a good list of foods. Got any links?
  7. Nitrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    801

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by TeamSavage View Post
    Except GI is supposed to refer to how quickly something enters the bloodstream, with the theory being that slower entry will produce a lesser insulin response. But in fact, some foods have a low GI because they trigger a large insulin response and blood sugar is then quickly cleared. The whole theory behind GI is flawed. (Plus there are studies showing that weightloss on high GI vs. low GI diets is the same.)
    That would then be a problem with testing methodology not with the GI model itself. It needs to be done in such a way that simultaneous removal of absorbed glucose is accounted for.

    Of course the insulin index is the more accurate model for insulin levels but data is limited (testing is more expensive) and unless you are diabetic, I don't think that it is any more useful than calorie content and GI data.

    Myth Number 1: A calorie is a calorie; if you consume less than you burn, you'll lose fat.
    The Real Deal: The numeric value of an individual's caloric intake is not the only factor that affects body composition.
    I have a real problem with the way that this argument is presented. It seems to imply that calorie content is not important.

    Fundamentally, a calorie IS a calorie. If not then there are a lot of top physicists that would like to hear from you. That said, HOW your body uses those calories does depend on what form it is in and how you consume it but said effects are not going to violate energy conservation laws. To achieve a net loss of fat or muscle you must have an energy deficit and to gain you need a surplus. Nothing new but I see posts where ppl seem to forget this.

    The reason I point this out is because it relates to GI, insulin index, etc. A low GI food can still cause a large insulin response if the quantities are large. Conversely a high GI food can cause a small insulin response if the quantity is small enough. This is where the glycemic load concept comes in: GI multiplied by the quantity of food (ie total calories).
  8. TeamSavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox View Post
    I have a real problem with the way that this argument is presented. It seems to imply that calorie content is not important.

    Fundamentally, a calorie IS a calorie. If not then there are a lot of top physicists that would like to hear from you. That said, HOW your body uses those calories does depend on what form it is in and how you consume it but said effects are not going to violate energy conservation laws. To achieve a net loss of fat or muscle you must have an energy deficit and to gain you need a surplus. Nothing new but I see posts where ppl seem to forget this.
    I agree that, in terms of weight loss, a calorie is "more or less" a calorie. The thermic effect shouldn't necessarily be discarded, but it's not a _huge_ factor.

    For fat tissue synthesis, it breaks down as:
    Fat-
    Efficiency: 0.96
    Thermic increment: 0.04
    Carbs-
    Efficiency: 0.80
    Thermic increment: 0.20
    Protein-
    Efficiency: 0.66
    Thermic increment: 0.66

    For non-adipose tissue synthesis:
    Carbs (glycogen)-
    Efficiency: 0.95
    Thermic: 0.05
    Protein (body protein)-
    Efficiency: 0.86
    Thermic: 0.14

    So it is true that a "calorie" of protein is used less efficiently than a "calorie" of fat... but for weightloss people still need to consider the amount of total calories first and foremost.
  9. TeamSavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox View Post
    That would then be a problem with testing methodology not with the GI model itself. It needs to be done in such a way that simultaneous removal of absorbed glucose is accounted for.
    This is true, but this is much harder to do, and to my knowledge the GI data out there does NOT account for this, which makes them quite inaccurate. Plus, there are other factors other than blood-sugar levels that play a role in insulin response. For example, with milk (highly insulinogenic, even though the GI is very low), it's likely that other growth factors in the milk trigger a large insulin response regardless of how much sugar actually enters the bloodstream.

    Also, remember that GI data, even if actually correlated with insulin response for that particular food, is determined using isolated foods in an overnight-fasted state. Not at all a reflection of "real life". We really have no idea what the "GI" is of any given food when combined with other foods in a non-fasted state.

    Again, the whole point of paying attention to GI is to minimize insulin response and thus fat synthesis, but it's just not very accurate for this purpose.
  10. TeamSavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Other than the Dave Mendosa page referenced in the Insulin Index page on Wiki, I haven't been able to find a good list of foods. Got any links?
    Here's a link where you can download a PDF of a paper calculating the insulin index for a variety of foods. Unfortunately, it's far from comprehensive, and the data on the pages you're referring to may just be taken from this paper.

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264

    There's a similar list in Alan Aragon's new book... has about 50 foods. The II is still pretty new so I expect we'll have more comprehensive lists soon.
  11. Nitrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    801

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by TeamSavage View Post
    Again, the whole point of paying attention to GI is to minimize insulin response and thus fat synthesis, but it's just not very accurate for this purpose.
    True, the accuracy is questionable but then so is using the GI/II model to minimize fat gain. Measuring insulin levels is difficult and not all of its mechanisms are fully understood (ie how fats influence insulin). Not to mention that insulin also regulates protein synthesis, something that we want. So does 100 kcal of milk lead to more fat gain than 100 kcal of something lower on the II? Maybe it just builds more muscle.

    The GI and II can be useful tools to make educated food choices but IMO are next to useless for a fat loss strategy if they are not taken in context of total overall energy intake, hence my comment about the calorie myth. Some people seem to think that carbs make you fat while low GI/II foods like fats and proteins will not. Or that if you substitute low GI for high GI you will lose fat. This is just not universally true.
  12. Board Moderator
    Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,830
    Rep Power
    768794

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox View Post
    That would then be a problem with testing methodology not with the GI model itself. It needs to be done in such a way that simultaneous removal of absorbed glucose is accounted for.

    Of course the insulin index is the more accurate model for insulin levels but data is limited (testing is more expensive) and unless you are diabetic, I don't think that it is any more useful than calorie content and GI data.



    I have a real problem with the way that this argument is presented. It seems to imply that calorie content is not important.

    Fundamentally, a calorie IS a calorie. If not then there are a lot of top physicists that would like to hear from you. That said, HOW your body uses those calories does depend on what form it is in and how you consume it but said effects are not going to violate energy conservation laws. To achieve a net loss of fat or muscle you must have an energy deficit and to gain you need a surplus. Nothing new but I see posts where ppl seem to forget this.

    The reason I point this out is because it relates to GI, insulin index, etc. A low GI food can still cause a large insulin response if the quantities are large. Conversely a high GI food can cause a small insulin response if the quantity is small enough. This is where the glycemic load concept comes in: GI multiplied by the quantity of food (ie total calories).
    I have always had an issue with calories in general. the definition of a calorie is

    the amount of energy required to warm 1 g of air-free water from 14.5 C to 15.5 C at a constant pressure of 101.325 kPa
    From what I have always understood, the 4 cals per protein/carb grams and 9 per fat grams were calculated from actual oven type burns. To me this is not particularly equivalent to the process that the human body goes through to digest and use food intake. If this were true, then none of the Ketogenic diets would work, as most of them have higher than maintenance calorie intake with much of it being from fat.
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  13. Nitrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    801

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    From what I have always understood, the 4 cals per protein/carb grams and 9 per fat grams were calculated from actual oven type burns. To me this is not particularly equivalent to the process that the human body goes through to digest and use food intake. If this were true, then none of the Ketogenic diets would work, as most of them have higher than maintenance calorie intake with much of it being from fat.
    That's a valid point. I think the confusion comes when we try to substitute fundamental principles with hard numbers that are not 100% accurate. Calorie values should be used as a reference not absolutely.

    Also, just like how the food energy values obtained through calorimetry may not be completely accurate with biological processes, maintenance calorie calculators are not 100% accurate either. There are too many variables to account for to make them any more than guidelines.

    Both food energy values and BMR calculations are approximate. That is why it is basically a necessity to make a starting meal plan with those numbers and then adjust up or down to get the desired results and keep the adjustments within the same diet. For example don't change a diet from 3000 kcals @ 40p/20c/40f to 2500kcals @ 30p/50c/20f in one adjustment. Maintenance values for one may not be the same as for the other. That does not necessarily mean that the principles are wrong, it is more likely that either there is error in the data, an unknown factor in the process, or both.
  14. TeamSavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    601

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox View Post
    The GI and II can be useful tools to make educated food choices but IMO are next to useless for a fat loss strategy if they are not taken in context of total overall energy intake, hence my comment about the calorie myth. Some people seem to think that carbs make you fat while low GI/II foods like fats and proteins will not. Or that if you substitute low GI for high GI you will lose fat. This is just not universally true.
    Yup, exactly. There are just too many confounding factors with GI make it the primary piece of a fat-loss strategy:
    -Adding fat to carbohydrate lowers GI but causes a heightened insulin response (usually)
    -Foods we'd expect to have a low GI due to fat content sometimes have both high GI and II (fries, cookies, etc.)
    -Combining protein with carbs synergistically raises insulin response
    -In 20 long-term studies comparing weight loss on high-GI vs. low-GI diets, there was no difference in 14 studies (4 found more weight loss on low-GI, 2 on high-GI)
  15. trytestim's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  0 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    88
    Rep Power
    112

    Reputation

    Hence the effectiveness of the Anabolic Diet on body fat and cholsterol
    My profile name is wrong. I do not recommend trying TESTIM. It is a smelly sticky mess. I was a newby when I tried it. Go Androgel and compounded!
  16. seccsi's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Age
    30
    Posts
    679
    Rep Power
    1030

    Reputation

    Good stuff in here.
  17. wolf2009's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  80 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    48

    Reputation

    nice share man
  18. bossman523's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  179 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    422
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation Reputation

    tell me more about the Anabolic diet, friends.
  19. mattvdh's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    29

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne View Post

    Since carbohydrate ingestion stimulates a large insulin response and fat ingestion gives rise to blood lipid levels, the two, when consumed together, promote the greatest fat storage.
    The size, frequency, and time of ingested meals. Large, infrequent meals tend to promote storage of the ingested nutrients as the body is unsure as to when the next feeding will take place. Conversely, consuming smaller, frequent meals will result in an increase in metabolism and utilization of the ingested nutrients. Also, ingesting a large amount of carbohydrates before bed spikes insulin, deters nocturnal thermogenesis, and increases fat storage during sleep. On the contrary, consuming a great deal of calories early in the day does not bring about this problem; rather, these calories are likely to be used as energy to support daily activities.
    Everything about this is just wrong. I tried posting some links to counter these points, but the site doesn't allow me until 20 posts...

    There's nothing wrong with mixing carbs and fats, read some Allan Aragon. Do you realize how many foods have combinations of all 3 macros?

    It doesn't matter if you consume frequent small meals or large and spaced out, the only thing that matters is that your caloric intake is less than expenditure in order to loose weight. There's no evidence that proves that it stokes your metabolic fire.

    "L Norton: 1. Don't eat carbohydrates after 'X' o'clock. People believe that since they are closer to sleeping they should curtail carbohydrate intake, this is simply ludicrous. Carbohydrates at night don't make you fat; too many total calories make you fat. Additionally, if you train at night you NEED those carbohydrates to
    properly recover."
  20. saggy321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,366
    Rep Power
    97234

    Reputation Reputation

    How ironic. The article was intended as to bust myths, but it has in fact propagated these same myths!
  21. bdcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    10,190
    Rep Power
    10502207

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
    Everything about this is just wrong. I tried posting some links to counter these points, but the site doesn't allow me until 20 posts...

    There's nothing wrong with mixing carbs and fats, read some Allan Aragon. Do you realize how many foods have combinations of all 3 macros?

    It doesn't matter if you consume frequent small meals or large and spaced out, the only thing that matters is that your caloric intake is less than expenditure in order to loose weight. There's no evidence that proves that it stokes your metabolic fire.

    "L Norton: 1. Don't eat carbohydrates after 'X' o'clock. People believe that since they are closer to sleeping they should curtail carbohydrate intake, this is simply ludicrous. Carbohydrates at night don't make you fat; too many total calories make you fat. Additionally, if you train at night you NEED those carbohydrates to
    properly recover."
    To be fair, the post you are quoting is from 2005. A lot of people have revised their thought processes in the last 8 years.

    On the whole though, I agree with what you have written.
    PES Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com
  22. mattvdh's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    29

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    To be fair, the post you are quoting is from 2005. A lot of people have revised their thought processes in the last 8 years.

    On the whole though, I agree with what you have written.
    Amazing how much things change in a matter of 8 years on the subject of diet/fitness.
  23. Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,208
    Rep Power
    3370563

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
    Everything about this is just wrong. I tried posting some links to counter these points, but the site doesn't allow me until 20 posts...

    There's nothing wrong with mixing carbs and fats, read some Allan Aragon. Do you realize how many foods have combinations of all 3 macros?

    It doesn't matter if you consume frequent small meals or large and spaced out, the only thing that matters is that your caloric intake is less than expenditure in order to loose weight. There's no evidence that proves that it stokes your metabolic fire.

    "L Norton: 1. Don't eat carbohydrates after 'X' o'clock. People believe that since they are closer to sleeping they should curtail carbohydrate intake, this is simply ludicrous. Carbohydrates at night don't make you fat; too many total calories make you fat. Additionally, if you train at night you NEED those carbohydrates to
    properly recover."
    Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    To be fair, the post you are quoting is from 2005. A lot of people have revised their thought processes in the last 8 years.

    On the whole though, I agree with what you have written.
    I came in here to post this. Lol.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable
  24. bdcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    10,190
    Rep Power
    10502207

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    I know some of the articles I wrote several years ago.

    Reading them again now makes me cringe lol.
    PES Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com
  25. saggy321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,366
    Rep Power
    97234

    Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    I know some of the articles I wrote several years ago.

    Reading them again now makes me cringe lol.
    The side effect of continually learning and improving.
  26. Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,208
    Rep Power
    3370563

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    I know some of the articles I wrote several years ago.

    Reading them again now makes me cringe lol.
    I know exactly what you mean. Shows how much is actually unknown and despite scientists best efforts, something will always throw a spanner in the works lol
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable
  27. bdcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    10,190
    Rep Power
    10502207

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    I think that is the polite way to put it.

    In retrospect, I think I used to be at least 80% potato.
    PES Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com
  28. mattvdh's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    29

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    I know exactly what you mean. Shows how much is actually unknown and despite scientists best efforts, something will always throw a spanner in the works lol
    This is a bit of a side rant but I hate people that believe in science/scientists without question-- "Oh he's published and peer reviewed, it must be accurate..." All you need is a 'scientific' stamp of approval and people will believe just about anything. BB's on the other hand are walking, breathing examples of their knowledge of fitness, nutrition, biology, physiology, chemistry etc and yet people still categorize them as meatheads.

    It was poor science in the 80's that lead us to believe that fats are unhealthy (for example), and that still lingers on to this day. Guys in the golden era knew that fats are perfectly healthy and good for the hormones and brain functions, and that excess carbs can make you bloated. The public is still catching up to them because we're taught to believe the guy in a white lab coat with a PhD because he's gone through societies hoops and the scientific method.

    I'd say that the better portion of scientific research is incorrect, even with all of our technology and previous knowledge, just based on the fact that science can be influenced by politics and money. Scientists have to conform to the studies they are handed in order to get funded, that's the fundamental flaw in such a practice. Scientists are generally *seeking a certain result to meet the criteria of the beneficiaries involved. That is why I believe in broscience/BB's a lot more in many ways because their manner of experimentation and research is based strictly on a providing results, if it doesn't work, they won't continue to do it.

    It's not necessarily the scientific method or scientists themselves that are at fault but the fact that science/scientists can be influenced by money in order to produce a certain result which is in vogue at the time. Money makes good science.
  29. saggy321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,366
    Rep Power
    97234

    Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
    This is a bit of a side rant but I hate people that believe in science/scientists without question-- "Oh he's published and peer reviewed, it must be accurate..." All you need is a 'scientific' stamp of approval and people will believe just about anything. BB's on the other hand are walking, breathing examples of their knowledge of fitness, nutrition, biology, physiology, chemistry etc and yet people still categorize them as meatheads.

    It was poor science in the 80's that lead us to believe that fats are unhealthy (for example), and that still lingers on to this day. Guys in the golden era knew that fats are perfectly healthy and good for the hormones and brain functions, and that excess carbs can make you bloated. The public is still catching up to them because we're taught to believe the guy in a white lab coat with a PhD because he's gone through societies hoops and the scientific method.

    I'd say that the better portion of scientific research is incorrect, even with all of our technology and previous knowledge, just based on the fact that science can be influenced by politics and money. Scientists have to conform to the studies they are handed in order to get funded, that's the fundamental flaw in such a practice. Scientists are generally *seeking a certain result to meet the criteria of the beneficiaries involved. That is why I believe in broscience/BB's a lot more in many ways because their manner of experimentation and research is based strictly on a providing results, if it doesn't work, they won't continue to do it.

    It's not necessarily the scientific method or scientists themselves that are at fault but the fact that science/scientists can be influenced by money in order to produce a certain result which is in vogue at the time. Money makes good science.
    An interesting and relevant point of view. I have a close friend who is a registrar at a hospital and ha just submitted his PhD. He has admitted to me that he spent much of his time selecting, playing and manipulating data to prove his hypothesis.
  30. Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,873
    Rep Power
    854638

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
    Everything about this is just wrong ....

    It doesn't matter if you consume frequent small meals or large and spaced out, the only thing that matters is that your caloric intake is less than expenditure in order to loose weight ..............."
    I understand you believe this, however, there are important implications as to optimizing insulin and glycogen that can be better dealt with via more frequent meals.
  31. mattvdh's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    29

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by saggy321 View Post
    An interesting and relevant point of view. I have a close friend who is a registrar at a hospital and ha just submitted his PhD. He has admitted to me that he spent much of his time selecting, playing and manipulating data to prove his hypothesis.
    Yeah I believe it. PhD= Patiently Hoping for a Degree...Permanent Head Damage...Piled High in Debt etc
  32. mattvdh's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    29

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    I understand you believe this, however, there are important implications as to optimizing insulin and glycogen that can be better dealt with via more frequent meals.
    glycogen and insulin responses are more related to the types of food rather than the portion sizes. If you eat a large bowl of green salad, a huge steak and eggs and a huge jug off water, there's really nothing in there to spike insulin levels. A small handful of cookies and a soda pop on the other hand will spike it like a volleyball
  33. Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,873
    Rep Power
    854638

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
    Yeah I believe it. PhD= Patiently Hoping for a Degree...Permanent Head Damage...Piled High in Debt etc
    Oh, I get that. I have two sons who have JDs.

    Do you disagree there are important implications as to optimizing insulin and glycogen that can be better dealt with via more frequent meals?
  34. Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,873
    Rep Power
    854638

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
    glycogen and insulin responses are more related to the types of food rather than the portion sizes. If you eat a large bowl of green salad, a huge steak and eggs and a huge jug off water, there's really nothing in there to spike insulin levels. A small handful of cookies and a soda pop on the other hand will spike it like a volleyball
    On that part we agree (+1 for the good guys).
  35. Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,208
    Rep Power
    3370563

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post

    This is a bit of a side rant but I hate people that believe in science/scientists without question-- "Oh he's published and peer reviewed, it must be accurate..." All you need is a 'scientific' stamp of approval and people will believe just about anything. BB's on the other hand are walking, breathing examples of their knowledge of fitness, nutrition, biology, physiology, chemistry etc and yet people still categorize them as meatheads.

    It was poor science in the 80's that lead us to believe that fats are unhealthy (for example), and that still lingers on to this day. Guys in the golden era knew that fats are perfectly healthy and good for the hormones and brain functions, and that excess carbs can make you bloated. The public is still catching up to them because we're taught to believe the guy in a white lab coat with a PhD because he's gone through societies hoops and the scientific method.

    I'd say that the better portion of scientific research is incorrect, even with all of our technology and previous knowledge, just based on the fact that science can be influenced by politics and money. Scientists have to conform to the studies they are handed in order to get funded, that's the fundamental flaw in such a practice. Scientists are generally *seeking a certain result to meet the criteria of the beneficiaries involved. That is why I believe in broscience/BB's a lot more in many ways because their manner of experimentation and research is based strictly on a providing results, if it doesn't work, they won't continue to do it.

    It's not necessarily the scientific method or scientists themselves that are at fault but the fact that science/scientists can be influenced by money in order to produce a certain result which is in vogue at the time. Money makes good science.
    You have studies confused with science. The role of insulin, pgf alpha 2, testosterone etc. is not influenced by money.

    Just be because a scientist wrote something, that doesn't make it science.

    I also lol'd when you said bbers are walking examples of their knowledge of physiology and biology
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable
  36. JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,848
    Rep Power
    2179970

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Sigh..
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  37. bdcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    10,190
    Rep Power
    10502207

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Someone had an epic quote on here which said "bodybuilders have always been decades ahead of the scientific community".

    I sent it to Cyrus. I am pretty sure he had heart palpitations lol.
    PES Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com
  38. Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,208
    Rep Power
    3370563

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    Someone had an epic quote on here which said "bodybuilders have always been decades ahead of the scientific community".

    I sent it to Cyrus. I am pretty sure he had heart palpitations lol.
    Lol i can imagine.

    People confuse mass and aesthetic with knowledge. Sure, they know what to do to put on size (eat, sleep, progress) but that is only the surface. The reason why those protocols elicit growth is true physiology (i.e neuromuscular adaptations etc.) and many bbers do not understand these things, nor do they need to.

    They just know what works and wnat doesnt, not necessarily the why aspect.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable
  39. mattvdh's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    29

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    You have studies confused with science. The role of insulin, pgf alpha 2, testosterone etc. is not influenced by money.

    Just be because a scientist wrote something, that doesn't make it science.

    I also lol'd when you said bbers are walking examples of their knowledge of physiology and biology
    I'm not sure what to reply to that... I was referring to scientific studies. But I agree just because someone is published doesn't make it factual.

    BB's are definitely underrated or not as respected in the rest of normal world as they should be. When you mention BB's to people they think it's somehow easy to lift weights and take steroids, I've been studying BB's and their lifestyle for a few years now and it's amazingly technical and complex, not to mention it requires extreme discipline and work ethic. I've heard guys say that boot camp in the marines doesn't hold a candle to getting in shape for a BB contest.
  40. mattvdh's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    29

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Lol i can imagine.

    People confuse mass and aesthetic with knowledge. Sure, they know what to do to put on size (eat, sleep, progress) but that is only the surface. The reason why those protocols elicit growth is true physiology (i.e neuromuscular adaptations etc.) and many bbers do not understand these things, nor do they need to.

    They just know what works and wnat doesnt, not necessarily the why aspect.
    I disagree, go watch some Dorian Yates interviews, or Frank Zane. Both are scientific in their approaches.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-25-2012, 10:23 AM
  2. debunking the debunked Top 10 Nutrition Myths.
    By Quinc in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 08:48 PM
  3. T-Nation: The Top 10 Post Workout Nutrition Myths
    By The Godfather in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-23-2005, 04:10 PM
  4. Nutrition Myths That Just Wont Die
    By YellowJacket in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-15-2003, 01:34 PM
  5. 11 Nutritional Myths
    By YellowJacket in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-01-2003, 11:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in