What's Wrong with a Low-Fat Diet? Any Research?

ucimigrate

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Hi Everyone,

In my own (anecdotal) experience, the low fat diet of 5-6 meals per day, starch + lean protein and optional vegetables, works best with me.

Larry North's Slimdown for Life did the best job of this.

At least in the 1970's and 1980's, it seemed like it was the best way.

1. However, in bodybuilding, etc. circles there is so much contrarianism, etc.

Over the years, I have seen dozens of supposed "tricks" or "tweaks". Yet, more often than not, the side effects and other problems actually are more of a dangerous detour, not a "clever shortcut".

Among the b.s. I have seen are:

- Fasted cardio is SO MUCH more effective than doing it after meals (the difference seems marginal, especially when we factor in the lessened ergogenic output)
- Late night eating is bad for you (based on Eastern medicine that the body slows down at night)
- Cardio at night is best for you (again, based on Eastern medicine)

The list goes on and on.

2. Is there anything wrong with a low-fat diet, such as "Larry North's Seven Day Sizedown"

https://www.slimdown21.com/program/21day/7day.aspx

3. Where do lipids have a role in our diet? Why do we really need them?

Any research to show why?
 

UniqueUserName

New member
Awards
0
People over complicate nutrition literally to the point of coming up with conspiracy theories... seriously there are conspiracy theories about diet.
The Eat Well Guide
The eat well guide is where the current consensus of evidence has put us.

In terms of weight management it is still pretty much at 'calories in versus calories out'.

Protein intake for athletes/bodybuilders is at 1.6grams per kilo of bodyweight when in a caloric surplus although some may need more than this.
And 2.2 g per kilo of bodyweight (gram per pound) when in a caloric deficit. Again some may need more and for both some may need even less!

Fat is needed for the body, it helps us produce hormones and absorb certain vitamins. We do in fact need some fat.
How much fat do we need and how much is too much? Fat should not exceed 30% of your daily calories. Of which Saturated fat should be less than 10% and trans fat less than 1%. But you still need some, If you aim for 10-30% you're probably on the right track.

The rest of your calories can be used up with starchy carbs and try to limit free sugars.
 
Resolve10

Resolve10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
You seemed to answer it yourself. If a lower fat diet works for you stick with it. Make sure to continue getting your proper vitamin and minerals too and you should be fine. We still need fats so don't avoid them.
 

jrock645

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Too low of saturated fat and you will not have optimal hormone production.
Menno did an interesting article talking about the importance of cholesterol for strength athletes. I think his conclusion was to consume 500mg cholesterol daily(on average) for full anabolic potential.
 

UniqueUserName

New member
Awards
0
Menno did an interesting article talking about the importance of cholesterol for strength athletes. I think his conclusion was to consume 500mg cholesterol daily(on average) for full anabolic potential.
Who is Menno?
Can you site it?
 

UniqueUserName

New member
Awards
0
Hes an author, researcher and coach. Here is the article:

Interesting although I think some of the research has been misrepresented, for example the egg whites versus whole egg study doesn't mention cholesterol in the abstract at all whereas Menno uses that study to suggest it proves his point on cholesterol just because whole eggs are high in cholesterol. The researches said... "Our data indicate that the ingestion of nutrient- and protein-dense foods differentially stimulates muscle anabolism compared with protein-dense foods." Van Vliet et al. (2017)

Also the study on dietary cholesterol study he first mentions was conducted on 60-69 year olds and therefore isn't applicable to the wider population... "These data suggest that dietary and serum cholesterol contribute to the skeletal muscles' response to RET in this generally healthy older population and that some statins may improve this response." That said, it does show what Menno claimed. Riechman et al. (2007)

The Lee et al. (2011) study was done on younger adults and showed what Menno claimed although it doesn't say protein was controlled for.

I think there is possibility for cholesterol to have some kind of anabolic benefit but it isn't quite clear cut yet.
 

jrock645

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Interesting although I think some of the research has been misrepresented, for example the egg whites versus whole egg study doesn't mention cholesterol in the abstract at all whereas Menno uses that study to suggest it proves his point on cholesterol just because whole eggs are high in cholesterol. The researches said... "Our data indicate that the ingestion of nutrient- and protein-dense foods differentially stimulates muscle anabolism compared with protein-dense foods." Van Vliet et al. (2017)

Also the study on dietary cholesterol study he first mentions was conducted on 60-69 year olds and therefore isn't applicable to the wider population... "These data suggest that dietary and serum cholesterol contribute to the skeletal muscles' response to RET in this generally healthy older population and that some statins may improve this response." That said, it does show what Menno claimed. Riechman et al. (2007)

The Lee et al. (2011) study was done on younger adults and showed what Menno claimed although it doesn't say protein was controlled for.

I think there is possibility for cholesterol to have some kind of anabolic benefit but it isn't quite clear cut yet.
If you follow Menno at all, youll see pretty quickly that pretty much all studies are far from perfect. Limited age bracket, controls, etc. But multiple studies he referenced suggest a positive for consuming cholesterol. Theres no end game in it, and he doesnt make a big bold claim. At the end of the day, regardless, it seems pretty clear that cholesterol isnt bad.
 

UniqueUserName

New member
Awards
0
If you follow Menno at all, youll see pretty quickly that pretty much all studies are far from perfect. Limited age bracket, controls, etc. But multiple studies he referenced suggest a positive for consuming cholesterol. Theres no end game in it, and he doesnt make a big bold claim. At the end of the day, regardless, it seems pretty clear that cholesterol isnt bad.
I agree dietary cholesterol isn't bad and it does seem there is evidence to suggest it could be beneficial.
 

Similar threads


Top