Discussion in 'Diet and Nutrition' started by RichJ, Oct 9, 2019.
The Game Changers Movie interesting documentary - on itunes.
Lots of info from the trailer of documentary has been debunked even before the release of the documentary.
I have many vegan and vegetarian friends - respect! - but this is imho not the way to go.
Yeah agree but seems to be well on it's way to becoming "a thing" so might be interesting to see what all the noise is about. I haven't seen much of the debunking material but will be very interested to read when it becomes more widely distributed. 'The Perfect Human Diet' next on the watch list.
80/20 rule. be "plant based" 80% of the time and selective of your animal PRO 20% of the time. ADD plants to said animal PRO in meals and off you go. Ive watched the flick, its good but a little preachy over the top. Middle ground...on most things...is the best thing.
By looking at nutrition habits of various ethnic and cultural groups - from exclusively vegetarian to exclusively carnivore - I think it becomes pretty obvious that there is no best way to eat.
The key to health in my opinion is calorie balance. In simple terms, eating less is better. That's 80%, not plant based. The rest is contextual.
I don't have the time and energy to get into serious research, but I based on published data I believe that any claimed dietary benefit of every eating style (including Okinawan or Mediterranean) is reduction in caloric intake. There are plenty of anecdotal evidence and a few studies demonstrating this point of view.
The injury rate (including career enders) among the athletes featured is pretty interesting. I'm all for sticking to your principles, but it does seem that there is a certain amount of animal products needed to optimize athletic potential. There are a few vegan athletes with good records (Scott Jurek comes to mind), but most of them follow a pretty standard pattern. They eat animal products during their growth years, go vegan, and then a year or two later they either get injured or just can't maintain their performance. The human metabolism is amazingly flexible, but there does seem to be a limit, especially when we're discussing high level athletics.
I agree with this. I've never seen a study involving caloric restriction (within reason) that didn't result in a reduced mortality rate.
I wonder what the minimum effective dose of animal products is required. The typical recommendation of 2 grams of protein per day sounds very excessive to me, and difficult to achieve if not using artificial methods.
It’s doable (and comfortable) if you’re going for 2g per kilogram per day, less so if you’re going for 2g per pound. But no one is recommending the latter anyway.
Do you consider whey protein artificial? Even without it, it’s very easy to accrue plenty of protein through meat, fish and eggs.
This article is interesting, if a little long. Worth a read though if you have the time.
More Protein, Better Protein
Good question. I would tend to agree that 2 grams/kilo of BW per day is probably more than an average Joe/Jane needs, but I think a lot of it depends on how hard you're working. For an athlete who's working hard and consuming 5,000 calories a day, 2 grams of protein per kilo of bodyweight is a pretty easy number to hit. For a fairly sedentary individual who only consumes 2,000 calories a day, it might be a little more difficult, and not really necessary.
Prof. Stu Philips has done some interesting research on protein and sarcopenia in the elderly; this review is one of his most recent papers:
Nutrient-rich, high-quality, protein-containing dairy foods in combination with exercise in aging persons to mitigate sarcopenia
It suggests that the minimum dose of protein for an older individual, in order to mitigate sarcopenia, is 1.4 grams/kg BW/day, spread out over 3 meals so they get 0.4-0.6 grams/ kg BW/meal. This seems to keep muscle protein synthesis humming along alright. I think we can presume that a sedentary young(er) person requires less protein to stimulate that process than a sedentary old(er) person, but it doesn't tell us the minimum needed for an active person in their 30's.
A couple years ago I dropped my protein consumption down to about 1 gram/kilo of bodyweight, while training similarly to how I train now. Over the course of 4 months I lost about 5 pounds of lean mass, but it was a pretty slow process. Based on how I responded when I introduced more protein, there was definitely some other stuff going on that had been too subtle for me to notice while it was happening. There was a number of things, but I think I can chalk almost all of it up to a gradual decrease in testosterone function while eating less protein, with a nice bounce back once I introduced more. The only thing I noticed at the time was weight, and even that was gradual enough that I only picked up on it because of the bathroom scale.
As it stands now, I get between 2-2.5 grams/kg BW/day, and that seems to do pretty well. I don't supplement, but I do eat a lot of meat and eggs. Personally, I don't think you could pay me to drop below 1.5 grams/kg BW/day for any significant length of time. If I had to guess what the minimum effective dose was to maintain a healthy level of muscle mass while training regularly, I would guess it's around 1.5 grams, but that's just a guess. To be clear, that's 1.5 grams of high quality, complete, easily digestable protein.
Leucine: The Anabolic Amino
Based on the research of Drs Donald Layman and Layne Norton, the amino acid, Leucine is necessary for maintaining and increasing muscle mass.
Leucine triggers mTOR, Mammalian Target of Rapamycin, that promotes the anabolic/muscle building process.
The amount of Leucine necessary to trigger mTOR is between 2.5 to about 4.5 gram of gram at for one serving/one meal.
Younger individual need about 2.5 gram of Leucine. Older individual need around 3 gram plus of Leucine per serving/meal to elicit the same affect.
Whey Protein's Leucine content is around 10%. Thus, 30 gram of Whey yield's around 3 gram of Leucine.
Casein, Meats, Eggs and Milk's Leucine content is approximately 8%. That means approximately 38 gram is needed to obtain 3 gram of Leucine.
Plant based proteins are low in Leucine.
So, it's not only the amount of protein but the quality of the protein that important.
As per Layman in...
Nutrition Forum - Dr. Donald Layman, PhD
The average American only consumes one meal a day (dinner) with enough Leucine.
That is one of the reason that most American lose muscle over time as they age. They are only consuming one meal; not enough to maintain muscle mass, let alone increase it.
The above podcast provide some additional information on this.
A Fairly Good Estimate
This is a fairly good recommendation.
Muscle Growth Science, mTOR & Leucine w/ Gabrielle Lyon, DO
In this interview, Lyon states that she increase her patient's protein intake to 30 gram per meal. This approximate the recommendation of Phillip's, quoted above.
Lyon states that 30 gram is the minimum per meal.
So if you want to stay lean and keep your muscle ditch the fasting.
Except that both a ketogenic diet and IF are proven to be muscle-sparing when done correctly.
I gain muscle better eating 3 meals a day than 2, but I can maintain things pretty easily on a snack at noon and a big dinner. Disclaimer: I am not a big person. You can gain mass on 1-2 meals a day, but let's be real; 3-4 times is going to get you there faster, if that's your priority. Philips's paper is talking about people who are trying really hard to preserve or gain muscle. For them, 3 meals a day makes sense.
Research shows that muscle mass is preserved during fasting for up to 72 hours. However, the sweet spot for Intermittent Fasting appears to be between 16 - 24 hours.
During fasting there is an increase in the fat burning hormones, primarily norepinphrine, glucagon and cortisol. It is a survival mechanism. The body utilizing body fat and spares muscle mass.
Thus, your muscle mass is maintained with a decrease in body fat.
In other words, you become even leaner by maintaining your muscle mass.
As he stated, "...Both a ketogenic diet and IF are proven to be muscle-sparing when done correctly."
Increasing Muscle Mass
However, Intermittent Fasting, any type of calorie deficit, doesn't work for increasing muscle mass.
To increase muscle mass, you need...
1) mTOR: You need to consume enough Leucine to trigger this muscle building/anabolic effect. There are some rule that I have posted on this site regarding it.
2) "The Refractory Period": Allowing 4 - 6 hours between mean ensure the protein/Leucine consumed maximizing the anabolic effect.
3) Calorie Surplus: You need to be consuming more calories than you are expending.
Gaining or losing weight is primarily about "Calories In, Calories Out".
As he states, "You can gain mass on 1-2 meals a day, but let's be real; 3-4 times is going to get you there faster..."
The MATADOR Weight Loss Study
I've posted this information several times on this site. It involves rotating your calories every two weeks. That due to the fact that the body will adapt when you decrease your calorie intake, stopping weight loss.
By rotating your caloric intake every two weeks, up and down...
1) Weight Loss is maintained.
2) More Muscle Mass is maintained.
3) More Body Fat is burned.
The MATADOR plan essentially is...
The Yo-Yo Diet
Ironically, Yo-Yo Dieting is effective at losing body fat and maintaining muscle mass, if performed correctly.
The Yo-Yo Diet is also effective at increasing muscle mass and minimizing fat gain, if performed correctly.
I previously posted information on this, as well. Drs Layne Norton and John Ivy (in studies independent of each other) determined that a calorie deficit or surplus of approximately 20% enabled someone on a weight loss diet to maximize body fat loss and maintain muscle mass or on a weight gain diet to increase muscle mass while maximizing fat loss.
Unfortunately, the Yo-Yo Diet is synonymous with individual who go on an ultra low calorie diet, then go back to consuming ultra high calories and gaining back more weight/body fat than they started off with.
Going from an ultra low calorie diet to an ultra high calorie surplus diet magnified fat gain while minimizing muscle gain.
Bigger Smaller Bigger
This plan was devised by Dr John Berardi, PhD Nutrition/owner of Precision Nutrition. Precision Nutrition is one of the most reputable for providing nutrition information and an educational nutrition certification.
Berardi used a extremely aggressive calorie rotation version of the "The MATADOR Plan" to increase muscle mass/body weight.
Take Home Message
1) Intermittent Fasting preserves muscle mass. You actually become leaner by decreasing your body fat while preserving your muscle mass.
2) Gaining Muscle requires an increase in calories and consuming the right amount of protein (Leucine) within the right time parameters.
After reading about Mtor on here I created my own low carb, low calorie "special muscle mix" by doctoring Whey with Leucine and Creatine. Just a small scoop meets all my psychological needs lol
@kennycro@@aol.com , @Snowman - do you think a IF diet that would have a proper calorie surplus would still allow to build muscle?
Personally I am a lean guy by nature so no fat burning required, but I’m intrigued by the health benefits of IF or AD.
Christian Thibaudeau had this plan ‘Primer 52’ which uses a sequence of fasting-hypertrophy-strength for diet and training. It’s intriguing for me, although a 24-36h fast twice a week does scare me off in terms actually gaining muscle.
@Molson I think you certainly can gain muscle while doing IF. As you pointed out, you simply have to make sure that you're getting adequate nutrition when you do eat. If you are naturally a leaner guy, then you may have to accept that doing IF will slow down the already slow process of increasing muscle mass. To be clear, you will gain weight faster by eating 3-4 meals throughout the day. However, it doesn't sound like you are as concerned about how quickly the weight gain happens, so who cares? Personally, I don't see rapid weight manipulation as being useful for anyone except weight class athletes. If your focus is on sustainable practices, then rapid weight changes are even less desirable.
The main barrier to gaining weight while limiting meal frequency is how much nutrition your gut can absorb at once. You have to commit to "overloading" your gut at most meals, and getting it to adapt to the increased absorption demands. This means spending more time time than usual hanging out in the bathroom until things adjust, since you will have to deal with the *ahem* unabsorbed food that remains in the GI tract. Adjustment can take a few days or a week. Or rarely, longer. Is it worth it? That all depends on context, so you tell me .
A fine compromise, a Warrior Diet-like compromise, if you will, is having a protein bar in place of breakfast, and another in place of lunch. There are bars that are around 200 calories, around 20 grams of protein, relatively low in carbs and high in good fats. IMHO, 200 calories doth not a meal make, and the WD approach is to undereat, not fast, which I have always interpreted as having a "little something" that doesn't feel like a meal.
Steve, that would certainly comply with the undereating concept of the warrior diet, but how about the idea of eating raw natural food during the day?
Separate names with a comma.