PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About Your Weight Gain



MNeagle
28th December 2010, 05:34 PM
Two out of three people in America today are either overweight or obese. That means every time you sit down in an airplane or a packed movie theater, more likely than not you’re going to wind up as the lean center of a fat sandwich. But as you look right and left and see nothing but heft, you can’t help but think, What happened?

How did we all get so darn fat?

Well, the simple answer is that we eat more calories. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that American men eat 7 percent more calories than they did in 1971; American women eat a whopping 18 percent more—an additional 335 calories a day! But the harder question is this: Why do we eat so many more calories? Are we suddenly more gluttonous? Do we have some kind of collective death wish? Is the entire country hellbent on qualifying for the next season of Biggest Loser?

No. There’s an even crazier reason: It’s the food!

We’ve added extra calories to traditional foods, often in cheap, mass-produced vehicles like high fructose corn syrup. These new freak foods are designed not by chefs, but by lab technicians packing every morsel with maximum calories at minimum cost—with little or no regard to dietary impact. Indeed, Eat This, Not That! 2011 has uncovered the truth about some of your favorite fast food and grocery store items and how they're causing you to pack on unnecessary pounds. It’s enough to kill your appetite, which—in these cases, anyway—would be a good thing.

Bonus Tip: Don't miss our year-end walk down The Restaurant Hall of Shame: The 20 Worst Foods of 2010!


http://cdn.menshealth.com/images/MensHealth/ETNTFastFoodBurgers.jpg

THE FAST-FOOD HAMBURGER

The great American staple. Don’t worry, burgers really do come from cows—but have you ever wondered how those giant chains process and distribute so much meat so cheaply? And . . . are you sure you want to know?

The Truth: Most fast-food hamburger patties begin their voyage to your buns in the hands of a company called Beef Products. The company specializes in taking slaughterhouse trimmings—heads and hooves and the like—that are traditionally used only in pet food and cooking oil, and turning them into patties. The challenge is getting this byproduct meat clean enough for human consumption, as both E. coli and salmonella like to concentrate themselves in the fatty deposits.

The company has developed a process for killing beef-based pathogens by forcing the ground meat through pipes and exposing it to ammonia gas—the same chemical you might use to clean your bathroom. Not only has the USDA approved the process, but it's also allowed those who sell the beef to keep it hidden from their customers. At Beef Products’ behest, ammonia gas has been deemed a “processing agent” that need not be identified on nutrition labels. Never mind that if ammonia gets on your skin, it can cause severe burning, and if it gets in your eyes, it can blind you. Add to the gross-out factor the fact that after moving through this lengthy industrial process, a single beef patty can consist of cobbled-together pieces from different cows from all over the world—a practice that only increases the odds of contamination.

Eat This Instead: Losing weight starts in your own kitchen, by using the same ingredients real chefs have relied on since the dawn of the spatula. (Here are the 15 best dishes for quick and easy weight loss.) If you’re set on the challenge of eating fresh, single-source hamburger, pick out a nice hunk of sirloin from the meat case and have your butcher grind it up fresh. Hold the ammonia.

http://cdn.menshealth.com/images/MensHealth/ETNTBacOBits.jpg

BETTY CROCKER'S BAC-O BITS

We’ve all been there before: A big bowl of lettuce or a steamy baked potato is set before us and the sudden desire for a bit of smoky, porky goodness pervades. We try to resist, but we grab for the bottle anyway: Mmmmm . . . bacon.

The Truth: Not quite. If it’s Bac-Os you grab for, just know that there’s not the slightest whiff of anything pork-like to be found in the bottle. So what are those little chips you’ve been shaking over your salads? Well, mostly soybeans. The bulk of each Bac-O is formed by tiny clumps of soy flour bound with trans-fatty, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and laced with artificial coloring, salt, and sugar. The result is a product that’s actually less healthy for your heart than the real thing!

Eat This Instead: Hormel makes a product called Real Bacon Bits, and as the name implies, it’s made with real bacon. And gram-for-gram, the real bacon actually has fewer calories than Betty Crocker’s Bac-Os. If Hormel can make a nutritionally superior product using real bacon, then why would you ever choose the artificial one that’s loaded with partially hydrogenated soybean oil?

http://cdn.menshealth.com/images/MensHealth/ETNTPremadeGuacamole.jpg

PREMADE GUACAMOLE

When you buy bean dip, you expect it to be made from beans. And when you buy guacamole, it seems reasonable to expect it to be made from avocados. But is it?

The Truth: Most guacamoles with the word “dip” attached to the label suffer from a lack of real avocado. Take Dean’s Guacamole, for example. This guacamole dip is composed of less than 2 percent avocado; the rest of the green goo is a cluster of fillers and chemicals, including modified food starch, soybean oils, locust bean gum, and food coloring. Dean’s is not alone in this offense. In fact, this avocado caper was brought to light when a California woman filed a lawsuit against Kraft after she noticed “it just didn’t taste avocadoey.”

Eat This Instead: Avocados are loaded with fiber and heart-healthy monounsaturated fats. Trading the good stuff in for a bunch of fillers is cheating both your belly and your tastebuds. Either look for the real stuff (Wholly Guacamole makes a great guac), or mash up a bowl yourself. Scoop out the flesh of two avocados, combine with two cloves of minced garlic, a bit of minced onion, the juice of one lemon, chopped cilantro, one medium chopped tomato, and a pinch of salt.

Bonus Tip: Unlike packaged-food manufacturers, fast-food and sit-down restaurants don't typically rely on chemicals to enhance flavor. Instead, they pack in sugar and sodium, calorie counts be damned. Beware of The 10 Worst Fast Food Meals in America!

http://cdn.menshealth.com/images/MensHealth/ETNTFruitOnTheBottom.jpg

FRUIT ON THE BOTTOM YOGURT

It seems like the ideal breakfast or snack for a man or woman on the go—a perfect combination of yogurt and antioxidant-packed fruits, pulled together in one convenient little cup. But are these low-calorie dairy aisle staples really so good for you?

The Truth: While the yogurt itself offers stomach-soothing live cultures and a decent serving of protein, the sugar content of these seemingly healthy products is sky-high. The fruit itself is swimming in thick syrup—so much of it, in fact, that high-fructose corn syrup (and other such sweeteners) often shows up on the ingredients list well before the fruit itself. And these low-quality refined carbohydrates are the last thing you want for breakfast—Australian researchers found that people whose diets were high in carbohydrates had lower metabolisms than those who ate proportionally more protein. Not to mention, spikes in your blood sugar can wreck your short-term memory, according to a study in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Not what you need just before your urgent 9 a.m. meeting with the boss!

Eat This Instead: Plain Greek-style yogurt, mixed with real blueberries. We like Oikos and Fage brands—they’re jacked with about 15 to 22 grams of belly-filling protein, so they’ll help you feel satisfied for longer. And blueberries are another great morning add—scientists in New Zealand found that when they fed blueberries to mice, the rodents ate 9 percent less at their next meal.

Bonus Tip: Daily e-mails (or tweets) that contain weight-loss advice remind you of your goals and help you drop pounds, according to Canadian researchers. We're partial to our own Eat This, Not That! newsletter, and to the instant weight-loss secrets you'll get when you follow me on Twitter (twitter.com/davezinczenko).

http://cdn.menshealth.com/images/MensHealth/ETNTTurkeyBacon.jpg

TURKEY BACON

Pork bacon’s got a bad rap for wreaking havoc on your cholesterol. But is turkey bacon really any better?

The Truth: Stick with the pig. As far as calories go, the difference between “healthy” turkey bacon and “fatty” pig is negligible—and depending on the slice, turkey might sometimes tip the scales a touch more. Additionally, while turkey is indeed a leaner meat, turkey bacon isn’t made from 100 percent bird: One look at the ingredients list will show a long line of suspicious additives and extras that can’t possibly add anything of nutritional value. And finally, the sodium content of the turkey bacon is actually higher than what you’ll find in the kind that oinks—so if you’re worried about your blood pressure, opting for the original version is usually the smarter move.

Eat This Instead: Regular bacon. We like Hormel Black Label and Oscar Mayer Center Cut bacon for some low-cal, low-additive options.

http://cdn.menshealth.com/images/MensHealth/ETNTReducedFatPeanutButter.jpg

REDUCED-FAT PEANUT BUTTER

Nothing makes a PB&J feel less indulgent like a scoop of low-fat Jif. It’s low fat, so it must be better for you . . . right?

The Truth: A tub of reduced-fat peanut butter indeed comes with a fraction less fat than the full-fat variety—they’re not lying about that. But what the food companies don’t tell you is that peanut oil—the fat in peanut butter—is a heart-healthy monounsaturated fat that can actually help fight weight gain, heart disease and diabetes! Instead, they’ve tried to cash in on the “low-fat” craze by replacing that healthy fat with maltodextrin, a carbohydrate used as a filler in many processed foods. This means you’re trading the healthy fat from peanuts for empty carbs, double the sugar, and a savings of a meager 10 calories.

Eat This Instead: The real stuff: no oils, fillers, or added sugars. Just peanuts and salt. Smucker’s Natural fits the bill, as do many other peanut butters out there. We especially like Peanut Butter & Co. Original Smooth Operator and Original Crunch Time.

Bonus Tip: The average American drinks 450 calories a day—a quarter of the calories you're supposed to consume during an entire day! Beware of The 20 Worst Drinks in America, 2010 Edition.

link (http://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/truth-about-your-weight-gain)

RJB
29th December 2010, 05:00 AM
IMO people who are fat are actually malnourished because they are eating crap devoid of real nutrients. Instead of burning the fuels for energy they store it as fat. In a sense it's like putting diesel fuel in a gasoline powered car.

I'm almost 39 and I fit in the same clothes I wore when I was 18. I simply avoid eating anything in a seal plastic bag and stick to fresh foods instead. Eat what rots before it does. Eat a steak instead of a bag of chips.

BrewTech
29th December 2010, 06:36 AM
IMO people who are fat are actually malnourished because they are eating crap devoid of real nutrients. Instead of burning the fuels for energy they store it as fat. In a sense it's like putting diesel fuel in a gasoline powered car.

I'm almost 39 and I fit in the same clothes I wore when I was 18. I simply avoid eating anything in a seal plastic bag and stick to fresh foods instead. Eat what rots before it does. Eat a steak instead of a bag of chips.


Agree with this. I don't really go for the whole "more calories = fat" argument, because I see a lot of people starving themselves, and they can't understand why they are still fat.

The diesel-gasoline analogy is excellent. People are fat and sick because the vast majority of material that people consume is not food at all, and the human body cannot process it as metabolic fuel.

solid
29th December 2010, 07:12 AM
Agree with this. I don't really go for the whole "more calories = fat" argument, because I see a lot of people starving themselves, and they can't understand why they are still fat.


People are ignorant, and buy into the media "diet" calorie-free agenda. They want a quick fix of the problem, and any product that promises weight loss they buy into it.

Empty calories, crap food. The body fuels the mind, as they say, and so empty calories fuel an empty mind. Just want they want, less free thinkers, and more mindless sheep.

The human body is amazing in it's way of adapting. When starved of food, the body goes into a prepping mode, it stores food in the form of fat for a rainy day. The body's metabolism slows down. Same concept with hypothermia or exposure to the cold. The flow of blood shuts down on the extremities, and concentrates on the core vital organs for survival.

Same with water, if you want to lose water weight, you need to drink more water actually. A lot of folks could actually lose that weight if they just drank more water. Most people do not drink enough water.

You are much more healthier eating more smaller meals, than one or two large meals a day. The body doesn't have a chance to go into that saving mode.

Each person is different however, different genetics, etc, but as a general rule this seems to hold true.

nunaem
30th December 2010, 08:58 PM
Agree with this. I don't really go for the whole "more calories = fat" argument, because I see a lot of people starving themselves, and they can't understand why they are still fat.


People are ignorant, and buy into the media "diet" calorie-free agenda. They want a quick fix of the problem, and any product that promises weight loss they buy into it.

Empty calories, crap food. The body fuels the mind, as they say, and so empty calories fuel an empty mind. Just want they want, less free thinkers, and more mindless sheep.

The human body is amazing in it's way of adapting. When starved of food, the body goes into a prepping mode, it stores food in the form of fat for a rainy day. The body's metabolism slows down. Same concept with hypothermia or exposure to the cold. The flow of blood shuts down on the extremities, and concentrates on the core vital organs for survival.

Same with water, if you want to lose water weight, you need to drink more water actually. A lot of folks could actually lose that weight if they just drank more water. Most people do not drink enough water.

You are much more healthier eating more smaller meals, than one or two large meals a day. The body doesn't have a chance to go into that saving mode.

Each person is different however, different genetics, etc, but as a general rule this seems to hold true.


I agree completely with all points except the last one. People eat too many meals already. The stomach was not designed to be constantly topped off with more food all day long, in fact we are healthiest when the stomach is often empty, which is how we naturally lived.

Research Intermittent Fasting and all of its health benefits.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting/fast-way-to-better-health/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting/

IF + a low carb, high fat and high protein diet is the best possible regimen to improve your health and mood and lose fat.

It's not so good for gaining muscle though, so I switched to a high-carb diet and now I feel like crap. >:(

solid
31st December 2010, 09:29 AM
Research Intermittent Fasting and all of its health benefits.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting/fast-way-to-better-health/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting/

IF + a low carb, high fat and high protein diet is the best possible regimen to improve your health and mood and lose fat.

It's not so good for gaining muscle though, so I switched to a high-carb diet and now I feel like crap. >:(


That's what I'm trying to do currently,is gain muscle. A high protein diet helps, but trying to cut out carbs is tough because you always feel hungry. You could eat a 2 lb steak, then 2 hours later be hungry again. Moderate carbs seems to be the best solution.

That IF diet is fascinating actually, and really makes a lot of sense. You keep the body guessing on a program like that. I think you are right, when body is set on a clock of 3 squares a day, at a certain time..it's not natural.

I'm thinking I might try this, for a new years resolution actually. It would be easy to incorporate it into a work out schedule actually. For example,

Day 1 (eat day) Hit the gym hard first thing in the morning, eat a lot of protein based meals through the day, come 6 pm stop eating.

Day 2 (fast day) Rest day from the gym, fast until 6 pm. Then prepare a big feast at the end of the day, a whole chicken, for example, or a big juicy steak to look forward too.

Day 3 repeat of Day 1, and so on.

Alternate rest and gym days, as you would eat and fast days. Keep the body guessing that way.

nunaem
31st December 2010, 10:49 AM
Research Intermittent Fasting and all of its health benefits.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting/fast-way-to-better-health/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting/

IF + a low carb, high fat and high protein diet is the best possible regimen to improve your health and mood and lose fat.

It's not so good for gaining muscle though, so I switched to a high-carb diet and now I feel like crap. >:(


That's what I'm trying to do currently,is gain muscle. A high protein diet helps, but trying to cut out carbs is tough because you always feel hungry. You could eat a 2 lb steak, then 2 hours later be hungry again. Moderate carbs seems to be the best solution.

If you cut enough carbs (<50g a day) for long enough those cravings will go away completely. The first few weeks you'll be craving carbs all day though, that's only because you're kicking an addiction. But after those few weeks carbs wont move you and you will be rarely hungry.

As far as gaining muscle however, carbs are unfortunately helpful and so is eating often, so I've had to abandon my low-carb IF diet for now. A good bulking diet is 35-40% of your total calories from carbs 30-35% from fat and 30% from protein. But only eat protein+carb meals and protein+fat meals, never combine fat with carbs. Carbs and fat are your friends when separate and your enemies when together. Never eat carbs at night either.



That IF diet is fascinating actually, and really makes a lot of sense. You keep the body guessing on a program like that. I think you are right, when body is set on a clock of 3 squares a day, at a certain time..it's not natural.

I'm thinking I might try this, for a new years resolution actually. It would be easy to incorporate it into a work out schedule actually. For example,

Day 1 (eat day) Hit the gym hard first thing in the morning, eat a lot of protein based meals through the day, come 6 pm stop eating.

Day 2 (fast day) Rest day from the gym, fast until 6 pm. Then prepare a big feast at the end of the day, a whole chicken, for example, or a big juicy steak to look forward too.

Day 3 repeat of Day 1, and so on.

Alternate rest and gym days, as you would eat and fast days. Keep the body guessing that way.



The most popular IF schedule is a 16 hour fast followed by an 8 hour eating window (abbreviated as 16/8). This one is the best balance and very easy to maintain, I find that I follow it naturally even if I'm not trying. I start the fast when I go to sleep and start eating again 16 hours later, so I'm fasting about half of my waking day.
There is also the 20/4 or Warrior Diet, which is hard but extremely gratifying. There's nothing as good as feasting like a king for 4 hours after starving for 20 hours.

Eating during the second half of my waking day works best for me because I'm never hungry in the morning. I never got into the habit of force-feeding myself breakfast based on breakfast propaganda, thankfully.

solid
31st December 2010, 12:14 PM
Nunaem, a question for you regarding the warrior diet (20/4).

Like you I'm currently bulking. I've gained 5 pounds or so in the last month, which for me is great. I'm lifting heavier weight in the gym, my testosterone levels are high, naturally of course, and for the first time I notice an ugly vein bulging through my arm doing curls the other day. Ugly, but cool, anyhow. In fact, physically I can't remember when I've felt better.

So basically, I've got a really good thing going right now. My question, is if/when I plateau, which happens to us all...I would like to try the warrior diet. Just to shake things up. How long do you recommend going on a diet like that? Would a short-term, say 7 days, work, or is it something that you need to do long-term to get the benefits from?

I'll do some research as well on that, just thought I would put that question out there.

nunaem
31st December 2010, 01:04 PM
Nunaem, a question for you regarding the warrior diet (20/4).

Like you I'm currently bulking. I've gained 5 pounds or so in the last month, which for me is great. I'm lifting heavier weight in the gym, my testosterone levels are high, naturally of course, and for the first time I notice an ugly vein bulging through my arm doing curls the other day. Ugly, but cool, anyhow. In fact, physically I can't remember when I've felt better.

So basically, I've got a really good thing going right now. My question, is if/when I plateau, which happens to us all...I would like to try the warrior diet. Just to shake things up. How long do you recommend going on a diet like that? Would a short-term, say 7 days, work, or is it something that you need to do long-term to get the benefits from?

I'll do some research as well on that, just thought I would put that question out there.


IF diets are generally meant for the long term. It takes a couple weeks to get accustomed to spending significant periods fasted while still keeping your hunger low and strength high, but your body will get more and more efficient at energy expenditures until you have far more energy while fasting than you did eating all day. Since you are only eating 4 hours a day your body also learns to make the most of it by improving its efficiency at nutrient absorption. I read that Warrior Dieters can increase the amount of protein they are capable of using at one time by up to 150%, for most people this is about 30-40g so that would mean a Warrior Dieter could possibly make use of up to 75-100g of protein for muscle repair in one sitting! It would take longer than a week to reach this level of efficiency though, probably more like a year.

As for plateaus, I've read that taking a week or two off and switching up your exercise routine works good.


I think I'll share a new rule for weightlifting that I made up a couple weeks ago and that has worked wonderfully for me so far:
If it's not a compound barbell exercise it's not worth my time.*

Words to live by. ;D Unfortunately I can't get all the time and effort I wasted doing isolation curls back though. :'(

*Pullups excepted.

lapis
31st December 2010, 02:55 PM
I like the info. on the Perfect Health Diet blog.

Yesterday there was a post about a review of the Perfect Health Diet book by Chris Masterjohn (a frequent contributer to "Wise Traditions," the Weston Price Foundation's quarterly journal).

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=1687

The writers say that sedentary people who don't need to lose weight should eat approximately 600 calories each day as "good" carbs. That works out to 150 grams. The average American eats about twice that much!

*************************

Macronutrient Ratios and Carbohydrate Intake

Step One of our book is about macronutrient ratios. The key goal of Step One is to help readers understand how much of each macronutrient they need to avoid deficiencies and what levels will produce toxicity conditions.

For some macronutrients this is easy, because the evidence is fairly clear:

Protein. Roughly 5% of energy as protein is sufficient to avert a deficiency, and the evidence of toxicity is also fairly clear: protein over 40% of energy can be fatal, and there are less severe indications of toxicity at about 30% for adults, 20% for pregnant women, and 9% for infants.

Polyunsaturated fats. About 0.5% of energy will avert deficiencies of both omega-6 and omega-3 fats, and there are subtle indications of toxicity above about 4% of energy, with the indications becoming obvious above 10%-15% of energy.
[Omega-6 fatty acids, found mainly in vegetable oils, are definitely best in small doses. Note that most packaged crap foods are loaded with heavily-processed vegetable oils.]

Saturated and monounsaturated fats. These are benign at all intake levels: non-toxic in high doses, and impossible to become deficient in (except during starvation) because the body will manufacture them from carbohydrate or protein.

But determining the optimal intake range of carbohydrates is difficult, because unlike the other macronutrients there is no data that lacks confounding factors.

The main problem is that the main sources of carbohydrates in western diets – grains and sugar – contain food toxins such as gluten and fructose. So any benefits from reducing carbs could be the result of reduced toxin intake, not reduced carbohydrate calories.

We know these plant toxins are important, because populations that obtain carbs from “safe starches,” such as yam-eating Kitavans, rice-eating Chinese and Japanese, and potato-eating Irish have been notably healthy. (See, for instance, our China Study posts, our wheat series, and Stephan’s Kitava and potato posts.)

However, in none of those “safe starch” eating populations do we have good data on how health outcomes vary with a differing mix of carbohydrates vs. saturated and monounsaturated fat.

With data lacking, our prescriptions have to be based largely on biologically-informed theory – theory instructed by, as Chris puts it, “circumstantial evidence.”

The “Eat What We Are” Argument
A good first estimate for carb intake comes from the simple precept that we should “eat what we need.” The body’s glucose utilization level, about 600 calories per day, tells us how much we need. The simple prescription, then, would be to eat about 600 calories, or 30% of energy for a slender person, as carbs. Let’s call this intake a “moderate carb” diet.

Evolutionary Arguments
Another place to look for guidance is evolution: what macronutrient ratios has evolution selected for? Here we do not place much weight on ancestral Paleolithic diets, which varied substantially from place to place and time to time. Rather, we place more weight on animal diets and the composition of mother’s milk.

Both human and animal breast milk is majority-fat, moderate-carb, low-protein. In milk of all species, the carb percentage closely tracks the infant’s glucose needs.

In animal diets, the macronutrient ratios delivered to the body depend on the design of the digestive tract, which transforms the macronutrient content of food. Digestive tracts are generally good at transforming carbs into fat. As a result, after transformation most animals have carb intakes equal to or below their carb needs. In ruminants and foregut fermenters, the transformation of carbs into fats is virtually complete; in hindgut fermenters, it is only partial.

Many animals achieve so many of their calories from bacterial fermentation of dietary carbs that their diets are actually highly “ketogenic” and nearly zero-carb.

Thus, evolutionary considerations suggest:

Optimal human carb intake is probably close to or below our glucose utilization of 600 calories per day.

Ketogenic diets with substantial calories from short-chain fats are probably healthy.

I find evolutionary logic convincing. Since healthy creatures will generally have more descendants than unhealthy ones, evolution surely selects for health.

The Argument From Palatability
In addition to being healthy, a diet should be tasty – palatable. People should enjoy it and be pleased to eat it.

This has an influence on macronutrient ratios. Fatty animal foods in general have higher caloric density than carb-rich plant foods. Fruits and berries have 200 calories per pound; potatoes and sweet potatoes 300; taro 600; white rice 1300. In contrast, meat often has about 1000 calories per pound; bacon has about 2400. To eat 30% of calories from carbs, while avoiding toxic foods like grains and sugar, requires eating substantially more plant food than animal food.

But people generally find food most palatable when there is a mix of plant and animal foods. Since carbs come exclusively from plant foods (excepting milk), which have lower caloric density, this means a tasty diet inevitably has more fat than carb calories.

The Argument From Toxicity
As we note in the book, plant foods have more toxins than animal foods. This is because they use toxins to poison animals that might eat them, while animals cannot easily poison predators without also poisoning themselves.

Toxins are found in nearly all plant foods. Peter at Hyperlipid has a post today about berry toxins, pointing out that they have a similar biological effect to a pharamaceutical drug, anacetrapib, that raised the death rate in clinical trials. (I note in the comments that the benefits from poisoning gut pathogens and cancer cells might outweigh the damage from direct toxicity. This is why I eat “Neo-Agutak” – cranberries. )

If it’s desirable to avoid toxins, it’s desirable to keep plant food intake down and animal food intake up. Given the low caloric density of most plant foods, that also implies that carb calories will need to be low on an optimal diet.

Plateau Ranges
As Chris notes, we do not define precise optima for each nutrient, but rather suggest “plateau ranges” that achieve all the benefits and none of the toxic effects.

Based on the above reasoning, for carbohydrates, our estimated plateau range is from 10% of energy on the low end (which we recommend for therapeutic ketogenic diets) to 30% on the high end (a “moderate carb” diet in which all the body’s glucose needs are met from diet).

We do suggest specific values of 20% carbs, 15% protein, and 65% fat. These are mid-range values which casual dieters may wish to aim for; even if they miss by 10% of energy on any macronutrient, they will still be in the plateau range.

What Happens If You Deviate From the Optimum?
But if this logic tells us what the optimal carb intake is, it does not tell us how much harm is done by carb intakes different from the optimum.

Here I agree with Chris that in healthy people, the damage to health from changes in the carb:fat ratio could be very small, as long as the carb sources do not contain appreciable toxins. The body has a great capacity to convert carbs to fat. So long as that transformational capability remains undamaged, a very high-carb diet may be functionally very little different from an optimal diet.

In metabolically damaged people, however, transformations from one macronutrient to another may be impaired. In this case, the body may have very little flexibility in repairing a suboptimal carb:fat ratio.

I thus agree with Chris’s conclusion:

I thus find it very difficult to believe that humans must maintain their diets within a very narrow range of macronutrient ratios. More likely, the human body is extraordinarily flexible and can tolerate a wide range of carbohydrate and fat intakes.

That said, it may well be the case that in modern folks with damaged metabolism, low-carb is the way to go. Indeed, well controlled studies have clearly shown that low-carbohydrate diets are superior to low-fat diets by a multitude of criteria for people with various markers of the metabolic syndrome (references here, here, and here).

Nothing in the book contradicts this conclusion. As an editorial decision, we chose to describe the “perfect” diet for health without spending space discussing imperfect diets. Given that decision, we didn’t need to address whether a 90% carb diet is only marginally worse, or much worse, than a 30% carb diet.

But that is an appropriate topic for discussion on the blog. I’ve begun a “zero-carb dangers” series; perhaps I should do a “high-carb dangers” series too.

Conclusion
Much research will be needed to disentangle the relative contributions of plant toxins and carbohydrate calories to health.

It looks from early evidence that intake of plant toxins may be much more consequential for health than the overall carbohydrate level. This is good news, since selection of low-toxicity foods and preparation methods that detoxify foods may enable big improvements in human health.

Nevertheless, even if most toxins can be removed, there are reasons to believe that a low- to moderate-carb (10% to 30% of calories as carbs) diet will be optimal for human health. Such a diet seems to work well for nearly everyone, even the metabolically damaged; and it produces a tasty diet that is a pleasure to eat. It therefore seems the most prudent recommendation for diet book authors to make. And we stand by it!

solid
31st December 2010, 03:57 PM
I think I'll share a new rule for weightlifting that I made up a couple weeks ago and that has worked wonderfully for me so far:
If it's not a compound barbell exercise it's not worth my time.*

Words to live by. ;D Unfortunately I can't get all the time and effort I wasted doing isolation curls back though. :'(

*Pullups excepted.


That is a great rule, we think alike. Compound lifts are the core of my routine.

I found a good interview about the warrior diet.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler49.htm

The whole philosophy behind it really makes sense. It would be great to spend less time eating actually, and to just focus on one big meal in the evening. It would really simplify life down a bit and free up a lot of time. We spend too much time preparing all these meals, breakfast, lunch. Plus once adapted to that diet, it's a great way to prepare for the future (way things are going).

Be a warrior active all day, then settle down and enjoy a big feast in the evening. Eat whatever you like, as much as you like.

Great idea to ponder and give thought to. I think I'd like to try sometime.

nunaem
31st December 2010, 04:38 PM
I think I'll share a new rule for weightlifting that I made up a couple weeks ago and that has worked wonderfully for me so far:
If it's not a compound barbell exercise it's not worth my time.*

Words to live by. ;D Unfortunately I can't get all the time and effort I wasted doing isolation curls back though. :'(

*Pullups excepted.


That is a great rule, we think alike. Compound lifts are the core of my routine.

I found a good interview about the warrior diet.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler49.htm

The whole philosophy behind it really makes sense. It would be great to spend less time eating actually, and to just focus on one big meal in the evening. It would really simplify life down a bit and free up a lot of time. We spend too much time preparing all these meals, breakfast, lunch. Plus once adapted to that diet, it's a great way to prepare for the future (way things are going).

Be a warrior active all day, then settle down and enjoy a big feast in the evening. Eat whatever you like, as much as you like.

Great idea to ponder and give thought to. I think I'd like to try sometime.


All of that food at the end of the day quickly puts me in a very deep sleep as well. The best part is the first hour of eating, I feel like a ravenous predator that has finally caught its prey, I really feel like an animal.

The best seasoning is hunger!