Top 10 Diet Myths Debunked.
02-07-2011, 10:38 PM
#1
Top 10 Diet Myths Debunked.
A long, but very interesting article.
I posted an excerpt and the myths below. Go to the link for all the info....
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html
I posted an excerpt and the myths below. Go to the link for all the info....
I've listed the ten most common fasting and diet myths that exist to make people resistant to intermittent fasting. I've explained why they're wrong and linked out to references and other resources for those who would like to read a more detailed review of the issues. I've also listed their origins, or what I believe to be their origins.
I've dealt with each myth many times before on this site but it would be good to have everything in one place. Even if you've been following me for a while, you'll find some new information here I haven't discussed in the past. It's a long read but it'll be worth your while.
1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.
3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.
4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
6. Myth: Fasting causes muscle loss.
7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.
8. Myth: Fasting increases cortisol.
9. Myth: Fasted training sucks. You'll lose muscle and have no strength.
10. Myth: "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch a queen, dinner like a pauper."
....
This is my biggest frustration with this industry. Those that scream loud enough win - the supplement companies, mass media "health experts" and diet gurus with Magic Pills and Secret Methods to sell.
Someone who is unfamiliar with my background may easily mistake me and my writings for the latter and believe I have presented evidence that would somehow favor my methods, which I have not. This is unfortunate but understandable since almost everyone else in this industry tends to do it. It leads to much confusion as laypersons think everyone is trying to sell them something. For them, finding objective facts is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
But remember: never once have I said, or claimed, that I believe everyone needs to convert to intermittent fasting - or even that it is proven to be superior to a regular healthy diet. The research surrounding intermittent fasting is very interesting but it's too early to draw any definitive conclusions.
I am still of the opinion that the best diet is the one you can stick to in the long term. However, the decision should be based on personal preference and not neurotic adherence to a diet built on faulty and bad science.
I've dealt with each myth many times before on this site but it would be good to have everything in one place. Even if you've been following me for a while, you'll find some new information here I haven't discussed in the past. It's a long read but it'll be worth your while.
1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".
2. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control.
3. Myth: Eat small meals to keep blood sugar levels under control.
4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
5. Myth: Maintain a steady supply of amino acids by eating protein every 2-3 hours. The body can only absorb 30 grams of protein in one sitting.
6. Myth: Fasting causes muscle loss.
7. Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad and will make you fat.
8. Myth: Fasting increases cortisol.
9. Myth: Fasted training sucks. You'll lose muscle and have no strength.
10. Myth: "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch a queen, dinner like a pauper."
....
This is my biggest frustration with this industry. Those that scream loud enough win - the supplement companies, mass media "health experts" and diet gurus with Magic Pills and Secret Methods to sell.
Someone who is unfamiliar with my background may easily mistake me and my writings for the latter and believe I have presented evidence that would somehow favor my methods, which I have not. This is unfortunate but understandable since almost everyone else in this industry tends to do it. It leads to much confusion as laypersons think everyone is trying to sell them something. For them, finding objective facts is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
But remember: never once have I said, or claimed, that I believe everyone needs to convert to intermittent fasting - or even that it is proven to be superior to a regular healthy diet. The research surrounding intermittent fasting is very interesting but it's too early to draw any definitive conclusions.
I am still of the opinion that the best diet is the one you can stick to in the long term. However, the decision should be based on personal preference and not neurotic adherence to a diet built on faulty and bad science.
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html
03-16-2011, 09:24 AM
#2
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Farmington, CT
Age: 45
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 1 and 7 are very true, not myths. The more healthy foods i eat, the faster my metabolism is. When i eat 3 meals per day (which is totally arbitrary btw) i feel like crap.
Big breakfasts make sense. Body has been starving all night and needs food. Who can argue with that?
Big breakfasts make sense. Body has been starving all night and needs food. Who can argue with that?
03-16-2011, 04:59 PM
#3
That's just it. They're not true and there are no scientific studies that prove them to be so. The studies that claim the myths to be "true", are conducted and controlled poorly and are cited out of context.
Re-read #1 at the link above and you will see that there is no difference between eating three 800 calorie meals per day or eating 24 100 calorie meals per day.
Re-read #1 at the link above and you will see that there is no difference between eating three 800 calorie meals per day or eating 24 100 calorie meals per day.
03-16-2011, 07:28 PM
#4
3G TL/2G MDX Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The west side of the Potomac River
Posts: 5,375
Received 978 Likes
on
803 Posts
the blogger does not cite his sources. anyone can make something sound/look good or true with the available data that goes in favor of that view. what is the quality of the studies he's referring to?? have those studies been reproduced?? what journal?? obviously he's not writing a dissertation on the topic, but if you start making these bold claims you better back it up with proof. just my 
03-16-2011, 08:43 PM
#5
Each myth has various studies cited in orange letters.
Just from #1, I pulled the following three sources:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...html#more-1389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Just because people who eat less meals weigh more, doesn't mean that eating less meals causes them to weigh more.
At least read the whole article before making bold claims against it.
Just from #1, I pulled the following three sources:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...html#more-1389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Just because people who eat less meals weigh more, doesn't mean that eating less meals causes them to weigh more.
At least read the whole article before making bold claims against it.
03-16-2011, 09:17 PM
#6
3G TL/2G MDX Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The west side of the Potomac River
Posts: 5,375
Received 978 Likes
on
803 Posts
Each myth has various studies cited in orange letters.
Just from #1, I pulled the following three sources:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...html#more-1389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
At least read the whole article before making bold claims against it.
Just from #1, I pulled the following three sources:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...html#more-1389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
At least read the whole article before making bold claims against it.
03-16-2011, 09:58 PM
#7
On the right side of the pub med pages there are links to the related studies.
I certainly am not claiming the article to be gospel by any means. I simply find it interesting to listen/read other's opinions when there is some fact involved.
In the end, weight loss is what works for you.
I certainly am not claiming the article to be gospel by any means. I simply find it interesting to listen/read other's opinions when there is some fact involved.
In the end, weight loss is what works for you.
Trending Topics
03-17-2011, 06:49 AM
#8
3G TL/2G MDX Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The west side of the Potomac River
Posts: 5,375
Received 978 Likes
on
803 Posts
well lucky me, that's not an issue. a better thought would be why does eating have to revolve around weight loss all the time?? what we eat and how we eat should be a lifestyle. eat healthy, live healthy. choose the alternative...well that's your perogative and your health (this i not directed at sho_nuff, i'm just saying in general). for me its about eating for fuel but then again that's a reflection of my lifestyle. don't get me wrong i love really good food within the confines of my own healthy habits.
the title of the thread can be quite misleading as if you are promoting the article as "gospel." i'd throw my disclaimer on it which i think you did in your last comment.
the title of the thread can be quite misleading as if you are promoting the article as "gospel." i'd throw my disclaimer on it which i think you did in your last comment.
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (04-15-2014)
03-17-2011, 07:33 AM
#9
I can see where the title can be misleading. That said, I just used the title of the author's article (he said he should have renamed it at the end of the article).
I agree that a healthy lifestyle is conducive to feeling good. I also think that education can go a long way to helping one choose a healthy lifestyle.
I agree that a healthy lifestyle is conducive to feeling good. I also think that education can go a long way to helping one choose a healthy lifestyle.
03-17-2011, 07:51 AM
#10
3G TL/2G MDX Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The west side of the Potomac River
Posts: 5,375
Received 978 Likes
on
803 Posts
I can see where the title can be misleading. That said, I just used the title of the author's article (he said he should have renamed it at the end of the article).
I agree that a healthy lifestyle is conducive to feeling good. I also think that education can go a long way to helping one choose a healthy lifestyle.
I agree that a healthy lifestyle is conducive to feeling good. I also think that education can go a long way to helping one choose a healthy lifestyle.
03-18-2011, 11:13 AM
#12
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Farmington, CT
Age: 45
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's just it. They're not true and there are no scientific studies that prove them to be so. The studies that claim the myths to be "true", are conducted and controlled poorly and are cited out of context.
Re-read #1 at the link above and you will see that there is no difference between eating three 800 calorie meals per day or eating 24 100 calorie meals per day.
Re-read #1 at the link above and you will see that there is no difference between eating three 800 calorie meals per day or eating 24 100 calorie meals per day.
I have a huge breakfast filled with eggs and wheat toast around 6am. At 9:30am i'm ravishingly hungry. Should i not eat till 12?
It is total bs to think that my metabolism is exactly the same if i eat when i'm hungry or starve myself for 2 1/2hrs till meal time.
I eat around 3000 - 4000 calories a day. You can't pack 1000-1500 calories into one meal w/o becoming a fat ass.
I don't believe it...and anyone who trains isn't gonna believe this can be done. You'd be absolutely starving for 50% of the day and overweight.
03-18-2011, 11:23 AM
#14
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Farmington, CT
Age: 45
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading #1 i can see clearly why it is bullsh*t.
"However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency."
They are only talking about total calories in and out. That is meaningless when talking about metabolism. What about insulin production? That is a HUGE part of fat loss and gain.
It does also not talk about muscle glycogen stores and energy reserves. Both critical parts of getting a good workout in.
Artical is full of fail and only 1 dimensional.
"However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency."
They are only talking about total calories in and out. That is meaningless when talking about metabolism. What about insulin production? That is a HUGE part of fat loss and gain.
It does also not talk about muscle glycogen stores and energy reserves. Both critical parts of getting a good workout in.
Artical is full of fail and only 1 dimensional.
03-18-2011, 02:29 PM
#15
3G TL/2G MDX Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The west side of the Potomac River
Posts: 5,375
Received 978 Likes
on
803 Posts
After reading #1 i can see clearly why it is bullsh*t.
"However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency."
They are only talking about total calories in and out. That is meaningless when talking about metabolism. What about insulin production? That is a HUGE part of fat loss and gain.
It does also not talk about muscle glycogen stores and energy reserves. Both critical parts of getting a good workout in.
Artical is full of fail and only 1 dimensional.
"However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency."
They are only talking about total calories in and out. That is meaningless when talking about metabolism. What about insulin production? That is a HUGE part of fat loss and gain.
It does also not talk about muscle glycogen stores and energy reserves. Both critical parts of getting a good workout in.
Artical is full of fail and only 1 dimensional.
03-18-2011, 10:44 PM
#16
After reading #1 i can see clearly why it is bullsh*t.
"However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency."
They are only talking about total calories in and out. That is meaningless when talking about metabolism. What about insulin production? That is a HUGE part of fat loss and gain.
It does also not talk about muscle glycogen stores and energy reserves. Both critical parts of getting a good workout in.
Artical is full of fail and only 1 dimensional.
"However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency."
They are only talking about total calories in and out. That is meaningless when talking about metabolism. What about insulin production? That is a HUGE part of fat loss and gain.
It does also not talk about muscle glycogen stores and energy reserves. Both critical parts of getting a good workout in.
Artical is full of fail and only 1 dimensional.
So, simply by reading #1, you have determined that the "artical" is a failure? That's like watching a preview and saying the movie was horrible. Sure, you can do that, but then you'd just be jumping to conclusions without all the data.
You are correct about insulin sensitivity and secretion being crucial to fat loss. Knowing whether you have high or low insulin secretion can help you to pick a proper diet. If you have low insulin, your body can process carbs much faster than someone with high insulin.
Again, this all goes back to what works for you. That being said....just because you eat multiple meals per day and have a high metabolism, doesn't mean that eating multiple meals per day causes the high metabolism.
Also, there is talk about insulin and glycogen stores in the other myths. :wink:
03-19-2011, 02:46 AM
#17
I shoot people
I actually believe in most of those... the 10 of the 12+ years of personal training, I worked for a referral company that did all the diets, and I did all the training. And after over 800 clients (estimated number, I stopped counting at 500 and it was about 6 years into it), They preached those so call "myths". Yet, I (or I should say "we") had a pretty high success rate. But the one thing I do agree is the part where it says "...the best diet is the one you can stick to...."
03-19-2011, 12:57 PM
#18
Senior Moderator
Well most of those along with exercise has allowed me to loose over 40lbs 
03-19-2011, 01:08 PM
#19
I shoot people
03-19-2011, 03:26 PM
#20
We could compare anecdotal evidence all day. The point the author is making, is that there are not any scientific studies that prove eating more meals per day will give you a higher metabolism, etc.
IMO, just about any rational diet coupled with exercise will help you lose weight (some more than others), but that doesn't mean I'm going discount a whole article because of it.
The purpose of me posting the article was not say what everybody is doing is wrong, or what works for others is wrong. I only posted it because I thought it was an interesting to read different results from the various studies. Yes, I understand the title is misleading, but that is the author's title, not mine.
IMO, just about any rational diet coupled with exercise will help you lose weight (some more than others), but that doesn't mean I'm going discount a whole article because of it.
The purpose of me posting the article was not say what everybody is doing is wrong, or what works for others is wrong. I only posted it because I thought it was an interesting to read different results from the various studies. Yes, I understand the title is misleading, but that is the author's title, not mine.
Last edited by sho_nuff1997; 03-19-2011 at 03:28 PM.
03-19-2011, 03:52 PM
#21
3G TL/2G MDX Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The west side of the Potomac River
Posts: 5,375
Received 978 Likes
on
803 Posts
oh the controversy!! i was wondering what that author's educational background was. it doesn't really say on his site except that he is a nutrition "expert" and personal trainer blah blah blah. whether the author has "evidence" (which he really needs to back up, before making such claims), what type of credibility does he have??
03-22-2011, 10:00 AM
#22
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Farmington, CT
Age: 45
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, simply by reading #1, you have determined that the "artical" is a failure? That's like watching a preview and saying the movie was horrible. Sure, you can do that, but then you'd just be jumping to conclusions without all the data.
You are correct about insulin sensitivity and secretion being crucial to fat loss. Knowing whether you have high or low insulin secretion can help you to pick a proper diet. If you have low insulin, your body can process carbs much faster than someone with high insulin.
Again, this all goes back to what works for you. That being said....just because you eat multiple meals per day and have a high metabolism, doesn't mean that eating multiple meals per day causes the high metabolism.
Also, there is talk about insulin and glycogen stores in the other myths. :wink:
You are correct about insulin sensitivity and secretion being crucial to fat loss. Knowing whether you have high or low insulin secretion can help you to pick a proper diet. If you have low insulin, your body can process carbs much faster than someone with high insulin.
Again, this all goes back to what works for you. That being said....just because you eat multiple meals per day and have a high metabolism, doesn't mean that eating multiple meals per day causes the high metabolism.
Also, there is talk about insulin and glycogen stores in the other myths. :wink:
No, i'm saying it is bs after reading all the technical articles that the circle of links pointed me too.
I'm also bouncing it off of the thousands of articles i have read on nutrition by everyone from Opra to Flex authors. Somewhere in the middle you get to the real story and if you read enough, you draw your own conclusions.
The articles give half truths and that is why they are full of fail and misleading.
04-14-2014, 03:07 PM
#23
Team Owner
My friend has been doing this the last few months. His stomach has gone from pretty solid 6 pack to ripped 6 pack with obliques. Mind you the routine associated with lF eating has 0 ab work and 0 cardio. Plus he weighs 160 and deadlifts 405 multiple times. I'm not endorsing it, just making an observation that it works for someone who I see weekly at the gym.
The following users liked this post:
is300eater (04-14-2014)
04-14-2014, 08:15 PM
#24
One thing I've been thinking of is the notion that you need to consume 1-2 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass, depending on your goals and activity level. I used to follow it at first but I really started to think about it as I've increased my activity level while varying up my diet a wee bit.
Of course you need to consume a good amount of protein throughout the day, but why should I believe that I need to consume 200-300 grams of protein per day? Especially considering this statement is always plastered on every label or endorsement for protein powder supplements...
And why would there be a direct correlation between the amount of grams you need and the amount of muscle you already have?
"one gram of protein per pound of muscle" just seems more like it was moreso intended to be a rule of thumb rather than the results of any serious study... IMO it could very well just be a marketing plot by supplement manufacturers.. Just my
Of course you need to consume a good amount of protein throughout the day, but why should I believe that I need to consume 200-300 grams of protein per day? Especially considering this statement is always plastered on every label or endorsement for protein powder supplements...
And why would there be a direct correlation between the amount of grams you need and the amount of muscle you already have?
"one gram of protein per pound of muscle" just seems more like it was moreso intended to be a rule of thumb rather than the results of any serious study... IMO it could very well just be a marketing plot by supplement manufacturers.. Just my
04-15-2014, 07:14 AM
#25
Team Owner
^I feel you dude. However a lot of companies/trainers/blogs etc preach this that may/may not have affiliation with a particular protein powder manufacturer. Obviously we'll never know but it's a pretty common belief. I kind of feel the same way about frequency of oil changes. Every 3000 IMO is total bs. Some swear by it but my old Accord lasted 200k miles without the engine breaking. 
04-15-2014, 07:33 AM
#26
One thing I've been thinking of is the notion that you need to consume 1-2 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass, depending on your goals and activity level. I used to follow it at first but I really started to think about it as I've increased my activity level while varying up my diet a wee bit.
Of course you need to consume a good amount of protein throughout the day, but why should I believe that I need to consume 200-300 grams of protein per day? Especially considering this statement is always plastered on every label or endorsement for protein powder supplements...
And why would there be a direct correlation between the amount of grams you need and the amount of muscle you already have? "one gram of protein per pound of muscle" just seems more like it was moreso intended to be a rule of thumb rather than the results of any serious study... IMO it could very well just be a marketing plot by supplement manufacturers.. Just my
Of course you need to consume a good amount of protein throughout the day, but why should I believe that I need to consume 200-300 grams of protein per day? Especially considering this statement is always plastered on every label or endorsement for protein powder supplements...
And why would there be a direct correlation between the amount of grams you need and the amount of muscle you already have?
"one gram of protein per pound of muscle" just seems more like it was moreso intended to be a rule of thumb rather than the results of any serious study... IMO it could very well just be a marketing plot by supplement manufacturers.. Just my I saw a science study saying the optimum amount of protein is .8 grams.
I get all my protein from foods any way, i try to stay away from supplements.
04-15-2014, 07:37 PM
#27
But is there any science behind the 1-2 grams per pound guide? IMO it's not too different from all the people saying if you take in 5000% of your daily value of vitamin C you'll be that much healthier. If you take in more than what's really needed then it's just a waste. I've typically just seen it as something people accept as the truth. I'm just skeptical, is all.
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (04-16-2014)
04-16-2014, 07:12 AM
#28
Team Owner
A quick Google search and I found this:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/64/1/187.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/64/1/187.short
The present study examined the effects of training status (endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance, body composition, and urea excretion during periods of habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.
Copyright © 1988 the American Physiological Society
Author Information
M. A. Tarnopolsky,
J. D. MacDougall, and
S. A. Atkinson
Department of Physical Education and Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Copyright © 1988 the American Physiological Society
Author Information
M. A. Tarnopolsky,
J. D. MacDougall, and
S. A. Atkinson
Department of Physical Education and Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The following 2 users liked this post by Doom878:
justnspace (04-16-2014),
Rapture (04-27-2014)
04-27-2014, 09:24 PM
#29
Y'know it's kind of ironic because I was just on GNCs site and they have a "Know your protein number" feature. According to it I only need to take in 130 grams of protein 
Kinda expected them of all people to suggest I take in 250 grams.
04-28-2014, 01:16 AM
#30
If so, that's a fucking relief. Also seemed like that was always true. I've only started taking fitness seriously in the past half year or so, but it makes sense now.
04-28-2014, 10:51 AM
#32
Pro
If you're trying to put on lean muscle mass then I would highly recommend 1.25g of protein per day. Not because you're body NEEDS that much protein, but because it doesn't need the additional calories in the form of grams of carbs and fats.
For example, my body needs 2865 total calories to build lean muscle mass based on my daily activity level, weight, and body fat %. There are several ways to get to that calorie count....I could eat all pasta, all steak, or all cereal, or any combination of foods to get to that calorie count. The most efficient way for me to get to that calorie count is with the follow metrics:
200g of protein, 252g of carbs, 125g of fat
If I consume less protein, by default I'll consume more carbs or fats making the "lean" part of adding muscle mass more difficult.
These metrics were based off a dietitian's advice and have helped my strength numbers continuously climb while maintaining a defined look.
For example, my body needs 2865 total calories to build lean muscle mass based on my daily activity level, weight, and body fat %. There are several ways to get to that calorie count....I could eat all pasta, all steak, or all cereal, or any combination of foods to get to that calorie count. The most efficient way for me to get to that calorie count is with the follow metrics:
200g of protein, 252g of carbs, 125g of fat
If I consume less protein, by default I'll consume more carbs or fats making the "lean" part of adding muscle mass more difficult.
These metrics were based off a dietitian's advice and have helped my strength numbers continuously climb while maintaining a defined look.
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (04-28-2014)
04-28-2014, 11:20 AM
#34
04-28-2014, 11:40 AM
#35
Pro
A shortage of carbs would likely result in a slightly decreased performance at the gym which would in turn decrease my fat burning and muscle building abilities for that day. I typically consume 80% - 90% of my carbs right before bed and train fasted at 5:00AM every morning.
Most people have a negative view on carbs ever since the adkins diet, however when done correctly they are a very good thing for your body. My sources are rarely breads or grains, and instead vegetables and sweet potatoes.
04-28-2014, 11:44 AM
#36
Senior Moderator
Myth: Diet "fads" rule.
04-28-2014, 01:28 PM
#37
Team Owner
Many low carb diets do like carbs but not grains/pastas. Devil Dog you must eat a lot of veggies for that much in a day. I noticed you mention fasting. Are you doing TIFF and eating only in an 8 hour window?
04-28-2014, 07:11 PM
#39
Pro
I follow a site/"diet" called Eat To Perform - http://eattoperform.com/
Not trying to spam or sell anything, and I'm not affiliated with them in any way, but I've had the dietician at my wife's office review the info and my metrics and she highly approves. Plus my results have been phenomenal.
Last edited by Devil Dog 21; 04-28-2014 at 07:14 PM.
The following 3 users liked this post by Devil Dog 21: