PDA

View Full Version : Dangers of Ultra Low Fat Diet?



aka23
02-08-2003, 01:38 PM
REMOVED due to one poster using this post to discredit me in threads that unrelated to this topic.

GonePostal
02-08-2003, 01:51 PM
You need fat. Fat is a good thing not a bad thing. You need fat to create hormones and create new cells.

bradley
02-08-2003, 02:01 PM
http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/16/omega3.htm

http://www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/beginner_fats.htm

These two articles may be of interest to you.

EdgeCrusher
02-08-2003, 06:50 PM
Are you overweight? Because you're taking in way too many carbs and not enough protein. Also, fat is good when they are the "good fats." Which generally come from non-processed stuff and not from meat. You should increase your fat, but avoid that "partially hydrogenated" crap and meat if you are already getting a good intake.

aka23
02-08-2003, 07:31 PM
Are you overweight? Because you're taking in way too many carbs and not enough protein.

No, I am not overweight. I am 6ft, 160lb, and a little under 5% bodyfat. I am taking in ~1g protein per lb. This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.


Also, fat is good when they are the "good fats." Which generally come from non-processed stuff and not from meat. You should increase your fat, but avoid that "partially hydrogenated" crap and meat if you are already getting a good intake.

The majority of the fat that I do get comes from natural non-meat sources, such as oatmeal. However, according to the articles that bradley listed meat fat has benefits. They suggested that people need to increase their ratio of omega3 (fish/fish oil) to omega 6 (vegatable oil) fats.

In any case, I do not eat any unnatural foods or foods that contain "partionally hydrogenated" fat. I bought some EFA suppliments today that contain both omega3 and omega6, to be on the safe side.

_-_v_-_
02-08-2003, 07:34 PM
Honestly, you sound exactly like I was two years ago.

You do NOT want to know what you are doing to your testosterone levels by doing this. Trust me.

I'm two years out and still not recovered.

Eat. Fat.

It. Is. Not. Bad. For. You.

Repeat: Fat is a Good Thing (TM).

EdgeCrusher
02-08-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by aka23


No, I am not overweight. I am 6ft, 160lb, and about 4% bodyfat. I am taking in about 150g of protein per day or .94g protein per lb. This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.



The majority of the fat that I do get comes from natural non-meat sources, such as oatmeal. However, according to the articles that bradley listed meat fat has benefits. They suggested that people need to increase their ratio of omega3 (meat/fish oil) to omega 6 (vegatable oil) fats. I suspect that the article is giving a distorted impression and both types of fats are important.

In any case, I do not eat any unnatural foods or foods that contain "partionally hydrogenated" fat. I know I should increase my fat intake, but I am uncomfortable making any drastic changes. I bought some EFA suppliments today that contain both omega3 and omega6, to be on the safe side.

The you sound like you're doing decent right now. I'd still increase my fat and protein a decent amount, but from what you've said, you're doing OK.

Saint Patrick
02-09-2003, 12:18 AM
I'd say make carbs no more than 40% of your total coloric intake. Given your low BW and BF I'm assuming you're trying to bulk. I'd recommend 40c/40p/20f or something like that. Invest in some olive oil for some healthy monounsaturated fat and some flax or fish oil for some EFA's. These guys are right, eat more fat, but also eat more protein.

restless
02-09-2003, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by aka23


No, I am not overweight. I am 6ft, 160lb, and about 4% bodyfat. I am taking in about 150g of protein per day or .94g protein per lb. This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.



If they're recommending this either they don't know what they're talking about, or that book is outdated by around 20 years.



The majority of the fat that I do get comes from natural non-meat sources, such as oatmeal. However, according to the articles that bradley listed meat fat has benefits. They suggested that people need to increase their ratio of omega3 (meat/fish oil) to omega 6 (vegatable oil) fats. I suspect that the article is giving a distorted impression and both types of fats are important.

He is not giving a distorted view, he is just recommending the necessary adjustments for regular crap diets that are way to high in O6 and O3 deficient.

Read this one too:

Big fat lie (http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/24/carbs1.htm)


In any case, I do not eat any unnatural foods or foods that contain "partionally hydrogenated" fat. I know I should increase my fat intake, but I am uncomfortable making any drastic changes. I bought some EFA suppliments today that contain both omega3 and omega6, to be on the safe side.

Unnatural is a very relative term, to me, most food you're eating is unnatural and a low fat diet is the most unnatural of them all. Try to find a hunther gatherer tribe that still lives like we did for a couple of million years that's on a lowfat diet. The Enuiq for example, had a diet of only animal protein and fat and had absolutely no heart disease or diabetes.

Fat is used to mantain hornonal balance and has many structural functions too. Only some amino acids and those two kinds of fatty acid that have been mentioned are really essential to our healths, but even this simple fact people fail to understand.

You can be sure you are damaging your health, and the longer you do it the worst it will be.

aka23
02-09-2003, 06:43 AM
You do NOT want to know what you are doing to your testosterone levels by doing this. Trust me.

I did a search on the Internet on low fat diets and testosterone. Unfortunately, I could little find little consistent data in the amount of decrease. The article linked below gives a good summary of the recent studies:

http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/incledon/diet02.htm

They found that "the best type of diet to follow if your only concern is to increase testosterone levels and make more of it available to the body for the purpose of improving lean body mass and/or performance" should have the following:

1. Carb needs to exceeds protein by at least 40% to keep the bioactive fraction of Testosterone high.
2. Fat intake should be at least 30%
3. Saturated fat needs to be higher than polyunsaturated fatty acids
4. Fiber intake needs to be low

Their example diet to increase Testosterone levels was 55% carbs, 15% protein, 30% fat.

To lower testosterone in order to minimize cardiovascular disease risk factors and/or hormone-dependent cancer risks, their example diet was 50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat.

aka23
02-09-2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by aka23
This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.

Originally posted by restless
If they're recommending this either they don't know what they're talking about, or that book is outdated by around 20 years.

I dont think the American College of Sports Medicine and those other organizations all don't know what they are talking about. They have a lot of recent scientific studies to back up their numbers. The following article gives a good summary of needs:

http://www.power-nutrition.com/healthy%20eating/amino.html

Here is a quote:
Peter Lemon, PhD, an exercise physiologist at Kent State University in Ohio, has spent his career studying the protein requirements of strength and endurance athletes. Based on his studies, Lemon advises no more than 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight per day. Consuming protein above this amount will probably not offer any additional benefits. Greater intakes than 1 gm/lb mean you're likely wasting money on excess protein. Extra protein breaks down into nitrogen that is excreted in urine. The calories are either used for energy or stored as fat. The following table can provide a guideline for how much protein you should eating.

Table 1. Recommended Grams of Protein Per Pound of Body Weight Per Day*
_________________________________________
RDA for sedentary adult 0.4
Adult recreational exerciser 0.5 - 0.75
Adult competitive athlete 0.7 - 0.9
Adult building muscle mass 0.7 -1.0
Growing teenage athlete 0.9 -1.0
__________________________________________


My .94g/day is above the 0.7-0.9 recommeded range for competitive athletes.

restless
02-09-2003, 07:26 AM
I have no issue whatsoever with 1gr per pound protein intake, I myself don't go much above that. I do have an issue with the low fat argument though. The 30 % guideline is a good place to start, and be sure to have some saturated fat in that diet too.

_-_v_-_
02-09-2003, 07:47 AM
Exactly.

I myself use a 45/30/25 c/p/f split, and it's been working well.

Shao-LiN
02-09-2003, 10:33 AM
At least 20% of your caloric intake should come from fats. Fats are pretty beneficial to a bulk, especially in maintaining a good hormonal profile. You'd also need fat to keep the fat off.

aka23
02-09-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by restless
Unnatural is a very relative term, to me, most food you're eating is unnatural and a low fat diet is the most unnatural of them all. Try to find a hunther gatherer tribe that still lives like we did for a couple of million years that's on a lowfat diet. The Enuiq for example, had a diet of only animal protein and fat and had absolutely no heart disease or diabetes.

It depends on your perspective. All primates evolved from a low-fat , high-carb diet. If you look at our nearest primate neighbor, the chipanzee, they eat more than 80% carb and under 9% fat. Some might call the hunter-gatherer unnatural. There were plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate low fat diets. For example the men of the Oto tribe in the forests of Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. There were also plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate high proetin, high-fat diets.

The Enuiq's no heart disease/no diabetes is not unique. For example tribes in Africa, New Guinea, Ecuador, and Mexico, all of which eat diets containing less than 10 percent fat and protein respectively, and about 80 percent complex carbohydrate have rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, and diabetes of near zero. After introducing the traditional Western diet, they often develop numerous problems.

I am not saying that high-carb diets are good and low-carb diets are bad. I am saying that humans have evolved do well on a wide variety of diets. One of the few diets that we haven't evolved to do well on is the Western diet of junk food, partially hydrogenated fats, etc.

restless
02-09-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by aka23


It depends on your perspective.



Well, everything does...


All primates evolved from a low-fat , high-carb diet. If you look at our nearest primate neighbor, the chipanzee, they eat more than 80% carb and under 9% fat. Some might call the hunter-gatherer unnatural. There were plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate low fat diets. For example the men of the Oto tribe in the forests of Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. There were also plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate high proetin, high-fat diets.

No point in bringing the chimpanzee diet into discussion. One of the biggest diferences between us and them is exactly the stomach and intestine flora. We can't digest most stuff they eat, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


The Enuiq's no heart disease/no diabetes is not unique. For example tribes in Africa, New Guinea, Ecuador, and Mexico, all of which eat diets containing less than 10 percent fat and protein respectively, and about 80 percent complex carbohydrate have rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, and diabetes of near zero. After introducing the traditional Western diet, they often develop numerous problems.

Interesting. Can you tell me what were their carb sources and since when they had these nutritional habits?

I was talking from about 1.8 million years ago to around 10 000 years ago, time of the agricultural revolution.


I am not saying that high-carb diets are good and low-carb diets are bad. I am saying that humans have evolved do well on a wide variety of diets. One of the few diets that we haven't evolved to do well on is the Western diet of junk food, partially hydrogenated fats, etc.

I agree with this. It is my belief that generally speaking, mankind evolved on a relatively high fat diet, but not the kind of mutant fats people eat these days.

restless
02-09-2003, 02:56 PM
There was a nice thread about this a while ago:

Carb craze thread. (http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21295&highlight=carbohydrate+craze)

aka23
02-09-2003, 05:07 PM
My point was to show that the traditional human diet depended on your perspective. In some regards a low fat diet is traditional, and a paleolithic diet is not. Also note that the majority of the late primate diet consists of things that are edible to homasapiens, such as ripe fruit.

It is oversimplifying things to think that all Paleolithic men and women ate a high protein, high fat diet. Early humans lived in ecological niches with widely varying food sources. They likely ate meat only when they were lucky enough to catch it. Their diet likely depended on the season and likely included insects, leaves, and possibly even other people. If they lived near water, they probably ate lots of fish instead of meat. Some paleothic humans ate no meat, some ate moderate amounts, and some ate large amounts. In many groups, the amount depended on the season.

The evidence about their diet is based on things like tooth marks and fossil remails. In reality nobody knows the exact percentages of fat/protein /carb that early humans ate. Some groups probably ate low fat diets. Some groups probably ate high fat diets. There have been a wide variety of estimates.

In addition, the traditional paleolithic diet was likely to have several nutritional deficiencies that may have been evident if they did not die at such a young age. We believe that Paleolithic men rarely suffered heart disease and cancer. We also believe they rarelly lived to the usual age when these diseases set in and were not exposed to many of the damaging effects of modern civilization.

I do not think one can assume that it is desireable to eat a high fat/protein diet because a large portion of paleolithic humans may have eaten this way prior to agriculture. I think we should focus on more modern dietary studies.

restless
02-10-2003, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by aka23
My point was to show that the traditional human diet depended on your perspective. In some regards a low fat diet is traditional, and a paleolithic diet is not.



Well, I can't understand the things you say, really. I have seen no evidence of low fat diets in any "tradicional" culture prior to agriculture, nor do I see how it would be possible.


Also note that the majority of the late primate diet consists of things that are edible to homasapiens, such as ripe fruit.

What do you mean by late primates? I'm concerned with humans only.


In addition, the traditional paleolithic diet was likely to have several nutritional deficiencies that may have been evident if they did not die at such a young age. We believe that Paleolithic men rarely suffered heart disease and cancer. We also believe they rarelly lived to the usual age when these diseases set in and were not exposed to many of the damaging effects of modern civilization.

Then how come the fossil records show they had better bone density than we have? And how come there was a drop in lifespan with the advent of the agricultural revolution, and it's subsequent increase in dietary carbohydrate and decrease in protein/fat?


The extended life span is essentially a product of modern science, not improved nutritional habits. I guess the only thing we agree is that modern diets are, generally speaking, crap.

Most of us have been down the road you're traveling, we tried something different and saw improvements. If you start by adding a few gr of EFA's to your diet, in the NATURAL 1 to 1 ratio of moega 6 to omega 3, like mankind ate through evolution, you0ll see some imporvements in all areas, including body mass composition.

restless
02-10-2003, 02:47 AM
Speaking of modern science:

Dietary fat: assessing the evidence in support of a moderate-fat diet; the benchmark based on lipoprotein metabolism.

Kris-Etherton PM, Kris-Etherton PM, Binkoski AE, Zhao G, Coval SM, Clemmer KF, Hecker KD, Jacques H, Etherton TD.

Nutrition Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. pmk3@psu.edu

There is a growing database that has evaluated the effects of varying amounts of total fat on risk factors for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and overweight and obesity. The evidence clearly suggests that extremes in dietary fat should be avoided, and instead a diet moderate in total fat (25-35 % energy) is preferable for the majority of individuals. Moreover, we now appreciate the importance of individualizing dietary fat recommendations within this range of total fat. With respect to cardiovascular disease, a diet higher in total fat (30-35 % energy) affects the lipid and lipoprotein risk profile more favourably than a lower-fat diet; this is also the case for individuals with diabetes, with the added benefit of better glycaemic control. Dietary fibre (> or = 25 g/d) attenuates and even prevents the potentially adverse lipid and lipoprotein effects of a lower-fat diet. With respect to weight control, a moderate-fat diet can be as, or even more, effective than a lower-fat diet, because of advantages with long-term adherence and potentially favourable effects on lipids and lipoproteins. Thus, there is now a convincing scientific basis to advocate a diet moderate in total fat for the majority of individuals. Implicit to this position is that unsaturated fat has numerous beneficial health effects. However, because fat is energy dense, moderation in fat intake is essential for weight control. Consequently, a simple message to convey is to avoid diets that are very low and very high in fat. Moreover, within the range of a moderate-fat diet it is still important to individualize the total fat prescription. Nonetheless, the guiding principle is that moderation in total fat is the defining benchmark for a contemporary diet that reduces risk of chronic disease.


Of course, you can find a million of them stating the opposite...

restless
02-10-2003, 02:48 AM
Dietary fat plays a major role in obesity: no.

Willett WC.

Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. WWillett@hsph.harvard.edu

The percentage of dietary energy from fat has been suggested to be an important determinant of body fat, and this presumed effect has been invoked to justify the general promotion of low-fat diets. Dietary fat and the prevalence of obesity are lower in poor countries than in affluent countries. However, these contrasts are seriously confounded by differences in physical activity and food availability; within areas of similar economic development, per capita intake of fat and the prevalence of obesity have not been positively correlated. Randomized trials are the preferable method for evaluating the effect of dietary fat on adiposity because they avoid problems of confounding that are difficult to control in other studies. In short-term trials, a small reduction in body weight is typically seen in individuals randomized to diets with a lower percentage of calories from fat. In a meta-analysis of these trials, it was estimated that a decrease in 10% of energy from fat would reduce weight by 16 g d-1, which would correspond to a 9-kg weight loss by 18 months. However, compensatory mechanisms appear to operate because in trials lasting one year or longer, fat consumption within the range of 18-40% of energy has consistently had little, if any, effect on body fatness. Moreover, within the United States (US), a substantial decline in the percentage of energy from fat during the last two decades has corresponded with a massive increase in obesity, and similar trends are occurring in other affluent countries. Diets high in fat do not account for the high prevalence of excess body fat in Western countries; reductions in the percentage of energy from fat will have no important benefits and could further exacerbate this problem. The emphasis on total fat reduction has been a serious distraction in efforts to control obesity and improve health in general.

restless
02-10-2003, 02:50 AM
Advice on low-fat diets for obesity.

Pirozzo S, Summerbell C, Cameron C, Glasziou P.

School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston Rd, Herston, Queensland, Australia, 4006. s.pirozzo@sph.uq.edu.au

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are global health problems contributing to an ever increasing noncommunicable disease burden. Calorie restriction can achieve short-term weight loss but the weight loss has not been shown to be sustainable in the long-term. An alternative approach to calorie restriction is to lower the fat content of the diet. However, the long-term effects of fat-restricted diets on weight loss have not been established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice on low-fat diets as a means of achieving sustained weight loss, using all available randomised clinical trials. This review focused primarily on participants who were overweight or clinically obese and were dieting for the purpose of weight reduction. Since we were particularly interested in the ability of participants to sustain weight loss over a longer period of time, we focused on studies of 'free living' men and women who were given dietary advice rather than provision of food or money to purchase food. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2001), MEDLINE (up to February 20002), and EMBASE (up to February 20002). We also searched the Science Citation Index (up to January 2001) and bibliographies of studies identified. Date of latest search: February 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: 1) they were randomised controlled clinical trials of low-fat diets versus other weight-reducing diets, 2) the primary purpose of the study was weight loss, 3) participants were followed for at least six months, 4) the study participants were adults (18 years or older) who were overweight or obese (BMI >25 kg/m2) at baseline. Studies including pregnant women or patients with serious medical conditions were excluded. Two people independently applied the inclusion criteria to the studies identified. Disagreement was resolved by discussion or by intervention of a third party. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by three independent reviewers and meta-analysis performed using a random effects model. Weighted mean differences of weight loss were calculated for treatment and control groups at 6, 12 and 18 months. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies were included at the six month follow-up, five studies at the 12 month follow-up and three studies at the 18 month follow-up. There was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups at six months (WMD 1.7 kg, 95% CI -1.4 to 4.8 kg). The weighted sum of weight loss in the low fat group was -5.08 kg (95% CI -5.9 to -4.3 kg) and in the control group was -6.5 kg, (95% CI -7.3 to -5.7 kg). There was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups at 12 months (WMD 1.1 kg, 95% CI -1.6 to 3.8 kg). The weighted sum of weight loss in the low fat group was -2.3 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.4 kg) and in the control group was -3.4 kg (95% CI -4.2 to -2.6 kg). There was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups at 18 months (WMD 3.7 kg, 95% CI - 1.8 to 9.2). The weighted sum of weight loss in the control group was -2.3 kg (95% CI -3.5 to -1.2 kg) and in the low fat group there was a weight gain of 0.1 kg (95% CI -0.8 to 1 kg). There was significant heterogeneity in the results for weight loss at six months and 12 months. Apart from one study which showed a slight but statistically significant difference in total cholesterol in the low fat group at one year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the dietary groups for other outcome measures such as serum lipids, blood pressure and fasting plasma glucose. Studies measuring other factors such as perceived wellness and quality of life reported conflicting results. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that fat-restricted diets are no better than calorie restricted diets in achieving long term weight loss in overweight or obese people. Overall, participants lost slightly more weight on the control diets but this was not significantly different from the weight loss achieved through dietary fat restriction and was so small as to be clinically insignificant.

aka23
02-10-2003, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by restless
I have seen no evidence of low fat diets in any "tradicional" culture prior to agriculture, nor do I see how it would be possible.

It would be possible in any group that lived in an area or a season in which fatty meat was not readily available. I already mentioned that the hunter-gatherer Oto tribe in Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. During the wet season, when hunting is better the fat percent increases to 28%. Many authors propose that the average hunter-gatherer diet was not high fat. For example in the book the Paleolithic Prescription, Eaton suggests a late Paleolithic diet of 21% fat. The professors who teach B27 Human Evolution at Harvard suggest an even smaller percentage.


What do you mean by late primates? I'm concerned with humans only.

I was responding to your erroneous comment that we can not digest the foods most of the foods that chimpanzees (late primates) eat.


And how come there was a drop in lifespan with the advent of the agricultural revolution, and it's subsequent increase in dietary carbohydrate and decrease in protein/fat?

Actually there was an increase in average lifespan following the agricultural revolution. (see www.hawkhill.com/764s.html)

"Life for the average human in the agricultural ages was a little but not a lot better than the previous hunting and gathering times. Average life spans increased to 30 or 35 years."

This increase in lifespan was most likely more related to having more reliable food supply than changes in than protein/fat/carb ratios.

carolinagirl
02-10-2003, 07:08 AM
I don't want to get involved in the debate about what the evolutionary diet was (don't know enough to really contribute much!), but usually the problem in people's diets is the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, not necessarily the total fat intake.

I've been trying to eat low fat (ie, lower intake of omega-6's) and supplement with omega-3's to get my ratios closer to the optimal range. (I don't have time to look now, but I know that there have been numerous studies done proving that O-3's are very conducive to overall health and well being.) It sounds like you have your diet down pat in the lowering of O-6 intake (and in general cleanness) - just adding some fish and flax oil each day would probably bring you up to the levels than most people are recommending and get your O-6 to O-3 ratios to a really good level too.

restless
02-10-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by aka23


It would be possible in any group that lived in an area or a season in which fatty meat was not readily available. I already mentioned that the hunter-gatherer Oto tribe in Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. During the wet season, when hunting is better the fat percent increases to 28%. Many authors propose that the average hunter-gatherer diet was not high fat. For example in the book the Paleolithic Prescription, Eaton suggests a late Paleolithic diet of 21% fat. The professors who teach B27 Human Evolution at Harvard suggest an even smaller percentage.

This increase in lifespan was most likely more related to having more reliable food supply than changes in than protein/fat/carb ratios.

Interesting, have any links on this?


I was responding to your erroneous comment that we can not digest the foods most of the foods that chimpanzees (late primates) eat.

Most of what they eat is leaves from the trees, and we can't use the protein they get this way because we lack the digestive enzimes to do so. Monkeys nutrition is defenitely not my main area of interest but I'm pretty sure of this. They eat bugs too and that would be fine to us, but I mantain my statement that their diet is of no relevance to us, while the paleolithic man diet is because they were genetical identical to modern man.


Actually there was an increase in average lifespan following the agricultural revolution. (see www.hawkhill.com/764s.html)

"Life for the average human in the agricultural ages was a little but not a lot better than the previous hunting and gathering times. Average life spans increased to 30 or 35 years."

I'll check this latter.

Tryska
02-10-2003, 12:01 PM
i'm confused as to whether this guy really is concerned about his fat intake, or if this was all an elaborate setup for someone's soapbox. :scratch:

aka23
02-10-2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by restless
Interesting, have any links on this?

Much of the information you asked about can be found in the following Google cache http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:0TGnDXryaW0C:icg.harvard.edu/~scib27/handouts/Ch04.pdf (the actual document at icg.harvard.edu/~scib27/handouts/Ch04.pdf is not accesable)


Most of what they eat is leaves from the trees, and we can't use the protein they get this way because we lack the digestive enzimes to do so.

Most of the food chimpanzees eat can be digested by humans. The chimpanzee diet is dominated by ripe fruits, which humans can digest. Quoting www.geocities.com/primatesau/Chimpanzees.html , "Their annual food consumption consists of; 60% fruits, 30% vegetation, and 10% meat. " I agree that some of the food chimpanzees eat cannot be digested properly by modern humans, and I certainly do not recommend that people try to imitate the chimpanzee diet.

restless
02-12-2003, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by aka23


Much of the information you asked about can be found in the following Google cache http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:0TGnDXryaW0C:icg.harvard.edu/~scib27/handouts/Ch04.pdf (the actual document at icg.harvard.edu/~scib27/handouts/Ch04.pdf is not accesable)



Most of the food chimpanzees eat can be digested by humans. The chimpanzee diet is dominated by ripe fruits, which humans can digest. Quoting www.geocities.com/primatesau/Chimpanzees.html , "Their annual food consumption consists of; 60% fruits, 30% vegetation, and 10% meat. " I agree that some of the food chimpanzees eat cannot be digested properly by modern humans, and I certainly do not recommend that people try to imitate the chimpanzee diet.

Well, first thanks for the link. Except for the apes parts, which are of little interest to me, it was a very nice read. It seems to go along everything I said before and in the thread I mentioned before.

Do you have a link on low fat hunther gatherers diets? I would very much like to read that.

aka23
02-12-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by restless
It seems to go along everything I said before and in the thread I mentioned before. Do you have a link on low fat hunther gatherers diets? I would very much like to read that.

The link says the Oto ate a diet composed as follows:
Dry Season -- 5.1% Fat (Lipid=Fat)
Wet Season -- 13.1% Fat

These calculations were probably done by weight rather than energy percentages, but even so I don't there is any question that the dry season is low fat.

The article suggests an average Late Paleolithic diet of 8.6% Fat (again probably by weight, not energy). Many would call that low by today's standards.

If you wish to read about hunter gatherer's with even lower percentages of fat in their diet, then you should focus on groups in which tubers or honey made up a large portion of their diet. I believe the Hazda would be a good example. They only average only one large game animal every thirty days. I would expect them to be eat significantly less fat than the Oto.

There are more extreme examples with tribes that eat under 7% fat by energy in the highlands of New Guinea, but I am not sure if they are hunter gatherers or not.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the hunter-gatherer !Kung bushmen who probably ate a nut-based diet with distributions similar to 70% fat, 16% protein, 14% carb.

If you wish to find links about these groups, you can type "hazda" or other key terms in a search engine.

restless
02-12-2003, 12:25 PM
What exactly does it mean 8% of weight? Does it mean if they ate one kg 80 gr would be fat? So it would ve around 17 % fat, is that it?

Anyway this turns out to be, it doesn't really change the fact that you have been on a very unbalanced diet and deprived your body of nutrients essential to your health. You came asking if your ultra low fat diet was dangerous and you've been given the answers, it's up to you now to chose to change or not.

aka23
02-12-2003, 01:21 PM
8% by weight means if you ate 100 grams, 8g of them would be fat. 8% by energy means if you ate 100 calories worth food, 8 of those calories would have come from fat. The two measures are not equivalent because fat is more calorically dense than protein or carbohydrates.

This evolutionary tangent bares little relation to my original three questions. <REMOVED>

bigassdan
02-13-2003, 07:42 AM
the bottom line is, if you are a bodybuilder of any sort you need to eat differently. You can follow the freakin food pyramid if you'd like, but I don't think you'll make optimal gains.

I'm a personal trainer and I used to get in constant arguments with nutritionists and people who just got out of some college course on nutrition when I told them how much protein they needed to eat.

Bottomline.

Healthy Fats = Optimal hormonal balance and body processes.

Unhealthy Fats = Clogged arteries and unwanted bodyfat.

aka23
02-13-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by bigassdan
the bottom line is, if you are a bodybuilder of any sort you need to eat differently. You can follow the freakin food pyramid if you'd like, but I don't think you'll make optimal gains.

The food pyramid recommends 6-11 servings of grain, 3-5 servings vegetable, 2-4 serivings fruit, 2-3 servings dairy, and 2-3 servings meat/meat substitute. Why do you think someone would be unable to make optimal gains following this type of diet? What type of diet do you tell your cllients to eat?

For the record, I do not follow the food pyramid, but my diet is much closer to the food pyramid than the ketogenic diets that are popular on this forum.


I'm a personal trainer and I used to get in constant arguments with nutritionists and people who just got out of some college course on nutrition when I told them how much protein they needed to eat.

I mentioned that I eat ~1g/lb of protein. Your post implies that the amount of protein I eat is not what you would recommend. How much protein do you suggest that weightlifters/bodybuilders eat?

restless
02-13-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by aka23


The food pyramid recommends 6-11 servings of grain, 3-5 servings vegetable, 2-4 serivings fruit, 2-3 servings dairy, and 2-3 servings meat/meat substitute. Why do you think someone would be unable to make optimal gains following this type of diet?



Because it's a protein deficient diet? And it doesn't even mention EFA's?

aka23
02-13-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by restless
Because it's a protein deficient diet?

I think that the pyramid was designed for the average person, not the athlete. Athletes have additional protein needs, they are far more likely to be protein defficient than the typical person following the pyramid. But I do not think you can assume it is a protein defficient diet. Here is an example to show my point:

2-3 Servings Meat (they recommend lean meat)
I will average turkey breast/tuna
2-3 servings has roughly 50-75g protein

2-3 Servings Dairy
I will choose milk.
2-3 servings has roughly 20-30g protein

6-11 Servings Grain
I will average bread and cereal (cherios)
6-11 servings has roughly 20-40g protein

3-5 Servings Vegatables (2.9, 4.16)
I will average potato, broccoili, and peas
3-5 servings has roughly 10-15g protein

2-4 Servings Fruit
I will choose average apple + banana
2-4 servings has roughly has roughly 1-3g protein

I will assume they have added 200-400 calories worth of sugar/oil/butter/salad dressing type toppings without significant protein.

The total is 101g to 163g protein.
The total calories are about 1600 calories to 2800 calories

The pyramid recommends a 1600 calories for a sendentary woman and 2800 calories for an active adult. If the woman is 140lb and the man is 165lb, then the woman would be about 0.7g/lb and the man would be getting about 1g/lb. Both totals are higher than most sports nutritionists recommend and well known nutritionist/sports nutritionists groups recommend for their activity level.

I could have also choose a combination of foods in such a way that an active person would not be getting an optimal amount of protein. This might be a concern for persons who are not consuming many calories for their body weight, such as strict dieters or persons with efficient metabolisms.


And it doesn't even mention EFA's?

I believe that the main idea of the food pyramid is that by consuming all the food groups you are likely to get the major nutrients. It does not give requirements for specific nutrients such as vitamn C or EFAs, but assumes that if you eat a balanced diet containing these groups you are likely to get the necessary nutrients. It is certainly possible to choose certain combinations and not get the necessary vitamn C or EFAs, but this is unlikely especially in the US where most americans consume good amounts of fat.

restless
02-13-2003, 03:01 PM
Exactly my point. You asked why wouldn't someone gain on that diet, and that is exactly why, it's not designed for bodybuilders.

About the EFA's, almost everyone is deficient in them. People do eat a lot of fat but it's more often than not the wrong kind. Unfortunatelly this lead to the fat is evil mentality and as a consequence to the low fat diets, whiich are, in my opinion, an aberration (sorry, couldn't resist. Let's not go over that again).

aka23
02-13-2003, 04:05 PM
I asked, why someone would not make optimal gains following this type of diet. I was hoping to learn in what ways the diet that Bigassdan recommends to his clients differs from the food pyramid. I would be interested to know if he recommended a diet similar to the pyramid but with more protein, a ketogenic diet, a zone diet, or something else.

I agree that the pyramid was not designed with bodybuilders in mind. Few diets are. I do not agree that the food pyramid is inherently protein deficient or that a weightlifter could not get enough protein following this type of program. In my example, the active male was getting 1g protein per pound bodyweight. I have seen several studies that found no benefit to weighlifters who go above this amount.

restless
02-13-2003, 04:09 PM
The diet you suggested is still EFA's deficient and completely counterproductive to someone trying to gain muscle mass due to the negative impact that the lack of fat will have on the endocrine system. Unless it's for someone on steroids, but that's a different story. TEll me, what do you fear will happen if you put some fat in there?

aka23
02-13-2003, 04:20 PM
In my post I wrote "I will assume they have added 200-400 calories worth of sugar/oil/butter/salad dressing type toppings without significant protein." Fats & sweets appear on the pyramid as "Use sparingly", so I felt the above statement met this requrement. I think the example I gave would have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-25% calories from fat. I am not convinced that this level of fat will prevent optimal gains.

bradley
02-13-2003, 04:25 PM
Whenever counting up my daily protein intake for the day I don't include the protein from grains, fruits, veggies, etc because these are not complete proteins (although the can be combined with other foods I know).

As restless pointed out there is no mention of EFA's and most people that do follow the pyramid probably do not take this into consideration. Although if one were to eat fish as there main protein source the EFA recommendations could be more easily fulfilled.

smalls
02-13-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by aka23



For the record, I do not follow the food pyramid, but my diet is much closer to the food pyramid than the ketogenic diets that are popular on this forum.





WTF are you talking about. I would guess that less than 10% of the users here have used a ketogenic diet. And then it is only to lose bodyfat. You do realize people dont use that diet when gaining right.

aka23
02-13-2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by smalls
WTF are you talking about. I would guess that less than 10% of the users here have used a ketogenic diet.

When I say ketogenic I am referring to any diet that involves ketosis or ketosis cycles. This includes: CKD (Cylcic Ketogenic Diet), BodyOpus. TKD (Targeted Ketogenic Diet), Atkin's, perhaps NHE (not familiar with this diet, but know it includes low carbs), etc. Someone looking at the titles of threads in this forum and articles on this website would think that these types of diets are popular with forum members. At the very least, it seems that forum members like to talk about them.


You do realize people dont use that diet when gaining right.

Some people do use cyclic ketogenic type diets when gaining. On the page at http://low-carb.org/lylemcd/cyclic3.htm , Lyle Mcdonald writes, "A ketogenic mass gaining cyclical diet is essentially the same type of thing as the pre-contest/fat loss phase:.. "

aka23
02-13-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by bradley
Whenever counting up my daily protein intake for the day I don't include the protein from grains, fruits, veggies, etc because these are not complete proteins (although the can be combined with other foods I know).

Good point. In the example I gave above some of the vegatable protein could combine with some of the grain protein. The incomplete proteins would also be combined with the complete proteins to make complete proteins. (Incomplete proteins can even be eaten as much as 24 hours apart and still combine properly because the body stores the excess amino acids in reserve to be used on an "as needed" basis). However, it is likely that not all of the proteins would be combined. Even so, the active individual would be getting more protein than well known sports nutritionists groups recommend. These recommendations assume that you eat a mixed diet of proteins - some high-quality (complete), some low-quality (incomplete). A person eating a vegitarian diet might need a bit extra for issues such as digestibility and combining, while a heavy egg/meat eater might need a bit less for similar reasons.


As restless pointed out there is no mention of EFA's and most people that do follow the pyramid probably do not take this into consideration. Although if one were to eat fish as there main protein source the EFA recommendations could be more easily fulfilled.

The USDA and HHS developed the food pyramid. They also developed seven "Dietary Guidelinles for Americans " to go along with the pyramid. The first is to "Eat a variety of foods." If one does not eat a variety, then they may select foods that happen to miss an essential nutrient such as EFAs, folacin, zinc, etc. They could have listed recommendations for EFAs and foods containing other nutrients. Perhaps it would be superior of they did. Then again it might also just confuse the average American and make them more likely to ignore it.

smalls
02-13-2003, 07:03 PM
I was referring to people on this website using it as a gaining diet. I just though you might want to look around at the journals etc, before jumping to conclusions about the ideas of this board.

Also are you currently a college student, perhaps ess major. I am currently an exercise phys major, and you sound like every kid I go to school with. I thought bodybuilders where close minded, until I started talking to ess and especially "grad" students. Not that you are necassarily close minded, as I can't really say, you just seem to come off like them.

aka23
02-13-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by smalls
Also are you currently a college student, perhaps ess major. I am currently an exercise phys major, and you sound like every kid I go to school with. I thought bodybuilders where close minded, until I started talking to ess and especially "grad" students. Not that you are necassarily close minded, as I can't really say, you just seem to come off like them.

I was a EE major. I also have grad degrees in several engineering fields. I left school for a job a few years ago, but continued taking classes part-time for fun and for further degrees. I have taken several classes in nutrition, exercise physiology, human biology, and other ESS related areas. I find these classes far more interesting and enjoyable than engineering.

I can be close minded about certain topics. I have become quite wary of nutrition/exercise related claims than I see on television or in fad books, especially ones that are not well accepted and/or do not have good evidence.

restless
02-14-2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by aka23
In my post I wrote "I will assume they have added 200-400 calories worth of sugar/oil/butter/salad dressing type toppings without significant protein." Fats & sweets appear on the pyramid as "Use sparingly", so I felt the above statement met this requrement. I think the example I gave would have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-25% calories from fat. I am not convinced that this level of fat will prevent optimal gains.

Caught me there, I didn't read your whole post....

epimetheus
02-15-2003, 05:55 PM
It is probably a bit late to add this, but I was watching a discovery channel program about the progression of man in evolution. I only bring this up because of the comment about monkeys and their diets. It is postulated that the step that allowed the brain to develop was due largly in part from a switch in diet from berries and leaves etc, to a higher protein diet, such as other animals. The show suggested our ancestors were akin to vultures in that we ate what was already dead. (eww)

As to all that I think I have seen some studies showing higher fat leads to greater testosterone levels as well. I can't find them though, perhaps I read about them on this message board.

noraa
02-16-2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by restless
About the EFA's, almost everyone is deficient in them. People do eat a lot of fat but it's more often than not the wrong kind. Unfortunatelly this lead to the fat is evil mentality and as a consequence to the low fat diets, whiich are, in my opinion, an aberration (sorry, couldn't resist. Let's not go over that again).
Sorry, cant resist. The number of reported cases of efa deficiency I can count on one hand. Basically next to nobody in the world is deficient in efas. it only takes 2-3% n-6 and 0.5% n-3 to prevent deficiency. Not that these amounts are optimal, but you said deficient.
Ratio of certain fats to others etc are a different thing altogether.

restless
02-16-2003, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by noraa

Sorry, cant resist. The number of reported cases of efa deficiency I can count on one hand. Basically next to nobody in the world is deficient in efas. it only takes 2-3% n-6 and 0.5% n-3 to prevent deficiency. Not that these amounts are optimal, but you said deficient.
Ratio of certain fats to others etc are a different thing altogether.

I see your point. However, someone with a diet with a ratio of 20/1 in favour of omega 6 is omega 3 deficient to me, and this is quite normal.

St. Velkro
03-08-2003, 11:42 AM
VERY interesting discussion, if somewhat wide ranging. And, since it is wide ranging I want to ask, "has anyone considered (I might have missed it) the Eskimo winter diet of mostly fat, i.e., blubber?"

restless
03-29-2003, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by aka23
REMOVED due to one poster using this post to discredit me in threads that unrelated to this topic.

That was not nice.:mad:

Ironman8
03-29-2003, 08:30 AM
Did you ever hear of that guy who went on a low/no fat diet and commited suicide a few years later? Apparantly, if you don't eat fat, you'll go crazy sooner or later :)

bradley
03-29-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Ironman8
Did you ever hear of that guy who went on a low/no fat diet and commited suicide a few years later? Apparantly, if you don't eat fat, you'll go crazy sooner or later :)

I have not heard of this. Please elaborate:)

Ironman8
03-29-2003, 03:52 PM
O.k, I'll try my best bradley :)

Well, basically you're body needs fat, no excuses.When on a low/no fat diet for a long period of time, you're body will start telling you it needs something. Someway or another, it'll tell you. It could be depression, anger, fatigue, etc. The guy was on a low fat diet for a couple of years, and he didn't listen to his body. Then, he went crazy and commited suicide.

restless
03-29-2003, 04:01 PM
Sounds plausible. To low of a fat intake can lead to low testosterone levels and this can easily lead into depression.

bradley
03-29-2003, 04:20 PM
I have no doubt that low fat intake is not healthy but I just have not heard of "that guy." There are millions of Americans that are doing their best to minimize the amount of fat in their diet and they are not all going out and killing themselves. I just wanted to make a point that eating no fat is more than likely not going to lead to someone committing suicide.

restless
03-29-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by bradley
I have no doubt that low fat intake is not healthy but I just have not heard of "that guy." There are millions of Americans that are doing their best to minimize the amount of fat in their diet and they are not all going out and killing themselves. I just wanted to make a point that eating no fat is more than likely not going to lead to someone committing suicide.

Eating no fat whatsoever is a very hard thing to achieve and attaining success in that particular goal will lead to death, suicide or not.