Official MMDELAD Thread: Because Micros (and nutrition) Do Matter

[gingersgym]

You could fluctuate you fat intake between .33g/lb and .5g/lb and go even higher on fat for periods if you are highly active.
Id be interested to see what would happen if someone eats say 1g/kg in fat everyday for 6 months. Then took someone who is all over the place with an average of 1g/lg and then someone who is consistent at say .8 for 1 month and then 1.2 for the second month and alternated between the two.

I find this an interesting point...

I LOVE protein and easily get 250g per day (bit too much i know but who cares)

Read a through things briefly stating your body may adapt to intaking high amounts of certain micro/macro nutrients thus it would be a benefit to have periods where you change (Low protein week high protein week) so your body changes the way it uses/adapts to the varied intake..


Probably a load of broscience but yeh a thought non the less

[MikeWines]

http://health.clevelandclinic.org/20...king-oils-101/

^Thanks for the "helpful" information Cleveland Clinic. Still blows my mind how practitioners are still out of date with current information...canola oil is their TOP recommendation for frying? Obviously someone needs to research that a bit more:

Worse for your Heart
SATURATED FATS: These oils made from full-fat dairy products also increase heart disease (think butter).


ISLAND “GET-AWAYS”: Steer clear of tropical- sounding oils like coconut, palm, palm kernel and cottonseed oils. They all contain saturated fat.

[ZMan45]

I find this an interesting point...

I LOVE protein and easily get 250g per day (bit too much i know but who cares)

Read a through things briefly stating your body may adapt to intaking high amounts of certain micro/macro nutrients thus it would be a benefit to have periods where you change (Low protein week high protein week) so your body changes the way it uses/adapts to the varied intake..


Probably a load of broscience but yeh a thought non the less

FWIW I read a Lyle McD article where he mentions protein cycling in passing and basically calls it BS. Can't remember where I found it though.

[beastlymandude]

I find this an interesting point...

I LOVE protein and easily get 250g per day (bit too much i know but who cares)

Read a through things briefly stating your body may adapt to intaking high amounts of certain micro/macro nutrients thus it would be a benefit to have periods where you change (Low protein week high protein week) so your body changes the way it uses/adapts to the varied intake..


Probably a load of broscience but yeh a thought non the less

FWIW I read a Lyle McD article where he mentions protein cycling in passing and basically calls it BS. Can't remember where I found it though.

Here's something Lyle McDonald said on his BodyRecomposition Forums:

Protein cycling = the idea that you should deliberately reduce protein intake to downregulate things like protein oxidation and that you'll get a big anabolic rebound when you raise protein again. basically nonsense.

Link to thread: http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=3443


Also found this article Lyle wrote. I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but he discusses protein cycling toward the bottom of the page:

With regards to the concept of protein cycling, while the general idea is somewhat logical, in that decreasing protein intake can cause a transient decrease in oxidation and turnover, there is little indication that there will be a net gain in body protein when protein intake is increased again. In the same way that liver proteins are the first lost, they will likely be the first regained. And by the time liver proteins have been rebuilt, rates of oxidation and turnover will have returned to normal, leaving the individual with no net gains.

Link to article: http://thinksteroids.com/articles/pr...e-mcdonald-04/

[cumminslifter]

liking the discussion in here. Ive read about the protein cycling thing and just put it off as nonsense personally

[HealingHands8]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

'Regional brain responses associated with drinking water during thirst and after its satiation'

The results of the study indicate that drinking when thirsty is accompanied by a subjective state of pleasantness associated with activations in the pACC and OFC. Following the satiation of thirst, subsequent compliant overdrinking is accompanied by a subjective experience of unpleasantness and aversion, which is inhibiting of drinking behavior and is associated with activations in the MCC, the left midinsula, amygdala, and PAG

Discuss....

[WMLifting]

The individual will vary greatly ^.

In terms of protein; cycling doesn't seem beneficial but I believe it could be done fine. Reminds me of ancestors not always having protein sources and such around all the time and then overfeesing on it.
I think we should not think about timing protocols and instead think more about beneficial/optimal intakes.

[digistp]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

'Regional brain responses associated with drinking water during thirst and after its satiation'



Discuss....

It feels good to chug water when thirsty, and many people get an unpleasantly bloated or full feeling after excessive consumption. Not sure what point you're wanting to discuss.

[HealingHands8]

It feels good to chug water when thirsty, and many people get an unpleasantly bloated or full feeling after excessive consumption. Not sure what point you're wanting to discuss.

Was pointing it out more in the context of many 'health professionals' advice to drink x amount of water per day, far beyond that of simple thirst. With no empirical evidence as to why that may be beneficial.

[MikeWines]

Was pointing it out more in the context of many 'health professionals' advice to drink x amount of water per day, far beyond that of simple thirst. With no empirical evidence as to why that may be beneficial.

Many people interpret thirst for hunger and eat instead of drinking b/c they have a poor gauge of what hunger feels like. Also, most are not drinking enough as is due to the fact that they never get active enough to work up a thirst.

It feels good to chug water when thirsty, and many people get an unpleasantly bloated or full feeling after excessive consumption. Not sure what point you're wanting to discuss.

Haha was thinking the same thing^. "Uhh isn't that common knowledge that most people drink when thirsty? haha

[cls91]

I personally think 'drink x amount of liquid' is a better recommendation than 'drink to thirst'.

You lose a certain amount of fluid throughout the day regardless of what you're doing. Obviously certain things like vigorous exercise or sitting in a sauna will make you lose more fluid, but even smaller things like consuming diuretics will increase the need for fluid intake. My point is, its all calculable; obviously not simplistic or realistic, but calculable nonetheless. So things like 'drink to thirst' is way too subjective of a phrase for many reasons; one example is like MikeWines said, people often confuse thirst for hunger, etc.

This may not be the best example, but most people track their calorie intake when they have a goal, because they want optimality over sufficiency, so why not do the same with fluid intake? I personally don't track how much water I drink anymore, but I know its always between 2L-4L per day...I'm rarely ever 'thirsty' though unless I eat a lot of sodium (which is very rare) or I'm outside in the sun for a long time.

For some people, 'drink to thirst' may be appropriate, just like eating until satiated would be appropriate, but as a general recommendation I think its better to have a target number rather than rely on extremely subjective measures.

[saw7988]

I've also heard that if you're thirsty, then it means you're well past being dehydrated. So drinking to thirst would basically have you suboptimally hydrated for most of the day.

Personally, since I sit all day every day, I just try to drink as much water as possible to force myself to walk around a bit for frequent bathroom trips.

Lyle has recommended something like getting 5 clear pisses/day.

[Vendetta52]

So in line with what was posted on the previous page about protein and fat mins, is it .33g/lb of BW for fat or .45g/lb of BW as a minimum? The sticky says .45. I love protein and carbs and I normally get around 55-60g of fat a day at a BW of 142lbs, is this a problem?

[cumminslifter]

I personally think 'drink x amount of liquid' is a better recommendation than 'drink to thirst'.

You lose a certain amount of fluid throughout the day regardless of what you're doing. Obviously certain things like vigorous exercise or sitting in a sauna will make you lose more fluid, but even smaller things like consuming diuretics will increase the need for fluid intake. My point is, its all calculable; obviously not simplistic or realistic, but calculable nonetheless. So things like 'drink to thirst' is way too subjective of a phrase for many reasons; one example is like MikeWines said, people often confuse thirst for hunger, etc.

This may not be the best example, but most people track their calorie intake when they have a goal, because they want optimality over sufficiency, so why not do the same with fluid intake? I personally don't track how much water I drink anymore, but I know its always between 2L-4L per day...I'm rarely ever 'thirsty' though unless I eat a lot of sodium (which is very rare) or I'm outside in the sun for a long time.

For some people, 'drink to thirst' may be appropriate, just like eating until satiated would be appropriate, but as a general recommendation I think its better to have a target number rather than rely on extremely subjective measures.

i agree totally, i hate when people say drink to thirst. i know people who drink 1-2 bottles of water in an entire day just because they are not thirsty. personally i am always thirst and drink 1-2gallons daily

[cumminslifter]

So in line with what was posted on the previous page about protein and fat mins, is it .33g/lb of BW for fat or .45g/lb of BW as a minimum? The sticky says .45. I love protein and carbs and I normally get around 55-60g of fat a day at a BW of 142lbs, is this a problem?

where do you see that at?

[MikeWines]

I've also heard that if you're thirsty, then it means you're well past being dehydrated. So drinking to thirst would basically have you suboptimally hydrated for most of the day.

That is correct. Even 1-2% dehydration can decrease performance drastically (I think I remember a few cycling studies stating it was >10% even). Hence why I drink when thirst and when not thirsty. Around 5 blender bottles/day = ~100oz which is well above half my BW in ounces which is what I aim for.

Here's another study on the matter showing how ALL stresses ("including exercise, environmental heat and cold, altitude, water immersion, dehydration, and perhaps microgravity, singly and in various combinations.") can lead to dehydration.

[WMLifting]

Fat intake is going to vary. Some feel better on higher intakes while others on lower. Quality>quantity. Do a trial run of .3g/lb compared to your other intake. Sufficient EFA is a must. Track mood, recovery, workouts, and physical health like hair and skin.

where do you see that at?

My post. I recommend you giving them a read.

[cumminslifter]

Fat intake is going to vary. Some feel better on higher intakes while others on lower. Quality>quantity. Do a trial run of .3g/lb compared to your other intake. Sufficient EFA is a must. Track mood, recovery, workouts, and physical health like hair and skin.


My post. I recommend you giving them a read.

i meant the .45g/lb recommendation in the stickies

[Vendetta52]

Fat intake is going to vary. Some feel better on higher intakes while others on lower. Quality>quantity. Do a trial run of .3g/lb compared to your other intake. Sufficient EFA is a must. Track mood, recovery, workouts, and physical health like hair and skin.

I've been making gains in the gym with fat varying from 55-65g depending on the day and what I ate, so it seems like it is working for me. Hair and skin are all good too.

i meant the .45g/lb recommendation in the stickies

In the Calculating Calories and Macronutrients thread, although it says between .4g-1g for fat and not .45g; with an absolute minimum of .3g when on a low calorie diet.

[WMLifting]

I've been making gains in the gym with fat varying from 55-65g depending on the day and what I ate, so it seems like it is working for me. Hair and skin are all good too.

In the Calculating Calories and Macronutrients thread, although it says between .4g-1g for fat and not .45g; with an absolute minimum of .3g when on a low calorie diet.

If you feel fine then then I don't see a reason to increase. Remember, as you bulk and gain FFM your needs will increase.
Also, you feel fine because your used to it. Have you ever gone higher/lower for a while to see how it differs?

The minimum is ~.25g/lb* from what I have gathered from sources other than stickies. In my opinion, there could be benefits going higher than .25g/lb and into the .3-.5+ range. It just differs with the individual.
*I am aware of the ~20g PUFA requirement for life.

[determined4000]

*I am aware of the ~20g PUFA requirement for life.

expound please?
do you mean EFA's or PUFA?
and are you saying 20g total regardless of body size?

[cumminslifter]

In the Calculating Calories and Macronutrients thread, although it says between .4g-1g for fat and not .45g; with an absolute minimum of .3g when on a low calorie diet.

ya i know, thats what im getting at

[ilove2run]

That is correct. Even 1-2% dehydration can decrease performance drastically (I think I remember a few cycling studies stating it was >10% even). Hence why I drink when thirst and when not thirsty. Around 5 blender bottles/day = ~100oz which is well above half my BW in ounces which is what I aim for.

Here's another study on the matter showing how ALL stresses ("including exercise, environmental heat and cold, altitude, water immersion, dehydration, and perhaps microgravity, singly and in various combinations.") can lead to dehydration.

This is actually false. It has actually been proven that elite athletes (e.g., world record holders in the Road Marathon), actually benefit from going in a slight dehydrated state. And all those studies that have shown a 1-2% decrease in BW decreases performance are not taking everything into factor (water content =/= electrolyte balance and osmolarity of the ICF/ECF)

Example; the runners that run the fast are the ones that are the most "dehydrated"

Highly recommend you (and everyone) read Tim Noakes book, "Waterlogged"

[hamworld05]

Is it possible to get enough micronutrients/stay healthy on a 600 calorie diet? If so, how would one do it?

[Siobahn]

Is it possible to get enough micronutrients/stay healthy on a 600 calorie diet? If so, how would one do it?

By not trolling in this thread.

[MichielN]

Is it possible to get enough micronutrients/stay healthy on a 600 calorie diet? If so, how would one do it?

If you're overweight and go on a calorie restricted diet, generally your health will always increase significantly no matter what. Obviously maintaining a 600 kcal diet isn't the way to go though.

[WMLifting]

expound please?
do you mean EFA's or PUFA?
and are you saying 20g total regardless of body size?

The threads and layne somewhere said something like the actual bare minimum for survival is something like 18.3g, which I find conflicting because Lyle
Claims that only EFA is required for life.
I just mentioned it before I got the whole "oh you only need X amount, not X". I know you know about this as you wee in one or two of the threads I posted.

[cls91]

If you're overweight and go on a calorie restricted diet, generally your health will always increase significantly no matter what. Obviously maintaining a 600 kcal diet isn't the way to go though.

Like the professor that ate only McDonald's for 90 days:



Lost weight and blood profile improved, but it's definitely not something I'd suggest for a prolonged period of time; and eating normal unprocessed whole foods would definitely have been a better alternative.

But he was doing it to prove a point and I think he did a great job of doing so; a lot of common nutritional myths are debunked with that experiment (have to eat 5x per day, fast food is unhealthy, etc.)

The threads and layne somewhere said something like the actual bare minimum for survival is something like 18.3g, which I find conflicting because Lyle
Claims that only EFA is required for life.
I just mentioned it before I got the whole "oh you only need X amount, not X". I know you know about this as you wee in one or two of the threads I posted.

I always assumed the EFA's were all that was needed to be obtained through diet since they're the essential fatty acids.

[MichielN]

but it's definitely not something I'd suggest for a prolonged period of time; and eating normal unprocessed whole foods would definitely have been a better alternative.

Obviously.

[cls91]

Obviously.

I felt like stating the obvious was necessary.

Some people may have interpreted the post differently otherwise...same way some people may think eating 600 kcal daily is healthy lol