New position stand on diets & body comp posted today

[alan aragon]

Hey everyone, the ISSN's inaugural position stand on diets & body composition was posted today. I was given the privilege of being the lead author. It's open-access, so enjoy.

PDF:
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/trac...medcentral.com

HTML:
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-017-0174-y

*runs back to finishing the research review*

[dipatel13]

Still reading, but good stuff so far.

Position Statement: The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) bases the following position stand on a critical analysis of the literature regarding the effects of diet types (macronutrient composition; eating styles) and their influence on body composition. The ISSN has concluded the following. 1) There is a multitude of diet types and eating styles, whereby numerous subtypes fall under each major dietary archetype. 2) All body composition assessment methods have strengths and limitations. 3) Diets primarily focused on fat loss are driven by a sustained caloric deficit. The higher the baseline body fat level, the more aggressively the caloric deficit may be imposed. Slower rates of weight loss can better preserve lean mass (LM) in leaner subjects. 4) Diets focused primarily on accruing LM are driven by a sustained caloric surplus to facilitate anabolic processes and support increasing resistance-training demands. The composition and magnitude of the surplus, as well as training status of the subjects can influence the nature of the gains. 5) A wide range of dietary approaches (low-fat to low-carbohydrate/ketogenic, and all points between) can be similarly effective for improving body composition. 6) Increasing dietary protein to levels significantly beyond current recommendations for athletic populations may result in improved body composition. Higher protein intakes (2.3–3.1 g/kg FFM) may be required to maximize muscle retention in lean, resistance-trained subjects under hypocaloric conditions. Emerging research on very high protein intakes (>3 g/kg) has demonstrated that the known thermic, satiating, and LM-preserving effects of dietary protein might be amplified in resistance-training subjects. 7) The collective body of intermittent caloric restriction research demonstrates no significant advantage over daily caloric restriction for improving body composition. 8) The long-term success of a diet depends upon compliance and suppression or circumvention of mitigating factors such as adaptive thermogenesis. 9) There is a paucity of research on women and older populations, as well as a wide range of untapped permutations of feeding frequency and macronutrient distribution at various energetic balances combined with training. Behavioral and lifestyle modification strategies are still poorly researched areas of weight management.

[OT2000]

I hope you're sipping your Bcaas Alan


Looking forward to reading the full review

[MmmWatermelon]

Very solid. Briskly read through most of it.

[Metalmank]

Good to see you still bless us peasants with your presence here on the forums Alan.

[401Delta]

Very good read, thanks for posting .

[Oatmealman99]

Papa Alan had graced us with his presence, what a glorious day. Would rep but on le spread

[ErikTheElectric]

He posts once a decade, but when he does..

[PowersKenny]

Exactly and ****types do exist...there are different body types and metabolisms...thanks for the study on common sense

[AdamWW]

Hey everyone, the ISSN's inaugural position stand on diets & body composition was posted today. I was given the privilege of being the lead author. It's open-access, so enjoy.

PDF:
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/trac...medcentral.com

HTML:
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-017-0174-y

*runs back to finishing the research review*

Thanks boss.

[desslok]

"Why the prodigal son has returned" - Prospector


Thanks. Will read tomorrow.

[Budjola]

ok so i took an hour to read through it (slow day at work lol). and here's what i got
KETO - ok for fat los, not generally better than low carb (50-100g carbs a day) - when calories are restricted
High Protein Diet - good for retaining lean mass (and gaining lean mass) with some fat gains which are minimal - with calorie surplus or even maintenance calories consumed
IF - good overall its like best of both worlds, but its not optimal for either fat loss or gaining of LM. maybe if IF is combined with KETO or High Protein than it might yield greater results than just regular KETO or HPD

IMO IF+HPD with majority of carbs coming from fibrous green vegetables could be new hit. something like "Paleo" (hate that term) with high protein intake (2g/kg or even 3g/kg)


peace out bye

[Mrpb]

ok so i took an hour to read through it (slow day at work lol). and here's what i got
KETO - ok for fat los, not generally better than low carb (50-100g carbs a day) - when calories are restricted
High Protein Diet - good for retaining lean mass (and gaining lean mass) with some fat gains which are minimal - with calorie surplus or even maintenance calories consumed
IF - good overall its like best of both worlds, but its not optimal for either fat loss or gaining of LM. maybe if IF is combined with KETO or High Protein than it might yield greater results than just regular KETO or HPD

IMO IF+HPD with majority of carbs coming from fibrous green vegetables could be new hit. something like "Paleo" (hate that term) with high protein intake (2g/kg or even 3g/kg)

Hopefully you're aware that the paper didn't suggest those things, nor do they seem logical.

[Budjola]

Hopefully you're aware that the paper didn't suggest those things, nor do they seem logical.

for sure it didnt suggest them but it kinda seems like easiest way for average person that doesnt want to over complicate things

its just my take on it, im not saying im right or wrong (ok maybe wrong)

[Heisman2]

for sure it didnt suggest them but it kinda seems like easiest way for average person that doesnt want to over complicate things

its just my take on it, im not saying im right or wrong (ok maybe wrong)

I feel IF does overcomplicate things as it places more restrictions on when you can eat with no consistent benefit (other than appetite regulation for some individuals).

Anyways, nice overview of the literature overall; quite well done.

[Mrpb]

Yeah that's the thing with IF: the only proven benefit is that it suppresses appetite for some. The downside is that fasting from protein for 16 hours is going to reduce 24h MPS, which is not good for muscle gain and retention. Unfortunately the current IF studies haven't tested this in practice. The only IF study in trained bodybuilders didn't actually measure muscle and used a small deficit (~200 calories).