Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Optimum Diet

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Optimum Diet

    Like to get everyone’s thoughts on the best diet for optimum leanness (while retaining muscle) and longetivity /health. I see a couple of decision points. First, how much/many carbohydrates? Next, IF or not, and if so what intervals (and where do the foregoing carbohydrates fit in)?
    Although some of Primal and VLC overlap, I think it is worth noting that Taubes makes a good case that excess carbohydrates makes us fat; and the resulting high blood sugar causes disease, and not just limited to diabetes, but that they also feed/may cause cancer. Dr. Davis over at HeartScan Blog says basically the same thing about high blood sugar and heart disease. In other words, shouldn’t carbohydrate consumption be driven by the individual’s blood sugar response to foods? And, considering the difficulties of accessing this accurately, for the purpose of disease avoidance wouldn’t the prudent course to always be VLC?
    Regarding IF, it seems more health benefits are derived from complete absence of food for 24 plus hours, while a “better body” comes from using something like 16/8. And again, what role for carbs?
    In summary, generally speaking, it seems that a diet that uses carbohydrates for insulin response for adding muscle (even while trying to lose fat) may not be optimal for long-term health. It is hard to argue with the research presented by Taubes. It also seems that the research for calorie restriction/IF being beneficial is pretty solid. It follows that the optimum diet for health would be VLC in combination with something like an every other day fast. Many people on here advocate “primal” starches. Of course they make us feel better. Of course they make it easier to go primal. But how does that square with Taubes and Dr. Davis. Thoughts?

  • #2
    This is a very lame answer, but for me, an optimum diet is one I can sustain.

    Sustainability aside, I do think there is value in getting some nutrients from fruits, veggies, and in some cases, tubers. I think the optimum diet also depends on the individual. Someone who is very active would likely require a different diet for optimum health as someone who is more sedentary. Also each person's physiology, I'm sure plays a part in what's optimal for them.

    For me, I'm currently trying to lose weight and VLC is working well for that. I want to lose another 10lbs or so. After I've done that, then I'll be upping my carbs to about 100g to see if I maintain at that level.

    Comment


    • #3
      Have you read the Primal Blueprint? Mark makes a pretty good case for what the optimum diet is.

      Gordo

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd start with PB then tweak it to find what's optimum for you. What's optimum for me will probably differ for most everyone else, but the only way to find out is trial and error.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gordo View Post
          Have you read the Primal Blueprint? Mark makes a pretty good case for what the optimum diet is.

          Gordo
          Yes, I’ve read it. And obviously it is better than SAD. But again, Taubes and Dr. Davis have good arguments (and research) that excess carbohydrates are what makes us unhealthy. Many people on here will tell you that Primal does not mean low carb. Additionally, the ONLY proven method of extending life span in mammals is calorie restriction. Everything else are just ways not to decrease it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Barryman,

            That is the point. How do you know what is optimal? How you feel? How you look? I know plenty of people using steroids, who are eating whatever they want, and look and feel fantastic. That doesn’t mean what they are doing is optimal for health in the long term.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by fufonzo View Post
              This is a very lame answer, but for me, an optimum diet is one I can sustain.
              This is totally not-lame. Even Taubes recognizes that different people have different nutritional needs. In his recent post about Dr. Oz, he concedes that some people do have a natural tendency towards thinness and a higher metabolism and can probably be healthy on higher intakes of carbohydrate than those who have thrifty metabolisms and a tendency towards obesity. I happen to be one of those high-metabolism people (seriously, my waking temps are really high) and I find that I do best on a moderate-starch, high-fat diet. It's better when I avoid grains, which I do most of the time, but since I don't have any acute reactions, I haven't eliminated them completely. I try to keep my carbs from sweet potatoes, potatoes, and a small amount of fruit (I don't really like fruit).

              So yeah, I would argue that "The Optimum Diet" for all people does not exist. It's about avoiding clearly demonstrated poisons, like gluten, avoiding foods that give you an acute problem, like casein or lactose, and focusing on clearly beneficial foods like vegetables and meat, but without being fanatical about it. It's all about gauging what it's worth. Frappucinos are delicious, but not worth the crippling migraines they cause me. But it is worth it to make my own version with local cream and organic cane sugar (or honey if I don't have sugar) and maybe a splash of flavoring extract, once in a while, because I know it won't give me a migraine and it's involved enough that I'm never going to make it a regular thing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dboxing View Post
                Additionally, the ONLY proven method of extending life span in mammals is calorie restriction.
                Do you have this somewhere? I'd like to read it.

                I think Taubes/Eades have good points, but not all carbs are the same. Compare table sugar to a sweet potato. Both are lumped into the "carbohydrate" group which they advocate limiting/cutting, but each have very different affects on the body. I've also read some things from Davis that just don't make sense, or were inaccurate - not convinced he's the best source.

                My take on it all: When looking at indigenous cultures, it seems the keys to a healthy diet are cutting sugar, PUFA oils/fats, and cutting grains or at least limiting them to an insignificant proportion of cals. After that macronutrient intake is up to the individual. Inuit's eat mostly fat, Kitavan's eat mostly carb, Masai eat mostly dairy, but they're all healthy and they all cut the above mentioned foods.

                Comment


                • #9
                  "many people will tell you that primal is not low carb?" that's a load of crap. nearly everyone on here sees primal as low carb. very low carb (vlc) is anything under 50g/day -- required for weight/fat loss (and other benefits for some people such as managing diabetes, etc) -- and the 'maintenance' diet for people who have become as lean as they would like is between 50 and 100 g. that's still low carb!

                  in addition, some endurance athletes (or others) may require "more carbs" but most will be near 100/110 rather than nearer to 50. for me, i'm between 60 and 80 on any given day, because i don't need to loose any weight.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It was a general statement. Maybe some drug (revestarol) or genetic tinkering, but setting those aside. Here's one example, but there are plenty more.

                    Calorie Restriction – The Only Proven Way to Extend Lifespan?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      zoebird, I agree that Primal should be VLC, let's say under 100. But read the posts here and see how many people say eat more "sweet potatoes", etc. And when a newbie asks whether it's "low carb" or not, check out how many responses say "no".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by barryman9000 View Post
                        Do you have this somewhere? I'd like to read it.

                        I think Taubes/Eades have good points, but not all carbs are the same. Compare table sugar to a sweet potato. Both are lumped into the "carbohydrate" group which they advocate limiting/cutting, but each have very different affects on the body. I've also read some things from Davis that just don't make sense, or were inaccurate - not convinced he's the best source.

                        My take on it all: When looking at indigenous cultures, it seems the keys to a healthy diet are cutting sugar, PUFA oils/fats, and cutting grains or at least limiting them to an insignificant proportion of cals. After that macronutrient intake is up to the individual. Inuit's eat mostly fat, Kitavan's eat mostly carb, Masai eat mostly dairy, but they're all healthy and they all cut the above mentioned foods.
                        +1

                        If we look at these and other cultures, humans can survive and thrive on various diets. There is no "one size fits all" approach to optimum health.. But you are right, one thing they all have common is that they do not eat the SAD, with lots of sugar/refined carbohydrates/processed foods/PUFA oils.

                        Some here feel their best if they are Ketosis (personally, Ketosis give me sleeping problems), others feel their best if they have 100-150 carbohydrates from Primal approved foods. Some here eat fruits , others avoid them for one or more reasons. Some here thrive on 50% fat, others thrive on 60-70% fat (myself included), and the list can go and on!

                        This is the best thing about the PB. It gives you the knowledge of which foods are optimum for health and those which have been proven to be unhealthy. Within this, one can figure out what ratio (fat, protein, and carbs) and which type of carbs works best for them.
                        Last edited by Zed; 03-21-2011, 02:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dboxing View Post
                          Barryman,

                          That is the point. How do you know what is optimal? How you feel? How you look? I know plenty of people using steroids, who are eating whatever they want, and look and feel fantastic. That doesn’t mean what they are doing is optimal for health in the long term.
                          All we can do is use what modern tools we have to measure health. I read an article that I can't find now (I bookmark almost everything except the ones I end up needing later) where the author argued we need to start with a science based diet and go from there. There's a lot of science that shows a Paleo approach is best, yet people constantly argue that they feel healthy eating something like a Veg*an based approach. How you feel is definitely a good indicator, but we can't feel cancer or heart disease until it's too late. We know things like sugar, PUFA oils and grains increase the risk for disease - coincidence that our Paleo ancestors didn't eat those things? That's where modern concepts come in. A lot of the studies that show what makes up a healthy diet happen to coincide with what we used to eat.

                          I also wouldn't argue that steroids are necessarily unhealthy (now waiting for the onslaught).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The maintenance approach according to Mark is 100-150 grams of carbohydrates, not 50-100.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              i haven't seen anyone say that it's not a "low carb" diet. i ahve seen then say that it is not a "no carb" diet.

                              people come in and ask "is this a no-carb diet?" and the answer is "no, it is not a no-carb diet; it's a low-carb diet." and i've been here for nearly 2k posts of my own, plus the reading i've done in the last 4-5 months of being on here, so i have a sense of what people are saying without doing a search.

                              in addition, people who are told to add starchy carbs like sweet potatoes are those who 1. have no weight to loose; and 2. are having issues with athletic performance (endurance, strength, whatever) such that they may need more carbs -- moving them closer to 100g, not exceeding it using sweet potatoes. still "low carb."

                              VLC refers to "under 50 g carbs" on this board. PB advocates VLC for weightloss/fat loss (or for those who have metabolic/autoimmune issues); and then maintaining between 50 and 100 g which is technically "low carb." for those who may need more carb, they are encouraged to increase it up to 100g. if they are hard core endurance athletes, they may need slightly more OR they may need more calories overall.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X