Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Potato diet - Epic Fail, Glorious Victory

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

  • #61
    Did you ever answer the question of measurements? Did you take any measurements and did they change? Was there any body composition change (even though your body comp measurement is with a crappy scale)?

    It would be interesting to see what would happen WITHOUT the additional protein, just the potatoes and nothing else. Would you lose lean body mass? Would your body hold on to it for a while? How long?

    I think the interesting thing for me was to see how the whole water retention thing really messes with the clarity of the results. The low carb diet has a nice clean result because that confounding water retention issue is gone.
    Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by pklopp View Post
      Perhaps an indefinite article would have absolved me of any guilt by association : "A Potato diet - .... "?
      Notice I didn't make it "Eat MOAR TATERS, Gain MOAR WEIGHT" which might justify the implication.

      So until someone from the church of the magic potato trademarks the English words "Potato" and "Diet" when they occur together as in "Potato Diet (TM)" I think we can safely use them to refer to a selection of food ( a diet ) comprised principally of starchy plant tubers ( potatoes ). I intend to do that until I receive the cease and desist letter from the IP lawyers.
      Hehehe........

      Originally posted by Leida View Post
      Also, I again, voice the agreement with the BMR over-estimates; particular the modifiers for activity. One of the questions I have for you, what's your BMR if you estimate it by Mifflin with a completely sedentary lifestyle? That's the only BMR estimate that is anywhere close to the truth for me (and the one that is very hard to sustain in the long run). I believe that adding a modifier for activity only works if you do not then add in the exercise separately.
      There are a lot of things that can influence TDEE. One is the medications I take for a neurological disorder being a metabolism suppressant. So, I take all the BMR calculators and their modifiers and chuck them and sy, "At what level of calories do I maintain weight and where do I start losing?"

      Originally posted by gopintos View Post
      I think the same is true of the original "potato diet" as well. Just sayin'
      Pssst.. It was a joke.

      Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
      Hey, I am still doing my egg diet and cycling them with potatoes on three of the weekdays for glycogen refill! Still two more weeks to go with the eggs and no problems with gasses. I haven’t updated the thread because people seemed to be more interested in the “all potato cult”, but yes I am leaning out, and I now seem to be below 10% of body fat and recomposing around 203 pound. Before I started this diet I did different diets to lose weight and gain some muscle, started at 246 lbs. and around 30% body fat one year ago, so this egg diet is a finisher so to say! At the age of fifthy I am now leaner and with better body composition than ever…
      Cool. Fifty here too and back to my high school bod.

      Originally posted by pklopp View Post
      I suspect you are right, but essentially, the reason for that is that the frittata is double the mass of ingested food, and that's where we come full ( pun kinda sorta intended ) circle to understanding the mechanism behind the potato diet.

      My thinking is that it is mostly due to involuntary caloric restriction as a result of the lack of nutritional density of potatoes, coupled with the satiety effects of a truly monotonous diet. You just get fed up with potatoes so the mere thought of eating more is enough to turn you off eating.

      Now if this is the case, that the satiety comes from adding bulk, not anything magical having to do with potatoes. But all of this presupposes that one is willing to let go of the potato dogma.
      This. Just this.

      Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
      Did you ever answer the question of measurements? Did you take any measurements and did they change? Was there any body composition change (even though your body comp measurement is with a crappy scale)?
      What I think would be interesting is more shirtless pics of PK

      Comment


      • #63
        Funnily, I actually prefer higher end lower-carbohydrate diets to sustained ketosis because the continuous water depletion messes up the moment you touch the starch, and changes are so dramatic.

        Oh and Leida, be careful with the 18 squares of chocolate, you could have theobromine toxicity. I'm very sensitive to caffeine and I know that if I eat too much chocolate I get dizzy.
        (Nod) I was thinking the same thing. I am very sensitive to caffeine, and I don't remember the last time I would have had that much chocolate in one day (4 squares is the max I can think of).

        I goit even better numbers with 85% Lindt excellence.
        2 cans of tuna + 13 squares lindt 85% excellence (130 g, ~ 4 oz, I guess)
        gives 922 calories, 60 g fat, 49 g carbs (19.5 g fibre) and 76 g protein (52:19:29 % ratios)

        Insanely, chocolate and tuna gives you enough protein, keep you low carb and meets fibre requirement and keeps you under 20% carbs + gives a good amount of fat.

        Plus, you probably get charged with energy on all the caffeine.

        I can't try it tomorrow, as I have a pound of liver thawed, but Wednesday I will give it a shot. I am very curious to see if the high reward food will make an under BMR day more tolerable and also the satiety (I assume not so hot, due to sugar in chocolate).
        My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
        When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by jakey View Post
          i came here to make fun of these stupid diet hacks, again. but i can't think of anything funny. but i would like my asshole-ish intentions to be noted, cause these threads are all really, really stupid.

          are any of you people happier doing one of these 'hacks' where you eat only potatoes, or only potatoes, tuna & egg whites? it's way more fun to eat food, you know, like different types of food... or to be able to go out and eat with other people. try it.
          Agreed.
          Couldn't have said it better myself!

          Comment


          • #65
            Actually, monotony of food and limiting food choices has long been proven a successful strategy for weight loss. People tend to eat far more with the variety (just think a buffet or pot luck).

            It makes calculating macros a snap. Compared to a special leftovers stew with 3 kinds of meat and 12 different vegetables, adding a couple cans of tuna to 500 g potatoes... so makes the limited food selection approach super good for weekdays.

            It also takes choice away so you do not get caught in the mind games and you do not wear down your mind with endlessly making choices. Hungry? Eat a potato. Full? Leave the rest of the potato alone. It really helps people with screwed up satiety mechanism.

            Finally, low variety diet helps shut down the 'drill sergeant' that is an enemy of so many dieters: "Don't eat this!" "You can't have that", that eventually leads to the:" I can't deal with it right now." response. You don't have to drill yourself if you make a convent with yourself to eat potatoes and nothing else. Well, maybe you can, but i find it is easier for me personally to adhere when choices are limited (Tim Ferris notes the same thing).
            My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
            When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by pklopp View Post
              I didn't bulk anything with protein, rather, the bulk came from nutrient devoid things like rice and potatoes.
              The "All Potato Diet" is just that - an all potato diet. You did not eat just potatoes. You didn't even come close. You bulked it with protein.

              Originally posted by pklopp View Post
              Study after study shows that in order to ensure protein retention while in a significant caloric deficit you need approximately 1.5 - 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight . High protein / high calorie is a completely different beast from high protein / caloric deficit. If you hold protein intake constant _and_ caloric intake constant, you must trade CHO for fat. That is the only thing possible. If you know of another way to do that within those constraints, I'd be curious to hear it.
              But you wouldn't know if the all potato diet will result in muscle loss because you didn't do it. You simply ate a reduced calorie, low-fat diet rich in complex carbohydrate. Basically, you followed the dated advice of cardiologists everywhere.

              Originally posted by pklopp View Post
              This explanation conveniently ignores the results with rice CHO and it also begs the question as to what exactly I was oxidizing for energy while storing all of this glucose as glycogen? Again, I'm open to your suggestions.
              Compare the nutrient content of 1,000 calories of potatoes vs 1,000 calories of white rice.

              Potatoes have 29g of fiber. White rice has 8g of fiber.

              Fiber is notorious for water retention, and you are getting nearly 4 times the fiber eating potatoes than white rice. You are also getting an order of magnitude more vitamins and minerals, any of which could account for more water retention. White rice is a much more "pure" food than potatoes. Potatoes are fairly nutrient-dense.

              What is interesting is Lyle McDonald stated his best massive carb-loads were on skim milk and white flour bagels. The reason was it was all glucose and lactose with virtually no fiber, so he wouldn't shake and jiggle like if he ate...things like potatoes and whole grains.

              Originally posted by pklopp View Post
              1000g of carbs over how many days? A weekend, most likely. If that's the case, you were putting away 2000 kcal of CHO a day, and probably more calories than that overall since I doubt you were just eating carbs. The CHO alone already puts you 33% more in terms of calories as compared to my approach and a whopping 250% more in terms of the CHO consumed per day. I have no doubt that you were a walking water balloon.
              It would be over 20-24 hours. Protein remained about 1.5g/lb, the same as any other day. Fat <40g. 4,000 calories of carbs in a day or less is nothing to sneer at. And yes, it was virtually all water and glycogen weight. Glycogen weight is often underrepresented. When you eat carbohydrate and gain weight, around 25% of that weight is simply glycogen storage.
              Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 11-27-2012, 11:30 AM.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • #67
                For those trying this "experiment," did anyone read this post at Hyperlipid that got this whole ball rolling to begin with?

                Hyperlipid: Protons: Zero fat

                The theory why people are calling this a "diet hack" isn't because of calories. That would just be normal dieting. The reason why potatoes are the chosen food is because they're basically zero fat and come with high quality protein, something very rare in a vegetarian protein source, and a lot of nutrients. The theory is because your body needs fat to manufacture insulin, if you are eating ZERO fat, it has to pull fat out of storage to manufacture insulin. Because white potatoes are so highly insulogenic and create such a massive, high GI response, it needs A LOT of insulin - which requires a significant portion of fat. Since you aren't eating fat along with it, it is forced to go to adipose tissue as a source - and needs quite a bit - to make all that insulin.

                So when you start combining potatoes with outside sources of protein and fiber - like egg whites, fish or vegetables - you are destroying the "hack." You are greatly reducing the insulin spike you're supposed to get, which lessens the immediate fat need from your fat cells to manufacture insulin. The whole point is because potatoes are so massively insulinogenic. If you add stuff, it doesn't work. It has to be all potatoes.

                You could surely do it with white rice too, but it's not recommended because there's virtually no protein (certainly no high quality protein) and far less nutrients. Potatoes were chosen because of the very high quality protein, the nutrient density, the high glycemix index and the fact that someone can survive a very long time eating simply potatoes - it is nearly a complete food - you will become ill much faster eating just white rice than eating just white potatoes.

                This thread addresses none of this, which is why it's completely invalid. Ignoring this means you've turned it from a "diet hack" into typical CICO, or in this case due to the very short term application, just an exercise in water retention.
                Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 11-27-2012, 11:56 AM.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  The theory why people are calling this a "diet hack" isn't because of calories. That would just be normal dieting. The reason why potatoes are the chosen food is because they're basically zero fat and come with high quality protein, something very rare in a vegetarian protein source, and a lot of nutrients. The theory is because your body needs fat to manufacture insulin, if you are eating ZERO fat, it has to pull fat out of storage to manufacture insulin. Because white potatoes are so highly insulogenic and create such a massive, high GI response, it needs A LOT of insulin - which requires a significant portion of fat. Since you aren't eating fat along with it, it is forced to go to adipose tissue as a source - and needs quite a bit - to make all that insulin.
                  OMGosh!! English that I can understand!! I completely understand that and it makes total sense to me!! I knew I loved the tator hack from the beginning, and I knew it worked for me, & now I know why!!!! Thank you for the interpretation!
                  65lbs gone and counting!!

                  Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    For those trying this "experiment," did anyone read this post at Hyperlipid that got this whole ball rolling to begin with?

                    Hyperlipid: Protons: Zero fat
                    We've been all through that rabbit-hole, but most just hear "Eat Potatoes forever and ever and you will get skinny and die from malnourishment". My favorite quote from Peter, and what got me really interested in all this is (from your link):

                    “Once you get FFA levels low enough to inhibit insulin secretion you will start to move in to the sort of territory where insulin secretion might be blunted enough to allow hyperglycaemia. But the feedback effect of reduced insulin levels is also the re commencement of lipolysis. This will restore enough FFAs to maintain functional insulin secretion and so avoid potential hyperglycaemia, which the body tries to avoid. Of course you have to throw in the increased insulin sensitivity of muscles deprived of exogenously supplied FFAs too.”

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Also from the Hyperlipid site

                      "So you have to ask whether an almost all potato diet genuinely leads low fasting insulin and subsequent weight loss. For my perspective the answer is yes.
                      The next question is whether anyone could do this. That, I suspect, depends on how broken your liver is. The more of a problem you have with obesity the less likely you are to lose weight or experience appetite normalization.

                      Is it healthy for someone with a functional liver to live on potatoes? It is clearly possible in the medium term. Cooked tubers have a respectable history of human usage. If you are not broken it might be a reasonable diet. There are no trans fats in spuds. There are minimal omega 6 fats. There is no gluten. There is just enough fructose to activate hepatic glucokinase without generating de novo lipogenesis. There is adequate high quality protein. On the down side there are a stack of vitamin and mineral deficiencies waiting in the wings.

                      I have no doubt that Chris Voight lost weight on an all potato diet. I also have no doubt that he was neither chronically hyperglycaemic nor hyperinsulinaemic."
                      This I think, all kidding about potato heads aside, is the danger involved in threads such as the Moar Potatoes one. What might be perfectly do-able as a short term weight loss hack for a fit person with no liver or metabolism issues might be very unhealthy for the metabolically or hepatic-ly "broken" as Peter puts it.
                      And then there are the vitamin deficiencies. Again, not a big deal to the already fit.
                      Last edited by Paleobird; 11-27-2012, 12:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        The "All Potato Diet" is just that - an all potato diet. You did not eat just potatoes. You didn't even come close. You bulked it with protein.


                        But you wouldn't know if the all potato diet will result in muscle loss because you didn't do it. You simply ate a reduced calorie, low-fat diet rich in complex carbohydrate. Basically, you followed the dated advice of cardiologists everywhere.
                        Ok choco, go to your nearest search engine, and type in "whole body protein turnover" as your search term and you should get a number of hits, where "a number" == "plethora" == "holy crap, that's a lot"

                        Now, take your time ... read a few, and you might find this:

                        When the low-energy diet contained 50 g protein/day, the rates of synthesis and degradation of body protein were only slightly reduced compared with rates on the normal diet. However, when the low-energy diet contained no protein, both synthesis and breakdown of protein were substantially reduced (Table 1), suggesting that the energy deficit had little effect on turnover rates, whereas the absence of protein was critical.
                        So how do we interpret this data? Well, it seems that in the complete absence of protein intake, the body starts to view protein as being a precious resource and down requlates oxidation ( use of protein as an energy substrate ) as well as postponing maintenance activities, where proteins get shuffled around from place to place ( synthesis and breakdown ).

                        If, however, you give the body a metabolic head fake, by giving it a bit of protein ( 50g in the study ), this is interpreted as a transient condition, so no metabolic accommodations take place to spare protein. If the condition is, in fact, transient, you catch a bigger rabbit the next day, for instance, then all is right with the world. But if you were to insist on providing this head fake continually by eating, say, off the top of my head, only potatoes as your principal source of protein, then what would you expect as the net result of a metabolism that is oxidizing proteins at a normal ( i.e. not down regulated ) rate?

                        I, for one, am quite happy to stand on the shoulders of giants and make use of the research that has been done in the area of human protein kinetics. I find the evidence compelling. But if you'd like to do the all potato diet for two weeks on the basis of your speculation that it might be protein sparing, in direct contradiction to the existent research, I will offer publicly here to help you with your graphs

                        Potatoes are fairly nutrient-dense.
                        For some bizzarro universe definition of "nutrient-dense." Maybe as compared to styrofoam ... ?

                        It would be over 20-24 hours. Protein remained about 1.5g/lb, the same as any other day. Fat <40g. 4,000 calories of carbs in a day or less is nothing to sneer at. And yes, it was virtually all water and glycogen weight. Glycogen weight is often underrepresented. When you eat carbohydrate and gain weight, around 25% of that weight is simply glycogen storage.
                        You're not seriously trying to draw a parallel between your experience ingesting 1000g of carbohydrates in one day and the resulting massive water bloat, and my 200g, are you?

                        -PK
                        My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                        Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                          Also from the Hyperlipid site



                          This I think, all kidding about potato heads aside, is the danger involved in threads such as the Moar Potatoes one. What might be perfectly do-able as a short term weight loss hack for a fit person with no liver or metabolism issues might be very unhealthy for the metabolically or hepatic-ly "broken" as Peter puts it.
                          And then there are the vitamin deficiencies. Again, not a big deal to the already fit.
                          I could be wrong, it has been awhile since I read the thread, but I believe all that was addressed in the first few posts. Then the longer it got, the less ppl wanted to read, but I think that was addressed right from the get go. And the Voight dude, wasnt he on it for a couple of months? I know it was certainly longer than the periodic 7-14 days that was discussed.
                          65lbs gone and counting!!

                          Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            Also from the Hyperlipid site



                            This I think, all kidding about potato heads aside, is the danger involved in threads such as the Moar Potatoes one. What might be perfectly do-able as a short term weight loss hack for a fit person with no liver or metabolism issues might be very unhealthy for the metabolically or hepatic-ly "broken" as Peter puts it.
                            And then there are the vitamin deficiencies. Again, not a big deal to the already fit.
                            The problem with this statement is that it is wild conjecture. The bulk of Peter's article is almost entirely scientific. The line you pulled out is simply a disclaimer to protect him if someone does something stupid or has a bad reaction to what amounts to a crash diet.

                            The amount of people that would suffer from issues eating potatoes is very small. The issue limiting to yourself to any one food is going to be nutrient deficiencies. It's never a good idea to crash diet, but for some, it may be "a worthwhile option at the time."

                            Chris Voight actually ate nothing but potatoes for 60 days.

                            http://20potatoesaday.com

                            In terms of forcing yourself to eat only one food for an entire 2 months, while no food is perfect, potatoes are probably one of the best. I hate seeing things like "adrenal fatigue," "fructose malabsorption," "leptin sensitivity," "metabolic syndrome," etc. It seems that everyone claims to have some kind of disorder that explains their weight gain, but everyone seems to be self-diagnosed. It seems there is rarely any actual lab results showing people are sensitive to whatever food(s) they are demonizing. That line you quoted is more of the blame-game. The reason why people are overweight and unhealthy isn't probably because of fat or carbs or whatever self-diagnosed metabolic issue you think you have. It's probably because you eat too much and don't exercise enough, and you just haven't found foods that make a calorie deficit sustainable and an exercise program you enjoy enough to stick with.
                            Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 11-27-2012, 01:13 PM.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                              Ok choco, go to your nearest search engine, and type in "whole body protein turnover" as your search term and you should get a number of hits, where "a number" == "plethora" == "holy crap, that's a lot"

                              Now, take your time ... read a few, and you might find this:
                              It doesn't matter.

                              You didn't do the diet, so you can't comment on whether or not you would lose lean muscle mass doing it. When you actually do the diet honestly and follow the protocol, I will listen to what you have to say. It doesn't change the fact that your experiment didn't even come close to what you were supposed to do.
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Yes, Peter's article was scientific but this was not a disclaimer to keep from being sued, it was a very big caveat that he thought people should be made aware of. And, no, gopintos, these concerns were not "addressed" and gone.

                                And I agree with PK that dry (no butter) potatoes can only be called "nutrient dense" in comparison to packing materials. They both are about as appetizing to me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X