Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Potato diet - Epic Fail, Glorious Victory

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

  • 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:



    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


    -PK
    Why do you keep referring to a temporary all potato diet/hack as a protein free diet? A large russet potato has 290 calories and 8 grams of protein.
    A modest calorie restricted daily amount of 1900 calories for a adult male would be the equivalent of 6.5 large russet potatoes ,which would be the equivalent of 52 grams of protein. Which is right in line with 50g minimum protein you seem to have ignored with your implied zero protein potatoes.

    For some bizzarro universe definition of "nutrient-dense." Maybe as compared to styrofoam ... ?
    Potatoes and Human Health, Part I
    From a nutritional standpoint, potatoes are a mixed bag. On one hand, if I had to pick a single food to eat exclusively for a while, potatoes would be high on the list. One reason is that they contain an adequate amount of complete protein, meaning they don't have to be mixed with another protein source as with grains and legumes. Another reason is that a number of cultures throughout history have successfully relied on the potato as their principal source of calories, and several continue to do so. A third reason is that they're eaten in an unrefined, fresh state.

    Potatoes contain an adequate amount of many essential minerals, and due to their low phytic acid content (1), the minerals they contain are well absorbed. They're rich in magnesium and copper, two minerals that are important for insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular health (2, 3). They're also high in potassium and vitamin C. Overall, they have a micronutrient content that compares favorably with other starchy root vegetables such as taro and cassava (4, 5, 6). Due to their very low fat content, potatoes contain virtually no omega-6, and thus do not contribute to an excess of these essential fatty acids.
    Last edited by vonbraun; 11-30-2012, 05:43 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by vonbraun View Post
      Why do you keep referring to a temporary all potato diet/hack as a protein free diet? A large russet potato has 290 calories and 8 grams of protein.
      A modest calorie restricted daily amount of 1900 calories for a adult male would be the equivalent of 6.5 large russet potatoes ,which would be the equivalent of 52 grams of protein. Which is right in line with 50g minimum protein you seem to have ignored with your implied zero protein potatoes.


      Potatoes and Human Health, Part I
      I have never claimed that an all potato diet was a zero protein diet, as you can confirm by clicking on my user name and going through all the comments I've posted since I've been a member. I have repeatedly asserted that an all potato diet is deficient in protein.

      With that out of the way, we need to turn to the question of nitrogen balance, where nitrogen can only be supplied to the human body in the form of amine groups (NH3) from the amino acid components of protein. This is how protein status of individuals is scientifically and medically assessed. Deficiency is defined as excreting more nitrogen than one ingests ( negative nitrogen balance ) and the state we should strive for would be either equilibrium, or a positive nitrogen balance, where we respectively excrete the same amount, or less nitrogen, than we ingest.

      Studies repeatedly show that while significantly calorically restricted, positive nitrogen balance is maintained in adults with an intake of 1.5 - 1.7g per kg of body mass. As I started my experiment I weighed near as makes no difference 85 kg which would then dictate a protein intake of roughly 130g if I were to apply the lower end of the recommended range. I was also ingesting 1500 kcal per day, 500 kcal less than my estimated BMR, which certainly qualifies as being significantly calorie restricted.

      Now, to your numbers:

      Using your data for Russet potatoes, 1500 kcal. would provide me with 40g of protein, thereby providing a meager 31% of the amount needed for nitrogen balance. If I try to hit my protein number, I would egregiously overshoot my calorie limit, requiring about 16 large Russets for an intake of 4700 kcal.

      Potatoes make it impossible to hit the caloric and protein constraints simultaneously.

      If I relax the caloric constraint, and focus only on the protein, I would still need to eat 4.3 kg., or close to 10 lbs. of potatoes, which is a stunningly large amount, and leads to my observation that potatoes are not "nutrient dense" by any reasonable definition of that phrase.

      Faced with this reality, the only way to be calorically restricted and hit the protein requirements is to dial back the potatoes and add protein, which I did via the inclusion of egg whites and albacore tuna. I am unwilling to ignore the scientific literature on protein requirements.

      -PK
      My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
        I am unwilling to ignore the scientific literature on protein requirements.

        -PK
        I can't remember, when you fast, and I know you don't see this the same, so not trying to argue that point, and they are two different protocols no doubt, but I can't remember when you fast, how long do you shoot for and what do you do to accommodate for the lack of protein being consumed?

        I have only done a few days of tators, so I was not worried about protein, just like when I am fasting - I don't feel the need to supplement with protein for my muscles (not talking about restricting protein for autophagy) I am doing one week next week, and not sure how much I will worry about it then. Even not sure with 2 weeks how much I would worry but I might be more inclined to add BCAA supplements rather than other protein so maybe not to change the original PD too much. And I know from the beginning, yours was going to include other protein sources. So it is nice to know what your N=1 is from a potato+ diet.

        I know you didnt have good results, but maybe you just werent fat enough? I think for me, that if I ate tators and tuna and eggs, I would lose weight. I don't know about all the other fancy numbers, but I am confident my fat would be going down. But I think it is only because I am fatter than you to begin with.

        Just typing outloud. Only my thoughts and opinions.
        65lbs gone and counting!!

        Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gopintos View Post
          I can't remember, when you fast, and I know you don't see this the same, so not trying to argue that point, and they are two different protocols no doubt, but I can't remember when you fast, how long do you shoot for and what do you do to accommodate for the lack of protein being consumed?

          I have only done a few days of tators, so I was not worried about protein, just like when I am fasting - I don't feel the need to supplement with protein for my muscles (not talking about restricting protein for autophagy) I am doing one week next week, and not sure how much I will worry about it then. Even not sure with 2 weeks how much I would worry but I might be more inclined to add BCAA supplements rather than other protein so maybe not to change the original PD too much. And I know from the beginning, yours was going to include other protein sources. So it is nice to know what your N=1 is from a potato+ diet.

          I know you didnt have good results, but maybe you just werent fat enough? I think for me, that if I ate tators and tuna and eggs, I would lose weight. I don't know about all the other fancy numbers, but I am confident my fat would be going down. But I think it is only because I am fatter than you to begin with.

          Just typing outloud. Only my thoughts and opinions.
          Hey, G.P. - Nice observations...Remember PKlopp is a muscular work-out kinds guy and didn't want to give that up. His indepth knowledge of protein and nitrogen surely helped him get and stay that way. I was glad he did his experiment in his own way because it kind of proved the original point that it is not a good match for people who want to continue to exercise and it doesn't work as well when you start adding other items to the menu.

          That said, I'd bet a few chicken livers or a couple oysters a day would make this diet pretty well-rounded in respect to micronutrients, although it will always be low in fat and protein for it to work.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gopintos View Post
            I can't remember, when you fast, and I know you don't see this the same, so not trying to argue that point, and they are two different protocols no doubt, but I can't remember when you fast, how long do you shoot for and what do you do to accommodate for the lack of protein being consumed?
            For several years now, I have been eating one meal a day, which some folks consider fasting, but I do not. I define a fast as a minimum 48 hour period without food. With my schedule and definition of fasting, that just means skipping the one daily meal is a fast for me. I have also followed this protocol for years, but as of September of this year, I have not been doing this just because travel in Asia made it really awkward to maintain, and upon my return, I stated exploring the potato fast.

            When I do a 48 hour fast, I know that my protein metabolism will change, but this due largely to my hormonal profile changing. The seminal paper that started me down this road was one where males with normal BMIs fasting over 48 hours experienced 5 fold increases in their circulating growth hormone levels. Growth hormone promotes 1) retention of protein, and 2) fat mobilization. Assuming, then, that I am not some aberrant freak, but that I substantially resemble the study participants, I should benefit from the observed protein sparing effect as well.

            To your point, though, this doesn't work the same in obese subjects. In those cases, the growth hormone release is blunted. But, this is actually expected, because in obese subject, the adipose cells are distended and leaking which is a characteristic of metabolic syndrome: high triglyceride levels in the plasma. Moreover, in terms of muscle mass, obese subjects definitely have more muscle simply because there is more to them to move around. Accordingly, locomotive muscles will exhibit disproportionate growth ... meaning large well developed lower body musculature. All of this means that in the obese subjects, there is no immediate need for the protein sparing and fat mobilization effects of growth hormone, but as these subject lean out, the GH response correspondingly comes into play.

            -PK
            My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

            Comment


            • ^ I agree with gopintos - any diet hack is context dependent.

              If you're an outlier then it's down to you to modify it to make it work. Even then, perhaps it won't work for you. If it doesn't, then move along now.
              F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                I have never claimed that an all potato diet was a zero protein diet, as you can confirm by clicking on my user name and going through all the comments I've posted since I've been a member. I have repeatedly asserted that an all potato diet is deficient in protein.

                With that out of the way, we need to turn to the question of nitrogen balance, where nitrogen can only be supplied to the human body in the form of amine groups (NH3) from the amino acid components of protein. This is how protein status of individuals is scientifically and medically assessed. Deficiency is defined as excreting more nitrogen than one ingests ( negative nitrogen balance ) and the state we should strive for would be either equilibrium, or a positive nitrogen balance, where we respectively excrete the same amount, or less nitrogen, than we ingest.

                Studies repeatedly show that while significantly calorically restricted, positive nitrogen balance is maintained in adults with an intake of 1.5 - 1.7g per kg of body mass. As I started my experiment I weighed near as makes no difference 85 kg which would then dictate a protein intake of roughly 130g if I were to apply the lower end of the recommended range. I was also ingesting 1500 kcal per day, 500 kcal less than my estimated BMR, which certainly qualifies as being significantly calorie restricted.

                Now, to your numbers:

                Using your data for Russet potatoes, 1500 kcal. would provide me with 40g of protein, thereby providing a meager 31% of the amount needed for nitrogen balance. If I try to hit my protein number, I would egregiously overshoot my calorie limit, requiring about 16 large Russets for an intake of 4700 kcal.

                Potatoes make it impossible to hit the caloric and protein constraints simultaneously.

                If I relax the caloric constraint, and focus only on the protein, I would still need to eat 4.3 kg., or close to 10 lbs. of potatoes, which is a stunningly large amount, and leads to my observation that potatoes are not "nutrient dense" by any reasonable definition of that phrase.

                Faced with this reality, the only way to be calorically restricted and hit the protein requirements is to dial back the potatoes and add protein, which I did via the inclusion of egg whites and albacore tuna. I am unwilling to ignore the scientific literature on protein requirements.

                -PK
                Well glad you're moving the goal post from YOUR earlier comment and research quote of
                Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                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.
                For those that missed it: pklopp defended adding eggs and tuna to what he called "potato diet" because in a study he linked and interpreted - it/he said you need 50g of protein to spare muscle loss, i then pointed out that on a potato diet you can get 50g of protein or very close to it, he then came back at me with j/k i meant you need 130g of protein and that's why i had to change the potato diet to a high protein diet but still pretend it's a short term potato diet/hack. LOL

                So your version of the short term potato diet/hack was to apply it to some obsessive body building I need 130g of protein a day or heavens sake I may lose a tiny miniscule amount of my brotein muscles when losing fat, even though I previously quoted research in this very thread that showed with a minimum amount of protein (50g) this can be pretty much mitigated to the extend a normal person should not be concerned at all. And any adjustments needed to get to that 50g minimum would be tiny and in many cases unnecessary, like adding a glass of lowfat milk or a small serving of lowfat cottage cheese, or perhaps bcaa supplements.
                Last edited by vonbraun; 12-01-2012, 12:16 PM.

                Comment


                • @vonbraun...I think you need to reread that post from page 8 about 50g of protein and the study paragraph that pklopp quoted. Your way off on what you assume it to mean. Best to let you hash that out on your own though. Heck you even highlighted the important part yourself!!!

                  Ah, hell I'll help you since it just requires quoting Pklopp anyhow:


                  "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?"

                  So basically we are showing why ingesting NO protein (i.e. fasting) would actually be preferred to ingesting small amounts of protein in terms of sparing lean mass and protein metabolically. This really isn't all that controversial. There are tons of studies that validate the amount of protein Pklopp is talking of to reatain lean mass in a caloric deficiency. It really is the most important aspect of recomposition along with resistance training recognized by studies up till now.

                  And the fact is even Peter at hyperlipids theory on how a no fat diet works is only speculation....But its damn sound metabolic speculation. If he is on track then protein really should not effect things outside of pure caloric load.
                  Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-01-2012, 12:33 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Reading through the study now, i think you got it backwards.

                    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.
                    proteinturnover.jpg

                    Comment


                    • Vonbraun, massive misread of that study. That study is saying that low protein intakes are worse than none because if you eat some protein but not enough, your body does not go into preservation mode. In a no-protein state, the body realizes there's a scarcity and so goes into a conservation state that protects your lean mass.

                      So 50g of protein intake is likely (in the shorter term) to lead to a greater loss of LBM than straight-up fasting because under fasting conditions, the body takes steps to protect itself that it won't take if you keep eating some but not enough.
                      “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                      Owly's Journal

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by vonbraun View Post
                        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.
                        There's the key point.
                        “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                        Owly's Journal

                        Comment


                        • Hmmm...I take that to mean that when we reduce protein...but, we still keep a little in the diet there is little if any metabolic change in the rate of synthesis and degradation. Meaning very little change to conserve protein as long as it is represented in small quantity.

                          When we provide no protein, synthesis and breakdown are substantially reduced....seems to indicate conservation to me.

                          The turnover rate being held at the same for a normal diet vs. that of a reduced protein one would leave you wondering where the extra protein is coming from. If the turnover is approximately the same (just a bit less) that it was with a "normal" protein load and its not coming from an exogenous source that really only leaves the obvious option of endogenous lean mass. But, I will admit to only reading what has been posted and not taken the time to read the whole study as of yet.

                          Comment


                          • If you are eating low carb then obviously significant protein is converted to glucose via neogenesis.
                            F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Owly View Post
                              There's the key point.
                              Yes, synthesis and breakdown.
                              also from the study:
                              Winterer et al. (38) also studied the effects of total
                              starvation but after a period on a low-energy, normalprotein
                              diet. Measurements were made by oral administration
                              of [15N]glycine for 60-h periods. The effects of
                              the two treatments were different. Starvation for 1 wk
                              caused a drop in the rate of protein synthesis relative
                              to the normally fed state
                              , similar to that seen by Jeevanandam
                              et al. but with no change in breakdown. By
                              contrast, the low-energy normal-protein diet for 3 wk
                              resulted in no change in either synthesis or degradation.

                              The conclusion from these data is that decreases
                              in energy intake, when protein intake is adequate,
                              have relatively little effect on body protein turnover
                              rates.
                              The same conclusion was reached in studies on
                              obese subjects on low-energy protein-
                              The potato diet depending on how calorie restricted would be in the range of "normal" protein amounts. (.5g/kg -.6g/kg)
                              Last edited by vonbraun; 12-01-2012, 01:12 PM.

                              Comment


                              • The OP made an arrogant supposition in the subject line. All bets are off as to this being a serious and genuine scientific investigation.
                                F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X