Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 135

Thread: Potato diet - Epic Fail, Glorious Victory page 12

  1. #111
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    ^ 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.

  2. #112
    vonbraun's Avatar
    vonbraun is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    9
    Quote 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
    Quote 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 at 12:16 PM.

  3. #113
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,077
    @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 at 12:33 PM.

  4. #114
    vonbraun's Avatar
    vonbraun is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    9
    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

  5. #115
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    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

  6. #116
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote 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

  7. #117
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,077
    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.

  8. #118
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    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.

  9. #119
    vonbraun's Avatar
    vonbraun is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    9
    Quote 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 at 01:12 PM.

  10. #120
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    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.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •