Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 135

Thread: Potato diet - Epic Fail, Glorious Victory page 8

  1. #71
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    529
    Primal Fuel
    Quote 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.

  2. #72
    gopintos's Avatar
    gopintos is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,787
    Quote 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

  3. #73
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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 at 12:13 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  4. #74
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.

  5. #75
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    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.

  6. #76
    Mr. Anthony's Avatar
    Mr. Anthony is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,322
    Man, look at the forum lately. Who knew the humble potato could be such a source of contention?

    Besides the Irish, I mean.


  7. #77
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    529
    Quote 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

    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.
    Did you actually read the hyperlipid post and understand it? Because from what I've quoted above, it is clear that your understanding of the mechanisms is superficial, and as a result you cannot see how what I did mirrors the "all potato hack" in the salient details.

    First, the operative mechanism proposed by Peter at Hyperlipid was completely unrelated to protein or fiber. No impact whatsoever. Hopefully, you'll go back to the post and try to find some oblique reference to how the mechanism was related to low protein intake and call me on my misunderstanding, but I'm betting you won't because you can't because it's not in there.

    Peter speculates that the operative mechanism for the potato hack was related to the effect of lipids in the mitochondria of the beta cells responsible for producing insulin. Specifically, Peter's speculation was that in the absence of the palmitic free fatty acid, even in the face of hyperglycemia, your pancreas behaves essentially like that of a type 1 diabetic, incapable of secreting insulin. This then leads to low circulating insulin, which permits lipolysis to increase, thereby increasing palmitic acid release from the fat cells, which then allows the pancreas to secrete some additional insulin, which takes care of the hyperglycemia, but inhibits palmitic acid release from the fat cells, and round about you go again.

    So, the reader's digest explanation : don't eat Palmitic acid.

    Chris Voight on his diet had about 20 ml of olive oil a day, which is predominantly composed of oleic acid. Predominantly, but not entirely. So, one might ask how much palmitic acid was he getting from this? Well, according to the USDA, this would net him an intake of 2.25 g of palmitic acid. If you follow the link, it's the value in the lipid section shown as 16:0, the saturated 16 carbon fat. Choco, maybe you should let him know that he wasn't properly doing the "hack" because of his olive oil consumption?

    A fair question at this point might be how much albacore tuna would one have to consume to provide the same amount of palmitic acid as Chris Voight was ingesting? The fine folks at the USDA tell us it would be about 400g. And with that, mon cher Choco, your argument falls apart because I was eating about half that amount, approximately 230g worth per meal.

    This then leaves you with two options:

    1. You can admit that my diet falls entirely within the confines of the operative mechanism suggested by Peter at Hyperlipid.
    2. Stick your head in the sand and ignore this, and come back with a proof by repeated assertion approach where you insists that it has to be all potatoes, just because.


    What's it gonna be?

    -PK
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

  8. #78
    InSearchOfAbs's Avatar
    InSearchOfAbs is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    1,454

  9. #79
    tatertot's Avatar
    tatertot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by InSearchOfAbs View Post
    Is that a bowl of mashed potatoes???

  10. #80
    InSearchOfAbs's Avatar
    InSearchOfAbs is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    1,454
    yes, mixed with some egg whites and 200g of tuna...

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •