Do you count all your protein sources? Diet debate

[Zamun]

Okay I’m back on team carbs.

 

[slesh]

Usually my babe is the only one this persistent about seeing me shirtless! But here you go sweetie!

Eat some carbs and go pick up a weight

 

[TheOtherOne55]

Yeah you do make a lot of good points in this post. I wasn’t able to read the study you posted due to yesterday being the fourth and I was out most of the evening. I definitely agree that unprocessed food is much better and the Mediterranean diet is really a good choice. I have always kind of considered that diet to be a low carb diet but I know it does have a decent amount of carbs. I will check out both of the links you posted this evening. But yes I agree that unprocessed food in general is where I want to be in my diet. So, where do we draw the line at processed though?

It seems there’s a lot of interest in this topic and instead of continuing to hijack the OPs thread maybe we should start a new one.

I don’t mean to sound rude, but you’re whole “I believe this because I watched a YT video 12 years ago” is a terrible excuse man. You found this board fullll of amazing info but your response sounds like the fat misguided lay-person coworker that tries to talk to all of us about nutrition. The average fat American makes their nutrition decisions based on some bullshit they heard 12 years ago….you’re different, you found this board which might mean you have greater physique and health goals, so you should do better/more research than that.

It’s also fairly logical too. High carbs, eaten with other healthy food, is ok. If high carb diets had a massive heart disease link 1/2 of Asia would be wiped out.

 

[CorgisOnTren]

Like I said just a minute ago I will definitely read the link you posted and I agree that carbs are not inherently bad for you. That’s not what I’ve been trying to say this whole time. Carbs have their place in everyones diet. You have to have them. I did find a legitimate study that proves my point also and it describes how a low carb Keto diet significantly reduces small dense LDL particles. These particles are what a lot of researchers are starting to believe is the main cause of heart disease.

https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(05)01166-6/fulltext

So in this study, not only do we not get to know what the actual people were eating on the LCKD or the LFD as this was an outpatient study (so who knows if calories were even equated or what specific foods they were directed to eat), but even more so the LCKD was given supplementation with things like fish (assuming fish oil) and flaxseed oil.

I find it odd the researches wouldn’t at least report weight lost between both groups either. I get that wasn’t the “aim” of the study but it’s such an easy and relevant metric to track.

This is just some of the things I gathered from reading this study so if mistake anything in that regard please correct me.

It seems they essentially just told these gen pop “go eat a LCKD and take these supps” or “go eat a LFD”. Well if you’re restricted to simply fat and proteins, the likelihood is you’re going to end up eating a lot less garbage food simply because a lot of the highly palatable processed food is mostly always going to have carbohydrates in play (candy, cake, donuts, whatever). I would be willing to bet that group ended up eating more whole, quality nutrient dense foods simply because that’s more realistic on their diet (especially in 2005 before we had things like keto ice cream keto cookies lining the shelves of stores lol). Low fat can still include a lot of highly processed and easy to overeat foods like super sugary cereal, candies, hell even soda would typically meet that criteria.

There’s too many unknowns in this study to draw much conclusion from it imo. We know that the main driver of heart disease is obesity, and I think that if someone’s goal is to avoid that they should just eat a diet they can consistently stick to (assuming health is the goal and NOT packing on muscle… in that case eat your carbs). If that’s low carb for you, then great. But I am yet to see any serious conclusive evidence that there is anything magic about any of the approaches. There’s so many factors that come into play when assessing nutritional research that it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt typically. Was it in a metabolic ward? Was it an epidemiological study? Was it a meta analysis? What was the population size? What are their pre existing conditions? Were calories equated? How about protein or fiber? Micronutrients?

Never be married to one study, because it never tells the whole story.

 

[Keefs]

I don’t mean to sound rude, but you’re whole “I believe this because I watched a YT video 12 years ago” is a terrible excuse man. You found this board fullll of amazing info but your response sounds like the fat misguided lay-person coworker that tries to talk to all of us about nutrition. The average fat American makes their nutrition decisions based on some bullshit they heard 12 years ago….you’re different, you found this board which might mean you have greater physique and health goals, so you should do better/more research than that.

It’s also fairly logical too. High carbs, eaten with other healthy food, is ok. If high carb diets had a massive heart disease link 1/2 of Asia would be wiped out.

This board is definitely full of good info, I agree with you on that one. Even though I fall into the overweight category on my physical every year, I’m definitely not fat! I posted a recent article that defends my stance on low carb diets for cardiovascular health just a few posts back. It is a good read and if you’re not close minded about this subject you should check it out. I think most of you guys are misunderstanding my stance on this. A lot of things in moderation are not gonna be too bad for you. I’m not against high carb diets because I do it myself in short spurts. I do however believe that a low carb diet is the best diet for reducing small dense LDL particles. I believe some of you referred to these as left over LDL. That video I saw all those years ago just explained it the best way I’ve heard. There are newer studies showing a direct relationship with small dense LDL and carbs in the diet. A good blood marker is also your triglycerides. Typically the lower your triglycerides are the lower you small LDL is going to be.

 

[Keefs]

So in this study, not only do we not get to know what the actual people were eating on the LCKD or the LFD as this was an outpatient study (so who knows if calories were even equated or what specific foods they were directed to eat), but even more so the LCKD was given supplementation with things like fish (assuming fish oil) and flaxseed oil.

I find it odd the researches wouldn’t at least report weight lost between both groups either. I get that wasn’t the “aim” of the study but it’s such an easy and relevant metric to track.

It seems they essentially just told these gen pop “go eat a LCKD and take these supps” or “go eat a LFD”. Well if you’re restricted to simply fat and proteins, the likelihood is you’re going to end up eating a lot less garbage food simply because a lot of the highly palatable processed food is mostly always going to have carbohydrates in play (candy, cake, donuts, whatever). I would be willing to bet that group ended up eating more whole, quality nutrient dense foods simply because that’s more realistic on their diet (especially in 2005 before we had things like keto ice cream keto cookies lining the shelves of stores lol). Low fat can still include a lot of highly processed and easy to overeat foods like super sugary cereal, candies, hell even soda would typically meet that criteria.

There’s too many unknowns in this study to draw much conclusion from it imo. We know that the main driver of heart disease is obesity, and I think that if someone’s goal is to avoid that they should just eat a diet they can consistently stick to (assuming health is the goal and NOT packing on muscle… in that case eat your carbs). If that’s low carb for you, then great. But I am yet to see any serious conclusive evidence that there is anything magic about any of the approaches. There’s so many factors that come into play when assessing nutritional research that it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt typically. Was it in a metabolic ward? Were calories equated? How about protein or fiber? Micronutrients?

Correct. We don’t know exactly what they were eating as far as I can tell. I don’t recall if they limited them to a certain number of calories I’ll have to look over it again but that would be the best way to make sure they weren’t over eating. We just have to trust they were eating somewhat healthy but this study has been repeated. Of course someone’s blood markers are going to be a lot different for eating cake vs potatoes. In other studies I’ve seen it’s the foods that score higher on the blood glycemic index that do the most damage to LDL. So yes cake would be higher on that! But in the same respect a potato is higher than lettuce!

 

[CorgisOnTren]

We just have to trust they were eating somewhat healthy

that’s a crazy bold assumption to have in a population of overweight hyperlipidemic volunteers bro lol

You have more trust to give than me that’s for sure

 

[Keefs]

that’s a crazy bold assumption to have in a population of overweight hyperlipidemic volunteers bro lol

You have more trust to give than me that’s for sure

Yep! I agree! But it is that way with most studies I’ve seen and this was a legitimate research study. It’s crazy how overweight the US is. What really upsets me is when I see a fat person talking shit about someone with a drug problem. All I can think of is, why don’t you put down that cake fat ass hypocrite!

 

[astrosfan123]

have had success doing either but in the younger days it was more stressful thinking about what you said. The last 5-7 years its been so much easier to just track the main macro for the meal unless its a whole egg that you can count fat and protein or a fattier meat. Justin Harris does this along with other coaches. If im out of rice and choose my 70 carbs from oatmeal because thats all i have currently then im not going to over think and calculate oh no now that oats have more protein then rice i should decrease the amount of whey in my next shake. Lol too much over thinking so i dont do that and the results dont take a hit.

 

[MR. BMJ]

To answer the thread topic, I count my calories from all protein sources. Same with all macros, except certain fibers I will subtract. Wanted to answer the thread topic first, lol.

I'd say that when it comes to VLC diets vs higher carb diets, again, like most things, they both can work, and it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. I'm going to just assume we are talking about healthy populations here, diabetics of course would favor some carbohydrate restrictions to one degree or another.

For me, it's pretty simple.

1) Get caloric needs met.
1) Set protein needs.
2) Get EPA/DHA intake met.

After that, do what is individually best for you. IMO, in most cases, after calories and protein are set, it doesn't matter a whole lot where you go from there...both ways will work. For me, what seems to be ideal is to slowly adjust both upward or downward depending on my goals and situation at the time. Look at your own bloodwork, if you do better one way over the other, then you probably have your answer. For myself, when cutting, I usually have my fats a little lower, and then slowly ramp down carbs as needed. Sometimes I can get by with more, and other times I have to really run them lower. Make small changes and then adjust as needed. Don't add in 20 variables of change at one time. I'm going a little off topic now though. Most of the time studies using hypocaloric designs show better health parameters either way. Of course, as it pertains to most here, you have to factor in (labs especially) that most of us use PED's, so that will skew the results. Anyway....