Results 76 to 90 of 134
Thread: Is my Dietetics teacher correct?
-
02-04-2010, 01:25 AM #76
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Posts
- 35
- Rep Power
- 0
i feel that the mainstream teaching is that cutting calories will help you lose weight on a diet but it way lead to you losing everything muscle included. i feel that the public needs to be way more educated on protein and know that a high protein moderate fat and low carb diet will probably give them a healthier lifestyle and help them lose weight. I nominate Dr Connely to re write the food pyramid before healthy people are the outcast in this country. i was flipping threw the channels the other day and started watching cartoons all the characters are fat asses its like there teaching kids being fat is normal ,whatever happen to popeye having muscles and getting the girl..
this off topic but i was at work a while back and i was downing a whey isolate shake when a manager came up to me and said be careful with those shakes that shit will kill you. the guy eats atleast a bag of popcorn a day and idk how much coffee and cokes.
-
02-04-2010, 01:38 AM #77
Yes there is some truth in that but countless studies have shown that low carb diets dramatically drop you testosterone production. We all know if you want to get big you have to have as much test as possible. Now if you using synthetic test this wont be a problem for you. Also that diet isnt a sure fire way to get shredded. Jay Culter's precontest diet consisted of some low, moderate, and high carb days. His low carb days were still roughly 400g/d. That is more than the average person probably eats on here as a high carb day.
In order for ketosis to occur one must consume less than 125g/d. But Jays precontest shows that no one diet is best because he came in at amazing shape eating about 3x the amount needed for ketosis to occur. It all depends on the individual because everyone's metabolism reacts differently to the same diet or theory.
-
02-04-2010, 04:48 AM #78
bit dissapointed at how much of a retard some people on here are (pj). i'm a first year nutrition student, out of the 13 highest sugar consuming countries 11 are also in the top 13 countries with the highest death rates from diabetes. further more anyone who believe the calories in = calories out theory is just a moron, for one thing ketogenic diets prove that this is false, also why anyone thinks that literally burning food to measure how much energy is contained with in it is an accurate way to determine how the human body will metabolise certain nutrients is absolutely beyond me.
-
02-04-2010, 06:35 AM #79
You hit the nail on the head,it is disturbing to see the so called proffesionals stuck with outdated knowledge.
Its not only on school though, also in the medical and nutritional field,the amount of outdated notions and knowledge is utterly staggering.
The point im trying to make here is,I really dont give a shit what those people say,I dont care to explain to them otherwise,for in many cases it is pointless and not worth the effort.
What I do care about however is the sad fact,that people get faulthy outdated advise from these proffesionals,that is not helping them or is giving them flatout wrong advise altogether.
-
02-04-2010, 09:27 AM #80
I would like to see some of these countless and repeatable studies and what constitutes a dramatic drop in testosterone. Also if you want to get big you need lots of food as well as testosterone. In truth many diets work but like Dave points out a ketogenic diet is one of the most efficient for fat loss and maintaining muscle mass.
I wouldn't base my dieting theory's around pro bb's precontest diets. Most of them are the outliers in losing fat bell curve. But this year Jay did elude to the fact that Rambod put him on a more moderate fat, high protein, very low carb diet the last weeks of him prep. Very similar to a ketogenic diet. Branch uses a diet almost the complete opposite of that with George Farah. And Dexter Jackson used to not have to ever do cardio. The point? Don't model your diet and routines around genetic freaks like some of these pros.
Also that <125g of carbs/day to stay in Ketosis is really relative to the individual. Most keto diets are actually only trace amounts of carbs so I'd say less that 15grams/day.
And also to go off on another tangent of sorts. You are always producing and using ketons its just to what degree are they making up your fuel source."If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe." - Joe Rogan
-
02-04-2010, 10:03 AM #81
-
02-04-2010, 10:06 AM #82
-
02-04-2010, 10:14 AM #83
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Queens, NY
- Posts
- 1,205
- Rep Power
- 33087
-
02-04-2010, 01:28 PM #84
I cant access the study as I dont have an account with the journal but:
European Journal Applied Physiology, in press; published online December 20, 2009
The study showed that it dropped test by 36%!
Also low carb diets may also impair muscle recovery
Journal Exercise Physiology, online 12: 33-39, 2009
During recovery, the low-carbohydrate diet group showed a greater strength loss and reduced protein turnover, synthesis, and breakdown.
Also the RDA for carbs is 125g. The reasoning for this is that there were many studies preformed that showed that this was the amount of carbs needed to prevent ketosis from happening. There is some individual difference but if you are keeping your carbs under roughly 125g your probably in ketosis.
-
02-04-2010, 01:35 PM #85
You have to remember that there is a correlation between sugar intake and diabetes. Correlation not direct link. Theres a difference. There is much more that can cause diabetes than sugar intake. Its a combination of overall shitty diet (refined carbs, high sat fats, low nutrient dense foods, low fiber) coupled with a sedentary lifestyle and insulin resistance (which causes hyperglycemia). Some people also have more of a hereditary link that greatly increases their risk for developing it. There are many correlations that cause diabetes but no one direct link has been established. All this is true when referencing DM2. If we talk about DM1 than the cause is one of two things, autoimmune or viral.
-
02-04-2010, 01:43 PM #86
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 6,686
- Rep Power
- 0
This is what I was trying to get across when I spoke of the "lawyer mentality".
Downstream effects are not direct, so theoretically one can say sugar intake won't cause diabetes.
But, anyone with any amount of intelligence/knowledge in this area knows that there are thousands of factors that all effect the outcome. And that the downstream effects are what are in question here, for the sake of debate.
The sugar doesnt cause diabetes argument can be technically correct. But it's also boring, uneducational and at means in being right, while all the while knowing this argument is wrong ie. "the lawyer mentality".
Much like I said with a gunshot wound, the bullet doesnt technically kill you, the affects of the bullet do.
So in comparison, this certain individual would like to go to trial, and use this argument. The downstream affect of this argument will be said lawyer being laughed out of the courthouse, after losing the argument.
-
02-04-2010, 01:46 PM #87
I ate about a pound of sugar a week dieting for my last show (60g per day in my postworkout shake). And dropped 40 lbs. Sugar doesn't make people fat, it's excess calories in conjunction with inactivity in most cases.
-
02-04-2010, 01:49 PM #88
what is the one macronutrient that we are consuming more of now days compaired to one hundred years ago? cho, mainly in the forms of sugar and refined cho.....we're actually eating less saturate fat, and besides there are many studies such as ian prior's study of the changing diet in an ever westernizing village in new zealand. before westernization they got over 50% of their calories from fat, 90% of theses were saturated fat. between 1968 amd 1982 there were literally no known cases of diebetis on the island, however after 1982 the amount of calories from sugar increase seven fold in these natives due to imports, type 2 diebetis became a massively common occurance
-
02-04-2010, 01:53 PM #89
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 6,686
- Rep Power
- 0
Yes it does, but one again, it's a complicated system of events that leads to this.
If you can't comprehend whats being debated here, why bother posting?
Does sugar lead to diabetes, the answer is yes, and no. It depends on many variables.
Did it lead to you being fat? Apparently not, that doesn't prove anything right or wrong. Strong emphasis on PROVE.
Lifestyle, calories in vs. calories out, underlying medical conditions, physical activity, nutrient consumption, drug intake, supplement intake, neuro anatomy, hormone levels, organ health, lifestyle, alcohol intake etc.
Are all contributing factors here...
Again, its not a yes or no question
-
02-04-2010, 01:59 PM #90
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 6,686
- Rep Power
- 0
“High levels of glucose are not what “cause” diabetes [type II]; the disease is caused by the body’s resistance to insulin. Foods high on the glycemic index can cause glucose levels to spike, but this is just an indicator of the presence of diabetes, not the root cause.
Oh my... and these ladies are physiologists? Do those individuals who have insulin resistance just wake up one morning and discover they somehow developed it in their sleep? Well, it is now clear that chronically high insulin levels down regulate the synthesis of insulin receptors, and fewer insulin receptors means insulin resistance. And what causes chronically high insulin levels? A diet rich in high glycemic carbohydrates. In addition, high-glycemic meals promote overeating6 and in turn body weight per se is a critical component for achieving healthy blood sugar levels.
Shortly after a high glycemic meal, blood insulin level rises higher than after a low glycemic meal with similar nutrients. Conversely, a high glycemic meal inhibits glucagon secretion (Glucagon has the opposite effect of insulin, i.e., it increases blood sugar). The strikingly increased insulin:glucagon ratio promotes uptake of various nutrients at liver, muscle, and fat tissue, and suppresses liver glucose output. Within some 60 minutes after a high glycemic meal, blood glucose begins to fall, often reaching levels below fasting, and release of storage fat from fat tissue is suppressed (6). It is the combination of rapidly declining blood glucose and low concentrations of fatty acids that stimulates overeating.
Traditional nutritionists have pretty much dismissed the whole glycemic index concept. They maintain that the glycemic index doesn’t apply in mixed meals and thus has no practical value. This isn’t the case, however. A recent literature review by Dr. Thomas Wolever discussed common misconceptions about the glycemic index (7). As pointed out by Wolver, the notion that the glycemic index doesn’t apply in mixed meals is based on flawed methodology. Recent studies show that nearly 90 percent of the variation in glycemic response of realistic mixed meals can be explained by differences in carb content and glycemic index. In other words, the glycemic index is for real. You should stick with the lower glycemic index foods but don't become too obsessed. For example, you shouldn’t avoid cooked carrots because of their high glycemic index, so use common sense too!
6. Ludvig DS. Clinical update: the low-glycaemic-index diet. Lancet. 2007 Mar 17;369(9565):890-2.
7. Wolever TM. Physiological mechanisms and observed health impacts related to the glycaemic index: some observations. Int J Obes (Lond). 2006 Dec;30 Suppl 3:S72-8.
Bookmarks