# Possible path to weight loss - the 15% solution



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

Link

*Short English version:* 
3 groups were studied.  The only difference was the level of protein in their diets.  The level for each respective group was 10%, 15% and 25%.  The 10% group increased their consumption by more than 70%. {note:  actually it says consumed 70% more energy, which I assume means calories.  Also note that the 70% was just from snacks, the actual total amount seems to have been higher}.  As a result, apparently, the 10% group gained about 1kg (2.2lbs) per month.

Also, of the 70% extra calories, 57% was from snacks the flavor of which would be classified as "savory."  They speculate that this flavor preference may be due to an unconscious association of the flavor with protein.

Geeky nutshell version.


> Explain that lean subjects consuming controlled but disguised macronutrient composition diets took in significantly more calories on a diet containing 10% protein than one containing 15% protein.
> 
> Note that most of the excess energy consumed came in the form of snacks, and that those on the 10% protein diet reported more hunger after breakfast than those on a 25% protein diet.



And finally (anybody still reading?), drumroll . . . the actual article.


> People who ate less protein consumed more fats and carbohydrates, typically in the form of snacks, researchers found.
> 
> Study participants' overall energy intake was significantly higher when they ate a diet that was only 10% protein compared with one comprised of 15% of the macronutrient, Alison Gosby, PhD, of the University of Sydney in Australia, and colleagues reported online in PLoS One.
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Ish (Jan 13, 2012)

This has been common knowledge for a long time. At least if you have any interest in your well being.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 13, 2012)

Conclusion: more protein is a good plan for losing weight (so long as it isn't packed with fat).  Correct?  I think we knew that.


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Conclusion: more protein is a good plan for losing weight (so long as it isn't packed with fat).  Correct?  I think we knew that.



So you're assuming that the other 90% of calories in the 10% group are carbs?  Or are you assuming that the only the 5% difference (15% in the case of the 25% group obviously) between each group was carbs and otherwise the diets were identical.

Because if what you're referring to is something like the Atkins diet, that's more a low-carb diet than a high protein one.

edit:  Oh, forgot.  Also, what is the mechanism that would explain the difference between the groups?


----------



## qubit (Jan 13, 2012)

Yes, this seems to give some scientific evidence to why the Atkins diet and other low carb diets work. I know from my own experience that eating more protein leads to greater satisfaction and a longer interval until I feel hungry again.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 13, 2012)

This topic make me hungry


----------



## puma99dk| (Jan 13, 2012)

erm not to say anything wrong but every attempt to try loosing weight ur body sees as an enemy to itself, bcs when u first got like a tire or what u call it at ur stomach, so that's why some ppl got problems as myself to lose weight ^^;

even my family got problems when we turn 18 we can't look at anything we r like already putting the pounds on before eating it x:


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

The problem with dieting is the diet, and this study is a perfect example of what I mean.  The 10% group wasn't getting the nutrients they needed, so they were hungry all of the time and showed a preference for things, that on some level, that their bodies thought they needed.  

So reverse that.  If you're hungry all of the time, is it more likely to be your genetic makeup or the makeup of your diet?

Of course it could be either or both, but I think you have to favor the less exotic explanation.  This isn't to challenge what you said in anyway, but is said only for the purpose of providing a different perspective.

Something else I just mention in passing is that the other interpretation of the catchy phrase I started with (and which I totally stole) is that weight control is a life-long issue.  If you think you'll go on a diet, lose the weight, and then you're done, that is probably the worst thing you can do to yourself.  But it's also completely unnecessary.  All you need to do is be just a little more physically active and try, most of the time, to eat a little better.  Maybe you will only lose a few pounds per month, but it will stay off - FOREVER.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jan 13, 2012)

*THE* path to weightloss

Exercise and eating better..

/Thread /Diets /TV Scams


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

That's true, but it's not enough for it to simply be true.  

Say 'exercise' and people think of doing shit that they don't like and would be reluctant to do even at gun point.  Say 'diet' and people think of being hungry all of the time.  Now add them together and it's not much of a surprise that people tend to do neither.

And that's fine, because neither are necessary.  You don't gain weight at a rate of 5lbs per week, so why should you expect to lose it at that rate?  It's crazy.  You gain weight because of a small, but consistent (and that's the key) surplus energy intake (=calories).  

A pound of fat is worth about 3500 calories.  So, if you consume just and extra 120 calories per day - CONSISTENTLY - you will gain 1 pound in a month.  You can't walk past a bakery without inhaling 120 calories.  But by the same token, are you really going to miss 120 calories either?  NO.

What about burning an extra 120 calories?  That's about 10 minutes of walking - less if you're a fast walker (4 mph).  And it doesn't even have to be 10 consecutive minutes.  If you park at the end of a parking lot, how much longer does it take you to get to the store?  Maybe and extra 2 minutes?  That's 2 down, and only 8 more to go.

So you give up 120 calories that you won't miss anyway, and burn an extra 120 calories in ways you'll barely notice once you get into a new routine, and guess what?  You're losing 2lbs per month.  Impressive?  No.  Permanent? Yes.

That's why it's important to understand what is involved and what is really required - and the answer is, not much.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 13, 2012)

qubit said:


> Yes, this seems to give some scientific evidence to why the Atkins diet and other low carb diets work. I know from my own experience that eating more protein leads to greater satisfaction and a longer interval until I feel hungry again.



That isn't it at all!

You loose weight on the Atkins diet because it's unhealthy!

 Essentially starving yourself from certain nutrient groups.


All it's saying is protein keeps you full* for longer so your less likely to want to eat shit.



* Or gives you the sensation of being full.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jan 13, 2012)

twilyth said:


> That's true, but it's not enough for it to simply be true.
> 
> Say 'exercise' and people think of doing shit that they don't like and would be reluctant to do even at gun point.  Say 'diet' and people think of being hungry all of the time.  Now add them together and it's not much of surprise that people tend to do neither.
> 
> ...




Which is why I kept it simple.. Exercise and eat better...


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 13, 2012)

Ok, my speciality.

I have been a health and fitness manager for 4-5 years and have worked within gyms for 15 1/2 years.  For a very long time the recommended nutrient intake (by calorie) has been 10-15% protein, 25-30% fat and 55-60% carbs.

Protein is an appetite suppressant.
Carbs (in the wrong format - simple) create insulin spikes, and lethargy (that post meal slump).
Fat is vital for vitamins A,D,E,& K.

Starchy carbs (wholemeal/grain etc) are the preferred choice. Unsaturated Fats are also preferable.

Strangely a diet high in fat does not give you heart disease if accompanied by the adequate active lifetsyle (studies done on Innuit tribes with high prot/fat and very, very low carb intake show no significant incidences).

Overall it is (and always has been) about calorie control.

Energy In = Energy Out.

i.e., if you eat more cals than you burn off then you put on weight.  Conversely, eat less than your body requires for energy and you lose weight.  Lose weight fast and the loss is composed of a higher % of lean tissue than if you lose weight gradualy (say 2lbs per week).

Any how, back on topic, yeah, the 15% protein mark is about what folk in the industry and those that have followed nutrition/dietetics have known for some time.

And the only way to maintain weight loss is to change your lifestyle.  Going on a diet or going to the gym for three months doesn't last a lifetime.  Eat less do more.

Oh, and while I'm at it, humans are piss poor at being honest with themselves.  I've had 15 stone women give me food diaries that consist of not enough daily calories to feed a child and they say, "honestly, that's what i eat and I'm still gaining weight!".  (and it's not thyroid problems.  If I had a pound for every fat person thats blamed their thyroid or a slow metabolism I'd have bought 4 HD7970's by now.)

Besides, fat or heavy people burn more calories when moving compared to lighter people.

Ironically, i was about to switch off pc to go do a work out when i read that thread title - couldn't resist!!  Should take a pic of my gym in room and post it.


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Oh, and while I'm at it, humans are piss poor at being honest with themselves. I've had 15 stone women give me food diaries that consist of not enough daily calories to feed a child and they say, "honestly, that's what i eat and I'm still gaining weight!". (and it's not thyroid problems. If I had a pound for every fat person thats blamed their thyroid or a slow metabolism I'd have bought 4 HD7970's by now.)



Part of the reason people lie, is to deceive themselves.  The other part is to try to squeeze a little empathy from people who denigrate them as being weak-willed, gluttonous, toads.  I hope you only let fit people into your gym since I have to wonder how welcome the people who aren't feel.  I'm guessing not very.

And regardless of your experience, we're talking empirical study here, not anecdotes and articles from Men's Health or whatever the current leading peddler of mind-numbing pap happens to be.

People who overeat, probably do so for legitimate physiological reasons that we are only beginning to understand.  By 'legitimate' I mean that, just like in this study, when people were deprived of a small amount of protein, it changed their eating habits.  There's a clue there.  That clue is that issues relating to metabolism generally and weight gain in particular are not now and have NEVER BEEN "simple."  Sure calories in, calories out, thermodynamic balance, yada yada.  Got it.  Known that shit for years.  Got it.  And yet for some reason, none of it seems to do anyone much good.  Even the success stories you're telling your new members about today will be the epic tent-dress failure of next year - or the year after that. So however "right" the conventional dogma might be, it's as infinitely useless as every other approach.

And that would be the second clue.

So if you're someone who wants to help people with eating and weight issues rather than to simply mock them, this is precisely the sort of thorough and nuanced investigation you should want to see more of.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 13, 2012)

twilyth said:


> So if you're someone who wants to help people with eating and weight issues rather than to simply mock them, this is precisely the sort of thorough and nuanced investigation you should want to see more of.



If he works in a gym, he's not going to be saying " OOOOH FATTY FATTY FATTY OOOOOOH!!!!!!!!!!" to their faces is he?



Sorry man but it just seamed a bit silly you would even say that hence the silly response.

I've worked in fitness a bit and some clients have made me mentally face-palm with their lack of even basic levels of fitness, and yet not once did I show my own personal disapproval to them.

I encouraged what to them was an achievement.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 13, 2012)

Dont buy sweets and allot of carbs. Simple whole foods. That way you have to make it if you want something to eat


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> If he works in a gym, he's not going to be saying " OOOOH FATTY FATTY FATTY OOOOOOH!!!!!!!!!!" to their faces is he?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You see, that is precisely the problem.  You "believe", sincerely, I'm quite sure, that you were nothing but nurturing and supportive.  But if you're going to be honest, the fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of how you came across to any of these people.  And the fact that this thought obviously didn't even occur to you, pretty much wraps up my case your honor.

You also don't realize that people who are morbidly obese simply assume that you are looking at them like the hideous slugs that they are.  Why?  Because often, maybe the vast majority of the time, that's how they see themselves.  So even if you were utterly neutral, that neutrality would still be seen as condemnation - the condemnation that they believe they so richly deserve.

Fat people don't like being fat and if being fit were simple matter, simply everyone would be fit.  But in addition to our near complete ignorance of what is involved on the molecular level, we slap a nice thick layer of 'hey you useless fuck' on top - whether we've actually done so or not.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 13, 2012)

twilyth said:


> Part of the reason people lie, is to deceive themselves.  The other part is to try to squeeze a little empathy from people who denigrate them as being weak-willed, gluttonous, toads.  I hope you only let fit people into your gym since I have to wonder how welcome the people who aren't feel.  I'm guessing not very.
> 
> And regardless of your experience, we're talking empirical study here, not anecdotes and articles from Men's Health or whatever the current leading peddler of mind-numbing pap happens to be.
> 
> ...



You say we're talking empirical, not anecdotal, then you say this;



> People who overeat, *probably do so* for legitimate physiological reasons



which means that itself isn't based on fact.

People overeat because they can.  We, like every other animal are programmed to eat to survive.  Despite our cultured abstractions we still deep down see food as essential and by golly we'd better eat it. Evolution hasn't caught up with us yet.  For most of our existence we lived a hunter gatherer life and only for the past several thousand years have we started an agrarian culture (which also ramped up carb consumption contrary to the millenia of meat eating.)
In our Western world consumption is no longer a need but a desire.  We buy because we can and we eat because we can.  It is a majority decision to take consequence for our actions and as such, food is the same.  The excuse of physiological reasons for over eating is not valid.  We are ALL programmed to over eat.  It is our CHOICE not to do so.
For some that choice is truly very hard and for others it is something they cannot be bothered to do.

As for my gym etiquette - it is very good.  Every individual that walks into my gym has taken the biggest step.  And for that they receive attention.  My comment about having a pound yada yada yada (as you like to say) was a statement of fact.  It doesn't mean I spit in their faces and rip out their stomach.
However, identifying the individuals weakness is the second step (first being building rapport).  The means to overcome problems is to identify, address and overcome.  Once the rapport is there, it makes the job easier.
All too often though people have unrealistic expectations and are not willing to put the effort or sacrifice in to lose weight or attain a goal.  There is no magic pill for that.  And no diet that will work forever.
If people do not WANT to change they will not, no matter how much help we give them.

So, i took offence at your assumption I'm a gym fascist when you are so very far from the truth.

And finally, be very careful when talking empirical data with health and diet.  My industry is populated with many 'bad science' studies (this 15% isn't one ) so often you'll find one journal stating 'X' and another article stating 'NOT X'.

Let's hug and make up.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 13, 2012)

I heard that chewing indigestible bits of string also works.

:shadedshu

Really. Exercise. Happiness. Sex. Nothing more needed.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 13, 2012)

twilyth said:


> You see, that is precisely the problem.  You "believe", sincerely, I'm quite sure, that you were nothing but nurturing and supportive.  But if you're going to be honest, the fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of how you came across to any of these people.  And the fact that this thought obviously didn't even occur to you, pretty much wraps up my case your honor.



My assumption meter is through the roof!

I won't bother replying seriously to this man.

You can't have a discussion if one party is making all their points based on assumptions about the other party.


----------



## digibucc (Jan 13, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Going on a diet or going to the gym for three months doesn't last a lifetime.  Eat less do more.
> 
> ... Oh, and while I'm at it, humans are piss poor at being honest with themselves... every fat person thats blamed their thyroid or a slow metabolism



it's not an easy subject to discuss because it's personal, but i do agree. i see people using splenda instead of sugar and think "NO! Use SUGAR!! JUST LESS of IT!"... it takes willpower to not overeat. i was beginning to head down the path myself, but luckily caught it early enough. it's still so much harder to fix than it is to break. and that's because there is no real "fix"... it's not a one time thing. you have to be responsible for your body, for the rest of your life.

eat healthy & exercise. at some point you will be the most fit you've ever been in your life, and it'll be downhill from there. are you already past that point? let's hope not.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> it's not an easy subject to discuss because it's personal, but i do agree. i see people using splenda instead of sugar and think "NO! Use SUGAR!! JUST LESS of IT!"...



Mmm... sugar.  Like my gf says to me "do you want some weetabix (cereal) with your sugar?" 

The best has got to be when people hammer cardio for an hour and then as soon as they're outside the buidling light up a cigarette.


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> You say we're talking empirical, not anecdotal, then you say this;
> 
> which means that itself isn't based on fact.


It was an educated guess, which is why I said "probably".  That's means I might be wrong but there is evidence to suggest otherwise.  As I'm sure is also true in your case, this isn't the first article regarding human physiology and metabolism I've ever read.  But also like you and probably anyone else on the planet, I can't necessarily pull up cites to all of the sources that lead me to that educated guess.

But prudent speculation is some thing different from claiming to know the mental state of another person.  I think that I'm always pleasant and deferential - until someone gets pissed off at me and I have no idea why.  The only point there was, you have an impact and the force and quality of that impact is mostly independent of what you do and say and mostly dependent on what the other person perceives.  And since my ex was a personal trainer and read volumes on this stuff, I know that most overweight people have self-esteem levels that are virtually subterranean. So their perceptions are already primed to see the worst.  Therefore, you have to assume that they are going to see you very differently than whatever way you think is warranted.


the54thvoid said:


> People overeat because they can.  We, like every other animal are programmed to eat to survive.  Despite our cultured abstractions we still deep down see food as essential and by golly we'd better eat it. Evolution hasn't caught up with us yet.  For most of our existence we lived a hunter gatherer life and only for the past several thousand years have we started an agrarian culture (which also ramped up carb consumption contrary to the millenia of meat eating.)
> In our Western world consumption is no longer a need but a desire.  We buy because we can and we eat because we can.  It is a majority decision to take consequence for our actions and as such, food is the same.  The excuse of physiological reasons for over eating is not valid.  We are ALL programmed to over eat.  It is our CHOICE not to do so.
> For some that choice is truly very hard and for others it is something they cannot be bothered to do.


Except in that case, everyone would be fat.  Most are, 2 out of 3 in the US I think, but that's not everybody.  So where did the skinny 1/3 go wrong - or right?  This is speculation.  I will assume it's educated speculation, but I think it is a sufficiently sweeping and unqualified pronouncement that it might be incumbent upon you to provide at least one or 2 documented facts to hang your hat on.


the54thvoid said:


> As for my gym etiquette - it is very good.  Every individual that walks into my gym has taken the biggest step.  And for that they receive attention.  My comment about having a pound yada yada yada (as you like to say) was a statement of fact.  It doesn't mean I spit in their faces and rip out their stomach.


Obviously.  If it seemed that I was suggesting as much, it was because I was using some small amount of hyperbole to make my point.  I may have overdone that part of it.  I can get wrapped up in the words at the expense of their meaning.


the54thvoid said:


> However, identifying the individuals weakness is the second step (first being building rapport).  The means to overcome problems is to identify, address and overcome.  Once the rapport is there, it makes the job easier.


Except my point is that this might be the worst possible way to have a lasting impact on someone's life.

People come in with a particular goal, and that right there is the first problem.  They've already chosen to "attack" the "problem" of their weight and they want a disciplined plan to crush and obliterate their enemy - themselves, essentially.

So that is what you have to work with to start out.  But I think that you would do them much more good in the long run to encourage them to think small rather than big.  If you haven't read post #10, please do that.  Small is good.  Small is doable.  Big and hard is ok, but once big and hard is done with you, big and fat will still be waiting for you at home.  

So while you have them, talk to them about all of the easy little things they can do, that are also really easy - as easy as repeating yourself.  And follow up.  Every session ask about one of your suggestions.  How was it.  Will they do it again.  Find what they enjoy and then encourage that.

Show them that running 5 miles every morning is great, but it's also good to see if they can walk 2 flights of stairs 3 or 4 times during the day.  Tell them walking, even strolling is good too, and very enjoyable.  Tell them how few calories they actually have to give up to lose weight in a slow but consistent and repeatable manner.  Because 5 or 10 years down the road, that's what they'll remember and those are the things that will really make a difference in the long run.


the54thvoid said:


> All too often though people have unrealistic expectations and are not willing to put the effort or sacrifice in to lose weight or attain a goal.  There is no magic pill for that.  And no diet that will work forever.
> If people do not WANT to change they will not, no matter how much help we give them.


You are dead on about having not only the right attitude, but an open and focused mind.  

I would however like to mention something that may actually be a magic pill.  There is a drug combo called Qnexa that is mix of Phentermine (a mild stimulant) and topiramate (an anti-depressant).  People on the drug lost about 14% of their body weight in a year.  FDA approval is expected in April, but you know how those things can go.  Both drugs are pretty safe from what I can recall.  Here is the Wikipedia entry for what it's worth.


the54thvoid said:


> So, i took offence at your assumption I'm a gym fascist when you are so very far from the truth.


The problem is that EVERYONE is far from the truth.  We have to accept that we know very little and should probably question, constantly, what we _think _we know.


the54thvoid said:


> And finally, be very careful when talking empirical data with health and diet.  My industry is populated with many 'bad science' studies (this 15% isn't one ) so often you'll find one journal stating 'X' and another article stating 'NOT X'.


Absolutely.  It's the process of discovery.  People have to understand that.  However that doesn't mean we can't use our own intelligence and tuck away the little morsels we can find.


the54thvoid said:


> Let's hug and make up.


OK, but only when no one else is watching.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 13, 2012)

The_Ish said:


> This has been common knowledge for a long time. At least if you have any interest in your well being.



This. Back when I was actively doing personal training, and running a wellness program, this was the one bit on nutrition advice I always gave. Eat plenty of lean proteins and veggies, and limit carbs to morning and early afternoon only. Anyone who did this, even with minimal exercise, lost a significant amount of body fat. It's a no brainer. Protein takes more energy to process, and it stays in your system longer than carbs, which helps to curb hunger.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 13, 2012)

Jeez Twilyth do i have to reply? 

This bit:



> Except in that case, everyone would be fat. Most are, 2 out of 3 in the US I think, but that's not everybody. So where did the skinny 1/3 go wrong - or right? This is speculation. I will assume it's educated speculation, but I think it is a sufficiently sweeping and unqualified pronouncement that it might be incumbent upon you to provide at least one or 2 documented facts to hang your hat on.



Alll the scientific info i garner comes from here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ - damn good site, well done USA. 

My summarisation (and educated speculation as no proof can exist) of why America and increasingly UK is becoming obese is very simply, the readiness of calorie dense foods combined with the increased automisation of living.  Obesity in some respects is caused by the food manufacturers by instilling their products with more calories than is required by us.  Also, said foodstuffs generally are made extra palatable so as to be preferred to the natural foods.  What you get is therefore nice things with massive calorie counts versus more 'bland' foods with lower calorie densities.
This two prong approach adopted by the food industry creates a pseudo dependance on these foods.  This is why i cringe when parents take their kids to MacDonalds and other fast food outlets.  It creates the sweet food bond early on.
And here's the rub, given the US is the leader in food produce (fast food style) with very powerful lobby groups, it is impossible to curb their behaviour.  Does anyone recall Bob Dole defending tobacco lobbies by linking milk with cancer?

This bit:



> Originally Posted by the54thvoid View Post
> _However, identifying the individuals weakness is the second step (first being building rapport). The means to overcome problems is to identify, address and overcome. Once the rapport is there, it makes the job easier._
> 
> Except my point is that this might be the worst possible way to have a lasting impact on someone's life.



For speed i did not include goal setting in my description whereby goals should be realistic and broken into short and long term goals.  We do goal setting a lot.  For beginners the goal is often simply to come to the gym twice a week, we'll deal with the weight loss when they're ready.

I think we're singing the same song but due to the nature of the written word, a lot of meaning is being lost.  That's forum posts for you 

No one's looking, quick hug. GAY! (please refer to Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey).


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

I guess the best thing I can say is that our bodies are a lot smarter than we think they are.  I believe that they lead us in the direction we need to go if we stop to, not just listen, but understand.

So the lesson from the article in the OP, for me anyway, is that, if you're hungry all of the time, it's probably not because you are a bad person, but because your body is trying to tell you something.  Listen and as best you can, try to figure out what that might be.  Knowing more about how it influences our decisions in ways that are far beyond the grasp of our consciousness, seems like it could be one of those things that we really need to learn more about.

The other thing is, working out is great.  Trying to cut out the junk in your diet is also great.  And in the short run, someone who is motivated can do those things.  But in the long run, you do what you enjoy and avoid what you don't.  So eat what you enjoy.  Have a snack if you need to, but chose it wisely.  Take things you like to do and build on them.  Even shopping can be an excuse to take a stroll around the mall.  Simple, easy shit.  Shit that, once it's part of your life, the words "diet" and exercise don't even come to mind.  It's just how you live your life, and oddly enough, somehow you ended up being reasonably fit in the process.


----------



## arnoo1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Best way to lose weight: lypo sucsion or what ever it's spelled lol
J/K
Exercise. Happiness. Sex. Nothing more needed


----------



## Kreij (Jan 13, 2012)

Protein consumption as a percentage of total caloric intake (ie. 10-20%) has been used for years by nutritionists, especially in gyms and other exercise facilities. This is by and large, a reasonable method for healthy active person, especially when strength training, as it means higher caloric cunsumption means more protein consumption.

This method fall apart, however in certain instances.
1) If a person is on a reduced caloric diet it does not mean that they require less protein, and
2) They are sick or healing and their body requires an increased amount of protein regardless of their caloric intake.

In the above two instances, a more suitable measure of protein intake is to base the protein intake (in grams) upon the total body weight of the individual.
Several sources indicate that a good measure is to multiply the bodyweight in pounds by 0.37 (or kilograms * .8), and set this as the minimum daily protein requirement for the individual.
In the case of healing, the body is going to require even more protein, so it is advised to multiply that minimum value by 1.50

I weight 180 lbs and am healing from my surgeries.
This means that my minimum protein intake should be 180 * .37 = ~66 grams
Plus since I am healing ... 66 * 1.5 = ~100 grams/day of protein ... *minimum*.

This happens to work out to exactly 20% of a 2000 calorie daliy consumption for me, but for a heavier person or one who is not consuming that level of calories, the amount of protein being consumed starts to drop off even though there is a need for that amount for the body to maintain itself or to heal.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 13, 2012)

qubit said:


> Yes, this seems to give some scientific evidence to why the Atkins diet and other low carb diets work. I know from my own experience that eating more protein leads to greater satisfaction and a longer interval until I feel hungry again.


The problem with the Atkins diet as opposed to portion control and eating 'healthier foods' is that once you go on  a high protein diet, you need to keep on it. If you go back to a regular diet higher in carbs and other, chances are that weight comes back (something about how the body is burning the energy?). SO protien diet, while effective, is also a lifestyle change......well, I suppose so is portion control and eating healthy foods.


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> SO protien diet, while effective, is also a lifestyle change......well, and so is portion control and eating healthy foods.



Precisely.  But I want to keep emphasizing, that the changes you need to make are small and pleasant.  It doesn't have to be a struggle.  You just have to be smart about it.  Do everything slowly, deliberately and when you backslide a little, enjoy it.  Don't beat yourself up.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 13, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Protein consumption as a percentage of total caloric intake (ie. 10-20%) has been used for years by nutritionists, especially in gyms and other exercise facilities. This is by and large, a reasonable method for healthy active person, especially when strength training, as it means higher caloric cunsumption means more protein consumption.
> 
> This method fall apart, however in certain instances.
> 1) If a person is on a reduced caloric diet it does not mean that they require less protein, and
> ...



Cool, I was expecting some numbnut to start spouting crap about 3-4g/kg requirements.  What you posted is spot on mate. 

Also, when folk diet, protein increase is required as the body goes catabolic and 'eats itself'.  In that instance the protein is to maintain lean body tissue.  That's why you should always pick a fight with a body builder one day before competition, their severe dieting and carb depletion leaves them very weak.

ps - wish you a good recovery kreij!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2012)

Exercise. Jared didn't lose weight be eating Subway. He lost it because we walked 7 miles one way to Subway. That's 14 miles a day. He could have eaten a bucket of KFC and still lost the weight.

I lost 60lbs one summer just cutting out soda and running 45 minutes every night. Still ate like an Ox.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 13, 2012)

twilyth said:


> Precisely.  But I want to keep emphasizing, that the changes you need to make are small and pleasant.  It doesn't have to be a struggle.  You just have to be smart about it.  Do everything slowly, deliberately and when you backslide a little, enjoy it.  Don't beat yourself up.


I just believe its easier, as I have had personal success when I needed to trim 10-20, to lower portions of the foods Im eating, than it is to completely change my diet and get rid of/minimize starches in my diet.

Portion control and excersise... Its not rocket science.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jan 13, 2012)

I heard drinking a pint of water and still finishing your whole meal can make you feel less hungry. I favour a balanced diet, im not going to eat lean steaks all the time adn you need some carbs to slowly release energy.

Cheese and cream are good for you now? Marty Feldman was a vegetarian and had a high dairy content diet and died of a heart attack. Rather than Atkins i think people here are referencing a high protein, low fat, moderate to low carb diet; Atkins is just Protein and FAT FAT FAT.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 13, 2012)

The fact that Feldmen reportedly smoked like 4-6 packs of smokes a day couldnt have anything to do with it... could it?


----------



## twilyth (Jan 13, 2012)

MilkyWay said:


> I heard drinking a pint of water and still finishing your whole meal can make you feel less hungry. I favour a balanced diet, im not going to eat lean steaks all the time adn you need some carbs to slowly release energy.
> 
> Cheese and cream are good for you now? Marty Feldman was a vegetarian and had a high dairy content diet and died of a heart attack. Rather than Atkins i think people here are referencing a high protein, low fat, moderate to low carb diet; Atkins is just Protein and FAT FAT FAT.



That's a fair point.  I wouldn't do it either.  My dad was a normal weight even though he ate all sort of fried, fatty foods.  And at that time, people didn't know from vegetable oils.  You cooked in lard.  But the downside was that he died of a massive heart attack at 40.

Carbs aren't the spawn of Satan.  The problem is that a Western diet has a huge abundance of refined carbs.  These hit your pancreas like a sledge hammer and make it work double time to control the blood glucose spike you would get otherwise.  You also end up feeling hungry sooner.

This is what I mean by 'smart choices.'  If you like carbs and you're getting enough of the other nutrients you need, that's cool.  All you have to do is choose complex carbs over the refined kind.  These take longer to be broken down and absorbed so you're not standing in front of the refrigerator 2 hours later looking for a snack.  Same number of calories, but a completely different affect on your body.


----------



## Mr McC (Jan 13, 2012)

Just swallow a tapeworm and be done with dieting forever.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 13, 2012)

imho peoples idea of what hungry is is retarded, were not that long moved on from being cave men, the afternoon and after eating lull proves this, do you honestly think that back in the day a caveman didnt often just man up grin and bare being hungry a few hours, soft asses

my own idea of eating isnt healthy i mostly eat rubbish and occasionally veg certainly not five a day or week some weeks but i am and have allways been 11.5-11.10 stone  for years, and my reasoning is eat only what you need to live ,dont comfort eat and dont go spending 10-12hrs a night in bed watching telly etc or you Will get a fat ass simples, stay awake a lot and do something for gods sake , and i dont mean go gym permenantly , im up till 2am every night strummin (my guitar mostly) or pc tunein still up by 8 every day and so be it if im tired ,tuff i will be anyway lots of the time deal with it


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 13, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> imho peoples idea of what hungry is is retarded, were not that long moved on from being cave men, the afternoon and after eating lull proves this, do you honestly think that back in the day a caveman didnt often just man up grin and bare being hungry a few hours, soft asses
> 
> my own idea of eating isnt healthy i mostly eat rubbish and occasionally veg certainly not five a day or week some weeks but i am and have allways been 11.5-11.10 stone  for years, and my reasoning is eat only what you need to live ,dont comfort eat and dont go spending 10-12hrs a night in bed watching telly etc or you Will get a fat ass simples, stay awake a lot and do something for gods sake , and i dont mean go gym permenantly , im up till 2am every night strummin (my guitar mostly) or pc tunein still up by 8 every day and so be it if im tired ,tuff i will be anyway lots of the time deal with it


...in english this means: Portion control and excersise... Its not rocket science.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2012)

I eat because I'm sad and I'm sad because I eat. AHHHHHHHHH


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 13, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> ...in english this means: Portion control and excersise... Its not rocket science.



grammer tart ,stop it

it might interest you to know that some people, possibly due to them being strange, dont care for proper english, i myself am so rebeliouse that i cant even be assed speakin right never mind typeing right and it gets harder to type as the night and doobs, roll on that avatar isnt for nothin mate<


----------



## The_Ish (Jan 20, 2012)

Strictly speaking, all diets work/do not work. It all comes down to calories. 
Also note that i'm speaking about WEIGHT here. Not any special kind of weight (bodyfat).
For that, you want high protein, resistance training and a calorie deficit. That's it.

If you dispute that, nobody can help you.. The only thing hindering you to lose weight is in your head. The precentage of people who have actual physical ailments that hinder them from losing weight are miniscule, and often used as an excuse for lazyness and/or lack of patience.

Truth!


----------

