Diet plan

[mata_leao]

So I bought the paleo diet, the paleo diet for athletes and John Beradi's precision nutrition program and I plan on following John's program with the food's suggested in the paleo diet books. Since I am 6'1" and only weigh 150 pounds I plan on eating 5-6 meals per day at approx. 500 calories each meal which would put me at 2500-3000 calories per day. On top of this I will have 1-2 servings of vegetables per meal plus a good portion of lean protein. I don't eat much meat currently and tend to overdo it on the carbohydrates so this will be a major transition for me. I do wonder why Loren Cordain suggests only 6 eggs per week though. Is this because of the fat content? Also, I am addicted to sugar, does anyone know how to control sugar cravings. I have tried to cut back and tend to have bad cravings before I go to sleep. I think my sodium levels are already fine and I don't eat dairy products (lactose intolerant). What protein supplements are good for someone lactose intolerant, I believe the casein and whey proteins both come from dairy products, I don't plan on using soy either. Should I use a rice protein, the sun warrior protein is what Mike Mahler likes and it seems to be low carb. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated thanks.

[Joshua Naterman]

Wow. Read my post on nutrition. Please.

As for the eggs, it's a cholesterol issue. Meat has cholesterol to begin with, and eggs have more, so he's trying to avoid too much cholesterol in the diet. The real issue is the yolks. Don't do the paleo diet. They have just enough good stuff to steer your horribly wrong with the rest. It's Adkins 2.0. Not good for you. There's worse out there, but you don't go drive a VW bus just because it isn't a Pinto. It's still a crap car that overheats really easily. Go get on an intelligent diet. My friend is on paleo, and it's ridiculous as a real eating plan for life. If you're morbidly obese, it will help you lose fat, and then when you get to a healthy weight you should get off Paleo and get onto a diet that's more well-rounded and better for your body. That's his plan. You are already not fat, so don't waste your time with Paleo. There's no mass market diet that is really that great, they all have their hook to get people to buy them and that's it. Go read up on basic nutrition and what your body needs, and what is healthy. You can get the basics in my post about the ISSA guidelines. It's your life, live it well.

[mata_leao]

Alright, so I have a lot to learn about nutrition. I will read through the older posts and figure things out.

[Joshua Naterman]

Yea. Don't feel bad, no one ever gets taught this stuff. You have to go find it

[Edward Smith]

The basic Paleo principles are a sound nutrition plan.

Also, Cordain's concern is with the saturated fat content of eggs not the cholestrol. Dietary accounts for only about 20-25% of the cholestrol in your body, your cells make it themselves. Besides total cholestrol is a totally worthless piece of information.

[Joshua Naterman]

If by basic principles, you mean eat natural foods, then yea. It's good. But that's just nutrition 101. When you start looking at the recommendations, it is ridiculous. Eating organ meats like liver and kidney? Sure, let's eat the two parts of the body that filter and store ALL THE TOXINS. Oh my god. Seriously? Sure, there are high levels of B vitamins in liver, but to claim that it is not toxic is outlandish and wrong is just plain irresponsible. Second, they try to say that grains and sweet potatoes are high glycemic and therefore should not be eaten. Sweet potatoes have a glycemic index of 30-something, which is one of the lowest single-food GIs out there. Grains are below 50. They are all low glycemic. Second, the Paleo diet doesn't explain basic processes and how foods interact together. The fats and proteins slow down digestion, and even a high GI single food like a baked white potato is reduced to a low GI when part of a meal containing a reasonable portion of the potato, proteins, and fats.

In short, the Paleo diet's most basic general tenets of eating foods as close to their natural state as possible is fantastic. Unfortunately it is so full of false information, from lack of explanation of digestion and food interaction to toxin analysis, recommendations against salt (especially for active individuals, who NEED a minimum level of sodium), recommendation against sweet potatoes(which are one of the most healthy and nutritional foods out there) and grains, I mean where do you want me to begin? But it's ok to eat eggs, even though if you don't cook them they block B vitamins from being absorbed. Oops! Forgot to mention that. Don't eat beans or peanuts, even though they have been around every bit as long as humans have. What, you mean we should ignore all the advances in nutrition? We should forget about the value of half the foods out there and just focus on what we ate before we knew how to make a frikin wheel? Sounds BRILLIANT.

I can't wait for the follow-up book, the Paleo Doctor: Drop your health care and get back to the medicine we used millions of years ago! You will be the picture of health once you ditch those pesky medicines and rediscover the magic of groaning in agony and fighting infection with tears and dirty fingernails. Got a headache? Don't worry, so did your ancestors. New advances in headclubbing technology will bring you the sweet, sweet oblivion you seek without the nasty convenience of a small pill in a bottle. No need to run to the store, you've probably got a suitable rock in your back yard! As an added bonus, the dirt is packed with all kinds of minerals, so it's almost like getting a free facial when you hit the ground! But we don't stop there, just wait for the third book in our series: Paleo Marriage! Who needs a diamond when you've got a big stick? In a book store near you this Christmas! It's going to be a brave new world as we bring back the Stone Age! Live like your ancestors, struggle to survive, learn to value each and every tooth! Yellow teeth? Don't worry, she'll just be happy you still have them. What, she's not impressed? Check out our dating strategies in Chapter 4 of the Paleo Marriage: She can't say no if she's unconscious.

[Joshua Naterman]

The toxin info about potatos and sweet potatos is only partially true. It is true that they do have toxins in them, but A) you'd need to eat around 2 lbs of them in a day to even come close to reaching a toxic dose, which would make you feel nauseous. 3 or 4 lbs could potentially kill you. So don't eat a million billion potatos. A potato at dinner isn't going to hurt you at all, and B) 30-80% of the toxins are in and near the skin. So, don't eat the skin if you're worried about it.

Sweet potatoes are relatively low in calories and have no fat. They are rich in beta-carotene , having five times the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A in one sweet potato, as well as loaded with potassium. These nutrients help to protect against heart attack and stroke. The potassium helps maintain fluid and electrolyte balance in the body cells, as well as normal heart function and blood pressure.

Sounds pretty unhealthy to me!

And, finally, a word on the "toxins" found in whole grains, Alkylresorcinols. First off, what a crazy name. Second, alkylresorcinols were thought to have anti-nutrative properties (e.g. decreasing growth of pigs and chickens fed rye), but this theory has been discredited, and a number of animal studies have demonstrated that they have no obvious negative effect on animals or humans. In vitro (cell culture) studies have shown that alkylresorcinols may prevent cells turning cancerous, but that they do not have any effect on cells that are already cancerous. Alkylresorcinols also increase gamma-tocopherol levels in rats when fed in high amounts (0.2 % of total diet and above).

Oh noes, Captain!!! These things might keep cancer from forming?! I ain't smoking these here Reds just to puff like a chimney! I better not be spending all this money and not get anything besides yellowed teeth and smelly clothes! *stomps away fuming*

[mata_leao]

I have been drawn to the paleo diet for a few reasons:

1st - I know a lot of people using this diet who have been able to achieve high levels of strength without excess fat tissue.

2nd - It emphasizes no dairy (I'm lactose intolerant)

3rd - glycemic load seems to be an important idea although I agree from what I have read there is more to this concept then Cordain brings up in his book.

4th - acid/base balance, I don't know how strong the science behind this is, but for some reason it appealed to me

5th - I hate salt, I use coconut juice as a workout beverage.

6th - potassium/sodium ratio

7th - fat ratios (mono, poly, sat)

I also don't plan on eating any organ meats, I don't eat much meat at all right now but I plan on adding more into my diet to improve my protein levels. As far as the ISSA nutrition post, the precision nutrition program I have sounds very similar to what appears in the post. I planned on using the precision nutrition concepts to organize levels of protein, the number of meals in a day, macronutrient considerations, and the number of calories consumed in a day. As far as I can see the main differences deal with grains, beans, and potatoes. As potatoes tend to be starchy, precision nutrition suggests only eating them after a workout. Could this be different based on what kind of workout is being performed (aerobic vs. anaerobic). If I understand correctly, the starches are used for recovery from aerobic exercise. My routine is at the moment, entirely anaerobic. On the grains and beans... I don't eat many beans right now anyway because they give me gas. I don't plan on cutting grains out, I would prefer to switch to whole grains and possibly reduce the total amount of calories from grains to improve the ratio of protein to carbs. I don't think my plan is to restrictive, just modifying macronutrient levels and increasing total calories as well as protein levels.

[braindx]

I have no clue where you are getting all your information about Paleo dude...

1. Paleo allows sweet potatoes to be eaten... potatoes no.

2. The main problem with grains is the gluten

3. Paleo is "lower" carb than normal which is good for glycemic control (hell, what is normal? typical "american" diet is like 70-80% carbs)

4. but is nowhere near ketogenic like Atkins is especially if you eat a healthy amount of fruits and vegetables. Cant even believe you made this comparison

Paleo is definitely a good way to eat given all of the anecdotal improvements I've seen in the CF/weightlifting/etc. communities I'm associated with + the measurables in improvement of blood profiles.

If someone is looking to drop weight Paleo/Zone would definitely work... maintain a healthy weight athletically Paleo is a good option

[mata_leao]

"I have no clue where you are getting all your information about Paleo dude..."

Were you referring to me? I have just started the book but I have read a few websites along with the research on Loren Cordain's webpage. I didn't know there was a distinction between potatoes and sweet potatoes. On the carbs, I get a lot of carb from fruits and vegetables right now, besides the grains I eat as well which I plan to cut some to fit in lean protein. I understand the gluten in grains is an issue, but I always thought the main concern were lectins found in grains, beans, and potatoes. Would gluten be an example of a particular variety of a lectin? Cordain has a comparison in his first book with the macronutrient profile range of the paleo vs. other lower carb diets and paleo does allow for a considerable amount, although the sources are a little more specific.

[Joshua Naterman]

I have no clue where you are getting all your information about Paleo dude...

1. Paleo allows sweet potatoes to be eaten... potatoes no.

2. The main problem with grains is the gluten

3. Paleo is "lower" carb than normal which is good for glycemic control (hell, what is normal? typical "american" diet is like 70-80% carbs)

4. but is nowhere near ketogenic like Atkins is especially if you eat a healthy amount of fruits and vegetables. Cant even believe you made this comparison

Paleo is definitely a good way to eat given all of the anecdotal improvements I've seen in the CF/weightlifting/etc. communities I'm associated with + the measurables in improvement of blood profiles.

If someone is looking to drop weight Paleo/Zone would definitely work... maintain a healthy weight athletically Paleo is a good option

I got it from http://www.paleodiet.com. Understandably, just like anything else, there are apparently different guidelines. But I have stood in on Paleo seminars and it is very, very hard for me to keep my mouth shut when I hear someone talk about how people shouldn't take vitamins, and how pasta is bad, sweet potatos and potatos are bad, etc etc. A diet that's around 55% carbs is plenty, you certainly don't need any more than that unless you're specifically carb loading for a marathon or something, and even then it's for a really short time. You definitely need the healthy fats, that's all dialed in. But the paleo people display a disturbing lack of understanding, or at the very least a disturbing lack of explanation, of what the different foods actually do in the body. I'm not saying it's the devil, lord knows it's better than a lot of things. Being better than a lot of things doesn't excuse misinformation. Telling people to not eat things by themselves because they are high GI is ok, like bleached and enriched flour products, but to tell people that they are bad period is out of line. In a balanced meal they're fine. Are there more nutrient dense foods? Yes, and it's great to mention what they are, but it's wrong to make people think that pasta is bad for them. It's not. The way many people portion their pasta in relation to the rest of the meal and perhaps their caloric needs is in many cases awful, but it would be awful if they were doing the same thing with carrots. Then there's the stuff about whole grains. You know what the supposed issue was with the grains? For a while researchers thought they were keeping farm animals from getting overly bulky. You know what the problem with America is? We are overly bulky. So, if this were a causal relationship it would be GOOD for America. There IS no relationship between whole grains and any negative health effects, and the Paleo people refuse to acknowledge that. As for the dairy stuff, I don't know much about that. I'm going a month without just to see how it feels, and I have to say that I feel different. I'm going to go a few weeks with milk again starting in August and see exactly how I feel, but it's certainly possible that cutting dairy out makes you feel better. Then there's the beans. I am surprised, I did not know that there were such potential issues and I am glad I read about it.

I'm not shooting Paleo in the face, but I am jacking it up against the wall and saying "DUDE. Stop putting spin on things and tell the truth. Give numbers. Give sources. Talk about what the toxicity levels are and how to be safe if you insist on eating things that are not recommended. And also, keep up on the research as it comes out. It's one thing to have a book out and not republish it every time something changes, but on your websites you should stay current and update. When you find out something's not right, share that information"

I did say it was terrible, and i have to be honest, I can't stand people who don't put the whole story out there. You're great, and the people here are great, but the people who run the paleo pages do NOT tell the whole story. Go check that website, everything I got was off of there, from the first few links. On the book's page, there are a lot of claims that are unsubstantiated, starting with why Paleolithic man didn't have "social diseases" like cancer, food allergies, and obesity. First off, everything gets cancer. It's part of life and always has been, and probably always will be. Second, Paleolithic man was lucky to make it to his 30's. Most of the cancer deaths are past those ages, so if you don't live long enough to develop heart disease or cancer then obviously they are not going to be much of an issue. As for obesity, we have no way of knowing what was and was not a problem back then. Realistically, that's probably a fair claim. Instead of sticking to sound nutritional reasons for the diet, the author starts getting esoteric and delves into the realm of historical speculation. Some makes sense, others don't. Either way, I will always have a problem with an author that tries to pass off unsubstantiated information as anything else. Second, the number of generations between Paleo man and modern man is drastically underrepresented. 10000 years is nearly 1000 generations. You have to remember that until very very recently 12-14 was childbearing age. Also, Paleo man has steadily moved around the world, and to think that he magically encountered the same plants everywhere is insane. We know that biological diversity is nothing compared to what it used to be, and even now different countries have different crops! Before the days of railroads there was just what you had in your area. As people migrated they encountered new foods. This has happened for all of history, and to think that we aren't capable of adapting is silly. I do like the information on toxicity regarding a number of foods. That's news to me and I think that's an important topic to understand and take advantage of.

Having said that all, and attempting to put my indignation to the side I have to admit that there's a lot of good information, and I will be doing a self experiment to see how I react to cutting out the high-lectin foods. See if I can still get good energy and whatnot other ways. We'll see! And we'll see if it's cost effective, because I'm a poor college student

Brain, I always appreciate your comments. I just want you to know that. You always have intelligent stuff to say, and I appreciate that. I honestly had a lot of fun being a bit silly with part of my responses I think we know which parts those are. They did say that the sweet potatoes are no good though, and after looking around online it's for the same reason as the white potatoes. They contain the same substances in the skin. So avoiding the skin is the real solution for people who are worried about it. They still happen to be one of the most nutritious foods out there, so I think cutting them out completely is a bad idea. I will probably eat some of my words from railing against Paleo so hard, but they really do a bad job of having an unbiased approach, and that pings my bullshit radar.

I got too tired to finish this and reread it, I think I said everything that I want to, I dunno If I don't make sense, please tell me

[ajhoover]

Hey guys,

I always like nutrition discusions as it is a big part of my life and have a few of my own experiences to add. First off, no one diet is good for ever person, even if they are training the same sport. Everyone's body reacts differently to foods, and certain foods that may work great for some people do not work in others systems. I have done many types of training in my life. I was big into football when I was younger, then started running marathons and traithalons, and over the last few years have been doing bodyweight and flexability training. I have tried many diets as I changed sports, every single time I tried a "diet" my training suffered. I developed a couple of basic rules when dealing with diet and if followed they work great. First, if changes are going to be made, make them slowly. Nothing is worse than shocking your system especially if you desire a high consisant level of preformance. Second, nothing is taboo. Eat whatever you want, even if it's bad for you. Just do it in moderation. Cutting out favorite foods from your diet will just lead to resentment of the fact that you can not have it. We always want what we can't have. Third, do not make a diet, make guidelines. Give yourself a range of nutritional goals to achieve ( calories, carb fat protein %, fruit and veg intake, etc). Fourth, choose foods you will actually eat. You should enjoy your food, it does more than just give you fuel. A great meal can cure a shitty day. Fifth, too much is better than too little. If your goal is physical preformance it is better to have a little extra in the tank than not enough. Last, it is more important to listen to your body than what someone tells you. It may be the best food in the world for you but if it gives you a stomache ache and the runs you probally shouldn't eat it.

Hope this helps,

Andrew

[braindx]

Yeah, shrug. S'all good.

Cordain yeah. Robb Wolf worked under him IIRC (and for the record I personally don't think he's steered anyone wrong).

If people are having trouble implementing Paleo or anything check out his site in the FAQ... tons of posts with information:

http://robbwolf.com

But basically if you stick to a rule like eliminating most if not all processed foods it's pretty hard to go wrong. There's a lot of ways to eat healthy.

[Jason Stein]

Friend,

The main issue with your posts here are not they "don't make sense."

It's more your logical inconsistencies (e.g. your use of the straw man regarding using prehistoric medical techniques), factual inaccuracies (e.g. your ignorance of the Paleo attitude towards sweet potatoes, your ignorance of research into negative effects of whole grains), and unsubstantiated claims that are contradictory to peer-reviewed published studies (e.g. your claims regarding Paleolithic man's diet), as well as a shallow understanding of the speed of human genetic adaptation, and perhaps the process in its entirety.

I understand you've had a bad experience with some Paleo people somewhere, and I also understand diet to be an intensely personal thing. I'd just prefer you to step up the level of discourse, that is, reread before posting, edit out fallacious arguments, and cite your sources.

Regards,

Jason

[Joshua Naterman]

True that. The first thing is that I have yet to see where the 10,000 generations thing comes from. As far as i can tell, it's just a number. No Paleo site or book has anything cited for that number that I have seen. Second, the earliest established hearths are 240,000-250,000 years old, and show signs of cooking. So we don't actually know when we started eating cooked tubers and the like, it could have been well over 10,000 generations ago. There are also two sites in africa and one site in China that have 1.6 million year old fireplaces. (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html) It is unknown at this time whether these were true hearths in the sense that they were used regularly for cooking, or just some unexplained ritual site, or something that really really seems to be a hearth but is actually just a natural occurrence. These are the misrepresented facts that I have seen on the Paleo web pages in terms of how long our diet has been how it is. Also, just because a study is peer reviewed does not mean it is accurate. It just means it was well-conducted. Based on studies of Native tribes around the world, there is not enough meat caught by humans even using bows and arrows, (with a lot of tribes making a big kill once every few weeks), which are more advanced than what Paleo man had, to be a major portion of the diet. Doesn't mean we didn't need more protein back then, OR that we wouldn't have performed better with it, it just means it is unlikely that the level of meat that Paleo diet sites portray was really available to Paleo man. With the advent of farming, Neolithic man had significantly more protein available through animal husbandry, and on a more regular basis. I do have a fairly shallow understanding of human genetic adaptation speed, it is not an area of expertise for me. I will read up though! The process, I'm reasonably but not intimately familiar with. One thing that is also being overlooked is the fact that populations have developed mostly independantly of each other for mos of human existence, and that therefore it is very likely that adaptive responses are not going to be blanket, but instead very localized to each population. Now, with racial interbreeding at unprecedented levels and continuing to rise, these adaptations are going to get spread across the global population over the next 100 generations or so. This, by itself, is going to change our responses to foods. That's nowhere near the 10,000 generations that were postulated.

The biggest thing I have a problem with in that regard is that the research is nowhere near conclusive either way, just as the causes of heart disease are still technically unknown. While we DO have tests that show correlations, there are no actual CAUSAL relationships established. That's why we still have the trouble, we can't just say that foods A and G cause heart disease, so don't eat them. If we did, heart disease would go away. So far the strongest evidence is that refined sugars and trans fats are the main contributors to the rise of heart disease, along with less physically demanding lifestyles. In the same vein, we still don't know if cigarettes cause cancer. There are people who smoke their whole lives, and lots of them, who don't develop cancer. All we have are studies that show smoking appears to be a major risk factor. The same problem exists for nutrition. We don't actually know what happened or what we are during Paleolithic times, whether it was a localized variable or more of a general dietary theme. We can make good guesses. I don't suggest that these guesses are inaccurate, but I do suggest that these ideas should not be passed off as fact, which paleo makes a habit of. It's sales, and I know that, and I get it. But I have always hated that. It won't change, and I don't expect it to, but I'm not going to start liking what I consider to be coercive. People go and believe things when they are told they are facts. We are a world full of sheep, who have independent thoughts but do not in general act on them, instead grumbling publicly but privately following the status quo. These people can, will, and do run with things presented as facts when they want to justify something in their lives, and I feel it is irresponsible to contribute to that. We can't stop them from being idiots, but we can be honest about the validity and veracity of our statements.

As for grains, it's reasonable to assume that we have not been eating them for hundreds of thousands of year, based on evidence we have now. But legumes? I think that if we have been eating tubers for hundreds of thousands of years, it's not too much of a leap to claim that we have probably been eating them for a while too. So as far as genetic adaptation goes, who's to say? Toxins are in everything, and the pass through the system.

Here, I'm going to go into personal opinion and conjecture, but I think it's unreasonable to believe that we all of a sudden became unadapted to the beans and legumes. For hundreds, if not thousands of years, we have been eating them and there aren't a whole lot of people who couldn't hack that back before industrialization. That's just what people ate. Only rich people ate lots of meat, everyone else was owned by the rich people and ate the cheap stuff. That's why you always hear about stews being so carb-heavy. It's how they made a little bit of meat go a looooooong way, if there was meat in it at all.

There are also a number of studies showing that adaptation happens much faster than we previously thought. This area of study is still growing, but there have been studies of birds, which are fairly complex creatures, showing that they undergo significant change in the face of appropriate environmental changes. For example, there is a certain thrush(or something like that, I'm going to have to go look this up, aren't I ) that eats seeds from a flower. To get these seeds, they have to have thin beaks that can reach into a certain type of flower. There is another subspecies of the same bird that has a thick beak and eats the kernels from palm trees. They have a shorter, thicker beak that allows them to crack the shells and get the endosperm. The goodies in the middle. The two do not interbreed. So, while a study watched populations of these birds, they found that a change in rainfall caused the flowers to die, and the kernels to become much more abundant. The thin-beaked birds showed a 70% increase in the number of birds born with thick beaks inside of 5 years. These birds then chose to only mate with other thick-beaked birds. A similar happening was observed with the thick beaked birds, whose environment changed and they ended up developing longer, thinner beaks and in turn those birds only mated with other thin-beaked members of the population. This does suggest that genetic adaptation happens much faster than previously thought. It will obviously take a lot more studies to verify these findings, but I honestly think that we can look at humans and see the same changes happening with us. We are getting stronger and bigger, and we are finding different traits attractive than humans even a few hundred years ago. Life is designed to change in response to the immediate environmental effects, and if it took 10,000 generations there wouldn't be much life on earth. Things change too much for that period of time to explain all changes, and you have to admit that new enzymes can't take THAT long to develop. Some time, sure, but not hundreds of thousands of years. That's not giving our bodies enough credit.

[mata_leao]

I have finished the paleo diet book and have started the paleo diet for athletes. Overall, I feel like the plan is a good place to start for me. I will be trying to get 5-6 meals per day with vegetables at each meal as well as a portion of protein. I have decided to keep red meat at two times per week (possible colon cancer risk, any thoughts on this?) and focus on seafood for many of the meals. My biggest problems are going to be decreasing sugar and processed foods when I am not able to prepare a meal. On the protein, it has been said on previous posts to consume 1 gram per pound of lean body mass. Would it be beneficial to consume 1 gram per pound of my lean target weight? For example, if I have 140 pounds of lean mass but want to increase to 150 pounds of lean mass should I try for the higher amount? I will also be experimenting with the grains. I think I will switch to wild rice to eliminate gluten and see if I feel a difference. I know there are other concerns with grains but this would be a difficult transition with all the other changes I am trying to make so it will be a good start hopefully. As far as the zone, 40-30-30, I have read in many of the previous posts fat can act as a energy source. Does anyone think a change to 30 carb - 30 pro - 40 fat (healthy of course) would be a good decision for performance and health? I don't think I will focus on this too much at the moment as I feel the number of meals and the types of food will be the priority for me right now but I want to think ahead of things I could possibly change in the future. I am already off dairy, and legumes won't be a problem as I currently only have around 1 serving per week anyway, same goes for the potatoes.

[braindx]

Meat and mortality post:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast ... mortality/

Best thing with macros is to just try it and see what works better.

As for the protein, yes 1g/lbs is good if you're athletic or weight training. So 150g if you wanna be 150 lbs

[Joshua Naterman]

For your ratio, keep in mind that 150g of protein = 600 calories. So your protein ratio will be low. That's fine, this 30% protein crap is a bit misleading. The protein is going to be a fixed number, or it should be, more or less, so your percentage will change as your calories change. THe carbs and fat can and should be the bulk of your diet. It's really going to depend on your personal metabolism as to whether you're going to want more fats or more carbs.

You really need to figure out what your activity level is, and what your actual total caloric intake needs to be. If you post your weight, approximate bodyfat % and your average weekly schedule, like what kind of work you do and how much you move around, the physical exertion that is typical of what you do at work, and then your training. How much do you run, swim, jump up and down, do gymnastics, whatever. How long and how often, and how hard are you working? 100% intensity = you're going as hard as you can, like sprints or max lifts. 40% intensity would be like a long distance jog. If you want to just say high, medium, or low that's fine too. Just approximate according to what you think, and I'll calculate your caloric goals. Then you can split those how you like.

[mata_leao]

I am 6'1" and I haven't weighed myself for a while but should be anywhere around 145 to 150. I am what I have read here as skinny fat, although hopefully not for long. I'm not to worried about macronutrient ratios as I want to get used to eating unprocessed foods 5-6 times a day before I focus on anything else. I mostly concerned with protein, anything I do now will be a change for the better anyway. As far as activity, I strength train 4 days per week almost entirely anaerobic exercises from BTGB with stretching afterwards. I have added some prehab movements suggested from this forum the 3 days I don't strength train. I will be adding a warm up soon before the strength routine as well. I train 3 hours of jiu-jitsu on Tuesdays and Thursdays and sporadically the rest of the week. Usually around 1-2 hours of the jiu-jitsu training on Tues, and Thurs is intense (rolling), the other time is spent on techniques. I also plan on adding glutamine, BCAA, and Glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM supplements along with a protein powder.

[Joshua Naterman]

If you're 150, you need 140g of protein, MAX. I mean, you can eat more if you want, but you won't need it and protein is more expensive than fats or carbs. Well, depending on the carbs maybe not, but for the most part. That's not going to be a problem, man. Definitely get used to your unprocessed foods if that's a problem. Add in the structure later. As a reference, just use 25g protein for each 4 oz meat. if you're eating a lb of meat over the course of the day, the rest of your diet will have the rest, at least. And that's if you're actively trying to gain muscle mass. If you just want strength and performance, it's more like .6 to .8g per lb of lean mass. You should find out your bodyfat %, to really know what you need, but it's not super important. You fall under the moderately active category, so you're going to need basal metabolism X 1.8, i think. So if you are 150, you're going to need between 2500 and 3000. You should not try to get the same calories every day, just keep it in a +/- 10% range of the target, it's called zig-zagging and your body does it naturally. Over a week's time your calories should average out to your target intake.

How's your transition to unprocessed foods?

[mata_leao]

How's your transition to unprocessed foods?

I'm used to eating 3 and sometimes 2 unprocessed meals per day with several unhealthy snacks in between, so I'm trying to focus on structuring the timing of the meals and the food quality right now. It's been easy on my days off but when I have to work it can be difficult and I sometimes forget a meal. It will just take some adjustment time because I'm not used to eating this way, I've only been trying to improve my diet over the last two weeks. 3000 calories is a lot more than I'm used to but I have been craving food more often since I started the strength training. I also rarely had breakfast before this week and everything I've been eating at breakfast is unprocessed, usually an omelette with vegetables or a salad on the side.

[Edward Smith]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, just been busy you know how it is.

Firstly, here is Cordain's response to common counter-arguments of the Paleo diet.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Counter%20Arguments%20Paper.pdf

Also take a look at other published research of his, as well as the FAQ's on his site.

The book the 'Paleo Diet' is not the end all be all of the paleo prescription. I think Cordain does a pretty mediocre way of presenting it, good but not great. He often states the case for why something is unhealthy/harmful (grains, salt, dairy, etc) then refers bqack to the paleo diet with something like

"but on the paleo diet you don't have to worry about that because you'll be eating healthy lean meat, fruit and veg'.

The book is a good introduction to evolutionary nutrition, but the reader should follow up with more books and articles. Protein Power is great, and go's quite deeply into many physiological processes, The Zone is also a good read.

Some of Cordain's recommendations are off as well. His insitence on vegetable oils for omega-3's (proper omega 3 to 6 ratio) is misleading. Short-chain omega-3's (alpha-linolenic acid) actually inhibit the Eicosanoid synthesis process (like aspirin). So while it is a good idea to get omega-3 from oils like flaxseed and canola it is not a good idea to mega-dose or supplement with them. Long-chain omega-3's, specifically EPA, inhibit Delta 5 Desaturase the 'gatekeeper' enzyme for bad eicosanoid production. That and it's insulin sensitizing properties are what make fish oil such an important supplement.

The main other thing is the carb prescription of the diet. His suggestion of as much fruit as one wants along with fruit as a snack is a bad idea for the uneducated. He also skirts around insulin resistance a bit, like most authours.

Insulin resistance/syndrome x/diabetes (type 2) is caused by too many carbs (relative to the person, some people are more carb tolerant others less). Protein (meat) should be part of every meal, people should weigh and measure their food (not neccesarily Zone style) for a month or two so they know what they are eating so they can properly modify their diets. Most people will do better on a low-carb approach, but most people are either too lazy to do it, don't care enough or are just too stupid to modify their diets accordingly.

All the other stuff is solid, i.e no grain, dairy, for the most part. it has solid science backing it up.

[mata_leao]

I plan on reading protein power and the zone, right now I am reading the paleo diet for athletes which is directed towards endurance athletes (so far) and so it doesn't help me as much as the other books would have.

I have wondered about the vegetable oils, I have started to take a fish oil supplement but I don't plan on using canola or flax seed oil. And I am curious about the coconut oil as well. He suggests the oil is bad because of saturated fat and yet I've read the medium chain fatty acids in coconut are metabolized differently than long chain fatty acids and I have read some other studies which suggest it would be a good option for health.

As for fruit, I stick to the low glycemic fruits such as berries and have been trying to eat in season as well. I think I have made great improvements in my diet already just sticking with the unprocessed foods as much as possible.

Adam

[Joshua Naterman]

Fish oil's ok, but megadosing gets in the way of muscle growth apparently, so don't try to go crazy. Just get a few grams a day and you'll be straight. Virgin coconut oil is great, but you have to make sure it's virgin. Once it's been to prom, you don't want anything to do with it Olive oil's great too, I have noticed that I look and feel better when I am pretty conscious about taking a swig with most meals. I'm glad you're doing better with your diet! Also, if you're having balanced meals with oils, proteins, and sugars together you don't need to worry about sticking to low-glycemic fruits. Any fruits will do, almost everything is low glycemic when eaten together with fats and proteins.

[Jason Stein]

Hey Adam,

Sounds like you're on your way! Please continue to post about any performance changes you notice.

Also, if I can quote Ido Portal: Don't worry about supplements, nutrients, vitamins, minerals, etc, etc, until you've got your new diet and exercise plan routinized.

And if I can paraphrase an old Zen teacher: It's never been easier in the history of humanity to get fit and healthy than now. There's so much information and data, and so many styles and techniques.

It's also never been harder in the history of humanity to get fit and healthy. There so much information and date, so many styles and techniques.

As far as diet goes, focus on the big picture first, then start to tweak the details.

In this case, the big picture would be the content and ratio of your protein, fat, and carbs, as well as your various fitness practices.

I'd say give it a month or two just figuring out how you feel and what works (and what doesn't) --- and then you can start fooling around with fish oil, flax seed oil, coconut oil, blah, blah, blah.

It requires a peculiar and specific discipline in and of itself in order to let go of the minutiae. I speak from personal experience!

best,

jason