Diet Critique Please!!!

[Eddie Stelling]

So my basic goal is to build lean muscle without fat gain, increase performance, and definitely not loose any muscle. I am currently 162 lbs / 73.5 kg. My diet is generally as follows:

Morning:

3 eggs (w/yolk)

3 strips bacon

3 sausage links

46g pure whey protein w/ water

2g fish oil

Snack:

1 can chicken (24g protein)/tuna (26g protein)

1 vegetable (bell pepper/cucumber)

Lunch:

1 large serving of meat (usually chicken)

1 large serving vegetables (brocolli, bell pepper, or a salad)

Snack: (this one is hit and miss, sometimes I am too full for this snack)

1 can chicken/tuna

1 vegetable (bell pepper/cucumber)

Pre Workout:

1 can chicken or 46g pure whey protein w/ water (just started this, I like the shake better b/c i hate feeling bloated when working out)

Workout: Avg. Time = 2 hrs.

Post Workout:

46g pure whey with water

Dinner:

1 huge serving of meat (chicken/beef/pulled pork)

1 huge serving vegatables (brocolli, salad, asparagus, cauliflower - I love the steamfresh bags)

2g fish oil

Right Before Bed: (Every now and then)

46g pure whey protein

*1 half gallon of 2% organic milk per week

Any advice would be great! I know I should add some fruit to breakfast and probably post workout. My main question is, is my breakfast too fatty? Thanks in advance guys!

[John Sapinoso]

Don't worry about breakfast being too fatty, judging by the lack of neolithic carbs, you're either on your way to or are already fat-adapted. So it's unlikely the fat will be stored and rather it will be used as energy.

You don't really NEED fruit PWO. I'm not sure what your workout looks like, but most people could benefit from a starchy vegetable like a sweet potato PWO for glycogen replenishment.

I personally only take whey PWO as it tends to spike insulin.

On the whole though, you can't really go wrong with meat and veggies. If you really want to take it up a notch, look into the source and quality of your meats and veggies meaning: organic, grassfed, etc.

[Razz]

I would not add fruit to the breakfast

I would not have that shake before bed. Sleeping on an empty stommach produces more growth hormone, my sleep certainly feels better after I stopped eating right before bed.

[Eddie Stelling]

Gotcha, yea the fruit I was unsure of and the shake before bed was usually to prevent me from eating crap before bed b/c I start getting hungry again, but like I said that has been very rare. I will cut it out.

You don't really NEED fruit PWO. I'm not sure what your workout looks like, but most people could benefit from a starchy vegetable like a sweet potato PWO for glycogen replenishment.

I was considering adding this in, do you think this will begin to increase body fat? If so should I counter with cardio?

Thanks guys!

[Razz]

Eat a high fat/protein snack before bed if you get hungry

[Larry Roseman]

I think you should have more protein

Seriously, I don't know your workout but given that there not major hypertrophy in gymnastics,

what is the point of having 200g protein per day? Beyond maintenance requirements, are you really destroying

then rebuilding (or gaining) 1/4 pound of muscle daily? It seems unlikely but maybe you are...

In any event, you also need to look at a diet from a heath perspective.

Fibre is important for overall health and of the bowel and shouldn't be neglected.

It doesn't count towards carbs - it isn't digested to speak of - so why limit it?

Sweet potatoes are great but peaches have more free glucose than sweet potatoes, and the same fructose/glucose ratio.

Glucose may be good but fructose is not evil: sure it goes towards replenishing the liver's glycogen but that is also

depleted during the day and any time blood sugar needs to be elevated during exercise.

Fruit generally contain about half free fructose (some more, some less) the remaining sugars being

glucose and sucrose mainly. The most common HFCS (55%) has the same net fructose as common sugars, honey, maple etc.

In otherwords, avoid fructophobia.

Growth hormone - the body will take care of that. You don't need to force it and any resulting miniscule rise is short lived and immaterial in the larger picture of muscle growth.

Food is part of life, and should be enjoyed as well as treated as fuel. Variety is the spice of life!

Just as doing one exercise constantly all the time can become depressing, so can eating the same food all the time.

Just ask anyone in prison

You asked for a critique ... and I tried to be a bit tongue and cheeky about it. But you young guys should check out what Jack Lalanne ate: he lived to 95 and was no slouch either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne

http://www.shareguide.com/LaLanne.html

[Philip Chubb]

200 grams of protein is not that much. At one gram per pound of bodyweight that is still probably not even 1.5. The point of eating so much protein can be different for each person depending on what your diet is like.

As for the fruit thing, fructose can be a great way to get fat. Literally. I mean if you are going to get fat, you might as well throw in a few vitamins. But where do you think that fructose is going if it can't be used when it is absorbed. Well since it doesn't raise insulin, it goes straight to the liver. HFCS is the most fattening sugar we have.

[John Sapinoso]

agreed, 1g/lbs is like the minimum wage of protein intake.

[Larry Roseman]

200 grams of protein is not that much. At one gram per pound of bodyweight that is still probably not even 1.5. The point of eating so much protein can be different for each person depending on what your diet is like.

As for the fruit thing, fructose can be a great way to get fat. Literally. I mean if you are going to get fat, you might as well throw in a few vitamins. But where do you think that fructose is going if it can't be used when it is absorbed. Well since it doesn't raise insulin, it goes straight to the liver. HFCS is the most fattening sugar we have.

A few fruit amount to maybe 20 g of fructose. THe liver holds near 100g. It won't go to waste.

Jack Lalane ate 5 fresh fruit a day for life - did he appear fat? You guys are supposed to be athletes, and sounds

like little miss america contestants, thinking every piece of candy will go to their hips

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/resear ... eview.html

Too much protein can have side effects long-term. Realise this goes against the neadrathal approach, but let me ask you.

Do yous see any neandrathal skulking around today? There's a reason for that.

[Razz]

Futureisnow you are very entertaining with your jack lalanne nutrition science. What are these long term health side effects of a high protein intake, besides being a neanderthal and not surviving agriculture?

[Philip Chubb]

My friend, you have to learn to find out what papers are useful and what isn't. This one is not disproving anything. Jack Lalanne is different than the poster. Nutrition can have general guidelines but that rational won't work well from person to person. For example, don't eat trans fat or HFCS as they will damage the body. (By the way, in America, I believe mono and diglycerides have become the new trans fat). Easy and general. With your rational, I could say that since Michael Phelps ate the way he did, we should do.

[Larry Roseman]

Futureisnow you are very entertaining with your jack lalanne nutrition science. What are these long term health side effects of a high protein intake, besides being a neanderthal and not surviving agriculture?

Please call me Fin. My friends do. Yeah, anyway Jack Lalanne, the annoying old guy on the infomercial.

Turns out he was the goat in his day. Total mastery of his physical body and mind - great career, long life, happiness.

Some people know what to eat naturally. Look at this this way. He only ate fish as animal protein, so he got

a lot of Omega-3. He didn't eat dairy so avoided trans-fat that occurs naturally in dairy. Also avoided processed foods that contain that trans-fat, before that was a bad thing.Tons of veggies, so lots of fibre, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients. And fruit - did I mention fruit?

Anyway he worked out like 2 hours a day forever. Performed incredible feats. Won Mr. America. Not just some guy blogging but he proved what he did worked.

Ok, Phillip, I'm not saying to eat exactly like Jack. I am saying a lot of the boogiemen that are flying around have no basis

in reality. The HFCS scare for example. No worse than sugar. That isn't saying it's good for you - it's not. And if all sugar is cut out because of fear of the fructose part (most of which will be used in an athletic person) converting to fat, why no fear of fat? It's abundant in the diet in question?

What isn't abundant in the diet in question are carbs in the form of sugar or starch. Jack ate lots of those. Most althletes do. Unless you're strictly a low intensitiy endurance athlete your body needs them to replenish muscle glycogen stores. I believe that gymnastics would be a pretty high intensity sport. Doesn't have to be grains (another boogieman) mind you.

I agree that there are freaks out there who seem to defy principles. Herchel Walker comes to mind. He claims to eat virtually no protein. I'm not saying do that. We can't learn from the exception to justify a rule. You need to find out what works best for your body and mind in your current situation, using tried and tested principles not being detered by fad-science.

[Razz]

So yes, Fin, I understand that what Jack Lalanne ate was much like a paleo diet. Problem is in paleolithic times carbs were not available all year around, due to fruits being seasonal. Anyways, where is the proof that a high protein intake is dangerous? Besides that let me agree with you, meat and veggies are good. Occasional fruits are good too.

[Larry Roseman]

So yes, Fin, I understand that what Jack Lalanne ate was much like a paleo diet. Problem is in paleolithic times carbs were not available all year around, due to fruits being seasonal. Anyways, where is the proof that a high protein intake is dangerous? Besides that let me agree with you, meat and veggies are good. Occasional fruits are good too.

Jack ate a lot of grains too mind you.

A high protein ketogenic diet < 30 g carb daily is not optimum for a high intensity athlete.

http://www.ironmagazine.com/article570.html

As far as health goes this is the other side of the coin.

http://www.pcrm.org/news/HighProteinReport.pdf

Wikipedia presents a fairly balanced asssessment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet

This is the down side: "A study of more than 100,000 people over more than 20 years within the Nurses' Health Study came to the result that a low-carbohydrate diet high in vegetables, with a large proportion of proteins and oils coming from plant sources, decreases mortality with a hazard ratio of 0.8.[85] In contrast, a low-carbohydrate diet with largely animal sources of protein and fat increases mortality, with a hazard ratio of 1.1.[85]"

[Philip Chubb]

Lets remember that any fructose not needed by the muscle at the moment of absorbtion goes to your fat cells and influences the bad cholesterol. If this is the case, why would you want to eat a sugar that filled up your muscles and gave you fructose to go to your liver at the same time. This is my issue with HFCS. I haven't even looked into the "scare". It is what is right in front of me.

[Razz]

So yes, Fin, I understand that what Jack Lalanne ate was much like a paleo diet. Problem is in paleolithic times carbs were not available all year around, due to fruits being seasonal. Anyways, where is the proof that a high protein intake is dangerous? Besides that let me agree with you, meat and veggies are good. Occasional fruits are good too.

Jack ate a lot of grains too mind you.

Just because he ate them it doesn't make them good. Maybe he would've lived to 100 without, who knows.

A high protein ketogenic diet < 30 g carb daily is not optimum for a high intensity athlete.

http://www.ironmagazine.com/article570.html

I have at no point stated a ketogenic diet being superb for a high intensity athlete. I merely stated (or did I even say that?) that fruits should no be overconsumed.

As far as health goes this is the other side of the coin.

http://www.pcrm.org/news/HighProteinReport.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet

This is the down side: "A study of more than 100,000 people over more than 20 years within the Nurses' Health Study came to the result that a low-carbohydrate diet high in vegetables, with a large proportion of proteins and oils coming from plant sources, decreases mortality with a hazard ratio of 0.8.[85] In contrast, a low-carbohydrate diet with largely animal sources of protein and fat increases mortality, with a hazard ratio of 1.1.[85]

Man look into some paleolithic nutrition, check out the lalonde seminar linked to here on the site or check Robb Wolfs stuff. They present a ton of counter arguments towards studies like the ones you linked to. Protein does not cause cancer. Protein does not cause osteoporosis. Protein is not bad for your kidneys. Yes when you go above 40% total calories you may experience some problems, but that's almost impossible unless you remove all the fat from all your meat and never eat a single vegetable. Funny how all the people on high protein paleo diets are healthy and the ones following the governments stuff are not.

[Larry Roseman]

Hey Razz ... problem is that the diet posted above is ketogenic ... that isn't bad but the low carbs may be a concern if the person performs a lot of intense anerobic activity. But it's up to that person to keep that in mind. I know my ex-physio guy

converted to a paleo diet. He was highly active, mma training, weights, plyo. The man couldn't keep his eyes open while working.

Would scream for a cup of coffee from his assistant everytime I went. I know there is an adaptation period but ... it doesn't matter if you are as active as he was.

The second link i just tossed in because it's the other extreme viewpoint. It isn't proof or anything. I don't have time or incentive to prove anything to anyone.

The Wiki article seems to present both sides without specfically delving into paleo. The problem with paleo specfically as a diet is that it hasn't been around long enough to test out. Time will tell if it's super-duper. If it's helping people that's great.

I'm personally not a believer because to me the premise it is based on is highly speculative and flawed and the conclusions specious. Humans have evolved from paleo times to accomodate grains without trouble (unless they are intolerant/celiac). Personally I'm allergic to penicillin, it won't kill me but I have a bad reaction to it. That doen't mean it can't save anyone else's life. Paelo's didn't have a lot of things such as medicine, cars and computers but I don't see those being chucked out.

Still it's probably a better diet than 95% of what people eat, which doesn't say much execpt that most people eat crap.

Anyway, I wish everyone well doing what they want because they are going to do it anyway.

[Philip Chubb]

FIN, I am not sure where you are getting your research from. Humans have not evolved much in the past 10,000 years. Grains are still an issue. This is something you can go see easily. Take any client you have off grain and they will have positive results.

As for keto not working for MMA, I do both. My endurance has never been better.

[Joshua Naterman]

A few fruit amount to maybe 20 g of fructose. THe liver holds near 100g. It won't go to waste.

Jack Lalane ate 5 fresh fruit a day for life - did he appear fat? You guys are supposed to be athletes, and sounds

like little miss america contestants, thinking every piece of candy will go to their hips

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/resear ... eview.html

Too much protein can have side effects long-term. Realise this goes against the neadrathal approach, but let me ask you.

Do yous see any neandrathal skulking around today? There's a reason for that.

Believe it or not, this is a short post for this kind of topic and is the longest I will ever post.

Ok, for one thing... HFCS is no different than honey, sucrose, or maple syrup. They are all approximately half fructose. The problem is that since our bodies try their hardest to keep the liver full of glycogen the only sure time that fructose is actually a good idea in any large-ish quantity is the first meal of the day. Fruit, juice, table sugar, whatever you eat in your first meal is not going to mess you up unless you're having a TON of it. You should be fine with 30-40g worth of those items which gives 15-20g of fructose and 15-20g of glucose. That's enough for your brain and liver to be pretty well re-charged. If the brain uses 50g of glycogen per 24 hours it is safe to say that it consumes between 15-20g in the average sleep cycle of 8 hours. The fructose replenishes glycogen stores in the liver that have been consumed by the brain during sleep and the glucose provides instant energy for the body without being rate limited by release from the liver. These are not random numbers that I came up with, this is how our bodies work.

Putting aside any discussions involving anthropology, you do not have a very complete understanding of how nutrients get cycled through the body if you think fructose won't go to waste because of liver storage capacity. The liver stores 0.0g of fructose. Fructose is NOT stored. Fructose is either immediately converted to glycogen or immediately converted into fat and extremely small particles of cholesterol. Stored liver glycogen is the first thing our bodies try to replenish when it gets depleted. Unless you are eating practically zero carbs at all your liver is going to be fully replenished after your first or second meal. The numbers are later in this post. This is a very minimalistic explanation and is not attempting to explain everything. That would be a job for a book. Intra-muscular glycogen stores are very different from liver storage, they can take a few days to refill if they are nearly completely depleted. That's because your body organs don't run off of stored muscle sugar, making it a lower priority for replenishment. Don't get confused. The muscles refill off of what is in the blood, and fructose does not circulate in the bloodstream. It goes straight to the liver because that's the only place that has cells capable of utilizing fructose for energy in your body. Well, your sperm can too but that's a separate issue and if you think your sperm are going to consume any metabolically significant portion of dietary fructose each day you are nuts. Pun intended.

As far as carb demands go, JUST your brain, all by itself, goes through 50g per day of glycogen and your body, even before any adaptation to a high protein diet, is capable of synthesizing 100g of glycogen per day from protein via gluconeogenesis. It is currently unknown whether that pathway gets upregulated on very high protein, very low carb diets. Fats do not appear to be able to replenish any significant level of glycogen, so most of your glycogen requirements will come from dietary protein. That is a very inefficient process, which is why you can eat so much on a diet like that and not get fat. There are quite a number of recent studies that show there is no apparent metabolic advantage in terms of actual bodyfat usage on a high carb( up to 80% of calories), low fat low protein vs low carb/high protein + fat diet.

Keep in mind this does not mean the high protein diet does not work, nor is that what is claimed. Rather, it is simply showing that with proper food sources (non-neolithic carbs, for you paleo guys) a high carb diet is just as efficient for fat loss. You don't have as much fudge room for calorie counts since carb metabilism is quite a bit more efficient than protein metabolism and subsequent conversion to carbs, but if you are eating nothing but various greens, some fruit in the morning, and starchy vegetables before & after workouts or high periods of exertion you are going to have a damn hard time eating enough to get fat. Seriously.

Anyways, my point in saying that is this: Our bodies are extremely good at re-filling glycogen stores. It's the first thing our body tries to do. Anything you eat, with the obvious exception of straight fat, is going to get broken down and converted into glycogen in the liver. When the liver is full, which is going to be the first thing the body tries to accomplish because your entire body (including the brain, especially) depends on the liver for energy. If the liver's empty, your body is going to function poorly. That's why you feel like crap while you wait for ketosis to kick in. Instead of trying to go through the trouble of a true keto diet, you will have equal success with any approach that severely limits or completely eliminates fructose and excess carbs. You can't even maintain ketosis if you have more than two cups of broccoli a day, as an example, because that is too many carbs (around 25 grams). Where will you get your vitamins and phytochemicals? They aren't all in meat and fat. You could order juice plus pills, which will still put you close to breaking ketosis. It is not an easy diet to maintain, and there isn't much of a halfway point. If you aren't absolutely forcing your body into ketosis you will not be producing ketone bodies in significant quantities. Even at 30-50g of carbs a day you will not be in ketosis, but that doesn't matter! Everyone seems to think that ketosis is this magical answer to body fat, and it is not. The answer is in the control of carbohydrates, which a ketogenic diet DOES accomplish. It is not the only way and certainly not the most cost efficient way, but for people who want to try it there generally seem to be no problems with a few months going keto.

There ARE long term health effects that make a ketogenic diet a statistically poorer choice in terms of long term wellness vs a healthy balanced diet, but that isn't what this discussion about. In the short term, there aren't any real advantages with either unless you are prone to ketoacidosis. Anyone who doesn't know what that is should read about it so you know what to look out for and what you run the risk of developing when going keto. It doesn't happen to everyone but it's an extra risk, so you should know.

[Joshua Naterman]

FIN, I am not sure where you are getting your research from. Humans have not evolved much in the past 10,000 years. Grains are still an issue. This is something you can go see easily. Take any client you have off grain and they will have positive results.

As for keto not working for MMA, I do both. My endurance has never been better.

Do you literally not eat ANY carbs ever? That would be really interesting. I know that very low carb diets work very well for many athletes, but true keto would be very interesting. In theory there's no reason it should affect power output, creatine is made from amino acids and not carbs. Besides, if you are true keto your body may have upregulated its ability to perform gluconeogenesis. This sort of thing has never been studied in people on long term keto diets to my knowledge.

As far as the evolution thing goes, I think you are wrong. I'm not arguing the grains thing, but the children of the videogame generations are growing statistically significantly longer thumbs compared to all other recorded generations, obviously based on people who are currently around. What we do with our lives directly changes the genes our children inherit. This has been shown to be true in many, many different animals and if we are sharing well over 90% of our DNA with every mammal on the planet then it is insane to think the same does not happen to us as well.

I think you will find that the grains you have the best results with will be bleached and enriched for most people. Rice won't make any difference, and neither will corn. Neither have gluten, which is the entire basis behind grains = bad.

Sprouted grains are also a completely different scenario, for similar reasons.

However, I absolutely agree with the basic premise. If you take people off of a diet that involves processed grain products and foods you will see incredibly good results. It happens every time. I wouldn't be surprised if getting off of high gluten grains works well for many people too, even if they are not processed.

[Philip Chubb]

FIN, I am not sure where you are getting your research from. Humans have not evolved much in the past 10,000 years. Grains are still an issue. This is something you can go see easily. Take any client you have off grain and they will have positive results.

As for keto not working for MMA, I do both. My endurance has never been better.

Do you literally not eat ANY carbs ever? That would be really interesting. I know that very low carb diets work very well for many athletes, but true keto would be very interesting. In theory there's no reason it should affect power output, creatine is made from amino acids and not carbs. Besides, if you are true keto your body may have upregulated its ability to perform gluconeogenesis. This sort of thing has never been studied in people on long term keto diets to my knowledge.

As far as the evolution thing goes, I think you are wrong. I'm not arguing the grains thing, but the children of the videogame generations are growing statistically significantly longer thumbs compared to all other recorded generations, obviously based on people who are currently around. What we do with our lives directly changes the genes our children inherit. This has been shown to be true in many, many different animals and if we are sharing well over 90% of our DNA with every mammal on the planet then it is insane to think the same does not happen to us as well.

I think you will find that the grains you have the best results with will be bleached and enriched for most people. Rice won't make any difference, and neither will corn. Neither have gluten, which is the entire basis behind grains = bad.

Sprouted grains are also a completely different scenario, for similar reasons.

However, I absolutely agree with the basic premise. If you take people off of a diet that involves processed grain products and foods you will see incredibly good results. It happens every time. I wouldn't be surprised if getting off of high gluten grains works well for many people too, even if they are not processed.

I have done true keto. It was quite an interesting experience. As adaptable as the body is, I would not be surprised if it is possible that gluconeogenesis could become extremely efficient. I did this for a while and my endurance on the mat seemed to go forever. I also read a forum and blogs of many people who went zero carb. They believed that even broccoli triggered their cravings. I found that funny but it did make me feel as if your body could adapt to being zero carb even better. I imagine the reason even vegetables hurt them now is that they haven't had them in so long. (The rules to post an arguement there are to try zero carb for at least six months. After that time, I would imagine gluconeogenesis would have become very efficient.) I do not do zero carb anymore. I like vegetables too much. And the whole acid base balance is still something I am reading about.

As for the evolution point, I can't argue with your example. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I do not think the body has gotten to the point of being able to handle gluten. Maybe in another 10,000 years. But I do not think we can handle grains with gluten. Only enough to pass on genes.

I myself don't mess with rice or corn. But my clients are always told that if they really want something not so good, rice and corn aren't near as bad. Even Poliquin eats some kind of mango rice.

Thank you for your HFCS point. I enjoy your responses.

[Joshua Naterman]

No problem, you're the man! That's a really interesting experience you had. I wonder if I would be able to get funding to study gluconeogenesis in people who are true keto for at least 6 months... Thank you for sharing! There are not too many people who have walked down that road for real.

I have found that I feel great on a number of different diets, but overall a low starch diet that fluctuates between higher fat and higher carb seems to be working very well for me. I just have tons of non-starchy veggies and most of my other carbs are coming from various sprouts, which I am experimenting with to see how they feel. So far I really like buckwheat and oats, a very tasty mix to be sure. Sprouted lentils are excellent as well. I like to mix them all in some milk as a live cereal, which is actually really tasty!

[Philip Chubb]

No problem, you're the man! That's a really interesting experience you had. I wonder if I would be able to get funding to study gluconeogenesis in people who are true keto for at least 6 months... Thank you for sharing! There are not too many people who have walked down that road for real.

I have found that I feel great on a number of different diets, but overall a low starch diet that fluctuates between higher fat and higher carb seems to be working very well for me. I just have tons of non-starchy veggies and most of my other carbs are coming from various sprouts, which I am experimenting with to see how they feel. So far I really like buckwheat and oats, a very tasty mix to be sure. Sprouted lentils are excellent as well. I like to mix them all in some milk as a live cereal, which is actually really tasty!

That sounds pretty good. If I wasn't lactose intolerant, I would try that. I did used to use sprouts to make spaghetti when I was doing only paleo. I find it interesting that you feel good on high fat and high carb as well! I feel like a bus hit me.

That would be an interesting study as well. You could look up that board. I believe the admins name was Charles. I think you could find it on google. I am sure they would be perfectly happy to help you with your study and any questions you had on zero carb.

[Larry Roseman]

Putting aside any discussions involving anthropology, you do not have a very complete understanding of how nutrients get cycled through the body if you think fructose won't go to waste because of liver storage capacity. The liver stores 0.0g of fructose

Regarding fructose in the liver, it must be storing something sweeter than glycogen! I've had liver and find it quite sweet, especially with fava beans and a nice chianti Come on, are you kdding me? The 100g is the liver's glycogen store.

I never said it was frutose but can see how it can be read that way. Not intended - fast typing without proof-reading.

Anyway you appear quite in the know and have a well-balanced approach. I see you addressed some of the sports performance issues in the following post. It's an interesting subject and I agree can get quite complex. The difficulty is getting to a level that is both factual and comprehensible, and you seem to do a good job at that. Of course one can always quible over degrees, percentages, grams, etc.

As concerns the original poster, I think you are leaning towards the idea that is a diet that poses challenges, perhaps unecessary ones.

[Eddie Stelling]

I appreciate everyone's responses! I am, and always have been, extremely active, and never worried about nutrition at this level. I always ate as much as I wanted and basically whatever I wanted, but always avoided sweets and deserts. Never really liked them anyways. Having said that, I absolutely do not know even a quarter of what you all know about nutrition. Since beginning gymnastics training, crossfit, and jui jitsu training, (yes I try to do all 3!!), I have lost a good bit of weight. Gymnastics is what I love and I always put it first if I have to choose, but find it hard to keep all my muscle. I keep up with the crossfit and jui jitsu to keep me really lean. Crossfit for the legs. I have hardly any fat and love being so lean. But, I want to see if I can put on some lean muscle without consuming anything and everything and putting on fat in the process.

As concerns the original poster, I think you are leaning towards the idea that is a diet that poses challenges, perhaps unecessary ones.

So, I expected that my diet posted would be flawed, and I realize that there are counteractive arguements for almost every nutritional "fact", but what can I do to improve it??? I am not trying to eat a certain style or go keto....i just want to stay lean and muscular and put on lean muscle. So, what do I need to do to improve? What should I add?

Also, it was noted that I wasn't eating enough protein. With at least 3 protein shakes a day @ 46g = 138g, 2 cans of chicken/tuna @ approx. 30g = 50-60g, breakfast being eggs-bacon-sausage, and lunch and dinner being large amounts of meat and veggies. That's around 168g of protein just in whey protein powder. Adding that to my breakfast, lunch and dinner is well over 200g of protein, probably close to 300g. What else should I do? Thanks guys!