That's cool. I'm on a body-builders diet! What we noticed (when not body-building ) is that when net carb-to-protein is brought below 1:1, then that's when you start having problems with constipation tied to the higher protein consumption. (The upper limit of 1.4 I got from research results.) So, for anyone interested in the lower-carb, higher-protein diet, its worth paying attention to the carb-to-protein ratios in all the new low-carb foods becoming available. For example, if you buy a low-carb, very high-protein pasta, and add a sauce with meat and cheese, you could easily find yourself with way too much protein (and suffering constipation, or other negative effects of extremely high protein diets).
I would not expect to look like the body building model anytime soon unless you are prepared to spend 14 hours a day in the gym and take creatine and steriods. The future is not bright for those that do that sort of thing, think heart valve replacment like Gov Schwarzenegger, or perhaps various cancers. Interesting link. http://atkinsdietalert.org/physician.html Health Risks of High-Protein Diets Recent media reports have publicized the short-term weight loss that sometimes occurs with the use of very-high-protein weight-loss diets. Some of these reports have distorted medical facts and have ignored the potential risks of such diets. Based on past experience with the fen-phen drug combination and other weight-loss regimens, you may expect that some patients will disregard even serious long-term health risks in hopes of short-term weight loss. This advisory is intended to notify you of (1) risks from the long-term use of high-protein diets, (2) currently circulating misunderstandings and deceptive statements made in support of such diets, (3) the establishment of a registry for patients who have followed such diets, and (4) possible legal liability. Health Risks High-protein diets typically skew nutritional intake toward higher-than-recommended amounts of dietary cholesterol, fat, saturated fat, and protein and very low levels of fiber and some other protective dietary constituents. The Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism of the American Heart Association states, ?High-protein diets are not recommended because they restrict healthful foods that provide essential nutrients and do not provide the variety of foods needed to adequately meet nutritional needs. Individuals who follow these diets are therefore at risk for compromised vitamin and mineral intake, as well as potential cardiac, renal, bone, and liver abnormalities overall. The nutritional analysis shows that the sample menus do not meet recommended dietary intakes for macronutrients. In addition to very high protein content and low carbohydrate content, the menus at all three stages are very high in saturated fat (Daily Value is < 20 g) and cholesterol (DV < 200 mg) and very low in fiber (DV > 25 g). In addition, these sample menus do not reach daily values for iron. The Induction menu does not meet the daily values for calcium, vitamin C, vitamin A, folate, and thiamin. The Weight Loss menu is low on calcium, folate, and thiamin. High-protein, high-fat dietary patterns, when followed over the long term, are associated with increased risk of the following conditions: 1. Colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer and is among the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. Long-term high intake of meat, particularly red meat, is associated with significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer. The 1997 report of the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer, reported that, based on available evidence, diets high in red meat were considered probable contributors to colorectal cancer risk. Proposed mechanisms for the observed association include the effect of dietary fat on bile acid secretion, the action of cholesterol metabolites within the colonic lumen, and the carcinogenic action of heterocyclic amines produced during the cooking process, among others. In addition, high-protein diets are typically low in dietary fiber. Fiber facilitates the movement of wastes, including intralumenal carcinogens, out of the digestive tract, and promotes a biochemical environment within the colon that appears to be protective against cancer.
2. Cardiovascular disease. Typical high-protein diets are extremely high in dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. The effect of such diets on serum cholesterol concentrations is a matter of ongoing research. In a small study, individuals following high-protein diets against medical advice showed increases in fibrinogen, lipoprotein (a), and C-reactive protein, and demonstrable progression of coronary artery disease, suggesting that high-protein diets may precipitate progression of CAD through increases in lipid deposition and inflammatory and coagulation pathways.9 However, such diets pose additional cardiovascular risks, including increased risk for cardiovascular events immediately following a meal. Evidence indicates that meals high in saturated fat impair arterial compliance, increasing the risk of cardiovascular events in the postprandial period. A recent study showed that the consumption of a high-fat meal (ham-and-cheese sandwich, whole milk, and ice cream) reduced systemic arterial compliance by 25 percent at 3 hours and 27 percent at 6 hours.9 3. Impaired renal function. High-protein diets are associated with impairments in renal function. Over time, individuals who consume large amounts of protein, particularly animal protein, risk permanent loss of kidney function. Harvard researchers reported recently that high-protein diets were associated with a significant decline in kidney function, based on observations in 1,624 women participating in the Nurses? Health Study. The damage was found only in those who already had reduced kidney function at the study?s outset; however, as many as one in four adults in the United States may already have reduced kidney function. Many patients who have renal problems may be unaware of this fact and do not realize that high-protein diets may put them at risk for further deterioration. The kidney-damaging effect was seen only with animal protein. Plant protein had no harmful effect.10 4. Osteoporosis. Elevated protein intake is known to encourage urinary calcium losses and has been shown to increase risk of fracture in cross-cultural and prospective studies.9,10 When carbohydrate is limited and a ketotic state is induced, this effect is magnified by the metabolic acidosis produced.3 In a 2002 study of 10 healthy individuals who were put on a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet for six weeks under controlled conditions, urinary calcium losses increased 55 percent (from 160 to 248 mg/d, P < 0.01).13 The researchers concluded that the diet presents a marked acid load to the kidney, increases the risk for kidney stones, and may increase the risk for bone loss. While high-protein diets may carry potential health risks for anyone if maintained for more than a few weeks, they are clearly contraindicated for individuals with recurrent kidney stones, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, colon cancer, or heart disease. Misunderstandings and Deceptive Statements Recent prominent news stories have encouraged the circulation of significant misunderstandings among members of the public, sometimes further encouraged by inaccurate information produced in the course of media interviews. Some patients may be confused or misled about important dietary issues based on the following inaccurate notions: 1. ?High-protein diets cause dramatic weight loss.? As noted above, the weight loss typically occurring with high-protein diets?approximately 20 pounds over the course of six months?is not demonstrably different from that seen with other weight-reduction regimens or with low-fat, vegetarian diets. Anecdotal accounts of greater weight loss are atypical and may represent the additional effects of exercise or other factors. 2. ?Fatty foods must not be fattening, because fat intake fell during the 1980s, just as America's obesity epidemic began.? Some news stories have encouraged the public to discount health warnings about dietary fat and saturated fat, suggesting that fat intake declined during the 1980s, an era during which obesity became more common. However, food surveys from the National Center for Health Statistics from 1980 to 1991 show that daily per capita fat intake did not drop during that period. For adults, fat intake averaged 81 grams in 1980 and was essentially unchanged in 1991. While the American public added sodas and other non-fat foods to the diet, forcing the percentage of calories from fat to decline slightly, the actual amount of fat in the American diet did not drop at all. A notable contributor to fat intake during that period was cheese consumption. Per capita cheese consumption rose from 15 pounds in 1975 to more than 30 pounds in 1999. Typical cheeses derive approximately 70 percent of energy from fat and are a significant source of dietary cholesterol. 3. ?Fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart problems.? Abundant evidence has established the ability of dietary fat and cholesterol to increase cardiovascular disease risk. Nonetheless, some popular-press articles have suggested that evidence supporting this relationship is weak and inconsistent. In addition, widely circulated news reports of a cardiac arrest suffered by the late diet-book author Robert Atkins have suggested that neither diet nor atherosclerosis played any role in the unfortunate event. The net result of such reporting may be to suggest that individuals may disregard well-established contributors to heart disease. 4. ?Meat doesn't boost insulin; only carbohydrates do, and that's why they make people fat.? Popular books and news stories have encouraged individuals to avoid carbohydrate-rich foods, suggesting that high-protein foods will not stimulate insulin release. However, contrary to this popular myth, proteins stimulate insulin release, just as carbohydrates do. Clinical studies indicate that beef and cheese cause a bigger insulin release than pasta, and fish produces a bigger insulin release than popcorn.13 5. ?People who eat the most carbohydrates tend to gain the most weight.? Popular diet books point out that a carbohydrate restriction may induce ketosis as well as a reduction in energy intake, resulting in temporary weight loss. This has been misinterpreted as suggesting that carbohydrate-rich foods are the cause of obesity. In epidemiological studies and clinical trials, the reverse has been shown to be true. Many people throughout Asia consume large amounts of carbohydrate in the form of rice, noodles, and vegetables, and they generally have lower body weights than Americans?including Asian Americans?who eat large amounts of meat, dairy products, and fried foods. Similarly, vegetarians, who generally follow diets rich in carbohydrates, typically have significantly lower body weights than omnivores. Legal Liability Given the possibility of health risks that may occur with long-term use of high-protein diets, clinicians who prescribe such diets may put themselves into a position of potential legal liability. High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet Victims and Survivors Jody Gorran of Delray Beach, Florida This 53-year-old businessman had a healthy heart and no medical problems before he began a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet. A heart scan conducted six months prior to Gorran embarking on the diet revealed no plaque or occlusions. But after more than two years on the low-carbohydrate diet, he began experiencing angina. Gorran discovered that his cholesterol had shot from a pre-diet level of 146 to 230. An angiogram showed a severe artery blockage, and Gorran underwent angioplasty. His cardiologist told him that he could have died. ?[This diet] gave me heart disease,? Gorran said. Rachel Huskey of Sturgeon, Missouri In August of 2000, this 16-year-old high school student collapsed in her history class and died. The probable cause of death was a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet, according to her doctors. Huskey, who had no known medical conditions, learned about the diet from videotapes purchased from a television advertisement. She followed the diet closely, eating meat, cheese, and other high-fat foods. A post-mortem examination of Huskey revealed low calcium and potassium levels in her blood. According to Dr. Paul Robinson, an assistant professor of child health at the University of Missouri, Columbia, those depletions disrupted Huskey?s normal cardiac functions and caused her heart to stop. Those depletions, Dr. Robinson said, were most likely caused by her adherence to a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet. Mari K. Madlem of Claremont, California This 51-year-old hairstylist began a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet in May of 1998. She was on the diet for six months. Before starting the diet, her cholesterol level was 160. It went up to 258 while she was on the diet. Madlem also experienced kidney stones and had her gall bladder removed.
oneway: Great to have all sides of the argument made clear. Am still "digesting" it all, but I notice one thing right away... they are attacking Atkins, but few of us posting about lower-carb, higher-protein diets up here are on Atkins. For example, in their on-line "Nutrient Analysis of Atkins Sample Diets" table, they show the 3 phases of Atkins, with net carb / protein ratios as follows (total carb - fiber / protein): Induction: (15 - 2) / 143 = 0.09 !!! Wt. Loss: (36 - 7) / 120 = 0.24 !!! Maintenance: (116 - 18) / 135 = 0.72 !!! But the ratio I follow is 1.0 to 1.4, where the average of 1.2 is about twice that of even Atkins Maintenance phase. As we keep saying, WE ARE NOT ATKINS FOLLOWERS. His induction and weight loss phases are unnecessarily extreme (if someone feels a need to follow Atkins they should just skip to the Maintenance phase). The Atkins company has an interest in selling you their processed food items and in making the diet seem more complex than it is so that you'll think that you need their help. I think you may be missing the fact that at ratios of 1.0 to 1.4, we are still consuming a lot of carbs. There's plenty of room there to get a good dose of whole grains and vegetables. The only reason I don't emphasize that is because that's not the part of the diet that sets it apart from other diets.
From the ratios shown in my last post, it is clear that the authors of "Health Risks of High-Protein Diets" are assuming that "high-protein" diets have net carb to protein ratios significantly less than 1.0. Most of us "lower-carb, higher-protein" dieters would agree that such ratios are not healthy, and that several of their cited medical concerns have merit. So what we now have is the "very high protein" straw man, and this thread started with the "very high fat" straw man. Why don't we just all agree that a diet that is either VERY HIGH FAT, or VERY HIGH PROTEIN, or VERY HIGH CARBS would not be healthy (or edible). So my main criticism of the article is simply this: the authors misleadingly set up a very high protein straw man to attack all relatively higher protein diets. For simplicity in my further critique of the article (in next post), I'll refer to my lower-carb, higher-protein diet as the "1:1" diet. (BTW, the terms "lower-carb" and "higher-protein" refer to the difference between the 1:1 diet and a typical American diet. It doesn't mean I'm eating less carb than protein.) (I see its getting late here, so I'll wait and type in the critique tomorrow - don't want to screw up my trading regimen. )
My take on the web site was this....a concerned group of doctors, nutritionists, and cardiologists seeing the fallout from a very popular diet that has swept the world. The Atkins diet through their books and positive press is a household name. Rather than "setting up a straw man" I think they are "picking" on Atkins because the diet is well published, offers very visible daily meal planners, and it is the most popular by a wide margin. I understand and appreciate that your diet is not as "extreme" as Atkins. I offered the post in the spirit of debate, not to inflame. I am contrarian in nature, especially in all aspects of investing (real estate and equities) and I usually try to avoid getting sucked along with the popular mass thinking, such as now when I see large groups of people leaning too hard in one direction (ie: Atkins extreme popularity right now makes it suspect to me)
You see it as dangerous to push Atkins, and I see it as dangerous not to recognize its merits. There's something going on with all this lower-carb stuff that goes beyond a bunch of people following a guru. I've tried to outline what those benefits are in previous posts. With respect to "popular mass thinking", I'd say the most popular point of view for 30 years has been that low-fat cures all ills. You can hardly expect such a long-held view, with so many professionals having professed it, to be easy to overcome by unemotional debate. I applaud Atkins for sticking his neck out and taking the heat for so long, even though he only got it partly right. The professionals behind the anti-Atkins web site are squirming in their seats, being threatened by non-vegetarian diets that are now benefiting from what Atkins et al. started. If anyone has any doubt about what their agenda is, just read their "Healthier Choices" section: oneway, I thinks it's great that you're making these posts. And when you show me something that indicates that I'm clearly wrong about some aspect of this diet stuff, you'll see that I'll readily admit it. (Knowledge is just an approximation of reality, so I expect to be wrong about everything I currently believe to some degree. I would think it would be easy for someone to find something wrong or inconsistent with something I've posted in this thread. )
If it is so easy to find something wrong with what you've said in these threads then you really haven't done your homework have you.
Here is a link to an article also from that website: http://www.eatright.org/Public/Media/PublicMedia_16442.cfm Note the following: ADA's advice is based on the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations that adults obtain 45 percent to 65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent to 35 percent from fat and 10 percent to 35 percent from protein Now look at Mr Ripped Venutos regular diet: 55% carbs = 1760 calories = 440 grams carbs 30% protein = 960 calories = 240 grams of protein 15% fat = 480 = 53 grams of fat His diet fits within these parameters nicely, and he has the super ripped results to prove its effectiveness. His later phase routines which get him MORE ripped, simply lower carbs further and increase fat a bit to make up for it. Also notice that the Zone diet, the most middle of the line/balanced of the lower carb diets is: 40% carb 30% protein 30% fat Is also just barely outside of this range, being only 5% short on the carbs. (Which is probably a good thing for simple carb crazy americans). Very similar to Venutos phase two diet for getting more ripped as the comp gets closer. Also notice the Dr Ornish's diet is ALSO considered TOO EXTREME being NAS recommendation. Way too low in fat. Some interesting notes on the Ornish plan: http://www.healthyheart.org/Education/Conferences/990609/Abdavis.htm Dr. Ornishâs very low fat vegetarian diet is too difficult for people to follow. It causes harmful changes to HDL-cholesterol and triglyceride levels. It is hard to separate the effects of various intervention strategies used in the study. It provides insufficient essential fatty acids, particularly omega-3 fatty acids. Dr. Ornishâs Reversal Diet eliminates nuts, seeds (with the exception of flaxseeds), avocados and olives â many of which have been demonstrated to have coronary protective effects. As far as im concerned, this particular diet is nearly WORTHLESS since only a very tiny percentage of americans will be able to follow a diet which requires a max of 10% fat and 10mg of cholesterol each day. Not realistic at all. If you just add 5% carbs to the ZONE diet, you are in the NAS recommended zone. Furthermore...here is another quote on the zone diet: The protein should come mostly from soy, fish, and lean meats like chicken while meats high in saturated fat like beef should be avoided. And lastly the majority of your fat intake should be from monounsaturated sources such as nuts and healthy oils like olive oil and canola oil. Notice it focuses on the GOOD protective fats, unlike the extreme Ornish plan which some experts frown upon. It seems that even Dr Ornish had to come around on this one, and added fish oils to his diet, which the zone also recommended from the start. When it comes to realistic diets, it seem the Zone diet is the current FAD diet winner. peace axeman
Agreed this is an extreme diet, but many people that follow it have extreme situations. People that have congestive heart failure, are not good candidates for open heart surgery or have had repeated procedures done to them and have run out of leg veins to use for future by-pass operations would be extremely motivated to try to watch every bite to possibly reverse their CAD and other related medical issues. There are many thousands of people that fit these descriptions that do not want to die. They are the ones willing to eat nothing but bowls of steamed wheat berries, salads, veggies, etc in hopes of staying alive a just a few years longer. BTW, this is not the crowd that is trying to get "ripped", rather these are the people that are trying not to "RIP". You and I may say "screw it, I would rather die" but when it comes down to it I don't want to die either and would probably do it too.