Why Weight-Loss Efforts Fail

Why Weight-Loss Efforts Fail
By Kathleen Doheny, HealthDay Reporter
HealthDay


FRIDAY, Feb. 23 (HealthDay News) -- About one in three American adults is
trying to lose weight at any given time, and while their track record for
trying is good, their track record for succeeding is not.

Within five years, most dieters will regain the weight they lost. And,
after five years, they may even weigh more than when they started the
original weight-loss effort, some studies have found.

But weight-loss researchers have begun to uncover insights into what makes
some dieters succeed while others fail. While there are no hard-and-fast
rules that work for everyone, there are ways to maximize your success the
next time you decide to drop those excess pounds -- maybe for good.

A strategy for success begins with getting realistic, experts say.

"Cause number-one [for failure] is setting too unrealistic of goals, losing
too much too fast," said Barbel Knauper, an associate professor of
psychology at McGill University in Montreal. Instead of trying to lose,
say, 15 pounds in a month -- very unrealistic -- most experts suggest a
slow, steady loss, about one or two pounds a week.

Another pitfall, Knauper said, is a lack of advance planning before social
situations. "If people were making 'when, where, how' plans, they would be
more likely to adhere to their goal," he said. For instance, you might say
to yourself, 'When I go out for dinner tonight with friends, I won't order
a large entree, but a smaller one. And I'll stick with my choice even if
they pressure me to eat more.'"

Socializing is one of the top three reasons people eventually fail with a
diet, said Dr. Michael Dansinger, an assistant professor of medicine at
Tufts-New England Medical Center, in Boston.

The other two? "Feelings of deprivation or boredom with the current eating
plan," Dansinger said, "and the healthy foods often seem to be less
available, require more preparation or cost more than the unhealthy foods."

Still another pitfall, Knauper said, is that people often underestimate the
number of calories in foods and overestimate the number of calories burned
through exercise.

In one study, Knauper asked 132 women trying to lose weight on their own to
tell him their strategies -- their dieting "rules," so to speak. In all,
the 132 dieters offered 895 rules, with each woman listing an average of
nearly seven.

Then his research team followed the women to see which rules worked.
Overall, adherence to the self-set rules was low. But the ones deemed most
effective were the simplest -- reducing calories and increasing exercise.
Other rules that worked included: decreasing sugar intake; increasing
consumption of fruits and vegetables, vitamins and water; watching less TV;
and eating at home more often.

If you've tried unsuccessfully to diet many times, Dansinger suggests
getting a "coach." A coach can be your doctor, another health professional,
or a friend who'll hold you accountable to your goals, he said. He also
suggests recording your intake of calories every day, limiting calories,
and exercising seven hours a week, including cardiovascular and weight
workouts.

In a 2005 study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, Dansinger also found that adherence to a weight-loss plan --
any plan -- is more important than the diet regimen itself. He compared
people on Weight Watchers, Atkins, Zone and Ornish diets and found no
substantial weight-loss differences at one year, regardless of the diet.
The amount of weight lost ranged from 4.6 to 7.3 pounds.

More information

To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
Association.

Copyright © 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
URL:
http://health.msn.com/dietfitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100156713>
1=9033

"Brooke" <brooke14@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> Association.

The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
"professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be able
to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.

Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.

David

On Feb 25, 2:28 pm, "David Cohen" <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Brooke" <brook...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > Association.
>
> The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> "professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be able
> to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
> time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.
>
> Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.
>
> David

David --

Generally, though, most of the insight and advice above seems good,
except maybe the 7 hours of exercise a week. While that may be good
for most people, a lot of people aren't going to be able to adhere to
it.

Yours,

Caleb

In article <Y3oEh.6569$tD2.2337@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Brooke" <brooke14@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > Association.
>
> The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> "professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be able
> to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
> time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.
>
> Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.
>
> David

<Applause!!!>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <Y3oEh.6569$tD2.2337@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "David
Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Brooke" <brooke14@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > Association.
>
> The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> "professionals" that I have ever encountered.

I don't get too mad at doctors when they give bad/incorrect nutritional
advice as they learn little to nothing about the topic in med school
(which means they should not be giving advice on the topic in the first
place but that's another issue...) but I do get pissed when nutritionists
give terrible advice considering that's suppose to be the one thing they
know something about! I can forgive docs, I can't forgive nutritionists.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsmp_omelet-7E1814.17273425022007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <Y3oEh.6569$tD2.2337@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "Brooke" <brooke14@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >
>> > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
>> > Association.
>>
>> The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
>> "professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be
>> able
>> to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of
>> the
>> time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.
>>
>> Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.
>>
>> David
>
> <Applause!!!>
> --
> Peace, Om

Hey Om))))))) which group are you on?

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:

> I don't get too mad at doctors when they give bad/incorrect nutritional
> advice as they learn little to nothing about the topic in med school
> (which means they should not be giving advice on the topic in the first
> place but that's another issue...) but I do get pissed when nutritionists
> give terrible advice considering that's suppose to be the one thing they
> know something about! I can forgive docs, I can't forgive nutritionists.

I doubt if you would still be forgiving if are sitting at the wrong side of
the table.

I heard so much bullshit, and not only about nutrution, i got kinda sick by
that fact alone.

The things i wanted to do to certain doctors, are the things i cannot say in
a public forum.

--
Pete

In article <45e2bc19$0$71043$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Pete"
<phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:
>
> > I don't get too mad at doctors when they give bad/incorrect nutritional
> > advice as they learn little to nothing about the topic in med school
> > (which means they should not be giving advice on the topic in the first
> > place but that's another issue...) but I do get pissed when nutritionists
> > give terrible advice considering that's suppose to be the one thing they
> > know something about! I can forgive docs, I can't forgive nutritionists.
>
> I doubt if you would still be forgiving if are sitting at the wrong side of
> the table.
>
> I heard so much bullshit, and not only about nutrution, i got kinda sick by
> that fact alone.
>
> The things i wanted to do to certain doctors, are the things i cannot say in
> a public forum.

As I said, most of them should not be giving nutritional advice in the
first place.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

In news:willbrink-2602070954420001@192.168.2.156,
Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> typed:
> In article <45e2bc19$0$71043$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Pete"
> <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:
>>
>> > I don't get too mad at doctors when they give bad/incorrect
>> nutritional
>>> advice as they learn little to nothing about the topic in med school
>>> (which means they should not be giving advice on the topic in the
>>> first place but that's another issue...) but I do get pissed when
>>> nutritionists give terrible advice considering that's suppose to be
>>> the one thing they know something about! I can forgive docs, I
>>> can't forgive nutritionists.
>>
>> I doubt if you would still be forgiving if are sitting at the wrong
>> side of the table.
>>
>> I heard so much bullshit, and not only about nutrution, i got kinda
>> sick by that fact alone.
>>
>> The things i wanted to do to certain doctors, are the things i
>> cannot say in a public forum.
>
> As I said, most of them should not be giving nutritional advice in the
> first place.

I'm not sure some of them should be giving medical advice!

On Feb 25, 5:18 pm, brook...@yahoo.com (Brooke) wrote:
> Why Weight-Loss Efforts Fail
> By Kathleen Doheny, HealthDay Reporter
> HealthDay
<snip>

Missing is the number 1 reason why people don't maintain a loss.

They view GOAL as an ending, not as a beginning. Most people set a
goal like this:
"I will lose X lbs."

Few people set it like this:
"I will lose X lbs and maintain that loss for 5 years."

Most people should set their goal the way they are, then reset it when
they get there. So, once you lose X lbs (or X% bodyfat, or X inches),
the next step is to say, "I will keep this off for six months, with X
margin." When you get to six months, reenlist. Eventually, maintenance
is habit, not a phase or a chance to screw up your work.

-Hollywood, 265/219/213 (since 8/20/06)

In article <1172444806.559734.267810@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"Caleb" <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2:28 pm, "David Cohen" <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Brooke" <brook...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >
> >
> > > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > > Association.
> >
> > The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> > "professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be able
> > to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
> > time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.
> >
> > Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.
> >
> > David
>
> David --
>
> Generally, though, most of the insight and advice above seems good,
> except maybe the 7 hours of exercise a week. While that may be good
> for most people, a lot of people aren't going to be able to adhere to
> it.

Most people don't need 7 hours per week, but yet another mistake they make
is to lump "exercise" into some generic term as if all exercise was
created equal. Type of exercise, intensity of exercise, etc, etc all
matter. People can get away with less, and make solid progress on their
fat loss. For example, I have a feeling many have seen this report, or one
like it, floating around on the Œnet right now regarding a study that
(supposedly) found diet or exercise take off weight equally? Below is the
report. Although the media often does a poor job of reporting on
nutritional research accurately, they do a truly terrible job of it here.
However, it¹s not totally their fault as the researcher themselves totally
missed the mark on the results of their own study, which is not uncommon
BTW.

The funny thing is, all the study actually does is confirm what we have
known for years...The media reports are omitting most of the really
essential facts such as the people were put on low calorie low protein
diets (15%P) and did only low intensity aerobics. In fact, the
participants were allowed to self select the intensity levels! Shock of
all shocks (dripping with sarcasm here), the study found low P diets and
aerobics led to a loss of fat and LBM and that low intensity aerobics does
not protect LBM and does essentially little more then burn calories. Thus,
why diets low in P and lacking any resistance training are a terrible *
though typical * method of losing fat and protecting LBM.

That gets a big ³no duh² from me but appears to be earth shattering
³cutting edge² news to the media outlets and general publicŠ.

There are also some bizarre statements made by the researchers in this
media report that is not even looked at in the study! See if you can catch
themŠ.


Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds

Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping
take off pounds, study finds

.. Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost metabolism

.. Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
fat

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good
at helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study
that challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet
and fitness industry.

Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
lost by dieting or by running, they said.

They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or
trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take
off even more weight.

"It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
Rouge.

"So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."

Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled
conditions that can & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body
while dieting and & exercising.

Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
takes longer to study monkeys and humans.

They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.

The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.

An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by
the university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.

The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal viscera
fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and I
considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
diabetes.

The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
-- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
said in a telephone interview.

This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
overcome," he added.

Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.

"If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.

Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.

"There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.

Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.

"For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
the best," he said.

His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories
by either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.

"We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved * core
temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
last April.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

On Feb 26, 9:02 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> In article <1172444806.559734.267...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>
>
>
> "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 2:28 pm, "David Cohen" <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "Brooke" <brook...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > > > Association.
>
> > > The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> > > "professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to beable
> > > to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
> > > time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.
>
> > > Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.
>
> > > David
>
> > David --
>
> > Generally, though, most of the insight and advice above seems good,
> > except maybe the 7 hours of exercise a week. While that may be good
> > for most people, a lot of people aren't going to be able to adhere to
> > it.
>
> Most people don't need 7 hours per week, but yet another mistake they make
> is to lump "exercise" into some generic term as if all exercise was
> created equal. Type of exercise, intensity of exercise, etc, etc all
> matter. People can get away with less, and make solid progress on their
> fat loss. For example, I have a feeling many have seen this report, or one
> like it, floating around on the Å’net right now regarding a study that
> (supposedly) found diet or exercise take off weight equally? Below is the
> report. Although the media often does a poor job of reporting on
> nutritional research accurately, they do a truly terrible job of it here.
> However, it¹s not totally their fault as the researcher themselves totally
> missed the mark on the results of their own study, which is not uncommon
> BTW.
>
> The funny thing is, all the study actually does is confirm what we have
> known for years...The media reports are omitting most of the really
> essential facts such as the people were put on low calorie low protein
> diets (15%P) and did only low intensity aerobics. In fact, the
> participants were allowed to self select the intensity levels! Shock of
> all shocks (dripping with sarcasm here), the study found low P diets and
> aerobics led to a loss of fat and LBM and that low intensity aerobics does
> not protect LBM and does essentially little more then burn calories. Thus,
> why diets low in P and lacking any resistance training are a terrible Â*
> though typical Â* method of losing fat and protecting LBM.
>
> That gets a big ³no duh² from me but appears to be earth shattering
> ³cutting edge² news to the media outlets and general publicÅ*.
>
> There are also some bizarre statements made by the researchers in this
> media report that is not even looked at in the study! See if you can catch
> themÅ*.
>
> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping
> take off pounds, study finds
>
> . Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost metabolism
>
> . Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
> fat
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good
> at helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study
> that challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet
> and fitness industry.
>
> Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
> lost by dieting or by running, they said.
>
> They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or
> trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
> adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take
> off even more weight.
>
> "It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
> Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
> Rouge.
>
> "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
> abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."
>
> Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
> Endocrinology & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled
> conditions that can & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body
> while dieting and & exercising.
>
> Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
> whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
> have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
> takes longer to study monkeys and humans.
>
> They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
> dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
>
> The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
> their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
> to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
>
> An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by
> the university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
>
> The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
> 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal viscera
> fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and I
> considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
> diabetes.
>
> The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
> -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
> said in a telephone interview.
>
> This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
> in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
> overcome," he added.
>
> Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
> exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
>
> "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
> fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.
>
> Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
> mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
>
> "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
> your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.
>
> Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.
>
> "For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
> the best," he said.
>
> His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories
> by either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.
>
> "We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved Â* core
> temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
> been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
> finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
> last April.
>
> --
> Will @www.BrinkZone.com
>
> "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
300/4=75 grams. The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
weight is adequate, so for a 165 pound person (75 Kg.) that would be 1
gram of protein per Kg of weight. Some body builders insist that you
need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
population. dkw

On Feb 26, 9:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
> protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
> 300/4=75 grams. The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
> weight is adequate, so for a 165 pound person (75 Kg.) that would be 1
> gram of protein per Kg of weight. Some body builders insist that you
> need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
> population.

The book to read to figure out your minimum protein requirement is
Protein Power by Drs Eades. There's a chapter in it with instructions
on taking measurements and doing arithmatic. The result is your
ideal weight, your minimum protein grams and so on.

When I followed the instructions I found that my minimum protein
grams for the day is 77. Not being a vegitarian and being a low
carber
I might not go under 100 grams even once in a month.

But thinking about it, any protein grams I go over 77 are just extra
calories as far as protein is concerned. I figure I need 1800
calories
for maintenance so those calories have to come from somewhere.
Being a low carber I like to stay under 100 grams for maintenance,
50 for loss and that's 400 calories. The other 1400 need to come
from some mixture of protein and fat and getting my protein all the
way down near 80 ends up mostly greasy foods unless I include
enough cream cheese to get sick of it.

Anyways, lots of Americans get well over their minimum protein
needs daily.

On Feb 26, 9:59 am, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
> > protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
> > 300/4=75 grams. The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
> > weight is adequate, so for a 165 pound person (75 Kg.) that would be 1
> > gram of protein per Kg of weight. Some body builders insist that you
> > need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
> > population.
>
> The book to read to figure out your minimum protein requirement is
> Protein Power by Drs Eades. There's a chapter in it with instructions
> on taking measurements and doing arithmatic. The result is your
> ideal weight, your minimum protein grams and so on.
>
> When I followed the instructions I found that my minimum protein
> grams for the day is 77. Not being a vegitarian and being a low
> carber
> I might not go under 100 grams even once in a month.
>
> But thinking about it, any protein grams I go over 77 are just extra
> calories as far as protein is concerned. I figure I need 1800
> calories
> for maintenance so those calories have to come from somewhere.
> Being a low carber I like to stay under 100 grams for maintenance,
> 50 for loss and that's 400 calories. The other 1400 need to come
> from some mixture of protein and fat and getting my protein all the
> way down near 80 ends up mostly greasy foods unless I include
> enough cream cheese to get sick of it.
>
> Anyways, lots of Americans get well over their minimum protein
> needs daily.

I am vegetarian. That is why I know a little about protein and watch
my intake in order to get enough. I eat just the opposite of
you...high carb, very low fat, adequate protein, but I also watch my
calories. I weigh 133 lbs and get about 55 gms of protein and under 10
grams of fat a day. All the rest is carbs. People are very versatile.
Apparently so are animals. Dogs do fine on a vegetarian diet, although
I think they would prefer meat, for example. dkw

In article <54gb0uF20o6rcU1@mid.individual.net>, "Bully"
<bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:

> In news:willbrink-2602070954420001@192.168.2.156,
> Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> typed:
> > In article <45e2bc19$0$71043$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Pete"
> > <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:
> >>
> >> > I don't get too mad at doctors when they give bad/incorrect
> >> nutritional
> >>> advice as they learn little to nothing about the topic in med school
> >>> (which means they should not be giving advice on the topic in the
> >>> first place but that's another issue...) but I do get pissed when
> >>> nutritionists give terrible advice considering that's suppose to be
> >>> the one thing they know something about! I can forgive docs, I
> >>> can't forgive nutritionists.
> >>
> >> I doubt if you would still be forgiving if are sitting at the wrong
> >> side of the table.
> >>
> >> I heard so much bullshit, and not only about nutrution, i got kinda
> >> sick by that fact alone.
> >>
> >> The things i wanted to do to certain doctors, are the things i
> >> cannot say in a public forum.
> >
> > As I said, most of them should not be giving nutritional advice in the
> > first place.
>
> I'm not sure some of them should be giving medical advice!

I was not going to go there....

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

"dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The book to read to figure out your minimum protein requirement is
> > Protein Power by Drs Eades. There's a chapter in it with instructions
> > on taking measurements and doing arithmatic. The result is your
> > ideal weight, your minimum protein grams and so on.
>
> > When I followed the instructions I found that my minimum protein
> > grams for the day is 77. Not being a vegitarian and being a low
> > carber I might not go under 100 grams even once in a month.
>
> > But thinking about it, any protein grams I go over 77 are just extra
> > calories as far as protein is concerned. I figure I need 1800
> > calories
> > for maintenance so those calories have to come from somewhere.
> > Being a low carber I like to stay under 100 grams for maintenance,
> > 50 for loss and that's 400 calories. The other 1400 need to come
> > from some mixture of protein and fat and getting my protein all the
> > way down near 80 ends up mostly greasy foods unless I include
> > enough cream cheese to get sick of it.
>
> > Anyways, lots of Americans get well over their minimum protein
> > needs daily.
>
> I am vegetarian. That is why I know a little about protein and watch
> my intake in order to get enough.

It makes it interesting that while we disagree on so much we end
up agreeing on this bit.

> I eat just the opposite of
> you...high carb, very low fat, adequate protein, but I also watch my
> calories. I weigh 133 lbs and get about 55 gms of protein and under 10
> grams of fat a day. All the rest is carbs. People are very versatile.

There is no one right answer.

> Apparently so are animals. Dogs do fine on a vegetarian diet, although
> I think they would prefer meat, for example.

You can't make your dog a vegitarian. Feeding a cat vegitarian
is definitely abuse - There is no way to keep a cat healthy with
vegitarian food. Dogs are more evolved towards omnivores but it
still takes at least as much care and effort to keep a dog healthy
on vegitarian food as a human. Never think you're doing a dog a
favor by feeding it vegitarian food. It isn't automatically abuse but
it is definitely wrong. If you want a vegitarian dog get a rabbit and
call it Bowser.

My stance is simple - Humans can make a choice to decide to
be vegitarian. Do it for religious/moral/political reasons and it is
good. Animals can't make such a choice so it is definitely wrong.

In article <1172503090.761566.18820@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
"dkw12002@yahoo.com" <dkw12002@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
> protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
> 300/4=3D75 grams.

Far too low.

> The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
> weight is adequate,

That is 100% false. There are plenty of studies that show higher P diets
are superior for preserving LBM, as well as other effects (1). That is one
of many studies.

(1) Obesity 15:421-429 (2007)
© 2007 The North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Original Articles


Higher Protein Intake Preserves Lean Mass and Satiety with Weight Loss in
Pre-obese and Obese Women


Department of Foods and Nutrition, Ingestive Behavior Research Center,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Address correspondence to Heather J. Leidy, Purdue University, 700 West
State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: hleidy@purdue.edu
Objective: To examine the effects of dietary protein and obesity
classification on energy-restriction-induced changes in weight, body
composition, appetite, mood, and cardiovascular and kidney health.
Research Methods and Procedures: Forty-six women, ages 28 to 80, BMI 26 to
37 kg/m2, followed a 12-week 750-kcal/d energy-deficit diet containing
higher protein (HP, 30% protein) or normal protein (NP, 18% protein) and
were retrospectively subgrouped according to obesity classification
[pre-obese (POB), BMI = 26 to 29.9 kg/m2; obese (OB), BMI = 30 to 37
kg/m2).
Results: All subjects lost weight, fat mass, and lean body mass (LBM; p <
0.001). With comparable weight loss, LBM losses were less in HP vs. NP
(*1.5 ± 0.3 vs. *2.8 ± 0.5 kg; p < 0.05) and POB vs. OB (*1.2 ± 0.3 vs.
*2.9 ± 0.4 kg; p < 0.005). The main effects of protein and obesity on LBM
changes were independent and additive; POB-HP lost less LBM vs. OB-NP (p <
0.05). The energy-restriction-induced decline in satiety was less
pronounced in HP vs. NP (p < 0.005). Perceived pleasure increased with HP
and decreased with NP (p < 0.05). Lipid-lipoprotein profile and blood
pressure improved and kidney function minimally changed with energy
restriction (p < 0.05), independently of protein intake.
Discussion: Consuming a higher-protein diet and accomplishing weight loss
before becoming obese help women preserve LBM. Use of a higher-protein
diet also improves perceptions of satiety and pleasure during energy
restriction.
Key Words: cardiovascular function € kidney function € hunger and satiety
€ pleasure € energy restriction

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

On Feb 26, 12:25 pm, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The book to read to figure out your minimum protein requirement is
> > > Protein Power by Drs Eades. There's a chapter in it with instructions
> > > on taking measurements and doing arithmatic. The result is your
> > > ideal weight, your minimum protein grams and so on.
>
> > > When I followed the instructions I found that my minimum protein
> > > grams for the day is 77. Not being a vegitarian and being a low
> > > carber I might not go under 100 grams even once in a month.
>
> > > But thinking about it, any protein grams I go over 77 are just extra
> > > calories as far as protein is concerned. I figure I need 1800
> > > calories
> > > for maintenance so those calories have to come from somewhere.
> > > Being a low carber I like to stay under 100 grams for maintenance,
> > > 50 for loss and that's 400 calories. The other 1400 need to come
> > > from some mixture of protein and fat and getting my protein all the
> > > way down near 80 ends up mostly greasy foods unless I include
> > > enough cream cheese to get sick of it.
>
> > > Anyways, lots of Americans get well over their minimum protein
> > > needs daily.
>
> > I am vegetarian. That is why I know a little about protein and watch
> > my intake in order to get enough.
>
> It makes it interesting that while we disagree on so much we end
> up agreeing on this bit.
>
> > I eat just the opposite of
> > you...high carb, very low fat, adequate protein, but I also watch my
> > calories. I weigh 133 lbs and get about 55 gms of protein and under 10
> > grams of fat a day. All the rest is carbs. People are very versatile.
>
> There is no one right answer.
>
> > Apparently so are animals. Dogs do fine on a vegetarian diet, although
> > I think they would prefer meat, for example.
>
> You can't make your dog a vegitarian. Feeding a cat vegitarian
> is definitely abuse - There is no way to keep a cat healthy with
> vegitarian food. Dogs are more evolved towards omnivores but it
> still takes at least as much care and effort to keep a dog healthy
> on vegitarian food as a human. Never think you're doing a dog a
> favor by feeding it vegitarian food. It isn't automatically abuse but
> it is definitely wrong. If you want a vegitarian dog get a rabbit and
> call it Bowser.
>
> My stance is simple - Humans can make a choice to decide to
> be vegitarian. Do it for religious/moral/political reasons and it is
> good. Animals can't make such a choice so it is definitely wrong.

Yes. There are vegetarian dog foods with high protein and no animal
products. Natural Balance makes one, but I'm sure there are others.
Apparently rice and corn are the main ingredients in almost all
commercial dog foods, so they are almost vegetarian to begin with. The
vegetarian dog food is supposed to be a complete balanced diet and you
aren't supposed to need to add meat. I get free samples and do mix it
in with my regular dog food which does have duck, lamb, chicken and
beef in it. My dog doesn't know anything is different. I suppose it
could be balanced like FOX NEWS is balanced, though. Nutritionally, it
is probably very good for the dog, but like I said, they might not
prefer it. You can say the same about human food choices. dkw

On Feb 26, 10:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:02 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <1172444806.559734.267...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>
> > "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 25, 2:28 pm, "David Cohen" <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > "Brooke" <brook...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > > > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > > > > Association.
>
> > > > The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> > > > "professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be able
> > > > to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
> > > > time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.
>
> > > > Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.
>
> > > > David
>
> > > David --
>
> > > Generally, though, most of the insight and advice above seems good,
> > > except maybe the 7 hours of exercise a week. While that may be good
> > > for most people, a lot of people aren't going to be able to adhere to
> > > it.
>
> > Most people don't need 7 hours per week, but yet another mistake they make
> > is to lump "exercise" into some generic term as if all exercise was
> > created equal. Type of exercise, intensity of exercise, etc, etc all
> > matter. People can get away with less, and make solid progress on their
> > fat loss. For example, I have a feeling many have seen this report, or one
> > like it, floating around on the Å’net right now regarding a study that
> > (supposedly) found diet or exercise take off weight equally? Below is the
> > report. Although the media often does a poor job of reporting on
> > nutritional research accurately, they do a truly terrible job of it here.
> > However, it¹s not totally their fault as the researcher themselvestotally
> > missed the mark on the results of their own study, which is not uncommon
> > BTW.
>
> > The funny thing is, all the study actually does is confirm what we have
> > known for years...The media reports are omitting most of the really
> > essential facts such as the people were put on low calorie low protein
> > diets (15%P) and did only low intensity aerobics. In fact, the
> > participants were allowed to self select the intensity levels! Shock of
> > all shocks (dripping with sarcasm here), the study found low P diets and
> > aerobics led to a loss of fat and LBM and that low intensity aerobics does
> > not protect LBM and does essentially little more then burn calories. Thus,
> > why diets low in P and lacking any resistance training are a terrible Â*
> > though typical Â* method of losing fat and protecting LBM.
>
> > That gets a big ³no duh² from me but appears to be earth shattering
> > ³cutting edge² news to the media outlets and general publicÅ*.
>
> > There are also some bizarre statements made by the researchers in this
> > media report that is not even looked at in the study! See if you can catch
> > themÅ*.
>
> > Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> > Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping
> > take off pounds, study finds
>
> > . Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost metabolism
>
> > . Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
> > fat
>
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good
> > at helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study
> > that challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet
> > and fitness industry.
>
> > Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
> > lost by dieting or by running, they said.
>
> > They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance,or
> > trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
> > adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take
> > off even more weight.
>
> > "It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
> > Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
> > Rouge.
>
> > "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
> > abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."
>
> > Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
> > Endocrinology & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled
> > conditions that can & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body
> > while dieting and & exercising.
>
> > Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
> > whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
> > have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
> > takes longer to study monkeys and humans.
>
> > They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
> > dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
>
> > The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
> > their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
> > to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
>
> > An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by
> > the university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
>
> > The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
> > 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal viscera
> > fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and I
> > considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
> > diabetes.
>
> > The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
> > -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
> > said in a telephone interview.
>
> > This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
> > in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
> > overcome," he added.
>
> > Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
> > exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
>
> > "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
> > fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.
>
> > Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
> > mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
>
> > "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
> > your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.
>
> > Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.
>
> > "For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
> > the best," he said.
>
> > His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories
> > by either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.
>
> > "We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved Â* core
> > temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
> > been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
> > finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
> > last April.
>
> > --
> > Will @www.BrinkZone.com
>
> > "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural
>
> I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
> protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
> 300/4=75 grams. The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
> weight is adequate, so for a 165 pound person (75 Kg.) that would be 1
> gram of protein per Kg of weight. Some body builders insist that you
> need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
> population. dkw

This number is, like most things that come out of your federal
government, a compromise around a middle. And it might be the least
helpful.

Recall, if you will, that your federal government pushes a low fat,
low calorie diet as the solution to health. Their diet includes 10% of
calories coming from free sugar. That's a winner.

Far better to tailor protein intake to lean body mass. So, if the
proverbial 165 lb person is 92% LBM, that .8g/kg is not going to feed
his need. If, otoh, the proverbial 165lb person is, say, 35% LBM,
well, the Eades would suggest that you have to eat a lot of protein
before you are overfeeding on it.

Me, I have ~175 lbs of LBM. The Eades suggest, based on my activity
level, that I should have .7g/lb of LBM. This works to about 125g/day,
broken out evenly. Nice.In rough math, that's 500 calories, which
isn't huge. Course, I'm a protein powered LC'er, so I get ~50% of my
cals from fats (yeah! Fat!... I resolve to eat cheese and nuts in the
face of every anti-fat nitwit.) And I lose weight like this. About 1.3
lbs / week since late August. Nice!

Lotta different ways to go about it, but only one that lets you lose
weight while eating pork chops, pan-broiled, with a pan sauce heavy on
the cream.

On Feb 26, 1:28 pm, "Hollywood" <maxlhar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 10:18 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 9:02 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
> > > In article <1172444806.559734.267...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>
> > > "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 25, 2:28 pm, "David Cohen" <sammies...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Brooke" <brook...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > > > > To learn more about healthy eating, visit the American Dietetic
> > > > > > Association.
>
> > > > > The Registered Dieticians of the ADA are the most ignorant group of
> > > > > "professionals" that I have ever encountered. They are supposed to be able
> > > > > to design diets for my hospitalized patients. They fail at this most of the
> > > > > time. Their management of diabetic patients is nothing short of criminal.
>
> > > > > Keep your dieting advice. I prefer to live a long and healthy life.
>
> > > > > David
>
> > > > David --
>
> > > > Generally, though, most of the insight and advice above seems good,
> > > > except maybe the 7 hours of exercise a week. While that may be good
> > > > for most people, a lot of people aren't going to be able to adhere to
> > > > it.
>
> > > Most people don't need 7 hours per week, but yet another mistake theymake
> > > is to lump "exercise" into some generic term as if all exercise was
> > > created equal. Type of exercise, intensity of exercise, etc, etc all
> > > matter. People can get away with less, and make solid progress on their
> > > fat loss. For example, I have a feeling many have seen this report, or one
> > > like it, floating around on the Å’net right now regarding a studythat
> > > (supposedly) found diet or exercise take off weight equally? Below isthe
> > > report. Although the media often does a poor job of reporting on
> > > nutritional research accurately, they do a truly terrible job of it here.
> > > However, it¹s not totally their fault as the researcher themselves totally
> > > missed the mark on the results of their own study, which is not uncommon
> > > BTW.
>
> > > The funny thing is, all the study actually does is confirm what we have
> > > known for years...The media reports are omitting most of the really
> > > essential facts such as the people were put on low calorie low protein
> > > diets (15%P) and did only low intensity aerobics. In fact, the
> > > participants were allowed to self select the intensity levels! Shock of
> > > all shocks (dripping with sarcasm here), the study found low P diets and
> > > aerobics led to a loss of fat and LBM and that low intensity aerobicsdoes
> > > not protect LBM and does essentially little more then burn calories. Thus,
> > > why diets low in P and lacking any resistance training are a terribleÂ*
> > > though typical Â* method of losing fat and protecting LBM.
>
> > > That gets a big ³no duh² from me but appears to be earth shattering
> > > ³cutting edge² news to the media outlets and general publicÅ*.
>
> > > There are also some bizarre statements made by the researchers in this
> > > media report that is not even looked at in the study! See if you can catch
> > > themÅ*.
>
> > > Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> > > Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping
> > > take off pounds, study finds
>
> > > . Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost metabolism
>
> > > . Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
> > > fat
>
> > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good
> > > at helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study
> > > that challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollardiet
> > > and fitness industry.
>
> > > Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
> > > lost by dieting or by running, they said.
>
> > > They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or
> > > trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
> > > adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieterstake
> > > off even more weight.
>
> > > "It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
> > > Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
> > > Rouge.
>
> > > "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
> > > abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."
>
> > > Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
> > > Endocrinology & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled
> > > conditions that can & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body
> > > while dieting and & exercising.
>
> > > Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
> > > whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
> > > have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
> > > takes longer to study monkeys and humans.
>
> > > They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
> > > dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
>
> > > The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
> > > their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
> > > to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
>
> > > An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by
> > > the university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
>
> > > The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
> > > 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal viscera
> > > fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and I
> > > considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
> > > diabetes.
>
> > > The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
> > > -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
> > > said in a telephone interview.
>
> > > This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
> > > in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
> > > overcome," he added.
>
> > > Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
> > > exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
>
> > > "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
> > > fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.
>
> > > Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
> > > mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
>
> > > "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
> > > your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.
>
> > > Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.
>
> > > "For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
> > > the best," he said.
>
> > > His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories
> > > by either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.
>
> > > "We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved Â* core
> > > temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
> > > been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
> > > finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
> > > last April.
>
> > > --
> > > Will @www.BrinkZone.com
>
> > > "It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural
>
> > I agree with what you said, but a 15% protein diet would not be low
> > protein. On a 2,000 calorie diet that is 300 calories from protein or
> > 300/4=75 grams. The govt studies show 0.8 gms of protein per Kg of
> > weight is adequate, so for a 165 pound person (75 Kg.) that would be 1
> > gram of protein per Kg of weight. Some body builders insist that you
> > need more, but the 0.8 gms per Kg. is supposed to include 90% of the
> > population. dkw
>
> This number is, like most things that come out of your federal
> government, a compromise around a middle. And it might be the least
> helpful.
>
> Recall, if you will, that your federal government pushes a low fat,
> low calorie diet as the solution to health. Their diet includes 10% of
> calories coming from free sugar. That's a winner.
>
> Far better to tailor protein intake to lean body mass. So, if the
> proverbial 165 lb person is 92% LBM, that .8g/kg is not going to feed
> his need. If, otoh, the proverbial 165lb person is, say, 35% LBM,
> well, the Eades would suggest that you have to eat a lot of protein
> before you are overfeeding on it.
>
> Me, I have ~175 lbs of LBM. The Eades suggest, based on my activity
> level, that I should have .7g/lb of LBM. This works to about 125g/day,
> broken out evenly. Nice.In rough math, that's 500 calories, which
> isn't huge. Course, I'm a protein powered LC'er, so I get ~50% of my
> cals from fats (yeah! Fat!... I resolve to eat cheese and nuts in the
> face of every anti-fat nitwit.) And I lose weight like this. About 1.3
> lbs / week since late August. Nice!
>
> Lotta different ways to go about it, but only one that lets you lose
> weight while eating pork chops, pan-broiled, with a pan sauce heavy on
> the cream.

The 0.8 gms per Kg is not supposed to be a measure of central
tendency, because in the govt. studies, it is adequate for over 90% of
the population. I see no problem with upping it a little to be sure,
but there is some evidence that too much protein can be harmful to the
kidneys. Protein supplements seem to be unneeded though and probably a
waste of money, since you can get cheap high quality protein very
inexpensively...in egg whites, milk, soy milk, and many cereals. Oats
has 5 gm. of protein per serving and cost about 6 cents. Add a half
cup of nonfat milk and you get 9 gms of protein.

Most nutritionists say getting adequate protein in America is no
problem and most people get more than 2X what they need. I tend to
accept their recommendation on protein, but getting 30% of your
calories in fat seems excessive, and I woudn't be surprised to see
that lowered dramatically. dkw

In article <1172520062.117548.152270@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.c o