IF and muscle loss experiences

[Tony Ferous]

Yes, i read that 'protein toxicity' % ceiling by in Cordains book too.
How does that work though?
If i ONLY ate 200g of protein per day, that would be 100% of my calories and apparently toxic.
If i added 100g of fat or 200g of carbs to the protein, how is that less toxic?
Maybe it is less toxic, i just dont know how...

[Greg Battaglia]

Tony,
It's not a matter of quantity (although excessive calories will indeed damage your health) for the purposes of protein becoming toxic. Macro ratios greatly influence metabolic processes. So, for instance, say theoretically you eat 75% of your calories from protein alone. In order for you to stay alive you're body is going to be required to break that protein down into glucose to be used as energy (or stored as fat in the case of caloric surplus). Unfortunately, since the amount of protein that would be required to be broken down into glucose is so large, and ammonia is a by product of that process, you're going to have excessive levels of ammonia, which is toxic to humans. Now, say you eat a good Zone ratio. In this case you're already eating enough concentrated fat and carbohydrate that there is no metabolic need for protein to be broken down into glucose in any significant amount. Some may use this to argue against ketogenic diets, but again, if ample fat is supplied along with protein there is no need for significant gluconeogensis, as ketones will provide the main source of fuel. So it's hugely dependent on ratios, not overall intake. Nevertheless, I would assume that at some intake, even when ratios are proper, protein would become damaging. But then again, excess calories in general are damaging. Hence, the logic of the Zone: proper ratios, proper sources, and proper caloric intake. It's a good formula.

I tend to disagree with what everyone says that you are in a calorie deficit.* Most likely, you are not doing resistance exercise enough on the muscles that you are losing muscle from.* Intermittent fasting requires you to actually work for your muscle; the payoff is lean muscle gain without fat gain.I speak from experience; I lost a lof of strength and muscle from IFing and gained muscle back from adding resistance exercise into my life.* Greg, what about the pillars of health?* Exercise, sleep, and food, is that everything?And I'd drop the low carb take if I were you.* You need carbohydrates for your liver to function properly, not just any carbs, you need a variety of different carbohydrates including starches, and simple sugars only after you workout.Hope that is of some help to you.

[Gittit Shwartz]

Heidi, from your posts it looks like you had some dismaying results with IF starting out, and it was mostly your experience that got me thinking about the different factors that may affect different people's results. I don't presume to know what caused the problem in your first attempt, but I doubt if MY problem was lack of resistance training. I don't think there's any magic in iron per se. What counts is the stimulus your body feels. After all, paleolithic man didn't have kettlebells... But he did plenty of climbing, sprinting, jumping, throwing and heavy object lifting and dragging. So I think I'm doing well with bodyweight exercises. Try hill sprinting, hand balancing, muscle-up training on gymnastics rings... I personally don't need to grow more than I do on this stuff!

The carb question - I really don't have enough scientific background to feel confident discussing it (and it's been discussed to death anyway). I just know FOR ME eating carbs just doesn't feel right, in the short term - I eat an apple or a few bell peppers and after a short while I just feel the energy and focus draining out of me... I rarely have carb cravings and staying low carb has always been the easiest thing for me, so that tells me it's right for me. I haven't tried the PWO glycogen replenishment route, I guess I'll black box it sometime just to see what happens, but it doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary point of view - which is always my reference.

I really think my problem the last time was the protein:fat ratio. I'm doing great so far with more good fats - higher energy levels and focus sustained throughout the day. So I think I will stick with this for a while. Thanks everybody for the advice.

[Jordan Glasser]

Originally Posted by Gittit Shwartz

but it doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary point of view - which is always my reference.

There is an argument to that statement.

We can match our diets, to that of our ancient past and expect similar results. However, if we change our activity level, and types of activities, can we expect the same old diet to work? For health, perharps, but performance I believe suffers.

The small little change is PWO carbs, IMO. Unless of course we emulated how our caveman expended energy. By the impressive list of what keeps you fit, I truly believe that PWO carbs would be your answer.

[Greg Battaglia]

I tend to disagree with what everyone says that you are in a calorie deficit.*

Heidi, Gittit is clearly eating fewer calories than what would sustain her. All the symptoms point ot this, not to mention that she suspected this herself, noted the inadequacy of her caloric intake, and then saw improvements with an increase in fat intake.

And I'd drop the low carb take if I were you.* You need carbohydrates for your liver to function properly, not just any carbs, you need a variety of different carbohydrates including starches, and simple sugars only after you workout.

There is absolutely NO, I repeat NO, scientific evidence that carbohydrates are required by homo sapiens for energy, health, or survival. As a matter of fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, both scientifically and anecdotally. If you can provide me with one scientific study that shows that carbohydrate intake, in the presence of adequate fat intake, is necessary to health, longevity, or liver function (where did you hear this???) I will "drop the low carb take".

I don't mean to single you out or personally attack you, but if you're going to make comments on this forum, especially in a rude and authoritative manner, I would first do your homework. You obviously haven't.

Jordan, I can understand your argument. I agree with it actually. A strict Paleo diet is not conducive to elite athletic performance. Adding in some starches in addition to a Paleo base does, however, in my opinion. For longevity, strict Paleo is optimal IMHO.

[Jordan Glasser]

Originally Posted by Greg Battaglia

Jordan, I can understand your argument. I agree with it actually. A strict Paleo diet is not conducive to elite athletic performance. Adding in some starches in addition to a Paleo base does, however, in my opinion. For longevity, strict Paleo is optimal IMHO.

Agreed

[Gittit Shwartz]

Just a small point - people argue endlessly about which is the "best" approach or are overwhelmed by the variety of options that seem equally legitimate. Often they are forgetting to use the goal as point of reference. Different approaches are optimal for different goals.

[Steve Liberati]

Originally Posted by Gittit Shwartz

Just a small point - people argue endlessly about which is the "best" approach or are overwhelmed by the variety of options that seem equally legitimate. Often they are forgetting to use the goal as point of reference. Different approaches are optimal for different goals.

Right on. There is no single best way for humans to eat, because there is no single best way for humans to live. The Ihalmiut Eskimos of the Great Barrens of Canada thrived on a diet that consisted of virtually nothing but the meat of the deer that migrated through their homeland above the Arctic circle (where NO vegetables edible by humans grow). You and I would probably be unable to survive on such a diet, but the bodies of the Ihalmiut had adapted to it over countless generations. Have we adapted to the highly processed crap we call food today? No, I highly doubt it. For that we have much to learn from the Paleolithic diet, but your right....the bottom line is this: There is not one right way to eat. To think otherwise would be absurd.

[Ari Kestler]

Originally Posted by Greg Battaglia

Personally, I'd go with a 55/25/20 (F/P/C). Protein shouldn't go above 30% IMHO.

Is this pretty standard? With my recent foray into IF and it being winter, I find myself, rough estimate using fitday, at 65-70/25-30/5 (F/P/C). Is this unwise? If I don't eat fruit during the day and just eat spinach/broccoli my carb intake is under 20g...

Edit: Every few days though I find myself breaking paleo by eating sushi or having a ton of fruit...maybe some form of subconscious carb cycling?