Nutrition
Here's what you need to know...
- To follow the 5/2 diet, eat normally 5 days a week, while limiting your food intake to two 400 kcal meals on the other two days.
- Do not exercise on the low calorie days.
- Even if fat loss is not your main goal, this diet can improve insulin sensitivity and help you build muscle.
A diet without disadvantages
Fat loss diets are usually quite annoying - especially if you are training with the primary or at least secondary goal of looking really muscular and defined.
The diets are generally too strict, limit muscle gain too much, promote muscle loss, drive you crazy and make you want to hit the rest of the world over the head with a waffle iron. And these diets will not make you muscular and defined.
But the diet described here is not torture and will get you where you want to go in terms of body development.
While the origins of the diet I'm recommending are based on hard science and legitimate research studies, it was popularized in the fat loss world by magazines like Cosmo, Glamour and People. I've picked up on this approach and adapted it to fit the needs of strength athletes, bodybuilders and athletes.
The fat loss plan I modified is known as either "The Fast Diet" or the 5/2 Diet and two entrepreneurial authors named Dr. Michael Mosley and Mimi Spencer have written a book about it.
The diet is based on intermittent fasting, which is characterized by not eating for a period of time, but not continuously over an excruciatingly long period of time. Instead, you go without food for shorter, more tolerable (but still surprisingly effective) periods of time.
The short version
Eat what you normally eat 5 days a week. However, on 2 consecutive days, eat only 2 meals 12 hours apart, consuming only 800 kcal per day on those 2 days.
That is all. This type of diet will allow you to lose about a pound of fat per week while continuing to build muscle and strength. I believe this strategy will also set you up for unprecedented muscle gains as it will restore your insulin sensitivity.
Oh yeah, it will probably also dramatically improve your blood counts, protect your heart, ward off cancer and make you live longer, if you care about those things.
How can we make these claims?
Fasting in general is the oldest of all diet plans and probably dates back to the time when Antony told Cleopatra that she looked fat in her tunic. This makes sense, at least at first glance: when you drastically reduce calories, your body burns the fat to stay alive.
But fasting is problematic for a whole host of reasons. It's psychologically brutal and it can't be done in the long term. It can make you feel bad, it will give you bad breath, it will make your mere presence unpleasant for any sane person and - most significantly for strength athletes and athletes in general - it will preferentially break down muscle mass.
However, fasting also has its benefits. You will certainly lose some body fat. You may even feel clearer and more focused up to a point. And, most importantly, it improves insulin sensitivity.
If you eat all the time - or nearly all the time - then your insulin levels will always be elevated and as a result your body will always be in fat storage mode. Since your blood is a sugar-like substance, chemically more akin to Mountain Dew than healthy blood, your pancreas will be forced to secrete ever-increasing amounts of insulin.
As a result, fat storage will occur, but something worse will happen - the cells will stop responding to insulin and you will become a type 2 diabetic. Further fat storage will follow and you will have to keep your pants on.
I assume that many strength athletes are on the cusp of the type 2 diabetes cliff.
They eat continuously to ensure a steady and stable nutrient intake because they've been told by fat guys everywhere to eat this way (for muscle gains), which means their insulin levels will always be high and their insulin sensitivity will eventually plummet.
It's a bad practice that leads to poor body composition and poor overall health.
Fortunately, after just a few hours of fasting, insulin sensitivity begins to improve and your body switches from a fat-storing mode to a fat-burning mode, which is also the explanation for the effectiveness of intermittent fasting as a fat loss/health strategy.
Of mice and fat women
There are gigabytes of data on experimental animals and intermittent fasting. One such study, conducted at the Salk Institute, involved two groups of mice fed an isocaloric diet.
Both groups followed the same (high-fat) diet and were given the same amount of calories, but one group was allowed to eat whenever they wanted, while the other group had to eat all their food within 8 hours.
The latter group therefore fasted for 16 hours a day.
After 100 days, the intermittent fasting mice had put on 28% less fat and had lower cholesterol levels, lower blood sugar levels, less liver damage and lower levels of chronic inflammation. In the context of this experiment, intermittent fasting was therefore completely convincing.
Dr. Michelle Harvie and colleagues conducted another study with 107 female human volunteers.
In this study, the women were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group consisted of women who reduced their calorie intake by 25% 7 days per week, while the second group consisted of women who also reduced their calories by 25%, but only two days per week.
After 6 months, both groups had lost a comparable amount of fat and had comparable reductions in leptin, C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and blood pressure. Surprisingly, the intermittent fasting group experienced a greater reduction in insulin resistance than the group that dieted 7 days a week.
Insulin strategy
The data suggests that intermittent fasting is a smart way to lose fat and has huge effects on body composition and blood values, but is it also a smart approach for strength athletes? I would say yes.
In the world of body composition, insulin sensitivity is everything. The more insulin sensitive your cells are, the better your results will be in building muscle and the easier it will be for you to be lean enough for everyone to see those muscles.
For this reason, intermittent fasting - and specifically the 5/2 version - should allow a strength athlete to get steadily leaner with each passing week without losing muscle mass.
This strategy could also, in theory, allow a bodybuilder to go through a mass-building phase while continuing to lose body fat, as the increased insulin sensitivity would allow them to build muscle more easily while losing fat.
I am also convinced that strength athletes can prepare their body for a subsequent mass-building phase by performing a relatively short 5/2 stint.
So if you as a strength athlete were to do 5/2 for two months before starting a bulking phase, you would build muscle mass faster thanks to the increased insulin sensitivity.
What does the plan look like again?
Eat normally 5 days a week. On two non-consecutive days, eat two meals of 400 kcal each 12 hours apart. These two days should be non-training days or cardio days so that you do not interfere with recovery and hypertrophy after training.
On your two fasting days, you should consume a portion of fast-digesting protein either as part of the 400 kcal meal or 30 minutes before each meal to ensure that there is no muscle breakdown during the fasting phase.
5/2 for strength athletes: Q & A
Have you followed this fat loss diet yourself?
Yes, and some of my friends have done it too. It works as described above.
Won't I be missing nutrients if I restrict myself to 800 kcal two days a week?
Stop looking at nutrition in 24 hour phases. It's almost impossible to get all your necessary vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and micronutrients on non-fasting days - let alone fasting days.
Think in terms of weeks, not days. Do you think you've eaten well enough over the past week to meet all your nutritional needs? That is the way to good health.
In addition, the body stores most nutrients in case you don't eat them every day. Consider vitamin B12, one of the favorite vitamins of hucksters everywhere. Even though this vitamin is considered essential for health, most people have large stores in the liver that last five years.
Add this to the telling fact that you only need about 40 mg of vitamin B12 over the course of your lifetime, which is the equivalent of half a baby aspirin's worth of powder.
So you won't be missing out on any vital nutrients.
Will I suffer from hunger pangs on the fasting days?
Maybe, but live with it.
Will I have problems sleeping on the fasting days?
As answer to question 3, take a non-addictive, natural sleep aid.
Is it difficult to follow this diet?
The 5/2 diet plan is easy for most people to follow. Unlike most diet plans, it won't interfere with your social life too much. You may even become the hungrier, clearer-thinking animal you become on fast days because complacent animals don't get much done.
Can I continue to build muscle by following this plan?
- The 5/2 plan for strength athletes improves insulin sensitivity and in the world of growing muscle (and decreasing body fat), insulin is what matters.
Won't fasting days interfere with muscle growth and repair?
This is unlikely - especially if you are using a pulse-style protein intake during the diet. The most important times for muscle growth and repair are the first few hours after a training session. This is why nutrition around training is important.
However, this is also why you should not exercise on fasting days - only fast on non-training days or cardio days.
Why shouldn't I simply overcompensate and eat more than I consume on non-fasting days?
It's possible that you could eat more the day after a fasting day, but this doesn't seem to be an issue - neither with non-athletes who follow the original fasting diet, nor with the small group of strength athletes who have followed my version of this diet.
What types of meals should I eat on my fasting days?
You can eat normal muscle building meals, but they should be much smaller. For example, you could eat 125 grams of lean steak and a cup of broccoli, which would give you about 300 kcal.
Combine this with a protein pulse in the form of fast-digesting protein and you are in the region of 400 kcal, which is half of what you are allowed to eat on a fasting day. Certainly that's not a lot of food, but a generous consumption of coffee seems to help with hunger pangs.
How much fat can I expect to lose?
You should expect to lose one pound of fat per week, while perhaps gaining muscle mass a little faster due to increased insulin sensitivity.
Will this plan work for women?
Of course it will. However, women should also aim for a total calorie intake of 600 kcal per day instead of 800 kcal on their two non-consecutive fast days.
I should mention that the original diet as developed by Mosley and Spencer recommended that men eat 600 kcal on fast days instead of the 800 kcal recommended here, while women were recommended 500 kcal instead of 600 kcal.
I have manipulated the figures slightly as athletes and strength athletes have a higher calorie requirement than the average person.
How long should I follow the 5/2 fat loss diet for strength athletes?
You can follow this diet for as long as you want and you don't need to expect any diminishing results. Sure, you will eventually run out of flab to burn, but you should stay lean while benefiting from the muscle-building effects of greatly improved insulin sensitivity.
From TC Luoma | 09/24/13
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/5-2-fat-loss-diet-for-lifters
Here's what you need to know...
- Although it is biochemically possible for protein to be converted to fat if you consume large amounts of calories or extremely large amounts of protein, it is unlikely that you will ever find yourself in this situation.
- You can eat more or less as much protein as you want and it won't make you fat.
- The old myth that it is not possible to absorb more than 30 grams of protein during a meal is nonsense.
Aside from building muscle, protein provides essential amino acids that serve as building blocks for other proteins, enzymes and hormones in the body that are essential for normal body function. Without this continuous supply of amino acids, the body is forced to break down its own proteins - typically from muscle tissue - to meet its amino acid needs.
There are a lot of misconceptions about protein. It's not uncommon to hear claims that protein intake in excess of an arbitrarily chosen amount will result in storage as body fat. Even those who are supposed to be reliable sources of nutritional information propagate this unsupportable dogma. While flipping through a nutrition textbook, I stumbled across a section in the protein chapter regarding amino acids and energy metabolism (1). Here is the quote from that book:
"Consuming supplemental protein during periods of adequate glucose and energy intake generally contributes to higher fat storage rather than muscle growth. This is because during times of excess glucose and energy, your body directs the flow of amino acids away from gluconeogenesis and ATP-producing pathways and converts them into lipids instead. The resulting lipids can then be stored as body fat for later use."
This is more or less supported by another textbook I own (2):
"During periods of excess energy and protein intake combined with adequate carbohydrate intake, the carbon skeleton of amino acids can be used to synthesize fatty acids."
Even if these passages take into account the metabolic state of the person, I still don't think this explanation is complete. In fact, more up-to-date studies are needed when it comes to the conversion of amino acids into fatty acids. While the metabolic pathways for converting amino acids to fatty acids do indeed exist in the human body, the fact is that under most circumstances this conversion will not occur.
Protein digestion begins in the stomach and ends in the small intestine
Even though the physical "breakdown" of protein takes place in the mouth, it takes until the stomach for any significant chemical breakdown to occur. This breakdown is promoted by hydrochloric acid and the enzyme pepsin (which is formed from its inactive form pepsinogen). After the initial protein denaturation and protein cleavage is complete, the polypeptides pass through the gastric pyloric muscle and enter the duodenum.
The duodenum is where most of the protein digestion and virtually all of the absorption of amino acids takes place (about 90% of amino acids are absorbed, while a small amount is excreted in the stool. Here, even more digestive enzymes are present to break down the remaining polypeptides into their individual amino acids along with traces of di- and tripeptides. Once fully broken down, the free amino acids and the di- and tripeptides can enter the cells of the small intestine, where some of these (such as glutamine) are used as an energy source within the cells of the intestine, while the remaining amino acids enter the bloodstream and are transported to the liver.
Claims regarding protein absorption
Before we move on to the liver and discuss amino acid metabolism in relation to the initial claims, I would first like to address another related claim that you may have heard about in the media or through your local gym. This claim usually goes along the following lines:
"The average person can only absorb 30 grams of protein per meal, anything above this is stored as fat."
Unlike the previous claims, there is no context for this one. In fact, it is completely idiotic. While this claim may sound like a straw man argument, it actually comes from an online article written by a registered dietitian.
Take, for example, a person who consumes 40 grams of protein during a meal. If we were to assume that only 30 grams of protein can be absorbed at a time, then it is safe to say that the extra 10 grams would be excreted in the stool. If this were the case, then most people would be excreting small steaks on a daily basis. Going back to the original assertion, there is also the question of how we can store 10 grams of excess protein as body fat if we can't absorb it in the first place. While I agree that most processes in the human body do not operate at 100% efficiency, excreting 25% of the protein consumed is a far cry from the 90% efficiency supported by the literature (3).
Theoretically, it could be possible that the absorption of amino acids in the gut is drastically impaired, which would result in excess amino acids passing through the gut. In reality, this process is extremely limited. A serious absorption disorder would require the absorption capacity of the small intestine to be greatly exceeded.
With large amounts of protein- and calorie-rich food, the stomach simply reduces the rate at which it empties in order to supply the intestine more slowly with the amino acids supplied (which means that larger meals take longer to digest). In addition, the gut itself will slow down motility (rate of movement of food mash in the gut) to increase the time nutrients are available for absorption (4).
The bottom line is that the stomach will allow sufficient time for the amino acids to be released into the intestine, where they can be further retained and subsequently absorbed into the body/bloodstream. Without this finely tuned process, we would have died out as a species a long time ago. Consuming precisely planned meals with 30 grams of protein several times a day in order to efficiently isolate the nutrients from our food would simply have been too much to ask in our evolutionary past.
The liver, the primary site of amino acid metabolism
Let's go back to the initial claims that excess protein during periods of adequate energy and carbohydrate intake is converted into fatty acids and stored as body fat.
The amino acids that are absorbed and released from the small intestine are transported to the liver. More than half of all amino acids supplied in the form of protein are absorbed by the liver. The liver acts as a kind of controller for absorbed amino acids and adjusts their metabolism (breakdown, synthesis, catabolism, anabolism, etc.) based on the metabolic state of the body and the body's needs (2).
This is where the initial assertion comes into play. Even though the pathways for fatty acid synthesis from amino acids exist - there is no room for debate here - the statement that all excess protein is stored as fat under the specified circumstances ignores current research findings.
Welcome to one of the most rigorously controlled studies of our time
In 2012, George Bray and colleagues set out to investigate whether dietary protein levels affected body composition, weight gain and/or energy expenditure in subjects following one of three hypercaloric diets (i.e. consuming more calories than they expended): low protein (5% protein), normal protein intake (15%) or high protein (25%).
After the subjects had been randomly assigned to one of the three groups, they were placed in a metabolic ward and had to consume 140% of their maintenance calorie intake (+ 1000 kcal per day) every day for a period of 8 weeks. Protein intake averaged 47 grams (0.68 g/kg) in the low-protein group, 140 grams (1.79 g/kg) in the normal-protein group and 230 grams (3.0 g/kg) in the high-protein group.
Carbohydrate intake was the same in all groups (41 to 42%), while fat intake ranged from 33% in the high-protein group to 44% in the normal-protein group and 52% in the low-protein group. Over the course of the 8 weeks, the subjects' body composition was measured every 2 weeks using Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA, the "gold standard" for body composition measurements).
Results
At the end of the study, all subjects from all groups showed almost identical gains in body fat. (Strictly speaking, the group on the high-protein diet had gained slightly less body fat than the group on the low-protein diet. However, this difference was not statistically relevant). The low-protein group gained the least amount of weight (3.16 kilograms), while the subjects in the normal and high-protein groups gained about twice as much weight (6.05 and 6.51 kilograms).
As you can see above, the extra 3 kilos gained by the subjects in the two higher protein groups (15% and 25%) was lean body mass and not body fat. The conclusion of the authors of the study was as follows:
"Calories alone contributed to the increase in body fat. In contrast, protein contributed to changes in lean body mass but not to body fat gain.
Although we can't say for sure what the exact composition of lean body mass built up was, we can say with a fair degree of certainty that the extra protein was not primarily used for fat storage. My sense is that the protein was converted to glucose (via gluconeogenesis) and subsequently stored as glycogen in conjunction with some water weight. Either way, it wasn't body fat.
Let's rethink our ideas
Let's let this sink in for a second. The subjects were literally forced to eat about 1000 kcal more than they needed to maintain their body weight over 8 full weeks, and even then, protein was observed to contribute to an increase in lean body mass rather than body fat.
Considering the initial claim - that once energy, glucose and protein needs are met, all excess amino acids are converted to fatty acids and stored as body fat - it is clear that members of the higher protein intake groups did not succumb to any of these silly predictions. In reality, they gained very little (if any) additional body fat compared to the low protein intake group. This is in stark contrast to what is commonly believed.
In the end, however, the essential question underlying the whole concept still remains: what is the maximum amount of protein (amino acids) that the body can effectively use before it starts converting amino acids into fatty acids and storing them as body fat?
Considering the results of this study, it appears that this number is either significantly higher than three times the officially recommended daily protein intake with an accompanying hypercaloric diet for weeks in a row, or that it requires a similar protocol of excessive caloric intake over an extended period of time before the gains in lean body mass reach a plateau and fat mass increases more.
Either way, both situations are highly unlikely for the general public and even those who are consciously trying to gain weight through higher protein and calorie intake. Furthermore, this upper extreme is likely to be highly individualized and dependent on other factors such as genetics, lifestyle, training status, etc. Unfortunately, we don't have the answers to these questions yet.
Final thoughts
So even if we have the biochemical processes required to convert amino acids to fatty acids, the likelihood of this ever happening to any significant degree - even in the face of adequate energy and carbohydrate intake - with a slightly increased protein intake is minimal, given what we know about the extreme measures required for protein to lead to a significant increase in fat.
In fact, a caloric surplus of 1000 kcal per day for 8 weeks combined with a higher protein intake compared to a hypercaloric diet with less protein did not lead to additional gains in body fat. Instead, excess protein in the face of excess calorie intake contributed to gains in lean body mass. This is the opposite of what textbooks and gurus preach.
In reality, the likelihood of excess protein contributing to body fat storage is insignificantly low and undoubtedly virtually impossible under normal or slightly hypercaloric circumstances, as can be observed in most athletes. Only when theoretical extremes - either for protein intake or calorie intake or both - are reached will excessive protein intake contribute significantly to body fat gain.
References
- McGuire M, Beerman, KA.: Nutritional Sciences: From Fundamentals to Food. 2nd edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2011.
- Gropper S, Smith, JL, Groff, JL: Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. 5th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2009.
- Ten Have GA, Engelen MP, Luiking YC, Deutz NE: Absorption kinetics of amino acids, peptides, and intact proteins. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2007, 17 Suppl:S23-36.
- Maljaars PW, Peters HP, Mela DJ, Masclee AA: Ileal brake: a sensitive food target for appetite control. A review. Physiol Behav 2008, 95:271-281.
- Bray GA, Smith SR, de Jonge L, Xie H, Rood J, Martin CK, Most M, Brock C, Mancuso S, Redman LM: Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energy expenditure, and body composition during overeating: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012, 307:47-55.
by Dylan Klein | 09/24/13
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/protein-will-not-make-you-fat
Related blog posts:
"If it doesn't swim, run or fly, or is green and grows on the ground, don't eat it."
Many readers will be familiar with this definition of the Paleo diet. You may also be familiar with Jack Lalanne's simple description, "If it's made by humans, don't eat it. These definitions summarize the practical application of the "traditional" caveman diet quite well.
My nutritional approach has been quite accurately described as a "Paleo meets sports nutrition" hybrid, but let's start with the Paleo side of this diet first. The practical application strategy above is simple, but it's a useful endeavor to dive a little deeper into this form of nutrition and learn some of the details about why the "eat what your ancestors ate" philosophy can be so effective.
Otherwise, after a day of exposure to internet health ads and endless amounts of misinformation, you might well come back and ask "but wait, aren't fruit juices, wheat bread, low-fat mayonnaise and fiber-enriched breakfast cereals good for us?"
No, they're not, unless you're Tony the Tiger and sponsored by Kellogs.
Paleo in a nutshell
Diets based on animal products are superior to plant-based diets
Animal protein is considered to be of higher quality than grain or vegetable protein because it contains all the essential amino acids, it contains them in greater quantities in combination with essential fatty acids, and it contains them in the correct proportions and ratios that Mother Nature intended for us. The last is the key point.
Essential fatty acids and essential amino acids are named for a reason. If we weren't designed to eat animal protein, then our bodies wouldn't need these essential nutrients for normal metabolic and endocrine function. Rather, they would be optional and we would have a need for essential cellulose and soy paste.
Take a look at what is contained in just 120 grams of sockeye salmon
- 24 g protein including all amino acids
- 2 g saturated fat
- 5 g monounsaturated fats
- 1500 mg omega-3 fatty acids
- 425 mg omega-6 fatty acids
Nature is and remains simply unbeatable.
A diet rich in vegetables is healthy, but that doesn't make a vegetarian diet the healthiest diet. While vegetarians try to get the essential nutrients they could get from animal foods through all the food combining, they can still end up with a diet that is a metabolic disaster: inadequate protein intake, incomplete amino acid profile, an imbalance of essential fatty acids, too much sugar and refined flour, too many carbohydrates combined with too much dietary fat, too many phytoestrogen compounds from soy products... and I could go on and on.
And if vegetarianism is so damn great, why is such a large percentage of vegetarians overweight and/or unhealthy looking?
Surely most readers won't be pining to follow a vegetarian diet, but now that you have a logical argument for those crazy relatives and friends who religiously swear that vegetarian-based diets are the healthiest dietary approach on the planet and that eating meat will kill you.
Eliminate sugar/concentrated fructose sources from your diet
If I had my choice, I would give fructose the world championship belt as the worst compound in the modern diet. If you did nothing but eliminate sugar and high fructose corn syrup from your diet, you'd probably end up with a decent body composition. But this junk is everywhere and in everything.
According to numerous studies, fructose is the main culprit in table sugar that is responsible for the development of insulin resistance - yes, fructose and not the poor glucose or starch compounds that are unfairly lumped into the same category by the "all carbs are evil" campaign.
An article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition took a closer look at fructose metabolism. The report indicated that fructose is preferentially metabolized to fat in the liver compared to glucose. In animal models, fructose produced the following reactions: Insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, high insulin levels, high triglyceride levels and hypertension.
Eliminate trans fats
If fructose is the "champion of the worst modern foods", then trans fats are the undisputed number one challenger. These compounds are essential vegetable oils that have had a hydrogen atom added to their structure through a process called hydrogenation. This makes these oils firmer in structure and extends their shelf life - both great things if you're a manufacturer of processed snacks.
However, this chemical change is also what makes trans fats so problematic if you're a health enthusiast. Because trans fats are basically unnatural, mutated fats, they raise total cholesterol levels and levels of bad LDL cholesterol, increase levels of C-reactive proteins, lower levels of good HDL cholesterol, and therefore are a primary risk factor for coronary artery disease.
And for the "I just want to get hard and defined" group? Well, trans fats have been shown to inhibit glucose breakdown, promote insulin resistance and induce abdominal obesity (1).
So if you see trans fats or hydrogenated vegetable oils, you should do what Iron Maiden sings, "Run to the hills, run for your lives."
Improve your omega-6: omega-3 ratio
The optimal omega-6 to omega-3 ratio for good health is between 1:1 and 4:1. This is the ratio that probably existed before modern food processing, when the majority of dietary fats came from wild animal meat and fish.
With the addition of highly processed vegetable oils as one of the cornerstones of the diet, the average American's dietary profile has reached a ratio of 10-15:1, with values as high as 40:1. This unnaturally high ratio can lead to body-wide inflammation, exacerbate autoimmune diseases and increase the risk of heart disease and certain cancers.
At the same time that the amount of vegetable oils and processed foods has increased, the average omega-3 intake has decreased. Meat from wild animals and fish are naturally rich in omega-3 fatty acids, but these foods have been replaced in most people's diets by domesticated, corn- and grain-fed versions that are richer in omega-6 fatty acids.
Omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory properties, improve insulin sensitivity, reduce triglyceride levels in the blood, dilate blood vessels and reduce overall risk factors for disease.
I realize this needs some credence, but it's not the natural saturated or monounsaturated fats in animal flesh that are killing us, it's the abnormally high amounts of omega-6 fatty acids from vegetable oils (including the trans-fat varieties).
Think about it - natural fats that our species grew up with vs. modern fats that we process. I'm in Vegas, I'm putting money on the natural fats - despite the poor odds influenced by the dominant, yet archaic, so-called health authorities.
The problem is that medical advice and the modern diet curriculum is heavily influenced by the food industry. That's why you usually hear that saturated fats from animals are bad and polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils are good. It's a joke, but a joke at our expense. Eat animals and non-processed oils.
Eliminate gluten-containing foods, grains and legumes
Most of the problems associated with grains have nothing to do with the starch content of the grain. Glucose is one of our oldest evolutionary sources of energy. Unless you've made yourself insulin resistant by being fat, eating too much fructose, consuming too many omega-6 fatty acids, not eating enough omega-3 fatty acids, or not doing consistent strength training, your body can do just fine with glucose polymers from starch. In a properly functioning, active and athletic body, your body stores normal amounts of glucose as muscle glycogen.
The main problem with modern cereal products are the compounds that are included in addition to the starch itself. Gluten, for example, is not a carbohydrate but a protein found in grains such as wheat, barley and rye and is a highly problematic food for many people.
We don't all suffer from a full-blown gluten allergy, also known as coeliac disease - a debilitating condition linked to the consumption of wheat/gluten in which the immune system attacks and destroys cells of the gut - but many of us may suffer from gluten sensitivity. A new study even questions whether eating wheat is safe for anyone (2).
Unfortunately, the term "gluten-free" has become a marketing tool with pharisaical, holistic crowds, but eliminating gluten from the diet can be a beneficial step for overall digestive health, physical performance (reduced symptoms of lethargy) and physical appearance (reduced abdominal bloating).
My recommendation is to give up gluten for a few weeks and see how you respond. Something like this could work wonders for you, or it could do nothing at all - but you won't know until you try it.
Other detrimental compounds in modern grains are what are collectively referred to as "anti-nutrients" in the Paleo diet.
Phytic acid is the storage form of phosphorus in plants and this is typically found in the bran and seeds. Humans cannot digest phytic acid as they lack the necessary digestive enzyme called phytase.
Strike one against phytic acid is that it can cause digestive abnormalities. Strike two is that it acts as a chelator of minerals, which interferes with proper absorption of these minerals such as zinc and iron. Strike three is that the foods that contain phytic acid generally taste like cardboard and also have a similar texture. Loren Cordain once said that cereal grains are better left to the birds.
Legumes and grains also contain a compound called lectin. Lectins are sugar-binding molecules that plants have evolved to repel insects - I would say this is a good indication that these compounds are not meant to be consumed in large quantities by humans.
What are the problems associated with lectins? How about irritation and damage to the intestines, excessive secretion of mucus into the gut, reduced absorption of nutrients, diarrhea, nausea and bloating (3)?
However, you may recall that rice - technically a grain - is a foundation of my dietary recommendations. This is because rice is naturally gluten-free and phytic acid and lectin are removed in the rice mill and during cooking. What's left is a mixture of amylopectin and amylose starches - compounds your body can cope with if you don't suffer from insulin resistance.
Reduce dairy products during a diet/restriction phase
Arnold once said, "Dairy is for babies."
To be honest, dairy is such a controversial topic (among nutritionists, trainers, athletes, bodybuilders, and body development enthusiasts) and there are so many different issues to discuss (acid-base balance, insulin index, isolated milk proteins vs. dairy, wasting during bulking phases vs. avoiding during dieting phases, etc.) that this topic deserves its own article. But I don't want to leave you hanging.
I'm a fat loss guy and so are 99% of my clients over the last 10 years. Mass gain may be a different story, but my short answer is that full-fat dairy products (milk, cheese, cream, yogurt, etc.) should be eliminated from your diet during a diet and definition phase.
Paleo in practice
- Take a grass-fed cow, cut off its head and eat it - and don't feel bad about it either. That's what we're supposed to do. Our mouths have incisors for evolutionary reasons and their job is to bite meat off the bone, not marshmallows off cereal in Lucky Charms Cornflakes. Nature is brutal - and we are wild creatures. The further we move away from this and eat processed foods to compensate, the sicker and fatter we will become.
- Eliminate almost all processed foods from your diet. Most processed foods are nothing more than a random combination of the following six ingredients, none of which are good for you:
- Sugar (and/or high fructose corn syrup)
- Trans fats/hyped oils
- Omega-6 rich vegetable oil
- Wheat or flour-based starch
- Purified salt
- Artificial ingredients/sweeteners
- Make low-fat animal protein the basis of your diet. A range for strength athletes is from 2 to 4.5 grams of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, depending on the rest of your diet.
- Eliminate concentrated sources of fructose from your diet. Avoid high fructose corn syrup and processed foods with fructose as a sweetener, sugar (which consists of one molecule of fructose and one molecule of glucose), fruit juices/smoothies and dried fruit. Personally, I'm not a big fan of fruit, but 1 to 2 pieces of unprocessed fruit a day shouldn't be a problem. Just don't start inhaling bananas by the dozen. At a certain point, the fructose adds up.
- Eliminate trans fats and hydrogenated oils from your diet.
- Reduce your consumption of omega-6 fatty acids by eliminating vegetable oils from your diet.
- Increase omega-3 consumption by eating wild fish, grass-fed beef and fish oil capsules.
- Eliminate gluten-containing grains such as wheat, rye and barley from your diet.
- While we're at it - eliminate most other grains from your diet too, including those darn overrated whole grains (breads and cereals).
- Eliminate dairy products (milk, cream, cheese, yogurt) from your diet during a diet and definition phase. Isolated milk proteins are fine.
Don't call me the "Paleo guy"!
As you can see, I believe there are many great principles that a strength athlete, bodybuilder or figure athlete can take from a Paleo style diet, but I don't want to give you the false impression that I am a true "Paleo guy". I definitely recommend applying certain Paleo principles, but my overall recommendations are drastically different.
Starch sources like rice and potatoes are certainly not Paleo foods, but along with low-fat protein, they are the foundation of my plan for athletes as an anabolic energy source and for generating an anabolic state.
You'll never convince me that a 130-pound, obese, insulin-resistant, sedentary office worker who just wants to be able to see his penis in its original form again should eat the same diet as an 85-pound, defined, insulin-sensitive, athletic alpha male who is trying to reach his peak athletic performance or optimal body development and can't keep his penis in his pants for more than 5 minutes.
And yet you believe this if you believe in dogmatic adherence to a "one size fits all" system. That may be fine for programs aimed at the commercial masses, but seasoned strength athletes are better informed and smarter.
To me, the true value of a Paleo diet for an anaerobic athlete lies more in what it removes from the average person's plan and less in the overall structure or macronutrient ratios of the plan itself. Why? Because a 100 percent Paleo diet doesn't take into account differences in activity levels, individual metabolic factors, and differences between average and extreme goals for body development and performance.
Physician and nutrition researcher Kurt G. Harris refers to certain modern food compounds as Neolithic agents for disease, which I believe is a very accurate description. As previously mentioned, modern foods such as concentrated sugar/concentrated fructose, high omega-6 oils, trans fats and gluten have devastating effects on our body systems, body composition and risk factors for disease. Eliminating these compounds from the diet is a worthwhile step toward better health for everyone - whether they are overweight, lean, physically inactive, athletes, office workers, iron warriors, nuns, porn stars, or people somewhere in between.
But, to quote Kurt G. Harris again, glucose is a necessary internal energy source and metabolic product, as well as a food and a building block of foods that have the longest evolutionary history of any food consumed by mammals.
(Are you confused now? Stay with me. Remember you're in good hands - I'm half Japanese, which is why I'm all about efficiency).
Glucose is one of the oldest evolutionary sources of energy and a healthy body knows how to process and use glucose and an active athlete should be treated differently to a sick diabetic.
Due to a lack of nutritional and physiological knowledge and a tendency to always go to extremes, categorize and demonize cultural trends (think back to the low-fat era, during which healthy fish oils, essential fatty acids and natural monounsaturated fats were lumped into the same category as trans fats and hydrogenated oils) and simple ignorance, several valuable body development and performance enhancing foods - starchy carbohydrates that don't contain fructose or gluten - were washed away with the Paleo maelstrom.
I don't recommend a Paleo-only diet any more than I recommend a diet consisting purely of sports foods - I recommend a well-researched and well-informed mix.
I want you to understand why I think glucose polymers can be beneficial while concentrated sources of fructose can be disastrous, why saturated fats from natural animal sources can be better than polyunsaturated fats from processed plant sources, and why pure amylopectin starches can be less problematic than starches that contain gluten or lectins and why.
Typical transformations of fat guys
Let's examine a typical scenario and why all carbohydrates have been lumped into one category and demonized.
A fat guy follows a typical American diet - 50% sugar, tons of trans fats, omega-6 fatty acids and gluten. When he eats healthy, it's usually a white bread sandwich with low-fat mayonnaise and cheese. Our fat guy is tired of being fat and sick and feeling crappy all the time and is finally motivated enough to make some changes. Somehow he stumbles across paleo/caveman diet recommendations.
He puts the plan into action, loses a ton of weight, gets healthier, etc - all in all, he does a good job. Amazing. But now he has an almost religious affection for this "system". He can't see anything else outside of this system - not even scientifically studied and anecdotally proven principles. All carbohydrates, regardless of their source, are the enemy. Pure glucose polymers from rice and potatoes are no different from sugar or gluten-containing wheat. Finally, he lost a ton of weight on the low-carb/paleo diet.
What our fat guy doesn't realize is that commercialized diet plans and "systems" fail to address the subtleties of why dietary recommendations for fat, physically inactive people should be different from dietary recommendations for active athletes for the following reasons:
- Programs that are intended to be a commercial success must present a plan that is the same for everyone. These "works for everyone, everywhere" systems dramatically expand the potential market.
- The average reader will not or cannot understand the detailed science necessary to individualize plans.
- Many guinea pigs and authors don't know or don't care what goes on in the real training world.
But deep down, our fat guy still knows he's not exactly where he wants to be. He's a lot better off than he used to be, but he's still soft, he still lacks shape and definition, and he may still have that layer of belly fat. He knows he wants to make progress, but he's stuck in a system - a system that could very well be hindering his progress.
Regardless of this, he is now in a completely different place. He's no longer a fat guy, he's an active athletic guy and targeted sports nutrition principles could be relevant and beneficial to him now. Losing weight and consistent strength training has dramatically improved his insulin sensitivity. A few carbs could help him build muscle, get leaner, boost metabolism, increase thyroid hormone release/leptin levels, improve free testosterone to cortisol ratio, improve his body and even lose fat.
But he still has the psychology of a fat guy. He's afraid of fat - he suffers from this "I don't want to go back to being a fat guy by eating carbs" fear.
Hey I know this from personal experience. While researching this stuff, I followed these plans myself. I've followed the typical American diet, the strict Paleo diet, my current dietary recommendations and everything in between. I've also lived the practical side of this and the most important lesson is this: You can't get caught up in a formalized, "one system fits all" system if you expect to find what works best for you, your current athletic state, and your current goals.
References
- Kavanagh et al, Trans fat diet induces abdominal obesity and changes in insulin sensitivity in monkeys. Obesity 2007 Jul;15(7):1675-84.
- Bernardo D et al, Is gliadin really safe for non-coeliac individuals? Production of interleukin 15 in biopsy culture from non-coeliac individuals challenged with gliadin peptides. Gut 56 (6): 889-90.
- Miyake K et al, Lectin-Based Food Poisoning: A New Mechanism of Protein Toxicity. PLoS ONE 2 (1): e687.
By Nate Miyaki | 03/25/11
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/paleo-nutrition-improved
Here's what you need to know...
- You don't need to keep blood amino acid levels elevated all day to build muscle.
- A pulsing protein intakeis a great way to keep your body in an anabolic state, even if you eat less frequently.
- All the benefits of fasting can also be achieved by following a very low-carb diet - except for one: in terms of muscle protein synthesis, more frequent meals are superior to fasting.
Some recent research has forced us to question one of the most sacred cows of muscle building nutrition. In short, the widely held belief that you should keep blood amino acid levels elevated throughout the day to build muscle is wrong.
While this is not necessarily absolute news, science has definitively confirmed that the best approach is to combine less frequent meals with a pulse-like protein intake. Here is new scientific evidence to support that timing your amino acid intake correctly or pulsing your protein intake is the optimal approach.
A constant amino acid intake
The old-school view was that if you continuously fed amino acids, you would continuously stimulate protein synthesis and muscle building. In other words, it was believed that protein synthesis would be increased if amino acid levels were elevated.
However, this is simply not the case. Bohé and colleagues continuously fed amino acids to a group of 30-year-old strength athletes for 6 hours. They found that not much happened in terms of protein synthesis during the first 30 minutes, but the rate of protein synthesis increased by a factor of 2.8 and remained at this level for 2 hours before dropping sharply within a short period of time - even though amino acid levels remained elevated after the 2 hours.
So continuously flooding the body with amino acids will not cause your muscles to grow more. There appears to be something of a refractory period - a time when your body needs a break from the continuous supply of amino acids so that it can regroup before resuming protein synthesis.
The effect of amino acids
Does this mean that we only have a few lean opportunities per day to stimulate protein synthesis? Not necessarily.
Another group of scientists from Galveston set out to hack this system. They wanted to see if pulsing amino acid intake (along with carbohydrates) between meals would result in higher net protein synthesis than just eating a few solid meals throughout the day. Over the course of the 16-hour study period, study participants alternated between meals of whole foods and an amino acid/carbohydrate drink every 2.5 hours.
The scientists found that by pulsing amino acids between meals, they were able to increase protein synthesis without interfering with the anabolic effects of the actual meals. So by using a pulse-like amino acid intake between meals, you can bypass the refraction phase to a certain extent in order to increase anabolism.
Time-dependent effects: The weak points of fasting
Why should you pulse your amino acid intake between meals? Why can't you just eat more protein when you eat? People who do intermittent fasting have long periods during the day when they don't eat and then eat large amounts of protein. This seems to work - but does it really work?
All the benefits of fasting can also be achieved by following a very low carbohydrate diet, except for one - in terms of muscle protein synthesis, regular meals kick fasting's butt.
There is a time-dependent upper limit to protein synthesis and you can't just eat more protein later to make up for not eating protein earlier in the day. This is the reason why the timing of protein intake is important. The irony is that we learned this important information from a group of people with the worst eating habits - average Americans!
The average American eats very little protein at breakfast and lunch and consumes large amounts of protein during dinner. Scientists at the University of Texas took this traditional dietary pattern and wanted to see if splitting the amount of protein consumed at dinner throughout the day would make a difference in protein synthesis.
The subjects were given either 30 or 90 grams of protein in the form of lean ground beef. The scientists found that splitting both amounts of protein increased protein synthesis by about 45%.
What's the message here? You can't just eat more protein later in the day to make up for missed opportunities for protein synthesis earlier in the day.
The 30 gram myth
At this point I would like to reiterate that the 30 gram protein rule is a myth. The body can easily process far more than 30 grams of protein per serving, as protein is needed for many bodily functions, not just protein synthesis.
I tend to see 30 grams as the minimum for a protein serving. This helps to ensure that you get the most out of the temporary increase in protein synthesis and more muscular athletes should consume even larger protein portions. In addition, protein synthesis rates have been shown to decrease with age, so strength athletes over 40 may need larger protein portions to achieve the same increase in protein synthesis rates as their younger counterparts.
So if you're over 40 and weigh 115 kilos, the 30 gram rule is even more invalid! Fortunately, the solution is simple - just eat larger protein portions! That's great news for any meat-loving man over 40.
Increase your protein synthesis rate with exercise
Eating protein isn't the only way to increase your protein synthesis rate. You can easily further increase the effects of protein on protein synthesis with additional resistance training.
A 2012 study found that post-workout protein had an incremental effect on protein synthesis when protein was administered in doses of 10, 20 and 40 grams. The graph below shows the effects of increasing protein intake in the form of beef (0 grams, 12 grams, 24 grams and 36 grams of protein) with additional training on muscle protein synthesis.
At the highest protein dose, leucine oxidation was also highest, showing that there was a transition from synthesis (building) to oxidation (burning). This suggests that the largest protein dose - 36 grams - was close to the upper limit in terms of protein synthesis.
The protein in this study was consumed after exercise, but it is important to remember that the mechanical stress of training with weights leads to an increase in amino acid uptake.
Therefore, by loading up on amino acids prior to the training session, we can potentially increase the availability of these anabolic amino acids for uptake during training and thereby further enhance the effects of a combination of protein and weights training.
Interestingly, the benefits of training with weights in increasing the rate of protein synthesis are not limited to during and immediately after exercise, but continue for up to 48 hours.
All the data on protein, training with weights and protein synthesis suggests that the more often you can train with weights, the better for maximum results. If you combine this with the effects of training on insulin sensitivity, then you should train at least four times a week.
In this context, it is also important to push the limits of recovery so that we can train more and harder. By doing this, you will increase protein synthesis, which will allow you to grow stronger and train harder.
The ideal protein/amino acid intake
So what is the ideal meal plan? This depends on how many calories you are consuming and how long you are awake. From a timing perspective, solid food meals should be at least 4 to 5 hours apart.
A good rule of thumb is that the less you eat (such as during a diet), the longer the gap between meals should be, as the total number of meals you eat will be less. However, as you eat less frequently, meals can be larger - because even if protein is well satiating, a larger meal will be even more satiating.
If the gap between your meals is 5 hours, then you should provide an amino acid boost every 2.5 hours between meals, which can come from either BCAAs or a highly hydrolyzed protein consisting primarily of di- and tripeptides.
Science has spoken
You don't have to make yourself a slave to a strict meal plan to build a body that stands out from the crowd. However, this doesn't mean that a regular protein intake is no longer necessary. Use the power and convenience of a pulse-style protein intake to your advantage.
References
- Areta, J. L. (2013). "Timing and distribution of protein ingestion during prolonged recovery from resistance exercise alters myofibrillar protein synthesis." The Journal of physiology 591: 2319-2331.
- Bohé, J. (2001). "Latency and duration of stimulation of human muscle protein synthesis during continuous infusion of amino acids." The Journal of physiology 532: 575-579.
- Churchward-Venne, T. A. (2012). "Nutritional regulation of muscle protein synthesis with resistance exercise: strategies to enhance anabolism." Nutrition & Metabolism 9(1): 40.
- Glynn, E. L., C. S. Fry, et al. (2010). "Excess Leucine Intake Enhances Muscle Anabolic Signaling but Not Net Protein Anabolism in Young Men and Women." The Journal of Nutrition 140(11): 1970-1976.
- Kim, P. L., R. S. Staron, et al. (2005). "Fasted-state skeletal muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise is altered with training." The Journal of physiology 568(1): 283-290.
- Moore, D. R., J. E. Tang, et al. (2009). "Differential stimulation of myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis with protein ingestion at rest and after resistance exercise." The Journal of physiology 587(4): 897-904.
- Paddon-Jones, D., M. Sheffield-Moore, et al. (2005). "Exogenous amino acids stimulate human muscle anabolism without interfering with the response to mixed meal ingestion." American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology and Metabolism 288(4): E761-E767.
- Pasiakos, S. M. (2012). "Exercise and Amino Acid Anabolic Cell Signaling and the Regulation of Skeletal Muscle Mass." Nutrients 4(7): 740-758.
- Robinson, M. J. (2013). "Dose-dependent responses of myofibrillar protein synthesis with beef ingestion are enhanced with resistance exercise in middle-aged men." Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism 38(2): 120-125.
By Mike Roussell, PhD | 10/28/13
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/supplements/protein-pulsing-for-muscle
Related blog posts:
Here's what you need to know...
- Bulletproof Coffee, a homemade blend of coffee, MCT oil and butter has plenty of calories, but very few nutrients and no protein.
- People who skip meals get fatter over time. If the skipped meal is breakfast, then fat storage is accelerated.
- The more we eat later in the day or the later in the day we eat, the more likely it is that our meal will be converted to fat instead of muscle.
- Apart from an increased risk of diabetes and metabolic syndrome, people who skip breakfast have a 27% higher risk of coronary heart disease.
- Eating a high-protein breakfast increases levels of a chemical in the brain that is associated with a reward response, while a low-protein breakfast causes cravings for sweet foods that get worse as the day goes on.
- A high-protein breakfast has a profound effect on the neurotransmitter that controls hunger, brain function and overall energy levels.
How to store body fat faster
America seems to be in the grip of another of these cult diet trends. This one involves replacing breakfast with coffee, MCT oil and butter.
They call this mixture "Bulletproof Coffee". Users claim that you have better mental clarity and increased productivity while feeling less hungry throughout the morning. Personally, I would call this skipping breakfast.
If you look hard enough, you can find some good things associated with this trend. People are eating more fat and less sugar, and are re-embracing butter as a food. The downside is that this makes people nutritionally malnourished and fatter with less muscle.
Whether you've tried this butter-infused coffee yourself or just heard about it, eating a modest breakfast - or worse, no breakfast - is a bad tactic from every angle.
Unless you've been living under a rock in the desert for the last few years, you'll know that six meals a day is no longer the gold standard. We can survive, thrive and grow without carrying around a cool bag of free range organic turkey that has had a shiatsu massage every day of its short life.
We will not immediately atrophy and turn into a 60-year-old sarcopenia patient because we only managed to consume 1 gram of protein per kilogram of body weight the day before.
However, scientific research has made it quite clear that people who skip meals gain more weight and body fat over time, even though they eat less overall. More importantly, if the skipped meal is breakfast and this is overcompensated by dinner, fat storage goes into turbo mode.
The big breakfast
Like most things, our insulin sensitivity follows a natural internal clock. Skeletal muscle has the highest insulin sensitivity in the morning and this gradually decreases throughout the day.
Take a look below at the progression of blood sugar levels after consuming 50 grams of glucose at 9:00 am (yellow), 3:00 pm (red) and 8:00 pm (white).
That's a huge difference! Conversely, adipose tissue has the lowest insulin sensitivity in the morning, which continues to increase throughout the day.
This means that the more we eat later in the day, or the later in the day we eat, the more likely it is that our meal will be converted into fat rather than muscle. Eating late in the day is also associated with a slower metabolic rate, a decrease in glucose tolerance and reduced carbohydrate oxidation.
A study published in the journal Obesity in 2013 compared a large breakfast (700 of 1400 kcal for breakfast) and a large dinner (700 of 1400 kcal for dinner) eating program in a group of overweight and obese women over a 12-week period. The big breakfast group lost more weight and body circumference and showed greater improvements in blood glucose and insulin levels in the fasting state.
Interestingly, triglyceride levels were also reduced by 33.6% in this group, while an increase of 14.6% was observed in the large dinner group!
If we look again at the daily rhythm of insulin sensitivity, this should come as no surprise. The calories consumed at dinner would be stored to a greater extent in fat tissue, while the calories consumed at breakfast were stored to a greater extent in muscle tissue.
The terrible protein-free breakfast
Back to Bulletproof Coffee. It contains plenty of fat and calories, but very few nutrients and almost no protein.
The equivalent amount of calories in one serving (400 to 450) of this coffee is about 4 eggs, but the eggs provide 25 grams of protein and up to 50 times more nutrients.
Sure, the drink will fill you up until lunch, but is the goal with food to eat less and stay full or provide your body with needed nutrients?
Despite the calorie count, you could argue that Bulletproof Coffee is the equivalent of skipping breakfast. And I think you would agree with me when I say that a meal with one gram of protein is not a meal.
In addition, Bulletproof Coffee consumption results in higher 24-hour blood sugar levels (+6 on average) and increased food intake later in the day.
All this amounts to the fact that people who skip breakfast have an increased risk of diabetes and metabolic syndrome due to hyperglycemia and increased fat storage in conjunction with a 27% increased risk of coronary heart disease.
This is likely the result of increased conversion of food into fat - body fat (adipose tissue) or blood fat (triglycerides) - and higher levels of AGEs (sticky proteins and lipids in the blood).
The almost equally bad low-protein breakfast
Even though we shouldn't eat to feel full, if we consume an inadequate amount of protein at any meal (especially breakfast), low protein intake increases the risk of making poor choices.
Research published in the Nutrition Journal found that eating protein at breakfast (13 to 35 grams) increases levels of a chemical in the brain associated with a reward response to food intake.
In turn, a low-protein or protein-free breakfast causes cravings for sweet and savory foods that become stronger as the day progresses.
The tendency to seek immediate caloric gratification is also increased by fluctuations in blood sugar levels. As mentioned earlier, skipping breakfast or eating a low or no-protein breakfast increases our 24-hour blood sugar levels in a fasting state, making us more susceptible to dips in blood sugar levels.
The real "bulletproof breakfast"
We observe better fat loss, increased satiety between meals, significant reductions in fasting state blood glucose and insulin levels, and superior improvements in body composition and insulin sensitivity in those who consistently consume the majority of their calories in the morning.
These results are multiplied when that breakfast is large and high in protein.
One of my favorite studies comes from the International Journal of Obesity. In this study, young college students were divided into three groups:
- No breakfast: 0 grams of protein
- Breakfast with moderate protein content: 18 grams of protein
- High protein breakfast: 48 grams of protein
As expected, the group that consumed a high-protein breakfast reported better satiety and less hunger at different times of the day.
What was most interesting, however, was that the group that consumed a moderate protein breakfast ate the same amount of food at lunchtime as the subjects who skipped breakfast, while the high-protein breakfast group ate less.
A high-protein breakfast produces a gradual and sustained increase in blood glucose levels, which corresponds to a consistent delivery of nutrients to the brain and muscles. This not only keeps us fuller for longer, but also has profound effects on the neurotransmitters that control hunger, brain function and overall energy levels.
So let's forget about things like Bulleproof Coffee and get back to focusing on a big, protein-rich breakfast.
If you want coffee, then fry your steak in butter, cook your eggs in coconut oil and drink a big mug of coffee with it.
Even better would be to drink that coffee with a dollop of cream and some cinnamon to keep your blood sugar levels down. This is what I would call Bulletproof.
Not only will this provide you with far more nutritional value, but it will also make you feel more satisfied, energized and provide your muscles with nutrients instead of fat.
By Mike Sheridan | 01/22/15
Source https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/fat-loss-high-protein-breakfast
