The FAQ no longer reflects the advice currently given in H&F regarding nutrition. I'd like to update it, to get it more in line with the current thought. This should be more helpful to the newbs and make it easier just to direct them to the FAQ, rather than the confusion that often happens in diet related threads.

I really like this outline from Jeff, which is currently at the top of the FAQ:

(steps 4 and 6 are exercise related and dealt with elsewhere)

This could serve as a template, and once fleshed out should be helpful, but there may be other ways to go about it.

Thanks for any and all help.

i think the stuff you removed should stay because it makes the list a good outline of the FAQ. it currently says "in a nutshell," so that list should not only be diet-related. doesn't need fixing imo. or maybe i don't understand what you're trying to do.

No. That stuff will stay in it's entirety at the top of the FAQ including 4 & 6.

What I want to do is overhaul the nutrition section, particularly the first few questions. I just posted the outline for a possible template for Q's and A's and subject matter.

Does that make sense?

I think this is a good idea. I just re-read the FAQ and def noticed it could use an update.

Having said that, I offer no practical ..... things.



edit: maybe have more nutrition info associated with dif goal?

No carb quasi-science is a must IMO.

big tasy bacon: 900 calories 55 grams protein / 50 grams fat / 52 grams carbs. eat it.

"You can get awesome amino acids from a soy-seeweed-pinto bean smoothie."

Basically since I noticed that pea protein is so cheap on trueprotein.com I've wondered about the quality of vegetable proteins like these. If anyone wants to do a summary that'd be cool.

That's an easy one. We, since we are animals, don't absorb protein too well from plant sources. Plant proteins tend to be incomplete amino chains, and some studies suggest that too much plant proteins may inhibit protein absorbtion from animal sources.

There should be something in there about athletes needing a better multivitamin than normal people.

lol wat?

just because we're animals? you do realize some of the strongest animals like horses and cows are plant and grass eaters?

What do cows do when they're not eating?

Oh, that's right, they eat all ****ing day because it takes a ton of plants to get all the nutrients they need.

Are vegetarians KOS in this forum?

There are vegetarians on this forum. The prevailing opinion is that it is okay as long as you are doing it for moral reasons. It is not okay to do it for health reasons, and it is not okay to turn it into a pseudo religion and pull up bias reports to prove your stance.

Wasn't there a fish oil thread? Maybe link that? Anyone have an opinion on other sources of EFA, say from flaxseed? All I can add is that if you want to get EFA from eggs, you must eat the yolk. EFA is eggs are not naturally occuring, so it is fed to the chicken.

Cited from my A&P book:
Because a deficiency of vitamins (avitaminosis) can cause poor athletic performance, many athletes regularly consume suppliments. Research suggest supplimentation has little or no effect on performance and a reasonably balanced diet supplies more than enough vitamins for even elite athletes. Supplimentation has therefore fueled controversy among exercise experts. Opponents cite the cost and possibility of liver damage associated with some forms of hypervitaminosis. Supporters cite the benefit of protecting against vitamin deficiency.

Here is an excellent interview with Lyle in which he refutes a lot of common nutritional myths.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/lyle.htm

I heard the protein that is mostly efficiently consumed is that closest to the animal eating it. Therefore, we would get the best protein from human. Should I take my girlfriend out back?

The fish oil thread is linked to in the FAQ.

Just to be clear I believe the following Q & A's need to be changed:

My view is to get rid of the zone diet as a recommendation. Very exacting and would be a pain for most people to follow. I doubt very much that the ratios matter a great deal in any case.

Yeah... There are problems with everything. Like Paleo is a diet designed by people incapable of reason and logic, but it'll take care of 99% of problems at the expense of 1) enjoying your food 2) options 3) carb intake.

Nutrition is a tough question to answer. Alan Aragon would kinda yawn and say whatever to the questions about gluten, but Robb Wolf would throw a little hissy fit and curse the ground you trod upon.

I think the 70sBig stuff should be linked though.

The concept of lose weight fast is the problem. I'll search for links to back this, but apparently 95% of people who go on diets gain it back and most end up heavier. The 5% who are successful made their own common sense diets. If even one diet was so great, it would corner thd market.

You need to stop trolling as I speak for almost everyone when I say, "I can't tell when you're joking and when you're not."

If someone just wants to lose weight though, i think its a huge mistake to give them a diet that a competitive athlete would follow.

For the average person, the best diet is one that restricts calories and that the person actually sticks to.
I've become a fat ass in the last 4 years, started lifting and an atkins style diet 2 weeks ago.
I think Lyle pretty much nails it with this from that article above:
"And this is really my big issue with the whole idea: if low-carbohydrate diets generate a metabolic advantage, it should be measurable with current technology. If it's not measurable, it either doesn't exist is far too small to worry about.

The more likely explanation in my mind is that any 'metabolic advantage' inherent to low-carbohydrate diets come from the fact that they tend to blunt hunger (and this is especially true in people who are overweight and hyperinsulinemic, people with insulin resistance) and make people eat less."

My only issue with that though is it makes it sound too negative...Sure its ONLY making you naturally restrict calories but that is hardly negative. Hell, I can feel whats already happened after two weeks is that 3 weeks ago..I would eat a meal, get a huge insulin spike...then get a drop-"im hungry", repeat...The problem was I wasn't hungry, I just wanted to get the blood sugar back up. Doing so I naturally ate too many calories.
After 2 weeks of eating nothing but beef, eggs and chicken to see what would happen I'm never hungry, not counting calories but can roughly estimate I'm restricting calories to quite a large extent.
How much weight have I lost? I don't know..don't care...because the average person drives themselves nuts with the scale.."oh no, i've gained a pound of water today vs yesterday and didn't cheat at all, this diet is not working"...

So without effort or studies I'm eating 1+ grams of protein a day, restricting calories, never hungry...The only thing to bash with Atkins diets is you can't sell a book without filling it with a bunch of stuff. No one is going to buy a 1 page book that says "eat meat, eggs and a little cheese for 3 months and don't weigh yourself".

My two complaints about Atkins is that you have to eat like that forever. Once you add carbs you will regain all the weight back because your fat cells are starving. The second problem is that your brain doesn't perform glycogenesis, and your brain needs sugar to function properly, so I wouldn't want that trade. Other studies suggest a correlation between colorectal cancer and low-fiber diets. And of course, ketosis is something to be concerned about. You know, if we were meant to use ketones for energy, our physiology would be designed around ketones, but it's not. It's designed around glucose.