If your reason for doing the refeed (another marketing term) is to increase your metabolism, why not just increase your calories so your metabolism stays high? When you overeat your metabolism increases, but not by much (maybe 100-150 calories that day, depending on what you eat). The problem is that you overeat by 1500 calories, so the vast majority of that gets stored as fat. Then you drastically decrease calories so your metabolism nearly shuts off and you are weaker and have less energy, so any exercising you do will be on an empty tank, and you'll be back to burning muscle tissue as energy. I hope that's enough to steer you clear of that particular diet gimmick. It's borderline dangerous in my circles.

I took a quick look at your macro nutrient breakdown, the Ono thing that stood out (besides lack of calories) was 191g protein, and you weigh 208 (iirc, I can't go back and forth on my phone). That's a serious amount of protein, even for professional bodybuilders. Look up Nancy Clark, she is one of the highest authorities on protein intake for athletes and she has great insight. Her upper limit for safe protein intake is 1.98g/kg bodyweight. Remember before using that calculation that that is for people who make a living by working out. Regular joes lifting at the gym probably don't need more than 1.4-1.5g/kg, otherwise you are taxing your kidneys and over time that will lead to damage. I know some may read that and say, "nah, I eat a ton of protein and I feel fine.". That's nice, no one ever complained to a doctor about pre-cancerous pain either. You won't know the damage you're doing until you're on dialysis. That's extreme, but I think you get my drift.

DM,

you just crossed into the realm of ridiculousness.

Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon, two noted diet experts, both recommend ~1.5-2.5g/kg of protein. That protein is dangerous for your kidneys is a debunked myth. Lyle also makes refeeds a staple of his diet approaches, with very sound scientific reasoning behind it.

It also flies in the face of everything I've read that micronutritional breakdown will have a significant effect on caloric needs. I assume you can back that up? I don't really see what your problem with the term "caloric maintenance" is either. Just lol at you thinking it's something dreamt up by "fad diets".

In short, you seem to suffer from massive FPS with regards to dieting. That's not too weird, since otherwise you'd be out of a job. Further lol at having to break down a client's food intake into minutiae to give solid recommendations. Small rocks man. Small. Rocks.

What I took from the first link is a lot of [citation needed], and a general paragraph saying to multiply lean body mass x 16 to get bmr. Ok, but it says nothing about how he arrived at that conclusion, how lean body mass was calculated (in 1990 when he did it there was no bodpod), and what subjects he used. If this were in a scholarly journal I could take it more seriously, but there are a lot of hole to poke here, and when I googled his name I found nothing having to do with any of the research.

The second link provided gives even less information, and even states that pertinent information wasn't part of the calculation, basically discrediting the calculation itself.

I realize wikipedia isn't the best source and was just the easiest info to find, but this stuff is pretty misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete. I have a hard time taking it seriously if it's not in a published scholarly journal. Unless it is, the scientific community will be hard pressed to believe any of it, and even then I have 3-4 research articles from the journal of nutrition that are terrible and I use in a class to show how to vet information.

Sorry soulman, lol at Lyle McDonald being a respected nutrition professional, he's hilarious at nutrition conferences. Alan Aragon is better, but for some reason strays in the past few years from what he used to do.

I feel like you're the kind of person who won't believe Obama is a citizen even with a birth certificate staring you in the face, so I don't feel the need to prove what is clear to nutrition professionals already. If you want to believe craziness, that's fine with me. show me the science. Until you do, I don't think we can have a normal conversation.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/241.abstract

lol. mifflin and st. jeor are two people.

Miles,

Thanks for the link, but its just the abstract. Do you have the full article? I did the equation on myself and it came up with 1878 calories, so I have to lol so far.

interesting turn for this thread.

i think the protein part is pretty laughable. would be some sick twist of irony if all of h&f's broheims were on dialysis in 30-40 years, though.

where I find some nuggets of truth in dmunee's post is the yo-yoing that happens around here a lot and the notion that you're either in this sick cut or huge bulk. I think most of us highly overrate recovery needs (remember when thremp would mock SS'ers who wanted to throw in curls on grounds of recovery?) and underrate what good a little bit of moving around (walking, yard work, etc) can do for us.

but still c'mon protein bro. You're going to need more than one source to convince me > 1g/lb is dangerous.

DM,

feel free to debunk the links provided by Lyle in these articles:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...-athletes.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...roversies.html

Lots of actual research links.


Basically it boils down to this:
"Sufficed to say that, as is always the case, both sides have their research, both ends of the research can be criticized on some methodological grounds or another and I don’t think researchers are going to stop arguing with one another any time soon."

And yet you make dramatic statements, like saying TE is eating too much protein and that he might be damaging his kidneys, when he's even below 1 g/lb, based on evidence that is anything but conclusive.

Just to be clear, it is your contention that TE should eat less protein and more fat and/or carbs, and this will increase his caloric needs drastically? Or, that micronutrition has a big impact on caloric needs as well? I also assume you handily dismiss the anecdotal stories of countless powerlifters/strongmen/weightlifters/etc with regards to protein needs?

I have no doubt Lyle is amusing at conferences btw, he probably trolls the **** out of all the dieticians.


Obama's long form certificate was clearly photoshopped, I could tell from seeing a lot of shops in my time.

lol. the abstract pretty clearly gives only resting energy expenditure. so 1878, unless you did something wrong, is what you would burn if you did nothing.

full article: http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/241.full.pdf. or the simple option: a link that uses this equation to calculate calories. http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm. it also includes the katch-mccardle and harris-benedict equations under advanced options. again, why does your equation give such drastically different results?

Perhaps you interpreted it that way but I don't remember specifying that 1g/lb is dangerous. Once I get home I'll cite more sources but it's pretty hard to navigate that on an iPhone. Maybe a better way to say it is that protein needs dePends on type, volume and intensity of physical activity. The only people I'd ever give a meal plan to with more than 1.98g/kg would be burn victims in the ICU. Scar generation and healing factors require that much more protein.

Btw, I recognize the sn thremp and remember he appeared very rude and nasty. Is he still around or did he stop posting?

According to your recommendations for average joes, TE should on average get 151 g protein each day. 191 g is 26.5% above the recommendation, which you said was taxing to the kidneys. What do you base this on, where is the limit and how dangerous is it for TE to consume that much protein?


Our beloved thremp was permabanned after too many warnings. May he rest in piece.

Wow! My log got exciting this morning.

I have a few comments. For protein, I've been targeting 1 g/lb LBM. I've been right there. I think this is right on the edge -- not of the maximum, but of the minimum. I'd not mind bumping this up to 1.5 g/lb LBM over time.

I personally feel the concern over kidney overtaxing from protein digestion comes from the fact that some people with kidney issues have to eat low protein diets because their kidneys can no longer properly process protein. I've never seen a study or any evidence showing that high protein intake caused these kidney issues. In fact, kidney disease that results in a need for a low protein diet is most prevalent in Taiwan and Japan -- places with lower protein diets. Probably not coincidentally, these two places also have high sodium diets.

IMO, the increase in kidney disease is probably mostly due to hypertension and high sodium intake.

Thanks for replying to my question.

The theory is that refeeds can help knock the body out of starvation mode by tricking it into thinking there is now an abundance of food available. Then, even if one does have to drop caloric intake by a bit over the following few days to keep the average intake at an appropriate level, the theory is that metabolism won't drop down to match in that short amount of time. Lyle McDonald is a proponent of it, as are others.

I don't know if it works or not, so I appreciate everyone's input on this.

You're correct, this is indeed the origin of the "protein is bad for the kidneys" myth - a study from the 70s (I think, both Alan and Lyle write about it) was the culprit.

I've used refeeds, but can't really comment on how effective they've been with regards to metabolism regulation. They're certainly very helpful from a compliance perspective, which makes them useful in their own right imo. Compliance is king.

As an engineer, I often see attempts to prove causation by showing correlation. Unfortunately, the human brain is hardwired to learn by observing correlation. IMO this results in incorrect determinations of the underlying cause of many phenomena.

My results:

btw i used the numbers you posted earlier (weight lost and average calories) for jan through april to estimate what your maintenance was through those months. i used 3500 calories per pound lost which i realize is high since you didn't lose pure fat, but anyway, the maintenance i get is about in line with that estimation. no magic going on here. the two week span where you maintained at 2200 could be some brief metabolism wonky stuff, but it was likely just random factors. fairly sure you'll back to 2700-2800 soon with no problems.

Overeating protein taxing your kidneys is based on research (I'll look for specifics when I get home). Note that taxing your kidneys is not the same thing as causing renal damage or failure. So where is the limit? Too many factors to give you a number. Depends on volume and intensity of anaerobic exercise, as well as volume of aerobic exercise. It's a similar effect as you would find if you eat too much sugar and eventually become diabetic because your body won't produce as much insulin anymore, or if you don't eat enough fiber and develop diverticulitis. Though these are not perfect examples, the point is if you have too much of something that needs organ regulation, there is a limit as to what it can endure.

Compliance is definitely not to be undervalued for sure.

While that is a valid point, the research I'm thinking of tested urine for trace protein (meaning if you have too much protein to process, your kidneys will expell the rest and thats what "taxes" the kidneys). Correlational studies are generally not viewed very well by nutrition professionals, usually only mens health.

I don't disagree going over a theoretical harmful might be harmful for organs. My point was that the limit is disputed at best. I also feel fairly confident there is little conclusive, or indeed flimsy, evidence that establishes a causation between x % over the limit and <insert damage here>.

Fair point and well taken. There will always be contradictory and controversial research out there, so nothing is certain for sure.

I have to say I thought all your posts from here on would be inflammatory and antagonizing, but youve had very concise and appropriate points.

Gotta be able to take it if you dish it out

Thanks Miles! That's an awesome summary. It gives me hope.

5/13/2011:

• Off

5/14/2011:

• Stretching: Whole body
• Weighted pull-ups: -100 X 7, BW X 7, 25 X 5, 45 X 4, 45 X 5
• Pull-ups: BW X 15, BW X 12
• Neutral grip pull-ups: BW X 2 X 10
• Hammer Strength machine shoulder press: 10 X 10, 100 X 2 X 20, 100 X 12
• Shoulder shrugs: 225 X 10, 495 X 14, 495 X 15, 495 X 14

Notes:

• Third workout on 5/3/1 training program.
• Replaced cardio with 5/3/1 conditioning training. None today, as deadlifts are tomorrow.
• Missed the fifth rep on second set of weighted pull-ups because the plate wasn't steady and because I thought it would be easier than it was (the 25 lb set wasn't tough). Decided to try for five again with the proper mental focus.
• Shoulder presses felt okay. I can tell I need to get some volume in here. Hammer strength machine nicely isolated my shoulders from my pecs.
• I used lifting straps on the shrugs. It's the only lift where I use them.