Sticking with my Diet Plan

[Danielsen]

Sorry I stand corrected.

There is also evidence that such a diet can affect performance adversely because of the low muscle glycogen levels even over the long term. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Ketogenic diets are used for prevent seizures though because of the effect they have on the brain.

PS I hope you aren't offended by the debate and I must further apologize for not fact checking the heart business about Dr. Atkins. Perhaps we should take the debate off board so that we don't continue to hijack the thread? I'm quite interested in learning from this conversation.

Thanks for keeping an open mind, I'll send PM.

DapperD, your assertion "Does it work? Maybe, albeit temporarily. The fact of the matter is long term it will not. It will also eventually make you sick and unhealthy. And anything that cannot be continued for ones lifetime, and that is unhealthy and will make one unhealthy in the long run is simply not a desireable/successful approach" is quite simply not supported by either the hard science available or the historical record. Numerous societies in the course of human history lived very healthy lives on high-fat diets and did not know the physical ills of modern society until their diets were "modernized" as well. More importantly, many modern humans have switched to high-fat diets based on the same principles as I have and many have been living on them for decades and continue to be in excellent health. Dr Atkins himself, as noted, was described as being in excellent health at the time of his death by a board member of the same American Heart Association that you reference, after decades of eating a high-fat diet.

Speaking of the AHA, they are among the many organizations who base their policies on the same outdated science that I reference above, and which T-dubs has pointed out. Please, do your own research rather than simply appealing to the authority of others (like the AHA). The biochemistry isn't that hard to understand, and the historical information is readily available.

[DapperD]

Where to start?
In terms of evolution our bodies would be programmed to run on energy-dense, readily available foods. Fat is the preferred source of this energy. Most of the nutritional information in the last 50 years is off-base, corrupted by moneyed concerns. The Keys study, reference above, put us on a path to obesity and disease. Humans are not designed to eat a diet that is predominately grain-based.

I've read some on nutrition recently and have gone from a vegetarian diet to eating 'heartheathywholegrains' to a predominately carnivorous diet. My blood work is vastly improved and I have never been in better health.

Some basic information:
http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/w...0406-rpen.html

The 'science' behind the FDA's food pyramid was never any sort of consensus. They enacted these recommendation with the caveat of, 'well, we have to do something' rather than make a complete investigation of this subject. We are also learning so much more about the components of our diet and the hormonal response to the food we eat. Omega oils were relatively unknown at that time, the make-up and role of cholesterol wasn't clear.

If you have an interest, I'd guess your pathway to learning about nutrition would go something like:

Why do we need all these diets?
What's wrong with our food that it makes us sick?
Who benefits from this misinformation?
What are we designed to eat naturally?
Who decided what is healthy and what is not?
Where does our food actually come from? (not pretty)
When were we at our best as a species?
Why do grains make us smaller, dumber and sicker?
How do we control our hormones for optimum health?
Finally, what's for dinner that actually matters?

As to the original point of the post topic--look into making pemmican. That would be the perfect low-carb food for a trip. Add in some fruit for a change of pace.

No one is saying to eat a grain based diet.

The biochemistry isn't that hard to understand, and the historical information is readily available.

I agree 100%

[Danielsen]

I agree 100%

In that case, I'm rather surprised at your quoting of the AHA, whose own history doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in their authority.

You're against both high-fat diets and express no love of grain-based diets, so where does that put you? Starchophile? Low-fat paleo? Vegan? Lacto-ovo veg?

[LaurieAnn]

Where to start?
In terms of evolution our bodies would be programmed to run on energy-dense, readily available foods. Fat is the preferred source of this energy. Most of the nutritional information in the last 50 years is off-base, corrupted by moneyed concerns. The Keys study, reference above, put us on a path to obesity and disease. Humans are not designed to eat a diet that is predominately grain-based.

Actually wouldn't that depend on regional availability? To my knowledge many cultures were hunter gatherers and they ate grains, berries, plants and such when meats were not available. Also look at the historical significance of sugar and the consumption of sugars even in the past century. It went from the very occasional luxury to part of our every day lives.

I figured I should mention my carb intake, which at home is between 200 and 225 grams a day. On the trail add an extra 25 to 50 grams to that number. But I am diabetic and have to really be aware of my carb intake or I end up with serious issues. Nothing worse than a diabetic low on the trail - it can be pretty scary.

[LaurieAnn]

I also wanted to mention that both the Canada's Food Guide and the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans state that a person should consume 250 grams of carb based on a 2000 calorie diet each day.

[Carbo]

LD Hiker meals:
50% Carbs
30% Fat
20% Protein

Any "safe" diet will approach the following and this is not too hard to verify by googling reputable sites:
55-60% Carbs
20-25% Fat
20% Protein

[TheChop]

Don't worry about losing weight on the trail. Especially if you're hiking with other people. You're going to run out of energy and they're going to want to keep going. Trail walking is more or less the ideal conditions for weight loss and more or less the best recreation of man in his natural environment. You eat a small meal and then you work for two to three hours for another small meal. The reason we love stuff like Snickers is because it's the perfect food for such a lifestyle. To a person sitting behind a computer all day it's unhealthy but for someone walking 15-20 miles a day it's perfect.

[DapperD]

In that case, I'm rather surprised at your quoting of the AHA, whose own history doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in their authority.

You're against both high-fat diets and express no love of grain-based diets, so where does that put you? Starchophile? Low-fat paleo? Vegan? Lacto-ovo veg?

What I am trying to say is for the everyday person who is not involved in a grueling type of activity (such as long distance hiking day after day, or hard physical type labor, etc...) I do not feel, in my opinion, that a high fat diet is a healthy choice to make. If I am going to be pushing myself day after day physically, then I would consume not just more fats, but more of all the food groups. And simple and complex carbohydrates would definately be included amongst them. Without plenty of carbs, I would most likely burn out physically and prematurely. As far as the diet I follow in my everyday life, I believe, like other's, that a variety of foods is the way to go. I try not to eat too much over the entire course of the day, but I eat well.

Don't worry about losing weight on the trail. Especially if you're hiking with other people. You're going to run out of energy and they're going to want to keep going. Trail walking is more or less the ideal conditions for weight loss and more or less the best recreation of man in his natural environment. You eat a small meal and then you work for two to three hours for another small meal. The reason we love stuff like Snickers is because it's the perfect food for such a lifestyle. To a person sitting behind a computer all day it's unhealthy but for someone walking 15-20 miles a day it's perfect.

I would agree with this. When you are pushing yourself physically day after day, you can get away with consuming extra food much easier than leading a sedentary life.

[T-Dubs]

Actually wouldn't that depend on regional availability? To my knowledge many cultures were hunter gatherers and they ate grains, berries, plants and such when meats were not available.

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/0...-applying.html

.....what little direct evidence we have of Paleolithic diets does not support an omnivorous diet as a matter of course.
Humans do not have any significant ability to digest and extract energy from fiber..... This clearly indicates that the human gut evolved to handle unrefined foods containing little or no fiber, i.e. animal foods. In other words, humans evolved on and are specifically adapted to a carnivorous diet.

No doubt that easily digested, highly refined carbohydrates are the root cause of so much ill-health. Which gets back to my post of, 'why is our food so bad for us' and 'what is the best thing for humans to eat'

I try to keep my carb intake below 20 gr. daily. Sometimes it gets up higher but seldom, if ever, close to that 100 mark.

[Danielsen]

What I am trying to say is for the everyday person who is not involved in a grueling type of activity (such as long distance hiking day after day, or hard physical type labor, etc...) I do not feel, in my opinion, that a high fat diet is a healthy choice to make... Without plenty of carbs, I would most likely burn out physically and prematurely.

Well, I'm saying that there is no foundation for such an assertion. Ignoring the lipid hypothesis, which is what policies of groups like the AHA and our own food pyramid are based on and which is a joke from any scientific standpoint, the biochemistry shows that fat is a perfectly healthy fuel for human metabolism. And again, history backs it up. Numerous pre-agricultural (and some post-agricultural) societies consumed high-fat diets and thrived on them, with those members who lived to old age (life expectancy was, naturally, shortened by the greater dangers of life in those periods) arriving there in robust health despite the diet you fear to be unhealthy.

[DapperD]

Well, I'm saying that there is no foundation for such an assertion. Ignoring the lipid hypothesis, which is what policies of groups like the AHA and our own food pyramid are based on and which is a joke from any scientific standpoint, the biochemistry shows that fat is a perfectly healthy fuel for human metabolism. And again, history backs it up. Numerous pre-agricultural (and some post-agricultural) societies consumed high-fat diets and thrived on them, with those members who lived to old age (life expectancy was, naturally, shortened by the greater dangers of life in those periods) arriving there in robust health despite the diet you fear to be unhealthy.

I don't fear anything. I have enough common sense to realize that if I eat a diet of nothing but deep fried (fill in the blank), candy bars, cheese, bacon and eggs, spam, nuts, salami, sausage, pizza and whatever else it most likely won't take a rocket scientist to realize it won't be long before the big one hits. I am not an Eskimo living outside in Nome, AlaskaAnd when Atkins died, he was a bloated mess with clogged arteries. And it was from his diet, not from an illness that caused water retention like his cohorts wanted everyone else to believe.

[Danielsen]

If it's deep-fried in industrial vegetable oils, absolutely. If it's lard, you don't have to be an eskimo to do alright.

You seem to have missed the "head injury" bit re: Dr. Atkins. The "cohorts" you mention include one of the influential fellows in the organization you quoted in your first post, the AHA, who all seem pretty rabidly opposed to high-fat diets.

Anyways, this train of thought is now apparently leaving the station of reason and logic. To the OP: go for it. I already gave my advice. If LC has been working for you so far, don't let the uninformed scare you off. With that I bid this thread adieu.

[JAK]

Here is a really cool paper on combining a ketogenic diet with endurance training.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just posting it.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

Abstract
Impaired physical performance is a common but not obligate result of a low carbohydrate diet. Lessons from traditional Inuit culture indicate that time for adaptation, optimized sodium and potassium nutriture, and constraint of protein to 15–25 % of daily energy expenditure allow unimpaired endurance performance despite nutritional ketosis.

...

Conclusions
Both observational and prospectively designed studies support the conclusion that submaximal endurance performance can be sustained despite the virtual exclusion of carbohydrate from the human diet. Clearly this result does not automatically follow the casual implementation of dietary carbohydrate restriction, however, as careful attention to time for keto-adaptation, mineral nutriture, and constraint of the daily protein dose is required. Contradictory results in the scientific literature can be explained by the lack of attention to these lessons learned (and for the most part now forgotten) by the cultures that traditionally lived by hunting. Therapeutic use of ketogenic diets should not require constraint of most forms of physical labor or recreational activity, with the one caveat that anaerobic (ie, weight lifting or sprint) performance is limited by the low muscle glycogen levels induced by a ketogenic diet, and this would strongly discourage its use under most conditions of competitive athletics.

[DapperD]

If it's deep-fried in industrial vegetable oils, absolutely. If it's lard, you don't have to be an eskimo to do alright.

You seem to have missed the "head injury" bit re: Dr. Atkins. The "cohorts" you mention include one of the influential fellows in the organization you quoted in your first post, the AHA, who all seem pretty rabidly opposed to high-fat diets.

Anyways, this train of thought is now apparently leaving the station of reason and logic. To the OP: go for it. I already gave my advice. If LC has been working for you so far, don't let the uninformed scare you off. With that I bid this thread adieu.

http://www.bongonews.com/layout1.php?event=463

[JAK]

I would have to argue that the traditional inuit diet will work for anyone, not just Inuit, as long as they are active. Not saying it is the best diet. Just saying it is better than the average North American diet, which is generally to high in just about everything, fats, carbs, and protien, and too low in physical activity and REAL FOOD.

If you are adapted to a ketogeic diet, 15-25% calories from protien, most from fats, and little from carbs, you should certainly be able to hike on it. Hiking is done mostly well below the anaerobic threshold, so glycogen levels should not likely get depleted faster than they are restored. If the diet is done properly, lean body mass should not become depleted, and should be maintained or even enhanced, if that is how the body needs to adapt to the hiking. You need to take some precautions with respect to sodium and potassium. See the paper above.

Protien needs to be 15-25% on such a diet. Not lower or higher.
Fats make up must of the calories, 73% to 83%.
Carbs can be as low as 7%, based on the paper above, and tradtional Inuit diets.

My key points:
1. I see no reason however, why the carbs could not be increased somewhat above 7%.
2. It is also not clear if 15-25% protien consumption is still advisable if the daily energy burn is increased to higher levels, like 5000 kcal/day, or higher.
3. It is not clear what happens if this sort of diet is combined with weight loss during a long distance hike. I would guess that energy from the body fat loss replaces energy from dietary fat, but not from protien or carbs. However, if the daily energy burn is very high, perhaps the protien intake, as a percentage, needs to be reduced somewhat to the lower end of the 15-25% range, perhaps even lower as a percentage of total energy burned, as long as it is still at least 15% of total energy consumed. Not clear.

I have read studies that body fat loss can be about 1% of total body fat per day. So the more fat you have, the more you can safely and easily burn.

Example:
Say a person weighs 200 pounds, of which 50 pounds is body fat.
Say this person is burning a total of 5000 kcal/day while hiking.
So what would be a reasonable ketogenic diet for this person?
Assuming they are adapted to a ketogenic diet, which takes 3-4 weeks at least.

Protien:
15-25% protien. 16% = 200g. 20% = 250g. 24% = 300g.
Let's go with 16% = 200g, as the higher values could be tough on kidneys.

Carbs:
Rather than the 7%, lets go to 10% = 125g.
The Inuit had limited sources of carbs,
but most traditional hunter-gathers had carb sources, so we'll add some moderation.

Fats:
That leaves 74% for Fats = 3700kcal = 411g.
With 50 pounds of body fat, up to 0.5 pounds can come from the body.
0.5 pounds x 454g x 90% fat (10% water) ~ 200g fat from body = 1800kcal
That leaves 211g fat to come from the diet = 1900 kcal

Thus the diet would look like this:
Total Food Intake = 3200kcal of 5000kcal burned, for up to 0.5 pound fat loss per day.
Protien = 200g = 800kcal/3200 = 25% of diet, 16% of energy burned
Carbs= 125g = 500kcal/3200 = 15.6% of diet, 10% of energy burned
Dietary Fat = 211g = 1900kcal/3200 = 59.4% of diet, 38% of energy burned
Body Fat = 200g = 0/3200, 1800/5000 = 0% of diet, 36% of energy burned

I could see this working in a person that has adapted to a ketogenic diet. However, they might need additional time to adapt to a ketogenic diet at higher daily energy consumption, and higher protien intake, and higher rates of body fat loss. This could take a few weeks.

So how do they adapt their current diet to hiking at 5000kcal/day or higher?
I would suggest a diet roughly as follows:
Maintain constant ratios around 15% carbs, 25% protien, 60% fats.
Initially limit activity to 4000 kcal/day, and gradually increase to 5000kcal or higher.
Initially limit caloric deficit to 1000 kcal/day, gradually increase to 1800 kcal/day.
As you lose weight, you need to reduce your caloric deficit, burn less body fat.
This can be done by adding more dietary fat. But at any time, carbs can be increased gradually from 10-15% towards more even parity with dietary fats, while dietary fats can be reduced gradually to more even parity with carbohydrates. Carbs can be a mix of simple sugars and complex carbs, as long as the food is real food, and reasonably balanced. Protiens should probably be maintained at around 15% of total energy burned, and up to 25% of food consumed while there is a caloric deficit.

Ok. Now you can shoot me.

[JAK]

Personally, I think 25% Protien, 25-50% Carbs, 25-50% Fats, as percentages of food energy consumed, is a good general purpose diet for hiking and everyday living, whether you are losing weight or maintaining your weight. Whether you go 1:2 carb:fat or 2:1 fat:carb or something in between either is very natural and flexible in terms of a wide variety of natural foods and food groups you can choose from. You should choose a natural balanced diet from most food groups, and you should really limit you food choices to real food.

If you follow this simple rule, you can't go wrong really...
1. EAT REAL FOOD.
2. ACCEPT NO FOOD-LIKE SUBSTITUTES.
3. Try to maintain 10-15% body fat during most of the year.
4. Gradually burn off excess body fat through higher levels of activity.
5. Only go < 10-15% body fat for brief periods, then return to safer levels.
6. Enjoy traditional seasonal feasts, by being lean and active going into them.

[IronGutsTommy]

keep in mind atkins is dead, so his diet did not do him much good. there are good carbs and bad carbs. some complex carbs like those found in wheat flour can be quite beneficial to the body. as a diabetic since 1994 ive learned a bit about the benefits carbs have in fueling the body, especially for arduous tasks like sports, or, say... hiking for long periods of time.
to each their own, but wed probably all live longer if we just cut mostly everything from our diets, but what kind of life is that? a few more years in our 90s eating oatbran? if they invented a pill to take that would give the body the benefits of 8 hours sleep and a full meal, i wouldnt take it. sleep and eating a variety of healthy delicious foods are some of the simpler joys in life. bottom line is if you exercise, you can get away with a more liberal diet. sad that the american culture has people choosing instead to sit on the couch eating cabbage soup 3 times a day and taking dexatrim and wondering why theyre still fat....

[JAK]

I think the Adkins and Zone Diets are too high in protien, not too low in carbs. I think 25% is a good upper limit for protien. 15% of energy burned as a lower limit. I think the other 75-85% can come from a wide range of carb:fat ratios. But I don't think either should be below 15%, or over 65%. I like 25% for Protien, 25-50% for Carbs, 25-50% for Fats. There are alot of traditional diets that fit into those sort of ranges. So you can focus on eating real food, and some form of natural and traditional balanced diet that suits your particular needs and temperament.

[JAK]

You are right though, must diets simply don't emphasis enough activity. They are afraid to, because most people are not fit enough to do very much running or weight lifting, at least at first, and most dieticians and trainers can't conceive of telling people to simple go out for long walks, like 3-6 hours or more in a single day, 10-20 hours a week, or more. Sure, lift what weights you can, and run or bike or some other higher intensity sport, whatever you can do and want to do. So that's maybe 4-6 hours a week at best for most people. So fill in the other 5-15 hours a week walking in the park. That's like maybe 30-60min a weekday, and the rest on a weekend day hike.

[LaurieAnn]

You are right though, must diets simply don't emphasis enough activity. They are afraid to, because most people are not fit enough to do very much running or weight lifting, at least at first, and most dieticians and trainers can't conceive of telling people to simple go out for long walks, like 3-6 hours or more in a single day, 10-20 hours a week, or more. Sure, lift what weights you can, and run or bike or some other higher intensity sport, whatever you can do and want to do. So that's maybe 4-6 hours a week at best for most people. So fill in the other 5-15 hours a week walking in the park. That's like maybe 30-60min a weekday, and the rest on a weekend day hike.

That's it in a nutshell. If only doctors could prescribe this kind of activity as they would a prescription for Xenical or some other weight loss remedy. People want a quick fix and aren't often willing to put in what it takes to get healthy. I lost all of my weight (more than many of you probably weigh) by getting off my butt and working out. I coupled that with healthy eating... balanced diet and balanced lifestyle. That's the key.