moderate protein restriction can cure all ills
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in moderate protein restriction can cure all ills:
Like CR, PR promoted weight loss due to a reduction in adiposity, which was associated with reductions in blood glucose, lipid levels, and blood pressure. More strikingly, both CR and PR improved insulin sensitivity by 62.3% and 93.2%, respectively, after treatment. Fecal microbiome diversity was not affected by the interventions.
Hi,
Just to be clear:
This is a study based on 4 weeks with +/ 1400 or 2100 K/cal.
We already know that these situations are beneficial- Diet 5.2 or equivalent.
- Diet 16/8 (16 hours fast).
- Diet 1400 Kcal : minimum for brain, heart and liver functions. But How to manage afterwards when the brain is in defensive mode (lack of some nutrients by many people) => ?
- Diet with moderate sugars (40%) if capacity to fuel on fats (lipolysis) => less full adipocytes.
- Long term diet if 80% energy needs: fatty liver becomes much mor functional (optimizing insulin secretion).
Diets 1 to 3 are going to get the same results as in the mentioned study.
For N° 4 when fasting from 8 o' clock p.m. till 10 o' clock a.m. next day.
-
I'm not sure about this, from personal experience, protein intake is very important for body composition. If I eat high carb, moderate to high fat, and low protein, that tends to turn my physique into the skinny fat direction, which is a sign of metabolic dysfunction.
Low protein vegans are also prone to developing this kind of physique.
Higher protein people are more leaner and have more muscle mass. -
@GreekDemiGod said in moderate protein restriction can cure all ills:
I'm not sure about this, from personal experience,
Well, what has been said is correct but only on short term. A cure.
If you can't manage moderate carbs (not low carbs), it's because your liver doesn't manage the bypass to lipolysis. Must be undertaken only in the absence of hypoglycemia.
The liver must be accustomed progressively to burn on fats, progressively between two meals (5 to 6 hours delay) and after an night (8.00' p.m. till 8, then 9 and finally 10 o'clock a.m. next day).
But most people have an overburdened liver (covered with fats). (...).
it can't be done / followed by everybody without preparing the ground. -
There is a study that went to a year, that showed the same results pretty much. At .8g/kg of body weight. They used obese people, after 4 months, and put them on the lower protein for maintenance.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622066822
Diets with increased protein and reduced carbohydrates (PRO) are effective for weight loss, but the long-term effect on maintenance is unknown.
This study compared changes in body weight and composition and blood lipids after short-term weight loss (4 mo) followed by weight maintenance (8 mo) using moderate PRO or conventional high-carbohydrate (CHO) diets. Participants (age = 45.4 ± 1.2 y; BMI = 32.6 ± 0.8 kg/m2; n = 130) were randomized to 2 energy-restricted diets (−500 kcal/d or −2093 kJ/d): PRO with 1.6 g·kg−1·d−1 protein and <170 g/d carbohydrates or CHO with 0.8 g·kg−1·d−1 protein, >220 g/d carbohydrates. At 4 mo, the PRO group had lost 22% more fat mass (FM) (−5.6 ± 0.4 kg) than the CHO group (−4.6 ± 0.3 kg) but weight loss did not differ between groups (−8.2 ± 0.5 kg vs. −7.0 ± 0.5 kg; P = 0.10). At 12 mo, the PRO group had more participants complete the study (64 vs. 45%, P < 0.05) with greater improvement in body composition; however, weight loss did not differ between groups (−10.4 ± 1.2 kg vs. −8.4 ± 0.9 kg; P = 0.18). Using a compliance criterion of participants attaining >10% weight loss, the PRO group had more participants (31 vs. 21%) lose more weight (−16.5 ± 1.5 vs. −12.3 ± 0.9 kg; P < 0.01) and FM (−11.7 ± 1.0 vs. −7.9 ± 0.7 kg; P < 0.01) than the CHO group. The CHO diet reduced serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol compared with PRO (P < 0.01) at 4 mo, but the effect did not remain at 12 mo. PRO had sustained favorable effects on serum triacylglycerol (TAG), HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), and TAG:HDL-C compared with CHO at 4 and 12 mo (P < 0.01). The PRO diet was more effective for FM loss and body composition improvement during initial weight loss and long-term maintenance and produced sustained reductions in TAG and increases in HDL-C compared with the CHO diet.
—-
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in moderate protein restriction can cure all ills:
They used obese people, after 4 months, and put them on the lower protein for maintenance.
Yes, interesting: need to be reported as case-report.
I’m going to try not to be too long or too esoteric
When dieting, you optimize one process: Brain rejuvenation and the body gets rid of mad cells (cancer prevention). You get this schema as long as you metabolize well.
The body recycles what’s going wrong as long as you don’t lack fuel, fuel coming from fat, or preferably from carbs. Which kind of carbs, it’s another problem. Let’s says the one you metabolize well, to be short.
And the answer won’t be the same for everybody.
If you’re dieting for a long period, let’s say you do it correctly:
80 % of your needed calories, according to your metabolism. Required GPL, appropriate acidosis balance (no lack of bases). You listen to your body needs and adapt yourself if necessary. So you perceive, think and act whenever it’s required. No static point of view. You can re-think and change your mind if the body sends repeated messages.Total target: 80 % of required calories.
P 20 % minimum (target 30%).
L 10-40% with as little PUFA possible. Vit E (mix toco) and astaxanthin (4 mg 1x/day) needed if
losing fat (weight loss). You live on your reserves.
G: The rest. I'd target 40 % percent of required calories, trying to optimize glycemia. See Jessie Inaupsche (Glucose Goddess) if you want advices to deal well with glycemia. Or I can give a link (In French, the link, but it's an easy "principle" to understand).
GPL: G stands for glucids (carbs), P for proteins, L for lipids.Keep in mind that people who’ve changed the type of diet (proportion and type of GPL) could have problems after +/ 5 years term. They've lived on their reserves (provisions).
Let’s take an example: Some vegans do it well so, provided they bring correct stuff and don’t starve the body. There are several cases of high level sportswomen, trying to be fit, who are no longer able to get pregnant. Too much of a good thing is bad. Too stressful.
Idem whenever you lack the right type of amino acids or when you eat / ingest too much vegetable oil (PUFA’s are in excess). It’s a delay-action bomb. -
@Ecstatic_Hamster
Great study! Thanks for sharing.Here's an important part of the study:
Energy expenditure decreased in CR by about 6%, while it didn't in PR.
In CR, VO2 and VCO2 , respiratory quotient,
and carb oxidation decreased (-77%!) while it didn't decrease in PR.
That is all in line with what I saw in previous studies.
PR for the win.
-
I'm thinking about a modified version of protein restriction ATM.
If you'd have most of your protein at a certain point in time if the day , you'd get a big part of the MR/PR benefits.
In animals beneficial metabolic changes like an increase in FGF21 started showing after only 6h of the diet.
So if you eat a significant amount of protein only once a day, you get an 18h window of the benefits.I thinks that's a reason why (intermittent) fasting works to some degree: You're restricting protein.
-
For neophytes:
MS= Metabolic Syndrome
DR = Dietary restriction
CR = calorie restriction
PR = Protein restriction
isocaloric dietary protein => iso => what is required; according to RDA.Excerpt 1:
Protein restriction is sufficient to confer almost the same clinical outcomes as calorie restriction without the need for a reduction in calorie intake. The isocaloric characteristic of the PR intervention makes this approach a more attractive and less drastic dietary strategy in clinical settings and has more significant potential to be used as adjuvant therapy for people with metabolic syndrome.
Excerpt 2
More strikingly, both CR and PR improved insulin sensitivity by 62.3% and 93.2%, respectively, after treatment. Fecal microbiome diversity was not affected by the interventions.
Comment (LucH) :
It’s necessary to eat carbs at minima when ingesting meat. Not much. Otherwise you’ll get an insulin spike and the secretion of adrenaline and cortisol due to a lack of immediate fuel. Stressful and counterproductive. -
It’s necessary to eat carbs at minima when ingesting meat. Not much. Otherwise you’ll get an insulin spike and the secretion of adrenaline and cortisol due to a lack of immediate fuel. Stressful and counterproductive.
What? Are you saying if you eat more carbs with meat, you’ll lack immediate fuel? That it’s stressful and raises cortisol and adrenaline?
-
@LetTheRedeemed said in moderate protein restriction can cure all ills:
What? Are you saying if you eat more carbs with meat, you’ll lack immediate fuel?
No, WE need some carbs when eating meat. Not much required. A tomato or an orange IS fine. I Can show it with a graph if desired.
-
@LucH ok gotcha
