Vegetarian Diets May Be More Effective for Weight Loss Than Restricting Calories
msn.com
msn.com
An all "oreo" diet, could technically be a vegetarian diet.
I want to see a vegetarian diet for weight loss vs a high fat high protein meat based diet, a la: http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht...
> The vegetarian diet (∼60% of energy from carbohydrates, 15% protein, and 25% fat) consisted of vegetables, grains, legumes, fruits, and nuts. Animal products were limited to a maximum of one portion of low-fat yogurt a day.
> [non veg diet] contained 50% of energy from carbohydrates, 20% protein, less than 30% fat (≤7% saturated fat, less than 200 mg/d of cholesterol/day).
What is less than 30% fat? Were they encouraged to eat low fat foods? Were some of them eating only 10% fat?
To any high fat/keto/low carb adherents, these sound like crap diets.
Edit to say that the point may be that those diets were broadly comparable except in consumption of animal foods; the vegetarian diet was modestly higher and lower in protein and fat, but not by much.
Not consciously, but that's what normal people already do.
The Starch Solution by John A. McDougall is a great book. Also this video that just came out has a bunch of studies that I read before going on the diet. He does a good job at explaining them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHfbqodBXdw
Our bodies are not organisms that may be deceived. Thus, you are not "tricking" your body--it's simply utilizing a separate, historically common, metabolic pathway.
> Also it does nothing to help with our number one killer in the US, heart disease
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Most ketogenic studies and reports I've read pretty decisively say that the main predictors of heart disease improve dramatically on a ketogenic diet. LDL, HDL, and triglycerides all tend to improve.
> It really isn't healthy for you
You're mistaken.
> and most people gain all the weight back
Most people gain most of the weight back, as per any diet ever. Do you think your starch-based diet is immune to this effect? I have a very "whatever works" opinion on dieting. Your starch diet works for you, a ketogenic diet works for others, and that seems okay.
Did you watch the video? Studies show you are starving yourself (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403304...). Ketogenic diet is very dangerous see: https://www.thepaleomom.com/adverse-reactions-to-ketogenic-d... There are no bad side effects from a starch based diet.
> I'm afraid you're mistaken. Most ketogenic studies and reports I've read pretty decisively say that the main predictors of heart disease improve dramatically on a ketogenic diet. LDL, HDL, and triglycerides all tend to improve.
Starch based diet has cured heart disease and has taken people from high 200's to under 150 and even lower.
> > It really isn't healthy for you > You're mistaken.
See first comment
> Most people gain most of the weight back, as per any diet ever. Do you think your starch-based diet is immune to this effect? I have a very "whatever works" opinion on dieting. Your starch diet works for you, a ketogenic diet works for others, and that seems okay.
Because you can stay on a starch based diet forever, which I plan on doing, as it really isn't a diet but a choice on the food I am eating. I am not hungry like all the other diets I have ever been on.
There are many other reasons to be on a vegan diet over just health like animal cruelty and environment. I would rather see wins in all three but I agree with you that you need to find what works for you. This is a person decision as you make the choice on what you put in your own mouth.
I'm trying to formulate a reply, without sounding snarky, expressing the notion that a youtube video by "Vic the Vegan" claiming to have "debunked" an entire diet (which has more downvotes than upvotes, mind you) might not be a credible source and it's probably in no one's interest to pay it any credence. Especially, as it seems, that Vic himself has no particular expertise in the field (a field which is highly prone to Dunning-Krugerism). I'm sure if the video makes any good points you'll be able to formulate an argument around them.
> Studies show you are starving yourself
Have you read that link? I ask because it's obvious you have not as it speaks volumes to ketogenic dieting's benefit. """Fuel storage depots, like subcutaneous and abdominal adipose tissue, have a high calorie:weight ratio and are capable of meeting the energy requirements directly or indirectly (lactate and pyruvate powered by free fatty acid oxidation) for most tissues, without adverse effects. As we demonstrated, survival during prolonged starvation depends upon the ability of the body to spare the oxidation of vital proteins in the liver, muscle, heart, kidney, etc. Of special importance in this regard is the metabolic role of ketone bodies. Because of their association with diabetes, ketone bodies were long held to reflect a disease state; our research totally changed this view"""
Also, thepaleomom is not a good source.
> Starch based diet has cured heart disease and has taken people from high 200's to under 150 and even lower.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19641727
> Because you can stay on a starch based diet forever, which I plan on doing, as it really isn't a diet but a choice on the food I am eating. I am not hungry like all the other diets I have ever been on.
This same point can be made for a ketogenic diet.
> There are many other reasons to be on a vegan diet over just health like animal cruelty and environment.
Oh, absolutely. But that's nutritionally notwithstanding in this context. Like before, if you have found something that works for you, that's great, but it's ridiculous to say that anything else is somehow wrong or dangerous, especially when you can't claim any degree of expertise in the field.
More importantly, metabolism is just incredibly complicated, with many complex relationships and effects. On top of that, there is significant genetic variation, so these will differ across individuals. For now, we pretty much have to experiment on ourselves and observe what works.
Also monitoring food intake.
I am a huge proponent of ketogenic diets, but I also realize having a diet that completely forbids me from eating all common dessert and snack foods is what contributes in large part to calorie reduction.
Sure, I love all the other benefits from the diet, but part of what works about restrictive diets is that they are so restrictive.
Plus you're missing on many other factors, especially sleep and mood.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07315724.2017.13...
The broader conclusion seems plausible to me, since a healthy vegetarian diet can have lots of high-fiber foods that give high satiation with relatively low calories. But: The study focused only on diabetic patients.
http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food/food-saf...
Being conscientious about what you eat is the most important part of losing weight. There are plenty of fat vegetarians out there. They've gotten very comfortable with what they can eat because they aren't reading every label anymore.
Oreos are vegan. There are new and improved vegetarian and vegan ice creams coming out weekly, it seems. When there are as many bad food choices for vegetarians and vegans as omnivores, they'll make the same bad food choices and suffer for it.
Why?
When the final word is written on how diets have destroyed the health of people in the Western world, it's gonna be the fat / sugar combo that is shown to be the culprit. It's much easier to be sated if you eat a lot of fats or a lot of sugar (well, starches, really) than eating a lot of fat AND sugar.
I suspect that we have so much choice today that we combine things not meant to be combined in the same diet.
And indeed there are some. Which points that there's no necessary connection between being vegan and losing muscle.
(note to self: quit trying to crack jokes on HN)
;-)
Top body builders eat meat. Top body builders do not eat meat.
The implication is "The top body builders", but yes, there's wiggle room for when someone challenges the statement.
All comment had to say is some top body builders are vegan. Even some notable NFL players are/have been vegan.
Even then, they go out of their way to get enough protein - I think the person you replied to was trying to go for shock value but it was a pretty bad comment.
I imagine that diet is irrelevant for athletic training, as long as it fulfills certain macro-nutrient requisites. Further, I image vegan athletes are only faced with the increased difficulty of finding and preparing quality sufficient food, compared to others with normative diets, due to lack of demand and meat centered cultures.
Finding an equivalent vegan alternative to chocolate pudding at <500g, 350kcal, 50g protein> for $2.5 [2] seems like a challenge. I'm sure that if they plan their diet, they can meet the same targets - whereas normative diets don't require you to plan anything really. You can just eat 2 of [2] and a chicken a day, and you're done (concerning only protein).
But then again, there are protein powders which balances it out, if we don't take price into account.
All in all, I think diet choices (assuming any choice to be a most healthy variant of chosen diet) mainly impacts long term health, and not short term goals such as muscle gains.
[1] http://www.greatveganathletes.com/strength [2] http://www.njie.se/produkt/propud-protein-pudding-chocolate/...
Also no one should emulate top body builder diets unless they plan on working out like top body builders (e.g. 2-3 intensive training sessions a day).
You might be able to find a few vegan body builders but its certainly not the norm.
0: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mountain-game-of-thrones-...
I will have been vegan for 10 years next Jan. Haven't had any problems with retaining muscle mass personally, although I have a pretty high protein diet and supplement with vegan vitamins. I do cardio a handful of times a week, and lift weights periodically. Sample size N=1 :)
it isn't a magic pill for weight loss either.
I've been vegetarian for 2 years and have zero perceptible changes to weight or muscle mass (I don't take supplements either).
I went pescatarian 1.5 years ago and have put on 10-20 pounds. It's really been hard (for me) to feel full without those chicken breasts I used to make and the occasional steak. Fish simply doesn't keep as long. I end up eating lots of junk food :(
I don't think it's a bad idea. I just need to get more prepared, clever and disciplined. I actually wasn't looking to lose weight at all, just be healthier. It's been a surprise how hard it is to get back to my original weight.
I do meal/snack prep on Sundays, which goes a long way. I eat less grab-and-go junk and I save money too.
I do agree with your experience though. Throw a bit of squash and onions in with your bland rice and you'll feel bloated in no time.
I also would have thought that meat was more energy sense given the fat content, but that is fascinating!
EDIT: what I mean is if society had such options plentifully available it would negate the effect. So it is similar to a diet where you can only eat foods beginning with the letter 'A'. If it's harder to meet some arbitrary criterion, it will reduce your caloric intake.