1. #1

    Diets and body composition (Review)

    This new ISSN position paper summarizes what people need to know about diet and bodycomp:

    International society of sports nutrition position stand: diets and body composition

    Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition201714:16

    Abstract

    Position Statement: The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) bases the following position stand on a critical analysis of the literature regarding the effects of diet types (macronutrient composition; eating styles) and their influence on body composition. The ISSN has concluded the following.

    1) There is a multitude of diet types and eating styles, whereby numerous subtypes fall under each major dietary archetype.

    2) All body composition assessment methods have strengths and limitations.

    3) Diets primarily focused on fat loss are driven by a sustained caloric deficit. The higher the baseline body fat level, the more aggressively the caloric deficit may be imposed. Slower rates of weight loss can better preserve lean mass (LM) in leaner subjects.

    4) Diets focused primarily on accruing LM are driven by a sustained caloric surplus to facilitate anabolic processes and support increasing resistance-training demands. The composition and magnitude of the surplus, as well as training status of the subjects can influence the nature of the gains.

    5) A wide range of dietary approaches (low-fat to low-carbohydrate/ketogenic, and all points between) can be similarly effective for improving body composition.

    6) Increasing dietary protein to levels significantly beyond current recommendations for athletic populations may result in improved body composition. Higher protein intakes (2.3–3.1 g/kg FFM) may be required to maximize muscle retention in lean, resistance-trained subjects under hypocaloric conditions. Emerging research on very high protein intakes (>3 g/kg) has demonstrated that the known thermic, satiating, and LM-preserving effects of dietary protein might be amplified in resistance-training subjects.

    7) The collective body of intermittent caloric restriction research demonstrates no significant advantage over daily caloric restriction for improving body composition.

    8) The long-term success of a diet depends upon compliance and suppression or circumvention of mitigating factors such as adaptive thermogenesis.

    9) There is a paucity of research on women and older populations, as well as a wide range of untapped permutations of feeding frequency and macronutrient distribution at various energetic balances combined with training. Behavioral and lifestyle modification strategies are still poorly researched areas of weight management.

    https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-017-0174-y

  2. # ADS
    Purchase From Our Affiliates
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    51
    Help Excelmale

    Defy
     

  3. #2
    Can't comment on #9, but the other 8 seem to be things that have remained true for decades through all the fads. Good info.

  4. #3
    I would caution people struggling with fat loss and who are willing to study the topic in detail not to take the points in the posted review at face value. Almost every one of these points parrots the mainstream view and which are deceptive, glossed over and/or which have a lot of evidence to the contrary.
    Diets that work long term (as in permanently) for people who are not naturally lean and who are not life-long athletes (probably about two thirds of the western population) generally share at least four key characteristics:

    - They shift the metabolism toward fat burning
    - They radically reduce hunger
    - They maintain a healthy metabolic rate
    - They eliminate chronically elevated insulin

    Lower carb, high (healthy) fat diets have a major advantage for many people in all of these.

    So, applying this to the points, applying caloric deficit alone (Point 3) has been consistently shown to not work well for most people in the long term. Additionally "caloric deficit" implies eat less, however if eating less (as the only variable) provokes a slower metabolic rate, as it does in most people, then it will often be counter-productive. There have been many studies on this including identical twin studies (the twin that went on the most "diets" ended up fatter than the other.) Layne Norton has talked extensively about this, as have many others. I believe every major study which has tried the eat less and move more approach without addressing the points above has failed over the long term, and the recent follow-up of the "biggest losers" weight rebound is yet another example of this. The mainstream blames this on non-compliance per point 8, (AKA people are lazy gluttons) however I can personally attest that when your body is working with you instead of against you per the points above, you are going to be far happier and more successful. The mainstream recommendations basically decrease fat burning, increase insulin, increase hunger and reduce metabolic rate, so suggesting that these are just as effective rarely works in the real world. "Suppressing adaptive thermogenesis" is actually a valid point (if I am correctly interpreting what is a confusing double negative) but it contradicts the rest of the points since most diets that rely solely on calorie-restriction promote adaptive thermogenesis (AKA a slower metabolic rate).

    Like point 3, Point 5 is very deceptively worded. There is a huge difference between "can be" and "likely will be". Yes, almost every diet has worked for someone somewhere, including the potato diet, the rice diet, the starch diet the twinkie diet, etc. However my experience and understanding of the best evidence is that diets that support (minimally) the points above are most likely to work for by far the most people.

    Something to keep in mind about studies is that you have to actually look at the details of the study because the headline findings in the abstract often do not accurately represent the study. For example:

    - Some prominent studies that claim to evaluate a low carb diet were not low enough in carbs to trigger the major mechanisms by which low carb diets work
    - Some of the studies that claim to evaluate intermittent fasting have used low calorie diets on the fasting days which have a very different and ineffective physiological affect in comparison to true fasting

    Dr. Daniel Ludwig's talk (available as a podcast) from last year's Metabolic Therapeutics conference is one of the best summaries I have heard of the problems with the eat less and move more concept, so I would encourage those who want a good summary of the studies to track that down.

    I could go on but my point is that people should really study this topic in detail if they have the need and be very skeptical of anything that suggests it is as simple as eat less and move more, at least for a significant percentage of people.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Clomid, HCG and Testosterone together changes in body composition
    By superboy in forum Clomid (clomiphene) for PCT, fertility or TRT
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-09-2016, 12:34 PM
  2. Sex steroid deprivation adversely affects body composition
    By Jinzang in forum Testosterone- Miscellaneous Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 03:25 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 03:15 PM
  4. Effects of Testosterone Treatment on Body Composition
    By Michael Scally in forum Testosterone Basics & Questions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2013, 07:06 AM
  5. Ethnicity, Smoking and Body Composition Influence Testosterone and Estradiol Levels
    By Excel Male in forum Prevent & Reverse Side Effects (HCG, Anastrozole, etc)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-17-2013, 09:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •