In other words, oatmeal is not a complete protein. Lysine is required for vegetarian diets. Common knowledge.
Wait racehorses live on it? really!
Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.
Woo
Put a more quantitative way, the limiting essential amino acid in oatmeal is lysine. 100g of oats contains 16.9g of protien of which 701mg is Lysine. The requirement for Lysine is 51mg per gram of protien, if you got only 100% of your daily requirement of protien. Oatmeal contains 41mg of Lysine per gram of protien, so if you need 80g of protien, and you take in 600g oats as your only source of protien, you will get about 100g of protien, and the equivalent of 80g of complete balanced protien. And since the limiting Lysine cannot be lost through gluconeogenesis, it is virtually complete and balanced.
Not so common knowledge. Oatmeal has Lysine.
... and the Lysine cannot be converted to glucose like most other essential amino acids.
... so after your body uses up some of your protiens through glucogenesis, what is left is balanced.
Not that you should only eat oatmeal for protien. Just saying you could.
The main reason to balance your diet is for vitamins and minerals, not for protien.
Lol, whatever. The fact is you said oatmeal is a complete protein and it is not. You can spin it any way you'd like. You wont win this debate with me my friend. I can go all night.Originally Posted by JAK
If you walk a hundred miles or so on the AT at a brisk pace - a week or so - and self support (carry a weeks food) - you will loose a few pounds if you need to. If you don't need to, you probably wont - - funny magic.
I said it was 'virtually' complete and balanced, and I explained what I meant, you just didn't understand it.
Not trying to spin anything. Just trying to educate.
education is a good thing. I'm always open to learning things I don't know about
I stand corrected. I did not say "virtually" complete and balanced. Must have been in another thread. Sorry.
Anyhow, I think you understand what I am saying. If you take in 125% of your daily protien requirement, and your protien source has 80% of the Lysine requirement per gram, then you will be getting 100% of your Lysine requirement because it cannot be converted to glucose like most of the other essential amino acids.
I apologize if I was a bit rude. It's been one of those days.
No worries.
You had me going. lol. And you made me check my numbers. I'm curious about some of the other aspects like gout, and kidneys, and what protien sources might be better than others if you want extra protien without risky side effects.
...The Atkins diet recommends limiting foods high in carbs, such as bread, pasta and rice.
True but VERY POSSIBLY misleading, which I thought the "The Atkins Diet" was, on a very important point, at least in the first three chapters I read before putting it down. From a nutritional standpoint a distinction should have been made by Atkins, especially being a cardiologist, between simple and complex carbs in the very beginning of his book! It should be clarified that these listed foods traditionally are foods containing high amounts of simple carbs. Although, not all breads, pastas, and rice are equal! For example, some pastas made from red lentil bean, quinoa, brown rice, buckwheat, and spelt flours are quite high in complex carbs, low(or lower than traditional wheat pastas) in simple carbs, and even have good amts of protein. Likewise this is true for some breads. I think most folks can make a nutritional distinction between Wonder Bread and 7 Grain Branola, for example. Also, a nutritional distinction can be made between white rice which has had its germ removed so it can be polished compared with brown rice which is more nutritious.
Carbs are replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of proteins and fats (meat, poultry, fish, eggs and cheese) and other low-carb foods (most vegetables).
This is only half true so it makes this statement false. Why? Virtually all the cals in vegetables and fruits come from carbs, COMPLEX CARBOHYDRATES, which are the "good carbs" which Darwin rightly refers to in his #31 post. Vegetables and fruits ARE NOT, for the most part, low-carb foods! Think about it. With a few exceptions(avocados for one), fruits and vegetables are not normally thought of as containing large amounts of fat or protein. Since calories only come from carbs, fats, and protein, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand what type of cals are mostly contained in fruits and veggies. I thought Atkins first book should have made this important distinction. It amuses me to this day when I hear someone saying they are eating or on a low-carb foods diet but gnoshing down huge green leafy salads, steamed veggies, and eating fruits. What is it they think they are eating? The simple carbohydrates found in high amts like found in some breads, pastas, white rice, refined sugar, refined flours, many highly processsed foods, etc are the carbs one wants to limit FROM A NUTRITIONAL STAND PT. that doesn't specifically have other issues with carbs like diabetics, insulin imbalances, obesity issues, etc.
Further, Robert Atkins stated he followed his own diet. He died after hitting his head in a fall. By some accounts, his wife and his cardiologist friend(who also was on a Atkins related committee, Atkins had a long standing cardiology issue), both of whom I would say, COULD have had a monetary conflict of interest, stated he was admitted to the hospital after his fall weighing 195 lbs yet one wk later when he died in the hospital he weighed 258 lbs according to the death certificate. That's a wt gain of more than 60 lbs in one wk! This is conjecture upon my part. But, if he was admitted at 258 lbs as listed on his death certificate, that would have made him statistically obese. HMM! Just my 2 cents....The Atkins diet recommends limiting foods high in carbs, such as bread, pasta and rice.
True but VERY POSSIBLY misleading, which I thought the "The Atkins Diet" was, on a very important point, at least in the first three chapters I read before putting it down. From a nutritional standpoint a distinction should have been made by Atkins, especially being a cardiologist, between simple and complex carbs in the very beginning of his book! It should be clarified that these listed foods traditionally are foods containing high amounts of simple carbs. Although, not all breads, pastas, and rice are equal! For example, some pastas made from red lentil bean, quinoa, brown rice, buckwheat, and spelt flours are quite high in complex carbs, low(or lower than traditional wheat pastas) in simple carbs, and even have good amts of protein. Likewise this is true for some breads. I think most folks can make a nutritional distinction between Wonder Bread and 7 Grain Branola, for example. Also, a nutritional distinction can be made between white rice which has had its germ removed so it can be polished compared with brown rice which is more nutritious.
Carbs are replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of proteins and fats (meat, poultry, fish, eggs and cheese) and other low-carb foods (most vegetables).
This is only half true so it makes this statement false. Why? Virtually all the cals in vegetables and fruits come from carbs, COMPLEX CARBOHYDRATES, which are the "good carbs" which Darwin rightly refers to in his #31 post. Vegetables and fruits ARE NOT, for the most part, low-carb foods! Think about it. With a few exceptions(avocados for one), fruits and vegetables are not normally thought of as containing large amounts of fat or protein. Since calories only come from carbs, fats, and protein, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand what type of cals are mostly contained in fruits and veggies. I thought Atkins first book should have made this important distinction. It amuses me to this day when I hear someone saying they are eating or on a low-carb foods diet but gnoshing down huge green leafy salads, steamed veggies, and eating fruits in abundance. What is it they think they are eating? The simple carbohydrates found in high amts like found in some breads, pastas, white rice, refined sugar, refined flours, many highly processsed foods, etc are the carbs one wants to limit FROM A NUTRITIONAL STAND PT. that doesn't specifically have other issues with carbs like diabetics, insulin imbalances, obesity issues, etc.
This important distinction between so called "good" and "bad" carbs is so widely misunderstood, or at least not mentioned, especially when referring to low carb diets, of which the Atkins Diet is probably most known for, that it took 31 posts before anyone mentioned it. I will post Darwin's comments again in case some glanced over that post: "I think what people need to know is that carbohydrates are incredibly important to being healthy and losing fat in the body, as well as fueling it. However, a distinction between the 'bad' carbs and the 'good' carbs needs to be made. Limiting your carbohydrate intake to whole grains, fruits and vegetables is going to help you lose weight with an exercise program."
Further, Robert Atkins stated he followed his own diet. He died after hitting his head in a fall. By some accounts, his wife and his cardiologist/friend(who also was on a Atkins related committee, Atkins had a long standing cardiology issue), both of whom I would say, COULD have had a monetary conflict of interest, stated he was admitted to the hospital after his fall weighing 195 lbs yet one wk later when he died in the hospital he weighed 258 lbs according to the death certificate. That's a wt gain of more than 60 lbs in one wk! This is conjecture upon my part. But, if he was admitted at 258 lbs as listed on his death certificate, that would have made him statistically obese. HMM! Just my 2 cents.
I'm 5'8 and weigh 151.5 as of yesterday which is an ok weight for me - - if I go and hike for a week (next week-long hike will probably be March for me), I'll probably weigh in at 149 or so when I finish. This summer, I did about 170 miles in 12 days in NH and went down to about 145 (I'm 46 years old) - - to me it's a little scarier to get too light than to get too heavy - at one point a few years back, I was 130 after about a 300 mile hike - - people thought I was "sick" or something - - I wasn't but I was also on a vegan diet and drank black coffee all day and ran non stop - - just pointing out that there are 2 sides to the coin.
Sorry, for the duplicate paragraphs.
The Atkins diet and derivatives (Protein Power, and to some degree South Beach) do eliminate most carbs during an induction phase. Later on, carbs are added back in, primarily in the form of low carbohydrate vegetables (e.g., most green veggies, cauliflower) and low carbohydrate fruits (e.g., berries). The goal of such diets is to have your body burn fat as a primary fuel source, after all, if there are little to no carbs, your body must burn fat or protein to survive. Losing 2 pounds of fat per week is typical. Note that these diets are NOT high protein, it is only required to consume enough quality protein needed to maintain muscle mass, about 4-6 ounces per meal. If you are too hungry (and you probably will not be), you can consume more protein/fat, but this will cause you to lose weight more slowly.
These diets do work short and long term for many people, my wife being one of those people. In "solidarity" (and in part to compete in an office contest, which I am winning with one week remaining), I joined her efforts.
After the past nine weeks, I do not believe that they are good diets for most hikers, however, it can be done. I feel a whole lot better when consuming carbohydrate, but can go long distances on very little food when on an Atkins-type diet. Unfortunately, if you are burning primarily fat, your body, has less ability to handle bursts of effort. For example, in the middle of 20 mile hike this winter, I bonked on a steep portion of 2000 foot climb, the first relatively gradual 1500 ft being little problem, but a steep portion at the end required more energy than was available. (I ended up consuming some carbohydrate so that I complete the hike without consuming ALL the battery life on my headlamp).
The goal of most of these diets is to eventually to have more balance in your food intake, e.g., a near equal amount of consumed protein, fat, and carbohydrate, when you are at or near your ideal weight. I see no nutritional danger in such a final goal. Getting there, however, is somewhat of a joyless experience.
So, 105 calories a month then?. But owls, are like racehorses, we can go and go and go - I am above 210 calories... you do the math.....
Fruits and veggies: Umm. Yes this works. If you eat food with lots of fiber, you will be fuller, and consume less calories than you will eating refined junk. As long as you cut out the refined junk carbs. Its really hard to overeat on lean meat, veggies, and fruit. And it is near impossible on just vegetables, you couldnt eat enough.
FAst weight loss: Fast is definitely worse for you. You will lose more lean body tissues when losing weight very fast. Period. It is even correllated with cardiovascular damage. Hint...the heart is a muscle too.
Gym class.: Probably doesnt do much, they dont work kids hard enough , often enough to do any good. Problem is uncaring parents that provide uncontrolled easy junk calories to kids. But, it certainly doesnt hurt!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
