Carbs being bad is very much outdated. As are unsustainable eating methods for short term benefits. Eating 6 times a day is also seeing some push back as to whether it is really any healthier. Calorie counting not being important was a fad (if its possible to have a negative fad). How can you have an ideal macro split for a diet when each of those macros has a calorie value without also taking into account your overall calorie needs?
It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.
Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.
Actually, while frequent eating is beneficial in terms of maximizing the gene expression response to protein feeding, it is actually detrimental in terms of insulin sensitivity. At least one study has shown that people practicing an intermittent fasting pattern of food intake improved insulin sensitivity relative to people consuming a calorie matched diet consumed using traditional meal timing.
Monounsaturated fat is a much better choice as it is nearly as effective as saturated fat at promoting hormone biosynthesis. The problem with saturated fat is that it triggers expression of genes for fat storage, and the effect is particularly pronounced in visceral tissue (which is the least healthy place to store it!).
"If it fits your macros" is bullshit, because there is a definite difference between sugar and other carbs, and a definite difference between saturated fat and other fats. Try going on a diet where all your carbs come from sugar, and almost all your fat comes from saturated fat and see how you look and feel.
I agree mostly. My main point of concern was the "just count calories, you'll be fine" completely ignores anything we know about a healthy died in terms of nutrients.
The fat one I find interesting:
> I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
While these things mostly go over my head, I could get my better half (PhD in nutritional epidemiology) to make a comment. Her answer:
"Saturated fats are not accepted to be healthy by the scientific community. Unsaturated fats are healthy, reduce cardiovascular risk, and promote satiety, so eating some is good, even if they have a higher calorie count per gram"
That being said, this comment mostly targets a healthy diet to prohibit e.g. cardiovascular diseases. While those usually correlate to reducing weight to a normal level, they might not be the same :)
I am not an expert in this field (nutritional epi + cardiovascular disease).
Luckily, my significant other is (which is there the quote came from).
Her answer:
"The first article shows no association of saturated fats with cardiovascular disease. No association does not mean healthy."
and
"Substituting polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats has been shown to lower ldl and is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease. This comes from both robust randomized controlled trial evidence, and data from prospective cohort studies"
I think the whole idea is that people agree that unsaturated fats do have health benefits. There is no clear evidence that saturated fats do. They might not actively cause harm, but they also don't have comparable benefits to health.
>"I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking,"
IIFYM is a misleading acronym, it was born out of frustration with people asking "can I eat x? can I eat y?", it it meant to mean "If it fits your protein, carbs, fat, fiber and micronutrients".
It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.
Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.