The FastDay Forum

The so called "eatwell" plate is, in my opinion, bollocks.

A Dietitian who appeared on Embarrassing Bodies had reworked it to have 25% from protein.

Starch is a completely optional component of the human diet, ask an Eskimo. It is poly glucose and detrimental to diabetics while for the rest of us it's an optional energy add-on.

The Chinese eat rice when the rest of the meal hasn't satisfied them. If I'm offered "salad" or "pasta" I always ask what food comes with it.

The eatwell plate, which comes from the NHS (which doesn't necessarily make it right, they are against 5:2 aren't they), seems to show about 33% from starchy foods:


PhilT, where did your alternative come from?

I think its origin is Swedish not sure exactly. Google images search for LCHF plate and it is oft repeated.

[carorees]

Personally I think that if you extend the vegetable section into the carb section until the veggies occupy half the plate, it will be about right!

So, given that it seems we should control the amount of protein we eat (not too little, not too much), are we really saying that in order to avoid carbohydrate we should get 60% of our energy requirement from fat? That is the paleo argument right? (Though unproven from a evolutionary perspective, I suspect our ancestors got most of their calories from the gathering not the hunting, it is just that we find the hunting more appealing.) Or even Atkins?

Simple maths really - anything much over 35% protein is generally seen as excessive / surplus so if we hold carbs at 10% (about 50g) then to make it add up to 100 we do indeed need at least 55% from fats & oils.

Thanks Phil, and the logic of restricting carbs (all carbs presumably not just the bad ones) to 10% is...?

It was an illustration, in response to your posed question "are we really saying...."

One argument would be you don't need them, especially if you're a diabetic. Other arguments are available.

Good and bad carbs is another minefield - in the eye of the beholder I suspect

Thanks Phil. Unless you need them for short-term energy release, can high GI foods be other than 'bad'? Except for how they taste, unfortunately...

The argument for saturated fat is that the body preferentially burns these for energy. Volek & Phinney quote meta studies that show no association between saturated fat intake & cardiovascular disease. They have performed studies that show for those on ultra-low carb diets ('fat burners') high dietary intake does not result in high blood levels. They do agree there are large individual differences in the ability to 'turn up' the fat burning process in this way. I'd love to give it a try, but the practicalities are pretty daunting - so I'm trying it on fast days when carbs are bad news all round. So far, to my surprise, I've found 2 hours cycling and a 5k run race don't cause 'bonking' symptoms, nor is my time any slower.

[carorees]

Yes, high GI is probably all bad apart from being mmmmm, goood! For me the 5:2 thing enables me to enjoy the foods I love despite knowing they're not good for me because I am having at least a couple of, what should we say, "evolutionarily appropriate"? days per week!

Thanks Paul, interesting.

'bonking' symptoms

I had to google that, it wasn't what I thought...

Thanks Phil. Unless you need them for short-term energy release, can high GI foods be other than 'bad'? Except for how they taste, unfortunately...

As Mr Clinton might say, that depends what your definition of "bad" is

10g of high GI carbs may be the same as 20g of low GI and neither will kill you.

[carorees]

Thanks Paul, interesting.

'bonking' symptoms

I had to google that, it wasn't what I thought...

same problem here! I've never used it to mean that! nudge nudge wink wink!

Paul, thanks for the Volek & Phinney hint, I googled them. Was this the book you read? If so, do you recommend it?