Poker Video: Misc/Other by Travis Steffen (Micro/Small Stakes)

Thank you Travis, that was a great video.

You may have answered this already, so forgive me if that is the case, but as this series continues, it looks to become quite extensive (if you're doing suppliments in ep 7, I'm guessing it's not an eight part series, as exercise and self talk haven't been addressed). In light of this, if I were to purchase your book once the series has concluded, what will it offer that is not included in the course, or is it too early to say?

Travis, i've heard things like "be sure to take a 'good' multivitamin" or "take a 'high quality' fish oil". Can you either explain what good and high quality mean in these contexts or recommend products that are examples of these?

Thank you Travis, that was a great video.

You may have answered this already, so forgive me if that is the case, but as this series continues, it looks to become quite extensive (if you're doing suppliments in ep 7, I'm guessing it's not an eight part series, as exercise and self talk haven't been addressed). In light of this, if I were to purchase your book once the series has concluded, what will it offer that is not included in the course, or is it too early to say?

I hate to say that this series is independent of the book because there are a number of similar concepts throughout each. However, there is some info that isn't included in the series that is included in the book (and vice versa).

As far as extending the series goes, that's all up to DC - but you're right, there are a lot of topics I haven't covered yet.

saturated fat = bad is 100% myth. It's not even close. Also IMO 60% carbs is craziness.

eta: watch this as a start. I'll go dig up articles on pubmed in a few days.

here come the inevitable diet wars - LOL

i haven't listen to vid yet so i won't comment yet

saturated fat = bad is 100% myth. It's not even close. Also IMO 60% carbs is craziness.

eta: watch this as a start. I'll go dig up articles on pubmed in a few days.

now that i look at link - great lecture - i watched this maybe 6 months ago after finding the link on Rob Wolf's Paleo nutrition blog

eta: watch this as a start

There's a good "short version" of this vid by underground wellness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXCvduiAbs&feature=related

saturated fat = bad is 100% myth. It's not even close. Also IMO 60% carbs is craziness.

eta: watch this as a start. I'll go dig up articles on pubmed in a few days.

60% carb, holy cow..ehm, holy bread!

60% carb, holy cow..ehm, holy bread!

Everybody please remember - carbs aren't just bread. Fruits and vegetables are carbs as well.

Also - remember that these recommendations (ie 50-60% of your dietary intake being from clean low GI carb sources) are the commonplace recommendations for a healthy intake for athletes. These recommendations come from a variety of sources, including the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, the National Academies' Institute on Medicine - among many others.

These DRIs (Daily Reference Intakes) and RDIs (Recommended Daily Allowances) are designed to meet the needs of active individuals who are healthy and free of specific diseases or conditions that may alter their daily nutritional requirements. It is also expected that people known to have specific conditions or chronic diseases will get nutritional advice from their health professionals that is tailored to their special needs.

There's always a little resistance on this topic as it challenges a lot of ideas you may have ingrained in your mind and have accepted as fact. That being said, this is not my personal fad diet I'm inventing here. These are the recommendations made by the major organizations that put out the research on the topics, and they're what almost every coach who bases teachings on research rather than anecdotal evidence goes by as well. I wouldn't recommend anything if I wasn't sure it would help you all!

Travis,

An analogy for you and the rest of DC that should be illustrative regarding the advice put forth by the "major organizations" that have the guidelines you adhere to:

USDA/NAIM : Nutrition Guidelines :: Phil Hellmuth : online HSNL strategy

All of those government organizations base their nutrition recs on bad, borderline criminally fraudulent 30 year old science that has since proven to be completely incorrect. Yet they still continue with the same recommendations. The USDA does not do research studies on this stuff - that's not their job. ALL of the real science being done in actual labs and actual clinical trials shows that saturated fat is 100% benign, amongst other fallacies put forth in this video. And I'm aware that fruits and vegetables have carbs in them.

TBH most general doctors and even a lot of nutritional consultants are completely clueless about this stuff, because they still hold dear the notion that fat is bad etc. Why do you think America continues to get fatter despite eating less fat and not actually exercising any less? It's the carbs!

eta: I'm not basing any of what I said here on anecdotal evidence of any kind. Nor am I imagining anything. I get my information straight from primary journal articles (ie the science straight from the horse's mouth).

Travis,

An analogy for you:

USDA/NAIM : Nutrition Guidelines :: Phil Hellmuth : online HSNL strategy

That's a funny analogy. But seriously though, if you don't take the USDA or NAIM seriously (both respected institutions that base their recommendations on research), what organizations would you take seriously? ACSM? NSCA? These are the two big ones, and they both cite the USDA as a source of nutrient proportions for a balanced diet.

I would be extremely surprised if any research-based institution didn't recommend that a balanced diet doesn't include at LEAST 50% carbs. Most, if not all, institutions recommend a balanced diet that includes 50-60% of your total intake as carbs (unless carb loading for endurance competition, in which case you should be taking in 70-80% carbs).

I realize this challenges the values that the commercialized low-carb-diet industry has made so popular, but these are the recommendations that research points to. If you choose not to accept it - it's entirely up to you. I can only show you the door. You're the one that must walk through it. Also, remember that fad diet books shouldn't be seen as sources of research.

(As a clarification, the more concrete recommendations for protein and carbs are based on grams per kg of body weight, but I felt that I should spare you all the calculations and give you a general, easy to understand recommendation. If you'd like the official ACSM recommendations by body weight, let me know and I can post them.)

read my next post. and my analogy is 100% serious (and true)

eta: btw, how on earth is a high-carb low-fat diet controversial in any way? that's what like 90% of america eats, and most of the rest do high-carb high-fat. MY idea is the "controversial" one, at least compared to the status quo.

and fwiw i think things like atkins and other super low-carb diets aren't great either. they are fine for losing weight but completely unsustainable long-term. ketosis is not really your friend.

Everybody please remember - carbs aren't just bread. Fruits and vegetables are carbs as well.

haha I was just kidding. But i think it's to many carbs if you consider you also need protein and fats.. I think it's to much. 20% protein.. 20% fat? or 30% protein, 10% fat? Mweh.. not really great if you train a lot and need muscle recovery

I would not go higher then 45%, then you can have a pretty good balance with protein and fats

Its not about 'low-carb-diet', my bodyfat is already very low, i don't care about that.
I am a sportman pure sang, aaaaaight

and fwiw i think things like atkins and other super low-carb diets aren't great either. they are fine for losing weight but completely unsustainable long-term. ketosis is not really your friend.

they are not great for losing weight, well.. yeah.. weight, since water is weight too.. Sure.. But losing bodyfat, not so much

never go to deep under what you need, because it will mean troubles later

eta: btw, how on earth is a high-carb low-fat diet controversial in any way? that's what like 90% of america eats, and most of the rest do high-carb high-fat. MY idea is the "controversial" one, at least compared to the status quo.

Right - it's not controversial from a research-based standpoint, but from a publicly-accepted standpoint it is unfortunately becoming that way - especially with the advent of the commercialized low-carb diets.

and fwiw i think things like atkins and other super low-carb diets aren't great either. they are fine for losing weight but completely unsustainable long-term. ketosis is not really your friend.

You're right - they're absolutely not great, or good, or healthy at all. They can actually be pretty dangerous if followed for < 6 months.

haha I was just kidding. But i think it's to many carbs if you consider you also need protein and fats.. I think it's to much. 20% protein.. 20% fat? or 30% protein, 10% fat? Mweh.. not really great if you train a lot and need muscle recovery

I would not go higher then 45%, then you can have a pretty good balance with protein and fats

Don't confuse the term "balanced diet" with including an equivalent amount of macronutrients in the diet. Here are the recommendations for a balanced diet according to the American College of Sports Medicine:

Carbohydrate recommendations for athletes range from 6 to 10 g/kg body weight per day. The amount required depends upon the athlete’s total daily energy expenditure, type of sport performed, sex of the athlete, and environmental conditions.

Protein requirements are slightly increased in highly active people. Protein recommendations for endurance athletes are 1.2 to 1.4 g/kg body weight per day, whereas those for resistance and strength-trained athletes may be as high as 1.6 to 1.7 g/kg body weight per day.

The optimal fat intake in a balanced diet is approximately 20% of total intake. In some cases 25% is acceptable, but 15% is seen as the floor below which fat intake should not dip below as there is no performance benefit in consuming a diet with less than 15% of energy from fat.

Hopefully you can see why I didn't include the recommendations like this, and opted instead for generalized percentage-based guidelines

Right - it's not controversial from a research-based standpoint

this is completely false, which is my entire point.

I realize this challenges the values that the commercialized low-carb-diet industry has made so popular, but these are the recommendations that research points to. If you choose not to accept it - it's entirely up to you. I can only show you the door. You're the one that must walk through it. Also, remember that fad diet books shouldn't be seen as sources of research.

Also, please don't patronize me with this paragraph. I'm a scientist before I'm a poker player - I know what I'm talking about. Feel free to cite me legit scientific studies that show 60+% carb diets are good for you.

Don't confuse the term "balanced diet" with including an equivalent amount of macronutrients in the diet. Here are the recommendations for a balanced diet according to the American College of Sports Medicine:

Carbohydrate recommendations for athletes range from 6 to 10 g/kg body weight per day. The amount required depends upon the athlete’s total daily energy expenditure, type of sport performed, sex of the athlete, and environmental conditions.

Protein requirements are slightly increased in highly active people. Protein recommendations for endurance athletes are 1.2 to 1.4 g/kg body weight per day, whereas those for resistance and strength-trained athletes may be as high as 1.6 to 1.7 g/kg body weight per day.

The optimal fat intake in a balanced diet is approximately 20% of total intake. In some cases 25% is acceptable, but 15% is seen as the floor below which fat intake should not dip below as there is no performance benefit in consuming a diet with less than 15% of energy from fat.

Hopefully you can see why I didn't include the recommendations like this, and opted instead for generalized percentage-based guidelines

Oh no. Like I always say, everybody has a diet. With balanced I just mean the balance between the Carbs, fats and proteins..

I sure understand why you did it, but I also hope you said somewhere that it can differ. Some people do very bad on low carb, some do very bad on high carb.. etc

But i guess we already accomplished that now

I am not going to much into the discussion you are having with n0whereman, with posts in the past from him I am pretty sure he will say the same things haha

here come the inevitable diet wars - LOL

I think this guy was right haha

(and all that to make a 'holy cow.. holy bread' joke )

I am not going to much into the discussion you are having with n0whereman, with posts in the past from him I am pretty sure he will say the same things haha

no point in telling the truth differently

Travis,

An analogy for you and the rest of DC that should be illustrative regarding the advice put forth by the "major organizations" that have the guidelines you adhere to:

USDA/NAIM : Nutrition Guidelines :: Phil Hellmuth : online HSNL strategy

any analogy with phil hellmuth is always funny

the problem with "major organizations" like the USDA is their policy is driven more by politics than by science. the video linked above explains a few clear examples of this in great detail if anyone is interested

Wow, all this is massively confusing to a lay person
I'm sure both sides of the argument are sincere, it's just really hard for a nutrition noob (like me) to ever reach a conclusion about who is right.

Can I ask for comments on the following questions/comments about the protein/carbs/fat ratio

(1) It has to be that once a diet basically cuts out the crap (processed junk salts and sugars)and you begin to eat healthy food anywhere close to being balanced that this gives you the bulk of any benefit? Like I'd never heard of any of this stuff but I know the huge difference it makes when I'm trying to "eat healthy" as opposed to just eating lazy??
A bit like poker:
Perfect Balance > Somewhat Balanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unbalanced

(2) Wouldn't the carb part of the equation relate fairly highly to how active the person is? Like 50%+ carbs might be bad for an office worker but a requirement for someone in training is much different?

(3) Which of these diets do pro athletes use? I mean with all the $ at stake there, this is the arena where the truth will be most actively sought - and the results should come to the fore fast if there is a significant difference.

Sounded Simple,
I am, like you, a nutrition noob with a google-window. It seems that your metabolic type is an important factor in the "what is healthy for you"-game. This might be an introduction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IctBpdmHUw0

I just started getting into the whole nutrition thing, so my knowledge is fairly rudimentary, but before I even started doing any of my own research, I only needed one piece of evidence to know that listening to anything the USDA has to say is one of the worst mistakes you could ever make.

Here are a couple of items listed on my Pure Protein bar I just ate:

18g Carbs ( 6% DV )
20g Protein( 36% DV )

Really? I should eat 300g of carbs and 50g of protein per day? People should be thrown in prison for advocating this nonsense. How many people are overweight because they think they are eating right based on the garbage numbers they see printed on every single thing they eat? It's so egregious that it isn't far-fetched to think that these agencies are purposefully sabotaging the uninformed public.

I work for the government and while I don't know much about nutrition, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the USDA was wrong about a great number of things. I can't speak to who is more right, but I would be highly reluctant to cite government resources as current/factual. Ultimately, we are all just trying to find out what the best answers are in this debate and provide that information to the DC community. I would love to see citations and proof given to help us all reach the best answer.

Also, please don't patronize me with this paragraph. I'm a scientist before I'm a poker player - I know what I'm talking about. Feel free to cite me legit scientific studies that show 60+% carb diets are good for you.

Sorry - didn't mean to offend you! It wasn't meant as a shot at ya, promise! I'm just saying that I'm basing all of this on research from studies and textbooks, recommendations from PhD level physiologists and nutritionists, etc. Whether or not you choose to accept these (or me) as credible sources is entirely up to you. I can only present you with the information.

The 60/20/20 nutrient split is really commonly accepted among medical professionals, nutritionists, coaches, etc. A great resource is Dynamic Nutrition for Maximum Performance by Dr. Fred Hatfield. It's got some really good info.

If you want specific studies that say that having a diet with 50-60% carbs is generally healthy, you're going to have to look a while. Most studies are pretty specific. Here's an example:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/8/895

This study showed benefits of a 60% carb, high fiber diet, but it's purpose wasn't examining performance - it was gaging the responses that diabetic men may have to the standard 60/20/20 recommendation.

Other studies may seem a little more confusing, like this one:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/1/10

This is a little more generalized, but it is pretty jagon-laden and was only done for 7 days as its purpose wasn't measuring long-term performance.

The solution? Seek out some lit reviews done by qualified pros. Here's one by JoAnn Heslin, MA, RD (pretty respected source IMO):

http://www.enotalone.com/article/5749.html

Here's another from Catherine N. Rasberry, PhD, CHES (from the Dept. of Health and Physiology at Texas A&M):

http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Ca-De/Carbohydrates.html

They're not that extensive, but they've got some decent bibliographies and were written by some pretty qualified minds.

Here's another article on HealthLine that places 60% carbs in the generally accepted range:

http://www.healthline.com/hlbook/nut-carbohydrate-requirements


Here's the point. Are there cases in which I would advocate a diet with a lower number of carbs? Sure. Would I do so if eliciting peak performance is the goal? I wouldn't. Again, if you choose to view certain agencies like the ACSM, NSCA, USDA, AJCN, etc. as valid, they can be really helpful. Aside from those, I'm not sure what to base recommendations off of as these are some of the most popular research sources in the industry.

(1) It has to be that once a diet basically cuts out the crap (processed junk salts and sugars)and you begin to eat healthy food anywhere close to being balanced that this gives you the bulk of any benefit? Like I'd never heard of any of this stuff but I know the huge difference it makes when I'm trying to "eat healthy" as opposed to just eating lazy??
A bit like poker:
Perfect Balance > Somewhat Balanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unbalanced

(2) Wouldn't the carb part of the equation relate fairly highly to how active the person is? Like 50%+ carbs might be bad for an office worker but a requirement for someone in training is much different?

(3) Which of these diets do pro athletes use? I mean with all the $ at stake there, this is the arena where the truth will be most actively sought - and the results should come to the fore fast if there is a significant difference.

Sorry that this thread's getting confusing! I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible in the videos, but people tend to ask for more in-depth clarifications in the threads.

1) Cutting out the junk and controlling portions will give you significant benefits, though so will all the other aspects of nutrition when paid attention to.

2) I wouldn't ever really say that a 50-60% carb diet is bad for anyone as it's pretty much seen as the industry standard for a balanced diet. Most pieces of research use this as an assumption from which they base additional research. That being said, there has been some evidence stating that lower amounts of carbohydrates in the diet can be favorable for diabetics.

3) Athletes need fuel to perform. Most pro athletes who are under the supervision of nutritionists and strength coaches will adhere to a balanced diet, usually only varying slightly from the 60/20/20 scheme. That being said, endurance competition requires carb loading for days in advance when carbs can comprise up to 80% of the dietary intake.

Sounded Simple,
I am, like you, a nutrition noob with a google-window. It seems that your metabolic type is an important factor in the "what is healthy for you"-game. This might be an introduction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IctBpdmHUw0

There are definitely TONS of factors that need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, when giving info to the masses I have no way of doing this. This is one of the reasons why I was obligated to give the general recommendations in this video.

Thanks Travis and everyone else for their input. I guess I need to knuckle down and just educate myself on all the detail.

Really? I should eat 300g of carbs and 50g of protein per day?

This is the standard recommendation for a balanced 2000 calorie/day diet for a normal adult. If you're an active individual, or your trying to elicit peak performance, these values change a little bit (protein requirements are going to go up a bit).

Does this sound like a lot of carbs? Here's a reference point:

A 1 cup serving of my strawberry granola with flax cereal has 50 g of carbs. When I throw in my usual 10 or so whole strawberries, that's another 15 g of carbs right there. I add a serving of skim milk for 13 g carbs, then another 10 from a serving of Muscle Milk mixed with water. So for a fairly small, balanced breakfast, you're already having 83 g carbs. This is an extremely brain-friendly, healthy meal. Hopefully this helps put things in perspective

People should be thrown in prison for advocating this nonsense. How many people are overweight because they think they are eating right based on the garbage numbers they see printed on every single thing they eat?

If they're following a 2000 calorie/day balanced diet as listed on food labels, I would say that very few are overweight.

It's so egregious that it isn't far-fetched to think that these agencies are purposefully sabotaging the uninformed public.

I'd say it's pretty far-fetched

Hey Trevis,

First of all, super serie. I really enjoy and learn from it.
But atm i just see lesson 4 and are making my poker goals.
Can you please look at them if they are good?

Main goal.

I want to move up from 50 nl to 400 nl in 15 months.(till December 2011)
I am gonna achieve this by looking 120 dc poker learning films.
I am gonna take 36 coachings sessions.
I am gonna play 4 tables each session + take notes with paper and pen,
after the session i must always replay the hands where i have made notes on.
Once in the month i gonna revieuw my hands with the HM filters.

Is this specific enough? So i can make it little steps of months or must i change somthing or make it specificer.

tx for reply

Thanks Travis and everyone else for their input. I guess I need to knuckle down and just educate myself on all the detail.

+1

I'm having trouble transforming some of this information into actionable items though. The To-Do List has helped me a lot. I'm one of those people who used to only eat big lunches and big dinners (and then dessert ). I've since incorporated the carnation instant breakfast (thoughts on this product?) into my routine instead of no breakfast. I realize it's not the best, but something > nothing. I'm also trying to snack throughout the day (peanuts, cheese sticks), and I drink a lot of seltzer water throughout the day (sodium free) to stay hydrated.

I've added the to-do list, eating breakfast, and eating numerous small meals, but I'm having trouble incorporating the other information. I did some brief research and found that I should be eating ~3300 calories/day, although that did seem a bit high. Either way, how do I actually use this information to eat healthier? Knowing the four groups of macro-nutrients is nice, but I'm struggling with the next step. Thanks in advance!

ok so I had a bit of a busy day today (see here), but now I'm ready to address this stuff. I'll start with a few things off the bat:

1) I am aware that this is going to turn into he-said she-said. I'm confident that I'm right and have the science to back it up, but I can understand how this is difficult to get behind on either side. I'll try to be as clear as I can.
2) Travis has _some_ good ideas in what he says. Low GI carbs (mostly) are good. Lean meats, some (SOME) fruits, lots of veggies, etc are staples of a healthy diet. To sort of answer SoundedSimple's question, staying away from ALL processed foods is probably the single best thing you can do to eat right.
3) Here's the problem, and where Travis gets it wrong: bread, pasta and just about all of the grain-based carbs he says are "healthy" are, in fact, processed foods.

A quick experiment before I go tear apart some bad 1970's science: take a cracker and put it on your tongue. I don't care if it's a ritz cracker or the healtheist whole wheat cracker in the world. Leave it on your tongue for about 20-30 seconds, and tell me what you start to taste.

+1

I'm having trouble transforming some of this information into actionable items though. The To-Do List has helped me a lot. I'm one of those people who used to only eat big lunches and big dinners (and then dessert ). I've since incorporated the carnation instant breakfast (thoughts on this product?) into my routine instead of no breakfast. I realize it's not the best, but something > nothing. I'm also trying to snack throughout the day (peanuts, cheese sticks), and I drink a lot of seltzer water throughout the day (sodium free) to stay hydrated.

I've added the to-do list, eating breakfast, and eating numerous small meals, but I'm having trouble incorporating the other information. I did some brief research and found that I should be eating ~3300 calories/day, although that did seem a bit high. Either way, how do I actually use this information to eat healthier? Knowing the four groups of macro-nutrients is nice, but I'm struggling with the next step. Thanks in advance!

try eating bacon and eggs for breakfast. or skip the bacon if you want. i'm serious. past that, stick with the following stuff:

- lean meat (this includes beef!), fish, poultry.
- vegetables
- some fruit
- nuts and seeds
- little grains
- no sugar
- dairy if you can handle it

basically shop around the perimeter of the grocery store.

eta: a bottle of carnation instant breakfast has 39 grams of sugar in it. that's more than a can of coke. hell, the 2nd ingredient is sugar.

a quick question for travis: how is 60+% of your calories coming from carbs in any way balanced? balance (to me) would imply something more like 33-33-33 or at worst maybe 40-30-30. 60-20-20 (or god forbid something like 80-10-10) doesn't sound anywhere close to balanced.

Really? I should eat 300g of carbs and 50g of protein per day?

pretty stupid, isn't it?

How many people are overweight because they think they are eating right based on the garbage numbers they see printed on every single thing they eat?

TENS OF MILLIONS. i'm so glad that you're seeing this so easily.

It's so egregious that it isn't far-fetched to think that these agencies are purposefully sabotaging the uninformed public.

it's more that powerful agencies with tons of money on the line (think the US farming industry) have a HUGE say in all of this stuff.

(1) It has to be that once a diet basically cuts out the crap (processed junk salts and sugars)and you begin to eat healthy food anywhere close to being balanced that this gives you the bulk of any benefit? Like I'd never heard of any of this stuff but I know the huge difference it makes when I'm trying to "eat healthy" as opposed to just eating lazy??
A bit like poker:
Perfect Balance > Somewhat Balanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unbalanced

Like I said before, stay on the outside aisles of the grocery store (minus the bread aisle) and you'll be great.

(2) Wouldn't the carb part of the equation relate fairly highly to how active the person is? Like 50%+ carbs might be bad for an office worker but a requirement for someone in training is much different?

yes, except your "fuel" in the way you describe it can come from fat too. fat's a much better source of fuel than carbohydrate, it's more easily processed by the body, and it has far fewer antinutrients (things that damage your body) in than grain-based carbohydrates.

(3) Which of these diets do pro athletes use? I mean with all the $ at stake there, this is the arena where the truth will be most actively sought - and the results should come to the fore fast if there is a significant difference.

tbh most athletes have horrible nutrition (like lots of pizza and crap - remember that those guys are all complete genetic freaks), and if the advice travis is getting is any indication, the people providing them advice aren't any better. here's an illuminating article with a slightly different perspective: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=5021601 (disclaimer: i'm not necessarily a proponent of any caveman diet, although it's basic principles are FAR better than what is recommended here and by the USDA).

ok, this should be fun:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/8/895

among the many reasons why this study is atrocious:
1) it's from 1976. seriously, no one in sciences listens to 34-year old data. hell, stuff in my field from 5 years ago is completely obsolete.
2) THIRTEEN PEOPLE? are you kidding? clinical trials use hundreds or thousands of people! to use a poker analogy, this experiment is the equivalent of saying that i'm awesome at 10/20 because I'm a 20bb/100 winner...over a sample of 100 hands.
3) it's a 2-week long study. Among other things, all of the weight loss these people had could be attributed 100% to things like water weight or the time of day the measurements were taken. Plus the cholesterol measurements don't look at important things like hdl/ldl ratio.
4) The discussion talks about limitations including the fact that severely diabetic people didn't respond at all to the treatment. this is a pretty big weakness of a study that's examining diabetic people.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/1/10

1) EIGHT PEOPLE? This is even worse than the first study
2) Their subjects are completely different, so it's beyond impossible to say what caused anything. If you're gonna do this study, make it long term and use people of the same sex with similar body types. Do you think you metabolize food the same way a 90lb woman does?
3) They don't measure anything relevant to our discussion at all. Why do I care that adding more carbs to your diet means that you are more capable of processing carbs? That's the body's natural efficiency.

http://www.enotalone.com/article/5749.html

1) I'm not going to take anything seriously from a site that has an ad for high fructose corn syrup on the side. I can't believe you're using this as evidence.
2) Their first "fast fact": Americans eat 60% more cereal than they did in 1970. WE'RE ALSO WAY FATTER THAN WE WERE IN 1970. How on earth does this help your cause?
3) fast fact: The average American eats 142 pounds of sugar and corn syrup a year, along with 24 pounds of low-calorie sweeteners. again, how is this helping your case?
4) Ok this is a direct quote: Sugar is not just a source of empty calories. W.T.F. this article is seriously an ad from a sugar company or something. I'm done.
5) OK one more, because I spit out my drink when I read it: The evidence points to obesity, not sugar, as a major cause of diabetes. WHAT?!?!?! HOW DO PEOPLE GET FAT? Travis, you lose 100% of your credibility by citing this.

http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Ca-De/Carbohydrates.html

I'm not bothering with this one really since it says a lot of random googleable crap about carbohydrates and isn't very useful. I'll point out, however, that it does say low-carb diets like atkins are effective in terms of weight loss. To DC: how many people that you know have gone on some super low-fat diet and not lost ANY weight?

http://www.healthline.com/hlbook/nut-carbohydrate-requirements

this article is basically parroting USDA BS, but I'll point out that it says corn flakes (healthy, right?) have a glycemic index higher than sugar. Hooray grains!

Here's the point

here's my points:
1) I'm not trying to sell anybody anything related to nutrition - I just want you guys to eat healthy and be healthy.
2) I think high-carb diets are crap, and hopefully I've convincingly shown everyone that the science behind Travis's recommendations is woefully inadequate.
3) As a scientist, it realllllllllllly pains me to see junk like this get portrayed as "standard" and "eliciting peak performance" when it's flat-out not true.

Last point: none of this is a knock on Travis himself or his work. He's clearly thought hard about this stuff and spent a great deal of time researching things. It's a difficult road to wade through the crap and understand what's really going on here.

I'll be back with some science on my side later.

er that last post is kind of mean. my apologies - i get a bit carried away.

Hey Trevis,

First of all, super serie. I really enjoy and learn from it.
But atm i just see lesson 4 and are making my poker goals.
Can you please look at them if they are good?

Main goal.

I want to move up from 50 nl to 400 nl in 15 months.(till December 2011)
I am gonna achieve this by looking 120 dc poker learning films.
I am gonna take 36 coachings sessions.
I am gonna play 4 tables each session + take notes with paper and pen,
after the session i must always replay the hands where i have made notes on.
Once in the month i gonna revieuw my hands with the HM filters.

Is this specific enough? So i can make it little steps of months or must i change somthing or make it specificer.

tx for reply

This is definitely a great start. You're starting to grasp the true nature of designing your own path.

I would definitely break everything down even more and make each goal into actionable items that you can include in your to-do list.

Also, know that it's likely that you'll come back and tweak things now and then. This is going to be the case with any long-term goal.

+1

I'm having trouble transforming some of this information into actionable items though. The To-Do List has helped me a lot. I'm one of those people who used to only eat big lunches and big dinners (and then dessert ). I've since incorporated the carnation instant breakfast (thoughts on this product?) into my routine instead of no breakfast. I realize it's not the best, but something > nothing. I'm also trying to snack throughout the day (peanuts, cheese sticks), and I drink a lot of seltzer water throughout the day (sodium free) to stay hydrated.

I've added the to-do list, eating breakfast, and eating numerous small meals, but I'm having trouble incorporating the other information. I did some brief research and found that I should be eating ~3300 calories/day, although that did seem a bit high. Either way, how do I actually use this information to eat healthier? Knowing the four groups of macro-nutrients is nice, but I'm struggling with the next step. Thanks in advance!

It sounds like you're off to a solid start, and have already made some pretty great changes.

If your goal is to put on muscle mass and you're engaging in an exercise program that facilitates this type of change, 3300 cal/day would be standard. If this isn't your goal, this is going to be too high in most cases.

Basically the nutritional section of this series is meant to provide you with some information so that you can filter through some of the BS out there. There are some great diet plans out there, but there are also a number of bad ones. This info is meant as your starting point. Sort of a prerequisite for finding a decent diet plan.

Does this make sense?

3) Here's the problem, and where Travis gets it wrong: bread, pasta and just about all of the grain-based carbs he says are "healthy" are, in fact, processed foods.

I really don't think I ever endorsed white flour, which is where breads and pastas become sub-optimal. These are high GI carbs. In fact, white bread serves as the reference point to the whole glycemic index. I've stated that these are no good.

That being said, whole grains, and certain pastas (whole wheat pastas, tomato noodles, spinach noodles) are actually fairly decent choices.

a quick question for travis: how is 60+% of your calories coming from carbs in any way balanced? balance (to me) would imply something more like 33-33-33 or at worst maybe 40-30-30. 60-20-20 (or god forbid something like 80-10-10) doesn't sound anywhere close to balanced.

Don't confuse a balanced diet with an equivalent number of nutrients. If you're approaching it from a mathematical perspective, I realize that "balanced" infers that you should have an equivalent number of macronutrients, but this isn't the case nutritionally.

er that last post is kind of mean. my apologies - i get a bit carried away.

I just want to clarify again - this isn't MY method that I'm inventing here. I base everything I teach on knowledge I've gained from multiple degrees and certifications in the field, years of coaching collegiate and pro athletes, countless hours pouring over medical journals, etc. etc.

If you read my post, the studies I cited I simply use as examples of how difficult it is to find a study that provides a generalized recommendation. The literature reviews are a little more helpful, and have been written by PhD level nutritionists. You can choose to believe them or not - that's your call.

It's becoming pretty clear, though, that no matter what info I present, you're going to do your best to discredit it as it goes against what you have accepted as truth. If you refuse to see me, numerous universities, PhDs and MDs, the USDA, the ACSM, the NSCA, the AJCN, and numerous others as "junk" information - that's your choice.

That being said, I hate to see you trying to discredit it all without any other evidence than your own assumptions. If you've got studies to back up your claims - that's awesome.

But don't tell me - tell the institutions that gave me the degrees and certifications. Tell the academic institutions full of PhDs and MDs who developed those assumptions and who have used them to help those who have wanted and needed it correct their bad habits. Go tell them that their assumptions that they've based on research into the biological effects of nutrients at the cellular level are untrue, and provide the evidence to back up your claim. In any field, there is a little varying research, but any time there is enough evidence to create a generally accepted assumption, these institutions will make one and use it as a basis for future research.

In the health profession there are two types of positions. There are researchers, and there are people who then bring that research to the masses and help them put it into practice. I am one of the latter. I don't have the luxury of having an opinion when it comes to a science like nutrition. I base my teachings on facts presented to me by institutions that are seen as respectable by the people who gave me my education, but the people who gave them theirs, and so on.

I hope you can realize that this back and forth we're having isn't personal. It actually happens quite often. Any time somebody has an piece of information that they've accepted as truth is challenged, it's met with resistance. Know that it's not me talking. It's the facts of numerous institutions and organizations. Feel free to pick up a copy of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a textbook on sports nutrition, or another valid resource backed by science.

In summary, I'm sorry you're having trouble with this information, but as always, I've gotta stick by my guns. They're the very same guns that the PhDs and MDs behind sports nutrition stick to. If you think you can do a doctor's job better than they can - feel free to try. Let me know how it goes.

among the many reasons why this study is atrocious:
1) it's from 1976. seriously, no one in sciences listens to 34-year old data. hell, stuff in my field from 5 years ago is completely obsolete.
2) THIRTEEN PEOPLE? are you kidding? clinical trials use hundreds or thousands of people! to use a poker analogy, this experiment is the equivalent of saying that i'm awesome at 10/20 because I'm a 20bb/100 winner...over a sample of 100 hands.
3) it's a 2-week long study. Among other things, all of the weight loss these people had could be attributed 100% to things like water weight or the time of day the measurements were taken. Plus the cholesterol measurements don't look at important things like hdl/ldl ratio.
4) The discussion talks about limitations including the fact that severely diabetic people didn't respond at all to the treatment. this is a pretty big weakness of a study that's examining diabetic people.

If you check, I'm not citing this study. I'm using it as an example of how citing specific studies, while they use the 60% carb recommendation as an assumption, can sometimes be confusing as they target very specific segments of the population.

I challenge you to find one single exercise-based clinical trial that uses hundreds of thousands of people. Or tens of thousands. Or thousands. There are a select few that may use hundreds, but they're still on a questionnaire-type basis. Most nutritional and exercise-based trials only use from 10-50 people. This is true for a number of medical studies of this nature as well. While it would be nice to have hundreds of thousands of people follow the exact same testing protocol, it's pretty close to impossible to make happen.

There are limitations to every study. In fact, one of the understood requirements of a medical or physiological study is to make the limitations of the study explicitly clear to provide basis for additional research. A 2 week period was likely required to accomplish the goals of this particular study - but again, as I said before, this isn't a performance study. I used this citation as a means to show that citing a specific study can be tough as they're extremely specific to a certain segment of the population and to a solitary purpose or desired response.

1) EIGHT PEOPLE? This is even worse than the first study
2) Their subjects are completely different, so it's beyond impossible to say what caused anything. If you're gonna do this study, make it long term and use people of the same sex with similar body types. Do you think you metabolize food the same way a 90lb woman does?
3) They don't measure anything relevant to our discussion at all. Why do I care that adding more carbs to your diet means that you are more capable of processing carbs? That's the body's natural efficiency.

As I said above and below this link, this is another example of how citing a specific study can be confusing IF you're looking for it to be pertinent to our discussion. The purpose of its citation was to show you that it's being used as an assumption for a generally accepted balanced diet.

I then go on to say that the solution to filtering through each and every case study would be relying on a review of literature, which is a common inclusion into various medical journals as a means of reaching a generally-accepted assumption with which to base future teachings and directions for research.

1) I'm not going to take anything seriously from a site that has an ad for high fructose corn syrup on the side. I can't believe you're using this as evidence.

It's very unlikely that this site has anything to do with their ads. They're likely set up with an ad network that places ads that their system believes are relevant to those visiting it. One of the sites I was involved with years ago had an ad network included on a sidebar that sometimes had ads for HGH. Do I endorse it? Not outside of certain types of medical rehabilitation, no.

2) Their first "fast fact": Americans eat 60% more cereal than they did in 1970. WE'RE ALSO WAY FATTER THAN WE WERE IN 1970. How on earth does this help your cause?
3) fast fact: The average American eats 142 pounds of sugar and corn syrup a year, along with 24 pounds of low-calorie sweeteners. again, how is this helping your case?
4) Ok this is a direct quote: Sugar is not just a source of empty calories. W.T.F. this article is seriously an ad from a sugar company or something. I'm done.

Again, the major purpose of this citation was to show you that the nutrient proportions I advise are included in the assumptions of most other academic minds in the field.

5) OK one more, because I spit out my drink when I read it: The evidence points to obesity, not sugar, as a major cause of diabetes. WHAT?!?!?! HOW DO PEOPLE GET FAT? Travis, you lose 100% of your credibility by citing this.

People don't necessarily get fat from eating too much sugar. If they're burning more calories than they take in, they won't become obese regardless of their nutrient intake. That being said, they'll still have some significant health problems if their nutrient balance is skewed, and diabetes may in fact be one of these problems. I can definitely see the validity of labeling obesity as possessing a higher degree of danger when it comes to chronic health conditions, so I'm not sure what your disagreement is here.

Also, if you believe I've lost credibility in your eyes - fair enough. That said, I'm not really searching for credibility in the eyes of those who are resistant to making positive changes. My credentials, resume, and experience speak for themselves. I'm also not sure, based on the feeling I get from your arguments, that I had any chance at gaining any sort of credibility in your eyes to begin with.

I'm not bothering with this one really since it says a lot of random googleable crap about carbohydrates and isn't very useful. I'll point out, however, that it does say low-carb diets like atkins are effective in terms of weight loss. To DC: how many people that you know have gone on some super low-fat diet and not lost ANY weight?

The Atkins diet may in fact make you lose some short-term weight. That being said, the goal here isn't losing short-term weight to satisfy cosmetic goals (which are the goals of many following the Atkins diet), but to eat for optimal athletic performance.

this article is basically parroting USDA BS, but I'll point out that it says corn flakes (healthy, right?) have a glycemic index higher than sugar. Hooray grains!

If you don't want to believe what health organizations say, I can't really say anything to convince you as my arguments are based on information provided by health organizations and institutions.

That said, your assumption is that corn flakes are healthy. Why is this the case? Because it is a fact that their GI value is extremely high, and such foods can lead to insulin spikes which are detrimental to brain function and performance.


If this were an academic discussion or a comparison of research, I'd participate. However it seems as though I'm defending standard recommendations made in the health profession against your opinions. I can't, therefore, warrant any more time participating in this discussion. Nothing personal, but if you're not convinced by major organizational stances backed by research, I'm afraid I've got no way of convincing you at all.

I'm going to put up my science tomorrow, but I need to make something clear: I am one of the people DOING the science that you are trying to educate me about. You don't need to tell me how science works or how academic discussion works or how (bad) information gets disseminated from place to place. I do the experiments that become the studies (in a health-related field no less!) that people cite/debate etc. For that and many other reasons, I'm not basing anything I'm saying on assumptions. I'm using logic and the fact that I know exactly how this stuff works, since I'm in the lab doing it every day. I discredit the teachings of the USDA and all those other organizations you mention because I can read and understand papers on my own - I read journal articles every day - allowing me to come to my own conclusions based on the science. I'm not parroting what these organizations tell me.

Travis you might want to check out the first video linked in the thread. It is a great lecture from an MD who is an expert in the field. I think you will find it to be well researched and it will give you some food for thought and a few more studies to read

Also, if you believe I've lost credibility in your eyes - fair enough. That said, I'm not really searching for credibility in the eyes of those who are resistant to making positive changes.

I know where I stand in this, and I agree with nowhereman (altough you do make some good points). I didn't get into this discussion because it's kind of useless to have two people saying the same thing. But this irritates the shit out of me

Because you are wrong on this topic and just don't want to hear it, I am resistant to make positive changes?

wauw, talking about arrogance. Not the attitude I would want to see from somebody that says is a mental coach

n0whereman and I once had a discussion about this somewhere else on this forum. I think we eventually ended up agreeing, and most of the disagreement was, on my part, based on a situation I was seeing at work that basically took an exaggerated view on what n0whereman was saying, skewing my schema, messing up my perception of what he was actually saying.

Travis, this is a hard series to make. I know, because I almost had one.

I, personally, was very nervous about the whole thing. The reason for that was because although I know a lot about health, psychology, nutrition, sleep, etc., I can't be on the cutting edge of research on all of these fronts. No one can. I was, in fact, terrified of people like n0whereman, who could invalidate an entire vid, the culmination of as much back research as I could handle, with a couple of papers that I hadn't seen yet or had no intention of reading.

That being said, I would try to take n0whereman's expertise as a gift rather than a blow to the ego, which is really difficult. Here you are with a master's degree and some guy who you don't know went and rained all over your parade. I don't know what n0whereman's education level is or what he actually studies, but his arguments are totally solid (if a little heated), and whether he knows nutrition from his profession or from being auto-didactic, the fact is he obviously highly aware and knowledgeable on the subject. It would be a shame to remove yourself from the discussion just because it isn't framed as an academic comparison of research.

For the layperson who might be a bit mystified, I'd like to offer a a very oversimplified summary. Gentlemen, you are more than welcome to fix/change/deny/add on anything.

Travis is advocating the more institutionalized version of optimal nutrition, which emphasizes carbohydrates, found in fruits, vegetables and whole grain bread products. Other important nutrients include lesser amounts of fat and protein, but these are still necessary for health.

The controversy lies in questioning the validity of these institutions' recommendations. n0whereman advocates eating equal caloric amounts of fat, protein, and carbs. Specifically, he finds that carbs are overemphasized and eating too many carbs, even whole grains, is not optimal.

IMO, one of the reasons that institutions are hesitant to change the policies regarding an increased intake in fat is because one gram of fat has 9 calories. One gram of protein or carbs is 4 calories each. So even though a person might be told to eat equal CALORIES of each, they could easily be confused and eat the same volume or weight in each, because who sits around memorizing the nutritional labels on things?

Regardless, I've seen how some of you guys eat. Both of these guys are telling you that ramen is bad for you. Neither of them would tell you to eat cheeseburgers and/or pizza every single day. Trying to eat as cheaply as possible by having rice and beans for every meal is not gonna fly.

On the most basic level, everyone should cut out as much sugar (and high fructose corn syrup) as possible from their diets. They should eat many varied foods from all four food groups in moderation. I think after these simpler goals have been achieved, it might be time to move onto advanced goals like figuring out what the optimal caloric percentage of each meal should be and what foods are best to make up that percentage.

I'm going to put up my science tomorrow, but I need to make something clear: I am one of the people DOING the science that you are trying to educate me about. You don't need to tell me how science works or how academic discussion works or how (bad) information gets disseminated from place to place. I do the experiments that become the studies (in a health-related field no less!) that people cite/debate etc. For that and many other reasons, I'm not basing anything I'm saying on assumptions. I'm using logic and the fact that I know exactly how this stuff works, since I'm in the lab doing it every day. I discredit the teachings of the USDA and all those other organizations you mention because I can read and understand papers on my own - I read journal articles every day - allowing me to come to my own conclusions based on the science. I'm not parroting what these organizations tell me.

That's awesome man. Like I said, don't take anything I'm saying as personal, I'm not trying to attack you or anything. If I come off condescending from time to time - that's on me. My inner coach coming out I suppose.

If the studies and info you're coming out with or reviewing is contrary to what these organizations are saying, your beef is with them. I encourage you to take your concerns to them and voice them. If I was more of a researcher, this debate might actually have the potential of going somewhere. Although my credentials make me qualified to be a researcher, I've opted for another path.

Again, things sound to be getting a little hostile - so I'm just trying to scale it back. I'm a coach who bases teachings off research. If you believe that research to be flawed, and you're able to get the majority stance of the institutions who have given me a large chunk of my knowledge to change their stance, I'll have no choice but to do so as well.

Travis you might want to check out the first video linked in the thread. It is a great lecture from an MD who is an expert in the field. I think you will find it to be well researched and it will give you some food for thought and a few more studies to read

I'll see if I can find some time to review it - though I did see that it was a good 90 minutes in length, no?

Because you are wrong on this topic and just don't want to hear it, I am resistant to make positive changes?

wauw, talking about arrogance. Not the attitude I would want to see from somebody that says is a mental coach

Don't misunderstand here, and I apologize if it came off wrong. This was a little bit of a harsh way to say it, but it pretty much means that to benefit from a coaches teachings, you need to trust that they know what they're saying. If you don't, presenting evidence so that you can make the process better and more effective for those around you would be perfectly fine. What got under my skin was that it felt as though somebody was attempting to discredit certain pieces of info without any evidence.

I'm not trying to take shots at anyone. The wording may have sounded as such, but this was my frustration talking more than anything. If we were going back and forth with studies or science it wouldn't have been nearly as frustrating, but that didn't seem to be the case, which is where the frustration came from. For that, my apologies.

That being said, I would try to take n0whereman's expertise as a gift rather than a blow to the ego, which is really difficult. Here you are with a master's degree and some guy who you don't know went and rained all over your parade. I don't know what n0whereman's education level is or what he actually studies, but his arguments are totally solid (if a little heated), and whether he knows nutrition from his profession or from being auto-didactic, the fact is he obviously highly aware and knowledgeable on the subject. It would be a shame to remove yourself from the discussion just because it isn't framed as an academic comparison of research.

I'm fairly certain he's a PhD candidate in the biomed field, which leads me to believe he knows a thing or two about research. That being said I hadn't seen any. There are a long of things that when said in context make sense, but when it comes to science aren't valid. I could personally make numerous logical arguments of why things should happen in a certain way, but when examined in a scientific setting don't turn out to be the case.

My education comes largely from teachings from the very institutions that n0whereman is questioning. In fact, I'd go as far as saying almost everyone with an education in a field like mine gets their information from the same sources. I haven't ready every single study ever published, every sport nutrition book out there, etc. but I have reviewed quite a few. My information comes from those. I would absolutely love to find a textbook or piece of research that proves all the others wrong somehow. That would be pretty groundbreaking, and would interest numerous other academic minds. If n0whereman has such a resource, I'd be glad to present it to the very people behind these organizations to get their stance on everything. The fact is though that so far, neither I nor any of the PhDs I've dealt with have had any concrete reason to believe anything other than the resources that have led us all to the general assumptions we have made - and now base our teachings on.

Does this make sense?

For the layperson who might be a bit mystified, I'd like to offer a a very oversimplified summary. Gentlemen, you are more than welcome to fix/change/deny/add on anything.

Travis is advocating the more institutionalized version of optimal nutrition, which emphasizes carbohydrates, found in fruits, vegetables and whole grain bread products. Other important nutrients include lesser amounts of fat and protein, but these are still necessary for health.

The controversy lies in questioning the validity of these institutions' recommendations. n0whereman advocates eating equal caloric amounts of fat, protein, and carbs. Specifically, he finds that carbs are overemphasized and eating too many carbs, even whole grains, is not optimal.

IMO, one of the reasons that institutions are hesitant to change the policies regarding an increased intake in fat is because one gram of fat has 9 calories. One gram of protein or carbs is 4 calories each. So even though a person might be told to eat equal CALORIES of each, they could easily be confused and eat the same volume or weight in each, because who sits around memorizing the nutritional labels on things?

Regardless, I've seen how some of you guys eat. Both of these guys are telling you that ramen is bad for you. Neither of them would tell you to eat cheeseburgers and/or pizza every single day. Trying to eat as cheaply as possible by having rice and beans for every meal is not gonna fly.

On the most basic level, everyone should cut out as much sugar (and high fructose corn syrup) as possible from their diets. They should eat many varied foods from all four food groups in moderation. I think after these simpler goals have been achieved, it might be time to move onto advanced goals like figuring out what the optimal caloric percentage of each meal should be and what foods are best to make up that percentage.

This is definitely a good post, and I think it does simplify the discussion a little. I do, in fact, advocate the same recommendations that the major institutions recommend. I've done so for a long time, and the professors, doctors and strength coaches who taught me everything I know do as well. They're guidelines we've put in practice time and time again with athletes, of of whom have benefited from those very same teachings.

That said, my frustration stemmed not from n0whereman questioning what I'm teaching (this is an extremely hot topic, and discussions like this come up very very often), but from my desire to see the evidence against my teachings. If presented with such evidence, rest assured that I'll bring it to the attention of the same PhDs and MDs who have written the textbooks on sports nutrition, who gave me my knowledge, and who bring it into practice with athletes. When they provide me with their stances on the research, I'll then be able to vary my teachings accordingly.

In summary - I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm sorry if I've come off that way. It rarely happens, but it can at times. My goal has been and always will be getting the best results for my clients. If a method that I'm using proves ineffective or credible research leads me to a different conclusion, I vary my curriculum accordingly. This is no exception, but as of yet I've got no reason to believe otherwise.

Hopefully this helps you see where I'm coming from!

I also apologize for not citing more sources, as I promised to do so if any questions arose:

Here is a link to a helpful text that comes from the Cambridge Journals. See the top of page 89 where the carbohydrate requirements of active individuals engaged in training is shown:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=803980&jid=PNS&volumeId=61&issueId=01&aid=803968&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=


Here's another from Sports Med. In it, you'll find that when engaged in heavy training, carb intake should approach 70% of the total intake. That being said, I again reiterate that optimal training for professional poker will not approach the same requirements, so a 55-60% carb intake is sufficient. Here's the article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1561511


Here's one from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Pay close attention to the guidelines listed on the end of 1071-1072:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/49/5/1070.pdf


Here's a link to the Dietary Reference Intakes:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4xGX35V3WiIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=nutrient+requirements+athletes&ots=gnJ2oZTuOp&sig=Ryq__4tNEmOmk17V4c6QTusPDHo#v=onepage&q=nutrient%20requirements%20athletes&f=false

In it, you'll find that the range of recommended carbohydrate requirements is from 45-65% of the daily intake. The 45% is reserved for individuals with low energy requirements, such as sedentary individuals and non-athletes. The 65% is reserved for the extremely active - such as athletes and those attempting to achieve peak levels of performance from the body as a result of intense training. While I don't think that extremly high levels of training are necessary to reach peak levels of performance in poker, I do advocate that all players engage in an extremely active lifestyle in order to optimize performance. This is where my recommendation of 60% comes in, as athletes possess greater energy requirements.


The following study gives a recommendation for carbohydrate intake right in the abstract - though I don't necessarily think that this high of an intake is needed for poker players as their optimal level of training may not be as high as the athletes who were subjects of this study:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a785355348


The following study better informs readers on the purpose of carbohydrate intake for active individuals and, although no specific nutrient proportions are given, can prove useful on learning why carbohydrates are needed as a staple of the active diet:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713791290



For further information on this topic see the following:

Advanced Studies in Physical Education and Sport, P Beashel et al.
Physical Education and the Study of Sport, B. Davis et al.
Essentials of Exercise Physiology, W. D. McArdle et al.
Physical Education and Sport Studies, D. Roscoe et al.
The World of Sport Examined, P. Beashel et al.
Sports Nutrition, A. Bean



These, among countless other sources, serve as the basis for my teachings.

Ok let's do some real science here.

Myth 1: Fat/saturated fat is awful and will kill you.

here is a study that is basically compiling the results of a whole bunch of studies and analyzing the patterns that emerge from the studies. Feel free to peruse all the figures if you want, but here's the key point:

"Higher intake of {alpha}-linolenic acid, eggs, meat, milk, polyunsaturated fatty acids, saturated fatty acids, total fat, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and vitamin E supplements and prudent and western diet patterns were not significantly associated with CHD (coronary heart disease)"

in other words, after comparing every major trial conducted in the past 60 years, they found NO LINK between consumption of saturated fat (or eggs, milk or other stuff) and an increased risk of heart disease.

The study also says "...these data were interpreted by some to mean that all fats are associated with increased CHD risk, and subsequent dietary guidelines advocated low-fat diets. More recently, the lack of benefit of diets of reduced total fat has been established"

The article about total dietary fat and CHD is here and in a study of nearly 50000 women, it showed that lowering total fat had no impact on CVD risk.

Next, here is a study from Travis's favorite journal that tracked nearly 50000 Japanese men and women over 14 years and suggested that saturated fat intake was INVERSELY proportion to stroke mortality (ie the more sat fat you ate, the less likely you were to have CVD and die from it).

here is another meta-analysis (aggregation of a bunch of studies) that tracked almost 350000 people over 5-23 years. It showed that there was no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

Lastly, this is a great post outlining the crap studies that went into the "sat fat is bad" hypothesis and how it has been debunked pretty easily when put under scrutiny.

I'll get to the carb stuff later.

Interesting studies, but none of these hold a whole lot of relevancy to the topic of performance and sports nutrition, and doesn't really cover the main subject of debate. In addition, the article from an Ancestral Nutrition blog sounds like a Paleo-type advocate blog, which would be far from an objective source.

Aside from that, I wasn't aware that this particular area was under fire from you. Nowhere in my series have I preached against the importance of essential fats. In fact, I go as far as giving a nutrient proportion floor of 15% of total intake - saying that any fat intake less than that would be detrimental to performance.

Here's a well-cited article from a medical center on the topic of eating for performance:

http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/HolisticHealth/PhysicalFitness.aspx?ChunkID=13791

I didn't really touch on CHD much in this series. I've been more focused on eating for performance. That said, here's a helpful article that can do a lot to make my stance a little more clear. It isn't specific to sports nutrition, as many of the other resources I'm about to cite are, but it can help put some of these things to bed as it points out the exact "most studies and sources are wrong, but these select few studies are the truth" type of debate we've got going on:

(disclaimer: if the above sentence in quotes sounded condescending or mean, my bad - I just felt it was descriptive and pertinent for this discussion)

http://www.lowcarb.ca/articlesa/article217.html

I know that being an academic, you'll likely scroll to the bottom to look for the citations first (as I did). While they are absent, you will find some pretty solid in-text citations and reference points. That said, here are some other resources:

Since some apparently have a problem with the USDA, here's an article from Canada. You'll see that the "Optimizing Carbohydrate Intake" section conveys the very same information that I've been trying to preach:

http://www.sugar.ca/english/supportinfo/carbpeakperformance.cfm

While the below article is directed towards diabetic athletes, it does provide some solid info that supports my stance in the "Minimizing Risky Behaviors" section:

http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/18/2/102.full


In addition, here are some excerpts from two sports medicine and sports nutrition textbooks that I was able to snag for your review. You'll notice that they both support my stance:

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/are-high-protein-low-carb-diets-good-for-me

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/sportsnutrition/a/HighProteinDiet.htm



In summary - we could probably go round and round on this subject for a while. While I'm sure you'd agree that the overwhelming research supports my stance, as a PhD candidate I realize that it's pretty much your job to back up claims with certain pieces of research. If you can find some research stating that low carb diets are beneficial to performance, I'd love to review them and send them on to my superiors.

i know sat fats have nothing to do with weight loss, but my original point way at the beginning was about all of the fallacies in this video, not just nutrient balance. you say at 25:08 "trans fats, saturated fats, these are bad.". Saturated fats are NOT bad. period.

eta: also, the saturated fat argument is very relevant because in basically every link you have sent, at some point there is an argument for more carbs/less fat because high protein diets "require" eating things that are supposedly terrible for your heart like red meat and other things that have saturated fat in them. If everyone on your team parrots the same misinformation that has been around for 30 years regarding saturated fat, why should I trust their 30-year old opinions on everything else? The video that I linked to at the very top does a very good job of explaining this entire issue.

eta pt 2: beth israel link actually says saturated fats may not kill you.

Paleo-type advocate blog, which would be far from an objective source.

and why is that? the paleo part, not the blog part (disclaimer: i don't eat paleo).

Exhibit A for why these major medical organizations are behind the times, especially given all of the evidence above.

Here's a problem I have on a philosophical level with things that are even in the category of "healthy" carbs. Go here and check out that ad. Looks great! Whole grain, 100% whole wheat, blah blah blah. Now go look at the ingredients. What's ingredient #3? Oh right - SUGAR. And until about 6 months ago, that would have been the even worse HFCS!

this would be part of why I can't really accept the link you sent from a sugar institute. Not to mention the last two articles that are some combination of strawmen or just complete conjecture.

and why is that? the paleo part, not the blog part (disclaimer: i don't eat paleo).

Just because I believe they've got a negative stigma towards certain food groups so I didn't feel it was an objective source. Is it not a Paleo resource? I'm not 100% familiar with it, but the label "ancestral nutrition" made me jump to that conclusion.

Exhibit A for why these major medical organizations are behind the times, especially given all of the evidence above.

Are you referring to the cheesy way they use to present the info? Agreed that it's kind of cheesy, but I don't think they're targeting our demographic here

Here's a problem I have on a philosophical level with things that are even in the category of "healthy" carbs. Go here and check out that ad. Looks great! Whole grain, 100% whole wheat, blah blah blah. Now go look at the ingredients. What's ingredient #3? Oh right - SUGAR. And until about 6 months ago, that would have been the even worse HFCS!

this would be part of why I can't really accept the link you sent from a sugar institute. Not to mention the last two articles that are some combination of strawmen or just complete conjecture.

I think it's becoming clear what the fundamental disagreement is here - which is that sugar in all forms is bad. While certain forms of sugar can be detrimental to performance in certain quantities, this isn't necessarily always the case. In fact, a simple sugar (glucose) serves as a primary energy source for many bodily processes - including brain function. It's also a critical nutrient when it comes to performance, especially as one becomes more and more active.

I can see where you're coming from in that there are certain studies cited that can stand to have improvements in their protocols. That said, I'm sure you'd agree that the vast majority of resources, studies, etc would back my stance. There may be a study or two that appear inconclusive, but that would strike me more as statistical variance and/or a flaw in the procedure, would you agree?

Can you see where I'm coming from that when pretty much every organization comes to the same conclusion, those same conclusions are included in virtually every textbook, taught in virtually every classroom, etc that the information may in fact be valid? I understand you don't lend a lot of cred to the USDA, but are there any objective resource-based organizations that back your stance? Is there a resource in particular that has led you to believe that sugar in general is evil and that avoidance of sugar in all forms is optimal?

I'm asking not to stoke the fire, but if in fact these resources do exist it would be helpful for someone in my field to review them, bring them to the attention of other researchers, assess whether or not they're valid, etc as in case a similar debate happens in the future on television or radio or the like I'll already be familiar with the source being cited and I'll be able to counter with relevant other pieces of research.

Not to mention the last two articles that are some combination of strawmen or just complete conjecture.

These were both excerpts from sports nutrition textbooks. I'm not sure I see where they're conjecture or strawman. I don't think I've ever seen a sports nutrition textbook that advocates a varying nutrient proportion stance such as yours. Is there one I should be aware of?

Just because I believe they've got a negative stigma towards certain food groups so I didn't feel it was an objective source. Is it not a Paleo resource? I'm not 100% familiar with it, but the label "ancestral nutrition" made me jump to that conclusion.

Belief has no place in science. And while paleo people get plenty of stuff wrong - namely that they recommend foods that didn't exist in their modern day form 10k years ago - they do get a lot right.

Are you referring to the cheesy way they use to present the info? Agreed that it's kind of cheesy, but I don't think they're targeting our demographic here

I'm referring to the fact that they demonize saturated fat when it's NOT A BAD THING that has been shown many times (in AHA journals even!). Putting saturated fat on the same level as trans fats in terms of danger is like saying skinning your knee and slitting your throat are both equally bad for you because they involve drawing blood (note: analogy not to scale). When you go that wrong on such a big issue, all of your advice should be in question (by you I mean these groups, not you Travis).

I think it's becoming clear what the fundamental disagreement is here - which is that sugar in all forms is bad.

Nope! The fundamental disagreement is that you require the backing of major governmentally-funded organizations to provide nutritional recommendations, whereas I recognize that they are all using the same bad, old research to parrot the same conclusions. it's a gigantic groupthink - that's it. For example, the 1996 Circulation paper that publishes the guidelines that you've espoused time and time again has a number of citable sources for its claims. The one claim that is so ubiquitous that it doesn't have a citation, however, is the claim that we need 55-60% of our energy from carbs. Why on earth does that not have a citation? It's because the powers that be have it so ingrained in their heads that 60% carbs is ideal that no one even thinks to question it! Well, almost no one. You also have to keep in mind that change is VERY slow in all of these organizations, so even though more and more research is coming out showing that low-fat diets are bad and saturated fat is neutral, these organizations are still way behind. For a smarter scientist's perspective on this, read this 2002 NY times article. It explains tons of the strongarming tactics that got low-fat diets recommended in the US, the hundreds of millions of dollars the NIH and other organizations have spent trying to prove their bad hypotheses, and that plenty of researchers are coming around to the idea that low-fat is bad. Also, the video I linked to at the beginning of this thread goes through tons of the politics and science of all this stuff. I know it's more sugar-based, but all of the low-fat, high-carb stuff started with this. The Taubes NY Times article states that until the 60s, we as a society actually thought fat was ok and that carbs were what made people fat.

I can see where you're coming from in that there are certain studies cited that can stand to have improvements in their protocols. That said, I'm sure you'd agree that the vast majority of resources, studies, etc would back my stance. There may be a study or two that appear inconclusive, but that would strike me more as statistical variance and/or a flaw in the procedure, would you agree?

I would agree with you that the vast majority of organizations recommend the same things you do. I would also agree that there's tons of bad experiments and data (that has since been proven wrong/inconclusive) that backs your stance. Unfortunately, neither of these statements has anything to do with either you or them being RIGHT. I don't want to be on the popular team, I want to be on the correct team.

These were both excerpts from sports nutrition textbooks. I'm not sure I see where they're conjecture or strawman.

"Here is a look at the flip side of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets. First, those who go too low in carbohydrate will pay the price. We have known since the 1930s that a high-carbohydrate diet enhances endurance during strenuous athletic events. As you’ve read in this chapter, consuming carbohydrate before, and especially during, exercise is crucial for endurance athletes. Eating carbohydrate-rich foods (for instance, an hour before exercise) does raise insulin levels and lower blood sugar levels, but this response is temporary. Most healthy, active people experience no negative effects on performance. Refilling glycogen stores following exercise is also simply smart science. Failing to do so will definitely hinder your ability to recover, and thus train, effectively."

This is ridiculous. Most lower-carb diets recommend post-workout as the best time to get a bunch of your carb intake, and for more active people it's precisely where they're supposed to supplement their carb intake.

"Seriously, who performs at their best when experiencing a headache and feeling grumpy and irritable? So, although terribly old-fashioned (and definitely unhip among those trying to sell you the latest “discovery”), carbohydrate is still king."

I would classify this as conjecture at best, especially citation-free.

this study shows a super low carb diet is as good as a low fat diet at reducing fat and serum lipid levels, while being even better at lowering BP.

nejm article stating that lower-carb diets are at least as good as high-carb diets at weight loss in a longer-term study, and the lower-carb diets are in fact better at improving lipid profiles.

another study showing that low-carb is at least as good as low-fat in aiding weight loss, while low-carb improves cardiovascular metrics more than the low-fat method.

this article could be in a better journal but it does give a good historical perspective of how our way back ancestors ate (hint: nothing like we do!)

here is a too-small study suggesting (not showing since it's way too small) low-carb diets improve cvd factors

study again showing low-carb and low-fat both reduce weight in people who adhere to the diet (and exercise), but the low carb diet is better at improving cvd factors.

The main issue with grains-based diets that researchers are starting to have is the presence of antinutrients such as lectin
(more here, gluten (see here for an article discussing those items), and phytates which at best keep nutrients from reaching our body and at worst cause significant bodily harm to many people beyond celiacs. In addition, several articles (one here) indicate that fiber isn't nearly as good for us as we thought. This is worse for things like whole grain breads and better for foods such as brown
rice (ie go eat brown rice).

I could go digging around for other articles, but this is tedious work at this point. Here would be my summary for the two other people on DC actually still reading this thread:

1) Do your own research. I've presented stuff, Travis has presented stuff. Neither of us has the perfect answer. Go read on your own and come to your own conclusions.
2) Removing processed foods from your diet is probably the best way to improve it. Again, shop around the outside edges of the grocery store.
3) There has yet to be a super study comparing lower-carb diets and high-carb diets that has looked at all of the appropriate metrics of human health, mostly because that would be way too broad of a study.
4) Don't take the recommendations of the USDA or any doctor/health professional as gospel. The evidence that saturated fat is at worst neutral is VERY clear, yet every major health organization in the US demonizes it as the greasy killer of Americans everywhere. These organizations are about as impartial as any other politician.

Belief has no place in science. And while paleo people get plenty of stuff wrong - namely that they recommend foods that didn't exist in their modern day form 10k years ago - they do get a lot right.

You're right - believe has no place in science. I'll therefore reword what I said:

They HAVE a negative stigma towards certain food groups without grounds, so the AREN'T objective sources.

I do agree though, Paleo isn't the worst fad diet around. Preaching the consumption of primarily fresh ingredients is great, but there are a number of things they're lacking without reason.

I'm referring to the fact that they demonize saturated fat when it's NOT A BAD THING that has been shown many times (in AHA journals even!). Putting saturated fat on the same level as trans fats in terms of danger is like saying skinning your knee and slitting your throat are both equally bad for you because they involve drawing blood (note: analogy not to scale). When you go that wrong on such a big issue, all of your advice should be in question (by you I mean these groups, not you Travis).

I still fail to see where there are really any concrete grounds to support your claim that saturated fats aren't bad or detrimental to health and performance.

While you've cited a few studies above, the first was inconclusive and the second was done by means of a questionnaire. When it comes to a long-term study like this, a questionnaire is easily the least valid method of testing. Not only is there a significant amount of misreporting going on, but the possibility of influence for extraneous variables are absolutely massive. I'm not sure how, based on a few inconclusive studies and one with flawed methodologies (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is your beef with most of the studies I've cited, no?), that you can come to a scientific conclusion stating that virtually every other study, sports nutrition text, nutritionist and MD out there making these recommendations is wrong.

Nope! The fundamental disagreement is that you require the backing of major governmentally-funded organizations to provide nutritional recommendations, whereas I recognize that they are all using the same bad, old research to parrot the same conclusions. it's a gigantic groupthink - that's it. For example, the 1996 Circulation paper that publishes the guidelines that you've espoused time and time again has a number of citable sources for its claims. The one claim that is so ubiquitous that it doesn't have a citation, however, is the claim that we need 55-60% of our energy from carbs. Why on earth does that not have a citation? It's because the powers that be have it so ingrained in their heads that 60% carbs is ideal that no one even thinks to question it! Well, almost no one.

I dedicated a few different posts above to providing you links to 10-15 studies, cited articles and textbooks. Aside from continuing to cite things like these, I'm not sure what else I can do.

It seems as though you've made up your mind that all of the PhDs and MDs behind these citations pretty much have no idea what they're talking about, but the few that you've cited (which still haven't provided anything but an inconclusive study or long-term questionnaire) are the "real scientists". I also don't think that just because a large group of academics agrees on something doesn't automatically make it "groupthink" or a government conspiracy or whatever. Most of the time it's because the information is valid.

This is ridiculous. Most lower-carb diets recommend post-workout as the best time to get a bunch of your carb intake, and for more active people it's precisely where they're supposed to supplement their carb intake.

This is not only the exact opposite of all sports nutrition recommendations, but against the very definition and the purpose of carbohydrates and protein.

this study shows a super low carb diet is as good as a low fat diet at reducing fat and serum lipid levels, while being even better at lowering BP.

Seems as though the results of this study are not only at odds with most other studies (leading me to believe that it's a statistical outlier), but it also has nothing to do with performance. It's not a training study, nor does it address the requirements active individuals need to optimize performance at all.

nejm article stating that lower-carb diets are at least as good as high-carb diets at weight loss in a longer-term study, and the lower-carb diets are in fact better at improving lipid profiles.

Not only was this article not aimed at proving your point to begin with nor did it do so, but it actually hurt your cause a little as it showed that caloric intake, not sugar, was linked to body composition and weight loss - which supports the fact that it's then the major factor in obesity.

Again though, nothing to do with performance.

another study showing that low-carb is at least as good as low-fat in aiding weight loss, while low-carb improves cardiovascular metrics more than the low-fat method.

This seems to be at odds with the conclusions of the rest of the research in the field, and there are a LOT of extraneous variables. I'm not sure how you can label something like this "real science" just because it supports your claim, and that all others are shotty because they don't.

And again, nothing to do with performance.

this article could be in a better journal but it does give a good historical perspective of how our way back ancestors ate (hint: nothing like we do!)

I'm not sure what this proves. There are a lot of things our ancestors couldn't do that we now can that I'm sure you'd agree are positive advances. But again, nothing to do with performance!

here is a too-small study suggesting (not showing since it's way too small) low-carb diets improve cvd factors

study again showing low-carb and low-fat both reduce weight in people who adhere to the diet (and exercise), but the low carb diet is better at improving cvd factors.

It seems that you're picking all of the ones that target CVD. Where are all the performance studies? Where are the ones that support your claim that low carb diets are beneficial to performance among active individuals? These are the ones that we should be examining here, not the ones that say "low carb is no worse than a balanced diet in terms of short-term blood lipid profiles".

There are SO many more extraneous variable that can be examined when talking about influences of blood lipid profiles. I think there are studies out there pointing to how nearly everything can have an effect on blood lipid profiles - so the best we can do is side with the majority of the research.

Picking and choosing what organizations we distrust, articles we think are credible, or studies we side with based on our personal beliefs isn't science. After all, a wise man once told me that

Belief has no place in science.

I could go digging around for other articles, but this is tedious work at this point.

Agreed.

Here would be my summary for the two other people on DC actually still reading this thread:

1) Do your own research. I've presented stuff, Travis has presented stuff. Neither of us has the perfect answer. Go read on your own and come to your own conclusions.

I suppose I don't have the perfect answer. The best I can do is go with the vast majority of health organizations and research. If they're all wrong - so am I.

I have yet to see anything (not just in this thread, but anywhere) saying how a low carb diet is ergogenic in terms of performance. If anyone finds one, by all means bring it to my attention. In the meantime I can just point you towards nearly every sports medicine or sports nutrition text out there as a source of information.

Just curious you mention good and bad forms of all macronutrients, you didn't list any bad forms of protein though? Is there such a thing? Even if there isn't a "bad" form, are certain forms better than others?

Travis,

You might find this article pretty interesting, as you were looking for a citable text that tries to debunk stuff like I've been doing in this thread. It's fairly thorough, and like me, suggests reexamination, not abolishment of old unfounded science.

Just curious you mention good and bad forms of all macronutrients, you didn't list any bad forms of protein though? Is there such a thing? Even if there isn't a "bad" form, are certain forms better than others?

Soy is a pretty poor form of protein. Also, vegetarians need to be aware and make sure they are getting a complete mix of proteins. Skipping out on an essential amino acid will guarantee disease. That's why they will eat rice AND beans, tortillas (corn treated with a base), and fish. Soy is technically a complete protein but has plant chemicals in it that aren't the best for you. Phytoestrogens being the worst of these chemicals. They bind to estrogen receptors in our body and replicate the effects of estrogen, not good for athletes or males in general. You can read more about that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean#Phytoestrogen I hope wikipedia is an acceptable source

Just curious you mention good and bad forms of all macronutrients, you didn't list any bad forms of protein though? Is there such a thing? Even if there isn't a "bad" form, are certain forms better than others?

There are definitely bad sources of protein. Many junk foods have protein, but aren't great foods in general. For example - ice cream is a dairy product so it's got some protein, but I wouldn't recommend it for a post-exercise meal. Does this make sense?

maybe you mentioned it in your video, but its also important not take it to far

You have been very serious about sport, just like me, and i think you also had the fase where you won't eat anything unhealthy

Now eating healthy for me is a pretty normal thing to do, i really don't get bothered by eating some icecream with my girl, or eat some chocolate

You can take it to far, and if you like to eat something, do it, but not to much. From expierence its better to learn to be very moderate about 'bad things' but don't exclude it totally.

But it's not a cheat meal. A cheat meal sounds like you are .well, cheating.. you are not. The goal is to be somebody that enjoys healthy food and eating and living healthy, but doesn't get upset if he eats something 'bad' you really enjoy

Don't be TOO strict, just be strict, thats enough

Travis,

You might find this article pretty interesting, as you were looking for a citable text that tries to debunk stuff like I've been doing in this thread. It's fairly thorough, and like me, suggests reexamination, not abolishment of old unfounded science.

I pasted this link wrong - it sends you to section 3. the entire article is relevant, and I'll post the abstract here:

Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.

i was at a lecture today on nutrition and the speaker make an comment on the USDA's mission statement being mostly about money and politics. of cousre i immediately thought about this thread and went to the USDA site and found this in their their strategic plan:

"Strategic Goal 1: Enhance International Competitiveness of American Agriculture ............................... 1
Strategic Goal 2: Enhance the Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural and Farm Economies ........... 5
Strategic Goal 3: Support Increased Economic Opportunities and Improved Quality of Life
in Rural America ............................................................................................................................... 12
Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation’s Agriculture and Food Supply .............. 16
Strategic Goal 5: Improve the Nation’s Nutrition and Health ............................................................... 20
Strategic Goal 6: Protect and Enhance the Nation’s Natural Resource Base and Environment ............... 24"

now i am not saying they are some evil organization but this a clear example of a group that has is driven by money and politics and has different groups lobbying it all the time (ie suplement companies, dairy association, farming lobbies and on and on .......) do to all this different influences the USDA is driven way more by politics than science!

the above article and the video linked earlier in this thread explain some of this and yes they both include information from MDs and PHDs since that seems to be important you

I have yet to see anything (not just in this thread, but anywhere) saying how a low carb diet is ergogenic in terms of performance.

well in terms of poker performance i don' think there is any research to show the ergogenic benefit of any CHO level. i have been thinking more in terms of overall wellness. that said i don't think a 60% CHO or 40% CHO diet is unhealthy as long as the CHO you eat are weighted heavily towards fruits and veggies

This is not only the exact opposite of all sports nutrition recommendations, but against the very definition and the purpose of carbohydrates and protein.

i must be misunderstanding you???

it is well accepted that some CHO/PRO post work out food/drink helps recovery - right?

maybe you mentioned it in your video, but its also important not take it to far

You have been very serious about sport, just like me, and i think you also had the fase where you won't eat anything unhealthy

Now eating healthy for me is a pretty normal thing to do, i really don't get bothered by eating some icecream with my girl, or eat some chocolate

You can take it to far, and if you like to eat something, do it, but not to much. From expierence its better to learn to be very moderate about 'bad things' but don't exclude it totally.

But it's not a cheat meal. A cheat meal sounds like you are .well, cheating.. you are not. The goal is to be somebody that enjoys healthy food and eating and living healthy, but doesn't get upset if he eats something 'bad' you really enjoy

Don't be TOO strict, just be strict, thats enough

Including indulgences in moderation is actually something I stress in multiple videos in this series - so we're in agreement on that.

i must be misunderstanding you???

it is well accepted that some CHO/PRO post work out food/drink helps recovery - right?

Protein is responsible for tissue repair, maintenance and growth. While it can be used as an energy source as a last resort by the body, it's not a preferred one. CHO is one of the preferred energy sources by the body (fat being the other one). It does play a mild role in recovery but the most prominent role is assisting in the delivery of protein. Your best post workout meal would be protein heavy with a mild amount of simple, high GI carbs (one of the only true ergogenic applications of this type of CHO).

well in terms of poker performance i don' think there is any research to show the ergogenic benefit of any CHO level. i have been thinking more in terms of overall wellness. that said i don't think a 60% CHO or 40% CHO diet is unhealthy as long as the CHO you eat are weighted heavily towards fruits and veggies

There isn't really any research at all on poker performance other than the research I've done for Peak Performance Poker, but the benefits of CHO in terms of improvements in cognitive function are well-documented, as is research on performance increases (both physical and mental) as a result of regular intense exercise, which is something I recommend for all poker players looking to get the most from their bodies and brains.

i was at a lecture today on nutrition and the speaker make an comment on the USDA's mission statement being mostly about money and politics. of cousre i immediately thought about this thread and went to the USDA site and found this in their their strategic plan:

"Strategic Goal 1: Enhance International Competitiveness of American Agriculture ............................... 1
Strategic Goal 2: Enhance the Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural and Farm Economies ........... 5
Strategic Goal 3: Support Increased Economic Opportunities and Improved Quality of Life
in Rural America ............................................................................................................................... 12
Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation’s Agriculture and Food Supply .............. 16
Strategic Goal 5: Improve the Nation’s Nutrition and Health ............................................................... 20
Strategic Goal 6: Protect and Enhance the Nation’s Natural Resource Base and Environment ............... 24"

now i am not saying they are some evil organization but this a clear example of a group that has is driven by money and politics and has different groups lobbying it all the time (ie suplement companies, dairy association, farming lobbies and on and on .......) do to all this different influences the USDA is driven way more by politics than science!

the above article and the video linked earlier in this thread explain some of this and yes they both include information from MDs and PHDs since that seems to be important you

This may or may not be true (as I wasn't at this lecture I can't speak for it). That said, the recommendations of every organization aren't necessarily stemming from the recommendations of this single organization. If the USDA were to suddenly change their recommendations, it's unlikely that the ACSM, NSCA, AASP and others would change theirs without reviewing sufficient research that leads them to make that leap. As

I pasted this link wrong - it sends you to section 3. the entire article is relevant, and I'll post the abstract here:

Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an article calling for the re-examination of certain recommendations as they aren't satisfied with some of the sources cited to create them, right? As I'm sure you would agree with, there are flaws with virtually any study - which is why further research is continuously performed.

That said, I'm all for continued research in the field. I've stated that if the numerous organizations that dictate the optimal nutrient recommendations for ATHLETES (the general population has a slightly differing energy requirement) change their recommendations and provide sufficient grounds to do so, I would do so as well. However, adopting a drastically different set of recommendations that, to my knowledge, has never been shown as ergogenic in terms of eliciting peak performance, is not something I have the luxury of doing at this time, and it's something that none of my clients would appreciate (especially all the ones who have seen great results).

Including indulgences in moderation is actually something I stress in multiple videos in this series - so we're in agreement on that.

Awesome, looking forward to a non-diet/nutrition episode!

I'm just catching up on this series, but interesting debate going on here.

n0whereman wrote:
Why do you think America continues to get fatter despite eating less fat and not actually exercising any less? It's the carbs!

It seems to me Americans' biggest problem is portion control.

yes, except your "fuel" in the way you describe it can come from fat too. fat's a much better source of fuel than carbohydrate, it's more easily processed by the body

I remember this from my Bio 101 way back in college, but I was also taught that fats are the last thing the body processes for energy. Is that true?

Also, if grain based carbs are bad, that includes rice, right? But rice is the staple for the Indian subcontinent and far east asia, and they generally aren't fat.

It seems to me Americans' biggest problem is portion control.

I think it's one of America's biggest problems, but there are some nutrient deficiencies that should be addressed as well. As far as obesity goes, I agree for the most part.

I remember this from my Bio 101 way back in college, but I was also taught that fats are the last thing the body processes for energy. Is that true?

Actually no, fat is a primary energy source, but only at low levels of activity and rest, and the absolute amount burned isn't all that much. Low GI carbs are absolutely one of the body's primary energy sources as well - and are a preferred energy source during activity. Fat will be a secondary energy source at these levels. The last thing the body wants to process as energy is actually protein.

Also, if grain based carbs are bad, that includes rice, right? But rice is the staple for the Indian subcontinent and far east asia, and they generally aren't fat.

You're absolutely right, this is a good example. Carbs should be a staple of everyone's healthy balanced diet.