# How much eggs are safe?



## ASHESdIVIDE (Apr 12, 2008)

I eat anywheres from 5 to 9 WHOLE eggs a day, usualy about 2 raw with shakes and 5-7 cooked ones, I was just reading up on eggs and the safe amount they recommend is 1 a day, I'm trying to bulk and add as much mass as possible, what do you suggest?


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 12, 2008)

Personally I would cut that to 2-3, but I don't know for sure.  That is a LOT of fat though and it is most likely omega 6 fats.  You need to replace a lot of (read most) of that with omega 3 fats or you will run into trouble down the road.

Also don't you get sick from the raw eggs?


----------



## Built (Apr 12, 2008)

Eat 'em cooked - avidin interferes a little with biotin absorption and it's deactivated when cooked. 

Eat as many as you wish - the yolks are an excellent source of healthy saturated fat.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 12, 2008)

Built said:


> Eat 'em cooked - avadin interferes a little with biotin absorption and it's deactivated when cooked.
> 
> Eat as many as you wish - the yolks are an excellent source of healthy saturated fat.



I wouldn't say as many as you wish.  There is a lot of fat in each yolk, and I'm sure you know that a severe imbalance of n3:n6 fats leads to problems like high cholesterol for example.  If you're eating 9 whole eggs a day, that's something like 99g of n6 fats (assuming they're not omega 3 supplemented).  There is no way you are going to balance that out.


----------



## Built (Apr 12, 2008)

USDA nutrient database
9 large large whole eggs


Energy                                            644 kcal
Protein                                            56.61g
Total lipid (fat)                                  44.73g
Carbohydrate                                    3.46g
Fatty acids, total saturated                13.946g
Fatty acids, total monounsaturated      17.145g
Fatty acids, total polyunsaturated        6.138g

Okay - so there are about 6g of total polyunsaturated fat (omega 6 is a poly) in nine large eggs.

Examining further:

[eggs.ca] [Nutrition -Nutrition and Health]

9 large whole eggs
Fat	45.0
Omega-6 	6.3
Omega-3 	0.4
Monounsaturated 	18.0
Saturated 	13.5
Cholesterol 	1710

Contrast this with 9 Omega-3 Eggs:
Fat	44.1
Omega-6 	6.3
Omega-3 	3.6
Monounsaturated 	14.4
Saturated 	10.8
Cholesterol 	1665

So there are about three and a half grams of omega-3 in nine omega-3 eggs. 
You get 3g of combined EPA/DHA in 10g fish oil - about two teaspoons.

Eat your eggs. You're fine.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 12, 2008)

Interesting.  The nutritional information on the eggs I buy lists fat as being much higher.


----------



## Built (Apr 12, 2008)

Fat and fatty acids aren't the same thing. 

Dietary fat is actually triglyceride - a glycerol with three fatty acids bound to it. The fatty acids don't weigh as much as the total fat does because the triglyceride isn't included in the total.

Make sense?


----------



## ArnoldsProtege (Apr 12, 2008)

I eat 2-4 whole eggs a day, and I have been for a few months now. I just went to my doctor for a physical and asked him about it, and he said its perfectly fine. The results of the physical came back, and my cholesterol levels are very healthy and im overal a perfect specimen of health lol. Although people are different, I eat tonnes of eggs and im perfect. If anything, id avoid the raw.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 12, 2008)

The omega ratio is important but not huge as there's nothing stopping you getting your omega 3 from another source.

The cholesterol issue is way over-hyped. Your body produces its own if you don't eat any, whereas how much you eat has very little effect on blood levels.

High cholesterol levels are more of a symptom of some other issue that merely the result of eating the stuff. Too many carbs will raise your levels faster than eating eggs due to the glyc.. gl... the damage done by sugar, however you spell it. High levels of sugar are pretty toxic so your body coats your arteries with calcium and cholesterol to protect them from the sugar.

Every day there seems to be fresh evidence that the whole "don't eat cholesterol! Clog ya arteries!" stuff is mistaken. 

However regarding fat levels purely from a calorie point of view 7 whole eggs is pretty high. Not huge if you're not eating any other form of fat but as you certainly are you're pushing it a little on the fat calories. While a ratio of omega 3 to 6 at 1:1 is ideal you don't have to go there but you should ensure some extra omega 3, from fish oil or flax or somewhere.

Something such as 6 eggs a day, with only 2 or 3 whole would be better than what you're doing at present. But no, you don't have to run away from eggs. The idea of 1 a day is a bit ridiculous to be honest, that's 1980s bullshit.

As for raw, yes, can be a problem but the actual odds of you getting sick are extremely slim. As a healthy adult it's not likely to kill you anyway 



B.


----------



## Built (Apr 12, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Too many carbs will raise your levels faster than eating eggs due to the glyc.. gl... the damage done by sugar, however you spell it. High levels of sugar are pretty toxic so your body coats your arteries with calcium and cholesterol to protect them from the sugar.


This is interesting. My understanding is that the storage hormone insulin responds to elevated levels of blood glucose in order to prevent this from happening.
I'd like to read more about this coating phenomenon due to elevated sugar. Is this something that happens in healthy individuals, or only in diabetics?


Biggly said:


> Every day there seems to be fresh evidence that the whole "don't eat cholesterol! Clog ya arteries!" stuff is mistaken.
> 
> However regarding fat levels purely from a calorie point of view 7 whole eggs is pretty high. Not huge if you're not eating any other form of fat but as you certainly are you're pushing it a little on the fat calories.


If the the OP's calories are in line with his goals, why would it matter if the fat calories are high? 

For example, I'm cutting right now, running on average about 1800 calories. 
I had 92g of fat yesterday. Keeps me feeling fed.




Biggly said:


> While a ratio of omega 3 to 6 at 1:1 is ideal you don't have to go there but you should ensure some extra omega 3, from fish oil or flax or somewhere.


Flax, no. But agree 100% on the fish oil - I take 10g a day myself. 



Biggly said:


> Something such as 6 eggs a day, with only 2 or 3 whole would be better than what you're doing at present. But no, you don't have to run away from eggs. The idea of 1 a day is a bit ridiculous to be honest, that's 1980s bullshit.
> 
> As for raw, yes, can be a problem but the actual odds of you getting sick are extremely slim. As a healthy adult it's not likely to kill you anyway
> 
> B.



As I mentioned, the bigger issue is avidin, but even it is of minor concern - unless you're drinking raw egg white by the quart!


----------



## Biggly (Apr 12, 2008)

> insulin responds to elevated levels of blood glucose in order to prevent this from happening.



Responds yes, like an ambulance to something that already happened. 



> If the the OP's calories are in line with his goals, why would it matter if the fat calories are high?



Depends on his goals. If muscle mass is an issue fat calories are a waste of potential protein and carb calories. At any set calorie level you can only squeeze in certain amounts of the macro groups, so you need to choose that ratio carefully. Fat is great for satiety and fullness but not much else. Carbs for energy and workouts, protein for building new tissue. You certainly shouldn't cut out fats, they do have some uses such as triggering testosterone production but you don't need much. However if working out you DO need plenty of carbs and you DO need plenty of protein to grow extra muscle tissue. It's not so much that fat is bad as that there is not much room for it within a restricted calorie level. 

I'll typically eat around 75 grams of fats, total. Many people would say that's too high but I'm happy with it. If he's getting around 40g from eggs that's more than half before eating anything else. As meat is usually pretty high for bodybuilders and always contains some fat, you have to be careful with it is all.

Most bodybuilders would choose even less fat and higher carbs that what I eat but I know from experience I'm carb senstive.

As for flax I'd agree it's not as good as fish oil (and has to be flax oil or ground, not just seeds) but it does supply omega 3, just in the ALA version so your body has to process it. Some people just can't stand fish, even as capsules.

Fishy burps just don't do it for some people. 




B.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 12, 2008)

sweet.  i'm going to start eating more of those yolks i throw away everyday.  that'll save me from having to buy/eat more chicken.


----------



## Built (Apr 12, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Responds yes, like an ambulance to something that already happened.


Right - but that's a good thing, isn't it? I mean, chronically elevated levels of insulin lead to systemic inflammation.

I don't see a citation to read. I'm really interested to read more on this. Please, indulge me?


Biggly said:


> Depends on his goals. If muscle mass is an issue fat calories are a waste of potential protein and carb calories.


Howso? Suppose someone has 3000 calories a day as maintenance calories, and carries 150 lbs lbm.

There really isn't going to be any particular benefit from going more than 150g from protein, and the carbs, well, there's that insulin thing you mentioned above... 

Seriously, the carbs are important to stimulate cortisol-blunting insulin post workout where you need it to shuttle nutrients into the newly damaged muscle cells of course - preferential insulin sensitivity and all that - and of course to promote reglycogenation over the following hours and days. But beyond a certain level those aren't needed either. 

As fat as ratios are concerned, well, there's no particular magic to the ratio of carbs to fats to protein - the body cannot do math.

Ultimately, the simplest and most apt approach is to feed your lean mass what it needs - ie no less than a gram of protein and no less than half a gram of fat per pound lean mass is generally agreed upon by the smartest writers in the industry, people like Berardi, McDonald, Cosgrove, Thibaudeau, Ledin and so on - with the rest of your calories being filled up by any combination of protein, carb and fat that suits your comfort and training needs. Many so-called "hard gainers" would be well served to increase fat calories to enhance weight gain. Sure is easier (and cheaper!) than loading up on more and more protein where it isn't required. 



Biggly said:


> At any set calorie level you can only squeeze in certain amounts of the macro groups, so you need to choose that ratio carefully. Fat is great for satiety and fullness but not much else.


Immune function, testosterone production... and of course calories! Yeah, not much else 


Biggly said:


> Carbs for energy and workouts, protein for building new tissue. You certainly shouldn't cut out fats, they do have some uses such as triggering testosterone production but you don't need much. However if working out you DO need plenty of carbs and you DO need plenty of protein to grow extra muscle tissue. It's not so much that fat is bad as that there is not much room for it within a restricted calorie level.


Like I said, I keep mine high - it's awesome for cutting! I have plenty of room to keep it high - I just cut back on stuff that isn't required. Like starches. Those I simply target around my lifting, and eschew elsewise. 

Very comfortable. 



Biggly said:


> I'll typically eat around 75 grams of fats, total. Many people would say that's too high but I'm happy with it. If he's getting around 40g from eggs that's more than half before eating anything else. As meat is usually pretty high for bodybuilders and always contains some fat, you have to be careful with it is all.


Love love love my fats. Mmmmm...

75g would be a low day for me. 



Biggly said:


> Most bodybuilders would choose even less fat and higher carbs that what I eat but I know from experience I'm carb senstive.


If you're on anabolics, the need for fat goes down. Protein synthesis is enhanced, insulin sensitivity increases, and of course you're injecting your endocrine function lol - for the rest of the humans, gimme my fats, baby!



Biggly said:


> As for flax I'd agree it's not as good as fish oil (and has to be flax oil or ground, not just seeds) but it does supply omega 3, just in the ALA version so your body has to process it.
> B.



Thing is, if you're a boy (or a woman over, say, thirty or thirty five), you're going to really have trouble doing this conversion. I wrote an article about this, and cited the relevant portion here on IM.

But I digress. For all you hard gainers out there - the easy way to boost your gains is to increase your fats. 

Eat up!


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 12, 2008)

Gotta know, just how long have you been at this Built?  Pretty impressive knowledgebase.  I mean I've been reading these forums and some books for a couple of years now and I still feel like I know nothing.  Old paradox about the more you know.....


----------



## Built (Apr 12, 2008)

Hehehe... well shucks...

Thank you - I've been at this for a while I guess.

I was a fat jogger until at the tender age of 38 my doctor put me on the Atkins diet and my co-worker taught me how to train like a man.

I had to throw away everything I thought I knew and start from scratch. I don't have formal training in health science, but I do have two science degrees in research-related areas, so I started reading.

And reading. 

What I found was so interesting to me, so useful, that I started writing it all down, so I could remember it and find it - and so I could share it. 

As I worked my way through this process, I discovered that "what works" is surprisingly simple - but most people don't get to see what that is because the industry likes to make it more complicated - sells a lot more product, and a lot more PT hours at the gym - but if you concentrate on the broad strokes, it really comes together well:

Eat more than you need, you gain.
Eat less than you need, you lose.

Lift heavy things and you direct calorie traffic. Stick to compound lifts in human movement patterns. Train natural movements and you'll always be able to perform them. 

There is nothing natural about a Smith squat. 

Eat more than you need and lift heavy, you gain muscle.
Eat less than you need and lift heavy, you risk-manage muscle - and therefore drop fat.

A little cardio is good for your heart, moves metabolites from your lifting out of your muscles, moves blood into them, increases capillary and mitochodrial density... and burns very few, but a few calories. 

A lot of cardio burns a few more calories, but stimulates hunger, promotes fast storage in the muscles being used (the muscles learn to pack a lunch...), and risks the conversion of transitional fibres to slow-twitch analogues. 

A lot of cardio in a deficit burns muscle and fat.

Do some, but vary it. The goal is to avoid adaptation. For lifting, this means you increase the weight you use. For cardio, this means you vary the modality and the intensity. 

Feed yourself protein and fat - the essential macronutrients - as LBM-targeted doses of 1g/lb lean mass for protein and 0.5g/lb lean mass for fat. Fill the rest of your calories to suit, but make sure you get in 25g fibre daily. 

There. The keys to the universe. I give them to you for free.

Peace.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 12, 2008)

For the body to dig into its fat stores requires a deficit of available calories. Calories from recovered fat are not used to create muscle, they are used to satisfy immediate energy requirements.

Asides from the hormonal thing which we've both already mentioned, could you explain how dietary fat, an excess of which is immediately stored, helps leans gains?

Again you seem to be concentrating on the slimming aspect instead of bodybuilding, which may or not be appropriate but the guy only asked about eggs. This is not a thread about cardio etc. If you want to make it one start a new thread.

Sticking to dietary fat and how much is too much, or enough, my question is pretty simple. What is the pathway for stored fat to lean mass increase? Please explain because everything I've read says that does not happen.



B.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 12, 2008)

> LBM-targeted doses of 1g/lb lean mass for protein and 0.5g/lb lean mass for fat. Fill the rest of your calories to suit



Well the rest of the calories would be carbs. That works out as around 38% protein, 45% carbs and around 18% fat (roughly and yes I know that's 101).

That's quite reasonable, in fact is relatively low fat compared to the average diet, on low calories (I'm going by 11 cals per lb lean m, again just being rough, with a lbm of 160). So one minute you're saying go for high fat, next you're saying low fat?



> my doctor put me on the Atkins diet



The figures you've given are not either of the 2 stages of the Atkins diet, which is much lower on carbs. Nor would I recommend the Akins diet for bodybuilding.

In my software I use a default ratio (easily changed manually for those that disagree with me) of 35% protein, 30% carbs and 30% fat, so if anything I actually push for higher fat levels than you do. Note though that's calories, not weight (there's more than twice the calories per gram in fat).

More mainstream advice is around 50-60% from carbs, around 30% from protein, 15-20% from fat. Obviously figures change if you're bulking or cutting and lean mass is different from gross weight. 

Maybe I'm a little confused, could you clarify for me, are you suggesting Atkins diet or not? High fat, or not?


B.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 13, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Gotta know, just how long have you been at this Built?  Pretty impressive knowledgebase.  I mean I've been reading these forums and some books for a couple of years now and I still feel like I know nothing.  Old paradox about the more you know.....





dan, you should check out her blog.  she's got several articles that goes into all of this in more depth.  i highly recommend


----------



## Emmett52 (Apr 13, 2008)

so for body fat loss would a ratio of 33/33/33 be better (ie more optimum) than say 40/40/20?    have just bought some salmon fillets for dinner today and tomorrow - who says food cant be nice when on what some would call a 'diet', i just wish i had found this site 18 months ago when i started out!


----------



## Witchblade (Apr 13, 2008)

Another big benefit of fats over carbs is that they slow down digestion and don't spike insulin. 

Also, research is pretty vague on whether the relation between fats and testosteron is a threshold or a dose-response curve. I hope it's number two...

On the downside, fats are not protein sparing, like carbs.

All in all, I don't think the exact ratio is that important.

About flax, I don't see what's wrong with it. ALA is an EFA of itself. It doesn't have to be converted to DHA/EPA. Flax also contains vitamins, fiber, protein, and lignans.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 13, 2008)

Emmett52 said:


> so for body fat loss would a ratio of 33/33/33 be better (ie more optimum) than say 40/40/20?    have just bought some salmon fillets for dinner today and tomorrow - who says food cant be nice when on what some would call a 'diet', i just wish i had found this site 18 months ago when i started out!



as long as you're getting at least .5g of fat and 1g of protein per pound of LBM  it doesn't really matter what your macros are, as long as you're eating within your calories for the day.

i think built would say that as long as you get the minimum .5g of fat and 1g of protein per pound of LBM, it's how up to you how you eat the rest of your caloric allowance with whatever fits your comfort/needs.  once you get the essential amount of fat and protein the rest is just calories in calories out.

check out this article on her blog for more info


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 13, 2008)

Biggly said:


> The figures you've given are not either of the 2 stages of the Atkins diet, which is much lower on carbs. Nor would I recommend the Akins diet for bodybuilding.
> 
> Maybe I'm a little confused, could you clarify for me, are you suggesting Atkins diet or not? High fat, or not?
> 
> ...



jumping in here, but i think if you pay attention to everything she's said you'd see that she STARTED OUT with atkins, but she's not doing _atkins_ anymore.  summed up: atkins is a great place to start. 

regarding fats, here she says:


Built said:


> Like I said, I keep mine high - it's awesome for cutting! I have plenty of room to keep it high - I just cut back on stuff that isn't required. Like starches. Those I simply target around my lifting, and eschew elsewise.



eating carbs before and after workouts is, imo, a deviation from atkins.
which, though i'm not a rocket scientist, leads me to suspect that she is not advocating the atkins diet per se.


----------



## Emmett52 (Apr 13, 2008)

yeah, built explained to me the importance of the 0.5g of fat per lb of lbm,  a few weeks ago i though i had my diet in order by going high protein and low carb, with no attention paid to essential fat intake!   but after reading various threads about the importance of essential fats today im going to buy some fish oil capsules tomorrow:

Eskimo-3 Capsules wit Vitamin E
per 3 capsules: Omega 3 fatty acids 500mg (EPA 240mg, DHA 160mg), Vitamin E 4.5mg

Look good anyone?

these are the only one my local health shop sells, 250 caps for ??£25 ($45)

Ive read take somewhere between 6-9 over the course of a day 

also are these fish burps that i have been reading about really bad, ie would other people notice???


----------



## Biggly (Apr 13, 2008)

> the rest of your caloric allowance with whatever fits your comfort/needs



That's the entire point of having a ratio, precisely _because _you have to ensure enough of the various foodgroups. To say "it doesn't really matter what your ratios are as long as you're getting enough of this and enough of that" doesn't make much sense.

There's a limit to how much you can eat each day, either because you're restricting your total calories or because you'll throw up. So in effect we have a fixed sized container. To then fill said container with X amount of protein and Y amount of fat means the remainder will be carbs, fibrous or otherwise.

So by definition that IS a ratio.

If we did not have a calorie ceiling then sure, as long as you get _enough _of this and _enough _of that then who cares, but as we DO have a calorie ceiling we have to restrict by ratio.

The macro nutrients are fat, protein and carbs. "Enough" protein and "enough" fat, within the max calorie container, means we can calculate the maximum carb figure.

ie, a ratio.



B.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 13, 2008)

> Eskimo-3 Capsules wit Vitamin E
> per 3 capsules: Omega 3 fatty acids 500mg (EPA 240mg, DHA 160mg), Vitamin E 4.5mg



looks good to me; main this is you have the vitamin E in there (omega 3 goes rancid without it)



> also are these fish burps that i have been reading about really bad, ie would other people notice???



No, probably not, but you will. 



> jumping in here, but i think if you pay attention to everything she's said you'd see that she STARTED OUT with atkins, but she's not doing atkins anymore. summed up: atkins is a great place to start.



I don't see where exactly she says she stopped, aside from the fact the ratio described doesn't fit Atkins. Regarding Atkins _I did an article!_

(2 years ago)

Atkins for Bodybuilding?



B.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 13, 2008)

Biggly said:


> That's the entire point of having a ratio, precisely _because _you have to ensure enough of the various foodgroups. To say "it doesn't really matter what your ratios are as long as you're getting enough of this and enough of that" doesn't make much sense.
> 
> There's a limit to how much you can eat each day, either because you're restricting your total calories or because you'll throw up. So in effect we have a fixed sized container. To then fill said container with X amount of protein and Y amount of fat means the remainder will be carbs, fibrous or otherwise.
> 
> ...



hmm to be sure x:y:z is a ratio.

i could be wrong, but i don't think what built is talking about is a ratio:
.5g of fat/lb of LBM and 1g of protein/lb of LBM... so far that's a ratio.  just like she says below.  look at what she says in the last sentence though.



Built said:


> Feed yourself protein and fat - the essential macronutrients - as LBM-targeted doses of 1g/lb lean mass for protein and 0.5g/lb lean mass for fat. Fill the rest of your calories to suit, but make sure you get in 25g fibre daily.



so assuming you get your minimum of fat and protein, and 25g of fiber daily... z does _not_ have to be proportional to x and y.  further more, z could be comprised of a combination of x, y, and z, not being ONLY carbs, meaning that x and y don't even have to be proportional to each other to begin with.  i admit i can't read built's mind but i'll go out on a limb and say it's not a ratio.

and you're right, biggly.  people can't eat forever.  they would totally puke all over the place.  which is exactly why she says to get the ''essential macronutrients...[and] fill the rest of your calories to suit".  so you gotta ask yourself: what would be easier and less likely to make you puke for lack of room in your stomach?  eating more fat (less mass and calorie dense)... or eating more carbs (more mass not as dense as fat).


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 13, 2008)

Biggly said:


> I don't see where exactly she says she stopped, aside from the fact the ratio described doesn't fit Atkins.



oops.  i didn't take into account the fact that you may not have read all the articles on her blog.  i can see how you would be confused for not having gone back and read the articles she's cited in previous posts.


----------



## Biggly (Apr 13, 2008)

I agree it doesn't define a _precise _ratio but it's still a bleedin' ratio! 

OK an example - let's say someone weighs 200lb, 170lb is lean mass.

So that's 170 grams of protein, or 680 calories.

85 grams of fat, or 765 calories, total of 1445. Such a person will have a base rate around 1800 but realistically let's say 2700.

That leaves 1255 calories. Are you suggesting that it would be OK to eat near all of those from fat?

From protein?

No, the bulk will be from carbs. Just exactly how much will depend on the individual, their training etc etc - but whatever it ends up as, _it will be a ratio_.

Exactly WHAT ratio depends on the indvidual but it's still a bleeding ratio!

At least here the protein and fat have been allowed for; I've often heard people say "ratios don't matter" without any acknowledgement of ANY of the food group requirements.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing about the ratio, just saying that it is one, whatever you happen to be eating. I just get miffed when I hear people say "calories don't matter" or "ratios don't count" - yes they do, BECAUSE you need a certain amount of protein (I tend to aim at 1.3 grams) and because you need a certain amount of fiber and because you need essential fats and because you need a reasonable supply of carbs, especially post-workout.

We can disagree over the ratio but it will always be a ratio as long as we're restricted on calories.

No, haven't had time to read her blog; I keep popping in and out while doing other stuff. Looks interesting and I'll have a sniff later.



B.


----------



## fufu (Apr 13, 2008)

Not safe at all.

Once I got hit in the face with a thrown egg and the shell scratched my cornea!


----------



## Built (Apr 13, 2008)

To clarify - the "ratio" is not the problem. Anchoring it to something that fluctuates, like target calories, IS a problem.

Why? Well, because during a cut, when you need protein more than ever, targeting an essential macronutrient like protein to total calories means your protein intake will go DOWN at precisely the time when you need it to go UP, to protect lean mass. For people who live at maintenance, hell, target your protein to the length of your nose - it really won't matter once you have it set.

If you target protein and fat MINIMUS (ie go higher if you like, but no lower) to your lean mass, you'll always have enough of these to support funtion, maintenance and growth. So yes, still a ratio, but not of total calories. 

The other questions - Atkins and the like - were covered by the others very nicely. I did the Atkins diet by the book, worked up the carb ladder as the book prescribed, it worked very nicely but I could see that for a lifter, it wasn't quite enough. Great for sedentary folk though, and it got me from "obese with high cholesterol" to "healthy lean with low cholesterol" with ZERO hunger, and for that I will forever be grateful. 

(As an aside, I actually read the book and followed the protocol, and that means I was, toward the end of the book, eating more produce than most vegetarians consume - I just wasn't eating very much grain or sugar)

Carb need and tolerance really varies from person to person. For myself, if I eat more than about 150g of carb a day I have appetite control issues - no matter HOW much protein or fat I consume. 

Fortunately this doesn't matter, since carbohydrate isn't an essential macronutrient. 

Tasty though. Love my sweet 'taters!

I submit that if you *set your calorie goal,* consume no less than the LBM-targeted minimums for *protein and fat*, and ensure you get in at least *25g of fibre FROM FOOD* (ie not from fibre pills), well, I challenge you to come up with an unhealthy diet. (assuming no trans fat of course - that stuff's not a food though, it's more of a plastic).

PS on the fish oil front: I take 10g of fish oil to provide 3g combined EPA/DHA, which the AHA claims is safe without a doctor's supervision. I also take 200IU vitamin E along with this as an antioxidant.


----------



## nadirmg (Apr 13, 2008)

Biggly said:


> No, haven't had time to read her blog; I keep popping in and out while doing other stuff. Looks interesting and I'll have a sniff later.



heh.  alright, dude.  but if what you've been doing up to this point is 'sniffing' her posts i wouldn't bother taking the time because apparently the level of reading comprehension that comes with 'sniffing' isn't helping you understand what she's saying.


----------



## Witchblade (Apr 13, 2008)

nadirmg said:


> heh.  alright, dude.  but if what you've been doing up to this point is 'sniffing' her posts i wouldn't bother taking the time because apparently the level of reading comprehension that comes with 'sniffing' isn't helping you understand what she's saying.


Thou shant taunt thy overlords.


----------

