Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 23183332)
I believe that not all cyclists get enough protein in their diet.
We active cyclists need more protein than the RDA, not more than the "average American". Whether the "average American" gets more or less than the RDA is not important. I am not "average"; nobody is "average". I have to be mindful to get enough protein (and total calories) daily. Except for yogurt (quality source of protein and calcium), I eat vegan. I am not unique. The recommended protein requirement for a recreational cyclist is still 1.2-1.4 g/kg/day, the same as any other endurance athlete. I'm also not sure why you find it hard to meet the daily requirement as a vegetarian. Quite a few nutritious vegetables, beans, peas and such have protein. But one pitfall I read when I went ovo-pescatarian is that some people rely to heavy on pasta and other nutritionally barren choices to use as filler. |
OP... "Food for thought" regarding peanuts and peanut butter... Consider buying organic:
https://www.livestrong.com/article/2...o-buy-organic/ 4. Peanuts Peanuts are actually not a nut, but a member of the legume family, which also includes peas, beans and lentils. Unlike tree nuts, peanuts are grown underground, according to the National Peanut Board. This makes them especially susceptible to mold and fungi from moist soil, as well as increased exposure to pesticides that get absorbed into the soil. |
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23183365)
Originally Posted by terrymorse I believe that not all cyclists get enough protein in their diet. We active cyclists need more protein than the RDA, not more than the "average American". Whether the "average American" gets more or less than the RDA is not important. I am not "average"; nobody is "average". I have to be mindful to get enough protein (and total calories) daily. Except for yogurt (quality source of protein and calcium), I eat vegan. I am not unique. The recommended protein requirement for a recreational cyclist is still 1.2-1.4 g/kg/day, the same as any other endurance athlete. I'm also not sure why you find it hard to meet the daily requirement as a vegetarian. Quite a few nutritious vegetables, beans, peas and such have protein. But one pitfall I read when I went ovo-pescatarian is that some people rely to heavy on pasta and other nutritionally barren choices to use as filler. I haven't tracked my food in quite a while, but since posting this I've been tracking my meals and food some. And it seems I might not be getting enough protein as I thought I was. |
I eat peanut butter and eggs sandwiched between two pieces of juicy steak.
Like anything...Moderation. And genetics plays a role as well. |
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 23183332)
I believe that not all cyclists get enough protein in their diet.
We active cyclists need more protein than the RDA, not more than the "average American". Whether the "average American" gets more or less than the RDA is not important. I am not "average"; nobody is "average". I have to be mindful to get enough protein (and total calories) daily. Except for yogurt (quality source of protein and calcium), I eat vegan. I am not unique. |
To answer the original question, I eat almond butter instead of peanut butter. Healthier.
about protein, I target 2g/kg body weight consumed evenly through the day. That’s usually 3 meals and a snack. about fat, I target 1.3g/kg body weight. the rest of my target calories for the day are from carbs. |
Originally Posted by RH Clark
(Post 23115498)
More recent research has shown statins do not significantly increase lifespan and can have detrimental side effects. Please do your homework before going on statins.
|
Originally Posted by PromptCritical
(Post 23224183)
Much less expensive to get medical advice from the internet than seeing a licensed doctor.:rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 22845290)
The exception may be vegetarian endurance athletes, who need 1.4-2 gm of protein per kg of body weight.
For me (riding enough hours to have the same needs as an "endurance athlete"), that's up to 120 gm, which is hard to get from just nuts and twigs. My high protein choices: peanut butter, soy No basis in science, as in none whatsoever? That appears to be an overstatement. There is at least some evidence that reducing saturated fat reduces heart attack risk. "The included long‐term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 17%... Evidence supports the reduction of saturated fat to reduce risk of combined cardiovascular events in people with and without existing cardiovascular disease, in men and women, over at least two years and in industrialised countries." -- Hooper L, Martin N, Jimoh OF, Kirk C, Foster E, Abdelhamid AS. Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD011737. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3. "We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality" "There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality but effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality." "There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI." The only evidence put forward in that paper that reducing saturated fat could reduce the chance of a cardiovascular event required 56 people to reduce saturated fat for four years to prevent one event in one person, maybe possibly. The conclusion the authors make about reductions for two years to have an effect isn't supported by what is said in the paper, for which they have been criticised for. Amongst other criticisms of the paper: - low quality evidence - focusing purely on saturated fat, rather than types of saturated fats - focusing on saturated fat rather than dietary patterns - inability to account for other variables - correlational data only: good for generating hypothesis, not good at proving causation, useless for making recommendations The "no basis in science" is still accurate, because nutritional studies are too poor in quality to be considered anything other than a vaguely educated guess. Edit: Further to explain: the 1 in 56 people benefiting from reducing saturated fat intake comes from the 8% of participants that had already suffered a cardiovascular event. In this specific and unique population, reductions of saturated may help reduce a reoccurrence of a further event due to interplay with existing structural damage. This won't be true for healthy individuals: in the same way a piece of bread won't bother a healthy person, but someone with celiac disease will certainly notice it. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.