Trygve.Com > MFW > Nutrition > "RDAs and the Evil Media" - Lyle McDonald
nutrition food protien Subject: Re: RDAs and the Evil Media
From: Lyle McDonald <>
Date: 2000/03/14

Chris C wrote: >
> OK, let me clarify. I wasn't talking about sport-specific nutrient
> recommendations. I was referring to the blanket recommendations from the

> Dietary Establishmet, as I'll refer to them, which is a low-fat, high carb
> approach, to the exclusion of protein.

At the risk of sounding very snotty, you should actually read what is being suggested by the dietary establishment before making such statements.

The problem isn't necessarily with the RDA recommendations per se, it is how they are being interpreted and popularize by the evil media.

Fact is, a diet of 55% carbs, 20-25% protein, 20-25% fat falls under the umbrella of what the RDA recommendations entail but I would still consider it high-carb (with the qualification that I think basing 'high', 'low', 'medium' on percentages is retarded in the first place).

And it would work just fine for the majority of folks I think. That is if you take someone from 80/10/10 to 50/25/25, the results would be indistinguishable from 40/30/30 or anything else in that rough range. The reason folks think that teh Zone and Keto diest are such magic is the same reason so many folks think taht HIT is magic, they are coming from such an equally unbalanced approach at the other end, that anything is an improvement. That is, there's no inherent magic to 40/30/30 except inasmuch as it is a far less retarded approach than 80/10/10. But the fact is that somewhere in between thsoe two extremes probbably would have worekd just as well (the HIT analogy is the guy doing 20 sets/bodypart who switches to 1 set. Of course, he's going to get great results but it's because 20 sets was retarded, not because 1 is magical. If you had taken him to 4-6 sets, from 20 sets, the results would have been the same).

Anyway, the 50-55/25/25 allows it slip by the 'fad diet' radar that all RD's have in operation. Incidentally, I had a colleague in Nashville who used such an a pproach with her clients and the reason she choose those numbers is that RD's wouldn't get their panties in a wad over them and she could work with them to help out hte client.

> And I have learned this from
> personal experience. As have you: we both were once "carb addicted", to
> borrow a current catch phrase, and both learned - from ketogenic diet
> experiences - to better moderate how much and what types of carbs to eat.

But that is a separate issue. I was on a retarded high-carb diet in the first place so of course a keto diet worked magically. My comments were that a 'properly set up' high carb diet can work just fine for the average person. Of course, teh bigger problem is getting people to eat such a diet, but that's a separate issue as well.

Basically, this is like how Bill rightly took issue with my use of the term 'correct dose of yohimbe'. Because I didn't qualify what I meant by the term 'correct. So if you want to qualify 'high carb diets are rediculous' as '80% carbs diets with no protein, which is how the average 'Merkun interprets the recommendations are rediculous', I will be in totla agreement. But the RDA recommendations aren't to eat 80% carbs and zero fat. So blaming the problem on the folks who set up the RDA is a little bit misguided since their recommendations are not what people are actually doing in practice. They never were but the message got horribly garbled along the way.