Questions onThrive Diet

[vegetus25]

I have been waiting for months for the book to come to a bookstore near me and it is still not here. Can somebody tell me how much protein, carbs, fats, and calories are recommended on the Thrive Diet? Have any of you followed the guidelines in the book? What changes did you notice in your health/performance)? Any downsides to the diet?

 

Thanks,

 

Veg

[wfvegan]

There are no specific recomendations for the amount of calories consumed on the Thrive Diet. He simply states that due to the food being more easily assimilated, you will probably need less than you currently do (calorie wise). The meal plan is pretty much laid out so you are eating every couple of hours, and you eat as much as you want of the foods. Brendan says that it is hard to gain fat when sticking to the diet.

 

As far as I know there is no recommendation to the percentages of protein/carbs/fat. Although I think I read in an FAQ that Brendan said it roughly breaks down to 20/60/20 (P/C/F). He does have specific recomendations for what to eat surrounding exercise, as this changes the ratio.

[Guest]

I've never had any downsides...I'm a bit lazy following it now though since I tend to just eat what my mother cooks me. The big thing is that its based on good carb sources and modest amounts of protein and fat.

[chrisjs]

It can tend to be a little pricey if you consider that a downside. Nuts, hemp, etc. ain't cheap compared to soy and wheat.

[TheLeetOne]

I've been following the principles of the thrive diet for quite awhile, but recently changed to a more simple, fruit based diet.

 

I experienced a great improvement in overall health AND performance/muscle growth when switching from a normal diet, to a primarily vegan diet, and then to a completely vegan 'thrive' based diet. I'd like to say that although it's leaps and bounds better than the SAD (standard american diet), my personal (extensive) nutritional research has lead me to believe that it is still very far from optimal. To put my personal opinion into context a little better, I've stated before that 'Vega' and the 'Thrive Diet' turned my life around completely (for the better) and possibly even saved my life in the way it changed my outlook on nutrition to one that views it as one of (if not the) most integral parts of overall health... despite having experienced such a great benefit from both the book and the 'Vega' products, I still think there is huge room for improvement.

 

The Carbs:Protein:Fat ratio of 'Vega Whole Food Meal Replacement' is 26:41:33 (by calories, not by weight). Not only do I think that this is not optimal, I believe it's just plain sub-par. Carbs are our primary fuel, and the easiest (if taken in the right form, as is found in fruit) thing for our body to assimilate, yet they only comprise 26% of the calorie content, leaving excess amounts of fat and protein to make up the rest of the calories? To really explain the harm that can come from consuming such a high percentage of our calories from fat and protein, this would have to be a much longer post than I have time for, but I urge people to research this for themselves.

 

If nothing else, I believe that 'Whole Food Meal Replacement' is an extremely dangerous way to label a product with this extremely high ratio of fat and protein to carbs, as living a lifestyle based around this ratio would lead to dire health concerns (again I don't have the time required to fully explain myself on this point, but I'll be happy to debate any responses to this post, and support this with sound scientific information). Perhaps 'Fat and Protein Supplement' would be more fitting.

 

While condemning the caloric makeup of this one product supported by the Thrive Diet is far from a good reason to condemn the diet as a whole, there are many basic principles and food types recommended in the book which I have come to believe can be quite harmful to one's health.

[DaveNoisy]

Hey there Leety neighbor. =)

 

Interesting to read your experience with the Thrive diet, glad it had such a positive influence!

 

I think you might be giving Vega a hard rap over something it's not: a 'true' meal substitute for a functioning athlete. I believe it's marketed towards 'normal' (more or less inactive) people as a meal replacement, and in this instance, i think it works for the most part (i'd prefer it with little or no protein, but that's me.

 

For inactive people, carbs aren't actually 'essential', tho it's not something i'd recommend going without...but for an endurance athlete, water and Vega powder is not a real 'meal', but i could list a million things that aren't real 'meals' either!

 

I think a scoop or two in a smoothie with lotsa fruit, etc, is probably much closer to being a 'meal', imo...and i don't think that's the fault of the Vega.

 

I hope i don't sound like an apologist, but i think it has its place... Personally, i took Vega for over a year, but am now simply taking the maca and chlorella separately, because again, i don't want all the protein. (I'm down to ~40-60g/day, and it's *awesome*.)

 

Curious about what else in the Thrive program that you mention in your last paragraph that can be harmful...?

[bpmojo]

 

Curious about what else in the Thrive program that you mention in your last paragraph that can be harmful...?

[vegetus25]

Dave,

 

What makes low protein intake "awesome"?

 

Thanks,

 

Veg

[xjohanx]

nothing is awesome about a low protein diet if you wanna build muscle.

but if you are doing endurance sports/no sports at all i guess it would be kinda cool.

[Guest]

I think the definition of low is misleading. You can definitely build muscle on lower protein levels than the govt. recommends...I know...I've done it while trying to lose muscle. But really the term low should also define unhealthy levels. If you can sustain muscle without a lot of protein I'd call that the ideal amount of protein. If you lose muscle while trying to gain then I'd call that low protein.

[DaveNoisy]

Dave,

 

What makes low protein intake "awesome"?

 

Thanks,

 

Veg

Hiya - for me:

 

* much easier on digestion

 

* body remains in a more alkaline state

 

* no concern about protein supplements, etc

 

* much faster recovery

 

* more energy for actually training / working out

 

To define 'low protein', i'm not saying less than any health org. would recommend, but down around 10% of calories, or specifically, just under 0.4g/kg per day. For me, that's around 30g. I can't keep it that low, but i'm trying...

 

As a bike racer, i'm finding that i'm having more energy, meals digest more quickly and efficiently without including as many protein-containing foods (many of which are highly processed), and i'm actually making bigger gains than when i was eating more protein. My legs are actually bigger (and i'm gaining weight), and i'm getting new PB's in power ratings, despite not even training that system (i'm really focused on slow-twitch muscle systems, yet i hit a new 5sec max wattage the other day. I have a power meter on my bike, which tells me exactly how hard i'm pedaling in watts.)

 

Mind you i'm eating more complex than just 'low protein', i advocate a whole foods diet, with a huge focus on greens. It's been working spectacularly, i practically feel like a new person. =)

 

I think you'd be surprised at how successfully you could gain muscle with protein intake at this level and major focus on whole foods.

[TheLeetOne]

Curious about what else in the Thrive program that you mention in your last paragraph that can be harmful...?

 

I'm in the middle of a lunch break at a training course right now, and there are a few different responses I could give here, but I should really start by saying that my initial post may have come across a little more harshly than intended; it's important to note that I was speaking entirely based on personal opinion...

 

That in mind, one of the things recommended in the Thrive Diet is the consumption of grains and pseudograins, both of which (primarily the first of the two) I don't consider to be foods we are meant to consume. In nature I doubt we'd be snacking on grains in their raw state, and so without even getting into the specific health issues that can arise from the consumption of them, grains are already discounted from being a viable food in my mind. Their protein content is also too high for it to be advisable to make them a staple in any diet (although I doubt many people come close to consuming even 50% of their diet as grains, so this shouldn't be a huge issue), and I've read that they also cause irritation to the lining of the intestines, causing the body to react by increasing it's mucous lining. Add to this the fact that grains aren't appealing to us on their own (without some form of sweetening or toppings) and grains look less and less like a real food... (at least in my mind)

 

I'll probably follow up with another post to better explain my original one, as on it's own I think it makes me seem a little judgmental (amongst other things)... I was actually hoping to get flamed for it a little bit more, to open up a larger discussion on the topic.

 

P.S: My comment about 'Fat and Protein Supplement' being a more fitting label is due to the fact that I take it for exactly that reason (on days where my % of calories from protein and fat is less than 8% or so each).

 

I can't remember whether the Thrive Diet book actually suggests eating any certain amount of protein OR fat, but many of the foods suggested definitely contain large amounts of one or the other (a large amount to me is anything greater than 20% or so of calories from fat or protein).

[DaveNoisy]

Interesting, thanks Lee.

 

I'm on the fence with grains...my overall consumption is down, but i'm not sure i'd discount them either.. I enjoy enough other foods it's not an issue for me personally, but if someone is eating predominantly grains, it can be a problem, but i think it's more that they're overdoing them, than that they're particularly unhealthy...?