veganmaster

Hi, please read two recent blog posts; I provide a comprehensive overview of not just the adequacy, but the superiority of a carb-based body recomposition plan. I call it MNP, and I explain the science in detail and provide many studies to chew on. As far as raw goes, probably Doug Graham's 80/10/10 is the best representation of raw MNP I've read about (I haven't read the book though, but I'd be surprised if he didn't make the same points I do in my blog). A low-fat, high carb diet is the clearly the best supported by the science: if one's goal is to maximize muscle gain while minimizing fat gain, there is no choice but to maximize the CHO:FAT ratio of the diet, as well as increase the kcal intake as high as necessary. Lots of supporting detail and references on my blog - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that it does makes sense: the healthiest diet for humans (low-fat, high carb, vegan) is also the best for maximizing muscle gain while minimizing fat gain. Now raw foods have a small disadvantage because an isocaloric diet made of starches will provide slightly better recomposition (as I detail in my starches versus simpe sugars post). BUT, the major factor is the ratio of CHO:FAT in the diet & the total kcal of course, so eating an raw overfeeding diet like 80/10/10 will lead to gaining mostly muscle and little fat. Eating fat leads directly to fat storage and indirectly to a lower insulin response (because 1 gram of fat (9 kcal) could have been replaced with 2 grams (8.2 kcal) of insulin-stimulating carbs, and insulin is the hormone that pushes protein into storage). So an overfeeding diet of fruit smoothies is an excellent way of building muscle (especially when you eat more kcal than you expend). Read the studies I cite on my blog, the results may surprise you. My next post will be about the practical details of MNP 100% Muscle. Starch-based is the most effective (see the starch overfeeding studies I cite). BUT, a raw MNP protocol, although it may lead to significantly more De Novo Lipogenesis versus an isocaloric starch diet with the same macronutrient ratios, a high-fruit MNP plan is much tastier and thus easier to overfeed on! I'll try to expand further when I write my post, thanks for the idea though! Starch overfeeding is much cheaper and easier on the teeth though, that's for sure

First of all, 1 gram of protein per lb of weight/d is way more protein than needed, and it will LIMIT your results because of insufficient stimulation of the hormone insulin, which is what is most important, because it pushes protein and fat into storage. Check my blog, especially the weight training + overfeeding study that compared an isocaloric diet higher in CHO or higher in PRO - the high CHO diet led to MORE muscle gain and LESS fat gain, because that's how metabolism works (see my blog for the info). The best muscle gain results in the literature comes from a pair of studies that used a 4300 kcal starch overfeeding diet (no exercise). Subjects ate about 91 grams of protein per day, yet they deposited 70 of those grams into storage because insulin was elevated so high from all the carbohydrates (yes that's 3/4 LB of LBM PER DAY - I encourage everyone to read the study themselves)! Don't get obsessed with protein, carbs are what determines the % of protein deposited, and going beyond 100 grams a day is not going to improve body recomposition as much as replacing those supra-100 grams of protein with carbs. Second, as others have mentioned, most anti-soy studies are junk science, paid for by the competing meat/dairy industry. The evidence is clear that animal food and oils are what promote cancer (see my 1st blog post for some good links). For example, the Japanese smoke a lot more than Americans, but they traditionally have much lower lung cancer rates and mortality (same thing is true for any population eating a plant-based diet). This is because their diet, until recently, has been low in animal foods and oil. Studies show a plant based diet is far more powerful than smoking. The body has a certain maximum healing potential, X. Eating a low-fat, no-oil vegan diet keeps X maximized. Eating animal foods and oil, lowers X a great deal, dose-dependently - so much so that a smoker eating a vegan diet has a much greater healing potential than a non-smoker eating the SAD diet. This is because our digestive tract is designed for whole plants, when we eat animal kcal and oil it causes a build up of metabolic waste products that must be removed (extra cholesterol, acidic animal proteins, lowered oxygenation of the blood, uric acid, etc.). Cancer is extremely rare when an organims eats a biologically appropriate diet - because millions of years of evolution have made the body extremely good at survival when evolutionary diet and activity level is simulated.

Please read my blog for very detailed information and studies that reveal exactly how metabolism works - it will help you understand how to best gain muscle (I assume you want to gain mostly muscle). Eating an low-fat overfeeding diet high in starches that provides more kcal than you expend will put on muscle and little or no fat (see my blog for the science). The bottom line for Maximum Nutrient Partitioning is maximizing the CHO:FAT ratio in the diet (10% FAT being a good goal) & eating more total kcal than you expend, as others have mentioned. The macronutrient ratio of the diet has a large effect on body composition results, as I try to show in my blog! If you are having trouble gaining muscle, you want to eat the diet most efficient at deposited protein stores but not fat stores. And that is the MNP diet, very high in CHO, very low in FAT, and moderate in protein. (Plus add exercise of course.) If you have trouble gaining on starches then I suggest drinking your kcal, as this cuts off some satiety signals plus speeds digestion (Maltodextrin + soy protein will help). Your high level of energy expenditure sounds like your main challenge - after all the reason endurance runners tend to be small is not due to lack of stimulation of protein synthesis (at least not in the legs) - it is due to a lack of total surplus kcal. Overfeeding studies without exercise pack on muscle a lot faster than studies using intense exercise, simply because of the energy drain that automatically comes with large amounts of energy expenditure. Your high activity level is great, all you need now is to eat more kcal than you expend, and maximize the CHO:F ratio of your diet! Studies I have cited in my blog show that muscle can be gained while fat is being lost, even at a kcal deficit. So it is very important to increase the carbs in the diet if you want to increase insulin-mediated protein storage (and that's the main goal of body recomposition).

Medman, you are wrong, I have taken high level nutrition courses at a major university before, so I am familiar with the college nutrition atmosphere. I was going for a second degree in nutrition (R.D.) but it eventually became apparent how strongly the the animal food/junk food industry influenced both the professors and the course material, so I quit and continued my education directly from the science instead. I don't think you understand my main point about herbivorous mammals meeting protein needs via plants: evolutionary pressures guarantee that an extant herbivorous organism can meet nutritional needs with simple plant food. They would never have survived to pass on their genes if this were not so! And human are herbivores, as I cover in my first blog post. You talk about the high Pellagra rates of the 1800s, but say nothing of the fact that their diets were high in VERY refined corn with some pork fat and molasses. I am talking about a WHOLE corn diet that meets energy needs. You see most deficiency diseases are some combination of starvation and/or overprocessing, which strips nutrients from the food. You have zero evidence to indicate that an all corn diet would mean a fastrack to disease - in fact, as I've posted there is instead evidence showing that single sources of plant protein meet nitrogen and nutritional needs as long as energy needs are met. Some people from Papa, New Guinea eat a diet of 95% sweet potatoes, and one study showed that very poor "3rd world" children grew normally on a diet where Nitrogen needs were met entirely with white flour! You underestimate the resilience of our biology when fed whole plant food to satisfaction. The Tarahumara Indians, for example, eat a simple traditional diet very high in corn liquor, corn and beans, yet they have performed some of the most legendary physical feats ever heard, from running their kickball games that last days and cover distances of hundreds of miles, to competing with mules for work carrying supplies up and down mountains (see my thread on Shoes for a link to a related article). Now I'm not saying eating only corn is the healthiest diet, but I am saying if you are so interested in the scientific method perhaps you should not just accept what you are taught uncritically. Perhaps the views put forward are slightly influenced by the zillion dollar food industry? Politics applies to science too, and it tends to belittle a plant-only diet and overstate macronutrient and nutrient needs. For example, all plant foods contain ALL of the essential amino acids that humans require. That is scientific fact, but most institutions will say right in their textbooks that plants contain "incomplete" proteins. I find your post a little arrogant and misguided, since you mainly defend the status quo without any evidence, yet you are happy to slander Dr. McDougall as an "untrustworthy" source. But Ad Hominem attacks will not change the scientific evidence that McDougall constantly references. He cites scientific studies for every point he makes, connecting the scientific dots into a coherent (and IMO accurate) viewpoint. That is the sign of a critical thinker who is interested in the weight of the evidence, but not the popularity of a viewpoint (he is a true iconoclast). Your implication that he is a scam artist by trying to sell DVDs and books is both crude and ridiculous because if he wanted to be filthy rich he would have long ago joined the regular (unsuccessful) doctors who can treat a different patient every 5 minutes - pills and surgery are FAR more lucrative than promoting a plant based diet. Educating people about nutrition is NOT a get rich quick scheme, lol! I'm glad you think I don't respect authority, because deference to the status quo is the sign of an uncritical mind. Experts are often wrong, if you want the truth you have to sift through the data yourself (and McDougall is one of those who cites the data for all to see). The evidence is what matters, I disagree with McDougall on several things (for example, I think he exaggerates the dangers of supplements). By the way, his website includes a totally free program so you don't have to buy his evil books and DVDs. How greedy of McDougall to put the entire McDougall program up for FREE (50 pages)! http://www.drmcdougall.com/free.html And don't forget the treasure trove of scientific references he provides in his huge FREE newsletter archive: http://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletter/ In college you are getting a nutritional science education, but IMO if you just accept uncritically what you are taught you are not being educated, you are being indoctrinated! But that's the way it is: many people who graduate with a degree in nutrition have managed to do so without realizing that humans are biological herbivores and that eliminating animal foods in the diet is the key to reversing chronic disease (I think you are well aware of these things though)! No hard feelings, it's all about learning. I've been studying these issues for over a dozen years, reading thousands of full scientific studies not just politicized college textbooks. That is why I am confident in my views, I have obsessively collected and examined the evidence and formed my opinion exclusively from it (that is just my nature). I try to keep my blog posts dense with big-picture information and scientific data/references, like my new post on starches versus simple sugars, for example.

Hiya, I've just posted a new blog entry, titled: "The Ideal MNP Diet is High In Starches, Low In Simple Sugars" I provide a lot of scientific references that confirm the superiority of starches over sugars for body recomposition. I hope someone finds it interesting. http://veganmaster.blogspot.com/

There is hope! It is not just genetics. Physics is the same for everyone, though natural activity & appetite levels vary, and that's where the phrases "easygainer/hardgainer" come from. The key is maximizing the ratio of CHO:FAT in your diet. Every gram of fat you eat beyond basic needs (a mere 3% of kcal) is a step backwards from your goal of reducing fat stores and increasing protein stores (tons of details in my blog and other posts). Replace most of those fat grams with carbs and you will lower body fat and increase the efficiency of protein deposition. You need to set up your habits so each day you lose net fat. Thus you must do 3 things, first eat less total kcal than you expend, second, maximize the CHO:FAT ratio in your diet (focusing on starches not sugars), and third, exercise to burn FAT and CHO. If you read my blog you'll learn that the macronutrient ratios in the diet have a large effect on body recomposition and fat loss. Without this knowledge it is much harder to create the changes you want - but with a little knowledge about metabolism science and macronutrient physics, you gain the tools needed to create a succesful plan. Physics is constant, what determines body composition (levels of fat, glycogen, protein in the body) is the intersection of total kcal,CHO:FAT ratio & TEE (total energy expenditure). You CAN do it! Personally, I find the easiest method to be fasting, because you are guaranteed significant fat loss during the day, and then in evenings you can eat several MNP meals to satisfaction (full belly) - yet overall you lose fat every day. I started @172 or so, and now I'm down to 158, and I think I may have gained a little muscle too, so I've probably lost about 14 lbs of fat so far (this is my first serious cutting). The great benefit is that I don't get hungry during the day (catecholamines), and then I get to eat until full at night, yet I lose net fat daily. Strange as it seems, starches are ideal for both cutting and bulking, because they offer a steady release of low-fat energy (the fat you eat is the fat you wear). When cutting, you lower total kcal below TEE, when bulking you increase kcal above TEE, but either way starches are the most effective means of maintaining/increasing protein stores and minimizing/decreasing fat stores, as I've tried to explain in my blog.

I'm making a little progress towards that goal each day, it requires a little knowledge and lots of willpower. I'm doing it the easy way, by fasting each day until 3 p.m., and then eating an MNP diet (see my blog for more) to satisfaction. I don't get hungry during the day, even though I'm fairly active (the body releases catecholamines to dampen hunger). My daily fast oxidizes about 50 grams of fat and maybe twice as many carbs. Then by eating lots of low-fat starch in the evening, my hunger is satisfied yet because I keep fat intake low I lose net fat every day (while maintaining muscle). This is just one method, but I think if I spread the food I eat in the evening over the whole day, it would be mentally more difficult, though the results would be similar. The real key is understanding how the metabolism of macronutrients works, so you know how to take the most effective steps towards your goal, which is to oxidize more fat each day than you eat. That can be mostly easily acheived by lowering kcal intake below needs and maximizing the CHO:FAT ratio of your diet, as I detail in my blog.

I would suggest focusing on low-fat starches, like rice, beans, potatoes, pasta, etc., the complex carbs and protein in them are very important for satiety. In fact, the potato was the clear winner in the Satiety Index study. Plus if it reduces binge eating, it may pay to increase your total kcal.

I think you managed very well in the interview, all things considered! I enjoyed it, thank you for posting the link. Keep it up!

Frankly, liquids are useful for faster digestion and quicker return of hunger (& thus for increasing total kcal intake), but the big picture science is clear: a high kcal, low-fat, high carb, moderate protein diet combined with exercise will build muscle well, the greater your carb intake, the greater the efficiency of protein deposition (tons of metabolic details in my blog). In fact one study compared PRE- and POST workout drinks and found that the best method is to already have food in your stomach BEFORE your workout as well as post (can't find the citation right now). Basically, by keeping your stomach regularly filled with a low-fat, high-carb vegan diet, you will increase the insulin-mediated deposition of dietary protein (as carbs increase, the % of dietary protein deposited increases), while also limiting fat gain. In other words, expensive concoctions are not necessary, all you need is healthy low-fat plant food and exercise. After all, that's how the largest herbivorous mammals grow their huge muscles (and indeed, think of massive herbivorous dinosaurs, the most muscular creatures to have walked the earth): these organisms didn't use techno-drinks to get huge, they just stuffed themselves with starchy plant food all day long (and exercised). !

I'm glad to hear that you think both would be suitable for tennis! I am torn between the sprint and KSO, after reading this guy's blog reviews of both: http://www.keith-in-training.com/2008/03/vibram-fivefingers-ksos-part-i.html http://keith-in-training.blogspot.com/2007/03/running-in-vibram-five-fingers-sprint.html The KSO strap sounds better as you've said, plus I thought about hitting my bare foot with my racquet (I play at about 4.5-5.0 level, so sometimes accidents happen). And heck, I may love them and want to start running on a trail with them, just for fun. I've neglected my feet for too long, but not anymore, my feet are slowly getting stronger and tougher, since I've been interested in barefoot exercise. I really appreciate your informed opinion, there is sparse information online about using these shoes for tennis! I think I'm gonna go with the KSOs! I'm excited for my feet!

Very inspiring, fantastic job! Which style do you wear, the KSO? I'm a tennis player, but am not sure which style would be best?

Certainly the metabolism science is clear that the shorter the sugar chains, the more De Novo Lipogenesis (see this study for example). "Human fatty acid synthesis is reduced after the substitution of dietary starch for sugar." Hudgins et al. Maltodextrin is mostly glucose polymers, so replacing those kcal with starch will definitely improve results (I will soon post on my blog about complex versus simple sugars). But I doubt using a particular expensive brand of starch is necessary.

My favorite books for teaching critcal thinking skills are Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World and Michael Shermer's "How To Think About Weird Things." The irony is that many supposed skeptics dismiss the obvious scams like homeopathy, yet they have no clue about nutrition, and believe nonsense!

Welcome, glad to read that you're back in the mix! Sounds like you have a lot of muscle and just need to melt the fat off.

Greetings. I turn 33 next month too and have been vegan for 12 years, nice to meet you. Straight edge means no drugs and vegan diet right? I'm a total nutrition nerd so I post a lot of info and studies for consideration.

Welcome! Interesting intro, and congrats on your healthy decision!

Yeah, and there have been some interesting case studies, where doctors came in a fed the Tarahumara meat and dairy (a diet they felt was "healthier" due to their ignorance), and of course their cholesterol levels, etc., jacked up quickly, and of course when they returned to their simple plant diet they returned to their normal levels around 110 or so. I love that they would compete against mules for jobs hauiling supplies up and down mountains!!! Yet so many would consider their cholesterol levels "too low" and their diets inadequate. Well those people should try competiing with mules carrying 50 lb packs up mountains and playing a kickball game that goes for 100s of miles. Carbs are the key to those feats, as most endurance athletes are well aware.

RticleOne, it is actually very refreshing to see a non-veggie posting who is actually interested in the evidence, and not just in reinforcing/defending their current habits. Fat is the most concentrated form of energy, thus it really the most desired by the body, because in the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptation), such contentrated energy sources (refined fats and sugars) were extremely rare (honey is an example). Fat is the most efficient method of gaining weight, but not muscle. It is the inefficiency of carbodydrate De Novo Lipogenesis (up to 30% of energy lost in conversion to fat), combined with insulin-mediated increases in protein storage efficiency that makes a very low fat high carb diet the best for recomposition as well as health. Many vegetarians simply exchange their meat intake for dairy products, which is likely even worse than meat for health, though that's like a contest between a young Michael Jordan and and slighltly older Michael Jorden, if you know what I mean. Either way the more low-fat plants you eat the better your health and body recomposition results will be - and if you understand this you are in a much better position than most people. So if you're animal food intake begins to cause health problems (which happens eventually in most people who eat animal food daily), you will already know the solution. Come on, JOIN THE DARKSIDE!! Eat like a vegan rebel muhahahhahaha!! Oh, also about the cows/muscle thingy, I made a similar point today in another post where I went into greater detail about the protein myth. Consider some of the largest animals to ever live, herbivorous dinosaurs - they got their protein from plants, and grew enormous protein stores - yet a "modern" nutritionist would have warned those dinos about plant proteins being "incomplete" which is total BS (see my other recent posts for more).

Awesome! I can tell my GF that swallowing will help her put on muscle and meet B12 needs! Thanks for the info on the nutritional make up of semen, not something I'd thought about lol. Chimps will occasionally kill and eat rival group members, then I think they also eat some fecal matter to help digest it. Nasty chimp cannibals!

For an in-depth answer to that, please read my latest blog post. The metabolic fact is that eating carbs instead of fat directly leads to more muscle gain and less fat gain, because of the way the body is designed (the blog explains everything in great detail, and cites science - if you read and understand it you will have a big picture understanding of metabolism and be able to reach your goals faster). Health-wise, nuts are not a problem, especially if the diet is overall low-fat vegan (under ~20%). But if you want to be strict about maximizing muscle gain and fat minimization, fat should be limited to around 10%.

People thrive on a diet on 95-100% potatoes (in New Guinea some people eat 95% sweet potatoes, many different varieties). Potatoes are extremely nutritious, and have a good ratio of macronutrients for body recomposition. People can, and have, thrived on potatoes alone (read this): http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall020400pupotatoesarepillars.htm That beings said, potatoes are definitely not the best at overfeeding, as they topped the Satiety Index study, which measured how well different foods held off hunger. They are excellent for cutting though, since they satisfy hunger the longest.

Yes, the power of false memes is amazing, but understandable. Simple-but-false memes usually outcompete truthful, more complex memes. Sorry to hear about your brutal virus encounter (you are right studies show it is usually infected animal food that causes "food poisoning" - I remember when I was in college and ate some pink watermelon for the first time and had a similar experience to yours!). Great point about fasting and healing too. Since I've been implemented fasting for fat loss (I don't eat until 3 p.m., & even exercise on an empty stomach since my current goal is fat loss). Fasting really lets the body maximize healing potential (and the results are especially powerful for non-vegans, because they have large build-ups of metabolic waste from animal foods). You are right it is truly liberating to feel confidence in your body's ability to heal. Most people eat such a shitty diet they are terrified of their supposedly "genetically defective" body. The truth is, if one has chronic disease of any kind, one has been eating the wrong food - the body is a hi-tech monster of plant processing. But everyone gets a virus now and then, the difference is most people are terrified of germs. Me, I know my body is super-charged with a vegan starch-based, low-sugar, low-fat diet and regular fasting. I ain't scared of no germs, even if I got ebola I would load up on hundreds of grams of Vitamin C and think I still had a fighting chance. The last 2 microbes my GF brought home (she's vegan too so she overcame them in a couple days) did not bother me at all, despite the fact that I always kiss her, even when she's sick. And way too many clueless people say things like "I'm a vegetarian, I only eat fish... and chicken... and eggs and dairy and seafood... and lard, and baby mice..." As for the protein issue, it does drive me crazy because the scientific evidence is well established but unknown, even to supposed vegan nutrition "experts" - I like to refer to an old study I have that met nitrogen balance in men @ 3000 kcal on a high carb low-fat diet that contained a mere 3% protein. Yes that's about 25 grams a day - apparently utilized with 100% efficiency. If you meet energy needs from real food, the body has no problem meeting needs at all. This is why tons of protein is not necessary when you stomp down on the carbohydrate accelerator (maximize CHO:F ratio). How in the hell do people think herbivorous dinosaurs, some of the largest creatures ever to walk the earth, met their prodigious protein needs? They did it with plant foods, many of which would be considered "incomplete" by those who fail to do the research themselves and instead accept what the mainstream "educators" tell them. All plants contain ALL of the essential amino acids, period. That scientific fact is the most unknown thing in nutrition. The truth is no plant can exist without all the essential amino acids - so it is incredibly ridiculous to say they are incomplete proteins! What happened is that research on non-herbivorous rats was used to justify human needs (and to sell/promote animal foods). So then the amino acid profile of plants were studied, and the essential amino acid with the lowest amount was determined the "limiting" amino acid (lysine for corn, for example). But the truth is if you meet baseline energy needs with corn (or any other single protein source), you will get plenty of all the essential amino acids because our needs are so low. But as I said, false-but-simple memes "plants are incomplete proteins" flow from one brain to the next much better than the true-but-nuanced memes: "plants contain all the essential amino acid, though the ratios differ, but if you meet energy needs on plant food, your body will easily meet protein needs." Offense74, you are entitled to your opinion, but IMO the weight of the scientific evidence is squarely against you. You call Ornish & McDougall "stubborn" - I think you are mistaking hard-earned knowledge, based 100% on the scientific evidence, for hardheadedness. I'm not even sure what your disagreement is with these pioneering doctors exactly. If you check the studies they cite, they are correct, and detractors use much weaker correlational studies for their data. If you read their writings and the studies they cite, I think you could learn a lot more that way. I'm damn stubborn too, I guess, but it's because I have spent thousands of hours studying the science and forming evidence-based opinions, regardless of the popular view, which in the area of nutrition is wrong or oversimplified 90% of the time. The whole "americans got fatter even though they ate less fat in the 80s" meme is well debunked, as absolute fat intake DID NOT go down, instead CHO intake went up further, thus the % of dietary fat may have gone down but all people did was eat the same fatty diet with a few hundred more kcal of sugary food on top! So of course they still gained weight, they ate more total energy. Besides, those correlation studies are weak, the real data is in the calorimetry metabolism studies, which directly measure gas exchange to accurately measure the oxidation rates of macronutrients. Check out the studies and info I cover on my blog - a good calorimetry study provides a clear reflection of reality, but correlational studies are mainly designed to push forth a particular viewpoint/sell a particular product (or at least that's how the data is used when made to the popular press).

Honestly, from a big picture point of view (which is the one I always like to take), I don't think there is much difference between the two as far as protein efficiency goes. Simple sugars cause a faster insulin response and complex carbs cause a more steady response, but the main factor that determines insulin is the total amount of carbohydrate energy eaten. In addition, google this study below that shows simple sugars lead to more De Novo Lipogenesis than starches: "Human fatty acid synthesis is reduced after the substitution of dietary starch for sugar." Hudgins et al. So for body recomposition and health purposes, starch is superior to sugars. Any slightly higher insulin effect would also come with additional fatty acid production. And fat is the enemy of recompositiion. That is why the two studies below that use a 4300 kcal diet, containing 759g of CHO, 91g PRO, 95g FAT, are so successful at recomposition (subjects gained 3/4 lb of LBM per day, about 70 grams of net protein gained out of 100 consumed, an impressive 70% protein efficiency). Despite being 20% FAT, they gained less fat than protein (25g/d in one and 75g/d in the other). This is with no exercise, and I estimate the kcal surplus to be about 1800 kcal above needs (huge). The evidence indicates that if the diet (made of rice, crackers, biscuits, pasta and some fats) was lowered to 10% FAT (CHO:F ratio increases), it would enable these huge muscle gains while fat stores remain level (MNP 100% Muscle is what I'm calling my plan to do this, which will be a future blog post). Basically, starch overfeeding is the ultimate diet for body recomposition. I am slowly cutting still, but once I reach my desired leanness in a few weeks, I am going to be pounding the starch like crazy. The main challenge is eating high enough kcal from such bulky, fiber-rich food. This is why for those without huge natural appetites like me, it may be very helpful to eat liquified starches. So far my favorite method is making double batches of jasmine rice milk with my soy milk maker. But it uses a ton of water & time, and is a hassle to clean. But even if one just chooses to keep their stomach constantly 3/4 full with plant starch/protein combos, while exercising often, you will definitely gain muscle without the fat, with your goal being to eat as many kcal as you can without starting fat gain. Now, the main stumbling block of course is that sugars taste much better than starches. So for most people they will choose to include a certain amount just for flavor. For me, I have no choice anyway, because during my years of sugarholic mayhem, I've damaged my teeth, so I cannot even eat fruit or tomato sauce regularly. I will outline MNP 100% Muscle soon, but from the evidence I see no reason why we can't gain 1/4-1 LB of LBM per day with zero fat gain. The reason why it is so rare is that people naturally love sugars and fats (concentrated energy), so we must break these addictions with willpower to reveal the power of starch overfeeding. I can't wait 'til I'm finally cut and can begin my starch overfeeding journey (I'm going to upload pics once I'm cut)!! A high starch diet has the scientific evidence on its side in the arena of both health and recomposition, but it ain't for whimps, that's for sure. Effect of carbohydrate overfeeding on whole body and adipose tissue metabolism in humans. Obes Res. 2003 Sep;11(9):1096-103. Effect of carbohydrate overfeeding on whole body macronutrient metabolism and expression of lipogenic enzymes in adipose tissue of lean and overweight humans. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 Oct;28(10):1291-8. More detail will be included when I write my complex vs. simple sugar MNP post (maybe today, we'll see).

Good points, I do believe looking through the lens of evolution is the key to understanding health - for natural selection over millions of years is what shaped every single organism that ever lived. I listened to the lecture again. It's very enjoyable, though McDougall is overly harsh on supplements, soy, and raw foods in my opinion. But I understand that he's trying to emphasize the truth that a very low fat starch based diet is the key to health. He does that very well - trying to make people understand that the composition of their foods is what determines health. And it's not just the best diet for health, it's the best for body recomposition and for the biosphere too!