My buddy Rip Esselstyn, holds the USMS SCY 45 - 49 Men's American Record in the 200 back with 1:56.55 wrote the:
The Engine 2 Diet:
The Texas Firefighter's 28-Day Save-Your-Life Plan that Lowers Cholesterol and Burns Away the Pounds
People who've stuck with the diet in Rip's 28 day test programs had great results lowering their cholesterol. www.theengine2diet.com/.../
Film
“This terrific book will inspire all who read it to change their lives and optimize their health.”
Lance Armstrong
“The Engine 2 Diet can save your life — whether you’re a man or a woman.”
Dean Ornish, M.D.
“This book is a clearly written, concise prescription for regaining lost health, vitality, and appearance.”
John McDougall, M.D.
“This book makes healthful eating and exercise fun and doable.”
Joel Fuhrman, M.D., author, Eat for Health and Eat to Live
“This is the ultimate guide to health and long life.”
Neal D. Barnard, M.D., Dr. Neal Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes
“The Engine 2 Diet will go far to help extinguish the flames of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.”
Jeff Novick
“This easily readable book presents an optimal diet as being accessible, simple and delicious.”
Pamela A. Popper, Ph.D., N.D.
“An effective, easy-to-follow, satisfying eating plan for even the manliest of men.”
Rory Freedman, coauthor of Skinny ***
Every single study that compares a low-protein (under 20% calories) weight loss diet to a high- or moderate-protein weight loss diet shows better results for higher protein, especially in the retention of muscle mass, which is essential for athletes.
I'm not going to defend Esselstyn's approach b/c I don't know anything about it. But I would be wary on how these studies define "success." For masters swimmers, I imagine the definition might be "weight loss without athletic performance loss" during the dieting phase. And high-protein diets might not do so well in that regard.
The problem I have with high-protein weight loss programs is that they are necessarily usually also low-carb diets as well. Maybe this is fine for people who are more sedentary (or possibly even body-builders :)), but I found it to be a terrible idea for endurance athletes. Even masters swimmers who "only" do 15k a week need more carbs than is typically allowed in such diets.
To be fair, I think failing to consider the needs of athletes is pretty common across almost all dietary programs. They are largely designed for a more sedentary population and are often not flexible enough to compensate for pretty active people. I remember once reading through some Weight Watchers material that basically defined "intense exercise" as anything where you break a sweat. The guideline for cycling, for example, was 15mph or higher for a flat ride, which is ridiculously slow.
I once tried a high-protein diet when I wasn't lifting at all, but swimming about 15,000 yards and cycling 150-200 miles per week. After only a single weekend on the diet, both my swimming and cycling noticably declined in speed. By the end of one week, performance was down 10-20% at least. In swimming it felt like I was completely broken down, and on bike rides my legs felt done after the first hard hill. Muscle glycogen just wasn't being replenished between workouts. Retaining muscle mass isn't very useful if the muscles don't have a ready supply of fuel.
That isn't to say a high-protein, or any other, diet couldn't be altered to match the needs of serious athletes -- in the WW approach (which isn't high-protein) it is fairly easy to do so -- just that they often aren't. Caveat emptor.
Every single study that compares a low-protein (under 20% calories) weight loss diet to a high- or moderate-protein weight loss diet shows better results for higher protein, especially in the retention of muscle mass, which is essential for athletes.
I'm not going to defend Esselstyn's approach b/c I don't know anything about it. But I would be wary on how these studies define "success." For masters swimmers, I imagine the definition might be "weight loss without athletic performance loss" during the dieting phase. And high-protein diets might not do so well in that regard.
The problem I have with high-protein weight loss programs is that they are necessarily usually also low-carb diets as well. Maybe this is fine for people who are more sedentary (or possibly even body-builders :)), but I found it to be a terrible idea for endurance athletes. Even masters swimmers who "only" do 15k a week need more carbs than is typically allowed in such diets.
To be fair, I think failing to consider the needs of athletes is pretty common across almost all dietary programs. They are largely designed for a more sedentary population and are often not flexible enough to compensate for pretty active people. I remember once reading through some Weight Watchers material that basically defined "intense exercise" as anything where you break a sweat. The guideline for cycling, for example, was 15mph or higher for a flat ride, which is ridiculously slow.
I once tried a high-protein diet when I wasn't lifting at all, but swimming about 15,000 yards and cycling 150-200 miles per week. After only a single weekend on the diet, both my swimming and cycling noticably declined in speed. By the end of one week, performance was down 10-20% at least. In swimming it felt like I was completely broken down, and on bike rides my legs felt done after the first hard hill. Muscle glycogen just wasn't being replenished between workouts. Retaining muscle mass isn't very useful if the muscles don't have a ready supply of fuel.
That isn't to say a high-protein, or any other, diet couldn't be altered to match the needs of serious athletes -- in the WW approach (which isn't high-protein) it is fairly easy to do so -- just that they often aren't. Caveat emptor.
