The Warrior Diet

[Guest guest]

Hi chris,

Right now i dont due to a pretty bad injury i have that is in process

of physio ( he says im 6 months off fromn resuming light trainign

again )

however prior to that i was very into the gym. ( got into "

superslow " training before hurting myself for about a year.

I stayed around the same weight ( give or take 1 kilo! )

but just got insanely strong for my weight. ( as a 6ft 2 73 kilo

string bean i was superslowing ( 15-20 sec reps ) leg press over 600

pounds.

bench med-x machine was teetering 300 pounds.

But no weight gain

which completely debunks the theory of a stronger muscle is a bigger

muscle.

> ,

>

> Do you work out with weights?

>

> I've always been underweight, but when I started working out I

gained 17

> pounds in four months, and that was with my busy schedule only

allowing me to go

> once or twice a week.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don think having a big brekky and a big dinner is fasting. ( or

even eating 1 big meal a day ) if you feel comfrotable with it

ALot of other animals on the planet obviouly get to a point in teh

day where they are " hungry " and pig out so to speak will they

happily full

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Chris-

>

> I certainly agree with that! I'm highly skeptical of fasting, and

in my

> observation, the people who claim to benefit are the same people

who seem

> to do OK (at least for the time being) with juicing -- which is to

say

> they're people with metabolisms utterly different from mine.

>

> >Might want to throw out fasting, too.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

"

But no weight gain

which completely debunks the theory of a stronger muscle is a bigger

muscle. "

A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle though

-

[Guest guest]

Yes basically its pretty much a empty stomach. However it hasnt been

heavy exercise whiel i await my injury to heal so nto sure how i will

fare when i get back to actual power training. THough i spose i just

have a bigger breakfast

Yes I hadnt eaten bread in over a year and have just started again (

due to low finances )

>

> >Im still very worried that im not getting enough calories in

> >( dinner is usualyl about 300 grams meat, rice or 2 slices

sourdough

> >spelt bread, 2 cups raw green veg/carrot juice, and veggie like

> >broccoli floret and spinach/silverbeat steamed.

> >

> >calorie wise i got no idea what it would add up to

>

> Interesting experiment. So you end up doing your

> workouts on a " more empty " stomach?

>

> You can add calories by adding butter and/or coconut oil.

> Also one option would by to stop the bread for a week

> and see what happens ... gluten interferes with digestion

> sometimes and can help prevent weight gain. Though I'm

> not sure when " underweight " is a problem (if it's all

> muscle, how much muscle does a person need?).

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On the subject of getting fat, I assume even the most ketogenic diet

would result in weight gain (and thus loss of health) if caloric

intake exceeds caloric expenditure? Doesn't this make tons of fat

somewhat dangerous? Or does metabolism/satiety/some other factor

change in a favorable way to combat this?

The amount of calories eaten daily, in absolute terms, and their

impact on health is interesting. On the one side if you maintain a

higher energy flux you get more exercise related benefits and more

nutrients...on the flipside would you also get more free radical damage?

-

> #2,

>

> lol,

>

> Oo, do I qualify as a powerlifter already? :-D I guess I'm doing all

> powerlifting exercises, but I think I need to do it a little longer

and get a little

> bigger to actually qualify as one :-P

>

> Yes, I think your longevity would be fine with 5,000 calories a day

as long

> as you're actually using it. Eating too much food raises your

insulin, but

> physical activity is a powerful insulin-decreaser. If you're

getting fat from

> eating so much, no, you need to eat less ;-) But there's nothing

*inherently*

> wrong with eating 5,000 calories a day. I don't consider it an

enormous amount

> of food.

>

> Chris

>

> In a message dated 8/14/03 5:26:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > I can only assume that you're an avid powerlifter/bodybuilder. What

> > I meant was that most people eat more calories than they would if

> > their food was healthy. It's easy to accumulate calories eating

> > donuts, for example. Do you believe that calories are not at all

> > important when it comes to longevity? Do you think you can achieve

> > maximum health/longevity on 5000 cals a day? Almost too good to be

true...

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> Would occasional grains (corn, sweet potato) sabotage all that? <<

Corn is IMO always very high carb and not enough nutritional bang for the carb

load. Sweet potatoes aren't a grain, and have a fair amount of nutrition for

their carb load - they are, for instance, allowed on the non-weight loss phases

of Atkins.

>> Suppose I find olive oil OK (in terms of palatability) should I just

pile it on or still use it moderately? <<

I'd pile it on.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> If I have a fasting blood sugar of 5.3 am I insulin resistant? I

usually don't feel hungry till about noon... I don't get cravings

around 10 or so. <<

I'm really confused by this... when I check my blood sugar, it is 112 or 90 or

whatever..... where are these numbers like 5.3 and so on coming from?

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> On the subject of getting fat, I assume even the most ketogenic diet

would result in weight gain (and thus loss of health) if caloric

intake exceeds caloric expenditure? Doesn't this make tons of fat

somewhat dangerous? Or does metabolism/satiety/some other factor

change in a favorable way to combat this? <<

In one study of obese teenaged boys, the ones on the low fat diet of 1200

calories a day lost LESS (a lot less, 9 pounds vs 27 pounds) than the boys on a

high fat Atkins diet of 1800 calories a day.

This is not just about calories! Reducing eating plans to a simple " calories

eaten vs calories expended " completely overlooks the effect of different

macronutrients on your metabolism. Just as two cars won't get the same miles per

gallon, neither will two bodies. Since carbs cause a big release of insulin,

which favors fat storage, while fat barely triggers any insulin at all, which

makes it much harder for the body to store excess as fat, it seems somewhat

obvious that calories are only a piece of the puzzle.

Here is an article I wrote on this - I had a very strict word count for this

assignment so this piece is a bit short. It references, and links to, a much

longer NY Times article at the end, called " What if it's all been a big fat

lie? "

Here is my article:

Is a Calorie a Calorie?

How new research is turning weight loss upside down

by Christie

For decades, most medical professionals have viewed low-carbohydrate diets with

hostility. Articles about them featured photos of huge steaks dripping with

butter, and slabs of bacon nestled into a hefty portion of fried eggs. Who could

possibly lose weight eating foods like that?

Dr. Atkins insisted that his patients could, and did. They also beat type

2 diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other health problems. And they did it,

he said, while eating not only well, but luxuriously. He insisted it in the

'70s, when his diet book ruled the bestseller lists. He insisted it again, with

more scientific research and years of clinical experience to back it up, in a

'90s best-selling update called Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution. But Atkins was

scorned as a charlatan, his diet a dangerous fad. Any weight loss you experience

on this diet, the experts said, would be due to water loss. It would harm the

kidneys and the heart. The high levels of fat in the diet would kill you. A

calorie, they said, is a calorie; reduce calories and increase activity and

you'll lose weight. It's as simple as that (although a difficult proposition

when your body is screaming with hunger and you are suffering from severe

fatigue and lack of energy).

So, is a calorie a calorie? It appears not. According to Atkins, studies on

subjects fed identical calorie diets but with varying levels of fat, protein,

and carbohydrate have shown repeatedly that those on low carbohydrate, high fat

diets lose more weight than those on higher-carb diets. One recent study from

the Journal of Adolescent Health compared two groups of overweight teenaged

boys, one on a normal low-fat diet that comprised around 1200 calories a day,

and the other on a low-carb diet that comprised over 1800 calories a day. The

boys on the low carb, higher calorie diet lost an average of 21.7 pounds, while

the boys on the low fat, lower calorie diet lost only 9.1. The low-carb group

also had an improved body mass index (BMI) score as well.

" When you severely reduce the number of carbohydrates you consume, " Atkins said,

" you convert your body from a glucose-burning to a fat-burning metabolism. "

During times of abundant food we have the ability to store fat in our own

bodies. When food is not so plentiful, we can burn our body's stored fat. This

process, known as lipolysis, is neither unnatural nor harmful. It's just the

body's alternate fueling system. In this state, the unbalanced insulin process

is restored to balance, as fat stimulates almost no insulin release and protein

very little. Freed from the " blood sugar blues, " many people experience renewed

energy and mental clarity, freedom from hunger and cravings, and are able to

incorporate more activity into their daily lives.

Dr. Atkins died this winter after a fall on an icy sidewalk. He didn't live long

enough to see the highly publicized release of studies showing that the Atkins

plan does not appear to harm the heart or kidneys, and that it is in fact

effective for weight loss. Many experts are still skeptical, but others are

giving his theories, and the science behind them, a second look. Could years of

recommendations of low fat, high carb diets to lose weight and improve cardiac

health have been wrong? Or as NY Times science writer Taubes asked in a

recent headline, " What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? "

( " What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie " is at

http://atkins.com/Archive/2003/1/20-542932.html if that link didn't come through

on the list.)

Christie

[Guest guest]

Alright, I'll do that. I don't think I'll stay away from all grains

100% though--that might set me up for a major binge down the road with

something far less healthsome than corn.

-

> >> Would occasional grains (corn, sweet potato) sabotage all that? <<

>

> Corn is IMO always very high carb and not enough nutritional bang

for the carb load. Sweet potatoes aren't a grain, and have a fair

amount of nutrition for their carb load - they are, for instance,

allowed on the non-weight loss phases of Atkins.

>

> >> Suppose I find olive oil OK (in terms of palatability) should I just

> pile it on or still use it moderately? <<

>

> I'd pile it on.

>

> Christie

>

>

>

> [Non-text portio

ns of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

I think that was blood glucose I was taking...

-

> >> If I have a fasting blood sugar of 5.3 am I insulin resistant? I

> usually don't feel hungry till about noon... I don't get cravings

> around 10 or so. <<

>

> I'm really confused by this... when I check my blood sugar, it is

112 or 90 or whatever..... where are these numbers like 5.3 and so on

coming from?

>

> Christie

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quoting Christie <christiekeith@...>:

> This is not just about calories! Reducing eating plans to a simple

> " calories eaten vs calories expended " completely overlooks the effect of

> different macronutrients on your metabolism. Just as two cars won't get

> the same miles per gallon, neither will two bodies. Since carbs cause a

> big release of insulin, which favors fat storage, while fat barely

> triggers any insulin at all, which makes it much harder for the body to

> store excess as fat, it seems somewhat obvious that calories are only a

> piece of the puzzle.

Exactly. It annoys me to no end when people try to refute the benefits of

low-carbohydrate diets by saying " calories in, calories out, " or whatever

the catch phrase du jour for expressing that particular tautology might be.

It's obvious that any calories which are consumed and not expended (or

excreted unused) will be stored as fat, but that's not the point. They're

completely ignoring the real argument--not that low-carbohydrate diets are

magic, but that the type of food you eat affects your ability to reduce

energy intake and/or increase energy expenditure.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

yeah it was tough. My workout lasted 18 to 20 mins avg. 2x a week

1 set superslow to failure. Moving straight onto next exercise with

no rest. ( yes i threw up on 2 occasions )

i do not know how i was able to move so much weight with my skinyn

long limbs. THough this coudl be why now im in hospital physio

correcting muscular/structural probmem. Musta crushed myself.

i will have to search and look at my records and see my last workout.

see what i was movin.

It is a very uncomfrotable way to train. SUPER will powerneeded

> In a message dated 8/14/03 5:42:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> anthony_byron@m... writes:

>

> > But no weight gain

> > which completely debunks the theory of a stronger muscle is a

bigger

> > muscle.

> >

>

> True, but holy crap were you getting tough! I just started bench

pressing.

> I can only do about 155, but I sure as heck couldn't do it

superslow!

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Heidi,

You must be a lot different than I am. I was horribly hypoglycemic before I

learned about the WAP diet. My diet is a high percent of good fat, next is

protein and last is carbs, with little grains and rarely sugar, including

fruits. I think it's the fat, but I don't get insanely hungry. I can easily

eat one day and not the next and still have energy.

Bee

Re: Re: The Warrior Diet

At 08:03 AM 8/14/2003, you wrote:

>Heidi-

>

>I know you're pursuing a different line of inquiry now, but why not even

>mention carb restriction? It unquestionably works.

>

>>So far the options for regulating insulin seem to be:

>>

>>1. Exercise

>>2. Restrict calories

>>3. Fast

>>4. Get yourself genetically modified :-)

>

>-

Sheer brain freeze on my part. I forgot. Or a Freudian slip.

People who are willing to REALLY restrict carbs can no doubt get good

health results -- in my own group of acquaintances, I haven't met

anyone who WILL do it for more than 3 months though. Too

many social pressures, at least for women. Esp. if you have

to cook for a family. When I was single I lived off big salads

and meat and did fine -- I didn't call it " low carb " but

I just thought rice was too much work, and I have a natural

aversion to bread and pasta, and potatoes sprouted and needed

peeling, etc. I did make tacos though.

But cooking for a crew, I didn't even consider really low-carb

for more the 3 minutes, it just isn't doable without Herculean

self-control. Plus I DO think there are a lot of good nutrients

in things like berries and carrots and I do like my wine!

Also ... the one-meal-a-day plan works better than low-carb

for blood sugar control, so far. Like Cara said so well -- when

I ate 3 low-carb meals a day, I'd get insanely hungry and dizzy

if I didn't get the next one on time. This is a real problem ...

esp. since I can't buy food at most places, so I have to bring huge

bags of food travelling. It's been that way my whole life, low carb

or high carb, high cal or low cal. Everyone " knows " Heidi can't

skip a meal.

I suspect the one-meal plan would work just as well on low-carb,

and really, my diet isn't very high carb now (though I am experimenting

to see if it makes a difference). But given my lack of " blood sugar problems "

now

I'd guess there is less insulin and/or cortisol involved during the

day. Also last night, at " food time " I wasn't insanely hungry or dizzy

(though definitely looking forward to dinner!).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Dear

You are right on about calories because good fat is twice the calories that

carbs are, so on a high fat, high protein, low carb diet the calories will be

high. That's why calorie counting doesn't work.

Bee

Re: Re: The Warrior Diet

In a message dated 8/14/03 1:04:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Calorie restriction, I think, is referred too in comparison to what

> you would eat ad libitum. Most people eat far more calories presently

> than they would if they ate clean foods. 1200 calories is extreme CR,

> I think, unless you're a 100 pound woman.

>

> Personally, I'd love for the whole CR thing to be untrue and eating

> wholesome foods would accomplish the same thing.

,

Everything I've read on calorie restriction diets in terms of longevity

advocates pretty extreme calorie restriction, around 1000-1200 calories a day,

even

for men. Barry Sears considers The Zone to be a calorie-restriction diet,

and he says it averages 1500 calories a day.

I don't know what your evidence is that people in general eat more calories

than they would if they were eating good diets, but I haven't seen any, and it

isn't my experience. I eat about 4-5000 calories and day, and on days I work

out, generally 6-6500 calories. When I have less access to cream, I

unfortunately eat *less* calories. I consider raw grass-fed to be a supreme

health

food, and it happens to be very calorie dense, and the more of it I consume,

the

more calories I consume.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi - the big breakfast started when people worked on farms and had been out

early in the morning expending a lot of energy, and then they came in to eat.

Our life styles are different. So do we eat breakfast first and then work? Or

work and then eat?

Bee

Re: Re: The Warrior Diet

>Might want to throw out fasting, too. Everyone I've read that's written on

>the indivduality in terms of reactions to fasting, say, the metabolic typing

>folks, has found that people with insulin problems are the people who do

poorly

>with fasting, and people with relatively stable insulin are the ones who do

>well with fasting.

>

>IOW, if you have insulin problems, fasting is probably the last thing you

>want to do.

Ha. But that's what this whole discussion is about -- alternate feast/fast.

I DO have insulin problems, and this seems to be working, and it

seems to work for mice (even mice on kibble). I tend to agree that

in THEORY someone like me should NOT be doing this. But I've

been sticking to that theory my whole life and it didn't work, so

now I'm trying the opposite.

Probably I should have written " Feast/Fast " instead of just " fasting " .

>And the Warrior Diet isn't really an example of fasting. Eating low-calorie

>meals/snacks during the day is giving you enough sugar to keep your

>blood-sugar normal, but is inherently low-carb because it's low-calorie, so

isn't giving

>you enough carbs to upset insulin. And the reason it works for weight loss

>is probably, as Heidi's pointed out, you eat many less calories. I never

fast

>on purpose, but if I don't eat all day, I don't make up for it all in one

meal

>at the end. Sure, I can eat more, but not three meals in one.

I'm not eating " many " less calories, and yesterday I made a concerted

effort to eat the same. It was about 200/300 calories less per day if

I don't have a nice dessert.

>Anyway, a few pieces of anecdotal evidence hardly overturns the bigger

>studies that have been done on the topic, and the experience of health care

>practitioners and researchers working with larger pools of people.

I haven't run across ANY that deal with this kind of diet. People who

skip breakfast tend to eat huge lunches, and THAT has been studied,

but I've not seen anything where the people consistently eat just

dinner. I do know some people who DO that, and they are all skinny --

the fat people I know are all self-described as " hypoglycemic. "

I kind of think the " common knowledge " in this case is like the " common

knowledge " on cholesterol -- it just hasn't been challenged yet. Skipping

one meal doesn't count -- it takes at least a couple of days for the body

to adapt.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> Ha. But that's what this whole discussion is about -- alternate feast/fast.

>> I DO have insulin problems, and this seems to be working,

>

>Yeah, and you're not fasting! There's a pretty big difference between not

>eating and eating beef jerky!

Agreed. It's the first week of the experiment ... will she adapt or will

she crash?

You said fasting can help

>control insulin. Maybe, but there's certainly no evidence for it, there is

>evidence against it, and your anecdotal evidence doesn't really support the

idea that

>fasting controls insulin for numerous reasons, including that you aren't

>fasting.

What is the evidence against it? So far NONE of the " evidence " is anything

but speculative and anecdotal on all sides. Low-carb and ketogenic diets

seem to help a lot of things, but the researchers still don't know why (the

idea that it is the insulin is speculative -- some people say it has more

to do with other hormones, some people say it has to do with stuff

in grains.

NO ONE has a proven method for extending human life -- but the

long-lived people that do exist are not generally low-carbers either.

The mice DO live longer, whether or not you agree with their diet

or the methodology for the experiment, and that says something.

At any rate, the feast/fast mice did not get SICKER than their

counterparts!

>> Probably I should have written " Feast/Fast " instead of just " fasting " .

>

>Heidi, how much bigger is your " feast " than a typical meal for you? (that

>is, a typical meal before starting the WD)

It is about as big as the 2-3 meals I used to eat. I used to have hash browns

for breakfast, a piece of meat and vegies for lunch, and little for dinner (or

was trying to, I didn't succeed, I got too hungry so I had broth and jerky

and cornnuts). Now I have vegies, meat, and hash browns for dinner, then

dessert (not cornnuts though). I'm keeping the food and portions as

similar as I can. It's about 25% carbs, which isn't high but not super low.

Basically I WAS following the " feast like a king in the morning " analogy,

and I just reversed it. My body likes the reversed version better.

But I reiterate -- it's not a " fast " in any real sense. There is food digesting

and plenty of glycogen after 20 hours (the max without food).

I'm purely guessing that it helps insulin/cortisol because I'm not so

hungry and hypoglycemic. How does this relate to mice? Let's just

say it doesn't hurt, and seems to help, mice if they don't eat

constantly. We don't need to make it into an end-all-be-all of

mousedom (or peopledom).

And I MAY end up eating less calories, because I'm not constantly

fighting hunger. Eating less calories I don't see as a problem, as

long as I'm not starving myself.

>Well, I don't have any particular doubt of this, except to point out that

>some of us don't need to lose weight, and for those of us it can't possibly be

a

>good thing. If it helps you lose weight, go for it! I certainly couldn't eat

>that way though, because I wouldn't be able to eat enough food. And I

>veerrrrrrrry much doubt that hunter-gatherers eat this way, nor non-modern

>agriculturists. Price's aborigine subjects, iirc, chewed on coca leaves to

suppress

>appetite because they had long hikes and whatnot without being able to eat.

Yes, and I have zero idea of how a human who NEEDS 5,000 cals a day should eat!

A lot of farmworker types made do with one " big " meal a day in the past, but

the bodybuilder types swear by 6 small meals. As for " it can't possibly be

a good thing " -- that is just as speculative as my speculation that it MIGHT

be a good thing. Not enough info to say one way or another.

> But the main issue in this particular sub-thread is whether or not your

>experience supports the idea that " fasting " helps control insulin.

>

>May I proffer another explanation:

>--Beef jerky contains protein which stimulates glucagon, which stimulates the

>conversion of depot fat to blood sugar.

>-- " Large " salads contain a small amount of carbs-- just enough to raise your

>blood sugar, not enough to raise it to the point of oversecreting insulin

>--Eating less puts less stress on your digestive system, diverting less

>energy from physical work. Since you are eating foods, as described just

above,

>that are keeping your blood sugar stable, but no more than you need, you are

>maximizing your energy, and then making up for it once you don't need to do any

>physical activity.

Those are no doubt true -- I think it is also true that cortisol gets

stabilized, which

makes fat more available and decreases hunger. For people with little bodyfat

(like

aborigines!) this mechanism probably works differently, but for someone with

50lbs of

extra fat, the body really doesn't need to eat any extra! I REALLY agree with

the " less

stress on the digestive system " -- most animals eat, then sleep a lot while they

digest it.

Actually I think this latter point is one of the " warrior " points in the WD.

> This might be an optimal way of eating FOR THOSE WHO CAN EAT ENOUGH eating

>that way. (i.e., you and not me). BUT it is NOT fasting. In true fasting you

>have no

>a) protein-- thus no glucagon, thus no stimulation of the release of depot

>fat to burn for blood sugar

> small amount of carbs-- thus no carbs to burn for blood sugar.

>

>So, I maintain my position-- throw fasting out of the pile. There's no

>evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, so far, that it will help control insulin.

Like I said, I shouldn't have written " Fasting " . Maybe " Intermittant eating "

would be better. The average person (and mouse) stores a lot of glycogen

to convert to glucose, and has food digesting for awhile, so 20 hours without

eating isn't really a " fast " . However, the weirdness for me is that I was

" intermittant eating " before (only mostly geared to the AM hours) and now

it's basically geared to the PM hours, so it may be something about the

biorhythm

or being able to " sleep " on your food as much as the amount of time between

the meals. There are so many variables that it is ALL SPECULATION. I don't have

an insulin meter, but the fact I can skip meals says *something* (without lab

tests, I'm not sure what it says, but it says something!). I've been eating less

during the day every day, so I figure at some point it will be a true fast, but

that isn't an issue for me.

But, I don't care. I feel good. I'm skinnier and I'm not hungry and my workouts

are

working. If this was *bad* for me, I'm sure I'd feel it. But like 's link

says,

" let me know in 6 months if it is still working " . If I'm alive 100 years from

now

then it will say something else ..

== Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Hi Heidi,

>

>I feel the same way, although sometimes I have all day fasts. After a

>while you simply don't feel hungry. The key is to stay active and not

>be confronted with food all the time. Quite liberating!

>

>-

Actually I hear that is one of the motivations of " fasts " as a spiritual

thing -- to allow for more TIME. I don't think of one day as a " fast "

in the real " purge your body of food " sense -- it takes more than a day

to do that. In theory, your body should be able to deal with periods

without food, and maybe it is good to do, but I've never been able to

do it!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>1 set superslow to failure. Moving straight onto next exercise with

>no rest. ( yes i threw up on 2 occasions )

>

>i do not know how i was able to move so much weight with my skinyn

>long limbs. THough this coudl be why now im in hospital physio

>correcting muscular/structural probmem. Musta crushed myself.

I have personally known some REALLY skinny very strong guys. I've also

seen some REALLY skinny strong monkeys (not to compare personalities).

Big bulky muscles win prizes, as the body building mags constantly point

out, but muscle is expensive to maintain, and in nature muscles are usually

pretty small but powerful. The Paleo guys were, according to archeologists

anyway, very skinny and very strong.

Pushing yourself into the hospital wouldn't be a great idea though.

== Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Dear Heidi,

>You must be a lot different than I am. I was horribly hypoglycemic before I

learned about the WAP diet. My diet is a high percent of good fat, next is

protein and last is carbs, with little grains and rarely sugar, including

fruits. I think it's the fat, but I don't get insanely hungry. I can easily

eat one day and not the next and still have energy.

>

>Bee

I'm not good at skipping meals, but I was getting a lot better with more fat.

Now with the " evening only "

eating I can skip most of the day. My DH though has ALWAYS been able to skip the

day,

and he doesn't eat much fat (can't digest it, though this is getting better).

Most of

these things really depend on the person.

-- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

>Heidi - the big breakfast started when people worked on farms and had been out

early in the morning expending a lot of energy, and then they came in to eat.

Our life styles are different. So do we eat breakfast first and then work? Or

work and then eat?

>

>Bee

I dunno. That's why I'm experimenting! So far the " eat in the evening " paradigm

is winning. Exactly what paradigm does a programmer living in the country

follow?

I don't think " farm life " is " normal " for what it's worth. Neolithic people are

usually not very healthy, and are short and don't live very long and have

degenerative joint diseases. They tended to out-compete Paleos because they were

more germ-resistant (living with animals) and had larger populations for

warfare, and were probably better at being nasty, political, and able to lie

better, dealing with a bigger population density.

-- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

No not at all ( hospital ) though i think it was teh " wheat bix "

we all thoguth was a healthy breakfast at the time. I think it was

drainign my bloody too much to digest adn teh workout ( 2 horsu afer

breakfast ) took it away putting my system into turmoil

However i now beleive you do NOT need to work to failure to get

strong ( and infact it can impede progress )

>

> >1 set superslow to failure. Moving straight onto next exercise

with

> >no rest. ( yes i threw up on 2 occasions )

> >

> >i do not know how i was able to move so much weight with my skinyn

> >long limbs. THough this coudl be why now im in hospital physio

> >correcting muscular/structural probmem. Musta crushed myself.

>

> I have personally known some REALLY skinny very strong guys. I've

also

> seen some REALLY skinny strong monkeys (not to compare

personalities).

> Big bulky muscles win prizes, as the body building mags constantly

point

> out, but muscle is expensive to maintain, and in nature muscles are

usually

> pretty small but powerful. The Paleo guys were, according to

archeologists

> anyway, very skinny and very strong.

>

> Pushing yourself into the hospital wouldn't be a great idea though.

>

> == Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/03 9:14:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Alright, I'll do that. I don't think I'll stay away from all grains

> 100% though--that might set me up for a major binge down the road with

> something far less healthsome than corn.

,

If it makes you feel any better... I eat pizza about once a month.

lol

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/15/03 2:34:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> What is the evidence against it? So far NONE of the " evidence " is anything

> but speculative and anecdotal on all sides. Low-carb and ketogenic diets

> seem to help a lot of things, but the researchers still don't know why (the

> idea that it is the insulin is speculative -- some people say it has more

> to do with other hormones, some people say it has to do with stuff

> in grains.

There's not a whole lot of evidence and it isn't conclusive, which is why I

said there's evidence and not " there's incontrovertible conclusive evidence... "

One piece of it would be studies like the one Mercola just ran where

breakfast-skippers were fatter. Maybe they ate big lunches. I have no idea.

The idea that it is insulin, as far as the mice studies go, IS NOT

SPECULATIVE. The GM mice study, again, sucessfully isolated the INSULIN factor,

and

achieved the same result, without restricting calories, in fact INCREASING

calories, without restricting grains, in fact INCREASING grains. So as far as

*mice* studies go, no, there is hard evidence that it is INSULIN per se that is

operative. Granted the study should be replicated, other means of isolating

insulin should be devised, if possible, and the link between mice and humans on

this particular issue needs to be further investigated. But it is simply not

true that the attribution to insulin is speculative, nor that there is an equal

chance, so far, that other factors like gluten or starch or calories or other

hormones are at work.

Furthermore, I will again point to the Ron Rosedale lecture I've already

cited several times in this thread-- Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects-- which

is

posted on Mercola's site (and elsewhere) and discusses the link between

insulin and lifespan regulation.

> NO ONE has a proven method for extending human life -- but the

> long-lived people that do exist are not generally low-carbers either.

> The mice DO live longer, whether or not you agree with their diet

> or the methodology for the experiment, and that says something.

No kidding, and *what* it says, between the variety of variables, is strongly

suggested to be insulin by the GM mice study.

People could argue till the world ends about what makes people live longer,

but I never said anything about carbs. Insulin is operative here (in the grand

scheme of things probably other things too...). Low-carb is one way to lower

insulin, but proper amount of sleep, exercise, etc, all play their role too.

> Let's just

> say it doesn't hurt, and seems to help, mice if they don't eat

> constantly.

With the one exception of when eating crap doesn't alter their insulin.

> Yes, and I have zero idea of how a human who NEEDS 5,000 cals a day should

> eat!

> A lot of farmworker types made do with one " big " meal a day in the past, but

> the bodybuilder types swear by 6 small meals. As for " it can't possibly be

> a good thing " -- that is just as speculative as my speculation that it MIGHT

> be a good thing. Not enough info to say one way or another.

I'm not saying it can't possibly be a good thing. Again, I'm not even saying

I don't think it's a good thing. If you have better luck with it, good! I'm

just arguing to throw out the idea that fasting helps insulin, that's all.

How this connects to your diet is marginal, as we both agree you aren't

fasting! lol!

> But, I don't care. I feel good. I'm skinnier and I'm not hungry and my

> workouts are

> working. If this was *bad* for me, I'm sure I'd feel it. But like 's

> link says,

> " let me know in 6 months if it is still working " . If I'm alive 100 years

> from now

> then it will say something else ..

Oh, give me a buzz if you are. I'd like to know!

Chris

[Guest guest]

=================

>1. The idea that it is insulin, as far as the mice studies go, IS NOT

>SPECULATIVE. The GM mice study, again, sucessfully isolated the INSULIN

factor, and

>achieved the same result, without restricting calories, in fact INCREASING

>calories, without restricting grains, in fact INCREASING grains. So as far as

>*mice* studies go, no, there is hard evidence that it is INSULIN per se that is

>operative. Granted the study should be replicated, other means of isolating

>insulin should be devised, if possible, and the link between mice and humans on

>this particular issue needs to be further investigated. But it is simply not

>true that the attribution to insulin is speculative, nor that there is an equal

>chance, so far, that other factors like gluten or starch or calories or other

>hormones are at work.

============

>2. Let's just

> say it doesn't hurt, and seems to help, mice if they don't eat

> constantly.

With the one exception of when eating crap doesn't alter their insulin.

============

--> OK, now I'm confused. First you say (2) that fasting doesn't lower insulin

(per the mouse feast/fast studies) then you say (1) that insulin IS the factor.

So ... in the case of the feast/fast mice (which I don't think are really

" fasting "

either, and I admit I should not have written " fasting " because I meant

feast/fast) -- are you saying that you think insulin IS the factor there? Given

that all the mouse studies involve less-than-ideal food.

In that case feast/fast should be on the list of things that can

potentially affect insulin? Or " overeating/undereating " ?

> If I'm alive 100 years

> from now

> then it will say something else ..

Oh, give me a buzz if you are. I'd like to know!

--> It's a date!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

And see, I think you're making an unwarranted assumption again. We're all

told that the calorie-restricted mice (and chimps, and so on) are healthy,

but torpor and lack of sexual function don't fit my definition of health.

>Point is, they got healthy mice

>even WITH a less than ideal diet.

-