Warrior Diet

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/3/03 2:55:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> In any case, it seems to take awhile for things to settle down, as

> you mention. If you aren't really fat, you may not lose weight ...

> gained weight, but is seems to be all muscle weight.

Actually my weight has more or less stayed the same, at least it did a couple

weeks into the WD. (what's it been, a month?) But I seem to have lost some

of the little visible fat I have, and I've definitely seen some increase in

muscle thickness in my back (which I attribute to beginning deadlifts, which I

started not too long before WD), so I have gained some muscle.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Now that I'm eating less during the day and feasting in the evening I

>don't know how I'll have the chance to eat all the things I want.

>Interesting dilemma. And instead of losing weight I seem to be gaining a

>few pounds. I don't have a scale, I'm going by my measurements,

>everything is up by 1/2 inch to an inch within the last week or so. My

>exercising is the same and/or most days more than before too, between 1.5

>-2.5 hours, stretching, strengthening (light weights) pilates, walking.

>I'm hoping that maybe it will take a bit for my body to balance out.

I think it depends what you were doing before. I do have a scale,

and I track what I eat. What I noticed is that my muscles swelled up.

Got bigger and harder. I suspect some of this is more stored glycogen,

hopefully some is building muscle. But if you are going by measurements,

you should get some fat calipers and measure the fat on TOP of the muscle.

If that is getting fatter, then maybe you are eating too much!

In any case, it seems to take awhile for things to settle down, as

you mention. If you aren't really fat, you may not lose weight ...

gained weight, but is seems to be all muscle weight.

>I haven't had the time to read from the warriordiet.com site yet. Went

>on it briefly to take a look though. Any suggestions?

Read it! And get the book. Don't rely on our quick summaries.

>What I had read from others here was that if someone was hungry during

>the day then they could eat some fruit or broth or jerky or have some

>kefir or something like that. Each day I've eaten less during the day.

Technically you can have anything that doesn't have sugar or starch,

during the day. Philisophically it should be raw stuff (except the meat).

His philosophy is that hot things should be saved for evening but

I do broth for lunch, partly to be sociable.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 4:02:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Obviously the WD does work for some people, or perhaps for EVERYONE who

> does it correctly. I am not commenting on that. But clearly the statement " if

> you don't give your body time to do the burning, then it will only do the

> storing " is not correct, because I eat 3 meals plus two snacks throughout the

day

> and since doing that have lost over 80 lbs (82.8 as of today, in fact). So

> clearly you CAN eat several meals thoughout the day and still burn fat.

That's true, but you are also low-carbing, and one of the principle

mechanisms the WD claims is behind the described phenomenon is chronic

overstimulation

of insulin.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 6:58:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> True - so the statement would still be false overall, since you CAN eat

> many meals throughout the day and still lose fat... but only if you eat in

such

> a way that insulin production is minimized. Sound about right?

Yes, but I don't think Ori's belief is contrary to this. Ori believes that

chronic understimulation of insulin can lead to problems-- and it does in a lot

of people-- and suboptimal levels of thyroid hormone, hGH, IGF-1, etc. Also,

at least in mice, periodic fasting has lots of beneficial effects aside from

weight loss, and is more effective than calorie restriction in lengthening

life, sensitizing to insulin, and protecting against excitotoxic damage, and

protecting against cancer, and the fast-feasting mice have higher levels of

IGF-1

whereas calorie-restricted mice have lower levels of IGF-1, probably precisely

because they have periodically higher concentrations of insulin whereas

calorie-restricted mice have chronically lower levels of insulin (like we'd

expect

a chronic low-carber to have). And the IGF-1 should help increase both bone

density and muscle mass, which most health-conscious people would regard as a

benefit.

I don't think that Ori believes that the WD is the only way weight loss can

occur; I think he believes it is the ideal way, for many or most people, for

weight loss to occur.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> but the WD

claims that there's a cycle, and that if you don't give your body time to

do the burning, then it will only do the storing... <<

Obviously the WD does work for some people, or perhaps for EVERYONE who does it

correctly. I am not commenting on that. But clearly the statement " if you don't

give your body time to do the burning, then it will only do the storing " is not

correct, because I eat 3 meals plus two snacks throughout the day and since

doing that have lost over 80 lbs (82.8 as of today, in fact). So clearly you CAN

eat several meals thoughout the day and still burn fat.

I don't know if that statement is actually part of the WD or perhaps an

interpretation of it. But it's demonstrably false.

Again, I am not saying anything against the WD, just objecting to that one

comment, which may or may not be " officially " part of the WD.

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 7:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

nativenutrition@... writes:

> But periodic fasting does not always result in long term weight loss.

> Doesn't the WD teach ongoing partial fasting, rather than the true periodic

> fast of 1-n days and then a break?

The mouse study used 1 day fast, 1 day feast, and the mice ate twice as much

the feast day and nothing the fast day. The WD teaches undereating and

overeating. There is currently human research under way with a fast-feast cycle

more like the WD.

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 04:00 PM 3/1/2004, you wrote:

> >> but the WD

>claims that there's a cycle, and that if you don't give your body time to

>do the burning, then it will only do the storing... <<

>

>Obviously the WD does work for some people, or perhaps for EVERYONE who

>does it correctly. I am not commenting on that. But clearly the statement

> " if you don't give your body time to do the burning, then it will only do

>the storing " is not correct, because I eat 3 meals plus two snacks

>throughout the day and since doing that have lost over 80 lbs (82.8 as of

>today, in fact). So clearly you CAN eat several meals thoughout the day

>and still burn fat.

>

>I don't know if that statement is actually part of the WD or perhaps an

>interpretation of it. But it's demonstrably false.

>

>Again, I am not saying anything against the WD, just objecting to that one

>comment, which may or may not be " officially " part of the WD.

thanks christie!

part of my problem may be that i'm only using the short guide on his

website, and not the full book. or it might be that i actually agree more

with you than with ori (isn't that his name?).

anyway, i'm liking the opinions cause ya know. i'm researching

-katja

[Guest guest]

>> That's true, but you are also low-carbing, and one of the principle

mechanisms the WD claims is behind the described phenomenon is chronic

overstimulation

of insulin. <<

True - so the statement would still be false overall, since you CAN eat many

meals throughout the day and still lose fat... but only if you eat in such a way

that insulin production is minimized. Sound about right?

Christie

[Guest guest]

*******

Also, at least in mice, periodic fasting has lots of beneficial effects

aside from weight loss .... - Chris

*******

But periodic fasting does not always result in long term weight loss.

Doesn't the WD teach ongoing partial fasting, rather than the true periodic

fast of 1-n days and then a break?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>>> but the WD

>claims that there's a cycle, and that if you don't give your body time to

>do the burning, then it will only do the storing... <<

>

>Obviously the WD does work for some people, or perhaps for EVERYONE who does it

correctly. I am not commenting on that. But clearly the statement " if you don't

give your body time to do the burning, then it will only do the storing " is not

correct, because I eat 3 meals plus two snacks throughout the day and since

doing that have lost over 80 lbs (82.8 as of today, in fact). So clearly you CAN

eat several meals thoughout the day and still burn fat.

I've been on diets where I ate 5 meals a day and lost weight, just like the

personal

trainers say, so I know it CAN work. The reasons for doing the WD are

a lot more complex, and not everyone loses weight on it. For me it HAS

helped my hormone balances (I don't have blood sugar fluctuations

any more, and the " cortisol fat " on my back and middle disappeared quickly,

without losing many pounds). I've only lost 15 lbs, but I'm going to have

to buy a new wardrobe, because I'm way down on sizes.

I suspect the 5-meal-a-day plan DOES let you eat more calories, but for me

it didn't let my body rest and if I didn't eat for 3 hours I'd get irritable

and faint. Also I had to eat protein bars for some of the meals, because

it was too difficult to plan that many meals.

Also, you are eating 3 meals a day but they are not starchy meals. On the

WD you can have 3 meals but the last one can have starches ... not that

much different. It is the starches that tend to inhibit fat burning, so they

say.

BTW there was an interesting thing on Mercola about the first

low-carb diet:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/oct/16/banting.htm

When Dr. Harvey met Banting, he was interested as much by Banting's obesity as

by his deafness, for he recognised that the one was the cause of the other. So

Harvey put Banting on a diet. By Christmas, Banting was down to 184 lbs and, by

the following August, 156 lbs.

Banting's diet to that date had followed this pattern:

* Breakfast: bread and milk for breakfast, or a pint of tea with plenty of

milk and sugar, and buttered toast (this was before the invention of breakfast

cereals but it is actually very similar to the modern cereal breakfast);

* Dinner: meat, beer, bread and pastry for dinner;

* Tea: a meal similar to breakfast;

* Supper: generally a fruit tart or bread and milk.

Banting says he had little comfort and far less sound sleep.

Harvey's advice to him was to give up bread, butter, milk, sugar, beer and

potatoes. These, he told Banting, contained starch and saccharine matter tending

to create fat and were to be avoided altogether. The word 'saccharine' meant

sugar.

When told what he could not eat, Banting's immediate thought was that he had

very little left to live on. Harvey soon showed him that really there was ample

and Banting was only too happy to give the plan a fair trial. Within a very few

days, he says, he derived immense benefit from it: the plan leading to an

excellent night's rest with six to eight hours' sleep per night.

For each meal, Harvey allowed Banting:

* up to six ounces of bacon, beef, mutton, venison, kidneys, fish or any

form of poultry or game;

* the 'fruit of any pudding' - he was denied the pastry

* any vegetable except potato;

* and at dinner, two or three glasses of good claret, sherry or Madeira.

* Banting could drink tea without milk or sugar.

Champagne, port and beer were forbidden and he could eat only one ounce of

toast.

On this diet Banting lost nearly 1 lb per week from August 1862 to August 1863.

In his own words he said:

" I can confidently state that quantity of diet may safely be left to the natural

appetite; and that it is quality only which is essential to abate and cure

corpulence. . . . These important desiderata have been attained by the most easy

and comfortable means . . . by a system of diet, that formerly I should have

thought dangerously generous. "

BTW what is interesting about this diet is not only is it lower-carb (though not

as low as Atkins) but it is also gluten-free. It is interesting that wine is

allowed, but beer is not ... and fruit with sugar? ( " The fruit of any pudding "

-- or maybe that just means cooked fruit? Or other stuff they put in pudding?).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

*****

The mouse study used 1 day fast, 1 day feast, and the mice ate twice as much

the feast day and nothing the fast day. The WD teaches undereating and

overeating.

*****

Hmmm. Do you follow the WD? If so, any comments on it? - D

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

>Hmmm. Do you follow the WD? If so, any comments on it?

Yup. If you want my thoughts, you'll find dozens of posts on it if you search

the archives for " chris warrior diet. " Make sure you continue to hit " next " so

you find my older comments.

In short, it's very convenient, and seems to have increased my versatility in

feeding schedule, my blood sugar/cortisol stability, and my ability to eat more

carbs (including sugars) without compromising my health.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Katja,

One more thing. Try supplementing with glutamine. I find glutamine or a

glutamine/magnesium combo to increase my ability to fast.

Use four grams of glutamine on an empty stomach, in repeated dosage if you like.

I'd also suggest getting plenty of iodine during the day to boost your thyroid

hormone levels. Perhaps your undereating phase could look something like:

Upon waking

4 grams glutamine with water

15 minutes later:

1 4-oz can of sardines

2 oz of juice, or one serving of fruit

tea

If you are still hungry, eat coconut oil by the spoonful until any sensation of

hunger or headache is aleviated, and no more.

Every 2-4 hours after that:

2-4 raw egg yolks (for protein, or replace with sea-protein like sardines for

some extra iodine)

Beverages:

replace any water with sea weed tea ala Mike for iodine (and other

water-soluble vitamins and minerals)

When needed:

1) another 4-gram dose of glutamine

2) coconut oil, or celery sticks dipped in coconut oil

I recommend using coconut oil freely, because to my knowledge it neither

requires much for digestion nor affects insulin levels, is more easily used for

energy than other fats, and is supposed to increase sensitivity to thyroid

hormone. If the small amounts of food don't relieve your hunger, use coconut

oil until they do, if you don't mind the taste plain. Celery sticks have a

strong taste to them and no calories to speak of (but plenty of nutrients,) so

they are an ideal vehicle for coconut oil if you need one.

Remember that the WD is an instinctual, not anti-instinctual diet. The rule for

when to eat on the WD is " when you're hungry. " If you feel very hungry during

the day or are getting a headache do NOT ignore it. Eat something. Or, if you

can, excercise and see if that helps.

The point is to eat only the MINIMUM of what it takes to relieve that sensation

of hunger and not a " meal. " But the point is NOT to not eat anything. But of

course, to the extent that you can relieve this feeling of hunger without

stimulating very much insulin and without putting very much stress on your

digestive system, you are consonant with the purpose of the WD. One reason

using coconut oil to relieve hunger is good.

But remember also that if your goal is to lose fat you need to eat protein,

which stimulates glucagon, engage in mild snacking, and maximize your hormone

levels.

Ori recommends protein portions in the undereating phase be limited to 4-oz

portions, which is conveniently the size of a can of sardines (the ones I buy,

anyway).

Chris

[Guest guest]

Thanks I'll do that.

Along another vein, what do you think of the idea that we should go for high

bodily density? I can see it now: " Dr. Masterjohn's High Density

Prescription. "

In my experience, the more I weigh for a given dress size, the better health

I achieve. I gained 20 lbs when I started teaching aerobics in my teens,

yet the only size change was in my arms and rib cage.

It's a basic concept really, and perhaps others have researched it, but I

just think the simplistic weight loss idea is passé.

The BMI is so utterly useless in determining overweight/obesity, as it

penalizes bodybuilders. I think a waist size (or similar measurement)

should be factored in so that smaller volume people will have a fraction

multiplied by their BMI (making it smaller) to demonstrate density, and a

factor greater than one for those with more girth.

I just think it's high time we reworked some of these standards. I have a

dozen pounds to lose, but at around 130 and 18% body fat (done by that

electrical differential device, been a while) I am still considered above my

*ideal* weight...and this is size 6 (I'm in an 8 now)!

Okay, I'm rambling on long enough.

Deanna

Yup. If you want my thoughts, you'll find dozens of posts on it if you

search the archives for " chris warrior diet. " Make sure you continue to hit

" next " so you find my older comments.

[Guest guest]

> The BMI is so utterly useless in determining

> overweight/obesity, as it penalizes bodybuilders.

> I think a waist size (or similar measurement) should

> be factored in so that smaller volume people will have a

> fraction multiplied by their BMI (making it smaller) to

> demonstrate density, and a factor greater than one for

> those with more girth.

I agree. I've always had a scrawny musculature, and when my excessive

carb consumption caught up with me starting in my late 30s, the 25

pounds of flab I ultimately ended up with was really gross looking

(innertube and manboobs). But, my BMI never quite hit the overweight

level. Getting rid of that fat dropped two inches off my waist, and

I'm now wearing clothes that haven't fit in years.

[Guest guest]

>I just think it's high time we reworked some of these standards. I have a

>dozen pounds to lose, but at around 130 and 18% body fat (done by that

>electrical differential device, been a while) I am still considered above my

>*ideal* weight...and this is size 6 (I'm in an 8 now)!

I agree totally. That's one thing about the WD ... I'm THINNER

but don't weight a lot less ... which I'd guess means more

muscle or bone mass and less fat. I'm nowhere near 18% body

fat though!

A person can tell how much fat they have just by pinching the

skin, I think. It's really clear to me where the muscle begins and

the fat ends. And I have a Tanita which gives a pretty good

idea of fat %'s. Still, it's nice to see the lbs go down ...

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi confesses - I'm nowhere near 18% body fat though!

Deanna - Nor am I presently.

Heidi proclaims - A person can tell how much fat they have just by pinching

the skin, I think.

Deanna replies - Some people have this fleshy condition (and it might even

have a real name) that makes it really tough to get a good reading. Also,

using calipers, the protocol is to measure in 3-4 locations. We all carry

fat differently, so it's not quite as accurate as some of the other methods

I have used, back in my personal trainer days. But yeah, we all know where

our blubber be :-D

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/04 9:55:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,

nativenutrition@... writes:

> Along another vein, what do you think of the idea that we should go for

> high

> bodily density? I can see it now: " Dr. Masterjohn's High Density

> Prescription. "

>

It sounds good-- high body density would mean more muscle and less fat, and

it might mean denser and more efficient muscle but I'm not sure. Body's that

appear " rock-hard " have a more attractive physique than body's that are

high-volume, IMO.

> It's a basic concept really, and perhaps others have researched it, but I

> just think the simplistic weight loss idea is passé.

Oh, of course. Especially since " weight loss " could mean muscle or water

loss.

>

> The BMI is so utterly useless in determining overweight/obesity, as it

> penalizes bodybuilders.

LOL! I'm almost " obese " by the new guidelines above the scale at my doctors.

When I lost 5 pounds during a bout with diarrhea, the PA said, " Oh, good,

you've lost weight " !!! LOL!

I think a waist size (or similar measurement)

> should be factored in so that smaller volume people will have a fraction

> multiplied by their BMI (making it smaller) to demonstrate density, and a

> factor greater than one for those with more girth.

Maybe. For myself, I just shoot towards physical perfection and see where I

end up.

>

> I just think it's high time we reworked some of these standards. I have a

> dozen pounds to lose, but at around 130 and 18% body fat (done by that

> electrical differential device, been a while) I am still considered above my

> *ideal* weight...and this is size 6 (I'm in an 8 now)!

>

18%? Isn't that fine for a female?

Chris

[Guest guest]

wow - chris, this is really good info.

we've temporarily given up the WD until i can get more information -

especially with being in boston for two days and having limited food

options. (yay for hotels with organic roomservice, though - phew!)

anyway, this week i'm going to go back and read this stuff and see if i can

try it again. your undereating menu here is WAY WAY WAY more than i was

eating...so perhaps i was just totally doing it wrong

more research!!

-katja

At 09:44 AM 3/2/2004, you wrote:

>Katja,

>

>One more thing. Try supplementing with glutamine. I find glutamine or a

>glutamine/magnesium combo to increase my ability to fast.

[Guest guest]

This was the most informative post chris. thanks

This really gave me SO much more insight. I to was eating Sweet FA really

during the day

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2004 12:45 AM

Subject: Re: Warrior Diet

Katja,

One more thing. Try supplementing with glutamine. I find glutamine or a

glutamine/magnesium combo to increase my ability to fast.

Use four grams of glutamine on an empty stomach, in repeated dosage if you

like.

I'd also suggest getting plenty of iodine during the day to boost your

thyroid hormone levels. Perhaps your undereating phase could look something

like:

Upon waking

4 grams glutamine with water

15 minutes later:

1 4-oz can of sardines

2 oz of juice, or one serving of fruit

tea

If you are still hungry, eat coconut oil by the spoonful until any sensation

of hunger or headache is aleviated, and no more.

Every 2-4 hours after that:

2-4 raw egg yolks (for protein, or replace with sea-protein like sardines

for some extra iodine)

Beverages:

replace any water with sea weed tea ala Mike for iodine (and other

water-soluble vitamins and minerals)

When needed:

1) another 4-gram dose of glutamine

2) coconut oil, or celery sticks dipped in coconut oil

I recommend using coconut oil freely, because to my knowledge it neither

requires much for digestion nor affects insulin levels, is more easily used

for energy than other fats, and is supposed to increase sensitivity to

thyroid hormone. If the small amounts of food don't relieve your hunger,

use coconut oil until they do, if you don't mind the taste plain. Celery

sticks have a strong taste to them and no calories to speak of (but plenty

of nutrients,) so they are an ideal vehicle for coconut oil if you need one.

Remember that the WD is an instinctual, not anti-instinctual diet. The rule

for when to eat on the WD is " when you're hungry. " If you feel very hungry

during the day or are getting a headache do NOT ignore it. Eat something.

Or, if you can, excercise and see if that helps.

The point is to eat only the MINIMUM of what it takes to relieve that

sensation of hunger and not a " meal. " But the point is NOT to not eat

anything. But of course, to the extent that you can relieve this feeling of

hunger without stimulating very much insulin and without putting very much

stress on your digestive system, you are consonant with the purpose of the

WD. One reason using coconut oil to relieve hunger is good.

But remember also that if your goal is to lose fat you need to eat protein,

which stimulates glucagon, engage in mild snacking, and maximize your

hormone levels.

Ori recommends protein portions in the undereating phase be limited to 4-oz

portions, which is conveniently the size of a can of sardines (the ones I

buy, anyway).

Chris

[Guest guest]

18%? Isn't that fine for a female? - Chris

Yes it WAS! Must be my phrasing, both you and Heidi think I am there now.

Tis false. I am not and haven't been since '95 I think it was. But I have

no limits on myself for the future.

Oh, one other thing: flexibility and agility are a vital component of true

fitness. You'll have to work that into your program when you develop it.

Deanna

PS. Concerning your recent salvos with Marla: your statement that was

subjectless concerning macroevolution was pretty understandable to me.

Stall tactics imo.

[Guest guest]

>Oh, of course. Especially since " weight loss " could mean muscle or water

>loss.

And bone loss! This last steer I got, I couldn't believe how much the BONES

weighed! They were like steel bars, hard to lift. Extremely dense. I suppose

because he was older, or healthier. But I've heard that low cal diets can

cause protein/calcium loss in bones too, and conversely, if you get

healthier, you'll probably gain bone mass.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

******

But I've heard that low cal diets can

cause protein/calcium loss in bones too, and conversely, if you get

healthier, you'll probably gain bone mass. -- Heidi Jean

******

Oh yes, and the claim that bone mass stops accruing at 30ish age has been

demonstrated false by people like Joyce Vedral, by performance of regular,

weight-bearing exercise in their 50s!

Back in the 1980s, I was doing the bike thing all over the Southland. I got

hit by a car, with my right arm taking the brunt of it. The ambulance came

and they started talking to me about my treatment for a broken humerus.

Well, it didn't brake in the accident, so strong as steel were me bones ;D

.. . . but my triceps is disfigured from it.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/04 9:02:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

nativenutrition@... writes:

> Oh, one other thing: flexibility and agility are a vital component of true

> fitness. You'll have to work that into your program when you develop it.

Well, I do stretch. I can get pretty close, but not quite, to doing the

splits (side splits, the normal ones), and I do the bridge most days, and hold

it

for a minute or a minute and a half.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/04 1:05:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> But I've heard that low cal diets can

> cause protein/calcium loss in bones too, and conversely, if you get

> healthier, you'll probably gain bone mass.

Working out increases bone mass too. Density and size.

Chris