Re: Re: The French Riviera Diet

August 12, 2003

>Hi Heidi,

>I am kinda late to the party as I just got around to reading all the

>posts on the Warrior Diet (french riviera diet). My first time to

>hear of it. Sounds great to me and I would like to be apart of it.

Cool!

>Don't know if my tummy will allow me to but will try (Acturally I

>have been improving)I have some questions though. During the

>undereating phase should you feel hunger pangs? How much time should

>be between the last thing you ate during undereating and when you

>start overeating?

I'd listen to your body. I got REALLY GROUCHY the first day and a little

spacy, so I just snacked on blueberries (someone had given me a whole flat

of them!) and bananas and jerky as needed. And lots of water. Next day

I didn't need so many. Day after that, less. Day after that, a bowl of broth

with half a chicken leg filled me up! I'm just starting this myself, so I

don't know for sure. I'm guessing you get used to it, as long as your body

is convinced dinner is coming in the evening. I haven't skipped meals before

in my whole life though, so it is a new thing! An experiment.

I start the " overeating " phase in the evening -- I don't worry about how much

time has passed. I'm going on the philosophy of my experience in Spain ...

suppose you had to cook up a rabbit/deer for dinner every night, and that

involved

collecting herbs etc, skinning the rabbit, building a fire ... so you do all

that

work in the afternoon, and eat whenever it gets done. Meanwhile you are snacking

on the herbs and berries and whatever you are working with (this is the

female version, not the " warrior " version!).

Dinner gets done and you all eat, like a Thanksgiving feast, all nice and hot

and roasted.

>I started out trying it today but it fell through as I got very

>hungry. I started off with some watermelon first thing. A couple

>hours later I had to have my usual eggs with cream, butter and

>coconut oil. Couple hours after that was strawberries. 2 hours later

>I was hungry again, so I had cheese. 2 hours later was crispy

>almonds. Then it was more strawberries. I realize I broke the diet

>when I had the eggs but hey! I was trying! Then at 3:30 all @#% & *

>broke loose and I ate...a mcdonald's hamburger, french fries, sprite

>and blue bell ice cream. Now, I have not been to mcdonald's in over 5

>years!! I have to be desparate to go to a fast food! This morning I

>left to go on a 7 hour round trip to get raw dairy products and just

>did not take enough food with me! I will try again tomorrow! I think

>this is a good diet and that it will work! So don't be discouraged by

>what happened to me today. I just didn't plan good enough!

Thanks for sharing your experience! That is the idea ... what happens to real

people. My first day I yelled at my DH -- I never do that either! It is

interesting

though, because I WAS eating a fair amount, fruit and jerky but that wasn't

enough.

Maybe because it doesn't affect your blood sugar much -- I was missing my normal

morning hash browns!

I'm not sure if eggs and cheese should count or not. They don't affect your

blood sugar much, but they are foods that can be problematic. Since part of the

goal is to be " easy " , I think cheese would be ok. Almonds have some starch in

them, so they would not be ok eventually. Maybe there should be a " break in "

period for a week where you can have nuts and cheese and eggs etc.

My goal is to eat as little during the day as possible, but I don't think I can

get

there very quickly. However, all I've had are grouchy/hungry spells. I have not

had any migraines or " faint " spells that are my typical " low blood sugar "

symptoms.

Also -- I started the diet with a feast the night before. I.e. I pigged out

AFTER eating

all day, so I started on a full stomach, and I ate slow-digesting stuff (a big

steak).

Today I was driving all day and I was concerned about my concentration. I didn't

have any problems though. I ate 3 pieces of jerky and a banana, and had a bowl

of broth with half a chicken thigh (about 2 oz chicken) for breakfast.

-- Heidi

August 12, 2003

In a message dated 8/12/03 12:40:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Since there are plenty of skinny people

> in the world who *do* eat lots of potatoes, I think it should

> be possible to switch to fat-burning mode *without* ketogenesis

> and without starving.

I'll chime in here since I'm one of them. Before I started working out I was

134 lbs and 5'8 " . So I certainly don't have much extra fat. But I ate

starch regularly, and sometimes out of convenience, if there wasn't another

vehicle

for fat in the house, I've eaten 8 small potatoes in a day! BUT, I *do* go

hypoglycemic. And if I eat a potato with a tablespoon or less of fat on an

empty stomach, I crash in about 10 minutes and can't keep my eyes open. So you

must be able to go hypoglycemic without getting fat.

I think I burn an abnormal amount of energy for heat, which is why my mother

and I get into arguments about what to set the thermostat at. If it's over

72F and I don't have a fan, I can't sleep at night.

So while there are some people who can eat potatoes and not have a problem

with insulin, I think there are more than one explanation for skinny

potato-eaters.

Chris

August 12, 2003

>On this diet are

>you eating any fat like a spoonful of coconut oil with the

>fruit/veggies? I have always thought it best to have some good oils

>alone with fruit and raw veggies.

I usually have something fried in coconut oil (granted this

has only been a week). I love fried greens or fried hash browns.

And I put olive oil on my salads. But I'm trying to fast during

the day as much as possible ... my body has plenty of good fats

it can use during the day, and I want to force it to use them.

The vegies are just to keep my stomach busy -- jerky too, the

protein keeps my hunger pangs down.

>So it sounds like we would be shrinking our stomachs in order to

>receive less food. The less we eat the less we need to eat..and at

>first there will be headaches, pangs of hungry etc until you get used

>to it..

Right, though I don't think it's just a matter of " shrinking " . I think

it is an issue of using " carbs " vs. using " fats " . Normally your body

uses carbs for intense exercise, and uses fats for day-to-day energy.

But if your body is used to getting carbs, it seems to switch to carb

mode and keeps the fats locked up -- which is why some of us

go " hypoglycemic " -- we can't access the fats even though there

are pounds and pounds of them!

The whole theory behind Atkins is that you force your body into

" fat " mode by going ketogenic. The theory here is the same, but

you do it *without* going ketogenic. That difference is important

to me, because I just don't think I could live my life on a low

carb diet *forever* and that is exactly the point that my friends

have failed on Atkins. They ditch the diet because they just MUST

have a potato or three. Since there are plenty of skinny people

in the world who *do* eat lots of potatoes, I think it should

be possible to switch to fat-burning mode *without* ketogenesis

and without starving.

You don't want to *starve* yourself either, because then your

body starts burning protein -- muscle -- which is also bad.

>During the day we would be aiming to be able to just eat a piece of

>fruit/veggie throughout the day and 6 oz protein...no good oils and

>No plate of salad or anything that resembles a meal.

Thing is, if you are already about the correct weight for yourself,

it probably doesn't matter so much? Except maybe for energy level.

Digestion is a lot of work for your body, so the less food the

better. Oils don't seem to be much " work " though, in my

experience. Starches are the worst.

>This end of the day meal takes many hours to shop for and prepare on

>a daily basic. What happens when the person preparing this feast

>cannot do it for some reason? I am in a one cook family....me! Do you

>think we could come up with some " meals " that would take very little

>time to prepare and still be within the guidelines of this way of

>eating.

That's what my cookbook is about. My favorite meal is a plate

of hashbrowns and some meat ... fried hashbrowns or greens take

me about 10 minutes, max. The meat I pre-cook. Yesterday I cooked

a tongue, and I'll have that for dinner for the next 5 days or so.

Or I cook a mess of chicken and eat that all week. I have a big

container of broth in the fridge, and I just spoon out some with

a bit of chicken, boil it, and pour it into a bowl over some kimchi

(or shredded veggies, like chopped onions or sprouts).

I've been eating 3 " courses " so it doesn't take much time, really.

A broth before I start cooking. Some fried or baked greens (which

I can make at the same time as the meat). A baked/hash brown

potato. And yesterday some coconut ice cream from the freezer,

day before that some popcorn with the family. It's about what

I always eat, just spaced out a little more. In the past I usually

ate the starches first!

>Talking for me only, there is not enough hours in the day to eat all

>that I feel I need to eat for the nutrition I need. I try to get most

>all my nutrition from food. With this I would be eating less but with

>more varity...good. Eating less protein which I have been eating more

>than my share lately...good.

What do you mean by " more nutrition " ? I'm not sure myself -- I know

with this diet I'm not eating near as many calories, and I'm not hungry

for more either -- when I get to my desired weight, will my hunger

increase? I figure with all the greens and oils and meat though, there

is plenty of nutrition in terms of protein and vitamins.

>Just some thoughts that have some up when thinking about this WOE...

Is WOE and acronym or is life awful?

-- Heidi

August 12, 2003

>So while there are some people who can eat potatoes and not have a problem

>with insulin, I think there are more than one explanation for skinny

>potato-eaters.

>

>Chris

I agree. I'd like to know some of the explanations! I really, really want

to eat potatoes and not be hypoglycemic.

-- Heidi

August 12, 2003

In a message dated 8/12/03 6:39:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I agree. I'd like to know some of the explanations! I really, really want

> to eat potatoes and not be hypoglycemic.

lol, my solution is to add lots and lots of fat... but you probably already

figured that part out ;-)

chris

August 12, 2003

,

Thank God I'm helping myself out now then, rather than later. I've suspected

for a while that I'm nearing being a type 2 diabetic though I've never had

any confirmation. One thing I noticed a couple years ago was that I'd have fits

where I was very thirsty, and I would drink enormous amounts of water but it

would go right through me, and never satisfy my thirst. I read that was a

sign of type 2 diabetes (maybe there are other causes, I have no idea). I had

my

blood sugar checked, but the doc said it was " fine. " My eyesight's also been

going the last couple years.

With weight training and eating more fat and less carbs I think I'm getting

on track and at least preventing it from getting worse if nothing else. I'd

probably do good to avoid the potatoes... which I'm more or less doing for now.

After SCDing it for a few weeks, I think I'm just going to save starchy stuff

for weekends, so long as my gut symptoms don't come back.

Chris

In a message dated 8/12/03 7:23:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Certainly, but I suspect the thin-but-hypoglycemic stage is kind of a

> precursor to the fat-and-hypoglycemic stage. I think it's just a matter of

> how much stress various bodily systems can take before they become

> deranged. (Though it is true that different people stay in different

> stages for different lengths of time, I don't think you ought to take that

> for granted.)

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

August 12, 2003

>---I am so confused, In the first paragraph I was talking about

>during the day when you are trying to eat less and you eat fruits and

>veggies. At that time do you also eat some good fat like coconut oil

>with the fruits and veggies?---

Sorry. I am meandering. I'm not eating much fat during the day,

except for a little oil on my salad and the fat in the jerky and soup.

>----I understand the above that the need is to burn fats but to keep

>your body burning fats instead of carbs; you eat only fruits and

>veggies and no fats during the day and you get all your fats at night

>when you over eat??

I'm not sure fats matter -- this is something to experiment with.

In the Warrior Diet, the diet is supposed to be pretty low fat,

it sounds like (?), at least the meats are low fat. I'm

not following that rule, because by NT standards, fats are good.

Fats don't influence your insulin one way or the other.

Now for ME, I want to lose weight, so I think it is better to

eat less fat during the day. But you don't sound like you

have any fat to lose, so it probably doesn't matter? My

focus has been on weight loss and keeping my energy

going during the day -- I'm not sure what I would be doing

if I was actually *skinny* !

>----So this is mostly to lose weight, not as a WOE (way of eating)

>for a life time?----

I don't know the answer to that. My main concern is weight gain/loss,

but it may be a better way to live. Makes mice live longer, anyway.

It's obvious that *something* about American diets doesn't work,

even when you substitute healthy food, and the food frequency

issue could be key. Eating is a big stress on the body -- even good

foods have to be " handled " properly or they become toxic. Maybe

it's like watering plants -- if you water them all the time they rot,

they have to dry out in between.

You'd be a good test case for that though -- if you are normal

weight and feel better eating once a day (after you get used to

it) then that will be a good test!

I feel better eating this way, but since I have major blood sugar

issues it's probably because of the blood sugar issues, so

I'm not a good test case for " normal " people.

>--- I can not imagine cooking that much! I know you cook for, what is

>it, 8 adults! When I try to cook enough for 2 days for 3 people, it

>will get all eaten on the first night! It looked to me like a lot of

>food!----

The stuff I cook for *me* isn't for 5 people though. No one eats

tongue but me! I still cook lunch daily, and my family eats leftover

lunch for dinner, usually. I do too, if I feel like it. I just make a batch

of meat and broth so I can cook up something quick, esp. during this

week when I've been getting used to all this. My cooking situation is

really abnormal though, no one should use it as a standard! If you

are cooking just for you, it shouldn't take all that long to make a

vegie, a meat, and a starch, esp. if you do it just once a day.

>----I dunno either, it just seems for me, there my not be enough oils

>anyway. I think I need more oils because I am older. I don't feel as

>you do that I have enough fats in my body although I eat a lot of

>fat! So for me being the weight I want, I should eat my fruits and

>veggies with some fat during the day. Do you agree with that?----

>

>So far today I have had some watermelon/1/2 teaspoon coconut oil, 1/2

>banana/1/2 teaspoon of coconut oil, 3 strawberries 1/2 teaspoon

>coconut oil, another 1/2 banana with 1/2 teaspoon coconut oil and a

>decreased amount of my regular eggs, cream and coconut oil. I still

>have the afternoon to go. Feeling okay!

I think if it works for you, then it works. I can't eat coconut oil by itself!

Actually I'm getting fat-aversive on this diet! I think though, that my

body knows that it HAS plenty of fat so why do I need to eat it? Once

the body can access it's own fat stores, I would think there is a regulator

switch that says " you need to eat this much " . I think that for me, the

fat stores were not accessible (insulin resistance maybe? High cortisol?).

Ideally we should not have to THINK about what to eat, our bodies

should be telling us ... but the signals get scrambled ...

-- Heidi

August 13, 2003

Heidi-

In just about all the cases of low-carb failure I've known, I believe

failure was due to insufficient fat. It's fat that keeps cravings away,

not protein, and even most Atkins dieters are still afraid of fat. (Also,

I don't know that Atkins sufficiently emphasized the fact that dieters all

need different amounts of fat to compensate for their damaged metabolisms.)

>That difference is important

>to me, because I just don't think I could live my life on a low

>carb diet *forever* and that is exactly the point that my friends

>have failed on Atkins. They ditch the diet because they just MUST

>have a potato or three.

-

August 13, 2003

Chris-

Certainly, but I suspect the thin-but-hypoglycemic stage is kind of a

precursor to the fat-and-hypoglycemic stage. I think it's just a matter of

how much stress various bodily systems can take before they become

deranged. (Though it is true that different people stay in different

stages for different lengths of time, I don't think you ought to take that

for granted.)

>So you

>must be able to go hypoglycemic without getting fat.

-

August 13, 2003

Heidi-

I really, really want to eat potatoes and not look like Jabba the Hut (and

be hypoglycemic to boot) but I'm afraid it ain't never gonna happen, not in

this lifetime anyway.

>I really, really want

>to eat potatoes and not be hypoglycemic.

-

August 13, 2003

>Heidi-

>

>In just about all the cases of low-carb failure I've known, I believe

>failure was due to insufficient fat. It's fat that keeps cravings away,

>not protein, and even most Atkins dieters are still afraid of fat. (Also,

>I don't know that Atkins sufficiently emphasized the fact that dieters all

>need different amounts of fat to compensate for their damaged metabolisms.)

:

I think that is often true in terms of " real " cravings, but there is a

social/psychological

component too. I personally could not face the rest of my life living the way

I'd have to, to be " low carb " . A lot of my life is cooking -- giving up wheat

was

a biggie, but giving up tacos, tamales, chili w. beans, corn on the cob, hash

browns,

ice cream, carrot cake ... it ain't gonna happen, fat or no fat! The folks I

know on

Atkins were women, and they said they were not hungry or craving anything,

but the concept of having everyone else at the table eating a baked potato

when they couldn't was just too hard.

Some folks are probably natural born carnivores and don't care, or maybe

it is a " girl thing " :-) A lot of people seem very content on a very low

carb diet, which is great for them! Esp. if you are content with some

raw steak and butter for dinner ... that is VERY easy.

-- Heidi

August 13, 2003

,

I would agree with you here. Most Atkins folks simply do not eat enough

fat. Period. They are afraid of it. Almost like they can't really

believe this is true.

On the other hand, Atkins will still always be low carb, relatively

speaking.

Although I realize we are talking cravings here, I frankly LIKE some

grains, even if I don't crave them. Dr. Atkins, like Aajonus

Vonderplanitz (whose diet Dr. Atkins thought highly of while he was

still living), strikes me as one of the many points along the Price

continuum, but certainly not the only one or even the essential one.

Price clearly demonstrated that such an " essential " bear didn't exist.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:21:30 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Heidi-

>

> In just about all the cases of low-carb failure I've known, I believe

> failure was due to insufficient fat. It's fat that keeps cravings away,

> not protein, and even most Atkins dieters are still afraid of fat. (Also,

> I don't know that Atkins sufficiently emphasized the fact that dieters all

> need different amounts of fat to compensate for their damaged metabolisms.)

>

> >That difference is important

> >to me, because I just don't think I could live my life on a low

> >carb diet *forever* and that is exactly the point that my friends

> >have failed on Atkins. They ditch the diet because they just MUST

> >have a potato or three.

>

> -

>

August 13, 2003

>Heidi-

>

>I really, really want to eat potatoes and not look like Jabba the Hut (and

>be hypoglycemic to boot) but I'm afraid it ain't never gonna happen, not in

>this lifetime anyway.

>

>-

Probably everyone is different. I'm wondering though -- have you ever *tried*

alternate

feasting/famine? I never had -- my attempts at fasting alone were ruinous, so I

have

no idea why I'm still functional ... really, I was so hypoglycemic as a child

that

I'd pass out regularly, and usually now I get a migraine. But I haven't had

a migraine all week (though I still get hungry, THAT isn't gone yet, but it's

better). Maybe it's all the kimchi and coconut oil ... I dunno ... but I'll try

anything once if it doesn't get me arrested or cause permanent physical damage.

(I didn't have to drive last week so I figured I couldn't *literally* crash).

-- Heidi

August 13, 2003

Okay, well i stuck my foot in my mouth as Heidi already answered quite

well.

:-0

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:23:11 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> >Heidi-

> >

> >In just about all the cases of low-carb failure I've known, I believe

> >failure was due to insufficient fat. It's fat that keeps cravings away,

> >not protein, and even most Atkins dieters are still afraid of fat. (Also,

> >I don't know that Atkins sufficiently emphasized the fact that dieters all

> >need different amounts of fat to compensate for their damaged metabolisms.)

>

> :

>

> I think that is often true in terms of " real " cravings, but there is a

social/psychological

> component too. I personally could not face the rest of my life living the way

> I'd have to, to be " low carb " . A lot of my life is cooking -- giving up wheat

was

> a biggie, but giving up tacos, tamales, chili w. beans, corn on the cob, hash

browns,

> ice cream, carrot cake ... it ain't gonna happen, fat or no fat! The folks I

know on

> Atkins were women, and they said they were not hungry or craving anything,

> but the concept of having everyone else at the table eating a baked potato

> when they couldn't was just too hard.

>

> Some folks are probably natural born carnivores and don't care, or maybe

> it is a " girl thing " :-) A lot of people seem very content on a very low

> carb diet, which is great for them! Esp. if you are content with some

> raw steak and butter for dinner ... that is VERY easy.

>

> -- Heidi

August 13, 2003

>> In just about all the cases of low-carb failure I've known, I believe

failure was due to insufficient fat. It's fat that keeps cravings away,

not protein, and even most Atkins dieters are still afraid of fat.<<

This is absolutely my experience also, with people on various Atkins lists I'm

on. They STILL try to minimize fat, even though Atkins all but tapdances in his

book to tell them fat is good, fat is essential. He has a " fat fast " for those

who cannot lose even on the strictest phase of Atkins, in which 90 percent of

the calories are from fat. And yet so often when people are on Atkins, and lose

slower than they want - the first thing they do is, in panic, start cutting fat.

Me, I up it. <G>

>> (Also,

I don't know that Atkins sufficiently emphasized the fact that dieters all

need different amounts of fat to compensate for their damaged metabolisms.) <<

I think he did emphasize the value of fat sufficiently for anyone who wasn't

already totally brainwashed that fat is bad. He is pretty clear. Nonetheless, it

isn't enough to overcome the societal conditioning of most people.

Christie

August 13, 2003

Heidi-

>Now for ME, I want to lose weight, so I think it is better to

>eat less fat during the day.

Uhh, what? I know we have our disagreements (can anyone say " gluten! " ?

<g>) but that caught me by surprise. I'm willing to consider that some

people might have metabolisms which are genuinely slanted more towards the

low-fat type of diet, but given the extremely wide effectiveness of Atkins

despite the way the majority of people botch the diet (eating too much

protein, too little fat, paying no attention to nutrition and food quality,

etc.) I think those people, if they exist, are probably a small

minority. I also suspect that many cases which seem to be " low-fat "

metabolic types more likely temporarily appear that way due to specific

conditions, like reduced stomach acid making meat harder to digest, bile

impairments making fat harder to handle, etc. Address the problem, fix the

metabolism -- and fat returns to its rightful place as an essential dietary

staple. I don't think Price found any healthy people eating low-fat, even

though some did eat more carbs than others.

-

August 13, 2003

Christie-

>He has a " fat fast " for those who cannot lose even on the strictest phase

>of Atkins, in which 90 percent of the calories are from fat.

True, but he does emphasize that it's a short-term measure. (I also think

it's one of his relatively few missteps (scholarship-wise -- his packaged

foods are a crime against nature) because it uses PUFA vegetable oil in the

form of mayonnaise rather than a more saturated fat like coconut oil or

sausage. I think there's something to the idea that excess PUFA slows the

metabolism.)

>I think he did emphasize the value of fat sufficiently for anyone who

>wasn't already totally brainwashed that fat is bad. He is pretty clear.

>Nonetheless, it isn't enough to overcome the societal conditioning of most

>people.

He also had to walk a fine line between advocating fat and avoiding

outright legal action and total destruction in the public arena from the

low-fat establishment. For example, he suggested (was forced to suggest?)

cutting back on saturated fat after the induction diet " until more research

became available " , as though there was any real doubt about the healthiness

of saturated animal fat.

-

August 13, 2003

>Heidi-

>

>>Now for ME, I want to lose weight, so I think it is better to

>>eat less fat during the day.

>

>Uhh, what? I know we have our disagreements (can anyone say " gluten! " ?

><g>) but that caught me by surprise. I'm willing to consider that some

>people might have metabolisms which are genuinely slanted more towards the

>low-fat type of diet, but given the extremely wide effectiveness of Atkins

>despite the way the majority of people botch the diet (eating too much

>protein, too little fat, paying no attention to nutrition and food quality,

>etc.)

LOL. I said " during the day " . The idea is to FAST during the day -- I'm trying

to eat

the minimum amount of food during the daytime. Never said anything about eating

low fat at night. My hash browns are still fried ... however, I don't eat

" extra " fat

like some folks do. I chart my food, and about 50% of my calories come from

fat, which seems good enough for me.

My logic is, that I want my body to use MY fat for energy during the daytime.

I have plenty of it, don't need supplements! At night I have my coconut oil

etc. for nutrients. But from an *energy* viewpoint, lipids are lipids and I

have plenty stored, I just have to get my body to USE them.

The logic of Atkins is to eat fats to avoid insulin/cortisol reactions. I

agree with that. I think fasting does a similar kind of thing though (based

on mouse experiments) so it is a different approach ... will it work? Well,

that's the experiment!

-- Heidi

August 13, 2003

Hi,

It's interesting that the South Beach Diet (another low carb fad diet), is low

fat and says a person won't go hungry. I don't know how they can be low carb

and high protein without going hungry???? Supposedly he took his research off

of the Atkins approach and made it better. I guess better to him was low fat!!!

Jafa

Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote: