The Warrior Diet

August 15, 2003

In a message dated 8/15/03 5:29:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> --> 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.

If you eat less, you are going to produce less insulin. Especially if your

diet is carb based. Eating less means less carbs means less insulin.

What I was saying was there's no evidence, so far that's been presented here,

that fasting increases insulin sensitivity, or decreases fasting insulin.

IOW I believe the fasting mice are lowering their insulin, but there's nothing

saying its from the fasting versus just eating less carbs. So, if one mouse,

person, or whatever, eats a diet that is moderate in calories for their size,

but is overall very low in carbohydrates, and another mouse, person, etc, eats

a carb-based diet but eats half as much, I don't think the calorie-restricted

person/mouse is going to have an advantage over the low-carb person/mouse. In

fact, I think she/he would have a severe disadvantage by not having nearly as

many nutrients, etc.

Eek, I think I'm talking about two issues at once here. Ok the first, dealt

with above, is whether or not insulin per se is operative. Now, as to the

specific question of whether or not fasting can lower insulin, I think it can,

but

as yet in this discussion, there's no evidence that fasting lower's insulin

any more than eating less food/carbs. Since the Warrior Diet is

fasting/feasting, it offers a good test of this-- if you are eating the same

amount of food

and perhaps even more carbs, following your meal of course, does this giant

meal throw your insulin out of whack, or does it improve from the fasting. If

this improves insulin sensitivity and you are eating the same food, same carbs,

etc, than that IS evidence that insulin benefits can be attributable to

fasting per se rather than just less food or less carbs.

That will be the evidence I'm claiming isn't there. So if you test your

blood sugar over the next few weeks and find it to be improving, there's an

anecdote. I've only read part 1 of 3 of the WD interview that posted,

but

in there it sounds like he has some science behind the idea of fasting

increasing insulin sensitivity. So far he's asserted it. That fact alone,

which

shows he's conscious of the issue, makes me think he might be hiding some actual

evidence of it. Maybe, hopefully, he talks about that in part 2 or 3... we'll

see. If so, that will be evidence that will satisfy the gap that I'm claiming

exists in the fasting reduces insulin argument.

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

>

> --> It's a date!

>

Great! Hey, you know that other who's been working out since he was

115 might have some pointers for us ;-)

Chris

August 15, 2003

In a message dated 8/15/03 5:08:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

>

> And here is part 3 of the interview with Ori Hofmekler, author of the

> Warrior Diet

>

Mmm... nope, both parts 2 and 3 were included in part 1! Is there actually a

part two and 3? Hoping...

Chris

August 15, 2003

From what I've read CRed mice actually continue reproducing even after

ad lib mice are dead.

-

> 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.

>

> -

August 15, 2003

Here is an interview I found on the web with Ori Hofmekler, author of

the Warrior Diet.

Some interesting insights into the author, his ideas, and why he wrote

the book.

***warning - it is long - and he uses some " colorful " language a few times

The Warrior Diet

An interview with Penthouse editor Ori Hofmekler

By TC

Every once in a while, I'll run into someone with a new idea about how to train

or eat that's so contradictory to everything I think I know that I'll want to

close my eyes, plug my ears, and bury my head in the pillow so I don't have to

listen. After all, I'm just getting comfortable with what I think I know. I

don't like having my world shaken up any more than necessary.

Once in a while, though, I'll listen. I may not buy—lock, stock, and barrel—what

the person is saying, but if what they have to say makes me think, then I've

been more than rewarded for my time.

Such was the case in my conversation with Penthouse health and fitness editor

Ori Hofmekler. Ori is a bodybuilding fiend—a hound, if you will. I've never met

him face-to-face, but from what Poliquin tells me, the guy is an

absolute physical rock, and I listen to rocks. After all, nature doesn't just

confer " rockdom " on people—they have to earn it through hard training and

rigorous dieting.

What Ori told me was so different, so open to criticism by 99 out of 100

nutritionists, self-proclaimed or otherwise, that I didn't know if I wanted to

print it. Still, what he said intrigued me on certain levels. He discussed not

only diet, but also history and anthropology, with some healthy doses of

psychology and biology.

I'd like you guys out there to read this and tell me what you think. And, if you

have enough questions and there's enough interest in general, I'll talk to Ori

again.

T: Okay, Ori. Lay it on me. What's your " Warrior Diet " all about?

OH: This is more of an opinion or a concept rather than completely scientific

research, but it's based on opinions and a lot of science, which I hope to

verify in the future. The idea is very simple. It's based on my own experience

and somehow, because I was so interested in the effect, I did my own historical,

anthropological, and scientific research. It's largely based on the romantic

notion of the warrior. In fact, my diet is called the " Warrior Diet. "

T: Warriors? Are you talking about modern warriors or ancient warriors?

OH: Ancient warriors, actually. What I'm talking about is a way of life where,

basically, the main goal is to follow your instinct—not to go according to any

authority or what people tell you to do, but to reach a very effective response

through your instincts. I'm talking about hunger and satiety. No diet that I'm

aware of today is really working on that. Most of them are designed according to

some kind of a theme or a goal that's based on control. Whether it's counting

the calories or the balance between the macro ingredients, from the Zone to Dan

Duchaine's ketogenic diet, just about every diet you can think of is about

control.

This diet is based on the assumption that your body has the instinct, like any

other instinct, to control itself and to manipulate it very well. The other big

advantage of this diet is that it takes advantage of something that no other

diet does—the empty stomach. Exciting things can happen when your brain barrier

is open and you can manipulate your hormones.

We already know that working out on an empty stomach in the morning stimulates

more weight loss than if we ate before. This diet basically guarantees you six

to eight hours a day of fat-burning hormones running in your body. Only in the

ketogenic diet do we have a very similar affect, but the ketogenic diet has a

lot of downsides to it. Again, it's based on an unnatural denial of instincts.

Mentally, it can fuck you up completely, and it could really fuck up your

ability to deal with stress. I think the mental deprivation plays a big part in

what I should talk about.

In essence, the " Warrior Diet " will guarantee you a fat-burning hormone in your

system for at least six to eight hours, which no other diet does. And last

thing, the diet is based on a one meal a day principle. It's against all the

rules. The meal is to be eaten at night. It could even be late at night; it

doesn't matter. Ideally, it's right after a workout. It sounds kind of

bizarre—you could raise a lot of questions about resting metabolism and basal

metabolism, and you could argue that most people won't be able to handle it, and

stuff like that.

T: I'm flabbergasted, and some sixth sense of mine is telling me to run, but I'd

like to hear your explanation.

OH: Okay, I'll try to run through the introduction. A hundred thousand years

ago, we reached the peak development of our body, genes, and instinct. Human

beings haven't changed at all since then. The only thing that has changed is

that we're living in a much more crowded civilization. In order to control

civilization, you have to create rules. The side effect of these rules is that

you basically control a very primitive instinct of every human being. And, of

course, there are two main instincts: to survive, and to multiply. They're very

well connected, and every time you deprive a human being from expressing his

instinct, he's fucked up. I mean, I'm not the first one to talk about this.

Freud started a revolution with his theory about the inhibition of sex drives

and stuff like that. But it's not just about sex.

Now (I'm trying to jump forward a little bit here) we are living in a culture

that basically teaches you how to live a straight line—that means in a very

equal, almost mathematical equation. We are told the good things, the bad

things, and how to act. But the most dangerous person in a society is a person

who is open to expressing his instinct. Then you're going to fuck anyone who is

moving on the streets with a nice ass. You say anything that you have on your

mind. And you beat the shit out of people who piss you off.

T: We know people like that.

OH: Yeah, and we sometimes kind of like them. There's one more instinct that

combines them all together, and I shall have to try to explain it. Nobody, ever,

in any dictionary, accurately defines the term " romanticism. " There's a Romantic

period in history. There's the word " romance " between people. There's a romantic

attitude, romantic music, and we still don't know exactly what it's about. So

this was one of the things that intrigues me all the time, and I think true

romanticism is an instinct. And it's almost parallel to what I call the " warrior

instinct. " It's funny. The kids have this romanticism more than anyone else, and

it's often killed during the process of growing up. But when you break the rules

of any established set of rules, you're often displaying romantic sensibilities.

People who are against the rule have this romantic aspect to them. If you, as a

writer, go and write something completely anti-industrial and create something

new, you committed a romantic act. Romanticism is not just between men and

women. The last love between Romeo and t was so romantic because their

families were enemies, because they had to break the rules. If they did not have

to break the rules, nobody would know about Romeo and t. But again, it's

not just between men and women or relationships; it's simply going against the

rules to create a new set of rules, because you believe in what you're doing.

That's what makes a figure a romantic hero.

T: But can you give me some examples of modern romantic figures?

OH: I would say, in a way, that I see Einstein as a romantic hero. Again, he

went against the rules, created some theory that nobody believed. And when later

asked, " What would you do if years later they would find out that your theory of

relativity does not work? " you know what his answer was? He said, " Then I'll

feel sorry for God almighty that such a beautiful theory does not work. " It's

not just that he went against the rules and created a new theory; he also

believed in the classical Greek tradition, the Roman tradition that what's

beautiful is good, what's good is beautiful.

And that's basically the same philosophy behind bodybuilding, which makes it

different from any other sport. Any other sport is about achievement of a

competitive goal. You run faster. You jump higher. Or you're a better player in

some kind of a game. It doesn't really matter how you look. In bodybuilding,

it's an absolutely classical example of this Roman classical or Greek classical

thought. When you're beautiful, you're good, you're strong.

T: Can you then give some examples of modern warriors?

OH: There are no modern warriors. That's the problem. I think that even the

Army, as far as I know it, is a short-lived kind of atmosphere for warriors with

the assumption that, if you want to train people to be warriors, you have to

give them war, or a feeling of war. So basic training is about abusing the body,

making it hard, getting you to go through a time of starvation, deprivation of

sleep, shooting above your head, and making sure that you really are ready to

encounter real war itself. Eventually, it does work because it triggers the

basic instinct of the warrior of survival. But you don't need a war to be a

warrior. All you need is to trigger the instinct, maybe from a different

direction. Instead of shooting at people and jumping through the typical martial

arts that millions of people are doing today, maybe all you need to do is

trigger a completely different mechanism that would give you the feeling of a

warrior and the mechanisms to make you feel alert all of the time.

I want to give you one more example. One hundred years ago, there was still a

semblance of chivalry left over. People were born to an aristocratic family.

They're trained to do sword fighting, fencing, whatever, and what defined a

gentleman was his ability to defend his honor. If somebody offended your wife or

girl, you offered them a duel with a sword or a gun. They had to be ready at any

time physically, and personally, to defend their honor. Allowing themselves to

degenerate into couch potatoes was unthinkable. Of course, that phenomenon has

disappeared forever. I don't mean that men have to go to war. But the ability to

fight for your honor is something that's disappeared today, and so, too, has the

need to stay in some semblance of shape to be able to fight and protect your

honor.

For many years, I've been obsessed with the first drawings done by simple

cultures. You look at the Egyptians. You look, for example, at the Minoans. The

Minoans were ancestors of the Greeks and the Romans. Even the Philistines in

Israel who came to Islam, which is a very interesting story by itself, are part

of the Minoic people who escaped through the sea and penetrated the

Mediterranean, and actually conquered and beat all Egypt for a while. They were

very strong people, but a different culture than the Mediterranean and the

Egyptian. The main difference is that the Egyptian drawings and sculptures, with

the exception of just one pharaoh, are all very soft. And some of them look

completely feminine with big tits. Especially Tutankhamen—you know, the husband

of Nefertiti, the most beautiful queen in Egypt.

Ramses was the only pharaoh who looked like a warrior in the ancient drawings.

He wasn't such a great warrior. He gave himself more credit than he deserved.

But his life was different. The other pharaohs used to sit at home. They were

grain eaters, almost modernist in comparison with today, and they suffered from

the same diseases that people suffer from today. I believe they also suffered

from a lot of high estrogen as a side effect of the high amount of gluten that

they used to eat, but that's another story. You look at the Minoic people, and

the Greek people after that, and the Romans after that, and you see only hard

bodies on men. Very athletic. And it's not just a coincidence. You can say,

" Well, maybe it's a style of drawing. " I don't think so. If it appears again and

again for hundreds of years, it means something.

This issue of grain is a big clue. Grain, and especially wheat, was a bigger

thing in Egypt. It appears in the Bible. So while the soft aristocrats ate grain

and bread and cakes, it was the slaves who ate meat. And the Minoic—and then the

Romans, Greeks, and Israelis—were mostly shepherds. They used to wander with

their sheep. So their basic nutrition was meat, olive oil, and wine. It's a

different concept, but it leads to another thing. Look at the Islam religion,

for example. Every Muslim fasts for one month, but what they call " fasting "

actually is eating only once a day, and at night. I truly believe, according to

my experience and research, that it's left over from a very old tradition of

warrior armies—like Mohammed, who was one of them and conquered North

Africa—tribes of wild Arabs completely wandering. They didn't have land. They

wandered and conquered and stole from one another until they united together and

conquered all of North Africa and created the whole Muslim empire.

These Arabs were wanderers. They usually didn't have land. They moved from one

place to another with camels. They were all warriors and ate only at night. When

the Israelis left Egypt, the first thing they complained about was the lack of

food. They could've crossed the desert in two months, but it took them 40 years

because God wanted to teach them how to be free. But to be free, they had to

adopt the concept of a warrior life. You defend your life or yourself. You pick

up your own food, and you're deprived most of the day. You camp only at night.

You eat only at night. Look at wild Arabs today in the desert—they look like

rocks. Same people. When they move to the city, they look like rolly pollies. I

always wondered about the reason. I believe that I now know.

T: But to be a true warrior—someone who needs to endure physical hardship, or

even an athlete who needs to compete—you need some sort of glycogen storage,

right? And that's hard to do when you eat only once a day.

OH: You're reaching a very important point. You've got to eat in such a way that

you're capable of fighting for two hours straight, or wrestling or marching for

hours on end, or being without food, or whatever. When I was a Navy SEAL, that's

what we trained to do. By not eating, we learned to stretch our glycogen

reserves. Those who train on empty, more and more and more, will find out that

they have more and more glycogen reserve ability in their muscles and liver. The

last time I looked up the research—I think it was a year ago—sedentary persons

with what was thought to be about 200 or 300 calories of available glycogen

reserve could stretch it up to 2,000-3,000. Some people even had 5,000 calories

of glycogen reserve. There's a whole area of science about the situation of a

body under glycogen depletion, and it's so relative. But one thing's for sure,

as long as you are glycogen depleted—what I call fasting—your insulin

sensitivity gets higher and higher, as does your protein efficiency. Sometimes,

it goes 30-50% higher. That means that, after fasting, your protein efficiency

could be 30-50% higher. You can eat less than 30% and still digest as much

protein.

T: So what you'd do is take somebody who's used to eating six times a day, and

then have them start stretching the amount of time between feedings?

OH: Exactly.

T: So try not eating breakfast until 10 o'clock in the morning?

OH: Exactly. Believe me, I do understand the logic behind six small meals a day.

I completely understand the logic and respect it. That's probably about what

slaves used to be fed when they worked. But what you miss by doing that, I

think, is much greater than what you gain. There's also a lot of science, and I

will come to it later. But the one thing diets tell you is to not overeat or

undereat—especially over eat. In my concept, overeating and undereating are very

natural cycles of a human being. As hunters, predators, and maybe collectors,

human beings used to overeat and sometimes, of course, undereat. There's more

and more research supporting that overeating is very anabolic, especially after

the state of fasting. Besides insulin sensitivity and the ability to stretch

protein efficiency, simply the volumizing effect of a muscle pump and everything

else is much stronger after overeating.

T: So is the ultimate goal of one phase of this diet to actually work down to

one meal a day?

OH: That's the ultimate goal, yes, but there's room for some leeway, depending

on an individual's goals or circumstances. For instance, even I introduce small

protein meals during the day at times.

T: So you can eat a little during the day?

OH: Absolutely. You can eat whatever you want, as long as you don't eat any

carbohydrates that will drive up insulin. Moreover, I'm just working out another

aspect, which is the brain. How many real diets are working on your brain?

Furthermore, many supplements are far more effective on an empty stomach. For

example, two to four grams of glutamine on an empty stomach can boost your GH in

one hour by 30-50%. I mean, if you don't have an empty stomach, you can't do

that. In any other diet, you basically shut down your brain and make yourself

much more stupid than you should be. Much less alert and much more stupid. The

biggest problem with the diet, at least initially, is the cortisol. People who

start it immediately will feel distress and an accumulation of cortisol. But the

funny thing is the adaptation to cortisol like to anything else.

T: Let me address what seems like two apparent contradictions. You said that

this diet is more targeted toward being instinctive, but eating less frequently

doesn't seem to be instinctive. Does it?

OH: Okay, that's the biggest argument. You're right. I truly believe, and I will

try to prove, that after two weeks of trying it, you won't be hungry during the

day. And instinctively—when you really reach this time of eating at night, not

just when you want to eat—you know exactly what you want. Your priority will be

right, and it's not because you have a notebook telling you what you should eat

today. Naturally, you first want to have a lot of protein—veggies and carbs will

come after that.

T: So it's your contention that this instinct is there, but we've lost it and

need to be retrained.

OH: Exactly. I think that's the way we were meant to be. I mean, we are very

similar to predators. Predators—wild, free predators—don't eat when they're not

hungry. Take the same predator. Put it in captivity, whether it's a wild cat or

a wolf, and it gets crazy. They eat non-stop, like human beings. They have no

instinct to stop.

T: And they act like prey.

OH: Yes, they act like prey. I believe that, historically, humans are the same.

They were very busy during the day. It's the " fight or flight " instinct. The

brain was in peak operating efficiency, adrenaline was high, and they were lean

and mean. They were hunting and surviving, fighting for their life. When they

hunted the food, they made sure in the evening, when they were rested, that was

the time to eat.

T: So initially, you categorize many of the other popular diets as being diets

of denial. But this, too, is a diet of denial. But only initially, until you get

used to it...

OH: Well, yes. Of course, there's always an assumption that they're in a kind of

denial because you have to go through some kind of discipline in order to adapt.

But my emphasis is, whatever conventional diet you go on—even six meals a

day—you're never, never satisfied. Show me how, on the six meals a day plan, you

can eat as much as you want. No, you have to stop. You have to stop after

reaching a certain amount of calories or a certain portion has been eaten.

Yes, the warrior diet is based on the idea that you should have the instinct to

be busy and productive and alert. And, if you decide to sit the whole day at

home, that means you gave up the ability to be alert; you no longer fight to get

money or food, and you no longer hunt. This is what happens to men when they

become civilized, when they lose the romantic flavor.

T: I do notice that, most of the time, because I'm so busy, I have to remind

myself to go eat something. I mean, it just escapes my mind. So what I'm getting

from all of this, as you train your body—if your theories are correct—in time,

you will train your body to be able to not feel these needs to eat, and you'll

be able to work through those because your body systems will have adapted to

this concept. And because of our intensely busy day, and the empty stomach, and

dealing with the energy levels that we derive from being a little bit hungry, it

will feel invigorating.

OH: That's exactly right.

T: I just thought of something interesting. At my feet, at this moment, is a

Staffordshire bull terrier. He's 50 pounds of muscle. Extremely powerful. Not an

ounce of fat. Striations everywhere, and he free eats. He eats whatever he

wants, but he'll eat about once a day...usually at night.

OH: Okay, you've got the answer. He's a free animal. I believe that truly free

people do not usually eat more than once a day. In classical Roman times, for

the 300 years from 100 BC—which is the classical time of Julius Caesar—until

almost the decadent era of the 2nd century, the Romans used to eat once a day.

You can see it also in the figures and drawings of the emperors. Romans used to

be lean and mean, including Julius Caesar himself. When they crossed the 1st

century, the decadent period started, and they started to behave like people do

today. You can literally see the difference on the size of the emperors. It's

very interesting.

T: I have one more question, otherwise I'm approaching overload. I get the gist

of this. I understand. So this diet would then be a diet for life, essentially,

and not just a short period of time?

OH: I truly believe so. The other day, I watched a TV program featuring great

champions and fast runners and sprinters from the '70s—Olympic champions. They

all look like shit now. They look like shit because they didn't have a way of

life. As long as they needed to get results, they were in good shape. But after

that, they got tired and out of shape. So here I'm offering an alternative that

anyone can do. I know that it's going to be hard, and what I want to do is lead

them step by step. First of all, break the breakfast. And then we show them how

to find an alternative to lunch.

T: It's all very interesting. I'm wondering, though, if things like meal

replacements have a place in your diet.

OH: Listen, I'm actually eating more protein now than ever. When I'm talking

about one meal a day, it's a triple dinner. I sometimes get home, let's say

10pm, and eat three meals, one after the other. I have no problem with this.

Besides, I'm not talking about the complete cessation of food during the day. It

depends very much on you and your individual needs. Your body, however, will

tell you exactly what it needs. If mine, on the rare occasion, tells me that I

can't wait until evening to have protein, I may eat like half a chicken during

the day, or drink a meal replacement.

T: So what you're saying is that, as long as I had my protein, I could follow it

up with three pizzas?

OH: Exactly. I'm telling you, TC, it will work. It's not a diet that's ketogenic

or based on suffering and you count the hours. With the " Warrior Diet, " every

day has a happy ending.

T: Well, I'm intrigued by it, because it would certainly make my life easier.

I'm always worried about finding the time to eat. I forget all of the time.

OH: In the future, I'll show you that, as you forgo these useless meals, your

insulin sensitivity goes up, as does your protein efficiency. Furthermore,

there's another aspect that I want to discuss with you. It concerns lactic acid.

Lactic acid is a big enigma. Up 'till now, the industry's been against it. They

give you all of these products to buffer it. Lactic acid—I'll prove, and now I'm

really serious—is going to be the miracle drug. Like Pyruvate was going to do

for fat burning, lactic acid would do much more than that. Also, lactic acid—we

already know, especially on an empty stomach—could boost growth hormone much

higher.

T: Sure, there's a direct correlation between lactic acid and growth hormone.

OH: That's true. But the important concept is lactic acid efficiency. Warriors,

even without a war, could build up lactic acid efficiency, turning lactic acid

into an energy-producing and fat-burning agent. It absolutely increases your

ability to react under stress. And lactic acid accumulates much more after

fasting, much more than after eating.

So basically, you have a lot of advantages here that no other diet could give

you. But I repeat the last thing. Even if you have a sense of freedom once a

day, which I employ at night, that will be good enough. I truly and honestly

believe that most diets have no sense of freedom at all. Yes, you eat six meals

a day. But do you really enjoy them so much? Do you stop when you really want to

stop? Does your body know what you really want?

Another thing that I want to emphasize is related to instinct. Every time you

fulfill an instinct, I believe that there is a feeling—not just a sense of

pleasure, you know—but some kind of high, whether it's satisfaction from food or

satisfaction from sex. It's funny...after an intense workout, you feel this kind

of high because of the endorphins. Could it be that just performing an intense

workout is based on the warrior instinct? Could it simply be that we're so

deprived of action that we're compelled to bodybuild?

By now, you're either ready to string Ori up and dismiss him as a heretic, or

put him on your shoulders and parade him around your room (after throwing away

your noon-time meal, of course).

Again, by no means do we advocate this type of diet...yet. It is, however,

intriguing, and I hope that you'll at least think about some of the things he

said and share your thoughts with us. After all, no free thinker would do

otherwise.

August 15, 2003

Here is part two of the interview: