The Warrior Diet

[Guest guest]

I'm really interested in finding out if CR(ON) is bunk as was alluded

too in another post. Perhaps CR isn't the mechanism but it seems like

it fulfills the purpose just as well. Animals in the wild, or humans

eating very healthily are probably calorie restricted anyway. Now, if

there was a way to eat ad libitum and still get the benefits of CR

that would definitely be neat. I suppose it also depends on what you'd

be giving up!

I'm looking for an alternative to the three meals a day paradigm

society is stuck in. Seems like half your day is spent eating or

preparing the food in question. If fasting one day on two while still

eating as much butter, fish, meat, fruit, nuts as I wanted would lead

to a significantly lengthened lifestyle, I say it's definitely worth

trying.

I haven't read the previous posts (just found this board); when you

say you feel better you mean after starting the Warrior Diet?

-

>

>

> >Heidi, if insulin is the common denominator, what are the best ways

> >for keeping it down?

>

> Sheesh, that is what *I'M* trying to figure out! And half the rest

of the world,

> it would seem!

>

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

>

> 1. Exercise

> 2. Restrict calories

> 3. Fast

> 4. Get yourself genetically modified :-)

>

> >So this means a non calorically restricted person minimizing insulin

> >could live just as long as a calorically restricted person (who

> >presumably minimizes insulin unconciously).

>

> Could be? Seems like there are some people who just live a long time

and no

> one knows why. A lot of the " long lived " people come from cultures that

> eat a lot of lactic acid though, and lactic acid seems to have a

regulating

> response on insulin too (Add #5 to the above! Yay kimchi and kefir!).

>

>

> > Could this also mean that

> >a calorie restricted person still eating a lot of grains might not

> >obtain a longer/healthier lifestyle?

>

> Hee hee. Touche. Well, that is the case with the mice! Grains aren't

very good for

> mice, but they live longer either calorically restricted or

feasting/fasting.

> I would think that even if you are grain-intolerant, if you only ate

them

> once a day (as opposed to constantly, as in our culture) then the villi

> might have a chance to recover. Ditto with the famous SCD bacterial

> issues ... if the bacteria only get fed " bad stuff " once every 24 hours,

> they don't get as much of a chance to really do bad damage. I'm just

> guessing.

>

> But in MOST things to do with our bodies, we do something then

> rest awhile. For instance, weight lifting -- if you life weights, you

> wear yourself out, then DON'T lift weights for 72 hours. If you do

> the same thing over and over you get stuff like " repetitive stress

> syndrome " and if you do that with heavy weights, you can get

> some real damage.

>

> If you eat 6 meals a day though, your gut

> is always digesting something for every inch of its length, so

> you have 30 feet of digesting food. That has GOT to be harder,

> I would think -- all 30 feet have to get lots of blood supply etc.

> If you eat one big meal, then maybe 4-6 feet of the 30 feet is

> involved at any given time, and the other 26 feet can rest.

> So the pancreas and liver only have to secrete enzymes for

> 4 hours, say, while the food is in the upper intestine, then they

> can rest.

>

> Anyway, I'm just speculating. I can say that my energy level

> is about 3x what it was a week ago, and my digestion has been great.

> I even cleaned the fish tank on a whim. I'm eating the same

> foods (keeping the number of variables the same as much as

> possible) and about the same amounts. But my body is acting

> *completely* different. Kind of amazing. It's kind of a paradigm

> shift, like I felt when I first discovered NT -- " OK, THIS is the

> right way to live " .

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Im trying something out at the moment. I have big breakfast ( 3

slices bacon, 6 eggs, cpl tomatoes piece of sourdough spelt bread )

then go through till dinner...

im very skinny ( underweight and ALWAYS have been. SO its been hard

psycologically as usualyl if i " skip a meal " im 2 kilo ligher

following day )

one thing i have noticed though when doign some small exercising late

in the afternoon. Im sharper, faster and my brain is more " keen "

in my wrists i do this squeezing exercise with a handfull of wrapped

up newspaper. Im pretty positive over last 2 weeks i feel much

stronger there...

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

but eiother io feel stronger or ive lost weight and that is giving

the effect of feelign stronger as my muscles are havign to move as

much mass lol ( i shoudlnt say mass really as thre not mcuh of me )

>

> >Heidi,

> >

> >I personally don't think 5,000 calories is an enormous amount of

food for 2

> >meals (big, but by no means enormous), but it's certainly an

enormous amount

> >for 1 meal. I can't imagine there are any serious weight lifters

that eat less

> >than 5,000 calories in a day, so they'd have to eat similarly if

they were not

> >not eat three meals in a day. Some people find it best to work

out on an

> >empty stomach, but I think it's more likely to find it hard. I

simply can't.

>

> Personally I thought it was impossible to work out on an empty

stomach,

> so I never did it. Now I'm finding out I was incorrect (not for the

first time!).

> 5,000 calories isn't unusual for a weightlifter ... though these

are Japanese,

> and I guess the average Japanese guy eats something like 2,300

calories

> a day (less than the average American). Actually the Sumos don't do

> things *all* that different from bodybuilders (and they do pack on

a lot

> more muscle than the average Japanese guy) so the extra fat is

interesting.

>

> The bodybuilder info I've read often claims that aerobic exercise

is the

> secret to eating lots of calories and still maintaining little

fat ... maybe the

> Sumos do mainly non-aerobic exercise. The " weight-lifters " (non-

showoffs)

> carry a fair bit of fat too, I've noticed.

>

> >What about people who don't have weight to lose? How are they

going to eat

> >enough calories? If you suppress your appetite in the day, you

can't usually

> >make up for it in one meal. I generally eat a 1500 calorie meal.

But if I

> >skip my first two meals, I can't fit a 4500 calorie meal in me at

the end of the

> >day.

>

> I don't know, and I haven't read the book yet. His idea is that you

can work

> out better and be stronger, and the mouse studies ARE very

intriguing.

> Fasting half a day is a darn sight better than eating a reduced-

calorie

> diet for the rest of your life!!!! Supposedly the mice get

neurological

> and life-extension benefits.

>

> As for muscle-mass -- for body builders,

> I just don't know, body-building is such an interesting thing, it's

difficult

> to get the body to hold more muscle mass than it " needs, " and it

doesn't

> really take much muscle mass to be strong.

>

>

> >I haven't done a lot of mowing hay but the little I've done leads

me to think

> >most people don't do anything comparable. You work muscles you

didn't even

> >know you had ;-)

>

> Having watched those strong guys get exhausted by it on PBS I can

imagine

> that the average woman wouldn't even want to *think* about it. The

railroad

> guys too -- I can't imagine how many calories you'd have to use up

> to use up 4 lbs of pemmican a day.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/03 11:05:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> 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 :-)

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.

So far the only idea to challenge this is mice abstaining from carb-saturated

junk-food diets, and sure, if you insist on eating nothing but sugar starch

and nutrient-less food, fasting might well be better than pigging out. But

that hardly challenges the fact that *humans* who don't have stable insulin get

awful results from 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.

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.

Mercola just ran an article on a study finding people who skip breakfast are

fatter. Wouldn't expect that if breakfast-skipping was helping their insulin!

Chris

[Guest guest]

#2,

( :-) )

> Would this mean that if you can handle it, fasting would be beneficial?

>

Maybe, I don't know, but I wasn't insinuating so. I'm just saying it's bad

if you can't.

BTW, I believe The Warrior Diet doesn't advocate eating during the day

> if you can handle it.

I don't know much about the Warrior Diet except what's been discussed on this

list. So I was referring basically to the way Heidi and practice it.

> Skipping breakfast makes people fatter because they eat more during

> the day. If you skip breakfast (I've started doing so) and then eat

> normally, I'd imagine the results would be positive.

This doesn't make much sense, at least with my experience. If I skip a meal,

I eat less in the day. If I skip two meals, I eat even less. Your stomach

can only fit so much in it at once. Granted it will expand to physically fit

more food, but volume of food and hormonal responses will both affect how

" full " you feel. I simply can't eat three meals worth of food in one if I skip

two

meals. And people *I* know that tend to skip breakfast tend to on average

have trouble losing weight, but they don't eat three meals worth of food at

dinner.

Skipping breakfast decreases your ability to burn depot fat, is my

understanding, because your body goes into " starvation mode. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

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]

In a message dated 8/14/03 1:28:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The " low cal " mouse diets make a point of saying

> they are " high nutrient " diets. Which means the *reformulate* the mouse

> diet, not just feed them less kibble. So your average person who goes on

> the " official " low-cal longetivity diet also reformulates their diet, which

> means they are getting less grains probably. It's a classic case of

> mixed variables -- grains/calories/insulin ...

Heidi, you're making an enormous jump to a conclusion here that I think is

thoroughly unjustified. Who the heck knows what they consider a " high-nutrient "

diet, but this could just mean they added more vitamins to the kibble. That

doesn't change the fact that their diet is all extruded grain.

It's not really a case of mixed variables at all, because when you isolate

one of them-- the insulin issue, the same effect is had without the presence of

the other variables. So, if you have people or mice who eat both less grains

and less calories that extend their lifespan by x amount, and then you have

mice and humans that lower their insulin levels independent of calories or even

lower their insulin while eating *more* calories, and " x " has the same value,

you've successfully isolated the operative variable, and showed the other

variables to be irrelevant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

I wish I had time to go into depth, but I shouldn't even be here

now. <g> However, if you're a member of the WAP Foundation and get Wise

Traditions, a recent issue discussed calorie restriction, I think in the

article " Adventures In Macro-Nutrient Land " . I don't remember for sure,

but I think it was referenced, too. If you're not a member, the article

should show up on the WAPF site soon enough.

>Would you mind expanding on that? Do you have any studies or

>information I could have a look at it? I'd be extremely interested in

>seeing that after all the reading I've done on Calorie Restriction boards!

-

[Guest guest]

Christie-

>Is famine, or the feast/famine cycle, optimum for dogs or for us? Or is it

>just something that is part of their/our evolution in some times and places?

I don't really think so. Occasional fasting... maybe. But consistent

famine or famine emulation? I just don't buy it. Remember that humans

really spread widely and evolved bigger brains during the mega-fauna period

-- and consider that just about all mega-fauna died out during our massive

expansion. I think our burst occurred during a time of unusual plenty.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I'm sure you're right. In fact, I agree completely with your whole post.

>My guess is the

>hunter-gatherers that *didn't* have to deal with periods of famine would

>be better

>off in health.

-

[Guest guest]

-

Heidi might have a different answer since she's so enthusiastic about the

warrior diet now, but the easiest, healthiest and most reliable way we know

of is to cut way down on carbs and to boost fat. This will eliminate

excess insulin and insulin spikes and even out your blood sugar levels

very, very nicely. Some people are less willing than others to avoid

carbs, though.

>Heidi, if insulin is the common denominator, what are the best ways

>for keeping it down?

-

[Guest guest]

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 :-)

-

[Guest guest]

>,

Boy, this profusion of s is really getting annoying. I'm going to have

to start charging the usurpers license fees! <g>

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/03 1:43:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> 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!

and it > seems to work for mice (even mice on kibble).

Not *even* mice on kibble, it *just* seems to work for mice on kibble-- at

this point.

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.

Well, good, I certainly wouldn't want you to be less than optimally healthy

for the sake of theory! BUT... you aren't fasting, and what you're doing isn't

really any evidence for calorie restriction. 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.

> 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)

> 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.

Well, you'd said before that you eat less calories this way. 2-300 calories

a day is a considerable amount to add up to if you're looking for weight loss,

you're staying the same in terms of physical activity, and you aren't eating

in a way that has adverse effects on insulin.

And by the way, I'm not arguing against the Warrior Diet. I am arguing

against the idea that the WD, at least the way its practiced by you and ,

is

in any way any sort of evidence that fasting is good for you, can increase

your life span, or can help control insulin levels.

> 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. "

Most people I've known who were breakfast-skippers ate/eat moderate lunches

and sizeable dinners. Most of them I knew when we were in high school

together, so lunch was restricted by money and serving size of free lunches,

while

dinner was unlimited because it was homecooked. I do know someone currently who

eats one meal a day in general, dinner, and he's very overweight.

Besides, skipping breakfast and eating a big lunch is still

" feast-famine " ing.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/03 2:17:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> From what I remember not very, at least not compared to Americans. And I

> don't remember a lot of sugars and starches either.

Out of the only Argentinian people I know, my cousin's wife and her parents.

My cousin's wife is super-super-super slim, though afaik she only eats

Argentinian when her parents are over. I don't remember her mom, but her dad is

pretty hefty (not fat, but *definitely* not slim). They were lovers of sausage

and other grilled fatty things. I think they also ate plenty of bread, but I

guess they were *Americanized* Argentinians.

Chris

[Guest guest]

:

>I'm looking for an alternative to the three meals a day paradigm

>society is stuck in. Seems like half your day is spent eating or

>preparing the food in question. If fasting one day on two while still

>eating as much butter, fish, meat, fruit, nuts as I wanted would lead

>to a significantly lengthened lifestyle, I say it's definitely worth

>trying.

I'm only fasting during the day -- eating at night (I make 7pm the

time to start making dinner). Like Cara said, it seems your body

just adapts, and that is very freeing -- you get all day to NOT

deal with food! The first couple of days are rough though.

I'm snacking on jerky during the day, though yesterday I only

needed two small pieces (and that was mainly boredom, I

was driving).

>I haven't read the previous posts (just found this board); when you

>say you feel better you mean after starting the Warrior Diet?

Right. Which has only been a week, and I'm still having hunger

pangs (some, but a lot fewer). I've been making health improvements

all along this year, but this is decidedly a big step up ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/03 3:58:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> In the case of the Feast/Fast mice, they are eating the same

> food every other day, which I agree would *minimize* the

> damage of bad food. But it's not a good reference for what

> would happen with *good* food, nor does it say what would

> happen if you switched a mouse in middle-age.

No, I agree we can't draw any conclusions about what to do with a good diet,

but that's part of my point. What conclusion we CAN draw is that calorie

restriction per se was wholly irrelevant, because the same result was attained

with high-calorie diets in the GM mice, which successfully isolates the insulin

variable, showing all the others, such as low-calorie, to be inoperative.

And that's all I'm saying.

I dont' know what the ideal eating pattern is for good food. I try to eat in

a pattern that allows me to eat the most total calories in a day. Obviously

most other people have different priorities than me!

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/03 3:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I'm sure it isn't great (though with the monkeys they showed a big pile of

> vegies they

> were feeding them, so it was better than monkey chow). Point is, they got

> healthy mice

> even WITH a less than ideal diet. But it is a different diet than the

> mice normally get, so there are more variables.

Where's all the meat? Chimpanzees are cannibals!

Besides, didn't we already establish that apes in the wild are on diets

mostly composed of tofu and margarine?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>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]

Hi

Yeah, I was thinking of your post. I'd be very interested in seeing

the actual details from the GM mice experiments, if you have a link or

something.

I've measured my blood sugar with one of those little machines and I

got 5.3. I'd like to test in a few months: should I expect a lower

result if I eat very healthily?

I've read the article on Mercola's site...I thought perhaps you were

getting this info from somewhere else as well. I'm not completely

convinced that insulin is the main factor (instead of mere calorie

restriction) but I'm leaning towards it.

-

[Guest guest]

>Yes, you will not reap the same benefits of calorie restriction with a

>grain-based diet as you will without one. Especially since grains are pretty

low in

>nutrients, and low-calorie diets are pretty low in nutrients. If you have a

>reasonable calorie intake, than your nutrient to calorie ratio matters most,

>but if you starve yourself you're going to end up with flat out not enough

>nutrients-- especially if the food you *do* eat has a significant percentage of

>low-nutrient foods like grains.

>

>*Most* of the insulin benefit of fasting can be taken care of in fasting from

>*starch* and *sugar*-- which is in fact exactly what the mice are doing,

>since all their fed is grain crap. That way you get more nutrients and more

>satiety.

The " low cal " mouse diets make a point of saying

they are " high nutrient " diets. Which means the *reformulate* the mouse

diet, not just feed them less kibble. So your average person who goes on

the " official " low-cal longetivity diet also reformulates their diet, which

means they are getting less grains probably. It's a classic case of

mixed variables -- grains/calories/insulin ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

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.

-

> In a message dated 8/14/03 7:36:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > I'm really interested in finding out if CR(ON) is bunk as was alluded

> > too in another post. Perhaps CR isn't the mechanism but it seems like

> > it fulfills the purpose just as well. Animals in the wild, or humans

> > eating very healthily are probably calorie restricted anyway.

>

> Huh? Calorie restriction diets are usually around 1200 calories a

day.

> There's no reason whatsoever to think most of Price's subjects ate

that little,

> and I certainly don't, despite the vast improvement in my health

since eating

> " NT. " In fact I eat more calories now, and in fact I eat even more

since I've

> been working out, which has also helped me, and which supposedly

also lowers

> insulin levels.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

By 'WAPF' I assume you mean Weston Price? What is his site's URL? I'd

love to see the article.

Thanks,

-

> -

>

> I wish I had time to go into depth, but I shouldn't even be here

> now. <g> However, if you're a member of the WAP Foundation and get

Wise

> Traditions, a recent issue discussed calorie restriction, I think in

the

> article " Adventures In Macro-Nutrient Land " . I don't remember for

sure,

> but I think it was referenced, too. If you're not a member, the

article

> should show up on the WAPF site soon enough.

>

> >Would you mind expanding on that? Do you have any studies or

> >information I could have a look at it? I'd be extremely interested in

> >seeing that after all the reading I've done on Calorie Restriction

boards!

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

Actually, I think that would be feasible. I'd definitely like to keep

all vegetables, fruit, legumes and nuts though. The occasional

bread/cookie/natural sweetener, sweet potato and corn would be nice as

well.

In practice, how would you replace carbs with fat?

-

> -

>

> Heidi might have a different answer since she's so enthusiastic

about the

> warrior diet now, but the easiest, healthiest and most reliable way

we know

> of is to cut way down on carbs and to boost fat. This will eliminate

> excess insulin and insulin spikes and even out your blood sugar levels

> very, very nicely. Some people are less willing than others to avoid

> carbs, though.

>

> >Heidi, if insulin is the common denominator, what are the best ways

> >for keeping it down?

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Quick question:

Are all carbs equal? Are 30 grams of carbs from eggplants or squash

equivalent to those from bread or fruit?

-

> 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 :-)

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

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