The Warrior Diet

[Guest guest]

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

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

if you can handle 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.

-

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

> Idol@c... 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]

-

>In practice, how would you replace carbs with fat?

Try eating sausage, particularly old-fashioned fatty sausages. Go for

fattier foods, like heavy cream. Make sure to prepare your foods with

plenty of fat -- loads of butter with your eggs and meat. Cut out grains

and refined sugars. Go for fattier cuts of meat, don't eat the

potato. That sort of thing.

-

[Guest guest]

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

1. Exercise

2. Restrict calories

3. Fast

4. Get yourself genetically modified :-) <<

Plus restrict carbs, increase fat, both of which also regulate insulin.

Hormone therapy of various kinds can also impact insulin.

The endocrine system has many points at which it can be influenced, and I

suspect that in each person, a different point or approach might prove more

effective than another. For me, nothing really worked until I cut the carbs. For

others, getting more exercise is the key, and for others, it's sleep, hormone

therapy, adding fat.... we're all different.

Christie

[Guest guest]

-

The Foundation is here

http://westonaprice.org/splash_2.htm

and the article I mentioned is in fact online now here

http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/macronutrientland.html

and very highly recommended. I had one minor quibble over their

description of Atkins, but that's it.

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

>love to see the article.

-

[Guest guest]

-

Yes and no. The rate at which the carbs hit the bloodstream and the ways

in which the different root sugars of which the carbs are made up are

processed by the body have a bearing on how they affect you. Bread is

going to have a much rougher impact on you than eggplant, for example

(though you'd have to eat MUCH more eggplant than bread to get 30g of

carbs). You can slather your bread with a ton of butter, and depending on

your individual physiology that will help to some degree, but I'd say a

natural whole food will usually be better than a refined one like

bread. The caveat is that some " natural " foods have been selectively bred

so extremely that they may as well be called refined, potatoes being a

particularly salient example.

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

>equivalent to those from bread or fruit?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

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

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

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

they're people with metabolisms utterly different from mine.

>Might want to throw out fasting, too.

-

[Guest guest]

-

I suspect skipping breakfast makes people fatter not because of total

calorie input differences but because it causes their blood sugar to crash

before lunch, which deranges their insulin levels and changes their

response to food -- and their choices in types of food.

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

>> In practice, how would you replace carbs with fat? <<

Ah, well, this is the whole basis of Atkins. You get around 5 percent of your

calories from carbs, around 30 percent from protein, and the rest from fat.

You mention not wanting to give up fruits or nuts. Even on the weight loss

portion of Atkins, you can still eat low carb, low glycemic fruits such as

berries and melon. You can eat most nuts (remember peanuts are not a nut!), as

they are high in fat and fiber and low in digestible carbs (on carb-restricted

programs you don't count fiber as it's beneficial and indigestible). Macademia

nuts and almonds are the lowest in carbs, but many nuts are low enough for those

who aren't restricting the most severely. If you aren't trying to lose weight,

your options are even greater for fruits and nuts.

You mentioned that you want to keep all veggies, but all veggies are not created

equal. The potato is a veggie, and so is celery, Romaine lettuce, and a radish.

I eat mostly low glycemic, nutrient dense veggies, but overall, pretty much

everything except the starch veggies are fine, even relatively high-glycemic

ones like onions. I can't imagine I'd ever be able to handle a potato, but many

people can include a certain amount of starchy veggies a few times a week, if

they are not trying to lose stored body fat.

There is a lot of confusion out there, IMO, with the weight loss portion of

Atkins and the " Atkins for Life " portion, which is for people who are not trying

to lose weight. Both are low carb, high fat, moderate protein plans, but the

particular levels of those things will vary depending on each person's own

individualized needs. It is not " one size fits all, " it just operates within a

framework of low carb/high fat/moderate protein. I know some people on " Atkins

for Life " who eat around 100 grams of carbs a day, and maintain their weight and

their blood sugar perfectly. But they don't get those 100 grams from potatoes

and candy bars, they get them from nutrient dense vegetables, nuts, seeds, and

low glycemic fruits.

Sounds good to me.

Of course I'm prejudiced, as I suddenly have barrels of energy and have lost two

dress sizes and around 25 inches, LOL!

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> 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. <<

See, I don't think that is true. That is the calorie model.

I think the reason those who skip breakfast are fatter is two-fold.

One, I think skipping breakfast is a SYMPTOM of insulin resistance. Those of us

with insulin resistance often feel nauseated and inappetant in the morning.

Two, skipping breakfast throws your metabolism off, causing a severe blood sugar

drop that causes us to reach for carbs to boost it back up - say, the 10 o'clock

coffee break of caffeine and sugar. <G> Or even just a big, carby lunch (try

pasta). And then we get that nice burst of insulin that we can't assimilate,

creating a fat storage syndrome.

No, I don't think that skipping breakfast makes people fatter BECAUSE they eat

more during the day. I think it's more involved than that.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

Do you really think their vision of " high nutrient " is the same as ours? I

seriously doubt it. It probably means enriched kibble -- certainly it's

meant that whenever I've actually checked on these things.

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

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

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

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

>well with fasting.

>

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

>want to do.

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

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

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

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

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

now I'm trying the opposite.

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

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

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

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

isn't giving

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have a nice dessert.

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

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

>practitioners and researchers working with larger pools of people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to adapt.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>Do you really think their vision of " high nutrient " is the same as ours? I

>seriously doubt it. It probably means enriched kibble -- certainly it's

>meant that whenever I've actually checked on these things.

>

>-

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.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:44:58 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> >I eat the " Argentinean " way when I am in Vegas because I know what Vegas

> >means for me - late nights - lots of food - lots of wine/beer, etc. Lots

> >of fun but certainly not good for the waistline under normal

> >circumstances. Yet I normally lose weight. If I know I have to eat during

> >the day on a regular basis while there I just go Atkins, leaving out all

> >the carbs except alcohol and veggies, and I remain lean as well.

>

> Interesting. I kind of wonder of most of the world doesn't eat

> " one meal " -- considering how much work it is to cook if you

> don't have a fridge and electric stove. So the " with starch " method

> works if you only eat in the evening, and the " low carb " method

> works if you eat during the day?

Exactly. If I have to eat during the day and I'm not eating a largely

raw diet (which can be complicated when I'm traveling and not preparing

my own meals), then I have to pay attention to the carbs. But veggies

and wine/beer are okay when I'm in that mode. I tend to load up on as

much fatty food as I can when eating Atkins style.

>

> >The author of the Warrior Diet seems to

> >think that a really big meal cranks up the metabolism. Whatever the

> >mechanism, it works for me.

>

> I kind of wonder if part of it is the reverse of the " starvation "

> principle. They say if you starve yourself your metabolism

> lowers and you store lots of fat. If you " feast " , then maybe

> it makes you satisfied so your body says " ok, not starving! " .

> But maybe that ONLY works if you don't eat all that much

> the rest of the time (otherwise no one going to Vegas

> would gain weight!).

LOL!!

>

> So how fat are Argententians, compared to Americans?

> How is their diet as far as starches and sugars?

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

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

[Guest guest]

>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

Well, I'm not sure exactly *what* the differences are in the two diets,

is the problem. It might be less grains (probably is) or it could

be less meat/fat (a number of the low cal PEOPLE who say they are

getting good results are low-fat vegetarians!).

I totally agree better experiments need to be done and while

these experiments are tantalizing, they aren't complete. I kind

of wonder in the annals of mouse-abuse there isn't at least ONE

where they put the mice on low carbs. I looked and they had one

for tumor control (which worked for certain kinds of tumors)

but I haven't seen any for longetivity. Maybe the Atkins folks

have done one? If they did one that made for really old happy

mice you'd think they'd publish it.

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.

I don't have the time or inclination to get some mice

to experiment with, and I don't want to wait 5 years

until someone does the " right " study.

However, we can run our own study here with volunteers,

have one group on diet A and one on diet B ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/03 5:19:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Perhaps, but if the goal is not fat loss, but health, would it be a

> problem?

I honestly have no idea. If you aren't hungry, and you can do activity fine,

it probably isn't a problem, as long as your insulin and everything else is

staying in line, which you can get tested.

Chris

[Guest guest]

#2,

lol,

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

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

little

bigger to actually qualify as one :-P

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

as you're actually using it. Eating too much food raises your insulin, but

physical activity is a powerful insulin-decreaser. If you're getting fat from

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

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

of food.

Chris

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

paultheo2000@... writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guest guest]

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

anthony_byron@... writes:

> But no weight gain

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

> muscle.

>

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

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

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

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

pile it on or still use it moderately?

-

> -

>

> >In practice, how would you replace carbs with fat?

>

> Try eating sausage, particularly old-fashioned fatty sausages. Go for

> fattier foods, like heavy cream. Make sure to prepare your foods with

> plenty of fat -- loads of butter with your eggs and meat. Cut out

grains

> and refined sugars. Go for fattier cuts of meat, don't eat the

> potato. That sort of thing.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

But if it didn't have this effect (I'm not particularly hungry in the

morning) would it be beneficial to skip breakfast?

-

> -

>

> I suspect skipping breakfast makes people fatter not because of total

> calorie input differences but because it causes their blood sugar to

crash

> before lunch, which deranges their insulin levels and changes their

> response to food -- and their choices in types of food.

>

> >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.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the information Christie! I can deal without potatoes,

rice, bread, cereal...but I like corn and sweet potatoes and from what

I've read they're quite healthy. Would they still sabotage the insulin

part of the equation? I read somewhere that sweet potatoes are an

anti-diabetic food: would that be a good case for it?

I definitely don't need to lose weight from an appearance perspective

although I might want to do so in terms of maximizing health/lifespan.

I was very interested in calorie restriction... so now I'm not sure

what way to go.

-

> >> In practice, how would you replace carbs with fat? <<

>

> Ah, well, this is the whole basis of Atkins. You get around 5

percent of your calories from carbs, around 30 percent from protein,

and the rest from fat.

>

> You mention not wanting to give up fruits or nuts. Even on the

weight loss portion of Atkins, you can still eat low carb, low

glycemic fruits such as berries and melon. You can eat most nuts

(remember peanuts are not a nut!), as they are high in fat and fiber

and low in digestible carbs (on carb-restricted programs you don't

count fiber as it's beneficial and indigestible). Macademia nuts and

almonds are the lowest in carbs, but many nuts are low enough for

those who aren't restricting the most severely. If you aren't trying

to lose weight, your options are even greater for fruits and nuts.

>

> You mentioned that you want to keep all veggies, but all veggies are

not created equal. The potato is a veggie, and so is celery, Romaine

lettuce, and a radish. I eat mostly low glycemic, nutrient dense

veggies, but overall, pretty much everything except the starch veggies

are fine, even relatively high-glycemic ones like onions. I can't

imagine I'd ever be able to handle a potato, but many people can

include a certain amount of starchy veggies a few times a week, if

they are not trying to lose stored body fat.

>

> There is a lot of confusion out there, IMO, with the weight loss

portion of Atkins and the " Atkins for Life " portion, which is for

people who are not trying to lose weight. Both are low carb, high fat,

moderate protein plans, but the particular levels of those things will

vary depending on each person's own individualized needs. It is not

" one size fits all, " it just operates within a framework of low

carb/high fat/moderate protein. I know some people on " Atkins for

Life " who eat around 100 grams of carbs a day, and maintain their

weight and their blood sugar perfectly. But they don't get those 100

grams from potatoes and candy bars, they get them from nutrient dense

vegetables, nuts, seeds, and low glycemic fruits.

>

> Sounds good to me.

>

> Of course I'm prejudiced, as I suddenly have barrels of energy and

have lost two dress sizes and around 25 inches, LOL!

>

> Christie

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

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

around 10 or so.

-

----

" One, I think skipping breakfast is a SYMPTOM of insulin resistance.

" Those of us with insulin resistance often feel nauseated and

inappetant in the morning.

>

> Two, skipping breakfast throws your metabolism off, causing a severe

blood sugar drop that causes us to reach for carbs to boost it back up

- say, the 10 o'clock coffee break of caffeine and sugar. <G> Or even

just a big, carby lunch (try pasta). And then we get that nice burst

of insulin that we can't assimilate, creating a fat storage syndrome.

>

> No, I don't think that skipping breakfast makes people fatter

BECAUSE they eat more during the day. I think it's more involved than

that.

>

> Christie

>

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps, but if the goal is not fat loss, but health, would it be a

problem?

-

-----

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

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

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

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

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

be confronted with food all the time. Quite liberating!

-

>

> :

>

> >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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

> paultheo2000@y... 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]

Can anyone refer me to the study on GM mice?

-

----

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.