Re: warrior diet question - how long theundereating phase

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/24/03 6:16:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> The reaction of hunger and needing to eat that people on this list have

> reported as they try to go through the day without eating.

But everyone who has reported on this who has been doing it for a couple

weeks or more has reported that this was a short-term problem which went away

within a fe weeks.

> The fact that a large meal eaten over a long period of time triggers more

> insulin to be released than a small (or large, for that matter) meal eaten in

> a shorter period of time.

I consider this irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with more insulin at all,

to my understanding-- the problem is insulin resistance. And the larger meal

only triggers " more " insulin insofar as one is insulin resistant. The fasting

apparently increases insulin sensitivity, therefore, over time the large

insulin response to the big meal will decrease. Furthermore, lots of insulin

during part of the day and little insulin during most of the day would logically

be more conducive to insulin sensitivity than moderate insulin all day long.

> The fact that the WD as described on this list seems to include a fairly

> large amount of carbohydrate (since I see people discussing eating ice cream

> and cake), and carbohydrate stimulates the release of insulin more so than any

> other macronutrient.

Not necessarily. Ice cream isn't high-carb anyway. My ice cream isn't, at

least.

Anyway I think the main point here should be that folks who have tried WD for

any significant time report having more stable blood sugar, more versatility

in eating requirements, and more level cortisol and other potential hormonal

roller coasters. The WD is admitted by its author to cause temporary hormonal

problems during the first couple weeks.

I don't argue it's for everyone and I certainly wouldn't argue for you to

diverge from what you're doing now, as it's working great. However, I don't

think the idea that the WD will decrease insulin sensitivity seems to have much

of

a basis.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> What is your basis for this belief? <<

The reaction of hunger and needing to eat that people on this list have reported

as they try to go through the day without eating.

The fact that a large meal eaten over a long period of time triggers more

insulin to be released than a small (or large, for that matter) meal eaten in a

shorter period of time.

The fact that the WD as described on this list seems to include a fairly large

amount of carbohydrate (since I see people discussing eating ice cream and

cake), and carbohydrate stimulates the release of insulin more so than any other

macronutrient.

The fact that I have, in my life, eaten only one meal a day, and I observed

firsthand how it impacted me (not suggesting this was in accordance with WD

principles, but this experience is part of the basis for my belief).

The experience I have had of eating regular meals throughout the day,

stabilizing my blood sugar, suggesting to me that for many people, particularly

women and especially women who have excess body fat, that this is a viable

strategy (if carbs are limited and abundant fat is eaten), which makes me

skeptical about the benefit of the opposite strategy.

If you mean do I have any scientific studies showing that eating the Warrior

Diet will increase insulin resistance, no, of course I don't. And I've done

something here that I always hate it when people do to things like Atkins or a

raw diet for dogs, which is, forming my opinions about something without having

read the book(s) myself. Of course, some of the folks on this list started the

WD without reading the book either. <G> So I'm really talking about the eating

plan as presented on this list, and the general idea of eating one very large

meal a day and little or nothing the rest of the day.

It may be that body will adapt to the one-big-meal and, as long as the person is

consistent, and that insulin resistance won't be a factor. I honestly don't

know. But it would be a disaster for me. Of course since what I'm doing is

working so well, that is a moot point.

Christie

[Guest guest]

I was doing the warrior diet for about 3 weeks and don't think my

body got used to it. I still needed snacks during the day and being

hypoglycemic presented an additional challenge for me. About 2 weeks

ago I cut out all grains (I wasn't eating that many anyway) and OH

BOY what a difference this has made for me. At about a week into not

eating grains, my tummy flattened and I don't have the hypoglycemia

symptoms I used to have. I also don't seem to need nearly as much

food as I did before. I've lost about 5 pounds, too. Even though I

ate very little grain foods before (a few crackers during the day and

once in a while some sourdough bread), I just can't believe the

difference eating NO grains has made. I've lost the constant bloated

feeling, feel very calm, my energy has soared and my sleeping seems

better.

> The experience I have had of eating regular meals throughout the

day, stabilizing my blood sugar, suggesting to me that for many

people, particularly women and especially women who have excess body

fat, that this is a viable strategy (if carbs are limited and

abundant fat is eaten), which makes me skeptical about the benefit of

the opposite strategy.

> Christie

[Guest guest]

>About 2 weeks

>ago I cut out all grains (I wasn't eating that many anyway) and OH

>BOY what a difference this has made for me. At about a week into not

>eating grains, my tummy flattened and I don't have the hypoglycemia

>symptoms I used to have. I also don't seem to need nearly as much

>food as I did before. I've lost about 5 pounds, too. Even though I

>ate very little grain foods before (a few crackers during the day and

>once in a while some sourdough bread), I just can't believe the

>difference eating NO grains has made. I've lost the constant bloated

>feeling, feel very calm, my energy has soared and my sleeping seems

>better.

The connection between grains and hypoglycemia isn't talked

about much on this list, but it's a given on the gluten-intolerance

list. I don't think a lot is known about the reasons, though cortisol

comes to mind. Fact is, the connection between " carbs " and " insulin resistance "

is about as tenuous as " fat " and " heart disease " . Currently a lot of

people assume carbs cause insulin resistance, but a lot of healthy,

non-diabetic,

non-overweight, non-insulin-resistant populations live off high-carb diets

(as Price reported also).

There is a LOT of correlation between white (wheat) flour and insulin

resistance,

and people who eat more white flour have more diabetes. Further, they

can induce T1 diabetes in rats by feeding them pure wheat gluten (the protein

part of the wheat, not the starch, as is used a lot in vegetarian " meat " ).

Anyway, this insulin resistance thread makes me think of good ol' .

Anyone remember him? I didn't agree at the time (though I'm beginning to),

but he said carbs don't hurt you unless you ARE insulin resistant (to paraphrase

inaccurately, I'm sure).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

> . . . Fact is, the connection between " carbs " and " insulin

> resistance " is about as tenuous as " fat " and " heart disease " .

Do you really think so? I think you may have a point about

gluten, but that you go too far in playing down the role of

carbohydrates in insulin resistance. Can you tell more about

why you say this?

> Currently a lot of people assume carbs cause insulin resistance,

> but a lot of healthy, non-diabetic, non-overweight, non-insulin-

> resistant populations live off high-carb diets (as Price reported

> also).

Which populations are/were these? Did any of them really

habitually consume as much carbohydrate rich food as the

developed world does today, and weren't their sources of

carbohydrates usually of the low-glycemic sort, thus tending

to prove the carbohydrate/insulin connection? Weren't they

also agricultural people who tended to have to work in the

fields from dawn to dusk? It's thought that one can better

tolerate high carbohydrate diets if blood sugar is burned off

immediately after entry into the blood stream after digestion,

and if calorie consumption is close to the level of calories

burned. In other words they were on the calorie counters diet

by brutal necessity, not choice, and this off-set somewhat

the deleterious effects of a high-carbohydrate diet. Many

moderns are in this same vicious cycle, eating loads of pasta,

bread, fruit and having to spend hours in the gym, jogging,

running, lifting weights, etc.

> There is a LOT of correlation between white (wheat) flour and

> insulin resistance, and people who eat more white flour have more

> diabetes. Further, they can induce T1 diabetes in rats by feeding

> them pure wheat gluten (the protein part of the wheat, not the

> starch, as is used a lot in vegetarian " meat " ).

Have you read the article " The Late Role of Grains and Legumes "

at http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-

1a.shtml ? I think it supports what you say about grain. Have

you also seen the mention made of a study at

http://www.paleodiet.com/cancer.txt where it says " . . . Stanislaw

Tanchou " ....gave the first formula for predicting cancer risk.

It was based on grain consumption and was found to accurately

calculate cancer rates in major European cities. The more grain

consumed, the greater the rate of cancer. " Tanchou's paper was

delivered to the Paris Medical Society in 1843. He also postulated

that cancer would likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer

populations. This began a search among the populations of hunter-

gatherers known to missionary doctors and explorers. This search

continued until WWII when the last wild humans were " civilized "

in the Arctic and Australia. No cases of cancer were ever found

within these populations, although after they adopted the diet

of civilization, it became common. " ? This was mentioned in support

of a low-carbohydrate diet, but could just as easily be used to

support your contention.

> Anyway, this insulin resistance thread makes me think of good

> ol' . Anyone remember him? I didn't agree at the time

> (though I'm beginning to), but he said carbs don't hurt you

> unless you ARE insulin resistant (to paraphrase inaccurately,

> I'm sure).

I don't know , but I definitely do believe that different

populations are genetically predisposed to different levels of

difficulty with high-carbohydrate diets, as well as to gluten.

Do you think that Sally Fallon's ideas and methods effectively

address any of the problems with gluten?

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

While I agree that carbs only hurt you if you are insulin resistant

(as long as you consume them in ways that don't cause insulin

resistance!), I think you are very wrong that gluten causes insulin

resistance and not carbs.

First, because type 2 diabetes involves insulin resistance, not type 1

(insofar as they are distinct " types. " ). T1 being caused by gluten is

totally logical, since it probably involves anti-pancreatic

antibodies. T2 being caused by gluten is not.

Second, because T2 diabetes can be induced in rats by the addition of

sugar to the diet. Since sugar does not have the offending proteins,

that pretty much settles the issue.

Moreover, it is more logical that carbs cause insulin resistance,

because if the cells are constantly barraged by insulin, they grow

resistnat to it. The same thing happens with exposure to man other

chemicals; it is a quite universal phenomenon.

But there are other things to consider. What kind of eating schedule

did healthy carb-eaters consume carbs on? How much fat did they

include? What was the *amount* of carbs? What was the glycemic

index? What was the nutrient composition in totality in their diet?

(low nutrients can cause blood sugar problems too.)

Chris

>

> >About 2 weeks

> >ago I cut out all grains (I wasn't eating that many anyway) and OH

> >BOY what a difference this has made for me. At about a week into

not

> >eating grains, my tummy flattened and I don't have the hypoglycemia

> >symptoms I used to have. I also don't seem to need nearly as much

> >food as I did before. I've lost about 5 pounds, too. Even though

I

> >ate very little grain foods before (a few crackers during the day

and

> >once in a while some sourdough bread), I just can't believe the

> >difference eating NO grains has made. I've lost the constant

bloated

> >feeling, feel very calm, my energy has soared and my sleeping seems

> >better.

>

> The connection between grains and hypoglycemia isn't talked

> about much on this list, but it's a given on the gluten-intolerance

> list. I don't think a lot is known about the reasons, though

cortisol

> comes to mind. Fact is, the connection between " carbs " and " insulin

resistance "

> is about as tenuous as " fat " and " heart disease " . Currently a lot of

> people assume carbs cause insulin resistance, but a lot of healthy,

non-diabetic,

> non-overweight, non-insulin-resistant populations live off high-carb

diets

> (as Price reported also).

>

> There is a LOT of correlation between white (wheat) flour and

insulin resistance,

> and people who eat more white flour have more diabetes. Further,

they

> can induce T1 diabetes in rats by feeding them pure wheat gluten

(the protein

> part of the wheat, not the starch, as is used a lot in vegetarian

" meat " ).

>

> Anyway, this insulin resistance thread makes me think of good ol'

.

> Anyone remember him? I didn't agree at the time (though I'm

beginning to),

> but he said carbs don't hurt you unless you ARE insulin resistant

(to paraphrase

> inaccurately, I'm sure).

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>While I agree that carbs only hurt you if you are insulin resistant

>(as long as you consume them in ways that don't cause insulin

>resistance!), I think you are very wrong that gluten causes insulin

>resistance and not carbs.

>

>First, because type 2 diabetes involves insulin resistance, not type 1

>(insofar as they are distinct " types. " ). T1 being caused by gluten is

>totally logical, since it probably involves anti-pancreatic

>antibodies. T2 being caused by gluten is not.

I admit the issue is not settled, but it is very much up in the air.

First, it turns out that a lot of the current " adult onset " diabetes

is really a cross between T1 and T2.

>Second, because T2 diabetes can be induced in rats by the addition of

>sugar to the diet. Since sugar does not have the offending proteins,

>that pretty much settles the issue.

Sure ... but it is the *addition* of sugar to the diet. Lab rats

get a lot of wheat. Wheat does weird things to a lot of organs,

making them more susceptible to lots of things, including

cancer. Sugar is bad, no doubt about it. But a lab rat that

has grown up on a normal lab rat diet already has an impaired

metabolism.

> Moreover, it is more logical that carbs cause insulin resistance,

>because if the cells are constantly barraged by insulin, they grow

>resistnat to it. The same thing happens with exposure to man other

>chemicals; it is a quite universal phenomenon.

It is very logical. However, T2 diabetes is still mainly endemic

to wheat eating countries, as is obesity (and the two go together).

How come you get all these rich skinny Japanese? Sally and others

come up with genetic explanations, but they start getting the

same problems when they switch to a Western diet. White rice

SHOULD cause insulin resistance, but the current theory, and

it should cause overeating. Yet it doesn't seem to.

>But there are other things to consider. What kind of eating schedule

>did healthy carb-eaters consume carbs on? How much fat did they

>include? What was the *amount* of carbs? What was the glycemic

>index? What was the nutrient composition in totality in their diet?

>(low nutrients can cause blood sugar problems too.)

Healthy carb eaters eat less, absolutely! Wheat eating carb eaters seem to

gorge themselves unmercifully. I think that is the problem.

I think the gliadin interferes with the villi, which are part of the

mechanism that says " stop eating " . Current modern bread has

ADDED gluten, so when you eat a big mac you are getting a huge

gluten load, which allows you to eat TWO big macs.

We have experimented with several diets in this house, with a

whole lunch table full of adults. Without fail, when we were on

a non-wheat diet (Cliff Sheats doesn't allow wheat products for

the first 5 weeks) everyone ate LESS. They were stuffed. And THAT

was a low fat diet!

When I dropped wheat (but not soda pop, cookies, waffles, candy,

white rice or any of the other bad foods) totally, everyone but

me lost weight. My DH lost 20 lbs in a couple of months. He was

not dieting, he was eating cookies and swilling pop. He is not

sensitive to gluten AFAIK. He can't eat a whole pizza anymore,

and my daughter stops after one cookie.

Virtually every person I've talked to who has gone GF has said

the same thing. They can't eat much any more. They don't

get hungry enough. Most of them still have lousy diets.

Most of them still eat sugar. But sugar by itself doesn't

make someone gorge. Sugar plus wheat is deadly.

So yeah, eating too much carb can cause T2 diabetes. But

what throws the appestat off so much that people gorge

to that extent? And why does this gorging happen primarily

in wheat eating countries? It is very, very difficult to get someone

to gorge if their appestat is working correctly.

So, I have zero lab proof of this, but there is pretty interesting

epidemiological evidence and interesting " household evidence " .

The T1 connection has been shown in lab rats and some human

kids ... the T2 connection remains to be proven but I'm betting

it will, in the next 5 years or so. Already most of the newer

" diet " books cut down on wheat products, though they use

different justifications.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Christie,

I don't understand it in detail, but according to Ron Rosedale in his lecture

" Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects " which is on Mercola's site and elsewhere,

people who are not insulin resistant will secrete much less insulin per the

same amount of carbohydrate.

Apparently fasting increases insulin sensitivity. I don't know if this is

because the insulin is more effective, or if the cells build more insulin

receptors. Either way, that means that the same amount of carbohydrate will

*not*

be " excess " in someone who engages in fasting, which *will* be " excess " and

someone who does not.

Chris

In a message dated 9/25/03 3:04:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> Well, my understanding of how the cycle works is that insulin production is

> triggered by the presence of glucose in the bloodstream. If all the insulin

> receptors on the cells are occupied with insulin already (even in the absence

> of insulin resistance), then that glucose will remain in the bloodstream,

> which triggers MORE insulin to be produced even though there are no more

> available receptors for it. In the book " Life Without Bread, " authors Dr.

Christan

> Allan and Dr. Wolfgan Lutz say, " Too much carbohydrate in the diet disrupts

> the balancing act between anabolic and catabolic forces because it sends too

> much insulin into the blood. Since the body will always move to balance

> anabolic and catabolic reactions, increases in insulin must be dealt with in

some

> way. " What happens is that OTHER hormones, such as cortisol, HGH, thyroid,

> even the sex hormones, get out of balance as a consequence of more insulin

being

> present in the body than can be utilized by the cells. So I do believe that

> excess insulin, and EXCESS carb intake which causes large amounts of glucose

> in the blood, are harmful to everyone, not just those with insulin

> resistance.

" 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

[Guest guest]

>> There's nothing wrong with more insulin at all,

to my understanding-- the problem is insulin resistance. <<

Well, my understanding of how the cycle works is that insulin production is

triggered by the presence of glucose in the bloodstream. If all the insulin

receptors on the cells are occupied with insulin already (even in the absence of

insulin resistance), then that glucose will remain in the bloodstream, which

triggers MORE insulin to be produced even though there are no more available

receptors for it. In the book " Life Without Bread, " authors Dr. Christan Allan

and Dr. Wolfgan Lutz say, " Too much carbohydrate in the diet disrupts the

balancing act between anabolic and catabolic forces because it sends too much

insulin into the blood. Since the body will always move to balance anabolic and

catabolic reactions, increases in insulin must be dealt with in some way. " What

happens is that OTHER hormones, such as cortisol, HGH, thyroid, even the sex

hormones, get out of balance as a consequence of more insulin being present in

the body than can be utilized by the cells. So I do believe that excess insulin,

and EXCESS carb intake which causes large amounts of glucose in the blood, are

harmful to everyone, not just those with insulin resistance.

I'm definitely not saying the WD will do this - I am only addressing your remark

about insulin. I am WONDERING if a long period of eating might not have this

effect, because it keeps glucose present in the blood over a long period of

time. I'm not a follower of the " Carbohydrate Addicts Lifespan Program, " but the

Hellers do claim that if your meal takes longer than one hour, it triggers a

secondary release of insulin, whereas if it's less than one hour, that won't

happen. I'm not saying that DOES happen. I'm just asking about it.

I am also not saying that carbs in and of themselves will do this - only EXCESS

carbohydrate consumption. I consider the diet I eat to be a therapeutic diet and

I certainly don't think most people need to stay below 50 grams of carbs a day

to be healthy!

As to Heidi's suggestion that gluten is the culprit more so than carbs, I

honestly don't know. I can see this, but then again, I think sugar has to be a

part of it also. I don't think it's just gluten. But she's right that no study

(AFAIK) has teased these two issues apart. Yet. <G>

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> But sugar by itself doesn't

make someone gorge. <<

This isn't true, at least for me. Ice cream, hot fudge sundaes, fudge, pudding,

creme brulee, mousse, milk shakes, various kinds of candies - I would gorge on

all those things, none of which had the least bit of wheat in it.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>This isn't true, at least for me. Ice cream, hot fudge sundaes, fudge, pudding,

creme brulee, mousse, milk shakes, various kinds of candies - I would gorge on

all those things, none of which had the least bit of wheat in it.

>

>Christie

Some people have a similar reaction with casein ... if you

have leaky gut, casein is a opioid and I notice most of the

things you mention are high-casein. ALso some people have

the same reaction to casein that I do to wheat.

Or maybe it is just a pure sugar reaction.

The question is, would you still do that

if you had been brought up on a diet of rice and fish and

good meat?

My daughter does not gorge, but all her

friends do. I used to eat a whole box of Sees at one sitting!

Now I get full off one little cup of broth or a banana, and

candy is just TOO sweet unless it is homemade. Sugar

by itself, for me or my daughter, does NOT make us

gorge. A lot of other low-wheat cultures have sugar too,

and they don't seem to gorge on it.

Only thing I can figure is that my " off " switch used to

be damaged, and now it isn't. Which is rather disappointing ...

I like the WD but when you have permission to gorge it

would be nice to REALLY gorge but I get full too fast.

Once that switch, or whatever it is (probably the tips of

the villi) gets damaged, it takes months or years to repair.

In the meantime, the person has poor nutrient absorption

and that contributes to the constant feeling of starvation.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:15:10 -0700

" Christie " <christiekeith@...> wrote:

>>> What is your basis for this belief? <<

>

>The reaction of hunger and needing to eat that people on this list have

reported as

they try to go through the day without eating.

#####The diet allows for eating during the day. He doesn't teach water

fasting although some on this list do that during the day. Fruits,

veggies, juices, lean protein, cheese, kefir, etc. are all allowed.

And the hunger phase, while probably different for everyone, passes.

>

>The fact that a large meal eaten over a long period of time triggers more

insulin to be

released than a small (or large, for that matter) meal eaten in a

shorter period of time.

####That is not necessarily a problem..

>

>The fact that the WD as described on this list seems to include a fairly large

amount

of carbohydrate (since I see people discussing eating ice cream and cake),

and carbohydrate stimulates the release of insulin more so than any

other macronutrient.

####I don't know about the ice cream and cake since that is not allowed

on the Warrior Diet, and there is a qualitative difference between such

fare and good carbs, but again a release of insulin is not necessarily bad

unless you are insulin resistant. But the Warrior Diet is designed to

increase insulin sensitivity for those who have that problem.

And the great thing about the WD in my case is that it has allowed me to

enjoy all healthy carbs again without paying attention to them with no

negative consequences. What you find to be a negative I find to be a

positive.

On the other hand, it is quite possible to keep your carbs low and

follow the WD. The guy who got me thinking about the WD again is doing

just that, although I understand he is having a hard time keeping his weight

up even though he eats an awful lot at the feast meal.

>

>The fact that I have, in my life, eaten only one meal a day, and I observed

firsthand

how it impacted me (not suggesting this was in accordance with WD

principles, but this experience is part of the basis for my belief).

###I have done that too, even lost weight to boot, but it wasn't

according to the principles of the WD and the results can't even begin

to compare.

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison, similar to comparing

fasting and starvation, which aren't even close.

>

>The experience I have had of eating regular meals throughout the day,

stabilizing my blood sugar, suggesting to me that for many people,

particularly women and especially women who have excess body fat, that

this is a viable strategy (if carbs are limited and abundant fat is

eaten), which makes me skeptical about the benefit of the opposite

strategy.

#### It would seem that others experiences are suggesting the WD is just as

viable, if not more so, than Atkins, if only because most folks do not

want to restrict an entire food category when it comes to eating.

>

>If you mean do I have any scientific studies showing that eating the Warrior

Diet

will increase insulin resistance, no, of course I don't. And I've done

something here that I always hate it when people do to things like

Atkins or a raw diet for dogs, which is, forming my opinions about

something without having read the book(s) myself. Of course, some of the

folks on this list started the WD without reading the book either. <G>

So I'm really talking about the eating plan as presented on this list,

and the general idea of eating one very large meal a day and little or

nothing the rest of the day.

####I think just about all of us started the WD without having read the

book, and just about all of us have had positive experiences with the WD.

So I am not sure how from this list you could gather the idea that it is not

beneficial, even for people who have hormonal issues. Actually,

according to Ori, especially for people who have hormonal issues.

>

>It may be that body will adapt to the one-big-meal and,

###Well that is what he teaches

as long as the

person is consistent, and that insulin resistance won't be a factor. I

honestly don't know. But it would be a disaster for me. Of course since

what I'm doing is working so well, that is a moot point.

>

>Christie

####Sounds like you got a great plan. So yup, I guess it does make the

WD moot for you :-)

The Discovery of a Warrior Queen

http://tinyurl.com/o25i

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:36:09 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>Anyway, this insulin resistance thread makes me think of good ol' .

>Anyone remember him? I didn't agree at the time (though I'm beginning to),

>but he said carbs don't hurt you unless you ARE insulin resistant (to

paraphrase

>inaccurately, I'm sure).

>

>-- Heidi

>

LOL! You should email this to him privately. He would probably have a

heart attack!

The Discovery of a Warrior Queen

http://tinyurl.com/o25i

[Guest guest]

>The fact that the WD as described on this list seems to include a fairly

large amount

of carbohydrate (since I see people discussing eating ice cream and cake),

and carbohydrate stimulates the release of insulin more so than any

other macronutrient.

####I don't know about the ice cream and cake since that is not allowed

on the Warrior Diet,

----->michael, are you sure about the ice cream? i don't see why my homemade

ice cream wouldn't be WD-compatible. the ingredients are raw cream, unheated

honey, egg yolks and vanilla. there doesn't seem to be anything not

compatible with the WD in this list, does there? i'm assuming that ori's

referring to commercial ice cream, and perhaps the refined sugar in such

products?

btw, christie, my ice cream is relatively low carb - i think you had

mentioned something about ice cream being high carb in a previous post? i

don't know if the USDA figures on honey are accurate or not, but if they

are, then a typical serving of my ice cream probably has about 5 gs of

carbs, from the honey. and i'm guessing the heavy cream and egg yolks don't

have much carb to speak of. and i have to say, homemade ice cream from

pastured raw cream and yolks is out of this world! yum! even if it weren't

compatible with the WD i'd continue eating it as it's compatible with my

nutritional needs as well as my tastebuds :-)

it also seems to be a good way for me to *not* undereat during the

*over*eating phase, which i tend to do, since i become satiated rather

quickly. but i can always fit in a little ice cream! LOL

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:49:09 -0400

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>####I don't know about the ice cream and cake since that is not allowed

>on the Warrior Diet,

>

>

>----->michael, are you sure about the ice cream? i don't see why my homemade

>ice cream wouldn't be WD-compatible. the ingredients are raw cream, unheated

>honey, egg yolks and vanilla. there doesn't seem to be anything not

>compatible with the WD in this list, does there? i'm assuming that ori's

>referring to commercial ice cream, and perhaps the refined sugar in such

>products?

>

I meant commercial ice cream. The homemade NT stuff is just fine.

Exciting Jealousy in Women and Terror in Men

Taki on marriage.

http://tinyurl.com/p7pr