Re: Chris's Warrior Menu

[Guest guest]

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I thought that food stayed in

the stomach for about 20 minutes and then spent much more time in the

intestines? Food moves through the stomach much faster in a larger

meal, so actually if you eat a very small portion of food it might

stay in the stomach for a while, and a warrior meal might move along

rather quickly.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> I eat a lot of fat too but, as I said, with a calorie allotment of less than

> 1500 I don't want to spend it all on fatty acids. I know they're good and I

> eat a lot of 'em but I need vitamins and minerals big-time. I'm trying to

> rebuild a broken system. Had malnutrition over a year ago.

I'm not sure I follow here. Seems to me you would want some of the

most nutrient dense foods available, as well as foods that were

healing for the gut. That would be mostly fatty foods.

> On that note, you might be interested to know that prior to having an ulcer

> two years ago that turned out to be one of the triggers for celiac syndrome

> and then a subsequent proven celiac diagnosis, I was eating about 3 or 4

> times as many calories/day and not putting on a pound of weight. Of course

> I was a lot more active but I was the same exact size and weight I am now

> and very close to the same age.

>

>

>

> I was able to eat almost as much as in a day. I didn't know it at the

> time (because I had no symptoms) but I wasn't absorbing much of anything and

> my guts were getting more and more wrecked from gluten and casein. All that

> food and I was malnourished. It happened so slowly that I didn't notice.

I think malabsorption is a problem period for many folks, especially

SAD'ers but not exclusively so, whether or not one is gluten and/or

casein intolerant. People's belly's might be full but they are for all

intents and purposes malnourished. As the old saying goes, its not

what you eat but what you digest and assimilate.

> And I have a little parable I'd like to share. I hope that is

> listening:

>

>

>

> " If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water he will jump out but if you put

> a frog in a pot of cold water and heat it to boiling he will die.

>

>

>

> Get it? That was me..

Yes I have heard this many times in many different contexts over the years.

take care,

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

Since we were discussing the importance (or unimportance!) of weight and

weight loss I wanted to point out that, even though I had malnutrition due

to the workings of classic celiac disease (temporary hair-loss, brittle

nails, etc.,) I had my bone density tested a couple weeks ago because my

doctor said that I probably had osteoporosis. The test, not based on age,

showed that I was in the high/normal for bone density -- a score of 60.

I'm now thinking that my bones survived the loss of mineral absorption

because of a lifetime of weight-bearing exercise (my job, motorcycles,

karate, weightlifting and yoga.)

Does anyone know how that " weight-bearing exercise " bit plays out in terms

of nutrition? It's like the sun making vitamin D, I don't know how a bone

can stay alive without minerals.. Maybe the minerals I was eating, rather

than being absorbed through my broken digestive tract, were being absorbed

differently? Sublingually?

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>About the Warrior Diet, another thing occurred to me: I thought that a

>person's stomach is supposed to hold about 2 cups of food, un-stretched. I

>wonder what all this fluctuation in warrior feasting does for the health of

>the organs? Good or bad?

I don't know that rules of thumb like that really mean anything at

all. They're derived from observations made in unnatural and unhealthy

environments.

Consider that herbivores eat for large parts of the day, some of them all

but constantly, while carnivores generally eat relatively infrequent but

large meals. I think it's pretty clear that humans are a lot closer to the

carnivorous end of the spectrum.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> It sounds good at first blush to be able to eat a lot and not put on

> extra pounds but in ancient warrior times I think it would have been

> maybe better to be able to get by on very little -- the opposite of

> what we value now.

The Warrior Diet itself is actually based on an ancient/traditional

pattern, which was part of the initial attraction for me. The warriors

went with very little during the day, in order to be sharp and ready,

but when evening came and the need to be alert for conflict was over,

at least for the night, they feasted away.

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

>>[robin] About the Warrior Diet, another thing occurred to me: I thought

that a

>>person's stomach is supposed to hold about 2 cups of food, un-stretched. 

I

>>wonder what all this fluctuation in warrior feasting does for the health

of

>>the organs? Good or bad?

>[paul]I don't know that rules of thumb like that really mean anything at

>all.  They're derived from observations made in unnatural and unhealthy

>environments.

>Consider that herbivores eat for large parts of the day, some of them all

>but constantly, while carnivores generally eat relatively infrequent but

>large meals.  I think it's pretty clear that humans are a lot closer to the

>carnivorous end of the spectrum.

and What about stomach acid, pepsin and enzymes? I don’t know

about but big meals would seem to require a lot of extra HCl and

pancreatin because one’s stomach gets more alkaline upon the ingestion of

food. Less acid = more stomach-churning to get the job done. It'll burn more

calories though I guess..

And on that note: Stomach emptying rates are helped, I think, by at least

some movement after a meal. Hence the after-dinner walk that helps with

gastric motility.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> Okay so this is what I'm just plain not understanding about the Warrior

> Diet: any of these sorts of dieting schedules, from the old grapefruit diet

> to this one, depend on something other than the simple intake and outgo of

> calories.

Perhaps because you view dietary approaches as a " simple intake and

outgo of calories? " Depending on the dynamics of the diet and what you

are trying to accomplish, caloric output does not necessarily remain

constant.

> That's fine. But to me that is *also* saying that, since you're not really

> " getting " the calories you actually eat, why do you think you are getting

> the nutrients?

>

> And if you're not getting the nutrients, why bother?

I don't follow. All those nutrients are used for repair, for building,

for maintenance in a more efficient way than if I was sedentary and

still eating the same amounts.

Also intermittent fasting, of which the WD is a type, seems to

increase the efficiency of the uptake of nutrients.

> And unless you're Lance Armstrong this week, exercise ain't gonna put a dent

> in that many calories.

I disagree, especially if one weight trains, given the needed

additional nutrients as mentioned above which goes on for several days

afterward, not just during the workout. Not to mention with an

increase in muscle mass over time, the concomitant increase in the

resting metabolic rate, among other things.

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

> " I don't remember whether I said

> anything or not, but when people talk about their weight as if it is

> important in this type of way, it really makes me lose respect for

> their intelligence. Like, how can you consider *weight* as an

> isolated variable and important indicator of health?

>

Well, an intelligent person, who knows that they are a few pounds overweight,

and is not into the vanity of bodybuilding, knows that weight can be a very

objective indicator of whether they are shedding fat. Right now I'm 150 and

could really stand to lose some flab. I can easily convince myself that I look

thinner, or feel thinner. The scale doesn't lie. I do kettlebells, but I'm not

trying to put on lots of muscle, and so that really isn't an important variable.

[Guest guest]

>>The Warrior Diet itself is actually based on an ancient/traditional

pattern, which was part of the initial attraction for me. The warriors

went with very little during the day, in order to be sharp and ready,

but when evening came and the need to be alert for conflict was over,

at least for the night, they feasted away.

>>

Hi , Okay.. but don't you think there had to be a lot of down time,

you know, in between disputes?

I'm not seeing how humans are all that much different than everything else

in nature; A carnivore tends to eat " anything it can subdue " whenever it can

-- or if food abounds, whenever it is hungry and that's the distinction I

think this diet wants to make: food just wasn't always around back then and

so there were periods of feast and periods of fast. (I think said that

earlier?)

Again, I just don't think warriors would be that much different than you or

me and if, day to day, food is around, I think we'd just eat when we were

hungry. Now if there was a big fight brewing, sure, we'd eat up everything

in site in order to sustain us longer in case it went into over-time.

Whether that practice is healthy long-term, day to day, I don't know. A lot

of these guys probably died at the head of a spear or something anyway..

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>Again, I just don't think warriors would be that much different than you or

>me and if, day to day, food is around, I think we'd just eat when we were

>hungry. Now if there was a big fight brewing, sure, we'd eat up everything

>in site in order to sustain us longer in case it went into over-time.

Whether or not they were free, top gladiators were pampered in many

ways. I doubt they concentrated their food intake at the end of the day

due to supply problems.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>Mid-course snack: 1 Glass orange juice (2g protein, 26g carb)

Was it fresh squeezed? <g>

> Oh yes, my Course 4 brought me from low-carb to not low-carb for sure.

> But would one meal over the course of an hour or so dictate how the

> body would metabolize for the next 23?

I don't know if this has any application here, but IIRC the authors of

the Carbohydrates Addicts Diet state that you have one hour upon

commencing a starchy meal to eat as much as you want without any

negative effects. Apparently from their research your body

produced insulin in two phases. The big rush occurs if you eat beyond

the one hour mark. The Heller's have a reward meal concept that is

some superficial ways is not all that dissimilar from the WD.

>How long does one have to eat

> low-carb for in order to become ketogenic?

It takes several days. However if one wants to remain in the ketogenic

state while occasionally munching on more carbs, then one has to be

ketogenic for two weeks straight. Such is the basis for cyclical

ketogenic style diets.

>Shouldn't we account for

> the fact that much of those carbs might not be burned off for energy

> since my glycogen stores were probably depleted?

If Ori is correct (and the US Navy IIRC) doesn't it take awhile to

increase your glycogen storage?

> Not that my goal is to eat ketogenically, just making an observation,

> but typically my diet would be a little lower in carbs as I had said

> above. (Pizzas a sometimes thing, and ice cream too. The OJ I only

> drank because I got a sugar craving after all the chicken soup--

> perhaps because it was so high-protein low-fat.)

Thus cream of chicken soup <G>

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>The test, not based on age,

>showed that I was in the high/normal for bone density -- a score of 60.

I think that bones can remineralize pretty quickly when everything's

working right, so I'm not sure how illuminating your current density

is. We don't know what it was before you got sick and we don't know what

it was at your sickest.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I thought that food stayed in

>the stomach for about 20 minutes and then spent much more time in the

>intestines?

That's definitely wrong. Depending on whom you ask (and on your individual

diet and physiology) food should stay in your stomach anywhere from two to

four hours.

>Food moves through the stomach much faster in a larger

>meal, so actually if you eat a very small portion of food it might

>stay in the stomach for a while, and a warrior meal might move along

>rather quickly.

If it's true that the stomach empties larger meals more quickly, it just

indicates that larger meals place greater demands on the stomach to produce

acid, intrinsic factor and so on, meaning that the consequences of

inadequacy will be correspondingly greater.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I don't know if this has any application here, but IIRC the authors of

>the Carbohydrates Addicts Diet state that you have one hour upon

>commencing a starchy meal to eat as much as you want without any

>negative effects.

That's a fantasy, in my experience.

>It takes several days. However if one wants to remain in the ketogenic

>state while occasionally munching on more carbs, then one has to be

>ketogenic for two weeks straight. Such is the basis for cyclical

>ketogenic style diets.

I thought many cyclical ketogenic diets involved low-carbing during the

week and high-carbing on the weekend.

>Thus cream of chicken soup <G>

Exactly!

-

[Guest guest]

>> [robin] And unless you're Lance Armstrong this week, exercise ain't gonna

>> put a dent in that many calories.

>[michael]I disagree, especially if one weight trains, given the needed

>additional nutrients as mentioned above which goes on for several days

>afterward, not just during the workout. Not to mention with an

>increase in muscle mass over time, the concomitant increase in the

>resting metabolic rate, among other things.

and , I guess I'd better qualify what " dent " means.. I'm

guessing that an hour of non-stop heavy weight training for 170 lb. man

would be about 400 calories or so? Maybe that's a dent in 5000 calories? So

then we add in some other daily activities and that leaves you with a

resting-metabolism-rate of -- and I'm being generous here -- certainly no

fewer than 4000 calories/day to use up with metabolism. Still seems high to

me...

Facts and figures gentlemen? :-) ~Robin

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> If it's true that the stomach empties larger meals more quickly, it just

> indicates that larger meals place greater demands on the stomach to produce

> acid, intrinsic factor and so on, meaning that the consequences of

> inadequacy will be correspondingly greater.

While those things may or may not be true, no, it doesn't indicate

that. It just reflects the fact that two things are more likely to

collide when the concentration of either is greater. There is one

sphinctor at one specific spot in the stomach that can allow 3mL of

chyme (basically liquified or mushed food) through at a time. So, if

the food is scattered through the stomach, then at each chance the

sphinctor has a chance to pump chyme through, there is a

proportionally smaller chance that the chyme will be in the right

place at that time to be let through. The more food let into the

stomach at one time, the greater the concentration of chyme, and the

more likely that there will be chyme knocking on the door, so to

speak, when the door man opens it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Well, an intelligent person, who knows that they are a few pounds

>overweight, and is not into the vanity of bodybuilding, knows that weight

>can be a very objective indicator of whether they are shedding fat. Right

>now I'm 150 and could really stand to lose some flab. I can easily

>convince myself that I look thinner, or feel thinner. The scale doesn't

>lie. I do kettlebells, but I'm not trying to put on lots of muscle, and so

>that really isn't an important variable.

The scale doesn't lie, but it also doesn't tell you what you've actually

lost or gained either. Heck, I have one of those scales that supposedly

tells you your body fat percentage, and I don't think it's especially

accurate either. It does seem consistent provided you use it at the same

time every day and with the same amount of food and drink in (or not in)

you, though, so I suppose it has its use.

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> Gene-

>

> >Well, an intelligent person, who knows that they are a few pounds

> >overweight, and is not into the vanity of bodybuilding, knows that weight

> >can be a very objective indicator of whether they are shedding fat. Right

> >now I'm 150 and could really stand to lose some flab. I can easily

> >convince myself that I look thinner, or feel thinner. The scale doesn't

> >lie. I do kettlebells, but I'm not trying to put on lots of muscle, and so

> >that really isn't an important variable.

>

> The scale doesn't lie, but it also doesn't tell you what you've actually

> lost or gained either. Heck, I have one of those scales that supposedly

> tells you your body fat percentage, and I don't think it's especially

> accurate either. It does seem consistent provided you use it at the same

> time every day and with the same amount of food and drink in (or not in)

> you, though, so I suppose it has its use.

Sure, it's very useful. I'm about 150 now. When I get to 140, I know that within

some margin of error, I've lost most of the weight I want to lose. Of course

there will be fluctuation from day to day, but if you're intelligent about it,

and don't obsess about every pound, it can give you valuable information.

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>I'm

>guessing that an hour of non-stop heavy weight training for 170 lb. man

>would be about 400 calories or so?

Something like 465 calories per hour of heavy-duty (but not non-stop, which

would be difficult or impossible and harmful) lifting. But lifting also

revs the metabolism for hours afterwards AND builds muscle tissue which

consumes more calories around the clock AND requires more food to be used

structurally rather than burned for energy.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Well, you were so specific with kcalories in, how about an estimate for

> the workouts in terms of energy spent. I think it's safe to say you

> were burning mucho carbs. And that's another thing: you asked about

> high intensity work on ketogenic diets, so please go get some ketostix

> and see if you are ketogenic; so, how does the workout go along with the

> diet. I tend to feel weaker doing strength while in ketosis, Ron said

> the same but he increased gains nonetheless.

When I was fasting *and* working out, my strength *and* energy

increased. While I had read that in the fasting literature, I wouldn't

have believed it without personally experiencing it. But of course

that is a temporary phenomenom and obviously can't be maintained. In

other words you have to start eating solid foods again, LOL!

On the other hand, low carbing, while it didn't affect my strength

gains, did affect my energy somewhat. I think some of it can be

attributed to the fact that the amount of carbs that you can eat and

still remain in ketosis goes up the more active you are, and that

probably needs to be carefully monitored. I can easily consume a lot

more net carbs a day and still have that ketostix right in the purple

area if I am very active with sports and weights. I think some of it

may be that the diet really needs to be very high in fat when doing

this. And I think some of it may be that it takes quite awhile to make

the change over such that you *feel* as good as you did as before.

I know of number of elite athletes who have tried low carbing, but

used it only for temporary purposes. The adjustment period is just too

long so they drop it. Unless you are a Tiger Woods who was young

enough to make a major adjustment to his game (and he still was making

HUGE money even though he wasn't winning majors), a year of

sub-optimal performance can be death for many elite athletes.

But I'm sure some trainers are getting some younger folks on this path.

FWIW, the old time bodybuilders did low carb, but once drugs entered

the sport they couldn't compete with the kind of results

bodybuilding+drugs produced.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Sure, it's very useful. I'm about 150 now. When I get to 140, I know that

>within some margin of error, I've lost most of the weight I want to lose.

>Of course there will be fluctuation from day to day, but if you're

>intelligent about it, and don't obsess about every pound, it can give you

>valuable information.

The fat percentage measurement, provided it's at least consistent, strikes

me as a lot more useful than a mere weight measurement, which can confuse

matters depending on momentary water retention, blood, indigestion, muscle

loss or gain, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying weight is a useless data point, but the fact is that I have

to lose a good deal of fat... and yet ultimately I might wind up wanting to

weigh about what I do now.

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> Gene-

>

> >Sure, it's very useful. I'm about 150 now. When I get to 140, I know that

> >within some margin of error, I've lost most of the weight I want to lose.

> >Of course there will be fluctuation from day to day, but if you're

> >intelligent about it, and don't obsess about every pound, it can give you

> >valuable information.

>

> The fat percentage measurement, provided it's at least consistent, strikes

> me as a lot more useful than a mere weight measurement, which can confuse

> matters depending on momentary water retention, blood, indigestion, muscle

> loss or gain, etc. etc. etc.

Of course. But I don't really have access to that information, and the scale is

one objective number that can fit into the overall picture. >

> I'm not saying weight is a useless data point, but the fact is that I have

> to lose a good deal of fat... and yet ultimately I might wind up wanting to

> weigh about what I do now.

>

Sure. Don't disagree at all. however, I can't see gaining 10-15 pounds of muscle

in the next couple of months, nor would I want to, actually. So the scale makes

sense. That's really my point - if you're intelligent about it, it's a useful

tool.

[Guest guest]

<The more food let into the

stomach at one time, the greater the concentration of chyme, and the

more likely that there will be chyme knocking on the door, so to

speak, when the door man opens it.

Given my scarcity of digestive enzymes, it just doesn't work this way for

me. The more food in my stomach, the less acid/enzymes to take care of it,

and the less ready it is for the doorman.

I'm not sure whether he keeps the door closed (thus keeping my stomach

struggling with its load) or allows some non-chyme chunks through (perhaps

making my small intestine unhappy). Whatever his decision, I am miserable

and long after the food is gone (i.e. more than the four hours

mentions), my stomach is still spewing forth acid, maybe because it's just

on a roll and can't stop. The Warrior Diet would kill this old lady.

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> and What about stomach acid, pepsin and enzymes? I don't know

> about but big meals would seem to require a lot of extra HCl and

> pancreatin because one's stomach gets more alkaline upon the ingestion of

> food. Less acid = more stomach-churning to get the job done. It'll burn

> more calories though I guess..

Do you have a reference for the alkalinizing effect of food? That's

only going to be true to the extent that bases are released into the

actual solution of stomach acid at a higher rate than acids. Sugars

are acidic and fats are acidic if the fatty acids are freed and

otherwise neutral. Proteins are buffering, so I think they would

contribute bases to the solution if it's acidic. But the stomach has

to be very acidic, so much so that I would think the amount of HCl

released for some food would have to dwarf the amount of additional

HCl needed to neutralize the basic effect of a protein, but I'm just

speculating and we'd have to see some figures to make any sense of it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Something like 465 calories per hour of heavy-duty (but not non-stop, which

>would be difficult or impossible and harmful) lifting.  But lifting also

>revs the metabolism for hours afterwards AND builds muscle tissue which

>consumes more calories around the clock AND requires more food to be used

>structurally rather than burned for energy.

>-

I certainly agree that weightlifting (and exercise in general) increases

metabolism and creates muscle mass that further burns calories. I guess what

I'm trying to get at for purposes of discussion is the difference between a

person's calorie intake and what he uses for metabolism and energy and how

this feast/fast diet affects that ratio. Is this person burning fuel

efficiently?

I think we're missing a variable: Without an accurate

resting-metabolism-rate, isn't it hard to come to any sort of conclusion?

Since the premise of WD seems to involve a lot of mechanics, I hope someone

will get their RMR measured before and, say, a month into the diet while

also keeping track of calories and extra exercise expenditure. This would

give us something to go on.

~Robin