PDA

View Full Version : What's your "diet"?



rob_s
11-20-09, 12:06
Recent post on suggested reading made me curious how others eat. Not so much "I have this for breakfast, this for lunch" etc. but more in terms of what your theories on good nutrition are. I have run into a lot of people that are heavily into organic food, and alkali, and the blood type diet, etc. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. This also isn't about the latest diet craze to lose weight. This is about a what kind of eating habits you find make you the healthiest and, more importantly, feel the best and get you through the day.

I find myself striving for as much of a Paleolithic diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet) as possible. From the wikipedia page, "consists mainly of meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts; and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils." Which is pretty accurate for what I try to do, although I confess to having a major sweet tooth and get all ADD if I don't have some kind of refined sugar after a meal. I like DumDum lollipops for this a lot. I also can't live without my cheese, so that's the dairy I have.

I tend to follow the Zone diet in terms of ratios of proteins to carbs, as well as the portion sizes and the 5 meals a day thing.

Generally speaking I find that I've done better with "diets" when I allow myself a little cheating and don't beat myself up about it. So the DumDums and the cheese to me are ways to otherwise stay on track. If I try to follow any one thing too stringently I just wind up unable to maintain things. Frankly though I don't consider dairy products to really be much of a "cheat".

I find that when I stick to my "plan" and begin each day with a workout of some sort, I can get by easily on 6 hours of sleep a night and have no energy problems throughout the day and no need at all for caffeine or sugar beyond my DumDums.

I absolutely "cheat" for convenience too. I have at least two Whopper jrs a month before my regularly scheduled shooting events, and I will eat as many as 4 McDonalds breakfast sandwiches a month as well, although lately it's been more like 2.

extsieg
11-25-09, 21:14
I have been on a 4 block zone life style for 8 months now. I get buy with just plain old carbs, protein and fat. As its a life style change I refuse to even look at a Fast Food joint no matter how hungry I may be. My energy levels stay consistent thru the day in part by not spiking my system with insulin bombs.

As its a life style for me now I don't look at it as a fad diet its just the way I eat. Give the body what it needs in exact portions and you will perform better in all aspects of daily life.

BushmasterFanBoy
11-28-09, 19:53
I eat a pretty varied diet. Wherever I can, I stick mostly to unprocessed foods. Very rarely do I eat something that I didn't prepare. I don't watch for nutritional content very much, I'm mostly counting calories and keeping portions small.

I try to eat 3 meals a day, with no snacking in between. I'd like to transition to a 5-6 meal a day plan, but since portions are pretty small as it is, I don't know if I'd ever get full. :eek: I'm usually a sucker for sweets, but I keep it small, and try not to beat myself up over it.

I mostly try to get a good bit of protein with each meal, and cut out the starchy stuff. I don't drink anything with caffiene, anything carbonated, or anything that's artificially sweetened, so that pretty much means milk, fruit juice, and water. Right now my big crutch is the juice, so if I run out, its milk or water, which can really make a meal go bland.

Breakfast is typically an egg with some meat (a slice of ham or 2 strips of bacon, rarely), or two eggs if there's no meat. Lunch is usually lean meat, with cottage cheese or vegetables as a side. Dinner is mostly a re-hash of lunch, just with something different to wash it down with.

In the last year, I've changed my eating habits a lot. I used to eat whenever I got bored, for any reason at all. And I'd eat whatever tasted best, too. My "diet" consisted of whatever greasy, sugary, fried, sweet, microwavable thing was in reach, lol.

drsal
11-28-09, 20:01
Simple diet..low carb, moderate protein intake, daily veges, lots of water...oh yeah the occasional dunkin donuts/ twinkies do find themselves included in the diet plan.
What can I say..:p

WS6
11-29-09, 21:51
60% complex carbs, 25-30% protein, 10-15% fat

Carbs happen towards the beginning of the day with some protein, and the bulk of fat and protein happens during the latter half of the day.

.75-1gal water a day,

Complex carbs come from:
Brown rice, whole-wheat bread, vegetables, and things of that nature.


Protein comes from:
Eggs, fish, chicken breast, steak, legumes

Fat comes from:
Eggs, legumes, steak

This is just a quick and dirty of how I eat when I am behaving myself. So far (before shoulder injury, which is healing swiftly), it had maintained me at around 170-175#, 10-11% body-fat, and able to bench 100# more than my weight, jog 4-5 miles breathing through my nose only, and do 15-20 pull-ups.

Nothing glorious, but I consider it "functionally" fit.

*I have lost strength due to my shoulder injury on my bench. My back/legs have not lost much, nor have my arms. My weight has fluctuated less than 3# (went from 174-176 to being 178.6# according to my digital "take a guess" accurate scale, lol) from being out of the gym for roughly a month.

photosniper
11-30-09, 09:42
Very little fried food and I try to eat a lot of fruit. Diet is important but I think the fluids we put into our bodies are sometimes more important than the food.
I drink spring/purified water, coffee and limited amounts of fruit juice (limited because of all the complex sugars). I'll go weeks without soda, ice-tea, beer and other drinks and when I do drink stuff like that, I do so sparingly.
I've noticed a big difference in my overall health since I cut out the soda and sweet drinks.

rob_s
11-30-09, 09:57
I agree that cutting out soda is a great way to start, but it also gets used as an excuse for making up for it in other ways. Hence the 300 lb fatbodies you see loading up at McDonalds and then topping it off with a "diet soda". :rolleyes:

Patrick Aherne
11-30-09, 10:59
I feel best and lose weight when I cut out simple carbs. Based on my Dr.'s recommendation because of my family history, I find the Atkins Diet works best for me. Not the "Induction" phase that everybody tries, but can't stay on, but a limited carb, or good carb diet. I just cut out all the pasta, bread and potatoes I LOVE. I still drink a diet soda or crystal light mix. Breyer's makes a Carb Smart ice cream bar that is only 5 carbs and atkins makes a peanut nougat candy when I really need a sweet fix. I like almonds and peanuts for snacking and I try to drink > 2 liters of water per day. There is no way I could give up caffeine, but I have tried to cut back. I was drinking 6-8 cups of coffee a day, until I started having stomach problems. Now, I'm down to one or two large coffees in the am and decaf tea in the afternoon.

30 cal slut
11-30-09, 13:57
in September I kinda went off the deep end and went vegetarian, sort of.

i just stopped eating meat (all kinds) and fish. i still hunt and fish, though. :confused:

i'm still eating dairy and eggs for protein.

Derek_Connor
12-01-09, 13:17
I've been recently experimenting with The Paleo approach as well. So far, so good.

Pretty much, if man 'made it', I am not eating it (except whey protein, fish oil caps, multi-vit). So this means avoidance of grains, sugar, starch, HFCS, artificial sweetners, etc.

Lots of meat, coconut, more meat, sour cream, cream (no milk), veggies with full fat dressings, and a sprinkle of fruit here and there, mostly berries.

My workouts lately have dramatically increased, just recently set PRs in the bench press and deadlift. Dont know if its due to the diet, normal progress, or being more connected mind <-> body, or a combo.

JHC
12-01-09, 19:08
Paleo is about as good as it gets. I like to combine this with The Warrior Diet - adjusted for my 5:30AM workouts. Fitness and nutrition has been a hobby of mine as intense as my shooting habit for quite a few decades (I'm 52 at 5' 11" and 170 with under 10% bodyfat). I've done massive protein, massive calories, vegetarian yada yada yada. Paleo with a nod to The Warrior Diet is as good as it gets - unless perhaps if you are a under 30 competitive athlete.

MarshallDodge
12-01-09, 19:19
I try to cut the sugars, white bread, processed, sat fats, etc. and include fresh vegetables, fruit, and nuts in my diet. Pretty close to the Zone.

I do like the occasional ice cream and my wife made my favorite pecan pie with homemade whipped cream for Thanksgiving. I have had a small slice with a little dollop of whipped cream every day since. Today was the last piece which is both good and bad. ;)

CoryCop25
12-01-09, 19:28
I am VERY interested in this thread. As a cop with swinging hours and 4 kids, it is really hard to stick to any type of regiment. I recently stopped going to the gym because I needed to cut the extra $60 a month from the budget. When I stop going to the gym, i tend to gain weight instantly! I was 187 last summer and am 215 now. I recently cut sugar COMPLETELY out of my diet and find myself craving it. I have never been one to eat sweets and now I crave them. When I do watch what I eat, I generally eat cerial and yogert for breakfast and a salad for lunch and meat for dinner.

Azul
12-01-09, 20:25
Collegiate budget allows for a much less diverse diet than i would like

Carbs for me come in the form of
Baked Potatoes(sweet if possible), oatmeal, wheat bread

Proteins are
Turkey,Chicken,Fish, red meat sparingly

Vegetables i can eat about 90% of whats out there but i try to get it raw whenever possible or cooked very simply(boiled)

Schedule makes things hard but i would otherwise have much more elaborately planned meals as far as lowering calories/maximizing nutrition

I probably know the Glycemic index by heart now and have been doing increasingly well in evading Fast Food joints

Sadly though Im heavy on the caffeine, either black coffee or sugar free energy drinks. Not a consistent addiction but when its crunch time i dont see much of a choice.

I have a cheating rule in which i let myself cheat 3 meals a week, max 1 per day. Helps keep me sane

Derek_Connor
12-01-09, 20:26
Cory, if you find yourself craving sugar, try increasing your healthy fat intake (saturated/mono-saturated)

I've had great success w/this..

For those of you who are interested in the Paleo approach, I regularly read these blogs (no affiliation to the owners):

Dr. Jeff Harris at PaNu (http://www.paleonu.com/)

and

Mark Sisson @ Mark's Daily Apple (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/)


There is some things in there that really go against what we've been ingrained to follow, so if it shocks you at first...its normal.

CoryCop25
12-01-09, 22:23
Cory, if you find yourself craving sugar, try increasing your healthy fat intake (saturated/mono-saturated)
Will do, thanks!

WS6
12-02-09, 00:06
Will do, thanks!

Fat is what is responsible for that feeling of satiety you are craving.

Azul
12-02-09, 01:49
Whats the quickest source of the healthy fat, nuts?

rob_s
12-02-09, 04:37
I am VERY interested in this thread. As a cop with swinging hours and 4 kids, it is really hard to stick to any type of regiment. I recently stopped going to the gym because I needed to cut the extra $60 a month from the budget. When I stop going to the gym, i tend to gain weight instantly! I was 187 last summer and am 215 now. I recently cut sugar COMPLETELY out of my diet and find myself craving it. I have never been one to eat sweets and now I crave them. When I do watch what I eat, I generally eat cerial and yogert for breakfast and a salad for lunch and meat for dinner.
Look into the Zone Diet. while not perfect, it's an established eating plan and there are lots of books on the subject. The best one is a guide to readily available restaurant, even fast food, offerings that work with the Zone. It makes it much easier to follow the plan if there are options availalbe when you're out and about.

My personal opinion is that having a plan is as important as what plan you have. Lots of people will rave about one plan or another, without ever having tried anything else, and the truth is that the plan they chose only works because almost anything is better than the horrible fast/junk food diet they were on before. Even just going from a diet of all restaurant food to a diet of eating all home-prepared food is an improvement.

Derek_Connor
12-02-09, 11:18
Whats the quickest source of the healthy fat, nuts?

Rule of thumb from recent books/lit I've read and that I've used, stick with the saturated and monosatured fats. Avoid poly's.

I use alot of coconut milk, heavy whipping cream, all the saturated/mono fat in the animal meat, bacon, chicken (including the skin), beef..

Nuts I'd avoid, they are a trigger food and easy to over do on. If do want nuts, I'd go for Macadamia nuts.

extsieg
12-02-09, 12:05
I started out with this free quick start guide provided by the folks over at CrossFit HQ.

ZONE Meal Plans (http://journal.crossfit.com/2004/05/zone-meal-plans-crossfit-journ.tpl)

Cascades236
12-05-09, 01:56
I try to eat Paleo with the addition of milk.

I have a lot of zone recipes I use but I'm a pretty lean guy as is and wasn't seeing a lot of strict zoning.
The important part for me is to eat clean. I work nights and the added energy is noticeable.

and what would my post be without a quick recipe?

5 block smoothie:
1 oz protein powder
1/2 cup plain yogurt
1/2 cup water
1/2 cup grape juice
5 tsp almonds
1 cup mixed berries (I use 6-8 frozen strawberries from Costco)

trojanman
12-05-09, 20:03
Im trying the paleo and really like it so far. There are some paleo forums out there as well to help you out. I like it some dont

Derek_Connor
12-11-09, 13:03
whats your definition of "eating clean"?

gfunx2000
12-11-09, 18:03
I've been eating paleo recently. I have been happy with the results so far. I found myself feeling full but not satisfied for a week or so, but I've adjusted to it now. I feel much better all around. I don't have the discipline or interest at this point in life to measure and weigh out food and I don't really see it happening, plus I like to eat more than the Zone allows - no calorie restriction for me.

GLB
12-12-09, 10:24
I just started the Warrior diet a little over a week into it. My energy level went up right away which is the reason I started it. Its basicly one meal a day usally at night but you can snack on fruit and veg. during the day.

Magsz
12-13-09, 17:46
Derek,

Why no milk?

Its loaded with casein protein.

Derek_Connor
12-13-09, 20:15
Derek,

Why no milk?

Its loaded with casein protein.



good amount of casein, with a high amount of un-needed sugar for my needs.

While it has a low glycemic load all together, I'd rather just have water. With the avoidance of grains, and cereal in general, I do not see a need for milk, in my diet.

If I need milk, I have been sticking to small amounts of almond milk, and copious amounts of coconut milk.

Magsz
12-13-09, 21:33
Roger that man. Makes sense.

Ive heard great things about almond milk, tastes pretty damned good too!

rob_s
12-14-09, 08:11
for those doing the paleo thing, what are you doing for breakfast? I've been eating the hell out of eggs and bacon, but I'm getting bored of that and also have concerns about all the cholesterol.

On a side note...

I want to stress that I still eat food that I enjoy and that tastes good. I think that one of the problems a lot of folks encounter when trying to eat "well" is that they take all the enjoyment out of eating. If I ever thought I needed to do the whole "8 egg whites for breakfast, plain chicken breasts every other meal, and lots of vegetables" diet I'd slit my own ****ing throat as frankly life wouldn't be worth living to me if I couldn't eat good food.

It's about making choices and eating healthy, but good tasting, food instead of pure crap. Have water or (certain) fruit juices instead of a soda, have an apple or a banana, or even some yogurt, instead of cereal, etc. For awhile I was eating a lot of granola and yogurt and it tasted just as good as cereal and milk to me but has a lot more redeeming qualities to it (and it's more filling to boot).

You have to find that balance between good tasting and good for you, and make good choices.

Magsz
12-14-09, 08:32
Rob,

As a former 300 pounder one of the things that makes "dieting" or accomplishing a successful lifestyle change possible is the ability to regard food as fuel.

I own a Mazda RX8 and have to run the damned thing on premium. I apply this "high grade" principle to eating. Natural foods, very little crap made by man and tons of lean protein, low GI carbs and healthy fats from nuts and whatever protein im taking in.

For me its a simple choice, i choose the performance benefits of being leaner and in better cardiovascular and muscular shape over being heavy. The better fuel i put into my body the better performance i achieve.

You're right though, variety is the spice of life but variety doesnt mean you have to fall off the wagon or "cheat" constantly.

Also, part of making the transition to a new lifestyle a successful one involves NOT being overly obsessive. When we met i was at my second heaviest having just come out of a very long relationship where i got lazy. Its pretty easy to let go sometimes. Four years ago, prior to entering my relationship i was 300 pounds and lost about 155 via diet and exercise. I was ruthless in my diet and incredibly obsessive. Look what happened, i ended up ballooning to 250ish over the course of the next four years because i let go.

Now, ive taken the lessons that ive learned and decided to focus on eating as well as i possibly can when i can but i will not fret over the random cheeseburger that you mentioned earlier. :)

If you really want to stay within the constraints of your diet find out what kind of Macronutrient values you're dealing with and change your meals around to maintain the same numbers. Its possible, it just takes a little effort.

Derek_Connor
12-14-09, 10:01
Good Shit Magsz, as usual.

Rob - there is ALOT of bullshit conventional wisdom about consuming cholesterol and its relationship to actual SERUM cholesterol levels.

Long story short, eating alot of cholesterol, doesn't mean your cholesterol levels will rise. I can send you some articles that have studies this specifically.

Under the same premise, eating fat will not make you fat. Our bodies are alot more complicated than just bean counters. Our overall hormones play a massive role in how our bodies use the overall daily macronutrients.

So in short, dont throw away your egg yolks.

Eat that bacon, ham, etc. I usually have some left over dinner from the night before if all else fails.

Embrace things that taste good, aka fatty foods..

of course, all in my honest opinion. It has worked for me..(22lbs and counting in 4 months, while increasing LBM and dropping overall BF %)

When I do eat breakfest, its usually eggs/bacon. But honestly, I have such a satisfying dinner the night before, Im not that hungry in the morning.

So what I usually do is have some brown liquid goodness (coffee, not liquor) with ALOT of full fat whipping cream...

rob_s
12-14-09, 10:10
Even without the cholesterol issue, I still need some variety. The cholesterol is the least of my concerns.

My metabolism is too high to miss breakfast, no matter how much dinner I eat. I wake up starving every morning, and a bigger/later dinner just makes it worse. Skipping out on the first meal just isn't an option for me, although I confess I have a cup o' joe first thing while I'm making everything else.

Magsz
12-14-09, 10:21
Perhaps increasing the fat content of your dinner meal might help you feel a little fuller in the morning.

When i say fat content i dont mean go fry a shoe and down the ****er.

I mean, maybe adding a little more olive oil to your diet, or having a handful of almonds as a snack after dinner.

Im not really one that believes in the "OMG YOU CANT EAT AT NIGHT OR ELSE YOU WILL GET FAT" shtick. Your body burns calories regardless of whether or not you're awake or sleeping. In fact, i load up on casein protein via cottage cheese or a glass of milk before going to sleep since this will help repair muscle during the most important phase of muscle building, ie sleep. :)

Im hardly an expert on any of this since im still a lardass (205, havent measured my body fat but when the ex and i split up in July i was at 28% and 250 lbs, im probably down to 15-20% right now) but there's a TON of good info out there. Unfortunately, you have to sift through a shit ton of "broscience" in order to get to the good stuff.

Anyone have any opinions on my suggestions i just proposed?

Derek_Connor
12-14-09, 10:22
Even without the cholesterol issue, I still need some variety. The cholesterol is the least of my concerns.

My metabolism is too high to miss breakfast, no matter how much dinner I eat. I wake up starving every morning, and a bigger/later dinner just makes it worse. Skipping out on the first meal just isn't an option for me, although I confess I have a cup o' joe first thing while I'm making everything else.



Understood...

I resort to real big omlettes with left over bacon, steak, veggies, lots of cheese if the night before was light.

Im in a hurry, I'll take half a can of coconut milk, 2 scoops of chocolate mint whey protein from ON, and some water. Mint chocolate, coconut shake. Pure awesome.

Do you need to have 'breakfest food' in the morning? Or will anything do?

My wife cannot eat left overs or anything that doesnt follow the traditional american cereal, fruit, muffin type categories.

Magsz
12-14-09, 10:36
Understood...

I resort to real big omlettes with left over bacon, steak, veggies, lots of cheese if the night before was light.

Im in a hurry, I'll take half a can of coconut milk, 2 scoops of chocolate mint whey protein from ON, and some water. Mint chocolate, coconut shake. Pure awesome.

Do you need to have 'breakfest food' in the morning? Or will anything do?

My wife cannot eat left overs or anything that doesnt follow the traditional american cereal, fruit, muffin type categories.

Rofl...thats kind of funny Derek. Me, personally, i would eat ****ing roadkill if it was in the fridge and didnt smell putrid and had good protein/fat content. :)

Derek_Connor
12-14-09, 10:38
Rofl...thats kind of funny Derek. Me, personally, i would eat ****ing roadkill if it was in the fridge and didnt smell putrid and had good protein/fat content. :)

Agreed.


I remember pan frying a buffalo burger a couple of weekends ago @ 7am because thats the only thing I had in the fridge at the moment..

She looked at me with awe.

rob_s
12-14-09, 11:42
I'll eat just about anything within reason as first meal, but I do prefer "breakfast" type foods. 30+ years of eating that way. For example, I can't eat chicken in the morning.

Ideally I have bacon & eggs, or some variation thereof, at 0500, then a "shake" of some sort around 0900-1000, then "lunch" like tuna or cold cuts and carrots or an apple or banana around 1200-1300, and then whatever supper the family is having at night. I'm not interested in changing that dynamic or schedule as I still believe that skipping breakfast is ****ed up and what I'm doing on my best days works for me. Just looking for some variety in that first meal.

Derek_Connor
12-14-09, 12:56
When I have time I'll make pancakes from coconut meal or almond meal, and throw some real butter on them.

I'd go to amazon/barnes and noble and try to find cook books that specifically advocate coconut/almond recipes.

These will have a good 'paleo' type menus that you can refer to.

I'd even go ahead and pick up an Atkins book and take a look at his/their recipes as well. That will help keep your breakfast meal interesting...

variablebinary
12-20-09, 10:06
Mostly meat, fish, veggies and fruit. Lots of water. Rice and whole grain bread. Cereal, or a bagel for breakfast.

The bulk of my daily diet consists of chicken and pork. Beef consumption is limited.

I cut back on protein shakes and things of the like because I started getting protein in my urine, which is not a good thing. For anyone loading up on protein and supplements, go see a urologist at least a couple a times a year and be sure your kidneys are in good shape.

No carbonated drinks. No alcohol. Very little fast food; say, once a month max. No cakes or cookies, and I don't have much of a sweet tooth.

At 5'11" my weight stays in the 175-180 range.

Magsz
12-20-09, 21:28
Anyone on the "warrior" diet?

Seems really interesting as its pretty much the opposite of what every major nutritionist and modern dietitian is suggesting.

extsieg
12-20-09, 22:37
Anyone on the "warrior" diet?

Seems really interesting as its pretty much the opposite of what every major nutritionist and modern dietitian is suggesting.


Thats because they are full of shit and don't have a clue. Ill eat what the guy who use to chase down Dinosaurs and kill them compared to the fat bodies of todays average male any day. Wii fit eh, LMFAO

Magsz
12-21-09, 09:24
Thats because they are full of shit and don't have a clue. Ill eat what the guy who use to chase down Dinosaurs and kill them compared to the fat bodies of todays average male any day. Wii fit eh, LMFAO

Im just curious about the science behind the whole experience. Seems a little weird that the major selling points of the diet are contradictory to everything else thats "popular" in the dieting circles.

1. Anti small meal/4-6 meals a day.
2. Pro fasting
3. Zero emphasis on meal timing, encourages the user to gorge/binge eat.
4. Calorie counting and macronutrient consumption seems less important.

Its certainly interesting but im afraid to try it for fear of throwing my current lifestyle change out of whack.

I gained the amount of weight i gained mostly because it seemed as though i was on some variation of the warrior diet. No breakfast, small lunch and then a huge dinner. Sure, i was leading a sedentary lifestyle at the time but even with weight training, a conscious effort to eat well and a bit of dedication towards ensuring im eating enough protein, carbs and fat i still find it hard to shed unwanted weight.

Anyone else have any opinions backed by personal experience in regards to the diet?

yallknowho
12-21-09, 13:21
Whats the quickest source of the healthy fat, nuts?

Raw almonds are good, but easy to eat a lot of.

yallknowho
12-21-09, 13:23
Im just curious about the science behind the whole experience. Seems a little weird that the major selling points of the diet are contradictory to everything else thats "popular" in the dieting circles.

1. Anti small meal/4-6 meals a day.
2. Pro fasting
3. Zero emphasis on meal timing, encourages the user to gorge/binge eat.
4. Calorie counting and macronutrient consumption seems less important.

Its certainly interesting but im afraid to try it for fear of throwing my current lifestyle change out of whack.

I gained the amount of weight i gained mostly because it seemed as though i was on some variation of the warrior diet. No breakfast, small lunch and then a huge dinner. Sure, i was leading a sedentary lifestyle at the time but even with weight training, a conscious effort to eat well and a bit of dedication towards ensuring im eating enough protein, carbs and fat i still find it hard to shed unwanted weight.

Anyone else have any opinions backed by personal experience in regards to the diet?

I did that for a little while. drank a lot of juiced vegetables and raw almonds during the day with a big meal for dinner. I didn't do it for too long, I like to have some real food in me during the day. juicing and eating raw almonds is still a good practice though.

GLB
12-21-09, 17:04
Anyone on the "warrior" diet?

Seems really interesting as its pretty much the opposite of what every major nutritionist and modern dietitian is suggesting.

I just started this diet about 3 weeks ago. So far I really like it and my energy level went up alot which is why I went on this diet.

mskdgunman
12-22-09, 18:31
About three months ago, I started a traditional diet/workout program consisting of several small meals with a mix of protein and carbs coupled with weight training and cardio 6 days a week. So far, I've lost 30 pounds and dropped about 10% BMI. I'm far from an expert but I really think that while the "regular" diets may work for most people, nothing works the same for everybody. So far, the one I'm on works for me but that may change in the future.

Powertrip
03-05-10, 05:59
I'm starting a combination of "Stop, Eat, Stop" with semi-paleolithic diet. This completes first week of nutrition mods, no visible results and I don't use overall weight as a fitness metric.

JHC
03-06-10, 21:13
Anyone on the "warrior" diet?

Seems really interesting as its pretty much the opposite of what every major nutritionist and modern dietitian is suggesting.

Yes, for some years now. With the allowed mods to account for the early AM workouts which the author's original version didn't really provide for.

On it, I can't maintain quite as much muscle mass as when lifting and pigging out but I've got a medium frame that has never really wanted to carry a lot of muscle anyway. But now at age 52, at 5'11 and 165-170 I'm very lean and yet can manage 10 chins with a 50lb dumbell. I think this approach makes a lot of sense per the origintor's arguments.

Fyrhazzrd
05-30-10, 19:26
I agree that cutting out soda is a great way to start, but it also gets used as an excuse for making up for it in other ways. Hence the 300 lb fatbodies you see loading up at McDonalds and then topping it off with a "diet soda". :rolleyes:

People always laugh at this. But the truth is you just don't understand. They aren't drinking the diet soda to make up for it in other ways. They drink the diet soda, because they like it.

I have drank Diet soda for probably the last 15 years. I cannot go back to regular soda if I wanted to. I cannot stand the taste of regular soda anymore. It is just too damned sweet. So yes I am one of those people that you will see at a fast food joint always ordering a diet. Although I'm not fat. I do always order a diet soda.

Tom Swift
06-02-10, 22:21
Typical teen diet of junk food and more junk food, all gonna change soon.

Tamaon
08-02-10, 10:30
I eat about 90% paleo. For the last month I've been doing 16/8 fasting, it's a kind of intermittent fasting where you get all your food in an 8 hr window each day. My first meal is around 1pm. So far I love it.

chubs
08-11-10, 20:31
I'm currently running an IF (intermittent fasting) diet. 16hr fast/ 8hr feed. Mod-High Protein, High Fat, Low Carb. Works pretty well so far.

WillBrink
08-12-10, 09:33
Recent post on suggested reading made me curious how others eat. Not so much "I have this for breakfast, this for lunch" etc. but more in terms of what your theories on good nutrition are. .

Short answer:

High-moderate protein (depending on how one defines that...) moderate - low carbs focused on high fiber low GI carbs, moderate fat of the right types and ratios(1). Generally comes to 20% P, 40% C, 30% F. Carbs are always the adjustable macro nutrient depending on goals, etc.

Long answer:

The Unified Theory of Nutrition. (http://www.brinkzone.com/articles/brinks-unified-theory-of-nutrition/)

Regarding dietary fat, see my latest discussion on that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5S7EWNAN4Q

Magsz
08-12-10, 11:55
Will,

As always, thanks for the interesting information to digest!!!! :)

Wow...bad joke lol.

Quiet-Matt
08-12-10, 12:11
After 12 years of training and racing, maintaining weight of 160, I gave it up. 33 yrs old, 5'11" and for the last year I have eaten whatever I wanted. I'm now up to 185, feel better than I have in a long time. The problem now is getting my eating under control. My wife uses the weight watchers on-line points calculator with great success, so now I'm jumping on the wagon with her.

WillBrink
08-12-10, 13:37
Will,

As always, thanks for the interesting information to digest!!!! :)

Wow...bad joke lol.

Chew on that info! :eek:

superr.stu
09-22-10, 21:28
wow, after reading this thread i feel a little bad about my eat everything in sight diet.

but then again that's about what it takes to eat 8-9000 calories a day

zacbol
10-16-10, 17:44
Back when I was serious about bodybuilding/fitness, my 'goto' diet was Lyle McDonald's Ultimate Diet 2.0. It's similar to a cyclical ketogenic diet intended to manipulate leptin levels. McDonald is one of, if the *the*, best minds in nutrition/fitness IMO and he writes in a very easy-to-read, yet scientifically reasoned way. Basically the diet involves near starvation calorie levels for 4 days combined with high volume workouts intended to deplete muscle glycogen levels. This is followed by a large carbup and maintenance calorie levels with lower repition workouts intened to maintain (possibly increase depending on your training level) strength. The diet works amazingly well if adhered to (and I say this having tried a shit ton of different diets of my years of bodybuilding) but it also takes an immense amount of dedication so it's not right for many people. That said, if I'm really interested in losing weight it's always what I go back to.

Link to book:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ultimate-diet-20

Your post was more about day-to-day maintenance diet, though, in which case an isocaloric diet is what I ideally shoot for (33% fat, 33% carbs, 33% protein) with about 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. Such a diet doesn't work very well for me if I really want to get lean, though.

120mm
10-16-10, 21:39
About three months ago, I started a traditional diet/workout program consisting of several small meals with a mix of protein and carbs coupled with weight training and cardio 6 days a week. So far, I've lost 30 pounds and dropped about 10% BMI. I'm far from an expert but I really think that while the "regular" diets may work for most people, nothing works the same for everybody. So far, the one I'm on works for me but that may change in the future.

This worked for me to the tune of almost 80 pounds lost and kept off. My current hyperactive exercise rate has led to me abandoning any type of "diet" though, as I have trouble keeping weight on. I eat a lot of fat to fill the calorie deficit, and anything remotely vegetable/fruit I can find.


Yes, for some years now. With the allowed mods to account for the early AM workouts which the author's original version didn't really provide for.

On it, I can't maintain quite as much muscle mass as when lifting and pigging out but I've got a medium frame that has never really wanted to carry a lot of muscle anyway. But now at age 52, at 5'11 and 165-170 I'm very lean and yet can manage 10 chins with a 50lb dumbell. I think this approach makes a lot of sense per the origintor's arguments.

Me too. Frankly, I disagree with the fascination on "building muscle" and think it reflects an immaturity and insecurity of those who fixate on it. I'm 5'9", about your weight and my frame was never intended to carry the weight I'd put on it. First muscle mass, then fat.


People always laugh at this. But the truth is you just don't understand. They aren't drinking the diet soda to make up for it in other ways. They drink the diet soda, because they like it.

I have drank Diet soda for probably the last 15 years. I cannot go back to regular soda if I wanted to. I cannot stand the taste of regular soda anymore. It is just too damned sweet. So yes I am one of those people that you will see at a fast food joint always ordering a diet. Although I'm not fat. I do always order a diet soda.

I like the taste of diet soda, and will drink no soda if it is not available.

WillBrink
10-17-10, 10:50
Im just curious about the science behind the whole experience.

There is none, it's strictly hypothesis of the person who made it up based on his own ideas. Used to work for him when he was an editor for Penthouse. Not a bad guy, but it's not a nutrition program that's science based per se (nor do I recall him having any science/med background...) but some people seem to do well enough on it. The real issue for is, compared to what? The average American diet - which is pretty must the reference terrible diet - or compared say to something else?

In terms of diets that have much more science behind them and are based on how humans used to eat, I would recommend looking at Cordain's Paleo Diet (http://www.brinkzone.com/general-health/gh-therapy-for-joint-degeneration-and-back-pain/) info.

I don't always agree with everything in the Paleo Diet per se, but Dr Cordian is where most of the "caveman diet" info actually comes from, and it's way better then what most people are eating via our current crappy American diet.

bsf
10-18-10, 00:20
My nutrition is low in saturated fat and high in protein. I do not count calories. Tend to eat frequently, but do not do not eat prodigious amounts at any one time like I used to do. I take in ~1g of protein per pound of bodyweight, daily. Protein comes mostly from lots of lean meat; occasionally fish; skim milk; and supplements (bars & whey powder). I avoid sugar overload. I do drink about 3gal of skim milk per week and eat lots of fruit, though. I almost never eat “sweets” like pie, cake, ice cream, candy, cookies, etc. Lots of vegetables like peppers, broccoli, and spinach. Bread products are all whole grain. I do eat a lot of white rice because it is cheap and easy to store. Not certain how many grams of fat I ingest daily. I just focus on keeping the saturated fat intake very low.

I have been eating like this since ~Spring. Prior to that there was significantly higher net caloric intake from larger portion sizes, higher saturated fat foods, and sweets. Had to make a change because my pants and shorts were getting tight. They all fit loosely once again.

Kbovine
10-18-10, 09:25
I have found that the more rigid my diet is, the more deprived I feel and I fall off the wagon fast. I have some general guidelines that have always done me well. Eat often, low sugar, lots of vegetables & fruits, plenty of liquids. I also try to eat slow so I don't overeat. Also as a general rule, I avoid anything with hydrogenated oils, monosodium glutamate, and high fructose corn syrup. I do have to say that I was vegan for nearly a year and have never looked/felt so good. That's a hard diet to keep up for me, though.

J-Dub
10-18-10, 10:32
I dont track calories, but i generally eat high protein low carb. I try to keep the carbs complex instead of simple (whole grains).

I'm thinking of taking my nutrition to a new level and track everything i eat. I believe thats what its going to take to get shredded.

mr_smiles
10-27-10, 03:19
Im a low carb high protein no sugars guy. But I'm on a calorie restricted diet this month to get rid of a few pounds I put on eating too much protein :D So just watching my carbs, fats, protein, calorie intake. Raw (but warm) veggies and chicken for me :)

Yes excess protein isn't good for your weight.

WillBrink
10-27-10, 07:58
A follow up to the "Army To Increase Omega-3 In Soldiers' Diet" thread I put up:


CAMP TAJI, Iraq (Army News Service, Sept. 28, 2010) - An Army doctor serving in Iraq received approval from an Army medical review board, Sept. 28, to study the effects of omega-3 fish oil capsules on deployed Soldiers' mental health.

Omega-3 fatty acids are essential nutrients obtained through food, and research indicates they have strong ties with mental and vascular health. The study will be conducted to determine whether the nutrients may be used to enhance deployed Soldiers' resilience to mood related disorders.

Lt. Col. Daniel Johnston, brigade surgeon for the Enhanced Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, developed the concept of the study after attending a conference this November entitled "Nutritional Armor for the Warfighter."

The conference was hosted by the Department of Defense and several government and private medical organizations to consider the potential of using omega-3 to supplement Soldiers' diets.

The study is in keeping with the Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program's efforts to strengthen Soldiers' mental resilience. Johnston officially proposed to conduct the study after his analysis of Soldiers' diets in Iraq indicated significantly low levels of omega-3.

"Low levels of omega-3 fish oil in the diet is linked to mood disorders, and this study is designed to gain data that may help future Soldiers," he said.

Beginning this month, Johnston will provide Soldiers with omega-3 in the form of fish oil capsules. The effects of the capsules will be measured by a set of psychological tests, and the data will be compared to the results of a placebo drug.

Johnston's hypothesis is that Soldiers taking the omega-3 supplements will exhibit higher cognitive performance, better mood state, and fewer combat symptoms.

The drug company GlaxoSmithKline donated 100,000 capsules to the study after conducting an independent review of Johnston's protocol. The Food and Drug Administration approved the fish oil capsules for the study, Johnston said.

The United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory is providing around $30,000 for blood analysis of omega-3 levels in the Soldiers.

Around 250 service members from three U.S. bases in Iraq will participate in the study on an all-volunteer basis. Johnston will oversee the study on each site, and two Army psychiatrists will be co-investigators in the study.

After the three month study, Johnston will study the results with Dr. Holden MacRae, a researcher in sports performance and exercise science from Pepperdine University, and Capt. Michael Dretsch from the USAARL, both of whom assisted in designing the study, Johnston said.

"The Army will determine what, if any, applications there are of the research," he said. "It is possible that an agency within the Army would look at supplementing Soldiers with omega-3 fish oil capsules as a type of immunization and resilience technique for mood disorders."

120mm
10-27-10, 08:50
So, do they just add the Omega-3 into the grease they deep-fry everything in at the Taji messhalls?

I've seen how the soldiers eat there. They eat crap. They eat tons and tons of crap.

I think this just proves how bat-shit ****ing crazy the US Army Medical Corps (In it's many variations) is. It's not the lack of Omega-3, it's the crappy diet they give soldiers access to.

Here's a better suggestion: Quit offering deep-fat fried foods in Army DFACs.

dookie1481
10-27-10, 11:33
So, do they just add the Omega-3 into the grease they deep-fry everything in at the Taji messhalls?

I've seen how the soldiers eat there. They eat crap. They eat tons and tons of crap.

I think this just proves how bat-shit ****ing crazy the US Army Medical Corps (In it's many variations) is. It's not the lack of Omega-3, it's the crappy diet they give soldiers access to.

Here's a better suggestion: Quit offering deep-fat fried foods in Army DFACs.

Crap diet or not, Omega-3's are a critical part of the human diet that we don't get enough of anymore. The health benefits are myriad and it's not really even debatable. There is so much research out there it's not even funny.

The only thing I would be concerned with RE: combat troops is it's anti-clotting effects. Keep the dosages low enough and it shouldn't be a problem.

Jay

ETA: In the blurb Will posted, it said they are giving them capsules.

120mm
10-27-10, 21:34
Crap diet or not, Omega-3's are a critical part of the human diet that we don't get enough of anymore. The health benefits are myriad and it's not really even debatable. There is so much research out there it's not even funny.

The only thing I would be concerned with RE: combat troops is it's anti-clotting effects. Keep the dosages low enough and it shouldn't be a problem.

Jay

ETA: In the blurb Will posted, it said they are giving them capsules.

Okay, maybe I wasn't clear. There are many, more pressing issues in Taji that an Army Quack, I mean doc, needs to worry about, instead of grandstanding with his "aren't I fricking awesome that I need this press release about MY study" bullshit.

The DFAC is actually pretty good there. Lots of choices, and good veggie choices, but unfortunately, you watch Joe after Joe walk through the chow line with 20 corn dogs on their plates.

dookie1481
10-28-10, 10:12
Okay, maybe I wasn't clear. There are many, more pressing issues in Taji that an Army Quack, I mean doc, needs to worry about, instead of grandstanding with his "aren't I fricking awesome that I need this press release about MY study" bullshit.

The DFAC is actually pretty good there. Lots of choices, and good veggie choices, but unfortunately, you watch Joe after Joe walk through the chow line with 20 corn dogs on their plates.

It's just a study. They are using the soldiers there as the variable group.

TomD
10-29-10, 09:27
The kids in the Army are just eating what they did before enlistment. It is an American problem; not just an Army problem. I am hardly a kid and I struggle to maintain a proper diet.

Magic_Salad0892
11-27-10, 23:42
All organic meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products. (Make my own fries, too.)

I don't usually drink soda, I'm pretty much relegated to water, tea, or coffee.

Also, usually don't go to restaurants (except Sushi bars. YUM.) or fast food, ever.

Coupled with 60 pushups, 60 situps, being pretty sexually active, and me walking everywhere. (Daily)

I stay in very decent shape, I like to think. :)

NC Buckeye
12-09-10, 22:25
I have dropped nearly 35 lbs this year with most of it due to diet modification.

I am a simple guy so to keep things straight I have created 4 food groups...

Stuff that flies or swims - Fish, Chicken, Turkey, Scallops, Shrimp et cetera

Stuff that walks - Beef, Lamb, Pork

Stuff that grows - Fruits and Veggies, rice, grains et cetera

Processed stuff - Generally anything where you can't see the main ingredient like sweets, bread, tortillas, pop, beer

I don't care how much I eat of stuff that grows. I eat normal portions of Stuff that flies or swims and I try to avoid stuff that grows and processed stuff.

You may be saying... but turkeys don't fly and bread is grain and grain grows. If you are, I have heard it a number of times and you are missing the point. I needed simple rules like has feathers=flies. I also know that pork is leaner than beef, if those are my choices I eat pork.

This is how it plays out in my food choices...

Instead of skipping breakfast I eat 2 eggs or an egg and a slice of toast, or a bowl of "healthy" cereal. My rule here don't skip breakfast, if all that is available is a biscuit and gravy, I get the gravy on the side.

Lunch when I am at home is a piece of fish and a veggie/fruit. Usually a tuna steak and an avocado although I eat a lot of salmon too. If I go to a burrito place I get a veggie burrito bowl with no sour cream and light on the cheese. This drops 600 calories from a steak burrito with sour cream. The additional 4.5 miles on the treadmill aren't worth it. If a hamburger is the only choice I throw away the top bun.

For dinner I pick the best choice that sounds good. I really like fish so it is easy to stay healthy, but sometimes only a steak will do... so I get it, I just order the petite fillet, eat the salad and veggies first, and stop eating when I am no longer hungry.

If I feel the need for a snack, I eat one, I have a piece of candy every day and if I need 2 I eat a pickle.

Admittedly my goals are different than many on this forum, I don't need to be big and I am not trying to put on mass so I just eat "healthy." If the weight keeps falling off I may need to do something but I will likely adjust portion size or get chicken when I am choosing vegetarian today.

Cazwell
12-10-10, 11:20
Lots of fruit, vegetables, and lean meat (turkey, chicken, fish) but I do eat a steak or a burger once a week, just keep in check. Balanced amount of carbs, but always whole grain, no bleached/refined stuff. Yogurt and lowfat cheese and milk. I eat eggs a few mornings a week.

No carbs after about 5pm unless I had an evening workout.

Breakfast tends to be more carb heavy with lots of fruit and a bowl of oatmeal. Lunch is where i will do a whole grain pasta dish or a sandwich on whole wheat bread. Come dinner time, it is only fresh salad, steamed vegetables and a lean meat like grilled chicken or fish.

Snacks are based off of fruit and nut mixes (we dehydrate lots of fruit), vegetables, or yogurt and fruit.

Also, I think it is very important to keep water intake high.

As far as supplements, I do a whole foods multi-vitamin, some type of joint complex, Omega 3's and that is about it.

Dos Cylindros
12-10-10, 16:41
Five to six small meals a day (depending on the length of my day). Nothing with the following ingredients; enriched flours of any kind, high fructose corn syrup or hydrogenated oils. I focus on a mix of lean meats, whole grains, fruit and vegitables every day.

After being a serious athlete in high school and college, I stopped paying attention to what I ate, drank too much and stopped any form of working out. My weight shot up to a high of 291 with a 44" waist before I realized I needed to get things in control. I now have my weight down to 177 with a 32" waist and freequently run 10K, 1/2 and full marathons. It was easy once I got motivated, and I will never allow myself to go back to the way I was.

NavyDavy55
12-10-10, 19:17
I've lost 11 pounds in the last six weeks.

No more donuts, cookies, chips, cake, candy or garbage like that.

Now it's portion control and mostly chicken and fish. For a craving of red meat I stick with buffalo. It makes a great burger!

Lots of vegetables and fruits.

I've got lots of low calorie, low sodium recipes off the internet.

And by cooking myself I've also saved some cash!

Cazwell
12-11-10, 11:57
Five to six small meals a day (depending on the length of my day). Nothing with the following ingredients; enriched flours of any kind, high fructose corn syrup or hydrogenated oils. I focus on a mix of lean meats, whole grains, fruit and vegitables every day.




I do the same... but forgot to mention the 6 smaller meals a day. I think it is very important though, for both burning fat, and building muscle.

Dos Cylindros
12-11-10, 16:00
I do the same... but forgot to mention the 6 smaller meals a day. I think it is very important though, for both burning fat, and building muscle.

Yup, this speeds up your metabolisim and your body won't be as inclined to store energy in the form of fat.

dookie1481
12-11-10, 19:39
Yup, this speeds up your metabolisim and your body won't be as inclined to store energy in the form of fat.

There is no evidence that supports this. http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Cazwell
12-12-10, 15:36
There is no evidence that supports this. http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

While the Thermic effect on food and its relationship to "grazing vs gorging" can be contested, that doesn't remove the importance of eating smaller consistent meals throughout the day.

I would submit that the above study/author can't see the proverbial forest for the trees.

dookie1481
12-12-10, 16:48
While the Thermic effect on food and its relationship to "grazing vs gorging" can be contested, that doesn't remove the importance of eating smaller consistent meals throughout the day.

I would submit that the above study/author can't see the proverbial forest for the trees.

Why is it important?

Cazwell
12-12-10, 19:24
Why is it important?

I gave a quick look over the article you posted.

Almost anyone who has trained others to reach higher levels of fitness knows that the real battle isn't genetics, athleticism, fast twitch vs slow twitch, mesomorph, ectomorph etc... but rather, a battle of paradigms, priorities an discipline.

Habits must change and a new pattern and structure must take place. To quote one brief piece from your article;

"The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism."

The fore-thought and discipline needed to eat smaller balanced meals consistently throughout the day is key in breaking commonly found bad eating habits in unhealthy people. Skipping breakfast, eating late, and supplementing skipped meals with quick and convenient enriched, bleached, sugary or fatty fried foods are overcome by planning and implementing a strategy requiring one to eat 5 or 6 times a day.

Anecdotal evidence shows that those who "graze" are less often struck with cravings for unhealthy food, whereas those who do not eat breakfast lunch and dinner as planned, with a healthy snack or two in between, tend to get cravings, and when they do, they have that hunger resulting from having rushed out without breakfast and lunch.... which makes the craving harder to resist.

The author states; "...the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently."

The author makes this observation, but then fails to make the connection that the practice of planning consistent meals and snacks to hit the 5 or 6 number changes the above habit, forces one to evaluate what they eat on a day to day basis and can help increase diet awareness. It helps them become concerned with "health and diet", as they force themselves to think about it at least 6 times a day.

Some logical fallacies in the article as well...he likes the "either or" argument, and refers constantly to the fact that correlation isn't always causal. True, but that goes both ways.

He seems to think the focus of the 6 meal a day plan is "smaller meals" having to do with total calories and metabolic rates. Rather, the focus is on the easier achievement of total balanced nutrients.

Who eating 1-3 large meals a day sits down and in that meal has the needed amount of carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins, anti-oxidants, fluids etc? Most people eating just 2 or 3 meals a day don't include fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, meat, dairy etc in such a few meals.
It is far easier to get ones daily intake by eating a higher number of smaller meals and snacks all through the day, than it is to eat one meal in the morning before work, and one before bed.

Other faulty assertions; "People don't have time to eat six cooked meals a day. Instead, they turn to meal replacement powders, shakes and protein bars. The cereal and grain industry benefits by preaching about the virtues of breakfast for weight control, health and fat loss. There's no commercial incentive in telling people that they would do just fine with three squares a day."

People don't have time? Kind of a generalization isn't it? Also, it isn't about time so much as it is about planning and discipline. Two things needed for "fitness" anyhow. He also makes the false assertion that eating 6 meals a day demands they all be "cooked". Not true at all. Most any trainer will explain that at least 2 of those 6 should be fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, and maybe a yogurt. He is taking leaps that fit is argument. Why does breakfast have to be cereal? He infers it does, but many prefer fruit first thing in the morning, and may or may not end up with any grains.

While he may have successfully debunked some of the reasons that others may have attributed to the success of such an eating plan, the fact remains (even if anecdotal or psychologically) that it works.

Just my thoughts.

dookie1481
12-12-10, 23:42
I gave a quick look over the article you posted.

Almost anyone who has trained others to reach higher levels of fitness knows that the real battle isn't genetics, athleticism, fast twitch vs slow twitch, mesomorph, ectomorph etc... but rather, a battle of paradigms, priorities an discipline.

Depends on what level you mean. The avg person, yeah you're correct. Elite levels, no. Genetics mean a hell of a lot at the elite level in many sports. But I'm digressing.


Habits must change and a new pattern and structure must take place. To quote one brief piece from your article;

"The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism."


Which is the point I'm trying to make.


The fore-thought and discipline needed to eat smaller balanced meals consistently throughout the day is key in breaking commonly found bad eating habits in unhealthy people.

Key? I disagree. The key, IMO, is knowledge and quantifying energy intake, and to a lesser extent, expenditure. It CAN be helpful for some people, though. Frankly, I felt like more of a slave when I "knew" I had to eat 6 meals a day. I brought whole wheat bread and ****ing bran cereal to class for a carb source along with my whey. I would stop at the BK on campus and get a chicken sandwich and throw away the bun. **** I hated that.


Skipping breakfast, eating late, and supplementing skipped meals with quick and convenient enriched, bleached, sugary or fatty fried foods are overcome by planning and implementing a strategy requiring one to eat 5 or 6 times a day.

False dichotomy. One can skip breakfast and still eat healthily.


Anecdotal evidence shows that those who "graze" are less often struck with cravings for unhealthy food, whereas those who do not eat breakfast lunch and dinner as planned, with a healthy snack or two in between, tend to get cravings, and when they do, they have that hunger resulting from having rushed out without breakfast and lunch.... which makes the craving harder to resist.

Studies suggest the opposite. Read Myth #2 in the linked article.


The author states; "...the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently."

The author makes this observation, but then fails to make the connection that the practice of planning consistent meals and snacks to hit the 5 or 6 number changes the above habit, forces one to evaluate what they eat on a day to day basis and can help increase diet awareness. It helps them become concerned with "health and diet", as they force themselves to think about it at least 6 times a day.

Another false dichotomy. There is nothing preventing a person from being a conscientious eater with only 3 meals a day. I will grant you one thing: the OCD-types who are drawn to fitness/BBing would probably benefit from this sort of mentality; this, however, is not the demographic I am referring to here.


Some logical fallacies in the article as well...he likes the "either or" argument, and refers constantly to the fact that correlation isn't always causal. True, but that goes both ways.

Huh? A causal link absolutely DOES imply correlation. Not sure if this is what you mean...


He seems to think the focus of the 6 meal a day plan is "smaller meals" having to do with total calories and metabolic rates. Rather, the focus is on the easier achievement of total balanced nutrients.

Who eating 1-3 large meals a day sits down and in that meal has the needed amount of carbs, fats, proteins, vitamins, anti-oxidants, fluids etc? Most people eating just 2 or 3 meals a day don't include fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, meat, dairy etc in such a few meals.
It is far easier to get ones daily intake by eating a higher number of smaller meals and snacks all through the day, than it is to eat one meal in the morning before work, and one before bed.

Maybe for some. Most people have no problem. Martin (the author) certainly does not have that problem; look through his site and see some of the meals he eats LOL.


Other faulty assertions; "People don't have time to eat six cooked meals a day. Instead, they turn to meal replacement powders, shakes and protein bars. The cereal and grain industry benefits by preaching about the virtues of breakfast for weight control, health and fat loss. There's no commercial incentive in telling people that they would do just fine with three squares a day."

People don't have time? Kind of a generalization isn't it? Also, it isn't about time so much as it is about planning and discipline. Two things needed for "fitness" anyhow. He also makes the false assertion that eating 6 meals a day demands they all be "cooked". Not true at all. Most any trainer will explain that at least 2 of those 6 should be fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, and maybe a yogurt. He is taking leaps that fit is argument. Why does breakfast have to be cereal? He infers it does, but many prefer fruit first thing in the morning, and may or may not end up with any grains.

Most people don't have time. I know I don't. And why can't those veggies, fruits, nuts, etc. just be added to a meal. What makes that inferior? Kind of arbitrary, isn't it?


While he may have successfully debunked some of the reasons that others may have attributed to the success of such an eating plan, the fact remains (even if anecdotal or psychologically) that it works.

Define "it works." I submit that 6 meals a day is fine. It works for many people. However, the body of evidence suggests that it doesn't have any additional benefits over a lower meal frequency. Why eat 6 meals a day when you can achieve your goals with less? Why spend the time and energy for some perceived benefit that isn't really there? If it works, and you don't mind having 6 meals a day, then by all means continue. I'm not saying it's bad. But I ****ing hated it.


Just my thoughts.

Fair enough, and I respect your rebuttal being cogent and thoughtful rather than the venom that is often spewed on the internet. I rarely spend so much time on a forum post but I just hate myths that won't die. I used to "know" that you had to eat 5-6 times a day for optimal results. Then I took the red pill, and freed my mind :D

One thing to consider: I am saying that 6 meals a day work just as well as 3 meals. The conventional wisdom is the one that is saying 3 is inferior. Something to consider.

Dos Cylindros
12-13-10, 10:09
There is no evidence that supports this. http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Yes there is. I used to weigh 291, now I weigh 177 (this morning) :D.

120mm
12-13-10, 10:30
Yes there is. I used to weigh 291, now I weigh 177 (this morning) :D.

In this sample of One, I used to weight 242 and now weigh 165. 6 meals a day, baby.

Oddly enough, all the "skip breakfast" crowd I know are pretty much fat-asses and are constantly chasing this fad or another as they make a lifetime career out of physical fitness failure.

dookie1481
12-13-10, 10:32
Yes there is. I used to weigh 291, now I weigh 177 (this morning) :D.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." - Frank Kotsonis

dookie1481
12-13-10, 10:32
In this sample of One, I used to weight 242 and now weigh 165. 6 meals a day, baby.

Oddly enough, all the "skip breakfast" crowd I know are pretty much fat-asses and are constantly chasing this fad or another as they make a lifetime career out of physical fitness failure.

This is a false dichotomy, as stated above.

dookie1481
12-13-10, 10:37
Jesus in case I didn't make it clear enough in the post above...

I'm not saying that eating 6 meals a day doesn't work. I'm saying it isn't necessary. C'mon guys, read what I wrote.

Jay

Dos Cylindros
12-13-10, 15:01
Jesus in case I didn't make it clear enough in the post above...

I'm not saying that eating 6 meals a day doesn't work. I'm saying it isn't necessary. C'mon guys, read what I wrote.

Jay

Fair enough, and I agree with the above 100%. I also agree with your earlier statement that figuring out energy intake (calories consumed) and energy expenditure (calories burned) is the base line key to weight loss, as opposed to what or how often you are eating. For me, the 5 to 6 meals a day program helps me keep from over eating during other meals.

In the end, it is mostly about energy in vs. energy out. We would all agree that a food like tuna is healthy, but if you ate 5000 calories worth of tuna a day you would still be fat (unless you were working your ass off).

dookie1481
12-13-10, 20:44
Fair enough, and I agree with the above 100%. I also agree with your earlier statement that figuring out energy intake (calories consumed) and energy expenditure (calories burned) is the base line key to weight loss, as opposed to what or how often you are eating. For me, the 5 to 6 meals a day program helps me keep from over eating during other meals.

In the end, it is mostly about energy in vs. energy out. We would all agree that a food like tuna is healthy, but if you ate 5000 calories worth of tuna a day you would still be fat (unless you were working your ass off).

I totally agree.

120mm
12-13-10, 22:33
Jesus in case I didn't make it clear enough in the post above...

I'm not saying that eating 6 meals a day doesn't work. I'm saying it isn't necessary. C'mon guys, read what I wrote.

Jay

Physician heal thyself and read what I wrote.

I know a few people who use the 6 meals a day thing. They tend towards success..

I know a double ****-load of idiots who skip meals. They tend to be fatasses who are perpetually failing. I'm not saying that skipping meals will make you an out of shape fatass, I'm just saying that it's likely.

"Read what I wrote." That's rich.

dookie1481
12-13-10, 23:11
Physician heal thyself and read what I wrote.

I know a few people who use the 6 meals a day thing. They tend towards success..

I know a double ****-load of idiots who skip meals. They tend to be fatasses who are perpetually failing.

It's "possible" for a prostitute to immaculately conceived, but it ain't ****ing likely, too.

"Read what I wrote." That's rich.

You can be a flat-earther all you want, it doesn't change the facts. The "idiots" who skip meals are fat because they consume more calories than they burn, not because they only eat 3 meals a day.

It's that simple. Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it's any less valid.

dookie1481
12-13-10, 23:24
120mm, you should email this guy (http://www.leangains.com/p/my-transformation.html) and let him and his clients know that people who only eat 2-3 times a day are fatasses. I'm sure they will be very excited to hear your overwhelming evidence.

Hammer27
12-14-10, 19:33
I try to get a good balance of everything but no deserts, sodas, etc(almost made a girlfriend cry when I didn't want to eat the cake she made me). I lean more towards the protein/carbs than fruits and vegetables though. Depending on what workouts are in the rotation certain foods will get a preference as well.

120mm
12-14-10, 19:50
You can be a flat-earther all you want, it doesn't change the facts. The "idiots" who skip meals are fat because they consume more calories than they burn, not because they only eat 3 meals a day.

It's that simple. Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it's any less valid.

Do yourself a favor and Don't try to figure what I do and do not understand. Especially about weight loss. Yes to fatasses consuming more calories than they consume.

The problem with what you state is that losing weight is NOT an exercise in mathematics. It's an exercise in psychology. Failure to understand that is why the great majority of folks attempting to lose weight and get in shape fail.


120mm, you should email this guy (http://www.leangains.com/p/my-transformation.html) and let him and his clients know that people who only eat 2-3 times a day are fatasses. I'm sure they will be very excited to hear your overwhelming evidence.

I'm not interested in clicking a blind link, and I'm not interested in finding out what some shyster has to say about his personal rice bowl. Plus, you've offered that link more than once in this conversation, and I've met the one trick wonder before.

I stand by my assertion that the 6 meal a day folks have a much, much, much better chance of succeeding at weight loss and general fitness than the "other" diet programs. It's psychology, not biology, btw, as has been asserted before and you've conveniently ignored in the rush to push your one trick pony.

Plus I put forth my personal, meaningless (to you, anyway) anecdote, plus my experience involving watching other people. As I literally watch people for a living, I think I'm just a little teeny bit qualified to make statements like the above.

Jay Cunningham
12-14-10, 20:01
So...

Opinions/assholes, etc. I'll tell you what I find works for me. Ready?

Minimize dairy.
Minimize deep fried foods.
Minimize soft drinks (both diet and regular).
Eat every 2.5 - 3.5 hours.
Fresh fruits and vegetables rock!
Maximize olive oil intake.
Drink black coffee, water, and natural fruit juices.
Drink fermented alcohol (wine and beer) in a moderate intake.

I have shed about 13 lbs. with this simple method and continue to easily keep it off. Giving up cheese and mayo and fried whatever is a small price to pay. My most recent physical exam has me down in weight, up in endurance, and at an all time best "normal" in blood pressure. Still waiting for the blood work results.

dookie1481
12-14-10, 22:07
Do yourself a favor and Don't try to figure what I do and do not understand. Especially about weight loss. Yes to fatasses consuming more calories than they consume.

The problem with what you state is that losing weight is NOT an exercise in mathematics. It's an exercise in psychology. Failure to understand that is why the great majority of folks attempting to lose weight and get in shape fail.



I'm not interested in clicking a blind link, and I'm not interested in finding out what some shyster has to say about his personal rice bowl. Plus, you've offered that link more than once in this conversation, and I've met the one trick wonder before.

I stand by my assertion that the 6 meal a day folks have a much, much, much better chance of succeeding at weight loss and general fitness than the "other" diet programs. It's psychology, not biology, btw, as has been asserted before and you've conveniently ignored in the rush to push your one trick pony.

Plus I put forth my personal, meaningless (to you, anyway) anecdote, plus my experience involving watching other people. As I literally watch people for a living, I think I'm just a little teeny bit qualified to make statements like the above.

Ahh I see. So you will stick with your dogma and not attempt to have an open mind. Gotcha, I'll save my breath.

Jay

andre3k
12-25-10, 12:06
My diet is pretty simple but still presents a challenge at times because i don't do "cheat" days.

I don't count calories for the most part. But I try to eat at least three meals a day. All meats are baked, broiled or grilled. Nothing fried. No meals past 9 pm.

All meals will include a fruit and some type of veggie or salad. No sodas, fruit juices, etc. Only water and the occasional black coffee.

I tried to eat brown breads or rice if possible with absolutely no sweets at all.

Simple in concept but old habits die hard.

NavyDavy55
12-25-10, 13:32
On Oct 2, 2010 my doctor told me I was obese and could have pre-diabetes. I completely changed my eating habits. No more donuts, chips, fatty snacks or fast food. I cook at home now all the time and watch my portions carefully. I'm not a calorie counter, but do look closely at labels. Mostly I eat chicken, buffalo, fruits and lots of vegetables.

I have lost 23 pounds since my last Dr visit.

And my fasting blood work came back normal.

Here's a couple web sites where I found some really delicious recipes.

http://www.eatingwell.com/

http://www.cookinglight.com/

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-recipes/RecipeIndex

120mm
12-26-10, 04:11
Ahh I see. So you will stick with your dogma and not attempt to have an open mind. Gotcha, I'll save my breath.

Jay

Dogma that works is not dogma. It's called "best practices".

I sometimes miss things, so want to hear about your personal story where you lost over a third of your bodyweight using the method you propose, while retaining/increasing strength.

I did a lot of things that run counter to this thread, and don't think that qualifies as "dogma". For one, I didn't change "what" I ate, I just ate less of it, and stretched it over the entire day to fool my stomach/mind into thinking it wasn't starving. No special foods, no supplements, no pixie dust magic.

Second, I lost most of my weight in one shot over three months. Completely counter to what the docs and exercise gurus say. I am not the kind of person that could lose 1-2 pounds a month and stick with it.

Third, I ate something from 5 am all the way up to right before bed. And my bedtime snack was often ice cream, to reward that day's efforts. Find a doc or exercise guru who would specify that.

Fourth, I exercised like mad; most folks will tell you that diet has a more pronounced effect on weight loss, and I call b.s. on that. If you walk two hours a day and throw in some high intensity low weight resistence exercise, you WILL lose weight, provided you do not increase food consumption.

The problem I have with 1-2 meals a day is that you WILL be ****ing hungry, nearly all the time. I don't care what some exercize wonk tells you. Getting over the hunger psychological hump will weed out the great majority of folks.

theblackknight
12-26-10, 13:31
Minimize dairy.
Minimize deep fried foods.
Minimize soft drinks (both diet and regular).
Eat every 2.5 - 3.5 hours.
Fresh fruits and vegetables rock!
Maximize olive oil intake.
Drink black coffee, water, and natural fruit juices.
Drink fermented alcohol (wine and beer) in a moderate intake.



This!

Eating right isn't any else but a balanced diet. 7 meal a day will keep your metabolism up and burn those foods better, this is fact. Using olive oil in place of other oils in cooking and salads. Getting your fats from the right sources .Coffee and hot green tea is the way to go in the morning, not a gay ass rockstar.

If your on some crazy named diet, your wrong. All foods help you and hurt you when they take majority in your diet.

dookie1481
12-26-10, 23:06
7 meal a day will keep your metabolism up and burn those foods better, this is fact.

No, it's not. See the numerous studies referenced in my previous posts.

No matter how strongly you believe it, it's just not true, has been disproved by well-constructed studies, and the benefit just DOES NOT EXIST.

If you want to keep eating 6-7 meals a day, go ahead, no one is telling you that it's bad...but telling people that they HAVE to do it in order to be successful is just absolutely, unequivocally false.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20339363
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html#more-1389

dookie1481
12-26-10, 23:08
Since people keep posting anecdotes as "proof" that you need a high meal frequency, let me posit you this question:

What would you think if someone came on here and said that their new Colt 6920 shoots 1 MOA groups with Q3131?

This is BASIC scientific method, logic, and critical thinking stuff here...

120mm
12-26-10, 23:49
Since people keep posting anecdotes as "proof" that you need a high meal frequency, let me posit you this question:

What would you think if someone came on here and said that their new Colt 6920 shoots 1 MOA groups with Q3131?

This is BASIC scientific method, logic, and critical thinking stuff here...

Honest question: Eating 1 to 2 meals a day, how do these folks deal with hunger and psychological starvation issues?

I agree with you in the mathematical portion of your thesis, and generally think the "time you eat" is mostly irrelevant.

What do you say about the psychological aspect of weight loss/fitness?

I'll leave your contempt for anecdotal evidence aside for now.

dookie1481
12-27-10, 00:18
Honest question: Eating 1 to 2 meals a day, how do these folks deal with hunger and psychological starvation issues?

I agree with you in the mathematical portion of your thesis, and generally think the "time you eat" is mostly irrelevant.

What do you say about the psychological aspect of weight loss/fitness?

I'll leave your contempt for anecdotal evidence aside for now.

Some people can't deal with it. Those people certainly should eat more often. But many people have no problem with eating 1-2 meals per day and manage to build spectacular physiques/ lose tons of weight/ whatever your definition of success may be.

I agree that the psychological aspect of dieting is ALMOST as important as the physiological. It is critical. But you seem to be implying that people can't be successful on 3 meals a day because they will be thinking about food all the time. It seems to me that you are projecting your own experiences on to the populace in general.

I don't have contempt for anecdotes. But many people seem to not understand that an anecdote is not scientific.

120mm
12-27-10, 00:26
Some people can't deal with it. Those people certainly should eat more often. But many people have no problem with eating 1-2 meals per day and manage to build spectacular physiques/ lose tons of weight/ whatever your definition of success may be.

I agree that the psychological aspect of dieting is ALMOST as important as the physiological. It is critical. But you seem to be implying that people can't be successful on 3 meals a day because they will be thinking about food all the time. It seems to me that you are projecting your own experiences on to the populace in general.

I don't have contempt for anecdotes. But many people seem to not understand that an anecdote is not scientific.

See, my only disagreement with you now is that I believe, through collecting anecdotal data, that the great majority of people have difficulty losing weight through fewer meals, and would benefit from a multi-small meal "diet".

Plus, you are misusing the word "scientific". The problem with anecdotes is that they are not "exact". You can usually triangulate a scientific result through collecting a number of anecdotes and instituting controls. It takes a bit more due diligence to get there, but the results will be accurate.

Otherwise, you run into the old saw "I don't care how it works in practice, I want to see it work in theory!"

dookie1481
12-27-10, 00:37
See, my only disagreement with you now is that I believe, through collecting anecdotal data, that the great majority of people have difficulty losing weight through fewer meals, and would benefit from a multi-small meal "diet".

You "believe". A lot of people have believe things, the only way to prove is to use the scientific method.


Plus, you are misusing the word "scientific". The problem with anecdotes is that they are not "exact".

No, the problem with anecdotes is that they are subject to the person's biases and ignorance/lack of training/ lack of intelligence.


You can usually triangulate a scientific result through collecting a number of anecdotes and instituting controls. It takes a bit more due diligence to get there, but the results will be accurate.

No they absolutely will not. If you are not controlling for certain variables then the data has no real significance. Example: many studies find that there are people that cannot lose weight, that caloric restriction doesn't impact weight loss. These studies have one thing in common: the subjects self-report food intake. When studies have the subject in a controlled setting, when food intake is meticulously and accurately tracked, the subjects lose weight. Turns out that people are really, really ****ing bad at estimating how many calories they consume. Like by 40% or so. That's a huge discrepancy, needless to say.

People are not reliable at reporting anything. Read up on how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in police cases.


Otherwise, you run into the old saw "I don't care how it works in practice, I want to see it work in theory!"

Nothing wrong with liking your results, but knowing the WHY is critical if you are going to give advice to someone else.

120mm
12-27-10, 06:24
You "believe". A lot of people have believe things, the only way to prove is to use the scientific method.


Looking at how scientists really do business, scientific method is largely a mythology invented afterwards to give a rational explanation for what just happened.

Science itself is a belief system, by and large.


No, the problem with anecdotes is that they are subject to the person's biases and ignorance/lack of training/ lack of intelligence.

No they absolutely will not. If you are not controlling for certain variables then the data has no real significance. Example: many studies find that there are people that cannot lose weight, that caloric restriction doesn't impact weight loss. These studies have one thing in common: the subjects self-report food intake. When studies have the subject in a controlled setting, when food intake is meticulously and accurately tracked, the subjects lose weight. Turns out that people are really, really ****ing bad at estimating how many calories they consume. Like by 40% or so. That's a huge discrepancy, needless to say.

This is why I prefer observational data over self-reporting and interviewing. The only way to find out is to find two very large groups of people and allow them to follow one or the other method and see who has the better numbers.


People are not reliable at reporting anything. Read up on how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in police cases.

Nothing wrong with liking your results, but knowing the WHY is critical if you are going to give advice to someone else.

Again, triangulation and observational data eliminates these things.

Scientists suck, frankly at dealing with messy people things. Exercise and fitness science only really works when applied to world-class athletes and folks who are so self-motivated as to not really need the weight loss.

We are engaged in a rhetorical exercise here, arguing past each other, but my final word is that "Yes, weight loss science works, but when applied to the great majority of normal people it is insufficient and largely irrelevant."

Failure to address the psychology of weight loss for the non world class athlete is foolish.

kaiservontexas
12-27-10, 11:31
How is a personal response about how this is working, with a cross section of others doing about the same things with similar results, not "scientific?" Science utilizes such studies to prove x or y all the time. Isn't this what stats is for too? Granted this is not a controlled group.

I have no diet yet except for preparing meals at home, so, nothing to add here about eating. The paleo-diet looks interesting to me, but I am keeping my cheese. Cheese is the only dairy I like, and I am not big on eating sweet things. I do like drinking my sweets, which I am fighting to cut out all together.

I do have a question: how is eating at night a good thing? I have gained because I eat at night more then during the day. In fact breakfast will make me queasy. I wake up sensitive as can be I guess. But I have noticed lately I have gained weight, and I think it is from the heavier meals being eaten at night instead of during the day. Yes I understand the body is always working even when asleep, but I am also not exerting myself as much while sleeping.

This is all new to me . . .

dookie1481
12-27-10, 12:14
Looking at how scientists really do business, scientific method is largely a mythology invented afterwards to give a rational explanation for what just happened.

Science itself is a belief system, by and large.



This is why I prefer observational data over self-reporting and interviewing. The only way to find out is to find two very large groups of people and allow them to follow one or the other method and see who has the better numbers.



Again, triangulation and observational data eliminates these things.

Scientists suck, frankly at dealing with messy people things. Exercise and fitness science only really works when applied to world-class athletes and folks who are so self-motivated as to not really need the weight loss.

We are engaged in a rhetorical exercise here, arguing past each other, but my final word is that "Yes, weight loss science works, but when applied to the great majority of normal people it is insufficient and largely irrelevant."

Failure to address the psychology of weight loss for the non world class athlete is foolish.

You are the only one who thinks I am failing to address psychology.

Again, you are projecting, you are saying that you have to eat 6 times a day or you will be starving because that is how you felt.

This is what I am saying: If you feel better eating 6 meals a day, then do so, but it is not NECESSARY nor does it confer any advantage.

When people read things like "you need to eat every 2-3 hours" they usually end up structuring their whole life around their next meal. I just want people to understand that they don't have to do this in order to make positive changes in body composition.

dookie1481
12-27-10, 12:24
How is a personal response about how this is working, with a cross section of others doing about the same things with similar results, not "scientific?" Science utilizes such studies to prove x or y all the time. Isn't this what stats is for too? Granted this is not a controlled group.

Let me give you an example:


Joe is fat. Joe is sedentary and eats 3 meals a day, consisting of burgers, pizza, soda, beer and candy, etc. He consumes about 3500 kcal a day and burns about 2500, leaving a surplus of 1000 kcal/day.

Joe decides he wants to be healthier. Joe changes his lifestyle, eating 6 meals/day of about 400 kcal each, eating mostly lean protein and non-processed carbs (2400 kcal/day). Joe starts exercising, and expends about 3000 kcal/day. Joe begins to lose weight.

So Joe was fat when he ate 3 meals a day, and started losing weight when he switched to 6 meals a day. Joe concludes that eating 6 meals a day is clearly superior and starts touting the benefits to all of his friends. They all conclude the same thing and achieve similar results. The problem is that they don't know which variable(s) have resulted in the positive change. They might look at meal frequency because it is obvious and easy to measure, but they would be wrong. It is overall energy balance (kcal in - kcal out) which is going to determine weight loss. The fact remains that they could have split those 2400 kcal up into 3 meals, 2, meals, even 1 meal, and achieved the same results. Now as 120mm stated, some people may have difficulty only eating 1-2 meals a day, that is for the individual to determine.

Without controlling for calorie and macronutrient intake, anecdotes don't mean much.

dookie1481
12-27-10, 12:25
How is a personal response about how this is working, with a cross section of others doing about the same things with similar results, not "scientific?" Science utilizes such studies to prove x or y all the time. Isn't this what stats is for too? Granted this is not a controlled group.

I have no diet yet except for preparing meals at home, so, nothing to add here about eating. The paleo-diet looks interesting to me, but I am keeping my cheese. Cheese is the only dairy I like, and I am not big on eating sweet things. I do like drinking my sweets, which I am fighting to cut out all together.

I do have a question: how is eating at night a good thing? I have gained because I eat at night more then during the day. In fact breakfast will make me queasy. I wake up sensitive as can be I guess. But I have noticed lately I have gained weight, and I think it is from the heavier meals being eaten at night instead of during the day. Yes I understand the body is always working even when asleep, but I am also not exerting myself as much while sleeping.

This is all new to me . . .

The Paleo crap has no scientific basis. It is, however, IMO, a good kind of rule of thumb for people who want to eat "good foods".

gbackus
12-27-10, 14:26
I was a big paleo+dairy advocate, having gone from 265-185 lbs with little to no exercise other than walking, and light jogging when I hit 200 lbs. However, after adding intense exercise(crossfit) having my bodyfat % continue to drop, my overall weight increase, and hitting a 3 week plateau(no change in bodyweight or bodyfat %) it was suggested that I drop the dairy and make no other changes to my eating habbits.

After nearly 6 weeks both my bodyfat% and bodyweight have begun dropping in unison, so I am no longer sure how I feel about dairy, but I am still a large proponent of paleo style eating.

Pain
12-27-10, 19:50
At my age, I try and maintain my weight. It's amazing how little food a person needs to eat to stay the same.

Now it's winter out, my pants are doomed!

Derek_Connor
01-13-11, 20:25
The Paleo crap has no scientific basis. It is, however, IMO, a good kind of rule of thumb for people who want to eat "good foods".


Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Its pretty stupid to follow 2-3million years of human evolutionary anthropology.

dookie1481
01-13-11, 20:44
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Its pretty stupid to follow 2-3million years of human evolutionary anthropology.

Lyle McDonald's take (emphasis mine): (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/static-stretching-and-refined-grain-intake-by-paleo-man-research-review.html)


tl;dr - Paleo diet is based on questionable assumptions about their diet. Paleo man more than likely ate grains.


Mercader J. Mozambican grass seed consumption during the middle stone age. Science. (2009) 326(5960):1680-3.

The role of starchy plants in early hominin diets and when the culinary processing of starches began have been difficult to track archaeologically. Seed collecting is conventionally perceived to have been an irrelevant activity among the Pleistocene foragers of southern Africa, on the grounds of both technological difficulty in the processing of grains and the belief that roots, fruits, and nuts, not cereals, were the basis for subsistence for the past 100,000 years and further back in time. A large assemblage of starch granules has been retrieved from the surfaces of Middle Stone Age stone tools from Mozambique, showing that early Homo sapiens relied on grass seeds starting at least 105,000 years ago, including those of sorghum grasses.

My Comments: In recent years, there has been quite an explosion in interest in the supposed diet of our paleolithic ancestors, essentially in an attempt to explain part of why humans are having so much trouble with the modern diet. So far as I can tell the first paper was written in the Mid-80’s or so but even more recently it’s become quite the fad/cult/area of interest for a lot of people.

Now, while an entire article could be written about this, it’s important to note that nobody knows for sure what we ate during our evolution. Even researchers in the field (Cordain and Eaton are two of the major ones) have arrived at rather drastically different conclusions about what our diets contained based on their assumptions because it’s all basically a lot of guesswork. We end up with estimations based on a bunch of assumptions and not much more.

Much of it comes from an analysis of a book called the Ethnographic Atlas, a work done years ago by non-scientists who wrote down (sort-of) what extant non-modernized people were eating. From that, various researchers, making various assumptions about the relative proportions of animal and vegetable foods in the diet have thrown out some ideas about what our evolutionary diet contained. Those researchers have often reached utterly differing ideas based on which built-in assumptions they started with. Other suggestions about our ancestral diet have been made by examining the current intake of extant hunter-gatherer tribes with the implicit assumption that their food intake is representative of our intake during our evolution.

I’d note that it’s unlikely that there was any singular evolutionary diet in the first place. Humans have shown the ability to adjust to all but the most extreme environments and show an amazing ability to adapt to drastically differing diets as well. Human ancestors evolving in say Alaska would have had far different foods available than someone living in the arid plains in Africa. Even examining the extant hunter-gatherer tribes demonstrates this in spades: the diet of an Alaskan Inuit is radically different from say an African Bushman simply due to the difference in environment and what is available to them. So there is no single ancestral diet in terms of the quantities, proportions or types of food that would have been eaten in the first place.

At best we can probably say with some degree of certainty that our ancestors didn’t have many of the foods available to us today. That is, Cap’n Crunch, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream and Bud Light weren’t part of our evolutionary diet because they didn’t exist (much to the loss of our ancestors). Beyond that, we can’t say with much certainty what they did eat; it’s mostly guessing because folks weren’t alive to say for sure. And while it may be safe to assume that extant hunter-gatherer tribes are representative, it’s still an assumption.

Now, while there are many different interpretations to the ‘paleo-diet’ craze, at least one thing that most seem to agree on was that refined grains were absolutely not part of the evolutionary diet. Bloggers, apparently unclear on the concept of irony, go on constantly about how ‘Paleo man didn’t have grains, so you shouldn’t eat them.’ Apparently that same logic doesn’t apply to the computers they use to blog with, the Internet that they blog on, their Blackberries that they use to Twitter about their blog updates, modern cars that they use to get to work or the houses they live in. Paleo man didn’t have those either but I don’t see these folks giving those up. Guess they only want to give up the easy stuff when it’s convenient. But I digress.

That is, it’s generally assumed that refined grains (being currently blamed for much of modern health problems) weren’t a major part of our diet until the agricultural revolution, about 10,000 years ago. It’s also assumed that that span of time is insufficient for man to have evolved to deal with them. I’ll only address this second assumption by pointing readers to a new book called The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution wherein the authors make a rather good argument that, contrary to common belief, not only did human evolution continue once humans became civilized, that it accelerated.

Rather, in looking at today’s second paper, I want to address that first assumption: that our evolutionary diet was devoid of any type of refined cereal grain. I imagine that, if you’ve read this far, you can guess what I’m going to say about it and what the second study concluded.

The researchers were examining cave artifacts in a cave site in Mozambique which have been dated to somewhere between 42000 and 105,000 years ago. They mention that excavation in 2007 retrieved 555 artifacts. Of those, 70 stone tools were analyzed and were chosen to represent the broadest range of potential plant uses. This includes scrapers, grinders, points, flakes and miscellaneous tools. These were analyzed and while 20% contained no starch residue, the other 80% were found to contain starch granules with the number on each tool ranging from 1 to 650. It’s worth noting that the quantity of granules found on the scrapers was massively larger than what is found naturally in the cave, that is, they were brought into the cave.

The majority of starch granules (89%) were identified as sorghum, a grass showing a large complex of cultivated, wild and weedy types. The researchers note that the starch granules found on the tools analyzed are structurally identical to modern sorghum plants. As the researchers state:

The Mozambican data show that Middle Stone Age groups routinely brought starchy plants to their cave sites and that starch granules go attached to and preserved on stone tools. I cannot prove that starch from all stone tools represents direct tool function…These early grinders are simply modified cobbles and core tools, with a suspected use that conforms to the technological action of “diffuse resting percussion” and “pounding”, which allows the grinding of plant materials.

Put differently, while more research will certainly be needed to verify or refute this claim, data that is a bit more direct than “Assumptions based on a book some guys wrote years and years ago” suggest that as far back as 100,000 years ago, humans had found a way to refine and consume at least some grains for their diet. Or as the researchers state more directly in the abstract above:

A large assembly of starch granules has been retrieved from the surfaces of Middle Stone Age tools from Mozambique, showing that early Homo Sapiens relied on grass seeds starting at least 105,000 years ago, including those of sorghum grasses.

And even if you don’t buy the argument of the book I referenced above, that 10,000 years is more than sufficient to allow adaptation to changes in diet, it would be hard to argue that 105,000 years isn’t time enough to adapt to some degree.

mrosamilia
01-13-11, 20:59
Warrior diet seems to be bring me the results that I have been looking for.

Derek_Connor
01-13-11, 21:40
..snip...



I could care less if, when, or what type of grains cavemen may have ate. I dont know how you jumped from Paleo to grains, either way.

I do care that using this very large amount of evidence as a guide has allowed me to feel better and perform the best I ever have. Ironically, this has been in line with what our ancestors ate, exposed to, and adapted to over the last several millions of years. I also acknowledged that I am N=1 for this particular experiemtn, but there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands out there with the same results. I'd call that worthy of a "scientific basis".

If your first line of defense is Lyle and his constant nagging of the "Paleo" diet, you'll need to do better. I think we all know Lyle was probably just upset he missed the boat.






And even if you don’t buy the argument of the book I referenced above, that 10,000 years is more than sufficient to allow adaptation to changes in diet, it would be hard to argue that 105,000 years isn’t time enough to adapt to some degree.

I do not buy the argument Lyle puts forth. Neither does Cordain last time I checked.

If 10,000 years is enough time to allow adaption to changes in diet, and Lyle quotes above that we have been eating grains for over 100k years, how come EVERYONE has gut inflammation/permeability issues when exposed to gluten found in grains?

And even if that article had more legs to stand on, 105k years ago out of a 2-3million years of history on this planet?

dookie1481
01-13-11, 21:58
Nothing wrong with partaking in a diet because it makes you feel better.

The implication that it is based on any sort of evidence when it is sketchy at best is what I take issue with.

And if you know anything about Lyle, you know that he couldn't give two ****s about being on any sort of boat...that is the thing that makes me respect his opinion. He is loyal to nothing but science, which is more than can be said most other people in that industry.


how come EVERYONE has gut inflammation/permeability issues when exposed to gluten found in grains

Source please.


I also acknowledged that I am N=1 for this particular experiemtn, but there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands out there with the same results. I'd call that worthy of a "scientific basis".


As I stated previously, if all those people controlled for kcal, macro intake, etc., then I would understand...but going from a typical American diet to a paleo diet and saying it's the food choices that made a difference is missing the forest for the trees.

120mm
01-13-11, 22:31
Nothing wrong with partaking in a diet because it makes you feel better.

The implication that it is based on any sort of evidence when it is sketchy at best is what I take issue with.

And if you know anything about Lyle, you know that he couldn't give two ****s about being on any sort of boat...that is the thing that makes me respect his opinion. He is loyal to nothing but science, which is more than can be said most other people in that industry.

Source please.

As I stated previously, if all those people controlled for kcal, macro intake, etc., then I would understand...but going from a typical American diet to a paleo diet and saying it's the food choices that made a difference is missing the forest for the trees.

I have to agree with this 100%.

If paleo man suddenly had the food choices Americans have, he'd pry say "**** this shit, I want some McDonald's" grow to be bigger, live longer, be stronger and more healthy, etc..

God, fad diet bullshit gets tiresome.

Derek_Connor
01-14-11, 06:54
The implication that it is based on any sort of evidence when it is sketchy at best is what I take issue with.

What do you find sketchy with the current anthropology studies behind what our ancestors ate?




As I stated previously, if all those people controlled for kcal, macro intake, etc., then I would understand...but going from a typical American diet to a paleo diet and saying it's the food choices that made a difference is missing the forest for the trees.

I dont understand this statement.
So you are saying that one has to count calories, macro nutrient %, etc to be successful in their regimen? Did I get that right?





Source please.



Research the mechanisms behind CXCR3, zonulin and their effects on intestinal epithelial cells.

Gluten exposure causes inflammation and permeability issues in your gut lining, at the VERY LEAST. To what degree you notice it, is hard to say per individual. Take it out of your diet for a 6-8 weeks, and then re-expose yourself, post your results.





If paleo man suddenly had the food choices Americans have, he'd pry say "**** this shit, I want some McDonald's"

Sure he would, path of least resistance for him to get the highest amount of calories.

But then he would also soon enjoy diabetes, heart disease, cancer, (insert neolithic disease here).

Blake
01-19-11, 14:11
I began a Paleo diet (+ dairy) around November 15th. I stayed dedicated to it (except for thanksgiving day) until Christmas time. I cheated for like two weeks, then back on as of two weeks ago.

This is where I'm out. I have always worked out regularly (military prior now LE). I'm in pretty decent shape. I run regularly and do mostly body weight and fitness bands. I don't have room in my house for lots of free weights.

I lose weight pretty easy on the Paleo diet. However, I hate it. Call me a slug or a slob, but I love food and I love beer. I like Italian, Mexican, and more importantly a good ole steak and baked potato. However, I do realize that health and fitness are important, and I value that. I also realize that over-indulgence is a killer.

I know there are recipes and stuff for the Paleo deal, but I feel like it is lacking flavor. If I didn't eat cheese with this diet I would off myself. I'm used to the diet, I eat a lot of meet, cheese, and fruit, usually veggies with dinner at night. I just find it a very lacking diet. A big plate of spaghetti with meat sauce and some breadsticks are much more appealing.

This may sound lame, or call it being victimized by culture, I just feel like eating great food and drinking a great tasting beer is a pleasure in life, that I'm not sure that I want to give up. What are your thoughts??

I'm 5'11 about 198lbs now. Probably around 16% body fat, could be a percent off or so. My goal was to lose body fat and weight. I want to be a bit more agile and lighter on my feet for running purposes and general mobility.

dookie1481
01-19-11, 16:39
What do you find sketchy with the current anthropology studies behind what our ancestors ate?

Assumptions about what a handful of tribes ate being extrapolated to an entire species. As stated, people in different places could have had dramatically different diets. But I'm not an anthropologist, so I may be wrong.

Also, using info about what ancient humans ate to make predictions about modern man's health is specious at best. There are a whole host of confounding variables involved: disease (paleo man usually didn't live long anyway), lack of activity inherent in modern society (paleo man had to run after his food), technology, etc.

Okinawan people are the longest-lived on Earth...Mediterraneans are up there as well...they eat tons of grains.

IIRC, some of Cordain's research used modern hunter-gatherer tribes diet as an example of what paleo man would have eaten...see the problem with this?



I dont understand this statement.
So you are saying that one has to count calories, macro nutrient %, etc to be successful in their regimen? Did I get that right?

No, what I'm saying is that the efficacy of a diet rarely (if ever) has anything to do with food choices. The total caloric intake is what matters.

People often reason that "the (insert diet here) diet works, I lost x pounds!" Any diet works when it causes you to consume less calories than you burn. If you were eating 3500 calories of shitty food a day, and switch to a diet that had you moving more and eating 2500 calories a day, you will lose weight, whether it is paleo, low-fat, vegetarian, etc. Your composition may differ, but it is energy balance that dictates weight loss.

This I why I stated many people miss the forest for the trees.


Research the mechanisms behind CXCR3, zonulin and their effects on intestinal epithelial cells.

Gluten exposure causes inflammation and permeability issues in your gut lining, at the VERY LEAST.

I will look into it. But what does it have to do with weight loss?


To what degree you notice it, is hard to say per individual. Take it out of your diet for a 6-8 weeks, and then re-expose yourself, post your results.

Not terribly interested in going to an absurd amount of trouble (and often great expense) to find gluten-free foods...but are you saying I would lose more weight on a gluten-free diet than one with gluten products?


As I previously stated, I think the "paleo diet", inasmuch as there is a coherent one, is a good "rule of thumb" for eating...but I feel that it's a fad that will go away like so many others.

My biggest problem with the paleo community is the evangelical fervor with which they present everything. Everything seems to be such a binary proposition. Either you eat paleo or you eat a shitty diet.

There is a lot to take away from the paleo community, but it has almost become a ****ing religion at this point.

dookie1481
01-19-11, 16:46
This is kind of interesting, BTW:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w196/alanaragon/grainconsumption.jpg

The culture with the most longevity gets over 90% of their daily energy intake from grains...

dookie1481
01-19-11, 17:12
RE: Cordain's research, one of his own papers states


"Unfortunately, not a single comprehensive study evaluating the macronutrient and trace nutrient contents of the wild plant and animal foods actually consumed in completely un-Westernized hunter-gatherer diets was ever conducted."

Also, from Alan Aragon:


Katharine Milton, a professor of biology (Division of Insect Biology, Dept. of Environmental Science at the University of California at Berkeley), points out the following possibilities that may potentially reduce the validity of the ethnographic data upon which Cordain’s latest work is based:

 Hunter-gatherers in their purely un-westernized form were extinct by the 20th century. The Ethnographic Atlas is compiled largely from 20th century sources, and written by individuals with widely varying backgrounds, who were not necessarily interested or skilled at dietary collection techniques.

 Some societies may have been miscoded as hunter-gatherers, since all societies in the Atlas were modern-day humans with richly diverse social end economic conditions, rather than sole survivors of a nutritionally ideal primitive era.

 The idea that some societies derived most of their energy from animal protein and fat does not render this diet ideal for modern man; it simply demonstrates the environmental extremes survivable by man as long as a full range of essential nutrients is available.

So much of his theory is based on research conducted on modern-day tribes, and was strictly qualitative in nature.

dookie1481
01-19-11, 17:30
I lose weight pretty easy on the Paleo diet. However, I hate it. Call me a slug or a slob, but I love food and I love beer. I like Italian, Mexican, and more importantly a good ole steak and baked potato. However, I do realize that health and fitness are important, and I value that. I also realize that over-indulgence is a killer.


This may sound lame, or call it being victimized by culture, I just feel like eating great food and drinking a great tasting beer is a pleasure in life, that I'm not sure that I want to give up. What are your thoughts??

This is EXACTLY the type of mentality I'm talking about, guys.

Blake, you don't have to give any of it up. You can enjoy anything you want, IN MODERATION. You want a beer, have a beer. You want Mexican or Italian food, enjoy it. But you have to compromise somewhere else. Say you need to eat 2500 calories a day (arbitrary number) to achieve your goal, whatever it may be. If your dinner is normally a 750 calorie meal, and you want a burrito that is 1200 calories, then guess what? You have to cut 450 calories somewhere to have the same energy balance. You can eat a smaller meal, skip a meal, eat less through the rest of the week, whatever. As long as you use moderation, you can do those sorts of things.

Life is too short to be a ****ing slave to your food.

Blake
01-19-11, 18:28
Life is too short to be a ****ing slave to your food.

And this is my feeling exactly. I started this diet because my brother and his wife are members of the crossfit cult. Before anyone takes major offense. I have done crossfit, and I appreciate what it does...to an extent. I'm joking. However, they (brother and wife and I know others) do follow anything that comes out of the Crossfit hierarchy. If they said eat two cowpies daily to improve, they would do it.... blindly. I started this diet for one goal, to lose weight. I have achieved that purpose. However, in my case, I feel it is unsustainable long term. People say Paleo is a lifestyle and a way of living. If that is the case, I don't subscribe. There are some pretty extensive recipes and ways to make the diet more "tasty", but, damn it is expensive. Have you seen the price of almond flour or almond butter. I can't afford it on my current salary. Back to the lifestyle claim. If people truly feel that it is a lifestyle, then "cheat days" or occasional slips can't be endorsed. That would be going completely against the lifestyle you are purporting to endorse.

I also look at it from the perspective of this: in the not so distant future, Crossfit used to advocate the use of the Zone diet. If I understand the sequence of events correctly, Rob Wolff was their nutrition guru and advocated Paleo, because this was not in line with the "Crossfit Way", he was let go. Now he is back on, and Crossfit recommends Paleo. Please forgive me if my facts are wrong, names are backwards, or I'm otherwise F'd up, but I thought that is what was explained to me. How can it be Zone one day, and now you are as wrong as two boys if you aren't doing Paleo. In the past my brother has recommended the Zone Diet to me, now it is totally wrong??

So my sister-in-law, explains to me that she doesn't understand all the science she just knows she feels so much better on this diet, and that is why she did it. Okay, that is good...if it helps prevent disease, and is better on the stomach, etc (add in benefit here), why does she take high blood pressure medication at age 40, and had to see the doctor over Christmas because her blood pressure was really high. This is a sample of one, but how good can you feel, when your blood pressure is out of control?

I felt pretty good before this. I don't feel worse now and I can't say I feel better. Although I do feel good about losing a few pounds, all I think about is wanting to eat a huge plate of spaghetti and eating a gallon of Fruity Pebbles. Unless I've been drinking, I've never been a big snacker, so that isn't an issue for me.

I've rambled on, but the only thing I have found to be constant when it concerns health foods, eating, diet recommendations is that know that nobody can agree on anything. Such as, until Paleo, I have never heard the claim that grains, rice, potatoes, pasta, etc, eats away your guts. Is there anyone outside of the Paleo crowd that backs this claim?

I tend to think that eating the right balance and proportion of carbs-protein-fat is the way to go, and keeping everything in moderation. I'm still on the diet, but I'm beginning to think there are better ways.

dookie1481
01-19-11, 20:23
And this is my feeling exactly. I started this diet because my brother and his wife are members of the crossfit cult. Before anyone takes major offense. I have done crossfit, and I appreciate what it does...to an extent. I'm joking. However, they (brother and wife and I know others) do follow anything that comes out of the Crossfit hierarchy. If they said eat two cowpies daily to improve, they would do it.... blindly. I started this diet for one goal, to lose weight. I have achieved that purpose. However, in my case, I feel it is unsustainable long term. People say Paleo is a lifestyle and a way of living. If that is the case, I don't subscribe. There are some pretty extensive recipes and ways to make the diet more "tasty", but, damn it is expensive. Have you seen the price of almond flour or almond butter. I can't afford it on my current salary. Back to the lifestyle claim. If people truly feel that it is a lifestyle, then "cheat days" or occasional slips can't be endorsed. That would be going completely against the lifestyle you are purporting to endorse.

Crossfit is notorious for attracting these types.


I also look at it from the perspective of this: in the not so distant future, Crossfit used to advocate the use of the Zone diet. If I understand the sequence of events correctly, Rob Wolff was their nutrition guru and advocated Paleo, because this was not in line with the "Crossfit Way", he was let go. Now he is back on, and Crossfit recommends Paleo. Please forgive me if my facts are wrong, names are backwards, or I'm otherwise F'd up, but I thought that is what was explained to me. How can it be Zone one day, and now you are as wrong as two boys if you aren't doing Paleo. In the past my brother has recommended the Zone Diet to me, now it is totally wrong??

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's how it went down.


So my sister-in-law, explains to me that she doesn't understand all the science she just knows she feels so much better on this diet, and that is why she did it. Okay, that is good...if it helps prevent disease, and is better on the stomach, etc (add in benefit here), why does she take high blood pressure medication at age 40, and had to see the doctor over Christmas because her blood pressure was really high. This is a sample of one, but how good can you feel, when your blood pressure is out of control?

I don't know your sister-in-law, but it could be hereditary. I've had high blood pressure for my whole life, even when I was a skinny-ass, 21 year old 135 pound Marine infantry man who ran every day.


I felt pretty good before this. I don't feel worse now and I can't say I feel better.

I would say this is a sign. Why go to all the trouble for no obvious benefit?


Although I do feel good about losing a few pounds, all I think about is wanting to eat a huge plate of spaghetti and eating a gallon of Fruity Pebbles.

Many knowledgeable able nutrition people recommend refeeds once in a while, it's good psychologically and physiologically.


Such as, until Paleo, I have never heard the claim that grains, rice, potatoes, pasta, etc, eats away your guts. Is there anyone outside of the Paleo crowd that backs this claim?

I don't know what you mean by "eats away your guts", but there are many studies that show the health benefits of grains (not all of which are funded by agriculture lol).


I tend to think that eating the right balance and proportion of carbs-protein-fat is the way to go, and keeping everything in moderation. I'm still on the diet, but I'm beginning to think there are better ways.

Here are a shit-ton of articles on nutrition/diet basics: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/category/nutrition/nutrition-fundamentals

120mm
01-20-11, 05:57
Sure he would, path of least resistance for him to get the highest amount of calories.

But then he would also soon enjoy diabetes, heart disease, cancer, (insert neolithic disease here).

You mean, he'd grow old and large enough to experience the normal consequences of growing old and large, instead of dying at 29, 5'3" and 120 pounds. And suffering malnutrition his entire life.

The leading cause of disease is old age. If only we all died at 35, there would be very little diabetes, heart disease, cancer and whatever else.


This is EXACTLY the type of mentality I'm talking about, guys.

Blake, you don't have to give any of it up. You can enjoy anything you want, IN MODERATION. You want a beer, have a beer. You want Mexican or Italian food, enjoy it. But you have to compromise somewhere else. Say you need to eat 2500 calories a day (arbitrary number) to achieve your goal, whatever it may be. If your dinner is normally a 750 calorie meal, and you want a burrito that is 1200 calories, then guess what? You have to cut 450 calories somewhere to have the same energy balance. You can eat a smaller meal, skip a meal, eat less through the rest of the week, whatever. As long as you use moderation, you can do those sorts of things.

Life is too short to be a ****ing slave to your food.

The cool thing is, the more active you are, and lower body fat you maintain, the more you can get away with, dietary wise, as long as you fulfill your daily requirements.

justin_247
01-20-11, 10:18
I gained the amount of weight i gained mostly because it seemed as though i was on some variation of the warrior diet. No breakfast, small lunch and then a huge dinner. Sure, i was leading a sedentary lifestyle at the time but even with weight training, a conscious effort to eat well and a bit of dedication towards ensuring im eating enough protein, carbs and fat i still find it hard to shed unwanted weight.

Anyone else have any opinions backed by personal experience in regards to the diet?

Generally, I don't think this is a good thing. However, that has been *EXACTLY* my diet for at least the last decade. But it only works if you work out nearly every single day, with a strong focus on aerobics and lean muscle exercises like in P90X and Crossfit. I've actually begun gaining weight recently on this diet and I'm pretty angry at myself, but the reason why is because I haven't been running nearly as much and, due to work, haven't had the chance to do much else. Still, I'm 5'10" and just over 150 lbs...

Genetics absolutely play a role, I believe, and no one diet is for everybody.

Derek_Connor
01-23-11, 14:25
This is kind of interesting, BTW:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w196/alanaragon/grainconsumption.jpg

The culture with the most longevity gets over 90% of their daily energy intake from grains...


I just happened to look at this picture you posted though, your overall summary while technically is correct, needs further dissection.

While they do eat small amounts of rice, millet (buckwheat noodles), mochi, etc, these are non-gluten containing grains. Which is a whole other comparison compared to gluten containing grains, the primary offender in causing leaky guts, auto-immune, etc.


I've skimmed through your other comments, honestly nothing of interest to debate on my end. You keep jumping from weight loss to grains and back and fourth, I don't have the energy to keep on topic with you. Still not sure what your end argument is.

Is it this:



As I previously stated, I think the "paleo diet", inasmuch as there is a coherent one, is a good "rule of thumb" for eating...but I feel that it's a fad that will go away like so many others.


Maybe. Maybe not.
I know that for those in my inner circle, It will not be going away anytime soon. Especially for 2 of my colleagues who now have 100% relief from their arthritis and celiac disease.



My biggest problem with the paleo community is the evangelical fervor with which they present everything. Everything seems to be such a binary proposition.



Same thing can be said about damn near any topic on the internet. You get a bunch of alpha-males online talking about a topic thats passionate to them, you are going to get cult like followings.

Think its safe to say this applies to every gun board I've ever been on as well.



Either you eat paleo or you eat a shitty diet.

One of the biggest ideas behind paleo/primal/insert whatever label it is now a days is to eat the highest quality and most nutrient dense food available.

So if its about comparing it to the nutrient breakdown analysis beween diets, then I'd agree with this statement you've made above.



There is a lot to take away from the paleo community, but it has almost become a ****ing religion at this point.

Dont know what to say to this other than, "boo hoo?"

Dont subscribe to it then. Many who follow paleo/primal dont subscribe to the cult/religion BS.

Unfortunately with the internet, everyone gets a chance to test out their soapbox. And some have louder microphones than others.

Hizzie
01-23-11, 15:22
My last rounds of actual dieting were the Dave Palumbo Keto Diet. The basic outline is as follows:



The premise of the diet is high protein (about 1- 1 1/2 gram per pound), moderate fat (about 1/2 g per lb) and low low carbs (no direct sources of carbs). During this diet, the brain goes into ketosis (it uses ketone bodies for energy-- fats) and thus the energy requirements by the body can almost all be supplied by fats (which you'll be taking in plenty of). The only activity that uses carbs will be the weight workout which may use 40grams per workout. You will get these 40g indirectly through the foods you'll be eating. As a backup, the cheat meal you'll be having once per week will provide a storehouse of glycogen (glucose) in case of emergency. So, you see, very little gluconeogenesis in the liver will be occurring. If we keep cortisol low (by
restricting STIMULANTS) we'll ensure that muscle is spared!

HAVE YOUR CHEAT MEAL ON THE SAME DAY EVERY WEEK, last meal of the
day so you dont cheat again.

Fiber helps burn fat! Everyone should take fiber 2x per day. Fiber actually helps increase the absorption of calcium.
When following my diet plan (which includes getting your brain into ketosis), there can be NO starchy carbs eaten!



For a 200lb man:

MEAL #1
5 whole eggs (make sure to buy OMEGA-3 EGGS from the supermarket. They contain virtually NO saturated fat and tons of good OMEGA-3 fats); add another 4 egg whites to this (they don?t need to be the Omega-3 ones; you can use liquid egg whites)

MEAL #2
SHAKE: 50g Whey Protein with 1 ? tablespoon of All Natural Peanut butter (no sugar)

MEAL #3
"Lean Protein Meal": 8oz chicken with 1/2-cup cashew nuts (almonds, or walnuts)

MEAL #4
SHAKE: 50g Whey Protein with 1 ? tablespoons of All Natural Peanut butter (no sugar added)

MEAL #5
"Fatty Protein Meal": 8oz Salmon, Swordfish, or RED MEAT with a green salad (no tomatoes, carrots, or red peppers) with 1 tablespoon of Olive Oil or Macadamia nut oil and vinegar

MEAL #6
SHAKE: 50g Whey with 1 ? tablespoon all natural peanut butter or 4 whole (Omega-3) eggs and 4 extra whites

For a 250lb+ man:
Meal 1 6 whole Omega-3 eggs
Meal 2 8oz chicken with 1/2 cup raw almonds
Meal 3 50g whey with 2 tablespoons all natural peanutbutter
Meal 4 8oz salmon with 1 cup asparagus with 1 tablespoon macadamia nut oil
Meal 5 50 g whey with 2 tablespoon PB
Meal 6 6 whole eggs

Remember, it takes 3-4 days to get into a strong ketosis where your brain is using ketone bodies (fats), instead of carbs, for energy. Be patient.

Many times I'll switch to an alternatiing diet where one day it will be protein/fat......then another protein/vegetables (very little fat). The great thing about the body and fat is that ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS can be stored in the muscle for several days, up to 2 weeks......therefore, once an adequate storehouse of Essential Fats are built up, the body can be "tortured" a little and it still won't give up muscle (that's assuming you're still taking in adequate protein. Protein can't be stored).

1oz almonds equals 6g carbs (2 of those grams are fiber) and 2oz equals 12g of carbs.

With the beef meal (any fatty protein meal), you should have the green salad with 1 tablespoon of Olive or Mac oil INSTEAD of the nuts. Only eat the nuts with the LEAN PROTEIN MEAL (chicken, turkey, lean fish)

The best fat sources come from the essential fatty acids-- Omega-6 and Omega-3's. Most of us get plenty of Omega-6s from cooking oils, ect..........however the Omega-3's are harder to get. I recommend WHOLE OMEGA-3 EGGS, FaTTY FISHS like SALMON and SWORDFISH and TUNA and MACKEREL, ALMONDS and WALNUTS have some OMEGA-3's (as well as OMEGA-6s). ANother great fat source is MONOUNSATURATES such as EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL and MACADAMIA NUT OIL.....they aren't essential but they are great for the metabolism (great source of energy) and they are extremely good for your heart.

You're not getting any indirect sources of carbs (just from the 1 spoonful of PB.... you may want to have at least one 1/3cup nuts meal. Remember, Olive or Macadamia nut oil is predominantly a MONOUNSATURATED FAT (good for the heart, but not essential)........ the nuts, and fish oil have the essential fats in them. Also, with regard to FLAX SEED OIL, the OMEGA-3 Fatty Acids found in them (alpha-linolenic acid) has a very poor conversion to DHA and EPA (Essential Omega-3 intermediates) in the HUMAN........therefore, you're much better off taking in FISH OILS (that already contain DHA/EPA) than FLAX SEED OIL.

Once fat loss slows, I always increase cardio first, then I increase the amount of fat burners (clen, cytomel, lipolyze).........After those other methods are exhausted, only then, do I play with the diet.

Always eat BEFORE lifting........never BETWEEN lifting and cardio.
Artificial Sweetners:
The artificial sweetener itself (eg. aspartame, sucralose) wont cause a problem. It's what some companies complex it with. For example, EQUAL and SPLENDA combine their aspartame and sucrolose with 1g of maltodextrin........whereas, in diet drinks, they don't do that. So, diet drinks are okay, SPLENDA and EQUAL must be used in moderation (STEVIA BALANCE is fine though since they use inulin fiber instead of maltodextrin

Forget using:
-MCT's are a waste when you're dieting. If you're gonna use FATS for an energy source, they might as well serve a function in the body. MCTs are useless. They can only serve as a source of energy!
-Arginine is not going to do anything. It will DO something; just not dramatic.

Cardio:
CARDIO should be performed at a low intensity (under 120bpm heartrate). This will ensure that you use FAT as a fuelsource since as your heartrate increase, carbohydrates begin to become the preferred fuel of choice for the body. When on a low carb diet, you're body will break down muscle and turn that into carbs. Remember, Fat CANNOT be changed into carbs. Therefore, for bodybuilding, the rule of cardio should be LONG DURATION, LOW INTENSITY

never do less than 20 min per session

The BOTTOM LINE is that low intensity cardio (while you might need more of it) ensures that fat is utilized and muscle is spared (especially while on my high protein/moderate fat/low carb diety).

Do you feel the treadmill is better for cardio, or is the bike(stationary or recumbent) just as good? As long as the intensity is LOW, it doesn't matter which piece of equipment you use

geistacwm
01-23-11, 18:38
Eggs and wheat toast for breakfast usually.
Vegatarian FO (Vietnamese soup) for lunch usually.

Varying dinners.

15-1700 calorie diet. Best health of my life @31.