It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food. Grains want to be carried away by the wind to plant themselves somewhere else. Their ancestors invariably had toxins in them to dissuade any creatures (including us) from eating them.
Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten. Hence the wide range of defensive measures most animals/insects/fish have to make sure that does not happen too often. Again, toxins come into play. As you move up the food chain so you get an accumulation of those toxins, hence we tend not to eat apex predators.
Compare and contrast with fruit. Fruit has evolved specifically to be eaten, particularly by primates. The idea being that we eat some fruit, wander off to somewhere new, have a dump, eject some seeds from the fruit complete with a handy amount of manure and water. Yep, those pesky plants tricked us into doing all of their work for them! They even managed to get us to cover up our leavings, thereby planting their seeds properly.
Our vision system co-evolved with fruit, we (as in primates) see in colour not because god wanted us to live in some world of puppies and rainbows but so we could eat fruit that is ripe and ready to eat. The plants, knowing that we were evolving colour vision, kindly evolved through some process of natural selection to produce fruit that kick in to 'eat me' colours when they are nice 'n' ripe.
With this colour coded system it is possible for plants to avoid waste. We (as in primates) only pick the ripe fruit, the stuff that is still green is identifiably no good to us so we leave it until it magically changes colour.
Obviously there came a time when grasslands took over and we had to leave the trees, learn to stand up and walk on two feet (so we could see over the grass) and find new meals to try. At this stage the cult of eating dead animals was borne, we adapted, but not that much, our intestines are still a million miles longer than that of a dog, we still have hands for nabbling fruit rather than vicious claws to rip apart stray wildebeest and we can still chew, as you need to do for fruit, in a way dogs don't do.
Much like how multi-vitamins are of dubious benefit to you, so it is with fructose. Sugars in fruit are fine, nobody has died of diabetes due to eating too many apples. The 'fibre' is an important part of it, you need 'fibre' if you are to consume sucrose.
The problem with diet in America is corn. There is nothing edible about corn grown in America today unless it has been processed by an industrial process or another animal first. All of those corn-stuffed animals Americans eat get killed before the corn kills them. If Americans are not careful they will be remembered as 'the corn people' like some of those American Indian tribes that tried and failed to build corn-based civilisations in pre-Columbian times.
What they want is irrelevant. As they evolved to avoid being eaten, so we evolved to be able to obtains, eat and digest it. It's not a one-sided process of providing us with a ready made menu.
> At this stage the cult of eating dead animals was borne
Why do you assume we did not eat animals "in the trees"? Is there any evidence to support that? Chimps eat meat on occasion, for example, and when they do the pack literally tears the victim apart.
And describing it as a "cult" is ridiculous. It became important because it is an immense source of nutrients, and available in many places where surviving on available plants/fruits was near impossible prior to the development of extensive trade. The ability to eat and digest meat provided us with yet another evolutionary advantage over many other animals.
> We (as in primates) only pick the ripe fruit, the stuff that is still green is identifiably no good to us
There's plenty of fruit that's green when it is ripe, and plenty that is a different colour than green for a long time before it is ripe.
> we still have hands for nabbling fruit rather than vicious claws to rip apart stray wildebeest
Which have proved superior in providing means for killing animals? Our hands can hold and wield weapons. Which approach to eating meat is better: Tearing apart raw meat, or cooking it? You seem to assume that we are not well adapted to handling our new menu entries and/or that these features somehow means we're better adapted to fruit just because we haven't taken on the characteristics of animals that are terribly limited in their abilities.
What about pure carnivores? Surely their food doesn't want to be food, but carnivores do just fine.
While I agree that the amount of corn we eat is absurd, to call it inedible is ludicrous. Raw corn on the cob is plenty edible, and sweet corn is quite tasty, although that's admittedly not what's grown on large corn plantations.
At least some pre-Columbian societies nixtamalized their corn (think hominy and masa harina), which unlocks many nutrients, greatly improving its nutritional value and making it a much better staple than non-nixtamalized corn.
Umm taking into account the Aztec, Maya, Inca and all the aboriginal nations that preceded and co-existed with them I would like to disagree with the failure part. It is as possible to build a civilization from corn as it was from rice and wheat.
Oh also, this whole "grains are bad for you because of our caveman roots" thing has to be the least provable piece of speculation passing around the Internet these days. It is backed by few facts and much smugness.
I like to speculate too though. I think the problem with corn is the petroleum refining style approach that is taken with it. If you read up about it corn is treated as almost like a chemical feedstock. The resulting "products" are a public health disaster hidden from scrutiny by the money of Archer Daniels Midland etc and politicians from the Corn Belt.
The problem with wheat is the post WWII intensive breeding programs designed to maximize yield and gluten content. Gluten makes a easier feedstock for bakers and food product manufacturers. It also counts towards protein measurements and that directly relates to price. Many governments like Saudi Arabia that buy wheat for their entire nation look for higher protein levels and bumping gluten is a nice shortcut. I believe these market driven wheat modifications have produced unexamined changes and proteins that negatively affect the health of a significant percentage of the population. I believe in the coming years we will see a movement promoting the revival of "heritage" strains of wheat like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fife_wheat.
Do you imply that corn had negative effect on Indians? From what I've read [1] it actually allowed Indians to maintain their population levels without having irrigation technology comparable to one developed in middle East and Europe.
[1] http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/technology-world-civilization
This is an attractive statement but is not trivial: I would question it. (with the caveat that evolution is a passive process)
Species may gain evolutionary benefit from being eaten: the weakest of the species are pruned, leaving the strongest candidates.
Using toxins to avoid being eaten might have a short-term benefit but a longer-term penalty as less robust creatures get a temporary escape pass: plus, maintaining adequate toxicity creates an arms race that has significant evolutionary cost.
As part of participating in a healthy ecosystem, it is likely better for many species to allow some of their members to be eaten.
The fact that mammals generally do not maintain toxicity suggests there are more downsides than upsides.
I cannot think of an example where 'free food for predators' is part of the deal. I can see why lots of eggs are produced in the hope that some get to survive, but that is not the same as deliberately producing 'free food for predators' that also happens to be 'designed to be eaten'.
Did you have any examples in mind?
Many parasites have done just that. Also the females of some species eat the males after mating.
> Apex predators are hard to kill for humans
No longer true, and we still don't eat them a whole lot.
Plankton have largely evolved to be eaten.
Grains want to be carried away by the wind to plant themselves somewhere else.
Another interesting parallel in eating seeds is between seeds from angiosperms like pine seeds and those from grasses like wheat. Two very different types of plants, but primates ate the same part of each.
Also, did humans evolve to carry gluten digesting genes over time, hence a subpopulation that cannot handle gluten?
I would disagree. Most animals didn't evolve any defense mechanism to make them less appetizing, and animals at the bottom of the food chain reproduce the most so they have the most numbers to keep the species going. Meanwhile animals on the top of the food chain evolved in a manner to eat other animals. It's just nature for you.
I'm not obese, but I gain weight from eating a little more, very easily. Last summer, I followed a Keto ("ultra low carb, high fat, medium protein") diet for about 4 months. After the first week of feeling terrible, a well-known side effect, I felt perfectly fine. It felt like I was binge eating, I limited what I could eat and just went mad eating it. Any time I was remotely hungry, grab an approved snack. A big plate of bacon and eggs for breakfast, Chipotle for lunch, and a hefty meal for dinner.
I never went hungry, and as someone who likes food, it felt more like a treat than a diet. Colleagues thought I was trying to gain weight, and my girlfriend thought I'd gone mad with hunger. But the fat melted off. I didn't walk into a gym in those 3 months, and dropped 2-3lbs a week (starting ~250 at 6"3'), every single week.
I'm not saying it's perfect, or even viable for everybody -- it's not cheap, it's awkward to eat with friends, and the first week or two can be hell. Despite what people have been told, fat won't make you fat, and Keto has been shown over and over to reduce the risk factors for heart disease, 'cure' diabetics, and provide huge body transformations.
For anyone interested, /r/keto is a reasonably mature community, and can provide a lot more information.
Also remember that weight loss is not the only benefit of exercise.
That said, congrats on losing weight. Now start exercising :-)
Weight loss is not part of any benefit of exercise. Though your statement is commonly held as a belief there is absolutely no scientific basis for your statement.
Anyone can easily verify this for themselves: take a chart showing calories in common foods beside a chart showing common activities and how many calories they burn and try to find any scenario where you can out exercise your mouth.
Sounds good in theory (sugar is bad), but it sounds stressful (body starts producing ketones due to suck a lack of sugar, flu like symptoms for a week).
On top of /r/keto Dr. Peter Attia has a great blog on this topic http://eatingacademy.com/ It's a great resource for a more scientific explanation of what happens to the metabolism when keto-adapted and on the effects of carbohydrates and more importantly insulin.
In all seriousness, the world of online nutrition is a nasty and insane place. There's a lot of dogma and cognitive dissonance in something that borders on religion among the followers of gurus like Attia. If you're simply looking for an objective explanation of science rather than an ideology, look elsewhere.
http://www.runnersworld.co.za/nutrition/novel-dietary-ideas/
He doesn't say a ketogenic diet is right for everyone, rather that some people are very sensitive to carbs ("carbohydrate-resistant") and would be best served avoiding them.
Nothing else I've tried was as easy as keto... And as a guy with >65lbs to lose I've tried a lot of diets.
I don't know if it is for everyone, but my body responds really well to it.
How did you do Chipotle? I'm guessing you just went with beans / meat / vegetables and skipped the rice and tortilla?
[1] http://www.chipotle.com/en-us/menu/nutrition_calculator/nutr...
Thanks.
I stopped because it was just too awkward. Living with my girlfriend, it was annoying that we had to cook separately (she only believes in low calorie, zombie cardio 5 days a week). We could only go out to dinner at certain places, which got a bit tedious. And to be honest, I'd done pretty well, and was back to the sort of weight I wanted to be at. The toss up between the cost/awkwardness, and the amount of weight I still had to lose, it wasn't worth the hassle.
Though, if I ever need to lose weight again (hopefully never), I wouldn't even dream of anything else.
5 or 6 slices of bacon and 3 eggs is in the ballpark of 500 calories, which is a fairly light meal for someone at 200 pounds.
The best lifestyle change I've made is to drastically cut down on carbs, generally avoiding wheat and try never to eat sugar, in particular fructose. Note this doesn't stop me eating carbs but that I generally try and avoid them in my day to day eating. I no longer feel tired in the afternoon.
I also cycle to work.
Not celiac, and not anything life threatening, but definitely a huge effect. After dropping wheat, I lost 30 lbs in one month, and it stayed off for 18 month without wheat (but some came on again after a week of eating mostly corn products - which is how I discovered that corn is evil too)
The best way to determine if this is relevant to you is not to read books or articles or consult with a doctor: rather, take a week or two off grains (much harder than it sounds - wheat and corn are used as fillers in many products), and then adding them sporadically and keeping a journal (what and when you ate each day; and whether you felt good/bad the next hour/day)
Not easy, but well worth it and not expensive.
Anecdotally, I've noticed that if I eat a small breakfast high in protein - e.g. 3 eggs - then I don't get hungry for several hours. If I eat a large breakfast high in carbs - e.g. pancakes or waffles - then I am hungry much sooner.
1) If I eat a carb rich meal, I will happily go for a nap. Anecdotal evidence, had spaghetti carbonara with garlic bread at the weekend. Fell asleep watching a film for the first time in about a year. I can create the same effect with potato or rice. I don't like it. It wastes my time.
2) After eating a lot of bread I can feel extremely bloated and uncomfortable. I potentially have a gluten intolerance however I find the same when eating a lot of sugar. It could be yeast related. Through experimentation I've found that the white 'gacky' sliced bread is particularly bad.
3) I don't think we are designed to eat modern wheat. I switched from beer (ale) to cider and find I have no morning after 'bowel' effects.
4) I avoid sourdough bread. Who am I kidding. Best bread in the world. My crack cocaine. Thankfully there are some awesome artisan bakers in Bath, UK. However when I buy a loaf, I commit to a 20+ mile cycle ride.
5) If I eat a carb rich meal, I will get hungry quicker. I can feel 'fuller' for longer by avoiding carbs. It makes me avoid snacks.
A lot of the above is about feeling mentally alert at work/home. In the winter it means I cook up big pots of high protein stew, freeze them and take them to work and zap them in the microwave. Summer is all about big boxes of salads, heavy on the meat/cheese/dressing.
At work we have lunchtime Dirty Burger Wednesdays where we grab nasty takeaway food :) Like I said it's not about being religious about not eating wheat, just generally trying to minimise intake. I know what a high carb diet makes me feel like.
One proviso. I cycle to work. The morning is almost a free wheel 2.5 mile down hill ride. The evening is a 2.5 mile climb. It used to be a real bitch. Now only the last 0.5 mile is a bit nasty.
IIRC Fructose is processed in a similar way to the way alcohol is processed in your system. It's not an energy source that can be used by your body without processing. I also believe it's one of those energy types that is readily stored as fat.
My body has adapted! Initially I couldn't lift as much nor run quite as quickly while working out on empty, but the fat melted off nicely at about a pound a week for the first 6 months. My weight then stabilized for about 3 months.
In the last few months I have been trying a very slow bulk while still keeping to the schedule. Trying to eat above maintenance level and add muscle. It seems to be working I have put back on about 7 pounds and I estimate that about 4 of those are muscle. And, my personal bests in weight lifting have just recently been matched.
I have to say that overall I am very pleased with the results of this style of intermittent fasting and the ability to keep working out.
Having said all that, I am thinking that this year I would like to experiment with some longer fasts of 24 to 36 hours. I anticipate that I will need to significantly reduce the intensity of my workout during that kind of fast.
My calorie intake on exercise days on IF is about 2800kcal (as a 6'1 male with a current weight of 108kg/238lbs and a substantially above average muscle volume), which usually meant a lunch consisting of 1800+ calories of protein heavy food.
I'd usually exercise fasted (I do power lifting) apart from a low quantity of bcaa's, and have my first meal at noon.
But in fact, you adjust to going to the gym on low calorie diets too. Intensity may suffer, but it's certainly possible.
When I was getting ready for the prom I was working out, swimming and fasting for two weeks (only protein 200-400 calories). It was uncomfortable but totally manageable.
Warriors have waged whole wars depraved of adequate nutrition.
I workout around 6-8 am and eat at 1pm and I actually find I have more energy fasted than if i go in the afternoon.
Even in Islam, during ramzaan people fast everyday for 30 days . They eat before dawn break and eat again after dusk.
Also, according to superfreakonomics, this wreaks havoc on gestating babies. Seems like all harm and no benefit fasting (which, perhaps is the idea - Jewish fasting on Yom Kippur is specifically spoused to be a soul-torture/soul-searching experience - both translations are valid - although it is often not experienced as either)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/cairo-the-...
The intent of the fast isn't for health reasons, although from my own anecdotal experience it does seem to have healthful effects, such as sharpening the mind. The rules aren't set in stone but are an ideal for the purpose of cultivating self-discipline and a humble awareness of our limitations. If a person fasts from food but "consumes" their neighbor (through anger, jealousy, etc.), then the whole point of the fast has been missed.
A few years ago a few hardcore fitness fanatics started playing with the idea of using controlled fasting for weight loss and/or body recomposition. Two people that should be mentioned are Lyle McDonald[1] and Martin Berkhan[2]. Martin especially made IF popular via his blog, laying out the principles he used as a fitness consultant with his clients.
Most research (and especially the commercial IF knockoffs) only take some part of these principles, but the "diet" part is only part of the picture when it comes to body recomposition. It's almost worthless without the rest (high intensity, low volume weight training, basic compound movements, progressive overload, no focus on cardio).
Quite a few people/company are trying to rip off customers via their IF programs knockoffs and supplements. If you want give IF a shot, read through Martin's blog, and try the original Leangains protocol.
[1] http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ [2] http://www.leangains.com/
Dr Mercola also has some really good articles on IF - www.mercola.com
Best part is that it has been a cinch to stick to. I simply don't get hungry during that 16h window
When I'm cutting, I don't make a fuss about "junk food", as long as I'm below my calorie intake limit and I'm not missing any important nutrient. Usually hovering around 20% junk food.
Fortunately, clicking through to another article in the series (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25498742) gives more details about what was tested here:
The food, during the [5-consecutive-day] period of the restricted diet, was designed to be highly nutritious. It consisted of plant-based soups, kale chips, a nutty bar, a herbal tea and an energy drink. The total number of calories, in five days, was about 2,500 - a little more than the average person consumes in one day. No additional food was allowed. For the rest of the month we were allowed a normal diet. The regime was repeated three times, followed by a control period, when we could eat anything.
There is one diet type quite popular right now in fitness called Leangains which calls for about 16h of fasting and a 8h eating window (granted that you can reduce the eating window if you feel like it).
Some people even reduce the eating window to just one meal (warrior diet).
When I started doing IF, I was lifting pretty heavy and after the first week I had gained weight. I was pissed because I was hungry all the time it seemed, but I gained weight this week? Huh? Well, fast forward to now, and I put about 20 pounds since July 1, and yet I am not fatter. I am muscular. It's weird, and yes I was lifting, but fasting helped my body get from that chubby kid phase to, 'oh wow, I think I am almost ripped'. There are definitely some real benefits to fasting and no one will tell you that because they can't sell it to you in a pill.
Something really intriguing to me about fasting for 24hrs+ and then having to eat. For me, I crave healthy foods at that point and I also have the instinct to stuff my face and thus one meal/day works for that. It's tough to eat a bunch of crap when you are only eating once/day.
Finally, if you are interested in IF, I recommend reading up on Ori Hofmekler. He is the type of guy who's ideas are so crazy at first they are brushed off. Then science proves him right.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Warrior-Diet-Biological-Powerhouse...
Usually, though, I have an apple and cup of tea about 2PM. Dinner about 8. So I'm doing all my eating in a 6 hour window, fasting the other 18 hours, every day.
But with cheating in general, I will move the hours of fast around. So if I do go to a lunch, I'll probably eat pretty damn big and then fast until 6-8 the next day, make a good dinner. It's funny how much you enjoy food when you learn how to eat.
IF is much less about weight than it is the other, generally scientifically demonstrated benefits of reduced caloric intake — though it does tend to confer some benefit in weight reduction as well.
> IF is much less about weight than it is the other, generally scientifically demonstrated benefits of reduced caloric intake
That depends on the type of IF. Again Leangains is not specifically about calorie reduction, but about obtaining some of the benefit of being in a fasted state part of the day coupled with avoiding adding body fat, which for many who uses Leangains still means consciously adding weight.
Having lost >30 lb multiple times and having regained more each cycle, the problem (for me) is that work, stress, sleep deprivation, children, family crises, work crises, business travel, etc. present significant obstacles to any extreme protocols.
I tried IF for 6 months; it worked short term. But I felt so unfocused and unstable during the fast days that it was difficult for me to maintain.
My latest effort (lost >100 lb, for over a year) has greatly simplified things - eat lots of veggies before I eat protein or other foods for any meal. No other restrictions, calorie counting, or biochemistry hacks. Very easy to eat out, travel, maintain. I did not join a gym or buy equipment this time - instead I walk to work (5 miles each way.) Also maintain sleep program - no more evening alcohol or coffee.
The biggest advantage is that you don't have to make any fundamental changes to your diet or habits and it's flexible enough to accommodate occasional big, unhealthy meals - so there's not too much self control necessary to stick with it.
It also subtly pushes you towards eating fruit and veggies because most of those have no points and thus can be eaten at any time, as much as you want.
The thing is I am fairly skinny, and struggle to put on weight. Does anyone know if I am likely to loose weight?
And are there any good site to learn about it in a fairly scientific way? I see lots of blogs, but never sure how much is worth reading.
It did help him alot but the cool thing was there was a guy who lived on a meal a day which had athlete like body fat levels.
There's also a runner, Fauja Singh, who ran a marathon at 101 years of age featured in it who practices something close to intermittent fasting [1]
It was extremely interesting and I do feel after watching it that 3 meals a day is something conjured by man but may not really be all that natural.
Link to episode intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGHDBIaibok