The Motivation
Ever since I managed to lose 43lbs last year, I've become more and more interested in diet. I've spent some time reading and found the following books/articles to be particularly interesting:
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
Makes a very strong argument that the "lipid hypothesis" - that dietary fat is bad for us and makes us obese and sick - is extremely flawed. Also discusses how not all calories are the same and how the type of calories can be just as important as the quantity. Taubes presents a "carbohydrate hypothesis" in which he claims that the hormonal reaction to processed foods, especially processed carbs, may be the actual cause of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer. A short version of Taubes' stance can be seen in the New York Times article What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?.
Enter The Zone by Barry Sears
Makes many of the same claims as Good Calories, Bad Calories about the impact of diet on hormones, plus some extra ones, and lays out a specific nutrition plan to take advantage of these claims. I must admit that while some of the scientific backing for this diet is sound, much of it is can also be controversial, pseudo scientific, anecdotal, or just plain wrong. Still, the diet has a lot of redeeming qualities, including urging people to avoid processed foods, focusing on whole foods (especially fruits & veggies), including sufficient protein & fat in the diet, and not eschewing carbs entirely as some evil substance. Basic info about the Zone Diet is on Barry Sears' homepage.
In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan.
Pollan makes a strong argument against "nutritionism", which I think is pretty unique and enlightening. He takes a strong stance in favor of focusing the diet on food rather than the nutrients that make up food, because, in all honesty, our understanding of nutrients is piss poor. He also discusses the likely ills that come from processed products, which he doesn't consider "food" at all. The basic recommendation of the book is to: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." For those who are interested, an abbreviated version of his stance can be found in the New York Times article Unhappy Meals.
The calorie delusion: Why food labels are wrong by Bijal Trivedi.
This article contains lots of interesting evidence that indicates that the type of food we eat is just as important as the quantity. For example, the number of calories listed on the labels of food can be off by as much as 25% because they do not take into account numerous factors, such as the widely differing amounts of energy it takes to digest different foods. If you're struggling to lose weight, the source of your calories may be just as influential as the total amount.
The Plan
For one month, I'm going to try out several changes to my diet. My goals are to maintain my bodyweight at around ~185lbs and to maximize my athletic performance in Crossfit workouts. Reducing my body fat percentage (currently ~12%) without a significant change in bodyweight would be a nice bonus, but not something I expect or care about greatly. I'll update this thread from time to time to explain how the experiment has been going, what I've been eating, how I've been feeling, and how I've been performing at my workouts.
1. Minimize processed food consumption
This is a big change and no matter how this diet experiment turns out, I'll probably stick with it. As Michael Pollan says, it seems clear that the human digestion system is well adapted to handle a very wide range of diets, but the "Western Diet" is not one of them. The "Western Diet" contains a huge amount of highly processed products (especially refined carbs) and every single one of the books above contains VERY strong evidence that this leads to a vast array of health problems. I eat virtually no junk food, fast food, or soda as it is, but I'll still need to make numerous changes, including seriously cutting down on pasta, rice, bread, cereal, sweets, and most other foods that are heavily processed or contain refined ingredients (flour, HFCS, etc). The one exception, at least for now, will be whey protein powder as it's otherwise inconvenient to meet my protein needs. Edit: I no longer use whey protein powder either.
2. Maximize whole food consumption
To replace the processed foods in my diet, I'm going to focus on whole foods. This means eating more fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, meat, seafood and, in general, buying foods as close to their raw state as is reasonable. In this way, my diet is a bit like the Paleo Diet. However, I will NOT be avoiding milk products, legumes, corn on the cob or anything else that grows in nature. I consider these foods "whole" and, as long as they are not overly processed, I doubt they will have any negative impact.
3. Strive to use the "Zone" macronutrient breakdown
This is the one I'm most skeptical about and have a feeling it'll be more trouble than it's worth. However, I must admit that the anecdotal evidence of the numerous elite athletes that swear by this diet (include many CFers) is extremely compelling. I figure it can't hurt to try it and if it doesn't work, the two dietary changes above should still benefit me greatly. The goal is to make sure that the calories in each meal consist of roughly 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fat. Although there is very little scientific evidence that this exact breakdown is "ideal", I've read through numerous studies, such as this one (I can post some others if anyone is interested), that suggest that a diet moderate (30-40%) in all 3 macronutrients is most likely a good choice for athletes. Starting with my approximate protein needs (~1g/lb of LBM), and splitting my food intake into my typical 5-6 meals, the 40/30/30 breakdown will let me plan out meals relatively easily.
Ever since I managed to lose 43lbs last year, I've become more and more interested in diet. I've spent some time reading and found the following books/articles to be particularly interesting:
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
Makes a very strong argument that the "lipid hypothesis" - that dietary fat is bad for us and makes us obese and sick - is extremely flawed. Also discusses how not all calories are the same and how the type of calories can be just as important as the quantity. Taubes presents a "carbohydrate hypothesis" in which he claims that the hormonal reaction to processed foods, especially processed carbs, may be the actual cause of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer. A short version of Taubes' stance can be seen in the New York Times article What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?.
Enter The Zone by Barry Sears
Makes many of the same claims as Good Calories, Bad Calories about the impact of diet on hormones, plus some extra ones, and lays out a specific nutrition plan to take advantage of these claims. I must admit that while some of the scientific backing for this diet is sound, much of it is can also be controversial, pseudo scientific, anecdotal, or just plain wrong. Still, the diet has a lot of redeeming qualities, including urging people to avoid processed foods, focusing on whole foods (especially fruits & veggies), including sufficient protein & fat in the diet, and not eschewing carbs entirely as some evil substance. Basic info about the Zone Diet is on Barry Sears' homepage.
In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan.
Pollan makes a strong argument against "nutritionism", which I think is pretty unique and enlightening. He takes a strong stance in favor of focusing the diet on food rather than the nutrients that make up food, because, in all honesty, our understanding of nutrients is piss poor. He also discusses the likely ills that come from processed products, which he doesn't consider "food" at all. The basic recommendation of the book is to: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." For those who are interested, an abbreviated version of his stance can be found in the New York Times article Unhappy Meals.
The calorie delusion: Why food labels are wrong by Bijal Trivedi.
This article contains lots of interesting evidence that indicates that the type of food we eat is just as important as the quantity. For example, the number of calories listed on the labels of food can be off by as much as 25% because they do not take into account numerous factors, such as the widely differing amounts of energy it takes to digest different foods. If you're struggling to lose weight, the source of your calories may be just as influential as the total amount.
The Plan
For one month, I'm going to try out several changes to my diet. My goals are to maintain my bodyweight at around ~185lbs and to maximize my athletic performance in Crossfit workouts. Reducing my body fat percentage (currently ~12%) without a significant change in bodyweight would be a nice bonus, but not something I expect or care about greatly. I'll update this thread from time to time to explain how the experiment has been going, what I've been eating, how I've been feeling, and how I've been performing at my workouts.
1. Minimize processed food consumption
This is a big change and no matter how this diet experiment turns out, I'll probably stick with it. As Michael Pollan says, it seems clear that the human digestion system is well adapted to handle a very wide range of diets, but the "Western Diet" is not one of them. The "Western Diet" contains a huge amount of highly processed products (especially refined carbs) and every single one of the books above contains VERY strong evidence that this leads to a vast array of health problems. I eat virtually no junk food, fast food, or soda as it is, but I'll still need to make numerous changes, including seriously cutting down on pasta, rice, bread, cereal, sweets, and most other foods that are heavily processed or contain refined ingredients (flour, HFCS, etc). The one exception, at least for now, will be whey protein powder as it's otherwise inconvenient to meet my protein needs. Edit: I no longer use whey protein powder either.
2. Maximize whole food consumption
To replace the processed foods in my diet, I'm going to focus on whole foods. This means eating more fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, meat, seafood and, in general, buying foods as close to their raw state as is reasonable. In this way, my diet is a bit like the Paleo Diet. However, I will NOT be avoiding milk products, legumes, corn on the cob or anything else that grows in nature. I consider these foods "whole" and, as long as they are not overly processed, I doubt they will have any negative impact.
3. Strive to use the "Zone" macronutrient breakdown
This is the one I'm most skeptical about and have a feeling it'll be more trouble than it's worth. However, I must admit that the anecdotal evidence of the numerous elite athletes that swear by this diet (include many CFers) is extremely compelling. I figure it can't hurt to try it and if it doesn't work, the two dietary changes above should still benefit me greatly. The goal is to make sure that the calories in each meal consist of roughly 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fat. Although there is very little scientific evidence that this exact breakdown is "ideal", I've read through numerous studies, such as this one (I can post some others if anyone is interested), that suggest that a diet moderate (30-40%) in all 3 macronutrients is most likely a good choice for athletes. Starting with my approximate protein needs (~1g/lb of LBM), and splitting my food intake into my typical 5-6 meals, the 40/30/30 breakdown will let me plan out meals relatively easily.
Facebook
Twitter