Getting Started on Paleo

This was contributed by Chickenbackside in the MCS Forum previously...

1st concept is, 90% of your health and weight is determined by WHAT YOU EAT. Exercise helps to make you functional, but don't make the mistake of using exercise as the main tool to lose weight. Ever heard the saying "you cannot out exercise a bad diet"?

About the diet, I adopt a paleolithic way of eating. Basically, this sums it up: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/

1) Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all flour

2) Start eating proper fats - Use healthy animal fats to substitute fat calories for carb calories. Drink whole cream or half and half instead of milk.

3) Eliminate grains. No rice, no bread, no noodles, no pasta...

4) Eliminate grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils). Cook with butter, animal fats, or coconut oil.

5) Get daily midday sun or take 4-8000 iu vit D daily

6) Intermittent fasting and infrequent meals (2 meals a day is best)

7) Fruit is just a candy bar from a tree. Stick with berries and avoid watermelon which is pure fructose. Eat in moderation.

Eliminate legumes

9) Adjust your 6s and 3s. Pastured (grass fed) dairy and grass fed beef or bison avoids excess O-6 fatty acids and are better than supplementing with 0-3 supplements.

11) Eliminate milk if you are sensitive to it

http://www.fatfiction.co.uk/weight-loss/

Here’s the simplest diet you’re ever likely to see. It’s totally healthy. It’s all you really need to know, and it’s only 35 words and it’s based around the simplest truth there is. It’s not calories in, calories out. It’s nutrients in, nutrients out (NINO). And as soon as you start thinking like that, foods like whole grains fall to the bottom of the pile while meat rises to the top.

So, let’s cut to the chase. In 35 words, here it is:

1) Eat when you’re hungry. If you’re still hungry after eating, eat something different.

2) Eat lots of meat, fish, vegetables, saturated fat and whole foods.

3) Eat little grains, sugar, legumes, and vegetable oils.

4) Eat no gluten.

That really is it.

Q&A (add more by sending a comment below and I’ll add it in)

What does ‘eat something different mean’?
You can eat as much meat, fish and healthy fats as you like but everything else has anti-nutritional properties – even vegetables. Of course, this doesn’t mean they contain no nutrients, it means they have the ability to strip nutrients, or prevent you absorbing them as well as provide them, all to varying degrees. Rather than figuring out exactly what these combinations are, trust your hunger. Ensure every meal contains protein and fats which are essential in your diet, and then rotate the remaining food groups. Just eaten a meal with potatoes and still hungry? Eat nuts and seeds. Just eaten some beans and still hungry? Eat a piece of chocolate. Etc. Note it doesn’t matter what order you cycle through, just ensure it’s something different.

The different food groups you need to know are broadly:

- Meat and fish
- Healthy fats – saturated (animal fats), olive, omega 3 fats found naturally in fish and nuts
- Starchy vegetables like potatoes, sweet potatoes, parsnips
- All other vegetables, from spinach to aubergines. Also tomatoes (strictly a fruit I know)
- Grains like rice and corn, but not wheat, barley or rye that contain gluten which are off limits
- Nuts and seeds. Not peanuts as it’s a legume
- Fruits – any and all except tomatoes
- Sugary foods – preferably stick to dark chocolate
- Legumes - beans, lentils, peanuts

How fast will it work?
The fitter and stronger your metabolism, the quicker you’ll see changes – anywhere from 1lb a week if you’re elderly and sluggish to 7lbs in a week if you’re fit.

What about fruit juices and sugary snack?
The quickest way to derail a diet is by eating crap. You know it, I know it. Fruit juice are always best avoided and eat the fruit instead because otherwise you’ll continue to rely on sugars for a fuel source. Sweets should all be limited – stick to dark chocolate instead

Why no gluten? I’m not allergic to gluten.
The damaging effects of gluten are universal, not just to celiacs (clinical intolerance to gluten). Read the posts on wheat for more.

How can I stop sugar cravings?
The more you crave sugar, the more you absolutely shouldn’t have it. The craving (not simply ‘enjoyment’) for sugar is your bodies way of saying that it cannot use body fat as a fuel source, and the most likely culprit is a lack of essential vitamins, minerals and fats. Perversely, eating sugar will make it worse, whereas eating other mineral rich foods like spinach will improve it. If you don’t believe it try it – compare eating milk chocolate with dark chocolate and spinach, and find out which sorts out the craving faster.

How can I stop wheat cravings?
Only by eliminating it completely. It’s been shown to have similar effects to heroin on the brain. Cold turkey is best

What about fruit, nuts and seeds?
Cycle as you would with any other foods. Ensure nuts are unsalted, and seeds like flaxseed ground to have any use whatsoever

Won’t saturated fat kill me?
Nope. Read posts on saturated fats for more.

Won’t saturated fat make me fat?
Nope again. It’s really important not to eat the half-fat or skimmed milk versions of products. It takes away essential vitamins found in the fat (A, D, E and K) which you need to burn off fat. Avoiding fat will make you fat. Strange but true.

What about other fats? Olive oil? Omega 3/6 ratios?
If you’re asking you already know. If you don’t, the upshot is you need to keep omega 6 ratios low relative to omega 3 ratios. The easiest way to do that is to avoid omega 6 fats and eat fish and oils high in omega 3 like flaxseed. Olive oil is always good.

How about milk and cheese?
Totally indulge. Full fat. However, if you’ve suffered gluten-based damage to your GI tract, you may need to avoid dairy for a few months. In celiacs (those completely intolerant to gluten), this takes anywhere from 6 months on. If you feel fine, it’s all good.

What’s gluten found in?
Wheat, barley and rye. In short, tons of stuff from breads to pasta to malt vinegar to cheap chocolates. Check.

Is this a diet for life?
Why shouldn’t it be?

Is this a paleo/caveman diet?
Not exactly though it shares some principles. Paleo diets exclude all grains and legumes. Traditional paleo excludes saturated fat too. Either versions are at extreme ends of the scale. It’s perfectly possible to eat these foods, but only if you’re aware of what they’re doing to you nutritionally speaking.

What does burning fat as a fuel feel like?
If you’ve been overweight for a few years you probably won’t recognise it – it feels like a fire in your belly, but in a good way. You can actually feel it happening. And you won’t feel as hungry as you did while you’re burning off fat.

http://karateconditioning.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-on-paleo-eating.html

Tuesday, September 28, 2010
More on Paleo eating

Quick recap: For optimum health and performance, eat a paleo diet - a diet composed entirely (or at least predominantly) of foods available to our ancestors during the paleolithic era. That means meat (preferably from animals also fed a paleolithic diet, which means grass fed beef), vegetables, fruit, nuts, eggs, and berries. That means especially no grains (wheat, barley, oats, corn, rice), legumes, or dairy. Different versions of the diet tolerate breaking this rule to a greater or lesser extent - some permit certain types of dairy, some corn or rice (but rarely wheat), and so forth. Nobody owns the concept, so you'll see "paleo" authors and bloggers differ, but the emphasis on meat and veggies over grains and sugar is pretty constant.

Having established that, I think that people following a paleo diet go wrong in two different ways, to greater or lesser detriment. The first is not recognizing that not all neolithic foods are bad for you. The second is not recognizing that not all paleolithic foods are good for you.

The first point is less of a serious problem than an inconvenience for the eater. If you take the "paleo" concept too religiously you will avoid foods that are probably okay to eat and might even be good for you. Many paleo authors openly endorse a handful of neolithic foods, based on whether the foods in question contain anti-nutrients or toxins that cause problems. Chocolate is a good example. While the sugar and milk solids that go into commercial chocolate are definitely problematic, cacao itself doesn't seem to have negative effects on health. So very, very dark chocolate is probably okay, at least as an occasional treat - and it's certainly a pleasant break from meat and veggies at every meal. Butter, especially clarified butter or ghee, and cream are also relatively unproblematic - they don't contain the milk proteins or lactose that cause digestive problems. I suspect tea and coffee also belong to this group, although the evidence on the safety of limited amounts of caffeine is somewhat mixed. Another (little discussed) example of an absolutely neolithic food that really has no health impact at all is seltzer - it's just carbonated water. No impact on digestion or the immune system. Also definitely something cavemen didn't drink. Now if someone else wants to avoid seltzer because it "isn't paleo," that's fine with me, and it's no detriment to them, of course, as long as they're not too bored drinking plain water.

As far as the second point goes, this is where some people get themselves into trouble. If you look around the paleo websites, especially the cooking oriented ones, you can find recipes made from ostensibly paleo ingredients that are probably serious problems. I've seen desserts made with crusts made of nuts, fillings made from dried fruit or crushed figs or nut butters, and more nuts on top. I'm sure we've all been tempted by bags of dried fruit or nuts that seem paleo.

The problem isn't that nuts or fruit are absolutely bad for you - the problem is quantity. If you make a pie out of nuts and fruit with an almond butter/cocoa topping, and have a slice for your birthday or Christmas, you'll be fine, and you'll be better off than if you ate half a dozen regular cookies or a big piece of regular cake. BUT if you make that pie and have a slice each day after dinner and two slices on weekends, you're regularly getting a huge load of omega-6 fats (and not omega 3's) and fructose, both of which can lead to insulin resistance and increased inflammation. You could probably make yourself quite sick and fat on a paleo diet, if you tried. Now if you eat a handful of nuts each day and an apple or half a cantaloupe after dinner, that's fine. But if you chow down on a bag of dried fruit or keep an open bag of almonds by your side all day long you can eat yourself into some real problems.

The take home message:

You can probably make yourself fat and unhealthy by eating too much of almost anything, but within reason there are certain foods that can make up the bulk of your diet without causing problems, foods that are okay to eat daily, foods that are okay only as an occasional treat, and foods that you should probably never, or very rarely, ingest. You need to keep a handle on which is which: I group foods into staples (make up the bulk of my diet); daily but limited (I'll eat them all the time but in smallish quantities); treats (I'll eat on the weekend or for a cheat day or if I'm out to dinner); and forbidden (self explanatory).


My staples include grass fed beef, coconut oil or animal fat, green leafy veggies, and green tea. My daily but limited foods are 85% or higher dark chocolate (no more than 100 cal/day), root vegetables (1 lb/day), caffeine, nuts and fruit. My treats are grain fed beef, dried fruit, ice cream (less frequently), white potatoes, food made with vegetable oils (like Taro chips), and 60%-85% dark chocolate. My "forbiddens" are basically wheat, diet sodas, and legumes.

The categories aren't important - what does matter is that you organize your foods in a way like this. I find that if I try to forbid myself all but the healthiest foods I'm asking for trouble. By having a treat and limited category I give myself permission to "cheat" or indulge myself without eating the most harmful foods. But I remember not to make these foods part of my every day menu.

Exactly where should each possible food item go? Here things can get tricky. I can only suggest that you both continue reading and continue experimenting on yourself. Are you feeling lousy? Having trouble sleeping? Look at what foods may have crept into your daily eating that are problematic. Six months ago I tried to keep all starch on my "treat" list. It didn't work out for me - specifically when working out with high intensity. So I moved things around.

Remember that the paleo idea is just a guideline. There is no logic to the notion that every neolithic food is bad - but there is a lot of logic to the idea that we should be much more skeptical of the healthfulness of neolithic foods and much less skeptical of the healthfulness of paleolithic foods.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/an-updated-guide-for-low-carb-dieters/

An Updated Guide for Low-Carb Dieters
By TARA PARKER-POPE

A recent study of low-fat versus low-carbohydrate diets confirmed what followers of the Atkins diet have long believed: a low-carb diet can be good for your heart.

Eric C. Westman, M.D.

The study, reported in The Annals of Internal Medicine, showed that no matter what plan dieters followed, they saw improvements in heart disease risk factors, and low-carb dieters had a greater increase in HDL, the “good” cholesterol.

Recently I spoke with Dr. Eric C. Westman, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Health System and one of three co-authors of the book “The New Atkins for a New You,’’ the latest update of the Atkins low-carb diet. We spoke about how the diet has changed and what many people don’t know about low-carb eating plans. Here’s our conversation.

Q.
What’s different in this version compared with earlier Atkins books?

A.
In my practice, most people don’t know what the Atkins plan really is. That was the purpose of the book. The new Atkins tells people about the scientific background. What’s new is that you can do it in many different ways. It’s much more versatile and flexible than the popular perception. Did you know you can do a vegetarian Atkins, for example?

Q.
I’m sure many people don’t know that. So what’s the general view of Atkins, and why are people getting it wrong?

A.
Atkins is a way of eating that promotes good, healthy whole foods. Period. The science of it is that these are foods that don’t raise the blood sugar much. Atkins has always been about eating the good sources of carbs, protein and fat. What I want to get out there is that Atkins is healthy eating.

I think the public perception is that it’s beef and bacon. That has been perpetuated by two sources: the media, which want controversy, and the vegetarian element, who don’t want you to eat animal products. You can eat seafood and fish. You can have lots of different protein sources — chicken, eggs, cream and cheese.

The second wrong perception is that there are no vegetables on Atkins, that it’s a no-carb diet. We talk about it right up front. You have to have vegetables. The foundation of the diet is vegetables.

Q.
Has that aspect changed since “Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution” was published in 1972?

A.
Vegetables have always been there. The carb restriction was at the minimum of 20 grams per day. The new Atkins incorporates the new science of the glycemic index and the ability to subtract fiber grams, which is not something Dr. Atkins talked about. We’ve updated that element so you can eat more vegetables by subtracting fiber grams.

Q.
The book talks about “foundation” vegetables. I don’t remember that from the first book. What are they?

A.
In the original book, these didn’t have a name, and people thought it was a diet without vegetables. The foundation vegetables are any of the nonstarchy vegetables, which could be asparagus, broccoli, string beans, okra, tomatoes, onions, peppers, for example. Corn and potatoes are the things people miss. You can have five measuring cups of leafy greens. I have men who come in and say, “It’s more vegetables than I’ve eaten in my life.”

Q.
I remember the diet from years ago required such restricted carbs that your body went into a process called ketosis. Is that still part of it?

A.
Ketosis for the first phase is still the same, but it’s limited. Dr. Atkins taught how to reincorporate the carbs. It was focused on as a weight-loss diet rather than a healthy lifestyle forever. I think the problem was that back in 2003, during the Atkins renaissance, a lot of people went on Atkins and did the Atkins induction. I have a lot of these people in my clinic, and they tell me they didn’t eat veggies and didn’t know what to do next. That’s why the new Atkins is coming out, to teach you how to gradually reincorporate the carbs based on your own body’s metabolism. Some people can tolerate a lot of carbs; others are intolerant or sensitive to them.

Q.
How do you know if you are intolerant or sensitive to carbs?

A.
The simplest tool to know is your weight. Your weight is a reflection of water weight, fat weight and muscle weight. Some people know because of cravings that occur when they eat the carbs. If you’re eating a candy bar, and you can’t stop and you have to eat more and you’re still hungry, that means you’re sensitive to the carbs. A doctor can measure glucose and insulin in a medical clinic as a more formal way to make a medical determination. But you can figure it out by your own body weight and the cravings you have.

Q.
Why do you think so much controversy remains about low-carb diets?

A.
It’s complicated. The Atkins diet was labeled as a high-fat diet. We’ve been told over the past 40 years that fat in the diet is bad. Now we know that fat is not bad. What’s happened is that there is a paradigm shift in thinking about carbohydrates, fat and protein and health. These are things that are slow to change.

In the new Atkins we say, “Meet your new friend: fat.” We’re really trying to do the P.R. for the macronutrient that no one wants to talk about. Fat in the diet does not mean fat in your arteries and fat on your hips, which is what everyone thinks. It’s an American view. If you go to Europe, they’re not so allergic to the idea of fat. It’s a very parochial kind of view. My colleagues outside the U.S. are not so afraid of cholesterol in the blood. They don’t prescribe statins so much.

Q.
How has the science evolved since Dr. Atkins’s death several years ago?

A.
The science wasn’t there when he was alive. It’s evolved where we now have randomized controlled trials, the highest level of evidence we have, that now show that dietary fat has no real relationship to bad events in human health. We’re not promoting any particular way to go. One size does not fit all. If there is anything we’ve learned over the last four years, it’s just that the low-carb or Atkins approach should be a viable option. People should be able to eat this way if they want to, but they’ve been on the defensive for so long.

Q.
Do you think it’s possible for someone to be addicted to carbs?

A.
The science is just starting to look at foods being addictive. Most people don’t know anyone addicted to rib-eye steak, who can’t stop eating it. But most people know someone who can’t stop eating carbs. I think there may be some truth to that. In the popular way people talk about carbohydrate foods, people come in and say, “I’m addicted to them.” The science is in its infancy there.

Q.
How did the three authors of this book get together?

A.
Over the last 10 years or so we found ourselves at meetings presenting similar science and similar findings. We all became Atkins advocates. We were asked by the company, Atkins Nutritionals, to write the book and update it.

Q.
Did you know Dr. Atkins?

A.
I met him on several occasions. I went to visit his clinic. I wrote him a letter, and he called back. After a brief discussion, I was saying, “Where’s the science? I read your book, but that’s not science, it’s anecdote.” He said: “Come to my clinic. Why would I do the study when I know what the results will be?” We went up and took a look at the clinic, and it certainly was working. I had no idea the controversy I was getting into. I was naïve.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2011/01/03/new-years-resolutions/

New Year Resolution
by Tom Naughton

It’s the first Monday in January, which means a lot of people who didn’t write out their New Year’s resolutions over the weekend are probably doing it now. If you’ve made a list of resolutions and it looks something like

•I’m going to start saving 10% of my income
•I’m going to stop wasting my evenings watching reality shows about people who can’t throw anything away
•I’m going to lose 35 pounds
… then I have a piece of friendly advice for you: scratch that last one right now. The first two are fine, but the last one has to go. Replace it with something like:

•I’m going to buy the latest Atkins book and follow the program exactly
•I’m going to stop drinking alcohol except on rare occasions
•I’m going to stop eating all sugars and grain foods
If you adhere to the resolutions on the second list, you may indeed lose 35 pounds. Or you may not. But what matters is that the goals in the second list are the kind you can definitely achieve if you want to.

Over the years, I’ve learned there’s a right way and a wrong way to make New Year’s resolutions. Well, actually, there are two wrong ways. The first wrong way is to wake up on January 1st suffering from a hangover-and-guilt combination, and then attempt to treat the guilt by proclaiming lofty goals you’ll never actually pursue once your head clears … such as “I’m going to quit my meaningless corporate job and spend the rest of my life feeding and educating the poor in Tasmania,” or “I’m going to discover what happened to my pants and apologize to whoever has them.”

The second wrong way is to wake up on January 1st and proclaim lofty goals that depend on specific outcomes you can’t actually control. I could, for example, declare that I’m going to sell 5,000 copies of Fat Head this year — and of course, I’d love for that to happen. But ultimately, I can’t control how many copies are sold. Only the buying public can. All I can do is promote the film to the best of my abilities. In other words, I can control my actions, but not the results of those actions.

The same principle applies to losing weight. Now and then, I hear from people who ask me something like, “I’ve lost 25 pounds and feel great, my doctor is pleased with how much my triglycerides and blood pressure have improved, but my weight loss has stalled and I’m still 20 pounds heavier than my goal weight — what should I do?” My answer: whatever you’ve been doing. If you’ve lost weight and feel great, you’re on a good diet. Don’t obsess with reaching a goal your body may resist for its own reasons.

Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s great to have a target in mind. As countless motivational speakers and authors have pointed out, if you don’t decide where you want to go, you’re going to end up somewhere else — probably someplace far away. The trouble is, many of them preach about the wonders of writing down goals without distinguishing between actions and results. They mean well, but focusing too much on results is a prescription for feeling like a failure. As any coach, CEO, or battlefield commander will tell you, things rarely work out as well in reality as they did on the drawing board.

That’s why out of all the motivational books I’ve read, I found the ones by Tony Robbins (you know, the guy who looks like a handsome version of Andre the Giant) to be the most useful. His programs are all about taking action. In fact, he discourages people from defining success in terms of a specific outcome.

In his book Awaken the Giant Within, Robbins recounts dealing with a client who was lean, muscular, happily married, and financially well-off, yet considered himself a failure. Why? Because the guy had set personal targets for an extremely high level of income and an extremely low level of body fat, but couldn’t meet either. Mentally, he’d set himself up to fail. Once you decide you’ve failed, it’s tempting to just give up.

That’s why Robbins encourages his readers to define a goal, create a plan for meeting the goal, but then — this is the important part — define success in terms of faithfully taking action and following the plan, not in producing specific results. He calls this setting yourself up to win. If you feel like you’re winning the game, you’re more likely to keep on playing.

Of course, that doesn’t mean you should keep blindly following a plan that isn’t working. If you’re not getting good results, it’s time to re-evaluate, do some research, and then perhaps choose another plan. If you want to lose 35 pounds and stall after losing six or seven pounds, or if you feel lousy even though you’re losing weight, there’s a good chance you’ve picked the wrong diet — I certainly did more than once. But if you are getting good results, don’t set yourself up to feel like a failure by confusing good with perfect.

I know from experience that if I define success as having a narrow waist with washboard abs, I’m going to fail. I don’t have the genes to reach that goal, short of outright starvation. Ten or 12 years ago, I managed to semi-starve myself down to 165 pounds — nearly 35 pounds less than I weigh now. The number on the scale looked impressive, but I still had little love handles and some belly fat, and my muscles were starting to shrink noticeably. Family and friends began encouraging me to try to put some weight back on, or at least stop losing.

I understand now that body fat is an active and necessary part of our metabolisms, that we accumulate extra body fat partly to compensate for insulin resistance, and that there’s a limit to how much fat each of us can lose before our bodies will elect to digest muscle tissue instead of more fat. As Gary Taubes says in his new book, the proper diet will help us become as lean as we can be, but not necessarily as lean as we’d like to be.

That’s not a reason to give up and start eating Twinkies, of course. It’s a reason to define success as taking the right actions, not achieving specific results. So if your goal this year is to lose weight, I’d discourage you from picking some arbitrary number you think you should reach. But I’d heartily encourage you to

•Decide how you’re going to lose weight
•Write down your action plan
•Keep a food journal so you know if you’re actually following your plan
•Pat yourself on the back every time you do follow your plan
•Pick one or two days per month to eat whatever you like without any guilt or recriminations afterwards — but only one or two days per month
•Accept what you cannot change

The real point of adopting a better diet is to become healthier and to feel better. If you define success as doing the right thing and then do it, trust me, you will feel better. Losing weight is just a nice side benefit.

Sometimes the journey of getting somewhere is more important than getting there - because for some of us, we may become complacent once we have gotten there...

And like what Tom said, losing weight is a very nice side benefit - we must not forget that the main aim is still to get healthy

Eating for Fat Loss
Karate Conditioning by Joe Berne
http://karateconditioning.blogspot.com/2010/08/eating-for-fat-loss.html

Need to lose fat? Eat less food.

Physicists love this answer and usually expect the story to end there. Take a trip to any bookstore in the country and check out out the collection of "diet" books and you'll see that it's not quite so simple.

Let's start with some caveats and good news: The fatter you are, the worse your current diet, and the more out of shape you are, the better your results are going to be. A 400 lb. couch potato who eats 12 Big Macs a day will have a much easier time losing 10 lbs. than a fit chronic dieter with a small spare tire obscuring his abs. What that means is that the things that will work for that 400 lb. hypothetical person may not work for their more fit counterpart. The fitter you are, the closer to an ideal weight (which means your abs are clearly visible and nothing jiggles when you move), the harder it's going to be to make those final few improvements.

So if you're really, really fat, just eat less and start doing some light exercise and watch the pounds melt away. Until they stop (which will happen eventually).

When the simple measures have stopped we have to start putting more thought into what we're doing. Let's start by thinking about our goals: We want to lose fat. We want to lose it quickly. We want to do so in a psychologically sound way (if our diet makes us feel hungry and miserable all the time we won't stick to it). We want to maintain or improve our health while we do it. We want the fat loss to be sustainable. We want to minimize or avoid entirely the loss of muscle mass while we lose the fat.

How do we manage all those things at the same time? Most diet plans fail on one or more of these goals. Low fat diets tend to fail miserably on both the health and psychology axes - they make us miserable and eating low fat just isn't good for you (despite the conventional wisdom). Starvation diets aren't comfortable or sustainable. Fasts like the juice fast sacrifice lots of muscle and are not sustainable or healthy. You see where I'm going with this.

You have to address two opposing goals: you need to eat enough food to get the nutrients you need to support your training, your health, and your mood, while eating a small enough amount to create an energy deficit and make your body burn fat. The keys to doing this is to eat nutrient dense food - that is, food that has a lot of good nutrients for a given amount of calories - while avoiding food that is either empty (has calories but few or no good nutrients) or, worse, full of antinutrients (substances that actually damage your health or ability to lose fat, like gluten, lectins, trans fatty acids, and high levels of fructose).

Let me break this down a little bit.

Get rid of all the empty calories in your diet. A classic example of empty calories is soda - water, high fructose corn syrup, and flavorings. There's basically nothing good for you in it (I'm assuming here you have access to a normal variety of foods - drinking soda is better than dying of dehydration, but that's not the choice facing most of us). Highly processed foods fall into this category - most of the stuff from the inner aisles of a supermarket.

Get rid of foods high in antinutrients. Immediately stop eating any foods that contain artificial trans fatty acids - anything with "hydrogenated oil" on the ingredient label. Reduce greatly your intake of simple sugar. Stop eating any foods containing or made from wheat or legumes (beans). You should probably limit or eliminate all dairy other than cream and clarified butter. Reduce your intake of fructose as much as possible - you can eat some fruit, but don't go crazy on it, and eat no high fructose corn syrup. Artificial sweeteners are a somewhat controversial topic, but you should probably avoid or eliminate them as well (this is a case of do what I say, not what I do, but I'm trying to overcome my diet soda addiction, I promise!)

If you want to know why I'm making these specific recommendations it's a long story. Fructose induces hepatic insulin resistance, and if you're having trouble losing weight there's a good chance you have insulin problems. Wheat and legumes cause immune responses that lead to greater insulin resistance and inflammation. We did not evolve to eat those foods and can't tolerate them. Sorry - I understand that many of your favorite foods are made from wheat, so are mine, they still aren't good for you (I'll delve into this issue more specifically in another post one day). Artifical sweeteners induce an insulin spike, and insulin is pro-inflammatory and may contribute to insulin resistance, as well as promoting fat storage and preventing fat breakdown.

If we shouldn't eat all that, what should we eat?

Start by making sure you eat enough protein. You need roughly .75 grams protein per pound of lean bodyweight per day, give or take. If you're 200 lbs. with 20% bodyfat your lean body weight is 160, so you should shoot for at least 120 g protein per day. Going higher is okay healthwise, but there are some reasons to not go too high. If you eat a lot of excess protein your body will use it for energy, which is okay, but then your body gets used to using protein for energy, and if you run into a period of time where your protein levels decrease (vacation, whatever) you might start impacting muscle mass as your body dips into protein stores to supply energy. Not a huge problem, but consider it. You also can't eat a predominantly protein diet - there's an upper limit past which you'll die. Look up "rabbit starvation" for more details.

I get my protein by making sure to eat a pound of beef a day. Choose your own method.

You need a nice chunk of omega 3 fatty acids - but not just any omega 3 fats. Your body can only use some of them in real quantities - focus on getting EHA and DHA. Sorry vegans, you can only get the good omega 3 fats from animals or fish - the omega 3's in flax or other plants aren't usable by humans (we can convert small amounts of the short chain omega 3's into usable forms, but only a small percentage, and the rest goes to bad places). Fish oil is good, as is grass fed and grass finished beef and wild caught fish. If you're vegan, then... stop being vegan. At least if you want to maximize your health.

You should get the bulk of your calories from a nice mixture of healthy fats. Saturated fat is good (no, it won't clog your arteries or give you diabetes, that's a myth). Monounsaturated fat is good. Think nicely marbled grass fed beef (grain fed beef has too little omega 3 fats and too much omega 6 fats). Limit your omega 6 fat intake as much as you can - you probably get waaay too much of it in your diet. That means no modern oils - no canola, vegetable oils, corn oil, safflower oil, etc. Olive oil is okay (mostly monounsaturated), coconut oil and red palm oil are better. Lard and butter (from grass fed animals) is even better. Be careful heating olive oil, though, it will go rancid very quickly under heat, which you would know if you paid attention in high school chemistry. This also means you have to restrict your nut consumption - almonds are great, but they're high in omega 6 fats, and eating a lot of them will lead to inflammation problems.

What about carbs? I used to be a strong advocate of a very low carb diet, but I'm changing my tune slightly. If your primary concern is health and longevity and your training is moderate you can get away with a zero or close to zero carb intake and probably be better off for it. I find that if I train intensely (which I sort of have to as a karateka) that my performance is limited if my carb intake is too low. Basically, high intensity exercise depends on muscle glycogen for fuel, which has to either come from dietary carbs or protein (via gluconeogenesis). You can either eat some carbs, eat extra protein, or just suffer from flat workouts. I personally prefer to eat some carbs. If you want, do a simple experiment - work out on a very low carb diet, then eat a pound of sweet potatoes, and work out again, and see how it feels. Some people tolerate lower carbs better than others.

Where can the carbs come from if you can't eat wheat or beans? I stick to root vegetables - sweet potatoes, yams, that sort of thing. Is it boring? Yes. Is it worth giving up pizza to have a six pack and be a better fighter? That's up to you. Rice and corn are on the bubble - probably not great for you, but better than wheat or beans. Experiment and see how they affect you.

If this sounds like I'm recommending a paleo diet, that's because I am. I'll explain why more in some future posts, but I'm justifying individual elements of the diet on current research, so even if you have issues with the overall theory I think you'll understand where the pieces come from.

Once your macronutrients are taken care of try to eat some green leafy vegetables for other good nutrients. Lots of other things might be good for you - seaweed, many spices, veggies, some fruits and berries eaten in moderation, black coffee, dark chocolate (85% chocolate has sugar in it, but not a huge amount, so it's okay taken in small amounts if you're capable of that). Some "cheat" nutrients are better than others - that is, eating a small amount of sugar is probably less damaging than a small amount of trans fats, but those distinctions are hard to clarify or justify. Try to eat as "cleanly" as you can.

This is controversial, but I'd also recommend eating less frequently. People all talk about how eating five small meals a day is supposed to stimulate your metabolism, but I don't buy it. I'll write a post on intermittent fasting one day, but I eat all my food in one big meal at night, and other people do well skipping meals or going entire days without food (say, 1-3 days a week without food). The more often you eat the more often you'll be stimulating insulin production, which tells your body to store fat.

Very few people eat this way and stay fat. Stick to fatty grass fed meat (or lean storebought meat), cook it in coconut oil, add some sweet potatoes and a few greens, and watch the pounds melt away. The high nutritional density will keep you healthy. The fat and protein will satisfy you so you aren't hungry all the time. If you need help (like recipes), go through some of the paleo blogs out there - there are a ton of them, with lots of good recipes and articles. I'll post recipes here if I feel the need, but this won't be a good primary source for you (I'm an awful cook).

You may not need to eat this way to get lean. If you're lean already, great. If you drop sugar out and lean out to your satisfaction, great. But if you're having trouble leaning out and sticking to your diet, give this a try for a month and see how it works out.

http://relievemypain.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-eat-gluten-free.html

Go to a nice restaurant and first thing, they bring out a basket of bread.


Go to the grocery store and you'll find aisles and aisles of wheat products: cereal, cake mix, cookies, crackers, batter coated meat, noodles, baked goods, bread, and so on.


My mother, who loves pre-packaged food, tells me most of the rest of the packaged stuff has wheat, too.


And is there an office left that doesn't serve birthday cake at least once a month?


How do you avoid wheat or gluten for a month? (Why should you try? Read this--the benefits I've seen from a wheat-free diet.) A suggestion: if you find it hard to stop eating it once you start, then don't start. Let me tell you about my results with moderation and total elimination.


Moderation. In the late 90s, I saw a nutritionist for my acne and she said I should avoid eating wheat. I cut down on the wheat, but didn't quit it entirely. My skin saw some improvement, but that was about all as far as I can remember. Over the next several years, I see-sawed between avoiding and indulging.


In January this year, I again cut down on eating wheat to one day a week--usually, I had a few chocolate chip cookies. Doing so brought a lot of improvement. (I was eating "real food"--more about that later.) However, in the past, cheat day food had ended up creeping into other days. (Cheat creep?)


Total elimination. In February this year, I cut out wheat entirely. I've fallen off the wagon a few times since then, but it made me so miserable--think sinus congestion, reflux, stomach ache, water weight gain--that cheating carried its own punishment. The punishment was so effective that I still have frozen chocolate chip cookie dough from a year ago. I won't touch it.


Total elimination worked better for me than cutting down, or "moderation." Moderation works for some things and some people, but how often do people cut down on something and then indulge as much as before? It's like a dreadful on-again, off-again relationship. Like someone you shouldn't be with but keep going back to, wheat acts as an opiate. Some people even go through withdrawal when they quit. I also find wheat to be an appetite stimulant: I can't stop at one cookie, even though I'm disciplined in other respects. These things make it hard to eat wheat in moderation.


What to Eat Instead of Wheat
There are two general routes you can go: gluten-free junk food or "real food." When I cut back on gluten in the 90s, I went for the gluten-free junk like bread, pasta and frozen dinners and saw a little benefit, but not enough to make me sit up, take notice, and throw out the wheat forever. Gluten-free junk food will give you some benefits if your problem is strictly wheat or gluten intolerance. But if you're gluten intolerant (and maybe even if you're not(1)) and you've been eating the stuff, you have intestinal damage that prevents you from absorbing nutrients. You have deficiencies to make up for as your gut heals. Gluten-free versions of cookies, crackers, noodles and so on may not be any more nutritious than what you just quit. Look at the nutritional information for rice noodles. "The good," says nutritiondata.com: "This food is very low in saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium." I'll add the bad: This food is low in everything but starch. And without preparation like soaking and sprouting, other grains that the junk food is made of have anti-nutrients, just like wheat. They may not provoke a reaction or damage your gut, for instance, but they'll bind to iron, magnesium, calcium and zinc, preventing you from absorbing them.


Gluten-free junk food might also spike your blood sugar. If you're often tired, especially an hour or two after a meal, if you get sugar cravings, if you're gaining weight, your blood sugar may be wonky. You can check with a blood glucose meter, available for $10 at Walgreens, or you can borrow one if you know a diabetic. Click here to see how to test your blood sugar. Note--even if a fasting blood sugar test at the doctor's office showed normal blood sugar, keep in mind that it's post-meal spikes that cause the problems.


Then there's the real food route: nutritious food like meat (the original superfood), eggs, fish, veg, cheese, nuts, and, I'll concede, some good carbs like certain fruits and starchy vegetables for people who can tolerate them. Boring? Yes, in the way that my die-hard Toyota always starts right up and gets me where I want to go in comfort and without incident. I admit a skateboard might be more exciting. Unlike the gluten-free junk food, the diet of real food and no wheat did make me sit up, take notice, and throw out the wheat forever because, at age 41, I had more energy than I did in my 20s. On this diet, I'm consistently energetic, in good shape and well cared for--like the Toyota. I don't want to be a skateboard. They take too much abuse.


I use 500 Low-Carb Recipes by Dana Carpender and The Primal Blueprint Cookbook by Mark Sisson to keep my diet from getting monotonous. If you're a die-hard grain and bean lover and you can tolerate carbs, try Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon; it has instructions for processing grains and beans to neutralize anti-nutrients.


I don't feel like I'm missing anything without wheat. My tastes changed and I literally don't recognize a lot of grainy junk food anymore. I tried some peanut and M&M mix the other day, and it didn't taste like food. I looked at another jar of junk for a minute and still couldn't tell what was in it. I can't identify what some of my coworkers eat for lunch. That's not to say I eat perfectly, just that I don't miss wheat products.


Is a diet of "real food" expensive? I can tell you that switching to a low-carb diet raised my grocery spending only $13 per month and saved me $958.36 per year when I accounted for health care and skin care spending. If you're living on cereal, pasta and sandwiches, your grocery bill will go up a lot more--but your spending on doctor visits, skin creams, pain relievers and stomach medicines and even lost wages from sick days may drop like a rock.


Does it take a lot of time to prepare real food? I don't think so. Grocery shopping is quick and easy when you shop the meat counter, produce section and dairy section instead of trolling the aisles of pre-packaged food. Reading labels doesn't take long when there are only four or five ingredients. And I can pack a lunch faster than I can go out and buy one (it takes practice).


Want to take the plunge? You'll have a lot of company. Matt Lentzner has challenged people to try a gluten-free January and as of December 22, 120 people had signed up. Good luck!


(1) "Gluten can cause intestinal damage in celiacs AND non-celiacs," Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, Volume 41, Number 4, March 2006 , pp. 408-419(12)

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/01/09/a-brief-fat-loss-guide-for-men-or-women/

Yesterday, the Weekend magazine of The Times newspaper here in the UK were kind enough to run a piece I wrote for them about weight loss. It went into a special feature they’d put together on matters male. The piece is, essentially, a precis of my book Waist Disposal – the Ultimate Fat Loss Manual for Men. While this book was specifically written with men in mind, the nutritional, exercise and psychological recommendations are utterly appropriate for women too.

Inevitably, the article in The Times was edited a little. Here’s the unedited (longer) version:

The Anti-Paunch Diet

For many men, the New Year ushers in a desire to shed the fat laid down over the festive season. Efforts here usually make use of the calorie-centric strategies of ‘eating less’ and ‘exercising more’. Such thinking will see masses of males eschewing beer, chocolate and crisps, while they take to park tracks or the treadmill to notch up the miles.

Yet, while there’s something reassuringly straightforward about the ‘calorie principle’, the evidence that its deployment succeeds in the fight against fat is actually quite thin on the ground. In fact, a mound of research attests to the fact that while reducing calorie input or enhancing expenditure can bring short-term benefits, the problem is these are very rarely sustained over time.

The blame for faltering fat loss is usually laid at the feet of the would-be slimmer. However, there are fundamental reasons why taking a calorie-based approach is not the certain winner in the weight loss stakes theory makes it out to be. Moreover, taking a conventional approach can doom many men to fat loss failure and the frustration of burgeoning weight in the long term.

The good news is that successful, sustained weight loss is genuinely achievable. Even better, it requires none of the extensive exercise or dietary deprivation commonly resorted to at this time of year.

The Calorie Trap

One potential pitfall of a calorie-based approach to weight loss relates to the conscious cutting back on food this usually entails, and the fact that this can put a dent in the metabolism (if we put less fuel on a fire it burns less brightly, and the body is no different). And even when calorie intake is stepped up again, the metabolism may not recover in a timely fashion. It is this phenomenon that helps explain why after abandoning a strict diet, many men eventually end up significantly heavier than they were when they embarked on the diet in the first place.

Of course, we can mitigate this effect on metabolism to some degree by upping our exercise. The problem is that the number of calories burned during, say, brisk walking jogging is pretty paltry unless we’re making heroic efforts in this department. Plus, exercise can ‘work up an appetite’, and any resultant increased eating can so easily wipe out the calorie deficit induced by our exercise endeavours.

It is perhaps no surprise then that for many men, taking a conventional calorie-centric approach leads to relatively minor losses before the dreaded ‘plateau’.

The diminishing returns typical of a conventional approach to weight loss are compounded by the hunger that usually comes with it. Many men will be able to summon up some force of will and discipline for a while, but once weight loss starts to stall, the resolve tends to weaken. And once hunger bites, any dietary indiscretions will usually to be in the form of particularly fat-making foodstuffs. The plain and simple fact is that most men will not willfully or willingly go hungry for extended periods of time.

The solution? To fill up on truly satisfying foods that tend not to encourage fatty build-up in the body.

Hunger No More

I sometimes advise men seeking to shed fat that the less hungry they are, the more weight they’ll lose. This statement may seem utterly counter-intuitive on first reading, but trust me when I tell you that this is exactly what my experience with literally thousands of men tells me.

At the heart of this strategy is the fact that, for a given number of calories, not all foods sate the appetite to the same degree. Basing the diet on foods that do a sterling job of satisfying the appetite makes it possible to induce a calorie deficit without hunger, deprivation or sense of sacrifice. In other words, this approach is sustainable. Plus, the absence of undue hunger is generally a sure sign the body does not think it’s starving, thereby reducing any tendency to put a brake on the metabolism.

Science has revealed two major factors that determine how satisfying a food is. One is its glycaemic index (GI) – a measure of the rate and extent to which a food releases sugar into the bloodstream (lower GI foods are more sating than higher GI ones). The other is its protein content as, calorie for calorie, this sates the appetite more effectively than either carbohydrate or fat.

It is these facts that help explain why a handful of nuts (low GI, relatively rich in protein) will usually work well to keep hunger at bay, while scoffing a bucketful of popcorn (high GI and low in protein) the size of our head fails to even touch the sides.

Apart from nuts, other properly-filling foods include meat, fish, eggs and full-fat plain yoghurt. Couple these with plenty of low-GI non-starchy vegetables (e.g. green and salad vegetables) and some fruit and we have a diet that meets all of our nutritional needs, while at the same time will have us eating less, but without any need for portion control or hunger.

In a recent study published in the online journal Nutrition and Metabolism, individuals were instructed to eat either a diet similar to this one or a Mediterranean diet. The diets were ‘ad libitum’, meaning that individuals could eat as much of them as they wanted. Quite naturally, the individuals on the former diet ate an average of about 500 calories less each day than those eating the latter. Other evidence published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that after an initial period of weight loss, a higher-protein, low-GI diet proved the most effective for preventing weight regain.

Carb Loading

Another boon of high-protein diets is that they are naturally lower in carbohydrate. This has relevance because carbohydrate is the primary driver of insulin – a hormone that stimulates the accumulation of fat in the fat cells while at the same time slowing the breakdown of fat too. In theory at least, eating a carb-rich diet (as conventional weight loss advice usually urges us to do) actually encourages fatty build-up in the body. Gluts of insulin seem to particularly predispose to fat deposition around the midriff as well as hazardous fatty infiltration in and around the internal organs (see ‘Toxic Waist’).

Cutting back on foods that disrupt blood sugar (including many starchy carbs such as bread, potatoes, rice, pasta and most breakfast cereals) will help temper insulin levels, which in turn can speed the rate at which our cells give up their fat.

Surges of insulin can also drive blood sugar to sub-normal levels some time after eating, which can provoke pangs of hunger, particularly for sweet and/or starchy foods. A move from carb-crammed fare to a diet richer in protein and fat tends to stabilize blood sugar levels, and is usually effective in quelling any false hunger and carb cravings. Coupled with its superior appetite-sating and insulin-lowering effects, a higher-protein, carb-controlled diet ticks all the boxes for those seeking to kiss their love handles goodbye – for good.

Make a Meal of it

The eating of breakfast tends to be important for sustained fat loss, but the usual morning fare of cereal, toast or a croissant on the way in to work won’t do here on account of their insulin-disruptive and non-satisfying nature. Far better to start the day with some full-fat plain yoghurt with added berries and nuts or, if time will allow, some eggs (say with smoked salmon, mushroom and tomato) or an omelet.

Sandwiches are ideally foregone at lunch, in preference for a meat or fish soup (e.g. bacon and lentil, pea and ham, smoked haddock chowder), a meat, fish or egg-filled salad (avocado will provide some satisfying protein here too), meat or fish with vegetables (excluding potatoes) or an omelet and salad. Butter and olive oil can be used to dress vegetables and salad respectively.

Evening meals may follow a similar format, but might also branch out into stews, casseroles and roasts. As long as you come to your evening meal ‘ready for food’ but not ravenous (see below), you’ll be amazed at how easily it is to do without piles of potato, rice or pasta (or pudding, for that matter) and still feel well and truly satisfied after a meal.

Graze, Don’t Gorge

Going too long between food fuellings can cause the appetite to run out of control in a way that can derail our healthy eating habits. A common problem time for many men is between lunch and their evening meal. For most of us this is just too long to go after a soup or salmon salad without getting ravenously hungry before our dinner. This situation is easily cured by snacking on something healthy and satisfying in the late afternoon or early evening. Bear in mind that while we’re generally encouraged to eat fruit as a snack, it usually does a lousy job of sating the appetite. Nuts, on the whole, do a far better job.

Claim your Steak

Red meat is perhaps the most vilified food of all, and a good part of its unhealthy reputation is based on the fact that it has a rich stash of saturated fat, which boosts cholesterol levels, and so risk of heart disease. Or so the story goes. The impact of a foodstuff on cholesterol levels is, though, largely irrelevant: it’s the food’s impact on health that counts. Despite what we’ve been assured for more than 30 years, science simply does not support a link between saturated fat and heart disease, and there’s no convincing research that eating less saturated fat reduces the risk of disease or death either.

Red meat is for most men a deeply satisfying food, and can be an integral part of a high-protein, low-carb diet for those who like it. Such diets, by the way, compared to ‘healthy’ low-fat, carbohydrate-rich ones, lead to superior changes in disease markers such as blood pressure, blood sugar and triglyceride (blood fat) levels, as well as measures of inflammation (which is believed to be a key underlying process in chronic disease including heart disease). The truth is, eating a steak, roast beef or some lamb chops needn’t be a guilty pleasure at all (just a pleasure).

Toxic Waist: It’s a Man Thing

Men and women can differ in many ways, including body shape, and these differences become especially pronounced when we gain weight. For men, fatty accumulation tends to be focused around the middle of the body or ‘midriff’, as well as internally including within the liver (known as ‘fatty liver’). On the other hand, women of childbearing age usually find their ‘problem areas’ to be the buttocks and thighs. These differences in fat distribution are not merely aesthetic: Research shows that excess weight around the middle – known as ‘abdominal obesity’ – is strongly linked with an increased risk of an increased risk of conditions such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes. On the plus side, it’s precisely this form of excess weight that seems to respond most readily to a lower-carbohydrate, relatively protein-rich diet described here.

Fat Fallacy

For some, it’s hard to get out of their minds that eating fat is inherently fattening – it’s called fat, after all. Plus, as we’re often reminded, fat contains about twice as many calories as carbohydrate or protein per gram. Remember, though, that the chief driver of fat accumulation in the body is insulin. And fat doesn’t stimulate insulin secretion. Now you know how it’s possible for men to have their fill of fatty foods such as meat, eggs, Hollandaise sauce and nuts, only to drop weight like a stone.

Easy Does it

The nutritional advice here is appropriate for women, but my experience in practice is that it works particularly well for men. Men, on the whole, lose weight more readily than women, and this may be at least in part due to evolutionary factors (some fat stores are an advantage for child-bearing and rearing). Also, though, compared to women, men are less likely to be encumbered by a sluggish metabolism related to, say, low thyroid function. In short, what this means is that when men follow the dietary recommendations here (expanded upon and accompanied by plenty of practical guidance in my book Waist Disposal), they rarely fail to lose copious quantities of fat without the need for gritted-teeth determination or hunger. For the great majority of men who eat according to these principles, satisfaction is guaranteed.