Sunday, May 17, 2009


Subject: Experiment
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 23:33:16 -0700

I've been reading a few articles about diet and am thinking about experimenting with a completely whole food plant based diet that focuses on overall nutrient density. I'm thinking 2 months will give me a good idea in terms of results. I'll monitor weight, heart rate, training and sleep etc. I'm going to keep my blocks the same at 20@4x fat. I'll supplement with hemp/pea protein along with my normal other supplements.

I'm not sure when I'm going to start, I have to get all the supplies together to make sure I don't run out of stuff. It'll be interesting. I'm going to try to not mention it to anyone, because I don't want the hassle or debate.

Thoughts, ideas?


On May17, 2009, at 8:22 AM , jh wrote:

What do you mean by whole foods? Is it paleo without the animals? Sounds very good.

This is my basic philosophy. I'm pretty self-indulgent, re treats and such, but I make sure to get the essentials, the berry smoothie and the veggie stew. Nuts when I want them. A sort of tabbouleh salad with sprouts and cabbage and whatever once in a while -- should be more often. I think brans are good -- I mix oat wheat rice bran together and have it once in a while, should be more often too.

Point is, this sounds like the optimal human diet.

Cordain's error is this: he looked at tribal primitive diets, and says we evolved eating thus. He's assuming the tribal diet is ideal, because he's an Evolutionist. But they don't eat that way because it's ideal. They eat that way because it's all that's available. Because it's whole and organic and the like, it's very good and healthful. This in no way proves it's ideal. Something else may be even better. Because of his starting assumptions, he doesn't look for that something better. They have virtually no degenerative diseases, which are associated with the modern diet. But they look like they're 98 years old when they're fifty. Something is wrong. Too much protein?

The tribesmen eat a lot of protein. Good for them. Maybe. But you should only eat what you need, not everything that's available. There's an idea: Live forever on the evolutionarily proven LOCUST DIET!!! How do we find what we need? You're looking to find out right now.

The purpose of blood is more than just hemoglobin and oxygen. It's the highway that brings every nutrient to the cells. It should be FULL -- thick with nutrients. As it were. Not with calories. So nutrient dense, calorie poor is the ideal. Since we're not robots, we want sweets or whatever too, sometimes. There must be a balance, between nutritional needs and psychological needs. Part of it is that an educated appetite wants less crap. But education takes time.

It's good not to argue. I look pretty good. Lean muscle. People are surprised when they find out I'm vegetarian, but they never argue, because I've got 30 years of it behind me. Let the results do the talking. It may be that some people need, NEED animal products. It's possible. I wouldn't know. But it's performance that matters, that proves the case. Theories is fer losers -- din't I beat that into yer head boy? Two months is a good start. It's something we should discuss.




Subject: Re: Experiment
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 09:41:58 -0700

I'm not thinking exactly paleo (which has no grains.) Even though I have seen good results by taking them out; but it could be taking out the dairy that is the positive thing. Basically I want to create the most nutrient-dense diet I can... Brenden Frazier talks about 'net gain' in terms of nutrient content, and that seems like a really good idea. Limit the stress through digestion, but maximize the nutrition. I can't really argue with that. The thing I'm looking to find out is whether or not taking out meat and eggs will even further limit internal stress. I mean, logically, eating a dead animal doesn't seem healthy. It just doesn't. And even though 80%+ of the meat I do eat is organic free range, it doesn't make up the difference. I've never argued with that anyway, my point has always been performance. I don't think performance will be the same, I think it will either be better or worse by varying degrees. If it's better, that will be pretty cool -- and give me another advantage in terms of performing at an elite level physically.

I've been doing a lot of reading about yoga and qigong. Very similar sciences, although yoga seems to have spawned qigong. There are yogic postures that go back 5000? years... I'm not sure how accurate that is, but they definitely go back a long time. I've been meditating consistently in the morning from 15 to 30 minutes. It's the art of intense focus, which I can see will translate extremely well into cf workouts. Usually the meditation goes by without any incident, but sometimes I feel really good... and I consistently feel clear-minded afterwards. Meditation seems to be the missing link in most physical pursuits. I'm still learning about yoga and qigong though, it's really interesting stuff -- and weird to think of them as non-religious sciences developed over a long time to maximize longevity, health and wellness. Imagine combining them into one 'better' science (postures and breathing) with an excellent diet and an excellent fitness system. It all starts with experimentation and actually doing it.




On May17, 2009, at 11:22 AM , jh wrote:

My new motto: Net gain not grain. You heard it here first. One hundred dollars please.

Grains are just calories. I use the image of a water balloon -- the rubber is the bran, the knot is the germ, and the water is the calories. You can see ... just a tiny little bit of nutrition, relative to a huge volume of calories. Great, if you're starting a neolithic civilization. Not so good if you're looking for a high level of phytonutrients.

Same with animal products. You can make a case for eggs -- they're meant to supply everything needed to grow a body. But where is the bulk of the nutrients, and what is just the energy, the calories? -- I think it's the white that's the energy, and the yolk that's the complex nutrients -- yet they say eat the white only. Sort of backwards, except that there's supposed to be all sorts of problems with the yolk. I don't need to know, since it's not my thing. But there it is. As for milk, if it were human milk, maybe -- we'd be best equipped to digest those proteins. But our digestive system has probably changed a tiny bit since infancy, no? Goat milk is closest to human, but the problem remains, of adults using milk at all. As for cow milk, it's not food, any more than leather or glue is food ... it can be eaten, is all.

Meat. Ask, what part of meat would you use after it's been sitting on a table for 24 hours? The fat? the blood juice? -- the, uh, goo? Picture those elements inside your blood, rushing to where they're needed. Do the same thought-experiment with plant source foods. Bit different outcome. That's just emotion, but there is a certain logic to it. Ask, what nutrient is unique to, and therefore necessary from, animals? I can think of none. Creatine? We make it ourselves. Etc. As I've said -- aside from the digestion issues, of very complex proteins, and leaky gut maybe, and auto immune problems -- think of what bacteria you're inviting into your body, and feeding, with meat. Compare that to plant foods. Again, emotional, but it makes sense.

Nutrient dense/calorie poor is the model. So is ease and simplicity of digestion -- resources used, for ultimate benefit. Is my spell checker working? That's my problem with protein -- it's VERY expensive, in terms of difficulty to digest ... hydrochloric acid is like nuclear fuel-rods. You don't burn diamonds for the carbon, like coal in your barbecue. Adequate nutrition, in this case, is ideal nutrition. You don't need more than you need. That's why we want a wide variety of plant sources -- you don't know what you need, so give your body a lot of options. Have your bloodstream FULL of good chems, so it can pick from abundance. Plants do that. Meat? I doubt it.

RE tai chi (qi is the communist way of spelling it -- I don't let totalitarians dictate my spelling), it may be older than yoga (if it's a legitimate psychological technology, it was taught in the prophet school that one of the OT books mentions -- a tradition then from Noah; odd how they've always tried to make psychology into a religion). The actual history is non-existent on these things, really. They get their dates from legend, from images on pottery of some guy standing strangely, which they assume is yoga or taichi, etc. They always throw out these dates, as if they knew what they were talking about. Only I know what I'm talking about. But don't argue about non-essentials. Don't argue about essentials, either. Inform, from knowledge, and let them decide to be right or remain wrong. :-) I like tai chi more than yoga, because it's active. But it is really just meditation, in motion. Seems more useful, and easier to focus, if you have a movement to help channel the energy. I've got quite a few books on taichi. Am I even spelling it right? Urgh.

I'm doing some thinking on mental aspects of exercise. Not unrelated to your thinking on it. It's important stuff. Breathing is major. Don't know much about it though.



No comments: