I've Joined a Cult

Lumen wrote: »

I think the theory is that everything unnaturally nice is bad for you, and everything naturally nice is good for you.

So freshly baked bread is nice, but not natural, and so bad for you.

Problem is, there are lots of "unnaturally nice" things that I really don't want to give up, like bread, cheese, alcoholic drinks, and chocolate. On a low-fat-ish diet I can have all of those things in moderation. If I judge my health by my body shape, I'm doing fine. But am I?

So I have two concerns:

1. Is a badly-executed low-carb diet better than a badly-executed low-fat diet?

2. Correlation vs causation. Fat people die earlier, but does being fat kill you, or does eating the things which fat people eat kill you?

I would say that either one is potentially as bad because they both would presumably fail with some variation of high fat mixed with high simple carbohydrate.

My understanding is also that, as Pete says, its better to be fat and fit than skinny and unfit. The fat that accumulates around organs is dangerous and not visibly obvious.

ROK ON wrote: »

What about colon cancer?
I am forever reading scare stories about high meat consumption being a contributory factor for increased risk of colon cancer. Then apparently dairy also causes cancer. I think life might actually be the casue of cancer but I don't want to out myself in the way if unnecessary risk.

The reason this diet (in the loosest sense) is attractive to menus that I can eat a lot of the food that I enjoy but concentrate in giving up the stuff that is plainly very bad for menin the quantities that I consume them, namely sugary confectionary.

enas wrote: »

Increased red meat consumption, and reduced fruit consumption would be two things that I would relate to increased risk of colon cancer. You've already answered about increased red meat consumption, but what about reduced fruit consumption? Have you read anything about this?

Colon cancer has associations with the level of fibre in diet. Animal products ( meat and dairy ) and alcohol have no dietary fibre, so you need to have a fibre (fruit and/or veg ) rich diet to protect against dietry diseases. So in the Paleo model, enough fruit and veg are just as important as saturated fat, for this reason. In the LFHC model, extra fibre can be got from beans.

So dont forget your veggies ffs:p. Tbh, my take is that any diet that doesn't include a recommendation for lots of fruit and veg ( especially veg ) is pandering to dietry laziness - bacon and cheese porn, essentially. And greens ( leafy greens ) are at the top of the vegetable hierarchy. Thats not a few limp leaves of iceberg lettuce btw - its spinach, collard greens, kale, turnip leaves, carrot leaves and pak choi leaves as well as the other more exotic ones.

I'm reading dietry cholestrol is not essential once the means of body cholestrol production is in good shape, which is achieved partly through low blood sugar and keeping body fat in check. So those who exercise on a LFHC diet are in with just as good a chance of optimum health as their paleo counterparts. Of course carb in this context refers to those of the complex variety rather than simple ones.

If its not confusing enough to understand how both approaches are right, its also worth considering that those of us who have ancestry in the Northern Hemisphere - where sugary tropical fruit would not have been on the menu - maybe better disposed towards the high fat model. Likewise those whose ancestry is in the tropics find it hard to adapt to dairy. Although, that could well be something that sounds reasonable but is actually half baked. There are exceptions such as the Inuit and Massai, but how many of the them became ill before their genes adapted ? The best dietry experience I've had was in South East Asia, where the meals typically involve small amounts of lean meat, small portions of rice and loads of vegetables barely cooked ( with no dairy or bread available anywhere), and was active with hiking and watersports. It was essentially the LFHC model.

My own experience, incidentally, with sugar cravings was resolved with increasing the amount of (leafy) greens in my diet. I did this with Green Smoothies - basically green leaves blended with fruit ( to mask the taste of chlorophyll, but you actually grow to like it) and water. Greens are the only vegetable you can combine with fruit without getting indigestion. You can get through half a kilo of spinach a day with these, allowing you to quietly snigger at anyone struggling to meet their 5 a day

Also, both the LCHF & LFHC camps espouse the 80/20 principle* - which is once you follow the tenets of either one 80% of the time, the other 20 can be discretionary. How you manage that - booze, chocolate, bread, cake - is up to you.

Sources:

Eat to Live, Joel Fuhrman
Fasting for Health, Joel Fuhrman.
The Primal Blueprint, Mark Sisson.

* Actually the Joel Furhman camp say 90/10..and the 10 includes any meat as well as junk food. Increasing beyond 10 % significantly increases disease risk and that is according to studies done in the context of a high carb diet.

Lumen wrote: »

Do you cook the spinach? What's your opinion on oxalic acid?

No, raw leaves mixed with water and bananas. Sometimes with mint leaves.

The idea with blending is that it does some of the work by breaking down the fibres completely and making nutrients more available during digestion. Cooking does this too but some nutrients are lost in the process. Eating the leaves raw requires a lot of chewing and some of it wont be digested completely. I couldn't say based on my experience if there are any benefits to blended vs cooked spinach, but the general wisdom is that raw is better.

I don't think oxalic acid is a problem. It hinders absorption of calcium and iron in high quantities, but there are a lot of both in spinach and other leafy greens to compensate in that event. I suspect coffee would be a worse offender when it comes to minerals not being absorbed. From what I've learned I think it would be hard, all things being equal, to overdo it with greens in a diet. Any accumulation of alkaloids particular to one variety can be offset by switching around - spinach one week, kale the next and so on.

I've been giving this lifestyle a reasonably good go over past few weeks (weekends excepted).

In past week I am absolutely exhausted. I have a race tonight and feel shattered. Instead of training last night i went for a nap between 6 & 730pm then was in bed again at 1045pm.

Diet has consisted of trout, smoked salmon, baby spinach, broccoli, lettuc, tomatoes, onions, eggs, bacon, chicken, nuts, bucket loads of fruit.

Not sure is my tiredness related to knocking back on carbs and sugar but I am literally floored. I was nodding off on the bike commuting home last night.

Unfun.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Only spotted this. I don't eat much fruit. Lots of veg yes. But frig all fruit. Except for the tomato.

Is an olive a fruit? I eat those.

My 8 year old daughter informed menthat if it has stones or seeds inside then it is a fruit. She is in school so it must be true.

As regards exhaustion, I'm not doing big miles on a commute. Generally just pootle along.

Over the weekend I did 2*45 mins on turbo with ahoy 15-20 mins of that described is intense. I also did one very casual 2h30m cycle with a stop for coffee (and a scone - the shame - but I don't do this at weekends).