Nutrition

Forced feeding, fixed calories, false indications

Recent studies on the impact of meal frequency on middle aged men and women raise serious questions to their relevant real life conditions. The studies were conducted by Dr. Mark Mattson, a pioneer researcher in the area of human feeding, is known for his ground breaking studies on intermittent fasting. Dr. Mark Mattson and myself have been corresponding regarding the benefits of the one main meal per day approach, and about a year ago he shared with me over the phone some information regarding the studies of which results were published recently. To avoid falsely driven conclusions, lets examine the facts behind these studies and clarify some key points:

• The subjects in the group of one meal per day were force fed to consume all their daily calories in one meal. This calorie intake was far higher than what they would have naturally consumed, according to their own reports.
• The subjects in the study had no ability to choose or prioritize food. Unlike WD followers who prioritize their foods, the subjects of these studies were forced to eat whatever was there (to comply with the studies' terms).
• Apparently, fasting morning glucose was higher in the group of one meal/day, but here is the catch: if blood glucose and insulin response had been checked in the afternoon, the results could have been quite different. Evidently, subjects on one meal/day have a different daily metabolic cycle than people on three meals per day. If the researchers had checked blood glucose of subjects on three meals/day in the afternoon, they would most likely find elevated glucose and a slower insulin response – compared to the subjects on one meal/day – during the afternoon (after sufficient post meal fasting time), their blood glucose would most likely be lower with a faster insulin response.
• Most importantly, there was no guidance as to how to separate between a.m. food and p.m. food, and no guidance whatsoever about food combinations, etc. Unlike the WD followers who carefully separate between a.m. foods and p.m. foods and use proper food combinations with clear principles (low glycemic, low on the food chain, etc.), the subjects in this study were fed like lab animals with no serious regard to nothing but overall calorie intake.

Let me put it this way – if the name of the game is "fixed calories only" regardless to their source, then you rather divide your food intake to small servings to avoid shocking your body with empty calories. But if the name of the game is "eating healthy" and prioritizing accordingly your food choices then you better separate between a.m. foods and p.m. foods to nourish your body in sync with your innate circadian clock and your overall metabolic system, such as with The Warrior Diet. As I wrote previously, it will take researchers another 15 years to dissect, isolate and combine all the multiple nutritional elements of the human diet if they will ever understand what we have been experiencing in real life when following The Warrior Diet.

I believe that Dr. Mattson knows the limitations of these studies and how misleading the conclusions may seem to be. In an article in the medical journal Lancet 2005, Dr. Mattson indicated that humans indeed are inherently programmed (all through the evolutionary process) to better survive on one main meal per day. With references to The Warrior Diet, Dr. Mattson presented the adverse consequences of overfeeding via frequent feeding. Other scientists worldwide have also been realizing that the human body is not programmed for frequent feeding. The facts speak for themselves – in spite of dieting more than ever, people today are getting fatter and sicker than ever. Obesity has reached an epidemic proportion of 30%, diabetes 12%, pre-diabetes 25%, blood sugar disorders, roughly 50%, Syndrome X 20%, male impotence about 15%, estrogen disorders are virtually 100%, and prostate disorders will eventually occur to virtually 100% of males. And all these maladies occur when the vast majority of people have been eating 3 – 4 meals per day. How much more do we need to suffer before realizing that something is very wrong with our diet routines and particularly with the frequency upon which we have been shoving food into our bodies?

Previous studies on intermittent fasting in lab animals revealed the amazing benefits of lower meal frequency on increasing life span, improving blood glucose, enhancing neuro protective capacity and improving body composition. More studies need to be done on human feeding but with more care towards real life conditions – how, for instance, the reduction of meal frequency affects calorie intake and food choices – naturally (rather than artificially by force feeding the subjects).

Finally, what you eat, when you eat and how much you eat are all important factors that are inseparably bound together to form your diet. Isolating one element over the others is a futile experiment that will always fail to indicate how things really work in real life. Things simply don't work in isolation. For instance, lowering calorie intake to merely 1000 calories per day will theoretically lead to weight loss and improve insulin sensitivity – but if the 1000 calories will come from pure sugar, the results will most likely be the opposite – weight gain and insulin resistance. Here is another example: combine some of the healthiest foods together – nuts, raisins, and whole grains – and you may gain undesirable weight just because the food combination was wrong and nuts do not combine well with raisins or grains. In conclusion, you can experience undesirable weight gain in spite of reducing calorie intake, or in spite of eating healthy foods – if you ignore other factors that influence your diet.

The Warrior Diet takes into account all the factors that constitute the human diet, and the evidence to its awesome benefits on people's lives are already here and now. We're currently stuck in the dark ages of dieting. We live today in an era that may be considered in the future as a turning point in history, in which humans have become an overweight/obese species with diminished capacity to survive and multiple. A real change is needed now, a renaissance in our routines. Being "normal" today means being overweight and unhealthy. Ask yourself whether you still wish to follow the same old normal routines.

Iron is critical to life. It is part of the hemoglobin molecule in red blood cells, involving the mobilization of oxygen from lungs to tissues and carbon dioxide from tissues to lungs. Iron is also part of enzymes responsible for energy production and DNA synthesis.

Iron deficiencies are common in our society particularly among infants, adolescences, pregnant women and the elderly. Inadequate intake of iron is common among vegetarians particularly vegans. Physically active individuals require more iron than sedentary people. A positive correlation between iron intake and physical performance has been established. Evidence indicates that even a slight iron deficiency can adversely affect physical performance.

Decreased absorption of Iron can occur due to a lack of hydrochloric acid secretions in the stomach, a condition that is associated with frequent over feeding, chronic stress and aging. Iron deficiencies can lead to anemia, cognitive disabilities, impaired immunity, fatigue and loss of strength. Serum ferritin is the best test/indicator for determining iron status.

It is generally recommended to take iron supplementation in accordance with the RDA – 10mg-12mg for men and 15mg for women. Pregnant and lactating women may need to adjust iron supplementation according to blood test.

Food rich in iron include meats, liver, nuts, seeds, parsley, dried prunes, raisins and blackstrap molasses. Nonetheless, plant derived iron has a lower bioavailability compared to animal derived iron (that is bound to hemoglobin). Since high meat consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, it is not recommended to rely on meat as a healthy source of iron. Therefore, for the educated healthy consumer and particularly the physically active one, iron supplementation is recommended to "cover the bases." Nonetheless, in case of high consumption of iron fortified nutritional products (cereals, shakes or bars) it is recommended to adjust iron supplementation as to avoid iron overload. An elevated level of iron may lead to an increased oxidative stress and increased levels of free radicals, thus increasing the risk for infections and vascular damage.

In conclusion, though iron deficiencies are more prevalent than iron overload, it is important to carefully monitor iron intake so as to avoid both. Note that naturally occurring iron in food does not cause an excess but rather it is the isolated iron supplements, (if taken on the top of a multivitamins and minerals) that may cause this problem. For that matter, Vitamin C supplementation can help increase iron absorption and protect against potential side effects.

The last few decades mark an increasing interest in the correlation between food enzymes and health. Researchers found an interesting association between the body's enzyme pool and the aging process - which means, the older one gets, the fewer enzymes the body will have and the more vulnerable to disease one becomes. I have addressed this important topic in The Warrior Diet book (new revised edition by Blue Snake Books, Dec. '07 - available at amazon.com). I have covered the importance of ingesting live enzyme-dense foods (including naturally fermented foods) under the title Enzyme Loading. Nonetheless, I am quite concerned with the emotional impact of this topic on health consumers. Those who read articles, such as the one published recently at Weston A. Price may reach the conclusion that unless raw, sprouted or fermented, all foods are not viable. If this is true, even raw nuts and seeds may not be good enough in this respect. There is a growing crowd of people who currently follow the so-called "raw food diet" based on the premise that eating raw food only (including of course vegetables, fruits, legume sprouts, sprouted grains, raw dairy and even raw meat and marine food) is the only way to grant maximum nourishment. Since I've already addressed this topic in The Warrior Diet book, let me just note here that the raw food diet misleads people to believe that all cooked foods are inferior to all raw foods. The truth is that in many cases, such as with cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cabbage) and nightshades (tomatoes, eggplants), the cooked versions of the above are more digestible and by far more nutritive than the raw version. The active phytonutrients in broccoli and tomatoes (indoles and lycopene, respectively) can be released and absorbed hundreds of times more efficiently in the cooked version.

As for enzymes, certainly enzyme loading from raw, sprouted or fermented foods is highly beneficial but let's put things in proportion.

First, plant enzymes are not digestive enzymes. They work on a different pH than the body's digestive enzymes and therefore cannot support digestion directly.

Second, while some enzymes inhibitors may be harmful (premature sprouts or uncooked legumes), other enzyme inhibitors can be highly beneficial, such as some protease inhibitors (phytates) or aromatase inhibitors which have been found to be potentially anti-cancerous. The notion that nuts and seeds must be sprouted before ingestion is preposterous. Raw nuts and seeds are perfectly fine to nourish the human body whether in a sprouted form or not. There are no harmful inhibitors in mature nuts and seeds and any rancidity or inadequacy in these foods can be instantly detected via smell or taste.

Third, eating raw meat may seem "Paleolithic and healthy" but nowadays it can be detrimental. Besides hosting pathological bacterium, meat is a host substrate for harmful viruses, most notable of which is the toxoplasma virus that has shown to cause serious neuro damaging effects on animals and potentially on humans. Eating raw meat today does not make sense, to say the least.

Fourth, note that the article at Weston A. Price was written by two ladies to promote the sales of their cooking book.

In conclusion, raw, sprouted and fermented foods are great but it doesn't make sense to commit to eating these foods only. You can certainly benefit from eating cooked foods as well with a big bonus of pleasing your palate with a larger variety of meals.

Virtually all flavonoids containing substances have so called phyto-estrogens, and vice versa. All phytoestrogens belong to the flavonoid family. As I've mentioned in The Anti-Estrogenic Diet book, only few flavonoids are estrogen promoters (such as soy isoflavones). The flavones in coffee are not estrogen promoting. In fact, there is evidence that certain flavones in coffee (caffeol and caffesol) have anti cancerous and beneficial estrogen modulating properties. Coffee is rich also in indoles with great nerve protective benefits. And the same holds true for green tea and chocolate. Do not fall in to the trap of avoiding anything that has phytoestrogens (like many websites suggest), rather do a careful research. For instance both flaxseed and sesame seeds have phytoestrogens, but nevertheless both have shown to suppress over-estrogenic activity and thus work as anti-cancerous foods. If cultivated, roasted and applied properly, coffee can be highly beneficial. It has been traditionally used by different groups of people in South America, North Africa, the Middle East and the Mediterranean - all who have been notorious for their great health (lean, functional, vigorous). In times when we need to tackle the real detrimental effects of industrial xenoestrogens and junk food, let's not split hairs on coffee.

This question was just recently posed in our Forum regarding my last blog entry:

"I've just finished reading the "Starvation Mode" blog mentioned in the newsletter from Ori. In it, Ori states the following, something which he has mentioned many times: 'Protein utilization in the muscle, after fasting or undereating, increases by twofold.' I believe this to be true, but is there actual empirical data pertaining to humans that verifies this assertion? Just curious. And if so, does this imply that consuming 100 grams of protein following a 20 hour fast is assimilated by the body in such a fashion that this portion of food actually equals 200 grams of protein?"

I've addressed these questions already in my protein articles (see Protein and the Rule of Three - Parts 1 - 4). Studies on the effects of fasting and low protein intake on protein utilization have shown clearly that not only does protein utilization increase dramatically, but surprisingly, there is also an inhibition of protein breakdown in the working muscles. Much of the database came from studies by the Food and Agricultural Organization during the '70s and later on in various universities worldwide. More information and references in Maximum Muscle, Minimum Fat – North Atlantic Books, coming next spring. As for the practical terms, I believe that when properly incorporating meals right after undereating or fasting and exercise, one can utilize twice as much protein from the meal than otherwise. (see more information in my Recovery Meal article).