CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-06-2006, 05:08 AM   #21
Larry Lindenman
Affiliate Larry Lindenman is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicago  Illinois
Posts: 2,769
Yael, I have found the opposite...it's not the Zone, it's the way your implementing it. First off, nutritional discipline is not easy. It is with you 24/7. Second of all if you cheat 3 meals a week, you are still 90% compliant...which will lead to great results. I have talked to many people who think the Zone sucked and when they described what they were eating and the amount of food they were consuming...they were very far off of the Zone. You will often see a thread where people are blaming a specific food for lack of weight loss (let's say milk). This is followed by advise to drop milk, or drink carb countdown, or raw milk...the person then posts a day of nutritional intake and Ta DA, wonder bread sandwiches, high GI fruits and pasta! If you eat 4-5 blocks of vegetables and eat 12-15 almonds, you will be able to last another 4 hours to your next meal. There is a reason Coach and hundreds of CF athletes endorse the Athletes Zone. "It's hard", just doesn't cut it...this program is hard but gets "easier", nutritional discipline is hard, but also gets easier. Read Nicole's description of her first weeks on the Zone...it hurts. Coach doesn't recommend the Warrior Diet because he has not seen consistent performance gains from it or other diets...he has from the Zone. Do it right, for three months, you won't be sorry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 06:41 AM   #22
David Luu
Member David Luu is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Rockville  MD
Posts: 77
yael,

i did try to eat after workouts. it just didn't work for me. in fact, i took about a week of my normal diet to shake the effects of the warrior diet from my system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 09:15 AM   #23
Yael Grauer
Member Yael Grauer is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 871
I did the Zone pretty strictly for a long time, though I think the longest I ever did without cheating was 25 days. And on the Zone, all these weird emotional and physical problems I hadn't experienced before came up for me that I had to work with a health practitioner to unravel. (This is saying a lot because getting me to work with other healers is sort of like pulling teeth.)

In this case, because I'm a fast oxidizer the Zone further increased my already high fast oxidation rate, which resulted in mood changes, fatigue, increased appetite, food cravings, etc. If I am eating a diet, any diet, and I'm still hungry after my meals, my energy gets all screwed up and I have an inability to focus, I'm going to blame it on the diet, no matter what it is.

"It's hard" doesn't cut it--of course not, but running on a treadmill six days a week for an hour at a time was "hard" and driving me insane, so after forcing myself to continue doing it for a while, I switched over to Crossfit. What is the fine line between something being hard and something being detrimental?

For a really long time I started thinking maybe I was just undisciplined (both on the treadmill and on the Zone), until a friend reminded me that I'm NOT undisciplined and that I should feel full after I eat, and mentally clear, and satisfied, and energized, with a feeling of improved well-being and even being refueled.

Also the Zone has chronically low levels of fat percentage and SATURATED fat in the right amounts is absolutely necessary for Omega 3's to be utilized correctly. This is a fact. You need enough fat to get important growth hormones kicking in to switch into fat-burning mode out of carb-burning mode. Then I get cravings as a result and have to force myself to resist them in order to follow the diet. The idea that you have to eat chronically low percentages of fat (which are way lower than the Anthropological Codex, by the way) until you get to your 10% or 5% of bodyfat, I think is on the ridiculous side for fast oxidizers. It might work for slow oxidizers or mixed types, but I'm not convinced of that either.

Anyways, there is a review of the zone here: http://www.westonaprice.org/bookrevi...ring_zone.html

I hate to sound super pretentious and I know you know a lot more about nutrition than I do, but if the Warrior Diet doesn't work, there's no way in I'm going back to the Zone anyway. I'll stick to a diet for my metabolic type.

And by the way, with WD, it's only been a few days but they say the transition phase is the hardest, and yet I've had absolutely no cravings, my energy levels are steady, productivity is high and mentally/emotionally I feel clear and strong. We'll see if this lasts, but I'm much more interested in not feeling like a basketcase than in following a diet that works for other people and will supposedly have benefits even though I never see them.

And btw this renewed energy, etc. is my experience on eating foods for my metabolic type on a WD schedule *before* taking the supplements, which I've been told I only need for a month or so, since I need a little extra metabolic push right now since trying to follow the Zone messed up my metabolism so much.

I tried CLC but that didn't work either, I found it didn't give me enough energy for my workouts, martial arts, etc.

I'm going to continue tweaking it and find what works for me instead of trying to do the Zone over and over again since it supposedly works for other people. (I've met just as many other people it doesn't work for.) Btw I'm looking for overall health and well-being, not just performance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 09:21 AM   #24
Yael Grauer
Member Yael Grauer is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 871
David: Understood. This is just an experiment for me. :-) We'll see what happens. I'll get back to you in three weeks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 01:04 PM   #25
David Luu
Member David Luu is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Rockville  MD
Posts: 77
great explanation
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 06:55 PM   #26
Greg Battaglia
Member Greg Battaglia is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Springfield  PA
Posts: 468
Larry, I think "nutritional discipline" is unneccesary. In my opinion, that's a concept that was born after the low-fat, low meat, high crap eating "alternative" health wack jobs came along. When you're truly eating a healthy diet rich in animal foods(and animal fats) and low GI plant foods you feel incredibly satisfied and content with food and life in general. Sears' ridiculous phobia for egg yolks, organ meats, and animals fats is quite laughable. Larry, don't take this post as a personal attack against you, I fully respect your knowledge and opinions and I believe the Zone has some good aspects (but more undesriable ones compared to real nutrition) and I know you've seen a lot of success with it. I'm not knocking you at all. I am, however, attacking Sears'unwarranted opinion on certain aspect of nutrition. The only thing I can really agree with him on is that whole natural foods are important, and he even lacks a bit on that one (dairy and grains).
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 07:25 PM   #27
Greg Battaglia
Member Greg Battaglia is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Springfield  PA
Posts: 468
P.S.
I didn't even really touch on the topic of this post, lol, sorry. But, the multiple meals/day concept that he strongly promotes is also pretty nutty. There's really no scientific evidence to suggest that more frequent meals are more beneficial than less frequent meals, and there is actually a good amount of research developing that is finding the exact opposite (intermittent fasting) to be true. Not to even mention that humans did not evolve eating 6 small meals a day, or even 3. Since we're talking about creating a baseline for nutrition before doing anything "radical" wouldn't the WD be more logical than a multiple meal/day feeding cycle. The WD certainly is much closer a feeding cycle to that which we are adapted to follow, so shouldn't that be the template for feeding times? I think we need to start changing our definitions of what's "normal". Just because something is normal in today's society doesn't mean that our bodies accept it as normal. Again, no disrespect to you Larry. I acknowledge and respect your prodigious contributions to this board.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 09:23 PM   #28
Rob McBee
Affiliate Rob McBee is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Portland  OR
Posts: 397
I think it comes down to do what works for you or at least what you'll stick with consistently. I didn't like the WD. My energy was low and all I could think about all day was getting to that one hearty feeding.

The Paleo-Zone knocked the fat off of me, energy levels/mood are stable throughout the day, performance is on an upward curve. Again though, thats been my individual experience.

If we're talking baselines, show me a sample group on the WD with resulting body comp. and performance indicators equivalent to a Nicole and I promise to take another serious crack at the WD.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 09:30 PM   #29
Charlie Jackson
Banned Charlie Jackson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Santa Carlos  New Mexico
Posts: 204
There's really no scientific evidence to suggest that more frequent meals are more beneficial than less frequent meals

You're mistaken. Here is a scientific study which shows that Beef (51) and fish (58) have a higher insulin score than white pasta (40) when consumed after a 10 to 12 hour fast.

http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2006, 09:59 PM   #30
Greg Battaglia
Member Greg Battaglia is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Springfield  PA
Posts: 468
Charlie, VERY important question: Was the beef lean? If so, I see no reason why the insulin score wouldn't be high. Fat acts as blood sugar/insulin buffer. It keeps sugar/insulin levels in the appropriate range. Also, do you have a direct link to the study? I don't trust info that is copy and pasted. Not to mention that the links on this guys site are to vegan websites and to American Diabetes Association articles......I think we already know why we shouldn't trust sources like these. Finally, the article you posted and your own response were not in coordination with what I said. I was simply talking about meal frequency, I never mentioned anything about the insulin index of certain foods. The bottom line I was trying to reach is that less frequent feedings have been shown to improve health more than frequent feeding systems. Here's a good review of the literature by Cordain: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/newslett...Vol1Issue3.pdf
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Warrior Diet Brandon Michael Enos Nutrition 15 03-25-2007 08:33 PM
The Warrior Diet Rolando Maldonado Nutrition 15 05-27-2006 10:08 AM
Warrior Diet Matthew Hoyle Nutrition 14 11-03-2005 01:42 PM
Warrior diet Zach Nikka Nutrition 2 07-02-2005 05:03 PM
Warrior Diet Eugene R. Allen Nutrition 23 01-13-2005 02:58 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.