Originally Posted by odd_lifter
I don't believe in the warrior diet, I believe in frequent meals (like 6 per day)
That's probably the best plan, especially for athletes in training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odd_lifter
however there is evidence supporting the warrior diet:
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459242
Yeah, kinda, maybe - but don't think he really grasps the significance the the research. This quote says a lot "This is more of an opinion or a concept rather than completely scientific research, but it's based on opinions and a lot of science, which I hope to verify in the future."
How good is his research?
First off, he's quoting from the abstract, of the review paper, cited here:
http://www.warriordiet.com/principles.html
You never quote from the abstract, at least, not if you want to be taken seriously as a scholar.
Reading the paper, tells of a different emphasis. The theory of thrifty genes pertains to how humans have adapted to conserve glycogen during physical activity. At low levels of effort, or at rest, the primary energy source for muscles is lipids - fats.
The thrifty gene hypothesis is important not because human diet has changed, but because human activity has decreased.
Hofmekler makes this statement on that page:
"We are all pre-programmed to follow life cycles that involve periodic lack of food as well as physical activity that force the body to compensate by accelerating energy utilization and fat burning as well as facilitating tissue repair and growth."
Periodic lack of food increases energy utilzation? Not likely. More likely to decrease energy utilization.
Fat burning? True in part - the thrifty gene hypothesis states that relatively more fat is burned, but not necessarily absolutely more fat.
Facilitating tissue repair and growth? The best way to do this is probably the diet you're on - several small meals throughout the day - this ensures a steady supply of amino acids needed for repair.
To better understand the thrifty gene hypothesis, you should probably read the reivew Hofmekler cites :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14660491
but you should also read another title by the same authors, "Waging war on physical inactivity: using modern molecular ammunition against an ancient enemy.", see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12070181
Quote:
Originally Posted by odd_lifter
this interview gets confirmed by this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/05-26-200...8p-78493c.html
I'm not so sure this confirms the warrior diet. Mattson's work seems to focus mostly on the role of caloric restriction in activating brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and the protective role of this factor. I could find only one article, a review, from his group readily available online :
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...medid=15717011 . There's more, but I need library access to download them.
One important quote from the Daily News article is this: "Study leader Mark P. Mattson, Ph.D., chief of the neurosciences laboratory at the institute, says that fasting for a short period mildly stresses body cells".
In the review I cited, Mattson relates the metabolic stress of fasting with the metabolic stress of exercise. This relationship is also emphasized in the Chakravarthy and Booth review.
My understanding, having browsed the literature (some of which was covered in a recent exercise phys. course), is that a diet with periodic fasting may be beneficial to people who are not physically active. But if you're in training, I wouldn't recommend it.
Sorry if this seems a little rushed, I'm on my way to practice. I wanted to comment on this, but I'm sure I'll be too tired after.
Zitieren
Zitat von Adis
Lesezeichen