Detox effects, but no energy increase??

[Kingston]

Last year I experimented with my diet, and I have some questions for the experienced dieticians out here

I did a 30-day trial in as a vegetarian, and another trial without diary products and processed food. After both trials I went back to a standard diet because I did not experience any physical or mental improvement.

I did these trials because I was curious about the effects Steve reported after all his diet changes, so I was surprised that I did not experience benefits.. For instance if I were any bit like him, I would have had large energy increases during these two trials.

I had some mild detox effects, mostly bad breath. So this indicates that it did me some good, but why did I not have any positive effects after the detox period? Either I am missing something, or I am completely different from Steve. Anyone knows what's going on here? Could it be that my optimal diet is a simply a "healthy" version of the standard diet? Seems unlikely..

[Holistic Star]

it's hard to say without specific details of what you were and weren't eating

e.g. if you were eating veggy burgers when you were veggy that might leave you feeling sluggish if they had wheat in for example.

it might just be that you cut out things without ensuring that you were replacing the nutrients you were losing e.g. by drinking green smoothies or almond milk etc.

when you say you didn't eat processed food, do you mean you prepared everything yourself from scratch?

[Kingston]

Hi Holistic,

I appreciate your help. I intuit I miss something important about diet experiments in general, not just about the specific complexities of a particular diet. I hope to reach some workable conclusion.

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

e.g. if you were eating veggy burgers when you were veggy that might leave you feeling sluggish if they had wheat in for example.

Yes, it complicates things when you cut out only one or two things. In this example, I did not eat veggie burgers, so that could not have caused a sluggish feeling to counter the energy. But if I remember correctly, Steve did eat veggy burgers when he was a vegetarian, and reported a significant energy increase. So why am I not feeling it?

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

it might just be that you cut out things without ensuring that you were replacing the nutrients you were losing e.g. by drinking green smoothies or almond milk etc.

I have a varied diet and take supplaments on a day I eat not so varied (which is not often). So I don't think that I miss any nutrient. I'm sure the nutrients in meat are covered by nuts, seeds, veggies like broccoli, and even the B-complexes in beer. Whole civilizations are vegatiarian without a problem. And I think broccoli also replaces the calcium deficiency when you cut out milk. BTW, I never drink milk anyway, and have gone without yoghurt or cheese before, without noticible drawbacks. So going without these could not have countered the energy increase, as far as I can tell...

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

when you say you didn't eat processed food, do you mean you prepared everything yourself from scratch?

With "processed foods" I mean factory produced complete meals or sauces, like canned soup, microwavable meals, and instant sauces. I did buy meat which contains some conservants, and drank beer or whine, which technically are processed. Do you think that is enough to counter all of the energy increase I got from going without dairy and factory food? Seems unlikely to me, I you consider that Steve attributes 80% of his energy increase from vegan to the fact that he doesn't take dairy.

I am very curious about these energy increases that Steve reports, but I am also a bit skeptical. In general there could be a placebo effect explaining some of the increase. But that does not explain all I think, since I belief some diets are better than others, which means that there are subjective and objective energy level differences.

But how different are human bodies from each other? If there is such a wide variety of "good" possible diets, what does that mean for an individual? Take meat for instance. According to some theories man switched to meat when the forest (with nuts and tubers) could not harbor the growing population, and man expanded into the savanna, where hunting made him so mobile he populated entire Africa in no time. The body evolved to handle meat.

If we believe this, than I have a hard time believing that meat is a bad for you. Then, when you try for yourself, and find no energy increase, this confirms for me personally that meat is not bad. But Steve has an energy increase by going vegetarian!! So either Steve is deluding himself, or I am deluding myself, or his body is very different from mine. But we have the same ancestors which roamed Africa long ago, hunting for meat...

This is just an example of me trying to get my head around this. Steve keeps on having these big energy increases from every diet change, even the current one that leaves out cooked foods. If his changes are "real and objective", than the best diet is all-raw foods, like the people ate in the forest before they conquered the savannah. That would mean that meat is only needed when there is nothing else around...

So in short, if we have basically the same body, then why do we have different results?

Sorry this is such a long post, but I really wanted to get this down..

[moire]

bad breath can be a sign of just plain hunger, and since you also reported lack of energy... are you sure you were getting enough calories?

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by moire

bad breath can be a sign of just plain hunger, and since you also reported lack of energy... are you sure you were getting enough calories?

I think I got enough calories, because I did not change quantities of food. I just replaced processed foods with prepared foods, and meat with grains and nuts.

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

when you say you didn't eat processed food, do you mean you prepared everything yourself from scratch?

I ate simply, meaning that getting veggies (and meat) and grains from the store and making an ordinary meal. In general nothing with instructions or ingredients on it. Just "what you see is what you get" kind of stuff.

That included bread, which is technically processed grains, but if you take the brown healthy kind, I consider that unprocessed food.

No jam, peanutbutter ect. Simple stuff. No industrial additives. In Europe, these are coded with numbers preceded with "E", like E217. They are consevators, tasty enhancers, artificial flavors and smell, that are "approved" by European health standards, like the FDA in the US. It basically means they are not a serious health risk, whatever long term effect they may have.

So I don't know who to believe. If my energy is the same, that means subjectively these additives are not harmful to me, and I can trust the food authorities. But if Steve is right they are a bad judge, and I am not feeling better because something is still keeping my energy down. But what?

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Kingston

So in short, if we have basically the same body, then why do we have different results?

We have different results in many ways. Some people feel nothing bad when they eat junk food all their life, others feel very bad after one visit to McDonalds. Some people can eat pizza every day and won't put on weight, others eat a banana and gain 2lbs. Some people are able to take the hardest medicine, others have to vomit when they take one aspirin (like me). And so on. We don't have the same body!

Some notice the slightest diet changes and others can eat whatever they want, it doesn't seem to have any impact. I don't know why. Some people are less sensitive than others when it comes to such things. I've always asked myself if it's a matter of sensitivity (which would mean that it harms them just like the others, but they don't notice it) or if they are really stronger (which would mean that it doesn't harm them). I don't know.

Originally Posted by Kingston

I am not feeling better because something is still keeping my energy down. But what?

1) are you sure it's a question of nutrition? Is there something else in your life that could be keeping your energy down? Some negative thoughts or problems or unresolved conflicts or...?
2) There are lots of things some people react negatively to, like meat, dairy, sugar, coffeine, gluten... You tried once without meat and once without dairy and processed foods. Why not combine both and try without meat and dairy? Or without grains? Or without sugar? Or without meat, dairy, grains and sugar?

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

We have different results in many ways. (...) We don't have the same body!

If you put it that way we are all different. It's partly genes, but I think the most differences in how we react to foods depend on what we are used to, and the different interactions. So maybe we have the roughly the same body to begin with, but the habits and experiences accumulate, making us and our reaction unique. So possibly if we start the same diet, the differences in history cause different reactions. So we may even be so complex that not just health studies, but even your own experiments can't tell you about yourself! That would explain my different results to identical experiments.

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

1) are you sure it's a question of nutrition? Is there something else in your life that could be keeping your energy down? Some negative thoughts or problems or unresolved conflicts or...?

There is always some challenge happening, but I am very emotionally stable, so I don't think that is it. And that factor is constant on average over a 30 day trial, so I should still be able to feel an energy difference from a diet.

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

2) There are lots of things some people react negatively to, like meat, dairy, sugar, coffeine, gluten... You tried once without meat and once without dairy and processed foods. Why not combine both and try without meat and dairy? Or without grains? Or without sugar? Or without meat, dairy, grains and sugar?

Those combinations are interesting, and I have been thinking about that all day now, and things are getting clearer with that. Let me try to put it down how I see things now.

I totally agree that caffeine, sugar, aspertame and artificial flavors and colors are bad for almost anyone. It is easier to research, prove and test this for yourself, because these things are single molucules that are identifiable both in health studies and personal experiments.

I think some grains (or gluten) are bad for some people for genetic reasons, but that doesn't go for me as far as I know. (Hmm, what would happen if I did a now grian trial... Might try that, thanks!)

I am not so sure about meat, diary, and conservation additives. These things are composite things, which interact with itself and many things in the body. Things get complicated. It gets even more nasty if you combine different trials, like quitting processed foods, meat, and dairy in a single trial. Say you feel great after, then you never know which of the three is the good and the bad... I would not want to quit meat eating unless it was absolutely needed to feel better. I did that trial, and it did not improve my energy.

So this is what I know so far, about my body and health, from my own experiments:

BAD: Sugar, caffeine, aspertame, high fat fried food, and most artificial flavors and colors.

GOOD: Fruit, veggies, nuts, seeds, beans etc.

NO EFFECT / UNCERTAIN: Meat, processed foods, conservation additives, grains, dairy.

So I guess I will do a trial of cutting processed foods, and decide whether the benifits justify the extra prep time.

If I go with natural history and human evolution, than it makes no sense that meat could be in the BAD category. Maybe only the growth hormone meat, but that can be solved by eating organic/eco meat. I have a hard time believing the last evolutionary jumb was based on an unhealthy diet change.

To a lesser extent that goes for grains to. Civilition became possible with agriculture, and if grain is BAD we have been eating like fools for 10.000 years. That is bold claim!

I am most in doubt about processed foods and dairy. It comes down to WHICH of the additives is putting them in the BAD category, and than avoiding that. I did not have an energy change from cutting processed foods and dairy, and only one mild detox effect (bad breath). I currently have very little dairy because it is likely just an inefficient way of eating, and most of the planet can go without it. So I attribute my detox effects to the cutting of dairy. But why not eat it if the energy level doesn't change?

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Kingston

I think some grains (or gluten) are bad for some people for genetic reasons, but that doesn't go for me as far as I know. (Hmm, what would happen if I did a now grian trial... Might try that, thanks!)

As far as you know. Many people feel bad while eating grains. They don't know that it's the grains. They're not even allergic to gluten, they just have strange symptoms or feel tired. Then they stop eating them and feel like superman. I'm not saying it's the case for you, I don't know, but it's worth trying it, really.

No grains means almost no processed foods too, 'cause you'll have a hard time finding processed foods without wheat.

Another question about grains: do you eat them whole, or refined? If refined, it's clear that you should stop, white bread, white flour, white pasta & pizza, white rice etc IS bad. Again, some people will be more sensitive than others to that, but it's definitely #1 things I would eliminate! Refining grains is a very recent dietary jump btw, about a hundred years...

If you switch from refined grains to whole grains, it could happen that you don't notice any difference, if you don't tolerate grains at all. That's why I would completely cut them off for one month, and then try with whole grains and see if it's better/worse.

Originally Posted by Kingston

If I go with natural history and human evolution, than it makes no sense that meat could be in the BAD category. Maybe only the growth hormone meat, but that can be solved by eating organic/eco meat. I have a hard time believing the last evolutionary jumb was based on an unhealthy diet change.

I haven't. For me meat is bad indeed. I notice that very clearly. It messes with my digestion, prevents me from sleeping and makes me feel very crappy. But that's just me. Maybe I'm genetically still the monkey-like human eating no meat.

Originally Posted by Kingston

To a lesser extent that goes for grains to. Civilition became possible with agriculture, and if grain is BAD we have been eating like fools for 10.000 years. That is bold claim!

Are you afraid of bold claims?

Seriously, maybe some people have genetically adapted to meat, grains, and dairy, and others not. I didn't. You have to find out at which point you stopped adapting

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Another question about grains: do you eat them whole, or refined? If refined, it's clear that you should stop, white bread, white flour, white pasta & pizza, white rice etc IS bad. Again, some people will be more sensitive than others to that, but it's definitely #1 things I would eliminate! Refining grains is a very recent dietary jump btw, about a hundred years...

I just ordered a pizza and I am writing this while waiting.. I know white flower is bad, it is like refined suger, all glucose molecules in the blood at once, causing an insuline response that makes you tired. Except that I go to the gym after dinner, so I will be using about 400 of those carbon calories intantly. This is why diet is so complex. I don't want to give up pizza for a mirage.

I will do a no grain trial in the future to find out. Thanks again for the suggestion!

Do you agree with my story of WHY refined grain is BAD? Or am I missing something? (Assuming I can handle grain in general)

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Are you afraid of bold claims?

Seriously, maybe some people have genetically adapted to meat, grains, and dairy, and others not. I didn't. You have to find out at which point you stopped adapting

I like bold claims! As long as they are true...

I guess I will have to accept these big individual differences. It was such I nice idea that we where all alike.

Another hypothesis is that maybe all foods are equally healthy, and that only wrong consumption like overeating and monotony are BAD. Every thing breaks down to the same aminoacids, carbo-hydrates, minerals and vitamins. So the only BAD thing could be wrong quantities for the body at the time. Like the pizza example. A office worker needs a different dinner than a factory worker.

I research some of the additives on the canned soup I had yesterday. They seemed harmless: pressed seeds, pretty close to natural stuff.

Maybe there are no toxins in normal foods (excluding growth hormones and stuff). In that light the detox effects of a diet change can be explained by the body adjusting to different quantities of building blocks, which are then interpreted as detox effects. Do you think that could be the case? Does anyone else?

I SO MUCH want to believe that it doesn't matter what you eat! Or said differently, I intuit it does not matter, and my trials confirm it for my body so far...

I will find the best diet for me!

EDIT: Oh, it's saturday night, and the gym is closed... I guess I have to go out and have fun then! There are sooo many interesting ways to burn away a pizza!

[MasterD]

Are you overeating too often? Eating out of emotions instead of out of need for food?

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by MasterD

Are you overeating too often? Eating out of emotions instead of out of need for food?

No. I used to overeat on some nutrients, like too much salt and carbo-hydrates, because I was bored with life, not knowing what to do. But I was never overweight, and now I eat just right. I go to the gym often and I am a big guy, so I have the same diet, but more balance.

[Jennihul]

The Blood Type Diet :: Peter D'Adamo

www.genotype.com

This will tell you your ideal diet and foods.

Jennifer

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

This will tell you your ideal diet and foods.

Thank you for the pointer, it looks interesting!

Did you try that diet for yourself? How were your experiences, and did they do controlled studies with it? It looks interesting, but I would like to have some independent testimonials to back up the trust in someone I don't know.

Why is this such a good diet, and how can nutrients turn genes on and off? I know enough about genetics to be a bit skeptical, so I am interested in info on how that happens.

[Jennihul]

I fail pretty miserably trying to explain the complex details behind his research but it's very well-researched and I have had tremendous life and health changes as a result of using this diet. Contrarily, now that I have studied it, I can see how badly my family members are doing who aren't using it and aren't interested in changing.

It's not difficult or very restrictive. For me, type O, it is the most restrictive insofar as it doesn't really let you have dairy, wheat, and anything processed.

The genes being turned on and off is pretty common knowledge with geneticists but we aren't talking about the base genes that come from your mom and dad. There are apparently genes that make you who you are and other genetic material that can change based on current environment, diet and exposure to chemicals and toxins and such.

Jennifer

[eblight]

I've come to some conclusions about the food that I eat. I want it to be as fresh as possible, as organically grown as is possible and as unprocessed as possible. Although I don't eat meat I feel that for many others who enjoy it and get a lot of nutrition from it then buy organic meat. If you are young your body metabolises food much more quickly than by the time you are in your forties and fifties. A life time of bad eating catches up with a person as they get older especially if they haven't kept up high levels of fitness and drunk a lot of alcohol as well.

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

It's not difficult or very restrictive. For me, type O, it is the most restrictive insofar as it doesn't really let you have dairy, wheat, and anything processed.

I will put that book on my wishlist, specially since I'm type O myself, and now I do eat wheat and processed food. I sometimes have dairy, but as little as possible (when I eat pizza for example).

Can you explain simply why type O shouldn't have processed foods? I research some of the additives in processed food, but the ones I checked seemed natural stuff to me, like pressed seeds and things like that.

I will do a no-wheat trial in the future.

Thanks alot!

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by eblight

I've come to some conclusions about the food that I eat. I want it to be as fresh as possible, as organically grown as is possible and as unprocessed as possible. (...) A life time of bad eating catches up with a person as they get older especially if they haven't kept up high levels of fitness and drunk a lot of alcohol as well.

Sounds good. It seems like what everyone "knows" is "healthy", which is a lot better than the standard diet. But I still wonder what the downside is of processed food. I can see why it's bad if that is all you eat, because then you don't get enough fiber and micronutrients. That means its lacks stuff, but that's no problem if you eat enough fresh stuff. So I'm not yet convinced there is anything IN processed food that is bad for you.

[Kingston]

I spent the last few hours researching D'Adomo's genotype diet. Starting at the wikepedia entry and branching out to lectins, anthropology and genetics. I understand his main points and I read some of the criticisms.

I think I may still do a 15 day no wheat trial, but I'm more skeptical now. His critics typecally have an axe to grind (otherwise they wouldn't spend the time writing), but their arguments are more convincing then D'Adamo's, according to my taste for scientific rigor.

Jennifer, your diet may be good for you based on other reasons then you think. If you are comfortable now, don't change, but you could try adding wheat again (if you have no allergy), and see if you energy drops.

I guess D'Adamo is trapped in his father's footsteps and fell for confirmation bias, where someone disregards contrary evidence. He did not do controlled studies showing that type O people react badly to wheat.

One critic referenced on the wikipedia entry on the diet shares my intuitions about genetics and diet. It's unlikely that there is a connection between blood type and diet in the first place, and there is no evidence for it.

I'm sorry that your beliefs are different from mine Jennifer, I hope I did not hurt your feelings.

[groove88]

Originally Posted by Kingston

Last year I experimented with my diet, and I have some questions for the experienced dieticians out here

I did a 30-day trial in as a vegetarian, and another trial without diary products and processed food. After both trials I went back to a standard diet because I did not experience any physical or mental improvement.

I did these trials because I was curious about the effects Steve reported after all his diet changes, so I was surprised that I did not experience benefits.. For instance if I were any bit like him, I would have had large energy increases during these two trials.

I had some mild detox effects, mostly bad breath. So this indicates that it did me some good, but why did I not have any positive effects after the detox period? Either I am missing something, or I am completely different from Steve. Anyone knows what's going on here? Could it be that my optimal diet is a simply a "healthy" version of the standard diet? Seems unlikely..

Sticking to those 30 day trials is impressive. Quite surprised you felt no change. Are you often fatigued then?

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by groove88

Sticking to those 30 day trials is impressive. Quite surprised you felt no change. Are you often fatigued then?

No, I feel good, but actually I don't know what that is because it is always relative to something else. If my optimal diet, which is supposed to make me feel great, is something different from what I eat now, then I could feel better. I'm trying to find out if that is the case, but I'm running out of options.

That's why I don't know what to do. Steve had a BIG energy increase after going vegetarian, and going vegan. I did not notice changes when I cut meat. Then I went back to meat and cut dairy and processed foods. No change in energy. So maybe I could do trials until hell freezes over.

This is what I could do next trials on:

1. Cut both meat and dairy... unlikely to be useful if they seperately have no effect. Unless you believe: "animal product = bad", which I don't for reasons I explained above.

2. Cut wheat, without believing the theory why it's bad. But still might do it.

3. Go vegan raw. But I would have to feel like superman to accept the lack of flexibility it entails.

It could also be that it actually IS true that a pretty normal diet is my optimal diet, and that I feel my best now, and that the detox effect is just an adaptation to the new way of eating, and not necessarily toxins leaving the body. Steve explained that in yesterday's blog entry, and I did not know that when I started this thread. But I would be disappointed to find out I can't improve on my energy level through diet anymore..

I'm currently digesting two big plates of spagetti, made of wheat (maybe refined, it doesn't tell), processed factory sauce with lots of fancy additives, garlic, and off course minced cow. The point is that I don't feel different then on any other day, which is subjectively great. But who knows how much I'm deluding myself.

It also tasted real nice. Pasta has way of filling you up, and it's texture is unsurpassed.

Truth is shrouded in mystery..

[Steve Pavlina]

Are you exercising regularly too? When I went vegetarian and then vegan, I was into running every morning. I noticed an increase in endurance with each change. When going veg the first time, I found I didn't get as winded running up hills. This stamina boost encouraged me to get into distance running. A year after going vegan I was doing 10-14 mile runs along the beach. Eventually I did a marathon.

When I went vegan, I was following the Fit for Life diet (from the book of the same name). This meant eating fresh fruit until noon each day and consuming 80% water-rich foods (many of them raw). For dinner I'd often have stir-fry or pasta with veggies. As I strayed from this water-rich diet and added more concentrated foods, I didn't feel as energetic.

[impaul99]

Kingston, I have an opinion for you that isn't very popular around here, but one that I have tested and found to be true from real experience in my life. It might help you understand why you didn't experience any of the changes you were looking for during your 30 day trials.

Here's my opinion in short:

30 Day Trials Don't Work.

I wrote a whole article on it on my blog ( Why 30 Day Trials Don’t Work | Inspired Money Maker - How To Make Money Doing What You Love ) but I'll try to summarize for you.

Firstly, in almost all cases of doing anything worthwhile such as quitting smoking, stopping drinking, improving your diet, starting to exercise, studying a martial art, etc. there are VERY VERY MINIMAL benefits experienced within the first 30 days of a new program like this. In a lot of cases within the first 30 days you actually feel worse than before you started.

In the case of dietary changes, the body needs time to adjust to the new diet, it needs time to be trained to accept the new nutrients etc. Basically if you're normally eating pizza and drinking pop, the body has adjust itself to handle that kind of food. You can't just feed it healthy food for a few days and expect the body to change it's entire structure and process.

When you do start eating healthier, the body will for example release stored toxins from your fat cells and put them back in your blood for the liver to filter out. This has the same effect on you as the first time you ate the toxins. So for example if you ate a Big Mac a year ago and the body couldn't handle the toxins in that big mac due to lack of nutrients, it stored the toxins in your fat cells to be removed at a future time. Now that you start feeding your body a healthy diet, the body will slowly try to release those toxins which puts them back in the blood.

I don't want to get too technical here but from all my studies on nutrition (I'm studying to be a nutritionist right now), and the consultations and chats I've had with my Naturopath, changing diets is not a process that happens overnight or even in a 30 day period of time.

So, that's the first flaw of 30 day trials. You experience MINIMAL benefits during the first 30 days. In my martial arts training, after the first 30 days all I learned was that I was definitely out of shape, not very flexible, not very co-ordinated, didn't know how to punch properly, and that people half my size could kick my ass quite easily. After 30 days of training, I didn't feel ANY more confident in my self-defence ability than I did when I started. However, 2.5 years later it's a different story.

So that's the first flaw.

The second flaw is that the human brain takes AT LEAST 21-30 days to form a new habit. During this time, it is often very difficult to keep yourself on-track with a plan. You have to exert a lot of mental discipline, you have to change some of your other habits affected as well, and it is not an easy time. It may not be until after 45 or even 90 days that your newly formed habit is actually quite effortless.

For example, when I did a 30 day trial back when I believed in them, I ran into problems like not having enough room in the fridge to store all the veggies I had because the fridge we had was too small. Eventually about a month after I finished my 30 day trial I was at a store and they had a big fridge for sale because it had a small tiny dent somewhere (I never saw it) so I bought it and now I had a "veggie fridge" which made things WAY easier, however I was already "Off" my 30 day trial by then.

This brings me to my second point about 30 day trials. The first 30 days are usually the HARDEST due to the fact that you have to form a habit, get organized, gather resources, allow the people around you to adjust, etc.

So, basically what a 30 day trial of ANYTHING does to you is that it gives you an UNREALISTIC picture of the thing you are trying out. It shows you how DIFFICULT it is to do the thing you're trying out, and simultaneously it shows you how LITTLE BENEFIT you get from it.

In my opinion, this is STUPID. It never worked for me, so after my 30 day trials I just ended up getting disheartened.

Since then I've formulated a new plan and I've been having way more success with it. If I'm going to try something now, I'll do it for 6 months or a year MINIMUM to give it a chance.

I did a 30 day trial of eating healthy food because someone told me I would have WAY more energy and I would also feel a much stronger spiritual connection. After 30 days I felt no such thing.

I did a 30 day trial of working out every day because I thought I could see results after just 30 days of working out. After 30 days I saw no results.

After 30 days of martial arts training I so no beneficial gain in self confidence or ability to defend myself. If anything, I was more scared of people than before because prior to training I thought I was actually more capable.


You seem like a very smart guy. Why not do more research on diets and nutrition so that you can get a feel for what is healthy and good for you and design a diet for yourself that you can follow for 6months or a year at least, and ideally for life. That's what I ended up doing.

I decided to just take a 2 year Nutrition course to become a nutritionist. In the course I've learned what I believe to be the truth about nutrition based on the latest research done by scientists, not biased by one specific doctor or corporate entity. On top of that I also studied many diets from different doctors and looked for what fits and what sticks out.

As of Jan 1st, I started on my new diet and exercise plan and I plan on sticking to it forever, with adjustments made to the diet after 6months or more.

Sorry for the long post, but it might help you out.

In my opinion, 30 day trials are only good for generating traffic to your blog.

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Are you exercising regularly too? When I went vegetarian and then vegan, I was into running every morning. I noticed an increase in endurance with each change.

I currently do strenght training 3 times a week. At the time of the diet trials I went 3 or 4 times a week.

I have no objective measure of my energy at that time, like with endurance excercise. Subjectively I felt no change, also maybe because my variation in energy for exercise is related to motivation.

I'm very curious about these energy increases and positive feelings, but diet turns out te be complex.. I will look into the fit for life diet, it seems worth a try.

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Here's my opinion in short:

30 Day Trials Don't Work.

(...)

When you do start eating healthier, the body will for example release stored toxins from your fat cells and put them back in your blood for the liver to filter out. This has the same effect on you as the first time you ate the toxins. So for example if you ate a Big Mac a year ago and the body couldn't handle the toxins in that big mac due to lack of nutrients, it stored the toxins in your fat cells to be removed at a future time. Now that you start feeding your body a healthy diet, the body will slowly try to release those toxins which puts them back in the blood.

This is a great clarification / addition to the "detox" concept. It explains why a diet could be better than my current one, while I have no benefits. The word "detox" implies that the symtoms, like headaches and bad breath, correlate with toxins leaving the body. But this could also be the just the adaptation to the new diet, like Steve suggested on his blog. And than the toxins leave slowly over a long time, drowning my benefits... So if I belief this that puts me in a more difficult situation, since this means I can no longer rely on my personal evaluation of a diet as long I have toxins in my body. If it is true that I'm full of toxins from things a ate in the past, then I can only rely on others for what to eat. If we all have the same body, I should look to science. If we are all different, than I'm screwed, since I can never find out which of the food are "toxic" to my body.... I could be cutting everything and feel bad forever because the time delay is to big.. So this puts me back at square one.

You trust science for diet advise. In your example a Big Mac has toxins, which are those, and are they the same toxins for everyone, or is the meat bad for John and the bun bad for Joan? (And the fry for Nick, the iron for Jamie, the onions for Jack.. etc)

Originally Posted by impaul99

So, that's the first flaw of 30 day trials. You experience MINIMAL benefits during the first 30 days.

I agree with your examples in general. And you say that the 30 day trial is good way to trick your ego. If you view it only as that and don't hope to get benefits during the trial, it at least gets the habit started. That is how I use it. I think you are a good constructive critic of Steve's work, giving us that little extra detail.

Originally Posted by impaul99

Why not do more research on diets and nutrition so that you can get a feel for what is healthy and good for you and design a diet for yourself that you can follow for 6months or a year at least, and ideally for life.

I guess I'll have to. If I want the best diet or be sure I have the best one now, I need to know more. I think its great you are becoming a nutritionist. I will not go that far, but I think I will look into it to at least be sure. Any suggestions on where I could start? Any scientific basic nutrition books at college level that you liked?

BTW, the before-after pics of that guy is awesome! Thank you for everything!

[impaul99]

@Kingston:

Your first question. Something like a Big Mac is bad for everyone. If you study nutrition, you can determine what a good diet is probably to 95% accuracy. The other 5% will differ from person to person due to genes etc.

The variation in the 5% will be due to things like gender, genes, stage of life (child, pregnant woman, etc.), as well as environmental factors like weather etc.

I wouldn't worry about that right now. The majority of "differences" are just excuses. People who don't have the personal will power to tame their pleasure-seeking ego's will use excuses like "Oh I can eat meat no problem" or "There's no way I can give up milk" or "I just can't eat any green vegetables ,they don't taste good" etc. are just kidding themselves. It's like someone saying they can't quit smoking because they'll gain weight. Or they can't quit smoking because their job is stressful.

If you're worried about eating healthy for a long period of time, like a year and still not getting all the benefits because you're consuming a food that you may be allergic to, you can alwasy book an appointment with a Naturopath who works on determining that. Mine determined that I needed to stay away from onions for a while, even though they are perfectly fine for other people.

As for good nutrition books..hmmm.... The nutritionist course I'm taking is offered as a home study course that I can study in my spare time after work. You only need to write the exams on-site. It's not something you have to go to collage for. So if you're really interested in learning everything about nutrition, it is an awesome course. It costs about $2500 if I remember correctly and is made up of 3 parts (Advanced Nutrition, Sports Nutrition, Vegetarian Nutrition). If you're not worried about getting a diploma, the Advanced Nutrition one covers 80% of the material anyways and it's only about $800.

If you aren't interested in learning WHY things work the way they do and just want to learn WHAT to do, the only books I've seen that even come close is Dr. Robert Young's books (pH Miracle, and pH Miracle For Weight Loss etc.), however some of the things that are important he kind of just mentions briefly.

For example, he has a paragraph or two saying "You should supplement your diet with Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids." and that's pretty much it. It's a small paragraph on a couple of pages. If you're one of those people that will do what someone tells them without questioning why, then you'll be ok, because you'll just take the supplements and it will make sense.

To me that didn't work ,and that's why I had to take a nutritionist course in which they gave me a whole fricken encyclopedia to read on Fats (Good Fats, Bad Fats, by Dr. Udo Erasmus). Now when someone says "Saturated Fat" and "Unsaturated Fat", I actually understand the chemical composition of the fats in terms of molecules and it makes sense to me. Before it didn't really mean anything to me.

I don't know, I'm kind of a nut when it comes to studying things in life. When I consider that my family spends between $1200-$3000/month on foods, paying $2500 for a nutrition course didn't seem like a big investment for me. Also, considering the fact that eating healthy will probably extend my lifetime and that of my family by decades, studying nutrition for a few hours on the weekend was a no brainer for me. That's just me though

Tony Robbins also has a good program called "Living Health" which introduces Dr. Young's work and teaches you a complete "Do this and you'll be healthy" course step by step.

[Kingston]

Thanks a lot, Paul! That was all very informative. I will start down the path of the WHY of nutrition, I guess it's too important to leave to the experts

I will compile a book list and fix my own learning path, probably guided by a friend who studies pharmocalogy. That reminds me, she explained to me in detail the difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats, including the molecules. It was very interesting and I look forward to learning more about such things.

Thanks again!

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Kingston

Thanks a lot, Paul! That was all very informative. I will start down the path of the WHY of nutrition, I guess it's too important to leave to the experts

I will compile a book list and fix my own learning path, probably guided by a friend who studies pharmocalogy. That reminds me, she explained to me in detail the difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats, including the molecules. It was very interesting and I look forward to learning more about such things.

Thanks again!

One word of caution. Most medical schools don't teach proper nutrition. Even hospital "dietitians" are out to lunch. You might need to do some digging to find good sources. This is who I went with in the end: Natural Health School - Online Nutrition Courses - Holistic Healing School

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by impaul99

One word of caution. Most medical schools don't teach proper nutrition. Even hospital "dietitians" are out to lunch. You might need to do some digging to find good sources. This is who I went with in the end: Natural Health School - Online Nutrition Courses - Holistic Healing School

I'll be careful! I like digging, and derive perverse pleasure from going against the status quo.

[geekchic9]

Kingston:

I'm saddened that you seemed to have based your entire research about the Genotype Diet on a few Wikipedia articles. That doesn't satisfy my tastes in scientific rigor. Go to the library, check out his book, and read it and the scientific studies on which he based his research. Go straight to the source! Then, if you still don't like his books, that's fine -- switch to something else. At least you would have known that you gave his ideas a fair shot.