Just a short post this week, seeing as I wrote so much last time. I'm still pondering over the possible advantages of switching to a diet that is lower in refined grains and contains more of the stuff we used to eat when humans lived in caves and hunted down their dinner. It contrasts so much with the conventional diet wisdom I learnt in my nutrition degree and my natural preference to be vegetarian, but the primal lifestyle still really intrigues me. After a year of feeling burnt out and not making much progress in my training goals, I'm especially drawn to Mark Sissons' idea of combining lots of moving around slowly with short bursts of intense activity and resistance training.
Although the peer-reviewed studies on eating like a caveman still seem to be sparse, more and more research is showing us that refined carbohydrate may be a bigger health villain than saturated fat. Frank Hu, of the Harvard School of Public Health, provided a useful overview in a recent editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Numerous studies on obesity treatment have shown that carbohydrate-restricted diets can be effective for weight loss and can reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors. While it's clear that we need plenty of carbohydrate to fuel optimal athletic performance, over reliance on post-ride cakes, sugary drinks and chewy sweets may not be doing our health any good at all. Even in vegetarians, it's looking more and more likely that a diet low in processed carbohydrate may be even more heart-healthy than standard high-carb, low fat veggie fayre.
So what does this mean for me? Do I get hypnosis to like meat, try to up my vegetarian protein intake, or simply ignore my curiosity and relax with a cup of tea and slice of cake? In the interests of science, and in the spirit of the old saying "don't knock it until you've tried it", I've decided to conduct a wee experiment in September. It's not very scientific (n=1, possibly 2 if I can rope my husband in; no control), but it should help me to work out what works best for me.
Starting tomorrow, my plan is to try following Mark's primal fitness blueprint and to minimise refined grains and sugar (what, no cake?!?). I'll keep it as simple as that to start with, then review how I feel at the end of the month, and maybe take it a step further, or maybe try something else.
Do you know what blood type you are? I am not sure of the scientific validity of the Eat Right 4 Your Type but I am just curious about the role of evolution and eating.
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough I've been looking into Peter D'Adamo's books too... I think there is definitely more to be discovered about how genetics determine an optimal diet for people as individuals. Different things work for different people and while I intuitively like the idea behind 'eat right for your type' you're right, the scientific evidence isn't there. I'm blood group O-, which is the 'meaty' one, and based on the genotype diet, I think I'm an 'explorer', which at least means I can eat rice and beans. What rings alarm bells for me with books like these is that D'Adamo doesn't appear to have published any research in a peer-reviewed journal, and he heavily plugs supplements and other products on his site. I like the theory in general, but I think the way it's executed is all about the money. Look at how many supplements they think an 'explorer' needs: http://www.4yourtype.com/explorer.asp ! I think I'll give those a miss, but keep on experimenting until I find what works for me. Have you tried the blood group diet?
ReplyDeleteAnother study has just been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which suggests that a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet is associated with lower all cause and cardiovascular mortality, whereas a meat-based one is associated with increased mortality: http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract. Perhaps by reducing my processed carbohydrate intake and staying veggie I am onto a winner.
ReplyDelete