The "Sensible Eating" article, written for Stretching & Pregnancy

[Admin]

This article from Stretching & Pregnancy, published in 2001, will start the dialogue:

https://stretchtherapy.net/sensible-eating/

I will make this a "sticky" so that it can be a permanent resource. If you want to use it, kindly attribute it (if you are unfamiliar with that term, it means "note where you got it from!").

Cheers, kl

[Nolan & Jade Foster]

Hi Kit

This is not about eating strictly per se, but as it relates to digestion and internal well being I thought I would add. I'm pretty confident that everyone who reads this forum is interested in physical well being so this link just adds onto that. I did this parasite cleanse over a month period and I followed the recommendations on this link and all manner of problems for me disappeared within days. Including a 5 year long skin problem, lathargy, broken sleep and digestion problems. Now all the good stuff that i eat really makes me feel good, where as before it didn't perk me up nearly as much, which I just couldn't understand.

I think this is a good read for those who are wanting to start a new sensible eating program to make sure the digestive system is working at ultimate capacity. It's a bit yukky to think about but a real eye opener.

Possible Signs of Parasitic Infestation

Since parasites will naturally inhabit the weaker areas of your body, symptoms can manifest in many different ways.

• Stomach pain, indigestion, ulcers, constipation or colitis may indicate parasites in the digestive tract
  
• Uncontrollable movements, such as Parkinson’s disease, may indicate parasites in the nervous system
  
• Joint or muscle pain, such as arthritis, can be a sign that the presence of a parasite is irritating the joint or tissue and thereby causing inflammation
  
• Increased susceptibility to infections in lungs, sinuses, vagina, bladder or any mucous membrane may indicate the presence of a parasite
  
• Food and environmental allergies are often linked to parasites because as digested food is released into the intestines, it can seep through perforations caused by the parasites into the lymphatic system
  
• Dermatitis, itching, psoriasis, eczema, hives, swelling and rashes can indicate parasites in the skin
  
• Anemia, fatigue or drowsiness after meals may indicate that parasites are competing with the body for nutrients
  
• Plus many more
  

http://www.the-natural-path.com/parasite-cleanse.html

read the link

[Kit_L]

Excellent link, Jade and, further, I recommend a worming preparation at least annually if you live with pets, too.

Ayurveda (the traditional medicine of India) begins with digestion: it asserts that what you cannot digest eventually kills you, and many of its recommendations are intended to strengthen agni, or digestive fire (in other words, how to strengthen your digestion). Many Yoga asana have the same purpose (the peacock pose, or Mayuranasana) is perhaps the best-known example.

My friend Bill Giles has been urging his patients to cleanse the digestive system, the small intestine in particular, for similar reasons. Thanks for the post!

[Kit_L]

Link to article corrected above; Liv has made all articles on the site be able to have their own URLs; thank you!

[nick_kuchedav]

On 4/15/2017 at 10:32 AM, Kit_L said:

Link to article corrected above; Liv has made all articles on the site be able to have their own URLs; thank you!

Sensei, have you update the article since 2001? Do you still believe in the same explanations and recommendations nowadays?

[Kit_L]

HNY, Nik! 

I can't update that article, because it's a chapter from a book still in print, but on re-reading it, it is close to how I am thinking now. Remember, that chapter was written for Stretching & Pregnancy, so has a that emphasis.

Also, one's body and its capacity to digest particular foods changes as you get older; my diet is much simpler now than it was. This is one of the reasons I do not eat until after midday, either: this 'intermittent fasting" (popularised by Martin Berkhan) really helps to reduce insulin insensitivity and to control blood glucose, as well as allowing the body to secrete leptin so you can use your own fat for fuel. Most people eating 3+ meals a day cannot access their own fat, unless on a calorie deprivation diet, because blood sugar is too high for too long each day for glucagon to be secreted. There's much more to say on this, but that's the general gist. And if you are training heavy, you will definitely need to focus on the foods I describe as nutritionally dense, but most lifters overestimate their requirements (and find themselves in a year-long "bulking" phase!).

Did you have any specific ideas you want to discuss?

[nick_kuchedav]

All clear

I'm not sure how beneficial would be such discussion for the rest of the forum, so probably there isn't any sense to mention my comments. 
Just there are quite a few things that are in contradiction with my experience and understandings.

[Nathan]

2 hours ago, nick_kuchedav said:

Just there are quite a few things that are in contradiction with my experience and understandings.

Hey Nick!

I haven't read through the except properly, so perhaps I shouldn't be commenting, but... I did skim over it very briefly and I did notice a couple of things that don't quite jive with the most current research/consensus.

That said, I think the important thing to remember is that this is addressing sensible eating. I know you are a personal trainer and I'm sure you follow most of the cutting-edge sports nutrition science like I do, so I think we have to be careful to remember that we're approaching nutrition from a very different perspective than most people. Performance nutrition and sports nutrition are actually relatively young fields of science, so advancements and new discoveries are being made all the time. But the point of these fields is to optimize nutrition for maximal performance, usually in some kind of sport. This often involves focusing primarily on minute details that actually make a very tiny difference when looking at the big picture.

Sensible eating, on the other hand, is no great mystery. There are basic concepts of good nutrition that have held true for a very long time, even though the finer details may change from time to time. My guess is that anything we might take issue with is either (a) intended for a different audience that is interested in general health, or (b) one of those comparatively unimportant details that has evolved over time.

Again, I very well may just be wasting space here since I haven't properly read the page. My above assumptions may be off, as well. (If so, my apologies!) Regardless, a sincere, well-intended discussion will almost always be beneficial for someone. You and I both know that Kit is very busy, but there are lots of smart people here who can pitch in if you want to point out any specific issues. These forums are a goldmine of information, and I'm sure the discussion would only add to that!

[Kit_L]

@nick_kuchedav and @Nathan: Please do read the article, and please do point out anything that you think's wrong or has been superseded in our understanding: that's what the Forums are for.

Please also keep in mind that this article is intended for pregnant women, as it is a chapter in a book on that subject.

[Pat (pogo69)]

It seems mostly sensible to me.

My only concerns are with respect to the repeated insistence on the reduction of saturated fat.  This is not supported by science, as has been widely shown in recently widely-publicised research reviews.  Antiquated organisations like the Heart Foundation, AMA, DAA etc cling to the idea with their well-worn mantras, but if they truly believed in the science, they would give up their dogma.  It is a lot like the continuing vilification of salt, despite evidence to the contrary.

• Lean meat.  Not necessary.  Animal fat is delicious and nutritious; particularly if the animal is grass-fed and thus replete with fat-soluble vitamins/minerals.  Eat it.
• Skim-milk and skim-milk yoghurt.  Dairy is a legitimate problem for a subset of the population.  But adulterating food is almost never a step in the right direction.
• Eggs - "If you are concerned about excess cholesterol intake, simply do not eat some of the yolks" - there is no evidence to implicate dietary cholesterol intake with atherosclerosis.  While the article infers something along these lines, this phrase gives the "egg white omelette" brigade (*shudder*) a free pass.
• Chicken (remove skin).  *GASP* I can't believe you said that?!  That is a egregious act, surmountable only by removing pork crackling. 
• "Bacon and eggs supply a good amount of protein – often missing in many modern breakfasts – but can supply significant amounts of saturated fat. Reserve for special occasions, and use lean bacon!".  Lean bacon?  Why bother?

Some other general comments:

• I think Michael Pollan has best summed up the basic tenets of a healthy relationship with food:
  • Eat food; not too much; mostly plants
  • Learn to cook
• Any contemporary look into "sensible eating" should mention something about gut health.  Probiotics and prebiotics.  Fibre.  Collagen/connective Tissue.
• Discussions of IF should also now include references to TRF/TRE - that is, Time Restricted Feeding/Eating, or eating within a restricted time window for the purposes of aligning one's circadian rhythms.  See Satchin Panda's work for a very accessible overview.

[Nathan]

@Kit_L: I will read through it properly and share my thoughts sometime after my end-of-February deadlines that are cutting into my sleep at the moment 

I will mention that the one thing that jumped out to me as I skimmed over was the section on tea and coffee. This is also a perfect example of differences in audience, though. The final line:

Quote

Expectant women are advised to limit both tea and coffee.

is excellent overall advice. I might even make it a bit more forceful, personally, but also add the caveat that it is caffeinated tea and coffee that they should be restricting. That should be somewhat obvious from the above paragraphs, but there will always be someone who skips to the summary! These days, decaffeinated tea and coffee are rather common and easily attainable, and they have been shown to still offer many of the plethora of health benefits available from both.

Quote

However, tea is a mild diuretic (that is, it causes the body to lose water), so make sure that you have your tea reasonably weak and have a glass of water for every cup.

Coffee, depending on the strength, is a stronger diuretic than tea, so have a glass of water with every cup you drink to offset this effect.

It is my understanding that the idea of compensating for drinking (caffeinated) tea or coffee with extra fluids is outdated. The idea came from looking at the diuretic effects of caffeine directly, rather than the coffee/tea beverage as a whole. Because both are primarily water, the diuretic effects of caffeine are generally offset and there is actually no need to supplement with extra fluids. (At the same time, most people don't drink enough fluids and there would certainly be no harm in drinking a few extra glasses of water each day!)

Quote

Coffee, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to have any benefits according to many researchers – unless you count its great taste!

This one made my heart skip a beat  There is no way to argue with it because of the "according to many researchers", but I would argue that it is misleading anyways. This is strongly biased by my interest in performance nutrition, but I am constantly reading about new studies touting the endless benefits of coffee - both for performance and general health, as well. Many of these are related to caffeine, but many others are attributed to antioxidants and other things found in coffee. Accordingly, decaf will still offer many of those health benefits. I have a feeling that considering coffee "healthy" is a fairly recent trend, so the quote is likely simply a reflection of the general consensus at the time.

Apologies for not posting references. I can do that at a later date, if needed, but I just wanted to quickly point out one piece that jumped out at me. Again, I will come back to this at a later time and give it a proper read!

[Kit_L]

1 hour ago, pogo69 said:

My only concerns are with respect to the repeated insistence on the reduction of saturated fat.

I was not aware of this repeated insistence (when I was thinking about the contents; I did not re-read the article myself, but I will now). What's more, I agree completely re. all the first five points you raise, so most definitely a revision is necessary! Perhaps @nick_kuchedav was too polite to mention this. I am a relatively high fat consumer myself and this has become more, not less, important as I get older. I estimate about 40% of my calories come from saturated (animal/fowl) fat, plenty of the fats that fish are famous for, and from avocados and nuts of a wide variety, mostly daily. 

I intended that article to be a jumping off point and I agree that the cholesterol debate was a massive misdirection (and one which I never took notice of personally, but acknowledge that I did for Stretching & Pregnancy), so all of that needs significant revision. Thank you.

1 hour ago, pogo69 said:

Discussions of IF should also now include references to TRF/TRE - that is, Time Restricted Feeding/Eating, or eating within a restricted time window for the purposes of aligning one's circadian rhythms. 

IF (if you mean Intermittent Fasting, which as you know I endorse strongly) is not suitable for pregnant women, I feel, but if you don't agree, happy to discuss. Of course, for most of human history, feast or famine was the lifestyle of all hunter–gatherers, so that will have included pregnant women, too. 

My position on sensible eating today is to only eat from the outer isles of any standard supermarket (so, meat, dairy, poultry, vegetables if they agree with you, small amounts of fruit) and nothing from the centre isles. Another way of saying this: eat nothing processed, and what you do eat should be recognisable as once living (eyes, gills, leaves). Of course, that would be a one-sentence book!

I will say more on this later; Liv and I are eating only in the evenings these days, so I do not want to think about food now!

[Kit_L]

@Nathan (now a Shoshin himself; congratulations, and sorry I did not notice this earlier!!!): Agree completely with what you write, and especially about coffee. On many workshops I have said that one day science will recognise that—of course—coffee has many phyto-nutrients too, should anyone care to look, because it is made directly from a big seed, the coffee bean. In Stretching & Pregnancy, I admit that my suggestions were extremely conservative. 

@pogo69, @nick_kuchedav, and @Nathan: thank you sincerely. yes, a major revision is necessary. Who want to help me write it? Or are these brief remarks here sufficient?

[Nathan]

1 hour ago, Kit_L said:

(now a Shoshin himself; congratulations, and sorry I did not notice this earlier!!!)

Thank you! I did not notice until you mentioned it! 

I would be happy to help once my schedule clears up a bit. As I mentioned, I will read over the article more carefully in the coming weeks/months and bring up any other possible points of contention here. I have a feeling @nick_kuchedav has more to address, as well. I am sure the discussion will be a source of more gold nuggets here on the forums. And then, in due time, we can weave all of that back into a revised version!

[Pat (pogo69)]

20 hours ago, Kit_L said:

IF (if you mean Intermittent Fasting, which as you know I endorse strongly) is not suitable for pregnant women, I feel, but if you don't agree, happy to discuss. Of course, for most of human history, feast or famine was the lifestyle of all hunter–gatherers, so that will have included pregnant women, too. 

Oh, I do agree Kit.  IF is unsuitable for many people; women - pregnant or not - more than men.  No such thing as a "one size fits all".

TRF is different.  It isn't "fasting", so much as consistently restricting your eating within a daily "window", to re-sync your circadian clocks.  To realise the majority of the benefits, it is only necessary to eat within a 12-hour window; which would be achievable by most people.  An important distinction with TRF is that one can consume ONLY water outside of the feeding window.  Many people "allow" coffee or even "fat blacks etc" while "fasting"; but TRF isn't about insulin response, but metabolism of any kind as that will reset peripheral circadian clocks.

TRF shows much promise for people whose circadian rhythms are out of whack, such as shift workers.  This could be quite relevant to pregnant and postpartum women, who often suffer disruptions to normal sleep patterns.

20 hours ago, Kit_L said:

My position on sensible eating today is to only eat from the outer isles of any standard supermarket (so, meat, dairy, poultry, vegetables if they agree with you, small amounts of fruit) and nothing from the centre isles. Another way of saying this: eat nothing processed, and what you do eat should be recognisable as once living (eyes, gills, leaves). Of course, that would be a one-sentence book!

I don't really think it needs to be any more complicated than a one-sentence book (e.g. my Michael Pollan quotes)!  But everyone seems to want to make everything so complicated.  Certainly, we do all have different metabolic machinery - genetic predisposition, epigenetic modifications/transcriptions, metabolic and/or hormonal damage etc - but that changes only the minutiae, not the message.

Not sure if Einstein really said it, but "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" seems never more apt than for nutrition.

[Nathan]

9 hours ago, pogo69 said:

TRF is different. It isn't "fasting", so much as consistently restricting your eating within a daily "window"

Actually, that's exactly what IF is!  But now we're talking semantics. The most popular methods of IF are probably Leangains (8-hour eating window) and East Stop Eat (1-2 24-hour fasts per week scheduled so that you never go a full waking day without eating), but there are many others. Less popular with the general public but more common in the scientific literature is ADF (alternate-day feeding, which usually includes "fasting" days limited to 500 calories or so and the other days are ad libitum eating) and TRF, among others. The methodologies are many, but any eating pattern that encompasses intentionally abstaining from food for any significant period of time falls within the confines of IF.

Either way, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, like you say, and that goes for IF (and TRF) as well.

[Kit_L]

21 hours ago, pogo69 said:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler

Yes, this is Occam's Razor. Simple is good; simplistic is what we have more of in the era of the Donald.

Great comments, everyone. Let's revisit this after we launch Absolute Beginner's Stretching; the marketing of this has occupied an immense amount of Liv's and my time recently. More to come on the 'promoting your work' thread.

[Pat (pogo69)]

On 09/02/2018 at 6:40 PM, Nathan said:

Actually, that's exactly what IF is!  But now we're talking semantics.

I feel a bit like "a dog with a bone".  But it is much more than semantics.

Pretty much every definition of IF that I have seen "allows" some level of ingestion of substances other than water.  Some allow coffee, or tea.  Some allow "fat black coffee".  Some allow anything that won't theoretically trigger an insulin response.  Leangains allows (prescribes) BCAAs.

TRF allows NOTHING other than water.  The distinction is fundamentally important.

[Nathan]

@pogo69: Oh, but I think it is semantics, indeed. That is simply saying that it is an issue of what the word means - in this case to different audiences. The "popular" forms of IF do indeed often allow substances other than water. But these popular methods do not equal "intermittent fasting," but rather belong within the category. In other words, we're basically debating the popular definition (which generally refers to "diets" that offer many possible modifications rather than actual protocols that might be used in scientific literature) versus the literal definition.

10 hours ago, pogo69 said:

The distinction is fundamentally important.

Then certainly make the distinction! But TRF is certainly a type of IF in that it includes intermittent bouts of fasting. Although, Wikipedia doesn't make the distinction that you do. So, again, it depends on the audience you are speaking to (general public, scientific community, IF enthusiasts, nutritionists, etc. etc.).

[jaja]

I'm trying this intermittent fasting thing, although I'm not exactly sure why. So… @Kit_L why do you fast? I know it's a really good way to lose extra pounds, but are there more benefits than just weight loss?

[Nathan]

7 hours ago, jaja said:

I'm trying this intermittent fasting thing, although I'm not exactly sure why.

Then why try it? 

7 hours ago, jaja said:

I know it's a really good way to lose extra pounds

Well, kind of. It's no better than any other sensible diet if your goal is to lose weight. The only real advantage for fat loss is if IF makes consistency and compliance easier for you, personally. Because the diet that works is the one you'll stick with.

7 hours ago, jaja said:

but are there more benefits than just weight loss?

Of course. I'm not Kit, but I'm sure he will agree that one of the primary benefits is freedom. It seems silly, considering our past, but many people still believe that they must eat every few hours, and 3+ times per day. Some people don't feel like eating breakfast in the morning, yet they do - because it's the most important meal of the day, of course! IF gives you the freedom to skip breakfast, and even lunch if you want. It gives you the freedom to not think about food all day long. (Once you get used to it, you won't be hungry while you're fasting.) If you're busy working and on a roll, there's no pressure to interrupt yourself because you feel like you're required to eat a meal around noon. It gives you the power to eat when you like, and not worry about it otherwise. And if you enjoy large meals, an added bonus is that eating most of your food in one go means you can enjoy a very large meal without overeating.

There are other benefits, of course. Do a bit of research if you want to know about potential benefits to things like blood glucose management, etc. But none of that makes a huge difference. If IF is more enjoyable for you, personally, then that's all the benefit you need. And it's worth noting that IF is not for everyone. Some will feel worse, whether physiologically or psychologically. IF is not for those people. There's nothing magic about it. Just like any other diet.

[jaja]

7 hours ago, Nathan said:

Then why try it? 

I've always eaten sweet breakfasts (the only kind of breakfast I can conceive), so I've always got really hungry mid-morning. It's unfortunate. On top of that, I have a problem tolerating hunger, to the point that skipping a meal results in my stomach cramping hard. This is not desirable and I wanna discover if it's a biological limit of mine, or just a matter of habit.

It also fits a personal quest I have: try to adopt an “evolution-based” approach to life. Our ancestor had to deal with scarcity, so maybe there're hidden side-effects in (over-)abundance. This, of course, is pure speculation and I definitely don't want to take it too far.

[Nathan]

4 hours ago, jaja said:

I've always eaten sweet breakfasts (the only kind of breakfast I can conceive), so I've always got really hungry mid-morning. It's unfortunate.

Not sure what sweet breakfast means to you (I can imagine lots of possibilities), but if you're considering no breakfast as a possibility, surely you could consider a different type of breakfast too. That said, even with your sweet breakfast, if you add a hefty chunk of protein, and perhaps a bit of fiber, it would most likely be much more filling and for a longer period of time. Protein doesn't have to be meat. I imagine Greek yogurt, whole eggs, etc. could have a place in a sweet breakfast.

4 hours ago, jaja said:

On top of that, I have a problem tolerating hunger, to the point that skipping a meal results in my stomach cramping hard. This is not desirable and I wanna discover if it's a biological limit of mine, or just a matter of habit.

Almost surely a matter of habit. But you don't need IF to test that. In fact, it would probably be a better test to just do a one-off longer-period fast. The first time you fast for more than three days, the third day tends to be the hardest in that you feel the hungriest. Once you make it past the third day, you feel amazing. That's a common pattern, in any case. If you want to experience powerful hunger, as well as a sense of being content without food, I recommend trying a four- or five-day fast. Of course it will take will power/effort.

[Kit_L]

Jaja, the Italian habit of eating sweet pastries for breakfast guarantees feeling REALLY hungry mid-morning—this is a simple response to the strong insulin secretion that a sweet breakfast leads to. This is not "unfortunate" as you write—it is a necessary consequence of that choice. Much, and I mean much, better to not eat any breakfast (coffee is fine, of course, and will help the effects we want) and eat a real lunch instead. By "real" I mean one that emphasises protein and fat, with some carbs. The stomach cramping you report on skipping a meal, too, is a direct consequence of this habit.

Read THIS to start with; I wrote this years ago, but it's still relevant.

There is a great deal to be understood in how the body works before any of the suggestions I can make will mean anything to you; the article above will help you understand some of the basics.

[jaja]

On 9/10/2018 at 10:37 AM, Kit_L said:

Read THIS to start with; I wrote this years ago, but it's still relevant.

Tons of informations there, thank you. I'll give it few more reads, before commenting further.

What's funny is most people look into diet to lose weight, but I actually want the opposite for myself.