First, I must take a sip of water.
Next, I have to eat a serving of vegetables or fruit.
Next, I can eat a serving of nuts or more fruit.
Last, I am allowed whatever terrible yet tasty treat I want, up to one serving.
Not completely accurate. First, the author's reasoning is more interesting than that specific stack. Second, you can opt out at any time: So replace "have to eat [...]" with "may eat".
> ...to mentally active (reading), to mentally passive (videogames, movies)
I'm sorry, since when did playing video games become "mentally passive"? (I say that somewhat half-jokingly.)
While reading I'm sure is much more healthy than playing video games, I don't think you can put video games -- for the most part -- in the same "mental" classification as watching a movie. Most video games require thinking and coordination.
Movies, on the other hand, barely require thought, zero coordination, and free your hands up to stuffing your face with processed goodies.
Haha I thought the videogame line would draw this comment out. I actually agree with you 100% - I love videogames and often argue for them as much deeper and valuable experiences than people give them credit for.
In this example it's a personal aspect of how they fit into my life - the games I tend to play these day aren't very mentally engaging. Tends to be something I've played so much it's routine & reflex (CounterStrike) or really easy that I play for other reasons (Pokemon).
I actually 'invented' the snacking hierarchy because of CounterStrike. Time between rounds was brutal for eating goodies.
I appreciate your defense of video games, but now I'm going to have to defend movies. Yes, many movies "barely require thought," yet these are generally movies with the same degree of artistic merit as "mentally passive" video games. I'd argue that the more unimaginative pop fiction qualifies likewise.
Whatever the medium, whatever the degree of explicit interactivity, a good example of that medium's literature will require plenty of thought.
> Since trying to cut junk out completely is really hard, instead I limit my intake of junk food while ensuring I get the nutrients and energy I need.
I actually find it easier to completely abstain from unwanted behaviour, than allowing myself some and keeping a tally.
The author's method would probably still work for me, as it doesn't require keeping a tally. Not so much for eating, since I don't have any problem with willpower in that area. But for choosing activities.
The problem with this approach is that you're not really getting much valuable nutrition from what you're eating.
1. Water: Drinking water is, of course, necessary, and quite a few people don't actually hydrate enough during the course of a day. +1 on this from me.
2. Fruits/vegetables: Now, fruits and vegetables are an essential part of any well-balanced diet, but if you're using them to satisfy an intermittent craving, I'm guessing you're probably going to reach for fruits. The problem with this is that if you're reaching for that apple a few times a day, you're still ingesting ~25g of carbohydrates (~9% daily recommended intake), and ~100 kcal. Eat four apples (or similar fruits), and you've suddenly consumed 1/5th of your caloric requirements and almost 40% of your carbs. In terms of macronutrients, an apple has about the same nutritional value as an 8oz bottle of coke.
Now don't get me wrong. Reaching for an apple instead of a muffin or a cupcake is unarguably better.
If you're reaching for vegetables instead of fruits, then most of what I stated above doesn't really apply. However, when those food cravings come around it's usually in response to a drop in blood glucose levels, which makes you reach for carb-laden foods first.
3. Nuts. Sigh. I don't know why people think nuts are actually something that's supposed to exist in a well-balanced diet. Perhaps it's the recent popularity of paleo. Anyways. Yes, nuts do contain a high percentage of poly- and monounsaturated fats, and fat is good for you. No one is going to argue that. But for the same caloric cost (~150 kcal for a serving of almonds, and that's a pretty tiny serving), you can eat a whole lot of more interesting and nutritious foods. Again, I'm not saying that nuts are inherently bad.
Thanks for the more detailed approach. I'm pretty handwavy about my nutrition because I'm overall happy with where I'm at.
I do actually go for carrots and broccoli before apples and bananas quite often. I like them a lot. Often I end up eating just a few raisins before it's time for my next actual meal (which is balanced and full of veggies).
What are the more interesting and nutritious foods you're talking about? I would like to try them!
Edit: Oh, and a good mix of vegetables is always good. Just watch that your fiber intake doesn't get out of control, since that can cause some digestive... issues.
I don't see anything wrong with nuts at all (surprise: I'm on Paleo). It's not just the calories, but how long the calories last. Some days I'll end up having a handful of nuts instead of lunch.
What do you mean by 'how long the calories last'? A Calorie is a Calorie. Doesn't matter where you get it from, it's the exact same amount of energy. Fats do have a higher energy density than other macronutrients (9kcal/g vs 4kcal/g for carbs and protein), meaning that you get more calories from 1g of fat than 1g of carbohydrates. So 10g of fats will, obviously, give you more energy than 10g of carbohydrates.
If you're talking about satiety, then there is ample evidence that protein is much more effective than fats or carbohydrates in that regard: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469287.
The person you're replying to could have meant that different foods have different glycemic indexes [1]. Essentially, while foods may contain the same calories as measured by a bomb calorimeter or similar, the rate at which those calories are broken down by your body into simple sugars for absorption by your blood varies. A "slow" calorie in that sense would be something with a low glycemic index, like nuts, which would cause a much more gentle rise in blood sugar.
There's evidence that a low GI diet can reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
This is technically true, but useless. A calorie, as you surely know, is a measure of increasing the temperature of water. Imagine cooking one pot on high, increasing the temperature as fast as possible, and another gradually over the course of hours, applying the same total increase in heat energy to both. Do you really think the contents would cook identically in both pots?
As leoedin eloquently described, glycemic index was what I meant; do the calories hit you gradually, or all at once? But biology is freakin' complex, so at some level these concepts are all just leaky abstractions.
Okay, from the GI point of view I see what you're saying. I thought you were referring to the satiating effect of fats vs other macronutrients from the phasing of you're initial response; please forgive my knee jerk reaction.
It depends on your dietary goals and expected physical activity, bur personally, I'd reach for for some quinoa or make a lentil-based dish as a pre-run meal instead of nuts.
Complex carbohydrates and fiber rich foods won't spike your blood sugar (and subsequently your insulin levels), so you can last for longer without eating more food.
> quite a few people don't actually hydrate enough during the course of a day
Do you have some cites for this? I've heard some of the dumbest damn things about water (like the 'eight glasses a day' myth) and it's hard to keep them all straight.
This is highly variable, of course. If you go out an run a 45 minute 10k, then you're going to need a lot more water than someone who has done minimal physical activity all day.
> Make your long-term decisions when your head is at its clearest, then don’t question those until you’ve had time to track results.
Great tip - I've come across it myself when learning emotional maturity. A part of self-awareness is the mental equivalent of trying and failing to sudo - understanding that who I am at the moment isn't who should be making long-term decisions... and being at peace with that. This doesn't dissolve my discontent, but simply adds a sensible maximum to the damage my emotionally-charged moods can have.
What time-frame to give between different levels of the hierarchy? One of the reasons sweet/fatty foods are so tasty is because they make us feel full fast - I'd imagine to be super effective you'd need to have some preset length of time between different foods?
Irrespective, it's a great idea - starting with water is really good too, as we're a bit rubbish (technically speaking) at differentiating between thirst and hunger.
Thanks! The water is actually one of the key parts. I can't fathom how many raisins I would've eaten if I hadn't started sipping water every craving.
I don't really put a time frame between levels. It takes a lot for me to feel full so that hasn't been something I've paid attention to. When I say it takes a lot I mean it...I've been denied further service at all-you-can-eat restaurants. For me the craving isn't really about fullness, it's just a desire that can often be sated with water and veggies.
I've heard about a 20 minute gap between being full and your stomach letting you know that, so I'd probably put 10 minutes between each snack. But I'm not scientific about this at all so I'm just throwing that number out there.
People are focusing on the eating specifics (or the video games specific) and arguing about that when I think it's the process itself that's most interesting here.
You might have different priorities than the OP when it comes to nutrition, or leisure activities - that's fine - substitute in your own priorities so we can talk about the process (Snacking Hierarchy) and its merits.
Whether step 2 is Vegetables or Nuts is immaterial. The point is that it's a progressive stepwise motion towards those tempting things that you're trying to avoid.
Air-popped popcorn at home for me. Cheap, easy, filling, but also fiber-rich and not highly caloric. Provided you don't pour a whole stick of butter over the whole thing. :P
People don't need nearly as much protein as most Americans eat. One thing I've noted again and again during my decade-long stay in Asia is how much more protein westerners (and especially Americans) eat than people here. And interestingly, the US response to obesity has been to go for even more protein.
To people who make rice the staple of nearly every meal, it looks insane.
Your body doesn't store protein. Amino acid (or gluconeogenesis) demands which cannot be fulfilled by dietary intake (what you've recently eaten and/or is passing through your digestive tract) are satisfied by catabolizing existing body tissues: skeletal muscle, and eventually, organs.
Over time, this adds up. Sarcopenia is age-related muscle loss, which amounts to 0.5%-1% of muscle mass per year. It's reversible through strength training and proper nutrition.
While this doesn't require eating hundreds of grams of protein per day (though strength athletes may eat, and benefit from, such quantities), ensuring that your protein intake is spread throughout the day is helpful.
Rice is interesting in that, while a carbohydrate, the insulin response to it differs from that of wheat and sugar. That and total dietary intake largely account for the lower prevalence of obesity among traditional Asian diets.
The Standard American Diet has a lot to condemn it. While it can be high in protein, it's generally higher in processed carbs, trans fats, and questionably raised and prepared proteins (CAFO / feedlot / factory-raised meats, with beef highly treated with hormones and antibiotics).
Among the fitness geeks I know, the first response to those looking to drop fat is to vastly increase the intake of green/colored/leafy/cruciferous vegetables. Just sayin'.
Protein intake? 0.5g - 1.25g per pound lean body mass, for general public through advanced strength/cardio athlete. The catabolic effects of long-duration cardio may require more protein even than strength training, ironically.
>"The catabolic effects of long-duration cardio may require more protein even than strength training, ironically."
That's not what the data suggests.
Elite Kenyan marathoner's diets are approximately 10% protein (or 75g per day), 75% carbohydrates and 15% fat. Corn is the primary energy source. Non-Kenyan runners who have adopted a similar diet have done so with excellent results.
It's not that protein is a primary fuel source for muscle, but that excessive long-duration cardio actively breaks down muscle tissue. I'm familiar mostly with empirical evidence: long-duration ocean rowers (60-180+ days of 8+ hours/day rowing) typically lose 30-40# of body mass, much of that lean tissue.
Elite Kenyan marathoners aren't particularly known for being heavily muscled. Elite sprinters, on the other hand, typically are.
I could dig for some more rigorous research, no time presently.
My original (and still current) point is that protein is an essential macronutrient and that in the interest of general fitness, people should consume it fairly constantly throughout the day, at roughly 0.5 - 1.25 g/lb body mass.
A champion Kenyan marathoner, say, Geoffrey Mutai, weighs roughly 53 kg (123 lb) at 182 cm (6 ft). If he's representative of the Kenyans consuming 75g of protein per day, he actually illustrates my points fairly well:
1. He's consuming 0.6g protein per pound body mass. Which is in the range I'd suggested for general health.
2. I'd suggested that athletes engaged in long-duration cardio should eat more protein, or suffer catabolic effects. Mr. Mutai exhibits the second part of that statement. While it's an absolutely horrid measure of anything resembling health, BMI gives us at least a scale to compare relative body mass to height ratios. Mutai's clocks in at 16.6, where "normal" is generally given as 18.5-25, and a bodybuilder, at 3-6% bodyfat, may clock in at 30-40. The argument here isn't fitness or appropriateness to task, it's to point out that our Kenyan here is at the very low end of the body mass-to-height scale, as a consequence of having both exceptionally low bodyfat, and very little muscle.
3. The unanswered question and unstated assertion is how this affects longevity and quality of live, and that we're discussing snacking habits, nutrition, and exercise in the context of general fitness in a general population that's not, as a rule, prone to trotting off for 26.21875 mile jaunts on a daily basis, though some may partake occasionally. Longevity of athletes is a mixed bag: American football players pretty notoriously die young (55 or so median). Finnish Olympians, according to one study, showed a few added years of longevity. The Stanford Runners Study (long-term longitudinal research) shows very consistent benefits of regular exercise, though I believe this is generally not inclusive of daily marathon-distance bouts. I'm not aware of the specifics of Mutai's training, but suspect much of it takes place at sub-marathon distances as well.
There's also the matter that extreme devotion to a single mode of exercise can lead to other problems. Long-distance cyclists, it turns out, suffer from both muscular and skeletal weaknesses due to the specifics of muscle stimulus, bone loading (or lack), and biochemical changes induced by hours spent on a bike. They're now encourage to strength train to make up for this, though it's another sport that rewards a light, wiry frame.
And finally, yes, if your goal is to be very, very good at winning marathons, you want to be tall, light, slow-twitch, very efficient at metabolizing glycogen, and very good at metabolizing fats (former for higher output, latter as lipid metabolism is generally rate-limited). In a fitness-for-goals perspective, Mr. Mutai is precisely where he needs to be.
For the average Joe or Jane, perhaps not so much.
These, and the sharp bit at the end, are my points.
> To people who make rice the staple of nearly every meal
Even if you're eating brown rice exclusively, that's still terrible for you from a health standpoint. The glycemic index alone greatly advises against it.
In what way is it bad advice? To me it makes complete sense. Much of the time when we feel "hunger" we are really just thirsty, so taking a sip of water can be all it takes to satisfy a craving, and stave off snacking. Likewise fruit and nuts are much more healthy than junkfood. So if eating fruit or nuts prevents him from eating junkfood then it is a benefit.
My body fat % is extremely low, but I can't remember the exact number. When I do those electric handheld fat % tests, they error out. I'm an archetypal tall and skinny nerd, basically.
The system works for me because I end up satisfying the craving on healthy stuff before I can get to the unhealthy a lot of the time. That said, everything I write about is based on personal experience and I just try to distill some of the general tips that anyone could use.
I think another subtle thing some might overlook is that you specifically said "serving." That is something like 2 oreo cookies or a handful of baby carrots. It would be a different story if you ate two baby carrots and then half a package of oreos.
Most people would probably make themselves sick before getting too many calories under a reasonable interpretation of this hierarchy.
