PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Don and Rachel Matesz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:21:52 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> posted:

> Also termed by some people 'fast burners'.
> Other people ('slow burners')

I assume these are terms from the Protein Power book.
Do they have a "test" to determine which category you
most likely fall under?

I do not think that these terms were in Eades book, "Protein Power."  I read
about this "theory" in Anne Louise Gittleman's book, "Your Body Knows Best."
 I don't buy the Fast Burner/Slow Burner theory as I have seen it presented.
 Neither Don nor I fit into either of the categories exactly.  I thought a
lot of the questions in Gittleman's books that were supposed to help you
determine which cateogry you fit in had more to do with habits than with any
inherent metablic or biochemical design.

Just because people are accustomed to skipping meals, for example, doesn't
mean it's good for their body type.  Some people don't desire to eat
breakfast, because they ate the bulk of their calories late in the evenign
and went to bed on a full stomach.  They simply had food stagnation, so they
weren't hungry in the morning.   I have found it rare to see a person who
eats 3-4 meals during the day and doesn't eat late at night or within a few
hours of going to bed who doesn't wake up with a great appetite in the
morning.  Anyway, as I recall, a lot of the questions seemed NOT to have
their roots in a person's inherent biochemistry.  Also, I've read many of
Ann Louise Gittleman's book and found her to "ride the fence".  I think she
wants to appeal to those who need to eat meat and those who don't think they
need to.  I've also seen her present blatant misinformation or half-trushs
about certain diets, foods, or the make up of certain foods (e.g., her
listings of protein foods, listings of allegedly equivalent portions of
protein foods or fat rich foods are often way, way off and in one book she
tried to make a case for healthier sweeteners and healthier whole grain
desserts).  Often the menus in her books do not harmonize, or outright
contradict.  I like some of her work, but take some of it with a grain of
salt.

Rachel

ATOM RSS1 RSS2