Wally Day wrote:

>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8126-1707912,00.html
>>
>>
>
>So how does this differ from the "Warrior Diet", which has been debated
>here before?
>
>

The Warrior Diet involves DIF or daily intermittent fasting, i.e.,
eating most or all of your food within a time window of a few hours in
the evening.  It seems that DIF hasn't really been studied yet.  The
research that Mattson is talking about in the article deals with EODF,
or every other day fasting, where you eat nothing for one day, then eat
what you like the next day. EODF seems to show the same effects on
various health and metabolic markers as caloric restriction.  Although
Ori Hofmekler believes that the Warrior Diet will do so as well, I don't
think this has been shown yet.  Actually, the effects of EODF and
caloric restriction aren't *quite* the same.  If you go to
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.nutr.25.050304.092526
and click to get the Table 1 popup, you can see a couple of
differences.  For example, caloric restriction has a clearer effect of
increading HDL and decreasing IGF.  But EODF causes an increase in
neurogenesis, in rodents anyway.

Now here's an another idea... What's the calorically smallest meal that
delivers all the nutrients one needs in a day?  Can it be done in, say,
800 kcal of carefully chosen foods?  What if each day one ate *that
meal* (or something equivalent), and the rest of the time took in just
fat, perhaps sipping olive oil as Jim Swayze does?  The fat would
contribute the rest of the energy, preventing hunger so that the
nutrient-dense meal could be as small as possible, giving the least
possible insulin response.  This approach would sorta combine elements
of the Carbohydrate Addicts Diet, the Warrior Diet, and the Atkins Fat
Fast!  Then all I have to do is write the diet book and let the money
roll in!

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]

PS Just for fun, I'm trying EODF, so I'm not eating today.