The Warrior Diet

Dec 6, 2011 at 0:03
Dec 6, 2011
by James Wilson  
 
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login

The Warrior Diet has been the subject of a lot of controversy in the fitness world. From the first time its creator Ori Hofmekler first started writing about it several years ago nutritional experts have been lining up to take shots at it and discourage people from trying it. It was, and still is, nutritional heresy.

What is it that makes it so controversial? In a nutshell, the Warrior Diet has you use controlled fasting during the day and controlled overfeeding at night. In other words, skip breakfast and eat little to nothing all day and then follow that up with a large meal at the end of the day.

This breaks every rule in the book - everyone knows that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, you shouldn't let yourself get hungry and eating a big meal before bed is a sure way to get fat. I sure believed the naysayers and steered clear of it.

However, over the last year or so I keep coming across smart people whom I respect who use or advocate the Warrior Diet. After reading more about it in the excellent training book The Purposeful Primitive I had to admit that my curiosity was piqued and I wanted to give it a go.

Several things about the diet make a lot of intuitive sense to me. I've never been hungry in the mornings and would gladly skip breakfast if I wasn't told I needed it. I naturally don't like to eat during the day, preferring to stay focused on my tasks and not have to stop every few hours to eat. I also prefer to eat a big meal at the end of the day and only skimp on it because I'm told it is bad for me. All in all, it seems like if I just ate the way I wanted to without external influences I'd follow something similar to the Warrior Diet.

So, I bought the book and spent a few weeks implementing it. In the book Ori makes a compelling argument for the need to fast during the day and how ancient warriors and hunters would subsist on a similar eating pattern. In fact, the term Intermittent Fasting is becoming more popular as more research identifies the benefits of controlled under-eating and the Warrior Diet is simply a type of Intermittent Fasting.

You are allowed to graze on things like fresh fruits and vegetables and eat some light protein sources like yogurt or kefir during the day if you get hungry, but you can't eat a meal until the 2-4 hour overfeeding period starts at the end of the day. As you do it longer you can eat less during the day and have a shorter overfeeding period, but I stuck with grazing a bit during the day and letting from 5-9 pm be my overfeeding period.

While I was apprehensive at first I was surprised at how quickly I adapted to diet. I thought that hunger would be a huge issue, but in reality it was not a big deal. If I got hungry I would eat half an apple, some carrots or some nuts and be good to go. My energy levels were pretty good and I actually enjoyed not having a post-lunch urge for a nap or having to think about how long I'd be gone and how much food I had to bring with me when I leave the house.

After a couple of weeks, though, I went through a period where I was training hard and riding almost every day. I found that I simply was not able to keep up with my energy demands and that I was crashing later in the day. About that time I read John Berardi's excellent Special Report on Intermittent Fasting and learned a few more approaches to the concept, including fasting 1-2 days a week or following a 16 hour fast/ 8 hour feeding schedule. I didn't want to have to go back to eating "normal" a few days a week and so I decided to try the 16-8 plan and simply shorten the fast.

I kept up my morning fast and started my eating period at lunch instead of dinner. I put my own twist on it by sticking with "live" foods from lunch until dinner and saving my processed "dead" foods for a small window around dinner. So far this plan has worked pretty well for me, although I will say that I would recommend planning your training for later in the day during your feeding period. If you do train or ride in the morning then eating a small to moderate protein smoothie with kefir/ Greek yogurt, fruit, whey protein and juice (avoid milk) beforehand will help keep you from crashing.

Overall my experience has been good and I now see an alternative eating strategy that lines up better with my normal rhythm. While the "eat every 2-3 hours" approach is very effective for those that can adhere to it, the truth is that a lot of people struggle to really take advantage of it. Intermittent Fasting and the Warrior Diet may offer another way to achieve nutritional success that would be worth looking into.



MTB Strength Training Systems is the world leader in integrated performance training programs for the unique demands of mountain biking. As the strength and conditioning coach for World Cup Teams and 3 National Championships, his programs have been proven at the highest levels. James has helped thousands of riders just like you improve their speed, endurance and skills on the trail. Visit www.bikejames.com to sign up for the free Trail Rider Fundamentals Video Mini-Course.

The MTB Strength Training Systems Logo
Must Read This Week









83 Comments

  • + 19
 Oh - my - god.
Bike James I love your series, but this is just a massive disappointment. I just want to point out one thing; nutrition is not magic, it is science. it only works one way. You should know this. It is like in your videos: you don't want to dislocate your shoulders during the race season, you have to do this and this exercise very day. Some one can't just come along and say, if you sit in a hot bathtub for 45 minutes every Wednesday you will have strong shoulders. If nutritionists have been taking shots at this "diet" it is definitely not for nothing. You can't just freestyle nutrition.

Any one want to know why nobody should be on this diet ever? Take some physiology.
Oh and this book: "Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar, and Survival" gives a pretty good explanation of why "overfeeding" yourself at night is not such a good idea. $10.20 from amazon. www.amazon.com/Lights-Out-Sleep-Sugar-Survival/dp/0671038680
  • + 6
 Yeah, this cant be serious. Its cool to make an article that promotes something but what's the point of this? No results, no explanation of why it's better and no mention of what it accomplishes.

Everyone who read at least a little about diets and the fitness world knows that every day some guy chimes in with a revolutionary bogus diet to sell books, supplements or whatever. Personally, I feel like shit if i dont eat every 3 hours and in my book, not feeling good = no good. The "if you're hungry eat carrots" part made me laugh, looks like anorexics are true warriors after all! Just like third world people (except that they dont get to binge at night).
  • + 10
 Did you read the last sentence?

"Intermittent Fasting and the Warrior Diet may offer another way to achieve nutritional success that would be worth looking into."

The point of this article is to make you think about it, get you out of the box. Human body and nutrition in particular is so little known and so specific for every one, you just have to find what works for you and yet be smart enought to look for another, better solutions.
  • + 10
 I certainly understand where you are coming from, if you notice I said that I was in the same camp for many years. I did not just hear about this yesterday and jump on board. But when guys like John Berardi, Ph. D., who happens to be a consultant for multiple Olympic teams and professional athletes, says that there is something there then I listen. Read the special report I linked to, it has a lot of emerging science behind this. What they teach in school is usually about 10 years behind what we are doing in the trenches or, as Mark Twain said, don't let your schooling get in the way of your education.

BTW, if you can't go more than 3 hours without eating then what to you do on long rides? I think that you should be able to go for a 4-5 hour ride without needing a lot of food which is not possible if you have trained your body to eat instead of accessing your internal energy stores. Relying too much on the blood sugar-insulin loop for energy instead of being able to easily access the glucagon-glycogen loop is not good for endurance athletes and I think that IF can have some benefits in that area.

Unlike the vast majority of the armchair experts here I actually work with clients on a daily basis and have seen that the whole "eat every 2-3 hours" works for some but not for others. Taking a few nutrition classes does not replace a decade in the trenches...
  • + 4
 @James, first off I'd like to say I actually use your program for the last few months and I've been enjoying it quite a bit, and I'm starting to feel a lot stronger. Looking forward to the riding season.

That said I have to take issue with a few points, mostly to do with arguing techniques. The backing of your argument using a Ph.D.'s (Dr. Berardi) opinion is a logical fallacy, and is called the 'argument from authority'. It's invalid because he may (and judging by his experience, most likely is) a highly intelligent, experienced man, but then so is Dr.Oz, who recommends on his website to use zinc instead of penicillin to treat infections, among other ridiculous claims and poor science, all coming from a well-known cardiothoracic surgeon. If you want to actually back up your argument, a proper double-blind peer reviewed study would be a lot better to refer to.
  • + 2
 Another problem is that you make the assumption that your experience with your clients shows that the 2-3 diet doesn't work for everyone. While that fact is most likely true, and I don't doubt you're probably right your experience is not valid because there are too many mitigating factors that can skew perception. You have a lot of good experience, but it is not scientifically valid because it is not properly controlled. I will admit I am making an assumption that you are not conducting a carefully monitored study of your clients and that you don't have someone sifting the data and controlling for possible mitigating factors, but I find it unlikely you would.

And finally the reason what they teach in school is often ten years behind is because they only teach (in good schools) information that has gone through the rigours of the scientific process and have been either proven beyond doubt or have a lot of strong evidence behind them. Everything else is still being tested, studied or has not yet been accepted and should be approached in such a way. Again I mean no offence, all respect due but these are flaws in your argument and must be addressed.
  • + 0
 As I said, I have a hard time believing data from 1 guy no matter his education level as there are new diets coming out every day from supposedly credible people and it always seems that they're trying to sell something such as a book. You've been around the fitness world long enough, I'm convinced you know what I am talking about. It's not a peer reviewed university study putting forth facts found while exploring human nutrition, it's people trying to make money and it makes me very skeptical. How many diets came up in the last 20 years and how many passed the test of time? Very little, they are usually very brief fads. As armyfork said, it is just 1 person going against the grain. Its going to take me a lot more than that to convince me. Don't get me wrong though, I am very open to try new things if it can give me a little edge but I'm not a bandwagon jumper though, I need hard evidences that it's indeed better for me.

As for longer rides, there's a thing called backpacks that you can store food and water in it. They're awesome. I've already done 4h+ roadbike runs at a good pace without running out of energy anyway. Also, as you already know, physical preparation goes a long way to stretch the elastic.

Maybe ill try the warrior diet one day, who knows, but that "article" sounded a lot more like an infomercial than someone trying to provide information. I'm sorry I might have overreacted a little but I've seen that kind of article so many times it feels like groundhog day everytime a new one pops out.
  • + 1
 i prefer to eat near constantly throughout the day personally Smile
  • + 1
 The main flaw that a Ph. D in nutrition with fifteen years experience working with professional athletes ( not me) sees in this warrior diet is when the big meal is consumed. The big meal should be closer to lunch time, with the smaller meals at breakfast and dinner. You are right when saying that people don't need to eat every 2-3 hours. I'm surpised that you leave out the biggest variable here. It's what you eat, and far more complex than you list. Where are the things that the body needs, that 99% of people leave out of their diets? The other thing is fasting.... a big mistake. You can train the body to easily access the glucagon-glycogen loop, however performance may suffer from this. The reason that athletes eat so often is because the blood sugar-insulin loop will enable one to use their full strength on tap. Endurance athletes may be able to get by with this, however DH riders in particular may suffer the consequences that include serious injury from this diet.
  • + 6
 I really hate debates on the internet because no one ever wins, it is far too easy to isolate parts of a post/ article and take them out of context or be a smart ass (I know about backpacks to pack water and food in, thanks).

First, my arguments were in response to the original post which implied that no nutritional experts or science were backing up the idea of Intermittent Fasting, which is not true. I would never just point to an expert and say to believe them without looking more into it, that is a lazy argument. However, the fact that there is some science, more than one nutritional expert has talked about the benefits of IF and I do have a lot of experience in the trenches, which should count for something, although it is not a complete argument.

Second, I have to say that everyone who has discounted this is being intellectually lazy. I have provided 3 resources to check out, all of which contain both scientific and anecdotal evidence. It is not up to me to spell it out for you, I have provided the resources and it is up to you to do some homework on it. To post an opinion on this without even reading the free special report I linked to shows that your minds are made up already and you have no desire to look into alternative viewpoints. That is fine, just don't tell me that I am wrong and that there is not basis for this type of diet when you won't even click a link and download a well researched and thoughtful report put together by one of the smartest guys in nutrition today.
  • + 6
 Lastly, where do you think science figures out what to study? Science doesn't "discover" anything, they look at what successful coaches do and then try to figure out why it works. This idea that you have to wait for science to sign off on something is the reason that you still have people doing 3 sets of 10 reps on a machine circuit and doing long, slow cardio to burn fat. A mix of science, looking at what other successful coaches do and some common sense is the best bet and being told that you have to wait for multiple studies to prove something works before you can try it is one of the reasons there are so many bad trainers out there. BTW, there is some science behind this but again, you would have to have looked into some of the resources I provided to know that.

Look, I don't have any monetary interest in this at all so I have no idea why some of you think this is an ad for something. I resisted this idea for a long time (this is not a new idea and the Warrior Diet has been around for almost 10 years), however too many coaches that I respect have started to talk about the potential benefits of IF. After trying it myself I felt that there was something there and that it might provide an alternative way to approach nutrition for those that find the "eat every 2-3 hours" advice impractical or ineffective. I am not saying that this is the one and only way to eat, simply an alternative viewpoint.

And not having a nutritional strategy is not the same as "being on the Warrior Diet without realizing it". Intermittent Fasting is far more than just not eating all day and then pigging out at night. You still have to eat smart, avoiding sugar and refined carbs. Plus, the Warrior Diet is one way to integrate IF into your diet, but again, you'd have to follow up on some of the provided resources to know that. Sounding off without further investigation is all too easy.
  • + 2
 Personally, while I respect your opinions, I think that stuff like this shouldn't even be posted. It leads people to argue and fight over who's right and whatnot. I don't follow this diet, I'll try almost anything, but I do what works for me. You experiment with what works for your body and yours alone. Some people can follow the Warrior Diet and be successful, no doubt. Others can find success on the Paleo diet, and on and on. I eat what I want, when I feel like it, and I find success in my athletic events there. Listening to your body is the most practical and efficient diet out there.
  • + 1
 ive been doing this just because it has fit into my daily schedule and i thought it seemed to be working ...i never eat until around 1 and its just a small sandwich usually...then i eat a large dinner around 8...i have lost 20 lbs of fat in about 2 months...so unfortunately to the naysayers i think it works...also for riding days i work in a couple more snacks
  • + 0
 J-ridefree-G, congrats on your weight loss! You may also consider that you are burning more calories than you intake. If you spread your meals out and ate the same amount overall, you might have more fat loss.

James, this may work for a small percentage of people, however it will not work for a very large population of the people that frequent this website. If it's not working for the majority of professional athletes, then it is not likely to help the average mountain biker.

Instead of something like this that is an alternative, it may be more beneficial to the athletes on this site to get an idea of exact things to eat that are not processed foods and refined carbs. What vitamins and minerals does the body need, and what foods do we need to eat to get these? Do true organic foods help? What brands are good? Thanks for your help, and keep up the good work.
  • + 1
 @ dsd - I have to respectfully ask why you are so certain that more weight loss could be experienced? And do you know for certain that no athletes use a form of intermittent fasting? I don't know but I can't say the other way for sure.

All sorts of good things can happen when you fast, you fast every night when you sleep. Does extending the fast a few hours suddenly turn you into a muscle and performance wasting mess?

I ask because I know the "nutrition party line", I espoused it for years and still do. However, there are some big questions about the attitude towards any sort of hunger or fasting period and I don't think that anyone can say that eating every 2-3 hours is the one and only way.

And yes, what you eat plays a bigger role but for some, not eating during the day limits their chances to make bad decisions. Eating at night when you are most likely to be at home means that you will be in the most controlled environment possible. For some this may trump anything else. As fat loss and performance training expert Alwyn Cosgrove says "psychology trumps physiology".
  • + 2
 There are a lot of things I want to make points of, but I will focus on only a few to keep this brief, as I've often been told my verbosity is frustrating (working on it).

1: The scientific sign-off. If we didn't wait for 'science to sign-off' on certain ideas in any field, fitness or otherwise it could be potentially dangerous for the individual or a group, like Dr. Burzyinski's claims about antineoplastin therapy in cancer treatment. In fitness simply going with a new idea before the science chimes in could be potentially dangerous, or it could simply turn out to be a waste of time. Even if time is all we lose, considering how little we have it's usually best to focus on what we know works well, and wait until new information comes out that has withstood the rigours of science. Until then it can only be considered speculative.

2: Anecdotes. This is a small point, but it's an important one. People are easily fooled into believing they are being effected in ways that they aren't, confirmation bias means we can ignore conflicting evidence and focus on reinforcing evidence. It's why witness testimonies in court are generally avoided, they simply aren't reliable, and even less so when they may be influenced intentionally or not, to act one way or the other.
  • + 2
 3: Lack of conflict? Science works off of conflict. And there are several people who will debate the concepts laid out in this article, Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica are good places to start when you want to look for criticism of current ideas. For instance, the paleo concept of dieting has been shown to be based off of bad assumptions, and is considered by the larger medical and anthropological community to be incorrect. Humans can adapt to multiple diets, and there was no ultimate paleolithic diet that prevailed at any time.

4. Where is the science?, When I looked into your supplied articles as well the only good link I found (that did not have a monetary incentive behind it) was wikipedia, which only had links to papers dealing with increased life span on animals who underwent IF. This is far from scientific backing, this is very preliminary work and is not an indication of efficacy in humans. If it was we would never do clinical trials on people, we would approve treatments immediately after animal studies.

If you feel I'm being unfair, I honestly don't care if IF works or not. If it works, I'll try it, if it doesn't, nothing lost. All I care about is what the facts are, not who said them or if they agree with my ideology or not. Simple as that.
  • + 2
 You just reminded me of something as well, yes we do fast when we sleep. But doesn't our metabolism slows considerably as we sleep? In this case you could argue the eight hours of sleep we experience may have a much smaller fasting effect, essentially meaning (not scientific, just for the sake of the idea) that eight hours of sleep may be four hours of conscious fasting. I'd like to see what the average change in metabolic rate is when awake and when we sleep so a better conclusion can be drawn, but I seriously doubt that sleep-hours are comparable to waking hours in the sense of fasting.
  • + 0
 James- I'm not for certain that this individual may experience more weight loss, however as I said, it might. Increasing metabolism is usually a very safe bet for losing the most weight possible without the dangers of IF. I actually do know of a very few athletes that do IF, however it's not done frequently and it's crucial for them to eat the exact right foods. Eating every 2-3 hours is not the only way and I never said that it was. I agree with you that IF is an alternative, science and experience does back up it working with certain individuals. I just don't think that it's appropriate for the masses until the masses have nutritionists to guide them through it. I respect the idea of you looking outside of the box, that's usually what it takes to advance.
  • + 1
 @ AmyFork - Good points but I have a few counter-points/ questions.

1) Many scientific studies show that strength training dos not improve cycling performance, yet you are following a strength training program for mountain biking. You seem willing to try stuff based on mere speculation, which is good in my opinion.

2) People are easily fooled - look at SportsLegs (ha ha ha). Anyways, a lot of drug studies show that the placebo was only slightly less effective than the actual drug, yet the drug still got approved. The placebo effect is very strong and very real, however it is not a reason to dismiss the results or else you'd throw out studies that showed the sugar pill acting like the actual drug.
  • + 1
 3 & 4) Under the "guidance" of the medical community we have seen obesity become and epidemic and this become the first generation that probably won't outlive their parents. Humans can adapt to anything (ask a WWII POW or concentration camp survivor) including a grain heavy diet but that doesn't mean that it is creating an optimal metabolic environment.

Read the book Sugar Nation for a spine chilling look at exactly how "pure" the science behind our food recommendations are. The biggest donors to nutritional science are the grain and cereal companies, do you really think that they are going to fund studies that might contradict the party line of eating grains from breakfast to dinner? The science showing that diet and exercise can help control diabetes is lacking, not becuase it doesn't work but because the funds aren't there. To assume that science is "purer" or somehow has their hands less dirty than the commercial sector is laughable.

I appreciate your quest for the truth and I would never want anyone to take me just at my word. However, your professors have enamored you with the scientific process without being honest with you about the dark side of it.

Lastly, I'm not sure what monetary links I posted. Ori's site is free and so is the special report from JB. Just becuase they make money from selling stuff of their sites isn't wrong. I do have an affiliate account with Dragon Door so I would get a small % of Purposeful Primitive sales but if you think that I would post something just to make money then you shouldn't believe anything I write. Just because someone makes money off of something doesn't make it wrong. The dudes in the lab coats aren't working for free...
  • + 1
 Oh yeah, one last thing...you pointed out that the few studies you did find on IF simply showed an increase in lifespan. If IF is dangerous then it wouldn't result in a longer life, would it? Logically speaking, if you lived longer from something then it must be doing something "good" for you. I know they were animal studies but we've extrapolated more from animal studies. Again, the human studies aren't there because the money isn't there, not because it is dangerous.
  • + 1
 I didn't choose your course off of speculation, I chose it because of the large backing from the community and how you've been vetted by both Decline and Pinkbike, as well as Aaron Gwin's success. I chose very carefully, and I'm quite happy with the course (looking forward to version 4). That said if there were other courses available as targeted as yours I may not have chosen it, but your exposure meant you are under pressure to provide the best course possible instead of one that may turn out to be completely ineffective. So far, I would recommend the course to anyone interested.

Sportslegs (not familiar with the case) sounds like a complete failure of good scientific protocol. Any good clinical study involves a large sample size, with double-blinding (both the patients and technicians are unaware if the patient is receiving placebo or the actual drug) and a control group being in use. This type of study would have proven it to be either as effective as placebo or more effective. I can't say anything about the study, but a quick search of the FDA database did not return any results. The closest thing I found was that it is considered safe by the FDA, but that does not mean that the FDA believes it to be effective, and being a supplement does not have to be FDA approved to be sold in the US.

I haven't seen positive or negative studies regarding strength training in cycling, but science does show increased muscle strength, reaction and endurance almost always improve athletic performance, therefore I can safely say that strength training makes sense, and also because I know I am not physically strong enough to compete and ride at the level I need to. I would be highly suspect of any study that went so far against what is considered to be scientific fact, although I am willing to review them to discover why they came to such conclusions. There may be limiting factors or possibly bad technique used.
  • + 1
 The obesity epidemic has a lot less to do with nutrition recommendations then it does with the availability of cheap, high-calorie low nutrition foods and a sedentary lifestyle. We intake more calories than we burn, and I believe (but cannot prove, so consider this a hypothesis) that obesity has less to do with scientific recommendations and more to do with consumer demand and the low energy entertainment we seek. The actual recommendations may not be perfect but following them would most likely be healthier than the normal diet of most americans or canadians. The current recommendations also seem to emphasize fruits and vegetables, lean protein, dairy and grains, with grains taking the largest singular portion but being easily outstripped by the combination of any two of the other groups ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MyPyramidFood.svg). Generally this seems balances and has only received mild criticism due to clarity and issues with generality, but is generally accepted as sound.

I'd love to see where you have the idea that the science behind diet and exercise assisting in the treatment of diabetes is lacking, the current medical consensus is that a controlled diet and exercise are very beneficial, but not curative of the conditions. If you hit the point of being diagnosed with diabetes, it's essentially permanent. Sadly, the damage is very difficult to reverse but it is treatable and most diabetics can live a relatively normal life.
  • + 1
 You make a point about corruption in science, but then you may not be under the impression of how good science is conducted. Let's simply assume the paper reaches a proper peer-reviewed journal like the Lancet, saying a high-sugar grain based diet is beneficial (I am making an assumption based on your words, I believe this is fair). When it reaches the journal, it has to deal with a mass of scientists whose work may be in direct competition with the work in the paper, and in order to preserve their own research funding they will be under pressure to discredit or refute the findings of that paper. Most scientists (good ones) have to prove yearly that their work is important, scientific and/or relevant, if good science comes out that refutes them their funding can be at risk, as most funding organizations do not like to waste their budgets on worthless science. So, they will tear that paper apart looking for errors, and some will repeat the experiment to see if it is successful. If, in fact, it turns out to be correct, we will accept it. If it turns out to be incorrect, we will reject it and denounce the science and the scientists behind it. Science is not kind to fraud, and is not tolerant of errata. It's very hard to lie in science, and rarely does bad science prevail. This is only a small idea of how good science is conducted (I'd be here for hours giving examples and explanations otherwise) but it should give you a taste of how difficult it is for bad science to be accepted. Science is designed to have conflict within itself, discourse is the blood of great science and no idea is accepted without a chorus of naysayers combating it. Science works extremely well, and the rare failures of the system does not disprove it's efficacy, it just means "You should always be skeptical" (credit to Brian Dunning).
  • + 1
 The point I was making about the lifespan is that it does not show a performance increase, only an increase in lifespan. The two are not necessarily linked, you may live longer yet have a negative impact on performance. You cannot make that leap in logic because it has not been proven to occur yet. I also did not state it was dangerous, I stated the quoted studies do not reflect the idea being put forth on the efficacy of IF in performance, only in longevity. I once again apologize for using such long replies. I find it difficult to keep my answers short.
  • + 2
 For anybody who wants to try a different way of IF you can try this link. www.leangains.com IF is very effective, proven, and popular in the Bodybuilding world. There are many myths when it comes to dieting and Martin (the owner and creator of leangains) does a great job at proving the myths or disproving them.

However with everything in Bodybuilding you have to do what works for you, IF works for some but not for others. For me it takes some getting used to, but when it comes to cutting it is the best. But no diet is magic, you need to be hitting your daily intake for calories (+ or - about 500 depending on whether your cutting or bulking) and hitting your macros (protein/carbs/fats), and this has to happen whether your doing IF or a standard diet.
  • + 0
 James, thanks for pointing out where the funds come from for a lot of these studies. This has been my point for a long time.

ArmyFork, I know that we disagree on different levels of healthcare, specifically evidence based opposed to alternative medicine. You are obviously very smart and potentially could make a positive impact in the science and/or healthcare system. Get some real life experience in your field that you're passionate about, and you will see firsthand the flaws in the modern scientific method because of how these experiments are funded. I mean this as a complement, no disrespect for sure.

phycoref, bodybuilding is one of the most self-destructive things that one can do. Be extremely careful of the "science" that is involved in it. You're breaking down all of the joints that true strength training builds. I wish you the best, but be careful!
  • + 1
 Dave I do agree there are problems with conflicts of interest and the funding of studies, so I try to be careful with my reading whenever I hear about a new idea. The system is not perfect, but it's improving and generally the science is very good. But as you and James have mentioned, there are conflicts of interest involved but that does not mean that we should throw out current science or current ideas, instead we should approach it with the skeptical method and then determine validity. This is what I try to do everyday, and I can only encourage others to do the same. If we continue to do this, we can reduce the influence of bad science on our society, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.

Thanks for compliment as well, I'm currently in a 2 year engineering program but I'm moving onto a four year degree, with plans to go into medical school (I have trouble choosing what I want to do, everything fascinates me). I'm hoping with that I can then get further into medical science so I can help promote better methods of treatment and help people avoid harmful practices, and hopefully move into the research side of medicine.
  • + 1
 And Dave I have to compliment you as well, your discourse and different viewpoint allow for good discussions to occur while you also avoid becoming emotionally involved in your comments. We disagree on a lot of things, but I'm glad that we can be civil in our discussions.
  • + 1
 @ Amy & Dave - thanks a lot for the intelligent arguments, I love a good discussion and it is so lacking in most places. I think that we've gotten to that 90% mark - we agree on 90% of this stuff, its the small details where we may differ. Most people like to focus on and argue about the details while I like to focus on the fact that we agree on far more than we disagree on.

Science will always be a double edged sword and it is only dangerous when people don't realize that it is. One of my best friends is a paleontologist and a hard-core "science guy" and we have had this discussion many times. It always comes back to the fact that you can't argue with good science but a lot of it gets misrepresented by scientists who fail to add on the all-important "this is what we think" to the end of their statements. Far too often things are presented as fact by the scientific community when they know perfectly well that is not the case.

Thanks again for the great discussion, look forward to doing it again...
  • + 1
 My name is now Amy. I will treasure this. You're bang on in your last statement James, I couldn't say it better. Science is always indeterminate, if we're honest absolute facts are rare there is almost always an outlier in the data. So instead we try to get to the point of beyond doubt, where the confirming data is stronger then the conflicting data, and even then there is always the chance we are wrong. But this system, while dissuading itself from proclaiming absolutes, has produced the most prosperous, safest and healthiest civilization that has ever existed on this planet. It's not perfect, it has a lot of error and humans are almost always the cause of these errors, but as long as we remain skeptical it will keep producing amazing results. Thanks for the discussion guys, and as James is always fond of saying, Ride Strong.
[Reply]
  • + 4
 I've been doing this for the past year and a half without even thinking about it. Have a small amount of fruit for breakfast then not eat anything all day, and then have dinner. My Mum is always saying I'll pay for it later on, seems like this is not the case, will have to sent this article to her. Turns out I'm a Warrior. haha
  • + 3
 Dude. You are TWENTY years old. When your metabolism slows down and you're about 40, life is much different. It's better to learn healthy habits when you are young. Trust me, those habits will follow you.
  • + 1
 Have to agree here, Sure at 20 years old there is alot you can get away with but you will pay when your older. Take care of your body now.
[Reply]
  • + 7
 I'd be dead by 1pm. I am not a true warrior
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Wow ho hou hou hou wait, wait, wait.... I know that James is indeed an open minded person and for that you need to be able to take different approaches to what you are doing. To make a good judgement whether something is "great" or "stupid" you have to believe that specific approach work then apply it on yourself for certain period of time. So I think I get that... but... buuuuut! - no matter how open minded I think I am and able to take many oddities he talks about, completely different from "mainstream knowledge" - this sounds like James just changed his idea about nutrition by 180 degrees.

I'm fine with it because I'm a weird person, liking other weird persons, living in denial, hating corporations, PC and marketing brochures. But more "normal" people might not like it James, that's all I'm saying...

And whatever you say it is a pretty radical idea - and misused can sabotage someones "training". It's easier to misuse something less obvious than something more "main stream".
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Too bad Warriors generally didn't live long enough to see if this diet actually made a difference. Also, I think if a warrior had a choice he'd probably eat all day... Considering they didn't have refridgeration probably limited their options... Not to say that most people probably eat too much, and some sort of calorie restriction does seem to have merits. Its all about balance... Fortunately we do have a choice! time for cookies!
[Reply]
  • + 2
 This diet sounds like it could work for those whose biological rhythms (Circadian-your biological clock) sync with the dietary intake of this diet. Example, if your metabolism is slow at night and you eat a massive meal, you wont fully get all the benefit that could be attained form that meal. After a nights sleep, breakfast will break the all night fast, returning blood sugar levels and muscle glycogen back to normal or preventing them from dropping once you begin your days work. Skipping breakfast or fasting can lead to not having enough blood sugar or glycogen in your muscles, and straining your body will put you in a catabolic state; fat and protein will be used to make energy (ATP). As a result, you might loose performance and not be able to recover as fast. Also, you can only metabolize so much food in a given period of time, so eating all your food in one go will cause much of the food to pass through your system with no benefit (ie big meal at night with the warrior diet). If you could some how avoid these problems and still meet your dietary needs the diet could be very successful.

I don't have a ph. D., but I feel that this needed to be said... BTW thanks for posting information like this, James!
[Reply]
  • + 6
 Well i guess I`ve been a warrior all my life not knowing about it.
  • + 1
 Same here... literally never ate breakfast from 1998 - 2010... the only time I started was when I needed to maintain my bulk diet for the gym. I was doing 2 meals a day and a bunch of snacks throughout. I do like 4 meals a day now, just under 1000cals each, definitely notice being smarter in the morning if I eat something... I wish i figured that out when I was still in school hahahaha.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Interesting concept. I can see how people could warp this like the low-carb diet as rationale to eat bacon three meals a day. However in this case people would eat massive quantities of donuts at 8pm and think it's cool. Mind you, I love both bacon and donuts but try to limit their quantity such not to become the shape of a donut. I'm a grazer at heart, love me some continuous eating. Total warrior fail. Smile
  • + 1
 great username..........CHEERS!!!
[Reply]
  • + 4
 i couldn't do that to save my soul:
1. i am always hungry when i wake up (even if i stuffed my face before bed)
2. i REALLY like to eat
3. i eat big dinners anyway
  • + 4
 I have my own diet. Just eat really much for breakfast, lunch and dinner (mmm that tastes goood!) and then If you get fat you are just not training hard enough.
  • + 2
 dirtjumper just described how I feel. Whilst this is an 'interesting' idea, just because 'warriors' or hunters did this doesn't make it a good idea for everyone. It all depends up the individual person metabolism!
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Simply not a great idea. The body and brain need food to function,food provides the fuel and energy required,without it performance is decreased. Just look up the role of ATP Andenosine Triphosphate to see how food molecules are broken down to produce ATP which is the 'energy' part in every cell...needed to maintain biological order,this ATP is used up very quickly and constantly needs replacing,the body does store some but needs topping up constantly. In short the body needs food to maintain energy levels.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 I've came across this philosophy in various poor rural villages. The 'Skint villager diet' maybe doesn't sound so appealing. Being hungry in the morning is a good thing, it usually means that you haven't overeaten in the evening.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 a fast precludes eating even carrots or a protein drink, so i think in this case the fast referred to is on one end of an eating continuum....minimal eating when needed seems to be what james is referring to ,just no scheduled eating, eveyone can train their body to access energy stores,...just not when in intense training,...still , adjustments take time,..not just la di dah,....60 yr old food camel
[Reply]
  • + 1
 I think diet is highly personal. Everybody has different metabolisms and dietary needs. I have always been a breakfast guy. Love big healthy breakfasts. Then I will go most of the day without any food and have a light dinner with a snack or two in between during the day. I will sometimes have a snack between dinner and bed. I think if you eat healthy and within your calorie range it doesnt matter how many times you eat per day. Although. The draw back I see to the warrior diet is loading before going to bed. This can lead to health effects such as GERD, insomnia, high glucose which in turn creates cholesterol. When I was younger I used to mow down before bed time. This contributed to very high cholesterol levels and SERIOUS GERD for me. Once I stopped eating at night my cholesterol levels went down and GERD went away. These are just my observations of my body and food relationship.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 This is an interestic topic. No , not one way is the best or fits everyone, this would def not work for me, I wake up hungry and if I didnt have breakfast my blood sugar would drop so low. Diet is something that should be looked at on an individual basis and done carefully.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Here is all the myths associated with fasting explained with science:
www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

I have followed IF for about 2 years now and it´s a really easy and practical way to eat.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 WOW! Lots of haters. I've done my own research on this and to me it works great. If you go to warriordiet.com and actually read up on this you might learn something. It's based on the FACT that while much of our surroundings and lifestyle has changed over the last 10,000 years our digestive system had remained basically the same. Cave men didn't didn't eat breakfast, they picked fruit and nuts as they hunted, and when they killed their mammoth they feasted! What else do you need to know?
[Reply]
  • + 1
 But what about what you do for a living? I love breakfast! and it just makes sense usually cereal almond milk and yogurt or bagels cream cheese or jam and without it I would not make it through the morning.I am a stone mason contractor,heavy lifting,cutting,climbing scaffolding and pulling up 80lb buckets of cement all day! I take no lunch break but will nibble on nuts,apples or dark chocolate and then have a nice hot meal around 5:00 pm if I snack usually yogurt or pretzels.I am 55 ride three or more days a week am in better riding condition then many of my riding buddy's who are as much as thirty years younger and am always the oldest rider on any ride.I have never tried any so called "diet" really just for lazy people who lack will, just paid attention,a willingness to try new foods and found my own rhythm.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 I reckon this is how 90% of all traides in down under would eat,
I would too but not every day
Intersting way to eat, I think it works on some levels but I no that If I have a sweet breakfast in the morning I'm so much better off all day long
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Everyone has different metabolic rhythms and thus different dietary tweaks will work better for certain people than others. James noticed that breakfast was typically not interesting to him naturally and that eating at night worked better for him. I happen to function the same way. I just eat a light breakfast and get excited for a big dinner later, which prevents me from being foggy/sleepy during the first half of the day when I'm working a desk job. When I'm playing or working out intensely, a calorie-dense (but healthy!) snack keeps me going.

Just stay open minded with dietary stuff and try things out that seem to make sense to you. You might find that one thing or another makes a significant difference, and there is definitely a reason why there are soooooooooooooooooo many different diet ideas out there for everyone's varying daily work patterns.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 The dinner is very important indeed, more important from the breakfast especially when you dinner late. Smile I use lol carb high fat diet and it's make sense. You can check in internet for more info. Not everything is well explained, but you can catch the sense of doing it.
And there is tons of info and studies 'bout it. And it's not something new and unbelievable.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 The good thing about training and racing is that you can measure your abilites with a stop watch. And the clock is all I care about. Scientricians and nutrologists can write all the papers they want, I'll give this diet a go and see if it alters my performance. Interestingly, I've been experimenting with heavier meals and lighter and lighter breakfasts in training and yesterday I felt awesome after riding nearly 50km at almost race pace. A gut full of breakfast that is only going to be dead weight on the hills doesn't make that much sense.
[Reply]
  • + 5
 or you can pump iron like Chuck Norris and eat live chicken
[Reply]
  • + 1
 I tried the 8 hour feeding window thing...

Didn't work for me. Fuzzy brain, starving. I like to eat.

Here's how I get by: I am old and my body wants/needs to get fat. If I want to lean out a bit I might fast 1 or 2 days a week, 24-30 hours at a time depending on when I get my meals on either end. If I'm eating a lot and training hard, I hardly even notice.

Then back to eating lots and riding a lot on the other side.

It was the only way I could get really lean last year. 6'2" 185 or so.

Now i'm post shoulder surgery and I've ballooned up to over 200 pounds. Hehehe.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 pretty much been going with a similar concept for some time...... now that it's on PB my gf won't be able to give me crap about it anymore
[Reply]
  • + 1
 I have read about the The Warrior Diet years ago and think that it is a pretty good diet. People just have to really reseach more before downing the diet. I dont follow it myself. I just eat what I want and ride.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 One thing to keep in mind: our primitive warrior/hunter/gatherers lived to be about 28 yrs old...food for thought- dooh! pun intended
  • + 1
 Research is showing they actually lived long lives (assuming they didn't get impaled by woolly mammoth!)
and that most of the improvements to longevity in modern times have been due to medical care, sanitation and availability of food & water.

www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf
[Reply]
  • + 0
 I've been a "veggie" for 15 years. I eat smart and to my level of hunger. As to the rest well, I ride my carrot hugging gluteus-max... off. Lastly, I look at least 10 years younger than my peers and I outperform 18 year olds with ease. Try the "gatherer" diet!
  • + 1
 If, dan9876 has something to say, I sure hope the ... he or she says it here! Stop hiding behind the ... "negs" button!
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I'm usually too late for work, so I don't really do breakfast unless it's 3-4 coffee's. Plus I have a mortgage, not much money for food. Just enough for beer. Beer is dinner.
  • + 1
 Substitute work for class, mortgage for tuition and rent and you have the students diet.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I say, if you're hungry, eat! If you're not hungry, don't make yourself eat. How much you eat and how often you eat isn't as important as WHAT you eat.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Looks like a lot of people are on this diet, because all I see are Keyboard Warriors.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 @ robscott2010 .. Dude I wouldn't make it to 9am. defo not a warrior !!
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Apperantly I'm on the warrior diet... Didn't realize I was....
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin OMfG just check this www.gatorade.com/default.aspx#program?s=inside-endurance Nutrition is very important! my opinion Big Grin
[Reply]
  • + 1
 I eat a small plate of food every 3-4 hours, could NOT imagine trying this. and i don't really see too much more of a benefit...
[Reply]
  • + 1
 This whole article: [Citation needed]

Please go back to posting your usual basic physiotherapy stuff, some of it is good.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Some good debates going on in this comment thread. Seems the article got some people thinking at least
[Reply]
  • + 1
 ...this diet also mentions things like fruit, carrots and "kefur" so i'm out..
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Looks interestingSmile i'm gonna try it
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Impossible if you wake n bake, but it might work for some.
[Reply]
  • + 0
 I never eat breakfast. Never have. Just coffee. Yummy !
  • + 2
 this isnt a warrior diet, its called the stoner diet ive been doing it for years and just now realized it =] lol dont eat shit until i get blwn after work then stuff myself til im content and pass out in a pile of ice cream
  • + 1
 I got a negative props for my eating habits ! ! ! Woo Hoo !!
[Reply]

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2014. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv14 0.040405
Mobile Version of Website