File :-(, x, )
The Warrior Diet Anonymous
My /fit/fag story

tl;dr I was 230 about 10 months ago, now I am 189. I did this through a) eating less b) eating a higher % of clean protein c) a mild increase body weight exercising (greasing the groove pushups/situps/chinups/taking the stairs, etc.) .

question: Is anyone else using the Warrior's Diet routine? I fucking love it. Fat burn all AM, eat giant dinner, get ripped. I walk around with a "half on" all day.
>> Anonymous
I am forcing myself to read the fucking exceptionally long book. Does it have anything that would help in terms of gaining weight? Also, kudos on losing so much without really doing any short rest style workouts. Did you run/cardio at all?
>> Anonymous
ah THANK YOU OP! i was thinking about this yesterday but couldn't remember what the diet was called. this is the one where you don't eat breakfast on the basis that our ancestors got out hunting first thing in the morning, right?
>> Anonymous
Details pl0x.
>> Anonymous
>>302311
I think it is good for any body type. It isn't really about calorie cutting, per se like a normal "diet", so I don't see how it would hurt to try. Actually, I really don't do any cardio besides maybe 30 minutes of walking per day. Nothing to brag about.
>>302311
It is a long ass book. He really rationalizes the whole diet. I don't know if it is pseudo science or what, but it works. I would suggest cutting to the gist of it, and trying it out if you haven't yet, then go back and read.
>>302690
tl;dr you eat a single, large meal at the end of the day. Goes against all the small frequent meals mantra you hear these days.
>> Anonymous
>>302674
Sorry, my reply got all @#$% up..
yeah, thats the one.
>> Anonymous
How does this not trigger starvation mode and leave a big portion of that giant meal going right to fat?

I went from 210 to 160 by eating close to nothing + running in 2 month's time. Doesn't make it healthy or mean it works. Turned me skinnyfat. Now I have to use convention to get out of it. How is this warrior diet any different than starvation mode, which doesn't work well? Metabolism isn't going to like that giant meal, it doesn't calculate shit at the end of the day to determine how much you gain/lose--it's supposed to always work, and one hugeass meal is going to get stored pretty quick.
>> Anonymous
>>303889
I don't have the answer for you. Like I said, it goes against what we hear about eating frequent small meals.

When I started all this, I could only do a few reps of chins, maybe 20-30 push ups, etc. I do weighted chins now, and can do one arm push ups. I am way more muscular than I was when I started.
>> Anonymous
>>303894
Big deal. When I started at 210 I could barely run 1/16th a mile without being totally dead. When I ended, I could run a mile in under 6 minutes. It's not impossible to gain muscle in starvation mode, despite how it supposedly works. But eh, if it worked for you, wtf am I bitchin about?

Question though. Can you see your abs, is your midsection looking healthy? Or pudgy?
>> Anonymous
The Warrior's Diet seems like crazy mumbo jumbo to me. Anecdotal theories on how we "used to eat" as if what we (supposedly) used to do is always correct and healthy.

I mean, at one point we ate raw meat because we didn't understand fire. That doesn't mean that we should all start chowing down on chickens we just killed in our back yard.
>> Anonymous
>>303897
No 6 pack or anything, but my midsection is "coming together". It looks pretty flat. I probably will get abs when I hit my goal of 175.
>> Anonymous
>>303902
I get your point. I hope I am not coming off like I am trying to sell it to anyone. I was more interested to hear if anyone else was using it, and had similar results.

Another bonus. Less dishes to wash.
>> Anonymous
>>303902

I too am somewhat skeptical of the 'healthy' image we attach to ancient man as if they were some sort of gods roaming the earth. If I recall correctly, disease and injury were very common and ancient man didn't exactly live a long life.
>> Anonymous
I'd love to see the results of someone who used this "theory" but maintained the same levels of intake.

To me it seems quite likely that all that's really happening is that people following this diet are:

1) Eating healthier foods.

2) Eating less.

Starvation mode or no, if you eat a whole lot less you'll lose fat. That said, people talk about starvation mode as if it's inherent and the same in every body under every circumstance. Your body adapts quite quickly and if you consistently only ate one huge meal a day, eventually your body would adjust to it at least partially.

I just don't know if a diet like this would even be safe for me to try. He claims that the diet helps regulate glucose levels/processing but I'm hypoglycemic. My girlfriend can literally tell when I have eaten recently (sometimes before I do) by how moody and irritable I get. The further in to the day I go without eating, I start getting light headed and have problems mentally focusing on things.
>> Anonymous
>My girlfriend can literally tell when I have eaten recently
*haven't
>> Anonymous
>>303937
Try smoking, nicotine forces the body to release stored sugar from fat cells. Keeps you at a stable sugar level all day!
>> Anonymous
>>303945

Hmmmm.

Interesting.
>> Anonymous
I had to look up what this "warrior diet" is. Turns out, it's what I've been doing for several months now at my own creation. Eating breakfast didn't fit the way I feel in the mornings, and eating lunch didn't fit into my schedule. So I started snacking on fruits, powerbars, and soup during the day, then pigging out at nights. I feel better than ever!
Caveat: I'm watching what I eat, but I still eat stuff like cereal, pizzas, chocolate, whatever. So I guess I'm not fully a "warrior."
>> Anonymous
>>303950

Aside from the whole destroying your heart, lungs and throat deal, nicotine is pretty beneficial in terms of weight loss and being emotionally calming. It boosts your metabolism quite a bit, which is why smokers become to addicted to that "after meal" cigarette since their body is used to getting the metabolic boost from the cigarette after eating.

But, yeah, that whole cancer thing and being unable to run a quarter mile without collapsing is kind of a deal breaker. Plus, if you want a metabolic boost, green tea, caffeine or spicy foods work pretty well.

Still, smoking tobacco in and of itself apparently is not that bad according to most research. The difference in negative health effects between a smoke in the 1600s (dried tobacco, nothing more) and a smoke today (over 9000 chemicals) are supposedly night and day.
>> Anonymous
>>303977
>nicotine is pretty beneficial in terms of weight loss and being emotionally calming

agitated, nervous, and easy to over react because a smoker didn't have nicotine for one hour is not emotionally calming

take your THANK YOU FOR SMOKING shit else where, this is /fit
>> Anonymous
>>304002

that describes my supervisor perfectly. The guy is a complete fucking baby when the workload gets heavy and he can't take a break for his puffy.
>> Anonymous
>>303937
Take it from me, a caloric deficit doesn't ensure fat loss, or even weight loss for that matter. I walked that line for two years without budging very far down the scale, and even then it was just muscle being lost. Felt like shit. Wasn't cool. Ate 1000 cal a day shamefully, exercised to purge half of it too. Gained fat, lost muscle. Made me skinnyfat. Fail.
>> Anonymous
>>303977
same. i can't deal with breakfast and have never been able to. slows me down and makes me sleepy so i was pleased when i first read about this a year or so ago. he's got a solid argument and i think it makes sense to refer to the conditions our bodies were initially dealing with/designed for. kept my smaller meals diet but modified it with rawer vegetables, leaner proteins, nuts, berries and then one big blow out meal say on the weekends. so far it's working just great for me. i've never felt better or had so many of the right gains and losses. not for everyone but then nothing is
>> Anonymous
>>303937
good points. I would say in general, I am consuming the same number of calories.

my dinner is more or less, the following:
1 large chicken breast (both sides, not split w/ skin on)
2 large cups of rice w/ saffron, onions, butter and pomegranate
a giant salad
some kind of soup
two or three pieces of fruit

I am not kidding, I probably put down 3,000 calories in that one meal.
>> Anonymous
>>303993

I smoke american spirit organics specifically because, well, if I'm going to kill myself I might as well limit some of the damage.

That said, I've really been thinking about getting one of those electric cigarettes. Essentially it's a nicotine vaporizer that looks like a cigarette and produces no smoke. You buy "charges" that are the equivalent to having a cigarette and the cost is almost the same as a pack.
>> Anonymous
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-566351/The-electric-cigarette-gives-nicotine-hit-gets-round-
smoking-ban.html
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>304021
Cool. This is pretty much what I am going through since I started it.

Actually, it really isn't that big of a deal... Look at it this way /f/ags, most fat slobs in America wake up, eat the equivalent of donuts and coffee for breakfast, big macs with fries and a liter of coke for lunch, and some other heart stopper for dinner. Eating one, large nutritious meal in a day seems downright reasonable.
>> Anonymous
>>303993

That's what the patches are for right?
>> Anonymous
>>304088
OP here, I was going to start a thread asking just that.

I am a casual smoker. (hookah a couple times a month, cigars on occasion). I love a good nicotine high. But for real smokers, I too have wondered why they don't do patches.
>> Anonymous
Why the fuck do you idiots relate "calorie deficit" to "starvation mode" instantly?

Eating Less != Starving yourself.

If eating a little bit less didn't work for you, it was probably because you weren't doing enough exercise dumbass. And it's not about weight loss, it's about BF % loss.

Fuck the scale. I don't use the scale more than once or twice a week just for shits and giggles.

TL;DR: noobs who can't lose weight by eating a little bit less refuse to do any cardio whatsoever and think they can burn 30lbs per month by doing 100 push ups per day.
>> Anonymous
>>304102

they're not as pleasurable. Also I don't think it's the same when you're chilling outside on your porch with a patch on your arm instead of taking a drag from your cigarette.
>> Anonymous
This kind of thing is more generally called intermittent fasting. There's quite a bit of interesting science behind it already. Not thoroughly convincing, but interesting. Here are some success pictures.
http://leangains.blogspot.com/search/label/Client%20results
>> Anonymous
>>304168
Nice link. It does look like the same principle. My results are not really as dramatic as those pictured, but then again, I am admitting to not really working out much outside of a good bodyweight routine. I have dropped about 40lbs so far, and a LOT of it was fat. My energy is sky high. It feels good to not be huge and fat a sweaty all the time.
>> Anonymous
>>304112
Who are you referring to? I'm the dude saying starvation mode is fail as shit because I ran 5 miles a day eating under 1000 calories, for months at a time and lost nothing but muscle. I'm not calling caloric deficit starvation mode, however. Going over 6 hours without food will put you into starvation mode, and this is what that warrior diet seems to do, hence I'm against it. Otherwise I am definitely an advocate of eating slightly less than required in order to lose fat steadily. My point was simply that starvation mode is not going to guarantee you fatloss even if you exercise yourself to hell and back while in it.
>> Anonymous
>>304195
>Going over 6 hours without food will put you into starvation mode
This is just not true. There is no way your hormone balance can change dramatically enough that fast. I bet you'd be shocked to read what science actually says about how long it takes to digest a meal. It's not inconceivable at all that it would take half the day. To get the starvation response you have to have a serious calorie deficit for days or weeks. Even then it will not stop weight loss of course.
>> Anonymous
>>304210
>>Even then it will not stop weight loss of course.

Of course, except weight loss doesn't necessarily mean fat loss.


In any case, I'm really interested in intermittent fasting now...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I just read a shit ton of cool info about IF. Maybe you guys should check it out.
http://avidityfitness.net/2008/01/12/interview-martin-berkhan/
>> Anonymous
fuck it, i'll break it down for you /fit/fags

ketosis > intermittent fasting > 5 meals a day > 3 meals a day > anorexia
>> Anonymous
>>304219

I'm not fat enough to have ketosis, but IF works great thank you
>> Anonymous
>>304210
Yeah, exactly. I get so tired of all the gain janes going into hysteria every time it's mentioned that in fact fat is the body's preferred source of energy and that it takes fucking weeks of absolute starvation before serious muscle destruction starts.
>> Anonymous
>>304189
Right. And the reasons you feel that way probably is because you're eating small, incredibly clean and probably at low GI levels too which is what these sorts of diets automatically do. The other great thing about them it's more an approach than an actual diet so you can modify it into what suits you and your lifestyle. I swear by this type of eating full stop.
>> Anonymous
>>304228
I agree with your general point, but I have to say that the preferred energy source of the body is glucose, not fat.
>> Anonymous
>>304236
Well I've been told for a long time now by various people who should know that it's fat. If you've got any third party links to knowledgeable information contradicting that, I'd appreciate them.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>304233
well, actually I am eating a single huge, clean meal. Like 2-3 pounds of food huge. Anywho, I am enjoying IF or Warrior's Diet or whatever we call it a lot more than any other diet I have ever been on. Actually, it really isn't a "diet" in terms of what you eat, it's more of a focus on how you feel, and WHEN to eat. I can't wait to hit the target weight.
>> Anonymous
>>304265
Yeah, because the modern human body - which was exactly like it is now 100,000 years ago when there was no convenient GNC store round the corner and being constantly on the move pretty much an all-day activity - was designed to engage in marginally strenuous activity for about two hours a day that requires never-ending shovels of whey powder, protein shakes and other minutely calculated and fussed over to the micro-gram nutrition to help it recover whilst remaining in a constantly borderline paranoid state about going into STAHVATION MODE as soon as the shovelling in stops.

Shut the fuck up, you fool.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>304253
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate_metabolism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

Basically, the carbohydrate (in the body, all carbs convert to glucose, unless you are intolerant to a particular variety, then the breakdown is either incomplete or non existent) is the only source of fuel for your brain.The fact that it is the cornerstone of our dietary requirements, yet is not technically a "required nutrient" means that it's entire function is to provide energy.

Fat, is the body's way of storing a nutritional excess for protection from cold, future starvation, and some hormonal activity. It really only gets reduced if you have no carbohydrates (the preferred source) to compete with in the Krebs cycle.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>304280
I read your post 3 times, and don't understand :

a) your point
b) why you are so angry
>> Anonymous
I LOVE ZDZISLAW BEKSINSKI'S WORK TOO!
>> Anonymous
>>304289
Right, I understand. I'll have the discussion with my friend again then. He keeps telling me fat is the body's preferred source which doesn't really make sense when he also tells me it goes for glucose stores first in activity followed by fat upon depletion or after twenty or thirty minutes. I can't remember the specifics. Ty for the links.
>> CrossFag !!pYkN8+/vJA9
I've been on IF (typically 18 hours, experienced minimums of 14 and maximums of 24, mostly due to scheduling, not hunger) and sub 100g carbs per day for over a year.

It's been working well.