8 ms·
The science behind how your productivity is chosen by what you eat
- diiq 14y agoNot that it invalidates the article, but it's worth noting that, no matter how many times it's said, you do not replace everything every 7 years. Not by any available definition of 'everything': cells, atoms, limbs, tastes. http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/ http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or...
- ipsin 14y agoI must've spent 30 seconds trying to parse the title. The science behind how (your productivity is chosen by what you eat) not (The science behind how your productivity) is (chosen by what you eat)
- magpie707 14y agoI still can't parse it.
- dredmorbius 14y agoBuffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
- ekianjo 14y agoThis is such a horribly written headline. What a hyper-convoluted way of writing.
- ipsin 14y agoI agree, and would've preferred "How your productivity is determined by what you eat" "The science behind" is a convoluted way of saying "how".
- mzarate06 14y agoGreat to see someone dig into this and provide some science behind it all (and perhaps others have done the same, I just haven't made it a point to look around). And timely, too, I've made important changes in my diet recently and the productivity payoff is huge. In particular, I discovered green smoothies about 2 months ago, and man the change those things have made! I rarely go a day w/out one, and they provide hours of increased focus and energy. I believe in them so much I put up a quick article about them. For those that may be interested (one my recipes is included): http://freelancefactor.net/index.php?/page/articles.html/_/articles/productivity-booster-green-smoothies-r10 http://freelancefactor.net/index.php?/page/articles.html/_/a...
- jaggederest 14y agoIt is likely that you will waste more time worrying about your diet than you gain in productive activity. You should probably still do it, since it has long term health consequences, but the rules are really easy: 1. Eat something 2. Not too much 3. Mostly plants
- alwaysinshade 14y agoYou could probably get away with a single rule - avoid processed foods and drinks. If a machine is used to break something down, it's invariably increases the GI of the foodstuff. Blending a banana into a smoothy will leave you with a higher GI meal than simply eating the banana. Drinking juice leaves you with little to none of the soluble fiber which would slow the release of sugar into your system. Let your body do the work of breaking down your food.
- dredmorbius 14y agojaggederest is paraphrasing Michael Pollan's directive in In Defense of Food. "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants". You could expand the first clause to "Eat real, whole, unprocessed food".
- alwaysinshade 14y agoYou could probably keep it at that point alone - eating a lot of whole, unprocessed food is difficult because of its volume vs caloric density and is typically harder to chew/swallow because a machine hasn't partially digested it for you. Will have to check out that book though. Thanks.
- pault 14y agoMy rules are: don't eat anything you couldn't grow and process in a small garden, get 20+ minutes of exercise per day, don't obsess over your body mass index.
- sp332 14y agoThe first rule is: Eat food.
- jacques_chester 14y agoThis thread is going to be hilarious. There's nothing quite so beautiful as people who read the same half dozen pop science books arguing about nutrition, a stupidly complex science about which almost no universal statements can be made (with one and only one exception[2]). For example: I am an intermittent faster[1]. I don't have breakfast, have a modest lunch and a large dinner (heavy or light on carbs, depending on my training). I lift weights 5 or 6 evenings a week. I am as productive as hell in the mornings. The reason I eat this way is because I suck at portion control. 3 small meals, fiddling with plates or not, is torture. Whereas I am perfectly capable of not eating in the first place. [1] http://chester.id.au/2012/04/17/my-diet/ http://chester.id.au/2012/04/17/my-diet/ [2] That net calorie balance is the determinant of long term average bodyweight. Lots of people are annoyed by that: http://chester.id.au/2012/05/26/fat-and-simple/ http://chester.id.au/2012/05/26/fat-and-simple/ [3] Yes, I know I'm spamming links to my own blog. It's just easier than typing out the same stuff all over again.
- graeme 14y agoI eat that way too. You (well, I) simply don't get hungry until you eat, once you adapt. Adaptation only takes 2-3 days. Now I feel high energy all morning.
- jinfiesto 14y agoI also eat this way. I feel great all day. Especially during the fast. It's much better than grazing, in my experience, which usually just leads to me being hungry all the time.
- fingerprinter 14y agoMan, huge +1 that you reference Cheat Mode. If you are actually doing that, you are well on your way to a healthy lifestyle. I've been advocating some form of carb-cycling diet for years (Cheat Mode, Carb Back-Loading and Lean Gains are all styles of carb-cycling). It. Is. Awesome. And the science backs it up too. In all my fitness books I advise this style of eating as well. Huge success with it for both me and the readers. One note: I don't know how quickly you want to lose weight, but it notes in your blog that you were at 133kg. If you want to accelerate that and save your muscle (muscle sparring) at the same time, I suggest you change up the carb-cycling like this: 6.5 days of VLC (very low carbs, less than 30grams) and then have a very big carb night. This is essentially Keto with carb refeeds and it is great for shedding fat. Accelerate it further by doing some steady state cardio (walking on a treadmill) for 30 minutes 3-5 days a week. Don't do HIIT training EXCEPT the day after your carb refeed. HIIT will help you clear the glucose from your system on that day, but on any other day it will start to eat your muscle. Now, however, if you are comfortable at that weight and want to do a more steady recomposition, you are doing the right thing. I just suggested the above if you wanted to lose fat faster.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- wtrk 14y agoThe article heralds soy as having an uber-low glycemic index ... but doesn't note that soy appears to function as an endocrine disruptor in humans, something of concern for everyone but especially for children/infants.
- mhd 14y agoAh, diets, where bad science reporting meets physicians with pet peeves, "folk wisdom" and fads.
- navs 14y agoWhat kind of quick meals would you suggest for a very busy person on a students budget? Many of us hackers do things outside the norm, sleep deprivation is long touted as a form of achievement. What do you hackers out there eat to 1. Maintain your cognitive ability, 2. Ensure you get your minimum nutrients and 3. don't take too long or cost too much to prepare
- cowpewter 14y agoOmelet. Eggs are cheap and cook fast, you can put whatever you want in it - prechop/cook things to throw into it. If you're keeping it low-carb, lots of cheese and a spoonful of salsa on top is delicious. If you're eating the same cheap things everyday, then a one-a-day style multivitamin is cheap insurance against deficiency. You'll pee most of it out but it's better than risking an actual deficiency in something.
- kahawe 14y ago> Across the board, yeah, food puts you in a better mood. To be more exact, research has shown that 2 cheeseburgers = one orgasm. At the same time it has become far too common to shun and judge pretty much all overweight people as nothing but lazy, disgusting pigs. I know, not everyone has trouble with their hormones or glands but I think the sooner people would see it and especially treat it as an addiction to food similar to caffeine and nicotine, the better. You absolutely have to be in the right state of mind to stop over eating or eating for comfort and solace and you need a lot of will-power and self awareness to keep it that way when you hit a rough patch, much like giving up cigarettes and drinking lots of coffee.
- Swannie 14y agoSo much wrong! [EDIT: OK, not quite as much wrong as I thought] "Most of what we eat will be broken down to one thing: Glucose. Glucose is our fuel, keeping our brains awake and alert." Say what? Fat is not turned into glucose (fat -> free fatty acids and glycerol) [EDIT: Wrong here, as glycerol can undergo Gluconeogenesis to produce glucose]. Protein is not turned in to glucose. [EDIT: I was partially wrong here too, see comment, as Glucogenic Amino Acids, from digested protein, can undergo Gluconeogenesis too :-/] Neither is the cellulose in my vegetables, etc. etc. Pretty much only the starch I eat, the sucrose and the glucose I eat goes to glucose. "The most important part here is that we are in full control of how we release glucose to our blood and our brains." Huh? Really? "full control" are we? Insulin doesn't play a part?? So here is an article basically suggesting that the readers attempt to eat slow release carbs (better than fast!)... all day long to sustain their blood sugar level? Graze... all day long? Specifically dark chocolate and chocolate? Well, it appears so, yes. Which is pretty much a recipe for decreasing your insulin sensitivity, generally accepted as BAD for your health.
- jacques_chester 14y ago> Protein is not turned in to glucose. Actually, it can be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis I've experienced gluconeogensis myself. How do I know? The byproduct is ammonia, which is excreted in sweat. It's hilarious and also really unpleasant to be coughing because you are giving off chemical fumes.
- jaggederest 14y agoGluconeogenesis is a continual process - it doesn't happen like a switch, it ramps up and down depending on your need for glucose. I would be surprised if there's any human on earth that hasn't 'experienced' it.
- jacques_chester 14y agoGood point. The body isn't a finite state machine. That said -- when you a spluttering on your own ammonia fumes, it's more noticeable :D