4 ms·

Dave Asprey markets well known and researched concepts under his own brand, from performance/biohackig perspective. The bulletproof diet is basically at it's c

by vldx 12y ago

Dave Asprey markets well known and researched concepts under his own brand, from performance/biohackig perspective. The bulletproof diet is basically at it's core a very low carb/paleo/ketogenic diet, incorporating intermittent fasting. Mark Scisson has pretty much the same approach with his Primal Blueprint - re-branded diet and prepackaged lifestyle. Using healthy fats as main energy source, skipping breakfast and excluding carbohydrates from your nutritional intake would regulate your insulin sensitivity, blood glucose levels, respectively leading to imoroved energy balance. NOTE: references to be included.

frozenport 12y ago
>>Using healthy fats as main energy source Don't forget the coffee! You can get everything you mentioned just from caffeine!
- beagle3 12y ago
  But you don't get satiated with just caffeine. And you don't get it for long with carbs and not as long from protein. Carbless fat is more satiating.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    But in actual tests, potatoes are the highest satiety food by a wide margin. Frying them makes them less filling.
    - beagle3 12y ago
      In some tests. Also, see from e.g. http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor "As you can see, the Fullness Factor does a reasonably good job of predicting the satiety responses, with the possible exception of potatoes. Note, however, that the methodology of this particular study may have contributed to an artificially high satiety value for potatoes. Per the study's design, the participants were separately fed 220-Calorie servings of each food. A 220-Calorie serving of plain potatoes is larger and much less palatable than the other foods studied. The size of this serving may have influenced a repulsion to this test food that goes beyond the normal satiating response."
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        That quote is literally "I don't like the data, so I will pretend no data is better". There are no studies that contradict it, so claiming it is "some tests" is pretty dishonest. Even their flimsy reasoning makes no sense. Who says a plain potato is so unpalatable? That is a subjective question. Is it really any less palatable than plain white bread or plain rice or plain lentils? The other point is outright dishonest. Yes, 220 calories of potatoes is more food than 220 calories of jelly beans. That's part of satiety. It is a measure of fullness per calorie. I'm sure celery would rate pretty high on a satiety scale too, but nobody pretends celery is some sort of evil carb monster you should never eat like they do with potatoes.
        beagle3 12y ago
        > There are no studies that contradict it All sources I could find talk specifically of boiled potatoes, as opposed to e.g. mashed potatoes, and apparently they all go back to one study which was not replicated. You can trust it if you like, but don't pretend that everyone else should. Read Ionnadis ("most published research is false"), and the recent nature cancer reproduction report (48 of 53 highly celebrated results about cancer that were published in Science and Nature were not reproducible). They have an extremely good match for everything other than potatoes. The right thing to do, practically, is to ignore the outlier for most statistics on one hand, and to try to reproduce the outlier results on others. Theoretically, you would believe nothing and do everything again (and again) until you have perfect correlation between theory and practice. Either way, every google search I've found says "potatoes are the exception" and they all seem to trace back to one study. Trust it if you like, I don't.
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        I don't understand your response. There were two studies that showed the same data. There have been no other studies. A website made up some numbers that don't fit that data. It is not based on any study or evidence at all. And you are suggesting that is more credible than the studies. Not trusting a study does not mean that it makes sense to trust "I just made this stuff up".
  - vixen99 12y ago
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1368980/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1368980/ is a nice paper showing what happens to various markers after very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets.
    - beagle3 12y ago
      But note that this compared equal-calorie diets. It is easier to maintain a lower calorie diet on fat+protein than it is on carb+protein.
joelrunyon 12y ago
What I like about Sisson is that he talks about things in practical senses (this is best, this is better, this is how you can deal with it in a pinch). Dave tends to be a bit more high-end with a focus on "you either do it the uber-optimized way or not at all." No way is right (I actually tend to like the extreme ends myself), but I find Sisson's approach is typically more end-user friendly (especially for newbies).
- ZeroMcMuffin 12y ago
  Sisson ends up being fairly pragmatic. I really like the encouragement to do self-experiments to see what works for you. All dogma should be secondary to the results you see personally.
  - joelrunyon 12y ago
    Agreed - he ends most posts with "see what works for you" which is refreshing.

by vldx 12y ago

frozenport 12y ago

>>Using healthy fats as main energy source Don't forget the coffee! You can get everything you mentioned just from caffeine!

beagle3 12y ago
But you don't get satiated with just caffeine. And you don't get it for long with carbs and not as long from protein. Carbless fat is more satiating.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  But in actual tests, potatoes are the highest satiety food by a wide margin. Frying them makes them less filling.
  - beagle3 12y ago
    In some tests. Also, see from e.g. http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor "As you can see, the Fullness Factor does a reasonably good job of predicting the satiety responses, with the possible exception of potatoes. Note, however, that the methodology of this particular study may have contributed to an artificially high satiety value for potatoes. Per the study's design, the participants were separately fed 220-Calorie servings of each food. A 220-Calorie serving of plain potatoes is larger and much less palatable than the other foods studied. The size of this serving may have influenced a repulsion to this test food that goes beyond the normal satiating response."
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      That quote is literally "I don't like the data, so I will pretend no data is better". There are no studies that contradict it, so claiming it is "some tests" is pretty dishonest. Even their flimsy reasoning makes no sense. Who says a plain potato is so unpalatable? That is a subjective question. Is it really any less palatable than plain white bread or plain rice or plain lentils? The other point is outright dishonest. Yes, 220 calories of potatoes is more food than 220 calories of jelly beans. That's part of satiety. It is a measure of fullness per calorie. I'm sure celery would rate pretty high on a satiety scale too, but nobody pretends celery is some sort of evil carb monster you should never eat like they do with potatoes.
      - beagle3 12y ago
        > There are no studies that contradict it All sources I could find talk specifically of boiled potatoes, as opposed to e.g. mashed potatoes, and apparently they all go back to one study which was not replicated. You can trust it if you like, but don't pretend that everyone else should. Read Ionnadis ("most published research is false"), and the recent nature cancer reproduction report (48 of 53 highly celebrated results about cancer that were published in Science and Nature were not reproducible). They have an extremely good match for everything other than potatoes. The right thing to do, practically, is to ignore the outlier for most statistics on one hand, and to try to reproduce the outlier results on others. Theoretically, you would believe nothing and do everything again (and again) until you have perfect correlation between theory and practice. Either way, every google search I've found says "potatoes are the exception" and they all seem to trace back to one study. Trust it if you like, I don't.
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        I don't understand your response. There were two studies that showed the same data. There have been no other studies. A website made up some numbers that don't fit that data. It is not based on any study or evidence at all. And you are suggesting that is more credible than the studies. Not trusting a study does not mean that it makes sense to trust "I just made this stuff up".
- vixen99 12y ago
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1368980/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1368980/ is a nice paper showing what happens to various markers after very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets.
  - beagle3 12y ago
    But note that this compared equal-calorie diets. It is easier to maintain a lower calorie diet on fat+protein than it is on carb+protein.

joelrunyon 12y ago

What I like about Sisson is that he talks about things in practical senses (this is best, this is better, this is how you can deal with it in a pinch). Dave tends to be a bit more high-end with a focus on "you either do it the uber-optimized way or not at all." No way is right (I actually tend to like the extreme ends myself), but I find Sisson's approach is typically more end-user friendly (especially for newbies).

ZeroMcMuffin 12y ago
Sisson ends up being fairly pragmatic. I really like the encouragement to do self-experiments to see what works for you. All dogma should be secondary to the results you see personally.
- joelrunyon 12y ago
  Agreed - he ends most posts with "see what works for you" which is refreshing.