This entry is really just a pointer to a review of the warrior diet's science claims i did at Begin to Dig, a place where i talk about training. Some folks have asked me why i bothered with this critique, so i thought i'd touch on that here as a "before the blog post" post about a blog.
Because many folks whose training i respect say they practice the warrior diet, i wanted to check it out. It's thumbs down on processed foods and more up on whole foods. It is not unique in this approach. Many folks refer to the emphasis on getting rid of junk food, reducing processed foods of all kinds, and upping whole foods from veggies to legumes "eating clean." Clarence Bass has an entire series of books dedicated to this approach to eating.
So what is unique in this diet since eating clean is taken care of? and why did that end up being so annoying i had to write a big fat review?
The packaging is pretty special.
Technorati Tags: clarence bass, culture, diet, science
The diet in brief is to eat a wee bit during the day, and then have a big meal at night. It prescribes what kinds of things are ok to eat during the day, and the order of things to eat at night. It frames its rationale for this approach in two key things: the mystery of history on the one hand, and so called science on the other.
The mystery of history is to invoke the myth of the warrior, and to say this is how men on the move ate, how our fighting ancestors ate on the prowl, whether we're talking Roman Legions or Paleolithic hunters. Grr.
That the author's support for such claims is pretty thin on the ground historically and archaeologically is as nothing compared to what is presented as the science of how our bodies process food.
And so, i've looked at most of the key claims in the diet, shoved them up against physiology texts, and checked in with various researchers, nutritionists and trainers. The result of this discussion is at Begin to Dig, called "Review of the "Science" claims of the Warrior Diet"
I'll say again here as i do there that my intent is not to stop people from being on the Warrior Diet - many folks claim to have had life-transforming success with this approach, and that they resonate with the Warrior ethos - at least as it's painted in that book. And that's grand.
What i guess ultimately disturbs me is that folks are not being taken to this New Place with all the facts. The analogy i've used recently is that of someone with a screwed up motorbike - running on one cylinder. They encounter a mechanic who speaks to them of the Way of the Rider and the true path to keeping their bike running Pure.
Turns out that ya, the bike runs way better after the mechanic finishes with it, but it's only running on three cylinders. Buried in all the verbiage about cam shafts and high viscosity fuel is that it's just wrong info. The reasons the mechanic is giving for why the bike is running better is just wrong, and it's missing a whole lot of information that would help people maybe find out how to replace the gasket on that fourth cylinder to get even more power out of the engine, and run even better.
The response, i've been surprised to find, has been you know, mc, fuck off. This thing used to run like shit. and now it runs great. and i'm so happy because i barely have to think about taking care of it now, it's running so much better. So keep your theories about how the bike could run better to yourself, and oh ya, don't try to tell me that the Mechanic is wrong. No way. I have the results that say otherwise. My results say i'm getting three times the fuel response as before, it's not dying nearly as often, and i'm well pleased with that. And i tell all my biker buddies to go to the Mechanic too.
So, initially when i saw this response, i didn't get it. See, for me, i thought, well, i would want to know if someone is selling me the goods or is selling me a story, a con, a fake, snake oil - and if i found that they were doing the latter, i'd likely question any other claim such an author made. Not so here.
Fact is, the author's adherents trust him a heck of a lot more than they do me waving the flag of science - especially around nutrition. Books like Taube's Good Calorie Bad Calorie or Pallan's In defense of Food give a good historical kicking to the politicization of science in nutrition, and a casual read would make it easy for folks to say those scientists don't know everything; scientists get lots wrong - especially in nutrition. Fats used to be bad; now they're good. So much for science.
Consider the source. It's not "science" - it's usually the media or some federal agency selectively representing a single study or a sterilized position to the People. Science becomes the straw dog of these authors. In this case it's two journalists reviewing the history of various facets of what Pallan references as "nutritionism" - it's very interesting, and great reads, but also some unnecessary straw dogging of science to make points. And a lot of readers whose only view of Science is through such books are well satisfied to use it to dis science anywhere else. If it can't explain how a bee flies (myth), then i ain't gonna trust it to tell me how to eat.
Interestingly, folks who get p.o'd at my review for suggesting that the science claims in the WD don't stand up, and who criticize "science" in general, don't seem to get that it's their author that started it by asserting his position as founded on "science." Others just brush that part of the discussion of all together. Who cares about the accuracy or not of the theory; it's the results that count.
But what results? whose? Are they three cylinder results and three cylinder better than one satisfaction?
It's amazing to me that we can be so defensive and protective of our norms, to our current comfort zone, that we are reluctant to see, perhaps things could be better -we mayn't be able to imagine what that would be like, but what if it could be? What does that mean?
Many people say that satisfaction is a great thing to achieve - i'm satisfied, they may say, with my progress, with myself, with my health, with my practices.
Why? How? What is the basis of that complacency? What is the cost?
What i've seen here, besides a whole lot about the digestive system and the human energy system from doing this science review, is that new ideas can be experienced as threatening, dangerous; if they don't fit current paradigms, it becomes easy to dismiss them. This really isn't new. What question it raises for me that is new is why. Why the reluctance to consider another position? especially if satisfied with where one is? Wouldn't that make it that much easier to look at other ideas?
Dunno. i just dunno about that one, but i would conclude by saying that the discourse of the warrior diet is highly reminiscent of tales of don juan. And that's all the signifier i need on that one.
and so,
oh you tee, to paraphrase good buddy will williams.
"I don't think i've ever met anyone from Manitoba"
This is the response by a professor at a a school of information when i was asked recently where i was from (after identifying the accent as "not british"). "That's not surprising" i replied "as a rule we don't get out much"
I've just learned that famous winnipeger and film maker Guy Maddin has a film out called My Winnipeg that is being celebrated as seriously weird and wonderful, full of his usual cabinet of dr. caligary meets woody allen.
Somehow, i think it would be ironic or just wrong to see this film in a theater outside of the beating heart of the center of canada - the place where, because of its urban culture but magnificent isolation, MacDonald's love to test its new ideas (anyone remember "macribs"? thought not).
So i must go home, now, and seek out a room projecting this film, a room filmed with others who grew up on weather identical to siberia (Maddin created a film called Archangel, afterall, situated in just as weird, no doubt, version of this Russian port town). I must go to a place where that room of people will swell with pride and recognition at a filmmaker finally putting the name of our starting point on the cultural landscape. People will ask "is that what winnipeg is really like?" and i'll say "oh yes" without seeing the film and with seeing the film. Oh yes.
No more to live in the shadow of Grand Forks as posted on the Nuclear Weapons map of War Games - most of the people in the US would not have known or visited Grand Forks - but winnipegers do. It's not only a missile silo: it's home of great cross border shopping. Before Free Trade.
No more to live in the shadow of Fargo - where that opening shot of that pontiac across the blizzarding highway, or the scraping of windows in the lonely parking lot is so well known it's in the bones. Oh no, now, we step out into the Main Attraction. A very weird main attraction, i bet. But there it is. There is no Paris/France, Paris/Texas. No multiple Springfields. No many Yorks. There can be only one Winnipeg. So there Fargo!
You go, guy maddin! Let's hear them say "winnipeg" at the oscars, eh?