1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    06 Feb '11 11:04
    I have lost about 15 kgs over the last 10 months or so. I put this down to resuming a food combining diet where, as you will probably know, protein is eaten at different mealtimes from carbohydrates and both are eaten with foods that fall into a broad 'neutral' category.

    Has anyone else tried it?

    Do you any of you people of the scientific persuasion have any thoughts on this kind of diet?
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    06 Feb '11 11:12
    In general, protein is more filling than fat, and fat is more filling than carbohydrates. So a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet will generally result in weight loss (that is, if the problem is you don't have enough willpower to lose weight simply by being hungry).
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Feb '11 18:26
    Originally posted by FMF
    I put this down to resuming a food combining diet where, as you will probably know, protein is eaten at different mealtimes from carbohydrates and both are eaten with foods that fall into a broad 'neutral' category.
    I have not heard of that idea before.
    As a first guess, the weight loss probably has to do with the fact that you are being careful what you eat and thus probably eat healthier foods. In addition - and possibly more important, the order in which you eat and the combinations may result in you consuming less or more healthily.

    I find sugar (or energy foods in general) to be addictive. If you consume some sugar, you want more. Some other foods like proteins do not have such a strong effect.
    I find that if I avoid foods that I know have an addictive effect on me then I can keep my weight down.
  4. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    06 Feb '11 19:04
    You ate hay for ten months.
  5. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    06 Feb '11 19:41
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have not heard of that idea before.
    As a first guess, the weight loss probably has to do with the fact that you are being careful what you eat and thus probably eat healthier foods. In addition - and possibly more important, the order in which you eat and the combinations may result in you consuming less or more healthily.

    I find sugar (or energy fo ...[text shortened]... that if I avoid foods that I know have an addictive effect on me then I can keep my weight down.
    I find sugar (or energy foods in general) to be addictive.

    They are addictive, and so are carbohydrates. Our bodies don't like too many carbohydrates.

    A great blog on insulin, blood sugar and type II diabetes that everyone (on the planet) should read.

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/
  6. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    07 Feb '11 08:29
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As a first guess, the weight loss probably has to do with the fact that you are being careful what you eat and thus probably eat healthier foods.
    No. It's about the process of digestion being more or less efficient in its conversion of food into energy/fat/waste etc. The stomach does not digest a mixture of protein and carbohydrates as 'well' as it does one or the other on its own. Another 'rule' is not drinking water at the same time as eating a meal, for the same reason. During the last ten months I have been eating as much as I want and I have been making no effort to select "healthier" foods than I ate in the previous 10 months.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Feb '11 11:55
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. It's about the process of digestion being more or less efficient in its conversion of food into energy/fat/waste etc. The stomach does not digest a mixture of protein and carbohydrates as 'well' as it does one or the other on its own. Another 'rule' is not drinking water at the same time as eating a meal, for the same reason. During the last ten months I hav ...[text shortened]... e been making no effort to select "healthier" foods than I ate in the previous 10 months.
    Surely the aim is for the stomach to digest the food less well? Or is that what you meant by 'well'?

    What you don't say, is whether or not your actual diet did change or whether or not you do now eat less.
    If you do want to loose more weight then I suggest you do consider eating healthier foods.
  8. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    07 Feb '11 12:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. It's about the process of digestion being more or less efficient in its conversion of food into energy/fat/waste etc. The stomach does not digest a mixture of protein and carbohydrates as 'well' as it does one or the other on its own. Another 'rule' is not drinking water at the same time as eating a meal, for the same reason. During the last ten months I hav ...[text shortened]... e been making no effort to select "healthier" foods than I ate in the previous 10 months.
    I find TWhiteheads answer more compelling. Do we have any independant research saying that digestion of mixed food types is worse than that of individual food types on their own? Or is this justification purely from the proponents of the diet your are following? What evidence do they cite?

    From our old favourite, Wikipedia:
    The food-combining diet has been the subject of one peer-reviewed randomized clinical trial, which found no benefit from the diet in terms of weight loss.

    Here's the abstract from that study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10805507):

    OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of two diets ('food combining' or dissociated vs balanced) on body weight and metabolic parameters during a 6-week period in an in-hospital setting.

    SUBJECTS AND DESIGN: 54 obese patients were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.5 MJ/day (1100 kcal/day) composed of either 25% protein, 47% carbohydrates and 25% lipids (dissociated diet) or 25% protein, 42% carbohydrates and 31% lipids (balanced diet). Consequently, the two diets were equally low in energy and substrate content (protein, fat and carbohydrate) but widely differed in substrate distribution throughout the day.

    RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to dissociated (6.2 +/- 0.6 kg) or balanced (7.5 +/- 0.4 kg) diets. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference ratio were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of the diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in patients receiving both diets. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in patients eating balanced diets. The results of this study show that both diets achieved similar weight loss. Total fat weight loss was higher in balanced diets, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Total lean body mass was identically spared in both groups.

    CONCLUSION: In summary at identical energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated (or 'food combining'😉 diet did not bring any additional loss in weight and body fat.


    So it compared compared two different diets but did not compare against no diet at all. It was randomised but not double-blind (hard to see how you could double-blind this) but even with these caveats, it found no evidence that your diet is intrinsically better or worse than a normal balanced diet.

    Having said that, if you are losing weight through it and have no adverse side effects, keep going. It sounds a damn site better than many other diets. I would be interested to hear what happens when/if you come off it.

    --- Penguin
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Feb '11 13:321 edit
    It is my belief that our weight gain or loss is largely about what we eat in total. It is also my belief that the main battle is a psychological one.
    It is also the case that what we eat and how we eat it has a significant effect on how easy it is psychologically to maintain a healthy diet.
    I believe exercise is good for the health, but that it does not in itself burn off nearly as much fat as we are led to believe. It also affects our eating habits which may benefit or harm us depending on the effect it has.
  10. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    07 Feb '11 14:14
    Originally posted by Penguin
    The food-combining diet has been the subject of one peer-reviewed randomized clinical trial, which found no benefit from the diet in terms of weight loss.
    The "no benefit from the diet in terms of weight loss" thing is interesting. I followed the Hay Diet in 1989 for a few months when I faced a very busy cricketing summer. Then in 1993 for a few months before my wedding. And during the last 10-12 months. The weight loss has been marked and undeniable in each case. I have lost 2 stone in a year without counting calories or going hungry. Here in Indonesia I pretty much eat exactly the same food, and in the same amounts, as I did before - but I simply keep the two food groups separate.
  11. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    07 Feb '11 14:19
    Originally posted by Penguin
    [there is] no evidence that your diet is intrinsically better or worse than a normal balanced diet.
    Well there is the evidence created by my own experience of the diet.
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    07 Feb '11 15:48
    Originally posted by FMF
    The "no benefit from the diet in terms of weight loss" thing is interesting. I followed the Hay Diet in 1989 for a few months when I faced a very busy cricketing summer. Then in 1993 for a few months before my wedding. And during the last 10-12 months. The weight loss has been marked and undeniable in each case. I have lost 2 stone in a year without counting cal ...[text shortened]... od, and in the same amounts, as I did before - but I simply keep the two food groups separate.
    Studies have also shown that placebo pills can work as diet pills if people believe they work. It appears your appetite can be reduced simply by being on a dieting mindset.
  13. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    07 Feb '11 16:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Studies have also shown that placebo pills can work as diet pills if people believe they work. It appears your appetite can be reduced simply by being on a dieting mindset.
    As I explained, I haven't reduced the amount of food I eat. And I haven't changed what I eat. My appetite is the same as it ever was.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    07 Feb '11 17:26
    Originally posted by FMF
    As I explained, I haven't reduced the amount of food I eat. And I haven't changed what I eat. My appetite is the same as it ever was.
    Perhaps you have, but you simply have not noticed it. Have you kept track of exactly how many calories you have been ingesting?
  15. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    07 Feb '11 17:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Perhaps you have, but you simply have not noticed it.
    As I say, I eat pretty much the same stuff and just as much of it. I would estimate that the calorie intake has not changed. My amount of exercise has not really changed either. I don't really buy the placebo effect idea; not for the steady loss of 33 lbs. I can only really put the loss of weight to the different permutation of my food. Apparently almost no research has been done into it (according to Penguin's post) so it seems to be a bit of an unknown area.
Back to Top