The husband and wife authors, Paul Jaminet and Shou-Ching Jaminet of the
“Perfect Health Diet” (2010) are two doctorate-level scientists, (Paul a physicist and Shou-Ching a vascular biologist), who believe that conventional dietary advice is largely mistaken. As is the case with most authors of diet books, they experimented with the diet in their own lives; found it successful for them; and then wrote a book sharing what they learned.

The primary premise of the book is that disease and ill health are caused by three inter-related factors: food toxins, malnourishment, and chronic infections by bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa; and that all three factors must be addressed by diet.

The Perfect Health Diet is based on “nutrient-rich superfoods” like egg yolks, liver and other organ meats, bone and joint soups, brain and bone marrow, seafood, seaweed, green leafy vegetables, and fermented vegetables. It includes a number of other meats, fats, oils, and “safe starches” to provide sufficient protein and calories

The Perfect Health Diet is approx. 65% fat., 20% carbs and 15% protein by calories, and by weight is approx 65% plants and 35% animal foods. It is a low-carb diet, but not a low-plant diet. Most of the carb calories come from what they call “safe starches” while most of the plant material consists of low-calorie, low-carb vegetables, and a small amount of fruit.

The authors are opposed to “calorie-reduced” diets, and rely on the body and foods eaten to naturally regulate calories without conscious restriction. They believe that a “nutrient-dense” diet reduces appetite. They also recommend Intermittent fasting for weight-loss, such as a 23 hr fast from dinner to dinner; or confining food to an 8 hr window daily with 16 hr fasts between eating periods.

The Basic Keys to the diet are:

*The diet should consist of: by weight, about 2/3 plant foods, 1/3 animal foods. Based on a “standard” 2000 calorie diet, daily fat intake should be 65% of daily food intake, or 1300 calories. Daily carbohydrate intake should be 400 calories, primarily from starches (e.g., rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, taro), fruits, and berries, as well as a variety of low-calorie vegetables. Daily protein intake should be about 300 calories.

* Do not eat toxic foods such as:

* Do not eat cereal grains — wheat, barley, oats, corn — or foods made from them — bread, pasta, breakfast cereals, oatmeal. The exception is white rice, which count as “safe starches.” Rice noodles, rice crackers, and the like are fine.

* Do not eat calorie-rich legumes. Peas and green beans are fine. Soy and peanuts should be absolutely excluded. Beans might be acceptable with suitable preparation, but it is recommended to avoid them.

* Do not eat foods with added sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. Do not drink anything that contains sugar: healthy drinks are water, tea, and coffee.

* Polyunsaturated fats should be a small fraction of the diet (4% of total calories). To achieve this, do not eat seed oils such as soybean oil, corn oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, canola oil, or the like. The best cooking oils are coconut oil, clarified butter, and beef tallow; palm oil, lard, olive oil, and avocado oil are next best. Nut butters are another possible source of fats.

* Eat nourishing foods such as: liver, egg yolks, seaweeds, shellfish, vegetable and bone broths. Make sauces from an acid (lemon juice, vinegar), an oil, and herbs. Get sufficient salt.

Overall, the Perfect Health Diet is an good introduction to the world of traditional Paleo eating. It is well referenced and well reasoned. The content ranges from practical to technical. Some of the more technical sections might be intimidating to someone who just wants to be told what they should eat. However, readers with an interest in nutrition or another science will probably find the book interesting.

The Jaminets provide an excellent discussion of the interconversion of different macronutrients which should certainly shake almost anyone out of a fat-phobia, once they realize how any excess carbs eaten are just turned into fat anyway.

Three concepts that are developed throughout the book are:

1. The concept of “Economics of Nutrition”, which is a discussion on food toxicity. With nutrition, the greatest benefit comes from the first amount eaten of any nutrient; each additional amount provides less benefit until eventually the benefit equals zero. Beyond the “plateau range”, a nutrient can become toxic, with increasing amounts becoming more and more toxic.

The authors evaluate the “marginal benefit curve” for carbohydrates, protein, and fats with numerous references to scientific literature.

2. How food is transformed by the body. In other words, what goes in the mouth is not the same as what it becomes in the body. Similarly, different foods produce different by-products after the digestion process. Some foods they address are wheat (and all grains), soy (and all legumes), sugar, and polyunsaturated fats (especially Omega 6s).

3.  Mammalian dietary strategies (omnivores, herbivores, carnivores) that have evolved over time, how humans are similar and where humans differ in dietary needs.

In conclusion, the Perfect Health Diet is similar to the Paleo Diet but with several important differences. The protein intake is lower and certain “safe starches” are a major part of the diet. This makes the macronutrient ratio comparable to that of Pacific islanders. This book provides a lot of information on micronutrients, however, guidance on how to implement the diet on a practical basis is probably insufficient for the majority of readers.

I found the book interesting, enjoyed reading it, and think it is a valuable reference book for a high-fat, low-carb, minimum protein …” way-of-eating”, “diet”, or “lifestyle”.
Am I going to personally experiment with this specific diet? I would probably do so BEFORE Hell froze over, but certainly not until AFTER I've exhausted the possibilities of a multitude of other diets that I find more compatible with my own food taste preferences.

Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health (2011) by William Davis M.D.   Dr. William Davis, is a cardiologist who advocates eliminating wheat from the diet in order to lose weight and reverse health problems. Davis shares his conclusion that wheat is the single largest contributor to the obesity epidemic, and that the elimination of wheat is the key to dramatic weight loss and optimal health.

In Wheat Belly, Davis exposes the harmful effects of what is actually a product of genetic tinkering and agribusiness being sold to the American public as “wheat” and provides readers with suggestions of how to live a new, wheat-free lifestyle.

I purchased and read this book when it was first published, and did some experimentation with "wheat-free" eating last fall.  During the period when I was not eating wheat, ... while eating approximately the same calories...., my weight dropped into a 3 to 5 lb lower range, but within 2 weeks of returning wheat to my diet, .....while eating approximately the same calories...., my weight returned to it's previous level.  Therefore, the weight result of that personal experiment was about the same as my many experiments with low-carb and zero-carb, in that no actual fat loss occurred in my body as a result of my wheat elimination experiment.

Bread and other wheat products combined with sugar and fat are definitely some of the foods that I find the most difficult to resist eating, even when I'm not at all hungry, and I will probably be doing more experimentation with eliminating or reducing wheat sometime in the future.

Here is a recent article about this concept by CBS news.

Modern wheat a "perfect, chronic poison," doctor says
                     CBS News - September 3, 2012 

Modern wheat is a "perfect, chronic poison," according to Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist who has published a book all about the world's most popular grain.

Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn't the wheat your grandma had: "It's an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the '60s and '70s," he said on "CBS This Morning." "This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there's a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It's not gluten. I'm not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I'm talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year."

Asked if the farming industry could change back to the grain it formerly produced, Davis said it could, but it would not be economically feasible because it yields less per acre. However, Davis said a movement has begun with people turning away from wheat - and dropping substantial weight.

"If three people lost eight pounds, big deal," he said. "But we're seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds. Diabetics become no longer diabetic; people with arthritis having dramatic relief. People losing leg swelling, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and on and on every day."

To avoid these wheat-oriented products, Davis suggests eating "real food," such as avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables. "(It's) the stuff that is least likely to have been changed by agribusiness," he said. "Certainly not grains. When I say grains, of course, over 90 percent of all grains we eat will be wheat, it's not barley... or flax. It's going to be wheat.

"It's really a wheat issue."

Some health resources, such as the Mayo Clinic, advocate a more balanced diet that does include wheat. But Davis said on "CTM" they're just offering a poor alternative.

"All that literature says is to replace something bad, white enriched products with something less bad, whole grains, and there's an apparent health benefit - 'Let's eat a whole bunch of less bad things.' So I take...unfiltered cigarettes and replace with Salem filtered cigarettes, you should smoke the Salems. That's the logic of nutrition, it's a deeply flawed logic. What if I take it to the next level, and we say, 'Let's eliminate all grains,' what happens then?

"That's when you see, not improvements in health, that's when you see transformations in health."

Watch Davis' full interview in the video below

                                                    
The Alternate Day Diet (2008) by James Johnson M.D. is commonly known as Alternate Day Eating, JUDDD, or Johnson’s Up Day Down Day Diet. 

Dr. Johnson practiced as a New Orleans plastic surgeon. He appears to be another Diet Guru with an MD who, although knowing very little about nutrition, has discovered an eating gimmick or… different type of dieting method… that appears to work for some people.

Although his book was published in 2008, it is based on conventional wisdom, and states many “scientific facts” that have been proven false during the past decade or so.  Dr. Johnson still fervently believes in the cholesterol myth,  and he clearly states that a low-carb diet is unhealthy.

The scientific data used by Dr Johnson as a foundation of his Theory relates to some rat studies involving calorie restriction and longevity research, along with a bit of research involving the effects of short-term alternate day fasting on the human metabolism.

Dr. Johnson created a modified version of an alternate day fast, in which he ate 20% (a number apparently pulled out of thin air) of his normal maintenance calories on “down” days, and normal maintenance calories on “up” days. He quickly lost 35 lbs, and then started using it on his own patients (without ….as far as it appears in his book… any additional prior testing). Based on his own results, and reports of his patients, Johnson proceeded to write a book about it: The Alternate Day Diet (2008) by James Johnson, M.D.

The basic premise is to eat as much as you want one day--without intentionally overstuffing yourself--and to eat only 20% to 50% of your daily calorie requirement the next day. At least at first, Dr. Johnson suggests using prepackaged protein drinks or other packaged foods on your down days, so you can be sure of the calories. The reason for the spread between 20% and 50% has to do with weight loss: If you have a lot to lose, go with 20%. If you've reached your goal and you're maintaining your weight, 50% is fine.

The idea behind JUDDD, (and any kind of alternate day eating plan) is that it works because if one eats within reason during UP days, one's average calorie intake (which is your UP day total added to your DOWN day total) divided by 2, will be low enough to cause weight loss.

The percentage calculations are based on the standard 3500 calories = 1 fat lb Theory, which is used together with one’s BMR as determined by the Harris-Benedict formula, or one’s RMR as determined by the Mifflin formula. A small percentage for one’s activity factor is then added to that Base number.

 For example, an UP day of 2000 calories and a Down day of 500 calories, are added together and then divided by 2, therefore those two days have an average calorie intake of 1250 per day.

An advantage of alternate day eating, is that one eats “normally” every other day, and therefore, one is only dieting “half” of the time… i.e. every other day.

A disadvantage of alternate day eating, is that because one is not consistently eating small amounts, the amount of hunger one feels on “down” days does not decrease over time.

It is the nature of the human body to adapt….and the body’s tendency is to lower metabolism due to consistently reduced food intake. Although there have been a few short-term studies which indicate that metabolism rate is not affected by fasts of 48 hours or less, there have been no studies as to whether the metabolism rate is affected by the use of short-term fasting ... such as alternate day eating or intermittent fasting ... on a regular basis for lengthy time periods. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t.

My first experiment with the Alternate Day Eating concept was in July 2006  when I experimented with following QOD.  A link to that diet book, along with several others mentioned in this article can be found here at DietHobby under RESOURCES Books & Tools. In my own case, alternate day eating plans worked better for me weight-wise during the first year that I experimented with them, and not as well in later years. However, this could have been due to a drop in metabolism as a result of my long-term maintenance, rather than due to any specific food plan, because in later years, this lowered metabolic rate has appeared within every food plan I’ve used.

Alternate Day Eating, is also known as QOD, or Eating Every Other Day, or Alternate Day Fasting, or Intermittent Fasting. It has elements in common with Calorie cycling or Zigzag dieting. All of these labels apply to the concept of varying the amount of caloric intake from day-to-day with a goal of keeping the body’s metabolic rate up while restricting calories. There is no long-term research indicating whether or not this way of eating is metabolically helpful, and the anecdotal evidence appears inconsistent..some people say they’ve tried it and that it helps their metabolism, other people say they’ve tried it and seen no benefit at all.

Many People who experiment with JUDDD, appear to also be familiar with QOD, and with various other popular Intermittent Fasting plans, such as EatStopEat, and Fast5. These Plans have much in common, and each of them can be used alone, or can be combined in various ways.

 During recent years, the various forms of Alternate Day Eating, including JUDDD, have become quite popular in various weight-loss forums, and numerous people appear to have achieved substantial weight-loss by using them as a calorie restriction method. I’ve personally conducted quite a few individual experiments with these plans, and with various combinations of these plans. Sometimes they’ve “worked” for me…. in that they brought me weight-loss. Sometimes they haven’t worked….in that I’ve failed to achieve weight-loss. I am still attracted to the concepts and open to the theories that surround them. I also still run personal experiments with these various ways of eating.

I’ve learned that when using the DietPower computer software program,   it is possible for me to make careful food choices and meet my own nutritional requirements while eating very low calorie. No matter what diet or way of eating I choose to use, I track all my food in that program every day, and along with watching my calories, it is fairly easy for me to see which food choices will ensure that my basic nutritional needs are met. For more information on this see my recent article: Records: My Past 8 Years, which shows a review of my past 8 years of food records.

You can read Dr. Johnson's marketing hype as well as learn details about how the diet plan works here at the JUDDD online site. I am opposed to buying supplements from weight-loss Gurus, and I advice against any such purchase.  However, I believe that the mechanics of just about every Diet works for someone, and that the Best Diet is whichever one that you personally can live with.

                                                      
One of the things I choose to do here at DietHobby is give an occasional review of a diet and/or diet book which I’ve read and have found unusual or interesting enough to personally experiment with (although usually only after I make personal and individual modifications to the basic plan). This is one such review.  

 Snack Yourself Slim (2008) was written by Richard Warburg, a lawyer, assisted by Tessa Lorant who is a published author and knitting expert. This diet book is based on the rather unique premise of having tiny snacks every hour instead of meals.

Warburg shares a personal eating plan that he developed and used successfully. He asserts that it is a known fact that the body craves satiety through smaller, more frequent meals. His lifestyle approach is to eat a very small amount of something every hour that you are awake.

Here is his diet plan. Every hour that you are awake you eat approximately 80 to 100 calories of any food. If you arise at 7 a.m. and are awake until 10 p.m. for those 15 hours you would consume about 1200 to 1500 calories. Warburg says that such a plan is destined for success since the body’s caloric needs can be determined through scientific charts which show a person’s daily caloric needs, based upon gender, height, weight, and exertion level.

As an example, the charts say that a six-foot, 40-year-old man, weighing approximately 200 pounds with a moderate physical activity level (five exercise sessions a week), would need about 2800 calories a day to maintain his current weight. Since 3500 calories equals one pound of fat, reducing daily intake to a 2000 calories would equate to nearly a pound of fat being reduced every four days.

Snack Yourself Slim encourages such a hypothetical man to eliminate another 500 calories from that amount for even quicker weight loss.

Based on the conventional wisdom of calories-in calories-out, it would appear that this could be a successful means of weight loss. Warburg cites his own success with the plan, as well as the success of a few of his friends who have used it. The main drawback of the plan, appears to be that it would require giving up eating all normal size meals. For most occupations and lifestyles, this could be rather difficult to accomplish.

Warburg claims no medical expertise, and his knowledge about body functions appears to be based on his own armchair reading about various dieting methods. Current conventional wisdom is calories-in-calories-out, and he seems to understand that basic concept, however he makes the statement that all calories are NOT created equal because “you can have as many as you like in protein form – the body simply excretes those you don’t need”. This inaccurate statement indicates that Warburg is unfamiliar with the concept of gluconeogensis which is the process whereby the body turns extra protein into glucose, which then … if unused… gets stored as fat. Based on this rather egregious error, I would advise a reader not to heavily rely on Warburg’s sketchy interpretation of how insulin and his diet work together.

I have previously reviewed the book “The No S Diet” (2008), which is a 3 meal zero snacking plan. I am very fond of the Habit concepts of the author, Reinhard Engles, and in March 2008, I began experimenting with the No S diet. I was unsuccessful at establishing a 3 meal, 0 snacking habit, probably due to the fact that my entire 60+ year lifetime involves a strong established habit involving small meals with snacking at random throughout the day. However, I am still strongly attracted to the diet and to Reinhard’s habit concepts, and I enjoy and recommend his No S forum which frequently contains the comments of some interesting, intelligent, and courteous people.

With that personal background, I ran across “Snack Yourself Slim”, in mid-2009; I purchased and read the book, intrigued by the idea of All snacks, 0 meals which is actually a reverse pattern of The No S Diet, and a diet concept I’d never tried.

My only experimentation with this diet was for about 10 days in early May, 2009, just a few days after returning from a long vacation in Boston. During that 10 days, I ate …what for me were maintenance calories … divided into approximately 11 to13 snack eating sessions. My average weight went down approximately 1 lb during that 2 week period, but this appeared to be merely due to normal flucuation. I found that I missed meals, plus I was strongly motivated to quickly drop a few lbs of vacation weight, so I quit that all-snacking-zero-meal-plan to experiment with other diet plans.

I have no strong feelings about the personal effectiveness of the diet, either way. Recently I’ve became interested in doing a second experiment with it, and I now have a plan to do that. If I follow through with such a plan, and I have results that I find interesting, I will share those in some later article.

A basic idea is to develop sustainable habit that lead to reaching and maintaining a lower weight. One needs the behavior of consistently eating in a manner that results in one’s food intake totaling the same ...for maintenance.. or less…for weight-loss.. caloric energy than one’s body uses.
This is simple, but not easy.

 There is no one list of “correct” eating habits for everyone.   There are some who need to combine exercise with diet, but there is no magic highway to success.  We all have to find our own way.  We have to find what works for us.

And I have learned that…over time…what works individually may change.

As part of my Dieting Hobby, I read many diet books.
Here's a link to a video I previously posted about that practice.

I also experiment personally with various diets. Here at DietHobby, sometimes I will share information about this in detail, and other times, I will not.

This week I’ve been reading “Weight Loss for Food Lovers” (2008) by George Blair.
After I’ve finished reading it, while I’m still processing the ideas presented, I will probably share some of the concepts that I find interesting, but I don’t plan to do a summary or detailed book review.

My overall goal is NOT to provide a comprehensive review of all the various diets, or even of my all own personal ways of eating. My goal is to share the information that I find interesting along with my thoughts, as they occur, which I find helpful to me in my own maintenance.

 Everything I do here at DietHobby is to help me maintain my weight-loss. Hopefully some of the things I share will also be helpful to others. I welcome questions, ideas, and opinions from readers.  Unless on extremely private issues, I prefer to see them in the Comments section, so that everyone can participate in any discussion, but e-mails are also welcome.  My intention is to respond individually to each one.
Thanks for being here.