The science behind how your productivity is chosen by what you eat

http://blog.bufferapp.com/the-science-behind-how-your-nutrition-will-decide-your-productivity-for-today

by LeonW • 14 years ago

72 53 14 years ago

blog.bufferapp.com

mzarate06• 14 years ago

Great 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/_/a...

diiq• 14 years ago

Not 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...

ipsin2• 14 years ago

I 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• 14 years ago

I still can't parse it.

dredmorbius2• 14 years ago

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

ekianjo• 14 years ago

This is such a horribly written headline. What a hyper-convoluted way of writing.

ipsin2• 14 years ago

I agree, and would've preferred

"How your productivity is determined by what you eat"

"The science behind" is a convoluted way of saying "how".

jaggederest3• 14 years ago

It 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

alwaysinshade2• 14 years ago

You 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.

dredmorbius2• 14 years ago

jaggederest 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".

sp332• 14 years ago

The first rule is: Eat food.

JohnsonB3• 14 years ago

>1. Eat something

>2. Not too much

>3. Mostly plants

There are a lot of diets that disagree with this, diets which many people find success in. For example the Ketosis diet says:

1. Eat as much as you want

2. Mostly protein and fat

3. And vegetables

Nux• 14 years ago

It would be nice if someone did some stats on Ketosis diet users and (mostly) vegetarian diet (as per JohnsonB) users regarding general health and life span.

Also very interested in the outcome of fasting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19112549

We need moar stats!

jaggederest3• 14 years ago

"Diet" in this case is not something to lose weight. Diet is 'whatever you eat'.

If you're 'dieting', you're doing it wrong. Instead of dieting, avoid crappy food and you're fine. Dieting shouldn't be something you 'succeed' or 'fail' at - if it involves restrictions you can 'fail' at, it's probably a terrible thing to do to yourself in the long term.

jacques_chester9• 14 years ago

This 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/

[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/

[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• 14 years ago

I 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• 14 years ago

I 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.

fingerprinter2• 14 years ago

Man, 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.

radicalbyte2• 14 years ago

Interesting, I had lots of success with the Body4Life plan. That combines weight training, HIIT and the 6/1 split of protein/carb-overload.

It works really well for fast weight loss: in 12 weeks, 22kg fat burnt and 7kg raw muscle mass added (if the measurement is to be believed).

Sure, I've gained 15kg fat back since I stopped, but that's the Achilles heel of all diets..

MDS100• 14 years ago

Link to the books? Ebook or paperback?

JohnsonB3• 14 years ago

>This 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]).

I'm confused, you argue that nutrition is a "stupidly complex science" and as far as I can tell, are insinuating that most of these people who read "pop science books" on nutrition will be overconfident in their knowledge/understanding on the issue. But in your second reference to your blog you argue on one side of the issue, specifically taking the side against popular authors like Taubes. If the science is so utterly complex, why do you simply take the side arguing against ketosis diets (in that they are not superior to simply following calories in, calories out logic?) Are you more informed because you read blogs like Guyenet's instead of books by Taubes?

From a blind perspective, I wouldn't say that Guyenet is strikingly more scientific than Taubes. I'm not sure what the line about Guyenet being a "sciency scientist", but supposedly Taubes not, is about. On the one hand you argue against casual confidence in nutritional science based on popular science writings, and on the other you take a high level of confidence yourself in certain theories...based on popular science writings. hmmm.

From your blog:

>Net calories is, therefore, a forcing element in this system.

It's funny how you argue against simplifications, but this one of the biggest made in any dietary context. Calories in, calories out, is only relevant to the weight loss issue in one direction. You can't burn more energy than you take in, but you do not necessarily store in fat energy that you take in but don't specifically burn out. So the argument is that with a ketosis diet, you can intake extra calories and not get heavier, so long as they are protein/fat calories. This is backed up by fairly strong empirical evidence, which as your blog suggests, is more important than knowing the dangerous and deceptive complexities of the exact chemistry of the human body. Go with what works, and for most people, losing weight on a low-carb diet will be a helluva lot easier than on a low calorie, high-carb diet, your personal experience notwithstanding.

And:

>"Calories in minus calories out, ultimately, settles the body weight balance."

In that this is not unreasonably universal advice, but that it should just be the default diet advice instead of "low calories" for weight loss, that statement is incorrect. It is ridiculously easier to lose weight on a low-carb diet and sustain it than on a simply low calorie diet. For most people. If you enjoy persistent food cravings and low energy levels, and potentially deleterious effects on your long term health (from low fat diets.), then sure, eat a high-carb diet.

jacques_chester9• 14 years ago

> It's funny how you argue against simplifications, but this one of the biggest made in any dietary context.

I was wondering when someone would point this out.

Oh wait, I already did that: " I’m about to do what every smart person likes to do: drastically simplify a complex phenomenon."

and

"Well, if it please the court: I’m guilty of this too. I’ve simplified enormously."

The point of that particular song and dance was that the ultimate cause of long term weight is net caloric balance. That's the one, simple, verifiable truth about nutrition that everybody agrees on. Everything else is a bunfight.

Any hypothesis which sincerely proposes that net caloric balance does not necessarily determine long term average weight must explain by what biological mechanism the conservation of matter and energy is being violated.

> Go with what works, and for most people, losing weight on a low-carb diet will be a helluva lot easier than on a low calorie, high-carb diet, your personal experience notwithstanding.

You have no idea what my macros are, you're just assuming. For me protein is the number one priority and I let the rest of the chips fall where they may.

Lots of people swear by keto. Swing past /r/keto and you'll find a success story every day. You can also swing past /r/paleo, /r/loseit and so on and so forth.

I don't really care about how the caloric deficit is imposed. In my case it was through intermittent fasting. What matters is that it was imposed.

Funnily enough, I thought of that point too:

"The key to weight control is finding the dietary template that you can stick to for the rest of your life. That will be different for different people. Some folks are happy with calorie counting a la John Walker. Some people are happy with paleo, primal or ketogenic diets. Others swear by zones or low fat and so on."

vidarh• 14 years ago

> I don't have breakfast, have a modest lunch and a large dinner

If you're anything like me, this doesn't necessarily contradict his claim that productivity is likely to drop if you go hungry: After a couple of weeks, I adjusted to the pattern and stopped getting hungry in the morning.

wtrk• 14 years ago

The 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• 14 years ago

Ah, diets, where bad science reporting meets physicians with pet peeves, "folk wisdom" and fads.

navs• 14 years ago

What 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• 14 years ago

Omelet. 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.

kahawe2• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

So 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_chester9• 14 years ago

> Protein is not turned in to glucose.

Actually, it can be: 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.

jaggederest3• 14 years ago

Gluconeogenesis 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.

The science behind how your productivity is chosen by what you eat

Related Stories