I have seen a few references to "The Optimal Diet" by Jan Kwasniewski. The idea is that there is an optimal ratio of carbohydrates, protein, and fat. The diet claims to improve a number of health problems. It is mostly a high-fat regimen, with low amounts of protein and carbohydrate.
If you take a look at the website, there are some suspicious statements in my view. Here is one:
"Fasting causes apathy, the lowering of the perception of morality, the lowering of mental abilities, asocial and egoistical behaviour. The dropping of the fast produces an improvement in mental numbness."
Now, I know that the Optimal Diet is translated into English, but what does all this mean? It's nonsense. There a number of other unsupported or questionable statements on the website. All this seems to be a prime example of hypnotic writing, where the author tries to write in a very confident tone.
As far as studies that analyze the Optimal Diet, I found only one. This study tracked participants who followed the Optimal Diet for a number of years. I acquired the full-text and read through the results.
The good news is that the diet produced low levels of triglycerides and insulin. This is expected with the very low carb consumption and lower protein consumption. Dietary fat produces a minimal insulin response, so you would expect insulin to be low.
On the other side of the coin, total cholesterol was an average of 278. Some wouldn't view this as a problem, but I would.
Another item of interest is the BMI (Body Mass Index). Instead of measuring body fat, this study tracked BMI. We know BMI is a flawed measure because it doesn't take into account body composition. A person could have more muscle and the BMI would show them to be overweight. Nevertheless, it is a general measure of body size.
The average BMI for participants was 24.7. BMI of 25 or greater is considered overweight. So it looks like the participants in this study were close to being overweight. Also, the average age of participants is 51, so I really don't think these people have added muscle mass which is raising their BMI. I would love to see pictures of these subjects.
Overall, I don't see how this diet is "optimal" in any way. The basic theory of optimal ratios seems unsupported by science. Empirical evidence shows some positive outcomes and some negative outcomes.
Empirical evidence for the Paleo Diet is much stronger. Humans evolved to eat substantial amounts of both plant food and animal food. Since carbs and therefore plant food is restricted in the Optimal Diet, I don't see how it can be considered a healthy diet in the long run.
I have seen a few references to "The Optimal Diet" by Jan Kwasniewski. The idea is that there is an optimal ratio of carbohydrates, protein, and fat. The diet claims to improve a number of health problems. It is mostly a high-fat regimen, with low amounts of protein and carbohydrate.
If you take a look at the website, there are some suspicious statements in my view. Here is one:
"Fasting causes apathy, the lowering of the perception of morality, the lowering of mental abilities, asocial and egoistical behaviour. The dropping of the fast produces an improvement in mental numbness."
Now, I know that the Optimal Diet is translated into English, but what does all this mean? It's nonsense. There a number of other unsupported or questionable statements on the website. All this seems to be a prime example of hypnotic writing, where the author tries to write in a very confident tone.
As far as studies that analyze the Optimal Diet, I found only one. This study tracked participants who followed the Optimal Diet for a number of years. I acquired the full-text and read through the results.
The good news is that the diet produced low levels of triglycerides and insulin. This is expected with the very low carb consumption and lower protein consumption. Dietary fat produces a minimal insulin response, so you would expect insulin to be low.
On the other side of the coin, total cholesterol was an average of 278. Some wouldn't view this as a problem, but I would.
Another item of interest is the BMI (Body Mass Index). Instead of measuring body fat, this study tracked BMI. We know BMI is a flawed measure because it doesn't take into account body composition. A person could have more muscle and the BMI would show them to be overweight. Nevertheless, it is a general measure of body size.
The average BMI for participants was 24.7. BMI of 25 or greater is considered overweight. So it looks like the participants in this study were close to being overweight. Also, the average age of participants is 51, so I really don't think these people have added muscle mass which is raising their BMI. I would love to see pictures of these subjects.
Overall, I don't see how this diet is "optimal" in any way. The basic theory of optimal ratios seems unsupported by science. Empirical evidence shows some positive outcomes and some negative outcomes.
Empirical evidence for the Paleo Diet is much stronger. Humans evolved to eat substantial amounts of both plant food and animal food. Since carbs and therefore plant food is restricted in the Optimal Diet, I don't see how it can be considered a healthy diet in the long run.