A year without caffeine (part 2)
bryanalexander.org
bryanalexander.org
I used to have some very bad problems with acidity as well, to the point where my doctor thought I might have had acute ulcerative colitis, but what fixed it for me was sleeping more, eating better, and exercising more frequently.
I still drink 1-3 cups of coffee a day (every few months I go for a week without coffee, just to make sure I can still function without it), and have had no flare-ups or problems since I changed the rest of my lifestyle habits.
I've had a few issues over the last year or so and I'm only just making the link back to an acidic diet (diet coke, spicy food and chocolate being the main ones!)
Those days I was pulling all-nighters every week or so, sleeping 4-5 hours on nights where I actually went to bed, ate complete crap (typical university student), and hadn't done any sort of exercise other than walking to-and-from class for a solid 12 months. Yes, I was drinking 3-6 cups of coffee and/or energy drinks a day, but it was when I fixed all of the other stuff (mainly sleeping & eating better) that I started to not feel like death every day.
It started when my brother forced me to listen to one of his self-help CD's from Tony Robbins about the acid/alkaline diet (http://www.alkalinephdiet.com/anthony-robbins-alkaline-diet/). Mostly I view that stuff with a huge amount of skepticism, but my stomach will vouch for this one. As long as I have a veggie shake or a couple salads each day I'm able to safely drink coffee and alcohol, and occasionally eat pizza and other spicy food.
(That said, some people find they can reduce their discomfort by modifying their diet once a flare-up begins. But there is no evidence that diet either provokes flare-ups or induces remission.)
Interesting view, jperras. For me the caffeine changed loomed largest, partly because it was a nearly continuous part of my day. Eating meals was a handful of hours; ditto adding exercise. But I usually had coffee/soda to hand.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease – Aggresive dietary modifications hold key to relief and recovery.
Irritable Bowel Syndrome – Recovery requires adherence to high–nutrient, fiber–rich diet.
Nutritional and Dietary Protocols for IBD – These nutritional basics have helped hundreds of patients.
A Crohn's Success Story – IBD patient makes recovery even after two surgeries.
Specific Carbohydrate Diet – Lack of scientific support and low success rate on this diet.
Eat For Health Recipes – The highest scoring recipes from Dr. Fuhrman's newest book.
https://www.drfuhrman.com/members/NewsletterDownload.aspx?is...
He shows (with references to back every claim, as with all of his writing) that these diseases DEFINITELY have a LOT to do with what is eaten.
The newsletter is $7. I wish it were free for as important as I feel this issue is. I would hope that before you continue to make such definite, and possibly dangerous claims, that you would fork over the money to at least make sure you're not helping to send people down the path of needless pain and suffering.
Things that would make me more sceptical of your claims would include:
1. A glossy website with slick before/after photos that appears to be primarily an advertisement for your (expensive) courses.
2. Putting all of your evidence in a non-peer reviewed newsletter that you then charge $7 / month for. He's clearly heard of journals (he's even published in some of them, although none of them particularly prestigious) so why isn't he using them?
3. The invention of bogus mathematical equations to "back up" your claims (Health = Nutrients/Calories... please).
4. Any claim to be able to cure a wide variety of unrelated illnesses with a simple treatment (cf. allergies, asthma, acne, autoimmune disease (!), chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, diabetes, migraines, and, somewhat mysteriously, "others").
5. Any association at all with Mehmet Oz.
This guy doesn't even begin to pass the smell test.
> Toxins everywhere
> Fear mongering
Seems very much you are wasting your 7$: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/your-disease-y...
His formula doesn't make any sense. Health=micronutrients/kcal is a useless approximation. Implies that if you reduce kcal by switiching to more micronutrient dense foods, you'll always be healthier. Which is untrue (there are problems such as starvation, hypervitaminosis, drinking saltwater would be a great idea...) and highly depends on a plethora of other factors.
It's pseudoscience.
(And I say that as a future MD who also does science based sports/nutritional consulting, so be assured I know of the importance of diet and exercise in disease&health.) There are far better sources out there.
Don't hold back on us, please.
This "formula" appears to be meant as a shortcut to remind people following his plan to eat higher micronutrient per calorie foods. I don't think it was ever meant to be a proper math equation or anything, and I'm surprised people are picking this one aspect out of context to ridicule it endlessly without truly understanding what Dr. Fuhrman means by it.
But either way, who benefits? His entire plain consists of cutting out things like salt, sugar and added fats, and only eating vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans and seeds in some order (as a very basic summary). What does he have to gain aside from maybe selling a book? Once you know the plan most people need nothing else from him.
As to your lone voice claim, I haven't seen that. He works with several doctors, nutritionists, and researchers (NOT just Oz) and seems to have a thriving medical practice that has helped thousands of people.
As to the rest of your concerns:
1. What courses? I've never seen him sell any courses, unless you mean site membership, which is optional and for support only if you need it. Unless he has stock in all the major produce growers of the world, I'm not sure what he truly has to sell once a person buys the book and follows his plan. Everything else (like supplements) is optional and for support only if you need it.
2. $7 one time, not monthly. I'm puzzled why why these aren't free too. Like I said, he references every one of his claims, if you're into that. There are hundreds of references to various medical journals, papers, studies, etc. in his book Eat To Live, for example.
3. I think he uses H = N/C not as a true math equation, but as more of a shortcut to help people remember to get as many nutrients per calorie as they can (which is fundamental to his plan). I'm surprised you and others are getting hung up on this (and with such ridicule) without even bothering to understand it in context.
4. True, but what's his incentive? To sell more produce? He doesn't sell a miracle cure, and I can tell you right now that eating the way he wants you to eat is certainly not simple for me and many others. One thing I've noticed is that the bulk of people coming to him seem to be those (like me) who have spent years in pain due to "incurable" diseases, or people who have already had multiple bypass surgeries and everything else, and are sent home to prepare for death. It seems suffering provides extreme motivation.
5. I can't disagree with you on this one.
I can understand your skepticism a little, but it's not as if his website is a long form sales letter with javascript BUT WAIT popups when you try to exit it. Isn't one function of a website, I would say the primary function even, to market something? He markets his ideas and sells optional products for the benefit of his patients. What's shady about that? No miracle cure diets, pills, "free reports", etc. No long form sales letters.
I'd just hate for people to live a life of pain and suffering believing "inflammation in the colon has nothing to do with what is eaten" when it probably does, and when something can be done about it that doesn't necessarily involve their colon being removed and/or an early death.
He's selling his books, his $7 newsletters and $50 / month memberships to some kind of club (or just $3000 for one-off lifetime membership!)
Re: his 'health equation'. It's obvious to you and me that you can't take it literally. But is is obvious to everyone? Particularly, is it obvious to the people he's marketing to? There's no need for a mnemonic to help people remember "get as many nutrients per calorie as you can". The equation is there to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to his books and courses.
> I'd just hate for people to live a life of pain and suffering believing "inflammation in the colon has nothing to do with what is eaten" when it probably does.
The problem is that the medical establishment is, at best, undecided on whether diet is a factor in ulcerative colitis. I'm sure that there are some things the medical establishment is wrong about. But they are right about a great many things too.
Your claim that they are "probably" wrong is apparently based only on what this guy says on his website - a site that which seems to exist mainly to market his ideas, and sell his books, newsletters, nutritional supplements, foods and website memberships.
I'm in my mid 20s and lead the typical unhealthy lifestyle (eat out everyday, lot's of spicy food). Only recently have I started having these problems (severe heartburn, stool 6-8 times/day etc) Sigh..guess I'm getting old already..
This is true. It is equally amazing to me how much abuse the human body can take before it actually breaks down. Sometimes I think it would be better if the results of bad dietary or exercise habits revealed themselves faster - I suppose it would be more convincing and easier to undo the damage.
It is not a universal rule of infinite wisdom. Not all situations are startup businesses.
At first it was hard to concentrate, I had headaches, it was harder to wake up in the morning, etc. However, after two years I wonder why I was drinking coffee in the first place. I feel calmer and more relaxed nowadays and I'm capable of greater workloads now without feeling too exhausted.
Going without caffeine also made me appreciate the power and importance of sleep. In the fast-paced world we're living in, I believe people underestimate that. I honestly know people who think they can achieve more by sleeping less. In my opinion they couldn't be more wrong about it. A good night's sleep is what productive days are built upon.
Again, anecdotal. I have no idea if this is the general case.
Even at peak coffee, more coffee still stimulates my mind and makes me infinitely more focused. The only times coffee hasn't worked is when I'm genuinely sleep deprived, although I typically get 6-8 hours of sleep.
I have been on and off coffee several times and my anecdote is that if you have coffee almost every day, it does provide you an alertness boost, but:
Your average alertness over the course of a day with coffee (when you're adjusted to it) and over a day without coffee (when you're adjusted to that) are about the same. The one with coffee just has more ups and downs. Without coffee it's more even. IMHO that evenness is a good thing.
Was that your baseline level without coffee? That's hard to know.
So, I'd be inclined to believe my baseline levels are generally around where I am now (a cup of coffee every few days). Taking from that, I do have a lot of faith that coffee is still a great mental stimulant for me, and it's not just bringing me back to my old normal.
Of course, I know I can't provide anymore evidence of this other than personal experience. I don't happen to have an MRI machine in my closet.
This is why users of stimulants, like caffeine, have to increase dosages over time to maintain the same effects. It's also part of why you have withdrawal.
I can't imagine normal healthy people routinely taking a drug and teaching their children to take one. And yet this happens with coffee all the time. Many are even proud of their addiction ("coffee snobs").
It also happens with sugars, salt, corn syrup and tons of other stuff.
Lots of things can be a "drug". Coffee, when drank in moderation, is actually absolutely beneficial to one's health.
Your definition is so broad as to make the term "drug" meaningless, as it means that even water is a drug. Yes, after swimming in the ocean waves for an hour, cold freshwater is pure pleasure, and if I haven't had enough water for a while I start to suffer from dehydration.
A friend of mine has to eat a small amount every few others, else she becomes irritable. I've sometimes forgotten to eat until the afternoon, with little effect on my personality. Does that mean that food is a drug to her, or that she's more addicted to food than I am?
Obviously not.
Can you come up with a better definition of "drug" which makes makes sense? That is, one where "water" and "food" are not drugs, but for which salt and corn syrup is a drug?
One of the problems is that we have this value judgement associated with the word "drug." Once you label something a "drug", it acquires a negative connotation.
One thing that distinguishes a drug from something like water is that you actually, physically depend on water; you cannot live without it. You can, however, live without sugar (though of course, your body will break down complex carbs into sugar). You can't live without salt, though there's a wide range between how much you need and how much many people eat.
Your definition is one characteristic between a drug and a non-drug, but it doesn't suffice. Meat is not essential, as the various vegetarians and vegans on this planet confirm. Does that make meat a drug? A Google search says that a few dozen people have asked, and answered that in the affirmative.
While Vilhjálmur Stefánsson and others showed that people can survive on just meat and entrails; are vegetables drugs?
Anyway, I read the paper. It concludes "we suggest that sugar, as common as it is, nonetheless meets the criteria for a substance of abuse and may be “addictive” for some individuals when consumed in a “binge-like” manner. This conclusion is reinforced by the changes in limbic system neurochemistry that are similar for the drugs and for sugar. The effects we observe are smaller in magnitude than those produced by drug of abuse such as cocaine or morphine; however, the fact that these behaviors and neurochemical changes can be elicited with a natural reinforcer is interesting. _It is not clear from this animal model if intermittent sugar access can result in neglect of social activities as required by the definition of dependency in the DSM-IV-TR_ (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Nor is it known whether rats will continue to self-administer sugar despite physical obstacles, such as enduring pain to obtain sugar, as some rats do for cocaine (Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the extensive series of experiments revealing similarities between sugar-induced and drug-induced behavior and neurochemistry, as chronicled in Sections 4 and 5, lends credence to the concept of “sugar addiction”, gives precision to its definition, and provides a testable model."
As you can see (assuming my HN markup-foo is strong), sugar has not been shown to (or shown not to) lead to the definition of "dependency" for humans, which is a neglect of social activities. So this remains a conjecture with some supporting evidence, but not enough to make the statement that sugar is or even can be an addictive substance.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/high-fructose-c...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction
Drug in this context is not something that makes you hallucinate or teens do in urban neighbourhoods. It's all about the addiction.
In nutricional and biological context, their drug-like behaviour is well known.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/the-case-f...
In any event, the evidence of the ills of caffeine is so poor as to suggest a smattering of false positives. The studies showing positive effects should be viewed with similar skepticism, although if it does have some role in preventing Alzheimer's surely that's enough on its own.
Some may not feel they need caffeine as much as others: so be it. But the idea that any of us can really be deemed healthy or not, due to whether or not caffeine is part of the diet, seems to me to lose the forest through the trees
Citation needed
Very unlike caffeine.
Unlike alcohol, for example.
But, yes, drug and alcohol detox units save the beds for alcoholics (who can die during detox) and not for heroin addicts (who tend not to die during detox).
That said, all addiction is very similar. I would say that people more often than not really mean dependence rather than addiction when it comes to caffiene but the problem is that most people think of those terms as being the same thing. They're not. Dependence can exist separately of addiction but addiction will always go together with dependence. Dependence is (very simplified here for brevity) when your body relies on a substance from outside itself to function normally. Usually that's because you've put a substance in for so long that your brain downregulates certain chemicals because you're replacing what's already there with something from the outside. Take the substance away and it takes a bit for the body to realize you won't be putting in any more nicotine or caffiene or opiates so it takes a while before it starts producing enough acetylcholine or adrenaline or endorphins or whatever the case may be. Addiction is dependence plus a certain set of behaviors (again, trying to be brief and simple here). A caffeiene "addict" (read: dependant) isn't going to rob the local Starbucks to get a fix like a true addict would. You don't see these caffeine addicts ruining their lives because their persuit of coffee is interfering with their jobs or their marriage and such.
There's a big difference not only between the withdrawal syndromes but I also think an important point is to stop thinking of these people with such stories as addicts. They're probably just dependent. A guy who gets sick if he stops taking his antidepressants is dependent. A guy who can't stop himself from downing medication X and puts his persuit of substance X above all else with serious negative consequences in other areas of his life is an addict.
I decided later on that I really liked the regularity of coffee; something hot and stimulating every morning, that I would be able to look forward to. I also like the taste of coffee (once I acquired a taste for it). And caffeine does improve productivity; the additional wakefulness and concentration are helpful. Now, when you get addicted, you lose that benefit; the same amount of caffeine puts you back at your baseline performance. But I can, on occasion, have a second cup of coffee when I need a little boost; it's a lot easier for me to do that when I'm drinking coffee regularly, since if I have caffeine when I'm not drinking it regularly, I find it makes me a little too jittery and anxious. Being used to it helps smooth out its effects.
And furthermore, there is research that has shown that caffeine can be neuroprotective. There are several pieces of research linking caffeine intake to reduced incidents of Alzheimers, in both mice: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/16938404/reload=0;jsession... and humans: http://epicentre.massey.ac.nz/EJC/Stuff/PastPapers/Papers_20...
Now, that's not to say that caffeine isn't without its downsides. That week of withdrawal symptoms did suck; and if I need to quit again, or don't have access to caffeine for a few days, it sucks all over again (especially if I'm too sick to drink coffee, I now wind up with withdrawal symptoms on top of my existing problem). And for some people coffee is too hard on the stomach, or can cause other problems like anxiety; whether that's the case for you depends on your body.
Caffeine can be either helpful or harmful, depending on the person and how you use it. The harm generally is fairly mild. I started drinking it this time around consciously, knowing full well what it's like to quit, and knowing what the advantages are, and I decided that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, at least for myself.
I've quit caffeine several times. Each time I get headaches each morning (which can be controlled fine with aspirin) for about a week. Then I'm done. I've always gone back though after a couple months. I'm also addicted to chapstick. Those are my two addictions and I'm fine with them.
Caffeine, like heroin,isn't completely bad in and of itself though. It's the effect of taking too much and becoming dependent on it that are the real problems. Even vitamins can be harmful to your health if you take too much (which is luckily quite hard to do because the body just can't absorb them efficiently, at least in pill form).
Drugs aren't bad. Behaviors are bad. What we do with them are bad. I'd have no problem having a cup of coffee with my child (if I had one and the kid was old enough). Now, had I not experienced real, severe addiction myself I don't think I'd feel this way and I can understand if others can't understand why I feel this way.
- Shantaram, Gregory David Roberts
For me I was on a business trip where I fell ill prior to the flight home. Lets just say that it wasn't pretty, my girlfriend picked me up from the Airport struggling to stand up. The next week I wasn't able to eat anything surviving on water.
Seeing that I consumed an unhealthy amount of coffee daily, and how I hadn't had one in a week, I decided to make the break while I could. I was already weak from what ever I had picked up on that trip, but it was nothing to the next few weeks. I was lucky to only get mild headaches, but the lethargy and the sleepless nights drove me insane.
Having read this article, I'm now re-thinking what I eat as well. I too challenge the heat of my curries... and thanks to desk jobs I don't get out that much. Looks like I'll be changing things shortly.
One kicker that has happened to my health since this change, an ailment that I had never had prior to the removal of coffee, has caffeine as a way to help reduce the effects. My body... hates me.
Never having made an habit of it though, a single espresso (1 once) gives me the jitters, a slight disturbing feeling in my heart area and keeps me fully pumped up for about ~4 hours if I am falling asleep when I take it.
I think this way of using it is much more valuable than "wasting" it by accustoming my body to a morning "pick-me-up" ritual.
It is really scary to think the norm is to guzzle that stuff like candy daily.
I generally drink my coffee with a little bit of milk and no sugar. It is quite easy to do when you get an amazing shot of espresso (or make it yourself at home with an AeroPress for eg.)
I never really feel any kind of disturbing feeling from coffee. I do get that feeling from energy drinks and generally avoid them.
If you want a caffeine free tea that tastes well (imo), consider Rooibos tea. It contains no caffeine whatsoever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooibos
I also drink coffee sometimes. And even though both contain caffeine there is big difference. When I talk about tea's wake-fullness it is more like alertness, a much more gradual and pleasant effect than coffee. Coffee is like having someone constantly slapping me on the face. It is more noticeable and it is too distracting. But I also happen to like the taste of a good cup of coffee so I drink it then quit after a while, get headaches, go back to my tea and then after a month of two do it again.
How long does it take you to go from first opening your eyes when you awake, to being 'normally awake'? One of my big things is to get out of bed ASAP and get a dose of caffeine right away (powdered, usually). It's a fairly small dose (50mg) but I found that I really despise the first few waking moments enough to keep it up.
The basic gist seems to be that caffeine allows you to not have a healthy morning ritual. After you quit you'll have to learn to have a decent breakfast and ideally some exercise as well, since otherwise you'll most likely just be a zombie until lunch every day.
This post, which includes some self-reflection, is the best on the topic I've come across: http://zentofitness.com/a-story-about-100-caffeine-free-livi...
However, if coffee must be eliminated from your diet, I believe you can always use caffeine pills - same energy without any side effects on the stomach.
Decaf still contains some caffeine, so my 5 cups a day are probably still giving me ~25mg or so of caffeine. I drink it because I like the taste of coffee although I'm considering giving it up completely. I'm not a coffee snob and I'm happy with the taste of instant coffee.
25mg is still less caffeine than is contained in a single can of Coke (36mg).
Years ago I stopped eating chocolate and drinking soda for both dental and health reasons (I want to avoid the increased risk of Type II Diabetes from large intakes of sugary drinks).
I still, once a week maybe, have a non-decaf coffee if decaf isn't available, but I try to limit myself to one that day as I do notice the buzz from having a full strength coffee again.
1. Primary driver was in preparation for some long distance cycling where I'd be getting <10 hours (in total) sleep[2] over 4 days. I needed caffeine to have its old effect of giving me a temporary boost in case I was a few hours from somewhere where I could comfortably get some sleep[3]. Secondary driver was that it's a pernicious drug that I wanted to drop any dependency on.
2. I cope with sleep deprivation very well, indeed I coped a lot better with lack of sleep than a lot of other people on the event. Having children is good training for sleep deprivation (or at least not getting more than 3 hours sleep in a single stretch).
3. My planned naps (one or two hours a day) staved off most of the problems but I did get caught out a couple of times. One was at night and so I loaded up with coffee (many locals along the route set up roadside stalls giving out free coffee and food to riders) to keep myself awake for the three hours to the next control where I slept; the other was during the day when it was nice and sunny so I had an hour long nap on some grass by the road side.
I get more work done without caffeine. When I use caffeine, my attention level spikes and plunges. The increased productivity of the spikes doesn't make up for the dips.
I always feel really refreshed afterwards. YMMV
After this part of the story, incidentally, is when he starts getting better. Maybe it was the lack of coffee, but the antibiotics were probably helpful too.
If you're popping antacids all of the time, be wary.