Index of all articles, click here
By Serge Kreutz (2011)
If I would have to select just one food that I would be allowed to put into my mouth until the end of my days, it would choose chocolate... and I would not need 10 seconds of thinking before coming up with that decision.
For many, many years, I have been a consumer of chocolate in large amounts, long before the Serge Kreutz diet idea struck me.
The taste of no other food has such a great effect on my brain.
And after the Serge Kreutz diet idea did occur to me, I noticed quickly that no other food is as suited for kreutzing as is chocolate.
It fully liquefies in the mouth, and it is so easy to discard into a plastic bag. Very little slides into the esophagus, and even for strict kreutzing is is one of the most suited foods.
You can go through 100 or 150 gram of chocolate several times a day, and what makes it to your digestive system is probably just 1 or 2 grams each time.
On many people, chocolate has a great uplifting effect. Conventional science credits this effect to the theobromine and other chemical constituents of chocolate.
But conventional is less than half-true with this assessment.
The psychological effect of chocolate comes from the taste. And this is something you will soon discover if you get into kreutzing food.
Chocolate has a lot of calories. Who cares, haha! When kreutzing chocolate, you get practically none of them.
But if for whatever reason, kreutzing is not for you, here some paragraphs that nevertheless advise you to eat chocolate. They were written before I had the kreutzing idea.
My whole life, I have been concerned with dietary issues.
I had and have to. If I don't do that, I suffer from debilitating migraine every second day.
I have also had a phase in my life when I was some 40 kilos overweight. I am only 10 kilo overweight now.(This was before I came up with the Serge Kreutz diet idea! I am 20 kilo down from the 10 kilo overweight.)
I could write a diet book. But as of now, it's just a few websites with some articles.
(obsolete paragraphs omitted)
Which macro nutrient is the biggest burden for the digestive system.
The biggest burden is protein. All proteins contain nitrogen, and when proteins are used as fuel, many nitrogenous toxins are formed.
I am very, very prone to migraine headaches. And the surest way to provoke them is eating cheese. And it has been suggested that the tyramine in aged protein food such as cheese is the trigger.
But by eliminating cheese alone, I cannot get rid of my migraines. I know other trigger food. Eggs for example, fresh eggs, from hens gathering their food running around a farm.
Or from eating chicken at KFC.
I don't get migraine from eating quality milk chocolate. I can eat nothing else but milk chocolate for three days, up to a kilo a day. No migraine, also no sub-migraine. (But I can't guarantee this for every brand of dark chocolate.)
I have tried purely vegetarian diets, heavy on peanuts and broccoli, but I still get migraines.
I have finally found the common denominator of all food causing me migraines, and sub- migraine headaches, or just a subtle condition of not feeling fresh.
The common denominator is proteinoverload. The digestion of protein and amino acids anyway produces more toxic by-products than then digestion of any other macro nutrient, all because of the nitrogen they contain. And tyramine, the old culprit and gang leader of migraine triggers, is a nitrogen compound, too.
Of course, I, as everybody else need protein as a nutrient. But how much protein do I need? 30 to 40 gram a day, maybe. Anything more is detrimental to my well-being.
Mind you, anybody eating recognized quality food will have a hard time to not get beyond the 30 to 40 gram of protein per day.
And anybody of the hundreds of millions of people who suffer from migraines and lesser headaches, and who I suggest give protein-restriction a try, can happily go without animal protein and need not worry about not reaching the 30 to 40 grams a day.
Many vegetables, and even grains, are sufficient sources of protein, though one may want to avoid soy products (because they are estrogenic, and soy protein digestion results in particularly toxic by-products) as well as grains and legumes (both with many problematic proteins). Even then, there is no shortage of protein sources. The dry mass of broccoli is around 50 percent protein, and asparagus and spinach are good sources, too.
That much on proteins. How about carbs?
I don't think they are as problematic as proteins. I, and millions of others, don't suffer migraine attacks from eating carbs.
But while carbs may not be as heavy on the digestive system as proteins, they aren't as light as fats either.
Carbs enter the blood stream as sugar, regardless of whether they were ingested as "healthy" greens or "unhealthy" refined sweets, or tasteless starch.
Carbs and fats are more related to each other then either of the two is to protein. The liver converts fat into glucose fairly easily without toxic by-products.
However, there is an easily definable problem with carbohydrates, which is feeling hunger. If carbs are eaten and digested, they result in elevated blood sugar levels. The body has to answer this with releasing insulin.
But this biological response seems to lack fine-tuning. For after the over-sugar phase, there will next be a phase of under-sugar resulting in feeling hungry, regardless of whether the meal supplied enough calories for pending activities or not .
And then they eat. And then they are overweight.
Most people wrongly believe that dietary fats make them fat. Because after having eaten a meal with a sufficient amount of fat people can feel satiated for hours.
But if they just foolishly replace all fats with carbs, they will inevitably be hungry after a short while. And because being hungry is by and large a disturbing feeling, most people just eat.
Now, I am not propagating of a low-carb diet. For curiosity, I have tried it. But while a meal of protein and fat may supply enough calories, it doesn't satisfy my carving for food. I have to eat some carbs to be happy and fit.
Conventional wisdom, suggests that about half of one's intake of food should be carbs.
Now what carbs?
Quality carbs. And they should have two, not just one quality. First they should be of good nutritional value, also supplying minerals and vitamins. Second, they should appeal to the taste buds.
Whether they are natural or processed isn't the issue, really. It's their biochemical composition that matters.
Grains are tasty, but the proteins that accompany the carbs are critical. The same is the case with many legumes.
On the other hand, while it's reputation is terrible, refined sugar really is just pure carbs. And I would give it preference over that other simple carb, which is starch.
Taste-wise, sugar beats starch hands-down.
And therefore, it does so also in one nutritional department that is often not considered: the psychological effect of food.
I consider chocolate the most psychologically nutritious food of all.
You can serve me a steak. I eat it.
Then I see a plate of chocolate. I desire it.
You think I am still hungry, so you serve me another steak. OK, I eat it.
But seeing the chocolate, I will still desire it.
This won't go away with eating yet another steak. I may feel very, very full, but the desire for the chocolate I see will still be there. I really have to force myself not to eat it.
But try it the other way around. Let me eat the chocolate first.
If now I decide that I want to diet and therefore reduce my calorie intake, I can happily go without the steak(s).
I will desire some non-sweet food eventually, but if I do want to lose weight, I can easily eat just chocolate all day, nothing else.
Anyway, nutritionally chocolate fares quite well. Milk chocolate has about 7 gram of protein per 100 gram, and 59 gram of carbs and 29 gram of fat, with about 4 gram of fiber.
As a meal composition, that sounds fairly good to most people, at least as long they don't know that this meal is just chocolate.
Sure, some necessary micro nutrients such as vitamin C are not supplied (easy to get anywhere, eat some fruit).
On the other hand, chocolate contains some other micro nutrients that otherwise are quite rare, such as phenolics.
So, go ahead, lose weight, eat chocolate. (Of course, kreutzing chocolate is superior to eating chocolate any way you look at it. And chocolate is an important component of the Serge Kreutz diet.)
Index of articles, click here.
Copyright Serge Kreutz