3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Diet Central > Carb Counters

Two remarkable articles about going grain free

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-13-2014, 06:07 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default Two remarkable articles about going grain free

These are simply fantastic. And funny. I especially like the Mark's Daily Apple one about sandwiches.

Enjoy.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/top-8...#axzz2tDmypiwC

http://detoxinista.com/2012/04/going-grain-free/
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2014, 06:38 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 421

S/C/G: 415/346/160

Height: 5'9"

Default

"Well, you see, all you gotta do for a bread-free sandwich is spread a little mayo on your right hand, some mustard on the left, and pile on the avocado, the deli slices, and the tomato slices in between. Easy as pie."

LOL!
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2014, 07:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

I found those articles really helpful. I learned a lot more about grains in them. Especially thinking that fruits and vegetables 'want to be eaten'. But grains 'do not'. Because it helps a fruit but hurts a grain.

I hadn't given up corn tortillas or chips yet. Today we had a lunch at a Mexican restaurant. Zero chips. And a fajita salad. So corn is the last grain on my journey.

I can't even explain to people how wonderful the journey has been though. I would have been ecstatic to loose 50 lbs in a year. Now it looks like there is a good chance I will go sub 200 in a year or less. But beyond that I can run now, I am strong, clear. I feel better than ever and will be 49 in not too many more months.

I just hope people are open to info on grains and low carb and fat.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 06:44 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

And another good story.

http://wellnessmama.com/575/how-grai...ng-you-slowly/

I wish everyone had this info. As the article mentioned could happen, my allergies have virtually disappeared.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2014, 11:52 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

I came across another couple of articles. I also want to keep this thread alive. I've found on the Internet incredible passion about going grain free.

Why? It completely transforms people's lives for the better. And keeps you away from so much bad stuff. Words cannot describe even close the positives going grain free has been for me.

http://www.thepaleomom.com/2011/11/w...s-are-bad.html
http://www.thepaleomom.com/2011/12/w...ou-part-2.html

BTW I personally have sworn off posting in Weight Loss Support. I feel, rightly or wrongly, just too much flack anytime I post anything about Low Carb. Might be ironic if people feel the exact opposite. In any case it isn't much fun. That is just an aside.

But it does point to an important detail. Moderation is still an important concept within a low carb high fat approach. You still don't want to eat 2 pounds of meat a day. Or two sticks of butter. And I suppose the eat everything folk do not consider grains poison so they aren't telling themselves to eat poison. What the reality is though, well I feel they are even if they don't think so.

But an all foods are OK completely misses the point of so many people reclaiming their health on low carb, Paleo, Primal, whatever particular grain free approach they are taking for their well-being. If you read all the articles in just this thread and still are eating grains, well at least you are doing so with information. But to me they are clearly 'poison'. Pretty much they are. At least that is my experience from the theories presented in the article and what actually happened to me when I cut them out. My body and mind reacted like a poison had been taken away.

So telling people that a moderate amount of poison is OK is how it sounds when talking about eating grains to Primal or Paleo folk. Especially when just a little can undo a lot of your hard work, it is completely senseless. Say I could lose weight eating grains. That would still be besides the point. I could be 170-180, but I don't feel I would be healthy at that weight or any weight if I was still eating grains. This is my health journey not my weight loss journey per se.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 04-06-2014 at 12:13 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2014, 12:16 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
yoyoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 1,684

S/C/G: 180/ticker/139

Height: 5'6.5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
I found those articles really helpful. I learned a lot more about grains in them. Especially thinking that fruits and vegetables 'want to be eaten'. But grains 'do not'. Because it helps a fruit but hurts a grain.
Legumes, nuts, other seeds (sesame, poppy, chia...), spices, root vegetables, leafy/stalky vegetables, and animals are like grains in that they "do not want to be eaten." They have evolved various defenses and humans have had various levels of success at breeding those defenses back out of them. Some foods were originally poisonous and some domestically bred foods that we eat should still be approached with caution (think rhubarb leaves, green potatoes, etc). If we only ate things that originally wanted to be eaten, we would have extremely restrictive diets.

That said, I am sure that many people are happy and healthy on grain-free diets.
__________________
Hoping to earn the user name NoYoyoMa...



Last edited by yoyoma : 04-06-2014 at 12:17 PM.
yoyoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2014, 12:41 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,278

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
I came across another couple of articles. I also want to keep this thread alive. I've found on the Internet incredible passion about going grain free.

Why? It completely transforms people's lives for the better. And keeps you away from so much bad stuff.
Unfortunately passion often gets in the way of facts, sometimes intentionally - people with good intentions, thinking the ends justify the means, so it's ok to exagerate and even lie outright.

Neither are all grains, nor all people created equal. There are some grains that everyone should probably limit or avoid. There are some grains nearly everyone can eat in moderation occasasionally, if not regularly (depending on their weight goals, activity level and overall health).

There's ample research that conflicts. I think a grain-free diet is worth trying, but it isn't necessary for everyone. A lot of the antigrain articles are well-written, but factually inaccurate.

Testimonials are awesome, when they're not trying to masquerade as good science. Even science-based arguments are almost worthless if the conflicting science is not also presented (which it almost never is, so the reader has to take it upon himself or herself to seek out and read, to get an accurate picture).

I an not pro-grain, I'm pro truth, especially in nutritional science, because the science is not nearly as advanced as other areas of science, and it's high time that change.

I have autoimmune disease, which some scientists believe is caused by a high grain, or high carb diet. Other scientists believe the cause for AI issues lie elsewhere, but grains and sugars exacerbate the disease. Others (fewer and fewer) believe there's no connection. Only by reading all the opinions and research supporting all sides, was I able to get a half-way accurate picture of reality - before, during, and after my own self-experimentation.

Unfortunately, dietary intervention is almost never approached by the nonscientist end-user in a rational mindset. Instead passion is in the driver's seat, and opposing science is conveniently ignored (or unknown because the end user relies on incomplete or inaccurate information from someone else who is passionate).

I am not pro-grain by a long shot. I think the SAD (standard American diet) relies far too heavily on carbs (grains and sugar,.especially), salt and fats (and I think the combination of all three is especially deadly and addictive).

Because of my autoimmune issues, I try to avoid most high carb foods, and because of my addiction to them, fail often with unpleasant and deleterious consequences., but just because I need to avoid grains doesn't mean everyone else has to. I wouldn't know that though unless I had read the science on both sides of the aisle. To get a balanced view, you have to read all the science and ignore passion, because passion is closely tied to the placebo effect.
__________________
My Etsy shop (currently closed for the summer)

http://www.dreamstormdesigns.etsy.com
etsy link by permission from 3fc! Want to add yours? Ask them!
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2014, 01:13 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

I do agree people vary, so the impacts would also differ.

I do think many people who say they do 'fine on grains' never say went 3 or 4 or more months without them to see. So they will never truly know.

I guess it depends on the individual if they ever feel the need or desire to see. And I understand that. A year ago it would have sounded nuts to me. It's worth a try, I feel for most, if its never been tried.

And true negative impacts to many foods, even healthy ones. I just think grains have a prominent role in many individuals health problems.

BTW I have gone to the Whole Grains Council website. There are no studies showing grains are healthy. Everytime they do a short term RCT it 'fails'. It shows worse outcomes on grains. So they can only point to broad stastics which could mean anything. Ie whole grain eaters also exercise and don't smoke as much.

The worse one was trying to say whole wheat doesn't have a high glycemic index. They compared it to pure glucose and found it was less. If the most pro grain people in the world, the ones who make their money off it have to point to that? Wow. But pretty fascinating stuff. Like white rice people doing better than brown rice because the brown rice leeched even more nutrients.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 04-06-2014 at 01:19 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 10:59 PM   #9
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 24

Default

helpful articles.
Thanks!
free529 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 12:52 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,278

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post

BTW I have gone to the Whole Grains Council website. There are no studies showing grains are healthy.
Actually there are many, many studies that find health benefits to grains - empirical research too, not just correlational or anectdotal testimonials. As for the Whole Grains Council website, I certainly wouldn't go to a commercial organization's website for unbiased scientific research.

If you read low-carb, anti-grain books, articles, and blogs, you will be inundated with anti-grain arguments and references to research. If you read pro-grain, whole grain, vegan, and vegetarian materials, you will be inundated with the pro-grain arguments and research references.

Often supporters of a theory will make the accusation that there is no research supporting the opposing viewpoint(s), conveniently ignoring or dismissing what does exist.

Before you know it, the statement, "There is no legitimate research evidence to support the opposing theory," starts getting passed along as fact when it is not.

If you go directly to professional journals (in the field of clinical nutrition, especially) you will find decades and decades of research on both sides of the grain debate.

There are also multiple debates and documentary videos available, including, I believe a TEDs talks series on both sides of the issue (probably available on Netflix). I haven't seen the TEDs talks series yet, but a friend was telling me about it, so I've added it to my "find and watch" list.

Much of this information was once a bit difficult to find outside of a university library or clinical nutrition conference, but with online search options, it shouldn't be difficult to find transcrips of some of these awesome debates, as well as journal article abstracts, if not the full articles (for the full articles, you often have to subscribe to the journal in question, but some offer a trial or short-term subscription rate).

I am not pro-grain, but I am pro-truth. Some of the anti-grain research evidence is very compelling, and I've found reducing grains and carbs very gelpful overall, but I don't believe there is any advantage to conveniently ignore conflicting viewpoints and factual information. It does a great disservice to us all by hindering our anility to understand the big picture.

The villification of red meat and low-carb diets came directly from research that supported that position. Conflicting evidence was conveniently ignored or discredited or explained away with a plausible, but untested (or worse, untestable) counter-theory.

The low-carb, paleo, and anti-grain communities are, by and large, making the same error.

Theory advancement and supporter recruitment has taken precedence over presenting unbiased information. Every time evidence is convenienty ignored or dismissed, a little bit of the truth dies.

We need to be able to integrate the conflicting evidence to develop theoried that account for all the evidence. Instead we play dueling theories.
__________________
My Etsy shop (currently closed for the summer)

http://www.dreamstormdesigns.etsy.com
etsy link by permission from 3fc! Want to add yours? Ask them!

Last edited by kaplods : 04-08-2014 at 11:38 AM.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 01:24 AM   #11
banned
 
Pattience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 1,308

S/C/G: 80.2kg/66kg/60kg x2.2 for lb

Height: 165cm/5' 4.5"

Default

There's a fair dose of bullshit in the second article. I'm not going to get embroiled in yet another debate. I'm just saying - misinformation!
Pattience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 02:24 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,278

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattience View Post
There's a fair dose of bullshit in the second article. I'm not going to get embroiled in yet another debate. I'm just saying - misinformation!
I agree. I would technically classify both as primarily opinion pieces, heavy on myth and anectdotal testemonial and light on factual, science-based information. Some of the information that is fact-based is dumbed down to the point that it becomes misleading.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find written material (outside of text books and academic publications) that even attempts to present an unbiased presentation of multiple theories. Rather one theory is advanced, and all others rejected (or worse, ignored and never even mentioned, so to the reader, conflicting information doesn't exist unless they happen to read material from the "other" viewpoint(s).

Since theories tend to wax and wane in popularity, and authors jump on the popularity bandwagon, it always seems like there is more evidence for the theory that is currently most popular (because that's all you read). Then when the opposing viewpoint becomes most popular, the only evidence you read about is that which supports the popular theory and refutes the previously popular theories.

Debates from recognized, and credentialed experts (and not set up for popular daytime tv hosts) are the most informative and interesting, but the hardest to find outside of the university and PBS arenas.
__________________
My Etsy shop (currently closed for the summer)

http://www.dreamstormdesigns.etsy.com
etsy link by permission from 3fc! Want to add yours? Ask them!
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 01:12 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

I've yet to find a single source that is good science showing grains are healthy. Not one. At least not any RCT. They all 'fail' (people don't do well on grains or whole grains compared to refined grains) as far as I've found. So they fall back on large swaths of data that could mean anything.

I know there are two true things though. And you are correct Kaplods the two things I know do not encompass the whole by far. But they are very important.

One you do not need grains. Many cultures have no access to grains. You will die without protein and fat. Not so with grains.

The second truth I know is that I (my sample size of one) do phenomenally well without grains and my wife does as well and our three year old daughter does with us cutting back for her (really awesome improvements in everything). That is a fundamental importance. And again you cannot know that unless you give them up for two to three months.

My back pain has gone away. My allergies have gone away. I don't get sick anymore. I am strong and able to run now. I feel better than ever before at 48. So I feel, I don't know, but I feel that there is science showing they are harmful to most people, and at best a calorie source that will hurt some people more slowly than others.

But beyond that and most importantly to me: I am thriving without them.

Feel those two articles are 'myths' as much as you want. It is ironic to me when there is not a single source, reputable that I've found, that has been able to show grains are healthy.

And what I mean by reputable if that all the times they try to do RCT studies on grains, they fail to show they are healthy.

But in the end it is still an open question and people can disagree. So what is the deciding vote for me? I was miserable, sick, overweight, with allergies and back pain on grains. Now I feel incredible. So EASY way for me to go.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 04-08-2014 at 01:17 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 06:57 AM   #14
banned
 
Pattience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 1,308

S/C/G: 80.2kg/66kg/60kg x2.2 for lb

Height: 165cm/5' 4.5"

Default

You lost weight, you feel better. Its a no brainer.

What helped you do that was the no grain approach. Good for you. But grains do not cause tooth decay, not to mention a few other myths in those articles.

Tooth decay is caused by sugar and many carbs are not broken down in the mouth so cannot cause tooth decay. Milk for example actually directly helps prevent decay through calcification. I have always drunk tons of milk and the dentist has at times told me about the calcification in my teeth.

that was the myth that really struck me and i can't remember the others. I'm not going to bother rereading it.

Today i picked up the no-grain diet book. What i've read so far includes a fair bit of misinformation and bias but i'm not saying its wrong, so much as the book does not get off to a very credible start. I"m hoping chapter 2 is better.
Pattience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 09:50 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

A couple of very important points. Going grain free isn't just about weight loss. I was still eating corn up until this past January. I didn't actually know it was a grain. Yep, I have learned a lot.

My back pain went away right after I stopped. Virtually the same weight. Also allergies can happen at any weight. They stopped after grain.

I think this is vital for anyone reading this. Grain consumption, the stuff I read state, lead to inflammation. Well both allergies and back pain are inflammation based so this is born out in my experience. But inflammation also leads to obesity, heart disease, and cancer.

Is this 'true'? Or will some people be more susceptible to grains impacts than others? We don't know. But I do urge people to give a solid 2 to 3 months without grains if they think they can do it. They can always go back.

But weight loss and reduction of hunger and less insulin spike (remember whole wheat bread is worse than regular soda) are all important to me. But the no back pain, allergies, less inflammation in my body, no mineral leeching, not ingesting anti-nutrients are equally or more important.

So many factors for me going grain free.

If anyone sees no improvement, just doesn't work for their lives, they can always go back. But anyone will never know how they do without trying it for a few months.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2