Sisson advises us to avoid processed foods, sugars, grains and chemically altered fats.

Experience? Testimony? Trials? Tribulations?

I know when I eat sugars, pastas, rice, cereals and such I can't lose weight...

I think most of us here are on board about the sugar and processed foods. Grains is tougher! It's an interesting concept, to be sure, to consider grains as nonfood. I have at least made wheat not a daily thing.

It's awfully hard to avoid the vegetable oils when eating out. I guess that's one more reason not to eat out a lot.

I don't always see a huge change with either eating low carb or Primal. But I haven't given it a good, solid 30-day trial either.

My poor family has listened to me rave about this book for a couple of weeks now. But they have given me a couple of things to think about.

My son (23) mused that perhaps we eat bulky grain carb items as filler. Unfortunately, these displace the nutritious vegetables we should be eating. Then not only are we short nutrients, the grains may indeed be preventing proper absorption of even those nutrients.
And, since the grain carbs spike and drop our blood sugar levels, we're hungry again soon and eat more ... filler ...

My daughter (26) talked about how doctors want you to change your eating habits when you're pregnant. Try to avoid all artificial sweeteners, processed foods, preservatives ... We would happily do this for our unborn children. How about ourselves????

I wish someone who could explain the glycemic index would come along to explain satiety value, fast carbs and slow carbs. I make a mosh of it any time I try.

It depends on what he is really calling poisonous as to whether I'd agree Does he call rice poisonous? What about things like quinoa which are grain like but really a seed? What about oatmeal?

glazed donut holes = poisonous (Just talking to myself here....)

I ordered the book so maybe I should not comment a lot until I read it, but why let ignorance stop me now? I think that there are multiple ways to look at grains, and one might consider the following factors:
1) Individual response to certain grains and other foods.
2) Moral attitudes toward foods.
3) Cultural attitudes toward foods (my friend thought I was totally insane to pass up bread. Bread is a central part of lots of cultures. Tortillas, naan, etc. Made with love and time, warm and fuzziness)
4) How processed the grains are....would I be too bold to say we all agree on this one?
5) What percentage of one's diet one wishes to use for grains.

My 7 yo son drew the food pyramid for a Cub Scout project. He very very carefully made sure the grain section was the biggest section, veggies second biggest, dairy larger than fruit, tiny for oils (that he spelled oles <too cute!>), and then meats/beans.

The USDA recommends a grain (and dairy!) heavy diet. Hmmmmmsssss.....

I watched a little of the Jamie Oliver goes to West Virginia show last night and he made chicken and rice for the kiddos. The lunch ladies made pizza. A man (the principal maybe?) got on to Oliver cause he only had one "bread" serving, so Oliver had to borrow some hamburger buns from the lunch ladies. He thought it was bogus to feed the kids rice and bread. The lunch ladies stated that the pizza counted as 2 bread servings. How many "bread servings" does a kid need at lunch anyway?

BTW, to illustrate the "grain" section, my son drew goldfish crackers (which, when his 10 year old sister saw them, she said "Fish are meat, you put them in the wrong section." And he clarified they are goldfish crackers.....yeah.....Not sure I get parent-of-the-year, but that is "grains" through the eyes of my 7 yo. I did review other grain sources with him. Ahem)

If I drew a food pyramid that reflected what I know works best for me, the sections for veggies, fruit, meat/beans, and "oils" would all be larger than what the Food Pyramid shows and the grain section would be smaller. A lot smaller. I say "oils" for fats, but I mean avocado, walnuts, olives, olive oil.

I know I'm rambling here (I really need to read the book), but one of the things I read on the website is something to the effect of (paraphrasing badly) "You don't need French bread unless you just finished lacing up your running shoes." Um....hello?? Some of us are runners, so does that mean his plan does not address runners' needs? I was confused about that.....not about the French bread part but about him maybe hinting that his general reader is not a runner. Will he gear some of his info for runners? Inquiring minds want to know...at any rate Amazon recommended a book called Primal Diet for Athletes (or some such) and I ordered that book too.

I can fuel my runs on sweet potatoes for now.

There's a graph called the carbohydrate curve. It differentiates between the amount of carbs needed for fat loss, maintenance and weight gain. But I think it's mainly speaking to blood sugar and insulin response.

There is a diagram of the Primal Food Pyramid.

I'm very interested in the notion of grains exacerbating inflammatory response. Celiac is so common and irritable bowel syndrome ... I don't find it much of a stretch to think about inflammations like arthritis.

I have to guard my typing fingers a bit because I may just like this book because it agrees with me. I don't do carbs very well. I do have arthritis. I am hypoglycemic.
Like many lifestyle books I've read, I've probably forgotten some of the nonsense and cling to the parts I like.

I do think people may need to avoid certain foods and emphasize others but I really don't like the idea of something being called poisonous if it really isn't.

Is a donut good for you? Absolutely not but is a piece of whole grain bread or oatmeal lumped into the same group as donuts?

Of course I am definitely not the audience for 'primal' eating as my diet is naturally going to be high carb because I don't eat a lot of fat and I don't eat animal products. My normal day to day carbs don't cause issues with my hypoglycemia or other small issues. On the other hand if I eat too much white bread (french bread), then I will bloat up and my stomach will hurt.

I guess it is just the thing of things being called poisonous which bothers me a bit and I'm wondering what is lumped into that

But Nelie ... if it wasn't sensational, who'd buy the book I, too, think it's probably a harsh word.


Oh I thought of something else. What do you all think of the notion that some foods actually inhibit the absorption of some nutrients?

Yeah, it's a little inflammatory.

ETA: No pun intended!

I think these discussions are going to be all over the place if a few brief sentences are all people know of the topic they're discussing. Primal is a whole 'nother outlook, one very different in many ways from what most people here are used to. And yes, they do consider grains, beans and too much fruit poisonous. I don't agree 100%, but I don't know that this is the place to debate whether Primal has any validity in the first place. I can understand considering "poisonous" to be inflammatory talk, but it's really a concept at the core of Primal.

Wouldn't work for me, and I think I'm going to pass on any book that labels "too much fruit" poisonous!

I had a lovely healthy dinner tonight with blue corn tortillas, black beans, avocado, tomato - since avocado and tomatoes are fruit, the meal was pretty much nothin' but poison. Yum.

I've been thinking about Glory87 lately. Hi! Thinking I should drag out my copy of SuperFoods Rx. I'd bet that many superfoods are on the primal lists too.

Yes, Julie ... that's why I strongly suggested folks read the book first.

I apologize, I figured it was a discussion about the concept of the 'law' Obviously 'Primal' is at the opposite spectrum of my eating so I won't butt in anymore

Hey Susan Here is the list!

Oats (poison)
Tomatoes (poison in excess)
Oranges (poison in excess)
Broccoli
Walnuts
Turkey
Salmon
Yogurt
Berries (poison in excess)
Pumpkin (poison in excess)
Beans (poison)
Tofu
Spinach
Tea