Diet

[robby denning]

Eagle,
And I'll respectfully disagree with you as does much of the research on grains on healthy people.

Since you're mentioning personal experience, then so will I although personal experience tends to be based on very small sample sizes.

I've witnessed people go grain free, and it helps a few, but very few. My wife has RA and went grain free. Didn't work for her.

I will conceed that some of the auto-immune diseases in some people respond to the treatment you described.

Finally, I don't believe in macro evolution (changing from species to species) but do believe in micro evolution (species changing over time), so my mention of the 6,000 years of recorded human history is based on that. But hey, that's another argument for another day.

 

[Eagle]

Eagle,
And I'll respectfully disagree with you as does much of the research on grains on healthy people.

Since you're mentioning personal experience, then so will I although personal experience tends to be based on very small sample sizes.

I've witnessed people go grain free, and it helps a few, but very few. My wife has RA and went grain free. Didn't work for her.

I will conceed that some of the auto-immune diseases in some people respond to the treatment you described.

Finally, I don't believe in macro evolution (changing from species to species) but do believe in micro evolution (species changing over time), so my mention of the 6,000 years of recorded human history is based on that. But hey, that's another argument for another day.

If you feel like relying on government backed studies that have a huge influence from the department of agriculture (USDA) then yeah, sure, I bet those studies do show that grains are super. Me personally, I trust my resluts, and the results of the many clients/friends that I have turned onto a grain free way of life, over what the government tells me; mainly because, you know, the government is just SO trustworty when it comes to the well being of the population.

 

[robby denning]

Cindy,
Great question and something I had not mentioned yet as I knew it would come up.

Eagle is right in the salt/bbq sauce but there is more to it than that.

Whenever we go into calorie deficit, we use stored energy in the body to fuel our metabolism (burned mostly in organs) and our activities of daily living & exercise.

One of those stored energy sources is glycogen, a form of stored carbohydrate. It is stored in our muscles and liver. Each gram o f the stored glycogen is complexes with 3 to 4 grams of water (Stubbs RJ. Carboyhydrates and Energy Balance, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1997; 819:44-69 among others).

Because of this relationship between water and glycogen, when you start to use glycogen for energy, you lose that water as the glycogen is broken down into glucose for blood sugar. Much of the initial weight loss in any diet is water. That is not a bad thing, but is reality. Within a few weeks, you typically replenish glycogen stores and the water comes back, and that isn't a bad thing either. Keep in mind, fat is being lost at the same rate as long as you are in calorie deficit.

That's why I've coached graphing weekly weigh-ins so people can understand what is going on over the long term. Weight loss over time graphed weekly will usually look like a stair case, not a ski slope as people would like. Those steps on the stairs are "paying back the scale" water you lost due to glycogen stores. Totally normal.

Now for the funny part, this water trick is what many of the high-protein and anti-grain diet and anti-fruit (the low-carbers) gurus use to get people "hooked" on the book, foods, supplements or whatever is being pitched with the program (Kreitzman SN, et al. Glycogen storage: Illusions of easy weight loss, excessive weight regain, and distortions in estimates of body composition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1992; 56:292S-3s).

Anyway, you're doing great and don't worry about this water gain/loss. If you're behaviors are consitent, you're fat loss will still be consistent but a scale can't tell you that, only body fat assesment or even a good pair of tight jeans getting looser That is why I coach the weekly weigh-ins and not daily weigh-ins so people can see the trend over time. Monday weigh-ins are good becuase they show people the damage they are doing on the weekends. Most people weigh the least on Friday, which only causes them to relax their good behaviours on the weekend.

If you graph out weight loss over time, it will look like a stair case, not a ski slope, as you will naturally gain and lose water. The steps on the stair case are usually those water gains unless you just blew your calories so far out.

The great thing is you are "planning" before attending foody events-and there are so many foody events in our American culture- which is part of the sustainable behaviours I've been coaching. The "diet" mentality would have you either not go to foody events (how long could you keep that up?) or just forget about what happened and start over Monday. Neither is an approach that will work long term.

How are you feeling now that you're losing?

 

[robby denning]

Eagle, the Nurses Health Study is conducted by Harvard University and the Finnish government isn't writing our USDA guidelines.

I'm not relying just on "government" studies but peer-reviewed clinical studies, some of which are private studies and some of which are government. When the research starts to agree by different researchers (the heart of the Scientific Method), then we're usually on to something trustworthy.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying your friends and you can't be healthy eating the way you are, but for most people whole grains are fine and eating them is a much more sustainable behavior than not eating them.

Oh yea, and I love tubers, too, eat them all the time as part of my F&V intake mentioned earlier. Tasty and healthy!

FYI, there's a whole new movement now to eliminate them from the diet as they aren't "healthy" either, according to some gurus..

 

[Eagle]

Eagle, the Nurses Health Study is conducted by Harvard University and the Finnish government isn't writing our USDA guidelines.

I'm not relying just on "government" studies but peer-reviewed clinical studies, some of which are private studies and some of which are government. When the research starts to agree by different researchers (the heart of the Scientific Method), then we're usually on to something trustworthy.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying your friends and you can't be healthy eating the way you are, but for most people whole grains are fine and eating them is a much more sustainable behavior than not eating them.

I know what you are trying to say, but I completely disagree with it. Grains, whether whole or refined, are NOT food and are NOT fine for the general population. There are studies currently being conducted that I feel will totally change the way the general public views diet, I just hope that the government doesn't intervene before it can all be made public. Metabolic wards are being used to show that the calories in/calories out hypothesis isn't entirely accurate, but who knows when the information will become mainstream.

Go out and eat those grains in their raw state and see how you feel later on. They are POISONOUS in their raw form as a general rule, and you'll feel awful as a result. I adhere to a diet that contains only foods that I could eat in their raw form and not be harmed. That excludes legumes and grains, which can not be eaten raw. Fruits, Nuts, Seeds, Meat and Veggies do fall into those categories, and if you can't get what you need from them, then you likley just can't be helped.

The addiction to bread/grains is an unusually strong one, and one that holds a sacred place in a lot of the publics minds. Once it's gone though, it's an easy ride. I've been eating this way for two years now, and there is no going back once you've experienced what life without grains can be.

 

[BuckSnort]

"I've been eating this way for two years now, and there is no going back once you've experienced what life without grains can be. "

Please explain? ... How is your life better than a person who eats grains and is also fit and in shape?

 

[Aron Snyder]

http://nourishedkitchen.com/against-the-grain-10-reasons-to-give-up-grains/

I agree with Eagle and have noticed multiple differences since going grain and gluten free.

1) Better regularity
2)No more stomach issue
3)Less congestion
4)Never feel bloated anymore
5)Joint health has improved
6)Weight loss

3 years ago I would have agreed with Robby, but I would now argue till my last breath with him. If you haven't tried going without grains or gluten, than you can't really say that it's bad. The only reason I say that is because how defensive I would get when someone told me grains were bad, but I would have never known what a difference dropping them from my diet could be until I actually did just that.

The link I posted explains things better than I ever could.
My 2 cents

 

[robby denning]

Eagle,
I really appreciate you're coming on here to debate and I respect your opinion.

I would like to add for the sake of all those following this thread that what Eagle is saying is not just his opinion- there are many that subscribe to that way of thinking and I don't have any problem listening to their side.

What he is saying about governements burying research, calorie in/calorie out (1st law of Thermodynamics) not being true, and grains being poison, is nothing new in my field- we've been listening to it for years. I welcome his presentation of it as that is how we learn and the need for research continues.

Eagle, when that research you mention becomes widely accepted among the scientific communities, please post it up! In the mean time, we'd like to hear about your progress and friends progress, too.

However, I will say that what I'm presenting in this entire thread is "the best evidence" approach to eating right and based on much of what the scientific communities agrees upon. I won't deny there are other ways to skin a cat, but until I see lots of research done by lots of different researchers (private, government, etc), that disproves what we've learned the last 100 years, then I'll go with what most of the evidence is pointing to:
1) You must limit your calories to what you require or less
2) Get enough water
3) Get plenty of F&V
4) Get your fat mostly from healthy sources (non-animal based)
5) Get your grains from Whole sources (not refined!)
6) Lean proteins (which I'll cover in next few days.)

Everything else, to me and many in this field, is a fringe issue.

 

[robby denning]

PS,
I would also add to the "30 day challengers" that when people (some are on this thread) follow what I'm presenting, they also feel great after 30 days!

 

[Eagle]

Aron pretty much nailed it on the head as to the changes I've experienced.

Last thing I'll say on this. If the general public would simply eliminate all foods containing any type or derivative of wheat, any type or derivative of seed oils (vegetable oil, canola oil, soybean oil, peanut oil, ect.) and any type of refined sugar (hfcs, white sugar, ect.) they would be amazed at the difference in their health.

 

[robby denning]

When I clicked on the link Aron, I made it a few sentences and noticed that lamb liver is healthier than grains!
I also notice there isn't a bibliography (maybe I missed it) on where the information is coming from. Red flag to someone in my field.

My 2 cents, too.

 

[robby denning]

Also, when you got off grains, were you getting off refined grains or whole grains? Loaded question as few people are eating whole grains, but curious.

Just want to make sure my argument for eating whole grains doesn't get lumped in with my argument AGAINST eating refined grains.

 

[robby denning]

So Eagle, on your recommendation in post 130, after we eliminate all that (some of which I agree with), we're down to meat and veggies and nuts, right?

 

[DMAX-HD]

Interesting thread. Sounds familiar to me.

 

[les welch]

Interesting thread. Sounds familiar to me.

LOL-Nice to see you hear D, haven't been on AT for awhile. Chime in if you feel like it.....know you been down these roads...

 

[Eagle]

So Eagle, on your recommendation in post 130, after we eliminate all that (some of which I agree with), we're down to meat and veggies and nuts, right?

Nope. It's actually much less restrictive. You're still allowed rice, corn, legumes, quinoa or anything else that isn't wheat or wheat like. Just allowing rice, corn, and beans is enough for a lot of folks to be able to make it work. Essentially, you get rid of bread and pasta, vegetable oils and refined sugars, and you're on the road to success.

 

[Cindy Wamsley]

Robby,

I feel great physically and mentally. I agree whole heartedly with you that whole grains are good for you. I've been down the 30 day challenge road, eating paleo, eating clean and crossfitting religiously. I hated every minute of the 30 day challenge and the paleo. That for me personally and as a mother was not a sustainable lifestyle. Did I lose weight? Yes, but it was miserable the whole time, the weight all came back and I didn't develop a habit for a sustainable lifestyle. I've already lost more in 1 week following Robby's guidelines than I did in a whole month with Paleo and I never cheated for 30 days as they say in the Paleo world. Did I feel better? Yes, but I wasn't eating whole grains before the 30 day paleo challenge, it was the refined junk. Anybody eliminating that from their diet is going to feel better.

I didn't evolve I was created by God and God placed every needful thing for the benefit of all his children on the earth including whole grains and deer and elk meat!

Thanks for the answer Robby.

 

[Eagle]

Also, when you got off grains, were you getting off refined grains or whole grains? Loaded question as few people are eating whole grains, but curious.

Just want to make sure my argument for eating whole grains doesn't get lumped in with my argument AGAINST eating refined grains.

I had been strictly whole grain for a long, long time (all my mom would buy growing up and I got to where I actually preferred it over none whole grain items). So no, you aren't getting lumped in, they're all terrible in my opinion.

 

[robby denning]

Interesting, as corn and quinoa (super grain of S. America) are both grains. So what is the difference between wheat and these grains?

 

[Eagle]

Interesting, as corn and quinoa (super grain of S. America) are both grains. So what is the difference between wheat and these grains?

Quinoa is actually a seed, not a grain, common misconception there.

Corn is a grain, but with much less negative effects when compared to wheat or other wheat like grains. The antinutrients within corn are not nearly as disruptive to the immune system as those found in other grains. They can still be problematic for some, but a lot less of the population has an aversion to corn. Same with rice.