Diet

[fap1800]

I tried the grain free approach for a while not too long ago. I was eating a lot of eggs, meats, veggies, fruits, etc. In that time I had my blood work checked during my annual physical and my cholesterol was not in good shape. 214 overall...tri's were 150, good chl was 41 and bad chl was 143. The year prior my total cholesterol was around 150. Was it attributed to the primal approach? Who knows? I'm back to eating whole grains and I don't eat eggs nearly at the rate I was before. I'm going to schedule blood work later this summer to see if there's been a drop.

 

[robby denning]

Eagle,
you're right about Quinoa and I had forgotton that as it's so often referred to as a grain:

Quinoa ( /ˈkiːnwɑː/ or /kɨˈnoʊ.ə/, Spanish: quinua, from Quechua: kinwa), a species of goosefoot (Chenopodium), is a grain-like crop grown primarily for its edible seeds. It is a pseudocereal rather than a true cereal, or grain, as it is not a member of the grass family. As a chenopod, quinoa is closely related to species such as beets, spinach, and tumbleweeds.

After harvest, the grains need to be processed to remove the coating containing the bitter-tasting saponins. Quinoa grains are in general cooked the same way as rice and can be used in a wide range of dishes. - Wikipedia.

I've never heard the term "antinutrients" in the literature, so maybe you can expand on it as I'd really like to understand why corn is better than wheat.

When you say rice, I'm assuming you mean the entire rice as a whole grain, not just the endosperm?

Also, for those following this, wheat is only one of dozens and dozens of whole grains. Barley, Brown rice, Buckwheat, Corn, Oats, Millet, Bulgar, Wild Rice, are among the many others.

 

[robby denning]

fap1800,
interesting and is what I mean when I say I've been around the grain-free approach and isn't a cure-all as pitched so often. Who knows if that is why your blood work skyrocketed and would like to hear the numbers this summer.

As I cited in an earlier post, high fiber diets associated with whole grains have strong correlation with big decreases in heart disease and those numbers you posted would statistically put you at higher risk of heart disease.

I didn't mention these studies:
-Harvard, 65,000 women on high intakes of REFINED grains (white flour, white rice, white pasta) were 250% greater risk of diabetes vs those who ate WHOLE grains, beans, fruit, and vegetables.
-University of Toronto, adults with diabetes who increased whole grains had lower blood glucose levels (confronting the myth that whole grains causes diabetes we sometimes hear)
- University of Minnesota, whole grain consumption associated with lower BMI and lower fasting insulin levels
- Harvard found increase in whole grain intake inversely related to weight gain over 8 year period.

 

[robby denning]

DEW, haven't forgot about you. Thread got diverted a little and I'm out of time for the week on this.

I won't be able to get to the Lean Protein step today, but I will get to it. This is a very important step for some people (others, not so much,) so stay tuned.

Keep those calories down and keep a big spread between you and the processed junk in the meantime.

 

[quarbles]

anybody ever read gary taubes 'good calories bad calories'? just because it does happen to be chalk full of clinical studies and includes a 70 page bibliography which contains an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed articles. i'd suspect that if someone wanted to be as educated on the materials available as possible in order to make an informed decision, it would be a worthwhile read........

 

[Eagle]

Eagle,
you're right about Quinoa and I had forgotton that as it's so often referred to as a grain:

Quinoa ( /ˈkiːnwɑː/ or /kɨˈnoʊ.ə/, Spanish: quinua, from Quechua: kinwa), a species of goosefoot (Chenopodium), is a grain-like crop grown primarily for its edible seeds. It is a pseudocereal rather than a true cereal, or grain, as it is not a member of the grass family. As a chenopod, quinoa is closely related to species such as beets, spinach, and tumbleweeds.

After harvest, the grains need to be processed to remove the coating containing the bitter-tasting saponins. Quinoa grains are in general cooked the same way as rice and can be used in a wide range of dishes. - Wikipedia.

I've never heard the term "antinutrients" in the literature, so maybe you can expand on it as I'd really like to understand why corn is better than wheat.

When you say rice, I'm assuming you mean the entire rice as a whole grain, not just the endosperm?

Also, for those following this, wheat is only one of dozens and dozens of whole grains. Barley, Brown rice, Buckwheat, Corn, Oats, Millet, Bulgar, Wild Rice, are among the many others.

I was out of town for the last few days, so in reply.

Lectins and Phytates are found within grains. They bind themselves to minerals keeping you from absorbing them during digestion.

Whole.

Wheat is one of many whole grains, but it is by far the most modified and widely used.

 

[Eagle]

anybody ever read gary taubes 'good calories bad calories'? just because it does happen to be chalk full of clinical studies and includes a 70 page bibliography which contains an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed articles. i'd suspect that if someone wanted to be as educated on the materials available as possible in order to make an informed decision, it would be a worthwhile read........

Very good read, and pretty much kills robby argument.

 

[robby denning]

I've actually never heard of the Taubes book, but can surmise from the title that it's got some merit, AND if it has peer-reviewed articles, that is a good start compared to alot of claims from the gurus out there pushing books/products.

Give us an overview of his findings that "kill my argument".

 

[Eagle]

I've actually never heard of the Taubes book, but can surmise from the title that it's got some merit, AND if it has peer-reviewed articles, that is a good start compared to alot of claims from the gurus out there pushing books/products.

Give us an overview of his findings that "kill my argument".

Basically, what it comes down to according to his research is that calories in vs. calories out is a myth, just like the cholesterol con. So long as you eat whole foods, and stay away from the processed junk, worrying about the cals is pretty mute. Lots of great information, you really need to give it a read.

 

[quarbles]

its not even taubes research, per say. really, he just brings all the facts to the table in a rather information dense objectivity. its great. go to a book store and scope out the bibliography, i'm certain your interest will be piqued.....
as for findings that kill your argument, taubes wrote a 608 page book on it, to try and describe or reiterate it would be tedious and redundant, you really should just read it and then you could say, "why yes, actually, i have read taubes book....", regardless of whether it may or not impact you and your views. he doesn't avoid clinical studies that support the hypothesis of lowering fats (and especially sat fats) to lower cholesterol, however he does also explain that in said studies the group with lowered cholesterol still had a higher mortality rate from both heart disease and cancer (for some reason on alot of studies cholesterol was all that was discussed/ disclosed and not mortality). and in other studies higher cholesterol corelates with longer life expectancy. so theres plenty of info that support you in one regard, yet not in another. again, you really need to read it, especially now that you are aware of it...... i'm sure that if you value information (such as i do) you'd rather just get it from the source, anyways, as opposed to myself simply overviewing. overviews are highly overrated.....

 

[robby denning]

Thanks to both of you for updating us on the Taubes. I do appreciate it.

I'd like to clarify why I'm not up on the Taubes book and some of the others mentioned here (and on the Paleo thread.)

I've been in the weight management industry for over 20 years now and in that time countless "diets" have come and gone and will continue to do so. I learned and was taught early in my career that it is best to form opinions on the largest body of evidence available AND stay current on emerging research. I've done exactly that and can tell you it is the best approach, especially for someone making a living from this and who stands to affect thousands of people.

I couldn't possibly read every "diet" book that comes down the pipeline. There are over 100,000 either on the market or have been (really!).
That is why when people post about these, I just ask questions to get the theme of the new diet, then make a decision from there on whether it's worth looking into.

The "calories in/out" myth you've mentioned has been around for years and a few, very few, researchers present data to support this. Dr Atkins was one of those. He's now dead and his diet is dying too, yet the First Law of Thermodynamics we learned in 8th grade still stands: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. For those wanting to lose weight, this Law cannot be violated. I will stand by this until the largest body of evidence supports changing that view. The leading researchers right now are actually confirming the calories in/out as being truer than ever.

I won't read Taubes book (or the Paleo, or the Dukan, The Blood Type, or Zone, or etc, etc, etc) for the simple fact that if they are based on good research, then that research will become more widely accepted in the scientific community and will multiply itself amongst other researchers (that is the scientific method) and soon I'll be teaching that information, too. So far, in all these years, that pretty much hasn't happened on a wide scale. We have modified protein intakes, types of carbs (based on the glycemic index,) types of fat and a few other things over the years as the good research has proven the need, but calories are still king and will continue to be for many years.

Having said that, I did take about 2 hours the last several days to read the available data and opinion on grains and spoke with 3 experts in the nutrition field: 3 RDs, and one owner of a large health food store.

While interesting, it is still the same old thing I've been subject to for years: Eliminate a macronutrient and people lose weight. Once that happens, a variety of symptoms decrease and then the connection is made that the diet is effective and a cure all. This anti-grain approach is no different. It's the same old thing just repackaged (The "Eating for Your Blood Type" Diet in late 90's and this anti-grain approach is pretty much the same thing.) There are some truths to the arguments, but lots of logical fallacies, too. It's primarily the weight loss that improves the symptoms of many diseases, especially the metabolic diseases like Syndrome X, diabetes, etc.

I want to point out why these diets work temporarily? Humans eat about 50-60% carbs, 10-20% protein and about 30+% plus of fat. Find a way to decrease that largest macronutrient (carbs) and people will usually lose weight. So why not do them? There are risks associated with cancer and heart disease and sustainability of the weight loss and probably most importantly, most people get way bored eating that restrictive. I could go way into this, but will just stop there.

If eliminating grains is working for you, I won't talk you out of it. I've presented the data on why eliminating them is not good, for most people.

For those of you who want to read up on it, here are the links, some pro, some con. Eagle, I did familiarize myself with the term "anti-nutrient", but it may not be necessary as according to the third link down, that name may have to be changed.

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400758/Are-Phytates-Bad-or-Good.html

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...ural-Anti-Nutrients-and-Toxins-in-Plant-Foods

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n25_v133/ai_6818761/

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/fiber/index.html

http://www.jonbarron.org/weight-loss/paleo-diet-review-good-bad

As for me, there has been nothing presented in this thread that would change anything on what we teach.

I need to get this thread back on track.

 

[robby denning]

DEW,
let's get into STEP Five: Lean Protein
(For those of you wanting to get to the heart of this thread, read posts 10, 28, 40, 87)

This has been a hot topic for years and many of the fad diets are based on it's consumption. In short, protein, (the chewed variety, not liquid) is the most filling of the macronutrients. Eat alot of it and you don't have much appetite for carbs and calories typically go down and you lose weight. While that sounds great, there are risks associated with too much protein intake.

Numerous studies over the last 25 years have show and link between high-protien (above 35% of calories), high fat (above 35% of calories) and serious health problems. High levels of saturated fat and cholesterol are associated with heart disease (leading killer in US of men and women), stroke, cancer (colon, prostate, and breast cancer- the leading cancers in America).

In 1997, American Institute for Cancer Research issued a report from 15 leading researchers and 120 peer reviews from around the world based on 1,500 studies on diet and cancer (that is a mountain of research). The number one recommendation of the report was to choose a predominantly plante based diet (F&V, nuts, whole grains) with minimally processed starchy foods with low amounts of meat.

A 1993 Harvard study found that men who ate red meat 5 or more times a week had twice (100% increase) the risk of devloping aggressive prostate cancer as men who at red meat less than once a week.

A 1998 study in the Interantional Journal of Cancer show trends of increasing risk for red meat and processed meat (the highest risk) but decreasing risks for fish, vegetables and fruit.

The bottom line is the standard American diet, high in meat, and low in F&V is cancer promoting.

The data shows that for a 2000 calorie diet, limit meat intake to about 6 ounces per day (less if you require fewer calories, more if you require more, proportionally). Limit red meat intake to less than 20 ounces per week (for wild game that is low in fat, can take in more than 20 ounces but no solid data on how much more yet.).

OK, that's the scary stuff.

Now the good stuff.

Just because the fad diets use the protein trick (accentuates water losses and fills you up) doesn't mean protein is a bad thing- in fact I love it as a tool to help people lose weight, I just use it reasonably.

We can safely take protein intake to 35% of calories consumed according to agreement among the sceintific community (Institute of Medicine being one of them). There are 4 calories per gram in protien so 35% x 2000 calories (example) = 700 calories/4 calories per gram = 175 grams per day.

If you have a hard time keeping your calories down AND you're not eating processed grains/foods, then try taking your protein, FROM LEAN SOURCES, to the 175 per day. You'll have to count them to know and it's a lot of work like the calories, but if your'e using the apps suggested earlier it does make it easier.

You'll know it's working for you if you are fuller longer and you crave carbs less, which cuts calories and helps you drop weight.

Some things to note, you will probably exceed the 6 ounces per day so there is some risk, but if it is just a temporary increase that helps you lose weight (which also reduces risk) the trade off is probably ok. I say probably, because no one knows yet for sure, but we do know overweight above about 25 BMI is a risk too.

Moderation is a great bet in all of this, so just don't go crazy with protein intake. Be aware that fish is better BUT has it's own risks associated with mercury and other contaminants. A wide variety is the best.

If you've been tracking calories the last few weeks, this step won't be too hard as you should be used to looking things up BEFORE YOU EAT THEM.

I'll let you chew on this a few days then we'll start to wrap this whole thread up with some final thoughts.

Till next time.

 

[quarbles]

"I won't read Taubes"
i'm not sam-i-am, nor am i on some type of crusade, but i can't help but feel you're denying yourself a very good and educating read..... oh well.

i think you're missing the point, this isn't about weight loss, its about general health. you're still hung up in the word diet and viewing it in the verb sense rather than the noun definition. as for restrictive, i don't get that. unless you're into hedonism everything is restrictive to some degree, usually for a rewarding or beneficial reason. i've also seen the argument about what is "sustainable." i've been eating this way for going on 3 years, along with my wife and three children. my experience aside, from my point of view (based off of information available nowadays, such as the taubes book) a diet consisting of any grains isn't sustainable because it causes far too many health problems. i see grains as i see tabacco, might be hard to quit or 'sustain' without, might be worth it on an individual level, but problematic as far as health concerns go.
http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/living-with-phytic-acid is a much better source on phytic acid, both comprehensively and for reference. you should have used that one. i was going to drop a bunch o' links, but figured it would be another 'i won't read' situation.

anyhow, i'll leave it alone and let you get the discussion about diet "back on track."

 

[lorneparker1]

I need to get this thread back on track.

I agree!!

Thanks for everything so far sir!

Lorne

 

[Eagle]

"I won't read Taubes"
i'm not sam-i-am, nor am i on some type of crusade, but i can't help but feel you're denying yourself a very good and educating read..... oh well.

i think you're missing the point, this isn't about weight loss, its about general health. you're still hung up in the word diet and viewing it in the verb sense rather than the noun definition. as for restrictive, i don't get that. unless you're into hedonism everything is restrictive to some degree, usually for a rewarding or beneficial reason. i've also seen the argument about what is "sustainable." i've been eating this way for going on 3 years, along with my wife and three children. my experience aside, from my point of view (based off of information available nowadays, such as the taubes book) a diet consisting of any grains isn't sustainable because it causes far too many health problems. i see grains as i see tabacco, might be hard to quit or 'sustain' without, might be worth it on an individual level, but problematic as far as health concerns go.
http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/living-with-phytic-acid is a much better source on phytic acid, both comprehensively and for reference. you should have used that one. i was going to drop a bunch o' links, but figured it would be another 'i won't read' situation.

anyhow, i'll leave it alone and let you get the discussion about diet "back on track."

You took the words right out of my mouth, thank you.

Robby, heck, I'll send you my copy of Taubes book if that's what it will take, PM me your address and it'll be on its way. Your mindset is why the current system is failing, "I don't agree with it, there's nothing coming out in research papers about it, therefore, I won't read it." Whatever happened to having an open mind and being hungry for learning more.

You may have been doing this for 20 years, but the fact that you stated earlier that you yourself have struggled with your weight from time to time during that 20 years is very telling to me. If the "expert" struggles, imagine what the followers will do?

 

[robby denning]

Eagle,
what you fail to take into account is that everyone is different. Come work in weight management and you will see what I mean- tastes, habits, lifestyles (often chosen by our parents), metabolism, etc. We have to start with where people are are and try and move them to a better place, and I do that at least a few hundred times per year.

I mention my personal struggles to let people know I've been there. The worst trainers I've ever seen are those who project themselves on others- "I'm 8% body fat so you should be too" mentality, but trainers usually live eat breathe fitness while the rest of the world is just discovering how to change their bodies. You are what we call a "purist" in the fitness world and that is not a slam. Most people aren't purists.

And I've been succesful. I weighed 200 pounds 20 years ago (I'm only 5'9) and now maintain about 178-185 with healthy range of body fat, 12-16%. My dad, God bless him, is same height and weighs 260! I grew up eating just like he did so I'd say I've broken the cycle (And I enjoyed a bowl of Raisin Bran and two whole-wheat tortillas yesterday.) Wish I could be perfect, sigh........

I did read up as much as necessary. I took time to read up on the arguments you presented and don't see anything compelling. Like I said, I've heard and kept up on much of what has been presented by the opposition and there's really nothing new. Closed mind?

Have you read the 1000's of other books out there to make sure you don't have a closed mind?

 

[Doj4Whlr]

I've enjoyed this thread and have shared the information posted with non-Rokslide enlightened friends. I will say, though, that I would like to see Eagle and quarbles start their own thread; I find the continuing input to simply be distracting.

 

[a3dhunter]

IMO it would better serve this thread to have the argument posts about Taubes deleted allowing this thread to be kept on track.

If the other posters would care to post their own thread that would be great.

 

[quarbles]

" I took time to read up on the arguments you presented and don't see anything compelling"
where did you look? peer reviewed articles that suggest grains are poor for health, or information that confirms/ agrees with what you already believe? information from persons that are objective and not trying to sell their own line of products? as for reading, i read quite a bit. i enjoy reading arguments that challenge me, i think its crucial for development. i made an assumption into thinking an individual interested or working in the field of health may be curious about other arguments out there, especially if they provide sound science. hence the taubes plug.
as for distracting, i apologize. i'm simply on a forum posting on a thread titled 'diet'. sorry if i was out of line. i got drawn into a conversation or discussion were i wasn't welcome. as for starting my own thread, there was a thread about the PALEO diet (although i didn't start it). it got distracted by some dissuading posts that didn't even have a good understanding (misconceptions and the like) of what 'it' was.

 

[robby denning]

quarbles,
I posted the links in post 151 of what I read up on. Wasn't just stuff I already agreed with as you tried to say. I've given the anti-grainers a week to post their data and thoughts and I'm not compelled.

I was invited onto the Paleo thread by the original poster.