Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I wish Mark (or someone else) writes a response to this...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    There's literally no point to eliminate something if it's not a problem. None whatsoever.
    The problem is, it's not always easy to tell it is a problem. For my entire life, I was told that the reason I ran out of breath so quickly while running was because I didn't exercise enough and if I only exercised more then I would be able to run easier. So I ran. A lot. Through pain so bad that I was effectively deaf while running. It didn't help. I decided to try primal due to unrelated things. My first couple of weeks trying primal, the only thing I cut out completely was wheat. I was running pain free after the first week and that was not an expected result.

    It never tripped on anyone that it was a food issue because I was 'normal', just 'out of shape'. How many other people could be having similar problems? You only seem to suggest an elimination test if someone thinks they might have a problem. I didn't think I had a problem and no one around me did either.
    Primal Journal

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
      Why don't people apply the same logic to dairy? The consensus is that if you tolerate it, it's fine, eat as much as you want. But if you tolerate grains fine it doesn't matter, they're still killing you slowly. Neither are essential and can be problematic for certain people but that doesn't mean everyone should avoid them.
      For me it's the idea that wheat is causing perforations in my intestine. My wife has leaky gut and the more we read about wheat, the more it seemed like it should go on the banned substances list.

      It's not the wheat itself as a food. It's how I think it is damaging my body.
      Last edited by magicmerl; 06-24-2013, 06:24 PM.
      Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

      Griff's cholesterol primer
      5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
      Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
      TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
      bloodorchid is always right

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
        Have you read the actual studies?

        I've read a few and ALL of them have shown that 'healthy whole grains' are good when compared to refined white flour. Whole grains are good because they stop you wating whtie bread. That's EXACTLY the same as saying that filtered cigarettes protect you from lung cancer because they are better for you than unfiltered cigarettes.
        I posted a study earlier about grains containing more betaine than all of the other foods that were measured in the study (including vegetables), and betaine has shown to have liver, kidney, and heart protecting effects.

        Also, I agree with you that the studies are poorly done. But you can't deny that there are plenty of poorly done studies on the other side as well. The fact is that there is no conclusive evidence for either side (not even close).

        Here's a few that I've read:

        Dietary fibre, whole grains, and risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies (Meta-analysis showing that cereal grains and whole grains can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (not heart disease, but still worth looking at)
        Cereal grains and legumes in the prevention ... [Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI (Showing coronary heart disease and stroke prevention benefits)(Full-text:European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Cereal grains and legumes in the prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke: a review of the literature)
        Greater whole-grain intake is associated with lower r... [J Nutr. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI (Showing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes prevention benefits) (Don't have the full text for this one, just saw it in a presentation given by Alan Aragon who I'm sure you're familiar with.)

        I have a few more, but I don't want this to be too long. The fact is, there is going to be problems with every study. I would like for you to post the studies that you're referring to as well, as I'm always looking to learn.

        I agree with what you're saying, I haven't been convinced either, we're just in different camps as far as what we do believe.

        Getting off topic here, but if satiation is the goal, then isn't low(er) carb the best way to do that? Since it's carbs that evade your satiation mechanisms..... (p.s. I am NOT a low carb advocate)
        If you read the post I was responding to, you would realize that I'm not getting off topic. Anyways, I have heard of the claims that carbs shut off your "I'm full" receptors in the brain, but to be honest, I'm not convinced. I've usually found that if protein is kept high enough, and the sugary carbs are kept to a minimum, satiation isn't an issue. But, like everything, it's different depending on the individual.
        My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Quies View Post
          The problem is, it's not always easy to tell it is a problem. For my entire life, I was told that the reason I ran out of breath so quickly while running was because I didn't exercise enough and if I only exercised more then I would be able to run easier. So I ran. A lot. Through pain so bad that I was effectively deaf while running. It didn't help. I decided to try primal due to unrelated things. My first couple of weeks trying primal, the only thing I cut out completely was wheat. I was running pain free after the first week and that was not an expected result.

          It never tripped on anyone that it was a food issue because I was 'normal', just 'out of shape'. How many other people could be having similar problems? You only seem to suggest an elimination test if someone thinks they might have a problem. I didn't think I had a problem and no one around me did either.
          As I've said, it's different for everyone. That's always going to be the answer. Some people will continue to eat grains, feel fine, and never have any problems. Some people don't know they have a problem, and some may never know unless they find out the way you did; that's just the reality of the situation.

          I don't disagree with what you're saying, and there's no answer other than everyone is different.
          My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
            Also, I agree with you that the studies are poorly done. But you can't deny that there are plenty of poorly done studies on the other side as well. The fact is that there is no conclusive evidence for either side (not even close).

            Here's a few that I've read:
            <snip>
            I have a few more, but I don't want this to be too long. The fact is, there is going to be problems with every study. I would like for you to post the studies that you're referring to as well, as I'm always looking to learn.

            I agree with what you're saying, I haven't been convinced either, we're just in different camps as far as what we do believe.
            Thanks for those (p.s. several of those links are duplicates). I'm currently in a place where I basically discount most if not all epidemeological studies (where people fill in questionaires and then the researchers massage the data to find correlations, then present them as causations). I don't think that those types of studies are very good at showing much of anything, other than confirming that people who care about their health are more likely to both be more healthy AND give the 'right' answers to questionaires.

            Tight junctions, intestinal permeability, a... [Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
            Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability:... [Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
            The widening spectrum of celiac disease
            Gluten-free diet reduces adiposity, inflammat... [J Nutr Biochem. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI





            Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
            If you read the post I was responding to, you would realize that I'm not getting off topic. Anyways, I have heard of the claims that carbs shut off your "I'm full" receptors in the brain, but to be honest, I'm not convinced. I've usually found that if protein is kept high enough, and the sugary carbs are kept to a minimum, satiation isn't an issue. But, like everything, it's different depending on the individual.
            I wasn't trying to get at you. I was just saying that I thought that *I* might be derailing the thread by chasing rabbits down holes.
            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

            Griff's cholesterol primer
            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
            bloodorchid is always right

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
              I posted a study earlier about grains containing more betaine than all of the other foods that were measured in the study (including vegetables), and betaine has shown to have liver, kidney, and heart protecting effects.
              Quick comment. Trimethylglycine is a metabolite of choline, which to my knowledge is found in greatest amounts in liver. That's a weak argument in support of grains.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                Thanks for those (p.s. several of those links are duplicates). I'm currently in a place where I basically discount most if not all epidemeological studies (where people fill in questionaires and then the researchers massage the data to find correlations, then present them as causations). I don't think that those types of studies are very good at showing much of anything, other than confirming that people who care about their health are more likely to both be more healthy AND give the 'right' answers to questionaires.

                Tight junctions, intestinal permeability, a... [Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
                Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability:... [Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
                The widening spectrum of celiac disease
                Gluten-free diet reduces adiposity, inflammat... [J Nutr Biochem. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
                Wow, I really need to pay more attention, sorry. Agreed about questionaires being unreliable.

                Will have a look at these studies in a bit, thanks for sharing them.

                I wasn't trying to get at you. I was just saying that I thought that *I* might be derailing the thread by chasing rabbits down holes.
                Oh my bad . I guess I'm really bad at reading emotions over the internet haha.
                My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                  I feel fine, my bloodwork is fine, and I know plenty of others who are the same. I'm not going to live my life restricting food that I enjoy just because there's a slight possibility that it could maybe, possibly cause some inflammation in the future. I'm sorry, but as things are going, I'm doing just fine, and I will continue to enjoy eating what I enjoy eating without regret.

                  I guess I'm weird, but that's my approach.
                  How old are you?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    I actually have this study bookmarked, I think Robb Wolf referenced it at one point and I bookmarked it for further reading, which I never got around to apparently. This is definitely interesting stuff. The study does seem to suggest that this is more relevant in those who are genetically predisposed to have gluten intolerance and those who have full-blown celiac, although I could be misinterpreting it.

                    Definitely interesting stuff though, and I will print it out and read it more carefully soon.
                    "Conversely, biopsies from non-celiac patients demonstrated a limited, transient zonulin release which was paralleled by an increase in intestinal permeability that never reached the level of permeability seen in celiac disease (CD) tissues." Again, showing that gut permeability is more prevalent in those with CD, no arguing against that.
                    Definitely a great piece getting into a lot of the little know details of CD. I think that the main problem with diagnosing CD is the difficulty of narrowing down the symptoms that are indicative of CD, and not caused by other aspects of genetic makeup/environmental issues. Time will tell I guess.

                    Would love to see the full text of this one.

                    I'm not surprised that there are improvements with a gluten free diet (of course, I would like to see a study with humans, but I imagine the results would be similar, as most diets are an improvement from the standard American diet). However, does this show that gluten caused the fat gain and insulin resistance in the first place? No, as this could be caused by many factors including lack of activity, overeating, genetic predisposition, etc. etc.

                    Thanks for sharing these studies, I will definitely look into them in more detail later on, as they are certainly very interesting and it's always good explore both sides of the argument.
                    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                    Comment


                    • Well my completely jaded opinion of how research gets funded and printed predicts that since "gluten free" has now proven to be a profitable market you will see a lot more studies done in this area over the next several years.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                        Well my completely jaded opinion of how research gets funded and printed predicts that since "gluten free" has now proven to be a profitable market you will see a lot more studies done in this area over the next several years.
                        You're probably right.
                        My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                        Comment


                        • Errrm if you want to eat grains then eat them?!

                          Many people feel better after eradicating grains, and often they never even felt all that bad in the first place. Do they care what this or that scientific study say? Probably not.

                          Instead of debating the rights and wrongs of the issue, just try cutting out all grains for 30 days and see what happens. You'll either feel better or you won't. If you feel better on grains or they don't seem to affect you negatively then eat them!

                          I honestly never though grains affected me badly, but I was struggling with my weight and sometimes low energy. When I stopped grains I lost some weight and felt less tired. When I slackened off and ate grains I again became more lethargic and found the weight creeping back a bit. I also find that my moods are worse when I eat grains than when I don't.

                          As it is I couldn't care less who "proves" that grains are good for you. My own experience is enough for me, and really that's all that should matter to anyone. Do what works for YOU whether that's paleo or primal or CW full of healthy whole grains and canola oil...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
                            Why don't people apply the same logic to dairy? The consensus is that if you tolerate it, it's fine, eat as much as you want. But if you tolerate grains fine it doesn't matter, they're still killing you slowly. Neither are essential and can be problematic for certain people but that doesn't mean everyone should avoid them.
                            Could that be because if you don't show any negative effects after eliminating and then reintroducing dairy, it's unlikely that you are lactase deficient? If so, if lactose intolerance (and the associated symptoms) is the issue with eating dairy, the development of other issues caused by ongoing intake of dairy (ie. Not related to lactase deficiency/lactose intolerance or allergy) is unlikely?

                            Whereas, with gluten, if the continued consumption may actually increase the liklihood of issues developing where none were originally apparent when testing using elimination and reintroduction, why would you continue to eat it?

                            The risks of the gluten protein causing multiple issues (if the following claims are correct, which I'm tending to think they are though I don't have references to hand. So for now I'll say "if"...) e.g. increasing damage to the gut lining as time goes on, causing gut disbosis, intestinal permeability, links to autoimmune diseases, etc. Far out weighs any benefit of eating it, at least as far as I'm concerned.
                            If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.

                            Originally posted by tfarny
                            If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Misabi View Post
                              Could that be because if you don't show any negative effects after eliminating and then reintroducing dairy, it's unlikely that you are lactase deficient? If so, if lactose intolerance (and the associated symptoms) is the issue with eating dairy, the development of other issues caused by ongoing intake of dairy (ie. Not related to lactase deficiency/lactose intolerance or allergy) is unlikely?

                              Whereas, with gluten, if the continued consumption may actually increase the liklihood of issues developing where none were originally apparent when testing using elimination and reintroduction, why would you continue to eat it?

                              The risks of the gluten protein causing multiple issues (if the following claims are correct, which I'm tending to think they are though I don't have references to hand. So for now I'll say "if"...) e.g. increasing damage to the gut lining as time goes on, causing gut disbosis, intestinal permeability, links to autoimmune diseases, etc. Far out weighs any benefit of eating it, at least as far as I'm concerned.
                              Because there's more to dairy then lactose.
                              I and many people have had many benefits from removing all dairy, but have no problems digesting lactose.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
                                Because there's more to dairy then lactose.
                                I and many people have had many benefits from removing all dairy, but have no problems digesting lactose.
                                Not being argumentative, just trying to clarify. Are you saying that you were experiencing issues as a result of dairy which improved after giving it up? If not, please explain what you mean by "benefits".

                                If youwere having issues, do youknow what the cause was? Casein or something else?

                                If you've removed dairy and noticed a benefit? That's cool. Reintroduced it and seen negative effects so decided to leave it out? Also cool.

                                Or are you saying that even if someone doesn't see any benefits or notice negative effects after elimination and reintroducing dairy, they still should avoid it because the continued ingestion of it can cause issues down the track?

                                Sorry if any of that doesn't make sense, it's late and I'm starting to ramble :-)
                                Last edited by Misabi; 06-26-2013, 03:57 AM.
                                If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.

                                Originally posted by tfarny
                                If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X