Most Controversial Diets

[ILT]

For many people, diet is not their cup of tea. But do you know some poeple with these problems? What is a controversy for us? Let me concentrate my focus on the gluten-free diet (http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/controversy-gluten-free-diet.html). Its followers have decided to exclude gluten from their menus, which is a protein found in most cereals, such as wheat, barley, and rye. One of the the most negative effects that could be caused by the diet include problems connected to lower intake of fibre, iron, zinc, calcium, and some other minerals. A risk of anemia exists, but difficulties are mostly experienced by patients with celiac disease rather than voluntary dieters. If you have somebody with similar problems that share info for him.

[ippon]

gluten free diet is considered 'controversial'???
some folks seem to be allergic to gluten, so that's the big reason why people avoid wheat. i'm not too convinced if that many people really are allergic to gluten. pretty much EVERY SINGLE PERSON i know who have seen a naturopath as been 'diagnosed' to have gluten allergy, but don't know too much about the condition.

[ronin1701]

Sounds like a sub-set of a paleo diet.

My brother-in-law follows that. He also claims to have a gluten intolerance (I don't know if that preceded going onto the paleo, or if it developed afterwards) but not celiac disease.

Anyways, it seems to have worked for him, he's lost a lot of weight, has more energy and looks healthy.

But it's not for everyone, obviously.

Personally, I like bread and cereal and especially Chinese Buddhist gluten meat substitutes too much to give it up. And before ippon jumps all over me for that one, I love meat as much as the next guy, probably even more - I just eat the gluten stuff once in a while for variety and because I like the way it tastes, as well as the slightly chewy texture.

[ippon]

Sounds like a sub-set of a paleo diet.

My brother-in-law follows that. He also claims to have a gluten intolerance (I don't know if that preceded going onto the paleo, or if it developed afterwards) but not celiac disease.

Anyways, it seems to have worked for him, he's lost a lot of weight, has more energy and looks healthy.

But it's not for everyone, obviously.

Personally, I like bread and cereal and especially Chinese Buddhist gluten meat substitutes too much to give it up. And before ippon jumps all over me for that one (I know he wants to), I love meat as much as the next guy, probably even more - I just eat the gluten stuff once in a while for variety and because I like the way it tastes, as well as the slightly chewy texture.

why would i do that?

[ronin1701]

why would i do that?

I think we've already had two previous run-ins on food topics, one being Orange Juice and the other one being Free Range Chicken.

And I've seen the way you were all over another poster regarding her Veganism.

Actually liking gluten mock-meat is sufficiently off-the-wall for you to come after me about it, which is why I pre-empted it with my caveat, rather than having you think I ate it in preference to meat.

[ippon]

I think we've already had two previous run-ins on food topics, one being Orange Juice and the other one being Free Range Chicken.

And I've seen the way you were all over another poster regarding her Veganism.

Actually liking gluten mock-meat is sufficiently off-the-wall for you to come after me about it, which is why I pre-empted it with my caveat, rather than having you think I ate it in preference to meat.

lol. you have some problems that require professional help.

[ronin1701]

lol. you have some problems that require professional help.

Think what you like. But looks like my pre-empt worked.

This reminds me of the adage: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't really out to get you :lol:

[toisanwu]

Lots of diets come and go. It could be marketed as the best thing since sliced bread (:razz:), then unforeseen problems start to creep up many years later. All of those diets have their own theories to back them up, but most of them only look at things singularly.

Perhaps people here should pick up a thing or two from Asian philosophies (heck, even our Native Indians practice that): treat our body as a whole, not just some specific organs happen to be stitched together.

Also, whether it's dairy, meat, gluten, veggies, fish, etc, we should consume moderate amount, so long we are not allergic to them. Moderation is the key.

[ippon]

Lots of diets come and go. It could be marketed as the best thing since sliced bread (:razz:), then unforeseen problems start to creep up many years later. All of those diets have their own theories to back them up, but most of them only look at things singularly.

Perhaps people here should pick up a thing or two from Asian philosophies (heck, even our Native Indians practice that): treat our body as a whole, not just some specific organs happen to be stitched together.

Also, whether it's dairy, meat, gluten, veggies, fish, etc, we should consume moderate amount, so long we are not allergic to them. Moderation is the key.

i agree with you for the most part about moderation, except veggies. i think there's good evidence that more vegetable consumed is good for our health. but i think people interpret to the extreme and say that we should ONLY consume vegetables. and i tend to think that the asian 'wholistic' approach is overated. 'western' science has advocated the balanced diet of sort for a long time.

[Sibica]

Think what you like. But looks like my pre-empt worked.

This reminds me of the adage: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't really out to get you :lol:

Ippon is a major baby.... time to get out the box of Kleenex.

[Sibica]

For many people, diet is not their cup of tea. But do you know some poeple with these problems? What is a controversy for us? Let me concentrate my focus on the gluten-free diet (http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/controversy-gluten-free-diet.html). Its followers have decided to exclude gluten from their menus, which is a protein found in most cereals, such as wheat, barley, and rye. One of the the most negative effects that could be caused by the diet include problems connected to lower intake of fibre, iron, zinc, calcium, and some other minerals. A risk of anemia exists, but difficulties are mostly experienced by patients with celiac disease rather than voluntary dieters. If you have somebody with similar problems that share info for him.

Not sure I follow here but are you saying that people cutting out gluten can somehow be deficient in vitamins or minerals? If so - LMFAO. You obviously have no training in physiology. There is NO, read that, NO human need for any carbohydrates. Zero. Have you ever heard of an essential carbohydrate? I haven't. But I have heard of essential fatty acids and amino acids. Anemia? Really? Any idea what a major source if iron and B12 is? Hint - it isn't grains.

For the record, and I hope I don't ever have to explain this again, no one needs any grains. Do some basic research and you will learn a bit about lectins and anti-nutrients. These are compounds that plants have evolved with to protect themselves from predatory behaviour. This is relatively new science but suffice it to say, that these anti-nutrients bind the vitamins and minerals in plants preventing their bio-availability to humans. In short, they do not provide the nutrients you were led to believe. Because a given grain contains say iron, B vitamins, etc. does not mean you absorb all of them. In fact, you absorb very few and if eaten enough, you run the risk of losing more of your own vitamins and minerals. There is a reason we can't eat raw beans, peanuts, or potatoes. They are toxic.

Humans are at the top of the food chain because we eat the animals that eat the plants we can't eat. They have evolved the stomachs and enzymes to digest all the plant matter, absorb the nutrients, and when we eat them, we have the most bio-available source of said vitamins and minerals. Fibre is a none issue as there is no health benefit to greater fibre intake.

Lastly, with respect to gluten, I would venture the opinion that everyone is intolerant to gluten to some degree. The unfortunate souls who have celiac are only extremely sensitive which is why they were able to feel the effects of gluten. Humans have been eating grains (with gluten) for only 10,000 years AT BEST (Middle Easterners about 10K years, Anglo-Saxons roughly 3000 years ago). And that is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of years that we have been here. Grains are a new phenomena and we simply have not evolved and adapted to consume them. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution (10K yrs ago) that we grew them to eat them, and wouldn't you know, side effects were immediate. Our bone mass decreased, along with our height. BTW, wheat is dramatically different from what it was 50 years ago, let alone 2000 yrs ago. The bread of the bible is not the bread we eat today. And the bread your grandparents ate is not the bread we have today.

Stop spreading garbage info.

[ippon]

Ippon is a major baby.... time to get out the box of Kleenex.

lol, yet another rfd member with psychotic tendencies.
why don't you go back to the fitness forum and spread more of your sexist propaganda?


Not sure I follow here but are you saying that people cutting out gluten can somehow be deficient in vitamins or minerals? If so - LMFAO. You obviously have no training in physiology. There is NO, read that, NO human need for any carbohydrates. Zero. Have you ever heard of an essential carbohydrate? I haven't. But I have heard of essential fatty acids and amino acids. Anemia? Really? Any idea what a major source if iron and B12 is? Hint - it isn't grains.

For the record, and I hope I don't ever have to explain this again, no one needs any grains. Do some basic research and you will learn a bit about lectins and anti-nutrients. These are compounds that plants have evolved with to protect themselves from predatory behaviour. This is relatively new science but suffice it to say, that these anti-nutrients bind the vitamins and minerals in plants preventing their bio-availability to humans. In short, they do not provide the nutrients you were led to believe. Because a given grain contains say iron, B vitamins, etc. does not mean you absorb all of them. In fact, you absorb very few and if eaten enough, you run the risk of losing more of your own vitamins and minerals. There is a reason we can't eat raw beans, peanuts, or potatoes. They are toxic.

Humans are at the top of the food chain because we eat the animals that eat the plants we can't eat. They have evolved the stomachs and enzymes to digest all the plant matter, absorb the nutrients, and when we eat them, we have the most bio-available source of said vitamins and minerals. Fibre is a none issue as there is no health benefit to greater fibre intake.

Lastly, with respect to gluten, I would venture the opinion that everyone is intolerant to gluten to some degree. The unfortunate souls who have celiac are only extremely sensitive which is why they were able to feel the effects of gluten. Humans have been eating grains (with gluten) for only 10,000 years AT BEST (Middle Easterners about 10K years, Anglo-Saxons roughly 3000 years ago). And that is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of years that we have been here. Grains are a new phenomena and we simply have not evolved and adapted to consume them. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution (10K yrs ago) that we grew them to eat them, and wouldn't you know, side effects were immediate. Our bone mass decreased, along with our height. BTW, wheat is dramatically different from what it was 50 years ago, let alone 2000 yrs ago. The bread of the bible is not the bread we eat today. And the bread your grandparents ate is not the bread we have today.

Stop spreading garbage info.

it is you who is doing a lot of that.
raw potatoes are toxic? do you get all your information from other internet forums? are you trying to say that they contain chaconine and solanine? oh, you mean substances that does NOT get destroyed by heat?

[Sibica]

lol, yet another rfd member with psychotic tendencies.
why don't you go back to the fitness forum and spread more of your sexist propaganda?



it is you who is doing a lot of that.
raw potatoes are toxic? do you get all your information from other internet forums? are you trying to say that they contain chaconine and solanine? oh, you mean substances that does NOT get destroyed by heat?

I've already schooled you once on sticking your nose into discussions where you lack the knowledge and education to do so. Please don't make me do it again, it's embarrassing.

[ippon]

I've already schooled you once on sticking your nose into discussions where you lack the knowledge and education to do so. Please don't make me do it again, it's embarrassing.

when did you school me?
oh, you mean about the time when you said you would never hear workout advice from women? or was it the time when you were shopping for a fashionable lunch bag for yourself?

[petey123]

Dietary carbohydrate is not essential for humans, but it is such a convenient and abundant source of energy that it's rather unnecessary how some schools of opinions portray CHO as some singular culprit for all our health woes. Gluconeogenesis & ketosis satisfies minimal brain glucose requirements during times of absolute CHO restriction, so theoretically we don't need carbs at all, but in practice? Ask any bb'er what their mood is like come contest-prep and they'll tell you they've had better days....I've tried no carb diets before as well and it's just not practical and far less enjoyable than a simple, smaller reduction in overall food and increase in activity.

If we're talking about grains, I wholeheartedly agree w/ the above that no one 'needs' any grains either, but again also don't need to present them as some sort of poison. I think saying we haven't 'evolved and adapted' to grains is a rather alarming statement too. Have we 'adapted' to anything? How long does it take to show humans as a global population have or have not adapted to X food, and how would you substantiate this? Can anyone produce controlled evidence for claims of that sort?

Asians should be collapsing all over the world for eating rice - and incidentally, corn, breads, oats account for huge daily calories across every continent. If we haven't adapted to these grains, then people all over the world would be puking and dying, leaving no viable offspring behind. The Japanese (and Asians generally) have a pretty long life expectancy given their rice with practically every meal. The health problems aren't grains alone, but they just happen to be scapegoated b/c they're too abundant now compared to what we've been accustomed to in the past. We over-eat, period, but grains are just more accessible. Also going by evolutionary anthropology's logic, no one should be drinking coffee either, since it wasn't introduced to Homo sapiens until a few short centuries ago - but I'll be happy to report I did not throw up this morning's java.

Don't get me wrong - if someone's allergic to gluten, then by all means definitely avoid it! For the rest of us, enjoy your breads, but only in the context of a varied and moderate diet with an emphasis on fresh veggies/fruits/fish/less processed meats and a lotta exercise. This is intuitive to everyone. I firmly believe in bio-individuality, and auto-regulation is a healthy virtue to practice - stop listening to corporate agriculture or pharmaceutical companies and just pay attention to your own bodies.

As an analogous example, I don't drink milk. I don't respond well to it. That doesn't mean everyone should avoid it, though in fact the majority of adult mammals do downregulate the production of lactase after weaning. Forget those milk ads, not all humans should be drinking milk, and lactose malabsorption is the norm.

But some can and do drink milk. Some populations historically practiced more dairying, so environmental circumstances can produce genetic mutations that confer the ability to absorb lactose: but only if milk was widely available. This helps explain why those of European and South Asian ancestries can tolerate milk better when dairy herds were abundant to their respective geographies, vs, Asians and Africans.

Again, exercise, eat and drink what you respond to, listen to mum when it comes to greens, don't be a fatass, don't smoke, and things usually fall in place - I'll never understand dogmatism or extremes when it comes to 'dieting'.

[ippon]

Dietary carbohydrate is not essential for humans, but it is such a convenient and abundant source of energy that it's rather unnecessary how some schools of opinions portray CHO as some singular culprit for all our health woes. Gluconeogenesis & ketosis satisfies minimal brain glucose requirements during times of absolute CHO restriction, so theoretically we don't need carbs at all, but in practice? Ask any bb'er what their mood is like come contest-prep and they'll tell you they've had better days....I've tried no carb diets before as well and it's just not practical and far less enjoyable than a simple, smaller reduction in overall food and increase in activity.

If we're talking about grains, I wholeheartedly agree w/ the above that no one 'needs' any grains either, but again also don't need to present them as some sort of poison. I think saying we haven't 'evolved and adapted' to grains is a rather alarming statement too. Have we 'adapted' to anything? How long does it take to show humans as a global population have or have not adapted to X food, and how would you substantiate this? Can anyone produce controlled evidence for claims of that sort?

Asians should be collapsing all over the world for eating rice - and incidentally, corn, breads, oats account for huge daily calories across every continent. If we haven't adapted to these grains, then people all over the world would be puking and dying, leaving no viable offspring behind. The Japanese (and Asians generally) have a pretty long life expectancy given their rice with practically every meal. The health problems aren't grains alone, but they just happen to be scapegoated b/c they're too abundant now compared to what we've been accustomed to in the past. We over-eat, period, but grains are just more accessible. Also going by evolutionary anthropology's logic, no one should be drinking coffee either, since it wasn't introduced to Homo sapiens until a few short centuries ago - but I'll be happy to report I did not throw up this morning's java.

Don't get me wrong - if someone's allergic to gluten, then by all means definitely avoid it! For the rest of us, enjoy your breads, but only in the context of a varied and moderate diet with an emphasis on fresh veggies/fruits/fish/less processed meats and a lotta exercise. This is intuitive to everyone. I firmly believe in bio-individuality, and auto-regulation is a healthy virtue to practice - stop listening to corporate agriculture or pharmaceutical companies and just pay attention to your own bodies.

As an analogous example, I don't drink milk. I don't respond well to it. That doesn't mean everyone should avoid it, though in fact the majority of adult mammals do downregulate the production of lactase after weaning. Forget those milk ads, not all humans should be drinking milk, and lactose malabsorption is the norm.

But some can and do drink milk. Some populations historically practiced more dairying, so environmental circumstances can produce genetic mutations that confer the ability to absorb lactose: but only if milk was widely available. This helps explain why those of European and South Asian ancestries can tolerate milk better when dairy herds were abundant to their respective geographies, vs, Asians and Africans.

Again, exercise, eat and drink what you respond to, listen to mum when it comes to greens, don't be a fatass, don't smoke, and things usually fall in place - I'll never understand dogmatism or extremes when it comes to 'dieting'.

interesting post.
about your point on milk, except for the VERY few, most of us indeed can drink milk, if it is processed. look at mongolians, who are mostly lactose intolerant, but ferment horse milk so they can drink it. humans are very adaptable opportunistic eaters. we can eat a lot of things via processing and cooking that we normally aren't able to.

[petey123]

If by processed you mean treated w/ lactase, then that gets around the issue but misses the point. Same w/ the mongolian example - are we looking at the milk as a whole, or the lactose in the milk, which would be destroyed in the fermentation. Mammalian species, humans included, generally stop producing the enzyme beyond infancy - varying degrees of discomfort though.

I can rephrase if preferred - anyone can consume lactose products, without discomfort, but only if it's been treated w/ the lactase enzyme: either through treatment/processing, or through their own bodies' production of lactase - the latter of which is the minority among human populations as a whole.

edit - http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-10-36.pdf

[ippon]

If by processed you mean treated w/ lactase, then that gets around the issue but misses the point. Same w/ the mongolian example - are we looking at the milk as a whole, or the lactose in the milk, which would be destroyed in the fermentation. Mammalian species, humans included, generally stop producing the enzyme beyond infancy - varying degrees of discomfort though.

I can rephrase if preferred - anyone can consume lactose products, without discomfort, but only if it's been treated w/ the lactase enzyme: either through treatment/processing, or through their own bodies' production of lactase - the latter of which is the minority among human populations as a whole.

edit - http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-10-36.pdf

yes sounds about right.

[Sibica]

Dietary carbohydrate is not essential for humans, but it is such a convenient and abundant source of energy that it's rather unnecessary how some schools of opinions portray CHO as some singular culprit for all our health woes. Gluconeogenesis & ketosis satisfies minimal brain glucose requirements during times of absolute CHO restriction, so theoretically we don't need carbs at all, but in practice? Ask any bb'er what their mood is like come contest-prep and they'll tell you they've had better days....I've tried no carb diets before as well and it's just not practical and far less enjoyable than a simple, smaller reduction in overall food and increase in activity.

If we're talking about grains, I wholeheartedly agree w/ the above that no one 'needs' any grains either, but again also don't need to present them as some sort of poison. I think saying we haven't 'evolved and adapted' to grains is a rather alarming statement too. Have we 'adapted' to anything? How long does it take to show humans as a global population have or have not adapted to X food, and how would you substantiate this? Can anyone produce controlled evidence for claims of that sort?

Asians should be collapsing all over the world for eating rice - and incidentally, corn, breads, oats account for huge daily calories across every continent. If we haven't adapted to these grains, then people all over the world would be puking and dying, leaving no viable offspring behind. The Japanese (and Asians generally) have a pretty long life expectancy given their rice with practically every meal. The health problems aren't grains alone, but they just happen to be scapegoated b/c they're too abundant now compared to what we've been accustomed to in the past. We over-eat, period, but grains are just more accessible. Also going by evolutionary anthropology's logic, no one should be drinking coffee either, since it wasn't introduced to Homo sapiens until a few short centuries ago - but I'll be happy to report I did not throw up this morning's java.

Don't get me wrong - if someone's allergic to gluten, then by all means definitely avoid it! For the rest of us, enjoy your breads, but only in the context of a varied and moderate diet with an emphasis on fresh veggies/fruits/fish/less processed meats and a lotta exercise. This is intuitive to everyone. I firmly believe in bio-individuality, and auto-regulation is a healthy virtue to practice - stop listening to corporate agriculture or pharmaceutical companies and just pay attention to your own bodies.

As an analogous example, I don't drink milk. I don't respond well to it. That doesn't mean everyone should avoid it, though in fact the majority of adult mammals do downregulate the production of lactase after weaning. Forget those milk ads, not all humans should be drinking milk, and lactose malabsorption is the norm.

But some can and do drink milk. Some populations historically practiced more dairying, so environmental circumstances can produce genetic mutations that confer the ability to absorb lactose: but only if milk was widely available. This helps explain why those of European and South Asian ancestries can tolerate milk better when dairy herds were abundant to their respective geographies, vs, Asians and Africans.

Again, exercise, eat and drink what you respond to, listen to mum when it comes to greens, don't be a fatass, don't smoke, and things usually fall in place - I'll never understand dogmatism or extremes when it comes to 'dieting'.

The reference to bodybuilders feeling like crap at contest isn't a result of low carb intake. If it were, how many people would really be on low carb for extended periods of time? I suspect, not many. But there are many, including myself. I never felt anything going low carb, cold turkey as it were and that was after nearly 2 yrs of very high carb (albeit, mostly from veggies) but there are many that feel like crap for about 2 weeks (Atkin's followers call it induction flu). But that passes, and the body is fine with low carbs. In fact, I feel as do all I know on paleo low carb, great. Energy levels off and no ups and downs/ The brain can do just fine on ketones alone; the idea of glucose as a primary source of fuel is outdated and has been revised to include ketones. Some suggest ketones as the preferred source but I won't go there just yet. Incidently, the heart thrives on ketones above all else.

The reason I feel low carb is very healthy isn't the issue with glucose specifically, but the deleterious effects of high insulin. From it's effect on blood vessels, to Alzheimer's being referred to as Type 3 diabetes, to insulin and IGF being implicated in malignancy potential, there is a lot to be said about hyperinsulinemia. Asians dropping dead is a poor example because it's one group of people and more than anything, the rural Asians have been isolated from wheat (both white and whole) and sugar. This is changing and is reflected in their disease progression similar to ours. The correlation between Western disease and diet has a striking correlation with wheat consumption and disease, so maybe rice is OK in moderation? I don't know, but I do know that insulin spikes after a starch and the average American/Canadian isn't just eating a bit of rice with every meal. It's a bagel or toast for breakfast, a sandwich or burger for lunch, some kind of starchy/sugary snack after that, then pasta dinner. Before bed, a bowl of some garbage cereal or some other carb. Now don't forget the fruit, the soda pops, fruit juices, etc. and this is EVERY DAY!!! To me, that is insane.

I just find it hard to understand why most people have such little care for, and put such little effort into their own health and well being. But to each their own I guess?