Have you read the book: Wheat belly : lose the wheat, lose the weight...?

[LisaR]

Humans were designed to eat meat, but you find many vegetarians on here, they will try and try to tell you that carbs and grain are good. I don't buy it for one minute.

I don't buy your theory for one minute either.

There is always a new fad for weight loss, that is why the weight loss industry makes billions, and the population gets fatter and fatter.

Everyone is genetically predisposed to having "problem areas." That area of your body where you gain weight easiest, and lose it the hardest.

The formula is simple. Burn off more calories than you take in. Period.

Personally, I think it goes much deeper than that. Just because you burn off more than you take in doesn't mean you are healthy and it doesn't mean you are feeling as good as you could.

 

[badblackpug]

I don't buy your theory for one minute either.




Personally, I think it goes much deeper than that. Just because you burn off more than you take in doesn't mean you are healthy and it doesn't mean you are feeling as good as you could.

I never said a thing about feeling good or achieving optimal health. I said weight loss, period.

I you eat 3 oreos a day and run 5k a day, you will lose weight, you won't be healthy, but chances are very good you'll be skinny.

If you want to lose weight, burn off more calories than you take in.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Whether a person agrees or not I think asking questions is a good thing. We as consumers need to ask questions and we need to keep abreast of trends/happenings in the food industry.

FWIW, I think the doctor comes across as credible, and he presents what appears to be credible information to me. Now, someone else could read the book and think the opposite but at least they would have been exposed to the same information. I do have to say, before a person debunks the book, they should read it.

 

[Squidgyness]

FWIW I usually don't agree with fox but I thought this article had some good points:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/10/01/white-bread-isnt-white-trash/ (I hope that linked properly)

I find it a little extreme that people demonise carbs so harshly, ESP. Refined carbs, yet for most of human history and indeed the present in many areas they make up a massive proportion of the diet for many people. Often it is white rice and other refined products thanks to changes in production methods. Yet, these countries are not as obese, and aren't swimming in allergies or stomach issues as far as I'm aware... I think portion size and exercise, among other factors, is far more important tbh.

Not to mention, it varies from person to person. Try it out, maybe it works for you. Personally, I ate, and still do eat, a lot of refined carbs, including white rice, white bread and various other products, in large quantities on occasion. Stomach is solid as a rock, cholesterol well within norms (and on the low side even for a person of my age) and blood sugar stable. I agree you need to change your diet if you feel ill, chop and change till you work out what's best for you. But to demonise certain foods is misleading. YMMV, I'm not calling anyone out or anything, I believe in the freedom to choose how to eat and live your life.

I guess I'll need to see more proof of this before I am convinced.

 

[cornflake]

I read Wheat Belly, and tell anyone that will listen to me to read it too. Believe what you like, but I would not touch GMO food with a 10 foot pole. No wheat at all, I react to gluten.

So you don't eat things with soy, vegetable oil, papayas, etc.? Certainly no corn products, including HFCS, things with sugar, as lots is derived from corn though a lot of sugar cane should be off your list too, etc.

Rarely ever eat corn, and then only organic. Tacos just aren't the same without some kind of tortilla, but as I said rarely. Once a month, maybe. Speaking of GMO, has anyone seen the documentary "King Corn"?

Don't eat much rice, but will even less now that they have found so much arsenic in it. Grains in general just don't sit well in my stomach.

Disneyfan07, any chance you are replacing your wheat with more corn and rice?

I don't buy processed food, you just don't know what's in it. Kind of a shocker to learn that Kashi products are full of GMO grains. We ate a lot of that stuff for years.

I've overcome two types of autoimmune disease and Diabetes II with a low carb, and now "paleo" diet. Started following the latter after a bout with cancer.

I do not eat grain fed animals, either, but I certainly eat meat!

The most recent discovery I've read, as in a couple of days ago, is the finding that humans were working together to hunt animals about a million years before they were believed to do so. And that coincided with larger brain development. Sort of an argument against being a vegetarian, I think.

I don't understand how you get there.

A million years earlier you're not talking about humans, or close. You're talking about hominids like **** habilis or whatever was in that time period.

Hunting successfully for larger game producing better nutrition isn't an argument against vegetarianism any more than that organized agrarianism leading to better nutrition (which it certainly did), AND the rise of cultures and organized, settled societies is an argument against meat-eating.

What you're talking about is several steps back, evolution-wise.

If we found a previously unknown small tribe someplace with a very bare subsitance and airdropped cornflakes to them regularly, the children who grew up on the cornflakes would likely be taller and stronger and etc., than their parents. That's not an argument for living off cornflakes, it's about reliable nutrition.

 

[Dancind]

I avoid soy, most of it is gmo too. No sugar, a little fruit mostly berries and some pitted fruits. No vegetable oils, including canola. Why do you ask?

DH eats this way too, though he tolerates wheat and sugar ok. But I'm the cook, and when he eats what I cook he he stays slim and his joints don't hurt.

Guess we will agree to disagree on vegetarianism.

 

[mhsjax]

FWIW I usually don't agree with fox but I thought this article had some good points:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/10/01/white-bread-isnt-white-trash/ (I hope that linked properly)

I find it a little extreme that people demonise carbs so harshly, ESP. Refined carbs, yet for most of human history and indeed the present in many areas they make up a massive proportion of the diet for many people. Often it is white rice and other refined products thanks to changes in production methods. Yet, these countries are not as obese, and aren't swimming in allergies or stomach issues as far as I'm aware... I think portion size and exercise, among other factors, is far more important tbh.

Not to mention, it varies from person to person. Try it out, maybe it works for you. Personally, I ate, and still do eat, a lot of refined carbs, including white rice, white bread and various other products, in large quantities on occasion. Stomach is solid as a rock, cholesterol well within norms (and on the low side even for a person of my age) and blood sugar stable. I agree you need to change your diet if you feel ill, chop and change till you work out what's best for you. But to demonise certain foods is misleading. YMMV, I'm not calling anyone out or anything, I believe in the freedom to choose how to eat and live your life.

I guess I'll need to see more proof of this before I am convinced.

Actually in the history of man, refined carbs have not always been so popular. They hunted and grew vegtables and fruit. Ok so China had rice but they ate a ton of fish. They are now adopting our diet as are most other countries and becoming fat. Neve has man gorged himself on bread, crackers, snacks, fruit that is normally out os season, (they ate the small in season window of fruits. WE started getting fat after all the "low fat and carb" is ok diet.

 

[torinsmom]

I like how people always want to claim that fat makes us fat. As someone who grew up in the south eating fried everything, people were a lot slimmer than they are now overall. The difference, in my opinion, is that our food was straight from the garden(pesticide being pick it before the bugs get it) and butcher, without all the preservatives and processing. Bread was fresh baked or one of a few brands with a lot less preservatives than today's. Cakes and pies, too, were made from scratch and not from the processed mixing.

I think getting rid of processed foods, including refined carbs, naturally gets rid of the conditions that cause us to gain weight. Unfortunately, many of us, including myself acquire such a taste and addiction to these foods that this is very hard.

 

[cornflake]

Actually in the history of man, refined carbs have not always been so popular. They hunted and grew vegtables and fruit. Ok so China had rice but they ate a ton of fish. They are now adopting our diet as are most other countries and becoming fat. Neve has man gorged himself on bread, crackers, snacks, fruit that is normally out os season, (they ate the small in season window of fruits. WE started getting fat after all the "low fat and carb" is ok diet.

I... what?

What eras are you talking about? It sounds like you're like mixing hominid hunters, agrarians and civilized China.

Bread (not to mention other grain products) is one of the earliest staples - people have been making bread FAR longer than China has had an organized civilization.

You also say 'small in season [sic] window of fruits' as if fruits don't grow year round. If you mean people used to eat fruits in season, sure - so they had various fruits year round, though I'm still not at all clear on when you're talking about.

Low carb diets have been around for more than 100 years, and fall in and out of favour. Every 30 years or so people think they're the thing, then they fall out of favour again 'til next time - same as bell bottoms.

 

[mhsjax]

I... what?

What eras are you talking about? It sounds like you're like mixing hominid hunters, agrarians and civilized China.

Bread (not to mention other grain products) is one of the earliest staples - people have been making bread FAR longer than China has had an organized civilization.

You also say 'small in season [sic] window of fruits' as if fruits don't grow year round. If you mean people used to eat fruits in season, sure - so they had various fruits year round, though I'm still not at all clear on when you're talking about.

Low carb diets have been around for more than 100 years, and fall in and out of favour. Every 30 years or so people think they're the thing, then they fall out of favour again 'til next time - same as bell bottoms.

deleted.

 

[Princess Dolly]

I... what?

What eras are you talking about? It sounds like you're like mixing hominid hunters, agrarians and civilized China.

Bread (not to mention other grain products) is one of the earliest staples - people have been making bread FAR longer than China has had an organized civilization.

You also say 'small in season [sic] window of fruits' as if fruits don't grow year round. If you mean people used to eat fruits in season, sure - so they had various fruits year round, though I'm still not at all clear on when you're talking about.

Low carb diets have been around for more than 100 years, and fall in and out of favour. Every 30 years or so people think they're the thing, then they fall out of favour again 'til next time - same as bell bottoms.

Yes but bread, tortillas, etc. weren't being mass produced with GMO grains and other processed nonsense. Fresh, whole ingredients were used. Not frankengrain, frakensugar and other frankenfood. I mean why does bread need to have a sweetner in it, period? I don't get that.

As for the in season fruits, I think she meant that a variety of fruits were eaten throughout the year, it wasn't just that someone had a favorite fruit and ate that all year long. Therefore different nutrients, sugars, fiber, etc., and vitamins were taken in at different times.

 

[ellone]

So you don't eat things with soy, vegetable oil, papayas, etc.? Certainly no corn products, including HFCS, things with sugar, as lots is derived from corn though a lot of sugar cane should be off your list too, etc.

You can avoid GMO and still eat corn, soy, sugar. You just have to eat organic or look for the NON-GMO project certified label if it's not organic. For soy sauce I use San-J Tamari. For sugar I only use pure cane sugar...nothing that's labeled as 'sugar' since that will have GMO sugar beets. Sugar cane isn't GMO so it is fine.

I made the switch when I was pregnant with my second child and my older had started to eat table foods - I was worried about her exposure to GMOs. My doctor was actually worried that I wasn't gaining enough weight during the pregnancy. But what was actually happening is that as the baby was gaining weight, I was losing the weight from my avoidance of GMO foods. I am now at my lowest weight since high school and I don't diet...I eat as much as I want (still have dessert).

 

[Princess Dolly]

You can avoid GMO and still eat corn, soy, sugar. You just have to eat organic or look for the NON-GMO project certified label if it's not organic. For soy sauce I use San-J Tamari. For sugar I only use pure cane sugar...nothing that's labeled as 'sugar' since that will have GMO sugar beets. Sugar cane isn't GMO so it is fine.

I made the switch when I was pregnant with my second child and my older had started to eat table foods - I was worried about her exposure to GMOs. My doctor was actually worried that I wasn't gaining enough weight during the pregnancy. But what was actually happening is that as the baby was gaining weight, I was losing the weight from my avoidance of GMO foods. I am now at my lowest weight since high school and I don't diet...I eat as much as I want (still have dessert).

I wish companies had to label their products as containing GMOs. If the GMOs are fine and good for us then why the fuss? That's what I don't get.

 

[Magpie]

Well for what it's worth I also have a "stubborn belly roll". I am 5'5' and weigh about 108 lbs so I am definatly not overweight at all. My "belly roll" comes from the fact that I have been pregnant 3 times. I didn't gain alot of weight while pregnant (20-25lbs) but having 3 babies over 8 lbs stretched my stomach to the max. It's stretched out skin and it will never go away without a "tummy-tuck" and I am not willing to do that so my roll will stay and I am fine with that. I do not believe it is caused by eating wheat.

My husband calls it my "marsupial pouch".

 

[cornflake]

Yes but bread, tortillas, etc. weren't being mass produced with GMO grains and other processed nonsense. Fresh, whole ingredients were used. Not frankengrain, frakensugar and other frankenfood. I mean why does bread need to have a sweetner in it, period? I don't get that.

As for the in season fruits, I think she meant that a variety of fruits were eaten throughout the year, it wasn't just that someone had a favorite fruit and ate that all year long. Therefore different nutrients, sugars, fiber, etc., and vitamins were taken in at different times.

That poster is arguing against carbs and grains in general and said people didn't eat grains except for how the Chinese consume massive amounts of rice which seemed to be discounted for whatever reason. I still don't really understand but that wasn't about genetically modified grains specifically at all.

Also, if I make bread, it'll generally have a little sugar in it, because yeast enjoys sugar.

As to the paranoia in general about genetically modified crops, I don't get that either. Yes, someone could splice something that's unhelpful or unhealthy into something. However, we've been manipulating crops since before Mendel. We're just getting a broader reach now. Bananas as we know them have nothing to do with bananas of the past or, likely, bananas of the future, as bananas seem to always be a step from devastation.

The 'genetically modified food is bad!' thing just seems... inspecific and lacking scientific understanding.

 

[Bilberry]

Dr. Briffa, a physician in the UK, has been engaged in a dialog with the head of the British Nutrition Foundation about bread. The BNF believes it is healthy, from he has seen with patients does not. Dr Briffa made an interesting point I thought. The British group receives funding with firms making bread and wheat products. Maybe that means little, but it does raise red flags.

"The head of the British Nutrition Foundation responds to my blog post on bread, and I have a few words for her too"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/09/26/...-on-bread-and-i-have-a-few-words-for-her-too/

From his article:

...I suppose she’s referring to this line in my blog post: “I suppose it should not go unremarked that the British Nutrition Foundation is supported by various factions within the food industry, and this organisation is sometimes less than transparent about where it gets its money from and the obvious conflicts of interest here.” But after this comment I linked to this article in the Independent newspaper which contains the following passage:

However, the organisation’s 39 members, which contribute to its funding, include – beside the Government, the EU – Cadbury, Kellogg’s, Northern Foods, McDonald’s, PizzaExpress, the main supermarket chains except Tesco, and producer bodies such as the Potato Council. The chairman of its board of trustees, Paul Hebblethwaite, is also chairman of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Trade Association.

Critics say the foundation’s dependence on the food industry is reflected in its support for the views promoted by industry and that it is not fully transparent about its funding.

The foundation is holding a conference next month on the science of low-calorie sweeteners, which aims to “separate fact from fiction”. The web page for the event says “intense sweeteners have been available as a means of reducing sugar intake for more than a century” but the perceptions of them “can be somewhat negative”. The conference aims to “explore the facts behind the stories and see where low-calorie sweeteners fit into today’s foodscape.”

The web page doesn’t say, though the information is available elsewhere on the website, that the foundation is financially supported by Tate & Lyle, British Sugar, Ajinomoto (maker of AminoSweet), and McNeil Consumer Nutritionals (maker of Splenda).

A foundation press release in February said people could shake off the winter blues by drinking more fluids. It didn’t say that its donors include Danone (producer of Evian, Volvic, and Badoit), Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Innocent, Twinings, Nestlé, and various yoghurt drink manufacturers. A footnote mentions the food industry as one of the foundation’s funding sources.

Joe Harvey of the Health Education Trust, a charity promoting health education for young people, said: “Organisations like the British Nutrition Foundation which want to be seen as offering independent advice should avoid donations from the food industry or be much more up front about them so the public are aware of the involvement. It is naive to take industry money and believe there is no quid pro quo.”

I feel there’s a clear conflict of interest with the BNF, and that concerns about transparency are legitimate, and it seems I’m not the only one. Perhaps Professor Buttriss would care to comment.

Professor Buttriss does leave the best for last, when she draws our attention to the fact that Warburtons “financially [supported] time spent on the preparation of the review.” So, let’s not mince our words and tell it straight: A bread manufacturer has funded a review which lauds the supposed nutritional attributes of bread. This, despite the fact that, as I stated in my original blog post, superfood it ain’t. And then there’s plenty about bread we should be wary of....

 

[Princess Dolly]

That poster is arguing against carbs and grains in general and said people didn't eat grains except for how the Chinese consume massive amounts of rice which seemed to be discounted for whatever reason. I still don't really understand but that wasn't about genetically modified grains specifically at all.

Also, if I make bread, it'll generally have a little sugar in it, because yeast enjoys sugar.

As to the paranoia in general about genetically modified crops, I don't get that either. Yes, someone could splice something that's unhelpful or unhealthy into something. However, we've been manipulating crops since before Mendel. We're just getting a broader reach now. Bananas as we know them have nothing to do with bananas of the past or, likely, bananas of the future, as bananas seem to always be a step from devastation.

The 'genetically modified food is bad!' thing just seems... inspecific and lacking scientific understanding.

It's not paranoia. I don't want to eat something that can withstand being sprayed with Roundup, that causes insects stomachs to burst, etc. All those chemicals get passed along the food chain. If you want to ingest poison then by all means, eat up GMO items. I don't want to. Again, if there is no issue with GMOs then why not label? Why is there always a fight against labeling? Allow the consumer to make the choice armed with all knowledge.

 

[cornflake]

It's not paranoia. I don't want to eat something that can withstand being sprayed with Roundup, that causes insects stomachs to burst, etc. All those chemicals get passed along the food chain. If you want to ingest poison then by all means, eat up GMO items. I don't want to. Again, if there is no issue with GMOs then why not label? Why is there always a fight against labeling? Allow the consumer to make the choice armed with all knowledge.

Because the general population, especially in this country at this point, does not generally have the capacity to deal with knowledge. They don't understand science - that's well proven in poll after poll and test results galore. This is the same as the arguments about labelling irradiated foods. It's fine to say it should be labelled - until you hear some of the people going on about why it should be labelled and it becomes clear they don't understand the most basic bits of science involved and think irradiated meat = x, y, and z that have nothing to do with anything. Then, it sortof becomes clear why companies don't want to get into it.

Your post suggest that GMO = Roundup Ready. That's not the case. For SOME crops, that is the case, as that's how they were modified, but they're not one in the same, or close.

 

[LisaR]

I never said a thing about feeling good or achieving optimal health. I said weight loss, period.

I you eat 3 oreos a day and run 5k a day, you will lose weight, you won't be healthy, but chances are very good you'll be skinny.

If you want to lose weight, burn off more calories than you take in.

You're right. I didn't realize you were referring to weight only. My bad.

FWIW I usually don't agree with fox but I thought this article had some good points:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/10/01/white-bread-isnt-white-trash/ (I hope that linked properly)

I find it a little extreme that people demonise carbs so harshly, ESP. Refined carbs, yet for most of human history and indeed the present in many areas they make up a massive proportion of the diet for many people. Often it is white rice and other refined products thanks to changes in production methods. Yet, these countries are not as obese, and aren't swimming in allergies or stomach issues as far as I'm aware... I think portion size and exercise, among other factors, is far more important tbh.

Not to mention, it varies from person to person. Try it out, maybe it works for you. Personally, I ate, and still do eat, a lot of refined carbs, including white rice, white bread and various other products, in large quantities on occasion. Stomach is solid as a rock, cholesterol well within norms (and on the low side even for a person of my age) and blood sugar stable. I agree you need to change your diet if you feel ill, chop and change till you work out what's best for you. But to demonise certain foods is misleading. YMMV, I'm not calling anyone out or anything, I believe in the freedom to choose how to eat and live your life.

I guess I'll need to see more proof of this before I am convinced.

"Human history" is an awfully long time. What countries/people are you referring to that ate so many refined carbs and did well?

The centenarians that have been studied over time did eat plenty of white rice but they didn't have Ritz crackers, Wonder Bread, Oreos, and donuts lining their counters and cupboards.

I'm not sure there is a study that shows a culture/country/people who have survived on refined carbs and done well. I think the ones that overindulge the most on these products are Americans and we can see that we aren't doing so well.

There is a big difference between the way ancient cultures cooked/ate and their reliance on refined carbs compared to our generation. I agree white rice was a staple for many that have lived long and prospered. I'm sure some even used white flour as a staple. But you can't begin to compare how some ancient cultures ate to the standard American diet.

 

[Debbie7452]

Everyone's body is different. However, for me, when I lose weight it comes off certain areas in a predictable pattern. The belly area is one of the last to go (and for me the thighs also). I have to stick to it and hang in to the bitter end to see those areas improve significantly. I don't like really weird restrictive diets personally, but they work for some people. I have had 4 kids and CAN get the belly to disappear when I'm motivated enough, but like I said everyone is different! For me a lot of exercise and portion control are what I use. Boring, I know!