Finally found something that works
Options
Replies
-
After 4 years of yo-yo'ing I've found the key...NSNG - NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS
No you haven't lol. A restrictive diet is never "the key". Do you really plan on eliminating sugar and grains from your diet for the rest or your life? No cookies, no cake, no brownies, no candy, no pasta, no cereal, no bread...for the rest of your life? Does that really seem practical or realistic to you. If that's your plan, by all means good luck, but there are better, more enjoyable, and not to mention more effective ways to go about eating healthy.
It's very realistic. For people who feel substantially better on a grain-free diet, it's a no-brainer and not at all restrictive. Eating grain makes every joint in my body hurt. It makes my muscles sore. It disrupts my sleep. It disrupts my digestion. If I choose to eat grain, I'm quickly reminded of why I typically avoid it.
Why in the world are you discouraging someone from a WOE and WOL that they find helpful?!
Not at all restrictive? I don't think you understand what a restrictive diet is, because the diet that OP mentioned is a textbook example of a restrictive diet. I clearly said in my original post that if OP wants to go with his diet, that I wish him good luck, but there are better ways to go about it.
Please feel free to share your definition of restrictive, because clearly there are differing opinions.
It's not restrictive. I've been on restrictive diets, for health reasons and as personal choice. Grain-free and sugar-free is not restrictive, when one is choosing it.
1200-1400 calorie CICO is restrictive, in my opinion. Hence all the whining and complaining from people on the boards who are struggling with it. Yet, your advice to those people is to restrict further?
Rarely do I see a post from people complaining that LCHF, Paleo, Primal, other grain-free diets are too restrictive. Typically people are sharing that they love the diet and are happy that they have found a diet that works and they can follow.
People who do feel restricted by it usually don't follow it. I can understand that if *you* find it restrictive that *you* don't follow it. (*Your* opinion is not fact, however.) The OP clearly does not find it restrictive. I clearly do not find it restrictive. Others clearly do not find it restrictive. So, no, it's not restrictive.3 -
Anything under one year isn't impressive any more. Tell me how things are after getting it off and maintaining for a year. Then maybe I'll buy into it. I've been in this rodeo WAY too long to get excited over people losing weight from one "miracle" or another.5
-
Doing NSNG does not change the calories one needs to lose.7
-
diannethegeek wrote: »From the FAQs: http://vinnietortorich.com/nsng-faq/ (the site is one huge ad for supplements)
For NSNG, what can I eat?
Answer: You can eat real food, non-processed real foods. Eat vegetables, fruits, nuts/seeds, legumes (see #12 for further clarification), healthy fats and meats.
In a NSNG lifestyle, what are considered ‘sugars’?
Answer: Glucose, Fructose, Sucrose, Glucose Syrup, Corn Syrup, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), Fruit Sugar, Raw Honey, Maple Syrup, Molasses, Agave Nectar, Palm Sugar, Coconut Sugar. A full list of sugars can be found at this link: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-definitive-guide-to-sugar/#axzz2YfdmeAmd
What about artificial sweeteners? Are there any that are considered NSNG?
Answer: Your body treats artificial sweeteners just like real sugar. So there are no artificial sweeteners that are NSNG.
What are some NSNG suggested snacks?
Answer: Low glycemic fruit, cut veggies, hard boiled eggs, beef jerky, full fat cheese, raw nuts, olives, pumpkin seeds, 85% or greater dark chocolate, deviled eggs (homemade mayo), pepperoni slices, coconut oil, avocado, lettuce rolled up with smoked salmon and full fat cream cheese, hummus and celery, pickles, tofu, shot of olive oil, coffee with heavy cream (or grass fed butter, or coconut oil).
What about dairy? Can I eat dairy products on NSNG?
Answer: If you can tolerate dairy, then dairy is ok to eat. You may need to cut back on your dairy, mainly cheese, if you are struggling to lose weight.
...and that's where I quit scrolling.
That clears it all up. So they list "fruit sugar" ont he list of sugars according to this lifestyle, and you're supposed to avoid those sugars, right? So then why is fruit listed as a NSNG suggested snack?5 -
As for the "restrictive" thing, one thing that struck me when I was trying out paleo was that it was easy for me because I mostly don't care about grains and can take or leave legumes (dairy was harder, I wasn't eating sweets at all at the time). But then I realized that if I wasn't ever going to overeat grains or legumes -- and I generally wouldn't -- why on earth bother cutting them out, as it's easy to eat them in moderation.
Complete restrictions seem most useful to me to people who WOULD find them restrictive in some way.
Anyway, I also found the restrictions, well, restrictive, because it limited non-animal sources of protein, which I wanted more of in my diet, and because I find pasta especially an easy base for a very healthful meal, and I find it useful to be able to buy a healthy sandwich (I quite like the shrimp wrap at Pret) or lentil soup when out and about, or to be able to have steel cut oats as an alternative in the morning. Or to be able to make a delicious pizza if I want (which can be quite healthy too).
Might someone else not find that, over time? Sure, but then they'd probably not be eating enough of these foods to matter anyway.
My issue is that OP was preaching that these foods are unhealthy for all, and that's not so, there's no reason to cut them out if you don't want to.
Vinnie doesn't actually do a complete restriction either (I used to listen to the podcast sometimes), so it seems as if he thinks that would be, well, restrictive. Sisson has some kind of 80/20 thing that he claims most will end up doing.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »After 4 years of yo-yo'ing I've found the key...NSNG - NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS
No you haven't lol. A restrictive diet is never "the key". Do you really plan on eliminating sugar and grains from your diet for the rest or your life? No cookies, no cake, no brownies, no candy, no pasta, no cereal, no bread...for the rest of your life? Does that really seem practical or realistic to you. If that's your plan, by all means good luck, but there are better, more enjoyable, and not to mention more effective ways to go about eating healthy.
It's very realistic. For people who feel substantially better on a grain-free diet, it's a no-brainer and not at all restrictive. Eating grain makes every joint in my body hurt. It makes my muscles sore. It disrupts my sleep. It disrupts my digestion. If I choose to eat grain, I'm quickly reminded of why I typically avoid it.
Why in the world are you discouraging someone from a WOE and WOL that they find helpful?!
Because of the statement that people who eat otherwise are mis-informed? Grain doesn't make my joints hurt. It doesn't make my muscles sore. It doesn't disrupt my sleep or my digestion. I'm not misinformed.
Nobody cares if OP wants to eat grain, but OP seems to care if other people do. That's the issue.
Hmmm... We must have read different posts? I see where OP states "I was misinformed" but not where it states that "people who eat otherwise are mis-informed" as you stated.
Why so defensive, when someone is sharing what works for them? A good question for self-reflection, if one wishes to pursue it. Personally, I prefer 'appreciative joy,' a Buddhist concept. Has helped tremendously with anger over the years.
What misinformation do you think he was referring to in the OP?
I'm glad joy has helped you with anger. I'm not angry, so I'm not finding it particularly relevant to this situation. But glad you found a way to deal with your issues.1 -
itsthehumidity wrote: »Joe Rogan's an intelligent comedian. He is not a credible source of information regarding diet and nutrition. Neither are you.
If the restriction of something (in your case, sugar and grains) works for you, then do it. That's your business. What's not your business is telling others that this method is the key. It's not. At best it's an indirect method of reducing calories consumed, while missing the big picture, and at worst it's a method that will lead many to binge after succumbing to cravings and end up worse than when they started.
Sugar appears to be coming back as the Restriction Du Jour, perhaps dethroning gluten after a long and prosperous reign. Sugar is in a lot of foods, and our brains need a steady stream of glucose to function. The sugar in fruits, fructose, gets converted in the liver to glucose and some other things we need. Long and complicated story made short, sugar is not the enemy and it's not something to be avoided.
The key, of course, is balance (not NSNG). Sugar shouldn't be avoided, nor should it be consumed in excess. The same goes for fat, for carbohydrates, for saturated fat, for water, for oxygen, and on and on. When you walk the path of balance, you'll see for yourself how misguided these extreme notions are, and how they don't serve you as well as they claim. You'll start to understand that you can have ice cream here and there, and Twix, and Oreos, and pizza, and all the foods people who don't know any better label as "bad" (in moderation) while steadily losing fat.
You may have been "into reading and practicing fitness and nutrition for the past 15 years" but you have much more to learn.
Edit: typo
yea this pretty much sums it up...
If restricting works for you then yes! that is wonderful you found a productive way to be your own version of healthy. HOWEVER it is not the key, especially to the average healthy adult. Diabetes and other insulin issues thats another topic for another time. 30 days it quite the accomplishment to stick to a restrictive diet so you should be proud. I persoanlly would rather die then live my entire life with out the following... Crusty artisan bread like baguettes, pizza, pasta, donuts, flour to bake with, cookies, cereal, oats, candy, rice (risotto, fried rice, sticky rice) ect ect. Could i do it for a while yea anyone can do anything.... is it vital for weightless or health HELL NO.
HELL YES! I have not consumed grains for 4 years (personal choice due to GMO concerns and celiac husband), dairy for 5 years (severe allergy) & sugar has been pretty much non existent for the same period. Not only do I feel better than I have in my life but my focus and energy is greatly improved. I never feel restricted,there is still lots of food choices. I still feel that I have a large variety in my diet.
You can't paint everyone with the same brush, this IS the key for some. I don't see where anyone is making the claim this IS the key for everyone.
Do what works for you & be proud of everything you accomplish, you deserve congratulations for your efforts!5 -
itsthehumidity wrote: »Joe Rogan's an intelligent comedian. He is not a credible source of information regarding diet and nutrition. Neither are you.
If the restriction of something (in your case, sugar and grains) works for you, then do it. That's your business. What's not your business is telling others that this method is the key. It's not. At best it's an indirect method of reducing calories consumed, while missing the big picture, and at worst it's a method that will lead many to binge after succumbing to cravings and end up worse than when they started.
Sugar appears to be coming back as the Restriction Du Jour, perhaps dethroning gluten after a long and prosperous reign. Sugar is in a lot of foods, and our brains need a steady stream of glucose to function. The sugar in fruits, fructose, gets converted in the liver to glucose and some other things we need. Long and complicated story made short, sugar is not the enemy and it's not something to be avoided.
The key, of course, is balance (not NSNG). Sugar shouldn't be avoided, nor should it be consumed in excess. The same goes for fat, for carbohydrates, for saturated fat, for water, for oxygen, and on and on. When you walk the path of balance, you'll see for yourself how misguided these extreme notions are, and how they don't serve you as well as they claim. You'll start to understand that you can have ice cream here and there, and Twix, and Oreos, and pizza, and all the foods people who don't know any better label as "bad" (in moderation) while steadily losing fat.
You may have been "into reading and practicing fitness and nutrition for the past 15 years" but you have much more to learn.
Edit: typo
yea this pretty much sums it up...
If restricting works for you then yes! that is wonderful you found a productive way to be your own version of healthy. HOWEVER it is not the key, especially to the average healthy adult. Diabetes and other insulin issues thats another topic for another time. 30 days it quite the accomplishment to stick to a restrictive diet so you should be proud. I persoanlly would rather die then live my entire life with out the following... Crusty artisan bread like baguettes, pizza, pasta, donuts, flour to bake with, cookies, cereal, oats, candy, rice (risotto, fried rice, sticky rice) ect ect. Could i do it for a while yea anyone can do anything.... is it vital for weightless or health HELL NO.
HELL YES! I have not consumed grains for 4 years (personal choice due to GMO concerns and celiac husband), dairy for 5 years (severe allergy) & sugar has been pretty much non existent for the same period. Not only do I feel better than I have in my life but my focus and energy is greatly improved. I never feel restricted,there is still lots of food choices. I still feel that I have a large variety in my diet.
You can't paint everyone with the same brush, this IS the key for some. I don't see where anyone is making the claim this IS the key for everyone.
Do what works for you & be proud of everything you accomplish, you deserve congratulations for your efforts!
il stick to my quote that restrictive diets ARE NOT vital to health and wellness. that in no is saying that it doesnt work... again... i said it is not vital- adjictive meaning absolutely necessary or important; essential. for a third time for fun i said it is not vital for health and wellness.2 -
After 4 years of yo-yo'ing I've found the key...NSNG - NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS
No you haven't lol. A restrictive diet is never "the key". Do you really plan on eliminating sugar and grains from your diet for the rest or your life? No cookies, no cake, no brownies, no candy, no pasta, no cereal, no bread...for the rest of your life? Does that really seem practical or realistic to you. If that's your plan, by all means good luck, but there are better, more enjoyable, and not to mention more effective ways to go about eating healthy.
It's very realistic. For people who feel substantially better on a grain-free diet, it's a no-brainer and not at all restrictive. Eating grain makes every joint in my body hurt. It makes my muscles sore. It disrupts my sleep. It disrupts my digestion. If I choose to eat grain, I'm quickly reminded of why I typically avoid it.
Why in the world are you discouraging someone from a WOE and WOL that they find helpful?!
Not at all restrictive? I don't think you understand what a restrictive diet is, because the diet that OP mentioned is a textbook example of a restrictive diet. I clearly said in my original post that if OP wants to go with his diet, that I wish him good luck, but there are better ways to go about it.
Please feel free to share your definition of restrictive, because clearly there are differing opinions.
It's not restrictive. I've been on restrictive diets, for health reasons and as personal choice. Grain-free and sugar-free is not restrictive, when one is choosing it.
1200-1400 calorie CICO is restrictive, in my opinion. Hence all the whining and complaining from people on the boards who are struggling with it. Yet, your advice to those people is to restrict further?
Rarely do I see a post from people complaining that LCHF, Paleo, Primal, other grain-free diets are too restrictive. Typically people are sharing that they love the diet and are happy that they have found a diet that works and they can follow.
People who do feel restricted by it usually don't follow it. I can understand that if *you* find it restrictive that *you* don't follow it. (*Your* opinion is not fact, however.) The OP clearly does not find it restrictive. I clearly do not find it restrictive. Others clearly do not find it restrictive. So, no, it's not restrictive.
Pretty simple definition for restrictive diets: If a diet cuts out entire food groups or food types, and basically states that you cannot eat a certain food in any amount or in any context EVER, then that is a restrictive diet, plain and simple.7 -
After 4 years of yo-yo'ing I've found the key...NSNG - NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS
No you haven't lol. A restrictive diet is never "the key". Do you really plan on eliminating sugar and grains from your diet for the rest or your life? No cookies, no cake, no brownies, no candy, no pasta, no cereal, no bread...for the rest of your life? Does that really seem practical or realistic to you. If that's your plan, by all means good luck, but there are better, more enjoyable, and not to mention more effective ways to go about eating healthy.
It's very realistic. For people who feel substantially better on a grain-free diet, it's a no-brainer and not at all restrictive. Eating grain makes every joint in my body hurt. It makes my muscles sore. It disrupts my sleep. It disrupts my digestion. If I choose to eat grain, I'm quickly reminded of why I typically avoid it.
Why in the world are you discouraging someone from a WOE and WOL that they find helpful?!
Not at all restrictive? I don't think you understand what a restrictive diet is, because the diet that OP mentioned is a textbook example of a restrictive diet. I clearly said in my original post that if OP wants to go with his diet, that I wish him good luck, but there are better ways to go about it.
Please feel free to share your definition of restrictive, because clearly there are differing opinions.
It's not restrictive. I've been on restrictive diets, for health reasons and as personal choice. Grain-free and sugar-free is not restrictive, when one is choosing it.
1200-1400 calorie CICO is restrictive, in my opinion. Hence all the whining and complaining from people on the boards who are struggling with it. Yet, your advice to those people is to restrict further?
Rarely do I see a post from people complaining that LCHF, Paleo, Primal, other grain-free diets are too restrictive. Typically people are sharing that they love the diet and are happy that they have found a diet that works and they can follow.
People who do feel restricted by it usually don't follow it. I can understand that if *you* find it restrictive that *you* don't follow it. (*Your* opinion is not fact, however.) The OP clearly does not find it restrictive. I clearly do not find it restrictive. Others clearly do not find it restrictive. So, no, it's not restrictive.
Pretty simple definition for restrictive diets: If a diet cuts out entire food groups or food types, and basically states that you cannot eat a certain food in any amount or in any context EVER, then that is a restrictive diet, plain and simple.
Come back to me once you have some life experience or, at a minimum, educate yourself on it. That's not the premise of the primal diet. You've made erroneous assumptions, and are fighting to the end about them. You'll get much further in life if you learn to recognize when you're wrong, where you've made errors, and are open to learning about differing views. It's called maturity, it will come to you if you seek it out a bit.1 -
It appears to me that this comment is in regards to the definition a "restrictive diet". I must jump in and say that just because one does not FEEL restricted, does not change the definitions of the words in the phrase.
If that is not what you are referring to then just ignore me... LOL4 -
After 4 years of yo-yo'ing I've found the key...NSNG - NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS
No you haven't lol. A restrictive diet is never "the key". Do you really plan on eliminating sugar and grains from your diet for the rest or your life? No cookies, no cake, no brownies, no candy, no pasta, no cereal, no bread...for the rest of your life? Does that really seem practical or realistic to you. If that's your plan, by all means good luck, but there are better, more enjoyable, and not to mention more effective ways to go about eating healthy.
It's very realistic. For people who feel substantially better on a grain-free diet, it's a no-brainer and not at all restrictive. Eating grain makes every joint in my body hurt. It makes my muscles sore. It disrupts my sleep. It disrupts my digestion. If I choose to eat grain, I'm quickly reminded of why I typically avoid it.
Why in the world are you discouraging someone from a WOE and WOL that they find helpful?!
Not at all restrictive? I don't think you understand what a restrictive diet is, because the diet that OP mentioned is a textbook example of a restrictive diet. I clearly said in my original post that if OP wants to go with his diet, that I wish him good luck, but there are better ways to go about it.
Please feel free to share your definition of restrictive, because clearly there are differing opinions.
It's not restrictive. I've been on restrictive diets, for health reasons and as personal choice. Grain-free and sugar-free is not restrictive, when one is choosing it.
1200-1400 calorie CICO is restrictive, in my opinion. Hence all the whining and complaining from people on the boards who are struggling with it. Yet, your advice to those people is to restrict further?
Rarely do I see a post from people complaining that LCHF, Paleo, Primal, other grain-free diets are too restrictive. Typically people are sharing that they love the diet and are happy that they have found a diet that works and they can follow.
People who do feel restricted by it usually don't follow it. I can understand that if *you* find it restrictive that *you* don't follow it. (*Your* opinion is not fact, however.) The OP clearly does not find it restrictive. I clearly do not find it restrictive. Others clearly do not find it restrictive. So, no, it's not restrictive.
Pretty simple definition for restrictive diets: If a diet cuts out entire food groups or food types, and basically states that you cannot eat a certain food in any amount or in any context EVER, then that is a restrictive diet, plain and simple.
Come back to me once you have some life experience or, at a minimum, educate yourself on it. That's not the premise of the primal diet. You've made erroneous assumptions, and are fighting to the end about them. You'll get much further in life if you learn to recognize when you're wrong, where you've made errors, and are open to learning about differing views. It's called maturity, it will come to you if you seek it out a bit.
OP said he is eating NO SUGAR NO GRAINS. That's what this this thread is about. Whether or not that is considered "the primal diet" I have no idea. But by abstaining from grains, he is cutting out a food type that is the basis for many (if not most) traditional diets around the world. I think it's fair to call that a restrictive diet, whether or not some people might find it easy to do.5 -
I don't get why folks go on the attack. This is working for this guy so more power to him and anyway the kinds and amounts of sugar and (processed) grains we eat in the western world are typically devoid of nutritional value. I see not a thing wrong with this diet.
Could I do it? Not 100% - but I do endeavor to limit sugar and grains. Sugar is addictive - been studied - the more you eat the more you want - particularly from processed sources.
When people talk about traditional diets and what happens in other cultures or other eras - they neglect to contextualize. Many of these people don't have a long lifespan or their lifestyle is so active - i.e. hunting and gathering - that their dietary requirements are totally different.
When you look at the "blue zones" where people (currently) live to 100 years or more, their diets are whole foods: fruits and veggies, healthy fats, fish, no processed foods, low or devoid of refined sugar, and small amounts of meat etc. Kind of paleo really.
I applaud this kind of eating - wish I had the willpower to do it!
1 -
I don't get why folks go on the attack. This is working for this guy so more power to him and anyway the kinds and amounts of sugar and (processed) grains we eat in the western world are typically devoid of nutritional value. I see not a thing wrong with this diet.
Could I do it? Not 100% - but I do endeavor to limit sugar and grains. Sugar is addictive - been studied - the more you eat the more you want - particularly from processed sources.
When people talk about traditional diets and what happens in other cultures or other eras - they neglect to contextualize. Many of these people don't have a long lifespan or their lifestyle is so active - i.e. hunting and gathering - that their dietary requirements are totally different.
When you look at the "blue zones" where people (currently) live to 100 years or more, their diets are whole foods: fruits and veggies, healthy fats, fish, no processed foods, low or devoid of refined sugar, and small amounts of meat etc. Kind of paleo really.
I applaud this kind of eating - wish I had the willpower to do it!
To the bolded, did you accidentally leave out "grains"?
Some foundational foods in Blue Zones are:
Okinawa - rice
Costa Rica - Rice & beans
Sardinia - sourdough and barley
Loma Linda - oatmeal and whole wheat bread9 -
This thread is like a horse that breaks its leg stepping in a gopher hole and is rolling around in terrible pain until someone comes to the pasture and puts it out of its misery.
9 -
OP I'm happy you found something that works for you, I have no desire to pick apart every word you said. Good luck and I hope you find continued success
2 -
I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.5
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..
Apparently in Aussie rules football defensive means the same as going on the offensive to those in the northern hemisphere...
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..
Apparently in Aussie rules football defensive means the same as going on the offensive to those in the northern hemisphere...
He felt he had to defend himself, meaning he got defensive, right?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions