Gluten. Dairy. Sugar.

Mcgrawhaha

btw: skittle are not evil.

jeardawg

50 years ago smoking was good for you
100 years ago cocaine was a cough medicine,
100 years ago TB had an astronomical mortality rate.

right now we don't KNOW anything, but we have no hard scientific proof that food is good or bad for us intrinsically. The wheat you eat today is not the wheat your grandparents ate, and the milk you drink today has been exposed to stuff that didn't exist 50 years ago. There is a lot of stuff I don't know, I go with what works for me, when my doc tells me my blood pressure is down and things look great I know I am on the right track. It would sure be nice if we could allow everyone to express themselves, I hope we can trust that people can filter out the good from the bad.

Cigarettes, cocaine and TB are not evil either. None of them are intentionally malevolent. YOu choose to pick up a cigarette and smoke it and to snort cocaine. TB is a disease but it's just a byproduct of human weakness to that disease process, not an intention to do harm.

The word evil was not used in that post.

What I was implying is that we may in fact find out that gluten sugar and dairy are in fact poison ( they aren't as far as I know) but I am suggesting people (probably myself included) are prone to "knowing" things. When really all we really know is what works for us, which is exactly what the OP stated.

Yes, after 30,000 years, suddenly gluten, dairy, and sugar are poisonous to humans. Makes perfect sense.:huh:

30,000 years ago man was eating einkorn which is a natural wheat grain that had a bare fraction of the gluten that exists in our wheat today, the gluten levels in todays wheat spiked after the late 60s when we started intensive cross breeding programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug here was the man resonsible.

sugars were natural prior to the industrial age and the average population only got a fraction of what they get now. Mostly from honey, which at the time was not homogenized. Some suggest that natural honey is a super food, I have no idea.

And milk is different now as well. We don't have to go milk cows to get it, we get it by the gallons. When taking into account the volume of milk drank now, and potential hazards to the milk in process. ( as I stated above I don't know anything about the actually content) but I do know how we use milk has changed.

No I do not think that anything is completely bad, but I am not willing to suggest that everything is completely harmless.

Diabetes and obesity are on the rise, we wouldn't be on this sight if foods we ate did not have the ability to hurt us. While I will NOT dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions among others. I am not willing to dismiss that the changing nature of the food itself and how we use it, may have changed its beneficial and harmful effects on the population.

mccindy72

Diabetes and obesity are on the rise, we wouldn't be on this sight if foods we ate did not have the ability to hurt us. While I will NOT dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions among others. I am not willing to dismiss that the changing nature of the food itself and how we use it, may have changed its beneficial and harmful effects on the population.

Because humans are much more sedentary and eating is considered a hobby and social activity.

jeardawg

Diabetes and obesity are on the rise, we wouldn't be on this sight if foods we ate did not have the ability to hurt us. While I will NOT dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions among others. I am not willing to dismiss that the changing nature of the food itself and how we use it, may have changed its beneficial and harmful effects on the population.

Because humans are much more sedentary and eating is considered a hobby and social activity.

and you, as a doctorate who has done trials and lengthy study are absolutely sure that this is the only possible answer, no doubt, no spectulation, your just certain?

good on you, omnipotence has arrived

SoDamnHungry

Probably because you didn't eat much food since you couldn't eat gluten, dairy, or sugar.

mccindy72

Diabetes and obesity are on the rise, we wouldn't be on this sight if foods we ate did not have the ability to hurt us. While I will NOT dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions among others. I am not willing to dismiss that the changing nature of the food itself and how we use it, may have changed its beneficial and harmful effects on the population.

Because humans are much more sedentary and eating is considered a hobby and social activity.

and you, as a doctorate who has done trials and lengthy study are absolutely sure that this is the only possible answer, no doubt, no spectulation, your just certain?

good on you, omnipotence has arrived

Didn't you just say you would not dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions?

Flab2Fab27

:laugh:

BrainyBurro

btw: skittles are not evil.

well... they came out with a limited edition seahawks bag this week, so they're a little bit evil.

dzahner3

Wow I am quite amazed at all the responses here. I put the details of my story in a blog post.
I had about 40 lbs to lose. I cannot reply to all these posts, but who ever is interested can look at my story here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Elevensies

I only wanted to share my experience as I had this extra weight for many years and until I gave up these things, I was not having much success. I thought others may benefit from learning of my experience.

I know consume these three evils on occasion and in only small amounts. And by 'sugar' iI mean primarily processed sugar. I do not hide from raw honey or fruits, or even maple syrup. :-) But gluten, I am now avoiding permanently. I do not feel well after consuming it. And dairy only in very small amounts.

Please, please please stop calling them 'evils'. They are foods. There is no inherent malevalence in them. If they don't work for you, that's fine; they do work for many others.

OP can call these foods evil all she wants! They are evil to her. I call msg evil because it's evil to me! Are you going to tell me that I can't call msg evil?
OP, I completley understand what you were intending to do and that was trying to help somebody else. Good for you!

You can call it what you want, but referring to it as 'evil' is incorrect, as 'evil' implies a direct intent to cause to harm and food cannot attempt to hurt you. You choose to eat it or not. It just sits there.

Yes, I can call it evil because thats my opinion. Just like it was the OP'S opinion. She was claming that that's what worked for her. She was not telling everyone that it would work for them.

jonnythan

btw: skittles are not evil.

well... they came out with a limited edition seahawks bag this week, so they're a little bit evil.

I heard when you open the bag, all the Skittles fall on the floor and the bag yells "DON'T OPEN YOUR MOUTH OR I'LL SHUT IT FOR YOU! DON'T EVER TALK ABOUT ME. LEGION OF BOOM"

Leonidas_meets_Spartacus

BusyRaeNOTBusty

btw: skittles are not evil.

well... they came out with a limited edition seahawks bag this week, so they're a little bit evil.

The green apples ones are evil. BRING BACK LIME SKITTLES.

mccindy72

Yes, I can call it evil because thats my opinion. Just like it was the OP'S opinion. She was claming that that's what worked for her. She was not telling everyone that it would work for them.

Um, yep she was:

I was not able to drop much weight until I quit these three evils. Then it came off fast, and without even exercising.
30 lbs in two months, bam, gone!
After years of struggling and sweating and counting calories, only this was truly effective.
Have kept it off 6 months now too, it is not coming back. Try it.

jeardawg

Diabetes and obesity are on the rise, we wouldn't be on this sight if foods we ate did not have the ability to hurt us. While I will NOT dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions among others. I am not willing to dismiss that the changing nature of the food itself and how we use it, may have changed its beneficial and harmful effects on the population.

Because humans are much more sedentary and eating is considered a hobby and social activity.

and you, as a doctorate who has done trials and lengthy study are absolutely sure that this is the only possible answer, no doubt, no spectulation, your just certain?

good on you, omnipotence has arrived

Didn't you just say you would not dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions?

I did and I still do, I am just asking you, for a moment to consider that human weakness might not be the only factor. Are you so jaded to believe that some people might actually do their best, yet still have disappointing results and the answer might be something other than their failure?

mccindy72

Diabetes and obesity are on the rise, we wouldn't be on this sight if foods we ate did not have the ability to hurt us. While I will NOT dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions among others. I am not willing to dismiss that the changing nature of the food itself and how we use it, may have changed its beneficial and harmful effects on the population.

Because humans are much more sedentary and eating is considered a hobby and social activity.

and you, as a doctorate who has done trials and lengthy study are absolutely sure that this is the only possible answer, no doubt, no spectulation, your just certain?

good on you, omnipotence has arrived

Didn't you just say you would not dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions?

I did and I still do, I am just asking you, for a moment to consider that human weakness might not be the only factor. Are you so jaded to believe that some people might actually do their best, yet still have disappointing results and the answer might be something other than their failure?

I am. The answer is their failure to accurately count calories, or overestimate calories burned, and therefore not have a deficit. Not a complicit deficit in that it was intentional, but an error in calculation or methodology that leads to a mistaken belief.

jeardawg

Diabetes and obesity are on the rise, we wouldn't be on this sight if foods we ate did not have the ability to hurt us. While I will NOT dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions among others. I am not willing to dismiss that the changing nature of the food itself and how we use it, may have changed its beneficial and harmful effects on the population.

Because humans are much more sedentary and eating is considered a hobby and social activity.

and you, as a doctorate who has done trials and lengthy study are absolutely sure that this is the only possible answer, no doubt, no spectulation, your just certain?

good on you, omnipotence has arrived

Didn't you just say you would not dismiss our complicity in the rise of these conditions?

I did and I still do, I am just asking you, for a moment to consider that human weakness might not be the only factor. Are you so jaded to believe that some people might actually do their best, yet still have disappointing results and the answer might be something other than their failure?

I am. The answer is their failure to accurately count calories, or overestimate calories burned, and therefore not have a deficit. Not a complicit deficit in that it was intentional, but an error in calculation or methodology that leads to a mistaken belief.

ok so what if their weight is not fat, but gas, feces, swelling and water because their intestinal tracts is swollen and irritated, causing a huge problem with weight that really isn't weight?
Does deficit help them then?

dzahner3

Yes, I can call it evil because thats my opinion. Just like it was the OP'S opinion. She was claming that that's what worked for her. She was not telling everyone that it would work for them.

Um, yep she was:

I was not able to drop much weight until I quit these three evils. Then it came off fast, and without even exercising.
30 lbs in two months, bam, gone!
After years of struggling and sweating and counting calories, only this was truly effective.
Have kept it off 6 months now too, it is not coming back. Try it.

This is why people are getting so upset! People nitpick these threads apart. She said TRY IT. She didn't say it would WORK for everyone.

jeardawg

Yes, I can call it evil because thats my opinion. Just like it was the OP'S opinion. She was claming that that's what worked for her. She was not telling everyone that it would work for them.

Um, yep she was:

I was not able to drop much weight until I quit these three evils. Then it came off fast, and without even exercising.
30 lbs in two months, bam, gone!
After years of struggling and sweating and counting calories, only this was truly effective.
Have kept it off 6 months now too, it is not coming back. Try it.

This is why people are getting so upset! People nitpick these threads apart. She said TRY IT. She didn't say it would WORK for everyone.

Yessir!

Flab2Fab27

jeardawg

ok I love that, thank you

PRMinx

ok I love that, thank you

LOL. I just almost spit out my Chuao Chocolate Popcorn Pop bar. Now that, my friends, is evil.

Mcgrawhaha

btw: skittles are not evil.

well... they came out with a limited edition seahawks bag this week, so they're a little bit evil.

The green apples ones are evil. BRING BACK LIME SKITTLES.

i agree on the green apple! i feel evil just thinking about it. ive prolly been placed on a domestic terrorist watch list after all the hate messages ive sent to skittles!

davidkayen

theres one in every bunch, you know what they meant!!!

nikkihk

Wow. So from what I gather OP thinks XYZ are evil and believe's she lost 30 pounds by eliminating them from her world, a few MFPer's tried to dispel the magic trick from others performing it by suggesting that XYZ are not evil but provided a calorie deficit (which is backed by science not opinion)... then the opposition to science occurred. "It's not just deficit.. etc.." Which was politely responded to...

hmmm I eat these three "evil" foods regularly and maintain 11% body fat and have lost about 60 pounds total since I started..

OP - you are losing weight because you restricted three food groups and created a calorie deficit..

Which later was labeled as "douchey"? (still confused about that)

Then the argument of opinion and magic vs science and mathematics ensued. Some how sugar wasn't sugar, And food calories aren't just food calories....

I think that covers it?


What doesn't make sense to me is arguing science. It's fact vs. opinion, no one ever said OP can't practice whatever voodoo (no disrespect but that's what all of these formulas are to me) seems to work for her... but what the reality of weight loss is needs to be corrected to dispel the sales tactics and magic beans of fitness corporations that make money from books and pills that they claim is the answer to weight loss struggles. What we all post as advice affects the health of others who read it and ultimately try it... you could unknowingly cause nutrient loss, blood pressure issues, sickness, or other problems in an otherwise healthy person. Restriction of entire food groups has no scientific basis of health benefits or additional aid in proper sustainable weight loss. Only people with medically diagnosed intolerance or allergies to those groups should be practicing restrictions like this.

You don't need to take my word for it however, google... "Restricting food groups" or "fad diets" and you'll find dozens of sites with real medical research and studies (Not I lost 5 pounds last week not eating bread).

Just a few: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Weight_loss_and_fad_diets?open
http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6851

Not a single person here correcting the myths are trying to hurt feelings, they are trying to help others not fall pray to this line of thinking because it's psychologically damaging and will sabotage your long term success. I know it's difficult to hear what you've been doing isn't the answer... and it's even more difficult to know that good old fashioned calorie control and exercise wins the day... especially when you've worn your metabolism down with only meat, cabbage soup, only fruits and veggies.. etc etc etc. You're body is probably more confused then the health industry. But I urge you, look up the truth for yourself.. then I hope in your proper research you decide to lose your weight the correct sustainable way.

I wish you luck OP and anyone else who wants to try the voodoo, if it becomes a long term solution for you? Then congratulations!! But if not? Please consider a better alternative.

Leonidas_meets_Spartacus

Vodoo LOL. Way to judge people with out knowing their medical history. May be OP is insulin resistant, the people who develop insulin resistance do worse with sugars. There is no moderation involved there because of spike in blood sugar. Just because you read something on internet doesn't make you expert. What works for some may not work for other.

WendyTerry420

Yes, after 30,000 years, suddenly gluten, dairy, and sugar are poisonous to humans. Makes perfect sense.:huh:

Well, I can see why milk would be a problem.

Studies have shown less then 40% of people retain the ability to digest milk properly once they grow up. No other animal out there drinks milk after becoming an adult. So though it is delicious and has benefits. It is not exactly natural.

Sugar was not in our original diets the way it is today, aside from fruits and the little found in vegetables. So again, it is not something natural in our diets.

And gluten...no clue. Cause I am still looking into that since I may have that intolerance myself it turns out.

So 6 out of 10 people are lactose intolerant? I don't believe it. I've met *one* lactose intolerant person in my whole life, and I'm nearly 40.

jeardawg

Wow. So from what I gather OP thinks XYZ are evil and believe's she lost 30 pounds by eliminating them from her world, a few MFPer's tried to dispel the magic trick from others performing it by suggesting that XYZ are not evil but provided a calorie deficit (which is backed by science not opinion)... then the opposition to science occurred. "It's not just deficit.. etc.." Which was politely responded to...

hmmm I eat these three "evil" foods regularly and maintain 11% body fat and have lost about 60 pounds total since I started..

OP - you are losing weight because you restricted three food groups and created a calorie deficit..

Which later was labeled as "douchey"? (still confused about that)

Then the argument of opinion and magic vs science and mathematics ensued. Some how sugar wasn't sugar, And food calories aren't just food calories....

I think that covers it?


What doesn't make sense to me is arguing science. It's fact vs. opinion, no one ever said OP can't practice whatever voodoo (no disrespect but that's what all of these formulas are to me) seems to work for her... but what the reality of weight loss is needs to be corrected to dispel the sales tactics and magic beans of fitness corporations that make money from books and pills that they claim is the answer to weight loss struggles. What we all post as advice affects the health of others who read it and ultimately try it... you could unknowingly cause nutrient loss, blood pressure issues, sickness, or other problems in an otherwise healthy person. Restriction of entire food groups has no scientific basis of health benefits or additional aid in proper sustainable weight loss. Only people with medically diagnosed intolerance or allergies to those groups should be practicing restrictions like this.

You don't need to take my word for it however, google... "Restricting food groups" or "fad diets" and you'll find dozens of sites with real medical research and studies (Not I lost 5 pounds last week not eating bread).

Just a few: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Weight_loss_and_fad_diets?open
http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6851

Not a single person here correcting the myths are trying to hurt feelings, they are trying to help others not fall pray to this line of thinking because it's psychologically damaging and will sabotage your long term success. I know it's difficult to hear what you've been doing isn't the answer... and it's even more difficult to know that good old fashioned calorie control and exercise wins the day... especially when you've worn your metabolism down with only meat, cabbage soup, only fruits and veggies.. etc etc etc. You're body is probably more confused then the health industry. But I urge you, look up the truth for yourself.. then I hope in your proper research you decide to lose your weight the correct sustainable way.

I wish you luck OP and anyone else who wants to try the voodoo, if it becomes a long term solution for you? Then congratulations!! But if not? Please consider a better alternative.

lemme see, I weigh my food and I log my calories. I exercise and lose weight. hmmmm I eat bread and then I get sick... My doctor told me not to eat bread. Damn, that magician. I still weigh my food and exercise, lose even more weight!!! Its magic, its also science. I read the OPS blog, she got sick too. Imagine, must be magic. Just because something isn't consistent with your experience doesn't mean it isn't bunk. The op's post is a success story. I hope yours is filled with sugar and dairy and gluten and unicorns who **** rainbows.

have the common courtesy to congratulate someone who lost the weight they wanted, and seems to be keeping it off, someday maybe we can do the same for you.

toodles

In so many words everything you said has been said by previous posters, and people have attempted to clarify, you wanna be sarcastic why bother with being polite?

lynleeg88

So 6 out of 10 people are lactose intolerant? I don't believe it. I've met *one* lactose intolerant person in my whole life, and I'm nearly 40.

Here you are:

Lactose intolerance is fairly common. It seems to affect guys and girls equally. Some ethnic groups are more likely to be affected than others because their diets traditionally include fewer dairy products: Almost all Asians and Native Americans are lactose intolerant, and up to 80% of African Americans and Hispanic Americans also have symptoms of lactose intolerance. Their ancestors did not eat dairy foods, so their bodies were not prepared to digest dairy, and they passed these genes on from generation to generation.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/nutrition/lactose_intolerance.html#

Another:

If you're American or European it's hard to realize this, but being able to digest milk as an adult is one weird genetic adaptation.

It's not normal. Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world's highest percentages of lactase tolerant people.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-30-lactose-intolerance_N.htm

This one breaks it down statistically for you:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/lactose-intolerance-statistics/

Approximately 75 % of Earths population is lactose intolerant for a reason, that’s because it’s perfectly natural. - See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/03/over-75-of-earths-population-is-lactose-intolerant-for-a-reason-dairy-is-harmful/#sthash.h0dsgNe4.dpuf

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/03/over-75-of-earths-population-is-lactose-intolerant-for-a-reason-dairy-is-harmful/



Some people have it worse then others. While some have very mild symptoms they may not even recognize. For others, it is painful and can affect their every day life.

DamePiglet

All the information I mentioned was from doing research on my own from valid resources and was to explain why I made the choices I did. I didn't save them all because I don't save a million articles on my computer, but they can be found if people took the time to look. If my statements are wrong, no one on here seems to be posting any medical journal articles to prove otherwise. it goes both ways. If everyone is right and I'm wrong, then give me proof from respected medical journals (I'm an RN and belong to many journals online so I can do this valid reasearch). If I read you articles and they make sense to me then I will admit that you were correct. Until then, I can only go based off the research I have done and will call you out if and when you have nothing to back your statements up either.

Actually this isn't true. "Folks," as in non-medical folks, or marketing people with alphabet letters after their name, introduce the newest "fad" diet with claims of wonderful results. It hits the news, via some celebrity who pushes it, then people jump on the fad & swear by it seeking some miracle weight loss (i.e. something that doesn't require work.) By the time it is truly researched with valid medical/statistical method & technique, the diet has fallen from favor for the "new better than best miracle" diet. When the article proving the previous fad was bogus is finally published, no one is paying attention any more, because they've already moved onto the new fad. By the way, I read medical articles too--I'm an M.D.

For those of you complimenting the OP, her weight loss was waaaaay to rapid, unless she was morbidly obese & under the care of a weight loss/bariatric physician. NO ONE should strive for that extreme of weight loss! It is usually done with a very low calorie intake. Don't be fooled into believing all that weight loss was fat. The initial loss included water shifts from glycogen breakdown & an excessive amount of lean body mass (i.e. muscle) loss. That muscle loss has now dropped her calorie burn, making it even harder to lose weight on a similar calorie deficit. To continue to lose weight, she will now have to drop her calories even lower!!!

Appropriate weight loss should involve a REASONABLE calorie deficit, adequate intake of proteins (1 grams/pound LBM) and fats (0.4 grams/pound LBM). Finally, sugar is sugar. The only folks benefiting from the crazy notions about sugar are the industries pushing those ideas! If you want to delete certain food groups from your diet, more power to you! Just understand that it is not sustainable over the long haul, which is what eventually leads to diet failures & regaining of weight + a few extra pounds. Those of us recommending a calorie deficit through moderation are trying to get folks to switch to a life-long dietary change. You need to be able to eat what you enjoy within moderation. Denying yourself something that you love will only lead to frustration & failure. If you doubt that reality, all you have to do is look back through all the threads of people looking for new friends as they start their diet over for the 3th-4th-15th time. I dare you to look back though all the thread started since January 1st of this year.

One last thing, for those claiming they have to eat differently because they are over 30-40-50 years of age. Yes, you need fewer calories as you age, but mostly that is due to loss of muscle mass and decreasing activity. Studies have shown you lose 1 pound of muscle mass/year as you age, unless you make a concerted effort to prevent it--that is responsible for your drop in metabolism. Eating enough protein, utilizing resistance training & staying active can prevent much of that decrease! Starting now with a healthy, sustainable lifestyle is the lesson you should learn from this new/rededicated diet, not a bunch of crazy, unsustainable rubbish.

I am 54 years old, have lost >60 pounds (only 2-3 of which have been muscle loss) in the last year, and I eat 1800-1900 calories/day and enjoy all of my favorite things in moderation!!! My father, at the age of 76 years of age, lost 65 pounds last year doing the same thing. So did my sister, age 52 years! It works!!!!!!!!

WendyTerry420

So 6 out of 10 people are lactose intolerant? I don't believe it. I've met *one* lactose intolerant person in my whole life, and I'm nearly 40.

Here you are:

Lactose intolerance is fairly common. It seems to affect guys and girls equally. Some ethnic groups are more likely to be affected than others because their diets traditionally include fewer dairy products: Almost all Asians and Native Americans are lactose intolerant, and up to 80% of African Americans and Hispanic Americans also have symptoms of lactose intolerance. Their ancestors did not eat dairy foods, so their bodies were not prepared to digest dairy, and they passed these genes on from generation to generation.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/nutrition/lactose_intolerance.html#

Another:

If you're American or European it's hard to realize this, but being able to digest milk as an adult is one weird genetic adaptation.

It's not normal. Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world's highest percentages of lactase tolerant people.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-30-lactose-intolerance_N.htm

This one breaks it down statistically for you:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/lactose-intolerance-statistics/

Approximately 75 % of Earths population is lactose intolerant for a reason, that’s because it’s perfectly natural. - See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/03/over-75-of-earths-population-is-lactose-intolerant-for-a-reason-dairy-is-harmful/#sthash.h0dsgNe4.dpuf

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/03/over-75-of-earths-population-is-lactose-intolerant-for-a-reason-dairy-is-harmful/



Some people have it worse then others. While some have very mild symptoms they may not even recognize. For others, it is painful and can affect their every day life.

Neither of those are primary sources. So I still don't believe it.