inflammation-avoiding foods that cause inflammation ?

LINIA

Read this article and it discusses the importance of eating foods that are less inflammatory by comparing 2 chocalate cakes:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/nourish/201210/its-not-just-about-calories

Do you try to avoid eating foods that cause inflammation in the body?

castlerobber

I guess so, since I try to avoid sugar and refined grains, but I don't specifically pay attention to inflammation ratings.

May have to try that Queen of Sheba cake--sounds great!

toddis

It seems to me all this stuff goes in cycles. Trendy bad for you thing of this year replaces trendy bad for you thing of last year. It poses a false dichotomy bad for you high fat cake or bad for you high sugar cake.

I think the whole inflammation/glycemic index has its place for certain people. For the majority it is just bunk. I remember something about apples or bananas being as bad for you as snickers and french fries or something...Seriously ridiculous.

Short answer: hell no I don't avoid "inflammatory" foods or threads. Muahaahaha.

tigersword

Considering the whole "inflammation rating" thing just came out of a book someone wrote, and isn't really established as actually having any meaning beyond the selfnutritiondata website, no I don't pay any attention to it.

alimac92

The Aternate-day diet I've been attempting to follow is supposed to help reduce the effects of inflammatory illnesses.
You need to read about it, very interesting to hear about the case studies.

:flowerforyou:

thethingirlinside

Yep. Have to .I would fill really bad if I didnt .

gnb4hi

Wow thank you for posting! I really needed to read this today. I just bought the book

Acg67

Wow thank you for posting! I really needed to read this today. I just bought the book

1 is born every minute

tigersword

There's a book about it, it must be true!

Chief_Rocka

anti-inflammatory diet = not eating crap all day

SanteMulberry

If you are in your twenties, you probably don't need to worry if you are eating a healthful diet that avoids sugar and white flour. Once you get into your thirties (where the advent of autoimmune diseases starts to rise) you might want to make sure that you are avoiding pro-inflammatory foods and make sure that you are even more scrupulous about eating a healthful diet with lots of vegetables and lean protein. Exercise helps to cut inflammation as well and should be a part of any health maintenance program. I notice a difference in my arthritis when I consciously try to avoid pro-inflammatory foods. I wish I had started earlier.

Krys_140

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits. I found it intriguing, but as mentioned, haven't looked into it much yet. However, I do suffer from chronic back pain caused at least in part by inflammation, and I'm considering following her doctor's anti-inflammatory diet recommendations, since it's worked so well for her.

LINIA

If you are in your twenties, you probably don't need to worry if you are eating a healthful diet that avoids sugar and white flour. Once you get into your thirties (where the advent of autoimmune diseases starts to rise) you might want to make sure that you are avoiding pro-inflammatory foods and make sure that you are even more scrupulous about eating a healthful diet with lots of vegetables and lean protein. Exercise helps to cut inflammation as well and should be a part of any health maintenance program. I notice a difference in my arthritis when I consciously try to avoid pro-inflammatory foods. I wish I had started earlier.

So in this case if we are a bit older than we benefit more from clean, healthy high-nutrient eating. When we were younger, it didn't matter so much!!!!!

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I find it highly doubtful that any food would reduce inflammation, but even if it were true I'm not sure it would be a good thing. According to Dr. Harriet Hall over at Science Based Medicine, it stands to reason that if inflammation were reduced it might affect your body's ability to heal wounds or respond to infections, and that would be bad.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/inflammation-both-friend-and-foe/

This is just anecdotal, but as a person with an autoimmune disease (lupus) I have been told all sorts of foods I ought to avoid and I've tried several of them with no results at all, so no, I don't eat this way.

tigersword

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits. I found it intriguing, but as mentioned, haven't looked into it much yet. However, I do suffer from chronic back pain caused at least in part by inflammation, and I'm considering following her doctor's anti-inflammatory diet recommendations, since it's worked so well for her.

Why would you credit the diet, and not the weight loss for the reduction in your friend's pain? I had all kinds of chronic pain vanish when I lost 60 pounds, after all, that's 60 less pounds that joints have to try and support, ergo, less pain.

castlerobber

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits.

Why would you credit the diet, and not the weight loss for the reduction in your friend's pain? I had all kinds of chronic pain vanish when I lost 60 pounds, after all, that's 60 less pounds that joints have to try and support, ergo, less pain.

Why wouldn't you credit the diet? It could very well be a combination of the difference in foods and the weight loss.

Search the forums for a thread called "Gluten is the Devil" by GorillaEsquire. It discusses gluten rather than inflammation (though they're probably related), but it does show how changing the type of food eaten can quickly have a beneficial effect.

tigersword

Ugh. The point is, when multiple variables change, you can't arbitrarily just choose one and say that's what led to the result.

And gluten is certainly not the devil. The vast majority of people are completely unaffected by eating or not eating gluten. The people that are affected are allergic to it. No different than people being allergic to shellfish or peanuts. Shellfish and peanuts aren't bad for people that aren't allergic to them, and gluten isn't bad for people that aren't allergic to it.

SanteMulberry

If you are in your twenties, you probably don't need to worry if you are eating a healthful diet that avoids sugar and white flour. Once you get into your thirties (where the advent of autoimmune diseases starts to rise) you might want to make sure that you are avoiding pro-inflammatory foods and make sure that you are even more scrupulous about eating a healthful diet with lots of vegetables and lean protein. Exercise helps to cut inflammation as well and should be a part of any health maintenance program. I notice a difference in my arthritis when I consciously try to avoid pro-inflammatory foods. I wish I had started earlier.

So in this case if we are a bit older than we benefit more from clean, healthy high-nutrient eating. When we were younger, it didn't matter so much!!!!!

When you are younger, you are generally healthier and you have reserves that you simply don't have as you age--so you succumb to disease much more readily. Scientists have come to understand that aging itself is something of a disease process. At forty, you produce a much smaller amount of many important substances than you did when you were twenty. Human growth hormone is just one example. Children produce the most per pound of body weight (because they are growing, obviously). Still, it is important all through life (for tissue repair, etc.), but, we produce diminishing amounts as we age. At twenty, an individual could stay awake all night and not suffer the next day too badly---try abusing your body like that at 50 or 60. :laugh:

bikinibeliever

Bump...so I can read later. I NEED it!

SanteMulberry

I find it highly doubtful that any food would reduce inflammation, but even if it were true I'm not sure it would be a good thing. According to Dr. Harriet Hall over at Science Based Medicine, it stands to reason that if inflammation were reduced it might affect your body's ability to heal wounds or respond to infections, and that would be bad.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/inflammation-both-friend-and-foe/

This is just anecdotal, but as a person with an autoimmune disease (lupus) I have been told all sorts of foods I ought to avoid and I've tried several of them with no results at all, so no, I don't eat this way.

\
It is true that inflammation is part of the immune system/healing process but uncontrolled production of inflammatory cytokines by an immune system gone into overdrive can ultimately kill you. Take just one example from the influenza epidemic of 1918. In most cases of influenza, the very young and the very old are most at risk of severe complications and/or death. In their cases, it is the result of an inadequate response to the virus by their immune systems---an incomplete one in a child or a fading one in an old person. What made the 1918 influenza remarkable was that the greatest number of deaths were, proportionally, among young adults. It is fairly certain that they were killed by what we know today as a "cytokine storm"---where the body pumps out massive volumes of inflammatory cytokines (in response to the virus) to the point where the victims lungs are seared beyond the body's ability to repair them, and death ensues.

We do know that the numbers of victims of autoimmune disease are climbing but there are different theories as to why. The effects of metabolizing food or other biochemical processes may be a trigger for some individuals--thus the avoidance of food that could be a triggering element.. We also know that autoimmune disease has been around for a very long time. Historical accounts dating back to 4,500 B.C. describe crippling arthritis---all forms of which, have immune system involvement as well as metabolic elements.

SanteMulberry

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits.

Why would you credit the diet, and not the weight loss for the reduction in your friend's pain? I had all kinds of chronic pain vanish when I lost 60 pounds, after all, that's 60 less pounds that joints have to try and support, ergo, less pain.

Why wouldn't you credit the diet? It could very well be a combination of the difference in foods and the weight loss.

Search the forums for a thread called "Gluten is the Devil" by GorillaEsquire. It discusses gluten rather than inflammation (though they're probably related), but it does show how changing the type of food eaten can quickly have a beneficial effect.

It is known that obese people have much higher levels of inflammation in the body---whether it is a cause of the obesity or the result of the obesity is not yet known. A diet that is high in fructose (sugar is 50% fructose) is known to produce greater amounts of inflammation in the body.

dovek11

I am not going to join in the argument. To answer your question, yes, I avoid inflammation causing foods, and have weight loss to prove it is a factor for some people, not a gimmick.

tigersword

So you didn't change anything else about your lifestyle? Same exact number of calories, same exact macronutrient ratios, same exact activity level? The only thing that changed was whether the food was "inflammatory" or not? I highly doubt that.

tigersword

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits.

Why would you credit the diet, and not the weight loss for the reduction in your friend's pain? I had all kinds of chronic pain vanish when I lost 60 pounds, after all, that's 60 less pounds that joints have to try and support, ergo, less pain.

Why wouldn't you credit the diet? It could very well be a combination of the difference in foods and the weight loss.

Search the forums for a thread called "Gluten is the Devil" by GorillaEsquire. It discusses gluten rather than inflammation (though they're probably related), but it does show how changing the type of food eaten can quickly have a beneficial effect.

It is known that obese people have much higher levels of inflammation in the body---whether it is a cause of the obesity or the result of the obesity is not yet known. A diet that is high in fructose (sugar is 50% fructose) is known to produce greater amounts of inflammation in the body.

So, are you advocating no longer eating fruit? Lots and lots of fructose in fruit. Who knew fruit was that bad for everyone?

Kaiukas

My ex partner has a very serious hereditary autoimmune disorder that mainly affects his joints. His uncle died of it in his 50s. He has been avoiding inflammatory food for around 20 years and it has made a very dramatic positive effect on his health. He also uses exercise to manage his disease.

Interestingly, my ex figured this out all on his own through trial and error (before all this was thrown into public domain). He could eat most fruit (in moderation), but any refined sugar, white bread or pasta and alcohol affected him, so he stopped eating them.

I have enormous respect for his will power: he used to love sweet things (and because he is super fit and sporty, could eat loads without as much as an ounce of weight gain) and quite enjoyed a drink here and there, but he just stopped, no whining or no 'it's not fair' bla-bla-blaa!

Anti-inflammatory diet is definitely worth considering in case of inflammation-based chronic conditions.

SanteMulberry

I haven't looked into it much, but a good friend of mine is eating an "anti-inflammatory" diet, and it has helped with joint pain, back pain, and neck pain that was all related to inflammation. She has also lost a lot of weight on the diet, though that was not the main goal of the change in eating habits.

Why would you credit the diet, and not the weight loss for the reduction in your friend's pain? I had all kinds of chronic pain vanish when I lost 60 pounds, after all, that's 60 less pounds that joints have to try and support, ergo, less pain.

Why wouldn't you credit the diet? It could very well be a combination of the difference in foods and the weight loss.

Search the forums for a thread called "Gluten is the Devil" by GorillaEsquire. It discusses gluten rather than inflammation (though they're probably related), but it does show how changing the type of food eaten can quickly have a beneficial effect.

It is known that obese people have much higher levels of inflammation in the body---whether it is a cause of the obesity or the result of the obesity is not yet known. A diet that is high in fructose (sugar is 50% fructose) is known to produce greater amounts of inflammation in the body.

So, are you advocating no longer eating fruit? Lots and lots of fructose in fruit. Who knew fruit was that bad for everyone?

No---fruit is VERY good for you--it is packed with nutrients (and it really is not that high in fructose). The amount of fructose in a can of soda (which is usually sweetened with high fructose corn syrup) is equivalent to the amount of fructose in a dozen oranges. I don't know anyone who eats a dozen oranges at a time--but even a young child could drink a can of soda. Besides, because of the fiber that fruit contains, the fructose is released into the body very slowly, mitigating its effects. It isn't like the jolt of fructose that you get from a can of soda or a very sugary dessert. I eat a couple of pieces of fruit almost every day (although I usually avoid fruits that are particularly high in fructose--like dried fruit. But, if I feel like having some raisins, I simply account for it in my total of fructose. I usually try to limit fructose consumption to 15-20 grams a day, which allows me to have a couple of pieces of fruit (but no sugar in anything). I don't like bananas (which are pretty high in fructose--especially very ripe ones where the starch has been converted to sugar).

tigersword

You are aware that the speed of sugar entering your blood stream is dependent on total food intake, aren't you? The only way you will get a major sugar rush from drinking one serving of soda is if you are completely fasted before drinking it, as the other food in your digestive system will all impact the speed with which nutrients (including glucose and fructose) are absorbed. And the human body is actually terribly inefficient at absorbing fructose anyway, so you are never going to get any kind of wild "jolt" as you call it from fructose, as the human digestive system physically can't absorb it quickly. This is why diabetics track carbs, and not sugar, because focusing on any one particular type of carb is missing the forest for the trees.

People around here get way too focused on tiny details, that they end up having absolutely no understanding of the big picture.

Drinking one 12 oz can of soda, included with a varied and balanced diet that reaches sufficient macronutrient and micronutrient goals will have no negative effect on health. Consuming 2 liters of soda, preventing a person from reaching sufficient macro and micronutrient levels, will have a negative effect on health. Since you're focusing solely on the sugar, that's where you will lay the blame, when the reality is malnutrition is the problem due to a lack of nutrients, the actual amount of sugar consumed is irrelevant.

SanteMulberry

Tiger'sword,

You said:You are aware that the speed of sugar entering your blood stream is dependent on total food intake, aren't you?

My reply: Of course---no need to be condescending. Dietary fat has the effect of evening out blood sugar spikes that DO COME from the consumption of starch and sugar. It has been demonstrated over and over that blood sugar levels are most affected by the consumption of "simple carbohydrates" but that the consumption of protein and fat at the same meal have the effect of "slowing down" the absorption of those simple carbs. There is a recent Harvard Med study that demonstrated that trans-palmitoleic acid (found in full-fat dairy) does an admirable job in preventing Type II diabetes because it is thought to slow the absorption of mono-saccharides and dis-accharides. I assume you understand the current thinking on how Type II diabetes occurs? Exercise has a mitigating effect on the simple carb->high blood sugar->high insulin->insulin resistance (over time)->Type II diabetes, but it is unlikely to prevent Type II diabetes, if the diet is not addressed as well. As we age, our blood sugar levels climb independent of how much exercise we get (we slow down in our ability to tolerate exercise anyway).

You said: "The only way you will get a major sugar rush from drinking one serving of soda is if you are completely fasted before drinking it, as the other food in your digestive system will all impact the speed with which nutrients (including glucose and fructose) are absorbed. "

My reply: This is a sweeping generalization. Individuals vary a great deal in their ability to absorb sugar isomers. Glucose tolerance tests show that there is a wide range of bodily performance on that test. We are complex bio-chemical machines with a great deal of variability in our habits and environmental circumstances. Google "obesegens" to see how chemicals in the environment can influence our ability to effectively manage fat deposition and utilization. Many health professionals are alarmed over the consumption of high fructose corn syrup---something that does not exist in nature--and it appears to negatively affect bodily processes. Surely, you are not suggesting that soda pop is anything other than empty calories?

You said: "And the human body is actually terribly inefficient at absorbing fructose anyway, so you are never going to get any kind of wild "jolt" as you call it from fructose, as the human digestive system physically can't absorb it quickly."

My reply: Yes, but when fructose is eaten in combination with another sugar--glucose (and such would be the case of high fructose corn syrup), the absorption of fructose increases. Again, it is simply not "one-size-fits-all". On one hand, some people lack the enzyme necessary for converting fructose into glucose and thus cannot absorb fructose AT ALL. They must eliminate fructose from their diet in order to prevent gastric problems. On the other hand, some new research suggests that there are still other obese individuals whose bio-chemistry is such that they appear to be able to convert blood glucose into fructose!

You said: "This is why diabetics track carbs, and not sugar, because focusing on any one particular type of carb is missing the forest for the trees. People around here get way too focused on tiny details, that they end up having absolutely no understanding of the big picture."

My reply: And you do?

You said: "Drinking one 12 oz can of soda, included with a varied and balanced diet that reaches sufficient macronutrient and micronutrient goals will have no negative effect on health. Consuming 2 liters of soda, preventing a person from reaching sufficient macro and micronutrient levels, will have a negative effect on health. Since you're focusing solely on the sugar, that's where you will lay the blame, when the reality is malnutrition is the problem due to a lack of nutrients, the actual amount of sugar consumed is irrelevant."

My reply: You are swimming against the stream with this one. There is a LOT of research on the ill effects of ANY soda consumption because of the enhanced uptake of fructose that occurs with consumption of that product. The body does not metabolize fructose exactly the same way as glucose, and the liver will convert extra fructose to fat much more readily than it will convert extra glucose to fat. Eating processed sugar of any sort is calorie-dense, non-nutrition that most people simply cannot afford in the maintenance of good health.

WendyTerry420

Foods that cause inflammation would vary from one person to another. Some foods are more irritable to some people than others. I would never avoid a food just because I read an article about it though.