Anyone cut out Dairy, Sugar, Wheat and Pork from diet?

ShoshanahM

I have gluten and moderate lactose intolerance. My husband is a vegetarian and I've been avoiding non-natural sweets, so yeah I guess I'm on that diet! Sometimes I eat pork, but it makes me feel like a bad Jew.

iAMsmiling

I'd have *****-slapped him the moment "pork" came out of his mouth.

ShoshanahM

I don't eat wheat, dairy, corn, certain fruits, and certain veggies. This is so restrictive as it is, that I've thought about cutting out other foods to ease my continuing stomach woes, but I just don't know what I will be able to eat. Is pork an issue for some people? I was vegitarian for years, and I've begun eating meat again, and I have noticed that my stomach problems seem to flare up from eating pork, but I thought I was just imagining things.

Okay, I have just about zero scientific knowledge about this kind of thing, but I know pigs (AND cows AND chicken) are fed lots of corn... Maybe it finds its way into meat?

FredDoyle

I have had health problems for several years now. Bouncing from one specialist to the other. I recently was referred to a naturopath that has help a lot of people in my area with natural remedies. I went to see him 6 weeks ago and he instructed me to take specific vitamins and natural pills he prescribed. I saw great improvement in 1 week. I saw him again last week for a follow up and he now instructed me to cut out all dairy, sugar, wheat, pork, coffee and alcohol from my diet for 4 weeks and wants to see me again before I change my diet again.

Unfortunately, naturopathy is a hodge-podge of mostly unscientific treatment modalities based on vitalism and other prescientific notions of disease. As a result, typical naturopaths are more than happy in essence to “pick one from column A and one from column B” when it comes to pseudoscience, mixing and matching treatments including traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbalism, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine. Despite their affinity for non-science-based medical systems, naturopaths crave the imprimatur of science. As a result, they desperately try to represent what they do as being science-based, and they’ve even set up research institutes, much like the departments, divisions, and institutes devoted to “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) that have cropped up on the campuses of legitimate medical schools and academic medical centers like so many weeds poking through the cracks in the edifice of science-based medicine. Naturopaths also really, really don’t like it when they encounter criticism that their “discipline” is not science-based. Indeed, the president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Carl Hangee-Bauer, ND, LAc (he’s an acupuncturist, too!), wrote a revealing post on the official AANP blog entitled Science and Naturopathic Medicine.

Science. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/naturopathy-and-science/

Thank-you. I was just going to post something like this.

cmriverside

Solid evidence

once in a blue moon.

Wait. What is going on here? Do I sense harmony?



OP you lost me at Pork.

FredDoyle

Solid evidence

once in a blue moon.

He was being sarcastic. (I think)

alaskaang

Yes, with the exception of pork. In dealing with intollerances, issues with dairy and wheat are common and overuse of sugar isn't good. As far as pork goes, my guess would be that the reason has more to do with the other stuff in it than the meat itself - bacon, ham, sausage, all have added flllers which often include wheat, dairy and sugar. Even chops have "x% added flavor enchancing solution" if you aren't careful to find the ones that don't.

If it's helping you feel better, there's no reason not to give dietary changes a chance. Once you have balanced out, you may find that you can add things back in, it just takes some trial and error.

cmriverside

Solid evidence

once in a blue moon.

He was being sarcastic. (I think)

Oh. Acg is on a sarcasm roll today..."milk is for baby mammals...." :laugh:

VorJoshigan

Well let's break it down:

Sugar - def bad if you are in any way insulin resistant (fat = probably insulin resistant)
Dairy - usually includes lots of either sugar (see above) or fat. I think combining sugar with fat is even worse than doubling down on sugar.
Wheat - calorifically dense & easily broken down to sugar by digestive system - see sugar above
Pork - most pork products are heavily preserved. Reducing sodium and nitrates will probably make you feed better.

Me personally, I've cut out sugar because I find it just too damn delicious & wheat because I dislike most wheat products.
I do try to eat fresh cuts of pork, and dairy is just something I love, so I'm just not going to get rid of it. I do, however, use more almond/coconut milk than previously in my life.

Chief_Rocka

as most of us have a minor wheat intolerance.

Do you have any evidence of this?

http://io9.com/5968164/why-you-should-probably-stop-eating-wheat

The problem, however, is in how it's metabolized. According to Alessio Fasano, the Medical Director for The University of Maryland's Center for Celiac Research, no one can properly digest gluten.

"We do not have the enzymes to break it down," he said in a recent interview with TenderFoodie. "It all depends upon how well our intestinal walls close after we ingest it and how our immune system reacts to it." His concern is that the gluten protein, which is abundant in the endosperm of barley, rye, and wheat kernels, is setting off an aberrant immune response.

Research has put Non-Cealic Gluten sensitivity at .55% of the US Population: http://www.eventscribe.com/2012/acg/ajaxcalls/postersinfo.asp?title=6267

The person you're quoting disagrees, and puts the figure at 6-7%: http://celiacdisease.about.com/b/2012/10/25/study-finds-very-low-gluten-sensitivity-rate-but-dr-fasano-disagrees.htm

Either way, it's a far cry from "most people."

silverboot

The naturopath explained to me that there is something in pork makes it harder to digest. Not sure... I don't normally eat a lot of pork other than baccon every once in a while.

JoyousRen

I have had health problems for several years now. Bouncing from one specialist to the other. I recently was referred to a naturopath that has help a lot of people in my area with natural remedies. I went to see him 6 weeks ago and he instructed me to take specific vitamins and natural pills he prescribed. I saw great improvement in 1 week. I saw him again last week for a follow up and he now instructed me to cut out all dairy, sugar, wheat, pork, coffee and alcohol from my diet for 4 weeks and wants to see me again before I change my diet again.

Unfortunately, naturopathy is a hodge-podge of mostly unscientific treatment modalities based on vitalism and other prescientific notions of disease. As a result, typical naturopaths are more than happy in essence to “pick one from column A and one from column B” when it comes to pseudoscience, mixing and matching treatments including traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbalism, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine. Despite their affinity for non-science-based medical systems, naturopaths crave the imprimatur of science. As a result, they desperately try to represent what they do as being science-based, and they’ve even set up research institutes, much like the departments, divisions, and institutes devoted to “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) that have cropped up on the campuses of legitimate medical schools and academic medical centers like so many weeds poking through the cracks in the edifice of science-based medicine. Naturopaths also really, really don’t like it when they encounter criticism that their “discipline” is not science-based. Indeed, the president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Carl Hangee-Bauer, ND, LAc (he’s an acupuncturist, too!), wrote a revealing post on the official AANP blog entitled Science and Naturopathic Medicine.

Science. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/naturopathy-and-science/

Science isn't infallible and there is no money in blind studies of alternative medicine practices so they're not testing it anyway. That doesn't mean every wacky thing works *cough* raspberry ketones *cough* but jumping on someone for going to a naturopath because traditional medicine isn't working or they don't want to be loaded with chemicals is ridiculous. I know people that had been referred to naturopaths by their MD and it helped a lot. Personally, I cut out wheat because it caused non-digestive issues. Is there a scientific study proving that eating wheat can cause inflammation in joints and irritation of the skin? I have no clue but it does in me. The idea that there must be a per reviewed scientific article on something for it to be true is just as false as the idea that every wacky notion thrown out is true due to anecdotal evidence.

JoyousRen

The naturopath explained to me that there is something in pork makes it harder to digest. Not sure... I don't normally eat a lot of pork other than baccon every once in a while.

Personally, I would just cut one thing out at a time. See if that helps. If it doesn't, add it back and take something else out. It maybe only be necessary to cut one thing.

silverboot

Thank you! :happy:

silverboot

I have had health problems for several years now. Bouncing from one specialist to the other. I recently was referred to a naturopath that has help a lot of people in my area with natural remedies. I went to see him 6 weeks ago and he instructed me to take specific vitamins and natural pills he prescribed. I saw great improvement in 1 week. I saw him again last week for a follow up and he now instructed me to cut out all dairy, sugar, wheat, pork, coffee and alcohol from my diet for 4 weeks and wants to see me again before I change my diet again.

Unfortunately, naturopathy is a hodge-podge of mostly unscientific treatment modalities based on vitalism and other prescientific notions of disease. As a result, typical naturopaths are more than happy in essence to “pick one from column A and one from column B” when it comes to pseudoscience, mixing and matching treatments including traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbalism, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine. Despite their affinity for non-science-based medical systems, naturopaths crave the imprimatur of science. As a result, they desperately try to represent what they do as being science-based, and they’ve even set up research institutes, much like the departments, divisions, and institutes devoted to “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) that have cropped up on the campuses of legitimate medical schools and academic medical centers like so many weeds poking through the cracks in the edifice of science-based medicine. Naturopaths also really, really don’t like it when they encounter criticism that their “discipline” is not science-based. Indeed, the president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Carl Hangee-Bauer, ND, LAc (he’s an acupuncturist, too!), wrote a revealing post on the official AANP blog entitled Science and Naturopathic Medicine.

Science. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/naturopathy-and-science/

Science isn't infallible and there is no money in blind studies of alternative medicine practices so they're not testing it anyway. That doesn't mean every wacky thing works *cough* raspberry ketones *cough* but jumping on someone for going to a naturopath because traditional medicine isn't working or they don't want to be loaded with chemicals is ridiculous. I know people that had been referred to naturopaths by their MD and it helped a lot. Personally, I cut out wheat because it caused non-digestive issues. Is there a scientific study proving that eating wheat can cause inflammation in joints and irritation of the skin? I have no clue but it does in me. The idea that there must be a per reviewed scientific article on something for it to be true is just as false as the idea that every wacky notion thrown out is true due to anecdotal evidence.

Thank you!

Xhell_on_heelsX

Things like wheat and corn can easitly be genetically modified..this is my main reason for trying to stay away from them. Sugar is my next thing I need to focus on and nip that habit in the bud.

RandiLandCHANGED

I'd starve without sugar and dairy and I looooove pork!

Wheat makes me noticeably bloated but I eat it anyways unless I have a photoshoot or if I'm planning to be in a bikini.

CoachReddy

I have had health problems for several years now. Bouncing from one specialist to the other. I recently was referred to a naturopath that has help a lot of people in my area with natural remedies. I went to see him 6 weeks ago and he instructed me to take specific vitamins and natural pills he prescribed. I saw great improvement in 1 week. I saw him again last week for a follow up and he now instructed me to cut out all dairy, sugar, wheat, pork, coffee and alcohol from my diet for 4 weeks and wants to see me again before I change my diet again.

Unfortunately, naturopathy is a hodge-podge of mostly unscientific treatment modalities based on vitalism and other prescientific notions of disease. As a result, typical naturopaths are more than happy in essence to “pick one from column A and one from column B” when it comes to pseudoscience, mixing and matching treatments including traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbalism, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine. Despite their affinity for non-science-based medical systems, naturopaths crave the imprimatur of science. As a result, they desperately try to represent what they do as being science-based, and they’ve even set up research institutes, much like the departments, divisions, and institutes devoted to “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) that have cropped up on the campuses of legitimate medical schools and academic medical centers like so many weeds poking through the cracks in the edifice of science-based medicine. Naturopaths also really, really don’t like it when they encounter criticism that their “discipline” is not science-based. Indeed, the president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Carl Hangee-Bauer, ND, LAc (he’s an acupuncturist, too!), wrote a revealing post on the official AANP blog entitled Science and Naturopathic Medicine.

Science. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/naturopathy-and-science/

Science isn't infallible and there is no money in blind studies of alternative medicine practices so they're not testing it anyway. That doesn't mean every wacky thing works *cough* raspberry ketones *cough* but jumping on someone for going to a naturopath because traditional medicine isn't working or they don't want to be loaded with chemicals is ridiculous. I know people that had been referred to naturopaths by their MD and it helped a lot. Personally, I cut out wheat because it caused non-digestive issues. Is there a scientific study proving that eating wheat can cause inflammation in joints and irritation of the skin? I have no clue but it does in me. The idea that there must be a per reviewed scientific article on something for it to be true is just as false as the idea that every wacky notion thrown out is true due to anecdotal evidence.

thank you.

CoachReddy

Research has put Non-Cealic Gluten sensitivity at .55% of the US Population: http://www.eventscribe.com/2012/acg/ajaxcalls/postersinfo.asp?title=6267

The person you're quoting disagrees, and puts the figure at 6-7%: http://celiacdisease.about.com/b/2012/10/25/study-finds-very-low-gluten-sensitivity-rate-but-dr-fasano-disagrees.htm

Either way, it's a far cry from "most people."

lol that's talking about people who get symptoms from gluten sensitivity. I'm not even saying that most people have reactions to gluten, simply saying that it's not EASY for any person to digest since we don't have the correct enzymes in our bodies to break it down properly. and really I'm not saying that at all. the director of the Center for Celiac Research.

He knows more than both of us.

silverboot

I just want to say that the issues I was having were bad enough that doctors or specialist couldn't help me with prescription pills. Funny how a few vitamins, supplements and a change in diet has made a huge difference. I don't really care if people don't believe in naturopaths and they think they are quacks. Fact of the matter is, the change is not something that could have changed by telling me if you remove A & B out, you will feel better simply because I was told to believe something. This change happened directly due to the recommendations of the naturopath. This is also a change you can see. Funny how these issues were with me for a number of years and then all of a sudden are gone.