Paleo / Gluten Free Diets

bcattoes

Well you don't know if you don't try it. So don't pretend like you know you have no issues with gluten.

Why would one have to eliminate something to know if they have issues? Issues either exist or they don't. While one may not know that X is the cause of issue Y, one would know if issue Y existed.

Eliminating anything from the diet for an extended period of time and then adding it back can cause digestion issues. This is not specific to wheat or carbs. Try it with meat sometime. The gut produces enzymes needed to digest the foods eaten. When something new is introduced, there is a chance the enzyme needed to digest it won't be there. It's the same reason foreign foods sometimes cause distress.

You don't HAVE to eliminate it, just some things that you wouldn't attribute to it will not be obvious without doing that. I am not talking about GI distress by the way. Dairy may cause issues for me but I eat it anyway, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you ohhhh no I know for a fact casein isn't doing any harm to me.

So, if one doesn't have to eliminate something to know if it's causing issues, what did you mean by "you don't know if you don't try it. So don't pretend like you know you have no issues with gluten"

taso42

Haven't had the need as I don't have issues with gluten. If you have gluten issues, then it makes sense to limit or eliminate gluten.

Have you tried eliminating it for a time and the reintroducing it?

No, why would I do such a thing?

Because of all the posters here saying they have had good experience by eliminating it.

I used to have some pretty bad road rage. I went 11 months without eating any grains except white rice and occasionally corn. For my birthday I had hotdogs and doughnuts, the next morning, I was driving like an *kitten* and I was getting pissed off. It really surprised me that there would be some kind of mental benefit to avoiding wheat. You should maybe try

The reason I have found success is because I have virtually never tried any of these random bulsh*t things.

Well you don't know if you don't try it. So don't pretend like you know you have no issues with gluten.

I guess I have issues attempting communication with people who are as biased as you.

Have you tried eliminating all plastics from your home? How do you know they're safe?
Have you tried avoiding water between the hours of 12pm and 1pm? How do you know that's not the cause all your life's problems?
Some people are allergic to peanuts. To be on the safe side, we're better off eliminating, nay, BANNING them, eh?

Whether or not YOU think it's useless, you need to respect others who have found it has benefited their health. I am a walking example of what happened when I eliminated wheat and grains from my diet, and kept everything else. I have the blood work to prove that my body HAD been in full auto immune response prior to, then no more, AFTER 3 months of being off wheat and grains. I still ate processed bacon, processed other foods, etc, but NO wheat or grains.

Just because it doesn't affect you (or you aren't AWARE of how it has affected you, or you HAVENT had the symptoms crop up yet - I was 46 before I discovered the correlation), it doesn't mean others are BSing you, or having some sort of placebo affect that you believe they have. For US, it is very real and very obvious something was wrong, the issue was identified, and now things are better.

End of story.

I invite you to re-read my very first reply in this thread. Here, let me copy the relevant portion for you: "If you have gluten issues, then it makes sense to limit or eliminate gluten."

I guess the joke is that I came into one of these Paleo threads with a non-snarky response.

What the hell is wrong with you people? I'm very freaking sorry (not really) that I don't feel like crap after after I eat what I eat. Just because you do doesn't mean that I should limit my food choices to your standards. FFS.

taso42

Haven't had the need as I don't have issues with gluten. If you have gluten issues, then it makes sense to limit or eliminate gluten.

Have you tried eliminating it for a time and the reintroducing it?

No, why would I do such a thing?

Because of all the posters here saying they have had good experience by eliminating it.

I used to have some pretty bad road rage. I went 11 months without eating any grains except white rice and occasionally corn. For my birthday I had hotdogs and doughnuts, the next morning, I was driving like an *kitten* and I was getting pissed off. It really surprised me that there would be some kind of mental benefit to avoiding wheat. You should maybe try

The reason I have found success is because I have virtually never tried any of these random bulsh*t things.

Well you don't know if you don't try it. So don't pretend like you know you have no issues with gluten.

I guess I have issues attempting communication with people who are as biased as you.

Have you tried eliminating all plastics from your home? How do you know they're safe?
Have you tried avoiding water between the hours of 12pm and 1pm? How do you know that's not the cause all your life's problems?
Some people are allergic to peanuts. To be on the safe side, we're better off eliminating, nay, BANNING them, eh?

Plastics, I have not tried that so I don't know that they aren't safe. I don't eat them however so I do not consider it having the same risk factor as food.

Avoiding water between 12pm and 1pm, I have not tried this, but it is very unlikely as water is a benign substance and the time of day should not be a concern.

I do not eat peanuts.

You can't just say it doesn't cause any issues for you if you've been eating it your whole life. It causes issues for a lot of other people, and that is worth removing it and reintroducing it to see if you notice any difference. What's funny is that the nutrient density of your diet will go up, so undoubtedly it will be better for you to not eat it anyway, even if it doesn't help you specifically because of the gluten.

Please, don't try to school me in nutrition, nutrient density, and what is "better for me", Mr. "1 lb lost".

Also, I think peanuts are you problem. Obviously you need to incorporate peanuts into your diet and they will solve your problems (that you don't even know you have).

Bumbeen

Please, don't try to school me in nutrition, nutrient density, and what is "better for me", Mr. "1 lb lost".

Also, I think peanuts are you problem. Obviously you need to incorporate peanuts into your diet and they will solve your problems (that you don't even know you have).

So you are proposing that wheat is more nutrient dense per calorie than a sweet potato or other non-grain source of carbohydrate? I would find that assertion quite interesting if you'd like to expound on it.

Thanks.

P.S. my 1lb lost is due to carb refeed yesterday

Bumbeen

So, if one doesn't have to eliminate something to know if it's causing issues, what did you mean by "you don't know if you don't try it. So don't pretend like you know you have no issues with gluten"

What I meant by that statement is you can't say "X doesn't cause me any issues" if you have always eaten X. Maybe it doesn't, but you have no way of knowing that because you've always eaten it.

bcattoes

So, if one doesn't have to eliminate something to know if it's causing issues, what did you mean by "you don't know if you don't try it. So don't pretend like you know you have no issues with gluten"

What I meant by that statement is you can't say "X doesn't cause me any issues" if you have always eaten X. Maybe it doesn't, but you have no way of knowing that because you've always eaten it.

I don't understand. If you eat X and don't have any issues, then why can't you say "X doesn't cause me any issues"?

taso42

Please, don't try to school me in nutrition, nutrient density, and what is "better for me", Mr. "1 lb lost".

Also, I think peanuts are you problem. Obviously you need to incorporate peanuts into your diet and they will solve your problems (that you don't even know you have).

So you are proposing that wheat is more nutrient dense per calorie than a sweet potato or other non-grain source of carbohydrate? I would find that assertion quite interesting if you'd like to expound on it.

No. You're really quite keen on conjecture and jumping to conclusions aren't you?

Bumbeen

So, if one doesn't have to eliminate something to know if it's causing issues, what did you mean by "you don't know if you don't try it. So don't pretend like you know you have no issues with gluten"

What I meant by that statement is you can't say "X doesn't cause me any issues" if you have always eaten X. Maybe it doesn't, but you have no way of knowing that because you've always eaten it.

I don't understand. If you eat X and don't have any issues, then why can't you say "X doesn't cause me any issues"?

Dairy can cause acne, gluten can cause leptin resistance. Maybe it's easier for you to diet down to leanness if you eliminate gluten. But why would you know that if you've always eaten it. I'm saying you could be living with some issue that you think is just genetics but possibly you could resolve it by eliminating wheat.

Bumbeen

Please, don't try to school me in nutrition, nutrient density, and what is "better for me", Mr. "1 lb lost".

Also, I think peanuts are you problem. Obviously you need to incorporate peanuts into your diet and they will solve your problems (that you don't even know you have).

So you are proposing that wheat is more nutrient dense per calorie than a sweet potato or other non-grain source of carbohydrate? I would find that assertion quite interesting if you'd like to expound on it.

No. You're really quite keen on conjecture and jumping to conclusions aren't you?

Well why did you ask me to not school you on nutrient density? It sounded like you were *implying* that your diet would not increase in nutrient density by eliminating basically empty calories.

Firefox7275

Wheat is not even edible by humans without excessive processing by the way. The more refined grains are the better they are for you simply because they become less and less the plant and more just a simple carbohydrate. There are not enough vitamins in them in the first place to speak of. If you wanted vitamins in your food you would eat offal and tubers not whole wheat and corn.

Wheat grains are not edible without excessive processing? So why on earth would man begin farming and eating it? Are you getting this 'information' from commercial diet books or published meta analyses and longitudinal population studies?

I don''t eat or recommend wheat, white potato or corn/ maize to nutrition clients for the vitamin content, don't actually know any healthcare professional who does. What a bizarre and misleading statement. How do you know whether I do or do not eat whole wheat, corn, tubers or offal?

mmapags

Please, don't try to school me in nutrition, nutrient density, and what is "better for me", Mr. "1 lb lost".

Also, I think peanuts are you problem. Obviously you need to incorporate peanuts into your diet and they will solve your problems (that you don't even know you have).

So you are proposing that wheat is more nutrient dense per calorie than a sweet potato or other non-grain source of carbohydrate? I would find that assertion quite interesting if you'd like to expound on it.

No. You're really quite keen on conjecture and jumping to conclusions aren't you?

Well why did you ask me to not school you on nutrient density? It sounded like you were *implying* that your diet would not increase in nutrient density by eliminating basically empty calories.

Based on your logic (??) in this thread, is it any wonder that many view advocates of Paleo and gluten free as whacky in their thinking and approach?? I'm pretty neutral on the subject and agree with Firefox that it may or may not make a difference to someone who is having issues. As she mentioned, the way to tell is an elimination/ challenge diet. If you are having no issues, why would you even attempt that? Your fanatical approach is beyond ridiculous honestly.

If I were considering a paleo or gluten free diet and I read your comments in this thread, I would stop considering it.

MoreBean13

I seriously cannot believe this thread has deteriorated to the point of suggesting that people with no known issues should eliminate major food groups and go on a nutritional witch hunt. Why on earth would you WANT to make this harder than it is? Ludicrous concept.

brower47

Has anyone ever tried these diets? I have gotten some very good advice from a very good friend recently and she highly encourages eating a Paleo and Gluten free diet. I am willing to try, I know that I need to start eating to live and not living to eat.... I have just turned 29 and have dedicated this year to taking care of my health and being the healthiest me I can be. I vow to look better in my 30s than I have in my 20s.

Oily fish and organ meats are very nutritious, go for it.

Not to mention delicious. My brother-in-law and I (no one else was interested) cooked up all the offals from various animals. I loved them all.

taso42

Please, don't try to school me in nutrition, nutrient density, and what is "better for me", Mr. "1 lb lost".

Also, I think peanuts are you problem. Obviously you need to incorporate peanuts into your diet and they will solve your problems (that you don't even know you have).

So you are proposing that wheat is more nutrient dense per calorie than a sweet potato or other non-grain source of carbohydrate? I would find that assertion quite interesting if you'd like to expound on it.

No. You're really quite keen on conjecture and jumping to conclusions aren't you?

Well why did you ask me to not school you on nutrient density? It sounded like you were *implying* that your diet would not increase in nutrient density by eliminating basically empty calories.

I frankly can't tell if you're just trolling around or if you're really this daft.

Although it's against my better judgement to remain engaged with you, here is a side by side comparison of my favorite bread and a sweet potato, normalized to portions of equal calories


Dave's Killer Bread - 21 Whole Grains, 1 slice
110 calories
6g protein
22g carb
2g fat
5g fiber
170mg sodium

Sweet potato - Cooked, baked in skin, without salt (Sweetpotato), 122 g
110 cal
2g protein
25g carb
0g fat
4g fiber
44mg sodium

The bread is nowhere near "empty calories". It's providing protein, carbs, fat, fiber, and sodium, all of which I need to meet my nutritional goals of the day. Granted the sweet potato would dominate in micronutrients. I certainly have nothing against sweet potatoes; they're one of my staples.

But your original argument (?) was that if one cuts gluten out of their diet, their diet would rise in nutrition. That claim is ludicrous. What makes you think those who eliminate gluten would substitute in things like sweet potatoes? They could easily substitute in other "empty calories".

Bumbeen

Wheat is not even edible by humans without excessive processing by the way. The more refined grains are the better they are for you simply because they become less and less the plant and more just a simple carbohydrate. There are not enough vitamins in them in the first place to speak of. If you wanted vitamins in your food you would eat offal and tubers not whole wheat and corn.

Wheat grains are not edible without excessive processing? So why on earth would man begin farming and eating it? Are you getting this 'information' from commercial diet books or published meta analyses and longitudinal population studies?

I don''t eat or recommend wheat, white potato or corn/ maize to nutrition clients for the vitamin content, don't actually know any healthcare professional who does. What a bizarre and misleading statement. How do you know whether I do or do not eat whole wheat, corn, tubers or offal?

Let me apologize. I wasn't trying to say that I knew what you consumed. Man began farming and eating wheat because it was a source of food, not because it was easy to process. It saved millions of lives from starvation and famine. However, If you go try to eat raw wheat you will puke your guts out. The stuff has evolved to be difficult to consume by animals.

cole_ashleyy

Honestly, I don't think gluten free is a good idea unless you have an intolerance, or allergy, or celiac, or some other medical condition requiring it. Gluten is the protein in wheat. Protein and wheat are both good for you. Healthy means something different for every persons body... so if there's no need to go gluten free... it may not be the healthiest option for you and I personally don't think it's worth it... but that's just my opinion.

Bumbeen

I frankly can't tell if you're just trolling around or if you're really this daft.

Although it's against my better judgement to remain engaged with you, here is a side by side comparison of my favorite bread and a sweet potato, normalized to portions of equal calories


Dave's Killer Bread - 21 Whole Grains, 1 slice
110 calories
6g protein
22g carb
2g fat
5g fiber
170mg sodium

Sweet potato - Cooked, baked in skin, without salt (Sweetpotato), 122 g
110 cal
2g protein
25g carb
0g fat
4g fiber
44mg sodium

The bread is nowhere near "empty calories". It's providing protein, carbs, fat, fiber, and sodium, all of which I need to meet my nutritional goals of the day. Granted the sweet potato would dominate in micronutrients. I certainly have nothing against sweet potatoes; they're one of my staples.

But your original argument (?) was that if one guts out gluten their diet would rise in nutrition. That claim is ludicrous. What makes you think those who eliminate gluten would substitute in things like sweet potatoes? They could easily substitute in other "empty calories".

Come on man, obviously I'm assuming you aren't going to go eat chips or twizzlers instead of wheat. And everything provides carbs fat and fiber and protein, you can get that from an apple pie. That doesn't mean it's more nutrient dense than a sweet potato.

VelociMama

Has anyone ever tried these diets? I have gotten some very good advice from a very good friend recently and she highly encourages eating a Paleo and Gluten free diet. I am willing to try, I know that I need to start eating to live and not living to eat.... I have just turned 29 and have dedicated this year to taking care of my health and being the healthiest me I can be. I vow to look better in my 30s than I have in my 20s.

I don't think a diet full of whole unprocessed foods can be construed as "bad". However, they can be very restrictive and very difficult to stick with as a result if you're just getting started. Being too restrictive early on can lead to diet failure, so I'd advise simply to start with portion control and working on adding in more fruit, vegetables, and whole foods and start cutting out junk food more than you currently do. You don't have to hit the ground at warp speed to be successful.

Set a reasonable calorie deficit, work hard, and baby step your way to where you want to be.

As for the rest of this debate, I really have no idea what you guys are blabbering on about. Taso's original comment was quite reasonable. If you don't have issues with gluten, there's no need to go gluten free. How is this even remotely controversial or difficult to understand?

taso42

I frankly can't tell if you're just trolling around or if you're really this daft.

Although it's against my better judgement to remain engaged with you, here is a side by side comparison of my favorite bread and a sweet potato, normalized to portions of equal calories


Dave's Killer Bread - 21 Whole Grains, 1 slice
110 calories
6g protein
22g carb
2g fat
5g fiber
170mg sodium

Sweet potato - Cooked, baked in skin, without salt (Sweetpotato), 122 g
110 cal
2g protein
25g carb
0g fat
4g fiber
44mg sodium

The bread is nowhere near "empty calories". It's providing protein, carbs, fat, fiber, and sodium, all of which I need to meet my nutritional goals of the day. Granted the sweet potato would dominate in micronutrients. I certainly have nothing against sweet potatoes; they're one of my staples.

But your original argument (?) was that if one guts out gluten their diet would rise in nutrition. That claim is ludicrous. What makes you think those who eliminate gluten would substitute in things like sweet potatoes? They could easily substitute in other "empty calories".

Come on man, obviously I'm assuming you aren't going to go eat chips or twizzlers instead of wheat. And everything provides carbs fat and fiber and protein, you can get that from an apple pie. That doesn't mean it's more nutrient dense than a sweet potato.

OH OBVIOUSLY! Since everything else you've written thusfar was well thought out and well articulated.

You rock at debating! :flowerforyou: :drinker:

caribougal

I seriously cannot believe this thread has deteriorated to the point of suggesting that people with no known issues should eliminate major food groups and go on a nutritional witch hunt. Why on earth would you WANT to make this harder than it is? Ludicrous concept.

I explained the value I got from doing an elimination diet, since someone asked "Why would I want to". I found it interesting to see the results. For me... it wasn't a nutritional witch hunt. It was informative. I didn't set out to do an elimination diet to find things that I couldn't eat... I sort of stumbled into it. But, once done, I appreciated the lessons I learned.