"Clean" or Flexible Eating - food for thought?
Replies
-
Maybe if vegetables didnt taste so bad, it would be alot easier. Fruits are great, but vegetables are literally disgusting.
Really? Hundreds of different foods with differing textures and tastes, that can be prepared and seasoned in hundreds of different ways and they are all disgusting?
It's more likely that you simply haven't learned to like them. For the most part, taste is learned. Expand your horizons. Try new things and new flavors and new textures.0 -
Maybe it's just ad simple as you get cranky because you are hungry. Why look to a specific food to blame it on. You are not the only person that gets cranky when they are hungry.The last time I ate sugary food I was mean as a snake (sorry snakes aren't really mean, I apologize to all the snakes I just slandered) and then I had gluten too, the last two days of it, and I was a vicious and depressed little beast (I apologize to all the beasts I just slandered).
I guess the question is, how are you making this correlations that XX foods makes you mean. Because whether sugar is from fruit or a piece of chocolate, your body will process it similar. And if you associate the fiber as being keying, what happens when you have chocolate and veggies?
Well maybe it isn't the sugar. Maybe it's a preservative or additive. Maybe it's the chocolate (since that is mostly what I go for) Maybe I should eat a tablespoon of pure sugar and see if that does anything to me.
I know what happens if I have chocolate and veggies, though. Nothing good comes of it. I will crave it and I will not feel well later.
Well if I'm still hungry after 2000 calories of ice cream (and I always am) that pretty much negates CICO for me.
Seriously, you don't eat 2000 calories of ice cream? That's an awful lot. Maybe get some help?
I used to eat a large DQ Cookie Dough Blizzard when we would go there 1-2 times per week throughout the summer:
Calories
1340
Calories from Fat
480
Fat (g)
54
Saturated Fat (g)
32
Trans Fatty Acid (g)
1.5
Cholesterol (mg)
95
Sodium (mg)
770
Carbohydrates (g)
194
Dietary Fiber (g)
3
Total Sugars (g)
141
Proteins (g)
22
1,340 calories isn't 2,000, but it will put a ridiculous dent in your nutrition plan!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I also get sick of the romantisized view on how we used to eat, and how many of the world's poor still eat.
I enjoy eating beans, rice, and other "peasant foods", but I also enjoy preparing them in my sanitary kitchen, with access to clean water and year round produce.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I would tend to think lack of flexibility leads to binge behaviors. Control snaps, the binge and overeating happens because you swear you'll get back on track and never eat the offending substance again. BUT... while you're eating the forbidden fruit, you shove as much as you can into your face because you're never ever having it. Lather, rinse, repeat.
As for food and mood? I used to think they were connected, now I disagree. My moods are entirely separate from my food. Food can't make me anything except not hungry. I enjoy something that's tasty, I get satisfaction from having cooked something delicious, but food has no control over how I feel.
I spent a while trying to untangle wanting to eat to soothe myself. I guess I'm finally there. I think the idea of a restrictive diet is appealing to people who like control, who feel that if they can just do xyz, everything will fall into place. That sort of thinking does go hand in hand with anxiety. It's not related to the eating, but it's typical thinking of someone with anxiety. The peace of surrender and the surety of their own strength hasn't settled into their bones yet.
Hey this is false, your body has a different hormonal response to foods which can/will effect your mood.
Tell me what food will cause someone to be depressed or angry since you are quick to say the statement is false. Let me guess you're talking about dopamine release and want to lump that into a broad statement.
I'm not sure if food can cause depression (I've not heard of it), but some foods are natural anti-depressants. Carbs can increase serotonin production, which is one reason why people who binge due to mood or "eat their feelings" tend to go for carbs. It does make them feel better.
I know at least one user on here experimented with low carb and her depression got worse, and so she had to abandon that eating style and incorporate carbs back into her diet. I tried low carb and had issues with low blood sugars and anxiety.
I agree you need to find eating habits that work for you. My body does react differently to different things. I cannot drink coffee. It gives me the shakes as if I have low blood sugar. Even black decaf (and diet soda and tea don't affect me the same way, so it's not the caffeine). Not sure what the hell it is, but no coffee for me (which makes me very sad). I'd never tell anyone else not to drink coffee though.
It seems like all these arguments start because we all try to insist that someone else eats like us. However, I do think there is a difference between people who have tried different eating styles and have found what works for them and someone who watched a video or read a blog and because of that they've decided to cut out x, y, and z from their diet. I think it's important to let them know that eating a particular way is not required. They should experiment and then adjust based on how it affects them, what they like to eat (and do they binge if they miss what they cut out), and how satiated the new diet is keeping them.
I agree about seratonin and dopamine releases. I was just curious which food where proven to cause the complete opposite.
I don't know if this fits what you are searching for, but there are several documented cases of school behavior improvements when healthier lunches are provided.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Maybe it's just ad simple as you get cranky because you are hungry. Why look to a specific food to blame it on. You are not the only person that gets cranky when they are hungry.The last time I ate sugary food I was mean as a snake (sorry snakes aren't really mean, I apologize to all the snakes I just slandered) and then I had gluten too, the last two days of it, and I was a vicious and depressed little beast (I apologize to all the beasts I just slandered).
I guess the question is, how are you making this correlations that XX foods makes you mean. Because whether sugar is from fruit or a piece of chocolate, your body will process it similar. And if you associate the fiber as being keying, what happens when you have chocolate and veggies?
Well maybe it isn't the sugar. Maybe it's a preservative or additive. Maybe it's the chocolate (since that is mostly what I go for) Maybe I should eat a tablespoon of pure sugar and see if that does anything to me.
I know what happens if I have chocolate and veggies, though. Nothing good comes of it. I will crave it and I will not feel well later.
Well if I'm still hungry after 2000 calories of ice cream (and I always am) that pretty much negates CICO for me.
Seriously, you don't eat 2000 calories of ice cream? That's an awful lot. Maybe get some help?
I used to eat a large DQ Cookie Dough Blizzard when we would go there 1-2 times per week throughout the summer:
Calories
1340
Calories from Fat
480
Fat (g)
54
Saturated Fat (g)
32
Trans Fatty Acid (g)
1.5
Cholesterol (mg)
95
Sodium (mg)
770
Carbohydrates (g)
194
Dietary Fiber (g)
3
Total Sugars (g)
141
Proteins (g)
22
1,340 calories isn't 2,000, but it will put a ridiculous dent in your nutrition plan!
Wow, it sure is!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I would tend to think lack of flexibility leads to binge behaviors. Control snaps, the binge and overeating happens because you swear you'll get back on track and never eat the offending substance again. BUT... while you're eating the forbidden fruit, you shove as much as you can into your face because you're never ever having it. Lather, rinse, repeat.
As for food and mood? I used to think they were connected, now I disagree. My moods are entirely separate from my food. Food can't make me anything except not hungry. I enjoy something that's tasty, I get satisfaction from having cooked something delicious, but food has no control over how I feel.
I spent a while trying to untangle wanting to eat to soothe myself. I guess I'm finally there. I think the idea of a restrictive diet is appealing to people who like control, who feel that if they can just do xyz, everything will fall into place. That sort of thinking does go hand in hand with anxiety. It's not related to the eating, but it's typical thinking of someone with anxiety. The peace of surrender and the surety of their own strength hasn't settled into their bones yet.
Hey this is false, your body has a different hormonal response to foods which can/will effect your mood.
Tell me what food will cause someone to be depressed or angry since you are quick to say the statement is false. Let me guess you're talking about dopamine release and want to lump that into a broad statement.
I'm not sure if food can cause depression (I've not heard of it), but some foods are natural anti-depressants. Carbs can increase serotonin production, which is one reason why people who binge due to mood or "eat their feelings" tend to go for carbs. It does make them feel better.
I know at least one user on here experimented with low carb and her depression got worse, and so she had to abandon that eating style and incorporate carbs back into her diet. I tried low carb and had issues with low blood sugars and anxiety.
I agree you need to find eating habits that work for you. My body does react differently to different things. I cannot drink coffee. It gives me the shakes as if I have low blood sugar. Even black decaf (and diet soda and tea don't affect me the same way, so it's not the caffeine). Not sure what the hell it is, but no coffee for me (which makes me very sad). I'd never tell anyone else not to drink coffee though.
It seems like all these arguments start because we all try to insist that someone else eats like us. However, I do think there is a difference between people who have tried different eating styles and have found what works for them and someone who watched a video or read a blog and because of that they've decided to cut out x, y, and z from their diet. I think it's important to let them know that eating a particular way is not required. They should experiment and then adjust based on how it affects them, what they like to eat (and do they binge if they miss what they cut out), and how satiated the new diet is keeping them.
I agree about seratonin and dopamine releases. I was just curious which food where proven to cause the complete opposite.
I don't know if this fits what you are searching for, but there are several documented cases of school behavior improvements when healthier lunches are provided.
Would you please provide citations to the same? That sounds interesting.
0 -
TrailBlazerMN wrote: »
It can be tough to get in tune with your body and really get biofeedback about a food or meal. Maybe one item in the meal causes the whole meal to make someone feel less than optimal. I have noticed this with salsa. If I eat it alone (who would do that?), I feel great. When I eat it with beans and rice, I can notice a difference.
It is certainly tough for me. It has me in a pleasantly research-based tizzy.
But your food combination comment reminds me, there are Tibetan monks who eat some meat, but when they do, they don't mix it with bread or starches. They also don't mix fruits with some foods. At least that is what I read, not sure I trust the accuracy of the sources I've found so far.
Tibetan monks are not particularly enlightened about food choices. In my travels - what they eat is really what they can get - not so much as a choice from the cornucopia of abundance. And their health profiles are awful.
I spent time in Ladakh - a range short of the Himalayas - root vegetables, yak butter, tempeh, barely beer and a lot of vitamin deficiencies.
Leh market in Winter
But dapper dressers!
(my shots)0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TrailBlazerMN wrote: »
It can be tough to get in tune with your body and really get biofeedback about a food or meal. Maybe one item in the meal causes the whole meal to make someone feel less than optimal. I have noticed this with salsa. If I eat it alone (who would do that?), I feel great. When I eat it with beans and rice, I can notice a difference.
It is certainly tough for me. It has me in a pleasantly research-based tizzy.
But your food combination comment reminds me, there are Tibetan monks who eat some meat, but when they do, they don't mix it with bread or starches. They also don't mix fruits with some foods. At least that is what I read, not sure I trust the accuracy of the sources I've found so far.
Tibetan monks are not particularly enlightened about food choices. In my travels - what they eat is really what they can get - not so much as a choice from the cornucopia of abundance. And their health profiles are awful.
I spent time in Ladakh - a range short of the Himalayas - root vegetables, yak butter, tempeh, barely beer and a lot of vitamin deficiencies.
Leh market in Winter
But dapper dressers!
(my shots)
Love the color contrast on that second shot!
I agree, people in harsher climates have to eat what they can get, though I've never had the privilege to travel to the Himalayas or anywhere near it to find out firsthand.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I would tend to think lack of flexibility leads to binge behaviors. Control snaps, the binge and overeating happens because you swear you'll get back on track and never eat the offending substance again. BUT... while you're eating the forbidden fruit, you shove as much as you can into your face because you're never ever having it. Lather, rinse, repeat.
As for food and mood? I used to think they were connected, now I disagree. My moods are entirely separate from my food. Food can't make me anything except not hungry. I enjoy something that's tasty, I get satisfaction from having cooked something delicious, but food has no control over how I feel.
I spent a while trying to untangle wanting to eat to soothe myself. I guess I'm finally there. I think the idea of a restrictive diet is appealing to people who like control, who feel that if they can just do xyz, everything will fall into place. That sort of thinking does go hand in hand with anxiety. It's not related to the eating, but it's typical thinking of someone with anxiety. The peace of surrender and the surety of their own strength hasn't settled into their bones yet.
Hey this is false, your body has a different hormonal response to foods which can/will effect your mood.
Tell me what food will cause someone to be depressed or angry since you are quick to say the statement is false. Let me guess you're talking about dopamine release and want to lump that into a broad statement.
I'm not sure if food can cause depression (I've not heard of it), but some foods are natural anti-depressants. Carbs can increase serotonin production, which is one reason why people who binge due to mood or "eat their feelings" tend to go for carbs. It does make them feel better.
I know at least one user on here experimented with low carb and her depression got worse, and so she had to abandon that eating style and incorporate carbs back into her diet. I tried low carb and had issues with low blood sugars and anxiety.
I agree you need to find eating habits that work for you. My body does react differently to different things. I cannot drink coffee. It gives me the shakes as if I have low blood sugar. Even black decaf (and diet soda and tea don't affect me the same way, so it's not the caffeine). Not sure what the hell it is, but no coffee for me (which makes me very sad). I'd never tell anyone else not to drink coffee though.
It seems like all these arguments start because we all try to insist that someone else eats like us. However, I do think there is a difference between people who have tried different eating styles and have found what works for them and someone who watched a video or read a blog and because of that they've decided to cut out x, y, and z from their diet. I think it's important to let them know that eating a particular way is not required. They should experiment and then adjust based on how it affects them, what they like to eat (and do they binge if they miss what they cut out), and how satiated the new diet is keeping them.
I agree about seratonin and dopamine releases. I was just curious which food where proven to cause the complete opposite.
I don't know if this fits what you are searching for, but there are several documented cases of school behavior improvements when healthier lunches are provided.
Would you please provide citations to the same? That sounds interesting.
Behavior issues usually correlate to the use of petrochemical preservatives and artificial colors and dyes.
I'm too lazy to dig up information, and for being as anti-woo as I am? I live it with my son, so I've become a believer.
Children generally outgrow this, though.
Editing to add that this is not an anti-chemical stance. The list of petrochemical preservatives is very short. Just BHT and TBHQ.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
As you'll see from my edit, we knew coeliacs was a real problem for a very long time. In addition, change of diet was long recommended before gluten was identified as a culprit in the mid 20th century. So, not psychosomatic at all - it was very real disease with a very real solution; change of diet (Dr Haas' infamous banana diet as one example).
However, we now have immunological and antibody testing, which makes specific agent identification a lot easier, which is why it is correct to say that most eating disorders where no reaction is observed using immunological screening are, in fact, psychosomatic. Sure, there may be some unknowns out there, but this has become increasingly unlikely given we can analyse to molecular level now.
Which is why, unless it can be proven that a reaction to food is on a medical ground - such as an inability to absorb gluten effectively in people with Coeliac to the anaphylactic reaction of people with nut allergies - it is a pretty safe bet to say that it's psychosomatic not real.
Hence, 'dem feels'.
"It is a pretty safe bet". You saved yourself with that. But it's also an example of dem feels. You feel (and even I do, to some extent) that a lot of people have a tendency toward psychosomatic symptoms. That does not invalidate those who have figured out certain foods don't agree with them in truth, whether a doctor says so or even knows so or not. I want to be one of those people. I'm no more interested in playing headgames with myself than you are in hearing about people's headgames.
Edit: Come to think of it, I don't think you'd try to argue that 1000 calories of cake and 1000 calories of nuts, seeds, and vegetables are equally good foods prior to, for example, running a marathon. So when I work to eat foods that give me energy and try to avoid foods that cause me to be lethargic, what is the problem?
Mood of course is a more complex issue.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This was posted a while back in a group - with all the discussion on eliminating X from the plate, I thought it might be useful to reflect on it.All-or-Nothing Dieting & Eating Disorder Risk
In 1997, a general physician named Steven Bratman coined the term orthorexia nervosa [21], which he defines as, “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food.” It reminds me of the counterproductive dietary perfectionism I’ve seen among many athletes, trainers, and coaches. One of the fundamental pitfalls of dichotomizing foods as good or bad, or clean or dirty, is that it can form a destructive relationship with food. This isn’t just an empty claim; it’s been seen in research. Smith and colleagues found that flexible dieting was associated with the absence of overeating, lower bodyweight, and the absence of depression and anxiety [22]. They also found that a strict all-or-nothing approach to dieting was associated with overeating and increased bodyweight. Similarly, Stewart and colleagues found that rigid dieting was associated with symptoms of an eating disorder, mood disturbances, and anxiety [23]. Flexible dieting was not highly correlated with these qualities.
Although these are observational study designs with self-reported data, anyone who spends enough time among fitness buffs knows that these findings are not off the mark.
Yes, it is a biased set of observations to support a view point but it is also and interesting set of research points.
Happy eating.
I just find it funny that some of the same people who constantly dismiss the relevancy of studies whose conclusions they don't like for either:
1- Using self-reported data, or
2- Not being published very recently,
are now saying that this article based on a study from the 90s using self-reported data somehow supports the proposition that their eating philosophy is best for everyone. Talk about biased!
0 -
TrailBlazerMN wrote: »People don't realize how great they can feel until they ditch all the foods that cause them to feel anything but great. For me, this includes ditching wheat, dairy, and chocolate. I'm on the fence if I can eat gluten since barley is hit or miss with me. Just need to do more experimenting. I can't remember the last time I felt like running for miles after eating a big steak or downing some ice cream.
Again, this is not true for me. I tried eliminating things (including dairy) and I tried adding them back in in a sensible way (i.e., not eating tons of sweets or thinking that--for me--a bagel was a great breakfast). I did not feel worse at all simply eating sensibly but not eliminating things. I just did a month with no ice cream and now I'm eating ice cream again (in moderation) and don't feel worse. I feel noticeably better when I include dairy in my life. I rarely eat grains because I don't like them enough to waste the calories, but I don't feel worse when I do. Thus, I don't like it when people claim that we'd all feel better if we eliminated foods. That's not so. It might be so for you, although what I've noticed is that lots of the people who claim that never really tried moderation. Of course eating non-sensibly makes you feel bad. That said, I think you should do what you think works best for you, and just avoid making general claims about how others feel or would feel.
And I don't really feel like running for miles after eating any big meal, but for me dairy in particular is a perfect pre-run food.make being in tune with their body and the food they put into it a main priority in their life. Calories do matter up to a certain point since eating healthy requires one to eat a lot more. However, they do not dictate how healthy you are. The type of food you put in your body is going to dictate the level of physical, mental, and spiritual health you experience.
Eh, I think both matter. I initially gained lots of weight eating pretty healthy (in fact, with kind of a Weston A. Price focus, where all I cared about was eating as "naturally" as possible). I gained, because there are plenty of higher calorie foods that are consistent with that focus and because I became sedentary for other reasons and have a low TDEE when sedentary. Gaining weight is not healthy whatever foods you eat while doing it (and for me gaining weight and being sedentary eventually resulted in depression and not caring about what I ate, so a nasty cycle).
But what I'd point out is that "flexible dieting" (or as I'd call it, eating a sensible balanced diet) hardly means not being in tune with one's body or caring about what one puts into it. That's a rather insulting straw man.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This was posted a while back in a group - with all the discussion on eliminating X from the plate, I thought it might be useful to reflect on it.All-or-Nothing Dieting & Eating Disorder Risk
In 1997, a general physician named Steven Bratman coined the term orthorexia nervosa [21], which he defines as, “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food.” It reminds me of the counterproductive dietary perfectionism I’ve seen among many athletes, trainers, and coaches. One of the fundamental pitfalls of dichotomizing foods as good or bad, or clean or dirty, is that it can form a destructive relationship with food. This isn’t just an empty claim; it’s been seen in research. Smith and colleagues found that flexible dieting was associated with the absence of overeating, lower bodyweight, and the absence of depression and anxiety [22]. They also found that a strict all-or-nothing approach to dieting was associated with overeating and increased bodyweight. Similarly, Stewart and colleagues found that rigid dieting was associated with symptoms of an eating disorder, mood disturbances, and anxiety [23]. Flexible dieting was not highly correlated with these qualities.
Although these are observational study designs with self-reported data, anyone who spends enough time among fitness buffs knows that these findings are not off the mark.
Yes, it is a biased set of observations to support a view point but it is also and interesting set of research points.
Happy eating.
I just find it funny that some of the same people who constantly dismiss the relevancy of studies whose conclusions they don't like for either:
1- Using self-reported data, or
2- Not being published very recently,
are now saying that this article based on a study from the 90s using self-reported data somehow supports the proposition that their eating philosophy is best for everyone. Talk about biased!
The issues with the data are noted both by the author of the article and by myself. Self-reported data isn't an absolute no-no it really depends on what you intend to do with it but remains an area for margin of error - you'll note that I don't attempt to present these as "truths" but discussion points.
Nor am I saying that my eating philosophy is best for everyone - I am outlining some possible issues with restrictive dieting (as presented by someone who acknowledges their own bias - note the bolded part above) for personal consideration as people chose one path or another.
What you then decide to put in your own mouth is your business.
It isn't only one study and all the data isn't from the 90s.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
Just a counter point, it's difficult to identify a food you're allergic to because a lot of items we don't eat individually (the exception being if you bite into an apple and breakout). My mom went on a cruise and had a dish and went into anaphylactic shock and had to be rushed to the hospital. The only thing in the dish she couldn't pinpoint having before was mango, so she avoided it. Turns out she had some things later that had mango in them (she was unaware at the time), and she was fine. She has no idea what she is actually allergic to.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
Just a counter point, it's difficult to identify a food you're allergic to because a lot of items we don't eat individually (the exception being if you bite into an apple and breakout). My mom went on a cruise and had a dish and went into anaphylactic shock and had to be rushed to the hospital. The only thing in the dish she couldn't pinpoint having before was mango, so she avoided it. Turns out she had some things later that had mango in them (she was unaware at the time), and she was fine. She has no idea what she is actually allergic to.
Good reason for me to go get tested when I can, but that is hundreds and hundreds of dollars, so absent a life threatening development, I just can't. And if it's life threatening, I'll be one of 'those people' in the ER, because I still can't. My state, among others, decided that we need more sick, disabled, and dying people rather than healthcare for more people.
0 -
This is hard to admit, but it rings very true for me. Every little bit. I am happy to say that since I stopped my disordered thinking and obsession with eating only "optimal" foods, my weight came down and stabilized and I love food again! Best of all I feel stronger, more balanced and am enjoying life once more.0
-
I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to you, just a general observation.
The article really just ignores the reality that dietary guidelines and what the medical establishment...and eventually the public... views as "healthy" changes over time as new data becomes available. That is just the scientific method. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. In the late 1800's/early 1900s they widely used cocaine as a treatment for depression...this was before they discovered the addictive properties and other negative effects that went along with it. When they did, this changed...and thank God it did! The fact that new research sometimes invalidates older research does not mean no research is relevant.
In the 80's, they began pushing low fat diets based on available research. Obesity levels quickly skyrocketed. Earlier studies seemed to indicate dietary fat was responsible for obesity, heart disease, and a whole host of other things. More recent research has disproved that theory, or at least cast significant doubt on it, so recommendations are slowly changing.
Same thing goes for cholesterol and a lot of other things, not necessarily all related to weight management.
In terms of "restrictive dieting", the vast majority of people who restrict certain foods do not have eating disorders or unhealthy relationships with food. For every person out there who is so overcome with food issues that they develop an eating disorder or can never have a restaurant meal, there are many more who practice "flexible dieting" and can't control how much they eat and fail at their efforts to lose or maintain weight.
For some people, flexible probably does work better. There are many people here who swear that is the only thing that works for them. I'll take their word for it. However there are many people here for whom it doesn't...including me. Weight Watchers and many other programs promote flexible dieting...at least some of their plans. My mother was once a member and she was permitted to eat anything. She failed because she still couldn't stick to it.
However, I would NEVER claim that her failure means it can't work for someone else. I just think it is ridiculous that there are people on here claiming that because they lost weight eating cookies or chocolate cake or chips every evening, that this works for everyone. They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail. That is not helpful to people struggling. It is not accurate in most cases, or at least many. It is incredible irresponsible, in my opinion.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to you, just a general observation.
The article really just ignores the reality that dietary guidelines and what the medical establishment...and eventually the public... views as "healthy" changes over time as new data becomes available. That is just the scientific method. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. In the late 1800's/early 1900s they widely used cocaine as a treatment for depression...this was before they discovered the addictive properties and other negative effects that went along with it. When they did, this changed...and thank God it did! The fact that new research sometimes invalidates older research does not mean no research is relevant.
In the 80's, they began pushing low fat diets based on available research. Obesity levels quickly skyrocketed. Earlier studies seemed to indicate dietary fat was responsible for obesity, heart disease, and a whole host of other things. More recent research has disproved that theory, or at least cast significant doubt on it, so recommendations are slowly changing.
Same thing goes for cholesterol and a lot of other things, not necessarily all related to weight management.
In terms of "restrictive dieting", the vast majority of people who restrict certain foods do not have eating disorders or unhealthy relationships with food. For every person out there who is so overcome with food issues that they develop an eating disorder or can never have a restaurant meal, there are many more who practice "flexible dieting" and can't control how much they eat and fail at their efforts to lose or maintain weight.
For some people, flexible probably does work better. There are many people here who swear that is the only thing that works for them. I'll take their work for it. However there are many people here for whom it doesn't. Weight Watchers and many other programs promote flexible dieting...at least some of their plans. My mother was once a member and she was permitted to eat anything. She failed because she still couldn't stick to it.
However, I would NEVER claim that her failure means it can't work for someone else. I just think it is ridiculous that there are people on here claiming that because they lost weight eating cookies or chocolate cake or chips every evening, that this works for everyone. They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail. That is not helpful to people struggling. It is not accurate in most cases, or at least many. It is incredible irresponsible, in my opinion.
Nicely put. Someday researchers might realize that cake is a powerhouse cancer fighting longevity food, but until then, my life is much easier when I skip it. Although if they are going to discover this, I wish they'd do it soon. And I hope cream cheese frosting turns out to be the best combining agent for maximum absorption!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I would tend to think lack of flexibility leads to binge behaviors. Control snaps, the binge and overeating happens because you swear you'll get back on track and never eat the offending substance again. BUT... while you're eating the forbidden fruit, you shove as much as you can into your face because you're never ever having it. Lather, rinse, repeat.
As for food and mood? I used to think they were connected, now I disagree. My moods are entirely separate from my food. Food can't make me anything except not hungry. I enjoy something that's tasty, I get satisfaction from having cooked something delicious, but food has no control over how I feel.
I spent a while trying to untangle wanting to eat to soothe myself. I guess I'm finally there. I think the idea of a restrictive diet is appealing to people who like control, who feel that if they can just do xyz, everything will fall into place. That sort of thinking does go hand in hand with anxiety. It's not related to the eating, but it's typical thinking of someone with anxiety. The peace of surrender and the surety of their own strength hasn't settled into their bones yet.
Hey this is false, your body has a different hormonal response to foods which can/will effect your mood.
Tell me what food will cause someone to be depressed or angry since you are quick to say the statement is false. Let me guess you're talking about dopamine release and want to lump that into a broad statement.
I'm not sure if food can cause depression (I've not heard of it), but some foods are natural anti-depressants. Carbs can increase serotonin production, which is one reason why people who binge due to mood or "eat their feelings" tend to go for carbs. It does make them feel better.
I know at least one user on here experimented with low carb and her depression got worse, and so she had to abandon that eating style and incorporate carbs back into her diet. I tried low carb and had issues with low blood sugars and anxiety.
I agree you need to find eating habits that work for you. My body does react differently to different things. I cannot drink coffee. It gives me the shakes as if I have low blood sugar. Even black decaf (and diet soda and tea don't affect me the same way, so it's not the caffeine). Not sure what the hell it is, but no coffee for me (which makes me very sad). I'd never tell anyone else not to drink coffee though.
It seems like all these arguments start because we all try to insist that someone else eats like us. However, I do think there is a difference between people who have tried different eating styles and have found what works for them and someone who watched a video or read a blog and because of that they've decided to cut out x, y, and z from their diet. I think it's important to let them know that eating a particular way is not required. They should experiment and then adjust based on how it affects them, what they like to eat (and do they binge if they miss what they cut out), and how satiated the new diet is keeping them.
I agree about seratonin and dopamine releases. I was just curious which food where proven to cause the complete opposite.
I don't know if this fits what you are searching for, but there are several documented cases of school behavior improvements when healthier lunches are provided.
Would you please provide citations to the same? That sounds interesting.
This is the most documented that I've seen. If you google Appleton, WI school lunch program you can find many articles on it.
http://magazine.good.is/articles/do-healthier-school-lunches-curb-bad-behavior
Another
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/mar/29/jamie-oliver-school-dinners-meals0 -
There is an old comedy movie, Sleeper, in which a health food store owner is frozen and wakes in the future..."healthy" foods like vegetables have been proven to be bad for you, and fat and junk food are now known to be good. There may be hope for cream cheese frosting!Nicely put. Someday researchers might realize that cake is a powerhouse cancer fighting longevity food, but until then, my life is much easier when I skip it. Although if they are going to discover this, I wish they'd do it soon. And I hope cream cheese frosting turns out to be the best combining agent for maximum absorption!
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to you, just a general observation.
The article really just ignores the reality that dietary guidelines and what the medical establishment...and eventually the public... views as "healthy" changes over time as new data becomes available. That is just the scientific method. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. In the late 1800's/early 1900s they widely used cocaine as a treatment for depression...this was before they discovered the addictive properties and other negative effects that went along with it. When they did, this changed...and thank God it did! The fact that new research sometimes invalidates older research does not mean no research is relevant.
Article is based on research so, no it doesn't ignore the scientific method. Nor does it ignore dietary guidelines. In fact, it cites the USDA and research on them.
Just like you stated that it was one article (wrong) from the 90 (wrong again), you are now wrong a third time - go back and do tell us were Alan Aragon is NOT referencing dietary guidelines....
-
Let's cite him.
"Coincidentally, the USDA’s discretionary calorie allotment averages at approximately 10-20% of total calories [27]. Take note that discretionary calories are not just confined to added sugars. Any food or beverage is fair game. The USDA’s system is still far from perfect, since it includes naturally-occurring fats in certain foods as part of the discretionary calorie allotment."In the 80's, they began pushing low fat diets based on available research. Obesity levels quickly skyrocketed. Earlier studies seemed to indicate dietary fat was responsible for obesity, heart disease, and a whole host of other things. More recent research has disproved that theory, or at least cast significant doubt on it, so recommendations are slowly changing.
Same thing goes for cholesterol and a lot of other things, not necessarily all related to weight management.
Yes, research evolves understanding.In terms of "restrictive dieting", the vast majority of people who restrict certain foods do not have eating disorders or unhealthy relationships with food. For every person out there who is so overcome with food issues that they develop an eating disorder or can never have a restaurant meal, there are many more who practice "flexible dieting" and can't control how much they eat and fail at their efforts to lose or maintain weight.
Post your research on the bolded quatifier - Alan posted his on the issues related to eating disorders. After all, given that research evolves and you support the scientific method, you must have research to support these claims, right?For some people, flexible probably does work better. There are many people here who swear that is the only thing that works for them. I'll take their work for it. However there are many people here for whom it doesn't. Weight Watchers and many other programs promote flexible dieting...at least some of their plans. My mother was once a member and she was permitted to eat anything. She failed because she still couldn't stick to it.
However, I would NEVER claim that her failure means it can't work for someone else. I just think it is ridiculous that there are people on here claiming that because they lost weight eating cookies or chocolate cake or chips every evening, that this works for everyone. They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail. That is not helpful to people struggling. It is not accurate in most cases, or at least many. It is incredible irresponsible, in my opinion.
No one claims flexible dieting is a most for everyone. They question the thinking behind restrictive dieting because it is often born from myths, it's ok to challenge someone's thinking - it part of the scientific process you supported above - is the reasoning you are using based and supported by prior research? To what extent, what else might be going on? Is your knowledge base strong? Are you basing decisions on hearsay or fact?
BTW - the process for updating guidelines is awfully slow and outdated. Don't expect to be up to date if you base your habits on them alone without further understanding of how things evolve. American dietary guideline standards are still woefully behind in terms of still pushing low-fat diary and not full addressing trans-fats.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
There is an old comedy movie, Sleeper, in which a health food store owner is frozen and wakes in the future..."healthy" foods like vegetables have been proven to be bad for you, and fat and junk food are now known to be good. There may be hope for cream cheese frosting!Nicely put. Someday researchers might realize that cake is a powerhouse cancer fighting longevity food, but until then, my life is much easier when I skip it. Although if they are going to discover this, I wish they'd do it soon. And I hope cream cheese frosting turns out to be the best combining agent for maximum absorption!
I eagerly await the day. I might be cranky and slothy on a cream cheese frosted cake diet, but if it's ever proven to prevent cancer and increase lifespan, the temptation will just be too much. They can lock me in a padded room and shove it through the door slot!0 -
I have eliminated red meat from my diet. It makes me feel like crap for days. Gluten makes me feel like crap too. Otherwise, I have a very healthy diet. Lots of lean proteins, vegetables, some fruit, whole grains, low-fat dairy. I cook most of my food with fresh ingredients and limit salt (because it makes me feel like crap). I limit added sugar, again because it makes me feel like crap. I rarely eat anything fried. I read labels and try to avoid anything that even remotely sounds like it was made in a chemistry lab. I eat out often, but order healthy options and try to stick with mom and pop places that use fresh ingredients. Do these "restrictions" make me feel deprived? Not at all. When I'm eating well, I feel great. I don't miss anything I've eliminated. I have treats all the time. I don't ever turn down an opportunity to socialize over a meal. Do I still overeat sometimes? Yep, but the quality of what I overeat is better.
Life is good.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
As you'll see from my edit, we knew coeliacs was a real problem for a very long time. In addition, change of diet was long recommended before gluten was identified as a culprit in the mid 20th century. So, not psychosomatic at all - it was very real disease with a very real solution; change of diet (Dr Haas' infamous banana diet as one example).
However, we now have immunological and antibody testing, which makes specific agent identification a lot easier, which is why it is correct to say that most eating disorders where no reaction is observed using immunological screening are, in fact, psychosomatic. Sure, there may be some unknowns out there, but this has become increasingly unlikely given we can analyse to molecular level now.
Which is why, unless it can be proven that a reaction to food is on a medical ground - such as an inability to absorb gluten effectively in people with Coeliac to the anaphylactic reaction of people with nut allergies - it is a pretty safe bet to say that it's psychosomatic not real.
Hence, 'dem feels'.
"It is a pretty safe bet". You saved yourself with that. But it's also an example of dem feels. You feel (and even I do, to some extent) that a lot of people have a tendency toward psychosomatic symptoms. That does not invalidate those who have figured out certain foods don't agree with them in truth, whether a doctor says so or even knows so or not. I want to be one of those people. I'm no more interested in playing headgames with myself than you are in hearing about people's headgames.
Edit: Come to think of it, I don't think you'd try to argue that 1000 calories of cake and 1000 calories of nuts, seeds, and vegetables are equally good foods prior to, for example, running a marathon. So when I work to eat foods that give me energy and try to avoid foods that cause me to be lethargic, what is the problem?
Mood of course is a more complex issue.
Again, the point is that, given the current state of molecular testing, it is highly unlikely that there are food group intolerances we are not aware of. Not impossible, but so unlikely that the probability becomes vanishing. That's quite different from 'dem feels' which is a belief in absence of proof.
However, we are way off the beaten track here, because the study's findings were that generally flexible dieting yields superior results to restrictive dieting in the general population. Granted, there may be a few exceptions to this, for known - and even, I'll concede - unknown reasons, but that's getting into special pleading territory.
So I'm quite comfortable in saying that, whilst there may be some very few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the population would do better on a flexible diet, not a restrictive - in terms of food, not calories - diet.
They're just starting to learn about diabetes at the cellular level, so unless I misunderstand (very possible, science isn't unfortunately my background) there is plenty of room to learn more, especially regarding complex interactions, not to mention the epigenome which is really unexplored right now.
Meanwhile, I'm still not going to shovel cake in my face and expect to do my best time in a run, so why should I shove cake in my face and expect to have the same energy levels and feeling of wellbeing as shoving meats and veggies in my face?0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
As you'll see from my edit, we knew coeliacs was a real problem for a very long time. In addition, change of diet was long recommended before gluten was identified as a culprit in the mid 20th century. So, not psychosomatic at all - it was very real disease with a very real solution; change of diet (Dr Haas' infamous banana diet as one example).
However, we now have immunological and antibody testing, which makes specific agent identification a lot easier, which is why it is correct to say that most eating disorders where no reaction is observed using immunological screening are, in fact, psychosomatic. Sure, there may be some unknowns out there, but this has become increasingly unlikely given we can analyse to molecular level now.
Which is why, unless it can be proven that a reaction to food is on a medical ground - such as an inability to absorb gluten effectively in people with Coeliac to the anaphylactic reaction of people with nut allergies - it is a pretty safe bet to say that it's psychosomatic not real.
Hence, 'dem feels'.
"It is a pretty safe bet". You saved yourself with that. But it's also an example of dem feels. You feel (and even I do, to some extent) that a lot of people have a tendency toward psychosomatic symptoms. That does not invalidate those who have figured out certain foods don't agree with them in truth, whether a doctor says so or even knows so or not. I want to be one of those people. I'm no more interested in playing headgames with myself than you are in hearing about people's headgames.
Edit: Come to think of it, I don't think you'd try to argue that 1000 calories of cake and 1000 calories of nuts, seeds, and vegetables are equally good foods prior to, for example, running a marathon. So when I work to eat foods that give me energy and try to avoid foods that cause me to be lethargic, what is the problem?
Mood of course is a more complex issue.
Again, the point is that, given the current state of molecular testing, it is highly unlikely that there are food group intolerances we are not aware of. Not impossible, but so unlikely that the probability becomes vanishing. That's quite different from 'dem feels' which is a belief in absence of proof.
However, we are way off the beaten track here, because the study's findings were that generally flexible dieting yields superior results to restrictive dieting in the general population. Granted, there may be a few exceptions to this, for known - and even, I'll concede - unknown reasons, but that's getting into special pleading territory.
So I'm quite comfortable in saying that, whilst there may be some very few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the population would do better on a flexible diet, not a restrictive - in terms of food, not calories - diet.
They're just starting to learn about diabetes at the cellular level, so unless I misunderstand (very possible, science isn't unfortunately my background) there is plenty of room to learn more, especially regarding complex interactions, not to mention the epigenome which is really unexplored right now.
Meanwhile, I'm still not going to shovel cake in my face and expect to do my best time in a run, so why should I shove cake in my face and expect to have the same energy levels and feeling of wellbeing as shoving meats and veggies in my face?
That misses the point. We already know what diabetes is and how to treat it. Sure, more information on genetic susceptibility is welcome, but it won't tell us much more on how to avoid it or treat it.
But again, this is special pleading.
I don't see how it follows that it won't tell us more about how to avoid or treat it. And again, are you actually advocating a calorie is a calorie for health and wellbeing and energy and not just for simple weight loss or gain? Really? You can't be.0 -
The only two studies mentioned in your OP...in fact the only references in the entire article relating to eating disorders... are from 1999 and 2002. Very old! That is what you chose to highlight, I am just following your lead. For an author who is obviously cherry picking to support his bias, I'm surprised he couldn't find something more recent to support his point.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to you, just a general observation.
The article really just ignores the reality that dietary guidelines and what the medical establishment...and eventually the public... views as "healthy" changes over time as new data becomes available. That is just the scientific method. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. In the late 1800's/early 1900s they widely used cocaine as a treatment for depression...this was before they discovered the addictive properties and other negative effects that went along with it. When they did, this changed...and thank God it did! The fact that new research sometimes invalidates older research does not mean no research is relevant.
Article is based on research so, no it doesn't ignore the scientific method. Nor does it ignore dietary guidelines. In fact, it cites the USDA and research on them.
Just like you stated that it was one article (wrong) from the 90 (wrong again), you are now wrong a third time - go back and do tell us were Alan Aragon is NOT referencing dietary guidelines....
-
Let's cite him.
"Coincidentally, the USDA’s discretionary calorie allotment averages at approximately 10-20% of total calories [27]. Take note that discretionary calories are not just confined to added sugars. Any food or beverage is fair game. The USDA’s system is still far from perfect, since it includes naturally-occurring fats in certain foods as part of the discretionary calorie allotment."In the 80's, they began pushing low fat diets based on available research. Obesity levels quickly skyrocketed. Earlier studies seemed to indicate dietary fat was responsible for obesity, heart disease, and a whole host of other things. More recent research has disproved that theory, or at least cast significant doubt on it, so recommendations are slowly changing.
Same thing goes for cholesterol and a lot of other things, not necessarily all related to weight management.
Yes, research evolves understanding.In terms of "restrictive dieting", the vast majority of people who restrict certain foods do not have eating disorders or unhealthy relationships with food. For every person out there who is so overcome with food issues that they develop an eating disorder or can never have a restaurant meal, there are many more who practice "flexible dieting" and can't control how much they eat and fail at their efforts to lose or maintain weight.
Post your research on the bolded quatifier - Alan posted his on the issues related to eating disorders. After all, given that research evolves and you support the scientific method, you must have research to support these claims, right?For some people, flexible probably does work better. There are many people here who swear that is the only thing that works for them. I'll take their work for it. However there are many people here for whom it doesn't. Weight Watchers and many other programs promote flexible dieting...at least some of their plans. My mother was once a member and she was permitted to eat anything. She failed because she still couldn't stick to it.
However, I would NEVER claim that her failure means it can't work for someone else. I just think it is ridiculous that there are people on here claiming that because they lost weight eating cookies or chocolate cake or chips every evening, that this works for everyone. They seem obsessed with telling people that if they try to limit certain foods they will fail. That is not helpful to people struggling. It is not accurate in most cases, or at least many. It is incredible irresponsible, in my opinion.
No one claims flexible dieting is a most for everyone. They question the thinking behind restrictive dieting because it is often born from myths, it's ok to challenge someone's thinking - it part of the scientific process you supported above - is the reasoning you are using based and supported by prior research? To what extent, what else might be going on? Is your knowledge base strong? Are you basing decisions on hearsay or fact?
BTW - the process for updating guidelines is awfully slow and outdated. Don't expect to be up to date if you base your habits on them alone without further understanding of how things evolve. American dietary guideline standards are still woefully behind in terms of still pushing low-fat diary and not full addressing trans-fats.
The author is very focused on the "inconsistency" (his word) of the definition of clean throughout the decades. He attempts to position the fact that beliefs change over time with new knowledge as a negative...I just can't take him seriously.
Believe whatever you like though.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions