Heavy duty suggestions for killing a grain addiction?
Replies
-
I'm so glad you're finding something that works! When I lived solely on all of those simple carbs, my nutrition was out of wack. I added clean, whole nutrition shakes to my regimen & it balanced my cravings out naturally, so it's not as much of a fight to not eat them in large quantities.0
-
kissoflowers83 wrote: »When I lived solely on all of those simple carbs, my nutrition was out of wack.
Just as a point of clarification, grains aren't simple carbs and "simple" vs. "complex" with carbs has nothing to do with nutrition. This is often misused/misunderstood, but simple vs. complex has to do with the molecule and is the distinction between foods with most calories from starches (grains, potatoes, etc.--complex) vs. sugar (which includes fruit-simple).
Also, grains may be whole or refined, and may be in foods/meals that are nutrient dense or not.6 -
Spiegelchan wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ProfessorPupil wrote: »Also, I think someone mentioned this above.. I agree with the idea that instead of focusing on what to NOT eat, focus on what you WANT to eat. Give yourself a goal of certain foods (like veggies) and whatever calories you have left after you eat them is what you get to spend on grains. Like paying your bills and then getting to spend what's left over on something fun... or eating dinner before dessert. etc
This is exactly the approach I'd recommend. From the OP's description it sounded like a lack of planning or understanding of what to base the diet on if not grains.
You got it.... Thanks for all the suggestions, guys, the ones I've tried have been successful so far. You're absolutely right that I need to plan meals better, because even if I just replaced bread with something like sweet potatoes or whatever, I'd end up relying too heavily on that food, which isn't good either. Hopefully I can get some meal plans together over the break, to make sure I keep enough variety.
Thanks again!
Why do you think that? I eat a substantively plant based diet and vegetarian pretty much 3 days out of the week...beans, lentils, potatoes, sweet potatoes, whole grains, etc are all staples of my diet as they are with most plant based or vegetarian diets. Some of the most widely regarded "healthy" diets (i.e. Mediterranean) are substantively plant based and include many of these types of complex carbohydrates.2 -
I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Spiegelchan wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ProfessorPupil wrote: »Also, I think someone mentioned this above.. I agree with the idea that instead of focusing on what to NOT eat, focus on what you WANT to eat. Give yourself a goal of certain foods (like veggies) and whatever calories you have left after you eat them is what you get to spend on grains. Like paying your bills and then getting to spend what's left over on something fun... or eating dinner before dessert. etc
This is exactly the approach I'd recommend. From the OP's description it sounded like a lack of planning or understanding of what to base the diet on if not grains.
You got it.... Thanks for all the suggestions, guys, the ones I've tried have been successful so far. You're absolutely right that I need to plan meals better, because even if I just replaced bread with something like sweet potatoes or whatever, I'd end up relying too heavily on that food, which isn't good either. Hopefully I can get some meal plans together over the break, to make sure I keep enough variety.
Thanks again!
Why do you think that? I eat a substantively plant based diet and vegetarian pretty much 3 days out of the week...beans, lentils, potatoes, sweet potatoes, whole grains, etc are all staples of my diet as they are with most plant based or vegetarian diets. Some of the most widely regarded "healthy" diets (i.e. Mediterranean) are substantively plant based and include many of these types of complex carbohydrates.
I think OP is just saying that the variety needs to be developed, not that grains or tubers are bad. Just that her (or his) own diet is not currently varied enough.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Lol...ok...substantively plant based diets which happen to include a lot of grains and what not are "healthy" and result in good health in spite of themselves...you're a riot. If that was the case, you wouldn't see it as an overwhelming trend...it would just be some populations in isolation...3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Lol...ok...substantively plant based diets which happen to include a lot of grains and what not are "healthy" and result in good health in spite of themselves...you're a riot. If that was the case, you wouldn't see it as an overwhelming trend...it would just be some populations in isolation...
Still not what I said.
No diet is perfect. I am saying that sugar and (refrined) grains will not make a diet better. Perhaps there are other factors that contribute to the success of the blue zones? It would be an assumpton to say that grains and sugars contributes to their long lives.
...and my whole point to the OP was that sugars and (refined) grains are not required for a healthy diet. If the OP feels grains are an addiction like problem then they (grains) can be safely kicked to the curb without it negatively affecting their health.
3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.5 -
Why don't you start by choosing 1 or 2 grains you like the most, and keep those in the house while getting rid of the rest? It might be easier to stick with portion control if you are not around it as much.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.4 -
Since when is the discussion about "refined grains" and not "grains" anyway? OP did not ask only about refined grains.5
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.
Your answer is making my head spin with how much you are inserting your ideology/opinion into the Blue Zone approach in order to make some kind of point... which is pointless.
You have nothing, absolutely NOTHING to base your assertion that they'd have lived longer without those grains (where are you getting refined from except in the case of the Sardinians?) other than feels?
At least the argument the Blue Zones put forth is based on epidemiology.4 -
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States?
No, and I don't think anyone said they do. OP didn't ask about sugar and didn't ask about refined grains. She asked about grains, and her concern seemed more about not defaulting to them out of habit and not having an overall diverse and balanced diet, which IMO is a sensible concern that can be avoided by planning.
As for blue zones, they eat plenty of carbs, as much or more than the US (the one within the US is vegetarian--7th Day Adventists). They are generally whole foods carbs, so less refined grains (mainly), tubers, and sugar from fruit, veg, and in some cases sweet potatoes. Not much animal fat or meat. (Fat % ranges from moderately high but vegetable based to extremely low.) They tend to be high fiber. In some ways they eat like we are recommended to do (but don't) -- you know, the way the HFLC people claim made us fat.
Point is that contrary to the usual dogma by the religious sorts about carbs being bad or sugar (all sugar, including from fruit) being bad, or high GI foods like potatoes and sweet potatoes being bad or the like, they are extremely healthy as part of a good overall diet and it doesn't make sense to claim that grains are inherently unhealthy or that people should cut out fruit (even though sugar is sugar and the difference between a cookie and apple isn't the sugar but the calories, overall nutrients, how much people tend to eat on average, and possibly the sat fat).
While blue zone diets aren't based on refined grains, there are healthy ways of eating that include refined grains, including more modern Med diets and especially the Japanese diet with lots of white rice. Asian countries in general with lots of white rice are becoming less healthy than they were (although Japan in particular still does far better than the US with a lower fat and protein and higher carb percentage), but what is changing is a more western diet -- more added sugar, more added fat, more animal fat, more "junk food" in general, fewer vegetables, more calories overall and a more sedentary lifestyle. So to make everything (heck, anything, IMO) about the macros or "grains" is wrong.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.
Your answer is making my head spin with how much you are inserting your ideology/opinion into the Blue Zone approach in order to make some kind of point... which is pointless.
You have nothing, absolutely NOTHING to base your assertion that they'd have lived longer without those grains (where are you getting refined from except in the case of the Sardinians?) other than feels?
At least the argument the Blue Zones put forth is based on epidemiology.
Considering the fact that the reason the Blue Zones were chosen to be Blue Zones in the first place was the amount of centegenarians, it is odd (to say the least) to say they might live longer without grains!
If you want to say that a person can be perfectly healthy eating a keto or low carb diet, that's one thing. To suggest that a 105 year old Italian who is still active and alert would have been better off without the pasta, bread, and wine just isn't logical.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.
Your answer is making my head spin with how much you are inserting your ideology/opinion into the Blue Zone approach in order to make some kind of point... which is pointless.
You have nothing, absolutely NOTHING to base your assertion that they'd have lived longer without those grains (where are you getting refined from except in the case of the Sardinians?) other than feels?
At least the argument the Blue Zones put forth is based on epidemiology.
I questioned. There was no assertion. Just a question mark.
And as I said, I did not finish that book so I don't know what they ate beside little snippets that people bring up around here.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.
Your answer is making my head spin with how much you are inserting your ideology/opinion into the Blue Zone approach in order to make some kind of point... which is pointless.
You have nothing, absolutely NOTHING to base your assertion that they'd have lived longer without those grains (where are you getting refined from except in the case of the Sardinians?) other than feels?
At least the argument the Blue Zones put forth is based on epidemiology.
Considering the fact that the reason the Blue Zones were chosen to be Blue Zones in the first place was the amount of centegenarians, it is odd (to say the least) to say they might live longer without grains!
If you want to say that a person can be perfectly healthy eating a keto or low carb diet, that's one thing. To suggest that a 105 year old Italian who is still active and alert would have been better off without the pasta, bread, and wine just isn't logical.
I'm assuming that you meant to quote me.
Leave wine out of it.
I don't think I'm being illogical. I am questioning if they became centegenarians BECAUSE they ate (refined) grains and sugar or IN SPITE OF the (refined) grains and sugar. There is no evidence either way. I suppose there is the third option of becoming a centegenarian who happened to eat sugar and refined grains - to no effect. There are millions of factors that affected their lives. Not all factors helped make them live longer.
I feel like people are implying that refined grains and sugars helped these people live longer because they ate them. I don't see any proof. Correlation does not equal causation.
Hopefully backing away for good this time....0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.
Your answer is making my head spin with how much you are inserting your ideology/opinion into the Blue Zone approach in order to make some kind of point... which is pointless.
You have nothing, absolutely NOTHING to base your assertion that they'd have lived longer without those grains (where are you getting refined from except in the case of the Sardinians?) other than feels?
At least the argument the Blue Zones put forth is based on epidemiology.
Considering the fact that the reason the Blue Zones were chosen to be Blue Zones in the first place was the amount of centegenarians, it is odd (to say the least) to say they might live longer without grains!
If you want to say that a person can be perfectly healthy eating a keto or low carb diet, that's one thing. To suggest that a 105 year old Italian who is still active and alert would have been better off without the pasta, bread, and wine just isn't logical.
I'm assuming that you meant to quote me.
Leave wine out of it.
I don't think I'm being illogical. I am questioning if they became centegenarians BECAUSE they ate (refined) grains and sugar or IN SPITE OF the (refined) grains and sugar. There is no evidence either way. I suppose there is the third option of becoming a centegenarian who happened to eat sugar and refined grains - to no effect. There are millions of factors that affected their lives. Not all factors helped make them live longer.
I feel like people are implying that refined grains and sugars helped these people live longer because they ate them. I don't see any proof. Correlation does not equal causation.
Hopefully backing away for good this time....
I guess the fact that blue zones happen to eat very similar to what the dietary guidelines (based on research showing healthy and unhealthy amounts of things) say is a coincidence in your mind?5 -
For what its worth, according to the Blue Zones study, the things all the communities had in common were active lifestyles, strong family and social bonds, and plant based diets.1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.
Your answer is making my head spin with how much you are inserting your ideology/opinion into the Blue Zone approach in order to make some kind of point... which is pointless.
You have nothing, absolutely NOTHING to base your assertion that they'd have lived longer without those grains (where are you getting refined from except in the case of the Sardinians?) other than feels?
At least the argument the Blue Zones put forth is based on epidemiology.
Considering the fact that the reason the Blue Zones were chosen to be Blue Zones in the first place was the amount of centegenarians, it is odd (to say the least) to say they might live longer without grains!
If you want to say that a person can be perfectly healthy eating a keto or low carb diet, that's one thing. To suggest that a 105 year old Italian who is still active and alert would have been better off without the pasta, bread, and wine just isn't logical.
Hopefully backing away for good this time....
Nobody is implying anything. You said that half the people on the planet need to eat low carb/keto and the other half might not need to but would be healthier if they did.
Someone disagreed with you by stating that most traditional diets incorporate grains, and in fact the Blue Zones support impressive human health and longevity with diets full of grains, so how could it make sense that grains are empty and unhealthy?
That's it! And I'm happy to leave wine out of it, wine should always be exempt from criticism and kept out of passionate debates :drinker:4 -
To return to OP's question, grains are at the base of my diet, too. I eat quite a few everyday. I think the key is to bulk them up so you eat less of the grains and more of the vegetables and proteins.
Like, when I eat oatmeal, for instance, I chop up a banana or other kinds of fruit, toss in a sprinkle of nuts, etc..
I follow the same approach with spaghetti dishes, cereal, rice, etc..
You mentioned specifically the vegetables being too time consuming to prepare...a few suggestions:
Try preparing them as soon as you get them home from the store. That way when you're hungry and don't want to take the extra time to prepare them at a mealtime, they're already ready to go.
Another idea is to buy the frozen bags like Birds Eye Steamfresh or similar...these are a lifesaver for me when I want a quick side item.
Prepping ahead makes a big difference for me in terms of what I reach for. When I'm hungry, I'm lazy!
You can have grains and have a healthy diet. One does not cancel out the other. It is my personal opinion that a diet with a wide variety is probably the "healthiest".1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
You can't cherry pick what caused them to become Blue Zones because it doesn't suit your ideology, though.
The fact remains that carbohydrate intake, which in several of the locations does include grain consumption and sugar consumption in one of the Blue Zones is part of what is what is considered to contribute to the longevity of the residents of the particular zones.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
You have your opinion, but the fact remains that the common factors among the longest-lived residents in these areas speak for themselves. Your opinion doesn't stand up against actual research.
I don't think I cherry picked anything. I doubt the blue zones are long lived because they had a diet high in sugars and refined grains. Every aspect of your life does not need to contribute to longevity. I'll just have to wait and see the research that shows the blue zone folks are so healthy because of their grain and sugar consumption...stevencloser wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I avoid grains because they convert to sugars so quickly when we eat them. For me, sugars are the problem and grains are mostly sugars, especially refined grains in baed goods.
I cut back for a few weeks and then went cold turkey. No more grains (oats, rice, corn, etc) and no more sugar (including all fruit for a while). It worked. My cravings were gone within days.
IMO, if it feels like an addiction, it makes sense to treat it like an addiction and avoid it altogether. If it is an addiction-like problem, moderation isn't going to work well or for very long.
Besides, no one needs grains or sugar for health, especially the way that most people eat them - it is just good tasting nutritionless fluff.
And yet "blue zone" areas of the world tend towards diets that are high in carbohydrates to include grains...
Your religion is showing...
That may be true but it doesn't change the fact that no one needs sugar or grains for nutritional health.
If it was just good tasting, nutritionless fluff, blue zones wouldn't be blue zones now would they..
Hmmm...healthiest populations on the planet eating nutritionless fluff...like I said..your religion is showing again.
That doesn't make sense. You're implying they became blue zones BECAUSE they ate sugars and grains? I think they are blue zones in spite of the fact that they ate sugars and grains.
But to be fair, whole grains, grains that still look like grains, are more nutritionally sound than refined, highly processed grains. I believe I said that earlier.
Wow, you really don't like the idea that people can be completely fine with grains and sugar, that they don't have inherent negative effects on people and can enrich life quality.
No. I think about half of all people, at any given time, seem to be fine with grains and sugars, especially while younger. I do doubt it enriches quality of life in the long run. Perhaps a short term benefit while their taste buds bask in sugary starchy goodness. Long term benefits? Meh. At best it's neutral... I think I said that before.
Food can contribute towards quality of life but it's sad if one's quality of life hinges on certain foods being eaten.
Yes. this is my opinion. I do know people who have said they would rather die than give up sugar. I think that's sad.... And it is usually said by people who I can confidently guess will not make it to 100... or 70 for that matter.
You're cherry picking by going from "because" to "in spite of".
The research shows that they are long-lived because of their overall habits and diet. You can't separate any single contributing factor out of the equation and say "aha!", and conversely, you can't take one out.
The fact remains that grains and sugar are part and parcel of what makes some of the populations long-lived.
Yes, (refined) grains and sugars are part of (some of) their diets. Saying it is part and parcel of what makes them long lived isn't saying much... Maybe without them they would live even longer?
The "because" was in response to what other people are saying. They are long lived "because" they have (refined) grains and sugar as part of their diet? I doubt that. I think they are long lived "in spite" of the fact that they consumed those foods. I sincerely doubt that sugars and (refined) grains lead to longevity. I would be happy to be surprised by any research that shows it sugars and refined grains help a person live longer.
Do any blue zones actually eat a lot of sugar and refined grains compared to the rest of the world or the States? I tried reading Blue Zones and quit so I don't know.
And yes, we're waaaay off topic. Apologies. Backing away.
Your answer is making my head spin with how much you are inserting your ideology/opinion into the Blue Zone approach in order to make some kind of point... which is pointless.
You have nothing, absolutely NOTHING to base your assertion that they'd have lived longer without those grains (where are you getting refined from except in the case of the Sardinians?) other than feels?
At least the argument the Blue Zones put forth is based on epidemiology.
Considering the fact that the reason the Blue Zones were chosen to be Blue Zones in the first place was the amount of centegenarians, it is odd (to say the least) to say they might live longer without grains!
If you want to say that a person can be perfectly healthy eating a keto or low carb diet, that's one thing. To suggest that a 105 year old Italian who is still active and alert would have been better off without the pasta, bread, and wine just isn't logical.
Hopefully backing away for good this time....
Nobody is implying anything. You said that half the people on the planet need to eat low carb/keto and the other half might not need to but would be healthier if they did.
Someone disagreed with you by stating that most traditional diets incorporate grains, and in fact the Blue Zones support impressive human health and longevity with diets full of grains, so how could it make sense that grains are empty and unhealthy?
That's it! And I'm happy to leave wine out of it, wine should always be exempt from criticism and kept out of passionate debates :drinker:
I don't know. I think wine inspires some passionate debates :drinker:2 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions