Whole 30 Anyone?

Do you have specific issues you're trying to identify a trigger for?

Did it last year, felt great, ate great, lost 25lbs. When I re-introduced foods I realized that I have no food issues besides the one I already knew about. (avocado)

katiebythebay wrote: »

Have you heard of this and what do you know about it? I'm doing the diet, starting today...

It’s not really designed to cause weigh loss. It is designed to figure out food allergies/intolerances.

There are so many threads on these boards about W30, do a quickie search and hopefully the different conversations can help point you in the right direction with your specific questions. I did one (not for weight loss) and loved it, you'll have more info that you could ever dream of in those threads.

I did Whole30 in January for the third time and this was my best experience yet. There were a few reasons that I did it. During the fall and into the holidays my consumption of junk and alcohol had really gotten out of hand. I felt like I was beyond the point of saying I needed to enjoy those things in moderation, and that I actually was at a point that I needed to take some things, especially added sugar, diet coke, artificial sweeteners, and alcohol, out of my diet entirely for a while. The other factor for me is being hypothyroid, and I was hopeful that removing foods that cause inflammation from my diet would help with some of those symptoms, but I wasn't ready to go full-on AIP. I mentioned that this was my best experience with Whole30 yet, and I attribute that to the fact that I was really ready to get started after all of my holiday debauchery and I really committed for the full thirty days. Also, my husband did it with me and having his support helped. Also, having him on board encouraged me to seek out new recipes instead of just eating some sort of meat and some roasted/steamed/raw veggies at every meal. This kept us from getting bored, making it much easier to stay committed. After 30 days, I can definitely say I'm feeling better and sleeping better than I have in years. I did lose some weight, which wasn't a huge deal for me, but certainly a perk. Best of all, my cravings for Diet Coke (my former lifeline) and sweets have really gone away. I've decided that for me the best thing at this point is to continue sticking with a Paleo diet (but being mindful of portion sizes and calories in/out), limiting my treats and alcohol to just an occasional treat on the weekend. One more thing I'll add, in the past when I did Whole30 I restricted my carbs too much. I am very active, running long distances and working out 5-6 days per week, so this was problematic as my legs would feel dead even on a short (5-6 mile) run. This time I made sure to incorporate more compliant complex carbohydrates, particularly on days prior to a longer/harder workout. Whole30, like anything else, isn't for everyone and probably won't be very effective if you don't go into it with clear expectations and fully committed to success (it didn't for me in the past anyway), but if you decide to move forward I wish you the best! Also, I found Nom Nom Paleo to be a great resource for easy and delicious Whole30 recipes!

I did it, and loved it. But its not a "diet". That's a bit part of the programme!

For me, I used it a kickoff for a lifestyle transformation (that continues today!). I don't think I lost any weight while doing Whole30, but I totally reframed my relationship with food. I knew I'd slipped into healthy habits over time, but I couldn't figure out how to fix those. I kept failing. But by focussing on foods that made my body feel good, and the spirit of whole foods that the programme hails, it kicked me into gear to make better choices moving forwards.

I didn't track on MFP during, but started up immediately after. So for me, Whole30 was a learning programme, which set me up on the right path to successfully diet to lose weight now. I learned what food satiated what feelings, so when I'm working with a limited calorie budget, I get what my body needs. Honestly, I couldn't advocate it enough.

That being said, I think you need to be in the right mindset for it. I wouldn't do it if weight loss is your primary immediate focus. If you want to learn about how food affects you, it's perfect. Since the end of my Whole30, I have gone on to lose weight, and get into some great exercise habits... the knowledge it gave is really power!

I did "Whole 20" January 2017. I had intended to do the whole program--made it to Inauguration Day. I HATED it. I've known lots of people who have tried it, loved it, do it on the regular for a "reset". It just did not work for me. I probably take too much pleasure in food and eating (hence the 50-ish pounds I'm trying to drop), but it left me dreading weekends and hating life. I lost 15 pounds in 20 days because I wasn't eating enough (put those bad boys right back on, of course), because I'd lost all interest in food.

That being said, I've known plenty of folks who have done well on it, have enjoyed it, etc. I've kept some of the lessons I did learn on the program. It helped me identify which foods I eat because I enjoy and which I eat out of habit. For instance, other than an occasional piece of toast, I really don't care if I ever eat another piece of traditional sandwich bread again. I also learned I don't like certain artificial sweeteners, and in fact tend to eat sugar more out of habit than desire. I'm not saying it's a bad program, and I certainly don't say it to discourage you. It just WAS NOT for me.

I've done a lot of research and experimenting with Whole30 in the past - here are some of my thoughts on this program.

ISSUES WITH WHOLE30 SCIENCE
I've done a Whole30 in the past (actually did a Whole60!) and soon after became curious about the scientific research provided in their book, It Starts With Food. As a side project, I decided to review the scientific citations the authors provide for each chapter and see if the science matched up with the claims being made. (Side Note - I have my BS and almost finished my master's degree in nutritional science, which is part of the reason I was curious about their claims)

Unfortunately, I found that a majority of the cited claims were very misleading or false. This book can substantially misinform people about what a proper healthy diet looks like due to this inaccurate information. You can read some of my chapter reviews of the book here:
http://nutritionasiknowit.com/whole30/

WHOLE30 AS AN ELIMINATION DIET
The Whole30 approach to elimination and reintroduction of foods is also not appropriately designed in a way that would allow accurate and reliable identification of food sensitivities. For example, they state that their program can help identify food allergies and sensitivities. However, 4 of the 8 most common allergens are never eliminated from the diet (eggs, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish). It's not a very logically consistent elimination diet.

For a more evidence-based approach to an elimination diet, you might want to try the one set out by Precision Nutrition found here:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/elimination-diet-infographic

WHOLE30 FOR WEIGHT LOSS
I know the authors of this program have repeatedly said the Whole30 is not a weight loss program. But to be fair, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they claim the Whole30 is "not about weight loss". They mention weight loss as an advantage of their program 28 times in the book, It Starts With Food (I searched my e-copy of the book). Here's one example:

“In a recent survey of more than 1,600 Whole30 participants, 96 percent reported having lost weight and/or improved their body composition. The majority lost between six and fifteen pounds in just thirty days. So there you go—proof that weight loss is built right into the program, without your having to think about it.”

Additionally, they also post before and after pictures on their social media platforms of people who have dropped weight on the Whole30, which is not something you would do unless you were promoting the weight loss benefits of your diet.

CONCLUSION
Overall, my concern is that, while some may improve their health on this diet in the short-term, they will ultimately walk away from this experience with a fundamental misunderstanding of nutrition.

I highly recommend trying it. I had written a longer post but I lost it without saving on my phone somehow. The plan includes adding foods back gradually at the end of the 30 days. A lot the people commenting negatively on this thread apparently have not read the books or researched the full plan. Find out for yourself. I lost over 5 lbs in the first week and I'm still going strong. No calorie counting and I'm never hungry. If I'm hungry, I eat!

crazyravr wrote: »

fatcity66 wrote: »

I highly recommend trying it. I had written a longer post but I lost it without saving on my phone somehow. The plan includes adding foods back gradually at the end of the 30 days. A lot the people commenting negatively on this thread apparently have not read the books or researched the full plan. Find out for yourself. I lost over 5 lbs in the first week and I'm still going strong. No calorie counting and I'm never hungry. If I'm hungry, I eat!

For like a 10000000000000000000000th time. You are losing weight only because you are eating at calorie deficit, not because you eliminated grains or any other evil invented food designed to magically make you gain weight and be ill.

Yes - but some people find it beneficial to cut out certain foods (bread, cookies, etc) in order to be able to stick to a calorie deficit and still feel full, while eating high nutrient foods. Why does everyone get so up in arms about that around here? There is nothing inherently wrong with revamping ones diet with more whole foods.
The whole 30 diet isn't so different from how I ate for years. Then I let the "moderation" mindset creep back into my meals, and guess what, I gained a *kitten* ton of weight.
Restriction just works better for some people.

33gail33 wrote: »

crazyravr wrote: »

33gail33 wrote: »

crazyravr wrote: »

fatcity66 wrote: »

I highly recommend trying it. I had written a longer post but I lost it without saving on my phone somehow. The plan includes adding foods back gradually at the end of the 30 days. A lot the people commenting negatively on this thread apparently have not read the books or researched the full plan. Find out for yourself. I lost over 5 lbs in the first week and I'm still going strong. No calorie counting and I'm never hungry. If I'm hungry, I eat!

For like a 10000000000000000000000th time. You are losing weight only because you are eating at calorie deficit, not because you eliminated grains or any other evil invented food designed to magically make you gain weight and be ill.

Yes - but some people find it beneficial to cut out certain foods (bread, cookies, etc) in order to be able to stick to a calorie deficit and still feel full, while eating high nutrient foods. Why does everyone get so up in arms about that around here? There is nothing inherently wrong with revamping ones diet with more whole foods.
The whole 30 diet isn't so different from how I ate for years. Then I let the "moderation" mindset creep back into my meals, and guess what, I gained a *kitten* ton of weight.
Restriction just works better for some people.

Exactly. Calorie restriction NOT food restriction.

But my point is that restricting (or eliminating) certain high calorie low nutrient density foods results in calorie restriction without the "need" to count calories. Thus the weight loss success of those types of diets.
I know the common refrain here is that it isn't sustainable long term because "what happens when you add those foods back in." But habit formation is a big part of why we eat the way we do and diets such as the Whole 30 can retrain ones eating habits, which is just as sustainable long term as retraining ones portion control habits - which is basically what calorie counting without specific food eliminations does.
Different strokes for different folks.

I don't think users here typically have much concern with people limiting or even eliminating certain calorie-dense foods because they find it makes it easier for them to maintain a deficit, it's something that a lot of us do. It's the arbitrary nature of the eliminations that makes Whole30 seem less useful to many -- you're not eliminating something because it makes it easier, you're eliminating it because someone has told you that you shouldn't eat it. Also, it should be noted that Whole30 doesn't eliminate exclusively low nutrient-density foods, there are foods that are generally acknowledged to be nutrient-dense that are eliminated on this plan (dairy products and beans are two examples).

If someone finds Whole30 useful, that's great. But they should be clear that it's a set of arbitrary restrictions and that those restrictions may not even result in weight loss.

I've done Whole30 a few times and I always really enjoy it. Physical benefits aside, it's a great mental reminder to be more conscious about all the "extra" stuff in food. I learn something each time. My day-to-day diet doesn't vary radically, really. I do drink alcohol fairly regularly and eat some grains, so maybe it's been enjoyable for me because it's not a huge departure from my normal habits. I recommend it frequently. Especially to people who eat a more "Standard American Diet". If for no other reason that gaining some insight into one's food. Good luck!

33gail33 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

33gail33 wrote: »

crazyravr wrote: »

33gail33 wrote: »

crazyravr wrote: »

fatcity66 wrote: »

I highly recommend trying it. I had written a longer post but I lost it without saving on my phone somehow. The plan includes adding foods back gradually at the end of the 30 days. A lot the people commenting negatively on this thread apparently have not read the books or researched the full plan. Find out for yourself. I lost over 5 lbs in the first week and I'm still going strong. No calorie counting and I'm never hungry. If I'm hungry, I eat!

For like a 10000000000000000000000th time. You are losing weight only because you are eating at calorie deficit, not because you eliminated grains or any other evil invented food designed to magically make you gain weight and be ill.

Yes - but some people find it beneficial to cut out certain foods (bread, cookies, etc) in order to be able to stick to a calorie deficit and still feel full, while eating high nutrient foods. Why does everyone get so up in arms about that around here? There is nothing inherently wrong with revamping ones diet with more whole foods.
The whole 30 diet isn't so different from how I ate for years. Then I let the "moderation" mindset creep back into my meals, and guess what, I gained a *kitten* ton of weight.
Restriction just works better for some people.

Exactly. Calorie restriction NOT food restriction.

But my point is that restricting (or eliminating) certain high calorie low nutrient density foods results in calorie restriction without the "need" to count calories. Thus the weight loss success of those types of diets.
I know the common refrain here is that it isn't sustainable long term because "what happens when you add those foods back in." But habit formation is a big part of why we eat the way we do and diets such as the Whole 30 can retrain ones eating habits, which is just as sustainable long term as retraining ones portion control habits - which is basically what calorie counting without specific food eliminations does.
Different strokes for different folks.

I don't think users here typically have much concern with people limiting or even eliminating certain calorie-dense foods because they find it makes it easier for them to maintain a deficit, it's something that a lot of us do. It's the arbitrary nature of the eliminations that makes Whole30 seem less useful to many -- you're not eliminating something because it makes it easier, you're eliminating it because someone has told you that you shouldn't eat it. Also, it should be noted that Whole30 doesn't eliminate exclusively low nutrient-density foods, there are foods that are generally acknowledged to be nutrient-dense that are eliminated on this plan (dairy products and beans are two examples).

If someone finds Whole30 useful, that's great. But they should be clear that it's a set of arbitrary restrictions and that those restrictions may not even result in weight loss.

Meh - that is not the impression I have got in my short time here. But maybe that is my mis-interpretation.

My knowledge of Whole 30 is cursory at best, correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that it's nutritional profile is deficient in any way. Isn't it basically paleo? Not something I would do as I don't eat birds or mammals, but it's not exactly what one would consider an unhealthy fad diet.

And as for eliminating it because someone told you - some people just do better with a framework to work with that includes meal plans and rules based on someone else's research and recommendations. I have spent a lot of time trying to get a handle on nutrition science and as a lay person it is a *kitten* minefield. Most people don't have the time or inclination to go down that particular rabbit hole.

Based on my experience and discussions I've seen, virtually every poster here who has been successful has limited or even completely eliminated certain calorie-dense foods in order to make it easier to meet their calorie goals. In my case, it was rice. It wasn't based on a theory about rice or a specific diet plan, it was just me looking at the calories I was "spending" on it relative to the enjoyment I was getting from it. Easy decision. Now that I've lost weight, I'll now sometimes choose to eat rice, but nowhere close to the multiple times a week I was eating it prior to 2015.

That's not a unique experience. If you've got weight to lose and you decide to count calories, you've got to limit something. For many people, it starts with portion sizes. But along the way, a lot of us find foods that we don't really mind limiting or eliminating because it makes meeting a specific calorie goal easier.

I'm not arguing that Whole30 is nutrient-deficient, I'm saying that their restrictions can't be easily categorized as targeting only foods that are calorie-dense/low nutrient-density. Something doesn't have to be unhealthy in order to be arbitrary and that's what I'm arguing that Whole30 is. (Paleo, in my opinion, is equally arbitrary).

If someone does better with a framework, then they should use a framework. But it should be categorized as just that -- a framework, one of probably dozens that could be used in a way that is compatible with meeting human nutritional needs, but not possessing any inherent superiority over other ways of eating (at least, not to an extent to which we're aware). When you listen to the Hartwigs promote their plan, it's clear they're not promoting it just as a framework -- they are promoting it as having some sort of positive basis for eliminating the foods they recommend eliminating. In their mind (and in the minds of others promoting the diet), this is a superior way to eat and that's what I'm challenging.

I don't think anyone would care if they were like "Hey, this is a framework for foods to arbitrarily eliminate. People who find that a helpful approach to weight loss will be successful on this plan, as they would be on many plans that target foods for arbitrary elimination or restriction."

Your argument -- that people don't have the time or inclination to learn about nutrition -- actually makes it worse than people like the Hartwigs are choosing to profit from that. When you're told that something is inherently wrong with beans or oats or greek yogurt and you should eliminate those foods and you don't have the tools to properly evaluate those statements . . . well, people are targeting your ignorance. They're free to do so in America, but that doesn't mean I think it's morally appropriate.