Whole 30 Anyone?

2»

Replies

  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,556 Member
    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!
  • happytree923
    happytree923 Posts: 464 Member
    I tried it and got so bored with my meals and felt miserable. My grocery bill went through the roof too because your only calorie-dense food is meat (fruit and potatoes are allowed but you're not supposed to overdo those). I tried it as a 'reset' to help my tastes change but it just made me want bread more tbh.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,116 Member
    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
    33gail33 Posts: 1,116 Member
    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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    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.
  • amy19355
    amy19355 Posts: 805 Member
    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!

    In my experience, and the experiences of others that I've read, diet plans that delay the incorporation of 'regular everyday food' for the first 30 days are the least likely to have long term success.

    why? I can only speak for myself, and will lead off with this:
    Researchers have pretty well documented that habits take 28 days to form. A plan that changes after 30 days is asking me to break a habit I just formed and form a new one. THat's more work that I want.

    The other reason that I view Whole30 with skeptism is idea that I could eliminate foods with suspected links to various diseases, and, in the elimination of these from my diet have amazing new healthier me. THe missing link for me is: how would I know which of those problem foods was the real cause of whatever problem it wsa that I resolved? How would I know which ones I could add back in?

    The official-whole30-program-rules are pretty straightforward. https://whole30.com/downloads/official-whole30-program-rules.pdf . I suppose the book could contain some "special proprietary tips known only to buyers of the book" that address my objections, however, I'm not a big believer in the idea that there are SECRETS to losing weight.

    All that said, if this kind of plan works for you in the long run, that's what is really the important measurement.

    The most successful diet plan I've found so far is the one that I have been doing every day for the last 2+ months. I believe that every day I continue to follow this plan is another day that I can count toward my success with it.
    As I continue to lose weight , it only reinforces the idea that consistency in eating habits is what is causing the results.

    The best diet plan for you is the one you will follow for the rest of your life. Which plan? it is different for each of us, but they all have in common some ideas about Calories, and Macronutrients, and how to balance them to suit our individual needs.

    good luck to you, and good fitness to us all!
  • unicornumame
    unicornumame Posts: 16 Member
    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
    33gail33 Posts: 1,116 Member
    edited November 2018
    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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    33gail33 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.