This is exactly the problem with anything to do with nutrition. For every study you can post showing something is good, someone else can post something showing that it's bad. My big problem reading the book was that the author appeared to have an almost pornographic fixation on food. The endless detailed descriptions of desserts or pizzas or whatever wore thin, and it began to sound like an addict pining for the days when he used to drink. I know, for me personally, when I eliminated grains my hayfever - which had plagued me for 30 years and required daily, year-round medication just to take the edge off - vanished. Skin was clear. Lost 6lbs in a month. I also felt quite healthy when I lived in Africa and ate only "organic" (because that country doesn't have anythign but hand-farming), hauled water and walked everywhere. I think our entire Western society makes it hard to be well. Conveinience is just too convenient and it's easy to not move enough, eat too much and expose yourself to toxins. Everybody should play around with their diet and their activity level until they get to a point where they feel good. Sleeping well, not ill, positive outlook, etc. For each person, that will probably be different. What irks me is people who stubbornly refuse to examine anything, who say things like, "Fuck that book I'm not reading it BREAD IS DELICIOUS SO HOW CAN IT BE BAD!!!" and expect to be taken seriously.
So once again, I ask: If I exercise more, eat less, is it your position, based on the above, that I will gain weight? Go ahead and assume for the purposes of the question that the person doesn't actually get lazy and really exercises and eats less.
Well for me, the GF and a whole fucking slew of people on the internet the process is: Person is sedentary and unhealthy. Person becomes more aware of eating portions and exercise. Person does not become healthier. Person eliminates grains, is not more aware of portions and does not exercise. Person becomes healthier. It must have been the grains.
So you went from being aware to not being aware? Or just from being aware to not giving a shit because eating a plateful of bacon must be healthy? Also diet changes (going from crap foods to healthy ones) is great, but no exercise? Congratulations on being skinny fat.
I went from trying to cut down on how much I was eating to going mostly paleo, and instead of being mindful of portion size I ate until I was full. I didn't exercise much at all when I was losing weight, but I exercise pretty much every day now. As for the crappy food thing, I was eating what most people would consider healthy, very very limited fast food, whole grains, fresh produce, etc.
You do know that article is talking about bread like it was created in a laboratory and ignores the fact that naturally bread is pleasing to the human pallet sans allergic reactions. Also, in our PM, you said "When you eat bread, how do you feel? Do you feel good? Do you feel full? Do you feel happy?" Yeah, but I feel that was 99% of the time I eat anything made well. Salad, steak, bacon, scallops (especially bacon wrapped scallops), etc. The article says in relation to bread, I feel good because the wheat is hitting drug receptors. Well yeah, all food has to hit those receptors or as humans we wouldn't move. Hence why sex feels good. If it didn't, we'd probably not mate as much. Your body is telling us "Yes, I need this, do it more." Just because a drug happens to hit the same sensor, doesn't mean that wheat = cocaine. I'm pretty sure water his a pleasure receptor after a long run the same way another random drug does also, does it mean its bad for us? Come on, I'm not pulling this out of my ass, but these arguments are getting ridiculous. And like Lance Armstrong, I'm not going to address that topic anymore. Focus: Dr. Rob posted this on his twitter yesterday. Shaming fatties might backfire, because it leads to eating. Because for them, food as an entity makes them feel better.
I read Wheat Belly, too. I didn't go re-read the whole thing just now, but I seem to remember that one of Dr. Davis's big points, was that we are eating an entirely different wheat than we were eating 100 years ago. Maybe the Amish use some old-style wheat, too, in addition to old-style preparation. (maybe that buy it here. If you're not familiar with the information about the different wheat, here are some excerpts from Wheat Belly, Chapter 2 (The Creation of Modern Wheat):
The idea that we should eat for comfort, emotional support and "feeling good" is at the heart of the problem, I think. If food is your comfort and not your fuel, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you might be headed for a health problem at some point in your life, brought on by your diet.
This is like saying we'd be safer and more financially secure if our sex lives were monogamous and purely procreative. That way, no diseases and extra babies. Sure, that's technically correct, but an absurdly constrained perspective. "If intend to fuck multiple people in your life or aren't prepared to have a baby, I don't think it's unreasonable to say you might be heading for gonorrhea or financial ruin at some point."
Screw you lady, I slow cook bacon for an hour in the morning so my entire place gets the aroma, then I get sexual with that bacon.
Okay, I have to stop you on this point. We've had multiple discussions in private and on other threads where we've agreed across the board, but saying you shouldn't have a relationship with your food, or if you do it'll lead to a health problem is quite a stretch. As a matter of fact, I'd argue the exact opposite: if people were more involved with the food they ate; where it came from, how it was made, who produced the ingredients to make it, etc. that they may be more inclined to make better decisions about what exactly it was that they did eat. For example: how easy is it to detach yourself from your diet with all the other disctractions in life and zip thru a McD's drive thru, grab a BigMac meal (super sized, but with a diet coke, of course), wolf that down in your car and pay no mind to where exactly that beef on your burger was farmed from or what kind of preservatives and chemicals are used to make that special sauce shelf stable for months at a time? On the other hand, let's say you go to your local farmers market on Saturday morning like usual and you go talk to Jim, the farmer from 40 miles up the road who brings in freshly ground patties from his free range cattle each week. After that you stop by the pickup truck and buy a basket of peaches from Mary and her daughter Lisa who have a fruit orchard 20 minutes away from your office and they tell you that in a few weeks they'll be bringing in some leftovers that would be great for canning or jams. Finally you stop by and see Tom and he gets you a big bag of basil from his garden that just came in as he tells you that this will go great with the tomato plants he knows you have growing on your back patio because you asked him for some advice at the beginning of the season. So when you get home and make those burgers at home and eat them with a nice tomato basil salad you partially grew yourself, it is quite comforting and gives you a great feeling. But nothing in there is in any way pointedly leading towards a health problem. Not that you can't have a detrimental relationship with food; just don't be so quick to make over-arching assumptions about the concept of being involved with your food. TL;DR - It's okay to have a relationship with your food. If the food is good.
Slow day at work so... Yes Rush, but you have it reversed. I bet a larger portion of people who talk about having "organic health / unprocessed / old school wheat" are getting it from the Amish, not vice versa. Wheat Belly is not talking about the wheat the Amish are eating. The Amish aren't gypsies, they haven't moved, they haven't roamed around. Their farms, fields, and livestock go untouched by laboratories and genetic tinkering. Also, "old school wheat" isn't that hard to get. Not every farm (especially in America) is controlled and managed by some major corporation. Also, the primary reasoning for Dr. Wheat Belly's book has some serious attribution error to it. I'd want to see more information on the eating habits of his patients. Here are the questions. Was it soley with the bread itself? What were they eating with the bread? Now if between these two slices of bread was greasy salted meats, mayonaise, bacon, mustard, and Kraft Singles, that should be talked about. If the bread was being made into pizza with layers of greasy cheese, mystery sausage, and generic tomato paste, yeah definitely. Maybe they stopped getting the free soda with their pizzas and cut back in that vein also. Maybe they cut back on breaded fried chicken layed in saturated fat grease/cholesterol. Or even worse, were just eating it with margarine. Shouldn't we be asking/looking into what was going on top of or with the wheat? I highly doubt we'd be seeing such massive improvements in health if these people were otherwise eating mixed greens and lean turkey.
So you're saying going from 4000 calories a day to 3500 will cause you to freeze, get scatterbrained, lie around, lose your job, and go bald? C'mon dude. This is fearmongering, plain and simple. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response</a> <a class="postlink" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=starvation+mode+myth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.google.com/search?q=starvation+mode+myth</a> No, "eat less exercise more" is the first step towards a greater understanding of the body. Are you really arguing that people drinking 3 2-liters of Coca-Cola a day is a symptom?
Ok, once again: despite all your histrionics and personal attacks, the question remains the same: Is it your position Winterbike, that a person who eats less and exercises more will actually gain weight? Same assumption as before, person actually exercises more and eats less. Answer the question. It's a really easy one. Yet, you somehow seem unable to answer it because you have used my posts (as have others) to forward an agenda that my post had nothing to do with. To quote Val Kilmer, 'I'll be your Huckelberry' - but in so doing, Answer the above question. It's a yes or no question, though an explanation is certainly permissible.
No they won't gain weight. I know what you're getting at. Yes, if a person eats 2 packs of Oreos a day for sustenance, and cuts it back to 1 and a half while throwing in a couple of 30 minute walks around their neighborhood, they will lose weight. It may not be optimal, and they still won't be "healthy", but they will be burning more calories while taking is less. So they will lose some weight.
Stop your personal attacks on winterbike. His dad once raped him with a loaf of bread. He is entitled to be irrational.
I'm sorry Free Corps, the question was directed to Winterbike. While the answer you have given may well be the correct one, my pointed question is directed to a person whom is unable to keep things in PM (where as always I was exceedingly courteous until the other person wasn't)- yet, somehow, here we are out on the main thread. Ultimately, what Winterbike is advocating with his formula is that somehow if you eat less and exercise more, there are other factors that somehow could count more heavily and if you follow them through to their natural conclusion, it would actually allow a person who eats less and exercises more to experience a 'net weight gain' - see formula above in Winterbike's post. I believe he uses factors 'C' and 'D' as 'outs' to somehow advocate the position that eating less and exercising more will actually result in a net weight gain. Not sure exactly what 'C' and 'D' are in the formula, and how they are independent of 'A' - eating less I'm guessing - and 'B' -exercising more (burning more calories) - but based on the vitriol and insulting nature of his posts, clearly I'm missing that C and D are so fundamental - and independent of - eating less and exercising more - that doing what I have argued 'eat less, exercise more' could actually result in net weight gain. I'm waiting.
Man, some of you really have your panties in a bunch about this one. I think the secret to living a healthy life is really fucking simple. Wheat this. Gluten that. Low carb. Slow carb. No carb. Dukan. Atkins. Bernstein. Jenny this. Weight Watchers that. Holy fuck, get a grip. Eat less. Move more. That's it.