Whole 30

[olyclimber]

got the book today, i think i'll wait till after the upcoming family reunion to try anything LOL. food!

[rmncwrtr]

got the book today, i think i'll wait till after the upcoming family reunion to try anything LOL. food!

 

Good idea to wait! I'm trying a salmon cake recipe that's in the book tomorrow. Had to run out and get almond flour today so I could make them.

 

And this is causing changes to happen with my family. Not in the way I expected with them giving all stuff up and joining me, but my two oldest (14 & 12) told me tonight they were going to go 30 days without fast food and soda. Granted we don't have soda in the house so they only get it when we eat out, but I'm still very pleased that they've decided to do this. Of course saying it and doing it are two different things, but it's a start!

[olyclimber]

ha Ulee did the "no-soda" thing for a month because of his teacher. of course he has had a soda since, now he thinks about it. and he turned soda down about 5-6 times in that month. thats gotta be tough for a kid.

[Buckaroo]

Why give up soda?

 

1 to 1.5 cups sparkling spring water (Talking Rain from Whole Foods)

1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon Stevia (has to be the liquid type, powder doesn't dissolve quickly in cold liquids.)

1/4 lime squeezed

 

the best tasting natural soda, zero ill effects. (in fact lime is good for the kidneys)

 

Stevia is my best secret, even makes plain Yogurt palatable, zero glycemic index..

[Water]

hmmm.. i will eat plain yogurt (like a danon fruit on the bottom) just to get to the pure unadulterated (with yogurt) super sugary fruit on the bottom.

 

and i am a 'liquids' person in general..when I was younger I would come home with upwards of 6-12 different types of liquid (juices, sodas, smoothies, shakes, chocolate milk, almond milk, sparkling waters/drinks, teas, etc) after a grocery trip. I got a majority of my calories that way..fwiw. relaxed a bit as i got older.

 

that said talking rain really hits it, without adding stevia or whatnot..just straight up carbonated water with some of that fruit oils (or is it corn based?) in it or whatever is just as good as soda in my book.

[Buckaroo]

Yeah, I drink talking rain plain also, but the mixed drink makes it r e a l l y good.

 

Plain yogurt w/stevia and whatever fresh fruit is on sale, blueberries are yummie. Good way to get calcium if you get tired of carrot juice.

[rmncwrtr]

that said talking rain really hits it, without adding stevia or whatnot..just straight up carbonated water with some of that fruit oils (or is it corn based?) in it or whatever is just as good as soda in my book.

 

I've never heard of fruit oils. We've used sparkling water with syrup to make Italian Sodas. The kids prefer that to cola any day. I'd love to find something healthier to use.

 

Stevia is my best secret, even makes plain Yogurt palatable, zero glycemic index..

 

So I'm a real butter and sugar type. Well except for the next 25 days. Is Stevia a real sweetner rather than a chemical one?

 

I made No-Fuss Salmon Cakes for dinner tonight. Recipe is in the book. It has a can of sweet potatoes and almond flour in it with lots of spices. Yum!

[pink]

so what's the new diet prediction for 2013? i'm eating what alex is eating, just sayin

[Buckaroo]

 

So I'm a real butter and sugar type. Well except for the next 25 days. Is Stevia a real sweetner rather than a chemical one?

 

I have a big sweet tooth also. Stevia is an all natural herb found in South America. It's actually been on the health food scene for quite a while.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

[rob]

 

So I'm a real butter and sugar type. Well except for the next 25 days. Is Stevia a real sweetner rather than a chemical one?

 

I have a big sweet tooth also. Stevia is an all natural herb found in South America. It's actually been on the health food scene for quite a while.

 

All sweeteners are chemical. I find stevia tastes just like sucralose -- too sweet, and weird. I guess it's healthier but it sure doesn't taste better.

 

And for the record, plain yogurt doesn't have a GI of 0. It's low (prob 15 or so), but not 0. It has plenty of natural milk sugar in it.

 

[Buckaroo]

 

All sweeteners are chemical. I find stevia tastes just like sucralose -- too sweet, and weird. I guess it's healthier but it sure doesn't taste better.

 

But not all sweeteners are neurotoxins like Aspartame. There's also a difference between natural and artificial.

 

I've found there's differences between Stevia brands and between what you try to sweeten. Yogurt is so bitter that it over-rides the aftertaste. Also lime seems to negate any weird taste and it comes out quite nice.

 

I was referring to the glycemic index of Stevia, not yogurt

[rob]

Yeah, I'm sure stevia is way better than aspartame, which is basically poison. Not trying to bust your balls. Personally, I find it tastes about the same, though. Know what I mean? I tried using it for a while but just didn't like the way it tastes, decided that a little honey wasn't so bad. I'll try it with some lime.

 

I've recently been struggling with blood sugar issues, so sweeteners are a subject dear to me

 

 

[Jim]

I took a quick look at the 30 site. Seems that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater - no legumes (beans, lentils, tofu??), grains (steel cut oats, whole grains, quinoa)and dairy (yogurt).

 

I don't know. Maybe if you were so out of balance with processed food this is a way of sliding into good eating habits? As a scientist, I'm much doubtful about any "diet" because of the vast amount of evidence that points to the lack of long-term change in behavior.

 

My suggestion for healthy eating habits is to pick up a subscription to Nutrition Action by Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a science-based nutrition monthly newsletter.

[rob]

I took a quick look at the 30 site. Seems that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater - no legumes (beans, lentils, tofu??), grains (steel cut oats, whole grains, quinoa)and dairy (yogurt).

 

I don't know. Maybe if you were so out of balance with processed food this is a way of sliding into good eating habits? As a scientist, I'm much doubtful about any "diet" because of the vast amount of evidence that points to the lack of long-term change in behavior.

 

My suggestion for healthy eating habits is to pick up a subscription to Nutrition Action by Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a science-based nutrition monthly newsletter.

 

These are paleo-diet people. The last thing they want is a science-based perspective.

[Buckaroo]

I know what you're talking about with the after taste, my sister complains of the same thing. Maybe I've just used it so long I don't notice it as much.

 

You also have to watch the amount, a little goes a long way, like drops compared to teaspoons of sugar, and if you get too much it's overpowering.

 

There's some things that don't taste as good with Stevia, like the unsweetened Soy and Rice Milks. Just a little bit of Stevia and they taste weird and almost too sweet.

 

I used honey for a long time but decided I was getting some of the same detrimental effects as sugar. Of course I had trouble with moderation, like putting honey on already naturally sweetened cereal.

[Jim]

I took a quick look at the 30 site. Seems that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater - no legumes (beans, lentils, tofu??), grains (steel cut oats, whole grains, quinoa)and dairy (yogurt).

 

I don't know. Maybe if you were so out of balance with processed food this is a way of sliding into good eating habits? As a scientist, I'm much doubtful about any "diet" because of the vast amount of evidence that points to the lack of long-term change in behavior.

 

My suggestion for healthy eating habits is to pick up a subscription to Nutrition Action by Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a science-based nutrition monthly newsletter.

 

These are paleo-diet people. The last thing they want is a science-based perspective.

 

I did think this vid was a good one, and likely an example of how most folks in the U.S. eat.

 

Bad Food

[rmncwrtr]

I took a quick look at the 30 site. Seems that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater - no legumes (beans, lentils, tofu??), grains (steel cut oats, whole grains, quinoa)and dairy (yogurt).

 

I don't know. Maybe if you were so out of balance with processed food this is a way of sliding into good eating habits? As a scientist, I'm much doubtful about any "diet" because of the vast amount of evidence that points to the lack of long-term change in behavior.

 

My suggestion for healthy eating habits is to pick up a subscription to Nutrition Action by Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a science-based nutrition monthly newsletter.

 

This is only for 30 days. It's Whole30 not Whole365. This isn't how you'd eat for the rest of your life. The food they have you cut out are those that are known to cause problems with people. After the 30 days you start adding things back in, noting reactions and such. It also helps break food addictions, such as my chocolate one! Like a detox kind of thing to set you up for healthier eating in the future if that makes sense. The book actually has some science of why they've gone this route. I haven't spent much time at the website so I'm not sure what's there.

 

This does have its foundations in the Paleo diet, but the reason I like this one better is it seems more real life and about living today rather than how people may have in the past.

[rmncwrtr]

Gotta say so far I'm happy with the program/book. It's been over a week now. Not sure if it's getting easier or I've just had a change of mindset. It's strict, but that's a very good thing for me. Makes it easy to say no. I'm missing M&Ms and ice cream, but that's about it.

 

Still fighting some headaches but that could be lack of sleep. I'll know more after Sunday. Book deadlines always mess me up.

 

 

[G-spotter]

The paleo diet is about as scientific as homeopathy.

[billcoe]

todays news:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-27/calories-low-carb-weight-loss/55843134/1

 

A new study is raising questions about the age-old belief that a calorie is a calorie.

 

Research from a new study funded by the National Institutes of Health finds that dieters were more successful maintaining weight on a low-carb diet than they were on a low-fat diet.

 

Arthur Mullen

 

Research from a new study funded by the National Institutes of Health finds that dieters were more successful maintaining weight on a low-carb diet than they were on a low-fat diet.

 

Enlarge

 

Arthur Mullen

 

Research from a new study funded by the National Institutes of Health finds that dieters were more successful maintaining weight on a low-carb diet than they were on a low-fat diet.

Sponsored Links

 

The research finds that dieters who were trying to maintain their weight loss burned significantly more calories eating a low-carb diet than they did eating a low-fat diet.

 

But some experts say these findings are very preliminary.

 

The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, was designed to see if changing the type of diet people consumed helped with weight maintenance because dieters often regain lost weight.

 

So scientists had 21 obese participants, ages 18 to 40, lose 10% to 15% of their initial body weight (about 30 pounds). After their weight had stabilized, each participant followed one of three different diets for four weeks. Participants were fed food that was prepared for them by diet experts. The dieters were admitted to the hospital four times for medical and metabolic testing.

 

The diets had the same number of calories, but the fat, protein and carbohydrate content varied. Those diets:

 

•A low-fat diet which was about 20% of calories from fat and emphasized whole-grain products and fruits and vegetables.

 

•A low-carb diet, similar to the Atkins diet, with only 10% of calories from carbohydrates. It emphasized fish, chicken, beef, eggs, cheese, some vegetables and fruits while eliminating foods such as breads, pasta, potatoes and starchy vegetables.

 

•A low-glycemic index diet, similar to a Mediterranean diet, made up of vegetables, fruit, beans, healthy fats (olive oil, nuts) and mostly healthy grains (old-fashioned oats, brown rice). These foods digest more slowly, helping to keep blood sugar and hormones stable after the meal.

 

Findings, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association: Participants burned about 300 calories more a day on a low-carb diet than they did on a low-fat diet. "That's the amount you'd burn off in an hour of moderate intensity physical activity without lifting a finger," says senior author David Ludwig, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital.

 

"Participants burned 150 calories more on the low-glycemic index diet than the low-fat diet. That's about an hour of light physical activity," he says.

 

The reason for the low-carb advantage is unclear, he says.

 

"We think the low-carb and low-glycemic index diets, by not causing the surge and crash in blood sugar, don't trigger the starvation response. When the body thinks it's starving, it turns down metabolism to conserve energy," he says.

 

The authors note a downside to the low-carb diet: It appears to raise some risk factors for heart disease.

 

Ludwig says that restricting carbohydrates over the long term may be hard for many people. If you're trying to lose weight, "you can get a jump start with a low-carb diet, but over the long term, a low-glycemic index diet may be better than severely restricting carbohydrates."

 

"The low-glycemic index diet seems to be the happy medium," says Cara Ebbeling, associate director of the Obesity Prevention Center. "It didn't slow metabolism as much as the low-fat diet, and it didn't seem to have some of the negative effects on cardiovascular disease risk."

 

On a low-glycemic index diet, you would avoid highly processed carbs such as white bread, white rice, many snack foods, prepared breakfast cereals, sugary desserts and sugary beverages, she says.

 

Experts had different responses to the findings.

 

George Bray, an obesity researcher at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge who has also studied this topic and who wrote the accompanying editorial in JAMA, says that other studies "show that you can do well on any diet as long as you stick to it. Adherence is the major key for weight loss and maintenance. There is no magic in any diet."

 

Eric Westman, a Duke University researcher who has conducted several studies on the low-carb diet and is co-author of The New Atkins for a New You, says this study documents that the "lower the carbohydrates, the better the metabolic effects. People burn more calories if they eat fewer carbohydrates."

 

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, says longer studies conducted among people in their own environments, not with such controlled meals, have shown "little difference in weight loss and maintenance between one kind of diet and another." More research is needed to show that interesting results like these are applicable in real life, she says.

 

"In the meantime, if you want to lose weight, eat less."

 

 

 

 

Here’s a look at the three types of diets used in the new study:

 

A low-fat diet, which is about 20% of calories from fat, 60% from carbohydrates, 20% from protein. It emphasizes whole-grain products and fruits and vegetables and cuts way back on oils, nuts, fatty meats and other high-fat foods.

 

A low-carb diet, similar to the Atkins diet, with only 10% of calories from carbohydrates, 30% from protein, 60% from fat. This diet emphasizes beef, fish, chicken, eggs, cheese, some vegetables and fruits while slashing the consumption of breads, pasta, potatoes, rice, cakes, cookies and starchy vegetables.

 

A low-glycemic index diet, similar to a Mediterranean diet, is made up of vegetables, fruit, beans, healthy fats (olive oil, nuts) and mostly healthy grains (old-fashioned oats, brown rice). It gets about 40% of daily calories from carbohydrates, 40% from fat and 20% from protein.

 

Source: Journal of the American Medical Association

"/quote]

 

[G-spotter]

The paleo diet is based on the idea that humans have not evolved quickly enough to eat a modern diet, and that therefore we should eat like neolithic hunter-gatherers of 50,000 years ago as that is what our bodies have evolved to consume.

 

Entirely incorrect. Genetic studies have proven that genes involved with diet have been highly selected for over only the last few thousand years - lactose tolerance has evolved three separate times by three different genetic pathways within the last 6,000 years, for instance.

 

Studies of the human microbiome now underway are demonstrating how little of the human genome, and how much of our commensal passengers (who evolve much faster than us) are involved in digestion.

 

In short the scientific hypothesis behind the paleo diet has been completely falsified. Hence my comparison to homeopathy.

[spionin]

This is only for 30 days. It's Whole30 not Whole365.

 

this is the issue i have with this junk.

 

most dietary changes fail to produce long-term results not because they don't work, but rather because the participants impose stringent enough restrictions upon themselves to actually make these changes permanent. the whole mentality of a "diet" is that it's a short-term, crash course type of havoc you wreck on your body to fit into a dream outfit [before inevitably bouncing back to the original weight]. even the JAMA study is only 4 weeks - this only promotes the false impression that short-term weight loss is something to strive for.

 

 

[rob]

This is only for 30 days. It's Whole30 not Whole365.

 

this is the issue i have with this junk.

 

most dietary changes fail to produce long-term results not because they don't work, but rather because the participants impose stringent enough restrictions upon themselves to actually make these changes permanent. the whole mentality of a "diet" is that it's a short-term, crash course type of havoc you wreck on your body to fit into a dream outfit [before inevitably bouncing back to the original weight]. even the JAMA study is only 4 weeks - this only promotes the false impression that short-term weight loss is something to strive for.

 

 

this!

 

Don't diet -- change your lifestyle. Also, you're not getting fat because of eating quinoa, or any of the other silly things this diet cuts out. And whenever a "diet" talks about things like "detoxing," you should be instantly skeptical.

[Kimmo]

The paleo diet is based on the idea that humans have not evolved quickly enough to eat a modern diet, and that therefore we should eat like neolithic hunter-gatherers of 50,000 years ago as that is what our bodies have evolved to consume.

 

Entirely incorrect. Genetic studies have proven that genes involved with diet have been highly selected for over only the last few thousand years - lactose tolerance has evolved three separate times by three different genetic pathways within the last 6,000 years, for instance.

 

Studies of the human microbiome now underway are demonstrating how little of the human genome, and how much of our commensal passengers (who evolve much faster than us) are involved in digestion.

 

In short the scientific hypothesis behind the paleo diet has been completely falsified. Hence my comparison to homeopathy.

 

thanks for interesting post. what, 3 to 6 lbs of the critters in the average human gut, and we are born without any.

 

and speaking of homeopathics, what do you, as a scientist, think about the placebo effect?

[Rad]

The paleo diet is based on the idea that humans have not evolved quickly enough to eat a modern diet, and that therefore we should eat like neolithic hunter-gatherers of 50,000 years ago as that is what our bodies have evolved to consume.

 

Entirely incorrect. Genetic studies have proven that genes involved with diet have been highly selected for over only the last few thousand years - lactose tolerance has evolved three separate times by three different genetic pathways within the last 6,000 years, for instance.

 

Studies of the human microbiome now underway are demonstrating how little of the human genome, and how much of our commensal passengers (who evolve much faster than us) are involved in digestion.

 

In short the scientific hypothesis behind the paleo diet has been completely falsified. Hence my comparison to homeopathy.

 

thanks for interesting post. what, 3 to 6 lbs of the critters in the average human gut, and we are born without any.

 

and speaking of homeopathics, what do you, as a scientist, think about the placebo effect?

 

As another scientist, I can say that the placebo affect is very real. That's why gold standard human experiments are double blind (neither researcher nor subject know who gets the treatment and who gets the control until after the results are all in).

 

Gspotter speaks the truth: gut microbes play a huge role in many factors, from obesity, nutrition, and autoimmune disorders and even GI cancers. And yes, we go from empty vessels to colonzed with billions of microbes in a fairly short time. There was a recent set of articles in Science that delved into these in some detail. A few takeways:

 

We have complex, dynamic ecosystems of microbes living in all of us. These communities affect many aspects of our health.

 

We're all born with no microbes in gut. First ones come from passage through the birth canal. C section kids have different gut flora for a while. These start to be replaced (think succession in a forest) with the introduction of solid food) and are largely supplanted by age 3. After that, microbe populations are tremendously affected by diet, stress and other host factors, medications (particularly the use of antibiotics), and other factors.

 

People who are exposed to less dirt and viruses and bacteria as kids tend to develop more allergies and even serious immune disorders later in life.

 

Thinking of bacteria as "bad" and "invaders" is wrong-headed. We CO-EVOLVED with them, though they evolve much faster than us. We depend on them. They depend on us. We will never be rid of them, nor should we want to be. We should think of ourselves as stewards of this ecosystem.