Once more, with feeling . . . Lots of folks like to proselytize about their latest diet, insisting that this one is not just another fad and how by simply changing whatever they are or are not eating has completely changed how they sleep, work, exercise, bathe, do chores, raise their kids, walk the dog, commune with God, etc etc . . . . . . but then they also say that now whenever they so much as get a whiff of gluten or dairy or sugar or whatever is now verboten, they get a days-long bout of diarrhea and constipation and cramps and hives and gout and acne and any number of other ailments, which to them proves all the more that the food is pure evil and never meant for human consumption. And I'm not talking about those with Celiac disease or severe peanut allergies; most of the proselytizers don't have those conditions although some almost seem to wish they did in order to legitimize their diets. It's not like a simple slice of pie was putting them at death's doorstop before the diet. Otherwise our hospitals would truly be overcrowded. So what if those diets eliminating certain foods are actually causing the hypersensitivity, so that after that period of abstention the person is now truly adversely affected by whatever food they have deemed evil? Could it be another form of the placebo effect?
As I understand it, the opposite is true. If it's a true food sensitivity (as determined by lab test), detoxing for a period of time can actually "reset" the intestinal flora in some cases and make it possible for the person to eat those things again. A cautionary note: Gluten sensitivity is just that - a sensitivity. It is not to be conflated with celiac disease, which is far more severe.
The diet industry is founded on lies, and motivated by malice and loathing. You would think greed, but no. Malice and loathing. It's wickedness at its core.
See your doctor, take his or her advice, reach a weight that is comfortable for you. Anything else is shitting in the dark.
Ah, the Busybody Syndrome! There's always somebody who knows what's best for you better than you do...
That doesn't make sense. Prufrock is talking about people that quit eating gluten and then after a few weeks can't go back without facing serious issues. 10 years ago you couldn't find gluten free products anywhere and we were all surviving... Somehow... Gluten free is a complete fad but your body will definitely take it seriously if you cut certain things completely from your diet. Just ask former vegetarians what it was like when they started eating meat again.
Okay, but I wasn't talking about some wheatgrass-swilling Yuppie who'll try every fad diet that comes down the pike, but about people who have been screened for and found to have a specific sensitivity. (There are four major ones - dairy, gluten, eggs, and soy.) A positive lab test = sensitivity. Note that this is different from the rare and genuinely life-threatening food allergies, e.g., peanuts and shellfish. And, yes, I know what happens to former vegetarians who start eating meat again. But they weren't unable to digest meat when the decided to stop eating it. That they chose to change the intestinal enzymes is a self-induced problem. You're right that foods labeled gluten-free are a recent phenomenon. (They're also overpriced and generally blah.) Before they showed up on the shelves, people who couldn't digest wheat (though it may not be the wheat per se that's the problem) simply avoided it...where possible. It's used as a filler in almost everything, so that's not as easy as you'd think. And, yes, Western man has been eating wheat for millennia. However, the wheat that's available to us in the States today is nothing like what people were eating a few generations ago. There's overprocessing (which made it necessary to reintroduce folate to prevent birth defects), for one thing. And there are pesticides that are used in the States that are banned in Europe that may be the actual culprit, not the wheat itself. (There was an article...I'll have to see if I can remember where I read it.) Bottom line, "gluten-free" is a fad for some people, a necessity for others, a quality of life issue for still others. A gluten-free diet is good for glucose control in diabetes. It can lower trigylcerides in people with borderline hypercholesterolemia. Just because Miley Cyrus touts it doesn't mean it's automatically useless. Stopped clock, and all that.
I switched over to gluten free food because I was finding that bread and pasta was giving me the shits something rotten. The gluten free stuff does. Only down side is that it tastes like cardboard so occasionally when I can be bothered to ride through a bought of the cramps and craps I eat the real stuff still. Having said that, my diet is not as good as it was a few years ago and so I am the process of going back to eating more salads, etc and I'm hoping that once my system gets a rest the gluten intolerance won't be some much of an issue.
And we will never run out of lazy people. And "moderation" just isn't sexy and exciting, and can't be dumped in favor of the next big fad.
I've heard everything from they thought they were about to die to they suddenly experienced a euphoria like no other. Which has me wondering whether all these dietary affects are more psychosomatic than anything else. In times where people weren't as overweight as many are now, even in times of plenty, were people worrying as much as we do about their weight? Maybe it's all the worrying that's the problem.
Sometimes I think we are positively obsessed with weight and diet and body size, which doesn't seem to tie in with the fact people getting fatter, so I think you have a valid point. Plus people way back when were way more active than we are now.
The physical activity explanation doesn't really account for that time in the 50s-70s when more and more people worked sedentary jobs in offices and had home gadgets that made chores easier but still weren't salad-and-daily-jog crazed.
^That was prior to - or at the very least early in the process - of the advent of high fructose corn syrup.
Staunch proponent of the burnt meat + dark beer diet, right here. I actually live off mostly fruit, nuts, and shakes during the day. The meat and beer comes after work, after exercise, after "Mr. Responsible Disclipline" stands down and "Mr. Unrepentant Hedonist" takes over.
In "The Time Ships", Stephen Baxter's sequel to "The Time Machine", he had an alterni-verse version of the Morlocks eating these things that looked like bars of soap, and had all the flavor of boiled broccoli stems. It's not that far off, if the organic food movement has its way....
Do y'all have a lot of stuff with HFCS in the UK? What about Australia, which beats out the US in obesity?
I don't know to be honest, but I guess we do. I needed a quick lunch yesterday so picked up some spicy chicken couscous from a supermarket and noted from the ingredients list that it had sugars of a multitude of names in there. I really try to make an effort these days to eat as much fresh and raw veg and salads as possible or at the very least cook from scratch because I'm paranoid and suspicious of processed stuff. I have to admit I don't feel icky or bad eating processed foods, but it's the not understanding/having the time to understand the ingredients that puts me off it.
umm, dude, I think you have it backwards. GM is what brought us the square watermelon with 50% less flavour and perfectly formed potatos.
I pulled six months of veganism last year (back on meat again now tho-yum). The only downside seems to be that I can't tolerate some preservatives that seem to be common in boxed foods and north american beer.
I'm shocked speechless that you of all people would fall for some bullshit alternative lifestyle fad that makes you feel different and special.