who doesnt eat grains, carb questions

[XTrainer]

From a pure scientific perspective, I can't argue against the Paleo stance on grains as far as health is concerned.

That said, no, I wouldn't throw out a blanket recommendation (like Jaedong) that everyone shouldn't eat any grains. If someone has a way of eating he or she is satisfied with, far be it for me to tell him or her to change his or her ways.

However, I will recommend reductions or elimination of grains in a lot of cases. Trying to lose weight? Cut the dense source of carbs/calories that isn't providing much in the micronutrient department--grains. Having digestive issues? Cut foods that are known gut irritants for countless people--grains. Tending toward insulin resistance and metabolic derangement? Cut the least essential, most highly insulinogenic foods--grains. Having problems related to systemic inflammation, from acne and arthritis to any number of autoimmune diseases and even cardiovascular issues? Cut the pro-inflammatory foods--grains.

And so on and so forth. Most people don't ask questions about their diet here if they are satisfied with those diets and their own health. For those who aren't satisfied, it just so happens that grains may be at the crux of their problem, which is why I would often recommend that grain consumption habits should be changed, even if not eliminated entirely.

 

[Blackice]

Quote :

Vegetables are pretty rich in carbs not as grains but if you eat plenty of vegetables you can get an good amount of carbs.


.

Most veggies do not have a high carb content. It's fruit and grains. You'd have to eat a lot of veggies to consume a lot of carbs. There is an exception or two, but for the most part veggies only have a few grams per serving of carbs, usually in the single digits.

 

[Oblivian]

From a pure scientific perspective, I can't argue against the Paleo stance on grains as far as health is concerned.

That said, no, I wouldn't throw out a blanket recommendation (like Jaedong) that everyone shouldn't eat any grains. If someone has a way of eating he or she is satisfied with, far be it for me to tell him or her to change his or her ways.

However, I will recommend reductions or elimination of grains in a lot of cases. Trying to lose weight? Cut the dense source of carbs/calories that isn't providing much in the micronutrient department--grains. Having digestive issues? Cut foods that are known gut irritants for countless people--grains. Tending toward insulin resistance and metabolic derangement? Cut the least essential, most highly insulinogenic foods--grains. Having problems related to systemic inflammation, from acne and arthritis to any number of autoimmune diseases and even cardiovascular issues? Cut the pro-inflammatory foods--grains.

And so on and so forth. Most people don't ask questions about their diet here if they are satisfied with those diets and their own health. For those who aren't satisfied, it just so happens that grains may be at the crux of their problem, which is why I would often recommend that grain consumption habits should be changed, even if not eliminated entirely.

Just so you know, I haven't really disagreed with anything that you have said. I cut out a lot of grains when I cut down to 155. It made sense there. Digestive issues? Cutting out grains could be worth a try, but as someone who used to have digestive issues, I think regular fiber consumption and regulating a digestive schedule helps tons. You can set my digestive schedule to a clock nowadays. I'm not saying cutting out grains couldn't help, but I'd honestly look at other factors first IMO.

Again, I have no issues with people cutting down on grains or even cutting them out entirely if they believe it to be a problem. Personally, I think the people that would benefit from completely eliminating grains are few and far between. My beef is the recommendation that grains are evil and everyone should cut them out. It's hyperbole at it's finest in order to sell books. What's funny is how many people are buying into it.

 

[Jaedong]

From a pure scientific perspective, I can't argue against the Paleo stance on grains as far as health is concerned.

That said, no, I wouldn't throw out a blanket recommendation (like Jaedong) that everyone shouldn't eat any grains. If someone has a way of eating he or she is satisfied with, far be it for me to tell him or her to change his or her ways.

However, I will recommend reductions or elimination of grains in a lot of cases. Trying to lose weight? Cut the dense source of carbs/calories that isn't providing much in the micronutrient department--grains. Having digestive issues? Cut foods that are known gut irritants for countless people--grains. Tending toward insulin resistance and metabolic derangement? Cut the least essential, most highly insulinogenic foods--grains. Having problems related to systemic inflammation, from acne and arthritis to any number of autoimmune diseases and even cardiovascular issues? Cut the pro-inflammatory foods--grains.

And so on and so forth. Most people don't ask questions about their diet here if they are satisfied with those diets and their own health. For those who aren't satisfied, it just so happens that grains may be at the crux of their problem, which is why I would often recommend that grain consumption habits should be changed, even if not eliminated entirely.

Ok just put the blame on me as if you haven't been preaching anti grain for the last year, all the anti nutrients, high carb and so on.

 

[KILL KILL]

This thread turned to poop.




























Yes I said poop.

 

[XTrainer]

Ok just put the blame on me as if you haven't been preaching anti grain for the last year, all the anti nutrients, high carb and so on.

What are you talking about? "As if I haven't been preaching..." How many times in this very thread did I say I eat some grains?

This is the second time you've attacked my personal integrity with no basis. Three strikes and you're gone.

 

[Jaedong]

From a pure scientific perspective, I can't argue against the Paleo stance on grains as far as health is concerned.

That said, no, I wouldn't throw out a blanket recommendation (like Jaedong) that everyone shouldn't eat any grains.

When did I throw out a blanket recommendation ? I said paleo + dairy is recommended - which of course means is recommended by the paleo camp in regard to athletes. Don't think I have to spell that out. DId I ever say " you all should eat paleo " ? No I didn't.

What are you talking about? "As if I haven't been preaching..." How many times in this very thread did I say I eat some grains?

This is the second time you've attacked my personal integrity with no basis. Three strikes and you're gone.

Ok, maybe you have a point. I (like always ) have had no bad intent, at least I think so. But I won't cry if I get an account banned from an internet site.

 

[XTrainer]

My beef is the recommendation that grains are evil and everyone should cut them out. It's hyperbole at it's finest in order to sell books. What's funny is how many people are buying into it.

I don't think that's fair to say at. Guys like Robb Wolf sincerely believe in what they preach, they walk the walk, they get the results they want for themselves and their clients, and they substantiate their arguments scientifically. What more does someone need for legitimacy? If we put the bar any higher, there wouldn't be any books

To say Paleo is just a scam to sell books really strikes me as an unfair slap in the face of those who have put Paleo into practice for themselves and their clients, and, having seen the results, want to write a book about it.

When did I throw out a blanket recommendation ? I said paleo + dairy is recommended - which of course means is recommended by the paleo camp in regard to athletes. Don't think I have to spell that out. DId I ever say " you all should eat paleo " ? No I didn't.

I was going off of what Oblivian said you said. Whatever, if he got you wrong and I followed along, my bad for not reading for myself.

 

[Jaedong]

I was going off of what Oblivian said you said. Whatever, if he got you wrong and I followed along, my bad for not reading for myself.

I apologize too. After all I'm about 3 hours on sherdog everyday and D&S is my favorite sub forum so I should put just a little more effort into being more polite and fair in my posting overall. If rdsticky, Imovable and Blackice think I'm tarded or / and should be banned then probably there si something wrong with me sometimes. I should have just asked for some answers or read articles on my own instead of just attacking whatever I attacked like low carb, no grain or anything else for that matter. / rant

 

[IDRISCKY]

This thread turned to poop.

Seems like it always turns into a paleo shit storm these days.

 

[KILL KILL]

Seems like it always turns into a paleo shit storm these days.

I think there's so much to be learned about the human body. It's silly to debate whether eating paleo is better than eating grains. They do different things to the body depending on goals. There is not enough research done yet to really have a valid arguement either way.

 

[davis_s]

How high carbs/low carbs effects you depends on metabolic typing. Good rough test of yours is here:
Metabolic Typing: Self Test from Natural Health Yellow Pages
I am a protein, from experience if I low carb high protein it three days and then High carb it and give myself a cheat window on the fourth I get considerably leaner with no weight change. If I was another metabolic type I would have to adjust.

 

[pdoogie2001]

My gripe with this subforum has always been with the overemphasis of certain results of diet. Was it really the diet or the training? I don't know about your training at all, but I'm willing to bet you could have had similar results eating grains. I also feel that I could have had similar results as I had if I would have avoided grains. I'll always be in the camp that puts a lot more emphasis on training than diet. Sure, diet is part of the equation, but it's all about context.

Diet is the most important part of the equation--the old saying is that you cannot outtrain a bad diet. This whole issue depends on body type--some people can eat lots of grains and stay lean, ripped and in shape. Other body types will simply put on lots of weight, mostly fat, if they eat too many grains. A person of this particular body type will benefit from not eating grains, as their specific metabolism just isn't fast enough to process extensive amounts of carbs, particularly those in grains. Thus, a person who is prone to a stocky body type will lose weight faster and feel more explosive down the line if they do choose to avoid grains.

If that person finds they need a few extra carbs back in the diet as a result of not eating grains, Eating a serving of rolled oats or potatoes in the morning with breakfast is an easy cure (blend the raw oats up with a banana and protein powder), as it will provide you with enough energy to train that evening but will ensure that every single carb is burned off during the day, so that there is no weight gain. Those of us with a stocky body type cannot give our bodies too much carbs or they get converted to fat for storage.

This is just my opinion, and it is that different diets work for different body types--When I'm in my best shape and at my leanest it's always when I choose to avoid grains (I never avoid carbs completely because your brain needs them for proper funciton and without them people get prone to weird mood swings and less effective problem solving skills and thinking in general. On a no grain diet I actually feel like you can eat as much fruits and vegetables as you'd like and are highly unlikely to gain weight from it.

 

[Oblivian]

Diet is the most important part of the equation--the old saying is that you cannot outtrain a bad diet. This whole issue depends on body type--some people can eat lots of grains and stay lean, ripped and in shape. Other body types will simply put on lots of weight, mostly fat, if they eat too many grains. A person of this particular body type will benefit from not eating grains, as their specific metabolism just isn't fast enough to process extensive amounts of carbs, particularly those in grains. Thus, a person who is prone to a stocky body type will lose weight faster and feel more explosive down the line if they do choose to avoid grains.

Notice that I'm talking about context. Since this forum is supposed to be concerned about performance and not body image, I was talking in regards to athletic performance, not weight loss/gain. If you think diet is the most important part of improving athletic performance, I don't know what to say to you. I would hope anyone on this forum would know enough not to eat like a complete slob if athletic performance is their main concern. IMO, the difference between someone adding in some grains compared to no grains will be a lot less important than proper programming and training.

If that person finds they need a few extra carbs back in the diet as a result of not eating grains, Eating a serving of rolled oats or potatoes in the morning with breakfast is an easy cure (blend the raw oats up with a banana and protein powder), as it will provide you with enough energy to train that evening but will ensure that every single carb is burned off during the day, so that there is no weight gain. Those of us with a stocky body type cannot give our bodies too much carbs or they get converted to fat for storage.

There are so many times that I hear excuses on this forum that it's unreal. "I'm a hardgainer" or "I put on weight easily with grains" or "I get a yeast infection from bread". It's almost as if the subheading on this forum should be renamed, "Excuse poor performance on diet here". I have a hard time blaming genetics and body types at the level of athletes most of us are at. It's not like these minor tweaks are going to push someone to a ridiculous new level if training stays constant. A tweak in training on the other hand can do wonders even with diet constant.

This is just my opinion, and it is that different diets work for different body types--When I'm in my best shape and at my leanest it's always when I choose to avoid grains (I never avoid carbs completely because your brain needs them for proper funciton and without them people get prone to weird mood swings and less effective problem solving skills and thinking in general. On a no grain diet I actually feel like you can eat as much fruits and vegetables as you'd like and are highly unlikely to gain weight from it.

I would assume you would be leaner when not eating grains. My guess is that you are probably taking in less calories. Suppose you have the same calorie level while eating some grains vs. not eating grains. Suppose you are still meeting your proper nutrient levels through veggies, greens powders, and whatever else. Do you really think your performance will be much better without grains?

I want to make clear that I'm not talking about loading up on grains unless strength is a major concern. I'm just saying you can easily get by with eating grains with a one or two meals per day. Shit, this fucking forum used to advocate it. Like I said, there are hundreds of athletes of all skill levels out there that consume grains and do just fine. In fact, I'm willing to bet the percentage that consume grains regularly (at least some grains) is such a higher percentage than the no-grain camp that it's not even funny.

 

[Corrosion]

I think Paleo is useful if you are trying to alter body composition or if you're experiencing a bad reaction to grains, but eliminating grains by itself is not going to make you a better athlete unless your whole diet was shit to begin with.

 

[rubberducky27]

In fact, I'm willing to bet the percentage that consume grains regularly (at least some grains) is such a higher percentage than the no-grain camp that it's not even funny.

I'm with you on this point. Between the 2 gyms I train at back home, 19 of us are currently preparing for fights. I'm the only person in the non-grains camp. I'm overseas right now and there are 2 of 5 in the same gym in the no grains camp. And the other guy is only doing it as he heard it's what I do.

There was a point that I got all "religious" about low carb etc, when it was working for me I did see gains, gains that meant I was able to train and recover differently. But that was for me. Looking at other peoples blood work and diet logs etc we found pretty quickly that everyone responded differently but the vast majority could get by with either approach.

When you look at all the threads about NO explode etc they're really no different to a lot of posts about low carb, paleo, carb cycling etc. A lot of people are looking for some kind of holy grail when they actually just need common sense. Beyond common sense if they're desperate for that 2-3% difference and they've done all they can in the gym then for sure, get your bloodwork done, test responses to dietry changes, log everything and work with someone to identify the best plan to gain that 2-3%. But I think the larger % gains is from the gym, then a clean balanced diet and adequate rest.

 

[KILL KILL]

I'm with you on this point. Between the 2 gyms I train at back home, 19 of us are currently preparing for fights. I'm the only person in the non-grains camp. I'm overseas right now and there are 2 of 5 in the same gym in the no grains camp. And the other guy is only doing it as he heard it's what I do.

There was a point that I got all "religious" about low carb etc, when it was working for me I did see gains, gains that meant I was able to train and recover differently. But that was for me. Looking at other peoples blood work and diet logs etc we found pretty quickly that everyone responded differently but the vast majority could get by with either approach.

When you look at all the threads about NO explode etc they're really no different to a lot of posts about low carb, paleo, carb cycling etc. A lot of people are looking for some kind of holy grail when they actually just need common sense. Beyond common sense if they're desperate for that 2-3% difference and they've done all they can in the gym then for sure, get your bloodwork done, test responses to dietry changes, log everything and work with someone to identify the best plan to gain that 2-3%. But I think the larger % gains is from the gym, then a clean balanced diet and adequate rest.

I was with you up until that part right there.

 

[XTrainer]

I would like to see someone take issue with the essential Paleo principles on a pure health basis. Not an "is it necessary?" basis, not a cost basis, not a convenience basis, etc. Just based purely on health. For example, I want to see someone disprove the existence or actions of lectins/gluten/etc, not say "it isn't worth caring about."

The arguments I always see against Paleo seem to weigh the admittedly difficult (IMO) lifestyle change against the benefits Paleo provides. Since people like the convenience and ease of having grains in the diet, a lot of weight is put on the "lifestyle change" side of that scale. When we have that side of the scale loaded so heavily, it doesn't really matter what benefits Paleo could provide, since we're not going to change anything anyway. Boiled down, it becomes a matter of, "Even if something about Paleo seems better than what I'm doing, I'm not willing to implement it, so I'm going to dismiss it."

Not good.

If we actually want to learn anything, we can't shut our eyes to an approach because it seems "too hard." We need to evaluate objectively in terms of health and performance.

Once we do that, then we can decide if the knowledge we have acquired is worth our time, effort, money, etc. to implement. (Assuming, of course, our evaluation reveals there are benefits to be had from implementation; otherwise, our choice would be obvious.) If we choose not to implement, fine--but that choice doesn't change the fact that our diet is inferior to what it could be.

I feel like a lot of people look at Paleo, say "boy, that sounds extreme," and proceed to shut their eyes to the entire perspective Paleo has to offer. "Whoa, no grains!? That's crazy..." (and they tune out, intellectually, because no grains is a tough thing to implement for most people).

I would think that if we were really being honest here, they're be more people who:

A)Believe Paleo has a lot to offer, but do not fully implement for reasons outside of health/performance in the purest sense. (This describes me, FYI)

OR

B)Believe the core Paleo principles are just factually, biologically, wrong, that Paleo is in fact unhealthy compared to X, because of reasons A, B, and C.

Rather, the argument we get is always "it's not necessary," "it's extreme," etc. I don't find these argument satisfying at all because they don't address the core questions of comparison and superiority/inferiority between Paleo and other strategies in given situations.

Sorry for the long post, hard thought to put on paper.

Your thoughts?

 

[Oblivian]

I would like to see someone take issue with the essential Paleo principles on a pure health basis. Not an "is it necessary?" basis, not a cost basis, not a convenience basis, etc. Just based purely on health. For example, I want to see someone disprove the existence or actions of lectins/gluten/etc, not say "it isn't worth caring about."

The arguments I always see against Paleo seem to weigh the admittedly difficult (IMO) lifestyle change against the benefits Paleo provides. Since people like the convenience and ease of having grains in the diet, a lot of weight is put on the "lifestyle change" side of that scale. When we have that side of the scale loaded so heavily, it doesn't really matter what benefits Paleo could provide, since we're not going to change anything anyway. Boiled down, it becomes a matter of, "Even if something about Paleo seems better than what I'm doing, I'm not willing to implement it, so I'm going to dismiss it."

Not good.

Anytime there is a debate in where someone claims that EVERYONE should exclude something from their diet COMPLETELY, it's their duty to provide a sound, logical reason for that along with a reason for the NECESSITY of doing so.

If we actually want to learn anything, we can't shut our eyes to an approach because it seems "too hard." We need to evaluate objectively in terms of health and performance.

Once we do that, then we can decide if the knowledge we have acquired is worth our time, effort, money, etc. to implement. (Assuming, of course, our evaluation reveals there are benefits to be had from implementation; otherwise, our choice would be obvious.) If we choose not to implement, fine--but that choice doesn't change the fact that our diet is inferior to what it could be.

I feel like a lot of people look at Paleo, say "boy, that sounds extreme," and proceed to shut their eyes to the entire perspective Paleo has to offer. "Whoa, no grains!? That's crazy..." (and they tune out, intellectually, because no grains is a tough thing to implement for most people).

How common is it for the average joe to "yo-yo diet"? What is the most common aspect of that? Wouldn't you say that it's someone jumping on an extreme diet and then failing to comply with it? Isn't it the all or nothing approach? Did we not learn anything from all of the Atkins failures?

I would think that if we were really being honest here, they're be more people who:

A)Believe Paleo has a lot to offer, but do not fully implement for reasons outside of health/performance in the purest sense. (This describes me, FYI)

OR

B)Believe the core Paleo principles are just factually, biologically, wrong, that Paleo is in fact unhealthy compared to X, because of reasons A, B, and C.

Rather, the argument we get is always "it's not necessary," "it's extreme," etc. I don't find these argument satisfying at all because they don't address the core questions of comparison and superiority/inferiority between Paleo and other strategies in given situations.

Sorry for the long post, hard thought to put on paper.

Your thoughts?

Everything in life is about risk vs. reward. You stated in one of the above quotes that it's up to us to decide if it is worth it. Do you think the Paleo camp has given a valid enough argument to convince that it is NECESSARY for EVERYONE to COMPLETELY remove grains? Obviously not, as you consume grains yourself.

I have no problem with anyone eating paleo. It is their choice. I also have no problem with someone eating vegetarian and I feel they can probably eat very healthy as a vegetarian, but it doesn't mean that I won't say anything when they are recommending it to EVERYONE or saying that EVERYONE shouldn't eat meat.

 

[Cratos]

There's one major problem with this whole Paleo discussion. Paleo is flawed because the Earth is only 6,000 years old.