Mon, Oct-29-12, 06:09
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JEY100
The FoodNetwork Health Blog dietician writes a negative review of Wheat Belly and asks for readers' experience with the "diet".
There are almost 300 comments now, mostly stating how easy it is to follow and listing numerous health improvements. I hope as commenters have suggested that The Food Network gets their head out of the sand and offer a gluten-free and sugar-free or Paleo show.
http://blog.foodnetwork.com/healthy...eat-belly-diet/ |
Wow, the number of positive comments about Wheat Belly is overwhelming. This is my comment, pasted here cuz I'm not sure about that website's moderator rules.
Quote:
"Going cold turkey isn’t an effective way to teach someone good habits. Many folks will stop this diet just as quickly as they started it."
Maybe that's true. But this suggests several things. First, going cold turkey says wheat is a big part of our diet. It is. Next, saying something like 'going cold turkey' says maybe we're talking about an addiction. From the responses we get when we tell people to stop eating bread (over my dead body, I'll go nuts, are you crazy?, etc), I think we can safely say we are dealing with an addiction. Finally, if we eat a varied diet, we go cold turkey every time we eat one food but not another, or eat one food only occasionally thus not at all the rest of the time. It's safe to say our habits already include going cold turkey so that's not a problem on its own.
The unhealthy argument. That's just not true. Wheat doesn't contain unique nutrition we can't get anywhere else. If you cut out wheat, you'll eat more of other foods, net result is same nutrition. If wheat is indeed bad for all the reasons cited by Dr Davis, net result is the opposite of unhealthy. Either way, cutting wheat can't be bad health wise.
It's true that we can refute many statements made by Dr Davis, and the in-depth analysis by Dr Julie Jones is an example of that. But then again, we can also refute many statements made by Dr Julie Jones in that in-depth analysis. Take out all refutable statements and keep only those that are true. We're left with things like weight loss, health improvements, and specific statements with regards to celiac and gluten. Cutting out wheat looks better by the minute.
I don't know where the fasting comment comes from. But on its own, prolonged fasting is done by many cultures precisely to get a benefit. The term 'prolonged' is vague so we'd have to define specific parameters.
There's no difference in the choice of foods when we travel or dine out compared to eating at home. It's a world economy, you see. If you want to abstain from eating wheat anywhere in the world, you can. The choice of foods is virtually as wide as there are cultures, countries, restaurants, and people. However, it's true that wheat dominates our western diet, and it does become a chore when you want to be absolutely sure you don't eat wheat. That's a serious problem for celiac sufferers especially.
Personally, I have tried a wheat-free diet. However, I can't say it's cutting out the wheat specifically that brought about my improvements in weight and health because during a time, I ate only meat. It could have been the sugar, the starch, the wheat, or all of the above. But based on all aspects of wheat - i.e. we eat a lot of it, it contains lots of carbohydrates thus interferes with blood glucose and fat metabolism - we can reasonably expect to see a positive change if all we do is cut out wheat, and eat more of the other foods we already eat to compensate.
|
I counted the number of comments that agree with the article: Zero.
|