The easiest diet?

[sologdin]

that's agatston's thesis, basically--that modern industry pre-digests grains by making them fiberless and thus easier to cook (instant rice, say), which dicks up their glycemic indicia, &c. it's buying time with death.

[smegma]

The movie linked is really long; was the gist against HFCS mainly? Some more recent studies seem to support the finding that the fructose compound is the problematic part of sugar (and cane sugar is 50% fructose fwiw, HFCS a bit more), so that might hold up if that's the film's argument. Whole sources of fructose (fruits and vegetables) are not toxic, though.

for what it's worth, I honestly think that it's not sugar per se that causes so many health issues. I think it's the nauseating pervasiveness of how this and other additives are thrown into practically everything you can buy at the store or order (delivery and/ or our chain restaurants).

I think that in terms of the "easiest" "diet," the big "trick" is to just cook the vast majority of what you eat at home, and do so with a majority of components that are whole (for example, rice a roni and hamburger helper are not whole foods). I hesitate to call this the "easiest," as I know home cooked meals can be time-consuming and not everyone has the time or access to fresh ingredients. But I think doing it as much as you can-- and as close to "from scratch" as possible-- really makes a difference and doesn't require any special diet guidelines-- as in, you don't have to cut out any type of food when you're making it yourself at home. Even desserts and baked goods, I'd wager. But barring that, I think what the OP stumbled on in terms of eliminating the added sugars (and adjacently, a lot of other processed ingredients) is also really effective.

While I think that's definitely a way to do this - and the way that I've gone about eating healthier - I would also add that in the US our serving sizes are out of control, and our perception of how much we should eat. Moderately-sized, freshly-made meals has been the key for me.

[butterbumps!]

While I think that's definitely a way to do this - and the way that I've gone about eating healthier - I would also add that in the US our serving sizes are out of control, and our perception of how much we should eat. Moderately-sized, freshly-made meals has been the key for me.

oh, I absolutely agree. Luckily, I think they play off each other-- cooking at home is the surest way to make sure you're eating whole foods, and eating whole foods keeps you filled much longer so it becomes easier to stick to proper serving sizes-- like you just won't want to overeat. In addition to cooking whole foods yourself and overall portion control, I'd probably also add making sure vegetables make up the largest proportion of your diet as another adjacent rule of thumb. But any one of these is probably extremely effective.

that's agatston's thesis, basically--that modern industry pre-digests grains by making them fiberless and thus easier to cook (instant rice, say), which dicks up their glycemic indicia, &c. it's buying time with death.

that's south beach, right? I'm very favorable to the South Beach and Mediterranean "diets." The emphasis there on whole, nutrient rich foods makes so much sense as a "diet," as in, "what an organism eats to sustain itself" as opposed to the more temporary "I need to lose 10 lbs in a week" sense of the word.

I would add too that in addition to the dicking up of the glycemic index that results in storing glucose as fat, some of the other additives, like msg, make you insatiably hungry, and therefore, much more likely to feel deprived and overeat than cleaner foods would. So it's both the direct bio-chemistry and some indirect processes that make these foods so easy to gain with. And I hear it's even more egregious when it comes to artificial sweeteners and sugary drinks-- that those turn off your "I'm full" signal and you never quite feel sated.

[Swordfish]

Just to be clear as I think this was lost in translation. I'm not cutting out carbs I'm just cutting out 3 ingredients. Refined sugar (including white, brown, and powdered forms), corn syrup, and honey. I suppose I would also put juice in that category but I never really drink juice so I didn't consider that. I tried to go no-carb a year ago but that eliminates way to many foods. It gets complicated quickly.

One thing I wonder is if the no carb diets are successful just because of removing refined sugar and corn syrup. Sure you remove a lot of other things to but it may not be necessary. In my case at least it doesn't seem like it is.

Just out of curiosity, why honey?

[Ken Stone]

Just out of curiosity, why honey?

I think where I am landing is "If the purpose of the ingredient is to make something sweeter, remove it". Hence refined sugar, juice, corn syrup, honey, and artificial sweetners. Probably not scientific.

[maarsen]

I think where I am landing is "If the purpose of the ingredient is to make something sweeter, remove it". Hence refined sugar, juice, corn syrup, honey, and artificial sweetners. Probably not scientific.

Actually it is. There are many types of sugars but regardless of the type you ingest, your body converts it into glucose for energy. I was just reading the latest Scientific American, which had an article on the excess intake of sugar changing the proportions of your gut bacteria. Excess sugar seems to enhance the growth of the wrong kind of gut bacteria, leading to irritable bowel syndrome, and similar diseases, while eating more fiber helps the growth of gut bacteria that stimulate the mucous shield to become thicker and more protective.

[butterbumps!]

I think where I am landing is "If the purpose of the ingredient is to make something sweeter, remove it". Hence refined sugar, juice, corn syrup, honey, and artificial sweetners. Probably not scientific.

I think that's a really great rule of thumb generally speaking. Is the plan to cut out 100% of added sugars 100% of the time? As a dessert and baked good "aficionado," I'm curious if you're looking to do away with those types of foods entirely too.

[Swordfish]

I think where I am landing is "If the purpose of the ingredient is to make something sweeter, remove it". Hence refined sugar, juice, corn syrup, honey, and artificial sweetners. Probably not scientific.

I think that makes a lot of sense. i like approaches like that that don't require a lot of thought in order to maintain.

I like raw honey, though I eat almost no refined sugar I still have a bit of a sweet tooth, and there are other benefits from honey that tip the balance for me. Provided it's raw honey of course, and not processed honey.

I don't think you're missing out on much by eliminating it, and it is about half fructose I think, but I think it's a good compromise for people who have a sweet tooth but don't want to eat sugar.

[Ken Stone]

I think that's a really great rule of thumb generally speaking. Is the plan to cut out 100% of added sugars 100% of the time? As a dessert and baked good "aficionado," I'm curious if you're looking to do away with those types of foods entirely too.

That is what I have done. I have one "cheat day" where I gorge on sugary goodness and am Spartan towards sweets the rest of the time.

[butterbumps!]

That is what I have done. I have one "cheat day" where I gorge on sugary goodness and am Spartan towards sweets the rest of the time.

oh awesome-- I wasn't sure if you were planning to do away with the cheat day over time or something. I really like food approaches that aren't all or nothing, because I think they're the most sustainable and don't involve deprivation. I think you'll continue to be really successful this way. I don't do a designated cheat day; I just eat fairly decadent dessert concoctions when the urge strikes (not super often since I'm not that accustomed to sugary foods), which is the same concept I think-- like the 80-20% idea, I guess.

as a shameless aside, I don't know if you and your family have ventured into the world of baking from scratch, but once you try that you'll never want boxed or store bought cakes again, lol. Especially because it's a lot less sweet, which is nice for when your tastes are less accustomed to sugary things.

[Ken Stone]

oh awesome-- I wasn't sure if you were planning to do away with the cheat day over time or something. I really like food approaches that aren't all or nothing, because I think they're the most sustainable and don't involve deprivation. I think you'll continue to be really successful this way. I don't do a designated cheat day; I just eat fairly decadent dessert concoctions when the urge strikes (not super often since I'm not that accustomed to sugary foods), which is the same concept I think-- like the 80-20% idea, I guess.

as a shameless aside, I don't know if you and your family have ventured into the world of baking from scratch, but once you try that you'll never want boxed or store bought cakes again, lol. Especially because it's a lot less sweet, which is nice for when your tastes are less accustomed to sugary things.

I actually spent about 5 years working in a bakery in my early 20's. Half of those years I was a donut fryer and the other half I was a baker. Every since moving on I haven't really had it in me to bake anymore :-p

[Pecan]

The movie linked is really long; was the gist against HFCS mainly? Some more recent studies seem to support the finding that the fructose compound is the problematic part of sugar (and cane sugar is 50% fructose fwiw, HFCS a bit more), so that might hold up if that's the film's argument. Whole sources of fructose (fruits and vegetables) are not toxic, though.

for what it's worth, I honestly think that it's not sugar per se that causes so many health issues. I think it's the nauseating pervasiveness of how this and other additives are thrown into practically everything you can buy at the store or order (delivery and/ or our chain restaurants).

I think that in terms of the "easiest" "diet," the big "trick" is to just cook the vast majority of what you eat at home, and do so with a majority of components that are whole (for example, rice a roni and hamburger helper are not whole foods). I hesitate to call this the "easiest," as I know home cooked meals can be time-consuming and not everyone has the time or access to fresh ingredients. But I think doing it as much as you can-- and as close to "from scratch" as possible-- really makes a difference and doesn't require any special diet guidelines-- as in, you don't have to cut out any type of food when you're making it yourself at home. Even desserts and baked goods, I'd wager. But barring that, I think what the OP stumbled on in terms of eliminating the added sugars (and adjacently, a lot of other processed ingredients) is also really effective.

If I remember right, the gist of it is that he's railing against fructose as a commodity ingredient within our industrial food system. He makes the point that table sugar (cane sugar) is essentially identical to fructose in terms of how the body reacts to it, but the difference is that cane sugar isn't produced on anywhere near the scale that fructose is and hasn't infiltrated the food system to anywhere near the same extent.

[Pecan]

I think that makes a lot of sense. i like approaches like that that don't require a lot of thought in order to maintain.

I like raw honey, though I eat almost no refined sugar I still have a bit of a sweet tooth, and there are other benefits from honey that tip the balance for me. Provided it's raw honey of course, and not processed honey.

I don't think you're missing out on much by eliminating it, and it is about half fructose I think, but I think it's a good compromise for people who have a sweet tooth but don't want to eat sugar.

Can I ask what the difference is between raw honey vs. the product I find at the grocery store?

[Fragile Bird]

Can I ask what the difference is between raw honey vs. the product I find at the grocery store?

Raw honey is the unfiltered (so you can get bits of bees wings, honeycomb and pollen in it) product of the bees. The stuff that is sold at the grocery store is usually pasteurized (boiled and then cooled) to kill yeast to prevent fermentation, then filtered, to get rid of any debris in the honey. Depending on the producer, they might add water, and even sugar.

People who eat raw honey generally do so because they believe the pasteurization process will kill the good stuff in the honey.

[sologdin]

that's south beach, right? I'm very favorable to the South Beach and Mediterranean "diets." The emphasis there on whole, nutrient rich foods makes so much sense as a "diet," as in, "what an organism eats to sustain itself" as opposed to the more temporary "I need to lose 10 lbs in a week" sense of the word.

I would add too that in addition to the dicking up of the glycemic index that results in storing glucose as fat, some of the other additives, like msg, make you insatiably hungry, and therefore, much more likely to feel deprived and overeat than cleaner foods would. So it's both the direct bio-chemistry and some indirect processes that make these foods so easy to gain with. And I hear it's even more egregious when it comes to artificial sweeteners and sugary drinks-- that those turn off your "I'm full" signal and you never quite feel sated.

yep. south beach. i am enamored of the 'pre-digestion' language in his argument. it's a nice little commentary on the state of current bio-political management. we have outsourced certain biological functions to robotic processes; entire industries are bodily prosthesis. science fiction is correct about the merger of biology and machinery in principle, but wrong regarding locus: we don;t need borgs or cylons--that's too small; the merger occurs in greater scope. the matrix, rather than the terminator.

[Guest]

that's agatston's thesis, basically--that modern industry pre-digests grains by making them fiberless and thus easier to cook (instant rice, say), which dicks up their glycemic indicia, &c. it's buying time with death.

Isn't it indices rather than indicia?*

*really, I just can't resist even the merest possibility that I might get to correct sologdin on wordstuffs.

[Egalitarianism Always]

Actually it is. There are many types of sugars but regardless of the type you ingest, your body converts it into glucose for energy. I was just reading the latest Scientific American, which had an article on the excess intake of sugar changing the proportions of your gut bacteria. Excess sugar seems to enhance the growth of the wrong kind of gut bacteria, leading to irritable bowel syndrome, and similar diseases, while eating more fiber helps the growth of gut bacteria that stimulate the mucous shield to become thicker and more protective.

Anything about seeds? I eat whole wheat seeded bread which tastes much better than just whole wheat, I'm surprised as to how much protein is in it as well.

[Ramsay B.]

So I read this thread a few days ago and I'm gonna be in a wedding in like a month so I decided to give it a try. I'm 34 and have never really done a diet ever. I'm 6 foot 1 and weigh 206 pounds and, like the OP, I'm pretty active(basketball etc.)and go to the gym but I still do have a mini gut I'd like to lose.

Changing my drinking habits isn't hard because I only drink water anyways but I do have a big sweet tooth so that has been a little tough. I basically cut out anything made from white flour, pasta and sweets. I was amazed to see how much sugar is in the tomato sauce I usually use, I've never really paid attention to that stuff. So basically I eat just steak, chicken(plain), fish, nuts, a protein shake(after the gym), sweet potatoes, salads and fruits, all in moderation. It's been 5 days and I am still usually hungry non-stop so hopefully that stops. I've also been doing cardio after lifting which I would usually skip. So that's it, we'll see how it goes.