4 ms·
Trying Tim Ferriss's "no grain" diet for 30 days...
- jcromartie 16y agoWhat strikes me as odd about this is that grains are a perfectly natural food source and a staple of plenty of really healthy people, from all around the world, and for as far back in history as you care to delve. Why not eat grains? And also, since this appears to be about gluten: it cracks me up that one health food movement (the macrobiotic movement) get away with promoting seitan (which is just fried/steamed/baked wheat gluten) as a health food, while another movement says that gluten kills you.
- pronoiac 16y agoGluten allergies aren't that uncommon.
- simonsarris 16y agoRice and oats are grains and they contain no gluten. Edit: and corn.
- hvs 16y agoBut a specific allergy to gluten is well-known, tested, and verified phenomenon (it's called celiac disease). What this guy is attempting to pass off as "science" is just a bunch of conjecture about "this isn't what primates eat." Thousands of years of evidence contradict his rather flimsy conjectures.
- cageface 16y agoNot only that but he's not even defining his terms well. What does it mean to say that you'll "feel better"? This just isn't science.
- pronoiac 16y agoDude. It's a blog, not a rigorous scientific study.
- cageface 16y agoHe's making specific, testable, claims with no references and encouraging people to make potentially damaging changes to their diets. That demands a slightly higher standard of evidence than somebody's cute code samples or kid photos.
- tremendo 16y ago> He's making specific, testable, claims And that is good, you can specifically test the claims > with no references The blog is a guest post by Rob Wolff with an excerpt from his book, where the references are. > and encouraging people to make potentially damaging changes to their diets. Woah, avoiding lectins for 30 days potentially damaging? Everything is possible I guess, but that seems not only highly unlikely, but a stark contrast to the point of the recommendation: a potentially beneficial change to their diets. > That demands a slightly higher standard of evidence than somebody's cute code samples or kid photos. I don't see why, because I don't see any possible danger whatsoever in avoiding grains for a month. If I'm wrong, please illuminate me. I am admittedly, another anecdote case of positive outcome from avoiding grains.
- cageface 16y agoExactly. These claims fly in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. I can believe that something in the quantity of quality or grains we consume now may have changed over time but the idea that grains are generally, inherently toxic requires some very, very strong proof. I have a feeling all these diet hackers would get a lot more mileage out of regular exercise and smaller portions.
- kilian 16y agoThe "gluttony-sloth" hypothesis (fat people don't move enough and eat too much) has been thoroughly disproved. Regular exercise is an exceptionally bad way to lose weight (though there numerous other benefits!), so are smaller portions (smaller portions means you are hungry, and that makes you hold on to your fat deposits) If you're interested, read "good calories, bad calories". It goes into about a century of dietary research and makes the arguments much more eloquently. Here are some notes: http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-ba...
- cageface 16y agoHis emphasis isn't on weight loss, it's overall health. The American obsession with waistsize vastly oversimplifies a complex equation. All the people I've known personally that obsessed over their diets this way would have been better off spending that time on a long walk. The paleolithic diet is hardly generally accepted among nutritionists either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
- ryandvm 16y agoI'm pretty skeptical, but the reason I'm willing to give the notion a little traction is because no other primate eats grains - and even humans didn't until the dawn of agriculture. Of course a lot of things humans do are completely unnatural: alcohol, dairy, fish, tobacco, complete lack of physical activity, etc. I'm far from convinced, but that's the point of the experiment. I'll see how this thing shakes out in 30 days...
- hugh3 16y agoHow is fish unnatural? Fish are a huge part of the diet of many pre-agricultural cultures... pretty much any that live where there are fish, in fact.
- ryandvm 16y agoGood point. I was attempting to point out activities humans partake in that are more recent than evolutionary mechanisms would have had time to filter out. Though I suppose we've been clubbing and trapping fish for a good while longer than we've had agriculture.
- hugh3 16y agoClub 'em, trap 'em, spear 'em (spears are at least 300,000 years old) or even grab 'em with your hands (easier if you live a million years ago before human fishing has depleted fish stocks). I tried to find out whether chimps eat fish... apparently they've never been observed to do so, but baboons do.
- hugh3 16y agoI guess that's why it's an experiment. Having cut grains from my own diet I haven't seen any positive effects other than weight loss, and this guy doesn't need to lose weight, but other people may respond in different ways. There's no especially good reason to suppose that grains are bad for you, but there's no especially good reason to suppose that they're not. Grains are a perfectly serviceable food source and helped to provide greater food stability for our neolithic ancestors (at least for those of us who had neolithic ancestors) but it's plausible that a diet excessively rich in them might contribute to minor ailments. Anyway, better to experiment with it for 30 days than to sit around and prognosticate about whether it will work or not. The only downside is that you can't necessarily trust your introspective observations about your condition.
- js2 16y agoGrains are a relatively recent introduction to homo sapiens diet[1]. And the way the western diet consumes them is even more at odds with how they are traditionally consumed [2,3,4]. 1. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-human-evolution.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-hum... 2. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/03/grains-as-food-update.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/03/grains-as-food... 3. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/05/traditional-preparation-methods-improve.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/05/traditional-pr... 4. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/06/fermented-grain-recipes-from-around.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/06/fermented-grai...
- pronoiac 16y agoRead the Tim Ferriss blog entry [1] for a potential explanation. For your silently-added second paragraph: I thought differing descriptions of feng shui were hilarious, but you're not really surprised that different people digest food differently, are you? The blog is testing that hypothesis, so don't be so eager to shoot down the possibility. [1] http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-solution/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-s...
- pkaler 16y agoIt probably shouldn't be referred to as Tim Ferris' "no grain" diet. The original post was Robb Wolf, author of The Paleo Solution. The goal isn't to eat no grain. The goal is to eat no gluten. Grain just happens to contain gluten. It should probably be called No Gluten diet or refer to Robb Wolf instead since he wrote the book and did all of the research.
- js2 16y agoEggs seem conspicuously absent.
- ryandvm 16y agoGood point. I'll be upping my consumption.
- simonsarris 16y agoand very large portions of insects, if we're talking primates.
- hugh3 16y agoWe really shouldn't be talking primates at all. Diets of paleolithic humans look nothing like diets of primates, we split off millions of years ago. Eat what a chimpanzee eats and you'll get sick.
- Pro777 16y agoI would recommend reading The Vegetarian Myth as well, as it concerns eating meat, dairy, and avoiding grains. The author makes a pretty compelling argument about why monoculture, grained based agriculture is both damaging to the environment and to our health. And as for perfectly natural, try eating wheat, rice, or any other grain directly from the field, versus an apple.
- kilian 16y agoCutting out grains isn't just about the gluten, but about the starch and sugar too. Replacing grains with fruit and potatoes is likely not optimal. I've been eating paleo/primal/low-carb (whatever) for half a year now. The need/craving for sweets and carby stuff disappears in a week (for me, YMMV). I eat about the same as I used to (which means I'm eating more meat and veggies to compensate) and don't recognize the hunger aspect of it at all. What I like most is the complete lack of insulin surge after a meal. I can eat a meal and immediatelly go sporting, because there is no insulin spike and thus no energy dip. However, each body reacts differently, and it might now work for you. I know some people stay hungry without noticing anything.
- wvl 16y agoYes. I would advise getting the book (Tim's blog article was just an excerpted chapter). The latter part of the book gives the "how". You should definitely not be feeling hungry from this diet, _especially_ if you're not trying to lose weight.
- doubleg 16y agoFerriss' article discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1707305 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1707305
- 16s 16y agoWithout grains and agriculture... the earth could not sustain billions of people.
- sofuture 16y agoAnd with grains and agriculture, it barely can! I don't think the issue is diets...
- tremendo 16y agoMaybe. Then again, if you ask Jared Diamond, grains and agriculture could be partly responsible for the earth having billions of people. http://www.mnforsustain.org/food_ag_worst_mistake_diamond_j.htm http://www.mnforsustain.org/food_ag_worst_mistake_diamond_j....
- salemh 16y agoI’ve vacillated from a near-all vegetarian diet (with fish 1x a week, mostly kidney beans for protein and eggs) back to this more "primal diet" of non-grains / breads. Starting a few years ago, and overweight, I started feeling healthier after a few weeks. Over the next year dropped 55 lbs, then an addition 15 lbs of fat in another 3-5 months. This was without much exercise (due to a lower-back injury), though I would walk a few times a week. Which is not enough :) I am still in a similar eating pattern (this is not a diet, it’s a way of healthy eating); lots of vegetables, meat and eggs daily. I may have grains / bread (pizza or other junk) on the weekend if I am inclined. I gradually turned into this eating lifestyle by making small eating changes 1x per week. Such as, getting rid of soda. Then getting rid of any deserts. Getting rid of bread at night. Getting rid of all pasta’s, etc. Slow progression to healthier eating. After a time, junk food will literally make you sick and not be as tasty..though if I’m missing something (like good fats or protein), I sometimes go nuts and eat 2 burritos or 3 burgers. I go through these groceries weekly, cooking 2-4x meals per day. 12-24 eggs 2-3 steaks (frozen), or pork, or ground beef (Bison is tasty) 2-4 servings of fish (frozen, tilapia, halibut etc) ~1 can of kidney beans (against Tim Ferris’ article) Number of handfuls of nuts; almonds, cashews, etc. ½ frozen bag of green beans ½ frozen bag of broccoli 1 bag of Chinese broccoli 3-4 peppers (green, red) 2-3 avocado’s 2-4 tomato’s 2 bags of spinach I also used to eat more than 5 meals a day, now down to 2-4 (mostly a lot of snacks). Eating healthier = less fuel needed to function. Edit: It took a number of MONTHS to get over feeling lethargic from not having any grains / bread. For those months I still had some grain / bread for lunch.
- adamtj 16y agoI wouldn't be surprised if this works, because I've done something similarly drastic that worked for me. Here's my story: Last year I read something by Giles Bowkett about how he lost weight and got healthy. I've read about many fad diets and they all seem crazy or impractical. What he described sounded just boring enough to work. If you think about what a silver-bullet diet would look like, this is it. Here's his touched up version of what I originally read: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-i-lost-75-pounds-in-six-months-and.html http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-i-lost-75-pound... It's Dr. Fuhrmann's Eat To Live diet: Eat more vegetables. Lots more. Eat mostly vegetables. I didn't follow the diet exactly. I just tried to eat lots more vegetables. I was a young, fairly healthy guy but maybe 15 lbs overweight. I ate more vegetables, lost 10 lbs in a month, and felt fantastic doing it. I didn't eat any less or more. I didn't workout more. I simply lost weight and felt great. I don't know if the no-grain thing will work for anybody, but the more vegetables thing sure worked for me.
- runjake 16y agoWhen I was single, I went on a modified (included small portions of lean meats) Eat To Live diet as an experiment.For breakfast, I jammed myself full of fruits and some dairy. For lunch I had a Subway salad with all the veggies and a lean meat. For dinner, I had a large punchbowl-sized salad with a variety of vegetables and a lean meat. Broccoli and vast amounts of spinach seemed a common theme. I also drank A LOT of water. I did not modify my sedentary fitness scheme. The results were that I dropped 10 lbs a week for that month, didn't seem to lose any muscle, and didn't feel hungry. I felt more energetic. The downside was that I had to make 3 trips a week to the store for fresh veggies. Some of my other "body hacks" experiments were: - Vegan for 2 years - Vegetarian for 10 years. Going back to meat (especially tuna) had amazing effects on my brain functioning. Tuna was initially the only meat I could eat without throwing it back up. I noticed great mind improvements within a couple days. - Eliminating all sodas (of which I only drank diet pepsi) for a month. I very rapidly lost (probably water) weight. If I recall, it was about 20 lbs. I have no clue whats in Diet Pepsi that causes weight/water retention. - Polyphasic sleep: A total scam in my experience. Maybe I need too much sleep. - 5BX: Really works - Body For Life: Really works as advertised, but consumes your life. - Couch (couldn't jog 400 meters to start) to ultramarathon in 8 months, with several marathons as "training" along the way. Some marathons were at high altitude and quite rugged. - I have not used any soap or shampoo for 2 weeks now (per http://freetheanimal.com/2009/12/paleo-i-dont-care-i-like-no-soap-no-shampoo.html http://freetheanimal.com/2009/12/paleo-i-dont-care-i-like-no...). To save space, I am finding the same results as the author, Richard Nikoley, has. I don't stink. I haven't told my wife about this experiment and she hasn't mentioned any stink yet! Another modifier to my washing regime is that I now use a washcloth instead of just a bar of soap in hand, so this probably has an effect, too. I don't have any particular ideological aims behind these experiments (except maybe to go against conventional wisdom). If anyone has any other interesting experiments they want/wish they could try, post em here, maybe I'll try for you!
- louissalin 16y agoGood for you for trying the no-grain diet! Just one question, however: you seem to eat food that is likely to include corn syrup. For example: the smoothie at McDonald's. Don't you think corn syrup should also be eliminated?
- crazyjimbo 16y agoI did a similar experiment last year. For 3 months I stuck to a low carb diet, influenced by the Atkin's diet, but not following it strictly. I was a very healthy weight and decided to try it after a number of arguments with friends and family where I defended the science behind it. I wanted to see whether it was genuinely a healthy diet, and not just the weight loss tool that it was getting all the buzz about. I'm pleased to say the results where overwhelmingly positive. After the first unpleasant week as my body adjusted, I started to feel more energetic, less hungry and I needed less sleep. The biggest quantitative improvement though was the quality of my skin. I've always had problems with acne, even now I'm past my troubled teen years but on a low carb diet my skin almost completely cleared up. I'm sure it was more nutritious too because when you're not bulking your meals out with pasta, rice or potatoes, you don't have much choice other than to eat more veg. After about 3 months, enough carbohydrate had crept back into my diet that I wasn't really doing anything special anymore, but I'm very tempted to go back and try to stick to it properly. Good luck with your own experiment!
- mhartl 16y agoI doubt there's anything terribly wrong with cutting out dietary grains, but the basis for a "paleo" diet appears to rest on two principal assumptions: 1. Pre-agricultural humans didn't eat grains 2. The human digestive system has evolved little since the introduction of agriculture The problem is that both of these assumptions are dubious at best. If paleolithic humans didn't eat grains, then how were grains ever domesticated in the first place? Obviously, someone was eating grains in the wild, and evidently over time people learned how to cultivate them. I have no trouble believing that the paleo diet contained far fewer grains than the typical post-agricultural diet, but that suggests eating select whole grains in moderation, not eliminating them entirely. In addition, the idea that ten thousand years isn't enough time for substantial evolution is clearly wrong. The reason the New World was ravaged by smallpox, plague, influenza, etc., upon contact with Europeans was because Americans (in the generalized sense) lacked the resistance that Eurasians had evolved in the time since the invention of agriculture. Meanwhile, some people (especially northern Europeans) have no trouble digesting milk because they evolved the ability to metabolize lactose—presumably a recent innovation, since dairy animals were domesticated around the same time as grains. (Yet many "paleo" advocates also recommend eschewing dairy.) Indeed, "lactose intolerance" is a misnomer; what's remarkable is that anyone is lactose-tolerant—lactose-tolerant humans are the only mammals to produce the necessary lactase enzyme as adults. There is every reason to expect that a similar evolutionary process has led to an enhanced ability to digest grains; it may not be true, but it should be the null hypothesis. In short, the basic idea of eating nutrient-dense foods is based on sound science, but the complete elimination of perfectly healthy foods such as whole grains and dairy doesn't have any basis in reality.
- jpspeno 16y agoGood luck. You may be interested in the paleo hacks site. It's one of them stack overflow sites for questions about stuff related to the paleo diet and lifestyle: http://paleohacks.com/ http://paleohacks.com/
- IgorPartola 16y ago"The second worst part of this diet is that I'm always hungry." I think that's the basis of this whole diet. I think it's reasonable to assume that the average American diet is far from ideal for the mostly sedentary lifestyles we lead (once again, talking only about the average case). So any change is an improvement. What I want to see is a study that pits the paleo diet against, say the low carb diet, against just a balanced carb/protein/fat diet against a control group. My wife was telling me about a study that did a low carb vs balanced vs control experiment and the balanced diet won by an appreciable margin, but I don't have any links handy.
- tremendo 16y ago> ...a study... low carb vs balanced... Might this be it? (link is a debunking): http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand-spankin-new-study-are-low-carb-meat-eaters-in-trouble/ http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand-spankin-new-study-are...