Printable View
As above, if you have coeliac disease (hereditary) you must eat gluten free food if you are going to have a long and healthy life.
If you do not have this disease, the principal advantage is that going gluten free means you cannot eat most of the junk food we consume in vast quantities - this change automatically means better health! But you can stop (or almost stop) eating these foods without going gluten free, and get similar results at a lower cost.
John
Forget about flour, it is not a good food.
We have people with gluten intolerance in the family and for us [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinoa"]Quinoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] es the best replacement for flour.
There are heaps of good books available with delicious quinoa recipes and as a food it is heaps better than flour.
The other alternatives to quinoa are buckwheat and the super food [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth"]Amaranth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Have a look the nutrition value of these 2 cereals and you will be converted ;)
The answer to your question:-
Yes, you'd be better off with a gluten free... - lets call it 'grain-free' approach to eating. Or markedly reduce consumption. ALL grain, wholemeal, fortified, organic, GM or natural...
Problem is, for various reason(s), we've been lied to by governments, Medical folk who should know better...and the Food Business.
Shrt story> I've gone from a 'weigh' too heavy.... and totally unfit, Type II diabetic to virtually 'normal' sugar levels and 25 kg (of FAT) lighter, and fit enough to fly through a treadmill stress-test.
-More than halved my sugar levels and blood Pressure is now on normal levels despite eating huge amounts of SALT ...
How?
Eliminating carbs from my idet. Replacing them with protein (meat, fish & nuts) and lots and lots of FAT. Good, Saturated Fat. Like butter and Olive and Coconut oil as well as the fat on bacon.
Easy way to explain would be either of two books, "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes and the Rosedale Diet by Dr Ron Rosedale.
They pretty well say the same things, but Taubes gives a more interesting history and reasons 'why' we have the mis-information we have today. - He even names the guilty parties.
You can get them on evilBay, from England Taubes' book is about $23 posted.
Great work. I eat very similar to you now. Since going GF, my diet is predominantly meat, veg, nuts and fruit. Fat is fine, sugar is evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by superquag
This article explains why not everything that Taubes says should be taken at face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by superquag
Why We Get Fat « Science-Based Medicine
The wife has various intolerance issues which benefit from eating gluten free. She immediately notices the difference. Its not a fad.
And it does benefit me too, although I'm not intolerant.
You can still eat these, drink beer and have fish and chips too but GF, all are available. Much more around now than ever before, because eating GF is trendy.:wasntme: Good for me coz before all this trendo stuff all I could have was meat veg and rabbit food. I have been a Coeliac since the only new landy was a Series I.Quote:
Originally Posted by juddy
landychris
IMHO, No it does'nt. An opinion shared by a few of the 'bloggers' and their comments. - The other 99% content of that page the link takes you to....Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
This part looks to me as if the writer of the article is not entirely convinced. :)
He supports his thesis with data from the scientific literature and with persuasive theoretical arguments about insulin, blood sugar levels, glycemic index, insulin resistance, fat storage, inflammation, the metabolic syndrome, and other details of metabolism. Many readers will come away convinced that all we need to do to eliminate obesity, heart disease and many other diseases is to get people to limit carbohydrates in their diet. I’m not convinced, because I can see some flaws in his reasoning.
He says that
[restricting carbohydrates]…leads to weight loss and particularly fat loss, independent of the calories we consume from dietary fat and protein. We know that the laws of physics have nothing to do with it.
This is simply not true. The laws of physics are unavoidable. His demonization of the calories-in/calories-out principle strikes me as a bit of a straw man argument. He says exercising and reducing total calorie intake don’t work; moreover, he says they can’t work. Most of us would argue that they can and do; the problem is not with the principle, but with its implementation. Simple physics requires that to lose weight, we must burn more calories than we ingest: that is indisputable. The devil is in the details. It takes a lot of exercise to burn off a few calories, so exercise is not a practical solution; and it has proved very difficult in practice to get people to reduce their calorie intake significantly over long periods of time. Weight loss is simple, but it is not easy; and those of us who rely on the calories- in/calories-out principle have never suggested that it was. We don’t just berate obese people for lack of will power. We try to understand why most people find it so difficult to lose weight. Perhaps the more intriguing question is why some people maintain a low weight throughout a long lifetime of varying food intake, including people who eat a lot of carbohydrates. (My emphasis)
And
What about weight loss itself? If Taubes’ thesis is correct, we would expect studies to consistently show a strong superiority of low-carb diets for weight loss. This 2010 study showed no difference in weight loss between low fat and low carb diets over a 2 year period, although low-carb dieters had more favorable changes in lipids. A 2009 study in NEJM compared weight loss from diets with different compositions of fat, protein and carbohydrates and found that low-carb diets were not superior, and that clinically meaningful weight loss results from weight loss diets “regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” An accompanying editorial suggests that behavioral factors are more important to weight loss than the type of diet, and that a total environmental approach is needed.
Anyone who wants to avoid the whole:
Energy in - Energy Out = Storage thing is just kidding themselves.
I'm told the UK has a documentary series called "the secret eaters". Turns out it's quite scary the difference between what fat people eat and what they think/remember they eat.
Then you get into activity levels between "naturally" slim people and "naturally" chunky people.
Where does gluten fit into this? If someone has an issue with gluten, they end up feeling awful the whole time, their energy levels are terrible so they don't get out and do anything. Instead they eat high energy foods to try and run on the sugar.
The results are somewhat predictable. The results when people who fit that description get on a gluten free diet are amazing.