I went vegan* last night:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391538378

Mushroom balls, over squash, with red pepper pesto.


*an egg was used as binder.

Read up on it. Different people get different side effects.

I get dehydrated, headaches, and even twitches if I have allot. It's not good for you. Even Panda Express has banned its use.

Have you noticed feeling like you cant get enough water after eating Chinese? Or many Japanese foods for that matter. (Japan invented MSG, it's called Ajinomoto) Or mild headaches?... MSG for sure.

If you love Doritos... you love MSG.

I don't have a sensitivity to it. Unless you count enjoyment as a sensitivity. Mcdonalds used to use it too.

MSG is good. The Stigma is stupid.

Try it yourself. Buy some MSG in powder form. Make a nice vegetable soup with plenty of this so called good MSG. Put extra because it's "good."

I bet you you will get sweats and headache. I would know as it's night and day form me.

Try it and get back to us.

99% of people who say this have never done back to back blind testing.

This is exactly like all the bullshit about kids going hyper on sugar.

Dann

Wikipedia entry on MSG cites several studies that were done that all fail to link any symptoms to consumption.

I hear vaccines cause autism because a playboy bunny said so.

After you posted your last response, I did go and do quite a bit of reading up on the subject.

Aside from a few blog entries which I would charitably describe as hysterical and ill-informed, pretty much all of the "hard" data (eg: peer-reviewed medical and academic journals), tend to fall into one of two schools of thought:

1: That the myth of MSG having any harmful effects at all is just that, a myth, and that whatever physical ailments might manifest themselves in a person who has just consumed a cheap Chinese meal tend to fall along a spectrum which ranges from psychosomatic at one end, to "you dummy, you just ate a huge plate of salty, sugary, carb-laden, fried food. What do you expect?" at the other.

2: An acknowledgement that some or all of the symptoms which you describe below do in fact occur, but only in a small percentage of the population, and that the effects of the consumption of large amounts of MSG tend to be acute in nature (eg: occurring quickly after consumption and later dissipating completely with no lasting ill-effect) rather than chronic (having long-term health consequences.)


Your admonition wasn't really clear on the nature of your objection to MSG, and I was much more curious to learn of the basis for your objection to it than to simply hear a list of commonly-alleged symptoms.


For instance, one fairly recent study conducted by the Lab de Desarrollo-Envejecimiento, Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas in Guadalajara, Mexico demonstrated a strong positive correlation between high doses of MSG and neural necrosis in lab rats. The problem here is that this particular study involved the injection of MSG directly into the brain, completely bypassing the metabolic decomposition which naturally occurs in the gastric tract.


I have also read a few non-scientific papers which claim to observe a link between MSG intake and obesity as a function of MSG causing disorders related to insulin production in the body (example). Well, I've disproven this to my own satisfaction simply by performing blood glucose tests before and after consuming a cheap Chinese meal containing a large amount of MSG. This is nothing more than mistaken causality. Of course there's a correlation between obesity and the consumption of large amounts of MSG. By definition, a majority of people who are regularly consuming large amounts of MSG are also consuming large amounts of calories!

I don't doubt that you do. However this does not justify an unqualified blanket statement that "MSG is bad."

There are many different foods and chemicals to which some small percentage of the populace react adversely. Some people are lactose-intolerant. Some are allergic to shellfish. Or peanuts. Or eggs. Or strawberries. Or the pollen of the oak tree.

Personally, I am severely allergic to cats (specifically, the protein Fel-d-1 which is present in their saliva and sebaceous glands.) That doesn't mean that cats are evil and should be avoided, merely that I, along with a small minority of the population, cannot tolerate prolonged exposure to them.

My own mother experiences a severe dermal reaction to prolonged contact with nickel-bearing metal alloys such as stainless steel, meaning that she cannot wear most wristwatches, as they tend to have stainless backplates. But I would never post a blanket statement that "stainless steel is bad for you and you must avoid contact with it!"


Just because a small number of people react adversely to exposure to a certain substance does not in any way justify claims that said substance is "bad" in a broad context.

No, I have not noticed these things. I can wolf down a plate of the cheapest late-night midtown Chinese takeout imaginable (and often have in the past), and I suffer from none of the effects which you describe above.

By the same token, I assume that you can cuddle with a kitty without your eyes watering and your skin itching.

I've read a study or two couple years ago but I have enough experience for me to decide on my own.

I never "knew" about MSG until a few years ago. When I first started using it, I would always make a huge pot veggie soup for me and friends with MSG. I would put in allot because it made it taste good. I always wondered why I would sweat so much and have headaches and be so damn thirsty after a huge bowl of soup. It might be unbelievable but I actually thought that all the veggies was some how "clearing" my system up but it was not that, it was the MSG. I also have friends who have this same issue of dehydration and or headaches. I and friends would know since we do endurance workouts too, we are pretty in tune with our bodies.

I don't need a study to tell me what MSG is doing to me. Perhaps some are more susceptible to the effects but maybe the amount you are eating is small enough where you don't really notice the effects. Or maybe your local chinese place doesn't use MSG at all. You should give them a call and ask.

Also, I still recommend that you do a test yourself. Try buy some MSG and eat whatever amount you think is still safe and see what happens. I do commend you for your determination to find truth.

I bet what happens is I have an incredible tasting soup because it's a much better flavor booster than salt.

I'm actually making chicken soup tonight--true story.


I've seen tests done in this manner. A group of people were served the same dish. Half got it with MSG, the other half salt.

They were told after consumption and asked if they felt any side effects after time had elapsed. More people from the group that consumed salt complained of all the symptoms that MSG causes...the test wasn't scientific, but it showed the power of suggestion once they were told they might have consumed MSG.

If you have a sensitivity to it, not everyone else in the world does. That's like saying cats are universally bad and should be avoided because they cause a histamatic reaction to some inferior humans. Or that we should all eat gluten free because some vegan lesbian hipster who uses abortion as birth control thinks it's a good idea that everyone live exactly like her while telling everyone to be individuals and have their own identity and uniqueness.

How did it go and exactly how much MSG did you use?

Oooookay.... LOL

I don't think people who are pro choice on abortion believe everyone should do it. I think it's about choice. Also, society decides morals and ethics.

While I do eat meat, I could say that our individual freedom of eating meat is contributing immensely to suffering and abuse of animals and destroying this planet due to the environmental impact of animal food production which means that your selfish idea of individual freedom is taking away from the livelihoods of all those around the world who cannot afford to deal with climate change and may lose everything they have and or die. To be honest, there is quite a strong case to stop eating meat all together if not at least creating a maximum intake per person for it. Not that I think it is feasible.

If I may also just add, I actually don't think we will stop climate change so although reducing pollution is very important, I think spending allot of energy on bringing up the living standards of those all over the world will be the best way to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Stepped on the scale this morning and it read 199.6. That's a milestone for me, and it reinforces my conviction that I've made the right decision to shift from a high-calorie / low-carb diet towards one favoring more moderate caloric intake without being too particular about the specific form that those calories take (eg: not shunning processed grains, starches and sugars entirely.) That's roughly 17 lbs of mostly fat gone in exactly one month to the day since I started this test.


And I'm not kidding about this being a Chinese Takeout diet. With the exception of those weekend evenings spent up in the mountains of late, my dinners have been consisting of nothing but dishes from Precious, such as scallops with broccoli & bean sprouts in hot garlic sauce, with a generous pile of steamed brown rice:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1391707062


I'd previously claimed that once I got below 200 I was going to give the high-fat / low-carb plan another try, but I'm going to stick with this scheme for a while longer and see where it goes. I'm still above the theoretical "ideal" weight for my height and build I'm getting good results without feeling like I'm depriving myself of anything, and my overall health / energy also seems to be doing just fine.

are you measuring your body fat %?

No, just making subjective estimates based upon pants fit, visual observation, and the fact that my physical strength is not decreasing.

Joe Perez, the human DEXA scanner.

I use the depth of my belly button as a gauge...true story.

Sounds scientifish. Just get the damn scale I linked on amazon. At least it will give you consistenly wrong numbers. FWIW I am at 20% BF. I'd like to be at fifteen. I have a 2.5 pack.

I'd trust his pincers to be calibrated within a few ten thou.

You can weigh the lint and increase accuracy.

Huh? If you mean the one in post #167, I'm not sure I see the point. It doesn't really look much different from the one I use right now.


EDIT: I didn't mean for that to sound snide- if I'm missing something, please educate me.

This seems like a somewhat closed-minded perspective to me.

I convinced myself that the MSG Myth was just that years ago, though admittedly with little hard science to support that viewpoint. Of late, you've had me doing a lot of searching on the topic, and what I'm finding is interesting.

Among "trustworthy" sources (eg: those involving proper control / blinding techniques, those published in peer-reviewed journals or as academic theses, and not coming from laypersons who have an obvious financial motivation such as the sale of books, herbal remedies, etc) 100% of the material which I have found completely refutes the idea that MSG consumption leads to long-term negative health consequences in humans, and fairly little of it even acknowledges that MSG, specifically, is physiologically correlated with acute, short-term symptoms of the sort you describe.


A few abstracts:

And that's fine. If you have convinced yourself of this, then it's not my place to try and change your mind, nor would I want to attempt to do so.

I do question the validity of your test methodology, and would ask that you at least consider the notion that psychosomatic symptoms do in fact exist. For instance, here is an excerpt from an amateur experiment which attempts to follow proper scientific method, and produces interesting results:


In other words, it is possible that you feel bad after consuming MSG because you have convinced yourself that you feel bad after consuming MSG.

I consume significant quantities of MSG every time I go back to Florida to visit family during the holidays. My mother and sister both use quite a bit of the stuff in stews, soups, sauces, dips, etc. It's a staple seasoning at the casa de Perez. Comes in a little cardboard jar with a perforated cap that you can sprinkle it from. Looks like this:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1391738051

Good discussion on MSG, thanks Joe for doing the homework. To clear a few things.

1. I had symptoms of headache, thirst, sweating and twitches before I knew ANYTHING about MSG. One day a friend was like this has MSG and told me about it.

2. How much MSG do you guys use? Because of the following,

3.

I checked your links and some links which they linked to. Let me quote two things "virtually all studies since then confirm that monosodium glutamate in normal concentrations has no effect on the overwhelming majority of people"

“Just like salt and sugar, it exists in nature, it tastes good at normal levels, but large amounts at high concentrations taste strange and aren’t that good for you,” Dr. Chaudhari said.

I don't really know all about MSG but I am willing to study more when I have a little bit more time BUT, from seeing what you linked too, it does not seem to take away from the chance that a portion of the population, could be sensitive to it, and or that portion size can make a big difference. Perhaps I was putting too much, and that that creates conditions of dehydration which leads to headaches and twitches? I am open to that idea. I guess I would like to then see if eating too much salt has the same effect. Maybe MSG has stronger dehydrating properties?? I have no idea and it sounds like it's worth researching...

But I got like a 100 pages to read for classes so this will have to be for another day.

Oh and just to add, I still sometimes have food with some MSG and I don't always have the symptoms and I think its because I eat very little BUT, my ass is healthy as hell and I NEVER, except when the sulfur in the air is especially bad from the volcano, have headaches. I know it's not hard science BUT, I know my body pretty well. I am truth and science oriented but regarding this, I must say, I trust my body to stay away from it and will let research catch up.

Keep us updated on your findings though, thanks Joe.

Edit: and thinking back at it though, I remember how much I was using. If I used the same amount of salt as I did MSG in my soups, I dont think I would get the headaches but it's worth trying out back to back.

I get major heartburn when i drink maragaritas.

you should all avoid them.


this is only because I have a hiatal hernia, but so does everyone else in the world, right?

And that could well be. I'm certainly not a doctor or a biologist, nor do I know anything about you.

I'd caution merely against the pitfall of mistaking correlation for causality.

As an example, in 2011, Dr. Ka He of the University of North Carolina published a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in which he studied 10,000 Chinese adults aged 18-65 over a period of several years, and concluded that there was a positive statistical correlation between the intake of high doses of MSG and weight gain. (full text)


The problem with that, and the thing which the popular press in the US and Europe failed to consider when republishing snippets of his findings, was that Dr. He never actually claimed that MSG causes weight gain, only that Chinese adults who consumed a large amount of it tended to gain weight. In fact, that very same study was later cited in a paper entitled "A lack of epidemiologic evidence to link consumption of monosodium L-glutamate and obesity in China."

Of course, that same segment of the population who tend to consume meals rich in MSG also tended to have a higher caloric intake overall, to lead a more sedentary lifestyle, to smoke, and in general to be less healthy overall. So why wouldn't they be expected to gain weight?

Well, as I said earlier, this discussion, for me, breaks down into two main categories.

The first is chronic (long-term) effects, such as claims that MSG causes neurological harm by way of the ill-defined "excitotoxic damage." 100% of all available scholarly research conclusively and unambiguously disproves these claims.

The second is acute (short-term) effects, which may also be further subdivided into questions as to whether a certain percentage of the population are abnormally glutamate-sensitive.

The last of the four papers which I linked to previously, from Geha et al, entitled Review of Alleged Reaction to Monosodium Glutamate and Outcome of a Multicenter Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study does a really good job of approaching this question.

To summarize, the authors both reviewed existing literature and also conducted several original trials using proper control and blinding techniques, to look specifically for correlations between MSG consumption and the acute symptoms commonly described (headache, chest pain, flushing, etc) in those individuals who self-identify as being sensitive to MSG. I urge you to read the paper fully (it's not long, and is an easy read), but I'll point out a few highlights:

So that, right there is interesting. Even if the number of people who are sensitive to MSG is only as many as who are allergic to cats (about 8% of the population), that sample of 130 people should have captured 10-11 people with a bona-fide MSG sensitivity who produced consistent, repeatable responses. Instead they had none.


Here we have a very well carried-out test, which focuses specifically on individuals who already believe themselves to be adversely affected by MSG, using a blind trial comparing MSG to a placebo in a vehicle which, somewhat uniquely, denies the subject any ability to detect the difference in taste between the two (this is a key factor missing from most earlier studies.)

When these individuals were tested, none of them reported an adverse reaction to MSG while reporting no reaction to a placebo. Or put another way, they reported the same reaction to a placebo as they did to MSG.


Unlike the previous, which looked specifically at high-doses of MSG all by itself, the data above examine high doses of MSG in an otherwise normal meal, and reveal absolutely no adverse results whatsoever.





So is any of this absolutely conclusive? Well, it's darn close. If we accept this data as true, then it is possible (though not statistically probable), that a very small percentage of the population may react adversely to high doses of MSG taken all by itself without food. This same group, however, exhibits a strong tendency to report the same symptoms when they believe that they are consuming MSG but are instead given a placebo.

No snideness assumed. I guess you have clarified for me that my amazon search skills were thwarted by amazon's terrible search capabilities.

I had intended to link to a scale that measures body fat percentage. like this one:


Truly a "butt dyno"

Gotta love Wal-Mart:

Wow. MSG *AND* grains in the same cart? Are you trying to kill yourself?


:giggle:



This is the conveyance of MSG which I am most familiar with:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392081536

Goya Sazon is a staple seasoning in Latin-American cooking, and is found in every self-respecting kitchen in the Caribbean. Cuban women put this on everything- meat, seafood, frijoles negros, you name it.

Of course, it's only about 75% MSG, and it also contains a few other ingredients (garlic, cumin, saffron) which complement the cuisine of the islands rather well, but would tend to clash with the Cantonese palate. I managed to track down some Accent over the weekend while up in Catskill, and so I now have my very own bottle of pure, undiluted MSG as well:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392078918

(In retrospect, I would imagine that I probably could have just ridden down to Chinatown and gotten some there.)



I've also re-discovered the pleasure of cooking. Started emulating some of the dishes I've had from Precious in my own kitchen, such as tonight's entree of grilled chicken with string beans, in a pineapple-chili sauce (with lots of chili, a healthy dose of pure MSG, some powdered ginger and grated orange rind), with a side of short-grain brown rice.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392079521

Deeeee-lish.

While you jokers were out buying umami, this guy was whipping up this:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392172355

ingredients: butter
recipe: bring to a boil over med-hi heat, on medium simmer 7-10 minutes until golden.

Now... amazon sells various types of MSG and I should probably get some.

I'm starting to get good at these:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ead-sesame-jpg

Chicken breast pan-seared until well-browned, with fresh string beans and frozen snow peas, some finely-chopped chilis, a dollop of storebought sesame-teryaki sauce, a healthy dose of Sriracha, some sliced pickled ginger, and of course, a decent sprinkling of pure MSG.

I do need to start using all fresh veggies- the frozen stuff just isn't cutting it anymore in terms of texture, and given that I have three hippie / organic grocers within a few blocks, there's just no excuse for not dropping by every other evening for a fresh take.

It never would have occurred to me to look on Amazon, but you're quite right.

And in so searching, I've come to question the veracity of some of Amazon's claims:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392349330

Might be just the thing Hinano is looking for to squelch his reaction to MSG.

Hahahaha. MSG-free MSG, for those with a high sensitivity to glutamate, and are therefore unable to consume ripe tomatoes, Parmesan cheese, scallops, mushrooms, corn, walnuts, broccoli, sweet potatoes, or human breast milk.


I'm kind of wondering where everyone has gone lately. This thread seems to be quieting down just at a time when it was becoming quite interesting...

Great, windows shut down to do an update without asking, just as I was finishing a long reply. Here's a shortened version.

Perhaps it's the combo of MSG and something else that causes symptoms in some individuals.

Re: starch intake - my original hypothesis may only be true for a subset of the population, and can change depending on gut flora. My own starch tolerance has greatly increased after regular raw potato powder (fermentable fiber) intake, which feeds the good bacteria, so much so that despite now having modest rice/potato intake, my 5-pack is starting to show up (4 dinner rolls and a meat loaf). My blood sugar numbers are better than ever (70-85 fasting and pre-meal, <120 post meal peak despite modest amounts of starch). Maybe Joe never had too much antibiotics and always had enough fermentable fiber to maintain his gut flora.

A fairly recent discovery has shown that the intestines and gut flora play a huge role in blood sugar regulation (and thus bodyfat regulation) and starch digestion.

Joe if you love brown rice, at least prepare it properly by soaking it to reduce the anti-nutrients:
Most Effective Way to Reduce Phytic Acid in Brown Rice | Kitchen Stewardship | A Baby Steps Approach to Balanced Nutrition

I make healthy food:

This is ginger-soy salmon steamed over top of carrots, chives, and mushrooms with quinoa.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392398087

I used kosher salt, no msg.

Without specifically passing judgement on what you've said here, I must admit that my intuitive reaction is "That's the wonderful thing about advice which is scientifically unsound and runs contrary to commonly-accepted doctrine. Every time one part of it gets disproven, it's easy to say 'well, perhaps this is true only under this one specific boundary condition, which was the one thing that your rigorous, academic test failed to explore.'"





I will admit that I have had time only to perform a very cursory examination here, and I promise that I will do more research later on.

For the moment, my immediate takeaway is that it would seem that opinions concerning the "evilness" of phytic acid are not universally shared, even outside of the mainstream academic / medical community. For instance:

I'll also note that the particular brown rice which I am using is pre-germinated, and that the label on the back contains a hilarious error which makes me question whether eating germinated brown rice might cause some kind of neurotoxic harm:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392407723

I didn't mention that the soaking reduces lectins.
What Are Lectins and Why Should We Care? | Norcal Strength & Conditioning
The Lowdown On Lectins | Mark's Daily Apple

I'd say there are a lot of things you didn't mention. :D


But seriously, I'm just going to quote the first two sentences of the first link you posted there, so that everyone can soak them in (pun intended):
It's obvious that gluten is the devil.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :giggle:




Anyway, moving on...

Weight seems to be holding for the moment right around 200-201, which is interesting. Based again on subjective analysis (eg: I didn't buy Y8s' fancy scale), I seem to be replacing fat with muscle, as I have hit the innermost notch on my belt and had to punch a new one, and my size 38 pants are now officially way too lose.

Makes me wonder if the low-carb / high-fat / no-grain diet was causing harm to my health and metabolism which went beyond simple weight gain...

Unnaccounted for Joe lifestyle variables: new woman in your life. Raises physical activity and testosterone levels. Both of these can increase muscle and reduce body fat.

Here you go Joe, knock yourself out:
non-celiac - PubMed - NCBI
What is Gluten | Primal Body Primal Mind Diet and Nutrition

On the latter one, I acknowledge that gluten may have a dose-response curve wherein modest amounts may not do harm to non-sensitive individuals.

Get cold, get skinny.

Embrace the cold: Evidence that shivering and exercise may convert white fat to brown -- ScienceDaily

A bit of what Jack Kruse has been saying...

We will not be eliminating that variable from the test.



Also, my "do not feed the troll" sense is tingling, however I believe I owe Jason the courtesy of a response here:

When you post things like this, I honestly can't decide whether you're being sarcastic, you're deliberately trolling me, or if you genuinely think that I am going to be able to glean useful information from a link to a list of titles of papers on PubMed.

Can you understand why I might feel that way, given the proper context?

You didn't like the 2 links I showed, so I gave you more, for you to browse.

Here's a fascinating interview of a guy who did a bunch of ground-breaking research.
Pioneering Researcher Alessio Fasano M.D. on Gluten, Autoimmunity & Leaky Gut

These quotes are damn interesting:

My question is, is there harm in "normal" people when ingesting gluten which is known to make the intestines temporarily permeable?

Resistant starch such as raw potato powder has been shown to improve the gut flora. Might it prevent or reverse autoimmune diseases and/or improve gluten sensitivity?

Man, watching Joe double-down on his stupid position is funny.

Of course, if I had a magic metabolism that responded to cutting grains, sugars, and carbs by gaining weight, I might find modern dietary and nutritional research baffling too.

Oh I almost forgot this. I ate Joe Perez's normal diet for one week and gained 100 lbs of fat.

Sidebar: whoever edited the thread title, well-played. :bigtu:


That's true, and it merits a better explanation.


The first of the links you gave in post #282 is merely a list of papers available through PubMed which match the search phrase "non-celiac." None of those which I have clicked on thus-far return a full-text result, and only a few have comprehensive abstracts. So this is essentially a content-free link inasmuch as I can tell. By contrast, I have endeavored only to cite sources which are actually readable by all, so, quite frankly, I find this sort of thing to be rather lazy, and somewhat offensive.

A bit of light searching on slightly different keywords turns a number of articles written by credible authors who aren't trying to sell me anything, which strongly indicate that blanket statements such as those which have been made previously are far from "obviously true." Arguments which run contrary to established principles and which rely mostly upon subjective testing and conjecture (rather than controlled scientific testing) bear a special burden of proof, which is thus far unmet in this context.

The tone thus far in this particular line of conversation reminds me somewhat of a debate over religion, conducted with a person who bears a strong religious conviction. Such a discussion might fairly be summarized as:
I'm really trying quite hard to keep an open mind and subject all opinions and assertions to the same rational scrutiny. It bothers me somewhat to be accused of being [a contrarian / deliberately obtuse / willfully ignorant] for this. I'm not specifically saying that you have done this (though certain people have), only pointing out that it's a vibe I'm picking up.





The second link deserves special attention, as it is particularly insulting. Twice in this thread I have established a specific point wherein the trustworthiness / legitimacy of sources is concerned:

The first was in post #68 back in Oct of last year, when I stated "In other words, it doesn't matter how old the research is, if the only "facts" which contradict it are actually based on speculation, hysteria, slick marketing and misrepresentation of data for the purpose of selling self-help books and lifestyle coaching."

The second was in post #261 just a week or two ago, to wit "Among "trustworthy" sources (eg: those involving proper control / blinding techniques, those published in peer-reviewed journals or as academic theses, and not coming from laypersons who have an obvious financial motivation such as the sale of books, herbal remedies, etc)..."

So, I hope you can understand why I find it especially hilarious to see you send me a link to the following:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392817929


In general, I make it a point to place special scrutiny on advice given to me by individuals who are actively trying to sell me something.

While I understand that this is intended as sarcasm, I'm struggling to understand the point of it.

During the period of Nov-Dec 2013, I embarked upon a high-calorie diet which happened to be low in carbohydrates and high in fat and protein. During that time, I gained weight (and fat.) This is hardly surprising- to the contrary, I'd have considered it to be "magic" if I had lost weight (and fat) during this time, as that would have been evidence of my body expressing a discriminatory metabolism (eg: preferring one source of caloric intake vs. another), which would have been contrary to most of what is understood in the scientific and academic communities to be factual in this regard.

During the period of Jan-Feb 2014, I have embarked upon a lower-calorie diet, which happens to displace calorie-dense foods which are high in fat (cheeses, fatty meats, etc) with less-calorie-dense foods which happen to be high in carbohydrate content (vegetables, grains, rice, etc.) During this time I have lost weight and fat. This, again, is consistent with a rational expectation based upon known principles of human nutrition.


If you feel that I continue to be in error in either my methodology or the interpretation of the resultant data then do please pay me the courtesy of a more specific interposition. Your insults, while moderately amusing and so far tastefully relevant, are not productive insofar as arriving at a more comprehensive understanding of the facts in this matter.







This seems improbable. 100 lbs in one week rather stretches the bounds of what one would expect to be physiologically possible. I assume therefore that it is also sarcasm, but whether you genuinely intended it to somehow make a positive contribution to the thread (and are therefore an idiot) or you just enjoy making snide comments for the purpose of derailing conversations (and are therefore an ass) is something to which I won't hazard a guess.




That said, I did order the specific analytical scale that Y8s linked to, as I find this phenomenon to be most interesting and wish to have a clearer perspective into it. I wish that I'd had it for the past two months in order that I'd have some "before" data, but I shall have to resign myself to a forward-looking perspective. As it stands now, I've no desire to return to the state that I was in around the first of the year.

Ah, now Joe's all mad that someone's derailing the thread in which he set out to demonstrate that adding several hundred calories per day of any food will result in weight gain and thereby disprove...something.

I know you're trying to thwart the "common wisdom" in this thread but please make sure you take your body fat readings at approximately the same time each day under similar conditions. In other words before your dump and shower, after you chug your morning water, but before your breakfast. Or whatever place it fits into your routine. You may want to consider multiple readings during the day to get a feel for your true BF%.

Yes, I've observed similar fluctuations in weight measurements taken throughout the day as well.

I always take "official" weight measurements first thing in the morning, after my usual bowel movement but before having consumed any food or drink.

This routine will not change simply due to the purchase of a different scale.


From the Wiki article you linked to: "The accuracy of consumer grade devices for measuring BIA has not been found to be sufficiently accurate for single measurement use and are better suited for use to measure changes in body composition over time for individuals." I would consider this to be true of pretty much all consumer-grade measuring equipment, and treat this no differently than I would the oil pressure gauge on my engine. Does 45PSI actually mean 45 PSI? Doesn't matter, so long as it's consistent. I'm looking for trends here, which is why I added to my above "I wish that I'd had it for the past two months in order that I'd have some "before" data..."

Joe, Nora Gedgaudas (author of book) was practicing what she preached before she started writing her book. There are many people who have a talent, discover a niche, and decide that writing a book / selling services, is a win-win for them and their customers. Andrew was giving out free advice on radiators and brakes before he decided to start Trackspeed. Because he now makes money on radiators and brakes, does that make his advice suspect?

The pubmed link was to a bunch of articles to non-celiac gluten sensitivity. The link you made fun of has a simple diagram with the action of gluten. That, and the later quotes, is to try to show you that the gluten stuff is far, far from imagined. The question in my mind remaining is, (and which is asked in the interview link) how damaging is it to non-sensitive individuals, or, can the latter develop sensitivity over time with large intakes of it?

Something I haven't mentioned in this thread is that someone close to me tested positive for AutoImmune thyroid antibodies, after I insisted to their doctor to do the detailed test (he'd initially refused). This person is in the early stages of Hashimoto's hypothyroidism. This is a disease where the immune system destroys the thyroid gland until thyroid output drops and misery sets in. The vast majority of Hashimoto's is caused by a reaction to GLUTEN. Several percent of the population is in some stage of Hashimoto's.

This person had NO PREVIOUS SYMPTOMS of gluten sensitivity, but had an anomalous simple thyroid test result years ago which they'd chalked up to a testing fluke. Turns out that in the early stages one symptom is fluctuating thyroid output. The previous doc didn't suspect anything from the anomalous test result.

So here is an example of someone whose immune system was on the road to being destroyed by gluten exposure with *no* symptoms. The interviewee whose quote I pasted discusses 70 year olds who suddenly developed a severe gluten sensitivity. Would they have been fine had they consumed half as much wheat all their life? Dunno.

And here is a study that shows that modern wheat causes more symptoms than ancient varieties of wheat. Presumably because it has more gluten, because it makes bread stickier nicer and chewier, and thus is bred in over generations:

New Study Vindicates William Davis: Modern Wheat is more Toxic than Ancient Varieties | Rosemary Cottage Clinic

In the interview I linked, they'd observed that gluten sensitivity has been rising dramatically in the last decades. Increased gluten in GMO wheat? Widespread antibiotic use?

Do I think it's prudent to reduce wheat/gluten intake for the non-symptomatic population given all this? Yes. Wheat is a low-nutrient-density food anyway. And lectins in general too. You can get way more nutrients for the same calories eating sweet potatoes and veggies anyway.

Remember this starting premise: foods especially plant foods which were introduced to the human genome only in the last 10,000 years are suspect because any genetic adaptations to said foods are typically "shallow", and are not widespread in the population (thus the individuality). The well-known exceptions are starchy tubers, vegetables (assuming no sensitivity to things like oxalates and nightshades), and fruit (though note that modern fruit breeds have way more sugar than those pre-neolithic times, and high fructose consumption is implicated in high blood pressure, obesity, gout, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease).

I'm hoping that outfits like http://www.23andMe.com will come up with testing for genes that tell you how sensitive you are to things like lactose, gluten, soy, casein, albumen, nightshades, oxalates, starch, FODMAPs, etc.

Lastly, on the "allergic to cats" analogy - bear in mind there's a difference between food allergy, sensitivity, and intolerance. Food sensitivity is the most pernicious because it's an immune system reaction which may not be immediately obvious and can be very damaging. It's also the most difficult to do a lab test for.

I believe that I understand your thinking in the matter. I do, however, take issue with the presupposition which is implied in the question "...how damaging is it to non-sensitive individuals" Phrasing the question thusly is not entirely unlike asking someone "So, have you stopped beating your wife?" In neither case has the underlying question of fact been addressed. (Is gluten even harmful at all in normal individuals? Did Bob ever beat his wife in the first place?)


To elaborate a tad on why I might seem, to some, obstinately unwilling to blindly accept what is being said vis-à-vis the universal evils of gluten, a few counterpoints:



Dr. Daniel A. Leffler, director of clinical research at the Celiac Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, doesn’t quite see the point of all the hype:


Likewise, Drs. Antonio Di Sabatino, MD, and Gino Roberto Corazza, MD, of Italy’s University of Pavia, explore the topic in their paper Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: Sense or Sensibility? published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (21 Feb 2012.) They note that:Their findings also draw an interesting (though unspoken) parallel to our earlier conversation about MSG sensitivity, noting that some people may experience these symptoms when they eat foods containing gluten simply because they believe these foods will make them sick. Drs. Sabatino and Corazza conclude that common sense must prevail to “prevent a gluten preoccupation from evolving into the conviction that gluten is toxic for most of the population.”
(source)




Stefano Guandalini, MD, who is president of the North American Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, says:





These aren't liberal-arts majors conducting poorly-controlled, unblinded experiments at home, nor people who are pawns of any agro-industrial establishment or who are unfamiliar with gluten-sensitivity. These are doctors who research and specialize in the management of Celiac disease, and are uniquely qualified above all others to speak to the applicability of a gluten-free diet in humans.





But it gets weirder:

Further reading reveals that not only may a gluten-free-diet (GFT) provide no substantive benefit in the vast majority of healthy individuals, but that it does, in fact, have deleterious side-effects. Some are relatively minor, as noted by David A. Nelsen Jr., MD, MS in his peer-reviewed journal article Gluten Sensitivity: Fad and Fact.:




Then you get into the really serious stuff, such as the study performed by Dra. Yolanda Sanz et. al. of the Spanish National Research Council, which she details in the rather verbosely titled Effects of a gluten-free diet on gut microbiota and immune function in healthy adult humans, published in the journal Gut Microbes:

So not only does going gluten-free NOT solve any problems in healthy individuals, it also alters your gut flora and allows harmful bacteria to grow in your gut.

I’m honestly a tad surprised that your research has not turned up any of the above, especially the last article detailing the disruption caused by a gluten-free-diet to beneficial gut microbes, in light of you recent emphasis on same, such as this entire thread, which is all about the care and feeding of gut microbiome.


The key point which I’m trying to make from all this is that very few absolutes exist in life, and dietary science is no exception. What is harmful to a small minority of individuals may be beneficial to the majority (eg: cat ownership is clinically proven to lower triglycerides and cholesterol, and decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart attack. Sadly, cat ownership can also cause death by anaphylaxis, but ONLY in people who exhibit an abnormal immune response to certain proteins found in cat saliva.)


When we hear broad, sweeping statements such as “This food is evil and must absolutely be avoided,” this ought to be cause for considerable skepticism on the part of the informed reader.

Gluten increases intestinal permeability for everyone.

Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability:... [Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

I apologize for my seeming "ninja edit", I mistakenly hit "post" instead of "preview". See again my post #295. I believe the balance of the evidence makes it prudent for everyone to eat low-gluten. Also note the distinction between Celiac disease, non-celiac gluten sensitivity, and non-sensitive individuals. I will argue that a proportion of the latter may have no outward sensitivity symptoms but are developing auto-immune disease (which has now grown to be the #3 killer in this country).

As for a gluten free diet negatively altering gut flora and increasing insulin resistance:

This may be true for some who remove gluten sources while increasing other starchy foods (e.g. "gluten free bread") instead of replacing them with veggies. It is stupid to make the first claim in the general case without clarification.

And now we have a lot of evidence that a stupid easy and cheap source of Resistant Starch (raw potato powder), improves gut flora:
http://freetheanimal.com/2013/11/res...omparison.html

Worth perusing.

Carb-Restricted diets - Ancestral Weight Loss Registry