No eating before or during running?
- Thread starter saypay45
- Start date
Nutrition and health are very
Nutrition and health are very complicated topics, and are further muddled by reactionary responses to the incremental knowledge developed by science. The news always likes to talk about the latest thing found to "cause cancer" or that drinking wine is the key to long life - but these claims are often based on tiny pieces of information that often mean nothing without the broader context.
An example (from memory but im pretty sure basic details are right) to illustrate this point. Some population (think it was Scandanavian) had a very low incidence of a certain cancer. Scientists hypothesized there was a correlation with the high levels of beta carotene found in the tissues (local diet high on fruits/veggies) of the population. To test this they did a beta carotene supplementation study. Contrary to what they expected pharmacological doses of b-carotene actually increased the cancer rate. I think they theorized beta carotene was crowding out other carotenes (or nutrients that compete for the same receptors) which was screwing up the normal healthy balance you get from eating lots of veggies and fruits.
Long story short - the truth is extremely complicated, and science probably has a firm grasp on less than 1% of the picture. I'm not ragging on science - I was a genetics major and find it fascinating - but even many approved medical standard practices are not based on any hard data or results. You would be surprised how little is known on some topics that doctors give an impression of authority on.
Back to adult diabetes - from what I understand type II diabetes is entirely curable with diet... Which is shocking considering how massive of a health issue it is in the US. I met a doctor in NJ who wrote a book (think it's called Eat to Live) about how he treats chronic illness with diet. I am pretty sure he told me he had a 100% success rate of getting his type II diabetes patients off of all meds. His approach was to eat as much as you want, but absolutely no processed foods, and very little animal products. For those with diabetes that were overweight he also recommend avoiding the fattiest natural foods like avocadoes and nuts.
He claims one of the primary reasons americans are so overweight is that our body is constantly craving the nutrients we evolved to consume. Our processed food has very little nutritional value - its not an issue of carb vs fat vs protein - its simply that processing food destroys thousands/millions of healthy chemicals in veggies and fruits that our body uses to fight disease and aging. Science doesnt know most of them, but our body knows how to use them.
Ok, I am done with my rant.
Nutrition and health are very complicated topics, and are further muddled by reactionary responses to the incremental knowledge developed by science. The news always likes to talk about the latest thing found to "cause cancer" or that drinking wine is the key to long life - but these claims are often based on tiny pieces of information that often mean nothing without the broader context.
An example (from memory but im pretty sure basic details are right) to illustrate this point. Some population (think it was Scandanavian) had a very low incidence of a certain cancer. Scientists hypothesized there was a correlation with the high levels of beta carotene found in the tissues (local diet high on fruits/veggies) of the population. To test this they did a beta carotene supplementation study. Contrary to what they expected pharmacological doses of b-carotene actually increased the cancer rate. I think they theorized beta carotene was crowding out other carotenes (or nutrients that compete for the same receptors) which was screwing up the normal healthy balance you get from eating lots of veggies and fruits.
Long story short - the truth is extremely complicated, and science probably has a firm grasp on less than 1% of the picture. I'm not ragging on science - I was a genetics major and find it fascinating - but even many approved medical standard practices are not based on any hard data or results. You would be surprised how little is known on some topics that doctors give an impression of authority on.
Back to adult diabetes - from what I understand type II diabetes is entirely curable with diet... Which is shocking considering how massive of a health issue it is in the US. I met a doctor in NJ who wrote a book (think it's called Eat to Live) about how he treats chronic illness with diet. I am pretty sure he told me he had a 100% success rate of getting his type II diabetes patients off of all meds. His approach was to eat as much as you want, but absolutely no processed foods, and very little animal products. For those with diabetes that were overweight he also recommend avoiding the fattiest natural foods like avocadoes and nuts.
He claims one of the primary reasons americans are so overweight is that our body is constantly craving the nutrients we evolved to consume. Our processed food has very little nutritional value - its not an issue of carb vs fat vs protein - its simply that processing food destroys thousands/millions of healthy chemicals in veggies and fruits that our body uses to fight disease and aging. Science doesnt know most of them, but our body knows how to use them.
Ok, I am done with my rant.
mykroberts wrote:He claims
Well said mykroberts,
Currently living with 3 Americans at college whose diets seem to revolve around processed foods, pizza, wings, and cheeseburgers. One has already dropped out and moved back home because his body had given up (Losing hair, cannot sleep, chronic stress, major depression, skin problems, NO ENERGY whatsoever, and weight gain). And he is only 25. He managed to "exercise" a mere 5 times since August until he left last week.
The other two are suffering from mild weight issues, always seem tired / burned out, angry, and weird skin problems. And they are 20 and 29. The younger one keeps bouncing back because he has youth on his side. The other one is f***ed. Overall, they "exercise" once or twice a week. So they are still here and "alive."
I, on the other hand, grew up in the Meditteranean coast of Syria eating real food such as burgal with chicken, rice with lamb or fish, lots of raw foods like tomato, onion, garlic, lemon, cucumber, potato, olives, figs, pomegrante, grapes, nuts and almonds, lentils, and all the other fruits and vegtables.
Also lots of pita bread, labne (kefir cheese), shangleesh (aged cheese), eggs, fava beans, chick peas, and lots and lots of olive oil on our food. So I eat everything, as long as it is REAL FOOD not processed.
So given the differences between them and me, you can predict that I can barely stop moving. I exercise 2 times a DAY usually an hour each outing besides playing soccer in my basement, going to my classes and besides cooking all my meals. I am 24.
I only eat out at places that have REAL FOOD such as my local Halal butcher shop that serves fresh lamb or chicken with rice or sushi sometimes. I have real human energy from REAL FOOD.
And BTW I like to eat right before I run. Food for thought, ain't it?
mykroberts said:
Well said mykroberts,
Currently living with 3 Americans at college whose diets seem to revolve around processed foods, pizza, wings, and cheeseburgers. One has already dropped out and moved back home because his body had given up (Losing hair, cannot sleep, chronic stress, major depression, skin problems, NO ENERGY whatsoever, and weight gain). And he is only 25. He managed to "exercise" a mere 5 times since August until he left last week.
The other two are suffering from mild weight issues, always seem tired / burned out, angry, and weird skin problems. And they are 20 and 29. The younger one keeps bouncing back because he has youth on his side. The other one is f***ed. Overall, they "exercise" once or twice a week. So they are still here and "alive."
I, on the other hand, grew up in the Meditteranean coast of Syria eating real food such as burgal with chicken, rice with lamb or fish, lots of raw foods like tomato, onion, garlic, lemon, cucumber, potato, olives, figs, pomegrante, grapes, nuts and almonds, lentils, and all the other fruits and vegtables.
Also lots of pita bread, labne (kefir cheese), shangleesh (aged cheese), eggs, fava beans, chick peas, and lots and lots of olive oil on our food. So I eat everything, as long as it is REAL FOOD not processed.
So given the differences between them and me, you can predict that I can barely stop moving. I exercise 2 times a DAY usually an hour each outing besides playing soccer in my basement, going to my classes and besides cooking all my meals. I am 24.
I only eat out at places that have REAL FOOD such as my local Halal butcher shop that serves fresh lamb or chicken with rice or sushi sometimes. I have real human energy from REAL FOOD.
And BTW I like to eat right before I run. Food for thought, ain't it?
While I have trouble
While I have trouble believing he has cured type II diabetes in the sense of removed the issue, there are ways to eat with type II to make the issues less of one.. and also weight loss can improve the A1C without any other changes.
I also encourage ANYONE and everyone to eat more natural, whole foods. I have found that going that route often solves a LOT of more minor health issues with no other changes in lifestyle. That does not mean I believe in Paleo, I think there are things in the diet plan that make sense and things that don't.
While I have trouble believing he has cured type II diabetes in the sense of removed the issue, there are ways to eat with type II to make the issues less of one.. and also weight loss can improve the A1C without any other changes.
I also encourage ANYONE and everyone to eat more natural, whole foods. I have found that going that route often solves a LOT of more minor health issues with no other changes in lifestyle. That does not mean I believe in Paleo, I think there are things in the diet plan that make sense and things that don't.
I feel some of JSchwab's
I feel some of JSchwab's frustration because a lot of the nutrition advice I read and hear as "standards" is just so completely counter to my own experience. For example, I quit eating dairy & my sinuses cleared up, my iron levels increased and my cholesterol dropped 40+ points. I feel so much better in so many ways, yet all I hear is how good for you milk and cheese and yogurt are despite that something like 75% of the world population is lactose intolerant. Eating mostly paleo (no dairy, no eggs, no sugar food, rarely grains) 2 or 3 times a day only, has resulted in completely stable blood sugar, and but the opposite of when I was eating lots of fruit and snacks between meals as recommended by my doctor, etc..
I feel some of JSchwab's frustration because a lot of the nutrition advice I read and hear as "standards" is just so completely counter to my own experience. For example, I quit eating dairy & my sinuses cleared up, my iron levels increased and my cholesterol dropped 40+ points. I feel so much better in so many ways, yet all I hear is how good for you milk and cheese and yogurt are despite that something like 75% of the world population is lactose intolerant. Eating mostly paleo (no dairy, no eggs, no sugar food, rarely grains) 2 or 3 times a day only, has resulted in completely stable blood sugar, and but the opposite of when I was eating lots of fruit and snacks between meals as recommended by my doctor, etc..
I can understand that
I can understand that twinkletoes. I feel some of that frustration too.. I avoid all dairy and do not urge patients to eat it, though I do encourage them to get calcium (did you know winter squash can be a good calcium source?) from somewhere!
I can understand that twinkletoes. I feel some of that frustration too.. I avoid all dairy and do not urge patients to eat it, though I do encourage them to get calcium (did you know winter squash can be a good calcium source?) from somewhere!
each body is different, and
each body is different, and needs different things....they key is finding what works for you to maintain optimum energy and "feel goodness"....it WILL NOT be the same for everyone...I wish people understood this. Your physical body is the unique manifestation of your will...it is made evident in your choices of food which convert to the physical molecules that make up your body...what one body lacks, another body does not....what one body needs, another does not...it is up to each of us individually to find out what works for us. Vegan might work for some. Vegitarian for others. Paleo for others....ect. But the truth is, NONE of those "diets" held fundamentalistly will help anyone....they each need to be tweeked to individual needs. Some need to be "full" to run. Some need to be "empty." I, for one, feel horrible if I run on a full stomach, in fact, often, I go until 2PM with little caloric intake....my day until then often includes 2 hours of yoga, 2 hours of kung fu, and 1-2 hours of running....I then eat a ton, and take a 2 hour nap...before another hour of yoga and two more hours of kung fu....before my longest run to date, a 20 mile road run of 3 hours, I ate only two english muffins (I had 2 hours of classes first before that)...and didnt' have a large meal until about 5 PM.
There are also days where I NEED more food, and feel my blood sugar drop...and I eat then...when I need to.
the biggest problem is that people eat when they are NOT phsyically hungry, and DON'T eat when they are...they eat too much after they are satiated, AND they don't eat enough. It's all about self-honesty, and knowing your physical requirements. There is NO diet that will fit everyone.
If you feel good running on little fuel, don't change it. If you feel shitty running on little fuel, eat. It really is that simple.
each body is different, and needs different things....they key is finding what works for you to maintain optimum energy and "feel goodness"....it WILL NOT be the same for everyone...I wish people understood this. Your physical body is the unique manifestation of your will...it is made evident in your choices of food which convert to the physical molecules that make up your body...what one body lacks, another body does not....what one body needs, another does not...it is up to each of us individually to find out what works for us. Vegan might work for some. Vegitarian for others. Paleo for others....ect. But the truth is, NONE of those "diets" held fundamentalistly will help anyone....they each need to be tweeked to individual needs. Some need to be "full" to run. Some need to be "empty." I, for one, feel horrible if I run on a full stomach, in fact, often, I go until 2PM with little caloric intake....my day until then often includes 2 hours of yoga, 2 hours of kung fu, and 1-2 hours of running....I then eat a ton, and take a 2 hour nap...before another hour of yoga and two more hours of kung fu....before my longest run to date, a 20 mile road run of 3 hours, I ate only two english muffins (I had 2 hours of classes first before that)...and didnt' have a large meal until about 5 PM.
There are also days where I NEED more food, and feel my blood sugar drop...and I eat then...when I need to.
the biggest problem is that people eat when they are NOT phsyically hungry, and DON'T eat when they are...they eat too much after they are satiated, AND they don't eat enough. It's all about self-honesty, and knowing your physical requirements. There is NO diet that will fit everyone.
If you feel good running on little fuel, don't change it. If you feel shitty running on little fuel, eat. It really is that simple.
I looked up the doctor, his
I looked up the doctor, his name is Dr. Fuhrman (http://www.drfuhrman.com/default.aspx). I guess he doesn't claim 100%, just a "vast majority" become non diabetic and are weened off of all insulin and medications. I mean, its not a pill but I consider that "cured."
Taken directly from his site:
"The nutritional advice received from the American Diabetes Association (ADA), dieticians and physicians is inadequate and permits countless of unnecessary premature deaths and much needless suffering. I declare, “Don’t live with your diabetes and don't simply control your diabetes...get rid of it.”
The vast majority of my patients, who adopt my nutritional and exercise recommendations for diabetes, become thin and non–diabetic. They are able to gradually discontinue their insulin and eventually their other medications. They simply get well."
I looked up the doctor, his name is Dr. Fuhrman (http://www.drfuhrman.com/default.aspx). I guess he doesn't claim 100%, just a "vast majority" become non diabetic and are weened off of all insulin and medications. I mean, its not a pill but I consider that "cured."
Taken directly from his site:
"The nutritional advice received from the American Diabetes Association (ADA), dieticians and physicians is inadequate and permits countless of unnecessary premature deaths and much needless suffering. I declare, “Don’t live with your diabetes and don't simply control your diabetes...get rid of it.”
The vast majority of my patients, who adopt my nutritional and exercise recommendations for diabetes, become thin and non–diabetic. They are able to gradually discontinue their insulin and eventually their other medications. They simply get well."
Mykroberts...until it's
Mykroberts...until it's documented in a double-blind scientific study and verrified by other double-blind scientific studies, it's not "valid"....it might be "promising" etc...but anyone can claim and write anything...the wonderful thing about science is that there is a method to test hypothesis. What does "vast majority" mean??? where is the data to support the claim, etc.....these are the problems with claims like this. Language can be used easily to mislead and give false hope. Of course a better diet will help everyone. But there are many people who suffer from type II who have had great diets, who are not over weight, etc...AND there are people who are obese who have NO health problems what-so-ever....let the dr. publish a peer-reviewed article, substantiated by clear evidence. It shouldn't be hard for him to do, if, in fact, his claims are true.
Mykroberts...until it's documented in a double-blind scientific study and verrified by other double-blind scientific studies, it's not "valid"....it might be "promising" etc...but anyone can claim and write anything...the wonderful thing about science is that there is a method to test hypothesis. What does "vast majority" mean??? where is the data to support the claim, etc.....these are the problems with claims like this. Language can be used easily to mislead and give false hope. Of course a better diet will help everyone. But there are many people who suffer from type II who have had great diets, who are not over weight, etc...AND there are people who are obese who have NO health problems what-so-ever....let the dr. publish a peer-reviewed article, substantiated by clear evidence. It shouldn't be hard for him to do, if, in fact, his claims are true.
I no longer have a copy of
I no longer have a copy of the book, but one of the things that stuck out was just how much he did cite scientific studies to support his treatment methods. I would assume vast majority is over 80%, something significantly over 50% anyway. He explains that people who come to him only after many years of traditional treatment have overtaxed their pancreas overproducing insulin, and occasionally can not go off of all medication. Even if someone looks relatively healthy, an additional 5-20 pounds can easily double the amount of insulin needed for someone predisposed to type II diabetes. His diet is also pretty extreme in what it recomends for people trying to reverse disease - way beyond what anybody in the US would consider a benchmark for healthy eating.
Another thing about scientific process is that it is designed to study issues and variables in isolation, and obviously this is incredibly difficult to do for health issues (which by nature aren't fully understand to begin with). People always hold double blind studies as some high standard of truth, but a lot are complete crap. I worked in pharma sales for a year - its the pharma companies that pay for the studies.
Diabetes meds generate billions in sales while many of them actually lead to additional weight gain further worsening the insulin resistance (and leading to a downward spiral). People on diabetes meds experience worsening conditions (over time) more often that not. There is no billions in profit awaiting those telling people the diabetes epidemic could be ended with fruits and veggies... Actually our government produces legislation that encourages unhealthy eating (food lobby and corn subsidies).
I love science, I really do - but sometimes you need to be a little critical in accepting the conventional wisdom of the community. You don't have to look too far back in history to see some pretty big snafus. When XRays came out they were treated like toys (were even used to help people try on shoes to see the fit - doubly evil
). Also birth control was way overdosed when it first become popular and the health effects for that generation are pretty severe - hormones are not things to treat lightly.
I no longer have a copy of the book, but one of the things that stuck out was just how much he did cite scientific studies to support his treatment methods. I would assume vast majority is over 80%, something significantly over 50% anyway. He explains that people who come to him only after many years of traditional treatment have overtaxed their pancreas overproducing insulin, and occasionally can not go off of all medication. Even if someone looks relatively healthy, an additional 5-20 pounds can easily double the amount of insulin needed for someone predisposed to type II diabetes. His diet is also pretty extreme in what it recomends for people trying to reverse disease - way beyond what anybody in the US would consider a benchmark for healthy eating.
Another thing about scientific process is that it is designed to study issues and variables in isolation, and obviously this is incredibly difficult to do for health issues (which by nature aren't fully understand to begin with). People always hold double blind studies as some high standard of truth, but a lot are complete crap. I worked in pharma sales for a year - its the pharma companies that pay for the studies.
Diabetes meds generate billions in sales while many of them actually lead to additional weight gain further worsening the insulin resistance (and leading to a downward spiral). People on diabetes meds experience worsening conditions (over time) more often that not. There is no billions in profit awaiting those telling people the diabetes epidemic could be ended with fruits and veggies... Actually our government produces legislation that encourages unhealthy eating (food lobby and corn subsidies).
I love science, I really do - but sometimes you need to be a little critical in accepting the conventional wisdom of the community. You don't have to look too far back in history to see some pretty big snafus. When XRays came out they were treated like toys (were even used to help people try on shoes to see the fit - doubly evil
). Also birth control was way overdosed when it first become popular and the health effects for that generation are pretty severe - hormones are not things to treat lightly.
Nate- good point.. and not
Nate- good point.. and not all studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies, though it is easier to get that sort of funding.. the NIH still funds things (one of the 3 double blind studies about gluten/casein free diets and autism is funded by them, the other 2 by private funds). The American Diabetes Association has funded through private donation sources a LOT of diet based research into diabetes. The American Dietetic Association also sponsors a LOT of research into diets. The fact that the site linked to here has no peer reviewed articles was a red flag to me when I looked at it. So was the fact that he's so blatantly trying to appeal and grab public interest without many specific facts. It looks like a lot of hokey to me. Diet DOES help many patients, but it doesn't help all. The diet he describes sounds a lot like what my father followed for years- most of his adult life, and yet he is still a diabetic now. His A1C is down due to a combination of conventionally accepted diet (controlling his carbs) and metformin. The metformin alone did NOT bring it down. He's on half the dose now with a lower A1C (almost in the non diabetic range) than he was on when he was eating fewer carbs. He is NOT overweight, actually according to conventional wisdom he'd be considered underweight, but he is a healthy weight for him, and stays active.
It has been scientifically proven that for MOST people (and honestly, when it comes to diet, I think there are exceptions to most rules) insulin production has to go up, and the blood sugar spikes more when there are fewer carbs eaten farther apart than when someone does something that stabilizes the amount. Think about the amount of gas used in a car when you drive a steady speed on a straight road without stops vs when you stop and start in local driving. It's a similar process and they have proven that. FINDING that straight road without stops may be different for different patients, but there is a learning curve in any process and for MOST people research has proven that 3 meals plus 2-3 snacks will give them that.
Since that was proven with evidence based study I take it and follow it and advise my clients to do the same. I use the evidence analysis library at the ADA for a lot of things. If you'd like, this weekend when I am not stealing a few minutes at the end of my shift or before I leave for work on a PC to log in or just reading on my smartphone as I commute (vanpool rocks), I will gladly look up the articles for those interested- can't promise they are all public domain though, as I have access to non public domain research libraries.
Nate- good point.. and not all studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies, though it is easier to get that sort of funding.. the NIH still funds things (one of the 3 double blind studies about gluten/casein free diets and autism is funded by them, the other 2 by private funds). The American Diabetes Association has funded through private donation sources a LOT of diet based research into diabetes. The American Dietetic Association also sponsors a LOT of research into diets. The fact that the site linked to here has no peer reviewed articles was a red flag to me when I looked at it. So was the fact that he's so blatantly trying to appeal and grab public interest without many specific facts. It looks like a lot of hokey to me. Diet DOES help many patients, but it doesn't help all. The diet he describes sounds a lot like what my father followed for years- most of his adult life, and yet he is still a diabetic now. His A1C is down due to a combination of conventionally accepted diet (controlling his carbs) and metformin. The metformin alone did NOT bring it down. He's on half the dose now with a lower A1C (almost in the non diabetic range) than he was on when he was eating fewer carbs. He is NOT overweight, actually according to conventional wisdom he'd be considered underweight, but he is a healthy weight for him, and stays active.
It has been scientifically proven that for MOST people (and honestly, when it comes to diet, I think there are exceptions to most rules) insulin production has to go up, and the blood sugar spikes more when there are fewer carbs eaten farther apart than when someone does something that stabilizes the amount. Think about the amount of gas used in a car when you drive a steady speed on a straight road without stops vs when you stop and start in local driving. It's a similar process and they have proven that. FINDING that straight road without stops may be different for different patients, but there is a learning curve in any process and for MOST people research has proven that 3 meals plus 2-3 snacks will give them that.
Since that was proven with evidence based study I take it and follow it and advise my clients to do the same. I use the evidence analysis library at the ADA for a lot of things. If you'd like, this weekend when I am not stealing a few minutes at the end of my shift or before I leave for work on a PC to log in or just reading on my smartphone as I commute (vanpool rocks), I will gladly look up the articles for those interested- can't promise they are all public domain though, as I have access to non public domain research libraries.
NakedSoleNate
Nate, do you realize that you sound like the people who do not believe in barefoot running? They say the same thing: Where are your studies and data..data...data..hypothesis...blah blah BLAH BLAHHHHH!! It makes me want to step on these fools and leave my barefoot mark on their face.
Use common sense: Look at our history man. Us humans have complicated things so much. Before all this mumbo-jumbo about shoes and air and balance and flex and motion, indiginous tribes had the physical prowess to bring an ox and some bananas back home with their bare hands and feet. Now you see people looking like penguins as they wiggle about so so awkwardly in thier New Balance attempting to "Jog".
Same with food: As we humans keep complicating it and researching and studying and blind testing and fuck already...just leave it alone and eat what God gave us! Isn't there enough proof in the fact that people are dying from these stupid man-made diseases. We are not born to get diseased and die. We are born to live off of Mother Earth. It is that simple.
I am not trying to offend you or anyone Nate, but I just cannot understand why everything and everyone seems so complicated. As a species, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for creating these diseases and making profits off of them in the billions at the expense of our own brothers and sisters.
-Joe
NakedSoleNate said:
Nate, do you realize that you sound like the people who do not believe in barefoot running? They say the same thing: Where are your studies and data..data...data..hypothesis...blah blah BLAH BLAHHHHH!! It makes me want to step on these fools and leave my barefoot mark on their face.
Use common sense: Look at our history man. Us humans have complicated things so much. Before all this mumbo-jumbo about shoes and air and balance and flex and motion, indiginous tribes had the physical prowess to bring an ox and some bananas back home with their bare hands and feet. Now you see people looking like penguins as they wiggle about so so awkwardly in thier New Balance attempting to "Jog".
Same with food: As we humans keep complicating it and researching and studying and blind testing and fuck already...just leave it alone and eat what God gave us! Isn't there enough proof in the fact that people are dying from these stupid man-made diseases. We are not born to get diseased and die. We are born to live off of Mother Earth. It is that simple.
I am not trying to offend you or anyone Nate, but I just cannot understand why everything and everyone seems so complicated. As a species, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for creating these diseases and making profits off of them in the billions at the expense of our own brothers and sisters.
-Joe
Joe -- Well said. I think in
Joe -- Well said. I think in terms of food, if you can recognize it as a plant or animal, eat it. If it comes from a box, then be very wary.
Even a lot of Paleos and Vegans aren't all that far off if they are eating whole, real foods.
And just like with running, I think you need to experiment with this. I cut out sugar, which led to good results. Then I cut out grains -- even better. I'm not going to wait for scientific studies to tell me I'm healthier now.
Joe -- Well said. I think in terms of food, if you can recognize it as a plant or animal, eat it. If it comes from a box, then be very wary.
Even a lot of Paleos and Vegans aren't all that far off if they are eating whole, real foods.
And just like with running, I think you need to experiment with this. I cut out sugar, which led to good results. Then I cut out grains -- even better. I'm not going to wait for scientific studies to tell me I'm healthier now.
I think you missed my first
I think you missed my first post about "diets" needing to be tailored for each individual based on HOW the food you eat makes you feel...if you are healthier and feel better eating one thing over an other, then that is the experiencial truth for YOU...but to make ANY statement that ONE thing is best for ALL people, THAT's where you need the studies...and it is EXACTLY the same thing for barefoot running....or a bf lifestyle...and there ARE studies currently being done to assess the over all validity of what we are saying about our experiences...there was a time when people thought smoking was healthy for them, or at least not harmful...some people felt "better" after smoking (addiction) while others felt ill...the studies are conclusive that smoking causes cancer...now people know, and they can make the choice to behave in which ever way they choose. When/If the studies show shoes are indeed bad for the body (which we as BFs suspect) then it will be up to individuals to change/not change their behavior according to their own proclivities.
And there ARE situations where shoes for somepeople would be better than barefeet...becuase NONE of us is exactly the same...
I find it irritating when health-care practitioners say they have THE ONE answer to heal a particular disease without the studies to back them up...It would be fanstastic if it IS true that this doctor is healing all of his diabetic patients, and I would very much like that to be reality, but IF it is, the claim then needs to be substantiated by evidence....just like our claims of being barefoot are now in motion labs, etc. across the country, getting serious studies by many different types of disciplines to assess the facts of the matter. The Truth will Out, as they say.
If the evidence supports that shoes are good for you, I still probably will not use shoes, because I don't like the way they feel. Just like I choose to drink to excess at times, even though I know I'm taxing my liver. Just like I know in certain conditions, I may/will get injured by running barefoot, I still choose to do those things.
This doctor MIGHT have the cure for diabetes, he MIGHT not....he needs to publish in the AJMA or other peer reviewed journals so his findings can be reproduced and authenticated.
And we are born to die....fact of life. And disease is a part of life...all lifeforms are susceptible to forms of disease, decay, etc. Man made or from nature, the effect is the same. Not to say we shouldn't try to heal/cure disease. But there are also many manufactured cures that DO heal and rid the body of problems.
But, really all I was saying is the old adage that extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence.
I think you missed my first post about "diets" needing to be tailored for each individual based on HOW the food you eat makes you feel...if you are healthier and feel better eating one thing over an other, then that is the experiencial truth for YOU...but to make ANY statement that ONE thing is best for ALL people, THAT's where you need the studies...and it is EXACTLY the same thing for barefoot running....or a bf lifestyle...and there ARE studies currently being done to assess the over all validity of what we are saying about our experiences...there was a time when people thought smoking was healthy for them, or at least not harmful...some people felt "better" after smoking (addiction) while others felt ill...the studies are conclusive that smoking causes cancer...now people know, and they can make the choice to behave in which ever way they choose. When/If the studies show shoes are indeed bad for the body (which we as BFs suspect) then it will be up to individuals to change/not change their behavior according to their own proclivities.
And there ARE situations where shoes for somepeople would be better than barefeet...becuase NONE of us is exactly the same...
I find it irritating when health-care practitioners say they have THE ONE answer to heal a particular disease without the studies to back them up...It would be fanstastic if it IS true that this doctor is healing all of his diabetic patients, and I would very much like that to be reality, but IF it is, the claim then needs to be substantiated by evidence....just like our claims of being barefoot are now in motion labs, etc. across the country, getting serious studies by many different types of disciplines to assess the facts of the matter. The Truth will Out, as they say.
If the evidence supports that shoes are good for you, I still probably will not use shoes, because I don't like the way they feel. Just like I choose to drink to excess at times, even though I know I'm taxing my liver. Just like I know in certain conditions, I may/will get injured by running barefoot, I still choose to do those things.
This doctor MIGHT have the cure for diabetes, he MIGHT not....he needs to publish in the AJMA or other peer reviewed journals so his findings can be reproduced and authenticated.
And we are born to die....fact of life. And disease is a part of life...all lifeforms are susceptible to forms of disease, decay, etc. Man made or from nature, the effect is the same. Not to say we shouldn't try to heal/cure disease. But there are also many manufactured cures that DO heal and rid the body of problems.
But, really all I was saying is the old adage that extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence.
Let me turn that logic around
Let me turn that logic around for you. With the rates of diabetes in the US compared to other cultures (especially those with diets lacking processed foods) I find the claim that adult diabetes is not overwhelming a result of the american diet to be the extraordinary claim that needs extraodrinary evidence.
You can read all sorts of sad articles about how the Okinowans, once a primary example of diet preventing disease, have imported the American diet (especially soda) and now their disease rates (including diabetes) are on the rise. Born to Run even makes the comment about how the Tarahumara are not plagued by our man made disease epidemics.
I certainly accept that some people with adult diabetes might have difficulty fine tuning a diet to completely rid them of the condition, but common sense leads me to believe it would be a small percentage. If we threw the type of money we currently do for diabetes meds into dietary approaches the results would be way better.
Let me turn that logic around for you. With the rates of diabetes in the US compared to other cultures (especially those with diets lacking processed foods) I find the claim that adult diabetes is not overwhelming a result of the american diet to be the extraordinary claim that needs extraodrinary evidence.
You can read all sorts of sad articles about how the Okinowans, once a primary example of diet preventing disease, have imported the American diet (especially soda) and now their disease rates (including diabetes) are on the rise. Born to Run even makes the comment about how the Tarahumara are not plagued by our man made disease epidemics.
I certainly accept that some people with adult diabetes might have difficulty fine tuning a diet to completely rid them of the condition, but common sense leads me to believe it would be a small percentage. If we threw the type of money we currently do for diabetes meds into dietary approaches the results would be way better.
no where did I say type II
no where did I say type II diabetes ISN'T a result of poor dietary practices, in many cases it may be...just not in all situations...but ONCE you have diabetes, the problem being the pancreas no longer functions as it should, and in some cases, not at all...there are many causes for this, one being viral infection...the claim that it can be cured SOLEY through diet is what is at question...and I'm saying MAYBE it can, IF it can be, show the statistically significant results of the study. In my yoga studio, I've had people experience learn to have control over their blood sugar through various breathing techniques....it doesn't work for all, and it doesn't seem to work all the time, and all I have is their word for it...I would not EVER claim to tell anyone "If you do this type of breathing, you will no longer need insulin"....to make that claim, many studies would have to be done. Our bodies are fantastic machines, and what you put into them will change the body's structure and chemistry. Once again, if this dr.'s diet DOES CURE type II diabetes, that's fantastic, BUT he needs to show his evidence before giving people false hope....I wouldn't have any problem with a statement like "I've found that many of my diabetic patitence, once starting on this diet, seem to rely less on thier insulin. Let's see if it helps YOU out."
no where did I say type II diabetes ISN'T a result of poor dietary practices, in many cases it may be...just not in all situations...but ONCE you have diabetes, the problem being the pancreas no longer functions as it should, and in some cases, not at all...there are many causes for this, one being viral infection...the claim that it can be cured SOLEY through diet is what is at question...and I'm saying MAYBE it can, IF it can be, show the statistically significant results of the study. In my yoga studio, I've had people experience learn to have control over their blood sugar through various breathing techniques....it doesn't work for all, and it doesn't seem to work all the time, and all I have is their word for it...I would not EVER claim to tell anyone "If you do this type of breathing, you will no longer need insulin"....to make that claim, many studies would have to be done. Our bodies are fantastic machines, and what you put into them will change the body's structure and chemistry. Once again, if this dr.'s diet DOES CURE type II diabetes, that's fantastic, BUT he needs to show his evidence before giving people false hope....I wouldn't have any problem with a statement like "I've found that many of my diabetic patitence, once starting on this diet, seem to rely less on thier insulin. Let's see if it helps YOU out."
mykroberts wrote: Nutrition
+5000 to that, but in particular to the part about "reactionary responses". If you read most interviews the scientists that did the studies caution against taking their results too far. In most cases its not the science's fault, but the moronic journalists who take a sentance that says something like "this may suggest a connection" to mean "omg it causes cancer". And even worse is when the pseudoscience nutcases grasp onto a legit study and contort the findings. Such as "sharks don't get cancer" suddenly gets turned into "eat shark and you won't get cancer". Which is absolutely ridiculous. It saddens me how little the general population undersands about how science really works and how messed up it is by the time it makes the news. And sadly alot of doctors aren't much better.
Alot of allergists actually don't like dairy at all. When I was having problems as a child my mom was told to take me off all dairy because "cows milk is meant for cows not humans". They just gave me tums to get the calcium.
mykroberts said:
+5000 to that, but in particular to the part about "reactionary responses". If you read most interviews the scientists that did the studies caution against taking their results too far. In most cases its not the science's fault, but the moronic journalists who take a sentance that says something like "this may suggest a connection" to mean "omg it causes cancer". And even worse is when the pseudoscience nutcases grasp onto a legit study and contort the findings. Such as "sharks don't get cancer" suddenly gets turned into "eat shark and you won't get cancer". Which is absolutely ridiculous. It saddens me how little the general population undersands about how science really works and how messed up it is by the time it makes the news. And sadly alot of doctors aren't much better.
twinkletoes said:
Alot of allergists actually don't like dairy at all. When I was having problems as a child my mom was told to take me off all dairy because "cows milk is meant for cows not humans". They just gave me tums to get the calcium.
