Showing posts with label Whole grain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whole grain. Show all posts

Friday, 3 April 2015

When Gluten-Free Is Not a Fad

Gluten intolerance is “fake”—at least according to many recent news stories. But what does scientific research have to say on this topic? Is going gluten-free just a crazy fad? Is gluten intolerance over-hyped as the media claims, or is it a legitimate condition that may be even more common than currently recognized?
 
Over the last year or so, we’ve seen a glut of stories in the popular media suggesting that non-celiac gluten sensitivity (i.e. people that react to gluten but do not have celiac disease) is a myth:
Science Proves Gluten Sensitivity Isn’t Real, People Are Just Whiners
  1. The Science Is In — Why Gluten Sensitivity Is Probably Fake
  2. Gluten Intolerance May Be Completely Fake: Study
  3. Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity May Not Exist 
  4. Gluten Intolerance May Not Exist
Even late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel weighed in with a segment that got a lot of attention in both popular and social media.
Just after these stories were published, I wrote an article (“Is Gluten Sensitivity Real?”) showing how the authors grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented the research they claimed to be reviewing.
You can read my article to get the details, but here’s the takeaway: the study those stories were based on in no way disproved the existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), nor did it overturn the large body of evidence that links NCGS to a variety of health problems ranging from type 1 diabetes, to allergies, to schizophrenia, to autism spectrum disorders.
What struck me about those stories—aside from how embarrassing they are as examples of so-called “science journalism”—is how eager the general public seems to be to prove that gluten intolerance is an imaginary or fake condition. I’m not exactly sure why this is. Maybe it’s because gluten-containing foods and beverages like bread and beer have played such a central role in our culture for thousands of years. Or perhaps people simply distrust anything they perceive to be inauthentic or “faddish”.
What the science really says about gluten intolerance
While I can relate to an aversion to fads (don’t get me started on Hipsters), and the gluten-free diet could in some ways be described as a fad, the consensus in the scientific literature is that non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a bona-fide condition with numerous—and potentially serious—manifestations. According to a recent review paper called “Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: The New Frontier of Gluten Related Disorders”:
“…a rapidly increasing number of papers have been published by many independent groups, confirming that GS [non-celiac gluten sensitivity] should be included in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders.”
Observational studies have linked gluten intolerance with a shockingly diverse range of symptoms and conditions, including:
Irritable bowel syndrome
Fibromyalgia
Dermatitis and other skin conditions
Multiple sclerosis
Peripheral neuropathy, myopathy, and other neurological disorders
Schizophrenia
Depression
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Ataxia
Type 1 diabetes
Autism spectrum disorders
Ménière disease
Endometriosis
Insulin resistance and inflammation
I could go on, but I think you get the point. If the authors of the “gluten intolerance is fake” articles had spent even five minutes examining the research, they would have seen numerous papers supporting the existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity.
And they aren’t just observational studies; some of them are randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which are considered to be the GOLD standard of medical evidence. In fact, just last month, a new RCT was published that validated NCGS as a legitimate condition. (20) This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, and it had the additional benefit of a crossover design (which I’ll describe below).
The researchers enrolled 61 participants without celiac disease or wheat allergy, but with self-identified gluten intolerance. Subjects were then randomly assigned to two groups; one was given a capsule with 4.4 grams per day of gluten (roughly the amount in two slices of white bread), and the other was given a placebo capsule containing only rice starch. After one week of a gluten-free diet, participants then “crossed over” into the other group (those that received the gluten capsules during the first round got rice starch, and vice versa). Crossover studies are advantageous because each crossover participant serves as his or her own control, which reduces the likelihood of confounding variables influencing the results.
The researchers found that intake of gluten significantly increased symptoms—both intestinal symptoms like bloating and abdominal pain, and extra-intestinal symptoms like depression, brain fog, and canker sores—compared to placebo.
As you can see, despite the rash and uninformed claims you may have seen in the popular media, gluten intolerance is indeed a real condition and not just a figment of the imagination. (Of course, if you happen to be one of the people that suffers from gluten intolerance, you didn’t need me—or any study—to tell you that!)
Why gluten intolerance is likely more common than currently estimated
Estimates for the prevalence of NCGS vary widely, ranging from 0.5% on the low end to 13% or higher on the high end. (21) However, there are three reasons why I believe NCGS is much more common than currently estimated:
  1. Current commercially-available tests (with one or two notable exceptions) are extremely limited and miss many people with gluten intolerance. Most conventional tests for gluten intolerance only screen for antibodies to a specific fraction of the gluten protein, alpha-gliadin. But we now know that people can (and do) react to several other components of wheat and gluten—including other epitopes of gliadin (beta, gamma, omega), glutenin, WGA and deamidated gliadin. I reviewed this subject in more detail in my previous article, 50 Shades of Gluten Intolerance
Even the best serological (blood) testing is not 100 percent accurate. An elimination/provocation challenge, where gluten is removed from the diet for 60–90 days, and then reintroduced, is still the GOLD standard for diagnosing gluten intolerance. However, many physicians are unaware of this and thus do not suggest it to their patients.
Many physicians and patients only suspect—and therefore test for—gluten intolerance when digestive symptoms are present. However, both gluten intolerance and celiac disease can present without any gut symptoms, and only extra-intestinal symptoms like ataxia, schizophrenia, dermatitis, or neuropathy. In fact, the majority of patients with neurological manifestations of gluten sensitivity have no gastrointestinal symptoms! (22) In the case of celiac disease, which has been better studied than NCGS so far, about 30 percent of newly diagnosed patients do not have gut symptoms, and for every new case that is diagnosed, there are 6.4 cases that are undiagnosed—the majority of which are atypical or “silent” forms without gut symptoms. (23, 24)
When you put all of this together, it is almost certain that NCGS is far more prevalent than the current estimates suggest it is.
Is removing gluten from your diet dangerous?
A common objection to gluten-free diets that we often hear from conventional dietitians and physicians is that they are somehow unsafe or dangerous. This is presumably because foods that contain gluten contain some magic ingredient that humans cannot live without.
The most glaring problem with this argument is the simple fact that humans have only been consuming gluten for the past 11,000 years or so, which represents a tiny fraction of our evolutionary history. That’s about 367 generations, compared to the 66,000 generations we evolved in an environment without gluten or cereal grains.
The second problem with this argument is that even whole grains are not very nutrient dense. In fact, when compared with other foods like organ meats, fish, meats, vegetables, and fruits, whole grains are at the bottom of the list. As you’d suspect, refined grains (like flour) are even lower. This is significant because 85 percent of the grain consumed in the US is in the highly refined form, and refined flour accounts for approximately 20 percent of calories consumed by the average American.
Finally, studies that have assessed the nutritional quality of gluten-free diets have, not surprisingly, found that they are not lacking in any necessary nutrient. If anything, people on a gluten-free diet are more likely to increase their intake of essential nutrients, especially if they replace breads and other flour products with whole foods (rather than with gluten-free flour alternatives).
Final thoughts
In my book, The Paleo Cure (previously published as Your Personal Paleo Code), I argued that there are three categories of response to gluten:
Tolerance
Non-celiac gluten sensitivity, aka “gluten intolerance”
Celiac disease
I don’t believe that gluten is responsible for all chronic illness in all people, as some have seemed to suggest. But I think the research clearly supports the existence non-celiac gluten sensitivity, and if anything, it is significantly under-diagnosed.
One of my favorite alternate titles I considered for this article was “Gluten Intolerance Is Not Fake, But Science Journalists Are”. It was disheartening to see so many sensational and poorly researched news stories making the claim that gluten intolerance is not a legitimate condition. Not only were those authors wrong, they were irresponsible and failed to do even the most basic background research about the subject they were writing about. This should be yet another reminder to take what you read in the popular health media with a large grain of salt.
Now I’d like to hear from you. Are there “gluten intolerance deniers” in your life? How do you respond to them? What has your experience been with this issue? Let us know in the comments section.
Photo Source: www.prevention.com

 
 Why gluten-free is NOT a fad by world-renowned expert Chris Kresser

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

26 Simple Tips To Lose Weight In Just A Week

 
Tired of going on crazy diets? Do you start your day with healthy eating and then end up binging by the end of it? Well, you have clearly been following all the wrong rules for weight loss. It might not be the easiest thing in the world, but surely isn’t as complex as you would like to think.
These 25 simple tips are going to help you shed the weight within a week and you are going to thank us in the end! Keep reading to learn more!'26 Simple Weight Loss Tips. Have You Got Any To Add?'

1. Set realistic goals:

You must know that weight loss is very challenging. It comes with a price. You have to follow a particular plan in order to get maximum results within the shortest period of time. However you must also remember to be realistic about it. It is not possible to lose 5 kgs in a week. The maximum you can lose is 1 to 2 pound per week. It might not be a drastic change but will certainly help you feel light. That tight pair of jeans will fit you better.

2. Set A Time:

3. Eat More Vegetables:

When you are trying to shed weight in a week, it is better to focus on veggies! Eating more fruits and veggies is a natural and quick way to drop the pounds. It is high in fiber and water which fills you up within just a few calories. Cook them perfectly without any added fat. Also add some lemon for seasoning.

4. Soup It!

Soups are a fantastic idea to lose weight. When you drink more soups, you lose more weight. Minestrone, Chinese won-ton and tortilla soups are great choices. Having soups at the beginning of a meal can curb your appetite as a result of which you eat less. Instead of having canned soup, make some at home using lean meat and fresh vegetables. Don’t have creamy soups whatsoever.

5. Whole Grains:


 

Monday, 23 March 2015

How to Lose Weight Without Counting Calories

Fat loss relies on one thing: eating fewer calories than you expend. But nobody wants to sit and count calories all day. Most people can learn to track them successfully, but some might need a different strategy altogether. If tracking has given you a headache in the past, consider giving this a try.
Before you give up on calorie counting and abandon your nutritional tracker of choice, make sure you've given it a fair shot:
 
1. Be patient and don't give up immediately. Tracking calories is just as much of a skill as learning a language.
2. Hit an adequate amount of protein daily. Protein is the most satiating of all macronutrients, which usually translates into more diet success.
Still, we're presenting alternatives because people find diet success in different ways. I've found that those who aren't motivated by numbers might fare better through keeping things incredibly simple. The instructions below allow you to create a satisfactory caloric deficit without the need to count.

Eat Whole Foods with (Relatively) Lean Protein at Every Meal

How to Lose Weight Without Counting Calories
Have you heard the story about the person who got fat from eating chicken breast and brown rice? Neither have I.
This isn't to say one cannot overeat the food items above, but it's incredibly difficult. By sticking to meals made up of whole, unprocessed foods—with protein at the center—you're likely to stay full and still be in a caloric deficit.
First, determine the amount of protein that you need each day using nutritionist Alan Aragon's formula: your target weight (in pounds) in grams of protein. That means if you are a 200-pound woman who wants to weigh 120 pounds, you'll need to eat 120 grams of protein each day. Don't worry—unless you have pre-existing kidney issues, eating a diet high in protein isn't dangerous to your health.
Next, split that amount evenly between the number of meals that you'll have in a given day. Contrary to popular myth, this number doesn't really matter, so you should base it on personal preference. Some people might want to eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Others, like myself, prefer to skip breakfast and just eat lunch and dinner.
Let's say our hypothetical woman eats three meals. She would then eat 40 grams of protein per meal—or the equivalent of five ounces of cooked chicken breast. A good rule of thumb here is that 25 grams of cooked protein is the size of a deck of cards.
It's a good idea to keep the protein source relatively lean, because items high in saturated fat will inevitably lead to more calories. This is fine if you're accounting for them, but that defeats the purpose of this method.
Some good sources of relatively lean protein include:
  • Chicken (or turkey) breast
  • 90%+ lean ground beef, bison, or turkey
  • Lean cuts of beef (top round, eye of round, london broil) or pork (tenderloin)
  • Egg whites (or "beaters"). Including in a few whole eggs is fine as well.
  • Almost all seafood
  • Low fat greek yogurt or cottage cheese
  • Tofu
  • Seitan
  • Tempeh
With your choice of protein, it's a good idea to include a copious amount of fibrous vegetables (as much as you want) and potentially a starch. Here are some ideas for fibrous vegetables:
  • Broccoli
  • Asparagus
  • Cauliflower
  • Fresh green beans
  • Spinach
  • Kale
  • Okra
And starches:
  • Rice (brown, white, wild, etc.)
  • Pasta (wheat or white)
  • Quinoa
  • Potatoes (sweet or white)
  • Oatmeal
  • Bread
  • Canned beans
Finally, you may want to include a tablespoon of olive oil, coconut oil, or salad dressing for added taste. If you're not used to this sort of eating template, you will find each meal is quite filling. Protein Pow and The Epicurean Bodybuilder (which, full disclosure, also happens to be my sister's site) have recipes that are both delicious and fit this method.

Be Mindful About Fullness

How to Lose Weight Without Counting Calories
 
BEARS!
 

The Gray Adder

 
After each meal, you should feel satiated, but never "stuffed." Determining your appropriate level of fullness (or "satiety") requires practicing a bit of mindfulness. We'll do this by rating satiety on a scale of 0-10 using this chart:
Satiety RatingDefinition
0Absolutely famished. Think of the hungriest that you've ever been in your entire life.
3Hungry, but tolerable. This is about how hungry you should be right before your first meal (if you've been losing weight and have already adjusted to Intermittent Fasting)
5Neither hungry nor full. Might eat out of boredom, but otherwise there is no real desire.
7Satiated with no actual physical desire to eat more. You could probably eat more and possibly enjoy it if you really wanted.
8Full, often with bloating, but no actual discomfort from overeating. "Happy full."
9Extremely full with moderate discomfort. Wish you had eaten slightly less.
10Absolutely stuffed to the point of extreme discomfort. Could not take another bite.
Make sure that you enjoy your meal slowly, because it takes a while for your stomach to register fullness. A good rule of thumb: eat as if you were meeting your significant other's parents for the first time and trying to make polite conversation. Unless you're a complete asshole, you'll probably eat at an appropriate pace.
You should be aiming for a 6-8. If you find that you're at a 9 or a 10, reduce the amount of food that you eat. Conversely, if you're a 5 or below, increase the amount of food that you eat, prioritizing items in the following order: fibrous vegetables, then lean protein, and lastly starch or added fats. I personally find that adding a tablespoon of olive oil to my food increases my satiety, but you might want to experiment.

How to Succeed With This Method

How to Lose Weight Without Counting Calories
Finally, track your weight and waist measurements consistently using our guide. If you find your weight increasing, then decrease the amount of food that you're eating at each meal. On the other hand, if your weight is decreasing too quickly, you may want to increase the amount.
If you're losing a satisfactory amount of weight every week, however, keep doing what you're doing and don't change anything.
Let's be clear: Creating a caloric deficit is necessary for fat loss to occur. We're not claiming that calories don't matter, like many diet books do. As nutritionist Lyle McDonald puts it:
Most [diet books] follow a fairly standard organization (the first chapter always explaining that YOUR FAT IS NOT YOUR FAULT) and, with very very few exceptions, most will tell you that 'calorie restricted diets don't work for weight loss' and that whatever magic they are selling is the key to quick, easy (and of course permanent) weight loss.
Whether it's insulin, dietary fat, the protein:carbohydrate or insulin:glucagon ratio, partitioning or whatever other bullshit, they will make it sound like caloric intake is not the key aspect in whether or not someone gains weight.
Basically, this is Lyle's Rule #1 of Diet books: All diet books tell you that you won't have to restrict calories, and then trick you into doing it anyway.
Instead, we're still incidentally creating a caloric deficit without the usual accompanying BS rationale or the need to track.
You may find this style of dieting is overly restrictive. Remember, you're making a bit of a tradeoff by not counting calories—it's harder to fit other types of food into your diet than with other methods like flexible dieting and tracking calories or macronutrients. Furthermore, this may only work for a short period of time until your weight starts to stall. At this point, you may need to switch back to tracking calories in order to keep progressing. Regardless, some people will see more success through mindful eating and using this method, so consider giving it a try.

 
Photo Source: http://i.kinja-img.com/

‘Pure Simplicity, But This Information Is Extremely Effective!'