I need advice on some "side effects" that go along with a healthy, whole grain diet.
About 95% of the time, I only eat whole grains. I also TOTALLY avoid refined sugar, refined flour, processed foods, candy, and snacks. I also don't drink any alcohol, except 2-3 times a year at work functions.
Unfortunately, whenever I deviate I immediately get diarrhea and intestinal problems. Seriously, EVERY TIME. Literally 2 beers is enough to give me bad diarrhea and pain the next day. The same is true of 2-3 slices of pizza. God help me if I have a single piece of fried chicken, because I'm 100% guaranteed to get 48 hours of diarrhea.
Does this happen to anyone else? What am I supposed to do about this? I had 2 slices of pizza at a party last night, and I've already shit 4 times this morning before 9 a.m.
Maybe incorporate some refined flour to your diet(white bread or smthing like that). Like 15% of time
Austin Watson
What, are you doing 24/7 Atkins?
There is a such thing as a healthy amount of carbs. In fact, I would fucking love to see you try to run a marathon on a no-grain diet. What's more important is that you choose carbs with a low glycemic index
Bentley Sanchez
fucking ketotard. Get the fuck out fucking idiot
Jacob Bennett
Look into super enzymes. It sounds like your stomach issues are caused more by your body not knowing wtf to do to break down the food. Also don't drink beer if you can help it, really not good for you and will fuck your shit up in the long run.
Very interesting. I think I'll pick some up. Thanks. Your theory makes a lot of sense. I eat refined flours and refined sugars so infrequently that my body has issues processing them. This is TMI, but my diarrhea indicates that the food is only partly broken down.
I know that alcohol is bad. Seriously, I literally only drink 2-3 a year at work functions. That's why I get the world's worst case of the shits whenever I have a single beer.
Nathaniel James
I feel you there, I get pretty bad shits when I drink. I had four beers with my friend two nights ago and then had insane diarrhea at work the next day, was really bad. Makes me never want to drink (and I shouldn't anyway, not worth the loss of gains and it's too expensive).
Owen Cooper
Whole grains have a shitload of phytoestrogens and gluten is inflammatory even to non-celiacs. Try white rice, the GI isn't so bad and a meal with fat and protein greatly lowers it so it's not as relevant as you think. The good thing about white rice is that it has no gluten, no toxic metals and no phytoestrogens.
Mason Davis
High fiber foods usually absorb more water when going through the large intestine. Maybe your body dumps more water into the intestines to compensate, and whenever you eat foods lower in fiber, the excess water leads to diarrhea.
Justin Mitchell
not op but this could help explain my diarahea i'm getting. that or too much caffeine, too many scoops, overtraining (get it worse when i over tax my body), etc.
thanks op you helped me feel a bit better about my loose stools.
pic related on a bad day, too much blue #1 in my pwo and aminos.
Literally on the toilet with fiery bowels while reading this. Same, just had a few Doritos after not having any chips for a month.
Ian Davis
Aight you're a fucking retard.
Adam Ward
I'm trying to stay away from bread as much as I can.
I saw some youtube video about some professor giving a lecture about bread and why it's actually bad ( now )
it made a lot of sense.
Grains used to be semi healthy but they blasted the crops with radioactiivity. That used to be the way to create GMO when it was in it's starting period.
This is how they created new grain that has a ten times higher yield. But it's not that healthy anymore cause the genetics got blasted in GMO.
This wouldn't be a problem, just don't buy not-gmo grains!
the sad part is there is no non-gmo grain kinds left cause all the farmers switched to the blasted grain strains in the 60's and 70's else they couldn't compete.
the old grain kinds have long passed all grain you can buy is utter shit now.
if I remember correctly the old grain strains had 24 chromosones and the new butt blasted grain has 48.
it also has compounds that attack your gut lining.
it also doesn't make sense to eat grains at all if you think about it. fucking grass seeds? No hunter gatherer would be plucking fucking grass seeds to eat man. that shit is for birds!
> eating ground up grass seeds > healthy pick one
Joshua Campbell
I'm not the one telling people to eat white rice instead of whole grains
Aaron Turner
>your body has trouble processing food that has been broken down in simpler forms >this theory making sense
Pick one. Your gut is just full of bacterias from eating your "healthy" whole grains and a lot of fiber (which is what bacterias feed on) and it's gonna cause digestive issues pretty much no matter what you eat.
Juan Green
Yeah, white rice is so bad that's why asians are so fat and all have diabetes. Keep on eating your gluten and bacteria-feeding fiber, telling yourself it's healthy cuz "whole grains bro". Fucking estrogenic idiotic piece of shit, enjoy losing your hair in the coming years.
Matthew Walker
>I saw some youtube video
GMO or number of chromosomes in the strain are not a scientifically valid reason for why bread would be bad.
>it also doesn't make sense to eat grains at all if you think about it. fucking grass seeds? No hunter gatherer would be plucking fucking grass seeds to eat man. that shit is for birds!
This also isn't a logical way of thinking. For one, prehistoric man did eat grains, as far back as 100,000 years ago. More importantly, that's not how we determine if a food is healthy or not. Virtually every piece of research we have on whole grains points to health benefits.
>Yeah, white rice is so bad that's why asians are so fat and all have diabetes
Logical fallacy to start with, but asian countries do have some of the highest diabete rates in the world.
>but ESTROGEN
Every plant has some amount of phytoestrogens. Phytoestrogens are not estrogen. There are many kinds of phtyoestrogen, and the majority of them have no estrogenic activity whatsoever. Some even have anti-estrogenic effects in humans. "Bacteria-feeding fiber" is also a good thing, you idiot.
Camden Long
fuck science man honestly. PS: For those who want to know more about the hidden problems of modern wheat, I recommend the book by Julien Venesson "Gluten, how modern wheat intoxicates us"
Isaiah Cooper
> I recommend the book by Julien Venesson "Gluten, how modern wheat intoxicates us"
These books are written to sell through fear mongering. They aren't good sources of information.
Wyatt Rogers
>Anonymous 09/02/17(Sat)18:09:33 No.427 > is also isn't a logical way of thinking. For one, prehistoric man did eat grains, as far back as 100,000 years ago. More importantly, that's not how we determine if a food is healthy or not. Virtually every piece of research we have on whole grains points to health benefits.
lol who thought you this nonsense? you really think prehistoric man is going to collect miniature grass seeds if he can instead get fruits, meat and fish?
> 100 000 years ago. you don't know shit about what happened then. > bbut this paper on jew history gov science said they collected grass seeds!
Do asians fucking look like americans with metabolic syndrome to you.
Saying that phytoestrogens don't have activity is a meme that mock fucking ignorant retards like yourself so that they can keep filling every processed food with soybean oil and tell the goys "don't worry it doesn't do anything". Multi-grain whole bread have absurd amounts of phytoestrogens which have relevant activity.
And even ignoring that, you're retarded for ever eating gluten, and thinking that white rice is inferior because it doesn't have the fiber that the doctor tells the ignorant goy that you are to eat. Guess what, people with low bacteria count have better health in general.
>you really think prehistoric man is going to collect miniature grass seeds if he can instead get fruits, meat and fish?
You really think prehistoric man is going to ignore sources of food because 100,000 years in the future it won't be part of the cartoonish image people have of their diets?
Even if they did, it isn't the same grain we have now. so my point is still valid.
Lucas Wilson
For their relatively low levels of obesity (diabetes is about more than just eating white rice), countries like China and India do have proportionately high rates of diabetes. More than 10% of China is diabetic, 35% prediabetic, and it's getting worse
They didn't eat the same meat, veg, or fruits we do now either. Should we be eating nothing? It's a stupid way of thinking.
Caleb Rivera
fruits and meat didn't get blasted with radioactive waves senpai. that only happened to wheat and grains.
Juan Morris
>but the radioactive waaaaaves, the youtube man says I'll get cancer
Don't be so gullible.
Alexander Cruz
Not the guy
The diabetes rate in 1950s China was around 1%. Since then, the intake of carbohydrate and white rice has decreased massively in China, while intake of fat, meat and protein has increased. Intake of sugar is quite low compared to other developing and developed countries. In parallel to this decrease in white rice and carbohydrate consumption, there has been an increase in overweight and diabetes.
As such, your suggestion that white rice may be causally implicated in the development of type 2 diabetes is rather misguided, given that diabetes was virtually absent when Chinese diet had a very large intake of white rice
Nathan Jones
I can agree with that, but while other factors may be driving the problem in China, white rice is still at least partly to blame for the way it interacts with the rest of their diet.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3307808/ >Higher consumption of white rice is associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes, especially in Asian (Chinese and Japanese) populations.
I don't think the other guy eats like a rural Chinese man in the 1950s. Regardless, it wasn't a valid argument to make in the first place.
Brayden Roberts
You claim that white rice is causally related to diabetes via interactions with other dietary components, but a metastudy of prospective cohorts cannot possibly support such a claim. Prospective cohorts are observational and correlational. As such, they are low quality evidence suitable for hypothesis-building. There is no plausible mechanism whereby white rice would contribute towards diabetes, and the hypothesis is incompatible with observed lack of widespread diabetes in Asia prior to Westernization of Asian diet, increasing intake of fat, meat, processed and restaurant food. Confounding more likely
Lincoln Collins
If you ate like a rural Chinese man in the 50s you wouldn't have any fucking gains since all you'd eat is rice byproducts or grass leaves. Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions of people lmao
Josiah Scott
>You claim that white rice is causally related to diabetes via interactions with other dietary components, but a metastudy of prospective cohorts cannot possibly support such a claim. Prospective cohorts are observational and correlational.
You were saying white rice is totally unrelated to their diabetes problems because their diabetes trouble ramped up when they ate more meat and fat. A look at white rice consumption and diabetes found that, other factors held constant, white rice consumption still correlates with significantly higher diabetes incidence. Not less white rice = less diabetes but more white rice = more diabetes.
>There is no plausible mechanism whereby white rice would contribute towards diabetes
Rapidly digested starch affecting blood sugar and insulin levels. Even if you believe the cause of their insulin resistance is from their higher fat diet, it's still the digestion of white rice that's causing problems with blood sugar.
>Confounding
You said their diabetes correlated with less rice consumption. Study found that those who eat more rice had higher diabetes risk. What's happening?
Alexander Edwards
>Not less white rice = less diabetes
*not more white rice = less diabetes
Aaron Bailey
>more white rice = more diabetes. The hypothesis fails when diabetes is absent when everybody is eating white rice. So wherever the correlation comes from, it's not indicative of causality. We already have a controlled trial of what happens when you put a country on a white rice diet - diabetes is largely absent.
>Rapidly digested starch affecting blood sugar and insulin levels. Most white rice is not digested rapidly, but rather slowly, compared to potato for example. There is also no evidence that rapid digestion of starch promotes diabetes.
As for insulin, the inclusion of meat and fat in a starch meal increases insulin response and delays clearance of glucose and insulin from the blood, however I am rather skeptical as to this being a causal agent in diabetes. Insulin is a healthy and normal response to ingestion of carbohydrate and protein.
Isaac Lewis
Everything is blasted with radioactivity all the time. That's literally how evolution happens. All we did was speed it up
Matthew Young
>The hypothesis fails when diabetes is absent when everybody is eating white rice
Again, I can agree that 60-70 years ago diabetes rates were much lower despite people eating white rice. You're denying that, in the context of the modern Asian diet, white rice could possibly play any contributory role to diabetes. That's almost as crazy as implying that the diet of the Chinese in the 1950s was a "controlled trial."
If white rice is harmless or even protective against diabetes, we would expect when we look closer at the relationship between diet and diabetes in those countries, that those eating the most rice would have the least amount of diabetes, and vice versa. That isn't the case.
Adam White
Your digestive system has gotten used to dealing with a certain (high) level of fiber in your diet. When you don't get it, it's still cranking out things to deal with the fiber, but it's too much, and therefore your wastes are very thin and watery.
Could also be sensitivity to herbicide residue (glyphosate). Do you ever have bouts of unexplained abdomninal pain?
