It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Carbs...Sugar...And Other Stuff

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:21 AM

NCGS - Non Celiac Gluten Sensitive

There are two types of Gluten intolerance people. One that can be tested for HLA in their blood (antibodies) that makes them intolerant and one that has reported the symptoms of intolerance, yet the antibodies can't be found. GI (gluten Intolerance) is an adverse reaction to the ingestion of gluten products such as wheat, oats, barley and rye. Some food these can be found in are breads, pasta, crackers, and cereals. GI people can't break down these grains efficiently and eating them could lead to small intestine damage. About 1 out of every 133 people have GI.

Genetic predisposition plays a key role in CD and considerable progress has been made recently in identifying genes that are responsible for CD predisposition. [2, 3] It is well known that CD is strongly associated with specific HLA class II genes known as HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 located on chromosome 6p21]...

The reason I'm addressing the NCGI issue is important is because it causes the same symptoms that people say the Keto diet cures. Only about 1% of the population has Gluten Intolerance, yet if you compare the symptoms of Gluten Allergies to those issues that were resolved through the Keto Diet, you have to wonder if the percentage of intolerant people isn't higher and also, if it is actually the grain that is causing the issue.

I have to make sure that we understand that for this section we are talking about the non Celiac gluten intolerance group (NCGI). These are the ones that have either not been tested or the HLA antibody hasn't been found in their blood samples. The symptoms reported for NCGI are as follows:
  • mental fatigue, also known as “brain fog”
  • Chronic fatigue
  • gas, bloating, and abdominal pain
  • headache
  • Depression
  • ADHD - like behavior
  • Abdominal Pain
  • Bone or joint Pain

I've bolded all the symptoms of NCGS (non celiac Gluten Sensitivity) that seem to be cured by the Keto diet. All match except for the abdominal pain. I didn't feel it fair to include that under "pain" in Keto cures because there is no specific type of pain mentioned. Although, bone and joint pain are symptoms that I've read keto cures as I went through the information. The ADHD and fatigue are bolded as that lends to mental clarity and more energetic.

I know, you're saying "well, duh, Keto is a low carb diet, of course it will improve the symptoms of gluten sensitive people." Well, look at what Keto doesn't allow you to have at all...sugar. And what do carbs such as wheat and grain usually get mixed with? Sugar. With proteins and fats, there is no sugar added if you are going traditional meat (no deli meat or mixed sauces). And whatever carbs that are allowed on Keto (20% or less) are natural carbs. Those are the ones with fiber built right into them such as veggies. You are also allowed berries (fruit) because they have high fiber, low sugar content and are also considered carbs. But 20% of the mixture of these two food sources doesn't amount to much when you convert it to grams (50-100 grams total per day is recommended for the Keto Diet).

Who's to say if gluten Intolerance is actual wheat itself or the ingredients it's combined with. Here is a list of foods that you need to cut out of your diet if you are Gluten Intolerant:

Notice that everything on that list is a refined carbohydrate (simple carbs). Also understand that almost every refined carbohydrate has the fiber pulled out of it and has added sugar. Most of the nutrients are gone as well. If they do replace the fiber that they take out, it is argued that it is not the same as natural fiber, not as good for you. That is something I can't speak to as I have no idea what type they put back in (natural or man made).

Now, to be fair, they do put some of the vitamins and nutrients back in during processing as well, but, not all of them. So the two part equation could be messed up, the one that states that you should have a fiber/carb ratio of 1 fiber for every 10 grams of simple carbs/sugar, depending on how much fiber and what type of fiber they put back into the product.


edit on 4-2-2018 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:22 AM

Sugar Intolerance

I'm not saying that what I propose about Gluten intolerance actually being sugar intolerance is factual. I've done no studies or testing and I'm definitely not a nutritionist. But, if you just look at the chart and research a bit on sugars/simple carbs, you can see how someone would/could make the jump that gluten intolerance is really sugar intolerance. Lucky for me, there is such a thing as sugar intolerance and a list of foods you should avoid:

Performing the 21 Day Sugar Intolerance Test:
This is a very simple test and akin to an elimination diet. If you get off of sugar and carbs and have your symptoms disappear, then you can be sure you have a sugar intolerance. If you have any nagging health problems that concern you, this test is an absolute must.
Now for the next 21 days you’re not going to eat sugar of any kind. Remember that all carbohydrates turn into sugar.
Here is a list of foods to avoid:
  • Bread, pasta, cookies, cakes, crackers, rolls, pastries, desserts
  • Potatoes of all types, corn, rice and beans
  • Fruit and fruit juices
  • Energy drinks and bars
  • Sugar of all kinds – candy, honey, ketchup.
  • Alcohol of all kinds
  • Sweetened yogurt ...

Now, that doesn't mean the article nor myself are accurate, so take it for what it is, a thought. But if you look at the Gluten foods to avoid list and the sugar intolerance foods to avoid list, you probably can see how similar they are, if not exact. Which leaves you to wonder if they are not the same thing and also, which one is causing all the issues, sugar or gluten?

The very fact that there are so many "intolerant" people and issues with our food consumption should be concerning. But it all the issues lead back to two things mostly: simple carbs and refined sugar. The specific food allergies are the only exclusion so far as I can tell. There have been many discussions as to why peanut allergies seem to be such an issue recently, while researching those, I could find no evidence as of yet that they have been tampered with. Although, they are saying that it will happen shortly ...


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:22 AM

Opposing View

NCGS is more a symptom of the mind than the body. A few studies have been done with a placebo group and Gluten group in which participants reported little to no relief from the NCGS symptoms when they were exposed to non gluten products. In fact during a blind study it was shown that NCGS participants showed the same symptoms no matter what they were given. Which seems to prove the point that NCGI is mostly in your head.

Patients with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) do not have celiac disease but their symptoms improve when they are placed on gluten-free diets. We investigated the specific effects of gluten after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates (fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols [FODMAPs]) in subjects believed to have NCGS.
In a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study, we found no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed diets low in FODMAPs. ...

Most of the studies found gluten challenge to significantly increase symptom scores compared with placebo. However, only 38 of 231 NCGS patients (16%) showed gluten-specific symptoms. Furthermore, 40% of these subjects had a nocebo response (similar or increased symptoms in response to placebo). These findings reveal heterogeneity and potential methodology flaws among studies of gluten challenge, cast doubt on gluten as the culprit food component in most patients with presumptive NCGS, and highlight the importance of the nocebo effect in these types of studies ...

It's important to note that the last quoted study states that there could be potential methodology flaws as well. Which means that the findings could be skewed.

If there is no such thing as NCGS, then it could very well be that we are looking at sugar sensitivity instead. But neither the participants nor the doctors realize sugar could be the potential culprit to both these issues. Again, it is hard to study the two exclusively (gluten/sugar) because they are so intermixed in both our diet and how we metabolize them. These thoughts are all just personal suppositions though. As far as I'm aware, there has been no study to see if Gluten Intolerance is actually sugar intolerance or vice versa.

That's the end of the history lesson. I hope I covered it well enough and I'm sure that I left some things out. But it wasn't supposed to be an all encompassing write up, it was supposed to give you just enough information from both sides of the table to allow you to figure out where you stand on the sugar/carb/food debate. All the resources/links can be found at the end of this thread if they are not directly linked to the quotes.

Two more sections of information left, one will cover how health care costs are rising due to our sugar intake, the other will cover the sugar tax that seems to be gaining steam.


edit on 4-2-2018 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:24 AM

Health Care Costs

I was hesitant to include this section, but I thought this would be important to cover with regards to the impact of food sweeteners on our health. This is just additional data that I wanted to share. Whether or not these health issues can be linked directly to sugar/simple carbs is still up for debate. But, if they are linked, I thought it would be important to have this section in the thread.

“So 30% – 40% of healthcare expenditures in the USA go to help address issues that are closely tied to the excess consumption of sugar.” Credit Suisse Report – Sugar: Consumption At A Crossroads ...

Quite honestly, this is why I have issues with numbers. Very rarely do they show the whole picture. Usually, we use them to promote our own biases or make something look better than it actually is. Take for instance the development of HFCS or artificial sweeteners. When they came to market, they reduced the cost of the food that we used them in. More people bought that food, because it was now affordable. The numbers worked out for everyone...but we forgot to take into consideration the health impacts that eating this food would have down the road. Those numbers do not work out. We saved on the front end and spent more on the back end of this whole deal. That loss is passed down to the American people. It is your pocket books that this affects.

$1 trillion dollars annually is spent on excessive eating of sugar according to Forbes. The actual research document they quote from has the following to say about these costs:

we estimate that the annual costs to the healthcare system due to the global obesity epidemic are in excess of USD 600 billion. But obesity, as bad as it is, is not the most worrisome issue. Diabetes type II is now affecting close to 370 million people worldwide, with one in ten US adults affected by it. The costs to the global healthcare system are a staggering USD 470 billion according to the most recent estimates from the International Diabetes Federation, and represent over 10% of all healthcare costs. In the USA alone, the healthcare costs tied to diabetes type II are estimated at USD 140 billion, compared to USD 90 billion for tobacco-related healthcare costs. Even more worrisome is that these numbers are growing at a rate of 4% a year, much faster than for obesity (1%–2%). By 2020, the annual cost to the healthcare system globally will reach USD 700 billion and the people affected will be close to 500 million. Recent events would indicate that local and national authorities around the globe are beginning to take action, with varying degrees of success. Interventions include anti-soda advertising campaigns, tax levies, removal of vending machines in schools and regulation of portion size. However, as Mayor Bloomberg discovered in New York, when his attempt to limit cup sizes was defeated in court, the combined lobby of the sugar industry – which is a huge employer and therefore has significant voting power and that of the food and beverage manufacturers – makes things much more difficult. After balancing arguments in favor and against, we believe that taxation would be the best approach and will provide the best outcome: reducing consumption while helping the public sector deal with the growing social and medical costs ...

  • $600 Billion - Obesity
  • $470 Billion - Diabetes (expected to reach $700 billion by 2020)

These are concerning numbers. Not just the fact that so much is paid out annually, but the fact that they don't see a reduction in costs, but an increase. That means they expect more people to get sick from sugar intake. Which means they don't expect the food choices to improve anytime soon. And who can blame someone for not making the healthiest choice when, most times, it all comes down to money/costs:

The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.

The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.


edit on 4-2-2018 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:24 AM

Health Care Costs Part 2

Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data shows that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods. However, most people eat a mix of foods. The average American spends about $7 a day on food, although low-income people spend about $4, says Dr. Drewnowski. ...

Increased costs don't stop at the health care industry though. It has been reported that dental costs have risen as well. Remember when I said it seems like our dental health is improving after the initial introduction of sugar? Well, I also said that one of the reasons is because we have more knowledge/medical advances that can correct the issues. This next excerpt kind of proves that point:

This puts Germany in the group of countries with the highest costs of treatment per person and year. Other countries "in the group" are Switzerland (402 US dollars, 300 euros), Denmark (238 US dollars, 178 euros) and the USA (185 US dollars, 138 euros). "If the target of 50 grams of sugar per person and day set by the World Health Organization could be reached, this would result in savings in the costs of treatment within Germany of 150 euros (201 US dollars) per person and year. Extrapolating this figure to the federal level shows annual potential savings of approximately 12 billion euros, or 16 billion US dollars," added Meier. A low-sugar diet is becoming increasingly difficult, however, since almost all processed products in the supermarket contain large quantities of added sugar ...

The study shows a graph which places the annual dental care costs associated with sugar to be $105.38 billion for the United states (2010 numbers) ...

So add that to the other two costs above. If all this information is true, we are basically keeping the same bad eating habits and just paying out more in health and dental to fix the effects from eating this way. If we corrected our eating habits, we would pay less out in health and dental repairs, thus giving us the money we need to buy healthier products. (maybe? I don't know, just spit balling here)

"For every additional 25 grams of sugar consumed per person and day—which amounts to roughly eight sugar cubes or a glass of sweetened lemonade—the costs of dental treatment in high-income countries increase on average by $100 U.S. (€75) per person and year."

There you have it. Our diet impacts our health, then impacts our wallets. Everyone is responsible for the increased health costs, and they can be easily rectified by changing our eating habits. Pretty simple.


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:25 AM

Sugar Tax Part 1

I wasn't sure if I should add this part in either. But as I was looking for pics and other resources, I found a disturbing amount of information supporting the tax. I don't feel like taxing the American people is necessary. I think we should work on more honest, easy to read, consumer friendly labels and lowering the cost of healthy foods. Why would we tax the only food available to most people that is within their buying capabilities? It doesn't make sense to me. The soda tax will lead to other sugary food taxes eventually, that is just the way it happens. Which will reduce the availability of affordable food.

Also, this kind of reminds me of the way sugar was before it was affordable. It used to be a luxury only the wealthy could afford. I do wonder if that is the direction that this is being steered toward again. Sugar being just for the upper class. Only this time it is not due to an affordability issue, it will be due to a tax issue.

The next few paragraphs will show the history of the sugar tax, how it began, and what the reasoning is behind it then versus now.

This is where the sugar tax started I beleive:

11 OCTOBER 2016 | GENEVA - Taxing sugary drinks can lower consumption and reduce obesity, type 2 diabetes and tooth decay, says a new WHO report.
Fiscal policies that lead to at least a 20% increase in the retail price of sugary drinks would result in proportional reductions in consumption of such products, according to the report titled “Fiscal policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs)”.
Reduced consumption of sugary drinks means lower intake of “free sugars” and calories overall, improved nutrition and fewer people suffering from overweight, obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose or fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook, or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices, and fruit juice concentrates. ...

Well, there was sugar taxes prior to that. The molasses tax of 1733 and then the American Revenue Act of 1764. Both of these "sugar taxes" were placed on the merchants shoulders who wished to import foreign molasses. This new tax that is being suggested, well, it would be placed right at the feet (and pocketbooks) of the American People. Don't get me wrong, it is the corporations being taxed, but it is you, the consumer who will wind up absorbing the cost. If you read the above quote, the WHO organization has our best interest at heart. They wish to reduce diabetes and obesity and beleive that a 20% increase in taxes will do that. And as is shown by the first state to enact the tax in 2014 (Berkeley, California), it seems to be working:

In 2014, Berkeley, California became the first city in the United States to pass a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The goal was to cut back on consumption—and eventually, to help chip away at rates of diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes.

The tax, which tacks on one cent per fluid ounce on beverages with added caloric sweeteners—like sodas, energy drinks and sweetened fruit drinks—was officially implemented in March 2015. And according to a new report published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Medicine, it appears to be working.
The researchers looked at whether the tax impacted the buying behaviors of Berkeley residents. They found that one year after the tax took effect, sales of sugar-sweetened drinks fell by close to 10%, and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%. Sales of unsweetened teas, milk and fruit juices also went up, suggesting people were substituting their sugary drinks with healthier alternatives. ...

There were several ways to implement the new version of the tax:

We analyze seven ways of taxing soft drinks. Five tax only SSBs:
  • Sales tax on SSBs: Like the retail sales taxes that already exist in many states, a retail sales tax on SSBs is based on the retail value of SSBs purchased. Expensive SSBs, such as energy drinks, face a higher tax than less expensive drinks, such as many regular sodas. Previous studies have often analyzed a 20 percent sales tax on SSBs, so we use that as a benchmark for our analyses.
  • Volume tax on SSBs: A volume tax applies to SSBs based on their fluid volume, usually measured in ounces. Berkeley, for example, charges 1.0 cent per ounce. To raise the same revenue as a 20 percent SSB sales tax in our model requires a volume tax of 1.0 cent per ounce. To achieve the same reduction in SSB sugar requires a volume tax of 0.9 cents per ounce. APPENDIX 1 9
  • One-tier tax on SSBs: This volume tax applies only to drinks whose sugar content exceeds a specified level. Hungary uses this approach, applying its tax to drinks with at least 19 grams of sugar per eight-ounce serving.23 To raise the same revenue as the benchmark sales tax requires a tax on high-sugar drinks of 1.3 cents per ounce. To achieve the same sugar reduction requires a one-tier tax of 1.0 cent per ounce.
  • Two-tier tax on SSBs: This volume tax applies to drinks whose sugar content exceeds a specified level, and a higher rate applies if sugar content exceeds a second threshold. Britain recently announced such a tax, with one rate applying to drinks with at least 12 grams of sugar per eight-ounce serving and a higher rate applying to drinks with at least 19 grams of sugar per eight-ounce serving.24 To raise the same revenue as the benchmark sales tax requires taxes of 0.6 and 1.2 cents per ounce. To achieve the same sugar reduction requires rates of 0.5 and 0.9 cents per ounce.
  • Sugar content: Taxes vary proportionately with a drink’s sugar content. South Africa recently announced such a tax, charging about a tenth of a US cent per gram of added sugar. The US federal government taxes spirits based on their alcohol content, for example, and more governments are beginning to discourage greenhouse gas emissions by taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels. To raise the same revenue as the benchmark sales tax requires a tax on sugar content of 0.34 cents per gram, and to achieve the same sugar reduction requires a tax of 0.27 cents per gram. ...


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:27 AM

Sugar Tax Part 2

The cheapest way we could've done it was per sugar:

Most studies of taxing sweetened beverages focus on uniform taxes on volume or on taxes that raise SSB prices by a specific percentage, usually 10 or 20 percent (Zhen et al. 2011, 2014; Dharmasena and Capps 2012; Lin et al. 2011; Finkelstein et al. 2013). In fact, we are aware of only one study that does a head-to-head comparison of volume and sugar taxes on sweetened beverages. Zhen, Brissette, and Ruff (2014) compared a volume tax (0.5 cents per ounce) to a calorie tax (0.04 cent per kilogram calorie, equivalent to 0.15 cents per gram of sugar). 3 They calibrated these tax rates so the levy on regular Coca-Cola, the most popular sweetened beverage, would be the same under both approaches. They found that taxing sugar would reduce sugar intake 8 percent more, impose 5 percent less of a burden on consumers, and collect 5 percent less revenue than would taxing volume. 4 Taxing sugar content thus delivers more sugar reduction than a volume tax relative to the burden placed on consumers. In short, taxing sugar content is more efficient than taxing volume if the goal is reducing sugar consumption

We didn't opt to go the cheapest way that would have been less burdensome on the consumer. I don't know why they didn't except for maybe the tax income would've have been less as well. Here is a couple studies done that reflect the "health savings" by the sugar tax in both Australia and The US:

Figs Figs22–4 show the results for the modelled diseases over the first 25 years after the introduction of the tax. (S3 Table of the Supporting Information presents more detail, including uncertainty intervals.) Most notably, the 20% tax would reduce the number of type 2 diabetes cases, with incidence down by approximately 800 per year. This is roughly a 0.6% reduction compared to the number expected without the tax (approximately 130,000 per year). The annual number of new cases of heart disease and stroke would be reduced by 240 and 70, respectively.
After 25 years there would be 16,000 less prevalent cases of diabetes, 4,400 fewer cases of IHD and 1,100 of stroke. In total, an estimated 1600 fewer deaths will occur by year 25, with heart disease accounting for the largest share of this postponed mortality.

In addition to the health care cost savings, the intervention would also raise substantial revenue for the government. Based on national household expenditure data in 2009/2010 [24], expenditure on soft drinks amounted to AUD5.32 per household per week, indicating that a 20% tax on these products would raise taxation revenue in excess of AUD400 million each year (taking into account changes in consumption in response to the tax). This revenue could be put towards health promotion activities, or used to subsidise healthy foods. ...

That study above was done in Australia regarding the health savings and tax revenue earned with the introduction of the soda tax. This next one focuses on the USA and what the benefits will be for our is a online PDf from WHO:

Taxes on sugary drinks help reduce consumption and prevent obesity • Evidence shows that a tax of 20% on sugary drinks can lead to a reduction in consumption of around 20%, thus preventing obesity and diabetes(7). Savings on healthcare • Estimates suggest that, over 10 years, a tax on sugary drinks of 1 cent per ounce in the United States of America would result in more than US$ 17 billion in healthcare cost savings(8). Revenues raised from taxes can be used to promote the health of the population • This tax could generate approximately US$ 13 billion in annual tax revenues in the United States of America in 2016 (9). • Based on 2014 data, a tax on sugary drinks of 1 yuan (US$ 0.16) per litre in China would generate an estimated 73.6 billion yuan (US$ 11.8 billion) in revenues(10). • Revenue generated by these taxes could be spent on efforts to improve health care systems, encourage healthier diets, increase physical activity, or build capacity for effective tax administration, further increasing the value of this measure. Low-income consumers and young people get the greatest health benefits from taxes • In Mexico, a year after the introduction of a tax on sugary drinks, households with the fewest resources reduced their purchases of sugary drinks by 17%, compared to 12% for the general population ...

As you can see, not only does the Sugar Tax improve the overall health of 20% of the drinkers of sugary also will generate a decent amount of income that the government could use towards additional health promoting services. It's a win/win for everyone!

That is a small introduction to the Sugar Tax. I thought it would be a nice pairing to the health care costs section of the thread. Either way, it still is interesting to see how the two are intertwined. The rising costs of health care due to sugar, the rising cost of sugar due to health care.

The next few sections will be mainly about my personal thoughts and what has worked best for me throughout the years. Again, this is not to suggest that anyone needs to adopt my eating habits, but maybe some will find something of value in my food beliefs/eating habits. If you care not to read on, you can scroll down to the very last few pages to find the links and references. This is the end of the informational section and I thank you for taking the time to read through it all...


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:28 AM

Final Thoughts

It's been a bit of a journey for me honestly. To see everything that has sugar/simple carbs in it, all the foods we eat. Finding out all the different viewpoints, taking each point into consideration, exploring all our dietary changes, how they effected us physically as well as emotionally throughout documented time, and trying to come to some type of conclusion as to where this all fits, how it makes sense.

Whether or not you believe that sugar/simple carbs are the devil, it does make you take pause when you look at how much Americans consume everyday. 25 grams is recommended daily intake, the average American consumes 82 grams daily. Our diets are riddled with them. Even things we think are healthy aren't. Between the misleading labels and brand packaging, the way food is processed, GMO's, and pesticides, I can't see how anyone can live in this world and be 100% "healthy" with the food choices we have. I think the best you can hope for is to be as healthy as you can be.

What I did notice while researching is that most of the new diets/eating habits are all geared towards the same thing...reducing or eliminating simple carbs/sugar intake. That would be wise even if you aren't looking to lose a few pounds. They also rely heavily on quality versus quantity in calorie intake, which, we all should be keeping track of. What quality of food are we eating and how will it effect us in our later years? Not a bad question to ask with the rising cost of health care and treatment programs.

I think though, for me, it comes down to eating what I've always ate with some slight changes. I'm not too keen on fasting that's for sure. I think it is about CICO, but those calories need to matter. For me it comes down to the basics: clean eating, active lifestyle, and personal satisfaction. Let's face it, no one wants to punish themselves everyday by eating things you don't like. I cringe at some of the recipes I see going around. Not real food made for real people. Which is also an do you eat healthy on a budget?

The average person can't afford to eat the best cuts of meats everyday. Nor can they afford fresh fish, organic produce, eggs, etc... when did it become a sign of wealth to eat healthy? How did that even happen? Shouldn't all food be healthy no matter what? Unfortunately, that isn't the case. You end up sacrificing quality for cost savings usually. But there is hope also. It depends on what you cut out of your diet what you can afford to spend. I can't tell you (and don't really want to ) how to live your life. What you choose to eat/intake on a daily basis is up to you. I can only tell you where this road took me and what I've come to consider a good, affordable way for me to eat.


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:29 AM

How I Manage Food

I've always been "in shape" on the outside. Granted, I slapped on a few pounds here and there, but I've never had a problem with being overweight (by today's standards anyways). Usually when I gain weight it is during the winter months. And usually it is because my eating habits stay the same, yet I am less active. I've learned to eat seasonally now. To reduce my food intake in order to accommodate my "hibernation" period. When I become more active in the spring/summer/fall seasons, I increase my food intake. That part was simple to figure out honestly... CICO, no big mystery.

On the inside, well, that's a different story. I've gotten my wellness checks each year and my basic stats always are excellent. But I still didn't feel good. Just something was always off. I experienced the brain fog, fatigue, bloating, etc...all those symptoms listed within every "intolerant to some type of food" section above. So, even though my health checked out in the medical industry, it didn't get the OK from me personally. That's when I started looking into all this stuff. Reading a bit at a time, consulting with friends and family, listening to podcasts and watching videos. So much conflicting information out there, so I tried a few of the diets and changed out my eating habits to see if I could garnish good results.

The first thing I cut out was carbs (low carb diet). That helped quite a bit honestly. Let me tell you, when I was eating those things I used to have bad nightmares. My sleeping patterns were erratic. My body would basically shut down after a meal full of carbs, not wanting to do much more than stare at the computer screen. I had more body aches, stressed out more (anxiety), mood swings, depression, weight gain. All that came with eating carbs, and all of it went away after I cut them out. I still wake up at 3 A.M. every day, but my sleep is more sound and nightmares. But I still had a few areas in my general health that I wanted to improve like my skin and the "love handles" that never seem to go away no matter how hard you try. So I took it one step farther and tried Keto.

I'm not gonna lie, the 24-36 hour fast when you begin is too hard core for me. I did it anyways though. Kept my food to the basics, did eat some carbs...and because I didn't know any better, ate some sugar too. (simple carbs are sugar). I imagine that most Keto dieters do eat sugar unknowingly. Just not refined sugar products. More than likely, they are consuming them through other sources..

It did everything that it promised honestly. My mind was clearer, I shed a couple pounds (can't lose much more really), I became more active, aches and pains were gone, more positive outlook on life. I did well on it and honestly, probably would have stayed on it except for: It felt like people were doing Keto and every recipe they were making was to mimic the high calorie carb/sugar foods. To me that means that they are actually missing what they can't have anymore. So, I started to worry a bit about the psychological aspect of Keto. Are you going to be able to maintain that type of diet for life? Trying to make your new food choices taste and have the same texture as the stuff you gave up? Maybe some can, but I was unsure I would be able to. And that means that the diet is/was not sustainable for me. I still kept at it for a few months though. Until my mom got sick. And that is when all my eating habits got tossed out the window.

I know most of you have experience with hospitals. You ask any person that works in them and they will tell you the food is very unhealthy. They wouldn't be lying either. All the surrounding restaurants are really unhealthy as well. Pretty much you have every type of fast food there is on the same block. The long road trips back and forth each day, the worry, the emotional rollercoaster...most days I survived on monster mean beans and McDonald breakfast sandwiches. It was a two week ordeal, but, it was enough to get me hooked back onto carbs/sugar again.

I spent nearly 2-3 months weaning myself off. The funny thing is I remember thinking every time I shoved a roll or bite of potato in my mouth that "Hey, I felt much better before when I wasn't eating this stuff." But it didn't stop me from eating it. My nightmares and erratic sleeping patterns returned, aches, depression, all came right back when I started eating sugar/carbs again. I also discontinued my workout regimen, which is pretty bad for me. I've been working out every day for my whole life. The only time I ever quit was....when I ate simple carbs/sugars. You wouldn't think that certain foods could affect you so completely, but they do. Anyhow, I eventually turned my eating habits around again.

Now, I eat a bit differently. But I did start up on Keto again at first. I didn't fast though, not feeling like punishing my body/mind more than I already had by eating all the garbage food, I just started to follow the eating plan. So instead of using fasting as a way to rid my body of glucose, I used my first week of diet change to do it for me. I know, you won't get into Keto fast that way...but I was going for a life change, not quick weight loss.

Although Keto may work well for most, it just isn't right for me. But honestly, I can't say that I ever was "full Keto", so take what I say with a grain of salt. I would rather be as truthful as I can about it versus making it look as though I did everything right. I didn't and most people don't, that's just human nature. It was helpful for me though, it established better eating habits and made me understand a bit more about nutrition/diet. And while I was on Keto, I started working on a true "this is me" eating program. One that I knew I could adhere to and not fall down from. One that I could adjust as needed and not get hooked on the "bad foods" again. The following is what I came up with:

I cut the sugar intake to 25 grams a day ( recommended amount). Cut out 99% of my carbs (both simple and complex), increased my protein intake, and fatty foods basically stayed where they were. Whatever I ate that had fat in it, great. If it didn't have fat in it, that was fine too! Fruits are part of my diet, although minimally. Cheeses, I eat however much I want. And basically I look for food that is filling. Again, I go back to that potato chip versus potato example: if you can't eat 5-7 potatoes in one sitting, you shouldn't be able to eat a bag of potato chips in one sitting either. So I look for value calories, ones that will satiate me for longer time periods.

One of my biggest rules is: if you can't eat it plain, you probably don't like it and shouldn't eat it anyways. By plain I don't mean without a bit of butter or seasoning. I mean without the condiments, sauces, salad dressing, and all the other stuff we Americans seem to douse our foods in daily. Mixing meat with tomatoes and cheese, onions and seasoning is ok. But if I still have to have it dripping in sauce to make it taste probably doesn't taste good in the first place. So, why am I spending my money on something I really don't like? Dropping those foods from my grocery list is one way I cut costs and improved the quality of what I purchased.


edit on 4-2-2018 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:30 AM
How I Manage Food Part 2

No more energy drinks, although I do still drink coffee. I used to pound monsters down 3-4 a day. $2.50/can is way too much to be spending on basically a 30 minute rush than a 3 hour downer. I thought these were only 35 grams of sugar per can and that I was active enough to wear them off quickly. But I forgot about the other 36 grams of carbs (which we know are simple carbs). Which means one can is equal to 71 grams of sugar. I was drinking 3-4 cans a day! 213/284 grams of sugar just in that drink alone. Now that I got rid of that, I have $7.50- $10.00 more daily to spend on value calorie foods. That's what I mean about cutting out unhealthy stuff. That's $52.50 - $72.00 a week that I just freed up to put towards higher quality food products. And my waist line, mind, body, and skin are all better for it.

I also don't eat anything processed. Sometimes I slip (like the hotdogs I used to eat) but mostly, if it isn't real, I'm not eating it. Well, as real as food can be now a days. That means no deli meat, no frozen meals, no canned vegetables/fruits...nothing processed. Well, almost nothing. I'm not gonna say that everything I eat has not been processed. But I will say that if it was, I didn't know it was. I do my best to pick out all natural products.

I do this mainly because of the labels. Everything is so deceptive now a days when it comes to food. My sister told me the other day that she bought a package of "all beef patties". That was what it said on the front of the package. On the back, it was mostly soybean with some beef parts mixed in. They wouldn't even brown and by the time she got done cooking them, the pan had more water in it then meat. The dogs wouldn't even eat them.

To me that means the marketing and campaign companies have gone too far. Everyone knows that when you buy something labeled "all beef" what you expect to find in the package is all soybean. It's not something that needs to be explained or that we should expect to be deceived on, it's common knowledge that all beef means all beef. We shouldn't have to look any father after that statement, but we now have to. Which is why I no longer visit the frozen food section unless I'm picking up veggies.

Ingredient labels and packaging claims have gotten to be too hard to manage. So, I try to minimize that confusion by sticking to real food products such as the basics: meat, cheese, fresh fruit, and veggies. This reduces my grocery bill quite a bit actually. Even buying high quality food products turns out to cost less when you only buy the basics. Also, it keeps me from having to guess about what is in my food. Is there still gonna be additives? Yep, I'm not so naive to think there isn't. But I do believe there will be less than what you would find in those other product choices at the grocery store.

I stay away from gluten free products, low fat, no fat, low sugar, low carb, all natural...pretty much anything that makes a claim to be exactly what you are looking for. The basic foods are exactly what you are looking for health wise. I won't even go in the other aisles (except for coffee). The advertising world has been too deceptive for too long, I don't beleive them anymore. The louder they scream how great it is, the farther I run in the other direction. It's great that they are such good wordsmiths and do their jobs so well. But, I no longer wish to be fooled by their jazzy packaging and bold faced type.

That's pretty much it! To summarize:
  • Stick to the basics
  • Look for value calorie foods
  • If it doesn't taste good plain, you probably don't like it and shouldn't be eating it
  • All natural products, no processed foods.
  • Stay out of the frozen food aisle (except for veggies/fruit)
  • Look out for misleading labels
  • Eat seasonally- reduce and change out food based on activity levels each season

And one other thing I forgot. I kept one thing I love in my diet. It's actually where I get my 25 grams of carbs/sugar from: my coffee ( which I have mentioned a ton through this thread. lol). I don't need it to survive, it is not good for me really, but I do enjoy it. I made sure I kept something in my diet that I loved to eat/drink, but I keep it under the 26 grams per day. That means, if I am eating fruit (simple carbs) I'll adjust my coffee intake to account for that.

That stuff up there, it's not going to work for everyone. That is just how I eat, customized to me. It is what fits my lifestyle best. You might need a whole different regimen. Eskimos need more fat in their diet than people in warm weather climates. A triathlon athlete will need more sugars /simple carbs to maintain their strength and endurance, a weight lifter would need more protein to make gains each week. The first thing you need to realize is...who you are and what type of environment do you live in. Is it a hectic 10 hour day, barely enough time to breath environment? Or are you a stay at home mom who has the time to make high quality meals? How you live and who you are will help you to know your eating style and come up with a plan that will work for you.

Don't get me wrong, we all need to cut back on the sugar/simple carbs. We, as a country, are just eating way too much. But once you figure out who you are, that's when you can make huge strides towards a healthier version of you. There is no one answer, no "one size fits all" diet program. I think that's what everyone is missing. We all are so different emotionally, physically, and lifestyle wise, it is hard to take one way of eating and make it work for everyone. So, whatever you come up with, make it your own, make it fit who you are, and by god, quit punishing yourself. It's not worth it!!!

One more additional thought: While reading through my thread for spelling and grammar errors (I'm sure there are still many I missed, lol) I realized that what the evidence all points to is: We are all different and need different things. Food is as personal as a medical condition, as complicated as an emotional issue and as unique to each one of us as each of our personalities.

Sorry this was so long and hope the journey wasn't all too terrible. All my best to everyone and as always, thanks for taking the time to read through all this and I hope you found something of value in it.


edit on 4-2-2018 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:32 AM

Salwa W Rizkalla. Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data, Received: 12 February 2010 Accepted: 4 November 2010 Published: 4 November 2010

AMA Lefkowitz SS, Lefkowitz DL, Le D, Charles G, Mone J. Glucose Toxicity: a case report. Cases Journal. 2008;1:295. doi:10.1186/1757-1626-1-295. MLA Lefkowitz, Stanley S et al. “Glucose Toxicity: A Case Report.” Cases Journal 1 (2008): 295. PMC. Web. 25 Jan. 2018. APA Lefkowitz, S. S., Lefkowitz, D. L., Le, D., Charles, G., & Mone, J. (2008). Glucose Toxicity: a case report. Cases Journal, 1, 295.

No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates Biesiekierski J.R., Peters S.L., Newnham E.D., Rosella O., Muir J.G., Gibson P.R. (2013) Gastroenterology, 145 (2) , pp. 320-328.e3.

Suspected Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity Confirmed in Few Patients After Gluten Challenge in Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials Molina-Infante J., Carroccio A. (2017) Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 15 (3) , pp. 339-348

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, ISSN1542-7714, Vol: 15, Issue: 3, Page: 339-348 Publication Year:2017

Few gluten-sensitive patients show symptoms after eating gluten Zanini B, et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;doi:10.1111/apt.13372. September 1, 2015

Suspected Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity Confirmed in Few Patients After Gluten Challenge in Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, ISSN: 1542-7714, Vol: 15, Issue: 3, Page: 339-348 Publication Year: 2017

Kevin D Hall, Kong Y Chen, Juen Guo, Yan Y Lam, Rudolph L Leibel, Laurel ES Mayer, Marc L Reitman, Michael Rosenbaum, Steven R Smith, B Timothy Walsh, and Eric Ravussin Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese menAm J Clin Nutr ajcn133561; First published online July 6, 2016. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.133561 Received March 2, 2016. Accepted June 6, 2016

AMA Dashti HM, Mathew TC, Hussein T, et al. Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients. Experimental & Clinical Cardiology. 2004;9(3):200-205. MLA Dashti, Hussein M et al. “Long-Term Effects of a Ketogenic Diet in Obese Patients.” Experimental & Clinical Cardiology 9.3 (2004): 200–205. Print. Dashti, H. M., Mathew, T. C., Hussein, T., Asfar, S. K., Behbahani, A., Khoursheed, M. A., … Al-Zaid, N. S. (2004). Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients. Experimental & Clinical Cardiology, 9(3), 200–205.

Westwater, M.L., Fletcher, P.C. & Ziauddeen, H. Eur J Nutr (2016) 55(Suppl 2): 55. Sugar addiction: the state of the science

AMA Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Sugar and Fat Bingeing Have Notable Differences in Addictive-like Behavior. The Journal of Nutrition. 2009;139(3):623-628. doi:10.3945/jn.108.097584. MLA Avena, Nicole M., Pedro Rada, and Bartley G. Hoebel. “Sugar and Fat Bingeing Have Notable Differences in Addictive-like Behavior.” The Journal of Nutrition 139.3 (2009): 623–628. PMC. Web. 26 Jan. 2018. Avena, N. M., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. G. (2009). Sugar and Fat Bingeing Have Notable Differences in Addictive-like Behavior. The Journal of Nutrition, 139(3), 623–628.

Andrea C Buchholz and Dale A Schoeller Is a Calorie a Calorie? American Society for Clinical Nutrition May 2004
vol. 79 no. 5 899S-906S

AMA Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2008;32(1):20-39. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019. MLA Avena, Nicole M., Pedro Rada, and Bartley G. Hoebel. “Evidence for Sugar Addiction: Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake.” Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 32.1 (2008): 20–39. PMC. Web. 26 Jan. 2018. APA Avena, N. M., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. G. (2008). Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(1), 20–39.

Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, ISSN: 0149-7634, Vol: 32, Issue: 1, Page: 20-39 Publication Year: 2008

Scheurer, M., Brauch, HJ. & Lange, F.T. Anal Bioanal Chem (2009) 394: 1585. Analysis and occurrence of seven artificial sweeteners in German waste water and surface water and in soil aquifer treatment (SAT) First online: 16 June 2009
Renee DufaultEmail author, Blaise LeBlanc, Roseanne Schnoll, Charles Cornett, Laura Schweitzer, David Wallinga, Jane High


edit on 4-2-2018 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:45 AM
a reply to: blend57

Very good, well researched thread - we need more of this here, thankyou.

I heartily agree, sugar is a huge problem. It's a lazy and cheap way for food producers to make food "nice" and the health impact is shocking.

To be clear, I'm a Type-1 diabetic - so there's likelihood I'm biased. It truly is a huge pain in the...
Essentially, large amounts of sugar flood your system, making it very hard work for your pancreas to try and balance it all out and if this goes on too long, your pancreas can just give up. This will leave you with a lifetime dependance on Insulin and constantly having to monitor what you eat and to have to calculate what you're consuming and take insulin accordingly.

I can no longer go out with my mates, drink lots of booze and crash out. I go out, have a moderate amount of alcohol and try to keep a grip on the calculations. My problem was getting drunk and falling asleep without taking insulin, then you end up in hospital (no fun).

There's research suggesting that refined sugars are highly addictive.

We need to start being more thoughtful about what we eat and not just take the convenient options.

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 03:23 AM
Fruits, berries, nuts, meat, veggies.
I don't really sit down and eat "meals."
If I'm hungry I eat a handful of something.
No sodas or candy.
Minimal consumption of grains. I do enjoy the occasional fresh bread or corn on the cob(with lots of butter,)but that is a treat.
Get plenty of exercise.
That's pretty much my regimen.
I'm in my mid 40's and fit as a fiddle.
Thanks for your input. It all makes sense.

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 03:28 AM
a reply to: blend57

I have been on ATS for a while now not including my lurking for years. If it means anything this is the best post I have ever read.

Simply educational. Beaut mate! Research and personal experience blended.

A fine read indeed. Applause from me.

My respect and kindest regards,


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 03:52 AM
Wow! flagged for later viewing, as i haven't read through it all yet but just wanted to say good job op.

As bally001 said prob one of the best thought out and laid out post I've seen on the site, well done

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:49 AM
You are welcome,

Diet advice opinion is like a ass hole, every body has one.....

If you want to believe sugar is bad go ahead, the thing that is causing the obesity epidemic is crooked diet advice sponsored by not just big Pharma but the companies themselves...

"Mixed messages and uncertainty is our biggest asset"..

Remember doctors saying smoking was not just ok but actually good for you!!, who funded that little chest nut???, sound familiar????, keep people sick and we will make Trillions...

I will stick to eating like a Kenyan Marathon runner thanks, high Carb, high refined sugars, low fat... I am now a healthy weight with more energy than I know what to do with cycling thousands of miles a year, climbing Kayaking and looking great bypassing anything I thought possible from my body, also not crying into a bucket of KFC wishing I was fit and ordering a "water" because It is healthy may have something to do with...

There is are no endurance athletes worth a damn eating low carb and restricting sugars, and believe me the average Joe raising a family doing a double whilst attempting to get to the gym a few times a week could take a leaf out of their book...

Of course someone will say they got fit and lost weight eating Bacon and Big macs!!!!,

Do whatever makes you great....


posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 06:36 AM
Very well put together post. I myself have been pursuing more knowledgable dietary changes. And you are absolutely correct....there is far too much information and disinformation to easily come to a conclusion.

Right now, I'm trying to eliminate the carbs and sugar from my diet. It is a ruthless process. THEY...ARE...EVERYWHERE! And to try and eat healthier costs a lot more money. Meats and greens are what I'm aiming for. I just have to accept the fact that there are less options and to resist the sugar/carb cravings.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together! May I ask if this is part of a personal venture for you? Or is it a part of your profession?

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 06:42 AM

originally posted by: blend57
How I Manage Food Part 2

I realized that what the evidence all points to is: We are all different and need different things. Food is as personal as a medical condition, as complicated as an emotional issue and as unique to each one of us as each of our personalities.

This right here is very important!! There is no one "universal" diet. There is a diet that is most optimal for each person and each person must find the diet that works best for them. Job well done Blend57!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in