So... after watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM and looking around it appears that this low fructose diet/lifestyle may have some merit... anyone tried this/doing this?

I've been thinking about what I eat and it seems that fructose is nearly unavoidable... but I can't always tell what food has what in it... no apples, honey, wheat

1/12/2010 12:40:09 PM

You may also want to consider looking at this paper too for sources of protein

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122413811/PDFSTART

Also it is speculated that soy decreases the incidence of prostate cancer in men.

1/12/2010 1:16:17 PM

are you trying to lose weight or actually be healthy?

because a diet that's low in fruits, vegetables, and wheat is just stupid unless you have fructose malabsorption or are trying to lose weight (in a not very healthy/sustainable manner - i.e. atkins)

on the other hand, a diet low in hfcs/table sugar is more reasonable

1/12/2010 1:23:13 PM

^^ And, concerning soy, say hello to brain atrophy:

Quote :

"Probably the most prominent research that's evoking these suspicions was the published work of Lon White at the Pacific Health Research Institute in Honolulu. Dr. White's ongoing study of 3,734 Hawaiian men over more than thirty years suggests that regular consumption of tofu over many years during their middle age was associated with early dementia or what Dr. White terms 'accelerated brain aging.' White's study was a long-range study charting the eating habits of the men since 1965. Final assessments were made of their cognitive functioning (e.g. thinking, learning, memory) along with tests for measuring brain atrophy or shrinkage. The stunning conclusion was that the men who ate two or more servings per week of tofu had steeper declines in brain functioning resulting in dementia."

http://tinyurl.com/yfddtkb

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 1:24:27 PM

you faggots and your fad diets just use some moderation and discipline

cuttin out parts of a complete diet and addin bullshit some biased science says you should add is stupid

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 1:28 PM. Reason : d]

1/12/2010 1:27:55 PM

^^ I wonder if it has anything to do with the estradiol derivatives in soy. I dunno...

^ I can say that once I started drinking loads of water, I lost more weight than I really wanted, but felt amazing in terms health and mind... I don't eat really bad in the first place with the occassional pizza and cookies



[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 1:32 PM. Reason : dsfh]

1/12/2010 1:30:14 PM

^^what he said, except without all the inflammatory language.

__________ diets are nonsense. Just eat good food. Fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grain, plenty of water, and not a lot of preserved or packaged food. Don't eat so much, and don't eat out very often. I promise you'll be better off.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 1:30:52 PM

I'm trying to lose weight. I don't eat a ton. I've done the eat healthy and exercise thing... with little to show. Just figured that lowering HFCS, fructose, etc intake may be worth a shot and was asking about that

or in other words, leave the chit chat shit in chit chat. I put lifestyle in this for a reason - didn't mean a fad diet, I meant a change in my food intake. I didn't ask about your advice on other matters. I asked about low fructose eating.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 1:35:16 PM

^^ Except that's not what you've indicated before:

Quote :

"People are too stupid to eat healthy, we live in the fattest country in the world, and I have to pay for it through higher health insurance. Until all three of those facts change, I support any such 'food police.'"

God

message_topic.aspx?topic=577207

Which one is actually your position?

1/12/2010 1:38:45 PM

Quote :

"I've done the eat healthy and exercise thing... with little to show."

either you weren't eating as healthy as you thought, exercising as well as you thought, or you have a metabolism/thyroid problem

seriously, any diet that significantly limits fruits/vegetables/whole wheat, especially for an extended period, is not a good "lifestyle"

1/12/2010 1:39:29 PM

fwiw, i lost 120 lbs loosely following South Beach for a while, which really just morphed into eating less food overall, more vegetables, and being more aware of what i put in my body. It can be done... though starting some kind of diet is a really good way to ease yourself into better eating habits in the long run... at least it was for me.

1/12/2010 1:41:21 PM

^^^ What the fuck? Those two posts are completely irrelevant to each other.

1/12/2010 1:44:37 PM

IM GOING TO LIVE ENTIRELY OFF OF ORGANICALLY LOCALLY GROWN MANGOSTEENS

1/12/2010 1:45:58 PM

^^^^^

I'm not one to defend the guy, but what he said about eating healthy and thinking Americans are too stupid to do that aren't conflicting stances.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM. Reason : *]

1/12/2010 1:46:28 PM

where is this no fruits/vegetables thing coming from? you can still eat those things... maybe limit those with high fructose contents. my question is more in relation to other foods that have fructose or similar compounds added in...

1/12/2010 1:46:50 PM

remember that ol pyramid thing we learned about in kindergarden??

its actually one of the few publically circulated guidelines that the government got right

its all you really need. unless the word "sparingly" is too big for you.

1/12/2010 1:48:33 PM

^x5 "moderation and discipline" =/= calling the "food police," you dolt. Self-discipline was clearly what was being advised--not some outside authority forcing you to stop stuffing whatever into your goddamned mouth.

1/12/2010 2:12:41 PM

I realize this thread is about those who have started their own Low fructose diet/lifestyle.... which I have not. Hear me out, maybe I can offer some insight.

I am in outside sales, which is currently salary+commission, but will move into straight commission starting at the beginning of July 2010. I have been in this position since July 2009. I have competition from several direct manufacturing sales reps, large distributors, and local distributors. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of each:

Direct Advantages: Immediate knowledge of new technology, no middle man mark up, one shipping bill (paid by manufacturer or buyer of goods), access to larger range of non-commodity items, control inventory, have access to many distributors that can effectively sell their goods which increases market share, and set prices of commodity they manufacture.

Direct disadvantages: Typically have 1-3 sales reps per region (i.e. southeast, mid-atlantic, northeast, etc.) limiting the number of accounts they can successfully manage/cold-call, lack physical customer service or physical technical service available to or affordable for smaller users or altogether, are sometimes not trustworthy because they will go in behind their distributors that sell their commodity to one account in large quantities (i.e. they missed a big account, and have found out about it through a distributor selling their particular product) which leads to the distributor not selling their product anymore, have too many distributors selling the product ultimately driving the set price down through deviations, possibly rely on distributors to actually sell the product, and competition from other direct sources.

Large distributor advantages: have access to other commodities that go hand in hand with other manufacturers (poor example- grocery stores sell milk as well as cereal), get direct pricing, many locations regionally or nationally easing the shipping burden of buyers with multiple locations, personal service either customer or technical, many sales reps that are able to cover a broader territory, access to multiple manufacturers of the same commodity allowing to keep prices in check, service programs that smaller companies can't offer and direct providers can't match in price or value, and experts of many many commodities as opposed to one or a few.

Large distributor disadvantages: smaller local distributors creating price wars (think Michael Scott Paper Co vs Dunder-Mifflin), direct mfg's going in behind and stealing business, limited access to all of the mfg's (you won't find Harris Teeter name brands in Food Lion and visa versa), can't truly set prices because it's based on both supply and demand, territory management, and tough growth prospects in slower economies (this is true for direct as well really)

Local distributor advantages: Typically a good ol' boy setting where the seller and the buyer know each other for years (this does happen at all levels, but mostly at the local level), local folks are right down the street and can be used in emergencies, if the local guy buys at high enough volumes then there is no shipping charge to the end user, and access to both direct mfg's and large distributors.

Local distributor disadvantages: easily beaten in price, array of commodities, array of technology, lack of trained staff, low cash flow, etc etc etc.

This is what I have noticed in my six months, I am sure there are plenty more that need mentioning. The way I am setting myself apart as a sales person is this: I go after the big accounts right now while I am new. The big accounts, if I land them, will take care of me while I am new and building a customer base. The money made off of those allows me to focus free time on smaller accounts that get me higher margins. I build up big accounts, I would like to have 5-10 of these, then get 20-30 medium accounts. If I lose 1 or 2 big accounts, the 20-30 medium accounts keep me afloat while I go after new big accounts. I don't really waste time on small accounts simply because they basically pay for breakfast or something really small.

I will say this, if you can't get a big account in the first 6-8 months (assuming you have cash flow that you can ride this long) you could be in a world of trouble. If you can get one, it will really make going after the others a lot more enjoyable and less stressful. It's simply just very exhausting wasting any time on anything other than big accounts in the very beginning. You work just as hard on the medium sized accounts and see 1/3 to 1/36 of the money in my situation.

If you have any other questions, you can PM me. I hope this helps in the slightest!

1/12/2010 2:45:19 PM

You sonofabitch you stole my thread!

message_topic.aspx?topic=585757

1/12/2010 2:45:34 PM

Watching now

1/12/2010 2:48:01 PM

I can see wanting to significantly reduce high fructose corn syrup intake, but it seems to me like eliminating more 'natural' sources of fructose is taking it to the extreme.

1/12/2010 3:56:59 PM

More than likely, he's equating anything with fructose to HFCS.

So his stated intention might not actually be what he's thinking of doing.

1/12/2010 3:59:02 PM

Quote :

"Also it is speculated that soy decreases the incidence of prostate cancer in men."

men shouldn't eat soy products, especially in enough quantity to serve as a viable protein source.

Quote :

"either you weren't eating as healthy as you thought, exercising as well as you thought, or you have a metabolism/thyroid problem "

just take supplemental thyroid hormones and you don't have to worry about which one is the problem.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 4:22:14 PM

Any diet that limits the intake of [non-starchy] fruits and vegetables is not a good diet/lifestyle. If the only fruits/veggies one eats is bananas and potatoes, then yes, do limit those.

Quote :

"where is this no fruits/vegetables thing coming from? you can still eat those things... maybe limit those with high fructose contents. my question is more in relation to other foods that have fructose or similar compounds added in..."

Well, fructose is mainly found in fruits in the human diet. Yes, some fruits is high in fructose, and some are not so high. But still, the major natural source of fructose in the human diet is fruits.

Quote :

"emember that ol pyramid thing we learned about in kindergarden?? its actually one of the few publically circulated guidelines that the government got right"

Actually, they didn't. That pyramid is not very good, and in case you haven't noticed, they changed the pyramid a few years ago and there is a new one now.

Quote :

"seriously, any diet that significantly limits fruits/vegetables/whole wheat, especially for an extended period, is not a good "lifestyle""

Whole wheat, while good for you (as long as it is not pulverized into flour), is not the best grain out there. There are much healthier grains, such as oats, barley, rye, teff, quinoa, and amaranth. Anyway, the problem with grains humans is that humans eat grains mostly as products made from grain flour. Flour (especially finely pulverized) is not good for you, even if it is whole grain. Grains should be consumed whole, or broken into bits, but not powdered. It is flour products which make people fat as well. Too much bread, cereals, cookies, etc., even if they are without sugar and/or fat.

1/12/2010 4:32:23 PM

everyone else has already said it, but to reiterate, if your diet says you can't eata fucking apple, for gods sake, it is probably terrible diet.


[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 4:48 PM. Reason : a]

1/12/2010 4:46:36 PM

Quote :

"IM GOING TO LIVE ENTIRELY OFF OF ORGANICALLY LOCALLY GROWN MANGOSTEENS"

Great, now some mangosteen farmer in Thailand is going to make a diet site

1/12/2010 6:16:30 PM

i want that low fructose lifestyle

1/12/2010 6:24:41 PM

I got dat 190% low fructose.

1/12/2010 6:29:00 PM

^HAHA

1/12/2010 9:50:49 PM

Quote :

"So... after watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM and looking around it appears that this low fructose diet/lifestyle may have some merit... anyone tried this/doing this?"

I'm doing it, Bill.

From the video the guy puts his kids on this diet:
No soda/sweet tea or fruit beverages - just water and milk
Eat fiber when you eat carbs
Wait 20 mins between portions of a meal
Try to exercise the same amount that you sit around

Quote :

"I've been thinking about what I eat and it seems that fructose is nearly unavoidable... but I can't always tell what food has what in it... no apples, honey, wheat"

Honey is about 40% fructose. Fruits and vegetables have small amounts of fructose, not large amounts, that can be processed by the liver.

1/12/2010 9:56:12 PM

Quote :

"remember that ol pyramid thing we learned about in kindergarden?? its actually one of the few publically circulated guidelines that the government got right its all you really need. unless the word "sparingly" is too big for you."

hahhahahhahahha. yea. 6-11 servings of grains.

when the proper amount is 0.

1/13/2010 7:49:34 AM

^ I was about to post the same thing. Veggies should be at the bottom of the pyramid and not grain. Problem is that veggies are more expensive and kids don't want to eat them when they can have HFCS filled nastiness, so they put grain at the bottom to reduce gov. costs and make people sluggish.

1/13/2010 9:43:47 AM

Quote :

"remember that ol pyramid thing we learned about in kindergarden?? its actually one of the few publically circulated guidelines that the government got right its all you really need. unless the word "sparingly" is too big for you."

Watch the video posted in the OP. A high carb diet was the result of some bogus 1982 study.

1/13/2010 11:39:05 AM

<--carb cycler

1/13/2010 12:00:04 PM

Quote :

"hahhahahhahahha. yea. 6-11 servings of grains. when the proper amount is 0."

0? The other extreme is stupid as well.

Here is what it should say:

3-6 servings of whole grains

(NOT GRAIN PRODUCTS, WHETHER WHOLE OR REFINED)

1/14/2010 1:05:16 PM

We spent MILLIONS of years evolving without grains.

Yet not eating them is stupid?

Ok you got me, magic man....

1/14/2010 8:31:15 PM

Yes, I know you are referring to the "Neolithic Diet".

However, just because humans didn't eat grains for a long long time doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't.

Fact of the matter is, grains can be healthy, if eaten whole or broken into bits (not pulverized into flour). Very healthy, in fact, just as healthy as fruits and vegetables.

So yeah, excluding a nutritious group of foods from your diet IS STUPID.

And excluding a nutritious group of foods from your diet just because our ancestors didn't eat them (not because they didn't want to, but because they didn't know) IS VERY STUPID.

1/14/2010 8:44:48 PM

No.

1/14/2010 8:50:04 PM

ok, whatever. you are a waste of time.

1/14/2010 9:04:28 PM

Quote :

"Problem is that veggies are more expensive and kids don't want to eat them when they can have HFCS filled nastiness, so they put grain at the bottom to reduce gov. costs and make people sluggish."

You had me until the last part. Grains are at the bottom because of corn and wheat lobbyists pushed for grains to be at the bottom. This is well established if you look at the papers detailing the creation of the food pyramid.

But yeah, the pyramid should be something like veggies on bottom, fruits and grains the next tier, meat and dairy the next, and crap you shouldn't eat left off all together

1/14/2010 9:38:07 PM

Quote :

"So yeah, excluding a nutritious group of foods from your diet IS STUPID."

1/14/2010 10:11:18 PM

Grains are high in calories, high in carbs, low in nutrients (none of which are exclusive to grains), and high in antinutrients.

Any study you find declaring the health benefits of whole grains will surely be comparing them only to refined grains, which we all agree are terrible.

But nevermind all that; bring on the 11 bowls of pasta!

1/14/2010 11:26:28 PM

We do eat carbs for a reason. If you're exercising as you should be it's pretty damn stupid to cut out grains because they're "high in carbs" imo. They're fuel for the body.

1/15/2010 5:24:31 AM

Grains have just as many calories as fruits, vegetables, and meat does, gram for gram. "High in calories"... WTF does that mean? And since grains are the richest source of fiber after beans/lentils in the human diet, they also keep you fuller for longer, and slow down the digestion keeping blood sugar levels stable.

"High in carbs"? Meat is "high in protein". And fat too, depending on the cut of meat. What's your point? Oh I get it, you are one of those Atkin's groupies... "all carbs are bad", right?

"Low in nutrients"? This really shows your ignorance. High in fiber, decent amounts of some minerals and vitamins, and high in antioxidants. And some are quite high in good quality protein as well (quinoa, amaranth have complete protein). Go educate yourself.

"None of which are exclusive to grains". Actually, a couple of the antioxidants isolated from grains have not been found in other foods, especially from oats and barley. But even if what you said is true, so fucking what? There are not many nutrients which are exclusive to just one food. Hey don't eat oranges to get your vitamin C... it is not exclusive to oranges!

"High in antinutrients". If you cook grains enough, the antinutrients are neutralized. Beans have the same problem. Are you against beans as well? Oh yeah, of course you are, because early humans only ate meat, fruits, seeds, shoots, and roots. That means no grains, no beans, no lentils, no dairy.

Quote :

"Any study you find declaring the health benefits of whole grains will surely be comparing them only to refined grains, which we all agree are terrible."

You are fucking insane. There are HUNDREDS of studies showing the benefits of eating whole grains in and of themselves, not relative to refined grains. Jesus dude, now you have really done it. Go do some reading before you spout false knowledge.

Quote :

"But nevermind all that; bring on the 11 bowls of pasta!"

Yeah, that's what I said. "3-6 servings of whole grains (NOT GRAIN PRODUCTS, WHETHER WHOLE OR REFINED)".

I mean, I thought you were misguided/ignorant, but that last sentence of yours shows you are just a troll.

1/15/2010 5:26:14 AM

Quote :

"You are fucking insane. There are HUNDREDS of studies showing the benefits of eating whole grains in and of themselves, not relative to refined grains. Jesus dude, now you have really done it. Go do some reading before you spout false knowledge."

Please educate me. I've seen very few studies comparing a diet with whole grains to a diet with NO grains. Of course, in one the ones that I have, no grains has always come out on top (usually paleo vs mediterranean).

Quote :

""High in carbs"? Meat is "high in protein". And fat too, depending on the cut of meat. What's your point? Oh I get it, you are one of those Atkin's groupies... "all carbs are bad", right?"

You do realize that carbs are a non-essential macronutrient, right? You can literally live off of only animal products for years. Trying eating no fat and no protein. You will die.

I have nothing to do with Atkins. If you watched the video posted or have read anything in the last few years worth reading on diet, you'll realize that carbs are making us fatter. Carbs -> insulin -> fat storage. It's as simple as that. We don't need that many carbs, we can't handle that many carbs. That's why I bring in evolution, not because it's just fucking fun to do.

Quote :

""High in antinutrients". If you cook grains enough, the antinutrients are neutralized. Beans have the same problem. Are you against beans as well? Oh yeah, of course you are, because early humans only ate meat, fruits, seeds, shoots, and roots. That means no grains, no beans, no lentils, no dairy."

Yea I guess you've never heard of gluten.

Quote :

"We do eat carbs for a reason. If you're exercising as you should be it's pretty damn stupid to cut out grains because they're "high in carbs" imo. They're fuel for the body."

This is my absolute favorite. After realizing that there is no value in grains, people have to resort to FUEL. AKA ENERGY. AKA CALORIES. Yea, finally the solution to our problems. More calories. High GI calories that drive insulin and fat storage. Just what Americans needs. Fruits and veggies have all the carbs you need and they aren't high GI.

Oh, and consider this: the "fuel" argument applies equally well to sugar.


[Edited on January 15, 2010 at 7:21 AM. Reason : d]

1/15/2010 7:21:07 AM

Quote :

"you'll realize that carbs are making us fatter."

Quote :

"High GI calories that drive insulin and fat storage. Just what Americans needs."

Jesus dude, not all carbs are the same. What part of that don't you understand???

Quote :

"Yea I guess you've never heard of gluten."

Gluten is handled by most humans well. And not all grains contain gluten. Do you know that?

And you want to live off of animal products. I guess all the saturated fat you will consume doesn't bother you, right? But the gluten bothers you?

Look, if I could get the flesh of free-range animals which have been raised on their natural diet (grass, roots, insects, worms, etc) at the same price as today's bullshit animal flesh, then I am all for the diet you are advocating.

Otherwise, eating massive amounts of today's commercially raised animals and their products is very harmful.

And you didn't tell us how you feel about beans, lentils, nuts. They were also introduced into our diets relatively recently (about 10,000 years ago), around the same time as grains. I guess those foods are bad for us as well?

Your problem is you think 'grains' = 'wheat' cakes, cookies, white bread, froot loops, etc. Do you even know of the unique antioxidants that have been found in oats, brown rice, and other grains, and their extraordinary health benefits? Wheat is not the only grain, you know.


[Edited on January 15, 2010 at 8:32 AM. Reason : ]

1/15/2010 8:12:59 AM

The problem with the American diet is super-processed foods and little exercise. Quinoa and brown rice are not the enemy

Anyone actually interested in why the American diet sucks so bad I recommend In Defense of Food. The American food history part of the book was really interesting and the eating guidelines part was more or less common sense but sadly most Americans seem to lack that in the food department.

1/15/2010 8:24:50 AM

Quote :

"Grains have just as many calories as fruits, vegetables, and meat does, gram for gram. "High in calories"... WTF does that mean?"

Dead wrong. Maybe what you're thinking is that a gram of carbs in fruit is the same as a gram of carbs in grains, which is true. But since they have more carbs/g, they have a lot more calories. Here is one comparison:

quinoa (170g): 626 calories, 109g carbs
apple (170g): 88 calories, 23g carbs
http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-quinoa-i20035
http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-apples-i9003?size=7

So the quinoa is like 5 apples in calories. And you're suggesting 3-6 servings of grains. 1 apple a day to keep the doctor away, sure. The equivalent of 15-30 apples per day.... do you see where I'm going with this?

And yea, I classify beans, dairy, and grains all about the same. I think they should be "used sparingly". Fruits and veggies are much better. Grains are not that bad, I'm just trying to get you guys to realize that they are NOT necessary. Therefore, the government recommending 6-11 servings of a non-necessary food (with no distinction between refined/whole) was a MAJOR screwup. This wasn't the stone age of nutrition. We GREW UP on the pyramind recommendations.

I never, btw, suggested eating only animal products. I just said it was possible, as opposed to eating only grains.

1/15/2010 9:18:03 AM

Quote :

"So the quinoa is like 5 apples in calories. And you're suggesting 3-6 servings of grains. 1 apple a day to keep the doctor away, sure. The equivalent of 15-30 apples per day.... do you see where I'm going with this?"

Sorry, I was thinking 5 times the carbs. It's 7 times the calories, so basically 21-42 apples a day.

Also, the apple has 1/3 the fiber. So per calorie, it has twice as much fiber as the quinoa...

1/15/2010 10:10:41 AM

1/15/2010 11:57:54 AM