Hacker News Reader

Dr. John McDougall refutes the arguments that whole grains are unhealthy and cause disease in his critique of Wheat Belly.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/jan/smoke.htm

> every trainer who is even half-way decent at transforming clients tells them to avoid grains, don’t discount what people are ACTUALLY doing to get results

Isn't it more likely that trainers tell people to avoid wheat and corn because they tend to be high-calorie, low-satiety foods? I've lost 70+ lbs over the past year on IIFYM-style caloric restriction. I still enjoy corn and wheat products, but somewhat sparingly because I'd rather have an extra half pound of chicken than a piece of bread.

Cutting out grains is a quick and easy way to help people hack their caloric intake more than anything else, IMO.

Congrats!

Yes that’s also true. But cutting grains also fixes your sense of satiety. Ever had a piece of bread and then next thing you knew the whole bread basket was gone? Many people feel like they can’t control themselves when eating bread. No one does that with steak. And even other high-carb foods like potatoes present less of a problem for people (in terms of whether they feel full and stop eating vs continuing to eat past the point of satiety).

IIFYM is very effective at fat loss BUT (and I know I’m going to get shit for saying this) it requires a very specific personality type that can be very mechanical about eating. Most people don’t have the time or interest to count their macros, and even if they did they still have difficulty overcoming the urges that come with consuming junk food such as modern grains in the U.S.

I don't think it's grains in particular that mess with satiety - it's carbohydrate-heavy diets (particularly simple carbohydrates) vs protein/fats. Protein in particular is known to be highly satisfying, and it tends to be less calorie-dense than carb-heavy foods. Carb-heavy foods are everywhere, because they prepare easily and keep for a very long time, and provide a lot of calories in a small package. Sugar + fat together make our brains super happy and trigger the "put all of that in my face now" response. In the right form, even starchy carbohydrates can be really easy to put down - consider a big bowl of mashed potatoes or white rice for example!

I actually agree with you about IIFYM needing the right personality type. http://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/ is probably my favorite "how to be not fat" page in existence and it outlines that issue quite well - if you can be disciplined to stop eating, then IIFYM works great. If you can't, then full abstinence is pretty necessary. I find that I'm much more successful on an IIFYM diet than an abstinence diet, because on the latter I find myself craving the "forbidden fruit" and it eats at me until I crack, then I feel guilty, and it spirals from there. On IIFYM, I can let myself have whatever I'm craving, knowing that I just have to make up for it with the rest of my intake that day. The actual mechanical part of counting macros is pretty trivial once you've learned how to do it (MyFitnessPal learns your dietary habits quickly, and trivializes the process).

Not every approach works for everyone, but I have a lot of frustration around a lot of the diet fads that are constantly looking for the "magic bullet" - no fat! no sugar! only specific carbs! lots of carbs! 3 gallons of coconut oil daily! Only eat every 6 days! - when, IMO, the only magic bullet is self-discipline to find out how to keep yourself from overeating, and my experience has been that that can be different for each person based on their psychological tendencies.

Great article, just book marked it. Definitely appeals to people “like me” who align philosophically with HN types.

My biggest issue with it, and all diet advice that wants to “give it to you straight, it’s all about calories” is this — YES in order to lose weight you HAVE to burn more calories than you consume, there is no question about it, it’s tautological. But it’s kind of like saying, “in order to stay sober every night, you have to drink alcohol slower than your liver can process.” It’s true...but it doesn’t really answer the question you should be asking, which is “why are you an alcoholic?” The answer to that question is more complicated, but it’s the only question that matters.

Back to diet, when it comes to being lean — why were the vast majority of Americans lean in the 1950s back when almost no one did any formal exercise, especially women, and hardly anyone was counting macros, calorie counting, etc? They just naturally ate about as many calories as their body burned off. Their bodies had a mechanism to tell them to stop eating when they were full. So what’s the difference between people and food 60 years ago and people and food today? No other mammal on earth has gotten so obese as a percentage of the population as humans have. The answer to that question, I’d argue, is the only one that matters!

I think this is why the Paleo diet has taken off so well, because frankly we shouldn’t have to count calories, macros, etc to stay lean — yes, those methods work, but we should be able to simply rely on the signals our bodies are sending us, every other lesser mammal does this, and humans did it just fine 60 years ago.

TL;DR Yes, it’s all about eating fewer calories, BUT how you eat fewer calories has a big effect on whether you can sustain it long term and feel satiated.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry reading "Wheat Belly". Honestly, how does a person who writes such garbage even call himself a doctor. It should be a case study for a textbook on what bad science is, and how we are very ill-served by celebrity-doctor types who try to make a lot of money off their brand.

What's the difference between mainland European and American (north American?) grains?

Citations for this crap?

Hm, did you read my comment?

I said source: Wheat Belly (book by Dr William Davis), but also my experience working with clients and with trainers who are experts at transforming clients from fat to fit.

Citations, not a diet books and anecdotes.

Edit: hate my tone all you like, but keep in mind if this weren’t fringe bullshit I’d be met with more than downvotes and attitude.

Wheat Belly is not a diet book, it’s a summary of the science out there on grains with 100s of scientific citations. Yes it has diet recommendations at the end of it.

The Wikipedia article only cites this article http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/2/84 . Do you have a link to another paper that also supports this conclusion?

The aversion to new facts is palpable. This is the top google hit to “wheat dietary inflammation”: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705319/

But really, your problem is not that the GP did not cite their facts, you just don’t like the sound of their claims, so you’ll respond in a toxic way. I hardly expect the actual scientific literature to change your views.

Did you even read the study? They only say that it might be possible that there could be an effect on inflammation, but also stating that there haven't been good studies done on that subject. The problem is that nutritional studies are often very narrow, only for specific cases and the same applies for the results. However, those studies are often broadly generalized by ill-informed people. I'm no expert either, so I can't say if grains would be good or bad, it's just clear to be that neither can all the other people who claim to know so.

My problem seems to be that there is some significant overlap between the groups, “people who use HN” and “people who are the target audience for self help books.” Worse, are people who can’t cite and instead throw articles into the mix, while being condescending and pseudo-psychic.

Just bury me in good citations and we can both be happy.

On the other hand, it might just be that this particular topic is unusually divisive. The science of gluten sensitivity is young, its study fraught with placebos and confounding variables, and adherents of the anti-gluten movement are often nearly religious in fervor. Asking for citations might just be asking for trouble.

True, but there are few better demonstrations of the weakness of an argument than asking for someone to prove it, instead to be met with anger and verbiage.