Apologies for bringing up an older post that I've just now caught up with, but if you view these diets as quite imprecise and needing to be adjusted for each individual, doesn't this contradict the emphasis on sticking to them 100%? I've read many posts here where it's stated that people can't expect a diet to work if they cheat at all, and SCD, paleo, etc. seem to be characterised by extreme preciseness.
I view SCD as “imprecise and needing to be adjusted” but SCD is not my diet and they don't care what I think. My view is not the SCD diet and while I generally support the concept that starting with 100% Scd and then seeing if you need to change it, I would not want people to confuse my thoughts about diet with 'The SCD diet”tm
They have a 'system' that works for many and are trying to keep it whole and consistent (as far as they see it).
It would be unworkable to have a 'partial compliance' SCD, it only takes a second of thought to see that they could not offer that as a serious option (
“Dear SCD – your diet is not working and I am doing all the bits of it that I want to. Please tell me why this is not enough”)
I believe that 100% adherence to some parts are required but not others but they are my opinions and are only my opinions.
Paleo is only as rigid as you want it to be, plenty of factions, take your pick, paleo templates, perfect health diet, primal, books of 'paleo treats', 80/20 rules, whatever works for you, but a general agreement that cutting back to a pure paleo (meat and veg) and then reintroducing things to see if they are tolerated.
Ancestral is probably a less loaded word
Sure there are bad apples in pharma. Sure they have kicked the ball onto the green before. Yes, that sort of thing is horrible. But at least (here in the US) we have the FDA, and other outlets which regulate, oversee and try to hold companies accountable.
“kicked the ball onto the green”, “bad apples”
ohh how jolly, what mischievous scallywags.......
$2.2 billion in criminal and civil fines for improperly promoted the antipsychotic drug Risperdal and
the guy who was vice president for sales and marketing at the time gets promoted to chief executive of Johnson & Johnson [1]. Why? - because the fines are a small percentage of the profit and it is worth it to do the crime, pay the fine and get promoted for making buckets of cash..
“Children as young as 18 months are now receiving [atypical antipsychotic medications], despite the fact that the diseases they're designed to treat rarely develop before adolescence.”
“Aggressive, and oftentimes illegal, marketing by drug companies is believed to be a major contributing factor to skyrocketing misuse of antipsychotic drugs in children.”[2]
This isn't a few bad apples, this is profit and greed above all else.
Don't try to trivialise criminal and immoral behaviour
I have done a lot of reading online on SCD and I can't go 5 minutes without being told to buy a book.
Goodness me? A book? About the diet? On a website promoting the diet?
How unethical, You should take the matter up with an office of fair trading.
But seriously, after years of talking to people about SCD and low carb diets I have found the most common failing is not the diet but the inability of the dieters to either understand or follow the diet.
Reading the book would probably increase their success rate.
I'm sure it has helped many, but it is fair, responsible and downright our obligation to question it.
I salute your sense of civic duty, but this “mountain out of molehill technique” is hardly appropriate.
The alcohol issue we have settled, yes? (I don't think drinking is a good idea but alcohol is not a carbohydrate)
Also, bacteria can feed on monosacharides very easily. So how is honey or anything with glucose in it OK? How can one be sure those are broken down in the upper tract and none of those sugars get to the TI or colon? And also, many dissacharides are also broken down early in the tract, so why are those out? Would it also depend on where one's disease is located.
Eliminating sugar and complex carbs will reduce the total sugar enormously. Honey (being 95% monosaccarides) and glucose do not need “breaking down”.
One of the recommendations for those who do not find SCD working is to reduse or eliminate honey
I have asked questions on this board, elsewhere and have never gotten anything close to a reasonable answer.
Are those answers reasonable?
I actually get more skeptical when folks bristle in defensiveness, like god forbid we should actually question something that seems inconsistent about the diet.
I am not bristling, certainly not with defensiveness. I have an overly active sarcasm gland and low tolerance for inanity, Medication is proving ineffective.......
I don't eat SCD, I think it is flawed, I eat a medium carb paleo(ish) diet.
I did start off with SCD but found other exclusions were required, and not all SCD exclusions were necessary.
I would not have worked this out had I not followed the diet accurately
Now, back to the important issue at hand. I see your points about the different carbs, but many dissachs. are broken down in the duodenum. If seems logical that if I have no upper tract disease and am careful with portion size not to overburden the carb load (I admit that can be difficult to ascertain,) I should have no problem tolerating these foods in the right portions.
One wonders how well a book that recommended “
careful with portion size not to overburden the carb load” would be followed
My issue with it at the end of the day is that blanket statements, 100% rigidity, and terms like "illegal" (implying almost criminal if done) for a disease with countless nuances within phenotypes is just a simplistic approach.
A simplistic approach? Probably should have published 1000 different variations of the book and devise a testing procedure to determine who gets which copy?
But seriously,
They have a formula, it works for many, Good on them.
If the book said “
maybe don't eat those, you decide” what use would it be?
Strict adherence may not be necessary for everyone but one has no way of knowing if ones own situation will respond adequately to some of the diet measures, and which of the measures one can afford to ignore.
This is pretty obvious?
Would we want our docs to employ a similar 100% rigid approach with any of our treatments otherwise?
Funny you should mention that,
I just had my cholesterol tested, Doc sat me down and gave me the serious 'We have to do something about these numbers” talk. Gave me three months or else she would have to address my statin deficiency.[3]
Talk about 100% rigidity, look at the top two numbers and don't have any comprehension of what they mean .......
Just to clarify, I completely 100% agree that diet is absolutely and important part of the management of CD..........To say that one diet, or one treatment will be successful for different disease locations, severity, gender, age is in MHO shortsighted.
I am thankful for SCD because even though many of its illegals have been lifesavers for me, it has brought diet into the equation and discussion. I just hope those who follow it, whether successfully or not, are open to opinions which may differ from their own.
Management of CD should not be ideology based, but rather evidence based.
Glad you found it some help
.......revert back to my original statement. There is no question diet not only interacts with gut bacteria but also the immune system. But what that interaction is can vary depending on age, location of disease, duration of disease, severity of disease, maybe even gender. There is no one size fits all answer to any other this. Get a journal, keep a close tally of symptoms, and to be even more scientific get labs, and even better, some imaging or a scope after diet manipulation. See what works and what doesn't.
There is much to support severely restrictive diets that reintroduce foods after an exclusion period.
Since it is impossible to know what foods are contributing to or causing problems and which are only problematic due to the effects of other factors
Therefore a strict elimination that allows the intestine time to heal is a effective way to begin and will greatly help to determine what should be eaten.
Random trial and error would be only useful in ascertaining immediate or short term reactions
SCD is a guideline, sorry you don't approve of their vocabulary......
[1] “recklessly put at risk the health of some of the most vulnerable members of our society — including young children, the elderly and the disabled.” “
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/b...e-risperdal-improper-marketing-case.html?_r=0
[2]
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...gn=20141220Z3&et_cid=DM62500&et_rid=770644932
[3] My numbers put me in the lowest risk category imaginable High HDL, Low triglicerides, LDL calculated with inappropriate formula[4], TotalC/HDL 3.1 (less than half the average risk)' Trig:HDL ratio = 0.26 (2 or less is considered ideal) and both low trig and Low TotalC/HDL are indicative of large boyant LDL, so on every interpretation my panel was excellent but she told me I HAD to stop eating eggs and fat..... Guess what I did- more eggs and fat......
[4]
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~geoff36/LDL_mmol.htm