• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

weight loss plateau - any ideas?

the_anticarb

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,045
Dislikes
Spiders, winter, bills, ignorance, prejudice
Hi all

I am still trying to lose another 1/2 to 1 stone to get to my goal weight, having already lost 2 st this year thru low carbing. Now I am eating prob less than 50g carbs per day but weight loss has plateaud, what can I do to end the plateau? I eat quite a lot of fat in my diet, should I stick with this or lower it? Do I need to take the carbs down further?

Thanks
 
Try eating smaller portions , smaller plate size. It worked for me and after plateauing for quite a while I have lost a further 9 pounds and , hopefully , still losing!!
 
To lose weight once you hit the plateau, it's a good idea to try high intensity cardio...

If you do this for 10 minutes a day, you'll see a LOT of weight drop:

1. Jog for 5 mins to warm up, and then, for the other 5 minutes:

2. Run full sprint for 30 seconds (maximum exertion)
3. Run/jog at medium pace for 10 secs (catch your breath back, basically!)

Increase the length of time you do these intevals for, and you'll see the weight drop as this burns the fat your body is storing...!
 
Yes, and what the exercise does is help remove toxins from the system.

I believe that people plateau because losing weight releases toxins into the body that have to be dealt with. Fat is a toxin store. The liver hives toxins it can't deal with at the time into fat cells where they can sit fairly harmlessly to be dealt with later. In reality, later never comes because we are just continually consuming more products that supply more toxins to the body.

When we go on a diet and lose weight, some of those toxins get released and then need to be dealt with and I suspect that the body gets to a point where it resists further weight loss until the backlog is cleared.

Funnily enough, I haven't lost any more weight now for several months - yet my body is still changing shape. It's like it's rebalancing. I have still had to drop a clothes size even though I am the same weight.

My body is struggling with toxins at present - I think it always has had difficulty eliminating them properly and that may well have contributed to my weight issues. I don't expect to lose any more weight until they have cleared, and losing more weight will indicate that.
 
Just a damp squib
I've tried all the above suggestions and am still stuck after about a year
Hana
 
I went up to about 100g/carbs/day for about a week whilst continued my normal exercise / daily walks - did not put any weight during the week. Then dropped down to around 40/50g carbs/day again and my weigh started to shift again.

Don't know if it is of any use to anybody, but it sort of kicked started my system, somehow.


Alice
 
I'm having this problem too at the moment, so your comments are of great interest to me.

I think patience is probably the answer - but I am not good at it!

I too find that I am getting thinner in certain places - and isn't it fascination which bits of us lost weight in which order. It certainly doesn't all come off evenly.

My latest place are my wrists - despite my still having plenty to spare around hips and tum area.
 
Yes, me too - I've had to move my watch strap fitting up a notch.

I seem to be losing weight without losing weight, if you know what I mean. I'm losing it around my bust too - I went out and bought clothes in size 18 and now they are too big for me. Not that I am complaining - I just can't figure out where it is going.............

Maybe I am building muscle?? I'm not particularly exercising although I am able to move a lot easier than I was, and can now run upstairs, so that must help a bit.

For the first time in years though my lower half is catching up with my upper half and that is fantastic - I have rediscovered my waist for the first time in about 25 years! I could do without losing it upstairs though. It was only being overweight that gave me anything in that department!

I wouldn't mind losing the 'bingo wings' though.
 
AliB said:
Maybe I am building muscle?? I'm not particularly exercising although I am able to move a lot easier than I was, and can now run upstairs, so that must help a bit.

You'll definitely be more spry, and probably you'll find yourself feeling more agile as your joints no longer have to overcome as much weight, but you won't be building muscle. Unfortunately, muscle building is nigh on impossible on a restricted carbohydrate diet, due to muscle growth being stimulated by exercise followed by an immediate replacement of glycogen. Without the replacement of glycogen, you could bench press 100KG every day for ten years and not build any muscle. And the only thing that replaces glycogen fast enough to do this is carbohydrate.

Usually, the first 6 or 7 lbs that a person loses on a really low carb diet will be muscle mass as they use up the glycogen stores in their muscles. With those depleted, muscle growth is almost entirely impossible, even in the msot dedicated of body builders.

If a plateau has been hit, then caloric equilibrium has probably been reached. As said previously, a little exercise will probably make the difference.
 
Yes, but then I am not losing muscle strength through bench pressing and neither do I need to replace it rapidly. Slowly is quite adequate for me. We were designed to work and hunt in relatively short bursts - whether we were designed to 'body build' is another matter. Just because we can doesn't mean that we should.

You keep saying stuff like this UPB, but then how the heck do the Inuit and other cultures that eat virtually no carbs at all ever manage to keep their muscle strength!

I would suggest that your viewpoint may only be taken from the fact that testing and study is generally only done on those that already eat carbohydrates. What little study has been done on the no carb eaters has undoubtedly been swamped by the carb propaganda.

Protein also converts to glycogen - if you didn't eat any protein either then yes, you probably would be consuming your own muscles, but if the body is provided with enough protein, then it will use that for any glycogen conversion it needs.

Charles Washington manages to keep his muscle strength up perfectly well on his NO-carbohydrate diet.

As he points out in his article (that I posted on the 'No-carb' thread, and you should read, if you haven't) the Inuit manage to keep their muscle strength up on their little or NO-carbohydrate diet, and carnivorous animals, like lions manage to keep up their muscle strength too perfectly well on a no-carbohydrate diet. They don't need to warm up or do any stretching exercises either!

Cultures that still hunt like the Kalahari bushmen or the Masai eat a naturally low carbohydrate diet, yet they can walk, hike and run quite happily for miles without flagging.

Sorry, your concept doesn't wash.

If the body is running in fat-burning mode and is furnished with enough fats to fuel the cells and the muscles, it can get enough glycogen it needs from muscle-building protein. You can't take carbs away without replacing them with fat. Some people have problems with fats, but that is because their body is not used to dealing with them due to the 'low-fat' ethic - sometimes that will even result in an atrophied gall-bladder!

We need to gradually 'retrain' the body to work properly. If we were not designed to eat fats in any quantity then we would not have needed a gall-bladder at all. That is why we have one, and it needs to be used in order to keep it healthy and not clogged up with stones. I am 52 and I don't have one gallstone.

Too much protein is not a good thing either as that can cause problems. A low-carb, medium protein, higher fat diet is a much better balance, and much more in tune with the way that the body should be working.
 
Usually, the first 6 or 7 lbs that a person loses on a really low carb diet will be muscle mass as they use up the glycogen stores in their muscles. With those depleted, muscle growth is almost entirely impossible, even in the msot dedicated of body builders

Hi UPB,
Heres some guys that would disagree with you.

With regard to the particulars of how I'm faring overall while on a highly restricted carb diet, I'd have to say I've never felt better. No weakness. No digestive problems. High and steady energy levels. Strength in the gym is good. Although I would obviously be stronger with 20-30 pounds additional bodyweight (even if partly fat), I'd also be risking more injury. Gets tough to fit through doorways at that size, too. ;-).

http://www.davedraper.com/ketogenic-training.html

So, we thought, the way to prevent that is to combine low carb with weight training. To prove this, we performed a study combining a low-carbohydrate diet with weight training. The hypothesis was that restricting carbohydrates in combination with resistance training would promote the greatest fat loss while actually building muscle tissue. And that's exactly what we found. In fact, the results exceeded my expectation

http://thefitnessinsider.menshealth.com ... -isnt.html

Graham
 
Extremely interesting topic this.

I, too, have lost about 2 stone in weight this year through low carbing. I do some walks and got to gym twice a week if I can but not always. Depends on my motivation on the day sadly. Also my blood pressure seems to be a lot better as well through the weight loss.

I had a HABiC(is that right?!) blood test the other week- apparently they will be every 6 months. The nurse told me my result was 5.7 and was supposed to be good. They still don't like the low carb reasonsI give.

My weight loss seems to have 'plateaued' as well. I am not too bothered about that though. However, what does concern me is what would happen if I gradually ate more carbs daily? Would the weight be put back on as quick as I lost it. There are times when I do treat myself to a meal loaded with carbs but that is only very occasioanlly. Normally when I go to see my daughter in London.

I would like to stay at the weight I am at the moment but I wonder how I can keep to that if I continue with low carbing.

Thanks,

Pete
 
Needing carbs to maintain weight is a fallacy. There are many cultures around the World who do not eat carbs, yet they are not Belsen camp inmates!

If the body is able to burn energy efficiently through fat-burning and is supplied with adequate fats for this purpose, it does not need to call on fat reserves. If an individual is overweight it will help them to burn the fat they are carrying until an optimum point is reached and weight stabilises.

Fat is a much better energy form than carbs and supplies that energy at a regular rate. Carb-burning is a short-term energy booster but does not last as the body keeps little glucose in reserve. If the body is fat-burning instead of carb-burning then the glucose reserves can be used for other essential needs instead of having to supply energy.

Paradoxically, both weight gain and weigh loss are controlled by blood sugar and insulin levels. If they are kept stable and not continuously spiked by carb consumption then the body should balance itself out.

Be aware though that any fats you do supply in your diet should be good fats, and that does not include anything hydrogenated, trans-fats, or even heated vegetable oils (ever tried to clean a chip fryer!!!). Cold-pressed vegetable oils used in cold foods are fine. For hot food, frying etc., use saturated fats which do not change their properties when heated, like coconut oil, butter, lard, ghee. Olive oil can be used as long as it is not overheated. Fish oils are also pretty necessary.

The carb energy supply has to be replaced with something. Fat energy is necessary for that otherwise the body could end up converting its muscles to glucose (hence the Belsen wastage problem) for energy.
 
Ali,
Many thanks for that -extremely informative and intersting.

Could you suggest some 'good fats' that I should be eating. We use a lot of rape seed oil and olive oil in our daily cooking etc. In the evening for a light snack I tend to like having a variety of cheeses with pickled onions and gherkins. Are cheeses a good form of the fat you suggest.

regards,

Pete
 
I'm sorry, but you're making a classic mistake. I never said it wasn't possible to get stronger, or to be strong on a low carb diet. You're assuming that strength and muscle size are directly related. They're just not. Hence a power lifter who is the same size as an aesthetic body builder is much stronger. Did you ever wonder why the guys who partake in World Strongest Man contests aren't uber-ripped like show body builders? The training principles are entirely different.

An increase in strength will not always be accompanied by an increase in size, while an increase in size will not necessarily mean you are stronger than a person smaller than you. For exercise purposes, training for either requires a different technique based on resistance, recuperation period, hydration and overall diet.

I'm going to gloss over the Dave Draper article, as actually it doesn't say anything to contradict what I said. It also points out that if you're small and want to gain size, carbs are good. Removing the carbs is highlighted there as useful depending on vast size to begin with and a wish to lose fat. I will say that I'm impressed by the men's health article. This is the first time I've read of a study producing these effects, and don't get me wrong, it's been tried before, it's just never worked. I do notice that it doesn't actually list his entire regime. It works in generalities...and that always makes me suspicious with people gaining muscle. Unfortunately, I've grown to learn that if someone gets truely remarkable results, something is often amiss. Without being too cynical, it's not like it's difficult to get your hands on any kind of growth hormone or muscle stimulating products. I know three guys in my gym who deal - it's one of those things.

And Ali, again you indicate that we are 'designed'. Unless you believe in the literal creation according to Genesis, that simply isn't true. We adapt and make use of anything. It's one of the wonderful things about organic evolution. Now doubtless, extreme amounts of refined carbohydrate IS dangerous, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about restrained amounts of complex carbs, which research shows to be beneficial.

As for carb propoganda? Well, I don't think Muscle and Fitness really gives a hoot about whether you eat carbs or not, given that most of the food suppliments they advertise always highlight that they're high protein and usually carb free. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority get the best results when carbohydrate is taken after exercise. It produces the fastest recovery time. This has been known for a while, even since before McDonalds took over the world.

Now I'm never going to argue that body builders are the picture of health we should all follow. I simply tried to point out that it is not considered possible (albeit, bar that mens health article) to gain muscle without the exercise or carbohydrate. I was simply saying your plateau is not from muscle gain.

Finally, that no carb runner is a distance runner - what on earth would he want size for? It's only be more weight for him to lug around. What distance runner is large? They're all tiny! Same goes for all these cultures you're naming. And as for lions, the very first thing they do when they wake up is stretch every single muscle in their body. It's also worth pointing out that 'warming up' is obviously required less in hot climates...because your body already will be warm (and yes, 'warming up' is literally just that).

And I am so confused by why you're quite happy to accept the dangers of od-ing on carb and protein, but refuse to believe that fat could have similar dangers.

Are you aware that even something like celery, if eaten in large enough quantities, could kill you. It's the chlorophyll. Everything is dangerous in excess. But that's never what I've advocated...regardless of how much you seem to be arguing as if I were.

Anyway, that seems like an awful long post for explanation of one line that I said earlier. I may just stop posting in threads like these. as people like Ali seem to have a huge hissy fit any time I say something that offends their anticarb dogma.

Guess there's no evangelist like a born-again evangelist, eh?
 
UPB, I am not having a 'hissy fit'. This kind of thread brings debate out into the open and no two people are necessarily going to share the same opinion. We just don't happen to agree.

I think you are reading more into my comments than is meant. Who said anything about ODing on fats? All I am saying is that those cultures that eat a higher fat diet - unlike we who typically eat a huge amount of carbs in the 'West', don't suffer because of it.

No-one could exist on 100% fat. All I am saying is that the body is designed (yes, I mean designed) to run on a decent amount of fat - for goodness sake, if it doesn't get enough it will convert carbs to fat in order to keep its supplies up. The body is perfectly able to provide itself with the elements it needs - providing we give it the raw materials to start with.

The problem is the raw materials. These days, even 'restrained' amounts of complex carbs are not that good for us. If you are thinking along the lines of grain-based products, then you really need to look at what has been done to them. Gluten grains are highly damaging. Knowing what I know about gluten and wheat and the meddling that has been done to it, I see all around me people who are suffering different health issues as a consequence.

Wheat and other grains have been modified and hybridised to contain far more gluten (glue) than they did originally, so that more end product can be provided from less grain. Commercially grown food crops have also been hybridised and modifed to get the biggest, and sweetest (not to mention sprayed within an inch of their lives with every chemical concoction known to man. Sugar is added to just about everything in one form or another - often, again, modified and processed. As a consequence we are tuned into the sweet tooth ethic. We reap what we sow.

We are all sick. And we are all getting sicker. It's all very well saying that we can get our Diabetes under control if we cut the carbs - but what if we had cut the carbs years ago and not become Diabetic in the first place!!! If it was fats that drives Diabetes then the whole of the Inuit nation would be Diabetic! The don't become Diabetic until they ditch their traditional diet and adopt ours.

Yes, we do make use of anything - unfortunately we don't always adapt to using it properly. If that was the case then I am sure we could all manage to exist quite happily on all those E numbers we are constantly bombarded with, and the drugs would all cure us and we would all be well. Yeah, right. That is why I say we are designed. We were designed (and fantastically designed) to run well on the good, wholesome, unadulterated, un-meddled-with, un-chemicalised food that was provided for us.

There is only so far we can adapt before everything starts to break down. And the high-carbohydrate, high-sugar, highly-processed and highly chemicalised 'Western' diet is not something we have 'adapted' to very well at all. A tree will only bend so far before it breaks (yes, even trees and plants and animals will only adapt so far before they die).

'Research' has shown a lot of things to be beneficial over the years. You know as well as I do that the majority of the 'research' is about as worthy as a turd in a swimming pool. It is a constantly shifting sand. One bit of research shows something to be good, another shows it to be bad - oh, and have you noticed that they almost always include the word 'may' (such as 'may' help the heart, etc.).

I am an analyst. I NEVER take anything at face value. I always do my own research. And I absorb plenty of it before making up my OWN mind. What runs me more than anything, is common sense - and that, for most people seems to be in very short supply these days. I don't accept that something is right just because it is 'the norm'.

Oh yes, and I would far rather be a long-distance runner than a body builder any day.
 
Hmm.... That's the first time you've addressed me and not put forth what I would interpret as anger toward my point of view. I'm quite happy to debate research and points of view. However, I do take issue with my views being derided and cudgelled as I do so. Now perhaps I'm being over sensitive, but judging by the fights I'll have with my fiancée from time to time, I find that doubtful.

I am aware that you are not advocating a 100% fat diet. I am, however, trying to draw your attention to the fact that at no point have I, or will I ever advocate a

...high-carbohydrate, high-sugar, highly-processed and highly chemicalised 'Western' diet

Your reaction to my posts are tacitly implying that this IS what I argue in favour of. I do not.

What I DO argue for is a limited, though not eliminated, amount of unrefined, complex carbohydrates. Unrolled oats, whole wheat pasta, brown or wild rice; that sort of thing. Yet you are responding to me as if I've said that we should all live on nothing but white bread and pick and mix.

As for the cause of our diabetes, it's hardly been a secret that eating unhealthily will bring on diabetes. However, I've never in my life had an unhealthy diet. I was raised on good, whole, organic food and boom, I still developed diabetes. Go figure what one faulty strand of DNA will do.

If you blame society for your diabetes, that's your prerogative, however abdicative I may regard that. I have no need of that, and I'm sure there are people who would fall on both sides of that way of thinking.

But if we're going to debate ideas, I would rather we debate the ideas each of us have actually put forward, rather than arguing against what we may find easy to defeat (though the issue be entirely absent in the mind of the other) purely in an effort to 'win'.

You are constantly arguing for the diet of 'the inuit'... I'm assuming that you actually refer to Eskimos as a whole as 'Inuit' is the name of a singular and small tribe of Eskimos living in Canada. I will simply point out that their average life span has been recorded to be 10 years shorter than the average Canadian. I haven't the link, but I do remember reading that in a New Scientist or something.
 
Yes, well I think we would probably have a 10 year shorter lifespan if we lived at 40 or more degrees below freezing most of the year!

And yes, I am taking the Inuit tribe as an example. Of course there are quite a swathe of people living and working in the colder climes - even those in Northern Scandinavia and Siberia, etc., have existed perfectly well on a similar diet.

I too felt that I have followed a fairly good diet - we generally would eat the wholewheat bread and butter rather than white putty and margarine, in fact my Mum used to make her own wholemeal bread for years, but she was totally oblivious to the fact that even that 'good, wholesome' bread was actually damaging her.

She died at the age of 64 after a lifetime of T1 Diabetes and latterly other health issues, of multiple organ failure. She had had lifelong anaemia. It was never investigated - her Doctors just kept doling out the Ferrous fumarate to top up her iron levels. She had fertility issues (me, followed by a stillborn, followed by 10 miscarriages). From about 5 years before she died she developed stomach problems, frothy diarrhoea and other symptoms which I now know to be symptomatic of Coeliac Disease.

Just 4 weeks before she died one of the Hospital Doctors suspected Coeliac and put her on a 'way too little, way too late' gluten-free diet. She died of MOF because her gut damage was so bad her body couldn't absorb nutrients any more - regardless of the fact that she was still eating, her body was devouring itself.

The Medical Profession had 64 years to diagnose the Coeliac Disease, and all they gave her was 4 measly weeks.

I now know that my Dad also was damaged by gluten - he too displayed typical symptoms - but you know, those with Coeliac disease can also display the same symptoms as people with any number of other diseases. So they will have all sorts of things as well as the gluten intolerance, like anaemias of different kinds, thyroid problems, digestive issues, IBS, Diabetes, skin conditions like Dermatitis Herpetiformis, etc., Arthritis, neuropathy, ataxia, mental issues like depression, brain fog, bipolar, schizophrenia etc., etc., etc. Coeliac can even masquerade as things like Multiple Sclerosis. Most, if not all of these problems have nutrient malabsorption issues of some kind at their root.

I see a far, far bigger picture here. Those with Diabetes are just another goldfish in the pond. and what we eat has a huge bearing on our health. Virtually all our ill-health has a common link.

What many with Coeliac and gluten intolerance find is that whilst some will get some kind of recovery after dumping the gluten foods, many won't, and that is because the (pretty disgusting) gluten-free foods that they transfer to are typically much higher in carbs and sugars than the gluten foods were and will help to keep the gut damage going. That is why so many are now following the Specific Carb Diet, because it removes all grains, starches, sugars and most dairy and focuses just on good basic food. That way we can get optimum nutrition to help rebuild our digestive systems and start to absorb the nutrients properly, and avoid consuming anything that will keep the damage going.

No. Eating a relatively 'healthy' diet including wholemeal bread, wholewheat pasta, brown rice, etc., etc., did not stop me getting Diabetes either. But perhaps an all natural, gluten, starch and dairy free one just might have.

After over 10 years with IBS my digestion finally collapsed. I was fortunate. I had recognisable symptoms - its those who don't get digestive issues (and there are many with Coeliac Disease who don't) who come off the worst. Things like IBS, and Diabetes, and Dermatitis, etc., are signals. But we are not understanding what those signals are telling us.

It is too easy just to write it all off to 'genetics' or some other scapegoat. But the fact that there are still many cultures in the Earth who are healthy and who do not die of disease like we do is a clear indication that genetics are not really to blame. Yes, we may have inherited vulnerabilities or weaknesses, which may make us more susceptible to certain things but it cannot explain everything.

There are many who appear to carry the supposed 'genetic markers' for Coeliac Disease but who never develop the 'disease'. That alone is enough to show that genetics are not that reliable. Genetics can be switched on and off by different factors and triggers. But diet is with us for life.

Gluten in itself cannot be blamed for the whole caboodle. Carbs in general fuels an overgrowth of yeasts and microbes in the gut. They often get their foot in the door when we are given things like antibiotics that don't touch them, but kill all their 'predators' and our gut defense bacteria (kill the soldiers and the city is undefended). We then treat them kindly by giving them lots of lovely carbs to eat and they reward us by causing mess and mayhem all over the body, dumping their toxic waste behind them as they go.

They damage the gut causing perforations which then allow substances to escape into the bloodstream triggering responses, hence the rapidly growing emergence of allergic reactions, asthma and other histamine-response issues either IgA or IgE, etc. Gluten, if it were able to remain in the gut might be manageable but between that and the bugs, damage is pretty inevitable. Gluteomorphins and Caseomorphins can then get through into the bloodstream and into the body causing problems, and the brain, triggering brain fog, depression and other issues (and possibly even Alzheimer's).

So, perhaps, now you have a little background, you can see why I have such issues with carbs. Maybe if we were healthy to start with, a bit of it here and there would not be that problematic, but by the time we have Diabetes, or Coeliac Disease, or any other health issue the damage has already been done. Yes, lowering carbs will help, but it is still a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted..................if I had known thirty years ago what I know now I would not have eaten all those 'healthy' carbohydrates.
 
Hey, look, if you want to shift blame for what has happened to you to someone else, that's fine. Like I said, I don't mind, personally, if you feel better for abdicating responsibility. It's perfectly normal; people would always rather be angry at someone else than feel upset about what has happened to them.

I just don't think you should be handing out advice, as if it were law, because you'd rather be angry at doctors for causing your problems than be sad about the fact that you can sometimes do nothing wrong and still have something bad happen to you.

Railing against accepted doctrine is cathartic. I understand. But there are billions of people in the world who eat carbs, gluten and everything that you are intolerant to with no problems whatsoever. Statistically, that suggests that the problem is with your body, rather than the advice.

There are people in the world who have a mortal allergy to sunlight, but that doesn't mean that doctors are going to stop advising you to get at least 5-10 minutes of direct sunlight each day.

I feel sorry about your mother, I really do. And all the things you have suffered through sound incredibly depressing and humiliating. But just because something has gone wrong doesn't automatically mean that someone caused it to go wrong.

But this is neither here nor there. I understand preferring to feel anger and vindication for being wronged than to feel upset and helpless for being dealt a bad hand. But to form arguments based on that is dangerous and (despite your claims of seeing the bigger picture) removes perspective from your formation of those arguments.

What you've been through is regrettable. But if your logic were to be truly sound, I would have been the size of an Audi estate car since the age of seven or so. Since there isn't a scrap of fat on me, and there are great percentages of people who are similar to a lesser or greater extent, it could be assumed that there is a link missing in your chain of logic.
 
You see, we are coming at this from different angles.

You seem to believe that everyone gets sick sooner or later regardless of how they live or what their diet is. I however choose to believe the opposite.

Yes, I do believe that we are imperfect, and as such have vulnerabilites to different issues, but I also believe that there are things we can do in our lives to limit that vulnerability. Prevention is better than a cure...........(not that there are many of those).

I am not angry at you at all. I am bemused by your utter conviction that I am totally wrong. Hey! We're actually on the same side here! We both appreciate that too many carbs are damaging - all we differ on is the quantity and type.

My travels have taken me on a journey that has shown me a much bigger picture. You may feel that many people eat wheat et al and don't have problems. Well, I would say, show me someone that doesn't have any kind of health issue of some kind. They may be able to 'get away with it' when they are young, but there are few people who have reached the age of 40 who are not bugged by something.

I have just been trying to reason with you on the bigger picture. If you don't get it, you don't get it, that's fine, and you are perfectly entitled to that.

All I will say is that those who are reading this thread will make up their minds one way or another, and it will either be your way, or it will be mine, or it will be neither.

End of debate.
 
Back
Top