I am doing my very best to be gluten-free, but I am only 25% of a household. The other 75% don't have gluten problems, so I have my own toaster, my own wooden spoons and chopping boards. This seems to work fine.

I think you are over-stating the case somewhat.

There are plenty of celiacs or gluten-intolerant people out there who share kitchens with gluten-eaters and do fine!!!

I do have to be careful and I do wash my hands a lot and wipe down surfaces a lot, but with a bit of care and attention, it seems to work.

After five weeks of practising this routine, my gluten-induced symptoms disappeared. No more diarrhoea!!!

I can't describe how happy I was when I realized I was pooing like a normal person again!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mind you, that said, one must be ever vigilant. I think I managed to glutenate myself a few days ago: 1kg weight gain overnight, bloated and then an attack of diarrhoea. But that was the first time I got glutened at home since I began the GF WOE on November 22nd 2010.

Just my two cents...

amanda

Unfortunately I had borrow my micro text so I do not still own it, but I remember it said specifically, "There is zero requirement of dietary carbohydrate." But we didn't get into that in class. We were taught the Krebs cycle with the glucose molecule. We were not required to learn the energy pathways of dietary fat or ketosis. I did look it up in the book and I noticed that metabolism of fat creates more ATP energy molecules than glucose. Something like 4 to 2 respectively. Sounds like a better deal to me. My teacher was also overweight and could be bribed with Snickers bars. I remember asking about the fat molecule's role in the energy cycle and was told we simply used glucose "as an example, because there is not enough time". As for my nursing teachers, I don't get into it with them. It's not worth it and I'm too shy and I don't have studies at the ready to back myself up. If asked (students have asked), they do say that a low-carb diet produces ketoacidosis. I just let it be and tell all my co-students later how wrong they are. Basically, I haven't read anything yet that is specifically wrong, just confusing. The books are constantly not clarifying "dietary carbs" and "blood glucose", treating them as one of the same, nor do they clarify ketosis and ketoacidosis. I hear over and over glucose is needed for energy. Makes one want to run over to the vending machine for some candy bar energy. I would probably speak up more if I had studies that proved ketosis doesn't cause a decrease in blood ph, or studies showing the ideal range of blood sugar and how much blood sugar any particular body cell needs for optimal function, you know, good studies, not biased ones. Anyone know of any?

Oh my gosh! What you wrote about being taught the Kreb's cycle! I am teaching an advanced course in Biology next year, and the Kreb's cycle is STANDARD. I am SO GLAD I read your post...I'll teach the Kreb's cycle, but I am darn well going to teach the metabolism of fat for energy! Thank you thank you thank you opticalpop!

I was a biochemist, the krebbs cycle is just one of the many metabolic pathways that you get taught as a biochemist, and yes we were told absolutely that there is no dietary requirement for carbohydrates, or for heavens sake - fibre.

The medics (but not nurses or dietitians) shared a proportion of our lectures, but honestly? the depth that they were required to know and were taught was a mere taster to show them that "complicated things went on inside cells", they'll get the same depth about addictions and spotting child abuse and the history of bed-sores: i.e. very little.

The krebbs cycle wasn't showcased to them beause it was the most important, it was used because its one of the first one worked out and is therefore in all the text-books and a "classic£ like photosynthesis - it's lazy but there you go, most of what medics learn in medical school is entirely useless (because it is so shallow) and forgotten about once they learn how to actually do the job (as a house officer or resident in their chosen specialty)

Hey, no prob! :wave:

Exactly! Well put. :lol:

That's false. But then the target audience for this article is runners. There's no group more indoctrinated about carbs than runners. And the article merely tries to adhere to this model. I mean, the entire website is aimed at runners.

I love Runner's World magazine, have been reading it since 1994 when I started running. That said, I don't pay much attention to the "nutrition" articles. They seem to be based on the Standard American Diet, only more carbs :rolleyes:

Is that true? :)

This is what I've learned about my health:

We all have an imbalance or we'd be in perfect health.

My imbalance is not anyone else's imbalance, so the adjustments I make are to correct my own imbalances. As I make corrections my body adjusts and responds differently and I make more adjustments to continue the health improvements to achieve the all illusive "state of balance". Based on past adjustments made due to monitoring results and observing my progress, I ended up with a moderately low carb diet that seems to work out just great for me, but that is my result for now. I still do not claim to own the key to the future and can say my present diet is the perfect diet for me. As I continue to monitor and based on different results I may get, I'll make further adjustments.

For now, gluten is not my enemy, and neither are carbohydrates from whole foods. Refined carbs have remained the constant enemy... For me, I can sing to the tune of "variety and moderation", as that has been consistently working for me a I progress and improve my health.....