Poll of the Day > 10 week update after eliminating gluten

(+) Yeah! (+)

Got my celiac diagnosis in early May. Since then, my total weight has dropped about 4.6% from 214 to 204 lbs. Only 5 lbs to the border of BMI normal/overweight boundary (though BMI is pretty meaningless on me). Would estimate body fat at ~14%

Lifts are the same or slightly higher than they were before

Lessened joint pain/inflammation

Almost completely non-existent GERD (LPR) symptoms

Changes are not due to any effort to actually lose weight. Lifestyle remains identical to how I've been living before, other than gluten elimination:

• Intermittent fasting 17:7
• Two huge meals per day where I stuff myself as much as physically possible
• Morning fasted cardio (after 5g BCAAs)
• In bed for ~9.5 hrs for a little over 8 hrs of cumulative time actually asleep
• Walking to/from work
• Lift 5-6 days per week

/blogfaqs

---

So are you swole or what. How tall are you 200+ seems pretty heavy unless you buff or quite tall.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

So are you swole or what. How tall are you 200+ seems pretty heavy unless you buff or quite tall.

He's probably 6'2''.
I am 6'0'' and currently around 210. Was 204 like two months ago.

---

I am 6'3"

I'm not huge or anything, I've always had trouble putting on muscle and now apparently I know why (my small intestine was incapable of fully absorbing stuff and I've been essentially malnourished)

---

Ok yeah that weight makes sense with you lifting too. I always feel like a midget even though I'm 6 foot. The men in my family are extremely tall. One of my teen nephews is like 6'4. I weigh round 175 but I don't keep track of stats. My ideal weight is probably the same but much bigger physical difference. I have to rearrange my muscle to fat ratio with a better diet.

---

I honestly never even think about my height unless I hit my head on something

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

So are you swole or what. How tall are you 200+ seems pretty heavy unless you buff or quite tall.

200+ is pretty normal for an average sized guy. I'm nowhere near being fat but I'm 200 pounds at 5'11".

---

Well it's normal in the sense that it's common, i.e. common for the average height man to be overweight

---

faramir77 posted...

200+ is pretty normal for an average sized guy. I'm nowhere near being fat but I'm 200 pounds at 5'11".

Normal doesn't mean good. I didn't say it wasn't normal I said its heavy, unless he tall (turns out he is). Plus he works out a lot so his weight makes sense. You shouldn't be 200+ pounds under 6 foot and not athletic/muscular. And if someone is neither of those they certainly not going to be thin at that weight/height ratio. I'm the one that's nowhere near being fat (a few people on here know what I look like) and I weigh 175-180 at 6 foot. Thats inside healthy range not accounting for muscularity. If you shorter than this and weigh at least 20lbs more (and its not muscle) you are overweight from fat and probably putting a lot of pressure on your joints. This will go down badly when you older. Muscle guys have this problem too if they go overboard.

---

Clench281 posted...

(though BMI is pretty meaningless on me)

BMI is pretty meaningless on everybody.

MeteoricBurst posted...

200+ seems pretty heavy unless you buff or quite tall.

200+ sounds like more than it is for a guy, unless they're very short.

Clench281 posted...

Well it's normal in the sense that it's common, i.e. common for the average height man to be overweight

That's not really overweight, though. Not by any definition, particularly if you're saying the average is overweight then it's not actually overweight, it's just the overage.

---

Zeus are you trying to convince yourself that you're not overweight

---

Are you grateful to the fact that removing gluten has become trendy and tons of people are pretending to have gluten intolerance when they probably don't? It's gotta make grocery stores a lot more friendly to people with celiac.

Yes and No. For packaged food, yes.

But for restaurants, trendiness has increased frustration because they label things as Gluten free even though they are probably contaminated and unsafe for people with Celiac disease.

And if you don't have celiac disease you don't need to be avoidant of gluten specifically.

---

Clench281 posted...

Zeus are you trying to convince yourself that you're not overweight

I know I'm not overweight, and more importantly I know BMI is a crock of shit. It wasn't created by a medical professional or anybody with kind of health-related background, which is why it's nonsensical that it's still used. But that's kinda the same with Magical Rule of 8s (8 glasses of water a day, 8 hours of sleep, etc) that everybody perpetuates nowadays. Given that we now have technology that can measure the amount of fat in a person's body, there's little no reason why any intelligent person (or even anybody who pretends to be intelligent) should be relying on BMI.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439


---

I didn't even mention BMI when addressing you.

Truth is, BMI works pretty well (correlates with body fat mass) for people who don't exercise regularly. Which is the vast majority of adults, meaning it's also great on a population level.

Very few men are >= 200 lbs, below 6' tall, and not carrying an unhealthy amount of excess fat

If you are below 6' tall, above 200 lbs and at a healthy amount of body fat you are the exception, not the norm

---

Clench281 posted...

And if you don't have celiac disease you don't need to be avoidant of gluten specifically.

Yeah people like jumping on bandwagon. The prevalence of celiac is way above what it was even couple decades ago. A lot of people carry the genes and are passing them on whereas they were dormant before. I think the trend of actively avoiding it is encouraging this increased sensitivity.

---

Also BMI is employed as a population level screening tool because it's simple to calculate and the required data takes no special equipment (on top of being an accurate estimate for most individuals). More advanced methods of calculating body composition are useful for the individual level, but cannot be reasonably applied to large sections of global populations.

---

Clench281 posted...

Very few men are >= 200 lbs, below 6' tall, and not carrying an unhealthy amount of excess fat

If you are below 6' tall, above 200 lbs and at a healthy amount of body fat you are the exception, not the norm

Yeah it's still useful tool in general population terms for medical data. The flaws in that it skews badly on extremely tall/short/muscular people applies only to a small minority. For example many NBA players would come in overweight on a BMI test but those guys are starting at 6'5 minimum with very high muscle density. In no way do they represent the population. It's quite accurate on the median values.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

Yeah people like jumping on bandwagon. The prevalence of celiac is way above what it was even couple decades ago. A lot of people carry the genes and are passing them on whereas they were dormant before. I think the trend of actively avoiding it is encouraging this increased sensitivity.

There may be some environmental or interactions effect going on, but I'd bet the largest contributor is increased rate of positive diagnosis. Even today the majority of people with Celiac go undiagnosed, and it was even less likely to be diagnosed a decade ago.

---

Clench281 posted...

There may be some environmental or interactions effect going on, but I'd bet the largest contributor is increased rate of positive diagnosis. Even today the majority of people with Celiac go undiagnosed, and it was even less likely to be diagnosed a decade ago.

Yeah that too. I factored in medical diagnosis increasing. But beyond that there is an increased passing on of the genes to children. The cause of this isn't clear.

---

The only non-random reason for increased transmission to children would be that

1) ppl with Celiac who would have previously died before having as many children as they wanted are living long / healthy enough to have (more) children i.e. selection against celiac has decreased,

or

2) there is positive selection for celiac, i.e. ppl with Celiac disease are having more children than those without celiac

The first may be true, but I can find no reason for the second

---

I'm not big on genetics so forgive me. I read that many people who don't develop the disease still have the genes for it. They are carriers but then the children are now being active disease cases.

---

That's ok I don't think anyone on this board is as big on genetics as me

---