hunger or low blood sugar?

[gizmo77]

Yes, I do believe my high-everything diet is better than the IG diet, obviously or else I wouldn't have even tried to make it . I think they've traded too much in an attempt to make a diet that is so low in calcium, that it goes too far and if a person is very strict on it for many months, could end up swaying pink. Thankfully, calcium is something your body stores so most people's bodies simply rob their bones to make up the calcium deficits. Plus, I think the high everything diet is better for raising testosterone/estrogen and MUCH better at keeping blood sugar high. My biggest pet peeve with the IG boy diet is the blood sugar stuff (i.e. the Rice Krispie rant) and then too much emphasis on highly processed foods that are not good for fertility overall.

I think that more nutrients across the boards including potassium and sodium, sway blue. If you're doing the high-everything diet right, your sodium and potassium should be higher as a matter of course because you're eating more foods that contain them and more calories as well. HOnestly, I am not sold on the idea that sky-high sodium is good for anyone's fertility and I don't want anyone taking potassium supps because I don't think they're safe, but other than that I am on board with more sod and pot for blue. The issue I have with the minerals is cutting out cal-mag-Vit. D and B6 for blue because I don't think the facts bear it out.

Point being, in the HIgh-Everything diet, almonds are not only allowed but encouraged and so that's a great easy snack because they are protein, carbs, and healthy fats all in one. BUt in the French and IG diets, almonds are a huge no-no because of the calcium. So if you're going for minerals, it may very well be that you can't include almonds (or cheese or peanut butter or yogurt or eggs or all the other things that I mentioned above)...maybe the diets just cannot be mixed because the end result is so restrictive...if you're going for minerals, you are kinda limited to meat and potatoes or meat and tomatoes at every meal and snack and who can eat that 6 times a day?? I don't blame anyone for being frustrated with it.

okay please dont think im attacking you or challenging you, just overly curious here. so with the french gender and IG diets most of those theories are backed by studies done by animals (cows) and some humans. are you saying that those studies just FOCUSED on those particular minerals (sodium/pot/calc/magn)? and didnt really look at the whole picture (as many studies DO forget to look at whole picture)?

and with your high everything diet (havent looked at it but know the concept),did you just come up with that via your own personal research bc as you said you were a part of IG at one point (so then were you always disagreeing with the IG ways from the get-go?)? or is it from your personal experience (incl ppl you know). or are there any facts/research studies that im missing (besides TW).

ihave to say, i DO agree with you. but to go from believing in IG, and then having to abort THAT mission and just start a new type of thinking/dieting (high everything), it makes me think well who is right? i know YOU can argue FOR the high everything but is there anyone on here who can argue FOR the IG diet (100% no sharing diets with other theories). i mean i guess i can go on there and see but i dont have time for monkies! ;-) and i have to say i love that i can ask you these questions and you not get offended (i hope!) bc i SO AM NOT trying to offend you! just curious and trying to understand it all!

obviously i dont believe in the 'rice krispies' mentallity as they PROBABLY didnt have them back in 1675. but wondering really, CAN diet really affect gender or is this all in our heads?? all just by chance? (that ppl do these diets and end up with their DG).

[nuthinbutpink]

I just wanted to comment if I may. Before launching the site, I spent time going through all the available research and there is some compelling info out there about diet and the influence on gender. I felt even better about it when I got a copy of the FG diet and read about their process too(and it did involve animals as well as humans!).

So, I think the general principles that we all promote with the ratios of sodium/potassium to calcium/magnesium are valid assumptions- but that is all they are- assumptions. I think you have to look at yourself, your life when you conceived what you have and see if it matches up with what we say. If it does, I don't see what you have to lose by trying the approach!

Good luck!

[nuthinbutpink]

http://genderdreaming.com/forum/show...t-Introduction

It is compelling to me!

[skrimpy]

I agree with Atomic on the high everything diet over obsessing over minerals. Firstly, if you read the studies posted you will see that TW hypothesis does seem to lend to boys with "high everything" And it's clear that a diet high in everything increases your chance of a normal cycle with copious ewcm and a good luteal phase (and ovulation!)

And in my experience the comprehensive diet is easier to follow and has lead to boys. I was following the Brewer pregnancy diet and got boys - it's a very high everything diet!

I would go for protein/carb/fat snacking and not worry as much about minerals.

[zanacal]

Hi gizmo

Have you read Atomic's blog from when she was first researching the Trivers Willard hypothesis and so on? Here's the link: http://genderdreaming.com/forum/show...ard-hypothesis
I believe Atomic was part of IG when she wrote the blog so it may help answer some of the questions regarding that period of time.

I've started reading some of the studies on gender recently and so many of them come back to testosterone levels and blood sugar levels. The reason for the low/high everything diets is to control those aspects - because we can raise or lower our testosterone and create a high/low blood sugar environment through what we eat (or don't eat!) and the supplements we take. I found this study particularly interesting because it refers to so many other studies on the subject:

http://joe.endocrinology-journals.or...t/198/1/3.full

The Oxford Study is also a good study to look at because it looks specifically at what mothers ate in the lead up to their pregnancies and it too supports the low/high everything diets, in that women who consumed the most calories and nutrients (including calcium!) conceived more boys and vice versa:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...1643/1661.full

Other good threads to look at are the 'what we ate to conceive our boys/girls' threads because 'real' mums on these boards seem to back up these theories.

I've spent a lot of time reading Atomic's posts (and asking lots of questions!) and reading some of the studies for myself and I'm sold on the low-everything diet (because I'm swaying for a girl) as the best tool we currently have to emulate the conditions studies suggest favour a girl - low testosterone, low blood sugar, and the illusion of 'hard times'.

[gizmo77]

i havcent read on all the studies yet but will in due time. so since i always thought ihad high T levels, always had lots of ewcm, stopped dieting just before conceiving DD1 (increased carb intake), and if timing is proved wrong by shettles (bc we started dtd as soon as i saw ANYTHINg..creamy...whatever..didnt really know much back then), had increased calcium (ate calcium with all meals plus additional supplements), that i probably conceived girls both times bc i was low in nutrients (just bad sugars/carbs,not enough fruits/veggies, etc)...? and didnt really pay attn to blood sugar ;evels..would eat late, etc...?

[LolaInLove]

I will add that I do not think the IG boy diet is good for you at all. I was on it for about 6 months and I gained a ton of weight and felt awful from all of the meat (red and processed) and potatoes. I have been doing the high everything diet for about 3 months, and although my weight is stabilizing (because I keep up the eating), I do not feel as bad as I did on the IG diet. I don't think restricting calcium is good for any woman ttc. Nor do I think overloading on sodium and red meat is a good idea either! I don't recall whom, but I am pretty sure there were ladies who had health issues from some stuff...I am sure Atomic and NBP can remember that. It was before my time but I remember reading bits and pieces.

Gizmo, I also think I was low in nutrients....although I ate a fairly balanced diet, I did not eat very much (low blood sugar) and I did not eat very much fat at all. (My ex was a doctor with OCD....go figure....he was absolutely psychotic about what we ate.) No oils, no mayo, no sauces, so I probably got very little in the way of nutrients from fats, be them healthy or not.

[zanacal]

i havcent read on all the studies yet but will in due time. so since i always thought ihad high T levels, always had lots of ewcm, stopped dieting just before conceiving DD1 (increased carb intake), and if timing is proved wrong by shettles (bc we started dtd as soon as i saw ANYTHINg..creamy...whatever..didnt really know much back then), had increased calcium (ate calcium with all meals plus additional supplements), that i probably conceived girls both times bc i was low in nutrients (just bad sugars/carbs,not enough fruits/veggies, etc)...? and didnt really pay attn to blood sugar ;evels..would eat late, etc...?

There's the fertility factor too - if DH's sperm count was/is low either naturally or because of something you were doing even without realising (abstaining/frequent release/using antihistimines) or you'd been ill leading up to conception, those things may also have had an impact.

[gizmo77]

thx guys!

[gizmo77]

if you guys are still in contact with the IG ppl, have you shared your newfound knowledge and if so, are THEY then (IG) changing their methods as well?