The Tom Brady Diet: slightly sensible, mostly nonsense?

Cafe Society
21

I don’t see why you think that. I could. I would miss the milk and meat, but the rest wouldn’t even be that hard for me.

As to the larger question… I have a friend who is deathly allergic to nightshades. He says he reads, “gluten free” as “TOXIC!!!” because a large fraction of gluten-free foods replace some of the wheat flour with potato starch.

People are actually somewhat metabolically diverse. Quite a lot of people have trouble digesting FODMAPs, and a lot of the people who feel healthier when they go gluten-free are actually benefitting from reducing their consumption of FODMAPs. Some people are actually gluten intolerant. Lots of people have trouble with dairy, in one way or another. There are all sorts of weird food intolerances out there, too – I know a woman who had all sorts of health problems until she worked out that she has sensitivities to chicken and corn. Including foods made with corn syrup or chicken eggs. (She can eat duck eggs with no problem, also turkey.)

It’s unlikely that either milk or nightshades are a net health negative for most people. They are, after all, dietary mainstays of some parts of the world. Might they be for Brady? For you, gentle reader? It’s entirely possible.

As others have said, there’s nothing unhealthy about the diet Brady appears to be on, it’s just limited. I wouldn’t go recommending it to everyone. But if you have arthritis and wonder if nightshades or dairy might be contributing, try avoiding nightshades or dairy for a month and see what happens. Better yet, spend a month keeping a diary of what hurts when. THEN go off nightshades or dairy for a month and continue keeping that diary. And then compare, with actual dates and times and degrees of pain, so you don’t just blurrily feel like “heck, maybe it helped”.

Then, if it looks like maybe it helped, consider if it’s worth it to you. More likely, you’ll find it didn’t make any difference. Or you may actually feel less good. But hey, it’s not all that hard to mess around and test it.

Simpler, keep a food diary and a symptom diary. My cousin discovered she’s sensitive to wheat that way. (Her doctor recommended it, as her complaints were common among those who are sensitive to wheat. But you could do it on your own.)

And if you love nightshades, just keep eating them. If you had a serious nightshade problem you would know by now. Like my friend.

22

That would be enough for most people. No cheese? No form of potatoes, ever? Crappy bread? I’d rather die a few years younger than do that long term. The gluten thing alone would put me off of it.

23

That is a different question. And I’m not sure that it is ‘bunk’ either because some people are sensitive to the acidity of tomatoes and various other reactions to them and some related plants. If you want to extend the statement broadly enough you can point out the ‘bunk’ in the nightshade theory with some detail. Some things can be described as bunk without much specificity, others require more so. Would you make the statement “The no gluten thing is bunk.”?

24

Bunk in this context just means unscientific.
If I believed that laying salt on the ground would reduce my risk of alzheimers, because I saw it in a dream, that’s bunk. Even if it later turned out to be true.

If there is no good supporting data for the nightshade → inflammation hypothesis, as solost’s cite summarizes, then it’s bunk for anyone to make such a claim at this time.

25

I’m not making any blanket statements in this thread, I’m asking a question. I haven’t called anything ‘bunk’. I was curious to see whether dopers thought Brady’s diet was unnecessarily restrictive, based on the reasons he restricted certain dietary items.

To take the ‘no gluten’ thing for example. Avoiding gluten has been a popular thing to do lately, on the basis that there’s a belief out there that many people have a sensitivity to gluten. I’ve heard there is no research to support this, that many nutritionists say there’s no reason to avoid gluten unless you have Celiac disease. But a lack of research to support a belief doesn’t necessarily mean the belief is not true. Perhaps future research will show that there is a wide range of people who are negatively affected by gluten to varying degrees, but not to the serious extent that people with Celiac disease are.

Similarly, even edible vegetables in the nightshade family do have toxic chemicals in the parts that we don’t eat, that is a fact. So is there maybe something to the belief that the edible parts cause inflammation? Or is there nothing to it? I’m asking questions because I don’t know quite what to believe.

I think @puzzlegal said it best that you just need to test out what foods work or don’t work for you.

And then, as @Ashtura said, if certain foods you enjoy don’t work for you health-wise, decide whether you’re ok with maybe taking a few years off your life to continue to enjoy them. For example, I love shellfish. It’s probably my favorite thing to eat. If I suddenly developed a severe anaphylactic reaction, I’d probably just sit down for a last meal of piles of shrimp. lobster and crab. Or do it once a year on my birthday, with an EPI pen or two at the ready :grin:

26

I have a mild allergy to the red shellfish. I just get itchy and take a Benadryl, but if an EPI pen is required I’ll do it.

27

He’s a pretty thorough review of the TB12 diet, with evidence to support its conclusions. This section in particular is relevant here:

Many aspects of this diet are not based on strong science.

For instance, there’s no evidence that the diet’s food-combining rules offer any benefits. In fact, not combining vitamin-C-rich fruits with iron-rich foods like green leafy vegetables and legumes can reduce iron absorption up to three-fold (30).

Moreover, there’s little scientific merit to avoiding certain foods due to their purported alkalizing or acidifying effects on your body. The human body tightly regulates its blood pH levels, and what you eat has little influence on this (31Trusted Source, 32Trusted Source, 33Trusted Source).

Similarly, there’s no science-based reason to avoid cooking oils, nightshade vegetables, caffeine, or drinking water around meals. Nor is there a scientifically-sound reason to ban gluten-containing foods from your diet unless you have a gluten intolerance.

Finally, though adequate hydration is important, there’s no evidence to suggest that the large amounts of water promoted on this diet provide any more benefits than more moderate intakes.

28

Thanks @Telemark, great info.

29

Agreed, thank you @Telemark, that was a post full of useful information.

30

Is there a Rob Gronkowski diet as well? He looks pretty healthy.

31

I think Brady has a great diet, but I agree that diets don’t have to be that restrictive. Brady also works out – a lot. So there’s that, too.

Brady’s also somewhat lucky not to have suffered a severe injury. No diet or workout regimen can save your athletic career if you get your ACL destroyed or a cracked neck vertebra.

32

He did have a pretty serious injury back in 2008 that required ACL surgery and afterward became infected. He’s lucky he was able to come back from that:

33

Yeah, wasn’t suggesting Brady hasn’t dealt with adversity. Anyone playing in the league that long will have some scars. But I compare him to Manning, who required fusions on several neck vertebrae. Manning clearly lost some years as a result of that injury, and not just the years he sat out, but he probably could have played into his early 40s had he not sustained that injury.

Aikman and Young had repeated concussions, as did Staubach a generation earlier. Brady has probably benefited from playing at a time when players get paid so much that owners have no choice but to change the rules to protect QB safety, and also the enhanced awareness over concussions.

34

Yeah, as I said in another Tom Brady thread, football is the only sport (and QB the main target) in which several 300+ lb. dudes are constantly trying to body-slam you to the ground as an inherent part of the game.

35

I remember living overseas and trying to explain to skeptical rugby fans why NFL players wear all that gear (i.e. NFL’ers are poofs compared to rugby players).

  1. NFL players are generally bigger.

  2. American football players aren’t in constant motion; it’s a start-stop game of collisions. I’ve certainly seen collisions in tri-nations and other rugby events, but from my anecdotal experience, NFL collisions are often, though not always, more devastating.

Rules changes have eliminated some of the absolute worst collisions – you can’t just lay waste to the QB or a vulnerable WR anymore. But even with these changes, bad things still happen.

36

I completely agree with this. And celiac disease is rare. But fodmap intolerance and wheat sensitivity are both pretty common. (I gave a link explaining fodmaps above) And i suspect that’s why lots of people feel healthier when they avoid gluten. Because high gluten foods tend to be packaged with wheat and/or fodmaps.

37

There’s some evidence that all that protective gear leads to more injuries, because american football players use their head as a battering ram, because of the helmet.

https://www.center4research.org/football-brain-injuries-need-know/#:~:text=What%20is%20CTE%3F,judgment%2C%20aggression%2C%20and%20depression.

38

Or a life-threatening allergy to them like at least one over-prolific poster on this forum… :wink:

Diary, gluten, nightshades, mushrooms, or olive oil - not one of them is essential for human health. Millions and millions of people have lived their entire lives without eating one or several of the above. We’re omnivores and can eat an enormous number of items as food. We have multiple options for obtaining nutrients.

Mr. Brady might avoid these items because he (or his advisor) think they’re “inflammatory” or some pseudo-science bunk. He might avoid them because he doesn’t like how they taste. He might believe they have a low ratio of nutrition to calories. It really doesn’t matter. As long as gets all the nutrition he needs from other sources it doesn’t matter. Mr. Brady eats a lot of other very, very health stuff like sweet potatoes and blueberries and various other things. That’s totally OK. It would be OK if he went totally vegan. Or gave up chicken and ate fish. Or gave up fish and ate chicken. There are many, many ways to put together a healthy diet.

There’s nothing wrong with someone like Mr. Brady saying “This is my diet, how I eat, and it works for me”. People are curious how a 40+ man continues to play in the NFL and talking about his diet is just as legit as talking about his training regimen.

Where I would get concerned is if this starts getting promoted as THE diet for long term health, or the notion it’s based on some sort of highly tested science when really it’s a combination of best-guess and somebody’s personal preferences.

I get concerned that people who have bad lifestyle habits, are sedentary, and otherwise eat calorie-dense nutrient-poor foods might think that having a “Brady Breakfast Smoothie” in the morning is going to work some sort of magic to make them healthy and loose weight. Um… probably not in isolation because, due to some of the ingredients and the quantities, it’s not really a low-calorie food even if full of nutrients. If you just add that onto an otherwise unhealthy diet/lifestyle no, it’s not going to work magic.

Likewise, I’m sure Mr. Brady’s workout routine is enormously helpful in maintaining his fitness, but I doubt the average couch potato could simply jump into it, or maintain it, without changes in other aspects of their lives.

Tom Brady does what Tom Brady does because of multiple factors. He probably lucked out with some good genes, but good genes (like talent) aren’t enough by themselves. He works out religiously. He eats a nutritious diet. He also works extremely hard. He’s very self-disciplined. He doesn’t do negative things like smoke or drugs. Also, his entire life revolves around staying in shape and playing football. He doesn’t have to juggle this routine around a 40 hour a week job - this IS his job. He is paid to work out, eat right, not abuse his body, and play football. That’s not an option for most of us because we’re not professional athletes.

So… yes, I personally believe there is some nonsense in the rationale behind his diet (but I’m not an expert on nutrition, so take my opinion with a grain of salt), I think he unnecessarily avoids some things, but he’s getting everything he needs by eating a wide variety of healthy food outside that, but with that caveat yes, I think his diet actually is sensible. It’s no more crazy than someone who doesn’t like broccoli and cabbage and thinks bananas are somehow bad avoiding those foods but otherwise eating a very varied and healthy diet.

What makes it sensible, though, is not what he’s avoiding, it’s what he is actually eating. Is it varied? Does it provide needed nutrients? If so… yes, it’s a sensible diet even if it’s not what you’re eating or what you might care to eat.

39

There is some evidence that some people have problems with the nightshade vegetables. It’s not rigorous science but we do know people vary in how they handle various food items. If someone seems healthier/feels better when they avoid them I’m not going to argue with them.

Where I have an issue is when someone goes from “I have a problem with gluten” to “NO ONE should eat gluten.”

40

Brady doesn’t take a lot of sacks - he’s been below average for sacks every year except his rookie year, and been top 10 in 13 of his 20 seasons. And he almost never scrambles or runs, except for QB sneaks. So he also has a lot fewer opportunities for hits to the head than even other current QBs.

And of course, he drinks lots of concussion water.