Carbohydrates Argument

Nutrition
21

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The other thing you have to remember is how much protein/fat and type will you be eating. Theres a diffence between cutting carbs, and upping your protein to 3 16 oz steaks a day compared to cutting carbs and adding a protein shake.

The body can only digest but so much, and it’s indidual how much it can digest. If for the last 10 years you only ate 1lb of meat a day then tomorrow for the next few months your going to switch to 3, it’s going to take time for your body to get in the habit of processing that much, and during this time it will cause trouble.[/quote]

Are you sure, the stomach acid would denature the protein, churn it into chyme and pass it in to the small intestine where we have enzymes you would break apart the protein further into individual amino acids ad dipeptides or polypeptides. Our body is very efficient and should digest most if not all of the protien. And, out body adjusts the enzymes it makes in response to food intake quite rapidly, something like 24 hours to alter the balance of enzymes substantially. I don’t think it fails to absorb much if any of the amino acids. Any more information?

What kind of trouble? Can you clarify this?

22

[quote]Wimpy wrote:
Dude, you need to chill. Did I ever say that humans didn’t eat meat? I believe I said that humans ate meat, insects, fruits and nuts. Golly, that sounds an awful lot like the paleo diet.
[/quote]

What’s with people getting pissy and defensive around here? Nobody needs to chill. This is T-Nation, where we like to throw ideas around and argue. If you can’t stand to have your posts examined and critiqued, then don’t bother writing.

Anyhow, I just wanted to add my two cents here about life expectancy. Yes, you are correct that the life expectancies were much less than today, but no studies of indigenous peoples, regardless of diet, showed any signs of Western diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. So, while they were dying, it WASN’T from diseases that are supposedly caused by a high-fat meat-based diet.

In fact (as everyone here knows I’m sure) it was only after introducing refined and processed foods (mostly starches) that these people started getting Western diseases.

23

I have to limit carbs. I started out as the typical “skinny” fat guy. Im East-Indian so genetically, all of my fat/flab went to my abdominal and oblique area. Im still trying to get rid of that lower little pooch area but its stubborn as hell…along with some fat pockets in my lower love handle area…very frustrating because you have to be SO on point with your diet…ESPECIALLY with carbs.

Slowly but surely I guess.

24

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Wimpy wrote:
Dude, you need to chill. Did I ever say that humans didn’t eat meat? I believe I said that humans ate meat, insects, fruits and nuts. Golly, that sounds an awful lot like the paleo diet.

What’s with people getting pissy and defensive around here? Nobody needs to chill. This is T-Nation, where we like to throw ideas around and argue. If you can’t stand to have your posts examined and critiqued, then don’t bother writing.[/quote]

I don’t care if he attacks what I said, but constructing a straw man just so he could blow up wouldn’t generally be considered a valid form of debate. Then again, this is the internet…

25

[quote]chutec wrote:
Distinguish between types of carbs.

Im on a low carb approach.

What this actually means for me is no starch, no grain, no sugars.

or as little as possible.

However I still take in buckets of green veg every day, which are techincally carbs.

bowel issues are linked with poor levels of fibre. So I can understand how he might warn you of that if you do intend to cut out all carbs,

I cut out all the destructive carbs, but keep in the common sense carbs like green veg for their necessary body function properties.

The only real argument is whether or not wholegrain sources of carbs are neccessary.

From what ive read they are not neccessary, your body can cope without (with adequate green veg).

So if cutting then id skip the wholegrains too.

However for general health wholegrains post workout and in the morning are a good idea.

so concede to him that wholegrains are good for your general health, but then explain to him that overall your low carb cut will benefit your health more because you wont be carrying excess bodyfat.[/quote]

Trudat.

26

[quote]Wimpy wrote:
The idea that we’re descended from a proud race of big game hunters is probably incorrect. Even 10,000 years ago the average male human was about 5’2" and probably weighed about 120 pounds, didn’t have much in the way of weapons and whose only transportation was his own two feet. The only Mammoth we ate was probably what we already found dead.

No, the ancient human diet probably more resembled a Chimp diet: lots of fruits (keeping in mind that with a few exceptions vegetables are botanical fruits), along with nuts, insects, and the some meat.

Also, the idea that “the healthiest societies throughout history ate meat and fats” can certainly be misleading. First, with the exception of the last 100 years in first world nations, the average human lifespan has been quite low. Is it coincidental that a majority of diagnosed cases of heart disease, etc occur in people who are older than the average lifespan of humans throughout most of our history? Also consider that New Zealand has the highest per capita consumption of meat in the world and yet has the highest prevalence of colon cancer. It’s an issue that’s probably more complicated than “meat and fats are good” and “meats and fat are bad”. “The healthiest societies in history” were more physically active than we are. Maybe that’s the reason they were “healthier” - not because of their diet but in spite of it?[/quote]

I don’t dispute you, but the tribes who did eat more meat, who became proficient at killing, became larger, and stronger as a result. They then killed all the Neanderthals, and early hominids that you’re referring to. HMMMMMMMM. Should make you think a bit.

DJ

27

[quote]Wimpy wrote:

That is in part what I was responding too.

I wasn’t necessarily attempting to put them in order of importance, though I do think that people unfortunately try to minimize the importance of insects (fish and eggs, too for that matter)in diet throughout human history and tend to overemphasize the importance and prominence of red meat. [/quote]

True, I guess we always state meat as the main food when it comes to protein/fats but in actually it can be acquiered via fish and even insects both very nutritious and packed full of protein and good fats.

28

[quote]djreef wrote:
Wimpy wrote:
The idea that we’re descended from a proud race of big game hunters is probably incorrect. Even 10,000 years ago the average male human was about 5’2" and probably weighed about 120 pounds, didn’t have much in the way of weapons and whose only transportation was his own two feet. The only Mammoth we ate was probably what we already found dead.

No, the ancient human diet probably more resembled a Chimp diet: lots of fruits (keeping in mind that with a few exceptions vegetables are botanical fruits), along with nuts, insects, and the some meat.

Also, the idea that “the healthiest societies throughout history ate meat and fats” can certainly be misleading. First, with the exception of the last 100 years in first world nations, the average human lifespan has been quite low. Is it coincidental that a majority of diagnosed cases of heart disease, etc occur in people who are older than the average lifespan of humans throughout most of our history? Also consider that New Zealand has the highest per capita consumption of meat in the world and yet has the highest prevalence of colon cancer. It’s an issue that’s probably more complicated than “meat and fats are good” and “meats and fat are bad”. “The healthiest societies in history” were more physically active than we are. Maybe that’s the reason they were “healthier” - not because of their diet but in spite of it?

I don’t dispute you, but the tribes who did eat more meat, who became proficient at killing, became larger, and stronger as a result. They then killed all the Neanderthals, and early hominids that you’re referring to. HMMMMMMMM. Should make you think a bit.

DJ[/quote]

Also, I think it has been pretty well-established that there was a correlation between meats (and hence fats) in our ancestor’s diets, and an increase in brain size. The brain requires a lot of fuel, and consists mostly of fats.

I may be butchering the anthropology, but it’s another thing to consider.

29

[quote]Wimpy wrote:

I think it depends on the individual. . [/quote]

Ditto. What happens to me if I eat an EXTREMELY low carb diet is that I get constipated as hell. That’s not only uncomfortable, it is unhealthy.

Other people do not experience this and can eat these EXTREMELY low carb diets. More power to them.

I do best with lots of meat, lots of vegetables, a little bit of fruit and maybe a slice of whole wheat bread (smothered in RAW butter), now and then.

30

[quote]Zagman wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
The other thing you have to remember is how much protein/fat and type will you be eating. Theres a diffence between cutting carbs, and upping your protein to 3 16 oz steaks a day compared to cutting carbs and adding a protein shake.

The body can only digest but so much, and it’s indidual how much it can digest. If for the last 10 years you only ate 1lb of meat a day then tomorrow for the next few months your going to switch to 3, it’s going to take time for your body to get in the habit of processing that much, and during this time it will cause trouble.

Are you sure, the stomach acid would denature the protein, churn it into chyme and pass it in to the small intestine where we have enzymes you would break apart the protein further into individual amino acids ad dipeptides or polypeptides. Our body is very efficient and should digest most if not all of the protien. And, out body adjusts the enzymes it makes in response to food intake quite rapidly, something like 24 hours to alter the balance of enzymes substantially. I don’t think it fails to absorb much if any of the amino acids. Any more information?

What kind of trouble? Can you clarify this?[/quote]

There is not an unlimited supply of enzymes in the body. If you eat more meat then your body can produce enzymes for you can easily get fat and constipated. This along with the other side effects of overloading your digestive system on a consistent basis is what I mean by trouble. One time may leave you with nothing more then stomach ache here, or fatigue there, but load this over a few weeks and your talking other symptons such as inflammation headaches or anything else associated with a system overload.

Exceptions are made if you want to add supplements to the system because now your compensating the enzymes. Similar to how adding testosterone allows your body to increase protein synthesis.

31

[quote]chutec wrote:
If you want to ‘win’ your argument, ask him for his qualification, or his governing body as a nutritionist, or find the government guidelines he is talking about.

Dig a little and youll find out who sponsors the test that create these guidlines.

Dont rub it in, but ask him if he thinks the grain lobbies funding of government studies has anything to do with the recommendation to eat lots of carbs.[/quote]

If he produces his qualifications as a RD, then run like the wind! RD’s are simply little gnomes running around spewing out crap that the government plants in their heads. I have yet to meet an RD with anything of value to share. I can buy a textbook for $40 and get the same info that hiring an RD at any rate would tell me. All they do is read the same text book and pass an exam. Bleh.

The best nutritionists are people like Shugs and Swole Cat who actually live the lifestyle and know what the hell works and doesn’t work. Idiots in lab coats being paid by lobbyists and corporations to do “research” don’t mean a thing.

32

sorry to take this off track, but why is raw butter better than something like smart balance margarine? Contents are 9g fat 2.5 sat fat rest mono and polyunsatured with omega-3. This seems good- is there some intrinsic element of margarine that makes it worse for you than butter?

33

Butter is butter…wtf is margarine? where does it come from? This is why butter is better than margarine. Eat your butter and take fish oil or eat salmon.

34

[quote]djreef wrote:
chutec wrote:
Distinguish between types of carbs.

Im on a low carb approach.

What this actually means for me is no starch, no grain, no sugars.

or as little as possible.

However I still take in buckets of green veg every day, which are techincally carbs.

bowel issues are linked with poor levels of fibre. So I can understand how he might warn you of that if you do intend to cut out all carbs,

I cut out all the destructive carbs, but keep in the common sense carbs like green veg for their necessary body function properties.

The only real argument is whether or not wholegrain sources of carbs are neccessary.

From what ive read they are not neccessary, your body can cope without (with adequate green veg).

So if cutting then id skip the wholegrains too.

However for general health wholegrains post workout and in the morning are a good idea.

so concede to him that wholegrains are good for your general health, but then explain to him that overall your low carb cut will benefit your health more because you wont be carrying excess bodyfat.

Trudat.[/quote]

I’d disagree and say that for ‘optimum health’ veggies are preferred to grains anyday. Think about it, lets say you’re going to eat 50g of carbs, you’ll get a ton more benefit from eating veggies providing these carbs than a grain. Now for gaining weight/building muscle, that would take a hell of a lotta greens! So you gotta do what you gotta do.

35

[quote]Dubbz wrote:
Butter is butter…wtf is margarine? where does it come from? This is why butter is better than margarine. Eat your butter and take fish oil or eat salmon.[/quote]

This new wave of healthy margarines look far better than the old stuff. Does anyone have any real input on them?

No trans fats, extra omega 3 makes it sound halfway decent.

36

The issue is that the vegetable oils in margarine have to be processed in order look and feel like butter. And the so-called health benefits of polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils are based on the usual questionable nutritional science.

I would prefer real butter any day because the fats are animal-based and haven’t been altered in any way. And the whole “extra omega 3” thing just makes me more suspicious, since the source and quality of the omega 3s is unknown. That’s why I like to get my omega 3s from meat and fish (and fish oil).

37

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
The issue is that the vegetable oils in margarine have to be processed in order look and feel like butter. And the so-called health benefits of polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils are based on the usual questionable nutritional science.

I would prefer real butter any day because the fats are animal-based and haven’t been altered in any way. And the whole “extra omega 3” thing just makes me more suspicious, since the source and quality of the omega 3s is unknown. That’s why I like to get my omega 3s from meat and fish (and fish oil).[/quote]

I am suspicious too especially of the added omega 3 claims. I would like to know more.

38

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
The issue is that the vegetable oils in margarine have to be processed in order look and feel like butter. And the so-called health benefits of polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils are based on the usual questionable nutritional science.

I would prefer real butter any day because the fats are animal-based and haven’t been altered in any way. And the whole “extra omega 3” thing just makes me more suspicious, since the source and quality of the omega 3s is unknown. That’s why I like to get my omega 3s from meat and fish (and fish oil).[/quote]

The butter you buy in grocery stores is junk. If you want real butter go to a farm and get some raw sour cream butter.

Also, the omega 3s in vegetable spreads aren’t unknown. They’re virtually always from flax seed oil.

39

To get this back on track…using carbs during a workout DRASTICALLY reduces the rise of cortisol. Cortisol levels are also higher during non exercise when carbs are low. If you avoid carbs it should be for short periods only.

40

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Wimpy wrote:
Dude, you need to chill. Did I ever say that humans didn’t eat meat? I believe I said that humans ate meat, insects, fruits and nuts. Golly, that sounds an awful lot like the paleo diet.

What’s with people getting pissy and defensive around here? Nobody needs to chill. This is T-Nation, where we like to throw ideas around and argue. If you can’t stand to have your posts examined and critiqued, then don’t bother writing.

Anyhow, I just wanted to add my two cents here about life expectancy. Yes, you are correct that the life expectancies were much less than today, but no studies of indigenous peoples, regardless of diet, showed any signs of Western diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. So, while they were dying, it WASN’T from diseases that are supposedly caused by a high-fat meat-based diet.

In fact (as everyone here knows I’m sure) it was only after introducing refined and processed foods (mostly starches) that these people started getting Western diseases.[/quote]

Adopting the Western lifestyle is a sure-fire way for decreased life expectancy and quality of life and looking as patheticly fat as possible. The sad fact of the matter is most people dont want to give up their lifestyle of convienence. Ive had many a discussion with people about this topic in general and the general consensus Ive reached is many people are total friggin idiots or just plain ignorant when it comes to this nutritional thing.