[quote]critietaeta wrote:
[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
Add a bacon column… then it is a masterpiece.[/quote]
[/quote]
Ha!
I think our Jersey Shore understudy from Queens posted this thread in order to challenge bodybuilding DOGMA. I don’t think he’s simply trying to be stubborn or whatever it is people are accusing him of.
Cephalic,
You mentioned that someone (sedentary or just not active enough to merit the intake) taking in that amount of carbs per day - 250 g, right? - could eventually find themselves to be diabetic, correct?
I did not see a mention of carb SOURCE. Those 250 g could come from clean, low GI/GL carbs, AND be consumed with a healthy portion of protein and fats and FIBER, thus reducing the overall GL of the meal and negating a high GI/GL of the carb source (when considered in isolation).
And besides, it’s been mentioned that, unless excess calories are consumed per day, carbs consumed when glycogen stores are “full” do not immediately get stored as fat.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Why don’t we start with “less calories” and then once people learn to listen to vague guidelines, you can get specific. The “less carbs for non training” statement lies on the assumption that 1000 calories from carbohydrate is somehow more fattening than 1000 calories from fat, which it is not.[/quote]
Don’t carbs increase insulin sensitivity, sending the body into fat storage mode, whereas fat would not increase insulin sensitivity?
Also, with true low-carb, can’t you enter a ketone state after a couple weeks where you have free floating ketones breaking down fat as your primary fuel instead of carbs, arguably the way we have evolved to live in the first place?
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I think our Jersey Shore understudy from Queens posted this thread in order to challenge bodybuilding DOGMA. I don’t think he’s simply trying to be stubborn or whatever it is people are accusing him of.
Cephalic,
You mentioned that someone (sedentary or just not active enough to merit the intake) taking in that amount of carbs per day - 250 g, right? - could eventually find themselves to be diabetic, correct?
I did not see a mention of carb SOURCE. Those 250 g could come from clean, low GI/GL carbs, AND be consumed with a healthy portion of protein and fats and FIBER, thus reducing the overall GL of the meal and negating a high GI/GL of the carb source (when considered in isolation).
And besides, it’s been mentioned that, unless excess calories are consumed per day, carbs consumed when glycogen stores are “full” do not immediately get stored as fat.[/quote]
Dude, I don’t follow this pyramid myself. I’ve tried many different approaches. See my other posts directed to Westcoast. Thing is that quite a few of the best bodybuilders to ever live ate low fat, moderate protein, and very high carb–Mike Francois, Dorian Yates, Kevin Levrone, etc.
Brick, this is ironic in that last night I looked at the side of Peter Pan peanut butter and saw the exact same pyramid. Remembering that I’m not from the USA, is the pyramid from a USA Government agency or something? This picture on the side of the peanut butter showed only the colours and no labels so I assume people recognise the food categories without the need for labels? It was just interesting.
[quote]critietaeta wrote:
[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
Add a bacon column… then it is a masterpiece.[/quote]
[/quote]
Dear God, Its beautiful…(tear),… (tear)
[quote]goose27 wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Why don’t we start with “less calories” and then once people learn to listen to vague guidelines, you can get specific. The “less carbs for non training” statement lies on the assumption that 1000 calories from carbohydrate is somehow more fattening than 1000 calories from fat, which it is not.[/quote]
Don’t carbs increase insulin sensitivity, sending the body into fat storage mode, whereas fat would not increase insulin sensitivity?
Also, with true low-carb, can’t you enter a ketone state after a couple weeks where you have free floating ketones breaking down fat as your primary fuel instead of carbs, arguably the way we have evolved to live in the first place?[/quote]
Please rent or buy this book to get a better grasp on what you’re (trying to) talk about (I used it for my two Advanced Nutrition Metabolism courses for my masters).
[quote]goose27 wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Why don’t we start with “less calories” and then once people learn to listen to vague guidelines, you can get specific. The “less carbs for non training” statement lies on the assumption that 1000 calories from carbohydrate is somehow more fattening than 1000 calories from fat, which it is not.[/quote]
Don’t carbs increase insulin sensitivity, sending the body into fat storage mode, whereas fat would not increase insulin sensitivity?
Also, with true low-carb, can’t you enter a ketone state after a couple weeks where you have free floating ketones breaking down fat as your primary fuel instead of carbs, arguably the way we have evolved to live in the first place?[/quote]
Ketones don’t break down fat.
And you have it wrong; there’s an inverse relationship between insulin sensitivity and predisposition to fat storage.
Low carb, high fat diets sometimes decrease insulin sensitivity.
I think you need a bit of a primer on this stuff. So get that book and a good biochem book, preferably this one. http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/0495116572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283831339&sr=8-1
Thread is going strong.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Thread is going strong. [/quote]
Because you keep posting…
good ol brick edumucatin’ us all again. gets old fast
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
good ol brick edumucatin’ us all again. gets old fast[/quote]
Dude, this shit is up to date. Look at how consistent this thread is. Still on the first page of posts in this forum.
Here’s a thought, and a genuine one that is simply here for discussion purposes:
If the body was meant to eat low carb (for the most part) then why is it that carbs are the body’s main ‘go to’ source for fuel and even in a ketogenic state, if a significant amount of carbs are consumed it will easily get out of ketosis. Wouldn’t ketosis then be main main state our body’s should be in?
[quote]forbes wrote:
Here’s a thought, and a genuine one that is simply here for discussion purposes:
If the body was meant to eat low carb (for the most part) then why is it that carbs are the body’s main ‘go to’ source for fuel and even in a ketogenic state, if a significant amount of carbs are consumed it will easily get out of ketosis. Wouldn’t ketosis then be main main state our body’s should be in?[/quote]
Whatever the logic may be, I think a lot of North Americans would do better on a lowish carb diet. Not Shugart low, but not consuming carbs at every single meal.
I do much better on moderately high carb…2g x bw…
I’ve tried high fat and balanced, but my body prefers carbs…I feel it is largely dependant on the individual…
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]goose27 wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Why don’t we start with “less calories” and then once people learn to listen to vague guidelines, you can get specific. The “less carbs for non training” statement lies on the assumption that 1000 calories from carbohydrate is somehow more fattening than 1000 calories from fat, which it is not.[/quote]
Don’t carbs increase insulin sensitivity, sending the body into fat storage mode, whereas fat would not increase insulin sensitivity?
Also, with true low-carb, can’t you enter a ketone state after a couple weeks where you have free floating ketones breaking down fat as your primary fuel instead of carbs, arguably the way we have evolved to live in the first place?[/quote]
Ketones don’t break down fat.
And you have it wrong; there’s an inverse relationship between insulin sensitivity and predisposition to fat storage.
Low carb, high fat diets sometimes decrease insulin sensitivity.
I think you need a bit of a primer on this stuff. So get that book and a good biochem book, preferably this one. http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/0495116572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283831339&sr=8-1[/quote]
Are you intentionally linking the same book in each post?
And do you have any other recommended biochem/nutrition books? I’m actually trying to major in biochem right now
[quote]D Public wrote:
I feel it is largely dependant on the individual…
[/quote]
Ultimately this is the correct answer. However we are discussing what the government should tell the masses to eat. I think my answer above is best blanket answer you can have.
Naw, people see it in a health class in grade school, and then forget it and don’t care.
I wonder if the largish ‘dairy’ column lets me eat lots of butter.
And I don’t see why there’s all the hate on beans.
Also, instead of the little dude climbing stairs, he should be dragging a prowler.
[quote]goose27 wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Why don’t we start with “less calories” and then once people learn to listen to vague guidelines, you can get specific. The “less carbs for non training” statement lies on the assumption that 1000 calories from carbohydrate is somehow more fattening than 1000 calories from fat, which it is not.[/quote]
Don’t carbs increase insulin sensitivity, sending the body into fat storage mode, whereas fat would not increase insulin sensitivity?
Also, with true low-carb, can’t you enter a ketone state after a couple weeks where you have free floating ketones breaking down fat as your primary fuel instead of carbs, arguably the way we have evolved to live in the first place?[/quote]
This is so awful that I am inclined to think you are trolling.
[quote]EasyRhino wrote:
Naw, people see it in a health class in grade school, and then forget it and don’t care.
I wonder if the largish ‘dairy’ column lets me eat lots of butter.
And I don’t see why there’s all the hate on beans.
Also, instead of the little dude climbing stairs, he should be dragging a prowler.[/quote]
Butter is in the oils section.