I Thought Low Carb Was a Fad

Nutrition
21

[quote]MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .
[/quote]

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

[quote]

The paleolithic diet is spot on. You want to eradicate disease, you want to eradicate obesity? Stop eating processed fucking carbs! Its that simple!! [/quote]

Agree to a point but if you really want to eradicate obesity get rid of all forms of transportation and make people walk everywhere.

22

[quote]cyph31 wrote:
do you have a sedentary job ? then you probably don’t deserve those grains you are chowing down right now[/quote]

THAT is exactly it. We need protein, fats and carbs. When we sit on our ass all day we need far fewer carbs.

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The paleolithic diet is spot on. You want to eradicate disease, you want to eradicate obesity? Stop eating processed fucking carbs! Its that simple!!

Agree to a point but if you really want to eradicate obesity get rid of all forms of transportation and make people walk everywhere.[/quote]

Ever since the price of gas has gone up I’ve been more active…funny how that works.

24

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

Corn is a LOT different that white flour

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Consider the fact that colon cancer was almost non-existant 100 years ago, now its the 2nd leading cancer killer. Ask yourself “What changed?” And it takes millions of years for genetic variation to take place, not thousands, so our digestive tracts are almost identical to those of our ancient ancestors.

The paleolithic diet is spot on. You want to eradicate disease, you want to eradicate obesity? Stop eating processed fucking carbs! Its that simple!!

Agree to a point but if you really want to eradicate obesity get rid of all forms of transportation and make people walk everywhere.[/quote]

True, but then the economy would come to a screeching hault, but there would be many more fit people!

25

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

[/quote]

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

26

[quote]MapShooter wrote:
The sad truth is this

People (the general retarded masses) generally equate dietary fat with bodyfat, fat = fat. Most people think, sadly, that eating fat will make them fat, because, well, fat IS fat!

On many low carb diets, people cut out the carbs and ate a lot of crappy, low quality food. They also shunned vegetables because, technically, vegetables are carbs!!

So now you have a bunch of people eating those Atkins and Boost low-carb shakes, afraid to eat fat, and underconsuming vegetables. And they felt like shit and got gallstones. Well no fucking shit!! When you cut carbs it is ESSENTIAL that you increase fats, which many people were afraid to do. Those that DID increase their fats probably were eating bacon and pork rinds like Dr. Atkins said instead of avocado, nuts, and fish oil.

So in conclusion, low carb got a bad rap because the general public did not know how to diet correctly, werent exercising, still afraid to eat fat, consuming those god-awful Atkins products, and had an underconsumption of fiber and vegetables. The media jumped all over low carb and said “its unhealthy, its too much fat, people are lethargic, bullshit bullshit bullshit.”

Diet is a tricky thing, but if you know how to low-carb it correctly, its actually quite easy. I crave natty almond butter more than I do pizza and ice cream! [/quote]

i would have o disagree. on the anabolic diet, it is suggested that you consume a good amoutn of saturated fat to increase T while also consuming a good amount of unsaturated fats. I eat maybe two servings of 75 ground beef and maybe 9 eggs total but i still do the fish oil, flax, peanuts, avacado, etc. and ofcourse cardio to stay healthy

27

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

[/quote]

Vitamin D is produced when the skin absorbs sunlight and is also present in fish but not in any other type of meat. I am not sure how deficiency shows problems with people that eat grains.

28

Most of the fat people who hopped on the low-carb bandwagon would’ve been better off exercising, getting appropriate amounts of calories, and getting plenty of veggies and a moderate amount of fruit and grains. An other healthy foods, of course.But low-carb works really well to shred.

29

[quote]GettingBigNow wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
The sad truth is this

People (the general retarded masses) generally equate dietary fat with bodyfat, fat = fat. Most people think, sadly, that eating fat will make them fat, because, well, fat IS fat!

On many low carb diets, people cut out the carbs and ate a lot of crappy, low quality food. They also shunned vegetables because, technically, vegetables are carbs!!

So now you have a bunch of people eating those Atkins and Boost low-carb shakes, afraid to eat fat, and underconsuming vegetables. And they felt like shit and got gallstones. Well no fucking shit!! When you cut carbs it is ESSENTIAL that you increase fats, which many people were afraid to do. Those that DID increase their fats probably were eating bacon and pork rinds like Dr. Atkins said instead of avocado, nuts, and fish oil.

So in conclusion, low carb got a bad rap because the general public did not know how to diet correctly, werent exercising, still afraid to eat fat, consuming those god-awful Atkins products, and had an underconsumption of fiber and vegetables. The media jumped all over low carb and said “its unhealthy, its too much fat, people are lethargic, bullshit bullshit bullshit.”

Diet is a tricky thing, but if you know how to low-carb it correctly, its actually quite easy. I crave natty almond butter more than I do pizza and ice cream!

i would have o disagree. on the anabolic diet, it is suggested that you consume a good amoutn of saturated fat to increase T while also consuming a good amount of unsaturated fats. I eat maybe two servings of 75 ground beef and maybe 9 eggs total but i still do the fish oil, flax, peanuts, avacado, etc. and ofcourse cardio to stay healthy

[/quote]

DOOOD, you’re missing the point of the post you replied to as well as the point of the original poster:

The GENERAL PUBLIC ain’t doing the anabolic diet. They’re looking for a ‘quick fix’ or an ‘easy way’ to lose weight without thinking.

Most Sally Housewife’s aren’t worried about increasing “T”. Heck, most dudes aren’t either if they’re on a diet.

The OP’s question was “I thought it was a fad - why did it die?”, and this response was saying

  1. they did it wrong (didn’t eat fat or the right kind)
  2. They did it wrong (didn’t eat ANY carbs - even from veggies).

Summary: this is T-Nation. We’re talking about the rest of the world in this thread, and their dummy-ness.

:slight_smile:

30

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

Vitamin D is produced when the skin absorbs sunlight and is also present in fish but not in any other type of meat. I am not sure how deficiency shows problems with people that eat grains.[/quote]

And yet rickets is rare in pre-agricultural societies…

31

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

Vitamin D is produced when the skin absorbs sunlight and is also present in fish but not in any other type of meat. I am not sure how deficiency shows problems with people that eat grains.

And yet rickets is rare in pre-agricultural societies…

[/quote]

I think you are missing the point completely. Rickets is not caused by agricultural. Rickets is caused by lack of nutrients in the diet.

We all know man cannot live on bread alone but that does not mean bread is bad for you.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

Vitamin D is produced when the skin absorbs sunlight and is also present in fish but not in any other type of meat. I am not sure how deficiency shows problems with people that eat grains.

And yet rickets is rare in pre-agricultural societies…

I think you are missing the point completely. Rickets is not caused by agricultural. Rickets is caused by lack of nutrients in the diet.

We all know man cannot live on bread alone but that does not mean bread is bad for you. [/quote]

If it’s death-flavored bread I heard you should avoid it though.

33

Low carb is my life.

34

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

Vitamin D is produced when the skin absorbs sunlight and is also present in fish but not in any other type of meat. I am not sure how deficiency shows problems with people that eat grains.

And yet rickets is rare in pre-agricultural societies…

I think you are missing the point completely. Rickets is not caused by agricultural. Rickets is caused by lack of nutrients in the diet.

We all know man cannot live on bread alone but that does not mean bread is bad for you. [/quote]

I totally get the point.

Since the neolithic revolution did indeed lead to an increase of rickets and rickets is likely caused by a lack of calcium (meaning in most cases a lack of vitamin D that helps absorb calcium) a shift in the nutritional behavior of the first city dwellers did indeed cause it.

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

One straightforward example of what paleopathologists have learned from
skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show
that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a
generous 5’9" for men, 5’5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height
crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5’3" for men ,5’ for women. By classical
times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still
not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.
Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from
burial mounds in the lllinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the
confluence of the Spoon and lllinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800
skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer
culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A.D. 1150. Studies by George
Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these
early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the huntergatherers
who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel
defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia
(evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone
lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions
of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. “Life expectancy at birth in
the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years,” says Armelagos, “but in the
postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress
and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive.”

So yes, bread probably was bad for them, as bad as it is for the Inuit and the Aborigine now.

To some people carbs are worse than alcohol or cigarettes healthwise and that qualifies as bad in my book.

35

[quote]cyph31 wrote:
your average joe sixpack moron views “low carb” as “i’m going to eat hamburgers, steak, cheese, eggs, etc. all day and not touch any veggies” and then wonders why his health goes to shit

low carb does not mean low fiber[/quote]

hamburgers steak cheese and eggs. whats wrong with this! no veggies?! WHY.

36

no veggies ? because they see the 2 grams of digestable carbs per cup of veggies and think it will make them fat

37

What about those who say low carb diets only work because they restrict carbs and that merely brings down your totally caloric intake? Therefore, it’s not the lack of carbs, but fewer calories that’s responsible for the weight loss.

38

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

Vitamin D is produced when the skin absorbs sunlight and is also present in fish but not in any other type of meat. I am not sure how deficiency shows problems with people that eat grains.

And yet rickets is rare in pre-agricultural societies…

I think you are missing the point completely. Rickets is not caused by agricultural. Rickets is caused by lack of nutrients in the diet.

We all know man cannot live on bread alone but that does not mean bread is bad for you.

I totally get the point.

Since the neolithic revolution did indeed lead to an increase of rickets and rickets is likely caused by a lack of calcium (meaning in most cases a lack of vitamin D that helps absorb calcium) a shift in the nutritional behavior of the first city dwellers did indeed cause it.

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

One straightforward example of what paleopathologists have learned from
skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show
that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a
generous 5’9" for men, 5’5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height
crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5’3" for men ,5’ for women. By classical
times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still
not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.
Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from
burial mounds in the lllinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the
confluence of the Spoon and lllinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800
skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer
culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A.D. 1150. Studies by George
Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these
early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the huntergatherers
who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel
defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia
(evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone
lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions
of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. “Life expectancy at birth in
the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years,” says Armelagos, “but in the
postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress
and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive.”

So yes, bread probably was bad for them, as bad as it is for the Inuit and the Aborigine now.

To some people carbs are worse than alcohol or cigarettes healthwise and that qualifies as bad in my book.

[/quote]

Why do you assume it was the inclusion of grains rather than a LACK of key things they were getting from the hunter-gatherer diet that caused the problems? The Inuit and Aborgines don’t so much eat whole grains and fruit now as Doritos and Little Debbies. It’s not a fair comparison.

39

[quote]Digity wrote:
What about those who say low carb diets only work because they restrict carbs and that merely brings down your totally caloric intake? Therefore, it’s not the lack of carbs, but fewer calories that’s responsible for the weight loss.[/quote]

The diet itself will fill you up.
Try stuffing yourself with 3000 calories worth of fat and protein at 50/50 ratio in one sitting for 6 meals…

Or 6 oz of olive oil and a huge piece of chicken breast.

You’d be stuffed.

I used to have trouble trying to finish my meals, its tough.

Apart from that, when you metabolize fat as fuel your body release more free circulating leptin and you won’t feel the need to eat.
So your caloric intake will be according to your current metabolism and caloric expenditure.

If you’re interested in going indepth, pick up gary taubes good calories, bad calories… a damn good book documenting the culture to the science in detail.

40

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
MapShooter wrote:
For all those people who think ketogenic and low carb diets are “unhealthy”

Lets agree that modern man has been around for 25,000 years, give or take a few thousand

Grain agriculture has been around for what, 2-3 thousand years, probably less . . .

At least 10,000 years but probably more.

There is evidence of corn being eaten in mesoamerica 20,000 years ago.

So for the MAJORITY of our existance, mankind has sufficed without harvested grains, bread, etc. What did you think primitive hunters ate? Fucking wheat thins? Fish, meat, berries, nuts and that was about it. Disease, particularly colon, became prominent once manufactured grains became the primary energy source.

And you know this how? By comparing 5000 year old colons to 25,000 year old colons?

Bones.

Vitamin d- deficiency f.E.

Vitamin D is produced when the skin absorbs sunlight and is also present in fish but not in any other type of meat. I am not sure how deficiency shows problems with people that eat grains.

And yet rickets is rare in pre-agricultural societies…

I think you are missing the point completely. Rickets is not caused by agricultural. Rickets is caused by lack of nutrients in the diet.

We all know man cannot live on bread alone but that does not mean bread is bad for you.

I totally get the point.

Since the neolithic revolution did indeed lead to an increase of rickets and rickets is likely caused by a lack of calcium (meaning in most cases a lack of vitamin D that helps absorb calcium) a shift in the nutritional behavior of the first city dwellers did indeed cause it.

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

[/quote]

Nope. You are totally missing it. 100% missing the point. Bread is not causing the problem, lack of other nutrients is causing the problem. Bread allowed a population explosion that lead to less meat per person.

This does not make bread poison, merely an incomplete nutrition source.

Yes, there are certain populations that have not evolved to handle breads. That confirms that the lucky ones such as I have evolved to handle grains. I can also hold my liquor and handle my beer. If you cannot, do not partake.