Carbs are essential.When you cut carbs and fill up on high fat foods,then get brain fog and start getting sick,that shows carbs are essential.Just because most Americans are lazy and don’t workout,doesn’t mean carbs aren’t essential.They are.
It’s a fact that exercise is the crucial component to having a healthy body.
I’m sure that if you judged many athletic people by their diets, you’d be shocked by their diets.
Exercise and caloric input are the key.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Stace22 wrote:
Please don’t tell me that you think decades of scientific study on nutrition can be discounted because of the opinions you read on sites such as this one.
There is a difference between eating for health and eating for body composition. While the two systems often coincide, there are nonetheless important differences.
Recommendations for grains are higher than those for protein foods such as meat because (1) grains provide vitamins, minerals, and fiber, that many protein-rich foods do not, (2) our bodies utilize protein very efficiently; we really don’t need boatloads to be healthy, and (3) no one knows for sure the effects of excessive protein consumption in the long run.
Yes, protein is important, especially for athletes. However, so are carbohydrates, and they are important for many legitimate reasons that go beyond “ideal” body compostition goals. [/quote]
Well, yes, I am about to say that decades of scientific nutrition can be discounted. So what? Can it really be all that unbelievable that maybe the collective opinion on grains and the health pyramid is bullshit?
I dont think there is any difference in eating for health and eating for body composition. I have yet, YET to see any conclusive evidence that diets high in protein cause ant harm in the long run. And please spare me the links between the abundance between the high meat intake and fat americans. everyone here knows there is good protein and bad.
So what grains provide vitamins, minerals and fiber. Guess what? So do fruits and veggies! And there WAY more nutrient, anti-oxidant packed.
You wanna know what the effects of protein are in the long run? Here, I’ll give you what they are - its called civilization today as we know it. What do you think our anscestors for thousands of years ate?
[quote]Stace22 wrote:
Why DO some foods have more protein than others?[/quote]I don’t know if this is the response you’re after, but I think that many foods which are high in protein are intended for consumption by fast growing, immature organisms. E.g. Egg white protein is intended to feed immature fowl while they are growing inside the egg. Nut and bean proteins are intended to provide for germinating plants. Cheeses and general dairy are derived from milk, intended for fast developing animal young.
Most other foods have some protein because it forms an integral part of their structure (mussle tissue, grains etc.).
The reasons why fruits and vegetable are not recommended to cover all of our carbohydrate needs is because it’s impractical. You’d have to eat a lot more fruit and vegetables to get the calories you need. For most Americans, it’s just not feasible, especially financially. Plus, too much fiber is not a good thing either.
Just to clarify: I certainly don’t think that science is immune to change. However, right now there is a lot more evidence to support the current recommendations that there is to support any diet drastically different. These recommendations are reviewed and updated every five years, as well, so it’s not as though we are living according to outdated ideas that may only be around because of tradition or laziness on behalf of researchers. I think discounting the evidence currently available requires a whole lot more than hunches or faulty reasoning.
In America’s, diet too much fiber would be the least of our worries.We haven’t studied natural grains enough to make that kind of decision.I believe sprouted grains are very healthy and should be a part of a healthy,well balanced diet.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
The reasons why fruits and vegetable are not recommended to cover all of our carbohydrate needs is because it’s impractical. You’d have to eat a lot more fruit and vegetables to get the calories you need. For most Americans, it’s just not feasible, especially financially. Plus, too much fiber is not a good thing either.
[/quote]
Im not saying one should avoid bread altogether either. Im just saying our current food pyramid is bull. 6-11 servings of bread and 2-3 servings of meat/fish/poultry? Come on, you dont have to live in Berardi’s fridge to know thats idiotic. Everyone has there own caloric needs. I would say that, given 2000 calories, the bread servings should be cut by at least a 3rd and the meat/fish/poultry doubled.
[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
Im not saying one should avoid bread altogether either. Im just saying our current food pyramid is bull. 6-11 servings of bread and 2-3 servings of meat/fish/poultry? Come on, you dont have to live in Berardi’s fridge to know thats idiotic. Everyone has there own caloric needs. I would say that, given 2000 calories, the bread servings should be cut by at least a 3rd and the meat/fish/poultry doubled.
[/quote]
Why?
Stace22, just in response to your point about Americans being overweight and obese in spite of the recommendations:
-
Fat doesn’t all of a sudden plop onto one’s frame. A few recent reviews of literature found that people become obese at a rate of approximately 100 extra Calories per day, or a couple potato chips. I realize that it doesn’t happen precisely at that rate, as fat storage is controlled by a number of hormonal responses and environmental (I’m including food choice in environment) factors. However, it serves to illustrate a point: a little exercise every day goes a long way to preventing obesity.
-
Show me mathematically how an exercising person of average weight (it’s scalable for larger/smaller folks too) would not benefit from eating in the fashion recommended by the new FDA food guide pyramid. I’ve seen it shown pretty easily that it works out well for non-athletes who move around or casually exercise.
Oboffill has an extremely good point regarding exercise and body comp/performance. I’ve worked with a number of anaerobic athletes - they don’t usually eat well.
Velvet Revolver, in answer to your question about how often our ancestors ate meat: the best estimates say about twice a week (average, coming in clumps), depending on the region. Good argument there, just not for your cause.
-Dan
[quote]AngelButt wrote:
The reasons why fruits and vegetable are not recommended to cover all of our carbohydrate needs is because it’s impractical. You’d have to eat a lot more fruit and vegetables to get the calories you need. For most Americans, it’s just not feasible, especially financially. Plus, too much fiber is not a good thing either. [/quote]
How is it impractical? Fruit and vegetables have just as much carbs as bread does.
In my opinion,It’s not really eating more that is making America fat.It’s NOT BEING ACTIVE ENOUGH.You see,if everyone did lift weights and eat right,they’d need more calories(muscle growth,etc.).However,I do agree that lack of exercise and excessive consumption of junk food has made America obese.People ate just as much today as they did 80 years ago,but people today don’t exercise as much as they did 80 years ago.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Stace22, just in response to your point about Americans being overweight and obese in spite of the recommendations:
-
Fat doesn’t all of a sudden plop onto one’s frame. A few recent reviews of literature found that people become obese at a rate of approximately 100 extra Calories per day, or a couple potato chips. I realize that it doesn’t happen precisely at that rate, as fat storage is controlled by a number of hormonal responses and environmental (I’m including food choice in environment) factors. However, it serves to illustrate a point: a little exercise every day goes a long way to preventing obesity.
-
Show me mathematically how an exercising person of average weight (it’s scalable for larger/smaller folks too) would not benefit from eating in the fashion recommended by the new FDA food guide pyramid. I’ve seen it shown pretty easily that it works out well for non-athletes who move around or casually exercise.
Oboffill has an extremely good point regarding exercise and body comp/performance. I’ve worked with a number of anaerobic athletes - they don’t usually eat well.
Velvet Revolver, in answer to your question about how often our ancestors ate meat: the best estimates say about twice a week (average, coming in clumps), depending on the region. Good argument there, just not for your cause.
-Dan
[/quote]
Our ancestors ate meat twice a week? you don’t know that for sure.Maybe during winter,but during summer the indians would go hunting for food(deer,cow,meat) every single day.They ate plenty of fruit when they got their hands on it too.
[quote]
Our ancestors ate meat twice a week? you don’t know that for sure.Maybe during winter,but during summer the indians would go hunting for food(deer,cow,meat) every single day.They ate plenty of fruit when they got their hands on it too.[/quote]
Which American Indian group do you belong to? The people you’re referring to aren’t my ancestors, furthest back we can figure are Germanic.
I’ve talked about this with some of my anthropologist/archaeologist friends at length. The variables to whether or not American Indians had meat (region, time period, etc) to eat put lowball estimates at about once every two weeks and high estimates to every meal, again, depending on a lot of things and variable even among groups.
To say that your ancestors always had a lot of meat to eat is simply wrong. Some cultures even have seperate words for general hunger and meat hunger.
Of course they ate fruit when they could - they ate a majority of calories from what they foraged, which included the fruit, nuts, roots, and other plant matter. No one with half a clue is saying you shouldn’t eat fruit, just that it shouldn’t be the only source of carbohydrates. After all, like you said, it wasn’t always available.
-Dan
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Velvet Revolver wrote:
Im not saying one should avoid bread altogether either. Im just saying our current food pyramid is bull. 6-11 servings of bread and 2-3 servings of meat/fish/poultry?
Come on, you dont have to live in Berardi’s fridge to know thats idiotic. Everyone has there own caloric needs. I would say that, given 2000 calories, the bread servings should be cut by at least a 3rd and the meat/fish/poultry doubled.
Why?
Fine, you eat 2-3 servings of meat a day, I’ll be just fine eating over 10 thank you very much.
[/quote]
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
How is it impractical? Fruit and vegetables have just as much carbs as bread does.[/quote]
For example:
Take the average 2000kcal diet. Say that 50% of the kcalories come from CHO. That’s 250g of CHO.
Subtract the recommended servings for fruits and vegetables. I’m going to be generous and choose high-carbohydrate ones and legumes. Say a person eats:
1 apple (19g CHO, 3g fiber)
1 banana (27,3)
1/2c peas (11,3)
1 sweet potato (24,4)
1/2c kidney beans (20,8)
That amounts to 148g CHO and 21g of fiber. Think 5 servings is too low? Double it. You are left with 48g of CHO yet to consume, and you have already consumed 42 grams of fiber.
Choose some other fruits and vegetables now to make up for the grains you are not eating:
4 asparagus (2g CHO, 1g fiber)
1/2c broccoli (6,3)
1c spinach (2,1)
1 whole bell pepper (6,2)
1c strawberries (11,2)
1c blueberries (21,3)
So, at the end of the day you will have eaten:
2 apples
2 bananas
1c peas
2 sweet potatoes
1c kidney beans
4 asparagus
1/2c broccoli
1c spinach
1 whole bell pepper
1c strawberries
1c blueberries
and 55 grams of fiber
That is a LOT of food and a LOT of fiber. Don’t forget you would still need to fit in protein and fats, too. Do you still think it’s practical for the average person consuming 2000 kcal (Most athletes consume much more) to eat that much food every day just to take care of CHO requirements? It’s not.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
How is it impractical? Fruit and vegetables have just as much carbs as bread does.
For example:
Take the average 2000kcal diet. Say that 50% of the kcalories come from CHO. That’s 250g of CHO.
Subtract the recommended servings for fruits and vegetables. I’m going to be generous and choose high-carbohydrate ones and legumes. Say a person eats:
1 apple (19g CHO, 3g fiber)
1 banana (27,3)
1/2c peas (11,3)
1 sweet potato (24,4)
1/2c kidney beans (20,8)
That amounts to 148g CHO and 21g of fiber. Think 5 servings is too low? Double it. You are left with 48g of CHO yet to consume, and you have already consumed 42 grams of fiber.
Choose some other fruits and vegetables now to make up for the grains you are not eating:
4 asparagus (2g CHO, 1g fiber)
1/2c broccoli (6,3)
1c spinach (2,1)
1 whole bell pepper (6,2)
1c strawberries (11,2)
1c blueberries (21,3)
So, at the end of the day you will have eaten:
2 apples
2 bananas
1c peas
2 sweet potatoes
1c kidney beans
4 asparagus
1/2c broccoli
1c spinach
1 whole bell pepper
1c strawberries
1c blueberries
and 55 grams of fiber
That is a LOT of food and a LOT of fiber. Don’t forget you would still need to fit in protein and fats, too. Do you still think it’s practical for the average person consuming 2000 kcal (Most athletes consume much more) to eat that much food every day just to take care of CHO requirements? It’s not.
[/quote]
Very interesting,I must say.
Sure it is.When I used to run track I had to eat 4000-4500 calories just to keep my weight up.I’m not talking about dieting,I’m talking about eating carbs in general.
No one is gonna be on a 2000 calorie diet their whole lives,so that really wouldn’t apply to anyone trying to eat healthy and/or trying to put on or maintain their weight.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Our ancestors ate meat twice a week? you don’t know that for sure.Maybe during winter,but during summer the indians would go hunting for food(deer,cow,meat) every single day.They ate plenty of fruit when they got their hands on it too.
Which American Indian group do you belong to? The people you’re referring to aren’t my ancestors, furthest back we can figure are Germanic.
I’ve talked about this with some of my anthropologist/archaeologist friends at length. The variables to whether or not American Indians had meat (region, time period, etc) to eat put lowball estimates at about once every two weeks and high estimates to every meal, again, depending on a lot of things and variable even among groups.
To say that your ancestors always had a lot of meat to eat is simply wrong. Some cultures even have seperate words for general hunger and meat hunger.
Of course they ate fruit when they could - they ate a majority of calories from what they foraged, which included the fruit, nuts, roots, and other plant matter. No one with half a clue is saying you shouldn’t eat fruit, just that it shouldn’t be the only source of carbohydrates. After all, like you said, it wasn’t always available.
-Dan[/quote]
I agree with you.Fruit shouldn’t be the only carbohydrate source for people.Like I said,I believe there is much more to discover about grains.They’re very healthy.I believe no food group should be cut out of our daily diets.
Letting the government plan your diet is like letting a salesman build your computer.
They don’t ask you what you need. They sell you what they have. And the don’t really know what they are talking about.
I’ll have to get back to you on this… I’m not done organizing my answer 
[quote]stace22 wrote:
In a survey from the associated press (1998) “People stay at the proper weight if they eat only the amount of food needed to fuel their physical activity. Americans now generally eat far more than they need and exercise far less than they should…” Also from that survey around 54% of American adults were overweight and that the percentage has increased by around 1/3 in the past 20 years.
From USAToday article: “A new survey by the NPD Group, a leading market research firm based in Rosemont, Ill., shows that about 62% of adults and 34% of children are overweight or obese, a percentage that has been virtually the same since 2001, says NPD vice president Harry Balzer.”
Angelbutt wrote:
Be careful of blaming Amercians obesity and health problems on scientists. Just because the recommendations are there does not mean that everyone followed them.
[/quote]
Please don’t misunderstand me! I am in no way blaming Americans’s obesity on any thing or one but AMERICANS themselves. We each are resposible for our own actions/information/knowledge. I am however, challenging what has become the standard for our society. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, but I don’t see how a functional diet for health or any other reason can be based on STARCHY carbs. Again, I’M ALL FOR HEALTHY CARBS! I am not all for the ones your body turns directly into sugar and stores when it’s not coupled with the correct proteins and fiber to properly break it down.
[quote] swordthrower wrote:
I really think that eating whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to cover your need for vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients is much more important than loading up on protein. Muscle building isn’t as simple as protein->muscle, because your body as a whole has to be operating at its highest potential.[/quote]
I agree with you. I am not suggesting that we should take in MASSIVE amounts of protein. My original topic was more along the lines of how can we increase the variety of foods from which we get protein. I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t stand eating the same thing everyday. I know I need certain ratios of protien:carbs:fiber:fat with each meal (which by the way I think differ in reference to the individual and his/her training health goals) but I don’t necesarily want to eat boiled eggs with lunch every day or cottage cheese three-six times a day to get it… I might be just SOL 
[quote]Mike08042 wrote:
The guide is a general guideline, but I dont follow it, I just make sure to get enough fruits and veggies, and if you are to eat bread or pasta make a good choice in regards to it…I think if you chose these options you wouldnt be too bad off, depending on your goals.
[/quote]
To prove that I am not “psycho-no-carb dieter” I like what you have said here. This is a realistic approach and on most of the websites, even the federal ones, they do suggest that you include whole grains and fiberous carbs as well. I try to stick with one slice of whole grain bread/day and maybe whole/multi grain pasta PWO. (I’ve also just started a leaning out training method and diet) I used to include at least 2 slices of whole/multi grain bread and possibly baked potatoe or whole wheat pasta as well. (I think I might have to try your whole wheat, home made hamburger helper.)
[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
Well, yes, I am about to say that decades of scientific nutrition can be discounted. So what? Can it really be all that unbelievable that maybe the collective opinion on grains and the health pyramid is bullshit?
I dont think there is any difference in eating for health and eating for body composition. I have yet, YET to see any conclusive evidence that diets high in protein cause ant harm in the long run. And please spare me the links between the abundance between the high meat intake and fat americans. everyone here knows there is good protein and bad.
So what grains provide vitamins, minerals and fiber. Guess what? So do fruits and veggies! And there WAY more nutrient, anti-oxidant packed.
You wanna know what the effects of protein are in the long run? Here, I’ll give you what they are - its called civilization today as we know it. What do you think our anscestors for thousands of years ate?
[/quote]
Well said! I like the way you think!
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
The reasons why fruits and vegetable are not recommended to cover all of our carbohydrate needs is because it’s impractical. You’d have to eat a lot more fruit and vegetables to get the calories you need. For most Americans, it’s just not feasible, especially financially. Plus, too much fiber is not a good thing either.
[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but there is no financial price on my health. I find it quite feasible within my current budget to base my diet strongly on lean meats an a lot of veggies…
Notice I said STRONGLY not SOLELY. The typical trend, especially these days, is the easy way out. Whatever, is fastest, quickest, easiest, least expensive…When will we be ready and willing to set a standard for something better than what’s been offered so far. I’m not saying that the current standard is not good enough… it’s just not good enough for what I’m trying to accomplish right now in my life…Hence the reason for being on this website to begin with - expand my knowledge, broaden my point of view, live a little… you know?
So, if it costs more and I have to commit to a change in lifestyle and eating habbits (even the amount of food I eat/day) but in the long run I’m a stronger, healthier me, then so be it.
I am eating more food now per day than ever in my entire life and feel great! I’ve learned that my body is a machine… feed it the right stuff and watch it transform! I’m totally excited and I know that starchy, simple carbs even with ample portions of veggies (which I have always eaten a lot of… I’m not really a sweets kind… I’d rather have raw asparagus, or broccoli, or squash as a snack) never gave me this much energy or training success.
As for the comments on exercise… what can I say… I’m an advocate and T-Vixen in training! Don’t you wish everyone could understand the high you get from lifting. It’s kind of a shame, but it’s the best kept secret to a more enriched and healthy life!
[quote]Stace22 wrote:
Why DO some foods have more protein than others?
t-ha wrote:
I don’t know if this is the response you’re after, but I think that many foods which are high in protein are intended for consumption by fast growing, immature organisms. E.g. Egg white protein is intended to feed immature fowl while they are growing inside the egg. Nut and bean proteins are intended to provide for germinating plants. Cheeses and general dairy are derived from milk, intended for fast developing animal young.
Most other foods have some protein because it forms an integral part of their structure (mussle tissue, grains etc.).
[/quote]
I never thought about that before…This is really what I was hitting on from the inception but this has turned out to be a very intersting, thread. I sort of thought about the potential debates that could possibly arise from such a topic and almost didn’t post my question. I know what I think and thought I knew why I think the way I do.
But, to be quite honest, you have forced me to re-evaluate some of my own thoughts and do more homework.
Bravi!
PS:
[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
Fine, you eat 2-3 servings of meat a day, I’ll be just fine eating over 10 thank you very much.
[/quote]
I really like this guy;)
[quote]sugarfree wrote:
Letting the government plan your diet is like letting a salesman build your computer.
They don’t ask you what you need. They sell you what they have. And the don’t really know what they are talking about.[/quote]
nice!