Daniel Duchaine said it best: “There are no bad carbs, just types of carbs eaten at the wrong time.”
Yea - my professors are great too. Open minded, and definitely up to date on most current nutrition trends.
It’s easy to characterize them all as ignorant shitheads, but they’re not.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Daniel Duchaine said it best: “There are no bad carbs, just types of carbs eaten at the wrong time.” [/quote]
Brick, I think what gets people to drive down the road they do, is that they get so caught up in THIER goals and ambitions, that they think everyone else must also have those goals, or at least they should. So for example, CS may preach his shit, and he may be right, if you want to look like him, follow the way he does things. But if I want to look like Jim Wendler or Dave Tate, I’m not going to follow CS’s advice. So I think (and hope) they are saying things like that and targeting them to an audience who is looking for that as the answer if you get my drift.
V
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Daniel Duchaine said it best: “There are no bad carbs, just types of carbs eaten at the wrong time.” [/quote]
What a fantastic quote. Thanks Bricknyce.
Sure there are cultures that have thrived on near or full ketogenic diets (Northern Candanian Tribes and some African tribes for instance), and there have also been empires that have thrived on carb-rich diets (Inca, China, Aztec, Japan).
So what?
Look at what something does IN YOUR BODY, in regard to your goals, experiment, and see what actually happens. We have so many ideas about food, I sometimes wonder how many people are actually seeing what happens rather than reading and debating issues intellectually.
This relates to the thread on Bodybuilding training about experimentation. We need more of it, and less theoretical, groundless, internet-educated debate IMHO.
MID
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
So it sounds like this thread was created by someone who already knew the answer to his question, and has decided it’s not something he believes in…
We are not evolved/designed to eat grains. We’ve invented tools and processes to make it possible to eat grains. We are not designed to consume alcohol, but we are able to consume it at non-fatal levels and “okay”. It should be obvious that the stuff we evolved, over millennium, to consume will be healthiest.
I’d also suggest we not conflate good body-building with good health. While they are often the same, they are not synonymous. I believe someone with decent genetics can probably get themselves looking pretty good by just worrying about macros (on the diet side), and probably eating next to whatever they want to fill their macro goals, especially if they are young. I would argue that the person who does the same routine, and hits the same macros, with higher-quality, human-being diet food, will be healthier (better hormone levels, better insulin sensitivity, better performance for the their given size, exe).[/quote]
Well thought out post.
You wrote: “We’ve invented tools and processes to make it possible to eat grains.” I see this as a good thing - humans using their brains and bodies to make their lives better.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Daniel Duchaine said it best: “There are no bad carbs, just types of carbs eaten at the wrong time.” [/quote]
Brick, I think what gets people to drive down the road they do, is that they get so caught up in THIER goals and ambitions, that they think everyone else must also have those goals, or at least they should. So for example, CS may preach his shit, and he may be right, if you want to look like him, follow the way he does things. But if I want to look like Jim Wendler or Dave Tate, I’m not going to follow CS’s advice. So I think (and hope) they are saying things like that and targeting them to an audience who is looking for that as the answer if you get my drift.
V
[/quote]
You can actually look like CS while eating a shitload of grains.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Great post!
I’m just still waiting for Chris Shugart and others to start dropping names - dropping diet-related dimes on RD’s!
I want their first and last names and the idiotic things they say.
White pasta isn’t nutrient dense. Does this make it BAD? In what situation is it BAD? [/quote]
And those are the questions that many people refuse to ask - it’s easier to just say “it’s BAD.” Olive Garden-sized portions of it for dinner every night on the plate of an overweight person? No. For a skinny guy on a bulk? Sure. In moderation for people of healthy weights? Why not? I’ll never say it’s the best choice for the majority of people to eat regularly, but I wouldn’t tell someone they must never eat their grandmother’s homemade cavatelli again if they want to be healthy.
People can ultimately answer this question on their own, by experimenting, and figuring out through trial and error what works best with their body and their goals. Everyone is built differently, both inside and out, and the only way to find out what suits you is to test and experiment.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
People can ultimately answer this question on their own, by experimenting, and figuring out through trial and error what works best with their body and their goals. Everyone is built differently, both inside and out, and the only way to find out what suits you is to test and experiment.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]midnightamnesia wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Daniel Duchaine said it best: “There are no bad carbs, just types of carbs eaten at the wrong time.” [/quote]
What a fantastic quote. Thanks Bricknyce.
Sure there are cultures that have thrived on near or full ketogenic diets (Northern Candanian Tribes and some African tribes for instance), and there have also been empires that have thrived on carb-rich diets (Inca, China, Aztec, Japan).
So what?
Look at what something does IN YOUR BODY, in regard to your goals, experiment, and see what actually happens. We have so many ideas about food, I sometimes wonder how many people are actually seeing what happens rather than reading and debating issues intellectually.
This relates to the thread on Bodybuilding training about experimentation. We need more of it, and less theoretical, groundless, internet-educated debate IMHO.
MID
[/quote]
Welcome.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Yea - my professors are great too. Open minded, and definitely up to date on most current nutrition trends.
It’s easy to characterize them all as ignorant shitheads, but they’re not. [/quote]
Then you’ll like SS particularly, a professor and internship coordinator there. JT too, if he’s still there.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Daniel Duchaine said it best: “There are no bad carbs, just types of carbs eaten at the wrong time.” [/quote]
Brick, I think what gets people to drive down the road they do, is that they get so caught up in THIER goals and ambitions, that they think everyone else must also have those goals, or at least they should. So for example, CS may preach his shit, and he may be right, if you want to look like him, follow the way he does things. But if I want to look like Jim Wendler or Dave Tate, I’m not going to follow CS’s advice. So I think (and hope) they are saying things like that and targeting them to an audience who is looking for that as the answer if you get my drift.
V
[/quote]
This is a great post.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Weight loss books that say “eat less than you consume and base your diet around nutrient dense whole foods” don’t sell as well as the ones with wacky evolutionary rationales and alarmist rhetoric.[/quote]
THIS is fucking excellent!
[quote]Alex Stoddard wrote:
As everyone likes to say, show me some references. It totally fly’s in the face of the fact that my father was able to reduce his insulin by 3/4 when he went on a high protein/fat (meat) diet.
A 100gram serving of oatmeal has 61 calories, and a glycemic load of 6 (that’s prepared, which would largely be water)
A 3 oz serving of beef has 164 calories, and a glycemic load of 0.
I know the insulin index may be different, but this just doesn’t make sense to me! Maybe I’m just missing something!
[/quote]
I misstated my previous post, beef has a great effect on insulin than oatmeal, but not blood glucose.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
you totally missed the point. From a nutritional point of view it doesnt make sense. Sure if you’re a bodybuilder requiring 6000 calories a day but for the average person it doesn’t make sense to fill 700 of your 2000 daily calories with stuff that’s not going to provide any nutrition. Heck most people nowadays have a hard time getting one portion of veggies into their bodies.
Even for bodybuilding you could eat more fatty meat, or foods that are calorie dense like coconuts cashews etc if you want to add calories in a cleaner way. but don’t quote me on that since I am not a bodybuilder[/quote]
I didn’t realize we were on an “average person” website.
I didn’t miss the point of your post, your post is just entirely incorrect, that’s all.
You do realize that macronutrients are as important when it comes to “nutrition” as micronutrients, right?
Since you want to focus on micronutrient content, why are you recommending replacing carbohydrates with fatty meats and nuts? You do realize that carbohydrate sources across the board carry a higher micronutrient load compared to fatty meats, plant oils, and nuts, right?
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]Artemisia wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I feel like people are obviously divided on this question, and the only thing that will really change that is some well founded research articles and discussions. There is no point bantering without and credible evidence to back up your claims.
~
Rocks are not meant to be eaten.[/quote]
Unless they’re made of candy and brightly colored.[/quote]
Well played…[/quote]
I didn’t realize we were on an “average person” website.
I didn’t miss the point of your post, your post is just entirely incorrect, that’s all.
You do realize that macronutrients are as important when it comes to “nutrition” as micronutrients, right?
It is a lot harder to get your daily micronutrient when you only have 2000 calories to work with.
I still fail to see where my post is incorrect
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I didn’t realize we were on an “average person” website.
I didn’t miss the point of your post, your post is just entirely incorrect, that’s all.
You do realize that macronutrients are as important when it comes to “nutrition” as micronutrients, right?
It is a lot harder to get your daily micronutrient when you only have 2000 calories to work with.
I still fail to see where my post is incorrect
[/quote]
Your post is incorrect if it applies to those who train hard or otherwise live some sort of moderate-highly active lifestyle. Being that that is the context of EVERYTHING else on this website then you’re either not paying attention or backpedaling because you know suggesting that an athlete get ALL of their energy substrate from green vegetables is absurd.
A few notes on the “meant to eat” arguments:
-
New evidence shows that humans have been gathering, processing, and consuming grains for far longer than 10,000 years, possibly going back over 100,000 years.
-
Paleolithic man ate starchy tubers (potatoes, anyone?) and honey (OMG SUGARZ) when he could scavenge it.
-
Humans are not herbivores. Humans are not carnivores. We are omnivores and our bodies are extremely adaptable. This is why paleolithic societies across the world have such massive variation in dietary practice. Some eat a diet consisting entirely of fatty meat and fish with little to no prevalence of modern obesity-related disease states, while others consume relatively little animal protein and a massive quantity of carbohydrate from plant sources with the same absence of obesity-related disease states. This is why an evolutionary approach to nutrition is almost entirely worthless. We did not evolve to eat any specific thing, but rather to be eaters of opportunity and adapt to survive on whatever sources of sustenance were available.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
A few notes on the “meant to eat” arguments:
-
New evidence shows that humans have been gathering, processing, and consuming grains for far longer than 10,000 years, possibly going back over 100,000 years.
-
Paleolithic man ate starchy tubers (potatoes, anyone?) and honey (OMG SUGARZ) when he could scavenge it.
-
Humans are not herbivores. Humans are not carnivores. We are omnivores and our bodies are extremely adaptable. This is why paleolithic societies across the world have such massive variation in dietary practice. Some eat a diet consisting entirely of fatty meat and fish with little to no prevalence of modern obesity-related disease states, while others consume relatively little animal protein and a massive quantity of carbohydrate from plant sources with the same absence of obesity-related disease states. This is why an evolutionary approach to nutrition is almost entirely worthless. We did not evolve to eat any specific thing, but rather to be eaters of opportunity and adapt to survive on whatever sources of sustenance were available.[/quote]
Good posts from you in this thread.
[quote]
Your post is incorrect if it applies to those who train hard or otherwise live some sort of moderate-highly active lifestyle. Being that that is the context of EVERYTHING else on this website then you’re either not paying attention or backpedaling because you know suggesting that an athlete get ALL of their energy substrate from green vegetables is absurd.[/quote]
As a matter of fact I am not backpedaling at all. If you apply that theory to bodybuilders maybe, to athletes maybe too but I know a lot of athletes whose diet consist entirely of so called “clean” foods (vegetables i.e. potatoes, yams for carbs etc), devoid of grains. Furthermore I never said that it should be derived from greens. I am sorry but I get a bit annoyed when I state a fact and then you fly off with some distorted view telling me how wrong I am. Also for your information the topic isn’t called “what athletes/bodybuilders are meant/ not meant to eat”.