"Scientists confirms Paleo diet is nonsense" anyone else see this article?
Replies
-
Semantics.
Logic fail such as
"
Carbohydrates are sugars, starches and fibre. Yes, glucose is a sugar, monosaccharide, and technically a type of carbohydrate, but saying our body needs carbohydrates is different than saying our body needs glucose"
Glucose is a carb, body needs glucose, body doesn't need carbs. Simple logic, but some people have issues with it.
0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
People who insist carbs aren't essential (which is true under the definition of essential for food intake), usually talk as if that means eating carbs is somehow bad for you, when in fact an essential nutrient is nothing more or less than "what your body needs to properly function but can't create itself".
I outlined why it is a good thing for our continued survival that carbs aren't an essential nutrient, cause you'd be dead within days if you stopped eating carbs if carbs were an essential nutrient, whereas the same doesn't happen with the nutrients that are essential.
In other words, carbs are not an essential nutrient because they're so essential (in the normal definition of the word) to you staying alive. Your body doesn't trust you to get the glucose it needs to survive so it evolved to make its own glucose, with blackjack and hookers.0 -
I'll build my own theme parkstevencloser wrote: »...with blackjack and hookers.0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
Because it would be unethical to harm human babies in a similar test. Ketoacidosis is a real thing with people...and mice.
My sister told me of a rise in developmental delays in infants in wealthy communities where the infants were mistakenly put on low-fat diets (low fat being the thing). This harmed their brain development.
0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
And straw mans are the last resort of the intellectually dishonest.0 -
They've been done in humans, too.
You can "stand by" whatever you want - fact is ketosis causes poor health outcomes in our offspring. If that isn't enough to meet your definition of "necessary", then we are operating under vastly different definitions.
0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
Have you gotten around to posting all the evidence you said exists that carbs were not essential to the evolution of the human brain? Or are you still knocking down strawmen?0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
Because it would be unethical to harm human babies in a similar test. Ketoacidosis is a real thing with people...and mice. You missed the point. Lower carbohydrate diets don't produce ketoacidosis in humans.
My sister told me of a rise in developmental delays in infants in wealthy communities where the infants were mistakenly put on low-fat diets (low fat being the thing). This harmed their brain development. No doubt. Linolenic and linoleic acid are essential fatty acid nutrients and can't be produced by the body. They only come from fats we eat.The brain is very lipid rich and a growing child needs sufficient calories and fats to develop0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
Because it would be unethical to harm human babies in a similar test. Ketoacidosis is a real thing with people...and mice.
You missed the point. Lower carbohydrate diets don't produce ketoacidosis in humans.My sister told me of a rise in developmental delays in infants in wealthy communities where the infants were mistakenly put on low-fat diets (low fat being the thing). This harmed their brain development. No doubt. Linolenic and linoleic acid are essential fatty acid nutrients and can't be produced by the body. They only come from fats we eat.The brain is very lipid rich and a growing child needs sufficient calories and fats to develop
No, I'm afraid you missed the point. Which is that "normal" ketosis in a pregnant woman often produces unintended ketoacidosis in the gestating fetus. But there's also a feedback loop that will shunt resources to the fetus to minimize this, and you can end up with ketoacidosis in both mother and child.
0 -
Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
Because it would be unethical to harm human babies in a similar test. Ketoacidosis is a real thing with people...and mice. You missed the point. Lower carbohydrate diets don't produce ketoacidosis in humans.
My sister told me of a rise in developmental delays in infants in wealthy communities where the infants were mistakenly put on low-fat diets (low fat being the thing). This harmed their brain development. No doubt. Linolenic and linoleic acid are essential fatty acid nutrients and can't be produced by the body. They only come from fats we eat.The brain is very lipid rich and a growing child needs sufficient calories and fats to develop
No, I'm afraid you missed the point. Which is that "normal" ketosis in a pregnant woman often produces unintended ketoacidosis in the gestating fetus.
How does that relate to the OP getting her period? By definition, she's not pregnant at that point...0 -
No, I'm afraid you missed the point. Which is that "normal" ketosis in a pregnant woman often produces unintended ketoacidosis in the gestating fetus. But there's also a feedback loop that will shunt resources to the fetus to minimize this, and you can end up with ketoacidosis in both mother and child.
I am don't know why I continue to respond to these unfounded statements of pseudo fact; but, this is an important topic that is shrouded in wives tales rather that data.
First off, ketosis is a normal state in pregnant women and the developing fetus gets approximately 30% of its energy need from...KETONES Institute of Medicine (US). Panel on Micronutrients. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids. Panel on Macronutrients Panel on the Definition of Dietary Fiber, Subcommittee on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients, Subcommittee on Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes, and the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academies Press, 2005. In fact ketone synthesis is higher in the third trimester and umbilical vein ketone concentrations are higher in fetal blood than maternal blood... The fetus appear to preferentially produce ketones. [Bon, C et al. "[Feto-maternal metabolism in human normal pregnancies: study of 73 cases]." Annales de biologie clinique Dec. 2006: 609-619.Herrera, E. "Metabolic adaptations in pregnancy and their implications for the availability of substrates to the fetus." European journal of clinical nutrition 54.1 (2000): S47. /i]
More importantly even overnight fasted pregnant women do not get ketoacidosis. Felig, Philip, and Vincent Lynch. "Starvation in human pregnancy: hypoglycemia, hypoinsulinemia, and hyperketonemia." Science 170.3961 (1970): 990-992.. Quite frankly, excess glucose is far worse a problem for pregnant patients than ketosis.
I have cited peer reviewed literature from scientific studies in actual humans to support my positions. I have not extrapolated from mice with the metabolic derangement of ketoacidosis... or simply made unsupported statements as facts. The same can not be said of those on the opposite side of this issue.
I can not dissuade people of their near religious vilification of lower carbohydrates diets. Those that are interested in the science of the dietary carbohydrate and enough of a physiology/biochemistry background to understand the science can use these references as a starting point to rise above the unsupported dogma.0 -
No, I'm afraid you missed the point. Which is that "normal" ketosis in a pregnant woman often produces unintended ketoacidosis in the gestating fetus. But there's also a feedback loop that will shunt resources to the fetus to minimize this, and you can end up with ketoacidosis in both mother and child.
I am don't know why I continue to respond to these unfounded statements of pseudo fact; but, this is an important topic that is shrouded in wives tales rather that data.
First off, ketosis is a normal state in pregnant women and the developing fetus gets approximately 30% of its energy need from...KETONES Institute of Medicine (US). Panel on Micronutrients. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids. Panel on Macronutrients Panel on the Definition of Dietary Fiber, Subcommittee on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients, Subcommittee on Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes, and the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academies Press, 2005. In fact ketone synthesis is higher in the third trimester and umbilical vein ketone concentrations are higher in fetal blood than maternal blood... The fetus appear to preferentially produce ketones. [Bon, C et al. "[Feto-maternal metabolism in human normal pregnancies: study of 73 cases]." Annales de biologie clinique Dec. 2006: 609-619.Herrera, E. "Metabolic adaptations in pregnancy and their implications for the availability of substrates to the fetus." European journal of clinical nutrition 54.1 (2000): S47. /i]
More importantly even overnight fasted pregnant women do not get ketoacidosis. Felig, Philip, and Vincent Lynch. "Starvation in human pregnancy: hypoglycemia, hypoinsulinemia, and hyperketonemia." Science 170.3961 (1970): 990-992.. Quite frankly, excess glucose is far worse a problem for pregnant patients than ketosis.
I have cited peer reviewed literature from scientific studies in actual humans to support my positions. I have not extrapolated from mice with the metabolic derangement of ketoacidosis... or simply made unsupported statements as facts. The same can not be said of those on the opposite side of this issue.
I can not dissuade people of their near religious vilification of lower carbohydrates diets. Those that are interested in the science of the dietary carbohydrate and enough of a physiology/biochemistry background to understand the science can use these references as a starting point to rise above the unsupported dogma.
Cited peer reviewed literature in actual humans to support your positions? o rly?
"Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet"
Never supported why this was laughable, keep in mind the paper's author was talking about ancient humans and the evolution of their brains.
"I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working!"
Strawman, nor supported
"Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate"
Never supported either
0 -
I don't want to eat like a chimp, but socializing like a bonobo might be nice.
You could eat like a chimpanzee. blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-to-eat-like-a-chimpanzee/snowflakesav wrote: »I think it would be interesting to see more evidence uncovered around the diets of The ancients. I don't think this thing we call Paleo is even close.
Or you could eat like a hunter-gatherer. But which one? Human traditional diets range from nearly all meat (Inuit) to nearly vegetarian. The fact is, there is no "ideal diet". Although meat is much harder to gather than plants in most climates.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Boy oh boy if infants need it for normal development it's not a big stretch that it's good for adults too.
Except this study had nothing to do with humans. This was a study of mice who develop a condition known as ketoacidosis.
And I stand by my statement of no essential need for carbohydrate. As noted by SC, the operative word is essential as in essential nutrients. An attempt to isolate 2 words and then imply that I stated that there is no physiologic requirement for simple sugars in mammalian biochemistry is childish and the typical last resort for the intellectually bankrupt
People who insist carbs aren't essential (which is true under the definition of essential for food intake), usually talk as if that means eating carbs is somehow bad for you, when in fact an essential nutrient is nothing more or less than "what your body needs to properly function but can't create itself".
I outlined why it is a good thing for our continued survival that carbs aren't an essential nutrient, cause you'd be dead within days if you stopped eating carbs if carbs were an essential nutrient, whereas the same doesn't happen with the nutrients that are essential.
In other words, carbs are not an essential nutrient because they're so essential (in the normal definition of the word) to you staying alive. Your body doesn't trust you to get the glucose it needs to survive so it evolved to make its own glucose, with blackjack and hookers.
In fact, forget the glucose.0 -
People are saying that the adult body does not need to CONSUME carbs. Consume is the key word.Semantics.
Logic fail such as
"
Carbohydrates are sugars, starches and fibre. Yes, glucose is a sugar, monosaccharide, and technically a type of carbohydrate, but saying our body needs carbohydrates is different than saying our body needs glucose"
Glucose is a carb, body needs glucose, body doesn't need carbs. Simple logic, but some people have issues with it.
Why do you keep resorting to belittling? I feel like I'm talking to my 8 year old.
0 -
If something works for you, for all means go for it.
I personally don't like fad diets.
they aren't my cup of tea but if you prefer eating like that over a normal healthy diet by all means, go for it.
Of course if you feel drained or not so good, It isn't for you.0 -
People are saying that the adult body does not need to CONSUME carbs. Consume is the key word.Semantics.
Logic fail such as
"
Carbohydrates are sugars, starches and fibre. Yes, glucose is a sugar, monosaccharide, and technically a type of carbohydrate, but saying our body needs carbohydrates is different than saying our body needs glucose"
Glucose is a carb, body needs glucose, body doesn't need carbs. Simple logic, but some people have issues with it.
Why do you keep resorting to belittling? I feel like I'm talking to my 8 year old.
That would be false as well. I wonder if the brain or anything else in the human body consumes carbs?
Weird, this guy seems to think the brain dors consume carbs but according to you it'd be all good if it didn't, as adult bodies don't need them
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22947794
0 -
You seem determined to disagree. I'm out. Have fun.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions