Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How does the body fuel itself?
Replies
-
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?18 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree.
Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
This is the most accurate post on this thread. And other posts here by nvmomketo and tennisdude2004. The other attempts of rebuttal by the anti keto posse is just more typical glucose/cico/anti keto brainwashing attempts and old, weak, disproved theories. Get with the times and new proven science lol.... so obvious it's laughable some of the arguments people try to use against it here. Glucose is exactly that...one energy source that a lot of people's body uses cause that is what most people stuff themselves with all day long. Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does?? No, give your heads a shake. Common sense and common knowledge. Keeping your heads in the sands won't get rid of the truth. Give your body another source of energy/nutrition and that's what it uses for the energy. Proven by millions of low carb/keto eating people all over the world every day of the year. Time to get over it forum posse bullies lol. Glad to see so many people on this forum showing up from all over the world learning about and living keto and how glucose has been killing people all over the world in astronomically rising numbers every day. Type 2 Diabetes has never been higher and not just in adults and the elderly anymore; children and teens with it are increasing in crazy numbers like never before.
And 'there's no high performance athletes that are low carb' LOL!!! Do you not read, or do you not have a computer?
There is a lot wrong with this post, but I will try to keep it simple for you since you obviously don't have an open mind about anything that might challenge your fairy tail views about keto. First, CICO is not a theory, it is fact. There is a reason it is called the law of thermodynamics and not a theory. Second, if anyone is brainwashed, it is those keto extremists who think that keto somehow defies the CICO equation. The number of people on this site who make that claim just baffles me. Keto is a valuable tool for some, because it helps them stay at a calorie deficit. That is the only reason that someone on a keto diet would lose weight. Third, you may hate carbs and view them as the devil but I think they are fantastic. They fuel my workouts and keep me satiated and despite what you may believe, they do not cause T2 diabetes. Being overweight or obese is definitely a cause though, which would be a good reason for people to make sure not to become that way by consuming too many calories.
You say to get with the times and the "new proven science" but there is absolutely nothing in your post to back your claims up. I'd love to see this "new proven science" that proves Keto is the end all be all. I'll save you some time though, that science just doesn't exist. Sure, their are numerous articles by crazy extremists and woo peddlers who are trying to make a quick buck with outlandish claims, but those articles only exist because the uneducated buy into these claims without doing any real research. Fourth, I didn't see anyone claim that there are no high performance athletes that are low carb, just that the overwhelming majority are not. Are you saying this is not true? Half a dozen athletes were thrown out as examples of low carb athletes, but the overwhelming majority are not, and there is a reason for that. You can laugh at others on this site who rebuke some of these outlandish keto claims, but you are laughing at the educated when you are most definitely not.
22 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Early humans ate a lot of tubers as well...9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Hunting for meat was not easy, especially with the limiting tools they must of had. I would think digging up tubers and plucking fruit of bushes would have been easier.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.16 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Hunting for meat was not easy, especially with the limiting tools they must of had. I would think digging up tubers and plucking fruit of bushes would have been easier.
Yeah, the concept of meat as supplement to the diet (you get it when you're fortunate) was probably closer to truth for a lot of early humans. People who depended on less mobile foods for the bulk of their calories probably ate more consistently.
(This would vary by area, the point is that at least some early humans were thriving on diets that contained a lot of carbohydrates, as other primates clearly can too).8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree. Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
This is the most accurate post on this thread. And other posts here by nvmomketo and tennisdude2004. The other attempts of rebuttal by the anti keto posse is just more typical glucose/cico/anti keto brainwashing attempts and old, weak, disproved theories. Get with the times and new proven science lol.... so obvious it's laughable some of the arguments people try to use against it here. Glucose is exactly that...one energy source that a lot of people's body uses cause that is what most people stuff themselves with all day long. Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does?? No, give your heads a shake. Common sense and common knowledge. Keeping your heads in the sands won't get rid of the truth. Give your body another source of energy/nutrition and that's what it uses for the energy. Proven by millions of low carb/keto eating people all over the world every day of the year. Time to get over it forum posse bullies lol. Glad to see so many people on this forum showing up from all over the world learning about and living keto and how glucose has been killing people all over the world in astronomically rising numbers every day. Type 2 Diabetes has never been higher and not just in adults and the elderly anymore; children and teens with it are increasing in crazy numbers like never before.
And 'there's no high performance athletes that are low carb' LOL!!! Do you not read, or do you not have a computer?
Rather than be the one to ask for sources, irony of your insults, etc....etc...etc...
I've become more interested in....how in the hell were you able to edit your post 6 hours after initially posting it?
Editing to verify that indeed, mine says we have an hour.
More likely case is that it wasn't he who edited it.
Strange, I'm not sure why....or the bigger how anyone could go in and anonymously edit user posts.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.13 -
stanmann571 wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree. Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
This is the most accurate post on this thread. And other posts here by nvmomketo and tennisdude2004. The other attempts of rebuttal by the anti keto posse is just more typical glucose/cico/anti keto brainwashing attempts and old, weak, disproved theories. Get with the times and new proven science lol.... so obvious it's laughable some of the arguments people try to use against it here. Glucose is exactly that...one energy source that a lot of people's body uses cause that is what most people stuff themselves with all day long. Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does?? No, give your heads a shake. Common sense and common knowledge. Keeping your heads in the sands won't get rid of the truth. Give your body another source of energy/nutrition and that's what it uses for the energy. Proven by millions of low carb/keto eating people all over the world every day of the year. Time to get over it forum posse bullies lol. Glad to see so many people on this forum showing up from all over the world learning about and living keto and how glucose has been killing people all over the world in astronomically rising numbers every day. Type 2 Diabetes has never been higher and not just in adults and the elderly anymore; children and teens with it are increasing in crazy numbers like never before.
And 'there's no high performance athletes that are low carb' LOL!!! Do you not read, or do you not have a computer?
Rather than be the one to ask for sources, irony of your insults, etc....etc...etc...
I've become more interested in....how in the hell were you able to edit your post 6 hours after initially posting it?
Editing to verify that indeed, mine says we have an hour.
More likely case is that it wasn't he who edited it.
Strange, I'm not sure why....or the bigger how anyone could go in and anonymously edit user posts.
Any of the Mods could do it to remove content not deemed kosher for the site, but they usually leave a footprint that says it was edited to remove said content.5 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »...Get with the times and new proven science lol....Keeping your heads in the sands won't get rid of the truth....
Post the studies. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', and the plural of 'unsubstantiated claims' is not 'science'.12 -
stanmann571 wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree. Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
This is the most accurate post on this thread. And other posts here by nvmomketo and tennisdude2004. The other attempts of rebuttal by the anti keto posse is just more typical glucose/cico/anti keto brainwashing attempts and old, weak, disproved theories. Get with the times and new proven science lol.... so obvious it's laughable some of the arguments people try to use against it here. Glucose is exactly that...one energy source that a lot of people's body uses cause that is what most people stuff themselves with all day long. Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does?? No, give your heads a shake. Common sense and common knowledge. Keeping your heads in the sands won't get rid of the truth. Give your body another source of energy/nutrition and that's what it uses for the energy. Proven by millions of low carb/keto eating people all over the world every day of the year. Time to get over it forum posse bullies lol. Glad to see so many people on this forum showing up from all over the world learning about and living keto and how glucose has been killing people all over the world in astronomically rising numbers every day. Type 2 Diabetes has never been higher and not just in adults and the elderly anymore; children and teens with it are increasing in crazy numbers like never before.
And 'there's no high performance athletes that are low carb' LOL!!! Do you not read, or do you not have a computer?
Rather than be the one to ask for sources, irony of your insults, etc....etc...etc...
I've become more interested in....how in the hell were you able to edit your post 6 hours after initially posting it?
Editing to verify that indeed, mine says we have an hour.
More likely case is that it wasn't he who edited it.
Strange, I'm not sure why....or the bigger how anyone could go in and anonymously edit user posts.
Any of the Mods could do it to remove content not deemed kosher for the site, but they usually leave a footprint that says it was edited to remove said content.
I find it strange there is no footprint or note from a mod....
Also editing to quit the obtuseness, I saw the post before going to the gym. After getting to work and catching back up on MFP shenanigans, I noticed that, from what I remember, post is basically completely re-written. Still kind of wondering how the OP edited it 6hrs later.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Some Asian diets eat lots of bugs and some tribes around the world eat grubs and other insects - what’s your point?
I should think the diet of our ancestors was pretty much to eat anything and everything. I would assume the diet of our Northern European ancestors was a lot different from our ancestors nearer the equator!
Also at times food was plentiful and at other times food was scarce, which is why our bodies have evolved to work optimally on different fueling methods!
2 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Some Asian diets eat lots of bugs and some tribes around the world eat grubs and other insects - what’s your point?
I should think the diet of our ancestors was pretty much to eat anything and everything. I would assume the diet of our Northern European ancestors was a lot different from our ancestors nearer the equator!
Also at times food was plentiful and at other times food was scarce, which is why our bodies have evolved to work optimally on different fueling methods!
Exactly -- exact types of food and percentages of calories from different macros varied in different places (and according to the time of year, in some areas). So to talk about a supposed time when humans ate mostly protein and fat is nonsense. Some people certainly did eat that way, other people ate differently. But humans have the ability to thrive on a higher carbohydrate diet, as do many other primates.
There was no "back in the day" when humans didn't have access to high carbohydrate diets -- humans and other primates have been eating foods like berries, tubers, greens, and wild grains for a long, long time.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Some Asian diets eat lots of bugs and some tribes around the world eat grubs and other insects - what’s your point?
I should think the diet of our ancestors was pretty much to eat anything and everything. I would assume the diet of our Northern European ancestors was a lot different from our ancestors nearer the equator!
Also at times food was plentiful and at other times food was scarce, which is why our bodies have evolved to work optimally on different fueling methods!
Exactly -- exact types of food and percentages of calories from different macros varied in different places (and according to the time of year, in some areas). So to talk about a supposed time when humans ate mostly protein and fat is nonsense. Some people certainly did eat that way, other people ate differently. But humans have the ability to thrive on a higher carbohydrate diet, as do many other primates.
There was no "back in the day" when humans didn't have access to high carbohydrate diets -- humans and other primates have been eating foods like berries, tubers, greens, and wild grains for a long, long time.
They also used to eat more offal, brain, bone marrow, sinew, muscle, tripe, heart - all the good stuff!
I would guess that the diets nearer to the equator were the higher carb diets!
7 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Some Asian diets eat lots of bugs and some tribes around the world eat grubs and other insects - what’s your point?
I should think the diet of our ancestors was pretty much to eat anything and everything. I would assume the diet of our Northern European ancestors was a lot different from our ancestors nearer the equator!
Also at times food was plentiful and at other times food was scarce, which is why our bodies have evolved to work optimally on different fueling methods!
If you follow the thread, all of these responses are debating the claim that a current diet that contains carbohydrates is "garbage" and that early humans ate a diet mainly of fat and protein. The point people are trying to make is that the diet of early humans was not exclusively fat and protein, so if you are looking to replicate that diet you better look at it in its entirety. Sometimes it helps to look at all of the facts instead of cherry picking bits and pieces to fit your narrative.
15 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Some Asian diets eat lots of bugs and some tribes around the world eat grubs and other insects - what’s your point?
I should think the diet of our ancestors was pretty much to eat anything and everything. I would assume the diet of our Northern European ancestors was a lot different from our ancestors nearer the equator!
Also at times food was plentiful and at other times food was scarce, which is why our bodies have evolved to work optimally on different fueling methods!
Exactly -- exact types of food and percentages of calories from different macros varied in different places (and according to the time of year, in some areas). So to talk about a supposed time when humans ate mostly protein and fat is nonsense. Some people certainly did eat that way, other people ate differently. But humans have the ability to thrive on a higher carbohydrate diet, as do many other primates.
There was no "back in the day" when humans didn't have access to high carbohydrate diets -- humans and other primates have been eating foods like berries, tubers, greens, and wild grains for a long, long time.
You mean our ancient ancestors weren't all subsisting upon bulletproof coffee, Atkins shakes, packaged keto bars, bottled MCT oil, fat bombs and bacon-wrapped cheese sticks?
Mind. Blown.25 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Some Asian diets eat lots of bugs and some tribes around the world eat grubs and other insects - what’s your point?
I should think the diet of our ancestors was pretty much to eat anything and everything. I would assume the diet of our Northern European ancestors was a lot different from our ancestors nearer the equator!
Also at times food was plentiful and at other times food was scarce, which is why our bodies have evolved to work optimally on different fueling methods!
Exactly -- exact types of food and percentages of calories from different macros varied in different places (and according to the time of year, in some areas). So to talk about a supposed time when humans ate mostly protein and fat is nonsense. Some people certainly did eat that way, other people ate differently. But humans have the ability to thrive on a higher carbohydrate diet, as do many other primates.
There was no "back in the day" when humans didn't have access to high carbohydrate diets -- humans and other primates have been eating foods like berries, tubers, greens, and wild grains for a long, long time.
You mean our ancient ancestors weren't all subsisting upon bulletproof coffee, Atkins shakes, packaged keto bars, bottled MCT oil, fat bombs and bacon-wrapped cheese sticks?
Mind. Blown.
Nope they weren’t and they weren’t eating Twinkie’s, pizza, club sandwiches, mars bars, pretzels or bagels either - go figure!
9 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does??
This is an odd point to make. When we observe our closest animal relatives, what do they eat? Plants mostly (including lots of fruit), supplemented with some meat (animal and insect) and nuts/seeds. Early humans probably did the same, wouldn't you think? At what point were humans eating mostly fat and protein and avoiding carbohydrates?
Our teeth and digestive systems seem to more closely resemble that of dogs rather than that of chimps - meat eaters that can supplement with plant products (Omnivores).
I think your argument depends on where your ancestors came from. Mine are northern European (Russian, Norwegian, British, Sottish, German). They ate mostly animals with some plants. I think it was the Romans who brought in agriculture around 3000 years ago.
Now I live where the First Nations Plains peoples lived. Meat from grazers was the natural main food source in this part of the world for thousands of years. To get plants, beyond some dried berries or herbs, for 6+ months of the year was very hard until the railroad was put in.
Some cultures were more animal based than others. It's not because they were avoiding carbohydrates. It's because edible carbohydrates were not readily available. Tubers and fruits on bushes is not always easily available.
Humans were eating plants before agriculture was developed. That's my point: look at primate diets, they're always eating plants. The proportion of plants to meat would vary by area/time of year/general availability, but plants are always present there. Some humans expanded out to areas where they ate much more meat than plants -- this is possible precisely because we're omnivores. Some humans expanded to areas where they ate more plants -- again, us being omnivores is what makes this possible.
I'm not arguing that humans can't thrive on a diet that is mostly meat. Evidence shows that humans can thrive on this diet, along with other types of diet. I'm responding specifically to someone who is claiming that a high carbohydrate diet is somehow new to humans and that such a diet is "garbage." A high carbohydrate diet isn't new to humans. It wouldn't even be new to pre-human ancestors (if the diets of our primate relatives are any indication).
Edit: I'm not claiming any groups historically avoided carbohydrates. I think the opposite. I think any human group who found easy access to carbohydrates probably would eat them -- humans often find them tasty and they're a good source of energy. Why would they avoid them? The people who had consistent access to things like berries, tubers, wild grains, and greens were *lucky*.
Don't forget the bugs. Prior to agriculture we were opportunity hunters which meant that our diets were largely subsidized on insects.
....so....for you true paleo types I hope you have a worm farm running at capacity.
Some Asian diets eat lots of bugs and some tribes around the world eat grubs and other insects - what’s your point?
I should think the diet of our ancestors was pretty much to eat anything and everything. I would assume the diet of our Northern European ancestors was a lot different from our ancestors nearer the equator!
Also at times food was plentiful and at other times food was scarce, which is why our bodies have evolved to work optimally on different fueling methods!
If you follow the thread, all of these responses are debating the claim that a current diet that contains carbohydrates is "garbage" and that early humans ate a diet mainly of fat and protein. The point people are trying to make is that the diet of early humans was not exclusively fat and protein, so if you are looking to replicate that diet you better look at it in its entirety. Sometimes it helps to look at all of the facts instead of cherry picking bits and pieces to fit your narrative.
This particular thread does take that turn, you are correct. But only one contribution (from left field) to this post has referred to garbage carbs.
10 -
.1
-
stanmann571 wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree. Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
This is the most accurate post on this thread. And other posts here by nvmomketo and tennisdude2004. The other attempts of rebuttal by the anti keto posse is just more typical glucose/cico/anti keto brainwashing attempts and old, weak, disproved theories. Get with the times and new proven science lol.... so obvious it's laughable some of the arguments people try to use against it here. Glucose is exactly that...one energy source that a lot of people's body uses cause that is what most people stuff themselves with all day long. Do you think that was humans main energy source was back in the day when you all didn't have such easy access to the garbage carbs you are feeding yourselves with now days. Do you think when humans ate mostly fat and protein their bodies metabolisms ran the same as your high carb metabolism does?? No, give your heads a shake. Common sense and common knowledge. Keeping your heads in the sands won't get rid of the truth. Give your body another source of energy/nutrition and that's what it uses for the energy. Proven by millions of low carb/keto eating people all over the world every day of the year. Time to get over it forum posse bullies lol. Glad to see so many people on this forum showing up from all over the world learning about and living keto and how glucose has been killing people all over the world in astronomically rising numbers every day. Type 2 Diabetes has never been higher and not just in adults and the elderly anymore; children and teens with it are increasing in crazy numbers like never before.
And 'there's no high performance athletes that are low carb' LOL!!! Do you not read, or do you not have a computer?
Rather than be the one to ask for sources, irony of your insults, etc....etc...etc...
I've become more interested in....how in the hell were you able to edit your post 6 hours after initially posting it?
Editing to verify that indeed, mine says we have an hour.
More likely case is that it wasn't he who edited it.
Strange, I'm not sure why....or the bigger how anyone could go in and anonymously edit user posts.
Any of the Mods could do it to remove content not deemed kosher for the site, but they usually leave a footprint that says it was edited to remove said content.
I find it strange there is no footprint or note from a mod....
Also editing to quit the obtuseness, I saw the post before going to the gym. After getting to work and catching back up on MFP shenanigans, I noticed that, from what I remember, post is basically completely re-written. Still kind of wondering how the OP edited it 6hrs later.
That is odd. I used to be a mod on a programming forum. If I edited a user's post for any reason it was required to leave a tag, or I would have gotten some major stink eye from the admins or been demoted. It was a feisty group and any whiff of playing favorites led to pages of flaming.5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.10 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
11 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.11 -
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree. Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
Fat and carbs are both primary fuels... fats are used more often when you are doing daily activities and oxygen requirements aren't as high; carbs when used more (either post meal) or when there are greater oxygen requirements.
But ketones are not a primary source of fuel (which I guess is the argument). Ketones are a derivative of starvation, very low carb and extreme endurance active (as glycogen gets depleted). In the event that a person doesn't consume enough glucose, a body will convert fatty acids (~40%) and amino acids (~60%) into glucose to address those basal needs; IIRC, things like the circulatory system, heart, and a few other organs require glucose and can't utilize ketones.
Like all humans, babies will produce ketones, especially over night. But most peoples get a good amount of carbs. Carbs are a huge driver for development. In a single serving of my daughters formula, it's 2g of protein, 5g of fat, 10g carbs. As you know carbs cause lipogenesis which unlocks the cells to take in nutrients.
CKD vs TKD, it would depend on how the person is using it. If they are merely timing nutrients around a workout, or an event, than it would be a TKD diet. But if they are incorporating refeeds to increase glycogen capacity, improve insulin sensitivity, and drive better recovery and muscle development, than it would be CKD. I guess I would have to read more about his diet to see which method is used. Because with endurance athletes, glycogen depletion will occur, especially since they aren't just running at one constant speed in the "fat burning" zone. There will be changes in terrain which will require greater oxygen, which driven glycogen needs (since carbs convert to ATP easier). And since glycogen can be replenished in about 24 hours (based on how often you consume carbs and if you eat the appropriate amount; generally 100 to 150g every few hours until you hit @ bw in kg * 16), it's no uncommon to see 2 to 3 days of refeed prior to the event, consumption of glucose/fructose and maybe some proteins prior to events.
I think we understand each other. We just don't agree with each other completely. We're both coming from our own biases.
I agree that glucose and fat are primary fuels for the body (whereas glucose and ketones are used by the brain). I still think it depends on what you are eating (or how many carbs) that will determine which fuel is primary for an individual. It makes sense to me. You give a body fats and it gets really good at using fats. Give a body glucose and it gets good at using glucose.
I think glucose is called the primary fuel simply because that's what most people use. It's just a term that people assumed is correct, IMO. Often the next sentence added to that is how the brain will be starved for fuel if you consume less than 130g of glucose a day. We know that isn't right.
Absolutely, the body has a basal glucose need. Almost everything can use fats or ketones (as it's main fuel) too except RBC's. And there are other fuels that get used too. The heart , like the brain, also has a great affinity for lactate.
As to the issues of babies, I was not referring to formula but breast milk. The carbs in breast milk are a fair bit lower than formula. I think it's a little over a third carbs, but because of where they are developmentally, it appears exclusively BF'ed babies are often mildly ketogenic.
For CKD and TKD, I am not really sure where most low carbers who use them do so. I was under the impression that TKD was more common fro endurance athletes' training. They don't deplete glycogen like the more explosive sporting athletes do. Ketogeinc athletes (without carb loading CKD or TKD) have the same glycogen stores and speed of replenishment as higher carb athletes - I assume from gluconeogenesis using dietary fat and protein. CKD seems more common among lifters
If you do look into it and find anything to share, please do so. I'm always curious. Same goes for muscle recovery. I've actually read the opposite that muscle recovery appears a bit faster/easier on a ketogeinc diet. Muscle gains appear easier when more carbs are involved, definitely, but muscle recovery benefitting from carbs when one is fat adapted is not something I've ever read.
I've always wondered about this reference to primary fuel too being glucose when the majority of the day is spent burning fat as fuel source for most people on average - except for times after eating when insulin is elevated and the fat release is turned off.
To be clear, fat is still burned during elevated insulin, just not released.
Or as activity level increases into aerobic realm and higher % of carbs will start to be burned.
And that 1-4 hrs of elevated insulin after each meal (smaller more frequent meals less time, bigger less frequent more time) hardly makes the day as an average primarily carb sourced I'd say.
Now, you eat a meal with low/no carbs, obviously you have a reduced insulin window and back to fat release for energy source.
But, you eat a meal with carbs and have a lot of liver/muscle stores to refill (as you would in a diet or after high intensity exercise) - and you'll have a reduced window too. Perhaps not as short as low/no fat, but still reduced.
(and all this glycogen draining/refilling takes extra energy too, not as much as getting ketones, but still)
The studies where eating fat shows increased ability to use fat (either directly or via ketones) - especially going up into aerobic exercise level - isn't that great an increase.
IF with average macro diets show the same ability.
Specific aerobic training shows the same ability for the exercise part (perhaps not the daily part though).
Saw several comments about heart using primarily carbs, but it's actually fat too.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/
4 -
No, I basically did not. For you to think that indicates that you either have severe reading comprehension problems or your confirmation bias has made you so delusional that you hear what you want to hear.what you said basically agrees with what I've said. Whatever fuel the body is used to using is the preferred fuel.
From AnvilHeadIf glucose is available, the brain will not utilize ketones. Glucose is the preferred fuel and if it's available, the brain will use it exclusively.
This is essentially what I said. If both fuel substrates are available, the brain will use glucose. Full stop.
That is defined as preferential. It's not what one the body is used to using. That is a misinterpretation of physiology at best and a blatant misrepresentation at worst. This is where some of you who are practitioners of keto go off the deep end and lose all credibility for what could be a potentially valuable dietary tool for some. You twist the truth. Or, lose site of it.
Glucose is ALWAYS available in the body for use. Full stop.
Despite the fact that glucose is always present in the body, the brain does not always rely on glucose for fuel even though both fuels are available... well, all three fuels if you consider what @tennisdude2004 pointed out. It comes down to the main fuel source - your body is not making ketones from dietary or body fat for brain fuel purposes when you are providing it with lots of glucose.
I do not have less glucose circulating in my body than someone else of the same size who uses carbs as their primary fuel; we might even have the same blood glucose measurements - mine's around a 5.3. My brain is not preferentially using glucose as its main fuel though.
The basic glucose needs of the body is around 130g, but the basic glucose needs of someone who is fat adapted is closer to 40g. Someone on a higher carb diet could stop eating, completely, and not die before fat adapted (or within a day) because the liver can make at least 130g of glucose a day... that should be enough for the brain.... but the brain is not always using glucose for it's fuel. Even though it is always available.
And no need to start being insulting. I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with you. It's not that horrible of a thing. Really.
Basal glucose requirements are always available. And when depleted to that level, your body will use a secondary fuel source for your brain..... Its cheaper than the energy required to create more glucose through glucenogenesis.
Its the difference between minimal levels for optimal levels.
I sort of agree. Basal glucose is always available and it can more than meets our basic needs. You can see that in some people who eat keto, train keto, and still have a bit high fasting glucose the next day. I just meant to point out that when fat or ketones are used in a fat adapted individual , it's not because you've run out of glucose. Eventually fat and ketones is a well used fuel for the body.
And when did glucose become the primary fuel source for humans? I'm not really asking you, just wondering in general. Is it just because of what north Americans mostly eat for fuel? I think infants and exclusively breast fed babies are mildly ketogenic, aren't they?
IDK, I'm still of the opinion that whatever fuel your body is adapted to is the primary and "preferred" fuel for that individual. I don't think I'm stressing my body out by having it rely on fat and ketones for most fuel (even though glucose is present), nor do I think your body is unhealthy for relying on glucose most of the time (even though fat is present).Also, having huge carb refeeds prior to an event is more CKD.
Huge carb refeeds (with depleted glycogen between carb loads) is definitely more CKD. TKD is typically used more by endurance athletes - a topping off of glycogen as it were - about 30 minutes before activity. CKD is more often used for lifters trying to make gains... As I understand it.
Fat and carbs are both primary fuels... fats are used more often when you are doing daily activities and oxygen requirements aren't as high; carbs when used more (either post meal) or when there are greater oxygen requirements.
But ketones are not a primary source of fuel (which I guess is the argument). Ketones are a derivative of starvation, very low carb and extreme endurance active (as glycogen gets depleted). In the event that a person doesn't consume enough glucose, a body will convert fatty acids (~40%) and amino acids (~60%) into glucose to address those basal needs; IIRC, things like the circulatory system, heart, and a few other organs require glucose and can't utilize ketones.
Like all humans, babies will produce ketones, especially over night. But most peoples get a good amount of carbs. Carbs are a huge driver for development. In a single serving of my daughters formula, it's 2g of protein, 5g of fat, 10g carbs. As you know carbs cause lipogenesis which unlocks the cells to take in nutrients.
CKD vs TKD, it would depend on how the person is using it. If they are merely timing nutrients around a workout, or an event, than it would be a TKD diet. But if they are incorporating refeeds to increase glycogen capacity, improve insulin sensitivity, and drive better recovery and muscle development, than it would be CKD. I guess I would have to read more about his diet to see which method is used. Because with endurance athletes, glycogen depletion will occur, especially since they aren't just running at one constant speed in the "fat burning" zone. There will be changes in terrain which will require greater oxygen, which driven glycogen needs (since carbs convert to ATP easier). And since glycogen can be replenished in about 24 hours (based on how often you consume carbs and if you eat the appropriate amount; generally 100 to 150g every few hours until you hit @ bw in kg * 16), it's no uncommon to see 2 to 3 days of refeed prior to the event, consumption of glucose/fructose and maybe some proteins prior to events.
I think we understand each other. We just don't agree with each other completely. We're both coming from our own biases.
I agree that glucose and fat are primary fuels for the body (whereas glucose and ketones are used by the brain). I still think it depends on what you are eating (or how many carbs) that will determine which fuel is primary for an individual. It makes sense to me. You give a body fats and it gets really good at using fats. Give a body glucose and it gets good at using glucose.
I think glucose is called the primary fuel simply because that's what most people use. It's just a term that people assumed is correct, IMO. Often the next sentence added to that is how the brain will be starved for fuel if you consume less than 130g of glucose a day. We know that isn't right.
Absolutely, the body has a basal glucose need. Almost everything can use fats or ketones (as it's main fuel) too except RBC's. And there are other fuels that get used too. The heart , like the brain, also has a great affinity for lactate.
As to the issues of babies, I was not referring to formula but breast milk. The carbs in breast milk are a fair bit lower than formula. I think it's a little over a third carbs, but because of where they are developmentally, it appears exclusively BF'ed babies are often mildly ketogenic.
For CKD and TKD, I am not really sure where most low carbers who use them do so. I was under the impression that TKD was more common fro endurance athletes' training. They don't deplete glycogen like the more explosive sporting athletes do. Ketogeinc athletes (without carb loading CKD or TKD) have the same glycogen stores and speed of replenishment as higher carb athletes - I assume from gluconeogenesis using dietary fat and protein. CKD seems more common among lifters
If you do look into it and find anything to share, please do so. I'm always curious. Same goes for muscle recovery. I've actually read the opposite that muscle recovery appears a bit faster/easier on a ketogeinc diet. Muscle gains appear easier when more carbs are involved, definitely, but muscle recovery benefitting from carbs when one is fat adapted is not something I've ever read.
What evidence do you have to support that keto is more beneficial for recovery? If you look at the evidence its quite the opposite. Its why you time carbs and protein around workouts. Not only are carbs anti catabolic, they support protein turnover and muscle rebuilding/building.11 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
3 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
10 -
Exclusively triggered.10 -
johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Here's my analogy:
You have a car that's engineered and built to run on premium gasoline.
There's a gas shortage, and the only thing available at the pumps is the cheap crap, so you switch to that instead.
Will your car run?
Of course it will.
Will it run at peak efficiency and performance?
Not a chance.
Do you have scientific evidence that the brain operates less optimally on a fuel mixture of glucose, ketones and lactate, or are you just stating opinion?
Not scientific evidence, but I note that the arguments posed by the keto-evangelists are distinctly lacking in rationale and objective evidence.
Commonplace where one allows agenda to drive the process.
The argument that the brain is NOT Exclusively fuelled by glucose has been supported by evidence.
no evidence has been given put forward that the brain is exclusively fuelled by glucose has been put forward or that the brain operates in a less than optimal capacity if it is not exclusively fuelled by glucose.
The statement that started this particular discussion about glucose being the only fuel the brain can use is false and misleading.
I believe it was thr preffered source of fuel from the brain was glucose over ketones, since ketones only are used as fuel when deprived of glucose.
Yep that’s my understanding of how the brain is fuelled also, that if glucose is readily available it is the preferred option.
I am also of the understanding that when glucose is restricted that the brain will function just as optimally on a mixture of ketones, glucose and lactate.
Also that even when glucose is in ample supply the brain will also draw upon lactate for fuel when the body is undertaking vigorous exercise.
All of the above is very different factually from the brain only being able to use glucose for fuel - wouldn’t you agree?
It is. Which is why nobody made that assertion in the first place.
Really? Try the first page of this post!8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions