Low Carbs......how low can you go?

DamePiglet

the human body is designed to eat carbs

There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.

Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).

It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.

It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.

For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.

Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.

50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.

Science actually DOES matter.

Nope
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.

This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!

Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.

In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."

But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).

I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.

They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.

It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.

Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?

It was pointing out the fallacy in the statements that a) it's reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did and b) your assertion that ancient people did not eat carbs.

It's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Small pox wiped out MANY more native americans than buffalo hunting did, and the fact that you're 'hinting' that our ancestors didn't eat carbs is also misleading.

Eat the way you choose. Just don't make up justifications for it.

a) I did NOT say that it was reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did--some try to, I do NOT. b) I absolutely did NOT say that our ancestors did not eat carbs. If you will note, I said they ate fruit in season and that they dried some for use later in the year. WHAT I DID SAY WAS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO HIGHLY REFINED SUGARS AND STARCH AS WE DO TODAY. You really need to read more carefully. Small pox did indeed wipe out many native Americans (and many of them were deliberately infected). But, that has nothing to do with what they ate and you know it. By the way, buffalo HUNTING did not wipe out the Plains Indians. The lack of buffalo led to many dying of starvation. You could also work on writing after you work on reading more carefully.

Wow... so Mr_knight offers a differing opinion, therefore you say his arguments are illogical and perhaps the result of a car-filled lunch.

I offer arguments that perhaps your view of the dietary habits of our ancestors (and historical events in general - hence my comments about small pox) is overly narrow, but you don't address those arguments. Instead, you assume that I'm trying to "put you down" and that I have reading and writing difficulties.

I do believe you might benefit from taking your own advice.

SanteMulberry

the human body is designed to eat carbs

There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.

Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).

It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.

It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.

For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.

Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.

50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.

Science actually DOES matter.

Nope
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.

This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!

Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.

In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."

But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).

I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.

They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.

It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.

Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?

It was pointing out the fallacy in the statements that a) it's reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did and b) your assertion that ancient people did not eat carbs.

It's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Small pox wiped out MANY more native americans than buffalo hunting did, and the fact that you're 'hinting' that our ancestors didn't eat carbs is also misleading.

Eat the way you choose. Just don't make up justifications for it.

a) I did NOT say that it was reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did--some try to, I do NOT. b) I absolutely did NOT say that our ancestors did not eat carbs. If you will note, I said they ate fruit in season and that they dried some for use later in the year. WHAT I DID SAY WAS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO HIGHLY REFINED SUGARS AND STARCH AS WE DO TODAY. You really need to read more carefully. Small pox did indeed wipe out many native Americans (and many of them were deliberately infected). But, that has nothing to do with what they ate and you know it. By the way, buffalo HUNTING did not wipe out the Plains Indians. The lack of buffalo led to many dying of starvation. You could also work on writing after you work on reading more carefully.

Wow... so Mr_knight offers a differing opinion, therefore you say his arguments are illogical and perhaps the result of a car-filled lunch.

I offer arguments that perhaps your view of the dietary habits of our ancestors (and historical events in general - hence my comments about small pox) is overly narrow, but you don't address those arguments. Instead, you assume that I'm trying to "put you down" and that I have reading and writing difficulties.

I do believe you might benefit from taking your own advice.

Huh?! I did not EVER say that anyone with the username of "Mr Knight" made "illogical arguments that were the result of a car-filled lunch"!! This is getting silly. Please stop accusing me of saying things that I have not said. I will not answer any further silliness.

I am well aware of the historical events of which I speak. I provided information to back up what I said. It is a fact that the Plains Indians were hunter-gatherers who were very dependent on the buffalo herds before the white man came to disturb their "happy hunting grounds". Almost none of the Plains tribes did any amount of farming prior to the arrival of the white man. (The Eastern tribes were much more agricultural but we were discussing Western hunter-gatherers.) Their carbohydrate consumption was limited to what they could gather from the wild. I do not address arguments that are irrelevant to the subject at hand--small pox was a red herring on your part. It was not illogical to assume that you have reading and writing difficulties since your "arguments" had no applicability. My assumption that you were attempting a put-down is based on observation of your behavior.

DamePiglet

the human body is designed to eat carbs

There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.

Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).

It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.

It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.

For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.

Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.

50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.

Science actually DOES matter.

Nope
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.

This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!

Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.

In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."

But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).

I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.

They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.

It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.

Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?

It was pointing out the fallacy in the statements that a) it's reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did and b) your assertion that ancient people did not eat carbs.

It's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Small pox wiped out MANY more native americans than buffalo hunting did, and the fact that you're 'hinting' that our ancestors didn't eat carbs is also misleading.

Eat the way you choose. Just don't make up justifications for it.

a) I did NOT say that it was reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did--some try to, I do NOT. b) I absolutely did NOT say that our ancestors did not eat carbs. If you will note, I said they ate fruit in season and that they dried some for use later in the year. WHAT I DID SAY WAS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO HIGHLY REFINED SUGARS AND STARCH AS WE DO TODAY. You really need to read more carefully. Small pox did indeed wipe out many native Americans (and many of them were deliberately infected). But, that has nothing to do with what they ate and you know it. By the way, buffalo HUNTING did not wipe out the Plains Indians. The lack of buffalo led to many dying of starvation. You could also work on writing after you work on reading more carefully.

Wow... so Mr_knight offers a differing opinion, therefore you say his arguments are illogical and perhaps the result of a car-filled lunch.

I offer arguments that perhaps your view of the dietary habits of our ancestors (and historical events in general - hence my comments about small pox) is overly narrow, but you don't address those arguments. Instead, you assume that I'm trying to "put you down" and that I have reading and writing difficulties.

I do believe you might benefit from taking your own advice.

Huh?! I did not EVER say that anyone with the username of "Mr Knight" made "illogical arguments that were the result of a car-filled lunch"!! This is getting silly. Please stop accusing me of saying things that I have not said. I will not answer any further silliness.

I am well aware of the historical events of which I speak. I provided information to back up what I said. It is a fact that the Plains Indians were hunter-gatherers who were very dependent on the buffalo herds before the white man came to disturb their "happy hunting grounds". Almost none of the Plains tribes did any amount of farming prior to the arrival of the white man. (The Eastern tribes were much more agricultural but we were discussing Western hunter-gatherers.) Their carbohydrate consumption was limited to what they could gather from the wild. I do not address arguments that are irrelevant to the subject at hand--small pox was a red herring on your part. It was not illogical to assume that you have reading and writing difficulties since your "arguments" had no applicability. My assumption that you were attempting a put-down is based on observation of your behavior.

I stand corrected and apologize incorrectly attributing the quote about Mr_Knight to you. It wasn't you.

That being said, I see no problem in involving broader populations of human ancestors into this discussion (which is what I was doing - also, although you didn't 'get' this... I was pointing out that Native Americans had issues besides just dead buffalo to contend with, which perhaps makes them not the best example). That obviously causes you distress. That's too bad.

Did ancient people eat Little Debbie snack cakes? No, of course not.
But plain and simply, there were too many populations in too many climates eating too many diverse foods and living with too many different circumstances to make any real generalizations about the over-all human diet.

baconslave

Did ancient people eat Little Debbie snack cakes? No, of course not.
But plain and simply, there were too many populations in too many climates eating too many diverse foods and living with too many different circumstances to make any real generalizations about the over-all human diet.

That's a valid point. As much as I hate to criticize the Paleos, as they are like cousins to the low-carbers like myself.
Their point is to try to take things back to "natural" most of the time. Avoiding processed frankenfood, which is not healthy for anyone. I don't think anyone can convincingly argue that franken-food is an ideal diet-component for human biology. What is bad about simplifying your life and removing unhealthy additives? They aren't causing any harm. Let it lie.

The point of the low-carb movement is recognizing the affect of over-consumption of carbohydrates on humans. I'm an obese American (even though I've already lost 32 pounds) and it is sickeningly typical how I got there: too many calories combined with way too many carbohydrates, causing my blood glucose to go bonkers and packing the fat on rapidly. I'm not unique. You don't have to be an extremist like myself (20-25g carbs daily) to reap the benefits of adhering to healthy carbs (veggies and a few fruits and being selective about the grains). I personally avoid all starchy carbs and grains and fruit. I'll add back fruit and small margin of whole grains on maintenance. But I know for certain that I can maintain this diet FOR LIFE. It's better than dying too young of complications to diabetes after living a half-life, miserably obese.

Restricting carbs to 50-100g per day and staying the heck away from that over-processed garbage, isn't unrealistic, nor unreasonable a lifestyle. More and more we are learning that fats aren't bad, that too many carbs aren't good, and that statins don't really do what they expect. Enlightenment is coming, but it is slow going. Ancel Keys, and the entire research system we have going, have been holding us back as a species for DECADES.

hookilau

bumping for later

yarwell

The European food labels typically list only net carbs at the top. Fiber is already subtracted out for you.

Nearly.

European food labelling has us measure the carbohydrate content, having defined what carbohydrates are. They may be expressed as equivalent monosaccharides in some cases.

We also measure fibre, to a stated analytical procedure, and state that. I think it's actually the same method as used in the US, but there are proposals to change it a bit. The UK tends to use "Non starch polysaccharides" as the fibre method currently.

The US concept of "Total carbohydrates" is not actually measured by analysis, but is what is left after subtracting fats and protein (actually 6.25 * Nitrogen) from the dry ash free sample mass. So Total carbs = 100 - ash - water - fats - 6.25*N

http://www.nutrientdataconf.org/pastconf/ndbc18/12-1_li.pdf
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.9

SanteMulberry

the human body is designed to eat carbs

There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.

Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).

It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.

It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.

For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.

Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.

50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.

Science actually DOES matter.

Nope
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.

This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!

Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.

In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."

But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).

I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.

They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.

It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.

Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?

It was pointing out the fallacy in the statements that a) it's reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did and b) your assertion that ancient people did not eat carbs.

It's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Small pox wiped out MANY more native americans than buffalo hunting did, and the fact that you're 'hinting' that our ancestors didn't eat carbs is also misleading.

Eat the way you choose. Just don't make up justifications for it.

a) I did NOT say that it was reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did--some try to, I do NOT. b) I absolutely did NOT say that our ancestors did not eat carbs. If you will note, I said they ate fruit in season and that they dried some for use later in the year. WHAT I DID SAY WAS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO HIGHLY REFINED SUGARS AND STARCH AS WE DO TODAY. You really need to read more carefully. Small pox did indeed wipe out many native Americans (and many of them were deliberately infected). But, that has nothing to do with what they ate and you know it. By the way, buffalo HUNTING did not wipe out the Plains Indians. The lack of buffalo led to many dying of starvation. You could also work on writing after you work on reading more carefully.

Wow... so Mr_knight offers a differing opinion, therefore you say his arguments are illogical and perhaps the result of a car-filled lunch.

I offer arguments that perhaps your view of the dietary habits of our ancestors (and historical events in general - hence my comments about small pox) is overly narrow, but you don't address those arguments. Instead, you assume that I'm trying to "put you down" and that I have reading and writing difficulties.

I do believe you might benefit from taking your own advice.

Huh?! I did not EVER say that anyone with the username of "Mr Knight" made "illogical arguments that were the result of a car-filled lunch"!! This is getting silly. Please stop accusing me of saying things that I have not said. I will not answer any further silliness.

I am well aware of the historical events of which I speak. I provided information to back up what I said. It is a fact that the Plains Indians were hunter-gatherers who were very dependent on the buffalo herds before the white man came to disturb their "happy hunting grounds". Almost none of the Plains tribes did any amount of farming prior to the arrival of the white man. (The Eastern tribes were much more agricultural but we were discussing Western hunter-gatherers.) Their carbohydrate consumption was limited to what they could gather from the wild. I do not address arguments that are irrelevant to the subject at hand--small pox was a red herring on your part. It was not illogical to assume that you have reading and writing difficulties since your "arguments" had no applicability. My assumption that you were attempting a put-down is based on observation of your behavior.

Did ancient people eat Little Debbie snack cakes? No, of course not.

That was my point from the beginning.

StephGetsSexy

Yay Grats on your loss Tom, I'm on the same plan. Down 38 pounds in 3 months I love it, it's generally an easy way of eating to follow