Your views on 'CARBOHYDRATES'
Options
Replies
-
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)0 -
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
Sounds like it.
I do know, when I dropped grains (went primal), several digestive problems I was experiencing and I never thought related (null hypothesis) suddenly disappeared. For me it was the right choice.0 -
If the paleo diet fad was correct, then humans wouldn't be able to process starches and such in the first place.
I don't know anything about the paleo diet. Is that their claim? That we cannot process starches?
The grains thing is silly. Some people have problems with some grains, certainly, but for most they are not a problem. The Paleo crowd loses me when they start with the "legumes are poisonous" nonsense.
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
History, clinical trials and studies.0 -
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
Well, of course gluten intolerance and Celiac are. But the fact is that "most" don't have these diseases.0 -
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.0 -
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.0 -
And peanuts cause anaphylactic shock in people with peanut sensitivities. How would that be relevant to the rest of the population?
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.0 -
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
Not any more, right? Those guidelines were revised fairly recently. I'm pretty sure it was national news...0 -
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
And because of that you see the only options as eating them generously or declaring them harmful? I don't understand that logic.0 -
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
5-8 oz per day is "generous"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=46060790 -
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
And because of that you see the only options as eating them generously or declaring them harmful? I don't understand that logic.
No, I think there's reason to suspect they could be harmful and we should further research them.0 -
I'm learning really quick (low carb diet) that my body doesn't need them. I'm losing weight and feel better than normal!0
-
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
And because of that you see the only options as eating them generously or declaring them harmful? I don't understand that logic.
No, I think there's reason to suspect they could be harmful and we should further research them.
I think we should further research everything related to nutrition. But, why do you suspect they could be harmful. More so than other food sources, I mean.0 -
Because a doctor some where said so, and someone else wrote a book, and suddenly carbs are the enemy. It's pretty much the same exact way fat became the enemy in the 80's. And we know how truthful that turned out to be.
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
And because of that you see the only options as eating them generously or declaring them harmful? I don't understand that logic.
No, I think there's reason to suspect they could be harmful and we should further research them.
I think we should further research everything related to nutrition. But, why do you suspect they could be harmful. More so than other food sources, I mean.0 -
tigersword we actually agree on something!! :happy:
Because a doctor some where said so, and someone else wrote a book, and suddenly carbs are the enemy. It's pretty much the same exact way fat became the enemy in the 80's. And we know how truthful that turned out to be.
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
And because of that you see the only options as eating them generously or declaring them harmful? I don't understand that logic.
No, I think there's reason to suspect they could be harmful and we should further research them.
I think we should further research everything related to nutrition. But, why do you suspect they could be harmful. More so than other food sources, I mean.0 -
The reason why The Egpytcians, Greeks, Romans, the entire continent of Europe and even the United States of America were able to surpass in every way many tribes of today that have red meat as their main food source. Just compare those great civilizations of the past to most of the entire continent of Africa of today.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
Sounds like it.
I do know, when I dropped grains (went primal), several digestive problems I was experiencing and I never thought related (null hypothesis) suddenly disappeared. For me it was the right choice.
grains causing the diseases of civilization?? Without grains there wouldnt be civilization.0 -
First I am the average MFPer, Some people not alot are carb sensitive, and yes, people that are carb sensitive might have to eat a low carb diet. But in most cases its not an issue until they drop to under 15% bodf fat.
No I understand your point, I was replying to the person (grinch) that you were aswell.
Well Im not an NFL player but on the advice of a couple paleo wacko's at the gym ( even though they dont look much different now than they did 13 months ago when I met them) I tried a low carb diet for a couple weeks, I felt weak, lost strength in my lifts and wasnt able to put the same intensity into my workouts. As soon as I raised my carbs everything returned to normal. I have no doubt that if I didnt eat a diet that was very high in carbs I wouldnt be anywhere close to where I am now. I'm not saying everyone should do it, but for me I'm sticking with carbs.I'm loving this thread already. So much misinformation right off the bat.
Carbs are controversial and rightfully so. There is too much mixed data on them out there.
I'm reading a book called "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Basically the authors are Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek and have been researching low-carb diets for decades with published papers. They believe that the majority of overweight people have varying degrees of intolerance to carbohydrate foods. They say that not only is a low-carbohydrate diet very healthy (often healthier than low-fat diets), but that significant amounts of carbohydrates are not required for athletic performance either.
There's a fine line in your last statement. Depends on the type of athletic performance you are referring to. I can guarantee that an offensive lineman in the NFL would not do well at all without a good amount of carbs in his diet. (Just using this as an example)
Well as soon as we have NFL lineman on MFP asking for dietary advice, then this might really matter.
I think you read my posts wrong bud. I wasn't talking about the argument earlier where people think carbs are essential for human life, which they aren't. For athletic performance in a variety of different types, they are needed for obvious reasons. But to survive, they are not.
Whether you need a lot of carbs to fuel your workouts depends on how intense your workouts need to be. Probably the majority of MFPers trying to better their health don't *need* a lot of carbs to fuel their workouts if they give themselves 2-4 weeks to adapt to using more fat to fuel their workouts.
The argument I want to make is that there is a tradeoff for using carbohydrates as fuel for athletic performance. There are many people who struggle with weight loss and excessive hunger on a high-carb diet and would benefit on a low-carb diet. For speed of weight loss, low-carb and high-carb doesn't make much difference, but there is a lot of evidence showing that low-carb diets are superior for improving the lipid profile. Also the benefit of being able to lose weight on low-carb without counting calories often outweighs the loss of athletic performance because the weight loss automatically improves performance in many cases.0 -
:laugh: :drinker:
tigersword we actually agree on something!! :happy:
Because a doctor some where said so, and someone else wrote a book, and suddenly carbs are the enemy. It's pretty much the same exact way fat became the enemy in the 80's. And we know how truthful that turned out to be.
How can you be so sure grains are not a problem for most?
From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)
Why "generously"? And couldn't the same be true of anything.
Because the USDA recommends a generous amount of grain consumption.
And because of that you see the only options as eating them generously or declaring them harmful? I don't understand that logic.
No, I think there's reason to suspect they could be harmful and we should further research them.
I think we should further research everything related to nutrition. But, why do you suspect they could be harmful. More so than other food sources, I mean.0 -
The reason why The Egpytcians, Greeks, Romans, the entire continent of Europe and even the United States of America were able to surpass in every way many tribes of today that have red meat as their main food source. Just compare those great civilizations of the past to most of the entire continent of Africa of today.
But isn't the null hypothesis that we should eat grains generously until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are more harmful than good? (Playing devil's advocate here)From what I have read, evidence is starting to suggest that even Chron's disease, Celiac disease, irritable bowl syndrome, gluten intolerance are all related to grain consumption.
Sounds like it.
I do know, when I dropped grains (went primal), several digestive problems I was experiencing and I never thought related (null hypothesis) suddenly disappeared. For me it was the right choice.
grains causing the diseases of civilization?? Without grains there wouldnt be civilization.
Obesity and CVD is probably a side effect of our advancements.0 -
Just compare those great civilizations of the past to most of the entire continent of Africa of today.
grains causing the diseases of civilization?? Without grains there wouldnt be civilization.
True, but the grains of today are quite different than in those times and how they are used in today's diet is quite different as well.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions