Your views on 'CARBOHYDRATES'

grinch031

show previous quotes

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.

MrEmoticon

I'm learning really quick (low carb diet) that my body doesn't need them. I'm losing weight and feel better than normal!

bcattoes

show previous quotes

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.

tigersword

show previous quotes

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.

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.

Ripken818836701

show previous quotes

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.

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.

tigersword we actually agree on something!! :happy:

Ripken818836701

show previous quotes

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)

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.

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.
grains causing the diseases of civilization?? Without grains there wouldnt be civilization.

Ripken818836701

show previous quotes

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.

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 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.

No I understand your point, I was replying to the person (grinch) that you were aswell.

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.

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.

tigersword

show previous quotes

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.

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.

tigersword we actually agree on something!! :happy:

:laugh: :drinker:

grinch031

show previous quotes

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)

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.

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.
grains causing the diseases of civilization?? Without grains there wouldnt be civilization.

Obesity and CVD is probably a side effect of our advancements.

1PrimalWarrior

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.

grinch031

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

Acg67

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

Where are you trying to go with this?

bcattoes

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

So, do you believe that since 1980 people have begun eating more grains than they did prior to the 80's?

grinch031

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

Where are you trying to go with this?

Actually I was sorta combining my thoughts on that post with something tigersword said in an earlier post.

I understand the lesson people learned about demonizing fat, but from what I've seen, I think its reasonable to hypothesize that a highly grain-based diet isn't so good for us. I don't buy the gluttony/sloth model of obesity just yet.

HardcorePork

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

King Corn. The end.

1PrimalWarrior

show previous quotes

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

King Corn. The end.

And Food Inc.

Ripken818836701

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

We became gluttonous slobs (myself included) because we got lazy!! Not because of carbs!! Every task we could/ would possibly have since the 1930's has been made easier. From cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, gathering and preparing our food and even the invention of remote control for your tv. The same is true in each and everyone of our's work place, regardless of your job.

grinch031

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

So, do you believe that since 1980 people have begun eating more grains than they did prior to the 80's?

People reduced fat intake and increased carbohydrate intake, and obesity skyrocketed. Not that this is evidence of causation, but gets you thinking maybe we should look into it.

Justapartyofone

They are delicious. That is all.

Acg67

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

Where are you trying to go with this?

Actually I was sorta combining my thoughts on that post with something tigersword said in an earlier post.

I understand the lesson people learned about demonizing fat, but from what I've seen, I think its reasonable to hypothesize that a highly grain-based diet isn't so good for us. I don't buy the gluttony/sloth model of obesity just yet.

And are their currently any societies that have a highly grain based diet, far more then we do in the US?

1PrimalWarrior

we became gluttonous slobs (myself included) because we got lazy!! Not because of carbs!! Every task we could/ would possibly have since the 1930's has been made easier. From cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, gathering and prepaing our food and even the invention of remote control for your tv. The same is true in each and everyone of our's work place, regardless of your job.

The American diet has shifted dramatically from what it was in the 1930s. In the 1930s it was not nearly as grain based and/or processed.

bcattoes

we became gluttonous slobs (myself included) because we got lazy!! Not because of carbs!! Every task we could/ would possibly have since the 1930's has been made easier. From cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, gathering and prepaing our food and even the invention of remote control for your tv. The same is true in each and everyone of our's work place, regardless of your job.

I agree. Having grown up before they existed, I highly suspect the TV remote as one of the key factors in obesity. Can you imagine? Actually having to get up and walk to the TV every time you wanted to change the channel. Not to mention having to sometime climb on the roof to adjust the antenna. And then there are video games...

Ripken818836701

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

So, do you believe that since 1980 people have begun eating more grains than they did prior to the 80's?

People reduced fat intake and increased carbohydrate intake, and obesity skyrocketed. Not that this is evidence of causation, but gets you thinking maybe we should look into it.

People eat more food and more high in fat food today then they did 50-60 years ago.

grinch031

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

We became gluttonous slobs (myself included) because we got lazy!! Not because of carbs!! Every task we could/ would possibly have since the 1930's has been made easier. From cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, gathering and preparing our food and even the invention of remote control for your tv. The same is true in each and everyone of our's work place, regardless of your job.

Except there's no real compelling evidence that physical activity makes a whole lot of difference without accompanying dietary changes.

HardcorePork

People reduced fat intake and increased carbohydrate intake, and obesity skyrocketed. Not that this is evidence of causation, but gets you thinking maybe we should look into it.

meanwhile, manual labor was outsourced to 3rd world countries, or eliminated entirely by advances in technology...

grinch031

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

So, do you believe that since 1980 people have begun eating more grains than they did prior to the 80's?

People reduced fat intake and increased carbohydrate intake, and obesity skyrocketed. Not that this is evidence of causation, but gets you thinking maybe we should look into it.

People eat more food and more high in fat food today then they did 50-60 years ago.

The major increase in obesity rate didn't really occur until around 1980.

Ripken818836701

show previous quotes

we became gluttonous slobs (myself included) because we got lazy!! Not because of carbs!! Every task we could/ would possibly have since the 1930's has been made easier. From cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, gathering and prepaing our food and even the invention of remote control for your tv. The same is true in each and everyone of our's work place, regardless of your job.

The American diet has shifted dramatically from what it was in the 1930s. In the 1930s it was not nearly as grain based and/or processed.

I dont know were you hail from but here in PA. our diets were just as grain based in the 1930's as they are today.

bcattoes

show previous quotes

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.

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.

I don't believe your assumption that 'not alot' of people are carb sensitive. I don't think we all spontaneously became gluttonous slobs in 1980. I'm hoping more research will show maybe there is a problem with our highly grain and sugar-based diets.

So, do you believe that since 1980 people have begun eating more grains than they did prior to the 80's?

People reduced fat intake and increased carbohydrate intake, and obesity skyrocketed. Not that this is evidence of causation, but gets you thinking maybe we should look into it.

Are there stastics that show that? I grew up in the 60's and 70's and just based on personal experience I would say that fat intake skyrocketed as fast food became the norm, rather than the occasional. When I was a child we rarely had fast food. It was a luxury. By 1980 people were eating it much more regularly and it was much higher in fat than most home cooked meals.

But you are also talking about overly processed grains primarily, which is entirely differnent than just "grains". I think most people will agree that a diet based primarily on processed grains is bad. If you strip all the good stuff out of any food it's not going to be healthy to then base your diet on that.

CallieM15

I believe that carbs are NOT BAD. But now a days we eat more then we should of the "bad" sugars.

HardcorePork

The major increase in obesity rate didn't really occur until around 1980.

What you're talking about is prevalence, and not a rate. Just to nitpick...epidemiological terms are much more precise.