The enemy in weight loss isn’t carbs it’s your lack of k
Replies
-
im not bashing the thread, but a lot of you guys are posting way too much information for a forum read. can you please
state the point
and then the source
not the whole source word for word, paraphrase!
anyway, above someone asked lioness if we were supposed to be omnivores or not. and it reminded me of something i read on this last night. not sure if anyone posted it, because they are are much too long for me to read.
but, apparently, and of course this a theory, we turned mostly to meat diets because of the energy needed to move around so much as well as the fact that it kept the neanderthals 'gut-free' which kept their bellies out of the way helping them move more. evolution has a way of telling people these things. people should really read the origin of species, but beware...it is long! i have officially demonstrated my hate for loaded information. lol0 -
Thanks MRD232 for the insightful information.
Sometimes I can not communicate my own experiences that well, but I know what I have experienced and what has helped me. As well as I see many others on this site struggle with the same issues that I have experienced.
People are so conditioned that we need carbs in the form of grains to live healthy, when as you mentioned is far from the contrary.
Dr told me I had arthritis at 35 years old. I cut out the grains and "arthritis" is magically gone, LOL0 -
LOL, you are too much girl!!! :laugh: :laugh:im not bashing the thread, but a lot of you guys are posting way too much information for a forum read. can you please
state the point
and then the source
not the whole source word for word, paraphrase!
anyway, above someone asked lioness if we were supposed to be omnivores or not. and it reminded me of something i read on this last night. not sure if anyone posted it, because they are are much too long for me to read.
but, apparently, and of course this a theory, we turned mostly to meat diets because of the energy needed to move around so much as well as the fact that it kept the neanderthals 'gut-free' which kept their bellies out of the way helping them move more. evolution has a way of telling people these things. people should really read the origin of species, but beware...it is long! i have officially demonstrated my hate for loaded information. lol0 -
Haha let me try my post again...
1. I read too darn much on the internet and type WAY too much, sorry.
2. Carb content in diet varies greatly with level of physical activity. We often overestimate what we need to be active.
3. Regular people can be active, but are not necessarily athletes; nor do they require athletic nutrition levels.
4. Local foods = more sustainable, choose local meat when possible.
5. Uh...eat more fat?
I think that's about it. :flowerforyou:0 -
I've always really enjoyed an old school pig roast with an apple stuffed in his mouth. I get my meat and carbs at the same time it's gorgeous! :laugh: Anyone else?0
-
Contrary to popular baseless opinion carbohydrates are not the enemy in loosing weight. The enemy is TOO MANY simple carbohydrates and not enough complex carbohydrates. Google simple and complex carbohydrates to find examples in abundance of each.
The average American currently consumes 45% carbohydrates, which is not enough, and it consists of mostly simple carbs which explains our ever increasing guts. Normally, regularly physically active adults should be consuming 55% to 65% carbohydrates in their daily total caloric intake. If you’re worried about blood sugars then focus on complex carbohydrates like whole grains. A single serving of a simple carbohydrate is all most adults need per day. An ideal time of day to eat a serving of simple carbs is in the morning after eight hours of fasting along with a good protein source to get your metabolism working and blood sugars regulated for the day. Another serving of simple carbs would be ideal right after a VIGOROUS bout of exercise along with a whey (fast absorbing) protein source. Ideally the ratio post vigorous workout is 4 grams of simple sugars to 1 gram of whey protein.
Some of the primary functions of carbohydrates include:
- A MAJOR source of energy. Your day will feel livelier and less lethargic. If you work out, which you should be, your workouts will be more energetic which leads to bigger and faster results. Nice right???
- Provides dietary fibers. Intestinal track bacteria build up is not pretty. Many illnesses are born from that.
- Helps the body use fat more efficiently. That’s right carbohydrates actually helps your body use up fat stores more efficiently.
- Provides fat soluble vitamins. I.E. vitamins A, D, E, and K. Vitamins are important because they regulate the release of energy in our foods, aids in metabolism, involved in red blood cell production, essential for liver function, essential for blood clotting, and a whole host of other functions to keep you healthy.
- Ensures brain and nervous system health. If that goes you’re dead. If brain and nervous health are compromised you make yourself more vulnerable to illness and debilitating disease. Eat your carbs!
I have heard ill tutored mentions of the cavemen thousands or millions of years ago who ate primarily meat with little to no carbs in their diet. Here is what I have to say about that. I’m not sure they ever lived more than 16 – 20 years of age. I would bet that the cave men regularly died of severe nutrient deficiencies, a rotting brain, weak nerve impulses, intestinal problems etc.
Eat your carbohydrates and eat them the right way! It’s essential for weight loss and enhancing over all health and wellness.
Tom
Okay, that's what you think and that's fine for you. So what does a lack in Vitamin K do? You said that was the problem but you didn't address it specifically.
Wow, this was a pretty deep "discussion". Just like anything else people need to find what works for them.
Just don't put other people down for discussing how and/or advocating what they eat just because it's not for you. Don't demand that people eat the way you think they should.
Different strokes for different folks.
Can we just all get along now?
Demetria0 -
Haha let me try my post again...
1. I read too darn much on the internet and type WAY too much, sorry.
2. Carb content in diet varies greatly with level of physical activity. We often overestimate what we need to be active.
3. Regular people can be active, but are not necessarily athletes; nor do they require athletic nutrition levels.
4. Local foods = more sustainable, choose local meat when possible.
5. Uh...eat more fat?
I think that's about it. :flowerforyou:
haha, thanks for your effort!0 -
I've always really enjoyed an old school pig roast with an apple stuffed in his mouth. I get my meat and carbs at the same time it's gorgeous! :laugh: Anyone else?
a porketta always has way too much sodium in it, but it does taste good. although, i do have a huge problem with glorifying the piggy's death when they put daisies behind its ears :frown:0 -
I believe that the generic dietary advice that carbs are the "enemy" is extremely wrong-headed. I'd be interested to hear though what carb intake percentage you would classify as "dangerous" metalpalace and WHY it is dangerous.
I have had success by cutting carbs to as low as 25% total dietary intake for up to 4 weeks for loss of bodyfat, but at that % I wouldn't want to go much longer than 4 weeks. Becomes very difficult to exercise at a high level of intensity. Your body just doesn't have the glycogen stores to get the job done.
I agree that 55% to 65% is what most people should aim for, focusing on complex carbs with a low glycemic load. I keep reading about people who are "carb intolerant" and need to consume a much lower %. I don't know if there is any truth to that. Could be, but I wonder if the real problem is carbs or possibly something else.
Mike
The American college of sports medicine recommends greater than 55% of total daily calories to be carbohydrates. The american council on exercise says 55% to 65% percent. Those two sources are enough for me because they are not regulated by the government. These two entities are comprised of various extremely qualified doctors, researches and scientists interested in improving the quality of life; unfettered by politics. Inherently that earns them browny points from me
I don't know what the upper daily recommended allowance is before you reach levels of toxicity but I am sure it's pretty high. Before you get to that point you would just be swapping out other important nutrients for more carbs which can be dangerous in it's own right.
Someone else in this thread said everything in moderation... GREAT advice.
The 55% to 65% is an expression of optimal amounts with upper and lower limits in addition to that. It's used as a guide, a ball park figure. It doesnt mean that if you do not consume that much you will come down with a disease linked to a nutrient deficiency. Symptoms may be subtle and develop over a long period of time.
You can bring your carb intake downto 25%. Body builders for competition will go even lower than that and supplement to make up for the severe nutrient deficiencies. A supplement isnt as valuble as real food so in essence they are slowly killing themselves for 4 weeks - 8 weeks until the compeition is over and then they go back on a normal eating schedule. Generally speaking you can come down as you did for 4 weeks and be fine but during that four weeks you are slowly killing yourself so you have no choice but to eventually eat normally again or you will pay for it. Body builders do it all the time, that's why I'm not a body builder..LoL
I probably would eat 50% of my content in carbohydrate if I was a triathlete or serious runner.
But I'm not nor do I intend to be one. Nor does the majority of the population. Their energy demands are significantly lower. The majority of people don't need to worry about fueling with glucose gel in the middle of a marathon. I doubt the majority of people need to worry about depleting their glycogen entirely unless they're severly curbing sugar intake. We eat quite enough of it in a typical American diet. If they up their activity level significantly, they can certainly up their carb intake as well as overall caloric intake. I think we may overrate our carb (kindling in the fire) needs more than that of dietary fat (slow burn fuel). We're not carb intolerant, no, we just overuse them via overrating our energy demands.
I used to be a running addict and did just this. I wasn't healthier nor did I have a better BF% than I do at eating at a lower level (typ. 20% carb) and utilizing namely heavy lifting and low to moderate cardio (biking, hiking). Come to think of it, as a runner, I was fairly squishy looking. If I feel like performing HIIT in a week, I'll up my carbohydrate by 5-10% to adjust, if needed. 25% isn't a huge cut nor in most cases will it trigger ketosis. <50g per day may trigger ketosis, but this can also be used as therapy for T2 diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD/ADD. Ketoacidosis is what we want to avoid.
I don't look to serious athletes or athletic councils for my advice. Why is this? Because I don't believe that portion of the population should be used as a picture of health and wellness. The majority of the population will NEVER work out at the level of a serious athlete nor should they without proper training. I don't think the same of most bodybuilders either as they tend to lead some fairly extreme nutritional controls and use supplementation (creating loading, for one) I simply do not agree with. Outside of athletic councils, you'll see a growing number of physicians advising a lower carb diet...typically in the name of controlling insulin response in our growing Baby Boomer population with growing middles. They're not worried about performance in an HIIT session. They're concerned with improving their health stats or overcoming diabetes. I'd highly doubt that 50% carb diet is "just the ticket" to reduce their fat stores. Quite the contrary, actually.
I agree highly with consuming adequate levels of vegetables in the diet. Especially dark, leafy greens. Also a small amount of berries. These are key for many vital nutrients and antioxidants. I don't believe in consuming grains in the name of avoiding nutritional deficiency. From personal experience of a grain heavy diet, I experienced more frequent anemia and joint inflammation. I know others deal with the same. I do not deal with gluten well. That is me. It does not equate to some lack of fiber or the inability to have a properly functioning digestive system.
I was going to make the same argument but you made it much more eloquently than I would have. I noticed that all of the original poster's sources came from athletic or sports book/articles etc. While everyone should work out regularly (unless of course they have a condition that makes it unsafe) we are not all Michael Phelps and over 50% of carbs seems excessive. Now I like grains so I'm not going to stop eating them but I agree more with the side of eating like a caveman.
I also feel the need to address that our longer lives don't have much to do with our diet but with science and engineering. Despite our terrible eating habits we still live much longer than our ancestors did. We now have discovered medicines that heal our illness, we have houses that shield us from nature's elements and governments that protect us from predators.0 -
I've always really enjoyed an old school pig roast with an apple stuffed in his mouth. I get my meat and carbs at the same time it's gorgeous! :laugh: Anyone else?
a porketta always has way too much sodium in it, but it does taste good. although, i do have a huge problem with glorifying the piggy's death when they put daisies behind its ears :frown:
Wow, do they do that? Maybe we haven't evolved that much from the caveman. Well, I suppose they were never that into making things look pretty.
0 -
governments that protect us from predators
Yikes thats scary:huh: :noway:0 -
FOOD IS NOT ABOUT HISTORY - IT IS WHAT YOU EAT AS A PART OF YOUR LIFE/CULTURE - WE DON'T EAT/DRINK THE SAME THINGS THAT OUR ANCESTORS DID - AND WE DON'T EAT THE SAME FOODS AS PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD - THIS IS ALL NONSENSE ABOUT WHAT TO EAT AND NOT EAT. DO WHAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU AS A PERSON - YOUR FAMILY, YOUR HERITAGE, YOUR LIFE STYLE. WHAT MATTERS IS PORTION - EXERCISE- VARIETY
:glasses: GOOD LUCK AND CHAO0 -
I've always really enjoyed an old school pig roast with an apple stuffed in his mouth. I get my meat and carbs at the same time it's gorgeous! :laugh: Anyone else?
a porketta always has way too much sodium in it, but it does taste good. although, i do have a huge problem with glorifying the piggy's death when they put daisies behind its ears :frown:
Wow, do they do that? Maybe we haven't evolved that much from the caveman. Well, I suppose they were never that into making things look pretty.
yeah, you can put whatever you want on the pigs head! or tail i bet...it is sad, but really really yummy when you don't look at its little face0 -
FOOD IS NOT ABOUT HISTORY - IT IS WHAT YOU EAT AS A PART OF YOUR LIFE/CULTURE - WE DON'T EAT/DRINK THE SAME THINGS THAT OUR ANCESTORS DID - AND WE DON'T EAT THE SAME FOODS AS PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD - THIS IS ALL NONSENSE ABOUT WHAT TO EAT AND NOT EAT. DO WHAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU AS A PERSON - YOUR FAMILY, YOUR HERITAGE, YOUR LIFE STYLE. WHAT MATTERS IS PORTION - EXERCISE- VARIETY
:glasses: GOOD LUCK AND CHAO
.0 -
I would never have the will to give up carbs. I don't think there's enough evidence in either direction to warrant giving up an entire food group. As in every issue, there are people on both sides of the fence. Me, I'll sit on the fence somewhere in between. Lioness is proof that, at least in the short term, a low carb (no carb?) diet can be healthy, and there are, obviously, many who eat carbs in moderation and are perfectly healthy.
I say- everything in moderation. I think it's a good philosophy for life and diet.
Right on! :drinker:
Personally I wouldn't care to live to be 150 if it meant I could never eat another hamburger or slice of bread or whatever the *poison* of the day is. It seems to me there is always a handy bandwagon to jump on....too much sugar, HFCS is the devil, fats are the devil's bride, carbs are the devil's spawn...etc, etc!
What happened to common sense?0 -
This isn't a zero carb diet nor is anyone banning moderation.
However, any means of eating is, typically by anyone watching their weight has SOME form of control.
Do we eat a 100% donut diet? Didn't think so.0 -
This isn't a zero carb diet nor is anyone banning moderation.
However, any means of eating is, typically by anyone watching their weight has SOME form of control.
Do we eat a 100% donut diet? Didn't think so.
That is very true, but I do know some people on another board that are doing Zero Carb. They primarily eat Beef as in steaks and fatty hamburger and typically eat 1 meal a day.
I could not sustain that way of eating, but some people do very well with that due to the fact they are recovering from eating disorders.0 -
Uh, no...because that would be missing the point of moderation. :laugh:
Do we eat a 100% donut diet? Didn't think so.0 -
Contrary to popular baseless opinion carbohydrates are not the enemy in loosing weight. The enemy is TOO MANY simple carbohydrates and not enough complex carbohydrates. Google simple and complex carbohydrates to find examples in abundance of each.
The average American currently consumes 45% carbohydrates, which is not enough, and it consists of mostly simple carbs which explains our ever increasing guts. Normally, regularly physically active adults should be consuming 55% to 65% carbohydrates in their daily total caloric intake. If you’re worried about blood sugars then focus on complex carbohydrates like whole grains. A single serving of a simple carbohydrate is all most adults need per day. An ideal time of day to eat a serving of simple carbs is in the morning after eight hours of fasting along with a good protein source to get your metabolism working and blood sugars regulated for the day. Another serving of simple carbs would be ideal right after a VIGOROUS bout of exercise along with a whey (fast absorbing) protein source. Ideally the ratio post vigorous workout is 4 grams of simple sugars to 1 gram of whey protein.
Some of the primary functions of carbohydrates include:
- A MAJOR source of energy. Your day will feel livelier and less lethargic. If you work out, which you should be, your workouts will be more energetic which leads to bigger and faster results. Nice right???
- Provides dietary fibers. Intestinal track bacteria build up is not pretty. Many illnesses are born from that.
- Helps the body use fat more efficiently. That’s right carbohydrates actually helps your body use up fat stores more efficiently.
- Provides fat soluble vitamins. I.E. vitamins A, D, E, and K. Vitamins are important because they regulate the release of energy in our foods, aids in metabolism, involved in red blood cell production, essential for liver function, essential for blood clotting, and a whole host of other functions to keep you healthy.
- Ensures brain and nervous system health. If that goes you’re dead. If brain and nervous health are compromised you make yourself more vulnerable to illness and debilitating disease. Eat your carbs!
I have heard ill tutored mentions of the cavemen thousands or millions of years ago who ate primarily meat with little to no carbs in their diet. Here is what I have to say about that. I’m not sure they ever lived more than 16 – 20 years of age. I would bet that the cave men regularly died of severe nutrient deficiencies, a rotting brain, weak nerve impulses, intestinal problems etc.
Eat your carbohydrates and eat them the right way! It’s essential for weight loss and enhancing over all health and wellness.
Tom
Okay, that's what you think and that's fine for you. So what does a lack in Vitamin K do? You said that was the problem but you didn't address it specifically.
Wow, this was a pretty deep "discussion". Just like anything else people need to find what works for them.
Just don't put other people down for discussing how and/or advocating what they eat just because it's not for you. Don't demand that people eat the way you think they should.
Different strokes for different folks.
Can we just all get along now?
Demetria
A lack of vitamin K hinders your ability to coagulate and makes your bones more vulnerable to stress fractures. You could bleed to death from a small open wound and fracture a bone or two in your body more easily from simply jumping up and down. Luckily vitamin k deficiencies are very rare because vitamin K is in common abundance.
I will loudly and proudly dismiss any wide scope advice to eat little to no carbs as extremely dangerous to 98 percent of people. If someone choose to draw a line in the sand over that then I'm loudly and proudly on the opposite side of dangerous AND we can still get a long from my end. 0 -
I believe that the generic dietary advice that carbs are the "enemy" is extremely wrong-headed. I'd be interested to hear though what carb intake percentage you would classify as "dangerous" metalpalace and WHY it is dangerous.
I have had success by cutting carbs to as low as 25% total dietary intake for up to 4 weeks for loss of bodyfat, but at that % I wouldn't want to go much longer than 4 weeks. Becomes very difficult to exercise at a high level of intensity. Your body just doesn't have the glycogen stores to get the job done.
I agree that 55% to 65% is what most people should aim for, focusing on complex carbs with a low glycemic load. I keep reading about people who are "carb intolerant" and need to consume a much lower %. I don't know if there is any truth to that. Could be, but I wonder if the real problem is carbs or possibly something else.
Mike
The American college of sports medicine recommends greater than 55% of total daily calories to be carbohydrates. The american council on exercise says 55% to 65% percent. Those two sources are enough for me because they are not regulated by the government. These two entities are comprised of various extremely qualified doctors, researches and scientists interested in improving the quality of life; unfettered by politics. Inherently that earns them browny points from me
I don't know what the upper daily recommended allowance is before you reach levels of toxicity but I am sure it's pretty high. Before you get to that point you would just be swapping out other important nutrients for more carbs which can be dangerous in it's own right.
Someone else in this thread said everything in moderation... GREAT advice.
The 55% to 65% is an expression of optimal amounts with upper and lower limits in addition to that. It's used as a guide, a ball park figure. It doesnt mean that if you do not consume that much you will come down with a disease linked to a nutrient deficiency. Symptoms may be subtle and develop over a long period of time.
You can bring your carb intake downto 25%. Body builders for competition will go even lower than that and supplement to make up for the severe nutrient deficiencies. A supplement isnt as valuble as real food so in essence they are slowly killing themselves for 4 weeks - 8 weeks until the compeition is over and then they go back on a normal eating schedule. Generally speaking you can come down as you did for 4 weeks and be fine but during that four weeks you are slowly killing yourself so you have no choice but to eventually eat normally again or you will pay for it. Body builders do it all the time, that's why I'm not a body builder..LoL
I probably would eat 50% of my content in carbohydrate if I was a triathlete or serious runner.
But I'm not nor do I intend to be one. Nor does the majority of the population. Their energy demands are significantly lower. The majority of people don't need to worry about fueling with glucose gel in the middle of a marathon. I doubt the majority of people need to worry about depleting their glycogen entirely unless they're severly curbing sugar intake. We eat quite enough of it in a typical American diet. If they up their activity level significantly, they can certainly up their carb intake as well as overall caloric intake. I think we may overrate our carb (kindling in the fire) needs more than that of dietary fat (slow burn fuel). We're not carb intolerant, no, we just overuse them via overrating our energy demands.
I used to be a running addict and did just this. I wasn't healthier nor did I have a better BF% than I do at eating at a lower level (typ. 20% carb) and utilizing namely heavy lifting and low to moderate cardio (biking, hiking). Come to think of it, as a runner, I was fairly squishy looking. If I feel like performing HIIT in a week, I'll up my carbohydrate by 5-10% to adjust, if needed. 25% isn't a huge cut nor in most cases will it trigger ketosis. <50g per day may trigger ketosis, but this can also be used as therapy for T2 diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD/ADD. Ketoacidosis is what we want to avoid.
I don't look to serious athletes or athletic councils for my advice. Why is this? Because I don't believe that portion of the population should be used as a picture of health and wellness. The majority of the population will NEVER work out at the level of a serious athlete nor should they without proper training. I don't think the same of most bodybuilders either as they tend to lead some fairly extreme nutritional controls and use supplementation (creating loading, for one) I simply do not agree with. Outside of athletic councils, you'll see a growing number of physicians advising a lower carb diet...typically in the name of controlling insulin response in our growing Baby Boomer population with growing middles. They're not worried about performance in an HIIT session. They're concerned with improving their health stats or overcoming diabetes. I'd highly doubt that 50% carb diet is "just the ticket" to reduce their fat stores. Quite the contrary, actually.
I agree highly with consuming adequate levels of vegetables in the diet. Especially dark, leafy greens. Also a small amount of berries. These are key for many vital nutrients and antioxidants. I don't believe in consuming grains in the name of avoiding nutritional deficiency. From personal experience of a grain heavy diet, I experienced more frequent anemia and joint inflammation. I know others deal with the same. I do not deal with gluten well. That is me. It does not equate to some lack of fiber or the inability to have a properly functioning digestive system.
I was going to make the same argument but you made it much more eloquently than I would have. I noticed that all of the original poster's sources came from athletic or sports book/articles etc. While everyone should work out regularly (unless of course they have a condition that makes it unsafe) we are not all Michael Phelps and over 50% of carbs seems excessive. Now I like grains so I'm not going to stop eating them but I agree more with the side of eating like a caveman.
I also feel the need to address that our longer lives don't have much to do with our diet but with science and engineering. Despite our terrible eating habits we still live much longer than our ancestors did. We now have discovered medicines that heal our illness, we have houses that shield us from nature's elements and governments that protect us from predators.
Great points made about the short life span of the cave people. They had many, many reasons for their health problems. Today we do live much longer not because of our diets or activity levels, but because of medicine. We have mastered "dragging out our lives" via medical procedures and drugs while diminishing the quality of living via a slow degenerating respiration capacity and over all functional capacity. It's like we can make life drag on seemingly forever and we as a people are ok with that. I personally don't advocate merely living, I advocate a higher more functional quality of living. Some 80% of people do not die peacefully in their sleep. Dying peacefully in ones sleep is the minority now while living longer is the majority. In my opinion our priorities are azz backwards. I don't except to appeal to people ok with living longer because of advances in medicine and medical procedures (unless you are physically unable to eat reasonable and stay physically active).
Now to your other point... That 55% to 65% carb figure is based on a sedentary to highly physical active lifestyle. So to put it in your terms if you are a michael phelps then consuming towards the 65% end of the spectrum is ideal for optimum health. If you are a lazy sedentary individual, or physically unable to move, then 55% is ideal for optimum health. Less than 50% is not ideal for optimum health including the physically inactive. By the way now that I have seen the caveman paradigm there really isnt much difference in terms of macro nutrient proportions. They largely focus more on fruits verses grains. I just wouldn't recommend swapping out grains for fruits to someone who may have overly sensitive receptor cells to insulin secretion.0 -
I believe that the generic dietary advice that carbs are the "enemy" is extremely wrong-headed. I'd be interested to hear though what carb intake percentage you would classify as "dangerous" metalpalace and WHY it is dangerous.
I have had success by cutting carbs to as low as 25% total dietary intake for up to 4 weeks for loss of bodyfat, but at that % I wouldn't want to go much longer than 4 weeks. Becomes very difficult to exercise at a high level of intensity. Your body just doesn't have the glycogen stores to get the job done.
I agree that 55% to 65% is what most people should aim for, focusing on complex carbs with a low glycemic load. I keep reading about people who are "carb intolerant" and need to consume a much lower %. I don't know if there is any truth to that. Could be, but I wonder if the real problem is carbs or possibly something else.
Mike
The American college of sports medicine recommends greater than 55% of total daily calories to be carbohydrates. The american council on exercise says 55% to 65% percent. Those two sources are enough for me because they are not regulated by the government. These two entities are comprised of various extremely qualified doctors, researches and scientists interested in improving the quality of life; unfettered by politics. Inherently that earns them browny points from me
I don't know what the upper daily recommended allowance is before you reach levels of toxicity but I am sure it's pretty high. Before you get to that point you would just be swapping out other important nutrients for more carbs which can be dangerous in it's own right.
Someone else in this thread said everything in moderation... GREAT advice.
The 55% to 65% is an expression of optimal amounts with upper and lower limits in addition to that. It's used as a guide, a ball park figure. It doesnt mean that if you do not consume that much you will come down with a disease linked to a nutrient deficiency. Symptoms may be subtle and develop over a long period of time.
You can bring your carb intake downto 25%. Body builders for competition will go even lower than that and supplement to make up for the severe nutrient deficiencies. A supplement isnt as valuble as real food so in essence they are slowly killing themselves for 4 weeks - 8 weeks until the compeition is over and then they go back on a normal eating schedule. Generally speaking you can come down as you did for 4 weeks and be fine but during that four weeks you are slowly killing yourself so you have no choice but to eventually eat normally again or you will pay for it. Body builders do it all the time, that's why I'm not a body builder..LoL
I probably would eat 50% of my content in carbohydrate if I was a triathlete or serious runner.
But I'm not nor do I intend to be one. Nor does the majority of the population. Their energy demands are significantly lower. The majority of people don't need to worry about fueling with glucose gel in the middle of a marathon. I doubt the majority of people need to worry about depleting their glycogen entirely unless they're severly curbing sugar intake. We eat quite enough of it in a typical American diet. If they up their activity level significantly, they can certainly up their carb intake as well as overall caloric intake. I think we may overrate our carb (kindling in the fire) needs more than that of dietary fat (slow burn fuel). We're not carb intolerant, no, we just overuse them via overrating our energy demands.
I used to be a running addict and did just this. I wasn't healthier nor did I have a better BF% than I do at eating at a lower level (typ. 20% carb) and utilizing namely heavy lifting and low to moderate cardio (biking, hiking). Come to think of it, as a runner, I was fairly squishy looking. If I feel like performing HIIT in a week, I'll up my carbohydrate by 5-10% to adjust, if needed. 25% isn't a huge cut nor in most cases will it trigger ketosis. <50g per day may trigger ketosis, but this can also be used as therapy for T2 diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD/ADD. Ketoacidosis is what we want to avoid.
I don't look to serious athletes or athletic councils for my advice. Why is this? Because I don't believe that portion of the population should be used as a picture of health and wellness. The majority of the population will NEVER work out at the level of a serious athlete nor should they without proper training. I don't think the same of most bodybuilders either as they tend to lead some fairly extreme nutritional controls and use supplementation (creating loading, for one) I simply do not agree with. Outside of athletic councils, you'll see a growing number of physicians advising a lower carb diet...typically in the name of controlling insulin response in our growing Baby Boomer population with growing middles. They're not worried about performance in an HIIT session. They're concerned with improving their health stats or overcoming diabetes. I'd highly doubt that 50% carb diet is "just the ticket" to reduce their fat stores. Quite the contrary, actually.
I agree highly with consuming adequate levels of vegetables in the diet. Especially dark, leafy greens. Also a small amount of berries. These are key for many vital nutrients and antioxidants. I don't believe in consuming grains in the name of avoiding nutritional deficiency. From personal experience of a grain heavy diet, I experienced more frequent anemia and joint inflammation. I know others deal with the same. I do not deal with gluten well. That is me. It does not equate to some lack of fiber or the inability to have a properly functioning digestive system.
I was going to make the same argument but you made it much more eloquently than I would have. I noticed that all of the original poster's sources came from athletic or sports book/articles etc. While everyone should work out regularly (unless of course they have a condition that makes it unsafe) we are not all Michael Phelps and over 50% of carbs seems excessive. Now I like grains so I'm not going to stop eating them but I agree more with the side of eating like a caveman.
I also feel the need to address that our longer lives don't have much to do with our diet but with science and engineering. Despite our terrible eating habits we still live much longer than our ancestors did. We now have discovered medicines that heal our illness, we have houses that shield us from nature's elements and governments that protect us from predators.
Great points made about the short life span of the cave people. They had many, many reasons for their health problems. Today we do live much longer not because of our diets or activity levels, but because of medicine. We have mastered "dragging out our lives" via medical procedures and drugs while diminishing the quality of living via a slow degenerating respiration capacity and over all functional capacity. It's like we can make life drag on seemingly forever and we as a people are ok with that. I personally don't advocate merely living, I advocate a higher more functional quality of living. Some 80% of people do not die peacefully in their sleep. Dying peacefully in ones sleep is the minority now while living longer is the majority. In my opinion our priorities are azz backwards. I don't except to appeal to people ok with living longer because of advances in medicine and medical procedures (unless you are physically unable to eat reasonable and stay physically active).
Now to your other point... That 55% to 65% carb figure is based on a sedentary to highly physical active lifestyle. So to put it in your terms if you are a michael phelps then consuming towards the 65% end of the spectrum is ideal for optimum health. If you are a lazy sedentary individual, or physically unable to move, then 55% is ideal for optimum health. Less than 50% is not ideal for optimum health including the physically inactive. By the way now that I have seen the caveman paradigm there really isnt much difference in terms of macro nutrient proportions. They largely focus more on fruits verses grains. I just wouldn't recommend swapping out grains for fruits to someone who may have overly sensitive receptor cells to insulin secretion.
Which recommendation are you quoting? Because in all my reading, I'm not coming across the "high" carb recs in most paleo or primal eating. Most are tied to lower carb experts and medical doctors who recommend lower carb, higher fat diets...Dr. Michael Eades, for one, author of Protein Power. Weston A. Price for another. Are you referring to a raw paleo (high fruit) diet?
Eades on Paleo -> http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/
Sisson's Carb Diagram -> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/press/the-primal-blueprint-diagrams/
Published Paleo resources -> http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/
[Loren] Cordain (Paleo) certainly does not recommend anywhere near 50% carbohydrate intake daily. Mark Sisson's recommendations vary highly on athletic needs / performance, but generally a lower carb intake of 50-150g is recommended. High fruit consumption is not recommended as a means of "making up for" the lack of grain, rather a lower carb diet is recommended to control our body's insulin response. Even more important, controlling sugar intake (even in the form of fruit intake) is stressed.
Paleo dieters are typically in the lower end of the carb spectrum. Some carb load on weekends similar to weightlifters but generally remain in the lower end of the spectrum.
No offense here, but I'd check my sources before posting that info. Even Barry Sears of the Zone diet, popularized by the Crossfit community doesn't recommend 50% carbohydrate intake, but rather a 40% intake.
And a 40% intake is considered dangerous for "health"? I find that highly questionable to be honest.0 -
Great points made about the short life span of the cave people. They had many, many reasons for their health problems. Today we do live much longer not because of our diets or activity levels, but because of medicine. We have mastered "dragging out our lives" via medical procedures and drugs while diminishing the quality of living via a slow degenerating respiration capacity and over all functional capacity. It's like we can make life drag on seemingly forever and we as a people are ok with that. I personally don't advocate merely living, I advocate a higher more functional quality of living. Some 80% of people do not die peacefully in their sleep. Dying peacefully in ones sleep is the minority now while living longer is the majority. In my opinion our priorities are azz backwards. I don't except to appeal to people ok with living longer because of advances in medicine and medical procedures (unless you are physically unable to eat reasonable and stay physically active).
Now to your other point... That 55% to 65% carb figure is based on a sedentary to highly physical active lifestyle. So to put it in your terms if you are a michael phelps then consuming towards the 65% end of the spectrum is ideal for optimum health. If you are a lazy sedentary individual, or physically unable to move, then 55% is ideal for optimum health. Less than 50% is not ideal for optimum health including the physically inactive. By the way now that I have seen the caveman paradigm there really isnt much difference in terms of macro nutrient proportions. They largely focus more on fruits verses grains. I just wouldn't recommend swapping out grains for fruits to someone who may have overly sensitive receptor cells to insulin secretion.
Which recommendation are you quoting? Because in all my reading, I'm not coming across the "high" carb recs in most paleo or primal eating. Most are tied to lower carb experts and medical doctors who recommend lower carb, higher fat diets...Dr. Michael Eades, for one, author of Protein Power. Weston A. Price for another. Are you referring to a raw paleo (high fruit) diet?
Eades on Paleo -> http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/
Sisson's Carb Diagram -> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/press/the-primal-blueprint-diagrams/
Published Paleo resources -> http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/
[Loren] Cordain (Paleo) certainly does not recommend anywhere near 50% carbohydrate intake daily. Mark Sisson's recommendations vary highly on athletic needs / performance, but generally a lower carb intake of 50-150g is recommended. High fruit consumption is not recommended as a means of "making up for" the lack of grain, rather a lower carb diet is recommended to control our body's insulin response. Even more important, controlling sugar intake (even in the form of fruit intake) is stressed.
Paleo dieters are typically in the lower end of the carb spectrum. Some carb load on weekends similar to weightlifters but generally remain in the lower end of the spectrum.
No offense here, but I'd check my sources before posting that info. Even Barry Sears of the Zone diet, popularized by the Crossfit community doesn't recommend 50% carbohydrate intake, but rather a 40% intake.
And a 40% intake is considered dangerous for "health"? I find that highly questionable to be honest.
I am not either. I have read the Neanderthin Plan(Audette, Gilchrist, Eades), Paleo (Cordain) and I am presently reading The Primal Blue Print (Sisson).
My avatar is representative of the PBP plan as I saved it from Mark's Daily Apple site.
I have tried to explain to MetalPalace that we don't require that level of carbs and definitely don't need that much sugar (even though it is natural) to function properly.
I know a lot of people that follow a zero carb or low / controlled carb plan (any plan that is under 150 grams of carbs per day is considered to be a controlled carb plan) ((mrd232, I know you know this already)) and they are healthier than those that eat a lower calorie / lower fat plan or the typical SAD.
I also wanted to add that I must be getting ready to die any moment now - as my carb intake is only between 5 and 12% of my daily intake. The mainstay of my eating plan is Fat and then protein. I have more energy now, feel like exercising, no more brain fog, sleep better and the most important of all, I am living pain and medication free. Losing weight is just an added bonus.0 -
good god people......so everyone has differently beliefs and everyone eats differently if it isnt going directly into your body why do u care so much,,,,,,,,if no one is ASKING YOU for advice why do u care so much?....if someone has a diffferent belief let them have one......quit arguing for pages upon pages of who's right and who's wrong, because by the end of the day after all the fuss about who's right and who's wrong neither one of u are really going to budge the other one into believing otherwise...... so how about u both just nicely state what u believe to be true and then let others choose for themselves as to what they believe is true......and LIONESS whyyyyyy do u always assume something is meant to u and about u or if someone is aggressive that it's to u......first page within 4 posts u thought it was all about it.....i read the post and knew right away Jmax was talking to Tom....i;m going to say this in the nicest way possible ............the world does not revolve around u......lol oi vey reading this thread got me all annoyed and now im ranting lmao *leaves thread*0
-
Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant. 0
-
ol i guess after reading for pages of arguing for 15 mins (and thats skimming somewhat) it gets old :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: i'm better now.....lolHasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.
p.s. its that TOM also0 -
Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.
nah, you're a sweetheart. 0 -
:blushing: :blushing: lol now i feel bad i should go and revise that whole post lmao but its gotten quiet so maybe it worked :laugh:Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.
nah, you're a sweetheart.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
No Max. I think you did.0
-
oh i have such a bad joke lmao but i cant say it here lol0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions