Low Carb vs. Moderate Carb

sunsnstatheart

Atkins and the other low carb nonsense have gone the way of the other fad diets. Make sure you balance your macros and watch your calories while eating healthy foods. Your body needs carbs and if you go too low for too long you are at a higher risk for a variety of health issues. Just make sure that your carbs are vegetables, fruit and whole grains.

Nonsense, typical industry drivel.

I assume you mean the grain industry. So therefore I must point out that human beings have been eating grains for centuries.

Yea, its me the grain farmer, trolling the MFP pages to sell you more bad whole grains and vegetables . . . I'm like your mom only bigger and more evil

kimbolay7

I don't eat carbs after lunch most days of the week, and I cook 95% of everything I eat from scratch and I find it really works for me! It not for everyone though.

Rodhands

Still waiting on what industry I represent . . . .

Of course your stats are better - you lost a lot of weight. That's why Atkins and low carb was so popular - they worked at least for the short term. The issue is your long term health and that is better served by a balanced diet. Go back and look at your research again and use a skeptical eye on those studies funded by or sponsored by interested parties.

You will notice that I never actually said you represent an industry, what I said was that is the typical industry drivel. We are force fed that "whole grains are best yay" nonsense and the simple facts are we can't know for certain. Go back and look at your articles with a critical eye, look at sample sizes/control groups etc and tell me they are flawless, I guarentee that NON of them are.

I assume you mean the grain industry. So therefore I must point out that human beings have been eating grains for centuries.

And prior to that period human beings lived on a diet solely consisted of the meats they could hunt, the dairy products they could produce (eggs etc) and the salad/veg they could forage... what essentially amounts to a low carb diet, and your point is?

rml_16

I assume you mean the grain industry. So therefore I must point out that human beings have been eating grains for centuries.

And prior to that period human beings lived on a diet solely consisted of the meats they could hunt, the dairy products they could produce (eggs etc) and the salad/veg they could forage... what essentially amounts to a low carb diet, and your point is?

My point is that people eating grains is not a result of an "industry" and that grains are not the cause of obesity. If those things were true, grains would be something that only became a dietary staple in the last 20-30 years rather than something that became a staple thousands of years ago.

sunsnstatheart

Still waiting on what industry I represent . . . .

Of course your stats are better - you lost a lot of weight. That's why Atkins and low carb was so popular - they worked at least for the short term. The issue is your long term health and that is better served by a balanced diet. Go back and look at your research again and use a skeptical eye on those studies funded by or sponsored by interested parties.

You will notice that I never actually said you represent an industry, what I said was that is the typical industry drivel. We are force fed that "whole grains are best yay" nonsense and the simple facts are we can't know for certain. Go back and look at your articles with a critical eye, look at sample sizes/control groups etc and tell me they are flawless, I guarentee that NON of them are.

I assume you mean the grain industry. So therefore I must point out that human beings have been eating grains for centuries.

And prior to that period human beings lived on a diet solely consisted of the meats they could hunt, the dairy products they could produce (eggs etc) and the salad/veg they could forage... what essentially amounts to a low carb diet, and your point is?

A yes, the nothing is certain, science isn't flawless, be skeptical of the unnamed "industry" crowd. Wear that tinfoil hat proudly dude!

Rodhands

A yes, the nothing is certain, science isn't flawless, be skeptical of the unnamed "industry" crowd. Wear that tinfoil hat proudly dude!

my god your arrogant... you obviously have no desire to have a sensible conversation on this, because I am obviously crazy. Well that's fine, continue dieting as you will and I will continue as I will.

See no arrogance on my part, just the simple fact one size diet does not fit all

WendyTerry420

I assume you mean the grain industry. So therefore I must point out that human beings have been eating grains for centuries.

And prior to that period human beings lived on a diet solely consisted of the meats they could hunt, the dairy products they could produce (eggs etc) and the salad/veg they could forage... what essentially amounts to a low carb diet, and your point is?

My point is that people eating grains is not a result of an "industry" and that grains are not the cause of obesity. If those things were true, grains would be something that only became a dietary staple in the last 20-30 years rather than something that became a staple thousands of years ago.

Yeah, he has that backwards. There is a grain industry *because* most people eat grains. Grains provide lots of nutrients that our bodies need. Yes, you could get them other ways if you had to, but why would you want to when grains that are made into baked goods taste so yummy?

Humans eating grains came first; the industry built around market forces. This is how markets work.

Rodhands

My point is that people eating grains is not a result of an "industry" and that grains are not the cause of obesity. If those things were true, grains would be something that only became a dietary staple in the last 20-30 years rather than something that became a staple thousands of years ago.

Correct, grains most definitely are NOT the cause of obesity, there are many people across the world who eat high-carb diets with no obesity epidemics. HOWEVER that does not mean that fats should be demonized in favour of grains as they currently are in western culture (the only culture I have experience of)

Grains are a staple of our diet because they are easier to preserve and procure/grow than proteins/fats. Everyone on the earth can buy a bowl of rice, but only a certain subset can afford a steak to go on top.

Again, I have no issue with standard diets/lifestyles, what I do have an issue with is the demonizing of the low-carb lifestyle when there simply isn't enough correct evidence to point either way

RobinvdM

I don't pay one ounce of attention to my carbs. Not once since I started losing weight :P I kinda like my carbs. Carbs are like, my friends. The whole grain rice, homemade whole wheat bread, mashed potatoes, I can't have a successful lifestyle without having these in my diet. I don't eat them every day, but I never did so that isn't a huge change. But 50% of my daily food intake is carbs. For me it's more about portion control, and being a lot more on the go than I used to be.

Good luck with figuring out how to manage your carbs in a way that you can live with

sunsnstatheart

A yes, the nothing is certain, science isn't flawless, be skeptical of the unnamed "industry" crowd. Wear that tinfoil hat proudly dude!

my god your arrogant... you obviously have no desire to have a sensible conversation on this, because I am obviously crazy. Well that's fine, continue dieting as you will and I will continue as I will.

See no arrogance on my part, just the simple fact one size diet does not fit all

You quoted and called me out on my post, claiming that what I was pushing was "industry drivel". You have yet to back that up, you have the stones to call me arrogant and then claim I'm not prepared to have a sensible conversation?

rml_16

A yes, the nothing is certain, science isn't flawless, be skeptical of the unnamed "industry" crowd. Wear that tinfoil hat proudly dude!

my god your arrogant... you obviously have no desire to have a sensible conversation on this, because I am obviously crazy. Well that's fine, continue dieting as you will and I will continue as I will.

See no arrogance on my part, just the simple fact one size diet does not fit all

I haven't seen you say anything sensible yet. You spout a lot of conspiracy theory, though.

WendyTerry420

My point is that people eating grains is not a result of an "industry" and that grains are not the cause of obesity. If those things were true, grains would be something that only became a dietary staple in the last 20-30 years rather than something that became a staple thousands of years ago.

Correct, grains most definitely are NOT the cause of obesity, there are many people across the world who eat high-carb diets with no obesity epidemics. HOWEVER that does not mean that fats should be demonized in favour of grains as they currently are in western culture (the only culture I have experience of)

Grains are a staple of our diet because they are easier to preserve and procure/grow than proteins/fats. Everyone on the earth can buy a bowl of rice, but only a certain subset can afford a steak to go on top.

Again, I have no issue with standard diets/lifestyles, what I do have an issue with is the demonizing of the low-carb lifestyle when there simply isn't enough correct evidence to point either way

And I have an issue with demonizing carbs. We all have our issues.

Rodhands

I haven't seen you say anything sensible yet. You spout a lot of conspiracy theory, though.

http://josepharcita.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/guide-to-ketosis.html - a complete guide to the science behind ketos.

http://eatingacademy.com/ - a blog written by an MD, demonizing lowcarb? nope.

conspiracy theory? I am starting to remember why I avoided these forums, its very much a case of "fit the the norm or gtfo"

rml_16

I haven't seen you say anything sensible yet. You spout a lot of conspiracy theory, though.

http://josepharcita.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/guide-to-ketosis.html - a complete guide to the science behind ketos.

http://eatingacademy.com/ - a blog written by an MD, demonizing lowcarb? nope.

conspiracy theory? I am starting to remember why I avoided these forums, its very much a case of "fit the the norm or gtfo"

You specifically said that a previous poster was spouting the industry line, yet you still haven't said which industry and what that line is. That is a different conversation than whether low-carb is good or bad.

RatherBeFishing

My point is that people eating grains is not a result of an "industry" and that grains are not the cause of obesity. If those things were true, grains would be something that only became a dietary staple in the last 20-30 years rather than something that became a staple thousands of years ago.

Correct, grains most definitely are NOT the cause of obesity, there are many people across the world who eat high-carb diets with no obesity epidemics. HOWEVER that does not mean that fats should be demonized in favour of grains as they currently are in western culture (the only culture I have experience of)

Grains are a staple of our diet because they are easier to preserve and procure/grow than proteins/fats. Everyone on the earth can buy a bowl of rice, but only a certain subset can afford a steak to go on top.

Again, I have no issue with standard diets/lifestyles, what I do have an issue with is the demonizing of the low-carb lifestyle when there simply isn't enough correct evidence to point either way

Finally someone who makes sense and realizes everyone is different and not one diet works for everybody. Make the guy who was arguing with you should read article on insulin resistance and it's effects on people with it. There is a reason why low carb diets work for some people and other people have great results off of high carb low fat diets. A guy even lost weight doing a Twinkie diet. Some some people it is all about calories. For me it's not, it's about what foods I eat. I use a low carb diet to start dropping weight then switch to a low GI diet once I get to a certain point. It's because I know what works for me and my body type.

I am guessing you haven't read about CKD and TKD's. A lot of professional body builders use this diets when getting ready for competitions. Any I am going to get off my soap box.

To the OP: There are a lot of different diets out there the trick is finding what you can stick to and works for you. Don't believe a lot of the non-sense posted in this thread. The body really only need 10-20g of carbs a day. There are just a few parts of the body that require glucose to function and with 10-20g of carbs a day you can meet those requirements. I could site medical publications and studies on this but, I really don't feel like it.

firstsip

I assume you mean the grain industry. So therefore I must point out that human beings have been eating grains for centuries.

And prior to that period human beings lived on a diet solely consisted of the meats they could hunt, the dairy products they could produce (eggs etc) and the salad/veg they could forage... what essentially amounts to a low carb diet, and your point is?

My point is that people eating grains is not a result of an "industry" and that grains are not the cause of obesity. If those things were true, grains would be something that only became a dietary staple in the last 20-30 years rather than something that became a staple thousands of years ago.

Yeah, he has that backwards. There is a grain industry *because* most people eat grains. Grains provide lots of nutrients that our bodies need. Yes, you could get them other ways if you had to, but why would you want to when grains that are made into baked goods taste so yummy?

Humans eating grains came first; the industry built around market forces. This is how markets work.

Exactly; the move from hunting and gathering to harvesting (which was HUNDREDS of thousands of years ago, people, not even just "centuries") was a huge, huge change in our collective history.

THERE'S SO MUCH EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY ON THE BOARDS TODAY, I FEEL LIKE I'M IN COLLEGE AGAIN. :drinker:

Rodhands

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11010-005-9001-x

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/7/1879

Humanity has existed as a genus for about 2 million years, and our prehuman hominid ancestors, the australopithecines, appeared at least 4 million years ago. This phase of evolutionary history made definitive contributions to our current genetic composition, partly in response to dietary influences at that time. The development of agriculture 10000 years ago has apparently had a minimal influence on our genes and markedly altered human nutritional patterns. In the hunting society of our ancestors protein contributed twice to nearly five times the proportion of total calories that it does for nowadays Americans.

Since then, the human diet has changed drastically: protein intake has been reduced to 10-15%; glucid intake has increased to 45-60% through eating more grain and starch products instead of vegetables and fruits available according to the seasonal conditions; polyunsaturated fat has been reduced and saturated fat has increased (lower polyunsaturated-to-saturated fat radio). So we can affirm that healthier fats like monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (MUFA and PUFA) have been replaced by more pernicious fat like saturated and, above all, the artificial trans fats. Furthermore, carbohydrates consumed nowadays tend to have a higher glycemic index and glycemic load since they are based on grains, starch and refined sugars instead of vegetables and fruits. In such a short evolutionary period of time, human beings have been unable to adapt to this abrupt change in eating habits, and this has been a significant source of stress for our insulin metabolism.

The fact that the nutritional change from a hunter-gatherer diet to a carbohydrate-based diet has affected populations negatively has been revealed by archaeological findings in ancient Egyptian mummies, since tooth decay, cardiovascular disease and obesity were very frequent in those times. More recently, this problem has also been reflected historically by the change in eating habits of Inuit peoples in Alaska. Traditionally, their diet contained 3-5% carbohydrates (since it was based on fish, marine mammals, moose and caribou), obesity was virtually nonexistent and type II diabetes was rare. Since 1961, a growing tendency in type II diabetes and obesity problems has been observed due to a progressive substitution of the traditional protein and fat-based diet by a diet with higher carbohydrate content. This increase has been so dramatic that in 1978, carbohydrates represented 50% of the total calorie contribution in their diet. Another historical fact worth considering when analyzing the nutritional habits of American society is their increased consumption of carbohydrates, either through eating more food in general or by replacing fats with carbohydrates. This leads to an increase in obesity and atherogenic markers such as triglycerides and VLDL].

Most hunter–gatherers, for example, are not obese when they live their traditional lifestyle based on a low carbohydrate diet. Many hunter-gatherers consumed a predominantly plant-based diet, which was supplemented with meat when available, and others such as the Inuits consumed a high fat-protein diet. When such people are exposed to high, refined carbohydrate intake, however, they develop truncal obesity and a much higher risk of diabetes, up to 50% in some populations. This high waist-hip ratio and carbohydrate intolerance is shared by all hunter–gatherer populations throughout the world: Canadian Inuits, Native Americans, Mexican Indians, Pima Indians, South American Indians, Middle-Eastern Nomads, African Pygmies, Australian Aborigines, Maoris, South Sea Islanders, etc.

Nevertheless, many factors are responsible for the health and metabolic disturbances currently experienced by modern hunter–gatherers like the Inuits. It is important to remember that millions of people worldwide from different countries have predominantly carbohydrate-based diets and the prevalence of obesity is very low in these countries. Hence other risk factor factors, such as sedentarism and high calorie intake, are clearly relevant in addition to the macronutrient composition of the diet.

Thus, all these data might suggest that it could be wrong to consider carbohydrates as the basis of the human diet.


Taken from a book called "Arguments for a Ketogenic Diet"

Rodhands

And I have an issue with demonizing carbs. We all have our issues.

But thats the point, I dont demonize carbs, for a lot of people eating carbs is completely fine, however FOR ME eating low carbs works.

the simple fact is one size does not fit all in dieting circles

Rodhands

I haven't seen you say anything sensible yet. You spout a lot of conspiracy theory, though.

http://josepharcita.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/guide-to-ketosis.html - a complete guide to the science behind ketos.

http://eatingacademy.com/ - a blog written by an MD, demonizing lowcarb? nope.

conspiracy theory? I am starting to remember why I avoided these forums, its very much a case of "fit the the norm or gtfo"

You specifically said that a previous poster was spouting the industry line, yet you still haven't said which industry and what that line is. That is a different conversation than whether low-carb is good or bad.

Read back, I have said what industry and my reason why I disagree with the pushing of "whole grains are brilliant", not necessarily because they aren't but because that is done at the expense of demonizing fats which is just a ridiculous notion.

nxd10

Long term, 30-40% of your calories from carbs, focusing on low glycemic foods seems to to work well for steady weight loss and long term weight maintenance according to NYTimes science writer Gary Taubes (http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307949435)

I found his books convincing and following those guidelines very helpful to me. It also was way more doable than Atkins.

I read several studies of diet plans and Atkins is excellent for short term, fast weight loss but extremely difficult to maintain long term. So transitioning up, as you plan, sounds sensible.

Rodhands

Exactly; the move from hunting and gathering to harvesting (which was HUNDREDS of thousands of years ago, people, not even just "centuries") was a huge, huge change in our collective history.

THERE'S SO MUCH EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY ON THE BOARDS TODAY, I FEEL LIKE I'M IN COLLEGE AGAIN. :drinker:

your final bit made me smile so I just wanted to say thanks for the chuckle!

arguments can be made that hundreds of thousands of years is a drop in the ocean for human evolution...

firstsip

Yikes, I don't want to do super long quote, and I don't necessarily think low carb is the devil here, but your research is huuuugely biased. Any standard biology or anthropology class covers the development of agriculture as being closer to 100,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago, with a "sensitivity" to carbs being the minority of further species than the majority.

And I'm not sure how you can seriously consider something that says, "obesity was very frequent in those times based on the findings of Egyptian mummies" when the mummies we find were specifically the wealthy who could afford the process (most people were NOT mummified, contrary to popular belief), and tooth decay is almost 100% been attributed to the amount of SAND in their food o_O

Rodhands

Long term, 40% of your calories from carbs, focusing on low glycemic foods seems to to work well for steady weight loss and long term weight maintenance according to NYTimes science writer Gary Taubes (http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307949435)

I found his books convincing and following those guidelines very helpful to me. It also was way more doable than Atkins.

I read several studies of diet plans and Atkins is excellent for short term, fast weight loss but extremely difficult to maintain long term. So transitioning up, as you plan, sounds sensible.

I have no intention of maintaining this ultra low carb lifestyle forever, not because I don't thrive on it, but because socially it is too restrictive. What I do plan to do is ever so slowly reintroduce carbs after I hit my goal weight, from then I will slowly get to a place I am comfortable.

What I will never do is go back to eating the white breads/rice/pasta that I used to, I dont even miss it!

firstsip

Exactly; the move from hunting and gathering to harvesting (which was HUNDREDS of thousands of years ago, people, not even just "centuries") was a huge, huge change in our collective history.

THERE'S SO MUCH EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY ON THE BOARDS TODAY, I FEEL LIKE I'M IN COLLEGE AGAIN. :drinker:

your final bit made me smile so I just wanted to say thanks for the chuckle!

arguments can be made that hundreds of thousands of years is a drop in the ocean for human evolution...

Oh absolutely it's a drop in the bucket, but it's still a drop.

Rodhands

Yikes, I don't want to do super long quote, and I don't necessarily think low carb is the devil here, but your research is huuuugely biased. Any standard biology or anthropology class covers the development of agriculture as being closer to 100,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago, with a "sensitivity" to carbs being the minority of further species than the majority.

And I'm not sure how you can seriously consider something that says, "obesity was very frequent in those times based on the findings of Egyptian mummies" when the mummies we find were specifically the wealthy who could afford the process (most people were NOT mummified, contrary to popular belief), and tooth decay is almost 100% been attributed to the amount of SAND in their food o_O

TBH I was putting the first thing I found on the subject purely to try and get the point across that the human body has been around for a lot longer time than we have been consistently eating carbs. its definitely not the best source for this debate but I am at work and don't have the time to find the research that I found when I started this process.

And by the sounds of it your much more of an expert on this than I could ever claim to be!

Finally, all research by its definition is biased as the researcher inherently has an agenda that he/she wants to meet.

Rodhands

My point is that people eating grains is not a result of an "industry" and that grains are not the cause of obesity. If those things were true, grains would be something that only became a dietary staple in the last 20-30 years rather than something that became a staple thousands of years ago.

Correct, grains most definitely are NOT the cause of obesity, there are many people across the world who eat high-carb diets with no obesity epidemics. HOWEVER that does not mean that fats should be demonized in favour of grains as they currently are in western culture (the only culture I have experience of)

Grains are a staple of our diet because they are easier to preserve and procure/grow than proteins/fats. Everyone on the earth can buy a bowl of rice, but only a certain subset can afford a steak to go on top.

Again, I have no issue with standard diets/lifestyles, what I do have an issue with is the demonizing of the low-carb lifestyle when there simply isn't enough correct evidence to point either way

Finally someone who makes sense and realizes everyone is different and not one diet works for everybody. Make the guy who was arguing with you should read article on insulin resistance and it's effects on people with it. There is a reason why low carb diets work for some people and other people have great results off of high carb low fat diets. A guy even lost weight doing a Twinkie diet. Some some people it is all about calories. For me it's not, it's about what foods I eat. I use a low carb diet to start dropping weight then switch to a low GI diet once I get to a certain point. It's because I know what works for me and my body type.

I am guessing you haven't read about CKD and TKD's. A lot of professional body builders use this diets when getting ready for competitions. Any I am going to get off my soap box.

To the OP: There are a lot of different diets out there the trick is finding what you can stick to and works for you. Don't believe a lot of the non-sense posted in this thread. The body really only need 10-20g of carbs a day. There are just a few parts of the body that require glucose to function and with 10-20g of carbs a day you can meet those requirements. I could site medical publications and studies on this but, I really don't feel like it.

Thank you for more eloquently putting what I was trying to get across.

firstsip

Yikes, I don't want to do super long quote, and I don't necessarily think low carb is the devil here, but your research is huuuugely biased. Any standard biology or anthropology class covers the development of agriculture as being closer to 100,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago, with a "sensitivity" to carbs being the minority of further species than the majority.

And I'm not sure how you can seriously consider something that says, "obesity was very frequent in those times based on the findings of Egyptian mummies" when the mummies we find were specifically the wealthy who could afford the process (most people were NOT mummified, contrary to popular belief), and tooth decay is almost 100% been attributed to the amount of SAND in their food o_O

TBH I was putting the first thing I found on the subject purely to try and get the point across that the human body has been around for a lot longer time than we have been consistently eating carbs. its definitely not the best source for this debate but I am at work and don't have the time to find the research that I found when I started this process.

And by the sounds of it your much more of an expert on this than I could ever claim to be!

Finally, all research by its definition is biased as the researcher inherently has an agenda that he/she wants to meet.

Research can be inherently biased, absolutely! Just... most of the evolutionary texts I've studied and read over the years haven't been in the context of pushing a diet plan :laugh:

Rodhands

Yikes, I don't want to do super long quote, and I don't necessarily think low carb is the devil here, but your research is huuuugely biased. Any standard biology or anthropology class covers the development of agriculture as being closer to 100,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago, with a "sensitivity" to carbs being the minority of further species than the majority.

And I'm not sure how you can seriously consider something that says, "obesity was very frequent in those times based on the findings of Egyptian mummies" when the mummies we find were specifically the wealthy who could afford the process (most people were NOT mummified, contrary to popular belief), and tooth decay is almost 100% been attributed to the amount of SAND in their food o_O

TBH I was putting the first thing I found on the subject purely to try and get the point across that the human body has been around for a lot longer time than we have been consistently eating carbs. its definitely not the best source for this debate but I am at work and don't have the time to find the research that I found when I started this process.

And by the sounds of it your much more of an expert on this than I could ever claim to be!

Finally, all research by its definition is biased as the researcher inherently has an agenda that he/she wants to meet.

Research can be inherently biased, absolutely! Just... most of the evolutionary texts I've studied and read over the years haven't been in the context of pushing a diet plan :laugh:

Well theres the problem... damn early homonids not writing down what they were eating, didnt they know that a few people would be arguing about this on the internet in 2012??!?!?! :P

firstsip

Yikes, I don't want to do super long quote, and I don't necessarily think low carb is the devil here, but your research is huuuugely biased. Any standard biology or anthropology class covers the development of agriculture as being closer to 100,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago, with a "sensitivity" to carbs being the minority of further species than the majority.

And I'm not sure how you can seriously consider something that says, "obesity was very frequent in those times based on the findings of Egyptian mummies" when the mummies we find were specifically the wealthy who could afford the process (most people were NOT mummified, contrary to popular belief), and tooth decay is almost 100% been attributed to the amount of SAND in their food o_O

TBH I was putting the first thing I found on the subject purely to try and get the point across that the human body has been around for a lot longer time than we have been consistently eating carbs. its definitely not the best source for this debate but I am at work and don't have the time to find the research that I found when I started this process.

And by the sounds of it your much more of an expert on this than I could ever claim to be!

Finally, all research by its definition is biased as the researcher inherently has an agenda that he/she wants to meet.

Research can be inherently biased, absolutely! Just... most of the evolutionary texts I've studied and read over the years haven't been in the context of pushing a diet plan :laugh:

Well theres the problem... damn early homonids not writing down what they were eating, didnt they know that a few people would be arguing about this on the internet in 2012??!?!?! :P

Our alien overlords 5,000 years from now will probably be wondering, "Wtf?" when they take a look back at us!

Rodhands

Yikes, I don't want to do super long quote, and I don't necessarily think low carb is the devil here, but your research is huuuugely biased. Any standard biology or anthropology class covers the development of agriculture as being closer to 100,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago, with a "sensitivity" to carbs being the minority of further species than the majority.

And I'm not sure how you can seriously consider something that says, "obesity was very frequent in those times based on the findings of Egyptian mummies" when the mummies we find were specifically the wealthy who could afford the process (most people were NOT mummified, contrary to popular belief), and tooth decay is almost 100% been attributed to the amount of SAND in their food o_O

TBH I was putting the first thing I found on the subject purely to try and get the point across that the human body has been around for a lot longer time than we have been consistently eating carbs. its definitely not the best source for this debate but I am at work and don't have the time to find the research that I found when I started this process.

And by the sounds of it your much more of an expert on this than I could ever claim to be!

Finally, all research by its definition is biased as the researcher inherently has an agenda that he/she wants to meet.

Research can be inherently biased, absolutely! Just... most of the evolutionary texts I've studied and read over the years haven't been in the context of pushing a diet plan :laugh:

Well theres the problem... damn early homonids not writing down what they were eating, didnt they know that a few people would be arguing about this on the internet in 2012??!?!?! :P

Our alien overlords 5,000 years from now will probably be wondering, "Wtf?" when they take a look back at us!

Screw the overlords, my ancestors will be leading the rebel resistance