Low Carbs......how low can you go?
Options
Replies
-
This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.Science actually DOES matter.0 -
I don't understand the science behind it but I can say that since starting Keto back in March I am feeling better than I have in years. ALso I have PCOS and (boys look away!:noway: ) I have never had more than 3 cycles a year & in the last 4 months I've had 28 days cycles for the first time in my life. I stay under 20 net carbs a day0
-
Didnt understand any of it.
This is something that you should never do which is walk away from your doctor not understanding your medical condition. If you are to go home and follow through with a plan then you need to clearly understand the reason behind it. Are you in contact with a qualified dietitian with experience working with patients with your conditions?0 -
My nutritionist said after i try under 100 net g a day i can try the almost no net carbs a day but thats only temporary. she said itsnearly impossible to maintain for a lifetime. im sure people can do it but i think it would be very difficult for me, given i eat alot of indian food which has carbs in every entree. however, i am easily able to do 80-100 g a day net. I will try less than 50 perhaps next summer for a month or when weight loss plateaus. but i cant imagine doing it for life. I agree with my nutritionist that its not recommended for most people. keep in mind there are health issues that warrent very low carb intake but im talking your average joe. im prediabetic so staying under 130 is recommended for me. i am sure diabetic and PSCOS patients can eat even less.
i should add that im vegetarian too which makes it alot harder for me to feel full so i have to get creative. i doubt i would survive if i reduced to the 30 g some of you all are on. lol but kudos0 -
You can go pretty low, but personally I find it counterproductive when the carbs you're cutting out are also cutting out great sources of nutrients. For example I'm currently averaing around 50g of net carbs at the moment, but in doing so I need to monitor the amount of vegetables I eat, and ensure only token amounts of starch-rich vegetables. Also to hit the 50g mark, the only fruit I eat is two big handfuls of berries each day.
To be honest, I just wanted to see how low I could reasonably go, and think I will loosen the restrictions soon, so I do not have to watch things so closely when it comes to vegetables, and so I can add a little bit more starch and a little bit more fruit. That will probably put me at the 100- 150g mark, which I am happy with, as maintaing the calorie deficit while eating healthy is all that matters to me as opposed to anything like ketosis.
The only concern I do have actually is after doing 50g for 4/ 5 weeks, that I wonder how much water weight regain I will face if I loosen the carb restriction to 100- 150g. I guess I'll see..0 -
This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.Science actually DOES matter.
When paleontologists studied Oetzi, the mummified "Alpine man" (he died violently about 5,300 years ago), they discovered a small amount of wild Emmer wheat in his gut but mostly they found residues of meat, berries and roots. Many paleontologists believe that the adoption of agriculture led to many nutritional deficiencies among the populations who adopted it--particularly among the children. When they examine ancient hunter-gatherer graveyards, they notice how few child skeletons are found in them. The skeletons of adults were also larger and have many fewer disease markers. When they examine the more recent graveyards in ancient, agriculture-based societies, they notice many, many more child skeletons, smaller stature among adults, and a large increase in disease markers.
The American Plains Indians did not experience famine until the U.S. government, in an attempt to wipe them out, killed off the buffalo herds. They did not eat grain but were quite healthy and strong.0 -
This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.Science actually DOES matter.
When paleontologists studied Oetzi, the mummified "Alpine man" (he died violently about 5,300 years ago), they discovered a small amount of wild Emmer wheat in his gut but mostly they found residues of meat, berries and roots. Many paleontologists believe that the adoption of agriculture led to many nutritional deficiencies among the populations who adopted it--particularly among the children. When they examine ancient hunter-gatherer graveyards, they notice how few child skeletons are found in them. The skeletons of adults were also larger and have many fewer disease markers. When they examine the more recent graveyards in ancient, agriculture-based societies, they notice many, many more child skeletons, smaller stature among adults, and a large increase in disease markers.
The American Plains Indians did not experience famine until the U.S. government, in an attempt to wipe them out, killed off the buffalo herds. They did not eat grain but were quite healthy and strong.
Corn.
Small pox.
History. It's a good thing.0 -
The Blue Zone populations are the longest living and have the lowest rates of chronic and degenerative diseases yet their predominate macronutrients are carbs and they eat a lot of grains.
This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.Science actually DOES matter.
When paleontologists studied Oetzi, the mummified "Alpine man" (he died violently about 5,300 years ago), they discovered a small amount of wild Emmer wheat in his gut but mostly they found residues of meat, berries and roots. Many paleontologists believe that the adoption of agriculture led to many nutritional deficiencies among the populations who adopted it--particularly among the children. When they examine ancient hunter-gatherer graveyards, they notice how few child skeletons are found in them. The skeletons of adults were also larger and have many fewer disease markers. When they examine the more recent graveyards in ancient, agriculture-based societies, they notice many, many more child skeletons, smaller stature among adults, and a large increase in disease markers.
The American Plains Indians did not experience famine until the U.S. government, in an attempt to wipe them out, killed off the buffalo herds. They did not eat grain but were quite healthy and strong.0 -
I eat low carb. No bread, sugar, rice, pasta, etc. I do eat a lot of veggies, even those that are higher carb (carrots, beets) but stay away from starches. I limit fruit to higher fiber choices, so berries, apples, pears.
Changing the way I eat was the single BEST thing I ever did. I don't crave sweet things or carb-y things. I used to LOVE sushi. Now I can't stomach one piece, too much rice. Cutting sugar was hard, for like three days. The first day was easy, anyone can go a day without sweet things. Day two was HARD, I had to keep myself occupied to try to keep my mind off all the sweet things in the house. Day three was tough, too, but easier. After that I was fine. I'll have something sweet every once in a while, but mostly it just tastes sickly sweet and I can barely eat a bite or two.
I lost 50 lbs eating this way, no vigorous exercise besides a mile walk around my neighborhood pushing a stroller, in 6 months!
A good resource for me was "The F Factor". It's a book that supports a high fiber/high protein diet. It changed my life. Right now I aim for at least 40 grams of fiber every day.
Bump for bookmark.0 -
This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.Science actually DOES matter.
When paleontologists studied Oetzi, the mummified "Alpine man" (he died violently about 5,300 years ago), they discovered a small amount of wild Emmer wheat in his gut but mostly they found residues of meat, berries and roots. Many paleontologists believe that the adoption of agriculture led to many nutritional deficiencies among the populations who adopted it--particularly among the children. When they examine ancient hunter-gatherer graveyards, they notice how few child skeletons are found in them. The skeletons of adults were also larger and have many fewer disease markers. When they examine the more recent graveyards in ancient, agriculture-based societies, they notice many, many more child skeletons, smaller stature among adults, and a large increase in disease markers.
The American Plains Indians did not experience famine until the U.S. government, in an attempt to wipe them out, killed off the buffalo herds. They did not eat grain but were quite healthy and strong.
Corn.
Small pox.
History. It's a good thing.
Most of the Plains Indians did not farm. They would trade some of their wild game for vegetables, etc. From Google Answers on one of the tribes of Plains Indians--the Blackfoot:
"Blackfoot Indians...frankly they did not farm. But I can tell you about what other things they ate and how they got their food. The Blackfoot staple food was buffalo. Blackfoot men usually hunted the buffalo by driving them off cliffs or stalking them with bow and arrow. As they acquired horses, the Blackfoot tribe began to pursue the buffalo herds for communal hunts, moving their villages often as the buffalo migrated. In addition to buffalo meat, the Blackfoot Indians also ate small game like ground squirrels, nuts and berries, and steamed camas roots as part of their diet..." The Blackfoot were a pretty typical example of the Plains Indians. They turned to agriculture and corn did become something of a staple in their diet--after the great buffalo herds were diminished. Another article on the food of the Plains Indians on a site called The First Nations:
"...Buffalo was by and far, the main source of food. Buffalo meat was dried or cooked and made into soups and Pemmican.
Women collected wild berries that were eaten dried and fresh. The Plains Cree and Plains Ojibwa fished. Deer, moose and elk, along with wolves, coyotes, lynx, rabbits, gophers, and prairie chickens were hunted for food. Bannock was a bread cooked over the fire. The Indian Turnip was a common vegetable and diet staple." Note also that the name "bannock" is a Scottish word and it was a late addition to the diet of the Plains Indians.
Yes--the white settlers did deliberately infect the native peoples with small pox but that doesn't have any relevance to the subject of what they ate. Yes, history IS a good thing.0 -
Nopethe human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.
This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!
Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.
In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."
But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).
I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.
They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.
It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.
Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?0 -
The Blue Zone populations are the longest living and have the lowest rates of chronic and degenerative diseases yet their predominate macronutrients are carbs and they eat a lot of grains.
This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.Science actually DOES matter.
When paleontologists studied Oetzi, the mummified "Alpine man" (he died violently about 5,300 years ago), they discovered a small amount of wild Emmer wheat in his gut but mostly they found residues of meat, berries and roots. Many paleontologists believe that the adoption of agriculture led to many nutritional deficiencies among the populations who adopted it--particularly among the children. When they examine ancient hunter-gatherer graveyards, they notice how few child skeletons are found in them. The skeletons of adults were also larger and have many fewer disease markers. When they examine the more recent graveyards in ancient, agriculture-based societies, they notice many, many more child skeletons, smaller stature among adults, and a large increase in disease markers.
The American Plains Indians did not experience famine until the U.S. government, in an attempt to wipe them out, killed off the buffalo herds. They did not eat grain but were quite healthy and strong.
Have you analyzed their diet to determine that? My understanding is that they are only semi-vegetarian. They do eat some meat, and they eat eggs, fish and dairy along with a wide variety of vegetables and fruits. When a Venn diagram was done on the various populations of the Blue Zone, it was discovered that, while diet was an important consideration, the common elements were:
Family is put ahead of other concerns
They smoke less or not at all
Semi-vegetarianism – except for the Sardinian diet, the majority of food consumed is derived from plants
Constant moderate physical activity – an inseparable part of life
Social engagement – people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities
Legumes are commonly consumed
That is why I favor a "lower carbohydrate" diet rather than a "no carbohydrate" diet (and have said so repeatedly).
0 -
I aim for 50 carbs per day. For the most part I'm able to eat around 30-40 net carbs per day. I did hit a plateau and realized that I was eating too much fruit so I cut the amount I eat down. I am by no means a low carb expert but this works for me and I'm liking the results. I do allow myself one "cheat" day per week but I'm to the point now that I don't even enjoy the "cheat" foods that I eat on those days. I may cut it down to once a month.0
-
Wow. Folks. I am blown away by how many kind people responded. I've never seen this on any other chatroom. You're all terrific I confess I didnt understand everything said but you have all given me a lot to think about. However, clearly this is doable. One query remains which relates to measuring carbs. I should add that I am in Ireland and I dont think a distinction is made between net carbs and anything else. Usually it just says total carbs, andthen separates out the sugar and sometimes the fibre. Is there a list of carbs somewhere that is reasonably generic to all countries? Thanks again everyone0
-
aa00;Wow. Folks. I am blown away by how many kind people responded. I've never seen this on any other chatroom. You're all terrific I confess I didnt understand everything said but you have all given me a lot to think about. However, clearly this is doable. One query remains which relates to measuring carbs. I should add that I am in Ireland and I dont think a distinction is made between net carbs and anything else. Usually it just says total carbs, andthen separates out the sugar and sometimes the fibre. Is there a list of carbs somewhere that is reasonably generic to all countries? Thanks again everyone
Net Carbs is simply Total Carbs - (minus) Fiber.
There is an add on for MFP that will create a new column on your daily totals called "Net Carbs" but you can do it yourself by just subtracting Fiber.0 -
Wow. Folks. I am blown away by how many kind people responded. I've never seen this on any other chatroom. You're all terrific I confess I didnt understand everything said but you have all given me a lot to think about. However, clearly this is doable. One query remains which relates to measuring carbs. I should add that I am in Ireland and I dont think a distinction is made between net carbs and anything else. Usually it just says total carbs, andthen separates out the sugar and sometimes the fibre. Is there a list of carbs somewhere that is reasonably generic to all countries? Thanks again everyone
Net carbs is basically the amount of carbs in something less the fibre. So if something has 12g of carbs, but 4g of fibre, it has 8g of net carbs.
Sometimes you need to be careful though, as sometimes the carb value is the net carb value, and the fibre has already been subtracted out. I find this irritating, and often do a rudimentary check in my head to see if thats the case.0 -
Wow. Folks. I am blown away by how many kind people responded. I've never seen this on any other chatroom. You're all terrific I confess I didnt understand everything said but you have all given me a lot to think about. However, clearly this is doable. One query remains which relates to measuring carbs. I should add that I am in Ireland and I dont think a distinction is made between net carbs and anything else. Usually it just says total carbs, andthen separates out the sugar and sometimes the fibre. Is there a list of carbs somewhere that is reasonably generic to all countries? Thanks again everyone
The European food labels typically list only net carbs at the top. Fiber is already subtracted out for you. Unless you're eating an American product, count the total carbs listed on the package. I am not sure if this is the case for Ireland, but if you count the total carbs and don't worry about subtracting fiber, you'll never go over your carbs. A good way to tell if your country uses net or total carbs... try and find a product that is high in fiber and add the fiber and sugar together. If that amount is larger than the total carbs, they are using net carbs on the label.
For foreign made foods, I always just use the total carbs and assume fiber is taken out of that count already. America seems to be one of the few countries that includes fiber in the total carbs. Short answer, don't subtract the fiber from the total carbs unless you are 100% positive that total carbs includes fiber.0 -
When paleontologists studied Oetzi, the mummified "Alpine man" (he died violently about 5,300 years ago), they discovered a small amount of wild Emmer wheat in his gut but mostly they found residues of meat, berries and roots. Many paleontologists believe that the adoption of agriculture led to many nutritional deficiencies among the populations who adopted it--particularly among the children. When they examine ancient hunter-gatherer graveyards, they notice how few child skeletons are found in them. The skeletons of adults were also larger and have many fewer disease markers. When they examine the more recent graveyards in ancient, agriculture-based societies, they notice many, many more child skeletons, smaller stature among adults, and a large increase in disease markers.
The American Plains Indians did not experience famine until the U.S. government, in an attempt to wipe them out, killed off the buffalo herds. They did not eat grain but were quite healthy and strong.The Blue Zone populations are the longest living and have the lowest rates of chronic and degenerative diseases yet their predominate macronutrients are carbs and they eat a lot of grains
Sante;Have you analyzed their diet to determine that?
My understanding is that they are only semi-vegetarian. They do eat some meat, and they eat eggs, fish and dairy along with a wide variety of vegetables and fruits. When a Venn diagram was done on the various populations of the Blue Zone, it was discovered that, while diet was an important consideration, the common elements were:
Family is put ahead of other concerns
They smoke less or not at all
Semi-vegetarianism – except for the Sardinian diet, the majority of food consumed is derived from plants
Constant moderate physical activity – an inseparable part of life
Social engagement – people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities
Legumes are commonly consumed
That is why I favor a "lower carbohydrate" diet rather than a "no carbohydrate" diet (and have said so repeatedly).
Of course not ("...have you analyzed...") - zealots never do, find a headline that (kind of) supports your ideology and run with it.
FWIW, NOBODY (that I know of) advises or advocates for ZERO Carbs (left the opening for the ideologues on purpose - love it when they prove my point).
"INCOMING!! INCOMING!!" - "We've intercepted the message Commander" - it reads...
"This guy said on his blog that zero carbs is best"
Most are primarily interested in the documented study results that demonstrate time and again that a REDUCTION in "bad" Carbs, Sugar, Starch, and processed foods, is not only beneficial for weight reduction, but MORE beneficial than the simplistic "just reduce cals...", in any number of biomarkers, not the least of which being HDL and Triglyceride levels.
ANY reduction is better than none and to a point, more (reduction) IS better.
50 - 150 is the range "most" LCHF advocates shoot for, long term - NOT zero (but it's so much easier to vilify what one doesn't understand if it's kept to the simplistic "black or white" discussion).
The discussion around those with goals of 20 or less involves, (for the most part), individuals who are attempting to enter ketosis (which usually requires 2 or 3 weeks <20 to achieve - after which most can maintain with an increase to 50 or so (varies by individual).
(I know you know this but apparently the "experts" holding on to their wannabeliefs for dear life, just can't get it.)
Sound bites and buzzwords are the sum total of "science" in the fact free zone - but it's SO much easier to defend the indefensible with one's fingers in their ears and recitation of the "official" - my way or the highway chant - "lalalala-la".
And, I found a "report" someplace (of course I "find it right now...", but I heard it on the internets, so there, and bone jurs), that said a marathon runner DIED from drinking too much water!!!
THERE, that PROVES it - WATER KILLS!!! [/snark]0 -
Nopethe human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.
This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!
Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.
In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."
But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).
I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.
They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.
It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.
Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?
It was pointing out the fallacy in the statements that a) it's reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did and b) your assertion that ancient people did not eat carbs.
It's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Small pox wiped out MANY more native americans than buffalo hunting did, and the fact that you're 'hinting' that our ancestors didn't eat carbs is also misleading.
Eat the way you choose. Just don't make up justifications for it.0 -
Nopethe human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.
This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!
Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.
In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."
But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).
I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.
They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.
It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.
Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?
It was pointing out the fallacy in the statements that a) it's reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did and b) your assertion that ancient people did not eat carbs.
It's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Small pox wiped out MANY more native americans than buffalo hunting did, and the fact that you're 'hinting' that our ancestors didn't eat carbs is also misleading.
Eat the way you choose. Just don't make up justifications for it.
a) I did NOT say that it was reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did--some try to, I do NOT. b) I absolutely did NOT say that our ancestors did not eat carbs. If you will note, I said they ate fruit in season and that they dried some for use later in the year. WHAT I DID SAY WAS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO HIGHLY REFINED SUGARS AND STARCH AS WE DO TODAY. You really need to read more carefully. Small pox did indeed wipe out many native Americans (and many of them were deliberately infected). But, that has nothing to do with what they ate and you know it. By the way, buffalo HUNTING did not wipe out the Plains Indians. The lack of buffalo led to many dying of starvation. You could also work on writing after you work on reading more carefully.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions