Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
It's official. MFP says "Eating carbs in moderation may help you live longer"
Replies
-
Moderation and exercise is sustainable for a lifetime IMO.
I looked into the article and it was published in THE LANCET - which is a bi-weekly, widely respected, PEER REVIEWED journal. This means, to me, the article is credible.
I have published about 10 times. Magazines are very easy to publish in. Technical notes, a bit more difficult, but still relatively easy. Peer reviewed journals - very difficult.
really?!?!?
https://www.google.com/search?q=peer+reviewed+nonsense&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS664US665&oq=peer+reviewed+nonsense&aqs=chrome..69i57.9987j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yes. Really.
While I do not disagree with the results I saw on your Google search, each profession will have the preeminent, prestigious peer reviewed journal or technical publication. We all know what those are in our respective fields (mine happens to be in engineering). Then there are the less prestigious journals where the standards are much less stringent. When I get turned down by the most prestigious journal, I know I can always publish in the less prestigious or obscure journal who are always hungry for articles - but I would never do that because my rejection by the best means my article simply needs more work or should be dumped in the round file.
I also agree that fake data is out there as well as bad theories or even worse, bad analyses. Beware of any data presented on a log-log graph.
Don't have any issue with this. The issue that I have is with the methadology of EVERY nutrition study that gets published - we can't lock people up for years and rigorously control the types and amounts of food that they eat, yet researchers want to publish 'studies' that look at a few data points during extended periods of times (like the primary study in this case) and then extrapolate results based on the assumption that the few data points are actually applicable to the entire time period that has elapsed. There are also no controls on outside influences and factors which could have massive impacts on the results and conclusions. And I say all of this not to support keto, low-carb, high-carb or anything in between - I don't care which way you choose to eat.
7 -
AlexanderLannister wrote: »I believe there is a lot of dispute due to misunderstanding biology and terminology. We ought to start with the term carbohydrates (carbs), then move onto their purpose, then which ones are good or bad.
Defining
Carbohydrates: any of a class of organic compounds that are polyhydroxy aldehydes or polyhydroxy ketones, or change to such substances on simple chemical transformations, as hydrolysis, oxidation, or reduction, and that form the supporting tissues of plants and are important food for animals and people.
- simply put, it is the substance needed with food to support our body function.
Purpose: giving energy for the day/moment, depending on the carbohydrate eaten, and stored as fat if not used.
Complex — whole grains, cereals, brown rice, fruits, veggies. — GOOD
Simple — white bread, white rice, enriched flour, refined sugars. — BAD
Here’s the fact, your good carbs ought to be a big part of your diet IN THE MORNING to give you long lasting energy. They are not meant for the rest of the day. They need to be used throughout. The more active you are, the more you’ll need in the morning. The less active, the less you’ll need.
Also, measure your serving sizes, and STAY AWAY from simple carbohydrates.
Your proteins, veggies, and some fruits can be eaten through the day.
Studying basic biology, physiology, and kinesiology would eliminate a lot of misconceptions.
Study the truth for yourself. Don’t take their word for it because they look good or have a title. You want health and wellness.
Carbohydrates are sugar, starch, and fiber...white bread and white rice are both complex carbs...they are starches. The only simple carb is sugar. Most fruits and veggies are in large part simple carbohydrates.8 -
Moderation and exercise is sustainable for a lifetime IMO.
I looked into the article and it was published in THE LANCET - which is a bi-weekly, widely respected, PEER REVIEWED journal. This means, to me, the article is credible.
I have published about 10 times. Magazines are very easy to publish in. Technical notes, a bit more difficult, but still relatively easy. Peer reviewed journals - very difficult.
really?!?!?
https://www.google.com/search?q=peer+reviewed+nonsense&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS664US665&oq=peer+reviewed+nonsense&aqs=chrome..69i57.9987j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yes. Really.
While I do not disagree with the results I saw on your Google search, each profession will have the preeminent, prestigious peer reviewed journal or technical publication. We all know what those are in our respective fields (mine happens to be in engineering). Then there are the less prestigious journals where the standards are much less stringent. When I get turned down by the most prestigious journal, I know I can always publish in the less prestigious or obscure journal who are always hungry for articles - but I would never do that because my rejection by the best means my article simply needs more work or should be dumped in the round file.
I also agree that fake data is out there as well as bad theories or even worse, bad analyses. Beware of any data presented on a log-log graph.
Don't have any issue with this. The issue that I have is with the methodology of EVERY nutrition study that gets published - we can't lock people up for years and rigorously control the types and amounts of food that they eat, yet researchers want to publish 'studies' that look at a few data points during extended periods of times (like the primary study in this case) and then extrapolate results based on the assumption that the few data points are actually applicable to the entire time period that has elapsed. There are also no controls on outside influences and factors which could have massive impacts on the results and conclusions. And I say all of this not to support keto, low-carb, high-carb or anything in between - I don't care which way you choose to eat.
I agree with you 100% on this matter.1 -
. The more active you are, the more you’ll need in the morning. The less active, the less you’ll need.
Study the truth
Carbohydrates are sugar, starch, and fiber...white bread and white rice are both complex carbs...they are starches. The only simple carb is sugar. Most fruits and veggies are in large part simple carbohydrates.[/quote]
100% agree with this . We aren’t machines where a requirement list of nutrients can be printed out ,there are many many variables
5 -
For the love of bread
6 -
Its interesting that 75% carbs is considered 'bad'. I live in an 'underdeveloped' country (it used to be politically correct to say 3erd world country).
The US, France, UK and Italy eat on average below 50% carbs a day according to a list of average carbohydrate consumption by country easily googled. The country I live in eats an average of 72% carbohydrates a day. Partly this is because people don't use cutlery to eat with, they dip bread into food and eat with their hands. Bread is baked three times a day and over half of the people don't have cars so there is always, 7 days a week, bread available in every block, along with basics like milk, fresh veg, dried beans, and some fruit. Meat isn't eaten much, beans or poultry more often and in smaller quantities.
Although life span is less in countries like this, the reasons aren't necessarily diet related, there are a lot of other causes for early death.
I believe that was rheddmobile's point (and similar to why the article/study being discussed is questionable).
The study about the 75% carb diet (really, 75%-80% carb) is a portion of the PURE study. According to the results of that study: "Those who were eating diets highest in carbohydrates (74.4-80.7% of daily calories from carbs) had a hazard ratio 1.28 (1.12-1.46) times greater of dying over the median follow-up period of 7.4 years."
However, there are a couple of problems. First, the people in that category had limited diets (the study was focused on parts of the world that are not as developed). In many cases, the people who were getting 75%-80% of their diets from carbs were specifically getting most of their carbs from white rice. And to make it worse, white rice was also the top contributor of protein and even fat (for example, in Bangladesh). That suggests that the problem isn't "carbs," it's that a diet made up of primarily white rice is likely not that healthy.
And even that might not be the issue -- the issue might be (as rheddmobile suggested) that someone so poor that their diet is basically just white rice might have other issues that cause them to diet earlier than people who can afford or have access to more balanced diets.7 -
I’m 5’8 and ~120 pounds give or take 2-4 pounds. 80%+ of my intake is made up of carbohydrates; namely starch and then fruits and veggies. Last time I checked I always went over 300 g by the end of the day but I don’t track anymore. Fit and feeling the best I’ve ever felt with the best digestion that takes me longer to wash my hands than for me to actually sit on the toilet. Like clockwork!! I don’t fear carbs!!4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions