The sugar problem
Replies
-
I have more days where my sugar intake is over 100 and I have successfully lost over 100 lbs. I even ate sugar when I was pre-diabetic and my fastest weight loss happened then. The lowest I ever was on carbs was around 200 grams a day as a target. I went from nearly diabetic to normal without cutting my carbs because I lost weight, and when I attempted keto I gained weight because I overate.
Your body can't store energy out of thin air, it needs something to store. If you don't give it extra calories, it spends the energy on what matters like your heart and brain functioning? If not eating sugar helps you regulate your calories, then that's the right thing to do for you, but it's not really important to weight loss if you can moderate calories, so introducing extra restrictions is counterproductive. I wouldn't have lost all the weight I lost if I had forced myself to follow unnecessary restrictions.10 -
GemimaFitzTed wrote: »sheloves89 wrote: »Sugar is so important!
Not only is it the most accessible nutrient for energy production by the cellular machinery, but the glycolysis pathway - the biochemical steps every cell in your body takes to break down glucose (sugar) - produces 6 of the 12 essential molecules needed for all living cells (glucose-6-phosphate, fructose-6-phosphate, triose phosphate, 3-phosphoglycerate, phosphoenolpyruvate, and pyruvate).
The reason that our body has so many mechanisms to obtain/store sugar (and part of the reason why we find the taste of sugar so appealing) is precisely because it's so important.
Like anything else, too much of a good thing makes it not a good thing - but so does too little![Makaiookami wrote: »We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
We are most certainly omnivores first. =] Carnivore tooth anatomy is very different from the set we're packing in our noggins!
@sheloves89 - best reponse! People forget the actual function of sugar - it is an absolute necessity of life.
Unless you have a medical condition that requires you to restrict sugar intake and you are also under medical supervision, there shouldn't be any reason to over-restrict the intake of sugar. As I have bolded and italicized, too little of something will have an adverse impact to your health.
To add onto this, the very first things humans intake during their life, which is breast milk, contains a good deal of sugar. So all this "sugar is unnatural for the human body" stuff ignores that it is one of the most natural thing their is at the beginning of life. We don't start feeding our infants slabs of meat.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Makaiookami wrote: »No, none of this. 300 g could be perfectly appropriate for someone with sufficient cals, and who is getting adequate protein, fiber, fat, and specifically has a healthy overall diet. 200 g is only 50% of a common deficit such as 1600, and only 40% of 2000 -- the idea that that's unhealthy (regardless of source) is unsupported and not reasonable. The idea that 120 g is only workable if one is "really active" is also quite odd.
No 300grams is not appropriate for ANYBODY! It will catch up to you eventually.We are not carnivores, we are omnivores, and many of the healthiest human diets tend to be higher carb. Macro mix can be all over the place in healthy diets, however, as there are much more important elements.
Show me the diets of the healthiest people. There's a lot that goes into health. Stress has a lot to do with it, fasting has a lot to do with it, slowing your metabolic rate has a lot to do with it, many of these things will absolutely protect your telomeres, and fasting specifically will give you more Human Growth Hormone as well as increase stem cell output.
We're not going to fix all of the world's nutrient problems here, but just know this, there is research being done on RDAs (recommended daily allowances) because people noticed that when people go strict carnivore they aren't getting scurvy! Turns out you can use fresh carnetine instead of getting copious amounts of vitamin C. Not only that but if you swapped from a SAD diet to a Vegan diet you will need more of almost everything. The Vitamin A you get from Kale only maybe 9% of it is converted into the Vitamin A you actually use, and since Vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin you'll get even less of it if you don't properly eat it with fats. Don't even get me started anti-nutrients like on Vitamin K1 that they use as a supplement which has to be converted to Vitamin K3, then to K2, and K1 can bind to the K2 receptors before the conversion progress has finished... ASSUMING YOU CAN, which means that the Folic Acid (K1 anti-nutrient) has blocked absorption of 5Methylfolate (K2)
Or you can just eat some Vitamin K2 rich organ meats (especially mixed in with other meats if you don't like the taste of say a liver) and get some fat, countless other nutrients, and it's all completely bioavailable.
Not everyone can even convert the Vitamin A from Kale to a usable form.Don't most people eat dessert last?
Weird to equate carbs with dessert, however, as most carbs are not dessert foods, and many or most dessert foods have as much fat as carbs.
For the most part unless it's fiber, carbs are the same as sugar. They both get converted into glucose, spike your blood sugars, spike your insulin... People who have blood insulin/glucose meters can see what a piece of whole wheat does to your insulin and spiking your insulin shuts off your ability to mobilize lipids into ketones, which slows down fat burning dramatically. Period. You're not into low carb. I get that. You got no clue what you're talking about.
Even the My Fitness Pal blog has
"ADD LEAN PROTEIN AND MINIMIZE SUGAR
Protein is crucial for weight loss, building muscle and recovering from tough workouts. How much a person needs depends on several factors such as muscle mass, activity level, age and fitness goals. According to the National Institutes of Health, the Recommended Daily Allowance for protein intake is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (or 0.36 grams per pound of body weight). Here’s how to add more protein to breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Unlike naturally occuring sugars (such as the types found in fruit) too much added sugar can hamper weight loss and contribute to health issues such as diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. Try these 7 smart ways to cut sugar from your diet."
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/healthy-habits-for-life-10-tips-for-better-nutrition-and-weight-loss/
Unless your ancestry came from the tropics, it's highly doubtful that your lineage has evolved in a high carb dietary structure and there is increasing evidence that schizophrenia, Bipolar ESPECIALLY in cases of the MTFHR gene mutation, seizures, a lot of these things are caused by having too many carbs.
There are more and more studies coming in when we have 50 grams or lower ESPECIALLY lower in studies that are showing countless benefits. The participants burn more calories at baseline in supervised controlled weightloss therefor have to be given more calories to keep the same pace as everyone else on higher carbs, the protein is the same. We have case studies where military bases that had less bread had less problems with schizophrenia...
To be honest who is going to fund a study that says "Avoid 90% of the grocery store and cook foods at home."
Your information is out of date. Sorry. The standard care is making diabetes worse, and low carb high fat is reversing it. Some doctors are even reporting 10% reduction in atherosclerosis after telling their patients bacon and eggs will prevent heart attacks. But you know what? Doctors are scared crapless because what I'm saying goes against what they were trained and they don't want to go against standards of care, lose someone to a heart attack, and then risk losing their license.
Once we break through that wall all bets are off.
I just really want to analyze the fractal wrongness of the bolded statement.
To begin with, funding simpliciter is never a way to delegitimatize a scientific study, never. If you find it acceptable, you're binding yourself to accepting it is possible show the Earth is flat if you can show there's a good reason to fund round Earth science.
But let's just grant you the idea that it is a sound epistemology within science to look at your question that way. Welp - how about every single organization that makes or saves money by improving health, from world governments to health insurance agencies. So even on that level, not as evidential, but just as rhetoric, it is a really bad point to make.
What we have, when it comes to epidemeology studies - which is about all one can do for longevity because of how long it takes to get results on a longevity RCT besides just studying proxy markers - are the Blue Zones. Overwhelmingly, these people are on carbs. They are eating a large amount of fruits, vegetables, and yes grains.
I assure you, doctors are not scared stiff of proposed cures to diabetes, nor are they failing in terms of physiological knowledge on how to treat it. T2D is far more reversible by weight reduction for just about any overweight or obese diabetic. The issue is maintaining weight reduction is a cross discipline mess that really needs more knowledge about psychology of sustaining motivation.
It really is not about getting out more bacon and eggs.
I agree with everything you say above, but I also want to point out another amusing bit. One of the studies that has been most talked about at MFP lately (and has gotten plenty of press coverage) is the one about ultraprocessed foods vs. unprocessed (or lightly processed, in reality). The people involved included Kevin Hall (who did the study showing NO advantage to low carb when calories are controlled, basically contradicting the "insulin makes you fat, not calories" argument). One could certainly say this is a "cooking from whole foods could be beneficial" study (although again the mechanism was calories).
However, quite obviously, the issue was NOT carbs. Both diets had the same amount of carbs initially. The people eating the ultraprocessed choices (and I'll note that the results might not have been the same with different ultraprocessed choices) ended up eating more, and specifically more fat+carbs (not merely more carbs). The others, despite a healthy diet including a typical amount of carbs, did not seem to find that carbs made them keep eating (or fat) within the context of the foods they were provided with.6 -
Makaiookami wrote: »I'm not going to argue a lot more because I keep bringing up scientific evidence, findings from various studies, and all people come back with is anecdotes, nu-uhs, and non specifics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989512/figure/F4/
Here's a demonstration of how drastically the meatbolic rate of people can change. The RMR of the biggest loser contestants changes dramatically, sometimes 1,600 calorie drop.
This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread or any claims you have made.https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones#section3
It talks about fasting, it talks about calorie restricting and how the Okinawans eat till they are 80% full.
This is a Healthline article, not a study or anything particularly reliable. Also, eating slowly and until 80% full have nothing to do with any claims you have made (I tend to agree that eating slowly and not stuffing yourself are good practices for many or most people).But who cares. I'm not going to bother responding to all these people who clearly don't want to have an actual dialogue, are not citing any studies, do not understand the role insulin insensitivity has on chronic non communicable diseases...
Eating carbs does not make you insulin insensitive. (On the other hand, losing weight and getting more active typically makes people more insulin sensitive. Super low carb diets tend to make people more insulin resistant, which doesn't matter while you are doing the diet, but I personally think I'd prefer to actually make myself more insulin sensitive if possible if I had that problem, which I do not. Not everything is about the boring topic of T2D.)if you have a giant belly you are probably on your way to being diabetic.
LOL, why are you accusing us of having giant bellies?
Several of us have made reference to studies. You don't seem particularly interested in actual evidence, and none of them are obscure or hard to find. But it's pretty clear to me that you've decided that carbs are the bogeyman and so all else can be ignored (even though we ate plenty of carbs with no issues for ages and many of us still do, we just eat a calorie appropriate diet, make healthy choices overall (including those terrible carby foods like veg and fruit), and ideally are not sedentary.7 -
Makaiookami wrote: »
I eat a lot of sugar, probably north of 120 grams a day, and my abs were slightly visible until I began eating a couple of hundred calories over maintenance some weeks ago.Tandyman23 wrote: »Just a friendly reminder to definitely always watch sugar intake EVEN if you are counting calories closely. The effects sugar had on insulin levels and fat gain isnt correlated with the amount of calories you are consuming. I personally try not to go over 10g a day. If not less.
I strongly disagree with this post, just like most of the responders to your other, identical thread did earlier.
Your claim means that one apple or orange can bust your sugar goal for the day. I'll eat that fruit + a few oreos and still lose weight, so no thanks.
All that means is that you're not pre-diabetic. Also eating an apple or an orange is packed with fiber. If you blend that apple or orange up, especially if you get rid of all the pulp, and drink it in liquid form that stuff is no better for you than a soda.
OP did not limit his post to the pre-diabetic (or actually T2D).
Also "packed with fiber" is an overstatement: a 150 g orange has about 14 g of sugar and 3.6 g of fiber. Similarly, a 180 g apple has about 19 g of sugar, and just over 4 g of fiber. (Unlike OP, I'm pro fruit, I find it filling for myself, and delicious, and it has some fiber, depending on the fruit some have more and some have less, and of course lots of micronutrients.)
The 10 g is especially absurd (as I said in response to the similar post posted elsewhere), as it's quite easy to be above that with just veg. I usually am, and consider it a bad day if I am not, as it would mean my veg intake is less than I like. I normally have fruit too, especially in the summer.estherdragonbat wrote: »Never had any trouble losing weight and I stopped paying attention to sugar tracking long ago. But averaging 50-100 grams in the last 90 days (I can call up a report for) sure hasn't caused any issues for me.Makaiookami wrote: »You are eating low-carbish.
"The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that carbohydrates make up 45 to 65 percent of your total daily calories. So, if you get 2,000 calories a day, between 900 and 1,300 calories should be from carbohydrates. That translates to between 225 and 325 grams of carbohydrates a day.Feb 7, 2017"
Source -Mayo Clinic
50-100 carbs is fine depending on goals, age, mental struggles etc... If you think sugars have NOTHING to do with weightloss you are clueless. You don't know about ghrelin, you don't know about leptin, if you don't understand that an apple is ok, but apple juice is basically as bad as a soda pop then you don't understand incretins and how the structures of the molecules prevents insulin surges.
She said 50-100 g of sugar, and you translated that to carbs
And saying "50-100 carbs is fine depending..." (as if more is bad and it might be too much for some) is silly.
I think she knows a little something about weight loss, she's lost successfully.
(Also, once again OP made no distinctions between juice and fruit or what not. Saying you must avoid all free sugars would also be silly, but most of us would agree that it should not make up too significant a part of the diet, of course.)Don't say that carbs don't matter. They do. If they don't matter to you, then awesome! Just know that humans have not been eating 30%+ high carb for quite a long time, and we just flat out evolved away from sitting around munching on vegetation all day in the hopes that our gut bacteria will produce the materials we need to thrive. We are carnivores first, omnivores second, and herbivores at our peril.
No, and no. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores, and many of the healthiest human diets tend to be higher carb. Macro mix can be all over the place in healthy diets, however, as there are much more important elements.20 grams is great for extreme weight loss, 50-80 can be ideal theoretically for muscle growth, development, and retainment, the muscle sparing effects of ketones only go so far. 120 is probably fine if you're really active and metabolically healthy. 200 is pushing it. 300 will catch up to you for sure.
No, none of this. 300 g could be perfectly appropriate for someone with sufficient cals, and who is getting adequate protein, fiber, fat, and specifically has a healthy overall diet. 200 g is only 50% of a common deficit such as 1600, and only 40% of 2000 -- the idea that that's unhealthy (regardless of source) is unsupported and not reasonable. The idea that 120 g is only workable if one is "really active" is also quite odd.Final note. Best to eat carbs as the last part of your meal if you can. Save desert for last, doing it first causes insulin spike immediately, there's risk of getting hungry again at a later date when your blood sugars drop... for best results eat sugars after everything else.
Don't most people eat dessert last?
Weird to equate carbs with dessert, however, as most carbs are not dessert foods, and many or most dessert foods have as much fat as carbs.
No need to respond after this. Appreciate your posts as always @lemurcat2 🙂
I was gearing up a response til I read her's. Pure awesomeness right there! (as always)4 -
I'm failing to see the relevance of the Biggest Loser study. See, when I use the term evidence, I usually mean something that is in support of a claim or proposition, and preferably, only concordant with one hypothesis or theory that explains something.Makaiookami wrote: »I'm not going to argue a lot more because I keep bringing up scientific evidence, findings from various studies, and all people come back with is anecdotes, nu-uhs, and non specifics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989512/figure/F4/
Here's a demonstration of how drastically the meatbolic rate of people can change. The RMR of the biggest loser contestants changes dramatically, sometimes 1,600 calorie drop.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones#section3
It talks about fasting, it talks about calorie restricting and how the Okinawans eat till they are 80% full.
But who cares. I'm not going to bother responding to all these people who clearly don't want to have an actual dialogue, are not citing any studies, do not understand the role insulin insensitivity has on chronic non communicable diseases...
When you get older and you find that things start going a bit off, hopefully by then you'll understand more of the science I'm talking about today because too many people are getting worse, and if you have a giant belly you are probably on your way to being diabetic. It's very hard to get enough insulin to store a ton of body fat, and also not enough insulin that your body cells start ignoring the signals.
If people actually had any studies, or anything interesting to read, or any mechanisms. I'd care. I haven't seen any so I don't. I don't care if you disagree just because I offended you by saying that carbs might one day negatively impact you. How dare I.Makaiookami wrote: »Also for the record, I tried walking my dog more, restricting her calories more, it wasn't until we started cooking our own food with fewer carbs and higher protein/fat amounts, that she started losing weight, so now she's a healthy vibrant dog, where as before she was an underfed, fat hurting dog, that made me feel like a horrible care taker.
Make some of our own dog food and supplement with some of the packaged and now she is so vibrant and healthy by comparison.
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2018/02/story-angus-barbieri-went-382-days-without-eating/
his blood sugars reached 2.0 mm/dl
We don't need carbs. We clearly do not need carbs. This is also why I believe Vegans can go for quite a long time before they start having deficiencies that affect them. They'll get SOME nutrition, but if this man can go over a year with minimal eating, what does that say about someone who thinks they are eating nutritiously?
You realize discussing your dog is an anecdote, and one that is compounded by her not even being the species generally being discussed. If you used your dog as a model, you'd also believe scurvy is impossible because dogs can't get scurvy - the only mammals that get scurvy are primates, some bats, and guinea pigs, the others all have a working GULO gene.
The essentialness of carbs is a bit of a misunderstanding of the biology. Carbs are not dietary essential because glucose is so essential to all life metabolism that neoglucogenesis is a pathway to generate glucose as needed. A person can live a lot longer with diabetes and a glucose level far too high in their blood than anyone can live with low levels of glucose circulation. I'm not sure why you think 2.0 mmol / dl is that low - 3.36 wouldn't be a concern for someone fasting. Perhaps you're confused by the units since that's a British site and in America we use mg / dL which would be a ~35 for the person linked.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Makaiookami wrote: »No, none of this. 300 g could be perfectly appropriate for someone with sufficient cals, and who is getting adequate protein, fiber, fat, and specifically has a healthy overall diet. 200 g is only 50% of a common deficit such as 1600, and only 40% of 2000 -- the idea that that's unhealthy (regardless of source) is unsupported and not reasonable. The idea that 120 g is only workable if one is "really active" is also quite odd.
No 300grams is not appropriate for ANYBODY! It will catch up to you eventually.We are not carnivores, we are omnivores, and many of the healthiest human diets tend to be higher carb. Macro mix can be all over the place in healthy diets, however, as there are much more important elements.
Show me the diets of the healthiest people. There's a lot that goes into health. Stress has a lot to do with it, fasting has a lot to do with it, slowing your metabolic rate has a lot to do with it, many of these things will absolutely protect your telomeres, and fasting specifically will give you more Human Growth Hormone as well as increase stem cell output.
We're not going to fix all of the world's nutrient problems here, but just know this, there is research being done on RDAs (recommended daily allowances) because people noticed that when people go strict carnivore they aren't getting scurvy! Turns out you can use fresh carnetine instead of getting copious amounts of vitamin C. Not only that but if you swapped from a SAD diet to a Vegan diet you will need more of almost everything. The Vitamin A you get from Kale only maybe 9% of it is converted into the Vitamin A you actually use, and since Vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin you'll get even less of it if you don't properly eat it with fats. Don't even get me started anti-nutrients like on Vitamin K1 that they use as a supplement which has to be converted to Vitamin K3, then to K2, and K1 can bind to the K2 receptors before the conversion progress has finished... ASSUMING YOU CAN, which means that the Folic Acid (K1 anti-nutrient) has blocked absorption of 5Methylfolate (K2)
Or you can just eat some Vitamin K2 rich organ meats (especially mixed in with other meats if you don't like the taste of say a liver) and get some fat, countless other nutrients, and it's all completely bioavailable.
Not everyone can even convert the Vitamin A from Kale to a usable form.Don't most people eat dessert last?
Weird to equate carbs with dessert, however, as most carbs are not dessert foods, and many or most dessert foods have as much fat as carbs.
For the most part unless it's fiber, carbs are the same as sugar. They both get converted into glucose, spike your blood sugars, spike your insulin... People who have blood insulin/glucose meters can see what a piece of whole wheat does to your insulin and spiking your insulin shuts off your ability to mobilize lipids into ketones, which slows down fat burning dramatically. Period. You're not into low carb. I get that. You got no clue what you're talking about.
Even the My Fitness Pal blog has
"ADD LEAN PROTEIN AND MINIMIZE SUGAR
Protein is crucial for weight loss, building muscle and recovering from tough workouts. How much a person needs depends on several factors such as muscle mass, activity level, age and fitness goals. According to the National Institutes of Health, the Recommended Daily Allowance for protein intake is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (or 0.36 grams per pound of body weight). Here’s how to add more protein to breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Unlike naturally occuring sugars (such as the types found in fruit) too much added sugar can hamper weight loss and contribute to health issues such as diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. Try these 7 smart ways to cut sugar from your diet."
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/healthy-habits-for-life-10-tips-for-better-nutrition-and-weight-loss/
Unless your ancestry came from the tropics, it's highly doubtful that your lineage has evolved in a high carb dietary structure and there is increasing evidence that schizophrenia, Bipolar ESPECIALLY in cases of the MTFHR gene mutation, seizures, a lot of these things are caused by having too many carbs.
There are more and more studies coming in when we have 50 grams or lower ESPECIALLY lower in studies that are showing countless benefits. The participants burn more calories at baseline in supervised controlled weightloss therefor have to be given more calories to keep the same pace as everyone else on higher carbs, the protein is the same. We have case studies where military bases that had less bread had less problems with schizophrenia...
To be honest who is going to fund a study that says "Avoid 90% of the grocery store and cook foods at home."
Your information is out of date. Sorry. The standard care is making diabetes worse, and low carb high fat is reversing it. Some doctors are even reporting 10% reduction in atherosclerosis after telling their patients bacon and eggs will prevent heart attacks. But you know what? Doctors are scared crapless because what I'm saying goes against what they were trained and they don't want to go against standards of care, lose someone to a heart attack, and then risk losing their license.
Once we break through that wall all bets are off.
I just really want to analyze the fractal wrongness of the bolded statement.
To begin with, funding simpliciter is never a way to delegitimatize a scientific study, never. If you find it acceptable, you're binding yourself to accepting it is possible show the Earth is flat if you can show there's a good reason to fund round Earth science.
But let's just grant you the idea that it is a sound epistemology within science to look at your question that way. Welp - how about every single organization that makes or saves money by improving health, from world governments to health insurance agencies. So even on that level, not as evidential, but just as rhetoric, it is a really bad point to make.
What we have, when it comes to epidemeology studies - which is about all one can do for longevity because of how long it takes to get results on a longevity RCT besides just studying proxy markers - are the Blue Zones. Overwhelmingly, these people are on carbs. They are eating a large amount of fruits, vegetables, and yes grains.
I assure you, doctors are not scared stiff of proposed cures to diabetes, nor are they failing in terms of physiological knowledge on how to treat it. T2D is far more reversible by weight reduction for just about any overweight or obese diabetic. The issue is maintaining weight reduction is a cross discipline mess that really needs more knowledge about psychology of sustaining motivation.
It really is not about getting out more bacon and eggs.
I agree with everything you say above, but I also want to point out another amusing bit. One of the studies that has been most talked about at MFP lately (and has gotten plenty of press coverage) is the one about ultraprocessed foods vs. unprocessed (or lightly processed, in reality). The people involved included Kevin Hall (who did the study showing NO advantage to low carb when calories are controlled, basically contradicting the "insulin makes you fat, not calories" argument). One could certainly say this is a "cooking from whole foods could be beneficial" study (although again the mechanism was calories).
However, quite obviously, the issue was NOT carbs. Both diets had the same amount of carbs initially. The people eating the ultraprocessed choices (and I'll note that the results might not have been the same with different ultraprocessed choices) ended up eating more, and specifically more fat+carbs (not merely more carbs). The others, despite a healthy diet including a typical amount of carbs, did not seem to find that carbs made them keep eating (or fat) within the context of the foods they were provided with.
Clearly Kevin Hall stole money to do this study. Thus we can't rely on the results because of the funding.4 -
Makaiookami wrote: »I'm just suggesting we should eat more like most humans have throughout most of human history ever since we started to go away from herbivorism to scavengers, and then hunters. We don't need sharp teeth, WE INVENTED ON DEMAND FIRE!
There is evidence we've been eating bread for 14,000 years (at least). Imagine the life of a typical hunter/gatherer. We aren't fast. We don't have strong jaws. We don't have very much protection, so if something bites us first, we're in trouble. Our hunting strategy focused entirely on our stamina. We could out-jog a deer. That's it. They'd panic and sprint and we'd set off at a jog behind them, and eventually they'd be so exhausted with their bouts of sprinting that we could kill them. Even after we developed things like spears and arrows, our strategy didn't change a whole lot - we would hit them so they bled, and jog after them until they bled out (ideally this wouldn't take long).
In the mean time, we relied on the fast-acting energy from fruits and nuts and plants to give us the fuel we needed to jog our prey to death.
Carbs, man. We needed them then, we need them now.Makaiookami wrote: »I know the Onkinawan people have a high rate of people over 100 years. What I don't know is how many carbohydrates they have in a day, how many calories they have in a day, how fatty the fish in their sushi is, their meal frequency etc...
Nor do I, but given that traditional Japanese fare includes noodles, fried rice, curry rice, donburi (rice), onigri (rice), sushi (rice), and kayu (a porridge made from... rice)... and then for desert, things like rice cakes and manju (which is made from rice), I'm gonna hedge a bet that there's a high proportion of carbs in there.
Look it's fine if you want to avoid carbs, but don't vilify them, and don't go about telling everyone under the sun that they should avoid them. They shouldn't.
In case you need any more convincing, the brain is the body's largest consumer of glucose, and that sucker needs an average of 120g of the stuff daily.
6 -
sheloves89 wrote: »Makaiookami wrote: »I'm just suggesting we should eat more like most humans have throughout most of human history ever since we started to go away from herbivorism to scavengers, and then hunters. We don't need sharp teeth, WE INVENTED ON DEMAND FIRE!
There is evidence we've been eating bread for 14,000 years (at least). Imagine the life of a typical hunter/gatherer. We aren't fast. We don't have strong jaws. We don't have very much protection, so if something bites us first, we're in trouble. Our hunting strategy focused entirely on our stamina. We could out-jog a deer. That's it. They'd panic and sprint and we'd set off at a jog behind them, and eventually they'd be so exhausted with their bouts of sprinting that we could kill them. Even after we developed things like spears and arrows, our strategy didn't change a whole lot - we would hit them so they bled, and jog after them until they bled out (ideally this wouldn't take long).
I always wonder why in these discussions eating like "early man" doesn't include eating a very large amount of insects like maggots.
3 -
I always wonder why in these discussions eating like "early man" doesn't include eating a very large amount of insects like maggots.
LOL so true. Although, with our growing global population and our desperate drive to farm sustainable proteins.... we may come full circle.
0 -
sheloves89 wrote: »Makaiookami wrote: »I'm just suggesting we should eat more like most humans have throughout most of human history ever since we started to go away from herbivorism to scavengers, and then hunters. We don't need sharp teeth, WE INVENTED ON DEMAND FIRE!
There is evidence we've been eating bread for 14,000 years (at least). Imagine the life of a typical hunter/gatherer. We aren't fast. We don't have strong jaws. We don't have very much protection, so if something bites us first, we're in trouble. Our hunting strategy focused entirely on our stamina. We could out-jog a deer. That's it. They'd panic and sprint and we'd set off at a jog behind them, and eventually they'd be so exhausted with their bouts of sprinting that we could kill them. Even after we developed things like spears and arrows, our strategy didn't change a whole lot - we would hit them so they bled, and jog after them until they bled out (ideally this wouldn't take long).
I always wonder why in these discussions eating like "early man" doesn't include eating a very large amount of insects like maggots.
Here in Oaxaca we do. Chapulines (grasshoppers), gusanos (grubs) and Chicatanas (a very large ant) are all part of the cuisine. Quite honestly, some of them are good. Especially Chapulines!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions