Your views on 'CARBOHYDRATES'

Carbohydrates are not essential to survive.

Your body can break down other things to make up for them being absent.

They are however, important where athletic performance is concerned.

This is from me, and my experience, not a study. I have dabbled in low carb, low fat, etc.........and for me, the reason those things work, is because they restrict calories. I did a 5 day run of sub 20 carbs and sub 20 fat, for kicks, and it was very near impossible to get my calories to my bmr in that fashion. I was damn near useless in the gym during this time also..............

They're delicious. So I eat them. But I try not to go overboard even if I'm bulking .:)

Carbohydrate foods are vital for good health. They provide a quick source of fuel for our brains which cannot derive energy from other types of food. (This is basic biology c6h12o6--remember?).

Isn't gluconeogenesis a mechanism by which the brain can receive adequate fuel in the absence of carbohydrates?

Adequate, not quick.

Still without carbs, you can't naturally get things like vitamin C.

Carbs make up the majority of my diet. I LOVE them. GIVE ME CARBS!

That may be, but I've still never seen them referenced in any nutrition journals or publications. But given your description above I guess I can see why.

It's my understanding that they read, interpret, analyze, and generate recommendations FROM existing research. I wasn't under the impression that either of them were in the business of generating empirical evidence and seeking publication of said evidence....

Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon are considered geniuses in the nutrition world.

^ This.

By whom? Laymen reading the internet, or other experts in the field of nutrition?

Both of them (Lyle and Alan) are world renowned by not just other nutrition and fitness experts, but they are sought after by professional sports/nutrition coaches, nutrition and PT's that work with actors to prepare for movies, the list goes on. It's not even about their "degrees" or "years of experience" in the field. It's the reputation and recognition they have received.

That may be, but I've still never seen them referenced in any nutrition journals or publications. But given your description above I guess I can see why.

They aren't scientists Bcatts. They don't work for Harvard Science or for the National Institutes of Health. Why would you see them in publications?

Sorry, I come from the world of healthcare. When someone is a genius in the field of nutrition my mind immediately goes to clinical journals. But I get it. Different type of genius.

Personally I have no issues on a low-carb diet. I haven't lost any of my brain function and I haven't lost my energy, in fact I have more energy. I can't eat gluten so that takes most of the processed crap out of my diet. However, I do still eat quinoa, potatoes, rice, and ICE CREAM (delicious) in moderation.

The only issue I've run into is when I do want to drink, I get drunk much faster which kind of sucks. (Like sober to blacked out in 30 minutes)

Plant foods are our only source of fiber, and insufficient fiber in the diet has been associated with insulin resistance.

True regarding the source of fiber, and true only if you are eating too much processed foods or grain derived foods. Insulin resistance is of little concern to someone who doesn't eat processed foods or grains.

They make us happy, literally, by feeding our neurotransmitters. And people who eat three servings of whole grains a day are 30 per cent less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

I believe that people who cut grains and processed foods out of their diet completely in most cases lose their type 2 status.

Bottom line eating grains are not necessary or essential as there are better sources of fiber and nutrients in veggies and fruit with less sugar load.

Who ever said this was about grains? The question was about carbs. You need carbs to get certain vitamins and minerals. You need carbs to get fiber. Yes, my last post mentioned the finding that people who ate 3 servings of whole grains are 30 percent likely to develop type 2 diabetes, but the topic is cabs. I never said grains were necessary. I said carbs were. And it seems that grains aren't all that bad if they cut down on the chance of developing type 2 diabetes.

I wonder if they can list carbophobia as an ailment in the next psychiatric diagnostic manual.

In the end, do what works for you. Any diet that tells you to cut out an entire group of foods entirely is automatically suspect in my mind. I also view anecdotal evidence regarding how bad carbs, or any other food make someone feel with skepticism. I could just as easily counter that I eat a decent amount of carbs and feel fine.

I stick relatively closely with the recommendations MFP makes regarding the macros, though lately I've been bumping up the protein and I've been losing steadily for two and a half months now. On top of that, I still get to eat pasta, rice and bread in moderation. It's a win win for me.

I have no issue with carbs and find it amusing so many have jumped on the 'carbs are bad' bandwagon, the same as people jumped on the 'fat is bad' bandwagon and all the other myriad fad diets, and media grown fear frenzy.

I have concluded, having seen all these bad for you's, that everything should be eaten in moderation, whether it be carbs, fat or protein, and in balance as in the end, I think a balance is key to health, and this isn't just in terms of nutrition, but also in terms of most things in life.

I, personally, don't get on with bread and too much refined sugar, but I am perfectly happy eating my brown rice, my baked potatoes, my sweet potatoes and my rice noodles. I think as long as a person has no known intolerances/allergies, and keeps themselves reasonably active, carbohydrates in their place, should present no problem.

There is not sufficient clinical evidence to back up such a claim.

True, but there is 200000 years of empirical evidence.

If the paleo diet fad was correct, then humans wouldn't be able to process starches and such in the first place. We've obviously adapted to it to some extent.

It kind of reminds me of the Amish or other cultures that shun modern technology. They pick a certain level of technology they are comfortable with, say a horse cart or hand saw, and reject anything later. But what makes the newer technology bad and the previous technology acceptable? I could see rejecting all technology but picking an arbitrary dividing line doesn't seem to make sense. The same goes with diet. To claim that pre-agricultural human diet is automatically preferable to the 5000 or so years of agriculture seems rather arbitrary.

Lol...if granola & bread are so essential to health...why did our ancestors (cave men) survive (on plants & mainly meat)? We have grown dependent on them...I eat no bread, pasta, or granola. My zero starch, no sugar & carbs has left me healthy. No longer on migraine mess, no longer on LIFELONG heart meds, no longer on asthma meds, I was taking so many prescribed meds...& I was borderline diabetic. That is no longer the case. I take 1 multi vit, magnesium & a b complex...that's it. A usual day for me is lots of water, high fiber veg, lean meat for lunch, same for dinner...3 snacks in between...2 fruits, 2pc of melba toast. Healthiest I've ever been & that's with a doctor following my eating habits.

You do realize that vegetables have carbs right? And melba toast is bread?

Silly question...trying to argue when really there is no argument. & there is sugar in fruit. & natural carbs in veggies. Point is...my carbs & sugars are completely gone...I could go without the melba but I use it in my salad. I don't crave it, nor do I crave candy or other foods that most ppl eat. My point is...I exercise daily, most carbs are EXTREMELY low...as is my sugar & starches...

Carbohydrate foods are vital for good health. They provide a quick source of fuel for our brains which cannot derive energy from other types of food. (This is basic biology c6h12o6--remember?).

Isn't gluconeogenesis a mechanism by which the brain can receive adequate fuel in the absence of carbohydrates?

this^^

If the paleo diet fad was correct, then humans wouldn't be able to process starches and such in the first place.

I don't know anything about the paleo diet. Is that their claim? That we cannot process starches?

Lol - cows can digest corn - lucky them

Carbohydrate foods are vital for good health. They provide a quick source of fuel for our brains which cannot derive energy from other types of food. (This is basic biology c6h12o6--remember?).

Isn't gluconeogenesis a mechanism by which the brain can receive adequate fuel in the absence of carbohydrates?

this^^

Are there any implications for, say...the liver, when your body relies too heavily on gluconeogenesis?

ETA... or kidneys?

don't care - i eat carbs and so do loads of folk who say they don't. but if i had to live somewhere where there was only say, cow to eat i wouldn't die.