In Asia, virtually everybody eats rice like crazy. Carbs are a large part of the diet. And in Japan, it's totally not just because the portions are small. Meals here are pretty dam big, most Japanese just have a genetic metabolism that can handle it. Most foreigners that come to Japan and live on a regular Japanese diet, using the same portions, gain fat unless they already ate like shit.
This is a common myth. The average Japanese diet actually consists of at least 25% fewer calories than the American diet. They have excellent portion-control. In fact I've seen numbers as small as 1400 calories per day. So, contrary to your belief, their diet does not actually contradict the low-carb diet at all. It just means that low-fat/high-carb diets can work if overall calorie intake is kept to ridiculously low amounts.
1400 isn't that "ridiculously low", depending on lifestyle and body size. Aren't the Japanese typically shorter and of lighter build? And so would need fewer calories?
Seriously, folks, it's okay if someone in the world can get by with a non-low-carb diet. It doesn't invalidate your lifestyle. You don't need to throw out a bunch of qualifiers in an attempt to discount their eating habits.
Carbs are not the devil.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Japanese are much smaller than Caucasians. From personal observations, given equivalent health and averageness, a Japanese person would be about 25-30% smaller than a Caucasian.
In theory, 25% less body mass means 25% less caloric needs? Probably more like 20-15%, but it's still a factor when comparing.
tehmarken on
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
The problem with the "it's all about eating less calories than you burn" is that it does not address the root cause of the problem. It simply states it another way.
Suppose you're in a crowded room, and you ask the person next to you, "why is this room getting so crowded?" And they answer, "well that's silly: obviously it's because more people are coming in than going out!"
Is that an answer? No. In fact, you'd probably be annoyed that they are treating you as if you're a little child with a brain disorder. You didn't ask the matter-of-fact reason why the room is getting crowded. What you are really interested in is finding out why more and more people are arriving. Is there a movie playing on the screen? Is someone giving an interesting lecture? Is there an art exhibit?
Similarly, when you talk about obesity, you should never think "well, it's all about calories in versus calories out" because that doesn't say anything. What you really need to ask is, what is causing my body to want to consume more calories than it burns?
Not to be snarky, and this analogy is really cool and all, but at the same time it is easily broken. Yes you may be upset that someone has given you such an obvious answer that the room is crowded because more people are entering, but this analogy really fails to explain how kicking some of the people out WON'T make the room less crowded; to re-integrated it into the analogy, how ingesting less calories than you can use WON'T cause you to lose weight.
In addition to that, the equation (calories in - calories out = change in body weight) is useless for trying to lose weight, because the first two variables are inter-dependent. The more calories you take in, the more the body up-regulates its metabolism in order to burn more. Similarly, if you limit calorie intake, your metabolism will be down-regulated to conserve energy. This is why it's really futile to think in terms of calories in versus calories out: the second number you will almost never be able to measure accurately because it's very dynamic.
This argument comes from a very static perspective and seems to assume that this person is not having any other effect on energy usage other than a change in diet. Yes, if you limit calorie intake your body WILL down-regulate to conserve energy....but then you can also initiate an up-regulation by doing activities that burn energy. It is like claiming the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution from occurring because systems can only move to disorder, and forgetting that it only applies to a closed system, not one that is powered by a gigantic fusion reactor.
They are trying to treat the symptoms of having too much insulin (as a result of too many carbs), rather than treating the root cause itself (reducing carb intake to limit insulin production in the body).
I have a problem with this statement as well- According to my research, limiting the amount of insulin in the body is just as dangerous as overexpression of the protein. Specifically, higher insulin levels increase memory retention and help to combat Alzheimer's. Now, considering I have ridiculously high (estimated) insulin levels, I think I will take a chance at heart disease over memory loss and dementia.
Also, people on low-carb diets can typically eat shitloads of food without gaining weight, because their body literally doesn't have the means of storing the excess energy as fat (insulin). So it does the only alternative: it burns those calories by up-regulating the metabolism.
This doesn't seem healthy to me- if you are eating more than your body can store, what happens to the excess? Not only does this sound unhealthy, it sounds greedy and disgusting. (Not to mention that dietary protein signaling can ALSO instigate insulin production, so this is a bit disingenuous)
Basically, the biochemist in me has serious problems with the claims of any and all diet arguments, and the science behind them.
I just bought 1/4 of a cow, about 65lbs of ground beef and various steak cuts for about 400 dollars.
Holy shit. Thank you for this site. Time to buy another fridge.
Also, check out Community Supported Agriculture. For a set price for the season you get fresh, local produce and some have meat CSAs as well. Most by me do a package every week that you pick up so you don't have to get it all upfront.
You really should watch the video before trying to argue with him/her dude. Seriously. Taubes explains all the parts you seem to be confused about and gives excellent examples.
1400 isn't that "ridiculously low", depending on lifestyle and body size. Aren't the Japanese typically shorter and of lighter build? And so would need fewer calories?
That's what I meant - it would be ridiculously low if a typical Caucasian adopted it. It works for the Japanese because they are tiny and, on top of that, mostly skin and bones.
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet. Unfortunately as I myself have noticed sugar and starches are added to EVERYTHING. They are used as fillers in most food, and I don't just mean "packaged" food in the normal sense. Pay attention to your canned goods too. If you're trying to control your intake it's easier often to buy products that simply don't have any (or very few) carbs, and then add them yourself later via rice or pasta or bread since you can control the size of the portion easier.
Also, not SOME fat people eat lots of carbs, a LOT of fat people eat lots of carbs. No one's saying eating lots of sugar WILL make you fat, rather, it's easier to get fat if you eat lots of sugar. Check your attitude at the door.
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet. Unfortunately as I myself have noticed sugar and starches are added to EVERYTHING. They are used as fillers in most food, and I don't just mean "packaged" food in the normal sense. Pay attention to your canned goods too. If you're trying to control your intake it's easier often to buy products that simply don't have any (or very few) carbs, and then add them yourself later via rice or pasta or bread since you can control the size of the portion easier.
Also, not SOME fat people eat lots of carbs, a LOT of fat people eat lots of carbs. No one's saying eating lots of sugar WILL make you fat, rather, it's easier to get fat if you eat lots of sugar. Check your attitude at the door.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
France, Italy, and many lower-weight countries seem to eat a wide variety of foods, including a bunch of carbs. But because they eat at meal times, cook their own food, and tend to have smaller portions over longer periods, they fantastically don't become quite as gigantic as Americans. It's as if eating way more food way more often contributes to weight gain...
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet. Unfortunately as I myself have noticed sugar and starches are added to EVERYTHING. They are used as fillers in most food, and I don't just mean "packaged" food in the normal sense. Pay attention to your canned goods too. If you're trying to control your intake it's easier often to buy products that simply don't have any (or very few) carbs, and then add them yourself later via rice or pasta or bread since you can control the size of the portion easier.
Also, not SOME fat people eat lots of carbs, a LOT of fat people eat lots of carbs. No one's saying eating lots of sugar WILL make you fat, rather, it's easier to get fat if you eat lots of sugar. Check your attitude at the door.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
France, Italy, and many lower-weight countries seem to eat a wide variety of foods, including a bunch of carbs. But because they eat at meal times, cook their own food, and tend to have smaller portions over longer periods, they fantastically don't become quite as gigantic as Americans. It's as if eating way more food way more often contributes to weight gain...
But, at the same time, as cultures that have a rich 'Food Culture' adapt American process foods into their diets, they're becoming fatter and fatter. I do not think these cultures are changing their eating habits overnight.
Seriously, folks, it's okay if someone in the world can get by with a non-low-carb diet. It doesn't invalidate your lifestyle. You don't need to throw out a bunch of qualifiers in an attempt to discount their eating habits.
Carbs are not the devil.
Nice strawman. This is your second one in this thread alone, I think? Do you always debate like this?
Yes, some carbs are okay. How much "some" is is being questioned here. Put it simply:
Your body needs an extremely small amount of carbs (around 20-30g per day) to operate. Western diets typically have around 10 times this amount or more. Typical moderate-carb diets have around 5-6 times as much.
Fats by themselves are metabolically inert. They are harmless. Only when taken with carbs do they cause health complications.
Carbs by themselves are NOT metabolically inert. They raise insulin levels, and excess insulin is the root cause of all the CHD risk factors.
In addition, for the average person, if they are limiting their fat intake, then they must also be limiting their protein intake, because some of the best sources of protein -- meat, dairy, eggs, etc. -- come with fat. To make up for this, while keeping calories the same, they need to eat more carbs. This is why low-fat diets are bad for you, unless you are eating a severely calorie-restricted diet (which comes with other issues, such as the breakdown of muscle tissue to make up for the lack of protein in the diet, which slows down basal metabolism).
Here is another study described in the book Protein Power:
The concept of undertaking nutritional therapy for disease by constructing a diet of reduced carbohydrate is beautifully illustrated in the work of Dr. Kerin O'Dea, an Australian physician, and her colleagues, who have extensively studied the Australian aborigines over the past decade or so. The aborigines are an interesting group in that they develop a high incidence of hyperinsulinemia [too much insulin in the blood] and type II diabetes when exposed to an urbanized, Western diet. Like a huge number of Americans, they are genetically predisposed to the development of these disorders, but they develop them much more quickly. This situation, although unfortunate for the aborigines, makes them ideal candidates for the study of the relationship between diet and hyperinsulinemia.
Dr. O'Dea began her studies by looking at the baseline insulin and glucose levels of urbanized aborigine subjects who were consuming a Western diet. She found that both the insulin and glucose levels were significantly elevated, which should come as no surprise when we consider the diet they were eating: "white flour, white sugar, white rice, carbonated drinks, alcoholic beverages, powdered milk, and cheap fatty meat." This sounds a lot like the diet of the majority of teenagers in America today. When we look at the composition of this diet in terms of the three nutrient types, we find that it is "high in refined carbohydrate (40-50%) and fat (40-50%) and relatively low in protein (=< 10%) or almost precisely the same composition as the typical American diet.
Dr. O'Dea then started these people on her experimental diet, which she designed to approximate the original native diet they would consume were they back in the bush: considerable protein, not a lot of fat, and very little carbohydrate. The nutrient composition was "protein 70-75%, fat 20-25%, [and] carbohydrate <5%." She kept the aborigines on this "very low carbohydrate-high protein diet" for two weeks and then rechecked their blood values. She found that her subjects had developed "a small but significant improvement in glucose tolerance which was accompanied by a similar reduction in insulin response." She concluded that "these findings suggest an improvement in glucose utilization and insulin sensitivity after the high protein-low carbohydrate diet."
This success inspired Dr. O'Dea to undertake what turned out to be a prolonged and exceptionally enlightening study. She gathered a group of middle-aged, hyperinsulinemic, diabetic, mildly overweight aborigine subjects who had been living on a Western diet much like the one just detailed. These subjects agreed to return to "their traditional country in an isolated location" in western Australia for seven weeks, during which they would live the lives of hunter-gatherers.
During the seven weeks that the aborigines lived off theland in the bush, Dr. O'Dea and her group kept careful records of the various foods the subjects ate as they wandered from area to area and tabulated them for later analysis. Depending on wehther the group was on the coast or traveled inland, the diet varied, with protein ranging from 54 to 80 percent, fat from 13 to 40 percent, and carbohydrate from less than 5 percent to a high of 33 percent. How did these subjects fare on this high-protein, restricted-carbohydrate diet? Their blood glucose levels fell from an average of about 210 mg/dl to 118 mg/dl. Insulin levels dropped almost by half, from 23 mU/ml to 12 mU/ml, near the normal range. Triglycerides, which store fat molecules synthesized in the liver under the stimulus of insulin, fell by a factor of three, from 354 mg/dl all the way down to 106 mg/dl. All this improvement came in just seven weeks from a diet that was predominantly (64 percent) animal in origin.
(Exercise was not a factor in their improvement. Dr. O'Dea determined that the aborigines were surprisingly less active in the busy than in the city.)
Dr. O'Dea summed it up succinctly: "...all of the metabolic abnormalities of type II diabetes were either greatly improved (glucose tolerance, insulin response to glucose) or completely normalized (plasma lipids) in a group of diabetic aborigines by a relatively short (7 week) reversion to traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Dr. O'Dea discovered by actual experimentation with a group of people afflicted with one of the diseases of civilization the same thing that anthropologists learned by examining the mummy and skeletal data: the carbohydrate-restricted, high-protein diet confers optimal health on its followers.
Also, I'm 35. I have stress-based IBS, but other than that I'm a picture of health. Low cholesterol, healthy weight, good heart rate, great blood pressure.
Yes, but what are your blood glucose and insulin levels? Heart rate doesn't mean much, and neither does weight. Keep in mind most doctor's offices don't even have the means of measuring blood insulin because they don't think it's important, but it's actually one of the most important risk factors towards CHD and diabetes. Next time you're at the doctor I recommend asking for a blood insulin measurement.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
Dude, what? I snack on nuts/avocados/pork skins all the time. So do a lot of other low-carbers.
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet. Unfortunately as I myself have noticed sugar and starches are added to EVERYTHING. They are used as fillers in most food, and I don't just mean "packaged" food in the normal sense. Pay attention to your canned goods too. If you're trying to control your intake it's easier often to buy products that simply don't have any (or very few) carbs, and then add them yourself later via rice or pasta or bread since you can control the size of the portion easier.
Also, not SOME fat people eat lots of carbs, a LOT of fat people eat lots of carbs. No one's saying eating lots of sugar WILL make you fat, rather, it's easier to get fat if you eat lots of sugar. Check your attitude at the door.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
France, Italy, and many lower-weight countries seem to eat a wide variety of foods, including a bunch of carbs. But because they eat at meal times, cook their own food, and tend to have smaller portions over longer periods, they fantastically don't become quite as gigantic as Americans. It's as if eating way more food way more often contributes to weight gain...
I snack on cheese, cottage cheese, nuts, beef jerky, etc.
We evolved on diets that basically didn't have carbs, except for maybe some fruit, which tends to be rather low-calorie. It makes sense to me that carbs, which are almost always processed foods (except for fruit), might not be ideal as the basis of our diets.
We evolved to make the best of what we had. For example, we evolved to eat raw meat but cooked meat isn't worse for us. Similarly, carbs have been processed to be compatible with our dietary profile, so evolutionary biology can't really tell us much.
One thing I've learned is that fats tend to be bad if you have a problem with eating too much in a sitting rather than eating too frequently because they tend to have higher calorie density (I remember the Science Times talking about how several then recent studies had shown that fullness is determined by mass)
Hmmm, no, this doesn't address it. Cooked food isn't different from raw in the same way that a protein is different from a carb.
Carbs in our diet largely didn't exist until some point in civilization when we started making bread and boiling rice and potatoes and stuff. For a few orders of magntiude longer before that, it was meat, veggies, fruit, and nuts. Haven't had a lot of time to evolve to a diet where the majority of calories come from manufactured simple carbs, but as a cheap source of energy it has proved quite useful. It just wouldn't surprise me that a diet based on those, particularly if that diet doesn't desperately need cheap quick energy, runs a risk of deforming your natural body state as opposed to what eating meats, leaves, and nuts does to you.
We evolved on diets that basically didn't have carbs, except for maybe some fruit, which tends to be rather low-calorie. It makes sense to me that carbs, which are almost always processed foods (except for fruit), might not be ideal as the basis of our diets.
We evolved to make the best of what we had. For example, we evolved to eat raw meat but cooked meat isn't worse for us. Similarly, carbs have been processed to be compatible with our dietary profile, so evolutionary biology can't really tell us much.
One thing I've learned is that fats tend to be bad if you have a problem with eating too much in a sitting rather than eating too frequently because they tend to have higher calorie density (I remember the Science Times talking about how several then recent studies had shown that fullness is determined by mass)
Hmmm, no, this doesn't address it. Cooked food isn't different from raw in the same way that a protein is different from a carb.
Carbs in our diet largely didn't exist until some point in civilization when we started making bread and boiling rice and potatoes and stuff. For a few orders of magntiude longer before that, it was meat, veggies, fruit, and nuts. Haven't had a lot of time to evolve to a diet where the majority of calories come from manufactured simple carbs, but as a cheap source of energy it has proved quite useful. It just wouldn't surprise me that a diet based on those, particularly if that diet doesn't desperately need cheap quick energy, runs a risk of deforming your natural body state as opposed to what eating meats, leaves, and nuts does to you.
So veggies and fruit aren't carbs? Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that the diet of early man contained grains, albeit not to the level of large scale agriculture. But that is a different topic, and one outside of the scope of this thread.
We evolved on diets that basically didn't have carbs, except for maybe some fruit, which tends to be rather low-calorie. It makes sense to me that carbs, which are almost always processed foods (except for fruit), might not be ideal as the basis of our diets.
We evolved to make the best of what we had. For example, we evolved to eat raw meat but cooked meat isn't worse for us. Similarly, carbs have been processed to be compatible with our dietary profile, so evolutionary biology can't really tell us much.
One thing I've learned is that fats tend to be bad if you have a problem with eating too much in a sitting rather than eating too frequently because they tend to have higher calorie density (I remember the Science Times talking about how several then recent studies had shown that fullness is determined by mass)
Hmmm, no, this doesn't address it. Cooked food isn't different from raw in the same way that a protein is different from a carb.
Carbs in our diet largely didn't exist until some point in civilization when we started making bread and boiling rice and potatoes and stuff. For a few orders of magntiude longer before that, it was meat, veggies, fruit, and nuts. Haven't had a lot of time to evolve to a diet where the majority of calories come from manufactured simple carbs, but as a cheap source of energy it has proved quite useful. It just wouldn't surprise me that a diet based on those, particularly if that diet doesn't desperately need cheap quick energy, runs a risk of deforming your natural body state as opposed to what eating meats, leaves, and nuts does to you.
So veggies and fruit aren't carbs? Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that the diet of early man contained grains, albeit not to the level of large scale agriculture. But that is a different topic, and one outside of the scope of this thread.
I think what he meant that carbs didn't exist in our diets before agriculture to nearly the same extent that they started to after agriculture. In addition, yes, we did have carbs previously, but most of them were likely seasonal, much like the carbs in the diets of Eskimos (only appear in summer time when the weather allows some fruits to grow).
Also a lot of veggies - especially the leafy kind that you would expect our ancestors to eat - contain very little actual carbs. They consist mostly of water and fiber.
Protein Shakes on
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
We evolved on diets that basically didn't have carbs, except for maybe some fruit, which tends to be rather low-calorie. It makes sense to me that carbs, which are almost always processed foods (except for fruit), might not be ideal as the basis of our diets.
We evolved to make the best of what we had. For example, we evolved to eat raw meat but cooked meat isn't worse for us. Similarly, carbs have been processed to be compatible with our dietary profile, so evolutionary biology can't really tell us much.
One thing I've learned is that fats tend to be bad if you have a problem with eating too much in a sitting rather than eating too frequently because they tend to have higher calorie density (I remember the Science Times talking about how several then recent studies had shown that fullness is determined by mass)
Hmmm, no, this doesn't address it. Cooked food isn't different from raw in the same way that a protein is different from a carb.
Carbs in our diet largely didn't exist until some point in civilization when we started making bread and boiling rice and potatoes and stuff. For a few orders of magntiude longer before that, it was meat, veggies, fruit, and nuts. Haven't had a lot of time to evolve to a diet where the majority of calories come from manufactured simple carbs, but as a cheap source of energy it has proved quite useful. It just wouldn't surprise me that a diet based on those, particularly if that diet doesn't desperately need cheap quick energy, runs a risk of deforming your natural body state as opposed to what eating meats, leaves, and nuts does to you.
So veggies and fruit aren't carbs? Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that the diet of early man contained grains, albeit not to the level of large scale agriculture. But that is a different topic, and one outside of the scope of this thread.
Fruits and Veggies do have carbs, but they have a shit ton of fiber also. Also, fruits wasn't something that was available 24/7 365 days a year. Further, it wasn't squeezed into a plastic bottle. There's something like 4 apples in a cup of apple juice, without any of the fiber.
So veggies and fruit aren't carbs? Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that the diet of early man contained grains, albeit not to the level of large scale agriculture. But that is a different topic, and one outside of the scope of this thread.
Fruit, sure, but not most vegetables. Not a lot of carbs in them, anyway. And all of those are complex carbs, not simple ones. And are relatively low-calorie compared to meat and nuts. The high-calorie simple carbs making up a majority of calories is where I would think it really goes bad.
Also, what others said. Leaves, nuts, meat, and sometimes fruits and veggies. Maybe a good deal of insects? That's likely what we got by on since before we were even a species. That doesn't automatically mean carbs = satan's meaner older brother. It just means it does not surprise me if someone tells me that our relatively quick change to more and more carbs, simpler and simplers ones, despite their value as a cheap and dependable way to feed a lot of people, come with some risks we haven't had time to adapt to yet.
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet.
Actually, I've been trying to argue just that - that carb intake should be limited but not necessarily down to near-vanishing levels - and have been shot down for it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet.
Actually, I've been trying to argue just that - that carb intake should be limited but not necessarily down to near-vanishing levels - and have been shot down for it.
Well, you have been extremely vague about what you mean by "limiting", especially because you have been combining that with positive feel-goody qualifiers like "healthy" and "balanced" and "moderate". You need to speak in terms of percentages.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
Dude, what? I snack on nuts/avocados/pork skins all the time. So do a lot of other low-carbers.
Pork skins are vile. Endorsing them invalidates everything else you have said.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
Dude, what? I snack on nuts/avocados/pork skins all the time. So do a lot of other low-carbers.
Pork skins are vile. Endorsing them invalidates everything else you have said.
Fruits and Veggies do have carbs, but they have a shit ton of fiber also. Also, fruits wasn't something that was available 24/7 365 days a year. Further, it wasn't squeezed into a plastic bottle. There's something like 4 apples in a cup of apple juice, without any of the fiber.
Fruit juice is basically flavored sugar water. You may as well drink Kool-Aid.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
Dude, what? I snack on nuts/avocados/pork skins all the time. So do a lot of other low-carbers.
Pork skins are vile. Endorsing them invalidates everything else you have said.
???
I am making a joke about your credibility based on the fact I find pork skins disgusting.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet. Unfortunately as I myself have noticed sugar and starches are added to EVERYTHING. They are used as fillers in most food, and I don't just mean "packaged" food in the normal sense. Pay attention to your canned goods too. If you're trying to control your intake it's easier often to buy products that simply don't have any (or very few) carbs, and then add them yourself later via rice or pasta or bread since you can control the size of the portion easier.
Also, not SOME fat people eat lots of carbs, a LOT of fat people eat lots of carbs. No one's saying eating lots of sugar WILL make you fat, rather, it's easier to get fat if you eat lots of sugar. Check your attitude at the door.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
France, Italy, and many lower-weight countries seem to eat a wide variety of foods, including a bunch of carbs. But because they eat at meal times, cook their own food, and tend to have smaller portions over longer periods, they fantastically don't become quite as gigantic as Americans. It's as if eating way more food way more often contributes to weight gain...
Yeah this is why they don't get fat. However, if you want to lose weight going low-carb is the better way.
Yeah this is why they don't get fat. However, if you want to lose weight going low-carb is the better way.
One of my larger problems with low-carb diets is that they require a considerable sacrifice to maintain, which makes them pretty hard for a lot of people. If you don't like sugar or starches too much, maybe it's simple. But if you do, you pretty much enter a diet in which you have to give up entire classes of food. You basically can't have sweets. You have to be very careful when you eat out. You're basically weaning your body off of significant carb intake, and training your body to not know how to really respond to carbs well.
A traditional diet that limits sugar and fat is fairly easy to pull off. Don't eat stuff with lots of sugar in it, limit sweets, consume lean meat, and so on. Most fatty or sugar-laden things have reasonable substitutes. Don't want fatty chips? Eat baked chips, or some other non-fried snack food. Get low-fat ice cream, or frozen yogurt. Cut the fat off your steak. You can be healthy and eat pretty much the same sort of thing you already like.
But a low carb diet? Hope you don't like pasta. Or bread. Or rice. Or potatoes. Or any sort of dessert. Yes, you can ostensibly eat all the meat and cheese you like, but that gets boring. It's harder to stay good when you have to swear off entire classes of food.
Anyway, the distinction between maintaining a low weight and losing weight is pretty much imaginary. The secret to dieting is to find a diet that is sustainable. If your target weight requires a 1500 calorie per day intake to maintain, don't drop to 1000 calories per day to speed things along. Drop to 1500 calories and be patient - your body will catch up. And then stay on that diet forever. The stupidest thing about diets is that they're all presumed to be temporary. "I'll diet for a month, hit my target weight, and then go back to shoveling ice cream into my face!" Yeah, great idea there, sport.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I eat pasta and bread and rice. I just don't consume them in large quantities. E.G. - I don't eat "spaghetti" in the traditional sense of some red sauce and pasta. I have a very small amount of pasta with a sauce that usually has lots of veg and meat, often making reduction sauces, or simple oil and garlic (although I make a mean white/creme sauce). And I don't normally eat any additional bread with it.
Just because you can't eat as much doesn't mean you can't eat any at all.
Eljeffe, you realize low-carb diets are more difficult to stick to precisely because the nutrition industry has churned out plenty of low-fat, high carb foods for the past 30-40 years? It's a viciously self-perpetuating cycle.
Still, it is not too hard. At first it takes some effort while you check which of your favorite high-carb foods have low-carb versions. A lot of them do. There is low-carb bread. There is low-carb pizza. There are even low-carb alternatives to pasta.
The hardest thing for me was quitting traditional breads. The reason is that baking is one of my favorite hobbies. At first I thought I had to quit it completely, but then I found recipes for low-carb bread, such as with low-carb flour or with almond meal. You just have to know where to look, and most of the time the answer is Google.
Eating out is not a big problem. I let myself eat whatever I want one or two meals a week (usually reserved for special occassions such as going out with friends or going on dates). It doesn't kill me. It doesn't even kick me out of ketosis. And, for really really awful things, such as french fries, I can just opt out of eating them and instead eat the other, high-protein/high-fat stuff. I've gone to Wendy's before, ditched the buns and eaten just the meat and the cheese inside the burger. It's filling and in fact quite healthy.
i was actually doing the whole mostly low carb thing for a semester, was good, felt good
then i got lazy because buying sandwiches and stuff is so easy and now i have a gut again
it's difficult when the world is full of processed snacks and foods everywhere
--
but, yes, i agree, in this world, going low-carb can be tough, but making compromises is a good idea
for example, pasta dishes, i read an article in the nytimes a few years ago and made some things from it (before i even thought about this low carb stuff) that had recipes where veggies and meats and sauce were the focuses of the dish with a smaller amount of pasta, instead of pasta being the majority of the food
a lotta sandwiches can be turned into salads
one thing that i've done that isn't hard is just straight up not eating cereal. it's unnecessary.
What really bothers me is the myth that the nutrition industry keeps perpetuating regarding complex carbs. I've actually seen it on H/A given out as advice as well. Some guy asked "what should I eat for breakfast" and Thanatos or someone replied with "eat complex carbs". What the fuck man. It's not as if complex carbs are good for you or even necessary or healthy. They are broken down EXACTLY LIKE SUGAR, the only difference is that it happens slightly slower so the insulin response is spread out over a longer period of time. But the total insulin secreted still depends on the amount of carbs in the food, complex or not.
It is seriously retarded stuff. It makes me want to reach across the internet and shake those people really hard.
A. A couple of possibilities. First, the Japanese have been eating rice for considerably longer than we have in the West, although white rice was a luxury for most of the Japanese population until the mid-20th century, at least as far as I could tell in my research. The hypothesis set out in my book is that it takes generations for a population to adjust to the adverse effects of easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars, and so perhaps the Japanese have had that time to do so and are relatively inured to the adverse effects. Moreover, it is still possible that the increases in obesity seen more recently in Japan are due in part to the more recent change from brown to white rice. This is purely speculation, though. Second, the Japanese have always had an extraordinarily low sugar consumption. In the 1960s, for instance, sugar consumption among the Japanese averaged less than 40 pounds per person. In the early 1980s, it was still less than fifty. This is equivalent to sugar consumption in the U.S. and Britain a century earlier. If sugar is the primary dietary cause of obesity and the associated chronic diseases, which I consider a very credible hypothesis, then this would explain the relative health and longevity of the Japanese. All of this, though, again, is speculation because the kinds of studies needed to test these hypotheses — randomized controlled trials — have never been done. The point of the article is also a conclusion of the book: If we’re relying on observational studies, we’ll never know what factors we missed and so will always be guessing.
There are several variables we have to consider with any diet/health interaction. Not just the fat content and carb content, but the refinement of the carbs, the fructose content (in HFCS and sucrose primarily) and how long they’ve had to adapt to the refined carbs and sugars in the diet. In the case of Japan, for instance, the bulk of the population consumed brown rice rather than white until only recently, say the last 50 years. White rice is labor intensive and if you’re poor, you’re eating the unrefined rice, at least until machine refining became widely available. The more important issue, though, is the fructose. China, Japan, Korea, until very recently consumed exceedingly little sugar (sucrose). In the 1960s, when Keys was doing the Seven Countries Study and blaming the absence of heart disease in the Japanese on low-fat diets, their sugar consumption, on average, was around 40 pounds a year, or what the Americans and British were eating a century earlier. In the China Study, which is often evoked as refutation of the carb/insulin hypothesis, the Chinese ate virtually no sugar. In fact, sugar consumption wasn’t even measured in the study because it was so low. The full report of the study runs to 800 pages and there are only a couple of mentions of sugar. If I remember correctly (I don’t have my files with me at the moment) it was a few pounds per year. The point is that when researchers look at traditional populations eating their traditional diets — whether in rural China, Japan, the Kitava study in the South Pacific, Africa, etc — and find relatively low levels of heart disease, obesity and diabetes compared to urban/westernized societies, they’re inevitably looking at populations that eat relatively little or no refined carbs and sugar compared to populations that eat a lot. Some of these traditional populations ate high-fat diets (the Inuit, plains Indians, pastoralists like the Masai, the Tokelauans); some ate relatively low-fat diets (agriculturalists like the Hunza, the Japanese, etc.), but the common denominator was the relative absence of sugar and/or refined carbs. So the simplest possible hypothesis to explain the health of these populations is that they don’t eat these particularly poor quality carbohydrates, not that they did or did not eat high fat diets. Now the fact that some of these populations do have relatively high carb diets suggests that it’s the sugar that is the fundamental problem.
no comment on the matter just wanted to paste it here, i am reading it now
no comment on the matter just wanted to paste it here, i am reading it now
Sugar as a cause of obesity, high in calories - nutritionally empty, is something I think we can all get behind, nebulously demonising all carbs is less of a go getter for me.
Posts
1400 isn't that "ridiculously low", depending on lifestyle and body size. Aren't the Japanese typically shorter and of lighter build? And so would need fewer calories?
Seriously, folks, it's okay if someone in the world can get by with a non-low-carb diet. It doesn't invalidate your lifestyle. You don't need to throw out a bunch of qualifiers in an attempt to discount their eating habits.
Carbs are not the devil.
In theory, 25% less body mass means 25% less caloric needs? Probably more like 20-15%, but it's still a factor when comparing.
It doesn't look to be a very slight difference, assuming that 1400 calorie number is correct (which might be a pretty big assumption).
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread at all, carbs are pure refined evil. Even ingesting one carb will make you fat because your body will go crazy when you eat it. The evidence for this is that some fat people eat lots of carbs. The fact that lots, indeed entire countries worth, of not fat people eat lots of carbs is entirely irrelevant. This is due to the fact that they eat less calories than a fat person, despite the fact that eating fewer calories is entirely irrelevant to weight gain when it comes to carbs.
Because they are the devil.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Not to be snarky, and this analogy is really cool and all, but at the same time it is easily broken. Yes you may be upset that someone has given you such an obvious answer that the room is crowded because more people are entering, but this analogy really fails to explain how kicking some of the people out WON'T make the room less crowded; to re-integrated it into the analogy, how ingesting less calories than you can use WON'T cause you to lose weight.
This argument comes from a very static perspective and seems to assume that this person is not having any other effect on energy usage other than a change in diet. Yes, if you limit calorie intake your body WILL down-regulate to conserve energy....but then you can also initiate an up-regulation by doing activities that burn energy. It is like claiming the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution from occurring because systems can only move to disorder, and forgetting that it only applies to a closed system, not one that is powered by a gigantic fusion reactor.
I have a problem with this statement as well- According to my research, limiting the amount of insulin in the body is just as dangerous as overexpression of the protein. Specifically, higher insulin levels increase memory retention and help to combat Alzheimer's. Now, considering I have ridiculously high (estimated) insulin levels, I think I will take a chance at heart disease over memory loss and dementia.
This doesn't seem healthy to me- if you are eating more than your body can store, what happens to the excess? Not only does this sound unhealthy, it sounds greedy and disgusting. (Not to mention that dietary protein signaling can ALSO instigate insulin production, so this is a bit disingenuous)
Basically, the biochemist in me has serious problems with the claims of any and all diet arguments, and the science behind them.
it's full of artificial crap that makes it probably worse than regular mayo
Also, check out Community Supported Agriculture. For a set price for the season you get fresh, local produce and some have meat CSAs as well. Most by me do a package every week that you pick up so you don't have to get it all upfront.
You really should watch the video before trying to argue with him/her dude. Seriously. Taubes explains all the parts you seem to be confused about and gives excellent examples.
That's what I meant - it would be ridiculously low if a typical Caucasian adopted it. It works for the Japanese because they are tiny and, on top of that, mostly skin and bones.
Way to overstate. No one said you shouldn't eat carbs. In fact quite the opposite. You should eat them, just not make them the majority of your diet. Unfortunately as I myself have noticed sugar and starches are added to EVERYTHING. They are used as fillers in most food, and I don't just mean "packaged" food in the normal sense. Pay attention to your canned goods too. If you're trying to control your intake it's easier often to buy products that simply don't have any (or very few) carbs, and then add them yourself later via rice or pasta or bread since you can control the size of the portion easier.
Also, not SOME fat people eat lots of carbs, a LOT of fat people eat lots of carbs. No one's saying eating lots of sugar WILL make you fat, rather, it's easier to get fat if you eat lots of sugar. Check your attitude at the door.
I'm of the opinion that weight loss on low-carb diets is primarily a function of the cessation of "snacking". No one snacks on bacon-wrapped pork chops, most people snack on chips/crackers/etc.
France, Italy, and many lower-weight countries seem to eat a wide variety of foods, including a bunch of carbs. But because they eat at meal times, cook their own food, and tend to have smaller portions over longer periods, they fantastically don't become quite as gigantic as Americans. It's as if eating way more food way more often contributes to weight gain...
But, at the same time, as cultures that have a rich 'Food Culture' adapt American process foods into their diets, they're becoming fatter and fatter. I do not think these cultures are changing their eating habits overnight.
Nice strawman. This is your second one in this thread alone, I think? Do you always debate like this?
Yes, some carbs are okay. How much "some" is is being questioned here. Put it simply:
In addition, for the average person, if they are limiting their fat intake, then they must also be limiting their protein intake, because some of the best sources of protein -- meat, dairy, eggs, etc. -- come with fat. To make up for this, while keeping calories the same, they need to eat more carbs. This is why low-fat diets are bad for you, unless you are eating a severely calorie-restricted diet (which comes with other issues, such as the breakdown of muscle tissue to make up for the lack of protein in the diet, which slows down basal metabolism).
Here is another study described in the book Protein Power:
Finally, from the previous page:
Yes, but what are your blood glucose and insulin levels? Heart rate doesn't mean much, and neither does weight. Keep in mind most doctor's offices don't even have the means of measuring blood insulin because they don't think it's important, but it's actually one of the most important risk factors towards CHD and diabetes. Next time you're at the doctor I recommend asking for a blood insulin measurement.
Dude, what? I snack on nuts/avocados/pork skins all the time. So do a lot of other low-carbers.
I think he addresses it in his book, but I can't remember the section. Has been a while since I read it.
I snack on cheese, cottage cheese, nuts, beef jerky, etc.
Carbs in our diet largely didn't exist until some point in civilization when we started making bread and boiling rice and potatoes and stuff. For a few orders of magntiude longer before that, it was meat, veggies, fruit, and nuts. Haven't had a lot of time to evolve to a diet where the majority of calories come from manufactured simple carbs, but as a cheap source of energy it has proved quite useful. It just wouldn't surprise me that a diet based on those, particularly if that diet doesn't desperately need cheap quick energy, runs a risk of deforming your natural body state as opposed to what eating meats, leaves, and nuts does to you.
So veggies and fruit aren't carbs? Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that the diet of early man contained grains, albeit not to the level of large scale agriculture. But that is a different topic, and one outside of the scope of this thread.
I think what he meant that carbs didn't exist in our diets before agriculture to nearly the same extent that they started to after agriculture. In addition, yes, we did have carbs previously, but most of them were likely seasonal, much like the carbs in the diets of Eskimos (only appear in summer time when the weather allows some fruits to grow).
Also a lot of veggies - especially the leafy kind that you would expect our ancestors to eat - contain very little actual carbs. They consist mostly of water and fiber.
Fruits and Veggies do have carbs, but they have a shit ton of fiber also. Also, fruits wasn't something that was available 24/7 365 days a year. Further, it wasn't squeezed into a plastic bottle. There's something like 4 apples in a cup of apple juice, without any of the fiber.
Also, what others said. Leaves, nuts, meat, and sometimes fruits and veggies. Maybe a good deal of insects? That's likely what we got by on since before we were even a species. That doesn't automatically mean carbs = satan's meaner older brother. It just means it does not surprise me if someone tells me that our relatively quick change to more and more carbs, simpler and simplers ones, despite their value as a cheap and dependable way to feed a lot of people, come with some risks we haven't had time to adapt to yet.
Actually, I've been trying to argue just that - that carb intake should be limited but not necessarily down to near-vanishing levels - and have been shot down for it.
Well, you have been extremely vague about what you mean by "limiting", especially because you have been combining that with positive feel-goody qualifiers like "healthy" and "balanced" and "moderate". You need to speak in terms of percentages.
Pork skins are vile. Endorsing them invalidates everything else you have said.
???
Fruit juice is basically flavored sugar water. You may as well drink Kool-Aid.
I am making a joke about your credibility based on the fact I find pork skins disgusting.
Yeah this is why they don't get fat. However, if you want to lose weight going low-carb is the better way.
One of my larger problems with low-carb diets is that they require a considerable sacrifice to maintain, which makes them pretty hard for a lot of people. If you don't like sugar or starches too much, maybe it's simple. But if you do, you pretty much enter a diet in which you have to give up entire classes of food. You basically can't have sweets. You have to be very careful when you eat out. You're basically weaning your body off of significant carb intake, and training your body to not know how to really respond to carbs well.
A traditional diet that limits sugar and fat is fairly easy to pull off. Don't eat stuff with lots of sugar in it, limit sweets, consume lean meat, and so on. Most fatty or sugar-laden things have reasonable substitutes. Don't want fatty chips? Eat baked chips, or some other non-fried snack food. Get low-fat ice cream, or frozen yogurt. Cut the fat off your steak. You can be healthy and eat pretty much the same sort of thing you already like.
But a low carb diet? Hope you don't like pasta. Or bread. Or rice. Or potatoes. Or any sort of dessert. Yes, you can ostensibly eat all the meat and cheese you like, but that gets boring. It's harder to stay good when you have to swear off entire classes of food.
Anyway, the distinction between maintaining a low weight and losing weight is pretty much imaginary. The secret to dieting is to find a diet that is sustainable. If your target weight requires a 1500 calorie per day intake to maintain, don't drop to 1000 calories per day to speed things along. Drop to 1500 calories and be patient - your body will catch up. And then stay on that diet forever. The stupidest thing about diets is that they're all presumed to be temporary. "I'll diet for a month, hit my target weight, and then go back to shoveling ice cream into my face!" Yeah, great idea there, sport.
Thanks for those "eat local!" type links! Those are great!
Just because you can't eat as much doesn't mean you can't eat any at all.
Still, it is not too hard. At first it takes some effort while you check which of your favorite high-carb foods have low-carb versions. A lot of them do. There is low-carb bread. There is low-carb pizza. There are even low-carb alternatives to pasta.
The hardest thing for me was quitting traditional breads. The reason is that baking is one of my favorite hobbies. At first I thought I had to quit it completely, but then I found recipes for low-carb bread, such as with low-carb flour or with almond meal. You just have to know where to look, and most of the time the answer is Google.
Eating out is not a big problem. I let myself eat whatever I want one or two meals a week (usually reserved for special occassions such as going out with friends or going on dates). It doesn't kill me. It doesn't even kick me out of ketosis. And, for really really awful things, such as french fries, I can just opt out of eating them and instead eat the other, high-protein/high-fat stuff. I've gone to Wendy's before, ditched the buns and eaten just the meat and the cheese inside the burger. It's filling and in fact quite healthy.
replace that rice
i was actually doing the whole mostly low carb thing for a semester, was good, felt good
then i got lazy because buying sandwiches and stuff is so easy and now i have a gut again
it's difficult when the world is full of processed snacks and foods everywhere
--
but, yes, i agree, in this world, going low-carb can be tough, but making compromises is a good idea
for example, pasta dishes, i read an article in the nytimes a few years ago and made some things from it (before i even thought about this low carb stuff) that had recipes where veggies and meats and sauce were the focuses of the dish with a smaller amount of pasta, instead of pasta being the majority of the food
a lotta sandwiches can be turned into salads
one thing that i've done that isn't hard is just straight up not eating cereal. it's unnecessary.
It is seriously retarded stuff. It makes me want to reach across the internet and shake those people really hard.
no comment on the matter just wanted to paste it here, i am reading it now
It does make a difference but it is not as great as most people believe.
Sugar as a cause of obesity, high in calories - nutritionally empty, is something I think we can all get behind, nebulously demonising all carbs is less of a go getter for me.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.