Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Rebuttal needed for Low Carb "Myth" statement

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Omni View Post
    So yes, maybe for body building and specific athletic disciplines, high carb, timing and refeeding may be relevant, but this does not translate to success on the Savanah, I have never seen images of HG's that look like body builders, surely if this was so they would all look like "Conan the Barbarian".
    They usually come in fairly lean and reasonably strong, could they deadlift their own weight?, probably not, but that was not an adaptive advantage, they needed moderate strength, but speed and endurance was the key to survival.


    Sources of protein include birds, rodents, snakes, bugs. Staple starch is sago. Fairly impressive physique considering the food and environment. Evolutionary speculation is the worst justification for a low carb diet.
    Last edited by Timthetaco; 03-13-2013, 11:39 PM. Reason: picture was friggin' enormous

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post


      Sources of protein include birds, rodents, snakes, bugs. Staple starch is sago. Fairly impressive physique considering the food and environment. Evolutionary speculation is the worst justification for a low carb diet.
      Great physique and kind of what I'd expect, but certainly no body builders there, all their muscles are practical.
      They represent a HG group on the higher carb end, others are on high fat, most though run middle ground.

      For the record I'm not a low carber I think balanced mid ground allows the greatest margin for error whilst still maintaining good health.
      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Zach View Post
        People are fat because they are lazy and eat too much of the wrong food, not from following health authories advice. The government still advocates whole foods and exercise, not mcdonalds and sitting on the couch.

        Quit blaming others, take responsibility.
        It's funny how many reject that. When it is actually the case for 95% + of people. People really believe that Americans or Australians are on a low fat diet? lol. I guess the millions and millions of people served at Mcdonalds each and every single day aren't actually eating their food. Not to mention that countless other millions served at fast food chains, restaurants and the truckloads of high fat foods that get sold in supermarkets and cafe's everyday. People always talk about how everything has added sugar, well it's the same for oil, especially at restaurants.
        Last edited by Forgotmylastusername; 03-13-2013, 11:54 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
          If this shit really worked for everyone, Zach and Derpamix wouldn't even be here. They come from a website almost entirely dedicated to fixing struggling and frustrated low carb dieters.
          They should worry about fixing themselves and stop pushing their agenda. It gets very old. Not to mention their incessant judgements calling people "lazy" if they do not have time to fix breakfast or "weak" if they succumb to an addiction, etc, etc, etc.
          Last edited by Artbuc; 03-14-2013, 02:06 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            The western diet would be something like high-wrong fats, high-refined carbs, high/moderate-protein, low vitamins/minerals accompanied by little to no exercise.
            Last edited by Darz; 03-14-2013, 03:41 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
              It's funny how many reject that. When it is actually the case for 95% + of people.....
              Oh, please do cite the study that proves your pulled out of buttox 95%. I think you will find gluttony and sloth is correlative with increased adipose rather than causative and there are mountains of studies that state treatment with "eat less move more" only works in the very short term.

              Like I said before... you don't even have to be a low carb proponent to reject the absurdity that is the "gluttony and sloth hypothesis".
              Last edited by Neckhammer; 03-14-2013, 05:55 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                I appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining in detail your carb theories unlike alot of the people who have similar views that just try to troll everyone.

                Anyway I think you a little bit and the others to a greater degree are missing the elephant in the room. Yes all the pro carb studies that get talked about and even "your own" experiences are probably very true. but what you guys and the scientific studies miss is that western society is FAT, every where you look people are overweight or obese. Why is this? (pssst... they all eat high carb diets). somewhere there is a missing link between all the science and what is actually happening.

                The other thing you high carb guys on this site miss is marksdailyapple.com has many 100's of thousands of subscribers, why are they all here? What are they looking for? Are they all here for the scientific studies and N=1 opinions getting sprouted in the forums? (nope) Or are they here because they heard somewhere that this shit really works? (you betcha).

                To what you said above, you referenced ripped body builders and even tho your probably right about them it doesn't mean much. bodybuilders (and maybe you, I don't know) micro manage the shit outta their diets far more than any normal person would. Yes they might be able to get 100% effectiveness from eating that way. But why should most of us do that when we can get 90% effectiveness outta stocking our fridge with a list of primal foods out of mark's book and eating it when we get hungry.
                i like you, dilberryhoundog. well said.
                http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Philmont Scott View Post
                  I know that this is a straw man argument. It papers all "low carb" by attempting to shoot down "no carb".

                  I need a polite and convincing response to this. Help?
                  I've got one:

                  The article (both the Myth and Fact section) goes on about gaining fat but just about no body wants to do that, only in the takeaway do they tell you what to eat and even then it is very vague. A real simple and effective way to eat, is to eat in the 50 to 150gram carb range and up it if you need to (due to increased excersise glycogen requirements) eat whole fresh food and try to avoid all processed carbs, oils and sugars.

                  If any proof is needed tell them to check the success stories section at marks daily apple, and just give them a warning that a very small minority of people that try this diet don't get the success they were after.

                  hope that helps
                  A little primal gem - My Success Story
                  Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Except I was working in a wood shop, lifting huge piles of wood, doing regular farmer carries, constantly squatting and bending, and had a layer of blubber over my muscles. I had no sloth, but eating SAD kept me obese (and inflamed, with boils all over, sleep apnea, you know the story!).

                    As a kid, I was riding my bike, doing push-ups, and NEVER made progress.

                    I had no car in my teens, I walked EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE - I'm talking 6 hours of walking every day. If I had a bicycle I hadn't completely worn out or destroyed yet, I rode IT for hours a day. And I stayed FAT. Because I was ALWAYS hungry. I looked at people who left food behind like they MUST be insane. Every chance I got, I ate all the food I could. I knew which dumpsters to hit on which days for fresh pizza, etc.

                    I give sloth NO cred at all, based on my N=1.
                    Crohn's, doing SCD

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      Oh, please do cite the study that proves your pulled out of buttox 95%. I think you will find gluttony and sloth is correlative with increased adipose rather than causative and there are mountains of studies that state treatment with "eat less move more" only works in the very short term.

                      Like I said before... you don't even have to be a low carb proponent to reject the absurdity that is the "gluttony and sloth hypothesis".
                      Yup. Eat less, move more is crap. We need to replace this over-recited, dogma-based, jingoistic lie with something more like:

                      Eat real, nutritious food-->restore energy levels and satiety signaling-->eat/move the right amount
                      The Champagne of Beards

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                        Anyway I think you a little bit and the others to a greater degree are missing the elephant in the room. Yes all the pro carb studies that get talked about and even "your own" experiences are probably very true. but what you guys and the scientific studies miss is that western society is FAT, every where you look people are overweight or obese. Why is this? (pssst... they all eat high carb diets). somewhere there is a missing link between all the science and what is actually happening.
                        This is a completely incorrect analysis. The fact that Western society is fat has nothing to do with high carbohydrate dieting. I don't even know where this myth comes from - the American diet is NOT high carb. 5 minutes of research yields the following:



                        The American diet in one chart, with lots of fats and sugars | Grist

                        At any rate, I decided to crunch a few numbers from Jezovit’s great chart to shine a light on the centrality of added fats and sugars to our diets. In 1970, the U.S. food system churned out 2,168 calories per day per person, of which 402 came from added sugar and 410 from added fat. Combined, that’s 812 calories from additives, or about 37 percent of the total.
                        Shocker - we consume way more now than we did 40 years ago. Does anything specific jump out? We consume more added fats than added sugars.

                        But that's one source. Let's dig deeper.

                        The Average American Daily Caloric Intake | LIVESTRONG.COM

                        The amount of food available and calories consumed by Americans has increased from 1970 to 2003. According to the USDA, the average American daily calorie intake was 2,234 in 1970 and 2,757 in 2003. This is an increase of 523 calories per day. Eating 500 extra calories each day leads to a significant weight gain if the excess calories are not burned through physical activity.
                        The average American consumes around 2,800 calories a day. Let's dig even deeper:

                        Human height - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                        The average male in the US is 5' 9.5". The average female in the US is 5' 4". A "normal" BMI of 23 for those weights correspond to 158 lbs and 134 lbs. Care to tell me what those maintenance calories are at that height and weight on average for a 40YO "lightly active" person? 2120/1742 kcal respectively.

                        http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/

                        The average American eats a diet as high in fat as it does carbohydrate. They just consume massive caloric excesses.

                        Your observations are incorrect. The issue isn't carbohydrate, but a huge intake of processed food high in empty calories. Eating a whole foods diet would spontaneously reduce calorie intake. THAT is why we are fat - too much low-satiety, low-nutrition, high-calorie processed foods. It is simple CICO.

                        Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                        The other thing you high carb guys on this site miss is marksdailyapple.com has many 100's of thousands of subscribers, why are they all here? What are they looking for? Are they all here for the scientific studies and N=1 opinions getting sprouted in the forums? (nope) Or are they here because they heard somewhere that this shit really works? (you betcha).

                        To what you said above, you referenced ripped body builders and even tho your probably right about them it doesn't mean much. bodybuilders (and maybe you, I don't know) micro manage the shit outta their diets far more than any normal person would. Yes they might be able to get 100% effectiveness from eating that way. But why should most of us do that when we can get 90% effectiveness outta stocking our fridge with a list of primal foods out of mark's book and eating it when we get hungry.
                        It means absolutely everything. The reason why bodybuilders are successful is because they know what their maintenance calorie levels are and count calories. The average American does not. They eat whenever they want food, and because they consume mostly processed foods, it's nearly all the time. Again, simple CICO. It has nothing to do with carbs.
                        Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 03-14-2013, 12:04 PM.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          The amount of food available and calories consumed by Americans has increased from 1970 to 2003. According to the USDA, the average American daily calorie intake was 2,234 in 1970 and 2,757 in 2003. This is an increase of 523 calories per day. Eating 500 extra calories each day leads to a significant weight gain if the excess calories are not burned through physical activity
                          Hmmm, people on an average eats 523 calories more per day, and if I should be guessing wildly they are perhaps also moving less than before, sitting more in front of computers etc. than in 1970? - and surprise (!), the average person has become fatter! I am sooo surprised, how can it be that simple, what about the HFCS hypothesis or the metabolic syndrome…
                          "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                          - Schopenhauer

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                            Hmmm, people on an average eats 523 calories more per day, and if I should be guessing wildly they are perhaps also moving less than before, sitting more in front of computers etc. than in 1970? - and surprise (!), the average person has become fatter! I am sooo surprised, how can it be that simple, what about the HFCS hypothesis or the metabolic syndrome…
                            Exactly. We are eating a lot more and moving a lot less. Machines do all the work for us. When you figure in the ratio of manual labor vs office work 40 years ago vs today, you'll see our total calories increased probably more on the order of 800-1000.

                            This is all simple CICO. I laugh out loud every time I see people saying the SAD is high carb. It is just as high in fat. It's just a high calorie/low nutrition diet low in exercise. We eat far more calories than we expend - calories, calories, calories and nothing more.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              Exactly. We are eating a lot more and moving a lot less. Machines do all the work for us. When you figure in the ratio of manual labor vs office work 40 years ago vs today, you'll see our total calories increased probably more on the order of 800-1000.

                              This is all simple CICO. I laugh out loud every time I see people saying the SAD is high carb. It is just as high in fat. It's just a high calorie/low nutrition diet low in exercise. We eat far more calories than we expend - calories, calories, calories and nothing more.
                              FWIW, I agree completely. It just isn't that complicated, really.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Saying that SAD is not high carb is just plain silly. How so when more than 50% or your energy consumption comes from that single macro? I would consider anything that makes up more than half your consumption "high" when you are talking about a split between 3 types of macros. Dunno what sort of voodoo witch doctor statistical hub bub you would need to infer otherwise. Sorry, just the facts. Its HIGHEST in carbohydrate. What you want to hypothesize this means is up to you, but acknowledge the facts.

                                And "lets dig deeper" followed up by a link to Livestrong and Wikipedia is LOL
                                Last edited by Neckhammer; 03-14-2013, 03:20 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X