Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do excess carbs turn to fat, even within calorie limits?

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

  • #91
    The carbohydrate curve is just backwards, that's all. The fat guy should be on the left and the primal leaping guy should be on the right and the carbohydrate curve should be understood as how to get from fat guy to primal leaping guy with the bottom line of the graph indicating time + ability to do primal leaping things and the vertical line indicating carb grams.

    Fat guy got there eating acellular carbohydrates (flour and sugar) and refined "vegetable" oils (corn/canola,soy). These things are not only very easy to eat in caloric excess, they break the metabolism and are non-nutritious enough that your body compels you to eat a caloric excess.
    Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by IcarianVX View Post
      Fructose is always converted to fat. Just sayin.
      LM-MF-AO
      That you just say something does not make it true by itself, just saying...
      "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


      • #93
        Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
        You and Gorbag are competing for the craziest poster of 2013.
        I am going to win that battle, Choco is less crazy than me...
        "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


        • #94
          So much incomprehensible bro science pooled in one thread...

          A negligible amount of fructose is converted to fat via de novo lipogenesis
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
            You and Gorbag are competing for the craziest poster of 2013.
            Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
            I am going to win that battle, Choco is less crazy than me...
            That is just the regional champion title for the Nutrition folder. After that you will need to go against Mr.Perfidy from the Odds and Ends folder to gain the main title.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
              What do you think an actual human diet is? Hunter gatherers didn't eat grass and leaves unless they had do. Could you imagine expending hundreds of calories in walking to bring back 47 calories of leaves? We'd be dead as a species. Humans ate game meats, fruits and tubers. If the food does not contain more calories than the energy it expends to hunt and gather it, it is not worth collecting.

              Grasses and leaves are starvation foods. If you think hunter gatherers ate salad, I don't think you're thinking logically. Cucumbers, leaves and carrots are a product of agriculture. Real foods: deer, coconut, pineapple, mangoes, bananas, sweet potatoes and yams.
              I think that the real paleo diet contained way more plant and fiber than we think.

              In this blog piece What Are Prebiotics? | Mark's Daily Apple written by Mark S a couple years ago, he describes the contents of coprolites (petrified poop) found in paleolithic era cave-toilets.

              Just like his 'carb curve', I also think he missed the mark on the importance of plant fiber.

              His take, after reading the study of grok dung, was that all the fiber we need to support a healthy gut function can be found in the Big-Ass Salad we supposedly eat every day. However, his list of prebiotic-rich foods are rarely consumed in any great amount.

              Taking a peek inside the preserved dookie of the real caveman, we find some surprising things:
              From: http://ethnobiology.org/sites/defaul...1/Reinhard.pdf we see that ancient people ate lots of pollen. Pollen is a very unique substance that has been used in medicines for a long time. How would one get enough pollen to eat? Easy:


              From an NIH study on the digestibility of pollen:
              "Digestibility of pollen grains of poppy (Papaver rhoeas) and hazelnut (Corylus avellana) subjected to a human-like in vitro digestion with pancreatic enzymes was evaluated. Pollens showed different types of walls. Digestibility was determined for total protein and insoluble carbohydrate contents by means of a new application of microspectrophotometry. Results demonstrated that pollen grains of both species were only partly digested; after 24 h treatment, only 26% of carbohydrates and 48% of proteins were digested in poppy and only 3% and 59% in hazelnut. This is probably due to the difficulty of enzymes to penetrate the intine of pollen grains. The degree of digestion of insoluble carbohydrates varied in the studied species according to their chemical nature and their storage sites." Microspectrophotometric evaluation of d... [Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI
              In another study of caveman poo,

              While prebiotic plant foods have been available throughout human evolution, advances in technology have increased consumption within the last 40 000 years. Unique archaeological preservation in the arid regions of the Chihuahuan Desert provide a glimpse into dietary intakes of prebiotics that far exceed those consumed by modern man.
              Detailed paleodietary studies demonstrate that these prehistoric populations consumed a wide variety of plants, animals and other resources including prickly pear, agave, mesquite, sotol, acorns, walnut, berries, pecan, acacia, onion and other geophytes, rodents, turtle, fish, rabbits, hares, insects, birds, reptiles and deer. Analysis of well-preserved faunal and macrobotanical remains from excavated rock shelters and caves reveals a broad-spectrum diet of wild plants and predominately small animals for the entire 10 000-year record. Among the consumed plants, the desert succulents Agave, Dasylirion and prickly pear were heavily utilised, along
              with onion, Yucca and mesquite.

              No evidence of agriculture is present in the area, owing to limited rainfall, high evaporation rates
              and poor soil conditions. Of particular interest are agave, sotol and onion, all three of
              which store inulin-type fructans as the major carbohydrate.
              So, where am I going with all this? So much of what you guys are discussing--blood glucose, carbohydrate metabolism, weight control, and overall health--is controlled almost entirely by gut microbes. Carbohydrate utilization and vitamin partitioning in particular.

              I think that while if Grok and his tribe brought down a wooly mammoth they would certainly feast for days on the kill, most of our history was spent grubbing along streams and swamps for snakes and lizards and eating whatever was plentiful.

              A cattail marsh would have been then best place to live!

              "Yields are fantastic, you can harvest 140 tons of rhizomes per acre. That represents something more than 10 times the average yield per acre of potatoes. In terms of dry weight of cattail flour, the 140 tons of roots would yield approximately 32 tons.

              To extract the flour or starch from the cattail root, simply collect the roots, wash, and peel them. Next, break up the roots under water. The flour will begin to separate from the fibers. Continue this process until the fibers are all separated and the sweet flour is removed. Remove the fiber and pour off the excess water."
              Along with all this fiber and starch for year-round consumption--every spring you would also get a pollen feast.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                The Carbohydrate Curve absolutely does not exist. There is no science on Planet Earth that supports it. It is complete opinion.

                What do you think an actual human diet is? Hunter gatherers ......
                70% hunted food based on the literature. You don't hunt carbs. But that is just the average. Seriously though, Pklopp is really onto something as is many who adhere to the IF approach. Insulin does drive storage. You cannot access body fat to burn when insulin is in the picture. Just does not happen. There are many proven health advantages to a low insulin diet. By this I'm talking about the area under the insulin curve for the day, or cumulative amounts. This can be achieved via high fat low carb or by intermittent fasting. The kitavins do IF. So yeah, I believe the literature supports IF'ing and eating whole foods. And yes, the carb curve exists. Maybe not for the reasons you have attributed to it though. It's more of a portion ideal to me. I've said it before..... it keeps some yahoo from eating 30 bananas a day and calling it Primal or Paleo just cause a banana is a whole food.

                The pollen bit is interesting though
                Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-05-2013, 11:55 AM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                  The carbohydrate curve is just backwards, that's all. The fat guy should be on the left and the primal leaping guy should be on the right and the carbohydrate curve should be understood as how to get from fat guy to primal leaping guy with the bottom line of the graph indicating time + ability to do primal leaping things and the vertical line indicating carb grams.

                  Fat guy got there eating acellular carbohydrates (flour and sugar) and refined "vegetable" oils (corn/canola,soy). These things are not only very easy to eat in caloric excess, they break the metabolism and are non-nutritious enough that your body compels you to eat a caloric excess.
                  This is a very good post.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by otzi View Post
                    I think that the real paleo diet contained way more plant and fiber than we think.

                    In this blog piece What Are Prebiotics? | Mark's Daily Apple written by Mark S a couple years ago, he describes the contents of coprolites (petrified poop) found in paleolithic era cave-toilets.

                    Just like his 'carb curve', I also think he missed the mark on the importance of plant fiber.
                    Washing food is a relatively new thing. We eat washed foods grown in depleted soil. Way back when when the human race was a small percentage of what it is now and we were eating unwashed food in rich soil, the probiotic content of the food would be much, much higher. Food has also been selectively bred over centuries by farmers to increase sweetness and aesthetics, which would decrease the prebiotic content as well. Basically, you have to eat far more fibrous foods today to get the same prebiotic/probiotic content of ancient foods, right? If that logic follows, stool samples rich in pro/prebiotics from ancient times could be achieved while consuming far less vegetation. I still believe the "classic" ancient human diet is predominantly leaner game meats, fruits and starches - more emphasis on glucose than fat with roughly equal proportions of gelatinous (calcium-rich) protein and muscle (phosphate-rich) protein.
                    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      70% hunted food based on the literature. You don't hunt carbs. But that is just the average.
                      Says who? Humans evolved around the equator. Migration from non-equatorial regions is fairly Neolithic. Equatorial regions have year-long growing seasons and ample fruits. Why would you go through all the trouble of hunting potentially dangerous (and relatively lean) game when you can simply pick fruits? Traditional societies in Africa and the Pacific consume relatively low protein diets rich in sugars, starches and in many cases, coconut fats. It's actually a very Peatarian diet

                      I really don't care what societies like the Inuit ate. The comparison is drawn so often around here, yet they're a Neolithic society. Isn't that funny? They're also possibly the most haggard and fastest-aging society out there.
                      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 06-05-2013, 11:57 AM.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        Says who?
                        Says the scientific literature. There is a reason I left your quote up to "hunter gatherers..." as that is specifically the 200+ societies that this literature discusses getting 70+ percent of their daily calories from hunted animals. It really doesn't matter as I actually agree that they were not expending huge amounts of energy to bring home a salad. They would prefer nutrient AND caloric density of animals, tubers, and fruits to that of leaves and grass. All in all though the brunt of my post was to pinpoint that the common denominator for many aspects of good health may very well be low cumulative insulin rather than worrying strictly about macro proportions.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          Says the scientific literature. There is a reason I left your quote up to "hunter gatherers..." as that is specifically the 200+ societies that this literature discusses getting 70+ percent of their daily calories from hunted animals. It really doesn't matter as I actually agree that they were not expending huge amounts of energy to bring home a salad. They would prefer nutrient AND caloric density of animals, tubers, and fruits to that of leaves and grass. All in all though the brunt of my post was to pinpoint that the common denominator for many aspects of good health may very well be low cumulative insulin rather than worrying strictly about macro proportions.
                          What scientific literature? The same scientific literature that says saturated fat and cholesterol promotes heart disease? I don't believe that. So few traditional societies still in existence eat high protein. They're almost all carbivores. Given how the human metabolism works - carbohydrate upregulates CO2 production vs fats resulting in large drops in estrogen, cortisol and adrenaline and greatly increases mitochondrial output and boosts the metabolic rate - I don't see it as logical. All this stuff is opinion. Nobody really knows. It's assumption vs assumption. When you get right down to it, the better approach is actual science vs assumption, and carbohydrate + equal proportions of gelatinous and muscular protein with a deemphasis on fat (but which fat is there being predominantly saturated) seems to be the way to go. And that's what I try to do.

                          Example: my dinner last night was 1.08 lbs of frozen wild caught Mahi Mahi filets from Trader Joe's. I salted and peppered them and left them to drain, then coated them in a heaping teaspoon of coconut. I broiled them (no added fat) until crispy, turning once. In a bowl, I mixed a bunch of homemade pico de gallo with probably almost a cup of Trader Joe's 1% organic plain yogurt. I ate them in lettuce wraps. I followed that with a bowl of pureed canned pumpkin mixed with more of that 1% yogurt with another heaping teaspoon of shredded coconut with a handful of chocolate chips and cinnamon.

                          Relatively low fat, but what fat was there was saturated from coconut and chocolate. This meal was very low carbohydrate, but I'm cutting for summer a bit. Tonight after a workout, I'll do something very similar but with baked plantain chips and corn tortilla wraps instead of lettuce wraps. I'm having some good success eating this way.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            Says who? Humans evolved around the equator. Migration from non-equatorial regions is fairly Neolithic. Equatorial regions have year-long growing seasons and ample fruits. Why would you go through all the trouble of hunting potentially dangerous (and relatively lean) game when you can simply pick fruits? Traditional societies in Africa and the Pacific consume relatively low protein diets rich in sugars, starches and in many cases, coconut fats. It's actually a very Peatarian diet

                            I really don't care what societies like the Inuit ate. The comparison is drawn so often around here, yet they're a Neolithic society. Isn't that funny? They're also possibly the most haggard and fastest-aging society out there.
                            The rest of this is just funny. Basically you say.....

                            "I really like what these groups eat cause they confirm my Peatarian world view..."

                            "I really don't like what the Inuit eat cause they make me think my Peatarian world view could be incomplete...."

                            Comment


                            • Oh look, this argument again.

                              How new and exciting.
                              Dark chocolate and coffee, running through my veins...

                              Fitocracy Workout Tracker:
                              https://www.fitocracy.com/profile/Shadowknight137/?feed
                              MFP Food Diary:
                              http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/Shadowknight137
                              (Date is New Zealand Time UTC+ 12hours)

                              Comment


                              • So, I'm not the most scientifically astute person, but is there really an argument to be made that fruit is anything other than a biologically preferred food? Who learns to eat kale or try to make it edible unless they don't have other options?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X