Printable View
Some people just can't accept that low carb can be healthy if done correctly. Let them believe that. I find it not worth the arguements I get into.
Like I always say, high carb, low carb, nutrition is individual. Go for what you know works for you and not what the masses say works for you.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1026175]and you know the bacteria in your gut feed off sugar, right? Eliminating fruit and starch is a great way to kill off your beneficial gut bacteria. Starch gives you diarrhea? Probably because you have terrible gut flora, your mitochondria are tired and inefficient (low CO2 - get your CO2 levels tested), your thyroid is slow and you're constantly pumping out estrogen, cortisol, serotonin and adrenaline from forcing your body in a chronic state of gluconeogensis, which is very stressful. I bet milk gives you horrible gas doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
No shit. Gut flora is a function of what you eat. If you don't any broccoli for 5 years and you eat it again, you have to reintroduce the bacteria that consume it back into your system. That doesn't mean that you have to eat broccoli all the time to maintain that gut bacteria if you don't want to.....
[QUOTE=Drumroll;1026205]Some people just can't accept that low carb can be healthy if done correctly. Let them believe that. I find it not worth the arguements I get into.
Like I always say, high carb, low carb, nutrition is individual. Go for what you know works for you and not what the masses say works for you.[/QUOTE]
I agree. And I'm not going to bother with any argument. It's a bit annoying when people who should know better blatantly misrepresent the science though. Just more low carb is bad for you pseudoscience bull.
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1026212]I agree. And I'm not going to bother with any argument. It's a bit annoying when people who should know better blatantly misrepresent the science though. Just more low carb is bad for you pseudoscience bull.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you don't know what you are doing, it CAN be very bad for you to go low carb.
But as long as you've done your research and have a firm knowledge of the risks involved and how to go low carb in a healthy manner, then you can do great and even thrive. Though, fair warning... It's not something to just jump into because "you can."
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1026196]^Dude settle down. That may be the most nonsense I've ever seen you spout in a single post! Almost none of what you said here has any basis in reality. Gold star bro![/QUOTE]
Like what? I'm consistently unimpressed with your appeal-to-authority approach at arguing. I'd like to see you make a compelling argument that isn't a logical fallacy.
Just a potato here and there.
I've never understood the "non-starchy veggies" worship. So what? When you swap starchy veggies for non-starchy ones, you end up trading glucose for fructose and fiber, inviting a host of potential gut irritants. Just go to nutritiondata.com and compare the carb breakdown of a potato to that of a rutabaga or a beet. Besides, potatoes, sweet potatoes, bananas, properly cooked beans, etc. are plenty nutrient dense. Obviously this is all individual and some people do terribly on starches, but just as many others have reported clearing up IBS symptoms by swapping fibrous veggies for starches. Their voices tend to get drowned out by the atkins people, and then we end up having to deal with people like Matt Stone and the peatarians as an alternative, and that's no fun.
The problem with CW starches lies more in the fact that they've taken sub-optimal cereals, selectively bred them for higher protein content, then processed the crap out of them and glued them back together with loads of sugar and shitty rancid fats. America didn't get obese on lentils and roots.
The more I learn about nutrition and biochem, the more terms like "carbohydrate" and "fat" lose any meaning to me. They're more useful as tools of obfuscation by industrial food machine propagandists and snake-oil diet gurus. Neglecting to consider whether a carb-source may be beneficial or detrimental based on other variables strikes me as the same kind of mistake pop diet gurus make when they focus entirely on cals in/cals out.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1026729]Like what? I'm consistently unimpressed with your appeal-to-authority approach at arguing. I'd like to see you make a compelling argument that isn't a logical fallacy.[/QUOTE]
And I'm consistently unimpressed with you making your personal statements of opinion as if they were fact without any scientific or logical backing.
Ok, first when you group over 200 hunter gatherer tribes studied [B]prior[/B] to modern cultural obtrusion via anthropological data gathered through the [I]Ethnographic Atlas by Dr. George P. Murdock[/I] you get an average of less than 30% of daily calories being ingested as carbohydrate and for 1/4 of those tribes you have less than 15% of daily caloric load as carbohydrate. Its my belief that HG tribes provide the best data set to mimic as they are a reasonable link as to what the paleo diet of today might actually resemble since much of the fauna and animals of the paleolithic period are no longer around.
That is not to say that a small portion of the societies do not subsist on mainly starch, but definitely does show that humans have a definite niche as meat centric animals. Unless, you want to argue that most HG's just aren't "doing it right". We could just stop here and assume that because these tribes are healthy and without diseases of civilization that is proof enough that a low carbohydrate diet can be quite healthful.
As to your assertion about traditional societies and starch pleas feel free to list your source. Are these modern societies? What type of societies are they (agricultural, hunter gatherer, pastoral....)? And how many of them have you analyzed?
Next your assertions on hypothyroid are again simply that...an assertion without factual basis. The fact is hypothyroid [B]symptoms[/B] have a variety of causes and breaks in the pathways. Some of which are actually treated quite well with a low carbohydrate diet. Others not so much. That you blanket statement "low carb is...." does a great disservice and trivializes what is in fact going on, and the individualized treatment that is actually needed to get to the root cause of each persons hypo symptoms.
We will just start with that before bothering with your fallacies about stress hormone and the like.
What I don't actually understand is why you bother running so hot and cold on various subjects. There is plenty of evidence of people thriving on low carb....curing type II diabetes, keeping neurological disorders at bay, improving cardio markers, losing weight...ect. Is there evidence of people thriving on starch too? Sure...so why make one of the two evil just cause your no longer doing it? You have no evidence that it is detrimental and quite a lot showing it has been one of humanities diets for ages. You don't have to validate your own choice by making (albeit a poor attempt) and attempt to discredit others.
[QUOTE=Chaohinon;1026752]Obviously this is all individual and some people do terribly on starches, but just as many others have reported clearing up IBS symptoms by swapping fibrous veggies for starches[/QUOTE]
See, this is the problem statement I have. Most people that seem to have issues with starches created these issues by adhering to low carbohydrate diets. Low carb diets do three big things to you:
1.) They drop the CO2 production of your mitochondria and lower your thyroid, ultimately leading to a slower metabolic rate over time and increased stress hormones.
2.) They cause insulin resistance. It's not the same type of insulin resistance you'll get from a pizza, bagels and soybean oil diet, but the more you abstain from starch, the worse your body will react to it.
3.) They stifle your gut bacteria.
People that commonly "can't handle starch" do this:
They stay on a low carbohydrate diet for many months or even years, decide to try something starchy, feel off (tired/gassy/etc), then conclude from one or two meals that they can't handle starch.
Well, your low carbohydrate diet has suppressed your starch-digesting gut bacteria, so you're having issues digesting said starch. Your low carbohydrate diet has made you insulin resistant, so you are having issues regulating glucose. That's not the fault of starch. You have to regularly incorporate starch into your diet so your gut bacteria can recover and you recover your lost insulin resistance.
It's pretty simple. Human beings have been eating starch longer and in greater quantities than anything else. We're clearly omnivores - we do best when we include EVERYTHING - meat, fruit, starch and vegetables. You can't abstain from 1/3 of the food in the world, causing your body to adjust itself accordingly to deal with a stressful, restrictive diet, then complain when you have food allergies and intolerances. Food intolerances aren't just inherited, they're created.
[quote]Besides, potatoes, sweet potatoes, bananas, properly cooked beans, etc. are plenty nutrient dense. Obviously this is all individual and some people do terribly on starches, but just as many others have reported clearing up IBS symptoms by swapping fibrous veggies for starches. Their voices tend to get drowned out by the atkins people, and then we end up having to deal with people like Matt Stone and the peatarians as an alternative, and that's no fun.
The problem with CW starches lies more in the fact that they've taken sub-optimal cereals, selectively bred them for higher protein content, then processed the crap out of them and glued them back together with loads of sugar and shitty rancid fats. America didn't get obese on lentils and roots.
The more I learn about nutrition and biochem, the more terms like "carbohydrate" and "fat" lose any meaning to me. They're more useful as tools of obfuscation by industrial food machine propagandists and snake-oil diet gurus. Neglecting to consider whether a carb-source may be beneficial or detrimental based on other variables strikes me as the same kind of mistake pop diet gurus make when they focus entirely on cals in/cals out.[/quote]
I like how you put it. :)