Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Confused? Are carbs really that important? page

  1. #1
    MumtazG38's Avatar
    MumtazG38 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    56

    Confused? Are carbs really that important?

    Primal Fuel
    CAUTION: Serious hits being delivered on Vegetables here....please avert your eyes if you can't stand people who complain about the aforementioned. (don't hurt me)

    I'm trying to understand here...according to the PB, and not to mention basic bio here(if I even remember correctly from way back when), protein equals fuel -Sat Fat equals fuel (plus satiety), carbs equal fuel (am I right??), sugar equals insulin equals fuel (very very naughty fuel).

    Carbs equal fuel, carbs from grains (whole wheat/grains, rice blah blah) equals fuel plus loads of stuff to create naughty insulin (equals naughtyness!) and loads of right foolishness nutritionally.
    Carbs from veggies equal fuel plus other really really good stuff......nutritionally dense.

    So being totally primal here...a person eats proteins and fats (eggs,meat,fowl,fish, omega-3) and gains enough fuel to not only function properly throughout the day but to maintain a healthy weight (or lose some in this PB'ers case ). Is it truly necessary then to load up on veggies according to Mark's Primal Pyramid? I mean, a person could not only function but optimally lose weight by filling his/her plate mainly with meat and some veggies....rather than straight veggies veggies veggies...and then some meat on the side? (fuel right?) I mean...doesn't restricting carbs initially lead to optimum weight loss and muscle gain (bye bye insulin)? So since veggies are initially just carbs that are incredibly nutritionally dense as apposed to carbs that are lacking in all nutrition whatsoever and simply there to quick fix your hunger and delay it rather than satisfy it (ummm...breads, pastas, cakes, cereals, rice and the list goes on) couldn't a person completely 0grams on the stuff(carbs again) to lose optimum weight safely as long as the remaining nutritional gaps were being filled using supplementation?

    Rap it up here:
    Wouldn't it be okay(...optimal...)to cut out all sources of carbs, good or bad in order to go 95%-100% primal? Just stick to primal meats/oils etc. as fuels and primal fruits (generally berries in my case - loads of berries) and supplementation to fill in the gaps? DO WE REALLY NEED CARBS SO BADLY! DO THOSE VEGGIES HELP US OR HURT US until we get to the "Effortless Weight Management" levels and/or above?

  2. #2
    Chefgerry's Avatar
    Chefgerry is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    In the frozen North
    Posts
    340
    I'm not sure why some people believe being primal means completely leaving out carbs....or that optimal weight loss can only happen in the absence of carbs. Reminds me of the type of dogma I see all the time from vegans.........just saying.
    Last edited by Chefgerry; 07-21-2010 at 02:29 AM.

  3. #3
    Pandadude's Avatar
    Pandadude is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    612
    The way I see it: A high % of the calories in vegetables are carbs, but the actual carb content is still low in most veggies because they're just so darn low in calories, volume wise. Low calorie + high volume probably also has the psychological effect of making it appear you're eating a lot of food, resulting in automatic portion control.
    Some parts of the body (primarily the brain if I remember correctly) function ONLY on glucose, so while you could get that glucose through additional protein, it might aswell come from a carb source. Vegetables also contain various micro-nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals that I don't believe the average meat based diet can supply, because what we have available from stores/butchers is mostly muscle tissue with a low fat content, and if raised in the conventional manner contain a worse nutritional profile than the same animals in the wild.
    Afaik the cultures that do eat carnivore have an emphasis on organ meats and fatty cuts.

    I'm not an expert, but I hope what I wrote made sense.

  4. #4
    MumtazG38's Avatar
    MumtazG38 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    56
    It's actually NOT something I believe...hence the confusion. It's just that the way Mark puts it in his book makes me conclude that it would be optimal to leave carbs out in order to lose weight...and add carbs in in order to maintain or gain weight. Just look at the Carbohydrate Curve diagram the weight loss categories range from 0-100 grams....with 50 or below being Ketosis/Intermittent Fasting. It seems that the less carbs you eat the more optimally you lose weight, by reducing carbs 80-100% you lose weight.It just seems not only are the BAD CARBS completely out of the picture but other sources of carbs can be taken out of a primal diet in order to lead to optimal weight loss. Now I'm not saying that by simply going zero carbs a person should maintain constant daily keto/IF....that person would still be eating primal foods other than vegetables so technically this person would not be IF unless they didn't eat at all.

    If you didn't notice before I'm obviously ASKING a question...not making a statement...or stating a "belief" as you would call it. So what grudge you have against vegans has no relevance here.
    Last edited by MumtazG38; 07-21-2010 at 03:21 AM.

  5. #5
    MumtazG38's Avatar
    MumtazG38 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandadude View Post
    The way I see it: A high % of the calories in vegetables are carbs, but the actual carb content is still low in most veggies because they're just so darn low in calories, volume wise. Low calorie + high volume probably also has the psychological effect of making it appear you're eating a lot of food, resulting in automatic portion control.
    Some parts of the body (primarily the brain if I remember correctly) function ONLY on glucose, so while you could get that glucose through additional protein, it might aswell come from a carb source. Vegetables also contain various micro-nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals that I don't believe the average meat based diet can supply, because what we have available from stores/butchers is mostly muscle tissue with a low fat content, and if raised in the conventional manner contain a worse nutritional profile than the same animals in the wild.
    Afaik the cultures that do eat carnivore have an emphasis on organ meats and fatty cuts.

    I'm not an expert, but I hope what I wrote made sense.
    Made total sense! But, isn't it possible to get that same glucose and such micro-nutrients and phytochemicals from various sources of fruits/berries and/or nuts (preferably fruits/berries for the purpose of this discussion and due to the fact that the sheer volume of nuts a person would need to eat to compensate could actually make a person go nuts (pun intended, obviously)?
    Last edited by MumtazG38; 07-21-2010 at 03:17 AM. Reason: I love berries ;)

  6. #6
    Chefgerry's Avatar
    Chefgerry is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    In the frozen North
    Posts
    340
    Marks also states that with consuming 0-50 carbs supplementation is needed because we're depriving our bodies of valuable and needed nutrients and that it's not a long term solution..........As far as optimal weight loss is concerned and I won't even mention calories but just say that fat is digested pretty easily by the body and is around 95 % efficiently absorbed. Vegetable are not easily absorbed by the body and require energy for digestion.....it's called the thermic effect of food (TEF). Replacing some fat with some vegetable would require the body to burn extra energy therefore resulting in a lower net calorie balance....enhancing the calorie out side of the energy balance equation.......but again you would need to believe that weight loss is based on calories in vs calories out, which seems like that might be a stretch in low carb country.
    Last edited by Chefgerry; 07-21-2010 at 03:35 AM.

  7. #7
    MumtazG38's Avatar
    MumtazG38 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Chefgerry View Post
    Marks also states that with consuming 0-50 carbs supplementation is needed because we're depriving our bodies of valuable and needed nutrients and that it's not a long term solution......
    Yes, absolutely. I mentioned supplementation and compensating with carbs from low fructose/glucose fruits (berries) and/or nuts which can provide much of the nutrients the body would need. And who said anything about long-term...simply to drop 30lbs (around 3-4 months) is the purpose. 80-100% of the time 0-50 -100grams. Say it's a 7-day week...3-5 days a person (who can tolerate them) eats fruits and nuts (and supplementation) 0-50gms and the other 2-3 days that person eats vegetables and tries for 100grams carbohydrates.

    Basically, I feel as if the amount of vegetables/fruits (carbohydrates) to meats ratio is a bit high when looked at on a per meal basis, based on the Primal Food Pyramid. It just seems easier to cut down on carbs a bit more and replace with fruits and nuts as much as possible. Otherwise my plate always seems to be covered with just the greens and a side of meat....I get full too easily with the veggies but simply feel totally unsatisfied having not eaten enough meat....

    I'm new to the Primal lifestyle and am just trying to find my way just yet. I'm not a big fan of vegetables and nor is my husband (we are straight carnivores)...the two of us have a hard time managing how much meat we eat compared to the volume of vegetables at each meal....it leaves both of us incredibly unsatisfied after meals, feeling as if we should go for another piece of that chicken even though we know we're probably full at the same time. It's strange and I've never experienced this feeling before...being used to having 2/3meat to 1/3 veggies or fruits on my plate. I mean, I have no problem with having one large bowl of Fattoush salad with grilled chicken or beef strips for lunch..but for breakfast and dinner (and sometimes a piece or two in between) my husband and I prefer to have largely meat/fish/fowl (protein...eggs) based meals. Even our snacks are usually beef jerky or turkey jerky (Don't worry...the primal kind) We simply can't find anything to do to the veggies to make them taste more....tasteful and less like veggies so we can eat more of them according to Marks Pyramid.

    ahhh....first the sweets, then the traditional rice and flatbreads....so many sacrifices and so many more to come it seems. All for better health though right!
    Last edited by MumtazG38; 07-21-2010 at 04:41 AM.

  8. #8
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by MumtazG38 View Post
    DO WE REALLY NEED CARBS SO BADLY!
    Not really. There were people who ate virtually no starchy foods; indeed, not much other than meat and fat. So I guess we don't need them, let alone need them badly.

    However, those people knew which animals to kill and which parts of the carcase to eat. For example, if you had to get your vitamin C from animal sources, you'd need to eat the marrow and probably the adrenal glands. They also all ate a percentage of their meat raw. That seems to be important. Are you up for that?

    Basically, people who lived in climates where plant foods weren't around for at least part of the year managed just fine without them. However, you and I probably lack the requisite detailed knowledge of which parts of a kill to eat - and probably easy access to some of the body parts you would need to eat in that situation, too.

    Put it like this - there are easier ways to get all the nutrients you need.

    DO THOSE VEGGIES HELP US OR HURT US ...?
    Eating isn't just about calories. As long as you're getting adequate quantities of good fat (along with its fat-soluble vitamins) then you can stand to get some of your calories from plants, including vegetables. A more important thing to consider might be whether any particular diet is giving you the whole range of nutrients your body needs.

    If you enter meals on Fitday, as some people do here, you'll see one tab includes an analysis of various nutrients present in the foods you've eaten matched against their RDA (recommended Daily Amount). If you were well down on anything there, then you'd want to be getting whichever nutrient from some source, whether animal or plant. The most easily obtainable in whichever area/climate you're living will be the obvious one, and if, as part of the package, you get some carbohydrate with it, it's a very much lesser issue and perhaps not one at all.

  9. #9
    NorthernMonkeyGirl's Avatar
    NorthernMonkeyGirl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,562
    As a one-person experiment, I gravitate towards the slab-of-meat-with-a-handful-of-veg diet style. Trying to cram in more plant matter than I wanted made me give up halfway through meals, feel full/nauseous / hungry again later etc.
    Now having read around various sites, I feel more confident that my body will tell me what it wants. Right now it wants mainly meat, rare to the point of running away. Yesterday it wanted (shock, horror!) an apple with almond butter. This week it's been mainly meat. In fact, now I've given myself permission to fall halfway between "proper" PB and "zero carb" I feel a lot better.

    For example, the other day I had a nice fat steak, with just one beetroot (the root plus the leaves) on the side. Yummy!

    I do supplement, just in case (and because I have other issues going on).

  10. #10
    MalPaz's Avatar
    MalPaz is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    2,790
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    i dont advocate the huge meat with a sliver of veggie thing. for one, i dont think protein is needed in abundance in ANY way more than .8-1g per LBM. it causes more stress than good on the body, thermogensis or not. second, a portion of FATTTTTTTY meat aka more fat than protein is good.

    veggi wise, i think roots & tubers are better than your 'greens' for the simple fact theyre more digestable, and more chance youll actually absorb what's in them

    just my opinion

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •