Normal?--Going carb crazy even with a little bit of carbs? page 11

[Derpamix]

Don't move the goalposts. Here's your original quote:



I showed that our functional lifespan is currently decreasing, and that the continued increase in life expectancy is therefore due to better health care in the face of deteriorating health.

What you're essentially doing is paraphrasing me pointlessly.

Life expectancy in 1st world countries is quite high. People may be unhealthy, but our life expectancy rate is much higher than it was before. Comfortable lifestyles and modern medical sciences' ability to treat acute infection aids in this, but processed food isn't just killing people on the spot, sorry.

Also, it's funny to see you trolling by defining HFCS as "not sugar", with some bizarre pseudoscientific claptrap about "HFCS in studies has been shown to have 500% and upwards of calories because of undigested cornstarch molecules." Citation? I'm pretty sure HFCS can't be more than 100% cornstarch...and I'm also pretty sure the real figure rounds down to 0%.

Here you go:

Carbohydrate Analysis of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) Containing Commercial Beverages -- Wahjudi et al. 24 (1): 562.1 -- The FASEB Journal

Honestly, couldn't you just google it or something? I already gave you the basic outline. Metabolically HFCS seems to function the same, but people are digesting many more calories than they think. And how in the world is that a troll? I presented an argument, supported it with facts, and showed how HFCS is not equal to sucrose. Do you people just throw that word around for no reason?

<plonk>

There's apparently something about extreme diets that compels their practitioners to troll. The more prescriptive and restrictive the diet is, the more evangelistic people seem to get about it. Peatarianism is just the latest example of that.

There is nothing "extreme" about this diet, it's not even a diet. I eat whatever the hell I want. Also, there is something about every single paleo dieter that can't seem to accept differing opinions and are so closed-minded that they will call anyone that brings arguments from another side of the spectrum a "troll".

[J. Stanton]

What you're essentially doing is paraphrasing me pointlessly.

No, I'm showing that you moved the goalposts. You made an assertion, I proved it incorrect, you started tap-dancing. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

Here you go: Carbohydrate Analysis of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) Containing Commercial Beverages -- Wahjudi et al. 24 (1): 562.1 -- The FASEB Journal

This is an abstract of an experiment in progress, not a peer-reviewed paper. A search of Pubmed reveals no further paper on the subject, even though the abstract is over two and a half years old...

...which should tell you something about whether that particular hypothesis turned out to be correct.

Yes, I'm pretty sure Coca-Cola made with HFCS doesn't magically have 5x the amount of calories it says on the label due to "undigested cornstarch". There's 39 grams of either cane sugar or HFCS in a 12 ounce can of Coke. If there were really 5x the amount of carbohydrate, that would be 195 grams of carbohydrate in a single can.

Note that 12 ounces = 1 1/2 cups, and cornstarch weighs 125 grams per cup. I'm pretty sure there isn't OVER A CUP AND A HALF OF CORNSTARCH IN A CUP AND A HALF OF COKE.

Sheesh.

[Paleobird]

No, I'm showing that you moved the goalposts. You made an assertion, I proved it incorrect, you started tap-dancing. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

This is an abstract of an experiment in progress, not a peer-reviewed paper. A search of Pubmed reveals no further paper on the subject, even though the abstract is over two and a half years old...

...which should tell you something about whether that particular hypothesis turned out to be correct.

Yes, I'm pretty sure Coca-Cola made with HFCS doesn't magically have 5x the amount of calories it says on the label due to "undigested cornstarch". There's 39 grams of either cane sugar or HFCS in a 12 ounce can of Coke. If there were really 5x the amount of carbohydrate, that would be 195 grams of carbohydrate in a single can.

Note that 12 ounces = 1 1/2 cups, and cornstarch weighs 125 grams per cup. I'm pretty sure there isn't OVER A CUP AND A HALF OF CORNSTARCH IN A CUP AND A HALF OF COKE.

Sheesh.

Honestly, Dermapix, just go back to the Peat party. You are making a serious fool of yourself.

[Drumroll]

I think people do vary, but "carb sensitivity" is not as common as people think. I don't think carbs are bad for anyone, just like fat isn't bad for anyone. I think the carb paranoia on this website is on par with the old fat paranoia.... For the vast, VAST majority, good carbs simply are not an issue

Then I simply am not the "vast majority." Good or bad, I simply cannot seem to stop myself from consuming large amounts of carbs and going overboard.

It doesn't matter what the source is. Call me whatever you want, but that is just my own n=1.

[Derpamix]

No, I'm showing that you moved the goalposts. You made an assertion, I proved it incorrect, you started tap-dancing. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

I just quoted an exact post of mine that stated exactly what you were talking about. What are you talking about "moving goalposts"? People are unhealthy, no shit, but you can't point out a single variable of food consumption that is actually killing people. I just said in that exact post modern medical science is keeping people alive. How to reading comprehension?

This is an abstract of an experiment in progress, not a peer-reviewed paper. A search of Pubmed reveals no further paper on the subject, even though the abstract is over two and a half years old...

...which should tell you something about whether that particular hypothesis turned out to be correct.

Yes, I'm pretty sure Coca-Cola made with HFCS doesn't magically have 5x the amount of calories it says on the label due to "undigested cornstarch". There's 39 grams of either cane sugar or HFCS in a 12 ounce can of Coke. If there were really 5x the amount of carbohydrate, that would be 195 grams of carbohydrate in a single can.

Note that 12 ounces = 1 1/2 cups, and cornstarch weighs 125 grams per cup. I'm pretty sure there isn't OVER A CUP AND A HALF OF CORNSTARCH IN A CUP AND A HALF OF COKE.

Sheesh.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're rambling on about. I'm not sure if you're just not understanding the study, or what. I'll try to make it easier to understand.

The measurements made after hydrolysis revealed about 400-500% more calories(higher carbohydrates) than what was listed on the soda labels, which points to the presence of undigested cornstarch molecules, which corn syrup and HFCS are derived.

It's not that hard to grasp. It also coincides with rising obesity rates.

Honestly, Dermapix, just go back to the Peat party. You are making a serious fool of yourself.

And you look like nothing but a cheerleader standing on the side with absolutely nothing knowledgeable to contribute aside from anecdotal experiences. "CARBS ARE EVIL (insert internet buzzwords like troll)" Could you be any more unoriginal? No idea why I bother replying to you.

[Paleobird]

I think people do vary, but "carb sensitivity" is not as common as people think. I don't think carbs are bad for anyone, just like fat isn't bad for anyone. I think the carb paranoia on this website is on par with the old fat paranoia.... For the vast, VAST majority, good carbs simply are not an issue

Just how vast is the vast majority? Did you know that 98% of statistics are made up on the spot to support the point being made?

Also, I really think it's hard to accuse a board that has half a dozen threads devoted to spuds of having, "carb paranoia".

Carb tolerance/intolerance is a spectrum, not an either you have it or you don't condition. There are a lot of people here who are severely carb sensitive with that sensitivity manifesting itself in many different ways. Some have cravings/binging issues, some have weight gain, some have digestive issues, some have neurological issues such as myself and Cori. Many have some combination of the above. These are not things that are readily quantifiable but also things that should not be dismissed.

[Drumroll]

Just how vast is the vast majority? Did you know that 98% of statistics are made up on the spot to support the point being made?

Also, I really think it's hard to accuse a board that has half a dozen threads devoted to spuds of having, "carb paranoia".

Carb tolerance/intolerance is a spectrum, not an either you have it or you don't condition. There are a lot of people here who are severely carb sensitive with that sensitivity manifesting itself in many different ways. Some have cravings/binging issues, some have weight gain, some have digestive issues, some have neurological issues such as myself and Cori. Many have some combination of the above. These are not things that are readily quantifiable but also things that should not be dismissed.

Exactly.

[magnolia1973]

I don't doubt that there are people who physically can't eat a lot of carbs. If you've done the experimentation, and it works for you, don't eat them.

But I see a parallel for most people to the whole low fat/fat free movement. Fat is bad, I can't have fat, I go overboard on fat.... yes, because you deny yourself fat and well, most people need fat. The same thing probably happens with all of the macronutrients. Obviously, if eating a sweet potato causes a seizure, do eat low carb. Or if over months, you just don't shed fat if you eat carbs, no matter what else you eat. But I think most people would be better served learning how to intergrate all of the macros into their diet, not just saying "well, I ate an apple, then ate three, so I won't eat carbs".

[Paleobird]

I don't doubt that there are people who physically can't eat a lot of carbs. If you've done the experimentation, and it works for you, don't eat them.

But I see a parallel for most people to the whole low fat/fat free movement. Fat is bad, I can't have fat, I go overboard on fat.... yes, because you deny yourself fat and well, most people need fat. The same thing probably happens with all of the macronutrients. Obviously, if eating a sweet potato causes a seizure, do eat low carb. Or if over months, you just don't shed fat if you eat carbs, no matter what else you eat. But I think most people would be better served learning how to intergrate all of the macros into their diet, not just saying "well, I ate an apple, then ate three, so I won't eat carbs".

There is a physical need for fat in the body (The brain is over 60% fat). If you deny the body all fat for too long, yes it will rebel and scarf down the nearest bucket of KFC (now proudly "trans-fat free"). There is no requirement by the body however for dietary carbs beyond those which occur incidentally in meat, veggies, etc. Through gluconeogenesis, the body creates all the carbs it needs from the protein you eat.

The, OMG, I just have to have a cookie or I am going to die, feeling is either a metabolism that is not fully fat adapted and therefor still having blood sugar roller-coaster rides, or else it is a mental craving (comfort food). Some would argue that it is sugar addiction talking. I have never been in those shoes (binging/addictive behavior) so I'm not really sure about that question.

Bottom line. Fat is essential in your diet, carbs are not. "Essential" in the sense that it is something you need and can't make your own.

That said, I have no problem with someone who can metabolically, mentally, etc, handle carbs well, adding a spud to their Primal diet if they have the "room" in their calorie budget. Personally, I would rather have seconds on the steak.

[Derpamix]

There is a physical need for fat in the body (The brain is over 60% fat). If you deny the body all fat for too long, yes it will rebel and scarf down the nearest bucket of KFC (now proudly "trans-fat free"). There is no requirement by the body however for dietary carbs beyond those which occur incidentally in meat, veggies, etc. Through gluconeogenesis, the body creates all the carbs it needs from the protein you eat.

This is unbelievably ignorant. In gluconeogenesis a stress hormone is working full time to supply your body with glucose. Not only that, it's breaking down protein and amino acids, and since you advocate a diet rich in cysteine and trytophan, you're further damaging your thyroid function and accelerating cell aging.

Metabolically, fats don't add much of anything. The "your brain is 60% fats therefore you need dietary fat" is logical fallacy at its finest. Your body will also make plenty of saturated fats from excessive carbohydrate consumption. So, why, exactly do I need a diet rich in fat again?

The, OMG, I just have to have a cookie or I am going to die, feeling is either a metabolism that is not fully fat adapted and therefor still having blood sugar roller-coaster rides, or else it is a mental craving (comfort food). Some would argue that it is sugar addiction talking. I have never been in those shoes (binging/addictive behavior) so I'm not really sure about that question.

You're not in those shoes because your body is intentionally slowing down your metabolic rate so you don't run out of tissues while you're under extreme durations of stress.

That said, I have no problem with someone who can metabolically, mentally, etc, handle carbs well, adding a spud to their Primal diet if they have the "room" in their calorie budget. Personally, I would rather have seconds on the steak.

Oh, it's a good thing Paleobird has no problem with someone adding a "spud" to their primal diet. I guess it's okay to eat some potatoes since Paleobird has no problem with it.