Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 193

Thread: Best Rebuttal needed for Low Carb "Myth" statement page 6

  1. #51
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,638
    Primal Fuel
    Quote 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 at 05:55 AM.

  2. #52
    primalrob's Avatar
    primalrob is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    2,142
    Quote 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.

  3. #53
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    545
    Quote 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)

  4. #54
    Knifegill's Avatar
    Knifegill is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,895
    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.


    Turquoisepassion:
    Knifegill is christened to be high carb now!
    notontherug:
    the buttstuff...never interested.
    He gives me Lamprey Kisses in the midnight sea
    Flubby tubby gums latching onto me
    For all that I've done wrong, I mastodon something right...

    My pony picture thread http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread82786.html

  5. #55
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,962
    Quote 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

  6. #56
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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 at 12:04 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #57
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,585
    Quote 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…

  8. #58
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote 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.

  9. #59
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    541
    Quote 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.

  10. #60
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,638
    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 at 03:20 PM.

Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •