Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 110

Thread: The 80/10/10 Diet by T. Colin Campbell (The China Study)

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    264

    The 80/10/10 Diet by T. Colin Campbell (The China Study)

    I didn't see this being discussed already-Campbell has a new book out called Whole, where he advocates an 80-10-10 macros diet, (80% being carbs). I just put a library hold on it I read The China Study and it was interesting, to say the least lol.

    Has anyone read Whole yet? If so-thoughts?
    *Sara*

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,426
    Well, have you read what Denise Minger had to say about the China Study?

    Raw Food SOS | Rescuing good health from bad science.

    I'm sure she'll be on it. He's a pet project of hers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by mom23kids View Post
    I didn't see this being discussed already-Campbell has a new book out called Whole, where he advocates an 80-10-10 macros diet, (80% being carbs). I just put a library hold on it I read The China Study and it was interesting, to say the least lol.

    Has anyone read Whole yet? If so-thoughts?
    80% carbs??? Why does he hate humans so much?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,426
    Quote Originally Posted by anna5 View Post
    80% carbs??? Why does he hate humans so much?
    His life's work has been misinterpreting data to "prove" that animal protein is harmful to humans.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,623
    Quote Originally Posted by anna5 View Post
    80% carbs??? Why does he hate humans so much?
    I'd probably do 80% carbs before I'd do 80% fat for a multitude of health reasons, and people around here frequently shoot for the 70+% range of fat. Eek, no wonder so many people have cold hands and feet, thinning hair and body temps in the 96's around here. That being said, 10% protein is far too low. I wouldn't want to keep fat that low either because it'll encourage de novo lipogenesis. I personally like around 30% fat, 30% protein and 40% carbs for the average person.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,301
    Sounds a lot like the Joel Fuhrman thing.

    Anyone who axes refined oil, sugar, and wheat is going to improve. That's practically Primal Blueprint in a nutshell. But I really have to wonder how many people can tolerate such additional severe lifelong restrictions. Whenever a person claims to be smarter than the practitioners of virtually all global/historical cuisine, I get suspicious.
    36//6'3"/180

    My peculiar nutrition glossary and shopping list

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    sunshine state
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by picklepete View Post
    But I really have to wonder how many people can tolerate such additional severe lifelong restrictions.
    Apparently, plenty of people on this forum have no problem tolerating severe lifelong restrictions:

    Quote Originally Posted by richard View Post
    I'm pursuing a very low carb and low protein way of eating right now.

    So now my goal is to get 80% of calories from fat. Or more.
    How is eating 80% carbs any more restrictive than 80% fat?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    International Citizen
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by BestBetter View Post
    How is eating 80% carbs any more restrictive than 80% fat?
    The real question is where is the evolutionary basis for 80% carbs, as opposed to 80% fat for which there is a basis.

    It's not about being arbitrarily restrictive.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    The real question is where is the evolutionary basis for 80% carbs, as opposed to 80% fat for which there is a basis.

    It's not about being arbitrarily restrictive.
    Which is? And they both end up in the same state: gluconeogenesis. Which is why I now consume much more protein.

    Socio-anthropology is useless, it's a strawman based on historical inaccuracies and things you cannot prove. Throw the inuit in a tropical climate and I guarantee they wouldn't be craving polar bear and trying to get the majority of their calories from meat and fat. They also wouldn't look so torn up and haggard and probably feel much better too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    The body needs some glucose (which it can produce) but runs very very well on fat.
    Which it produces very inefficiently, and the fact that it stubbornly will produce glucose regardless of your restrictive diet shows that it needs glucose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    Really? Getting 80% of your calories from the most nutritionally poor high sugar food and you think that is good?????
    I guess fruit and roots are considered nutritionally poor whereas keto mongers consider butter and coconut oil(only possible way to enter ketosis is to consume lots of these sources of fat as the bulk of your calories) nutritionally dense.

    You need more glucose, you're not thinking clearly.
    Last edited by Derpamix; 05-22-2013 at 02:20 AM.
    Make America Great Again

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Which is? And they both end up in the same state: gluconeogenesis. Which is why I now consume much more protein.

    Socio-anthropology is useless, it's a strawman based on historical inaccuracies and things you cannot prove. Throw the inuit in a tropical climate and I guarantee they wouldn't be craving polar bear and trying to get the majority of their calories from meat and fat. They also wouldn't look so torn up and haggard and probably feel much better too.



    [1]Which it produces very inefficiently, and the fact that it stubbornly will produce glucose regardless of your restrictive diet shows that it needs glucose.


    [2]I guess fruit and roots are considered nutritionally poor whereas keto mongers consider butter and coconut oil(only possible way to [3] enter ketosis is to consume lots of these sources of fat as the bulk of your calories) nutritionally dense.

    [4]You need more glucose, you're not thinking clearly.
    [1] Please considering you know nothing about MY diet i would love for you to explain how my diet in anyway restrictive? I eat a tonne of tasty veg, along with some healthy protein and fat! That veg produces more than enough glucose for the body or do you live in some pseudoscience world?

    [2]Roots are fine but grains and fruit is nutritionally poor compared to veg and not a good choice in huge amounts due to the higher glucose and fructose content.

    [3]I am not going to speak for those who want to go into ketosis, that is their choice.

    [4]although the brain needs some glucose fat is a much more important for brain health
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

Posting Permissions

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