PDA

View Full Version : Carbohydate craze



Silverback
10-13-2002, 06:34 AM
How long do you think this trend will last in diets, before something new comes along? i know technology is getting better and better but i predict that within 2 years something new will come round the corner.

Im not sure what, but it will be on the lines of taking a pill, then you can eat almost whatever you want. What do you think will happen in the next few months/years?

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-13-2002, 06:48 AM
I thought low-carbohydrate was the current craze?

Silverback
10-13-2002, 06:52 AM
sorry low carbohydrate craze, my bad :)

restless
10-13-2002, 06:57 AM
Well, the low carbohydrate craze was going on for two million years before agriculture happened ten thousand years ago so it isn't exactly a recent trend....

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-13-2002, 07:10 AM
True, but the whole ketosis/LC diets have had a bit of a resurgence in the past few years.

body
10-13-2002, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by restless
Well, the low carbohydrate craze was going on for two million years before agriculture happened ten thousand years ago so it isn't exactly a recent trend....

Thta was low overall kcal intake and lots of famines as well. so may not means its ideal.

plus in different areas different foods where eaten as well.

restless
10-13-2002, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by body


Thta was low overall kcal intake and lots of famines as well. so may not means its ideal.

plus in different areas different foods where eaten as well.

We could have a very interesting discussion about this, but i'm not sure there's any point. Prior to the advent of agriculture there was no way we could manage to get a significant amount of calories from carbs. If you look at current hunter gatherer tribes you'll see that most of the calories come from animal sources and most have high protein and moderate to high fat diets, they also didn't have any modern man diseases like diabetes and many others. Fruit wasn't available year round to them so don't dig up that one. This has been researched plenty and these are known facts. How can people say 2 million years of evolution are wrong? It's ridiculous. That's the diet we evolved on and that's the one that suits us the most. There's actually evidence of lowered bone density and of a drop in stature during the period corresponding to the beggining of agriculture. Do you think it's a coincidence that the first populations to start eating high carb diets are also the smaller ones? (asians, in case you don't know) This is due to the high anti nutrient content of grains which prevent the absortion of some important minerals and to the lowered protein intake. I could go on forever i did a ton of research on this. Anyone who's interested in this should visit beyondveg.com and read a lot, most of it is there. Here's a link to a great article:

Beyondveg (http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml)

Tryska
10-13-2002, 08:41 AM
:withstupi

the physical archeology and forensics backs it up.

restless
10-13-2002, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Tryska
:withstupi

the physical archeology and forensics backs it up. :cool:

Tryska
10-13-2002, 09:07 AM
"Further, there are antinutrients in cereal grains which directly impair vitamin D metabolism [Batchelor 1983; Clement 1987];"


hmmm...woder if this links to the apparent increase in skin cancers?

restless
10-13-2002, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Tryska
"Further, there are antinutrients in cereal grains which directly impair vitamin D metabolism [Batchelor 1983; Clement 1987];"


hmmm...woder if this links to the apparent increase in skin cancers?

It could be. What's curious is that whole grains are the worst when it comes to antinutrient content. Although you do lose many of the mineral and vitamins in the refinement of grains you also lose the phytates that would have kept you from absorbing those vitamins and minerals. You are then left with the decision of either chosing refined grains with little fiber in them and live with permanent levels of insulin above what would be desirable (thus also possibly gaining some extra fat in the process) or going with whole grains and risking some kind of mineral deficiency in the long run....Tough call, if you ask me. Bring on the fats, is what i say.

Silverback
10-13-2002, 10:23 AM
Some good info provided by restless and tryska very nice, i didn't expect this sort of a discussion to come out of it, but it was really interesting. :)

Tryska
10-13-2002, 11:16 AM
i'm with you restless....bring on the fats. (not the frankenstien ones tho...*lol*)

personally, i eat in a way that if my body can digest it raw, then i'll eat it. (cooked or not) pretty much paleolithic.

of course this means no wheat, corn, potatoes, peanuts, cashews and chicken. dairy isn't my friend either. i do however eat oats, cottage cheese and casein and a little whey. oh and rice. (1.2 cup servings). I think of all the grains, oats and rice are the least toxic.

restless
10-13-2002, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Tryska
i'm with you restless....bring on the fats. (not the frankenstien ones tho...*lol*)

personally, i eat in a way that if my body can digest it raw, then i'll eat it. (cooked or not) pretty much paleolithic.

of course this means no wheat, corn, potatoes, peanuts, cashews and chicken. dairy isn't my friend either. i do however eat oats, cottage cheese and casein and a little whey. oh and rice. (1.2 cup servings). I think of all the grains, oats and rice are the least toxic.

No frankenstein fats to me either, that's for sure. LOL

I also eat casein and some whey, but no milk either. For grains i eat whole rice, white post workout and some whole pasta also. It 's a pitty low carb doesn't seem to allow you to put on as much muscle as moderate does. It's also pretty much paleolithic, but with 30% or so of carbs.

body
10-13-2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by restless


. If you look at current hunter gatherer tribes you'll see that most of the calories come from animal sources and most have high protein and moderate to high fat diets, they also didn't have any modern man diseases like diabetes and many other's.
Beyondveg (http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml)

the diabetes thing and other modern disease to me is all wrong.

They died of infectious disease, famines etc. most people did live long enough to get diabetes, CHD or cancers.
plus they exercised a lot, did not over eat, smoke, drink, sit in front of computer all day.

So i fail to see how that is a valid point.

gettinjackT
10-13-2002, 05:51 PM
toxic or not, carbs kickas$ ....

restless
10-14-2002, 02:11 AM
All the usual arguments. Fossil records do show violent deads to be the primary cause of death, along with resulting infections from wounds caused by wild animals and alike. I can't remember the exact numbers but if i recall correctly, paleotlithic people lived to around 37 years old, were bigger in stature and had better bone density. Agricultural man had a lot worst health, lived less during some periods (remember midle age?) but did manage to protect themselves from many of the dangers tha plagued cave man due to living in bigger comunities. If my memory doesn't fail me, diabetes was first documented by the greeks and there never was any record of it before agricultural man. And for the record, you only have to live to be a teenager to develop diabetes so age is not an argument, diet is.

restless
10-14-2002, 02:38 AM
Here's a link to an article with a table containing the average lifespans since the late paleolithic. You'll see that there was a decrease in lifespan when agriculture was introduced and that the significantly increased lifespan is a very recent trend. Notice the average height....

beyondveg (http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml)

GuitarPlayer
10-14-2002, 06:27 AM
might their health be totally unrelated to diet, and be only a result of their constant exercise?

i believe there are too many variables to make such bold statements as have been made about the diet and health of ancient man.

Tryska
10-14-2002, 06:55 AM
diet is key to health. there's no way to seperate the two. literally you are what you eat.

body
10-14-2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by restless
And for the record, you only have to live to be a teenager to develop diabetes so age is not an argument, diet is.

a lot of people these days are developing diabetes in late 30's plus. okay it may be NIDDM. but they would have not lived long enough to get it. Plus they exercised a lot, which also is a important factor in prevention.

Stray
10-14-2002, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Tryska
personally, i eat in a way that if my body can digest it raw, then i'll eat it. (cooked or not) pretty much paleolithic.

of course this means no wheat, corn, potatoes, peanuts, cashews and chicken. dairy isn't my friend either. i do however eat oats, cottage cheese and casein and a little whey. oh and rice. (1.2 cup servings). I think of all the grains, oats and rice are the least toxic.

Whats your primary source of daily protein? Do you eat fish & beef?

Tryska
10-14-2002, 11:58 AM
hmm...beef, fish, seafood. actually lots of beef. and eggs. the one exception is my preworkout myoplex.

restless
10-14-2002, 12:03 PM
I have a friend that developed insulin dependent diabetes at 23 years old and another at 30. Age is not an argument, people have been that age (23-30) for many years. All you have to do is look around for the evidence as there have been people living like this to this century and some still do. Try to find a single case of diabetes on a tradicional hunther gatherer poplulation like the Enuiq, the Australian aborigines, the jivaro's from the amazon and many others. You'll find that although some of them live to a relatively old age they don't suffer from these diseases as long as they eat their natural diets. I'm not saying that carbs are the cause of all evils that plague mankind though, trans fatty acids, hidrogenated fats and the lack of essencial fatty acids, coupled with sedentarism obviously play a very big role in this too.
I say these things after doing a ton of research so i'm not exactly talking out of my ass (not saying that you are). Problem is, people tend to hit me with their misinformed opinions and present them as facts when nothing could be further from the truth. Enough said. For those who are interested beyondveg is a great resource of information, for those who believe, there's little point in preaching to the convert, for those who won't listen to the facts, it's your loss....

restless
10-14-2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Tryska
hmm...beef, fish, seafood. actually lots of beef. and eggs. the one exception is my preworkout myoplex.

Can't go wrong with lots of beef and whole eggs!:D I do avoid most fish due to high heavy metal content, but let's not get into that. I had enough arguing for this week.

Stray
10-14-2002, 01:11 PM
I find this very interesting...any particular cuts of beef? Lower/Higher fat content matter?

Tryska
10-14-2002, 01:23 PM
i actually buy the leanest cuts i can find, preferably free-range and grass fed, but grass fed is difficult to find, so i get free-range grain-fed (which has a higher fat content) and the leanest cuts possible, or the leanest ground beef or whatever.

restless
10-14-2002, 01:39 PM
I have a childhood friend working at the butcher section in a near by supermarket so i now have around 70% off from all cuts of meat i purchase. I am a lucky bastard.:D

body
10-17-2002, 04:01 PM
do you take advtange of your trehalase enzyme?

This enzyme was probably more important for our ancestor than we use it today. go tuck and eat lots of food to use this ancient enzyme in your body. yum yum!!!

hemants
10-18-2002, 01:37 PM
For the typical lazy person who doesn't want to limit intake a low carbohydrate diet is probably a good thing.

But 99% of atheletes still eat lots of carbs, probably at least 50% of calories.

Tryska
10-18-2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by hemants
For the typical lazy person who doesn't want to limit intake a low carbohydrate diet is probably a good thing.



i take offense to that statement.

i don't think it has anything to do with limiting intake or not.

some people (using myself as an example) will not do well with just "limiting intake". a change in macronutrients is necessary.

and i'm not sure where you get the idea that a low carb diet is somehow an "easy" path to take. :rolleyes:

Silverback
10-18-2002, 04:11 PM
too right, the low carb is definately not an easy route to leaness, it takes dedication and strong will power. Ive been doing it for two weeks now and im getting the hang of it and the results so far are promising.

"Limiting intake" as tryska said will not always produce results with everyone, becuase we are all different. I usually can lose with limiting but after some persuasion, i decided to give it a go. My workouts still feel sweet and my strength is actually going up, while i have lost about 4lbs so far.

I know that quite a bit will be water because carbs help retain water giving fullness, im pretty sure i aint lost any muscle so probably 1.5lbs fat.

hemants please think your posts through before posting generalised statements.

hemants
10-18-2002, 05:04 PM
Oops I didn't mean to imply that all people on a low carb diet are lazy :) You're right I did post in a hurry.

What I meant to say is that while 99% of atheletes are still on a high carbohydrate diet, most of us who work at desk jobs probably do not burn enough calories to warrant such a high carbohydrate intake.

Thus in a sense, I think that a low to medium carbohydrate diet will be around for a long time. Not sure about a ketosis inducing diet though. Time will tell if that is healthy in the long run. I am doubtful.

captain piddles
10-18-2002, 05:23 PM
well I am on a low carb diet and I know from my experiances that it definatly aint easy, there are pot luck dinners at my work and people take it personaly if I dont eat, I dont, but they dont see how important it is for me to keep and follow my diet, also having these dinners is a major temptation, this is a sugar based society and when you dont play the sugar game it leaves you out in the cold, by the way, this is an awsome thread !

restless
10-18-2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by hemants
. Not sure about a ketosis inducing diet though. Time will tell if that is healthy in the long run. I am doubtful.

Wait, are you sugesting that the diet mankind evolved on during a couple million years is not healthy?? How can that be?

smalls
10-18-2002, 06:33 PM
Was their fat content high enough, and their protein content low enough to actually be in ketosis for long periods of time. Seriously a question.

restless
10-19-2002, 04:43 AM
They probably weren't all their lifes in ketosis, but would be in and out depending on time of the year. If fruit was available they would eat it obviously. There is little point in speculating about what they did when there's people eating to this day like they did. Present day hunter-gatherers have been researched plenty. I don't understand what you mean with "protein content low enough to actually be in ketosis". Can you explain?

bradley
10-19-2002, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by smalls
Was their fat content high enough, and their protein content low enough to actually be in ketosis for long periods of time. Seriously a question.

I was under the impression that protien had nothing to do with being in ketosis. If I am not mistaken insulin has to be low and glucagon (sp?) has to be high, and this comes about due to the lack of carbohydrates. Protien and fat are eaten as the mainstay of the diet because of their minmal affecs on insulin. It is possible for individuals that are fasting to be in ketosis and they have eaten nothing.

body
10-19-2002, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by smalls
Was their fat content high enough, and their protein content low enough to actually be in ketosis for long periods of time. Seriously a question.

You mena low carbs?

you will have some ancient people in ketosis, but many where not.

Remeber the world is a big place. Not all ancient people had the same diet.

There is not one ancient diet. there are many anciemnt diets. even seasonal varaitions etc would have effects on ketosis.

restless
10-19-2002, 05:38 AM
I feel like an hamster running inside a wheel in a cage....No matter what one says it will come back to the same place.

Yes diet was diferent from place to place, but like current hunter gatherers the diet was mainly from animal sources (65% or more). The oldest fossil record of a grain processing aparatus is from around 50 000 years ago, and even then grains couldn't have been an adequate calorie source year round.

Ketosis is a relative term, it will happen to some extent if your carb intake isn't enough to satisfy your brain and liver needs.

The main argument used by some people is the possibility of ketoacidosis ocurring. Anyone who mentions this does not what he is talking about and ignoring him would be the best course of action. Ketoacidosis is a pathological condition that ocurs only in insulin dependent diabetics and sometimes in alcoholics, it won't happen in healthy persons. The rise in insulin from the intake of protein and fat is enough to prevent it from happen.

At the worst, keto is as healthy as any other diet.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-19-2002, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by bradley


I was under the impression that protien had nothing to do with being in ketosis. If I am not mistaken insulin has to be low and glucagon (sp?) has to be high, and this comes about due to the lack of carbohydrates. Protien and fat are eaten as the mainstay of the diet because of their minmal affecs on insulin. It is possible for individuals that are fasting to be in ketosis and they have eaten nothing.

Brad, too much protein can keep a person out of ketosis. And not enough fat can prevent ketone body production.


That's all ketosis is. It's the results of incomplete burning of fat. They've kept epilieptic children in deep ketosis for up a year with no ill favoured health effects. So, i agree with restless.

By the way, some cultures can eat high fat, low carbs and keep out of ketosis. Look at the eskimos for instance. Albeit, i imagine the fact that they live in cold ass conditions has something to do with them having more BAT, still. They used to have like zero levels are heart complications and diabetes. Now since they've adopted more of an american diet, they show the same problems.

It's you Americans causing all the trouble y'know. You're like beer - the root cause and solution to all of lifes problems.

restless
10-19-2002, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy




It's you Americans causing all the trouble y'know. You're like beer - the root cause and solution to all of lifes problems.

LOL.

I don't think any of these populations had such a high protein intake that would make possible to produce enough glucose from it as to allow them to break out of ketosis. Anyway, low carb is the issue, not ketosis itself.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-19-2002, 07:00 AM
True. Funny how these things digress.

But then again, you've covered anything worthy of saying, so i have to change subject :)

hemants
10-19-2002, 07:49 AM
"Wait, are you sugesting that the diet mankind evolved on during a couple million years is not healthy?? How can that be?"

1. there was no single diet it all depended on conditions. most societies flourished around a fertile flood plain but no doubt man is equipped to survive under a variety of conditions

2. why are we looking to cavemen to determine what is a healthy diet? life expectancy today is much higher than it ever was and is constantly on the rise. we understand much more today than we did hundreds of years ago.

restless
10-19-2002, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by hemants
"Wait, are you sugesting that the diet mankind evolved on during a couple million years is not healthy?? How can that be?"

1. there was no single diet it all depended on conditions. most societies flourished around a fertile flood plain but no doubt man is equipped to survive under a variety of conditions

2. why are we looking to cavemen to determine what is a healthy diet? life expectancy today is much higher than it ever was and is constantly on the rise. we understand much more today than we did hundreds of years ago.

1- Once again, generally speaking mankind evolved on a low carb diet. I am getting tired of typing the same things over and over, so if you care, go check my previous posts.

2-Life expectancy increased in the past 100 years or so, mostly due to modern medicine which is allowing us to somewhat makeup for the hazardous nutrition and lifestyle habits we insist in folowing. During the first thousand years post agricultural revolution there was a decrease in life expectancy, bone density, height, bla, bla, bla.....All made possible by an high carb, low protein diet, sedentarism (though they were a lot more active than most of us still), etc...

Damn, I can't even stand to hear myself thinking about this any longer.

Chicken daddy, how's the weather there? :D

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-19-2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by hemants

2. why are we looking to cavemen to determine what is a healthy diet? life expectancy today is much higher than it ever was and is constantly on the rise. we understand much more today than we did hundreds of years ago.

And yet the incidence of heart disease, diabetes and atherosclerosis is greater now than then. What does that tell you?

restless, i live in Newcastle in the north, so even during the summer it's cold. And jackets and coats haven't been introduced up here yet.

restless
10-19-2002, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy




restless, i live in Newcastle in the north, so even during the summer it's cold. And jackets and coats haven't been introduced up here yet.

Ah, that's a shame....I live in Portugal were it's pretty much sunny all the time so i think i'm gonna go out in the sun for a while like our cavemen brothers used to do... And then to my PM workout.

Tryska
10-19-2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by hemants

2. why are we looking to cavemen to determine what is a healthy diet? life expectancy today is much higher than it ever was and is constantly on the rise. we understand much more today than we did hundreds of years ago.


why wouldn't you look to "cavemen" as you call them? if you want to see what man ate in his natrual state and what his body is best designed for, your best bet is to look at what man in his natural state was eating.

our genes and digestive tracts haven't changed enough over the millenia to necessarily accomadate the agrarian revolution of the past few thousand years gracefully. our lifestyle diseases should show that. The archeological evidence is there to prove out various auoimmune diseases that came about with move to an grain dependent culture (you choose the grain, i'll give you the specific autoimmune disorder).

I think it's hubris on your part, to think just because mentally we're "modern man" we somehow have physically progressed beyond nature's design. that will never be. well it might possibly be, but it will take several thousand more years of genetic selection, and all the fat diabetic kids we're starting to see, dying off before they get a chance to reproduce.

hemants
10-19-2002, 10:13 AM
1. as I said "natural state" was highly variable depending on when and where we are talking about - our genes and digestive tracts have evolved to make us highly adaptable to a tremendous variety of diets and conditions

2. cardio vascular diseases are on the rise for many reasons including lazy lifestyle, consuming too many calories for a given expenditure, and an emphasis on highly processed fast foods. At the same time, just because there were no reports of cavemen dying from hardened arteries, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm sure diagnosis wasn't the highest priority back then. Also, the longer people live, the greater the number of diseases are eventually going to catch up to us with age. eg. prostate cancer is on the rise because people (particularly men) are living longer

restless
10-19-2002, 10:24 AM
For some weird reason i can't leave these debates alone....

hemants, I'm fearing all this typing will mess my recovery after two workouts so instead of trying to refute your points, which wouldn't be that hard, I'll direct you to somewere were you can learn about it, please read this article (and the rest of the site, while you're at it...):

One more damned beyondveg article.... (http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/macronutr/macronutr-ratios-1a.shtml)

restless
10-19-2002, 10:27 AM
Actually, just check out this page:

Guess what! (http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/paleodiet/index.shtml)

_-_v_-_
10-19-2002, 12:05 PM
My carb sources: oats and sweet potatoes.

That's as "grainy" as I get.

Just some girl
10-19-2002, 07:54 PM
its funny how im going to argue a side of the issue that i dont even agree with in its most common application (i.e. as an argument against eating meat. i am totally for eating meat. i just have to speak up because i think there are some funky things being said).

First, i think it's silly to take the "let's go back to our roots millions of years ago and eat what it is that they ate because that is what is best for us" approach. That is too extreme. Sure, natural is better in many cases, but this is such an extreme version of that. There are a million and a half things that are TOTALLY different about our lifestyles now. Look at two different people today and you will see that their nutritional needs vary even from each other. How then can we look back and hope to draw a parallel that will make any sense between ourselves and our ancestors millions of years ago?

That aside (we'll pretend I don't object to that and move on to my next objection), man has not always been able to hunt. Man has not always eaten meat. In order to eat meat humans had to be able to kill things (although there are some theories that humans scavanged for meat as well as hunting for it, but these are i believe relatively recent and not fully supported theories yet, so we'll exclude them for now). Therefore we had to have weapons. Before people had made weapons, what did they eat? Whatever they could scavange from the land. While it was not cultivated, it was still plant based, and therefore carbohydrate based. Even once early hominids had the tools to kill animals, they had to learn how to work cooperatively and hunt in groups in order to make it a more available food source. I just think its humorous that because plant based food sources are seasonal, that is seen as the less useful and less available food source. What about the fact that the just as plant availability varies with the seasons, so too animal availability varies with the plants. And animals can run away! You can find animals but if you cannot kill them, you're still screwed. If you find the plants, they can't run away! You've found food. You're set.

Ok, I am slightly simplifying things and overstating my point here because I felt like it. But I just wanted to point out that while meat was an important food source for early humans, so too were plant-based foods. That's all.

noraa
10-20-2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by restless
Yes diet was diferent from place to place, but like current hunter gatherers the diet was mainly from animal sources (65% or more).

usually 65% is requarded as the upper limit. Which creates a moderate fat, moderate carbs (35%+ from plant sources) moderate protien diet, not a ketogenic diet.
Perhaps in leaner months there would have been ketogenic periods, but these would have also been related to starvation as well.
The actual protein content as a % of energy was reaching a maximum of ~35%

At the worst, keto is as healthy as any other diet. [/B]
No, at worst (a la atkins induction) a keto diet is a utter disaster, very few cultures ate such a high saturated fat diet A lower carb diet can be excellent, especially when filled with fruits and vegeatables and unsaturated fats.


Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy

And yet the incidence of heart disease, diabetes and atherosclerosis is greater now than then. What does that tell you?

It tells you nothing. Advances in medicine and health care has increased life expectancy.
Nobody in history has lived as long, so we are starting to suffer the consequences. We also suffer from a planet that is ravaged by natural and man-made toxins that have never existed. We are also the utmost laziest generation ever. Crap general diet and obesity is the cause of most health probelms. Carbs are not the cause of everything, excess calories and doing nothing is.
And atherosclerosis is NOT at the highest levels ever, maybe in russia and some of the old communist states, but not in the western world. Sure most of it is from medical care, but that is hard to statistically measure.
But give it a few years and there will be an epidemic of heart disease, thanks to the lovely epidemic of diabetes (once again excess calories and little activity)

restless
10-20-2002, 02:44 AM
To just some girl (and also to noraa). You are right in your assumptions, but my point hasn't really taken a hit. From around 2 million (a bit less on some places) years till now, man had a diet composed mainly of animal sources, most genes were formed on a relatively high meat diet and as I assume you know, trough the generations there will be a natural selection of those who have the genes more fit to the surrounding environment, like is happening these days with our diets. Some people do tolerate grains better than others.

Of course there were times when we were just gatherers and not hunters, especially around the time we were our last relative to apes and not humans yet. Meat consumption increased singificantly as we evolved to what we are today. And any way you look at it, grains weren't a big part of our diet till very recently. And for the record, the rest of the calories that weren't meat weren't necessarily carbs. Nuts were also a big part of our diet as these are very caloricly dense.

The fact is, and has been proven by fossil records, man had a worst health in the Neolithic (Agricultural man). This was due to changes in diet, particulary increased carb intake and lowered protein.

Keto diets shouldn't really have entered this conversation. I mentioned that in response to some other poster that brought it up. My bad.

I also do agree that if the types of fats are not taken in regard keto can be unhealthy, I just assumed that you could see that I was implying proper fats should be used.

In the rest of your post, noraa, you basically agree with things that I said before.

restless
10-20-2002, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by noraa


We also suffer from a planet that is ravaged by natural and man-made toxins that have never existed.


Yes, unfortunately the agricultural revolution that allowed us to produce all the wonderfull things we have today also allowed us to overpopulate the hearth to the point of doing some pretty hard to repair damage. Funny, isn't it?

body
10-20-2002, 03:41 AM
restless - you state that due the inability to make fire, they could not cook grains. Does that mean you eat or your meat raw as that is how the body would have evolved to use it.

plus on the peroid of time, when the death rate increased. Men settled in camps. these were unhygienic and full of infectious disease which were less common before as humans did live in the waste.

restless
10-20-2002, 04:12 AM
I never said that it was the inabilty to make fire that prevented from eating grains. It wasn't. It was:

The fact that grains could never be a viable calorie source is due to various reasons:

First is the considerably smaller size of wild grains. Domesticated grains were "artificially" selcted to always breed the bigger seeds possible so the grains we know now are considerably larger than they were at that time, or still are in wild nature.
Second is the fact that they weren't laid out in a single field all cute like they are now. You had to walk aorund all day long (or at least for considerable amounts of time) to obtain a couple of hundreds of grains that would provide a measly amount of calories. Not viable in any way, and there's no way around this untill agriculture happened.
Third is the lack of proper utensils to process grains, namely those necessary to grind and boil them. Ever tried to eat raw rice? It will come out just the same it went in.

So grains could never constitute a considerable part of our calories. It was meat (including small mammals as rats, snakes, some fish, insects, bugs,yek!!), some tubs, nuts, wild fruits, some vegetables and in some cultures there is evidence of small grain comsumption in specific areas dating around 50 000 years ago.

These are well researched facts. I find this subject absolutely fascinating.

body
10-20-2002, 04:25 AM
with out researching it imagine they ate basically the whole of the animal as well - brains, eyes, penis etc

restless
10-20-2002, 04:34 AM
Correct, they did eat all the organs.

hemants
10-20-2002, 08:25 AM
Restless - The website you reference seems more like propaganda than science but I'll read some more.

In any case, carbs does not necessarily = grains. Overeating of refined grains is a big nutritional problem in our society among many others.

That being said, if you're trying to put forth the thesis that since cavemen ate very low carbs that that is what is healthiest for our lifestyles today then I'm afraid that thesis is as of yet unproven.

If I've misstated your viewpoint then feel free to correct me.

Also, what I said that the long term health of a ketosis inducing diet is what I question, as opposed to normal variations of what I consider a "balanced diet".

body
10-20-2002, 08:49 AM
i do feel a lot of this is comparing a ancient diet, with a high refined carb diet. which is not recommend either.
I have seen to many keto diet trying to compare keto with high refined high GI carbs diets.

Not unrefined low/med carbs deits with meduim amounts of carbs in them.

But this is a problem with people making money they always use the worst case diet from another group of people to get there point across.

restless
10-20-2002, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by hemants
Restless - The website you reference seems more like propaganda than science but I'll read some more.



Did they try to sell you anything? Not sure I'm following you....Most of what's in those articles is backed with peer-reviewed references, so I don't see what you mean.

Body, sorry man but I could not understand your last post.

body
10-20-2002, 09:14 AM
i was making reference to one of your links. the women who did the study.

she compared a anceint diet(high fat) versus a High refined carb diet.

which is the worst carb diet out.

Tryska
10-20-2002, 09:28 AM
just to clarify - we are talkign about grains, not vegetables, fruits, tubers, nuts and seeds. all of those are easily forageable.


grains however, as restless said, didn't really provide easy nutrition. now i'm sure when people came across a patch of grains in full seed, they took advantage of that, but in order to process those grains, they would need tools, specifically at the very least a hammerstone and fire. Which would be stone age, obviously. And people spend too much time presuming we didn't have very sophisticated cultures, capable of hunting, fishing, praying, with there own social structures, and strictures, jsut because they didn't necessarily have the "finer things in life". Again, hubris.

give stone-age man some credit. they had to be relatively smart and adaptable to spawn us. My Point is....there are foods we can digest easily, and assimilate easily.

there are other foods we need to process several times over to digest, and even then they cause problems.

think of them like you think of liquor. it's good stuff....but hard to digest and metabolize, and can cause long-term problems if you consume enough, often enough.

Stray
10-21-2002, 12:11 PM
There's one thing your all not taking into account...in several episodes I CLEARLY saw Fred Flintstone using a grill to cook his slabs of brontosaurus steak...Barney was there as well.


Point moot.

body
10-21-2002, 01:32 PM
for the people who want a diet similar to our ancestors

Are you eating brains, insects, rats etc? If your going to eat like them, you might as well do it properly?

restless
10-21-2002, 01:33 PM
LOL:D

body
10-21-2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Stray
There's one thing your all not taking into account...in several episodes I CLEARLY saw Fred Flintstone using a grill to cook his slabs of brontosaurus steak...Barney was there as well.


Point moot.

fred was fat.

though betty. yep she would get it.

Stray
10-21-2002, 02:07 PM
I need to get ahold of whatever was in Bambam's bottle...

Tryska
10-21-2002, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by body
for the people who want a diet similar to our ancestors

Are you eating brains, insects, rats etc? If your going to eat like them, you might as well do it properly?


if it was offered to me, yeah. i'm not a big fan of organ meats tho. especially not with BSE and whatnot. (mostly due to the way animals are raised these days.) but if i were in china or australia eating with aborigines i'd eat the same protein they eat. the way i look at it, if it's been working well for them over all this time, how bad can it be. i'm a bit more open-minded like that tho.

body
10-22-2002, 12:07 PM
I am just a pig so I will eat (try) anything. so it does not bother me to much.

smalls
10-22-2002, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy


Brad, too much protein can keep a person out of ketosis. And not enough fat can prevent ketone body production.

.

Thanks dood.