The low-carb and Paleo diet appears to be sweeping the online self-help world, and it's spread here. Lo and behold, I come in defence of the maligned carbohydrate. Before I get started, let me give some questions for you to ponder:
1 - if you ate a diet that solely consisted of fruits, and a multivitamin for anything lacking and a healthy protein shake for protein, do you think you would become fat? (I said fat, not necessarily healthy)
2 - Do you believe that we should eat foods we have evolved to eat, and if so, do you think our attraction to sugary things like fruit and honey, and our ability to digest it so easily, comes from millions of years of evolving to want stuff that's bad for us?
3 -Are you on a paleo or low-carb diet and dealing with things like sluggishness, brain-fog, low libido, and if so, do you take that as a sign that you need to push on and "adapt", or maybe to reconsider your current diet?
4 - Do you think human kind spread across almost the entire land filled section of Earth without having bodies able to adapt very quickly to different climates, landscapes, and food, or is it more likely we have to wait millions of years to adapt to these things and survive by sheer luck in the meantime?
For me the answers to the above questions are obvious, but I'm sure there will be disagreements. Yes, your body can turn fat and protein into glucose without carbs. Yes, Inuits don't eat them. Your body can also turn protein and sugar into fat. But glucose fuels the brain - do you think it's a good idea to only give your brain minimal fuel? Ever get a headache after doing difficult mental work like playing a tough chess game or solving a complex puzzle? Do you want water and food afterwards or eat some in preparation before? In an unrelated thread a guy here called Drck told me he believed the ideal diet is 20-30% carbs, more for an athlete/weightlifter. It might be the ideal for him, and others, 20-30% seems kind of low, but probably ok, better than very-low carb and ketosis. In this article - http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/d ... peat-diet/ - half attacking and half defending the top sugar advocate Ray Peat phd, paleo-style nutritionists argue that 30% is ideal for longevity, 60% for libido. So maybe the golden mean would be around 45%?
On to the different types of carbs. Two main types, complex and simple. In the paleo world complex carbs seem to be the preferred verion - potatoes, sweet potatoes, maybe white/brown rice, starch basically. For me I prefer fruit and the simple carb. Starch contains glucose but little fructose. That is why paleo people love it, but fructose actually slows down the absorption of sugar into the body. It is better for diabetics and for preventing diabetes. I also like honey - I did low-carb for a while, but could never resist wolfing down honey. Which I will cover in the next paragraph on trusting yourself. But firstly, what do our nearest genetic primates eat? A lot of sugar, in the form of fruit. Some protein from insects and other small monkeys and eggs (fruitarians always neglect that part of chimps/bonobo monkeys diet). If they had agriculture they might also eat dairy or some animals milk they could digest, but dairy is a different topic.
Ok, instead of getting too scientific, I'm simply going to ask why don't you trust your body. Does it crave things it shouldn't? Sure, probably. But can you examine those things to see what you really need? I used to occasionally crave sausages. Now sausages are a pretty poor meat source, and filled with all kinds of additives and low-quality meat, so in theory my body shouldn't really need them. I decided to look at the ingredients of my favourite brand, and I saw that the second highest ingredient was sodium. And I don't have much salt in my diet, so I realised my body was craving salt. Since upping my salt intake I don't get those sausage cravings anymore. Psychosomatic? Maybe, maybe not. I crave Mcdonalds sometimes too, I think that's just addictive chemicals in the burgers though, your body isn't foolproof. But if you're craving a super unhealthy sugary soda, can you examine what is it your body is really after? Sugar? Caffeine? Your body knows what it needs, you've just trained it to associate those needs with certain things, but you could always switch soda for orange juice or something better, or tea and coffee if caffeine is what you truly need.
For me fruit will always be superior to starch, and then natural starches like potatoes will be superior to man-made starches like bread, but you have to make do with your budget. But don't wolf down big loaves of bread, feel like crap and complain that carbs are the problem, you wouldn't feel that way with fruit. Instead of avoiding carbs, maybe just increase the quality. Don't get me started on most vegetables though, sure they have some health benefits, but they don't really have enough calories to give you any energy, and there's probably a good reason your body doesn't like the taste so much. So forget where I said I prefer natural carbs, just fruit, raw honey, a bit of starch, and minimal vegetables...
If anyone is interested, researchers at McGill did an experiment with 3 babies, letting them choose their own food from a wide variety for several months, most of them started age 6 months and had little to no experience with food outside their mothers milk. The babies had no instructions on what to eat and complete autonomy on choice (though they needed help getting fed). The diets are high in cow milk, fruit, and bone marrow, moderate in muscle meat and organ meat, moderate to low in starch, and low in vegetables, with differences between the 3 (they ate the meat raw or rare, but not well-cooked, good taste). The experiment was not considered conclusive, but the babies all appeared healthy and happy after the experiment, suggesting they'd been eating well. For me a diet chosen on instinct may well be a better representative of what our ancestors would have chosen to eat if they had access, rather than speculation by guys trying to sell you things. You can read it here - http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... is1928.pdf
1 - if you ate a diet that solely consisted of fruits, and a multivitamin for anything lacking and a healthy protein shake for protein, do you think you would become fat? (I said fat, not necessarily healthy)
2 - Do you believe that we should eat foods we have evolved to eat, and if so, do you think our attraction to sugary things like fruit and honey, and our ability to digest it so easily, comes from millions of years of evolving to want stuff that's bad for us?
3 -Are you on a paleo or low-carb diet and dealing with things like sluggishness, brain-fog, low libido, and if so, do you take that as a sign that you need to push on and "adapt", or maybe to reconsider your current diet?
4 - Do you think human kind spread across almost the entire land filled section of Earth without having bodies able to adapt very quickly to different climates, landscapes, and food, or is it more likely we have to wait millions of years to adapt to these things and survive by sheer luck in the meantime?
For me the answers to the above questions are obvious, but I'm sure there will be disagreements. Yes, your body can turn fat and protein into glucose without carbs. Yes, Inuits don't eat them. Your body can also turn protein and sugar into fat. But glucose fuels the brain - do you think it's a good idea to only give your brain minimal fuel? Ever get a headache after doing difficult mental work like playing a tough chess game or solving a complex puzzle? Do you want water and food afterwards or eat some in preparation before? In an unrelated thread a guy here called Drck told me he believed the ideal diet is 20-30% carbs, more for an athlete/weightlifter. It might be the ideal for him, and others, 20-30% seems kind of low, but probably ok, better than very-low carb and ketosis. In this article - http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/d ... peat-diet/ - half attacking and half defending the top sugar advocate Ray Peat phd, paleo-style nutritionists argue that 30% is ideal for longevity, 60% for libido. So maybe the golden mean would be around 45%?
On to the different types of carbs. Two main types, complex and simple. In the paleo world complex carbs seem to be the preferred verion - potatoes, sweet potatoes, maybe white/brown rice, starch basically. For me I prefer fruit and the simple carb. Starch contains glucose but little fructose. That is why paleo people love it, but fructose actually slows down the absorption of sugar into the body. It is better for diabetics and for preventing diabetes. I also like honey - I did low-carb for a while, but could never resist wolfing down honey. Which I will cover in the next paragraph on trusting yourself. But firstly, what do our nearest genetic primates eat? A lot of sugar, in the form of fruit. Some protein from insects and other small monkeys and eggs (fruitarians always neglect that part of chimps/bonobo monkeys diet). If they had agriculture they might also eat dairy or some animals milk they could digest, but dairy is a different topic.
Ok, instead of getting too scientific, I'm simply going to ask why don't you trust your body. Does it crave things it shouldn't? Sure, probably. But can you examine those things to see what you really need? I used to occasionally crave sausages. Now sausages are a pretty poor meat source, and filled with all kinds of additives and low-quality meat, so in theory my body shouldn't really need them. I decided to look at the ingredients of my favourite brand, and I saw that the second highest ingredient was sodium. And I don't have much salt in my diet, so I realised my body was craving salt. Since upping my salt intake I don't get those sausage cravings anymore. Psychosomatic? Maybe, maybe not. I crave Mcdonalds sometimes too, I think that's just addictive chemicals in the burgers though, your body isn't foolproof. But if you're craving a super unhealthy sugary soda, can you examine what is it your body is really after? Sugar? Caffeine? Your body knows what it needs, you've just trained it to associate those needs with certain things, but you could always switch soda for orange juice or something better, or tea and coffee if caffeine is what you truly need.
For me fruit will always be superior to starch, and then natural starches like potatoes will be superior to man-made starches like bread, but you have to make do with your budget. But don't wolf down big loaves of bread, feel like crap and complain that carbs are the problem, you wouldn't feel that way with fruit. Instead of avoiding carbs, maybe just increase the quality. Don't get me started on most vegetables though, sure they have some health benefits, but they don't really have enough calories to give you any energy, and there's probably a good reason your body doesn't like the taste so much. So forget where I said I prefer natural carbs, just fruit, raw honey, a bit of starch, and minimal vegetables...
If anyone is interested, researchers at McGill did an experiment with 3 babies, letting them choose their own food from a wide variety for several months, most of them started age 6 months and had little to no experience with food outside their mothers milk. The babies had no instructions on what to eat and complete autonomy on choice (though they needed help getting fed). The diets are high in cow milk, fruit, and bone marrow, moderate in muscle meat and organ meat, moderate to low in starch, and low in vegetables, with differences between the 3 (they ate the meat raw or rare, but not well-cooked, good taste). The experiment was not considered conclusive, but the babies all appeared healthy and happy after the experiment, suggesting they'd been eating well. For me a diet chosen on instinct may well be a better representative of what our ancestors would have chosen to eat if they had access, rather than speculation by guys trying to sell you things. You can read it here - http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... is1928.pdf
