The Truth About Nutrition

Karky,

30% is a general guideline. It's not going to hurt you to go to 25% but 30 isn't bad either. You'll still have plenty of room for essential fatty acids and the other nutrients provided by fat, provided you make good choices. Monounsaturated are best (canola and olive oils). Choose few saturated fats (up 7% of your calories) and try to avoid trans fats, as Johnny boy would say...like the plague.
 
Phate89 said:
TESTOSTERONE NATION - The Truth About Nutrition
Click to expand...

Wow what a pathetic article, no wonder your a deluded little kid Phatey boy (* reminds myself not to attack other members as it only makes the them more defensible and ignorant) ;)

I can see that the way he wrote, (using a number of persuasive techniques i see :azzangel:), that many poeple would actually buy into that uninformative garbage.

Why doesn't he specifically back up his statements as to why carbs should basically be avoided - with specific examples. Does he even know his biochemistry and basic physiology, the body simply wouldn't be capable of producing enough carbs for organs such as the brain. We have evolved to eat carbs, i know which tribe would win if one were to eat carbs the other no carbs. Is he familiar with pathology, does he know or care to bother about the conseqences of epidemiological links between high fat, protein and chronic disease.

And is he oblivious that many doctors may have had undergraduate degrees in fields relating to nutrition, so his final whinge is also false.

Matt
 
Last edited:
Matt, have you read the article?
He isn't carb bashing at all, see the quote I posted a few messages up from yours, he's simply saying that carbs aren't vital to survival but says they are needed for optimal health. In what way is that incorrect? Are you saying that someone on a 0 carbs diet will die?
 
matt182 said:
Wow what a pathetic article, no wonder your a deluded little kid Phatey boy (* reminds myself not to attack other members as it only makes the them more defensible and ignorant) ;)

I can see that the way he wrote, (using a number of persuasive techniques i see :azzangel:), that many poeple would actually buy into that uninformative garbage.

Why doesn't he specifically back up his statements as to why carbs should basically be avoided - with specific examples. Does he even know his biochemistry and basic physiology, the body simply wouldn't be capable of producing enough carbs for organs such as the brain. We have evolved to eat carbs, i know which tribe would win if one were to eat carbs the other no carbs. Is he familiar with pathology, does he know or care to bother about the conseqences of epidemiological links between high fat, protein and chronic disease.

And is he oblivious that many doctors may have had undergraduate degrees in fields relating to nutrition, so his final whinge is also false.

Matt
Click to expand...

First of all, responding to what is in bold, you already attacked another member, even in the () where you specifically remind yourself not to do it (even after you did it) you do it again by implying people who are against your view are defensible and ignorant.

Phate or anyone else for that matter: please don't respond to the attacks.

As for the discussion at hand:
He is saying you should eat carbs, but that you should eat fat and protein too. he is anti low fat diets, not pro low carb.
 
Matt182, your posts need to be directed at the topic, and not so much at the poster. I wasn't a fan of the article, just like you, but you need to take it easy with the singling out members and whatnot.
 
matt182 said:
Wow what a pathetic article, no wonder your a deluded little kid Phatey boy (* reminds myself not to attack other members as it only makes the them more defensible and ignorant) ;)

I can see that the way he wrote, (using a number of persuasive techniques i see :azzangel:), that many poeple would actually buy into that uninformative garbage.

Why doesn't he specifically back up his statements as to why carbs should basically be avoided - with specific examples. Does he even know his biochemistry and basic physiology, the body simply wouldn't be capable of producing enough carbs for organs such as the brain. We have evolved to eat carbs, i know which tribe would win if one were to eat carbs the other no carbs. Is he familiar with pathology, does he know or care to bother about the conseqences of epidemiological links between high fat, protein and chronic disease.

And is he oblivious that many doctors may have had undergraduate degrees in fields relating to nutrition, so his final whinge is also false.

Matt
Click to expand...

If you actually took the time Matty boy, to read the article you would see that he wasn't attacking carbs directly. He admits that there are plenty of nutrients in whole grains. He was just stating that we don't need carbs. We've only been eating breads for how many years now? When for thousands of years our bodies have been used to eating meat, veggies, fruits, and nuts. And if you also read the article, you would have noticed that he's not saying to eat zero carbs but saying that the population gets more than enough of it ( unless you think 65% carbs isn't enough, and if you do you are the one that's delusional )

The tribe that didn't eat any fat or protein would die. Can the body convert **** into protein and fat?

The tribe that didn't eat any carbs would survive. Just like there are many people that enjoy a lifestyle on a restricted low carb or zero carb diet.

Thanks. Come again.
 
Does he even know his biochemistry and basic physiology, the body simply wouldn't be capable of producing enough carbs for organs such as the brain.
Click to expand...

Sure they would. It's called ketones. What are they teaching you medical students these days ;)?
 
Wow what a pathetic article, no wonder your a deluded little kid Phatey boy (* reminds myself not to attack other members as it only makes the them more defensible and ignorant)
Click to expand...

What a nice way to make friends.
 
Phate89 said:
The tribe that didn't eat any fat or protein would die. Can the body convert **** into protein and fat?

The tribe that didn't eat any carbs would survive. Just like there are many people that enjoy a lifestyle on a restricted low carb or zero carb diet.
Click to expand...

But that is a pointless argument. Anyone eating sufficient calories of normal foods won't be eating zero of any macronutrient.

Note that the essential fats are small amounts of alpha linolenic acid (ALA, omega-3 polyunsaturated) and linoleic acid (LA, omega-6 polyunsaturated). Other fats, including monounsaturated and saturated fats are non-essential. So we can turn the anti-carbohydrate argument into a similar one against monounsaturated and saturated fat, based on those fats not being essential. Which shows how pointless that argument is.
 
I don't understand the argument. You will not die without carbs. The body DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE carbohydrates. Is it just awesome to not have carbs, no.
 
I agree that we do not "require" carbs to survive or to live daily; however, "one cannot deny its power when manipulated and/or used within certain fitness activities". :)



Most know my feelings on carbs and with this said I have a question based on this premise:

".........entropy created in converting non-carbohydrate macronutrients (fat, protein) into blood sugar for energy is much greater than that created by carbohydrates into blood sugar (carbs = sugar). Fat and Protein doesn't convert to blood sugar easily".

We all know that a very low carb or Keto-type diet can cause sugar stores in our organs to reduce or become depleted. (I have experienced this myself personally, and the benefits of carbing up afterwards). But, why isnt the liver restored with glucose when the "switch" to protien conversion takes place? Or does this occur with longer periods with keto-like diets, say a month or so (as an example) without any carbing up (dependent upon the person)?

Its seems to me, that in keto-like diet (after an apropriate length of time, dependent), that even though its expensive to process protein into fuel.....that this conversion (biologically) should be able to be stored in the liver as glucose.....no? Or....what.?


EDIT: Come someone answer my question, Please?

Best wishes,

Chillen
 
Last edited:
what about "feeling" good and powerful. carbs, especially bad ones, are yummy, and good ones during working out feel good.

the power of the carb is un-deniable.

go out and run for an hour and then eat 15 grahm of protein, see how it feels,

then do it again the following day and eat 15 grahm of carbs, see how that feels.

My point is, verses discussion, do a personal body test.

then it comes down to body building, or body performing i guess.

wow, this can be a complex convo. too much for me.

that's my .02 and my outloud thinkiing.

Sweat Daily
FF
 
i had a nice long essay going on this subject, but my session timed me out and I lost it.

I'm a little upset, because I thought I had some good things to say in defense of carbs. oh well, it looks like no one is going to benefit from geniusness.
 
FunctionalTrain said:
i had a nice long essay going on this subject, but my session timed me out and I lost it.

I'm a little upset, because I thought I had some good things to say in defense of carbs. oh well, it looks like no one is going to benefit from geniusness.
Click to expand...

The article that Phate posted, wasnt tarnishing carbs, but it sure does open up a stream of questions with the right person wanting to know about "the mighty" carb and how one could manipulate this nutrient (or not consume it if you will) to possibily solicit additional fat loss---when one has tried tradtional deficit dieting---to no avail (like a plateau).

There are certain situations where one omitting carbs (or even lowering carbs coupled with a high end calorie deficit-meaning a deficit of 300 to 400 from MT Line), can be beneficial (dependent on the person) where fat loss has stalled with regular deficit dieting. Phates quote should speak volumes to the new persons on this site "itching" for knowledge of the three nutrients.


Last year I had to do that very thing (lower and omit carbs) to solicit the last small bit of body fat, for example. Which helped this year, in reducing to less than 8%. However, before this (or the bulk of my fat tissue loss) I ate carbs normally and lost fat tissue.


"Some" will fail with low or no carbs because "if" they tend to have problems maintaining a running deficit (alone), and when they add in very low carbs or no carbs (along with depleting) glucose stores, they "can" get added symptoms from refraining from carbs prior and/or during the switch (like headaches, low energy, etc), and add to their goal "persistence" problem.

But the symptoms last a short while (dependent on the person), and then energy returns in full tandom and is just as strong as if eating carbs.


Most of the prescription meds we take for various ailments have side effects (is it bad?)--depends on the person. Likewise, omitting carbs and getting a "side effect" isnt necessarily a bad thing. It has been proven many times over---read, and seek.

Best wishes,


Chillen
 
Last edited:
Phate89 said:
If you actually took the time Matty boy, to read the article you would see that he wasn't attacking carbs directly. He admits that there are plenty of nutrients in whole grains. He was just stating that we don't need carbs. We've only been eating breads for how many years now? When for thousands of years our bodies have been used to eating meat, veggies, fruits, and nuts. And if you also read the article, you would have noticed that he's not saying to eat zero carbs but saying that the population gets more than enough of it ( unless you think 65% carbs isn't enough, and if you do you are the one that's delusional )

The tribe that didn't eat any fat or protein would die. Can the body convert **** into protein and fat?

The tribe that didn't eat any carbs would survive. Just like there are many people that enjoy a lifestyle on a restricted low carb or zero carb diet.

Thanks. Come again.
Click to expand...

'is saying you should eat carbs, but that you should eat fat and protein too. he is anti low fat diets, not pro low carb'

What is the point of that message, is his intended audience stupid? Of course you should eat fat and protein to. If he was mainly trying to say that we are eating too much carbs (which defies his logic because I'm guessing excess fat and calories are the bigger culprits), then I don't think his taken the best approach by arguing that we dontg even need carbs to live.

Actually pasta and bread have been around a long time (besides, vegges and fruit have carbs), and it's funny how those who ate these macronutrients had the best lifespan - the mediterraneans.

Ok more simply, the tribe who had lets say 50% carbs 30 % fat and 20% protein would destroy their non carb eating opponents.
 
the point of the message is that a lot of people still follow low fat diets based on the fact that 1g fat contains more calories than 1g protein or carbs.

I do agree, thought, that it was a bad article. I'm not a fan of the "do this because x" when that x isn't explaining any biology behind it. T nation has gone down lately, there used to be some good articles actually explaining views with at least some science and collective experience.

And I agree that the "we don't need carbs to survive" argument is flawed, because we're not looking for only survival, we're looking for optimal performance, weight loss, muscle gain, etc.
 
In the 80s we got the food pyramid and the eat mainly carbs. It hasnt changed much, yet our energy expenditures have. We've gotten fatter as a world.
 
I finally read the article this morning and I found it okay. Was disappointed because my first impression was that it was a throwback article but it was far from that.

The egg white omelet quote was great, the info about vitamin D was timely, saturated fats, lowering cortisol instead of raising testosterone, doctors knowing "****" about nutrition and the carbohydrate conundrum are items I've heard more than once before.

Overall, it had a decent beat and I could dance to it. So I'll give it 3 out of a possible 5. :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top