T Nation

Carb Loaded: A Culture Dying to Eat

just sharing

Yet another self-absorbed, self-serving, narcissistic blockhead who after discovering sound eating habits, acquires the new nutrition-fitness-rogue-warrior style, creates strawmen, and feels diginified in inappropriately bashing others (eg, a hypothyroidal, overweight news reporter minding her business and doing her job; a CHEF, Guy Fiero; and the American public in general).

The person who emailed that news reporter was highly inappropriate.

And the whole anti-carb thing is silly. Europeans and Americans ate starches (and wheat [gasp]) for a LONG time, and it is only relatively recently that overweight and obesity has spiraled out of control.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And the whole anti-carb thing is silly. Europeans and Americans ate starches (and wheat [gasp]) for a LONG time, and it is only relatively recently that overweight and obesity has spiraled out of control. [/quote]

I agree, but many Americans who have already damaged their hormonal system would do well with a low, or at least lower-carb diet.

I’m a big believer in the WAPF principles, essentially, societies all around the world have lived off varying macros, one thing they had in common? Processed foods weren’t around.

As for the PN system you just got, essentially leaner individuals can get away with more carbs, fatties, not so much :smiley:

As for wheat, something is different with it today than in the past, so for many people I can’t say one way or another if it’s the devil or an angel, I’d rather have people limit it as much as they can for various reasons.

there’s good carbs and bad carbs…

trying to blame all of society’s evils on a single macronutrient is scapegoating/looking for a quick fix.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
there’s good carbs and bad carbs…

trying to blame all of society’s evils on a single macronutrient is scapegoating/looking for a quick fix.

[/quote]

I would take it a step further. Good food vs fake processed food :wink:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I agree, but many Americans who have already damaged their hormonal system would do well with a low, or at least lower-carb diet.

As for the PN system you just got, essentially leaner individuals can get away with more carbs, fatties, not so much :smiley:
[/quote]

^This, combined with obvious variance amongst the general public. The problem is that so many authors touting ‘their’ approach to eating seem to put forth the attitude that “THIS” is the way we should all eat. There is never a one size fits all approach that works when you’re dealing with real life situations.

I’ve always maintained that if people truly understood both sides of the carbohydrates sword (and the aspect of processed foods as well), they’re be better suited to actually take care of themselves long term.

Teach a man to fish…
(unfortunately most people have no interest in learning how)

S

I am not that well versed in nutrition and am still learning, but it seems to me fat lazy people like to use carbohydrate as a bogeyman for why they are fat. I think that is why paleo, Atkins and the cross fit community is such a haven for fat people or former fat people.

Not an insult or judgement but I think it is fairly accurate. Look on a paleo forum or a low carbohydrate diet forum, It always seems the same, a few really fit guys and women and the rest of the board overweight soccer moms and obese guys coming up with excuses like them being carbohydrate sensitive and how that food is poison and the reason so many people are overweight.

Don’t even get them started on MILK!

The truth is eating more calories than they worked off, for long periods of time made them fat. Lack of exercise made them fat and it is the idea of diets where you can eat more and lose weight, or cut carbs and lose weight rather than kill yourself in the gym which are a cause for well meaning fat people in the gym giving up.

I think a healthy balanced high carb diet with lots of working out builds the mental toughness that is required to stick with a program long term. Maybe I could of lost all the weight my obese self used toc arry around by cutting out carbohydrate and just working out, but the 10km runs and frequent weight sessions along with lots of carbohydrates and food got me fitter, stronger and mentally tough in the gym, something that when I tried Atkins and Paleo did not happen.

Of course lots of people like these diets and more power to them, but I thought I would share my view.

As for carb cycling, for the average non competitor, a regular guy, probably obese, is it really the best option?

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And the whole anti-carb thing is silly. Europeans and Americans ate starches (and wheat [gasp]) for a LONG time, and it is only relatively recently that overweight and obesity has spiraled out of control. [/quote]

Oh BH, you make strawman long time! It’s not “anti-carb”, it’s low carb. If you are going to correct people you should be more accurate with your statements.

You might even have a point if you could find me a person 100 years ago that could eat the amount of carbohydrates in a day that a person could get today just by drinking a big gulp or two.

I seriously doubt 100 years ago people were eating highly refined seed products.

Your argument has be debunked.

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:
I am not that well versed in nutrition and am still learning, but it seems to me fat lazy people like to use carbohydrate as a bogeyman for why they are fat.

.
.
.

The truth is eating more calories than they worked off, for long periods of time made them fat. Lack of exercise made them fat and it is the idea of diets where you can eat more and lose weight, or cut carbs and lose weight rather than kill yourself in the gym which are a cause for well meaning fat people in the gym giving up. [/quote]

What are the pathways for lipogenesis?

Is the body’s response to fat calories the same as its response to the same amount of carbohydrate calories?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And the whole anti-carb thing is silly. Europeans and Americans ate starches (and wheat [gasp]) for a LONG time, and it is only relatively recently that overweight and obesity has spiraled out of control. [/quote]

Oh BH, you make strawman long time! It’s not “anti-carb”, it’s low carb. If you are going to correct people you should be more accurate with your statements.

You might even have a point if you could find me a person 100 years ago that could eat the amount of carbohydrates in a day that a person could get today just by drinking a big gulp or two.

I seriously doubt 100 years ago people were eating highly refined seed products.

Your argument has be debunked.[/quote]

Did people look like Ronnie Coleman a hundred years ago?

Surely this line of reasoning is irrelevant when it comes to getting fit and building muscle. In the North American civil war the average weight of a soldier was 143 pounds. The first muscle men of the day were skinny compared to your average dedicated gym goer today with decent genetics. Maybe the problem is not carbohydrate, but an acquired laziness and desire to binge eat has become acceptable.

Obviously people did not have access to high fructose corn syrup and fried food at very low prices like they do today. But guess what, it is not all that brown rice and chicken producing wheelchair bound morbidly obese shopper. It is a choice to go and eat mcdonalds everyday.

Lack of personal responsibility is what makes you fat, not a source of energy, surely?

Maybe I am way off mark but I don’t get the carbophobia in society today, primarily instilled in fat people looking for miracle diets.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:
I am not that well versed in nutrition and am still learning, but it seems to me fat lazy people like to use carbohydrate as a bogeyman for why they are fat.

.
.
.

The truth is eating more calories than they worked off, for long periods of time made them fat. Lack of exercise made them fat and it is the idea of diets where you can eat more and lose weight, or cut carbs and lose weight rather than kill yourself in the gym which are a cause for well meaning fat people in the gym giving up. [/quote]

What are the pathways for lipogenesis?

Is the body’s response to fat calories the same as its response to the same amount of carbohydrate calories?[/quote]

I lost over four stone by eating a high carbohydrate diet and working my ass off. Did my body respond to me just using common sense and eating less than I burnt off or does my body have special carbohydrate defeating powers. People will use scientific arguments all day long, not do cardio because it burns muscle, not workout hard because it is over training, follow some restrictive diet because some study done on rats shows something.

I lost tonnes of body fat and gained muscle on a high carbohydrate diet and calorie deficit. So no matter how the body responds to fat or carbohydrate, it seems that working hard, eating a balanced diet and keeping to a routine is very, very effective.

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And the whole anti-carb thing is silly. Europeans and Americans ate starches (and wheat [gasp]) for a LONG time, and it is only relatively recently that overweight and obesity has spiraled out of control. [/quote]

Oh BH, you make strawman long time! It’s not “anti-carb”, it’s low carb. If you are going to correct people you should be more accurate with your statements.

You might even have a point if you could find me a person 100 years ago that could eat the amount of carbohydrates in a day that a person could get today just by drinking a big gulp or two.

I seriously doubt 100 years ago people were eating highly refined seed products.

Your argument has be debunked.[/quote]

Did people look like Ronnie Coleman a hundred years ago?

Surely this line of reasoning is irrelevant when it comes to getting fit and building muscle. In the North American civil war the average weight of a soldier was 143 pounds. The first muscle men of the day were skinny compared to your average dedicated gym goer today with decent genetics. Maybe the problem is not carbohydrate, but an acquired laziness and desire to binge eat has become acceptable.

Obviously people did not have access to high fructose corn syrup and fried food at very low prices like they do today. But guess what, it is not all that brown rice and chicken producing wheelchair bound morbidly obese shoppers. It is a choice to go and eat Mcdonalds everyday.

Lack of personal responsibility is what makes you fat, not a source of energy, surely?

Maybe I am way off mark but I don’t get the carbophobia in society today, primarily instilled in fat people looking for miracle diets.
[/quote]

Ronnie Coleman is a steroid freak that could get that way on any diet. You are comparing apples with the planet Saturn.

It’s not “carbophobia”, it’s having respect for healthier carbohydrates in limited quantities. I’ll say it again, disproving a strawman doesn’t make it a valid argument.

Fat people do best by regulating insulin to lose weight. Exercise helps with this but seriously overweight people cannot lose weight by merely cutting calories and exercising - not to mention it is dangerous for fat people to do too much moving. Eating less and exercising more is not sustainable in the long term which is what most people that heavy would need.

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:
I am not that well versed in nutrition and am still learning, but it seems to me fat lazy people like to use carbohydrate as a bogeyman for why they are fat.

.
.
.

The truth is eating more calories than they worked off, for long periods of time made them fat. Lack of exercise made them fat and it is the idea of diets where you can eat more and lose weight, or cut carbs and lose weight rather than kill yourself in the gym which are a cause for well meaning fat people in the gym giving up. [/quote]

What are the pathways for lipogenesis?

Is the body’s response to fat calories the same as its response to the same amount of carbohydrate calories?[/quote]

I lost over four stone by eating a high carbohydrate diet and working my ass off. Did my body respond to me just using common sense and eating less than I burnt off or does my body have special carbohydrate defeating powers. People will use scientific arguments all day long, not do cardio because it burns muscle, not workout hard because it is over training, follow some restrictive diet because some study done on rats shows something.

I lost tonnes of body fat and gained muscle on a high carbohydrate diet and calorie deficit. So no matter how the body responds to fat or carbohydrate, it seems that working hard, eating a balanced diet and keeping to a routine is very, very effective.
[/quote]

Congratulations! You are not like everyone else.

You can have your cookie now.

Let me put it another way.

Lady in my health class, for the past year we’ve talked about SFA and cholesterol in various ways, and even serum cholesterol. Today, after watching the Dr. Oz show w/Taubes in class, me sharing my current diet… Her: won’t all that fat clog your arteries… W…T…F… she is obese and T2 diabetic and has been afraid of fat for decades. And she wonders why when she grew up and even got married she was thin.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:
I am not that well versed in nutrition and am still learning, but it seems to me fat lazy people like to use carbohydrate as a bogeyman for why they are fat.

.
.
.

The truth is eating more calories than they worked off, for long periods of time made them fat. Lack of exercise made them fat and it is the idea of diets where you can eat more and lose weight, or cut carbs and lose weight rather than kill yourself in the gym which are a cause for well meaning fat people in the gym giving up. [/quote]

What are the pathways for lipogenesis?

Is the body’s response to fat calories the same as its response to the same amount of carbohydrate calories?[/quote]

I lost over four stone by eating a high carbohydrate diet and working my ass off. Did my body respond to me just using common sense and eating less than I burnt off or does my body have special carbohydrate defeating powers. People will use scientific arguments all day long, not do cardio because it burns muscle, not workout hard because it is over training, follow some restrictive diet because some study done on rats shows something.

I lost tonnes of body fat and gained muscle on a high carbohydrate diet and calorie deficit. So no matter how the body responds to fat or carbohydrate, it seems that working hard, eating a balanced diet and keeping to a routine is very, very effective.
[/quote]

Congratulations! You are not like everyone else.

You can have your cookie now.[/quote]

I have terrible genetics and am was a typical obese person. How am I different than anyone else? Also another question I have is how is someone supposed to put on any muscle with low carbohydrate intake? When you lose lots of fat and don’t gain a lot of muscle too you look just as bad as when you started. Is it even possible to build a sizable amount of muscle without high carbohydrate intake if you are not on steroids? I am not challenging you on this point, I would seriously like to know.

Thanks.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:
I am not that well versed in nutrition and am still learning, but it seems to me fat lazy people like to use carbohydrate as a bogeyman for why they are fat.

.
.
.

The truth is eating more calories than they worked off, for long periods of time made them fat. Lack of exercise made them fat and it is the idea of diets where you can eat more and lose weight, or cut carbs and lose weight rather than kill yourself in the gym which are a cause for well meaning fat people in the gym giving up. [/quote]

What are the pathways for lipogenesis?

Is the body’s response to fat calories the same as its response to the same amount of carbohydrate calories?[/quote]

I lost over four stone by eating a high carbohydrate diet and working my ass off. Did my body respond to me just using common sense and eating less than I burnt off or does my body have special carbohydrate defeating powers. People will use scientific arguments all day long, not do cardio because it burns muscle, not workout hard because it is over training, follow some restrictive diet because some study done on rats shows something.

I lost tonnes of body fat and gained muscle on a high carbohydrate diet and calorie deficit. So no matter how the body responds to fat or carbohydrate, it seems that working hard, eating a balanced diet and keeping to a routine is very, very effective.
[/quote]

You can have your cookie now.[/quote]

I bet the sugar free ones pale in comparison :slight_smile:

All in good fun.

[quote]BeginnerBrah wrote:
I have terrible genetics and am was a typical obese person. How am I different than anyone else? Also another question I have is how is someone supposed to put on any muscle with low carbohydrate intake? When you lose lots of fat and don’t gain a lot of muscle too you look just as bad as when you started. Is it even possible to build a sizable amount of muscle without high carbohydrate intake if you are not on steroids? I am not challenging you on this point, I would seriously like to know.

Thanks.
[/quote]

You probably don’t have terrible genetics. You might have terrible gene expression which is a different issue and to some extent can be controlled by lifestyle.

Muscle growth is the result of proper hormone signaling which is far more complicated than just lifting weights and eating carbohydrates and protein post workout.

Growing massive muscles is not a “normal” state of nature for man - which is why doing so will almost always require anabolic substances. That said one can still gain decent muscle size eating low carb - again, this is not “no carb” but rather low carb (this can mean almost none up to 200 grams for some people).

I think advice about “back-loading” them post workout is probably not harmful for the typical gym rat.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And the whole anti-carb thing is silly. Europeans and Americans ate starches (and wheat [gasp]) for a LONG time, and it is only relatively recently that overweight and obesity has spiraled out of control. [/quote]

Oh BH, you make strawman long time! It’s not “anti-carb”, it’s low carb. If you are going to correct people you should be more accurate with your statements.

You might even have a point if you could find me a person 100 years ago that could eat the amount of carbohydrates in a day that a person could get today just by drinking a big gulp or two.

I seriously doubt 100 years ago people were eating highly refined seed products.

Your argument has be debunked.[/quote]

Oh, so wheat wasn’t being eaten 1912. Interesting.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And the whole anti-carb thing is silly. Europeans and Americans ate starches (and wheat [gasp]) for a LONG time, and it is only relatively recently that overweight and obesity has spiraled out of control. [/quote]

Oh BH, you make strawman long time! It’s not “anti-carb”, it’s low carb. If you are going to correct people you should be more accurate with your statements.

You might even have a point if you could find me a person 100 years ago that could eat the amount of carbohydrates in a day that a person could get today just by drinking a big gulp or two.

I seriously doubt 100 years ago people were eating highly refined seed products.

Your argument has be debunked.[/quote]

Way to reply to my post as well! I said we’ve been eating starches for a long time: potatoes, wheat, barley, rye, oatmeal, beans, and so on. And if they were free to eat as much as they damn pleased so long as the desired amount was available.

By the way, shit like candies and cakes and jellies and jams and syrups were available 100 years ago as well.

Are you on planet earth?