T Nation

Carbohydrates Argument

im currently cutting, and my nutrition tutor argues with me everyday “on his government guidlines to nutrition” that in no way is it heealthy to deplete carbohydrates, and that it couls cause future bowl problems etc…for me in later life.

any truth in this??

Although I do not have any scientific evidence to refute his claim, there is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. I also wouldn’t trust the government to set proper nutritional guidelines. They still believe that 60 grams of protein a day is enough and that carbs should compose 65% (I believe) of our diets. Only distance-oriented athletes (runners, soccer players, lacrosse, etc) would need 65% of their calories coming from carbs.

Also, there’s been countless studies done on the benefits of higher protein and higher fat diets - both of which are directly against the advice of the governmental guidelines. If you look up Berardi’s, Willson’s, or Lowery’s articles, they give plenty of references.

Here’s a tip. Many tutors and trainers have no clue. I recently saw an older trainer with a woman well over sixty five who was in the gym for the first time ever. He had her doing plyometrics (yes, you read that right)on a hard surface even though she could hardly do 5 lb DB quarter squats. It was almost painfull to watch.

[quote]dibley wrote:
im currently cutting, and my nutrition tutor argues with me everyday “on his government guidlines to nutrition” that in no way is it heealthy to deplete carbohydrates, and that it couls cause future bowl problems etc…for me in later life.

any truth in this??
[/quote]

I think it depends on the individual. Some people can do well on virtually 0-carb diets for extended periods of time. I find that about 100g/day (including fiber) is about my lowest tolerable limit for carbs. If I go lower than that I feel weak and tend to get headaches. I would ditch the “government guidelines to nutrition” though.

Distinguish between types of carbs.

Im on a low carb approach.

What this actually means for me is no starch, no grain, no sugars.

or as little as possible.

However I still take in buckets of green veg every day, which are techincally carbs.

bowel issues are linked with poor levels of fibre. So I can understand how he might warn you of that if you do intend to cut out all carbs,

I cut out all the destructive carbs, but keep in the common sense carbs like green veg for their necessary body function properties.

The only real argument is whether or not wholegrain sources of carbs are neccessary.

From what ive read they are not neccessary, your body can cope without (with adequate green veg).

So if cutting then id skip the wholegrains too.

However for general health wholegrains post workout and in the morning are a good idea.

so concede to him that wholegrains are good for your general health, but then explain to him that overall your low carb cut will benefit your health more because you wont be carrying excess bodyfat.

If you want to ‘win’ your argument, ask him for his qualification, or his governing body as a nutritionist, or find the government guidelines he is talking about.

Dig a little and youll find out who sponsors the test that create these guidlines.

Dont rub it in, but ask him if he thinks the grain lobbies funding of government studies has anything to do with the recommendation to eat lots of carbs.

[quote]dibley wrote:
im currently cutting, and my nutrition tutor argues with me everyday “on his government guidlines to nutrition” that in no way is it heealthy to deplete carbohydrates, and that it couls cause future bowl problems etc…for me in later life.

any truth in this??
[/quote]

Tell him to read up on HISTORY. The healthiest societies lived off protein and fats with their carbs coming from fuits and vegetables. But there main source of food was protein and fats (fish, meat, poultry, eggs).

You can LIVE a healthy life if you remove carbs.

You will die if you remove proteins or fats.

Did you know the solution to treating diabetes before drugs was to have patients eliminate carbs from their diet a side effect was the patients just getting healthier as a whole…

thanks guys…

yea im eating 75grams per meal of green veg a day(5meals)…along with 5 litres of organic barley grass.

Ask him how our ancestors survived for hundreds thousands of years without agricultural products (grains, sugars, etc.)

The idea that we’re descended from a proud race of big game hunters is probably incorrect. Even 10,000 years ago the average male human was about 5’2" and probably weighed about 120 pounds, didn’t have much in the way of weapons and whose only transportation was his own two feet. The only Mammoth we ate was probably what we already found dead.

No, the ancient human diet probably more resembled a Chimp diet: lots of fruits (keeping in mind that with a few exceptions vegetables are botanical fruits), along with nuts, insects, and the some meat.

Also, the idea that “the healthiest societies throughout history ate meat and fats” can certainly be misleading. First, with the exception of the last 100 years in first world nations, the average human lifespan has been quite low. Is it coincidental that a majority of diagnosed cases of heart disease, etc occur in people who are older than the average lifespan of humans throughout most of our history? Also consider that New Zealand has the highest per capita consumption of meat in the world and yet has the highest prevalence of colon cancer. It’s an issue that’s probably more complicated than “meat and fats are good” and “meats and fat are bad”. “The healthiest societies in history” were more physically active than we are. Maybe that’s the reason they were “healthier” - not because of their diet but in spite of it?

[quote]Wimpy wrote:
dibley wrote:
im currently cutting, and my nutrition tutor argues with me everyday “on his government guidlines to nutrition” that in no way is it heealthy to deplete carbohydrates, and that it couls cause future bowl problems etc…for me in later life.

any truth in this??

I think it depends on the individual. Some people can do well on virtually 0-carb diets for extended periods of time. I find that about 100g/day (including fiber) is about my lowest tolerable limit for carbs. If I go lower than that I feel weak and tend to get headaches. I would ditch the “government guidelines to nutrition” though. [/quote]

The govt guidelines is a recipe to become just like the majority of Americans - fat sad sacks of sh-t.

despite a high intake of meats…would my high intake of green vegetbles and organic barely grass not counteract this problem??

For the majority of people, laying off the carbs is a GOOD THING.
That and ditching soda pop as their choice of beverage, that in and of itself is one of the biggest reasons for the massive increase in child obesity and overall fattiness in America. (Living Large and In Charge LOL)

Considering it’s not recommended to do year round of course theres truth to cutting carbs completely out your diet. The question is what is your reason for doing it. If your cutting and your doing it for a short period of time then it’s not going to cause a problem. The other thing you have to remember is how much protein/fat and type will you be eating. Theres a diffence between cutting carbs, and upping your protein to 3 16 oz steaks a day compared to cutting carbs and adding a protein shake.

The body can only digest but so much, and it’s indidual how much it can digest. If for the last 10 years you only ate 1lb of meat a day then tomorrow for the next few months your going to switch to 3, it’s going to take time for your body to get in the habit of processing that much, and during this time it will cause trouble.

[quote]Wimpy wrote:
The idea that we’re descended from a proud race of big game hunters is probably incorrect. Even 10,000 years ago the average male human was about 5’2" and probably weighed about 120 pounds, didn’t have much in the way of weapons and whose only transportation was his own two feet. The only Mammoth we ate was probably what we already found dead.

No, the ancient human diet probably more resembled a Chimp diet: lots of fruits (keeping in mind that with a few exceptions vegetables are botanical fruits), along with nuts, insects, and the some meat.

Also, the idea that “the healthiest societies throughout history ate meat and fats” can certainly be misleading. First, with the exception of the last 100 years in first world nations, the average human lifespan has been quite low. Is it coincidental that a majority of diagnosed cases of heart disease, etc occur in people who are older than the average lifespan of humans throughout most of our history? Also consider that New Zealand has the highest per capita consumption of meat in the world and yet has the highest prevalence of colon cancer. It’s an issue that’s probably more complicated than “meat and fats are good” and “meats and fat are bad”. “The healthiest societies in history” were more physically active than we are. Maybe that’s the reason they were “healthier” - not because of their diet but in spite of it?[/quote]

You are mixing subjects together.

A) Yes humans were smaller, quite simple why, food was not abundant and so growth hormones were severely limited. But it has nothing to do with the type of food… lack of calories and always being on foot looking for food = caloric deficent very often.

B) The short lifespan prior to 100 years ago has NOTHING to do with what people ate… the big turn around for when people started living longer IS even to this day is knowledge of proper sanitation. This occured at the time we discovered viruses. It became clear that LOOKING clean did not mean it was clean. So people were instructed to WASH their hands before eating, wash their BODY once a day. You can eat the most organic meat in the world but if you just spent all day taking care of these animals and eat that meat without washing your hands properly expect to get sick.

C) There is plenty of scientific evidence that showed what humans ate 1000s of years ago, evidence like human feces that have been preserved in certain areas, the oldest found human feces was actually found in 2007, it is 40 000 years old. Also we have REAL world evidence… just read the book Nutritional and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price , his around the world research was done in the 1930s when you had ALLOT (even in USA) of societies that still ate (and lived) as their ancestors… long behold it was proteins and fats from animals/fish, RAW milk products as their main caloric sources with fruits and veggies finishing off but not close to being a main source of food.

Oh and the meat that is virtually always found in these feces… small game.

D) Your New Zealand analogy is misleading as well, they might eat the most meat but they still eat as much JUNK as we do. They has an effect on digestion and if you do not digest properly you are asking for trouble. 80+% of your immune system is IN your gut, that is over 2 pounds of bacteria that just want to live happy and take care of you at the same time it trully is a symbiotic relationship, you start killing them you are simply killing yourself. Those bacteria can’t digest your meat if you kill them and that meat starts to ‘‘rot’’ (lack of a better word) inside you in your colon.

FYI, I am not bashing you here just trying to shed some light because I hear it EVERYTIME from an average person who has not read up allot on the suject. I had the same questions and did (still do) tons of reading to find the answers.

[quote]dibley wrote:
thanks guys…

yea im eating 75grams per meal of green veg a day(5meals)…along with 5 litres of organic barley grass.
[/quote]

5 litres of organic barley grass??? Damn you have nothing to worry about keeping an alkaline balance in your body, hehe.

Keep it up!

[quote]Blashy wrote:
Wimpy wrote:
The idea that we’re descended from a proud race of big game hunters is probably incorrect. Even 10,000 years ago the average male human was about 5’2" and probably weighed about 120 pounds, didn’t have much in the way of weapons and whose only transportation was his own two feet. The only Mammoth we ate was probably what we already found dead.

No, the ancient human diet probably more resembled a Chimp diet: lots of fruits (keeping in mind that with a few exceptions vegetables are botanical fruits), along with nuts, insects, and the some meat.

Also, the idea that “the healthiest societies throughout history ate meat and fats” can certainly be misleading. First, with the exception of the last 100 years in first world nations, the average human lifespan has been quite low. Is it coincidental that a majority of diagnosed cases of heart disease, etc occur in people who are older than the average lifespan of humans throughout most of our history? Also consider that New Zealand has the highest per capita consumption of meat in the world and yet has the highest prevalence of colon cancer. It’s an issue that’s probably more complicated than “meat and fats are good” and “meats and fat are bad”. “The healthiest societies in history” were more physically active than we are. Maybe that’s the reason they were “healthier” - not because of their diet but in spite of it?

You are mixing subjects together.

A) Yes humans were smaller, quite simple why, food was not abundant and so growth hormones were severely limited. But it has nothing to do with the type of food… lack of calories and always being on foot looking for food = caloric deficent very often.

B) The short lifespan prior to 100 years ago has NOTHING to do with what people ate… the big turn around for when people started living longer IS even to this day is knowledge of proper sanitation. This occured at the time we discovered viruses. It became clear that LOOKING clean did not mean it was clean. So people were instructed to WASH their hands before eating, wash their BODY once a day. You can eat the most organic meat in the world but if you just spent all day taking care of these animals and eat that meat without washing your hands properly expect to get sick.

C) There is plenty of scientific evidence that showed what humans ate 1000s of years ago, evidence like human feces that have been preserved in certain areas, the oldest found human feces was actually found in 2007, it is 40 000 years old. Also we have REAL world evidence… just read the book Nutritional and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price , his around the world research was done in the 1930s when you had ALLOT (even in USA) of societies that still ate (and lived) as their ancestors… long behold it was proteins and fats from animals/fish, RAW milk products as their main caloric sources with fruits and veggies finishing off but not close to being a main source of food.

Oh and the meat that is virtually always found in these feces… small game.

D) Your New Zealand analogy is misleading as well, they might eat the most meat but they still eat as much JUNK as we do. They has an effect on digestion and if you do not digest properly you are asking for trouble. 80+% of your immune system is IN your gut, that is over 2 pounds of bacteria that just want to live happy and take care of you at the same time it trully is a symbiotic relationship, you start killing them you are simply killing yourself. Those bacteria can’t digest your meat if you kill them and that meat starts to ‘‘rot’’ (lack of a better word) inside you in your colon.

FYI, I am not bashing you here just trying to shed some light because I hear it EVERYTIME from an average person who has not read up allot on the suject. I had the same questions and did (still do) tons of reading to find the answers.
[/quote]

Dude, you need to chill. Did I ever say that humans didn’t eat meat? I believe I said that humans ate meat, insects, fruits and nuts. Golly, that sounds an awful lot like the paleo diet.

Hell, the point I was trying to make was that there are other factors than diet when considering a culture’s physical health.
In Price’s field work on “primitive” people he attributed their lack of certain degenerative conditions to diet. But, I’ve read that on average the people Price studied walked 10 miles per day. Surely this was a contributing factor as well? And what about life expectancy.

I haven’t looked at all the people that Price examined, but one example that comes to mind are the Maasai who even today only have a life expectancy of around 45 years. Surely this as well would be a factor when examining the prevalence of diseases that usually don’t occur until later in life.

The massai still have poor sanitary habits. They work with their hands all day often with their animals so that does not help but Price did not go deep into that culture (in his book at least). But their sole source of food is mostly RAW milk and blood from their beasts, they only eat meat when the beasts are old and need to be put down, that is not very often. A diet consisting of mainly two foods even if they are good ones is just not enough. The massai are a bad example because of that.

Although if someone lived on meat alone he could be quite healthy IF he ate the organs, that is a big difference between us and what was eating in the past. They knew full well organ meats was where you found all the nutrition, we only eat the tasty part of an animal, they ate EVERYTHING, even the marrow of the bones (calcium).

The way you posted reads more than you made a point that they did not eat meat as a principal source of food. That is how I read your post in this paragraph:

No, the ancient human diet probably more resembled a Chimp diet: lots of fruits (keeping in mind that with a few exceptions vegetables are botanical fruits), along with nuts, insects, and the some meat.


That is in part what I was responding too.

hey guys im only 15 and playing for one the top rated football schools in America and needed some help to get bigger what are some supplements recommended?

[quote]Blashy wrote:
The massai still have poor sanitary habits. They work with their hands all day often with their animals so that does not help but Price did not go deep into that culture (in his book at least). But their sole source of food is mostly RAW milk and blood from their beasts, they only eat meat when the beasts are old and need to be put down, that is not very often. A diet consisting of mainly two foods even if they are good ones is just not enough. The massai are a bad example because of that.

Although if someone lived on meat alone he could be quite healthy IF he ate the organs, that is a big difference between us and what was eating in the past. They knew full well organ meats was where you found all the nutrition, we only eat the tasty part of an animal, they ate EVERYTHING, even the marrow of the bones (calcium).

The way you posted reads more than you made a point that they did not eat meat as a principal source of food. That is how I read your post in this paragraph:

No, the ancient human diet probably more resembled a Chimp diet: lots of fruits (keeping in mind that with a few exceptions vegetables are botanical fruits), along with nuts, insects, and the some meat.


That is in part what I was responding too.[/quote]

I wasn’t necessarily attempting to put them in order of importance, though I do think that people unfortunately try to minimize the importance of insects (fish and eggs, too for that matter)in diet throughout human history and tend to overemphasize the importance and prominence of red meat.

[quote]lilz4236 wrote:
hey guys im only 15 and playing for one the top rated football schools in America and needed some help to get bigger what are some supplements recommended?[/quote]

wow way to go with a completely random post in the middle of this discussion.

Go post in the ‘rate my physique’ forum, making sure to mention the school you play football at as much as possible.