[quote]eisenaffe wrote:
Hennes wrote:
Steroids are synthesized from acetyl-CoA or from ingested cholesterol.
[/quote]
Plus you need energy for synthesis. And this is the point: In most of the processes that keep you alive carbs aren`t directly involved. But they consume energy which is preferably taken from carbs. If no carbs are available other nutrients help out. This is less sufficient and generates more toxic substances. It resembles “surviving” rather than optimal conditions.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m still waiting for someone to point me to where someone has advocated the avoidance of all carbs. Not even the lowest of low carbers around here are saying this. The Anabolic Diet thread for instance is crawling with recommendations for veggies galore and plenty of fruit on carb days for all the good reasons people are citing here. This is a straw man argument near as I can tell. You already know I share your view that this country in particular is committing community suicide.
–Tiribulus->
[/quote]
I know that “zero carb” is excessive. But if someone claims that carbs aren`t essential, this means you could live without any carbs. But if you look at the anabolic diet: Assume your stored glycogen is 400 g. You train 3 times, which consumes 3 x 100 g. The rest of the stored glycogen is used for your other activities. So at the end of the week you are under zero carb conditions before you refuel at the weekend.
[quote]Hennes wrote:
I know that “zero carb” is excessive. But if someone claims that carbs aren`t essential, this means you could live without any carbs.[/quote]
In fact, there are various tribes on the planet that do, or at least that did before modern ages, and they lived indeed.
Like it or not, they aren’t “essential”. Useful, efficient and perhaps optimal, for various purposes, but not essential.
[quote]Hennes wrote:
I know that “zero carb” is excessive. But if someone claims that carbs aren`t essential, this means you could live without any carbs. But if you look at the anabolic diet: Assume your stored glycogen is 400 g. You train 3 times, which consumes 3 x 100 g. The rest of the stored glycogen is used for your other activities. So at the end of the week you are under zero carb conditions before you refuel at the weekend.[/quote]
I believe you are simply looking for discussion here which is fine so I’ll bite. I know you’re approximating on the numbers BTW. However diets like the AD are very glycogen sparing in that lipids become the preferred and primary source of fuel except for anerobic activities like weight training. That being the case the stored gycogen being consumed for “other activities” will be much less than normal, unless you do something like deliver refrigerators for a living.
Additionally we are talking, I thought, about dietary carbs, not endogenously produced glucose. In that light, no matter what you eat, glucose will be in the body and therefore a zero carb condition thus defined is not possible as you’ve said.
–Tiribulus->
What diet is suposed to be no carb? Even Dr Atkins recomended plenty of green vegtables and fiber, and he was the strictest of them all. There is a lot a misinformation floating around about these diets, if you buy and read the books (cover to cover) you will see that most people who claim to be doing these diets really aren’t. When people who claim to be but really aren’t doing the diet fail it doesn’t mean the diet is faulty, it means they failed to do the diet. I’m not saying low carb diets are for everyone, but they are the best route for some.
PS: For the sake of this discusion I’ve used the term “diet” but like all other ways of eating low carb really has to be more of a lifestyle choice.
[quote]ec_fritz wrote:
What diet is suposed to be no carb?[/quote]
I asked essentially the same thing above. I think this guy is just sparking some discussion. Nobody is saying that any diets actually are NO carb.
–Tiribulus->
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ec_fritz wrote:
What diet is suposed to be no carb?
I asked essentially the same thing above. I think this guy is just sparking some discussion. Nobody is saying that any diets actually are NO carb.
–Tiribulus->[/quote]
I believe the thread title would answer that question.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ec_fritz wrote:
What diet is suposed to be no carb?
I asked essentially the same thing above. I think this guy is just sparking some discussion. Nobody is saying that any diets actually are NO carb.
–Tiribulus->[/quote]
Actually at least Dan John suggests zero carbs if you want to change your body composition quickly.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1138762
If somebody says theres no necessity for carbs a zero carb approach is the implication. But the argumentation also holds for a "very low carb diet". At the moment VLCDs are quite popular, but in my opinion these diets are promoted without a sufficient scientific basis. As far as I know there is no reliable data about the consequences of long-term carb avoidance. I wanted to see some serious arguments for carb restriction ( no one has mentioned insuline so far, Im surprised). “It will make you lose fat”, "You dont die from it" or "This other guy also does it" dont rank among those.
[quote]Hennes wrote:
If somebody says there`s no necessity for carbs a zero carb approach is the implication. But the argumentation also holds for a “very low carb diet”.
At the moment VLCDs are quite popular, but in my opinion these diets are promoted without a sufficient scientific basis. As far as I know there is no reliable data about the consequences of long-term carb avoidance.[/quote]
You haven’t been looking very hard. Again, there have been tribes that spent their lives living a low carb diet.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You haven’t been looking very hard. Again, there have been tribes that spent their lives living a low carb diet.[/quote]
But low doesnt mean zero. So this is no evidence that carbs are nonessential in the long run. These tribes dont choose to stay away from carbs, their nutrition is defined by their environment.
As I said before, you wont die on a very low and probably even not on a zero carb diet. But its not beneficial for your health and therefore it should be avoided. That`s why I would call a regular feed of carbs essential.
[quote]Hennes wrote:
Actually at least Dan John suggests zero carbs if you want to change your body composition quickly.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1138762
If somebody says theres no necessity for carbs a zero carb approach is the implication. But the argumentation also holds for a "very low carb diet". At the moment VLCDs are quite popular, but in my opinion these diets are promoted without a sufficient scientific basis. As far as I know there is no reliable data about the consequences of long-term carb avoidance. I wanted to see some serious arguments for carb restriction ( no one has mentioned insuline so far, Im surprised). “It will make you lose fat”, "You dont die from it" or "This other guy also does it" dont rank among those. [/quote]
A few things. First “low carb” can mean a wide range of carb intake from none all the way up to a coupla hundred grams a day. For my puposes I’ll define low carb as any habit of eating where the essential roles and percentages of intake for carbohydrates and fats are reversed from the modern traditional method. This leaves some leeway, but preserves the main principle.
If by “scientific basis” you mean a tightly controlled ten year trial involving 100,000 subjects then no, there are none demonstrating the long term effects one way or another. On that note though, the fact that there are people (and more than you may think) who have been living this way, some for decades, with at worst no deletarious effects and at best better health than 95% of the western world, IS powerful evidence.
Empirically verifiable probability, while maybe not the syllogistic certainly we all crave, does carry weight in the thinking man’s arsenal of proofs for anything. If no other reason than most times it’s the best we have or can hope for at the present time. A statement pointing this out IS proof with at least as much persuasiveness as much of what we take for granted already.
On the fat front there are numerous more recent studies, as well as sound interpretations of older ones, demonstrating with at least as much certainty as just about anything else we believe about nutrition and physiology that fat, even saturated fat by itself is not the cause of anything like the epidemics that have been attributed to it for the last, especially thirty years.
Thirdly, the fact that most “low carb” approaches to eating emphasize foods very close to their naturally occurring state over processed modern frankenfoods has to carry some weight as well. I,m not talking about commercial bullshit low carb packaged junk. I mean where meats, poultry and fish are king and fruits, veggies and starches are queen.
Even in Super Size Me (I know) Spurlock says at the end that in thirty days he ate 12 pounds of fat and THIRTY pounds of sugar. He got fatter, his blood pressure rose dramatically and he was on an energy rollercoaster that him wired and crashing all the time. I know in the last month I’ve eaten AT LEAST 12 pounds of fat, but no processed sugar and an overall greatly reduced amount of clean carbs.
I’ve gotten leaner, have plenty of energy and my blood pressure is 118 over 84. A very crude, unscientific demonstration I know, but not completely without merit. It’s not the fat, it’s the sugar AND the fat.
Sane low carb/high fat diets provide all of the benefits of carbs without the drawbacks and emphasize all the manfood the human race thrived on for thousands of years. In the absence of data to the contrary and in light of what we DO know, I’m calling them a safer long term bet than gear, at least as safe as a higher carb healthy diet and astronomically safer than the drive through toxic schlop that most westerners are polluting themselves with as I type this.
–Tiribulus->
[quote]Hennes wrote:
But low doesnt mean zero. So this is no evidence that carbs are nonessential in the long run. These tribes dont choose to stay away from carbs, their nutrition is defined by their environment.
As I said before, you wont die on a very low and probably even not on a zero carb diet. But its not beneficial for your health and therefore it should be avoided. That`s why I would call a regular feed of carbs essential.[/quote]
You contradict yourself. You have no evidence that it is harmful to your health at all. Look, of course it is okay to have your own opinion about this, but you have zero information to support the claims you make.
The fact that some people have lived long and healthy lives in a region where carbs are not available would seem to counter your argument that there is no evidence that carbs are non-essential…
Are carbs essential to maximize gains in muscle mass? I’d guess they are, because it’s awfully hard to generate the intensity needed if you don’t have the energy to do so. That doesn’t mean we can’t live and thrive without them if we need to.
Just came across this thread\article and thought that some might find this http://www.cybernaut.com.au/optimal_nutrition/information/library/eat_fat.pdf interesint reading. I know I did…saved it for future reference as well. It’s from a book, or is a book, that was written back in the 60’s.
[quote]Hennes wrote:
vroom wrote:
You haven’t been looking very hard. Again, there have been tribes that spent their lives living a low carb diet.
But low doesnt mean zero. So this is no evidence that carbs are nonessential in the long run. These tribes dont choose to stay away from carbs, their nutrition is defined by their environment.
As I said before, you wont die on a very low and probably even not on a zero carb diet. But its not beneficial for your health and therefore it should be avoided. That`s why I would call a regular feed of carbs essential.[/quote]
If your ancestors lived in northern Europe during the ice age they had no choice but to low/zero carb.
Your argument that this does not necessarily mean it is optimal was also brought up by Berardi in his Neanderthal series, however it is inaccurate in my opinion.
If the human genome was forced to survive under certain conditions for a longer time it had no choice but to adapt or die out.
This does mean that a low carb diet might be close to optimal for people with such ancestors.
My personal experience is that I can live for months without carbs, without any headaches drowsiness or other negative symptons.
Studies on the Inuit,American Indians
and Aborigines also show that people wo were not introduced to carbohydrates thousands of years ago, suffer the same medical consequences as for example mediterrenean people when they discovered agriculture.
Meaning, they suffer from diabetes rates, among other things, you would not believe.
I do use Surge, but IMHO it is my strong reaction to CH and Insulin that makes it so effective for me and the fact that I try to retain my insulin sensitivity by only eating veggies and fruits as far as carbs go.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sane low carb/high fat diets provide all of the benefits of carbs without the drawbacks and emphasize all the manfood the human race thrived on for thousands of years. In the absence of data to the contrary and in light of what we DO know, I’m calling them a safer long term bet than gear, at least as safe as a higher carb healthy diet and astronomically safer than the drive through toxic schlop that most westerners are polluting themselves with as I type this.
–Tiribulus->
[/quote]
I absolutely agree. For almost 10 years I don`t eat more than approx. 200 g of carbs a day mostly from fruit, vegetables and low amounts of starchy food. This is somewhat less than 30% of my daily caloric intake. But still this is a fair amount of calories from carbs. It is nearly impossible to accomplish your needs of vitamins, minerals and fiber by eating natural and unprocessed food without some carbs.
Most of you also eat at least some carbs, so you probably agree they`re beneficial if consumed in moderation.
Youre only a little upset by the word "zero" in my initial post. But Ive read here and in other places that carbs generally are nonessential. Hence advocating low amounts of carbs though is simply inconsequent or even contradictory.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You contradict yourself. You have no evidence that it is harmful to your health at all. Look, of course it is okay to have your own opinion about this, but you have zero information to support the claims you make.
[/quote]
In fact I gave some evidence in the header of this thread.
The pentose phosphate pathway needs glucose in order to produce ribose-5-phosphate. This molecule is essential for the synthesis of DNA, RNA, ATP, NADPH and UDP. Now you would argument that glucose can be derived from protein or fat by gluconeogenesis. But this is a very limited process, so the pentose phosphate pathway will be suppressed. This will result in a lack of steroid production as well as an inability of detoxification.
[quote]orion wrote:
If your ancestors lived in northern Europe during the ice age they had no choice but to low/zero carb.
Your argument that this does not necessarily mean it is optimal was also brought up by Berardi in his Neanderthal series, however it is inaccurate in my opinion.
If the human genome was forced to survive under certain conditions for a longer time it had no choice but to adapt or die out.
[/quote]
This is a really weak argument. Recent studies show that the human genome among others associated with metabolism was evolved during the last 15000 years. This is after the end of the ice age and with the beginning of agriculture and an increase of population density. Besides you wouldn`t want to have the lifespan of the people of the ice age.
[quote]Hennes wrote:
I absolutely agree. For almost 10 years I don`t eat more than approx. 200 g of carbs a day mostly from fruit, vegetables and low amounts of starchy food. This is somewhat less than 30% of my daily caloric intake. But still this is a fair amount of calories from carbs. It is nearly impossible to accomplish your needs of vitamins, minerals and fiber by eating natural and unprocessed food without some carbs.
Most of you also eat at least some carbs, so you probably agree they`re beneficial if consumed in moderation.
Youre only a little upset by the word "zero" in my initial post. But Ive read here and in other places that carbs generally are nonessential. Hence advocating low amounts of carbs though is simply inconsequent or even contradictory.
[/quote]
There appears to be a bit of semantic jousting going on here. If essential is defined in it’s strictest etymological terms, that is, a thing the protracted absence of which, directly or indirectly prevents survival, then carbohydrates are not essential.
If it is defined as something the protracted absence of which, directly or indirectly prevents optimal health and or the achievment of athletic goals then they are at least at some minimal level essential.
–Tiribulus->
[quote]Rotlex wrote:
Just came across this thread\article and thought that some might find this http://www.cybernaut.com.au/optimal_nutrition/information/library/eat_fat.pdf interesint reading. I know I did…saved it for future reference as well. It’s from a book, or is a book, that was written back in the 60’s.[/quote]
Here Letter On Corpulence by William Banting - is one from 1869!!! The one above was quite interesting BTW.
–Tiribulus->