Smackledorfer: star_topology: While my knee-jerk response was somewhere between "Y u mad tho" and "You sound fat,"

Not fat. I've done cross-fit, its a good work out. I prefer working to my own pace though. Some days I'd rather just do a strength training in the morning and go for a run after work.

star_topology: First off, the diet isn't "evolutionary," it's "ancestrial.
liam76: Paleo isn't based on humans evolving "to do" something. it is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.

Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own. They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on.

incendi: ///My sample size 1 study shows it works and I feel great, but your mileage may vary.

Oh, as I said, on the whole its not a bad diet. The majority of what it cuts out (and honestly this applies to damn near all diets, be they low-fat or low-carb) are things people shouldn't be eating much of. I just take issue with the way that otherwise reasonable, intelligent people seem to jump on this cave-man shenanigans. I don't see it as any different than the frequently used "all-natural" sales pitch.

Except for that whole 'survived thousands of years' thing.

That might indicate general health.

As a baseline, paleo is supposed to recreate the general diet we ate for much of our evolutionary history. Not duplicate, just approach. The reasoning is that it is what our bodies evolved to make ideal use of.

Smackledorfer: Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own. They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on.
...
Oh, as I said, on the whole its not a bad diet. The majority of what it cuts out (and honestly this applies to damn near all diets, be they low-fat or low-carb) are things people shouldn't be eating much of.

I'm not clear on your argument. I would assume you're saying that if Encino Man were alive today, he would grab and eat anything that he could? In that, modern-day humans are victims of our own success (through agriculture?)

Why not roll back the clock then?

Hebalo: Lowering the amount of carbs you eat

No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.

Hebalo: Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.

Yea, hence the crack about people who can't differentiate between a banana and a Coke when it comes to sugar intake. Those books and fad diets are aimed at people who think they can just stop drinking soda to lose weight or who don't understand why they're not losing weight when they've cut their calories elsewhere but continue to get substantial calories from sugary drinks and candy bars. You know. Dumb people. If they'd stop buying fad book after fad book and just use that money to consult a professional who can give them a stable eating plan and exercise routine most of them (assuming they stick to the plans) will probably do fine instead of yo yoing all the time.

Hebalo: I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190.

Being skinny and being healthy are not the same thing and I'm not talking about being skinny. I never said the diets don't work for their intended purpose, I said they're foolish and short-sighted. Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.

Benjimin_Dover: Balanced doesn't mean equal.

You said:

Low anything-high anything else

That's wrong. A high carb diet is the norm that your body expects and is built for. This makes a very simple sense when you consider the high carb fruit and vegetable heavy diets of our ancestors who often ate meat and dairy sparingly because of the difficultly or cost of obtaining it. You need nearly twice as many carbs as fats and twice as many fats as proteins, hence "high carb, low protein", therefore you're wrong. High/low is normal.

Splinshints: Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.

Nonsense. I've lost 15% of my total weight, fat % is way down, cholesterol levels are down.

I'm gonna die because I stopped eating bread?

Splinshints: No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.

And that there is the textbook definition of "splitting hairs".

Splinshints: Hebalo: Lowering the amount of carbs you eat

No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.

Hebalo: Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.

Yea, hence the crack about people who can't differentiate between a banana and a Coke when it comes to sugar intake. Those books and fad diets are aimed at people who think they can just stop drinking soda to lose weight or who don't understand why they're not losing weight when they've cut their calories elsewhere but continue to get substantial calories from sugary drinks and candy bars. You know. Dumb people. If they'd stop buying fad book after fad book and just use that money to consult a professional who can give them a stable eating plan and exercise routine most of them (assuming they stick to the plans) will probably do fine instead of yo yoing all the time.

Hebalo: I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190.

Being skinny and being healthy are not the same thing and I'm not talking about being skinny. I never said the diets don't work for their intended purpose, I said they're foolish and short-sighted. Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.

Benjimin_Dover: Balanced doesn't mean equal.

You said:

Low anything-high anything else

That's wrong. A high carb diet is the norm that your body expects and is built for. This ...

Okay I'll bite: explain the mechanism by which youthink eliminating carbohydrates from your diet causes heart attacks?

You do know that

A)people have lived for years on nothing but protien and fat in both controlled scientific experiements and as a way of Life (Inuits living a traditional lifestyle had access to almost zero carbs)?

B) That lack of carbs (and therefore insulin ) means your blood is much less prone to clotting (blood clots being the primary cause of heart attacks)

C) most evidence shows that sustained low-carb eating reverses arterial plaque build up regardless of how much fat is consumed?

incendi: Smackledorfer: EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You don't evolve TO DO something. Random changes occur over long periods of time, and if those changes help you breed, then they may become more prevalent in your species. Human beings can subsist on damn near anything we want to and still procreate just fine; combine that with the active lifestyle of our ancestors, and its highly unlikely any evolutionary pressure was put on us to eat healthy.

Even IF you want to believe that evolution is going to by default make a species more suited to a particular environment, that still doesn't mean that something new added to the environment is automatically bad. And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.

So ya, you guys are certifiable.

Some of us are. Usually it's the ones with the poorest understanding of the reasoning behind things that get the preachiest.

Evolution is, as you pointed out, a slow and random process. The paleo/primal community generally agrees that we're not well adapted for the modern diet (we may be in a few more thousand years). Some people go with "Hurrr all modern is bad, if cavemen didn't eat it then it's evil" while others go with "We seem to have a lot of health problems that look like they're caused by the introduction of grains and further exacerbated by the excessive sugar we add to everything, because we didn't seem to have these problems before we started doing that. Maybe if we eliminate the new stuff, we'll feel better. Oh shiat, that worked. I wonder what it is that's so bad about this stuff? Maybe I'll do some research and find out. Oh look at that, sugars and simple carbohydrates that weren't available to pre-agricultural communities play bloody hell on your insulin regulation systems, making you more inclined to be lazy, fat, and diabetic."

If he couldn't provide a reason why beans are bad other than "cavemen didn't eat them", he probably falls into the former category ...

Well said and to the point.

Splinshints: Hebalo: Lowering the amount of carbs you eat

No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.

Hebalo: Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.

Yea, hence the crack about people who can't differentiate between a banana and a Coke when it comes to sugar intake. Those books and fad diets are aimed at people who think they can just stop drinking soda to lose weight or who don't understand why they're not losing weight when they've cut their calories elsewhere but continue to get substantial calories from sugary drinks and candy bars. You know. Dumb people. If they'd stop buying fad book after fad book and just use that money to consult a professional who can give them a stable eating plan and exercise routine most of them (assuming they stick to the plans) will probably do fine instead of yo yoing all the time.

Hebalo: I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190.

Being skinny and being healthy are not the same thing and I'm not talking about being skinny. I never said the diets don't work for their intended purpose, I said they're foolish and short-sighted. Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.

Benjimin_Dover: Balanced doesn't mean equal.

You said:

Low anything-high anything else

That's wrong. A high carb diet is the norm that your body expects and is built for. This ...

Wow. Just.....wow. You must be one of the "nutritional experts" that works for the government and is simply baffled by the nation's obesity epidemic.

Splinshints: Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.

No, it wasn't. By a wide margin you need more carbs than anything else since it's a basic, readily-available form of fuel that your body uses constantly through the day. Carbs are a key form of easily accessed energy for your heart and brain, in particular. If you Google you'll find all kinds of sources ranging from multiple governmental health organizations to doctor's groups to trainers and dieticians who all say almost across the board that a healthy target is fifty to sixty percent of your intake being carbs.

Low carb diets are just shortcuts for stupid people who don't understand the difference between fruits and vegetables and 64 oz cups of carbonated sugar water. Instead of wasting their money on fad after fad diet they'd be better just paying the same amount up front one time to talk to a nutritionist and trainer who can educate them on good eating habits and construct an exercise plan for them.

lolno

Smackledorfer: Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own.

In general terms, no.

When talking specificially about food, yes there is.


They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

max_pooper: In order to lose weight you need to burn more energy than you put in your body. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise, they are either uniformed or lying to you to sell you the latest scam diet.

Close. But it is calories IN versus calories OUT.

Not all the calories in the OUT column are burned. Some of them go OUT through the anus. The alimentary canal doesn't absorb 100% of the calories.

Without knowing the details, I would even say that a pretty good chunk doesn't get absorbed.

liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.

Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?

Smackledorfer: liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.

Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?

As I said above.

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.

star_topology: Smackledorfer: Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own. They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on.
...
Oh, as I said, on the whole its not a bad diet. The majority of what it cuts out (and honestly this applies to damn near all diets, be they low-fat or low-carb) are things people shouldn't be eating much of.

I'm not clear on your argument. I would assume you're saying that if Encino Man were alive today, he would grab and eat anything that he could? In that, modern-day humans are victims of our own success (through agriculture?)

Why not roll back the clock then?



Do you disagree with the first bolded point, that our ancestors would have expanded their population to the limits that could support them, at which point they would be forced to eat whatever was available to survive? And that, therefore, their average diet would not necessarily be healthy?

As far as the second, what does that have to do with my dislike of the logic that "cave men did it, therefore it's good (for them, or us)" ?

Look, if you said "beets are healthy because superman can leap tall buildings" I would mock that too. That doesn't mean that I believe, or don't believe, that beets are unhealthy.

The rolling back the clock point is simply ridiculous. Why the fark would we have to roll back the clock and eat like cavemen, when we could instead be intelligent and keep the good and throw out the bad?

liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.

Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?

As I said above.

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.

Let me put some context for that "very long time", 2.5 million years, as opposed to about 10,000 years for grains and legumes, and even less for dairy.

liam76: The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.

Do you have the slightest understanding of how natural selection and survival of the fittest work?

Smackledorfer: liam76: The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.

Do you have the slightest understanding of how natural selection and survival of the fittest work?

If you don't understand how eating pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000 then I have much more of an understanding than you.

liam76: If you don't understand how eating pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000 then I have much more of an understanding than you.

Ridiculous. You've made no argument behind "cave men did it so its good" without ever connecting your dots.

liam76: Let me put some context for that "very long time", 2.5 million years, as opposed to about 10,000 years for grains and legumes, and even less for dairy.

That's exactly my point: grains, legumes, and dairy may be a poor dietary choice for us, and yet our species thrived none-the-less, with no significant natural selection pressures against that diet. People ate bad, it didn't affect their ability to breed, and the species thrived despite what may or may not have been a sub-optimal decision. The heavy grain and dairy diet of the last 10,000 years has proved absolutely sufficient for us to breed and pass those genes on.

This is why I accuse people making your argument of acting as though there is some guiding force behind evolution. There is not one. There is merely genetics, mutations, and selections. You have to actually make the argument for how the diet would add selective pressure to the passing on of genes. You either don't have such an argument, or aren't bothering to make one. You're side is essentially saying that the paleo diet is optimal because cavemen. But all that proves is that the diet eaten by cavemen was sufficient. That is all 2.5 million years of our species eating such a diet proves: sufficiency.

Smackledorfer:
Ridiculous. You've made no argument behind "cave men did it so its good" without ever connecting your dots.

So you don't understand how pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000?


Smackledorfer: That's exactly my point: grains, legumes, and dairy may be a poor dietary choice for us, and yet our species thrived none-the-less, with no significant natural selection pressures against that diet. People ate bad, it didn't affect their ability to breed, and the species thrived despite what may or may not have been a sub-optimal decision. The heavy grain and dairy diet of the last 10,000 years has proved absolutely sufficient for us to breed and pass those genes on.

If your idea of a healthy diet is nothing more then surviving long enough to breed, then you are right Paleo is no more helathy than eating whatever you want.

Smackledorfer: This is why I accuse people making your argument of acting as though there is some guiding force behind evolution. There is not one. There is merely genetics, mutations, and selections. You have to actually make the argument for how the diet would add selective pressure to the passing on of genes. You either don't have such an argument, or aren't bothering to make one. You're side is essentially saying that the paleo diet is optimal because cavemen. But all that proves is that the diet eaten by cavemen was sufficient. That is all 2.5 million years of our species eating such a diet proves: sufficiency

I never once mentioned a "guiding force" you are imagining arguments here.

If a species is eating the same basic years for 2.5 million years then selection will dictate that diet is the optimal diet for that species. For the people in that group for whom it is only "suffecient" they will be less likely to breed than the people for who it is optimum.

Smackledorfer: Do you disagree with the first bolded point, that our ancestors would have expanded their population to the limits that could support them, at which point they would be forced to eat whatever was available to survive? And that, therefore, their average diet would not necessarily be healthy?

I do not disagree. Why would I? That is exactly what happened with the agricultural revolution. Grains = Cheap and (relatively) easy way to feed an exploding population.

As far as the second, what does that have to do with my dislike of the logic that "cave men did it, therefore it's good (for them, or us)" ?

It doesn't have anything to do with it? I think that's terrible logic and I haven't used that as a crutch to hold up my side of things.

Look, if you said "beets are healthy because superman can leap tall buildings" I would mock that too. That doesn't mean that I believe, or don't believe, that beets are unhealthy.

As you should. Again. I agree. That's stupid.

The rolling back the clock point is simply ridiculous. Why the fark would we have to roll back the clock and eat like cavemen, when we could instead be intelligent and keep the good and throw out the bad?

I think we're losing each other. I think my use of "rolling back the clock" is merely a re-wording of throwing out the bad and keeping the good: Lean meats, veggies, fruits, nuts... and dark chocolate. :)

star_topology: I think we're losing each other. I think my use of "rolling back the clock" is merely a re-wording of throwing out the bad and keeping the good: Lean meats, veggies, fruits, nuts... and dark chocolate. :)

And popsicles. They're mostly water, right?

liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.

Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?

As I said above.

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.

Precisely. The missing oiece in thsi equation is that most people fail to realize that most of human existance was a race to collect sufficent calories and use them eifficently rather than a struggle to avoid overeating. Therefore it is natural and logical to assume that we evolved a mechanism for storing excess calories as well as utilizing them . Obviously body fat is the way we store excess food. And when do we most need to store excess food? When food is about to become scarce, as it does in winter time. However body fat ,as we all know can slow you down and make you a less sucessful hunter. So evolutionarily it most beneficial for survival to pack on pounds just before winter and hopefully have them gone by early spring. (the extra insulation the fat gives you is another surivival bonus).

Now since carbs, before the advent of agriculture, were most available in late summer and throughout the fall, does it not make sense that the eating of carbohydrates became the body's "winter is coming, time to store food" signal?
Thus can it be any kind of suprise that the presence of Insulin, the chemical the body uses to process carbs, also became the hormonal trigger for things like the creation of body fat?

Hebalo: max_pooper: The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out.

We've already gone a few rounds on why, in terms of losing weight, that's just nonsense.

But you prefer to argue semantics, instead the actualities.

Again, you eat 2000 cals a day of nothing but bread and sugar, I'll eat 2000 of nothing but protein and veg, and in a few months, you can waddle in and tell me how we've gained the exact same amount of weight.

Your lack understanding of basic science is well documented. You do not need to continue to prove your ignorance. We get it, you think the human body is a magical machine that need not follow the laws of thermodynamics.

Eating 2000 calories per day, I would lose a lot of weight. I maintain my weight with around 3000 calories per day, with lots of bread and pasta.

liam76: So you don't understand how pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000?

Influence? Yes.
Select for perfection as the paleo diet assumes? Absolutely not.

liam76: If your idea of a healthy diet is nothing more then surviving long enough to breed, then you are right Paleo is no more helathy than eating whatever you want.

Of course its not. And again, as I noted multiple times in this thread, I don't consider the foods on the paleo diet to be bad for you. I merely point out that the existence of new foods that cavemen didn't eat shouldn't be defaulted to "bad" and that all foods eaten by cave men shouldn't be defaulted to "perfect". Why you are fighting this so much, I don't know. Read my Boobies regarding paleo in this thread. If you like the foods, and it fits with you, and its convenient, then by all means hop on the paleo bandwagon. But don't expect others to accept poor logic and stop eating beans or milk just because of that.

liam76: For the people in that group for whom it is only "suffecient" they will be less likely to breed than the people for who it is optimum.

Not necessarily. If two lifestyle factors are close, and one lets you live say, 5 years longer on average, then there may be no significant change in the breeding of one group vs. the other. This can be especially true depending on how our ancestors bred: if might-makes-right was the primary factor for the bulk of those millions of years, then being an old man for a little longer because your diet prevents heart disease really wouldn't have an impact: you probably wouldn't have been getting laid anyways.

Look at the sun. Sunlight still burns us and gives us skin cancer. High levels of sun exposure is not optimal, despite millions of years of living on this planet. By the time any negative effects show up, it is well past the point at which our ancestors had already passed on their genes. There was nothing to select against.

Was it enough that we have dark skinned and light-skinned people? Yes, the sun had influence.
Was it enough that anyone, light or dark skin, ended up optimally suited to any climate? Absolutely not. I'm a pasty white guy, and there is no environment that my ancestors ever lived in in which I would be best served by the amount of exposure my ancestors likely got.

For another example, read up on sickle-cell. Where is the optimal result from evolution of mankind as it pertains to malaria? You have 3 options: hope you don't get malaria and die if you do, have that malaria resistance, or sickle-cell. None of those is optimal, despite that area having millions of years worth of breeding to sort things out. Even with strong evolutionary pressure there was no guarantee that the randomness of genetics would "solve" the problem. Similarly, there is no guarantee that a caveman diet, if it was only sufficient and not perfect, would gradually result in a human being perfectly suited to that diet.

An evolutionary pressure will not necessarily create change. If nothing changed in the world for millions of years, would human beings automatically live longer and longer when compared between millenia? Nope. You might think you'd see better and better telomere-related genetics passed on, but that could only occur if the actual mutations even existed. If the mutation doesn't pop up, then the change simply will not occur, regardless of whether or not such a change would make for a superior human being.

So millions of years of the same diet won't necessarily enact the change that seems like an obvious one were you in charge of making the change in a species.

star_topology: I think we're losing each other. I think my use of "rolling back the clock" is merely a re-wording of throwing out the bad and keeping the good: Lean meats, veggies, fruits, nuts... and dark chocolate. :)

I guess we must be.

max_pooper: Your lack understanding of basic science is well documented. You do not need to continue to prove your ignorance. We get it, you think the human body is a magical machine that need not follow the laws of thermodynamics.

Eating 2000 calories per day, I would lose a lot of weight. I maintain my weight with around 3000 calories per day, with lots of bread and pasta.


And you refuse to budge from a pedantic viewpoint, in which the body must burn everything that enters it. Whatever. I'm done with you. You're closed minded, and not furthering the discussion at all, you just keep retreading the same old ground.

cryinoutloud: Oh it's this thread again.

I don't eat red meat (no special reason, I just don't like it much), eat tons of carbs, and I've never had a weight problem. I even tend to be a little on the skinny side.

I know people who smoke several packs a day, and they don't have any signs of getting lung cancer.

Anecdotal evidence indeed: Most of the big fat farks I know eat a lot of meat.

There is no such thing as a "high meat" diet plan. There is a such thing as a "low carb" diet plan. How many of your fat, meat eating friends are also going low carb?

max_pooper: I see you're still pushing this BS about how your body can magically make energy disappear if it comes a different sources.

In order to lose weight you need to burn more energy than you put in your body. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise, they are either uniformed or lying to you to sell you the latest scam diet.

If you want to lose weight, write down everything you eat and exercise alot. The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out.

Just out of curiosity, how do think that carnivorous animals avoid being overweight in the wild? Why do individual specimens maintain such similar weight levels, even when the food supply can vary greatly from region to region? Do you think that these animals are keeping careful track of their calories, and how much exercise they do? Or do you think that their bodies somehow automatically know know when they've had enough food, and they stop eating after a certain point? If humans can't do this, despite the social pressure to stay thin, it either means that they ignore the fact they feel full, or they lose the ability to stay full.

Also, when farmers want to fatten their livestock, why do they feed the livestock grain? For instance, even butchers that specialize in grassfed meat will have "grain finished" beef, where the cow is fed grain in the last few months in order to promote marbling? Why can't the cows simply get marbling from eating grass, if it's simply a matter of calorie count?

Don't tell me that they do it because grass is cheaper, because if farmers could find away to sell grass finished beef with lots of marbling, they would, and customers would be happy to pay extra for it. The only reason to finish off with grain is if grain somehow alters the metabolism to promote fat building.

You remind me of the creationists who insist that evolution somehow violates thermodynamics. You are taking a very simplified notion ("Energy can't be destroyed") and completely ignoring all biological processes.

Hebalo: max_pooper: Your lack understanding of basic science is well documented. You do not need to continue to prove your ignorance. We get it, you think the human body is a magical machine that need not follow the laws of thermodynamics.

Eating 2000 calories per day, I would lose a lot of weight. I maintain my weight with around 3000 calories per day, with lots of bread and pasta.


And you refuse to budge from a pedantic viewpoint, in which the body must burn everything that enters it. Whatever. I'm done with you. You're closed minded, and not furthering the discussion at all, you just keep retreading the same old ground.

Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact. I'm looking up a blue sky and you are claiming it is orange.

Energy can not simply disappear as you claim. If you put energy in your body, it will either get used by the process of life or it will be converted into fat. In your fantasy world, energy from protein and veggies just goes away while energy from carbohydrates somehow multiples.

max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact.

Does your doctor know that you don't poop?

schrodinger: max_pooper: I see you're still pushing this BS about how your body can magically make energy disappear if it comes a different sources.

In order to lose weight you need to burn more energy than you put in your body. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise, they are either uniformed or lying to you to sell you the latest scam diet.

If you want to lose weight, write down everything you eat and exercise alot. The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out.

Just out of curiosity, how do think that carnivorous animals avoid being overweight in the wild? Why do individual specimens maintain such similar weight levels, even when the food supply can vary greatly from region to region? Do you think that these animals are keeping careful track of their calories, and how much exercise they do? Or do you think that their bodies somehow automatically know know when they've had enough food, and they stop eating after a certain point? If humans can't do this, despite the social pressure to stay thin, it either means that they ignore the fact they feel full, or they lose the ability to stay full.

Also, when farmers want to fatten their livestock, why do they feed the livestock grain? For instance, even butchers that specialize in grassfed meat will have "grain finished" beef, where the cow is fed grain in the last few months in order to promote marbling? Why can't the cows simply get marbling from eating grass, if it's simply a matter of calorie count?

Don't tell me that they do it because grass is cheaper, because if farmers could find away to sell grass finished beef with lots of marbling, they would, and customers would be happy to pay extra for it. The only reason to finish off with grain is if grain somehow alters the metabolism to promote fat building.

You remind me of the creationists who insist that evolution somehow violates thermodynamics. You are taking a very simplified notion ("Energy can't be destroyed") and completely ignorin ...

Are you talking about wild animals? Ones that have to expend energy to hunt and capture food? Those kind? They live in the wild, it's tough out there. They have work real hard just to survive. We don't.

We live a society where we have damn near unlimited food supplies. We are prewired to crave food, particularly those foods with high energy density. That's why fat and sugar taste so damn good and carrots taste like well carrots. When a person is exposed to an unlimitted food supply they will generally over eat, it's a instinct that kept our biological ancestors alive for the hard times when food was scarce. We will never experience food scarcity. We need discipline to keep from overeating in a world of nearly unlimited food. Even animals when exposed to unlimited food get fat, I'm sure you know somebody with an obese dog or cat.

Some people have an easier time with this discipline than others. I believe the best way to learn is to keep track of everything you eat. Like I said, eventually you will learn how to eat the right amount of food that fits your taste and lifestyle (which is different that everyone else's). Sitting on your ass all day and only eating veggies may work for some people, eating a shiat load carbs and exercising a lot may work for other people.

In the end the only thing that matters is energy in must be less than energy out in you wish to burn body fat. While there may be a balance of protein, carbohydrates and fats that has an ideal efficiency, the body can not simply make energy go away.

max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact. I'm looking up a blue sky and you are claiming it is orange.

Creationists cite scientific facts when they bring up the concept of entropy. The problem is that they're citing science very, very poorly.

Science is about hypothesis and testing. Is there a way to test your hypothesis? Yes, there is. We can regulate "calories in/calories out" in controlled experiments. And controlled experiments suggest that the body is a self-regulating system. The body knows how much it wants to weigh, and it has mechanisms for keeping that in balance, just like it has mechanisms for maintaining body temperature and pH.

In a healthy metabolism (i.e., the metabolism we see with most animals in the wild), creating a calorie surplus means you stay full longer, which means you're not in any hurry for your next meal. A calorie deficit triggers hunger, which means that you're more eager for your next meal. Obesity isn't really an issue in the wild, especially among carnivores.

And studies have shown that the same thing generally happens to humans. Any attempt to create a calorie deficit, whether from exercise or starvation, will result in an increase of hunger, until the deficit is balanced out. Have you ever experienced long term sustained hunger? It's pretty bad. I have a hard time believing that the human body was evolved to be in a state of constant starvation and hunger in order to maintain good health. Which means that hunger itself must be a symptom of a problem.

If this is true, then the best way to alter diet is by altering metabolism itself, by avoiding foods that are more likely to create a hunger response (i.e., carbs and insulin). Of course, this is just theory, and science requires that we test things. So here's the test: Put people on low carb diets, and see if they can lose weight without being crippled with hunger. Which we've done. Millions of times. And apparently it works. Funny that.

Energy can not simply disappear as you claim. If you put energy in your body, it will either get used by the process of life or it will be converted into fat. In your fantasy world, energy from protein and veggies just goes away while energy from carbohydrates somehow multiples

sprawl15: max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact.

Does your doctor know that you don't poop?

Talk about being pedantic.

I take a dump everyday, sometimes twice or thrice. The human body can not process everything you put inside of it. Like I said, energy can not be create dor destroyed, some of that energy can unusable cellulose that is pooped out. If it's a digestible carbohydrate, protein or fat your body will absorb it. Once it has been absorbed, it will either be burned off in the process of life or it will be converted and stored as fat.

There isn't any magical food that you can eat, your body processes and then simply makes the energy go away. If it is not burned it will be converted to fat. To make your body burn that fat, you must absorb less energy than burn.

Food kills you.

Stop eating.

schrodinger: max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact. I'm looking up a blue sky and you are claiming it is orange.

Creationists cite scientific facts when they bring up the concept of entropy. The problem is that they're citing science very, very poorly.

Science is about hypothesis and testing. Is there a way to test your hypothesis? Yes, there is. We can regulate "calories in/calories out" in controlled experiments. And controlled experiments suggest that the body is a self-regulating system. The body knows how much it wants to weigh, and it has mechanisms for keeping that in balance, just like it has mechanisms for maintaining body temperature and pH.

In a healthy metabolism (i.e., the metabolism we see with most animals in the wild), creating a calorie surplus means you stay full longer, which means you're not in any hurry for your next meal. A calorie deficit triggers hunger, which means that you're more eager for your next meal. Obesity isn't really an issue in the wild, especially among carnivores.

And studies have shown that the same thing generally happens to humans. Any attempt to create a calorie deficit, whether from exercise or starvation, will result in an increase of hunger, until the deficit is balanced out. Have you ever experienced long term sustained hunger? It's pretty bad. I have a hard time believing that the human body was evolved to be in a state of constant starvation and hunger in order to maintain good health. Which means that hunger itself must be a symptom of a problem.

If this is true, then the best way to alter diet is by altering metabolism itself, by avoiding foods that are more likely to create a hunger response (i.e., carbs and insulin). Of course, this is just theory, and science requires that we test things. So here's the test: Put people on low carb diets, and see if they can lose weight without being crippled with hunger. Which we've done. Millions of times. And apparently it works. Fu ...

I'm glad you finally have admitted my point. You now seem to understand that the human body follows the very basic scientific fact that energy in must equal energy out but now you are claiming it's just easier for some people to do so by eating less carbs. That is completely and utterly different from every single argument that has made for low carb diets.

It actually jives with the argument I've been making all along: not everybody is the same. Some people may do well with a low carb low calorie sedentary lifestyle, others may do well with a high carb high calorie active lifestyle. The only way for you to know it do keep track of everything you eat and see what works best for you. In the end, in order to lose weight your body must burn more energy than it takes in.

max_pooper: The human body can not process everything you put inside of it.

So what you're saying is...the body does not burn everything that enters it. I think we can agree on that one. I know when I eat corn, there's quite a bit that doesn't get 'burnt'.

sprawl15: max_pooper: The human body can not process everything you put inside of it.

So what you're saying is...the body does not burn everything that enters it. I think we can agree on that one. I know when I eat corn, there's quite a bit that doesn't get 'burnt'.

I see your being pedantic again.

As I clearly explained in the portion of my post you decided not to quote, your body can not process the cellulose so it get tossed out. Of the energy from the carbohydrates your body does absorb, it either gets burnt or converted to fat.

max_pooper: It actually jives with the argument I've been making all along: not everybody is the same. Some people may do well with a low carb low calorie sedentary lifestyle, others may do well with a high carb high calorie active lifestyle. The only way for you to know it do keep track of everything you eat and see what works best for you. In the end, in order to lose weight your body must burn more energy than it takes in.

Problem is, low carb diets tend to have a strong effect even when you have a high calorie, low exercise lifestyle. I sat around on my ass (I think I did some situps once), UPPING my caloric intake (think: 5 egg omlettes with cheese and meats for breakfast, 2 plates at a Thai buffet for lunch, 3 burger patties for dinner, with 4-5 sugar free popsicles throughout) and lost 30 pounds in about a month and a half. I wouldn't be surprised if I averaged 8-10k calories a day during that month.

You do know that, right? That even though a good calorie delta is obviously better than a terrible one, caloric delta is not the primary method of weight loss under low-carb diets?

meat0918: lewismarktwo: meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.

fixt

Goddamn.

I've read some stupid things on Fark, but this is one of the dumbest. Sugars are a generic term for things like sucrose(common table sugar), glucose/dextrose(dextrose is AKA D-glucose and AKA corn sugar, so a big fark you to the corn lobby trying to rebrand HFCS to corn sugar when we already have corn sugar for purchase at home brew stores), lactose(you could call it milk sugar), and fructose(fruit sugar).

You may not like what High Fructose Corn Syrup is, but it is sugar. It's 55%-42% fructose and 42%-55% glucose, (respectively) depending on the type. Link

Just eat less refined sugar, and if you must have refined sugar, pair it with a good source of fiber at least.

No, sugar means sugar cane. Nothing else. Nice try tho.

max_pooper: I see your being pedantic again.

It's not 'pedantic'. I'm asking if you actually believe what you're saying. If you don't intend to say things that are factually wrong, then don't say them in the first place. Don't cry that you got called out on them.

max_pooper: Are you talking about wild animals? Ones that have to expend energy to hunt and capture food? Those kind? They live in the wild, it's tough out there.

Wait, so first you claim that we need to keep exact count of calorie input/output in order to maintain weight. Now you're claiming that animals can get away without doing this because they live in the wild, where input/output is completely unpredictable. These are two completely contradictory arguments.

If your argument is "they live in the wild, it's tough out there," then keeping track of calories will be even harder, and you should see vast differences in BMI levels. To put it this way, an extra slice of bread per day adds up to roughly 10 pounds of body fat per year. If your hypothesis were true, then we would expect to see animals that accidentally eat the equivalent of an extra slice of bread per day all the time (especially when raised in completely different regions). But for some reason, this doesn't happen.

See, this is how science works. You don't just say what you believe, you have to test it. I tested your statement, and it fails.

We live a society where we have damn near unlimited food supplies. We are prewired to crave food, particularly those foods with high energy density. That's why fat and sugar taste so damn good and carrots taste like well carrots.

Here's the thing: Fat has always been readily available in human diets, for millions of years. Grains only began in the past 10,000 years with the invention of agriculture, and sugar only became readily available in the past few hundred years, and only became super cheap in the 1970s with HFCS. Furthermore, wheat itself has been completely re-engineered in the past 50 years, and wheat products you eat today are completely different from what your grandmother ate.

When a person is exposed to an unlimitted food supply they will generally over eat,

First, how do you explain people who overeat despite the social pressure to stay thin, or who spend thousands of dollars on diet plans and gym memberships?

Second, if this the only variable is the availability of food, then why don't we see ridiculously overweight carnivorous animals all the time?

In the wild, there will be some regions where food is more plentiful, and carnivores will be able to hunt with a lot less work. According to your model, this meanings more calories, fewer calories out. Even a 10% difference from living 10 miles apart could easily mean 50 extra pounds in 5 years. If your hypothesis is correct, then we should be seeing this all the time. And yet we don't. Why?

Answer: Because animal metabolism is a self-regulating system, just like body temperature and pH is a self-regulating system. Animals instinctively know when to stop eating, unless something interferes with their metabolism. We know for a fact that feeding grain to livestock can do this. Why do you refuse to believe that the same thing is true for humans?

it's a instinct that kept our biological ancestors alive for the hard times when food was scarce.

Your assumption here is that the human body simply isn't happy until it reaches obesity, and the only way to stay thin is to force the body into a constant state of crippling starvation. Which is stupid. Because constant, crippling starvation makes it hard for the brain to function, which decreases the rate of survival.

People aren't driven to overeat on low carb diets. They are only driven to overeat on high carb diets. Here's an easy way to test this hypothesis: Go to a grocery store, and pay attention to the fat people. How many fat people do you see on low carb diets? Pretty much any fat person you see will have a shopping cart loaded with grain products. Sometimes, you will see grain products with lots of fat, and sometimes grain products with very little fat. But the common denominator is always grain.

Your problem is that you're observing a particular phenomenon and assuming that it applies to all humans in general. But it doesn't. The only humans who it seems to apply to are humans with shopping carts full of grain products.

Even animals when exposed to unlimited food get fat, I'm sure you know somebody with an obese dog or cat.

You realize that commercial dog and cat food is loaded with grain products?

sprawl15: max_pooper: It actually jives with the argument I've been making all along: not everybody is the same. Some people may do well with a low carb low calorie sedentary lifestyle, others may do well with a high carb high calorie active lifestyle. The only way for you to know it do keep track of everything you eat and see what works best for you. In the end, in order to lose weight your body must burn more energy than it takes in.

Problem is, low carb diets tend to have a strong effect even when you have a high calorie, low exercise lifestyle. I sat around on my ass (I think I did some situps once), UPPING my caloric intake (think: 5 egg omlettes with cheese and meats for breakfast, 2 plates at a Thai buffet for lunch, 3 burger patties for dinner, with 4-5 sugar free popsicles throughout) and lost 30 pounds in about a month and a half. I wouldn't be surprised if I averaged 8-10k calories a day during that month.

You do know that, right? That even though a good calorie delta is obviously better than a terrible one, caloric delta is not the primary method of weight loss under low-carb diets?

Now you are just lying. You did not sit on their ass and consume 80000 calories per day and lose 30 pounds in 45 days. In order to loose 30 pounds your body must burn 105,000 calories worth of body fat, if you add that to the 360,000 you consumed. Your body was using over 10,000 calories per day. If you managed to do that without exercising you must have been running a 120 degree fever while locked in a freezer. Either that or were using laxatives to either poop it all out or you were forcing yourself to throw it up before your digestive system had a chance to break it down.

I'd love to see cited evidence that any human body has a base metabolic rate of over 10,000 calories. I'd even accept the world most muscular person.

max_pooper: I'm glad you finally have admitted my point. You now seem to understand that the human body follows the very basic scientific fact that energy in must equal energy out but now you are claiming it's just easier for some people to do so by eating less carbs. That is completely and utterly different from every single argument that has made for low carb diets.

Huh? No, it's really not. You're relying on the same strawman as creationists who insist that evolution disputes thermodynamics.

No one disputes the idea of needing a calorie deficit to lose weight, just like no one disputes the concept of entropy. What's being disputed is how you achieve calorie deficits in the first place.

Low-carb doesn't say, "It's okay to overeat, you will still lose weight on a low carb diet." It says, "If you are on a low carb diet, then it will be really hard to overeat even if you wanted to, and even harder to overeat on accident."

max_pooper: I'd love to see cited evidence that any human body has a base metabolic rate of over 10,000 calories.

^ implies that converting all types of foodstuffs to energy takes the same amount of energy. Also implies that excess energy within the body is automatically converted to fat and stored. Also implies that the body cannot use another energy cycle beyond the standard glycemic diet.

What happens, on an extremely basic level, is that when you intake glycemic foodstuffs, your body works much like you think it works. You take in food and your glucose and insulin levels rise, which your your body produces glycogen (which is basically a chain of glucose). These chains are broken down for glucose as a primary fuel for the body, and only are maintained for a few hours.

When you don't intake glycemic foodstuffs, your insulin levels do not increase. This prevents the production of glycogen, and your body starts using other metabolic pathways. The pathway used by low carb diets is ketosis, where your body instead gets its energy from fats (which are converted to ketones) rather than glucose. This includes adipose tissues from the body, resulting in rapid fat burn.

You seem to be under the impression that calories are some mystical number. They're not. They're calculated using energy densities of different components of the food based on a standardized metabolic process. When using different metabolic processes, the standard definition of calorie becomes meaningless. Glycosis vs the Citric Acid Cycle are very different energy burn profiles.

Hint: why do you think hydration becomes extremely important on a low carb diet?

max_pooper: Now you are just lying. You did not sit on their ass and consume 80000 calories per day and lose 30 pounds in 45 days. In order to loose 30 pounds your body must burn 105,000 calories worth of body fat, if you add that to the 360,000 you consumed. Your body was using over 10,000 calories per day. If you managed to do that without exercising you must have been running a 120 degree fever while locked in a freezer. Either that or were using laxatives to either poop it all out or you were forcing yourself to throw it up before your digestive system had a chance to break it down.

I'd love to see cited evidence that any human body has a base metabolic rate of over 10,000 calories. I'd even accept the world most muscular person.

While I do think the guy is overestimating the calorie count by a great deal, that's more because of how difficult it would be to get those calories consumed in the first place (100 calories is 10 pounds of 85% ground beef, or 12 sticks of butter).

However, the idea that the guy was upping his caloric intake and still losing weight without hitting the gym? Completely plausible.

Your assumption is that human metabolism works like this:

(Calories in) - (Calories out) = (Body fat).

The new model looks like this:

(Calories in) - (Body fat) = (Calories out).

In other words, you consume calories. In a high insulin diet, those calories are automatically converted to body fat. And if they are already converted to body fat, then your body can't use them for physical activity. But on a low insulin diet, less body fat is created, which means the body feels more active.

I know this might sound counter intuitive to your "Calories in / calories out" model. But there's an easy way to test this: Why do fat people get hungry and feel low on energy, despite having plenty of body fat to burn? The energy is there, but it's not readily accessible. But when people go low carb, the energy does become readily accessible, which is why they lose weight without having to feel hungry. And that's because they're changing their metabolism.

In other words, yes, he might be losing weight by becoming more active. But it's not forced activity. His body simply puts more energy into the same activities than it did before. He doesn't have to hit the gym. And it's not something you can keep track of.

max_pooper: sprawl15: max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact.

Does your doctor know that you don't poop?

Talk about being pedantic.

I take a dump everyday, sometimes twice or thrice. The human body can not process everything you put inside of it. Like I said, energy can not be create dor destroyed, some of that energy can unusable cellulose that is pooped out. If it's a digestible carbohydrate, protein or fat your body will absorb it. Once it has been absorbed, it will either be burned off in the process of life or it will be converted and stored as fat.

There isn't any magical food that you can eat, your body processes and then simply makes the energy go away. If it is not burned it will be converted to fat. To make your body burn that fat, you must absorb less energy than burn.

You could east anything you wanted, unlimited calories, from any source you want, fat, carbohydrate, protein, and be dead from malnutrition in under a month.

Contrary to popular belief, humans are not individuals, but symbiotes, and without the colonies of Bacteria that live in your guts, you'd be able to extract almost no useful nutrition from the food you eat. So yes, genetics, metabolism, thyroid activity, and the health and particular species of bacteria living in your gut all determine how well and how much of the energy available in the food you eat becomes usable to your body.

Furthermore, when your insulin production drops below a certain point, your body is unable to store excess energy as body fat that's why you need not count calries on a low carb diet, your insulin production is so low it is irrelevant.

Smackledorfer: Influence? Yes.
Select for perfection as the paleo diet assumes? Absolutely not.

Didn't say that did I?


Smackledorfer: And again, as I noted multiple times in this thread, I don't consider the foods on the paleo diet to be bad for you. I merely point out that the existence of new foods that cavemen didn't eat shouldn't be defaulted to "bad" and that all foods eaten by cave men shouldn't be defaulted to "perfect".

There you go again with that strawman.


Smackledorfer: Why you are fighting this so much, I don't know. Read my Boobies regarding paleo in this thread. If you like the foods, and it fits with you, and its convenient, then by all means hop on the paleo bandwagon. But don't expect others to accept poor logic and stop eating beans or milk just because of that.

I never said stop eating beans or milk. I enjoy them, I just don't think they should be a cornerstone of a good diet.

And if we are going off "logic" alone then yes Paleo is leaps and bounds better than any other diet given the facts exchanged in out conversations.

Fortunately as Magorn has pointed out there is also a lot of science behind it that you didn't even bother to respond to (I didn't bother with that route after you ignored my initial lectin comment, seems you weren't interested).

Smackledorfer: liam76: For the people in that group for whom it is only "suffecient" they will be less likely to breed than the people for who it is optimum.

Not necessarily. If two lifestyle factors are close, and one lets you live say, 5 years longer on average, then there may be no significant change in the breeding of one group vs. the other. This can be especially true depending on how our ancestors bred: if might-makes-right was the primary factor for the bulk of those millions of years, then being an old man for a little longer because your diet prevents heart disease really wouldn't have an impact: you probably wouldn't have been getting laid anyways.

There "may be" no significant change in the breeding if those five extra years come solely from dieing of natural causes at an older age when they can't breed. That is highly unlikely. A population with a life expectancy of 5 more years generally would have less infant mortality and less people die before and during breeding years.

Your sun and sickle cell examples aren't really relevant (aside from repeating the perfect strawman again) as there is no real "optimum" for those (nor did I argue there is one for food), and it misses the point.

Smackledorfer: An evolutionary pressure will not necessarily create change. If nothing changed in the world for millions of years, would human beings automatically live longer and longer when compared between millenia? Nope. You might think you'd see better and better telomere-related genetics passed on, but that could only occur if the actual mutations even existed. If the mutation doesn't pop up, then the change simply will not occur, regardless of whether or not such a change would make for a superior human being

You are correct, but if they were competing amongst each other you can bet that the humans who were better adapted to that constant diet would be doing better than those who weren't.

max_pooper:

I mean, the basic problem is that you're saying 2 + 2 = 4. Which is true under your assumptions: that 2 is a whole number. But 2 can, to one technically capable enough to know how, mean a larger range of values such that 2 + 2 = 3, or 2 + 2 = 5. That what you are saying is true under your assumptions does not mean that your assumptions paint the entire picture.

Under a glycemic diet, eating according to nutritional guidelines that mirror the assumptions used to create things like the food pyramid, caloric intake is the primary way to lose weight. But we're not talking a situation that uses those assumptions. We are recognizing that 2 can represent 2.4999, and working within a broader set of assumptions about how metabolic processes interact with the food that you ingest. You can sit there all day and show me that if you have two apples and add two more apples you always get four apples. Unless you understand the basis of your assumptions - and why you're making them - you won't actually be able to say WHY your 2 + 2 = 4 statement is true.

Hebalo: Nonsense. I've lost 15% of my total weight, fat % is way down, cholesterol levels are down.

I'm gonna die because I stopped eating bread?

You and I are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the sorts of loosely defined fad diets that lead yo-yo dieting retards to eat burgers without hamburger buns and call it healthy. You probably aren't.

Magorn: Okay I'll bite: explain the mechanism by which youthink eliminating carbohydrates from your diet causes heart attacks?

First of all, you can't eliminate carbs. Not only would that be amazingly stupid, it would be virtually impossible.

Regardless, that's not what I'm saying. If you refer back to prior posts I'm talking about fad diets that lead people to do stupid shiat like stop eating "carbs" and replace them with crap like fast food burgers without buns. There's a difference between not eating bread and pasta as part over an overall lifestyle changed aimed at healthy living and continuing to eat garbage and not exercising while cutting the bread and pasta. Both will result in weight loss. One will result in death.

Magorn: A)people have lived for years on nothing but protien and fat in both controlled scientific experiements and as a way of Life (Inuits living a traditional lifestyle had access to almost zero carbs)?

Specifically, the Inuit peoples as a generic group live about ten years less on average and have substantially higher cancer risks....

Magorn: B) That lack of carbs (and therefore insulin ) means your blood is much less prone to clotting (blood clots being the primary cause of heart attacks)

C) most evidence shows that sustained low-carb eating reverses arterial plaque build up regardless of how much fat is consumed?

And this, of course, is just garbage aimed at intentionally misusing factoids. I'm going to assume you're referring to studies which find that reducing carbohydrate intake as a one part of an overall lifestyle change aimed at healthier living resulted in better outcomes. Saying that "reducing carbs" did that is just a dishonest portrayal of the studies.

Want to be healthy? Eat fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and exercise.

Smackledorfer: An evolutionary pressure will not necessarily create change.

You grok evolution.

The post I snipped this from showed a better understanding of it than damn near any random musing I've seen on the internet.