Blablahb said:
A commercial book written by a shady author is not a valid source of information. Experience with such writers has taught me that it's almost never that such people have done actual research, and most of them base themselves on pretty much just fried air.
I don't buy it, not the book, not the myths.
Do you have anything to base your claim that he's a shady author on other than the fact that he wrote a book? Because writing a book does not make an argument invalid, nor the research that went into it. If you want to discredit something you have to do a little better than simply saying someone is shady. Actually looking at the research the author did and finding issues with it directly would be a good start, but from your posts I'm not sure you have any interest in looking into actual research done in the field of nutrition. It seems you'd rather just regurgitate things you've been told without ever having to think critically about them. That's fine if you want to live your life that way, but it's not the way to approach a serious discussion about any topic.
Blablahb said:
Nonsense. People ate it before those times as well as hunter-gatherers.
They didn't actually. Most grains can't be eaten raw as is without processing them. Modern grains don't even grow without utilizing agricultural techniques because they have been so extensively modified from even what we were eating 50 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago. Where's your evidence that hunter gatherers were eating grains? Because without the ability to process many of them into foods such as various forms of bread you literally can't eat them.
Blablahb said:
Besides, why are you calling 10.000 years a short period of time? That's at least 5% of the total time of existence of the homo sapiens, a lot of time to evolve, certainly enough to adapt your diet.
Except we haven't adapted to process wheat very well. As evidenced by the fact that consuming it in large quantities will make the population fat, as well as sick. The incidence of celiac disease alone is much higher now than it was even 50 years ago. And the government is recommending people eat more grains than ever. And sure, 10,000 years represents 5% of the time period in which modern humans have existed.
But let's stop and think about what you're suggesting for a second. Anatomically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years or so. Meaning there has been little change in our physiology in 200,000 years. But we apparently adapted to eating foods we had never consumed in out entire history in only 10,000 years. Despite spending the 190,000 years before that eating diets that were much higher in protein and fat. Not to even get into what our ancestors were eating for a million plus years prior to that. More over, you're suggesting that we would evolve to adapt to a diet high in grains when there's no evolutionary pressure to do so in an agrarian society. Obesity and diseases like type 2 diabetes and heart disease aren't likely to outright kill you before you have the chance to reproduce, so where's the evolutionary pressure that's killing off those who can't process grains before they pass on their genes? Oh that's right, there really isn't, and hasn't been any.
Blablahb said:
Oh yes you do. It just involves a little displine and not eating sweets the moment you feel hungry or are unhappy or bored.
This shows you literally know nothing about how the body stores fat. I'd strongly recommend actually looking into research rather than simply buying into everything the government tells you. But if you aren't going to actually do that then there's little point in continuing any sort of discussion of nutrition with you.
Blablahb said:
Besides, a little googling taught that only shady characters like that book author claim that grain make blood glucose levels spike. So why don't you first show us a clinical trial in which that connection is proven, and maybe after that you could claim it is a substitute for self-control.
For starters, you can easily test out whether eating grains spikes blood glucose on your own. Get a blood glucose meter, eat some grains and test your blood sugar before this and then again an hour later. Hell, ask any diabetic. Carbohydrates make blood glucose spike. Grain based foods are much higher in carbs than comparable amounts of vegetables or even fruit, so I'm not sure what sources you're finding that are saying grains won't increase blood glucose, because even suggesting that is laughable.
As to studies which back up limiting carbs to control blood glucose, we can start here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26058/26058-h/26058-h.htm
It was a paper written as a treatment guide for treating and managing diabetes way back in 1915. Before insulin shots existed, when the only way to control blood glucose was through diet and if diabetics didn't do it they would die. For a specific example from this paper, Case 8 was a woman who once they had her blood sugar under control had her carbs increased to include 2 slices of bread. This raised her blood sugar levels too much however, so it was dialed back. And this was on a diet that was calculated to be no more than 63 grams of carbs. The USDA recommends over 300 grams a day. Tell me that's not going to consistently raise blood sugar throughout the day.
But now I'm going to put the same question to you. Show me a clinical trial that has ever demonstrated that simply following the formula of calories in minus calories out led to the predicted weight loss that comes with that hypothesis. I've never seen any study that proved that relationship, or even came close to the predicted weight loss, where calories is all that they controlled, so I expect I'll be waiting a while.
Dastardly said:
2. "Cal in - Cal out = Weight loss" is a simplification of the process. That's obvious and intentional. Simplifications don't make things incorrect. "Sunlight + Water + Carbon Dioxide = Sugar + Oxygen" is an intense over-simplification of photosynthesis... but does that mean it has no value for teaching the basic concept to beginners? You try talking to a group of sixth graders about adenosine triphosphate and see how far you get.
But the trouble is that it's not just an oversimplification, but it doesn't even remotely resemble the mechanisms by which the body stores fat. The assumption going into that equation is that a surplus calorie intake results in fat storage, but it's a surplus of blood glucose which results in fat storage, not calories. Carbohydrates increased blood glucose far more than protein or fat. More importantly, it's also possible, based on other metabolic factors going on inside the body for people to gain or lose body fat based on how their resistance or sensitivity to insulin changes without ever changing the calories coming in or going out. Calories in less calories out is a relationship which has literally never panned out in any clinical study, which is why telling people to cut back on foods high in carbohydrates such as sugars and grains is far more useful advice for fat loss than telling them to count calories.
Dastardly said:
But the science clearly states that mass and energy can't come from nowhere. Refute that, and maybe you'll show me what I'm "not understanding."
Nobody is saying that they come from nowhere. But relating a change in mass to a change in energy through a simple arithmetic equation is not only wrong, it's misleading.
