Is it true that grains, even whole, are bad for you?
>>8138706
yes, but grains are cheap and being poor and starving is worse
>>8138706
get the fuck outta here with your gluten-is-unhealthy shit
>muh gluten
>muh carbs
no
>>8138819
>not the antinutrients
Carbs and gluten have their case dependent flaws but this is less discussed. Is this paleo-ganda?
>>8138839
>Does it depend on the person?
more so on your particular diet religion
GRAINS = GAINS
>>8138839
It's popular to hate carbs this week. It'll probably be protein the next (fat was last week).
You can thank the hippies for the fear of gluten
>>8138864
Why is there so much speculation with nutrition?
>>8138867
Because people need an excuse for why they're fat.
>>8138864
except that a low protein diet will fuck your shit up real bad real fast
>>8138876
Low anything diet is generally a bad idea.
>>8138867
Because the diet industry folks have bills.
>>8138867
Because people want to believe that there are easy choices that can be made which will make one healthy. Same reason people believe in homeopathy and healing crystals and vaccines causing autism.
>>8138706
Scandinavians eat grains galore and are one of the most healthy populations, if not the healthiest. Also the tallest.
>>8138867
Because its a subject that is full of "get healthy" quick schemes.
People still look at health with intense superstition as well, which only adds to the confusion.
>>8138706
Now why would they be bad for you? What is wrong with people nowadays
>>8138864
>You can thank the FREE MARKET for the fear of gluten
FTFY
Big business creates and profits from a national hypochondria on this issue.
>>8138902
This. People tend to think about health in a strangely binary fashion, which leads them to this weird idea that a single variable in an equation with innumerable factors is solely responsible for their problems.
In reality, things like diet are extremely nuanced. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all perfect diet/lifestyle/etc, which becomes obvious just by taking genetics and gut microbiomes into account. Unfortunately this doesn't editorialize well and the average person can't consume and internalize it easily, so instead oversimplistic goofiness abounds.
>>8138706
No. We're mutants who can actually eat that shit. Just like we can drink milk.
>>8138839
Someone met someone with celiac disease and spread the word or some famous faggot got celiac disease or met some fag with celiac disease.
>>8138940
/thread
>>8138864
"Nutritionist " is not a regulated term. You literally need no formal education to tell people shit.
>>8138921
Cause we only started eating them relatively recently in human history
And they're terrible for dental health, native populations without agriculture who got introduced to grains only had bad dental health after the introduction
That doesn't mean they're bad for the rest of your body but I personally believe they are the root cause of a lot of bowel problems, though I have no proof of this
>>8138706
They say grains are bad because of gluten, phytic acid, lechtins, and carbohydrates. All 4 of those points are dumb and ignorant. Grains certainly aren't as nutritious as most people think, however. You can have a perfectly healthy diet without them.
![Slide4[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/TgzgK9x.png "Slide4[1].png")
>>8138861
so the onset of pandemic obesity is due to a sudden and significant rise in the consumption of grains since the mid 70’s?
Or did something else change back then? Say, maybe the introduction of the flawed dogma of “eating fat makes you fat” and the subsequent mass introduction of sugars (HFCS anyone?) in our diet?
>>8138706
...
Anon for gods sake just eat what you need.
>>8138867
The research is shit.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/
>The entire field is based on a small palette of simple academic errors
>Bad science_com
>6*int_0^1 t*dt + 2013
>not counting your calories with set % for protein/fat/carbs or using IIFYM
>>8138706
The real truth is. Aside from nasty chemicals and poisonous fruit, nobody really knows what is good or bad for you. The best you can do is eat things that have gone through as little processing as possible. If it came out of the ground exactly as you are eating it, its likely good for you. We dont know enough about the body, and theres no good way to test a foods healthiness because someone would have to eat just that food for many years to produce any valid results. Even then there are to many variables. You can find a diet that says just about any type of food is bad for you. They are all wrong. Just eat a variety of as natural as possible foods (ie what you evolved to eat) and remember everything in moderation.
>>8139895
I want to fucking murder you.
>>8139768
Why are the Japanese so rarely fat?
soylent green is the ideal option
deal wit it
>>8138881
Keto????????
>>8138917
It's their superior Nordic genes
>>8139911
Why, because he's telling the truth? No one truly knows what is and isn't healthy for you. Health science is just a way to influence policy and attack corporations for not selling """"healthy"""" products.
>>8138867
lifespan and health in general is a poor endpoint for nutrition in general when the biggest determinant of lifespan is how long your parents lived. the only useful diet studies are randomized crossover trials with serum measurement endpoints like cholesterol.
>>8140339
MUH CARBS IS BAD 4U DIET
MUH MOOD SWINGS AND LETHARGY
MUH SKINNYFAT BODY
No.
/thread
>>8138839
If you have a condition called celiac disease, that means your body is basically allergic to gluten and you can have serious health problems if it ever comes near your body. It's similar to how people are allergic to peanuts, or shellfish.
If you do not have the diagnosis of celiac disease there is literally no reason not to eat gluten. It became a fad diet and nobody really knows why.
>>8139196
[citation needed]
>>8140346
It's also the superior grains.
>rye
>>8138706
only if you forget to activate the grains before you eat them
yes, so is oxygen
>>8140339
a ketogenic diet isn't a good idea for long term health
also, how many people do you know where keto has worked for them?
>>8138706
>Betteridge's law at work
>>8141667
problem with keto is not enough cultured veg and/or activated almonds
problem with carbs are simple sugars. americans associate carbs with obesity because for them carbs mean corn syrup.
The best diet is the mediterranean diet and it's 60% carbs
>>8138923
Wtf? You statist retards will blame "big business" for anything. Newsflash, businesses want to appeal to consumer tastes and interests, and although they might be able to influence ir though marketing strategies, ultimately few people are going to buy a product that has no value.
>>8140327
are you implying that the only difference in diet is the amount of bread/grains?
>>8138706
From what I understand, digestion of wheat produces a shit-ton of free radicals. There's also this whole wheat-belly thing.
What about people who have eaten grains for centuries? Surely their stomachs would have developed by now to digest grains.
>>8141753
1% of the population has celiac disease and legitimately should consume gluten-free foods. At the same time, it's easy to con people like you into believing in non-celiac gluten sensitivity.
>>8142523
Bump for question.
no, whole grains increase longetivity.
>>8142892
Only when they replace refined grains. No grains is still best. Grains cause leaky gut
>>8142523
We have.
The real problem is portion control. You'll note that most popular American diets will cut entire categories of food instead of regulating the actually amount of food consumed. If Americlaps can't gorge tons of a particular type of food, they refuse to have it at all, or want some magic elixir to allow them to guzzle anyway. Remember the old 90s jokes of fat women ordering huge amounts of food, but offsetting it by getting a Diet Coke? Its like that.
Almost all dietary advice is complete bullshit and unsupported by scientific evidence. Especially diets that cut out a whole category of food. Paleo, no carbs, no fat, no milk, only meat, only bread, only fruit, only raw; whatever they think of to sell their next book.
IT. IS. ALL. CRAP.
The only dietary advice that is (somewhat) supported by science is this:
>Eat varied with lots of greens
>Eat in moderation and get plenty of exercise
>Make fast food an exception
>>8138867
Long term research is actually a huge problem.
Since you will live for 70-90 years, nutrition research is hard.
Looking for gains in weeks is one thing.
Shit ability to transform Sunlight into D4 due poor buildup of the substance chain it uses to build that substance, is another, especially when most substances have storages of weeks and years.
I.E B12? 3 fucking years.
Iron? Months, before signs of fatigue shows up.
Iodine? Deficient shows negative signs, but nothing life threatening or obvious.
C? One of the few cases where its side effects of no C showing up, is childbirth.
Then there is legacy probles: Most historical diets only have had testing grounds for lifespans of 30-70 years of actual aging.
Another is that a lot of modern food has barely existed for 100 years. I.E Degermed standard white flour. So long the core quality of milled flour is good enough, it will take 30-40 years before minor problems do show up.
>>8144412
For the moment part, I've now idea what you said.
>>8144476
*most
>>8144476
*no
I'm going to bed so I won't be able to reply, sry
Bread is carbs, no matter what grain or anything else. Carbohydrates like these are ~4 calories per gram. The average person, according to the FDA at least, requires about 2000 calories a day, but no one really bothers to focus on what they're eating or if they're burning enough calories through exercise to maintain a good digestive metabolism. Those that do are healthy if they are doing it right.
Humans are not made to eat constantly. We are evolutionarily designed to go hungry for days at a time, but like our canine friends when we have food readily available it is hard to resist the temptation to stuff our faces because the most basic parts of our identity is saying that we don't know when the next meal is coming - even if we do. So we eat. What are chips? Carbs, with fat too, which is 9 cal per gram. Bagel? You know the drill.
Carbs, when not utilized quickly, are stored in the form of glycogen. When your glycogen stores are full - and they refill within hours of eating - excess carbohydrates start being denied, and are told by your cells DNA to convert info long polysaccharides that soon become fats molecules, and then you have a beer gut and heart problems cuz you didn't fucking figure out how your body works.
Bread is not bad. It is simply what it is, and most people have too much of it.
>>8141667
Keto worked for me. <20g carbs per day, 0% sugar, high fats, moderate protein. I lost 20 pounds of fat in 2 months while intermittent fasting. My MMA coach has been on keto for 10 years, and he is the strongest man i know. Do some actual research on ketosis and autophagy.
>>8145054
is there any good resources for the "basis" of autophagy? like an introduction to principles or how its applied to "fitness"
>>8145054
>and autophagy.
Yeah you'd know about it, phaggot.
>>8138706
GUYS GUYS
HEAR ME OUT
GUYS
WHAT
IF
ONE OF THE BASIC
NUTRIENTS
IS
TOXIC
BECAUSE I WAS BORN PUSSY THAT CANT EAT ANYTHING CONTAINING GLUTEN
GENIUS
>>8145675
>gluten
>'basic nutrient'
>>8146166
It's a collection of proteins, so yes, gluten is nutritious. Protein is available from more, and better digestible sources. Proteins would be the nutrients of course.
>>8146182
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
Just to name a few
protein != nutritious
El Bumpo
>>8138706
No. It's just Atkins 2.0.
>>8145054
lol ketosis is an emergency state where the body literally does it's best to keep you from dying so the brain could get enough glucose so you could type in your idiotic opinion and post it on this malay rape survival discussion mail group
>>8149371
>Entire groups of natives has entered permanent ketosis
>Where they also eat weird things like whale skin to avoid malnutrition
>Its a emergency thing guyz!
>>8140327
Diet.
When I worked in Japan my weight plummeted. Rice, soya, fish, green tea and little sugar does that for you.
Okinawa is well known for extremely long life expectancy and there the norm is to eat until you are 80 percent sated.
>>8138706
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
TL;DR
To much of anything is bad, simple carbs are shit
complex are less shit
Get fucked breadfags
Need to bulk? Complex carbs as much as you feel you need.
Need to cut? Go keto, feel like shit for 2 days, then ascend to super saiyan 2 as the water and fat drip off you like spit roasted pork
>>8143242
>dietary advice is complete bullshit
>Heres some dietary advice
kek
Are you an elementary school teacher?
>>8151576
More like
Need to bulk? Eat more.
Need to cut? Eat less.
Really, what's so hard about that? Why do idiots always try to look for a miracle solution?
>>8145005
>Using 'calories' when meaning kcal
Opinion discarded.
>>8151593
kek
Yeah, completely disregard the benefits ketosis and the relationship of blood sugar levels/insulin and fat storage. Thats the way to go.
Infact just dont eat until you reach your goal weight.
>>8140327
Genetics and diet.
>>8151653
This, genetics more than you think
Also fish
Also also for the most part they dont subscribe to the gluttonous nature of the west
Also also also the fat ones never leave the fucking house
>>8151626
>muh fad diet
>>8151659
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
>The weight and body mass index of the patients decreased significantly (P<0.0001).
ahahahaha faggots cant into P values
>>8151662
>people on a deficit lost weight
no shit
>>8151809
They wernt on a deficit dip shit
Learn to read
It should be noted that the concept that fat can be eaten ad libitum and still induce weight loss in obese subjects is not a recent one (13–33). Ketosis occurs as a result of the change in the body’s fuel from carbohydrate to fat. Incomplete oxidation of fatty acids by the liver results in the accumulation of ketone bodies in the body. A ketogenic diet maintains the body in a state of ketosis, which is characterized by an elevation of D-b-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate.
>>8151812
>>8151809
Also
>Different methods for reducing weight using reduced calorie and fat intake combined with exercise have failed to show sustained long-term effects (7–9). Recent studies from various laboratories (10,11), including our own (12), have shown that a high fat diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (ketogenic diet) is quite effective in reducing body weight and the risk factors for various chronic diseases.
>>8151812
>They wernt on a deficit dip shit
Of course they were. Nothing of what you quoted said that they were eating at or above maintenance.
Also regarding >>8151662
>weight and body mass index
Are connected; assuming they were all fully grown adults. And a diet that helps you lose weight is nothing special.
But most (obese) people do not need [math]a[/math] diet, they need to [math]change \, their[/math] diet.
What good is losing weight if the way you lost it is not sustainable? Once you're off the diet you'll gain back the weight because you'll eat just like before.
>>8151594
You know exactly what he meant you pedantic faggot.
>>8151821
Yes, my post literally states that I knew they meant kilo calories.
>>8151820
>Of course they were
Nothing in the study or your post indicates this
>And a diet that helps you lose weight is nothing special
Forgive me, I thought that was the point of OPs post. To find out if its better to cut carbs or not.
>But most (obese) people do not need a diet, they need to changetheir diet.
What good is losing weight if the way you lost it is not sustainable?
The fuck are you talking about?
How is this not sustainable? your not "starving yourself" or eating at a deficit. This diet has an astonishing amount of freedom. You can litter ally eat fuck tons of fat and still loose weight. If you cant avoid carbs your a hopeless shit anyway.
>Once you're off the diet you'll gain back the weight because you'll eat just like before.
No you idiot, the weight doesnt yoyo because YOU ARNT STARVING YOURSELF
If youre a food junkie in the first place then self control is your issue.
>>8151825
All the more reason you're being a pedantic faggot. That was my point.
You added absolutely nothing, positive or negative, to the discussion. Only posting to assert that your brilliant mind is able to distinguish that kcal and the common term "calorie" are one and the same, making it seem as though this was something that needed to be pointed out, just so you could have an excuse to insert your little shitdick into the conversation.
I hope you're proud of yourself, you fucking retard.
>>8151841
I was correcting their mistake. Also I said I do not care about the opinion of someone who makes simple mistakes like that.
Scientific words are well defined. Using slang and ambiguous words in a science discussion can lead to confusion and is discouraged. Many people do not even know that most "calories" are actually a thousand calories.
>>8149629
>i, a edgy shitposter am smarter than doctors
>oh look some kind of shitty natives have been doing this for thousands of years
>maybe i can start doing it too
>they probably radically changed their diet overnight and started ketosis to lose bodyfat too lol
>fuck you
>>8151840
>To find out if its better to cut carbs or not.
Your posts and the study show that it works, not that it's better. There are loads of study that show for any diet that it's good.
>How is this not sustainable?
You won't cut out carbs for the rest of your life. Most people won't, anyway.
>the weight doesnt yoyo because YOU ARNT STARVING YOURSELF
It does when you get off the diet and eat just like before.
>>8151854
Lets say im 220 pounds at 20% bodyfat
For maintenance I would need to eat
220 grams of protien = 400 calories
leafy greens will automatically net you your minimum of 20-40 carbs a day
Maintenance is 14-16 calories per pound of body weight. so 15*220 =3300
were already getting 400 cal of protien
3300-400=2900
Thus we can eat 2900 calories of fat.
Fat is 9 calories per gram
2900/9=322 grams of fat per day
I need to eat 322 grams of fat per day for MAINTENENCE
Good fucking luck, thats a fatties dream come true
How many diets offer this kind of freedom?
Thats 750 grams of bacon.
I need to eat 3/4 of a kilo of bacon a day for MAINTENENCE
>>8151877
*Replace 220 grams of protien with 100
Protein maintenance is around 1 gram per kilo of body weight
>>8151887
>Your point is? That this diet lets you choose what you eat?
Its easy for fatties to adhere to. Why would they leave. If you say fatties have no self control and will revert back, then I wont argue with you. This diet however is the best on the freedom index.
>That it allows you to eat a lot of unhealthy crap?
Well... yeah, basically. Isnt that what lazy fucks look for? A shortcut
>Also, why are you suddenly arguing maintenance and calories, when before you (indirectly) claimed that it doesn't matter?
Because even at calculated maintenance levels you still loose weight.
Id look up a proper source that specifically but I have work tomorrow.
>>8143242
But that's wrong.
milk contains a lot of calories, lots of simple sugar, and regardless of what hormone was injected into cows, lots of estrogenic hormones. It is objectively unhealthy unless you're a babby breastfeeding
>>8151846
No one would be confused when the context is food.
Is there a way to sage certain comments?
>>8151905
Heading to bed now, but loosing weight while at maintenance on keto is real.
The liver needs to spend energy creating ketones than processing carbs
I dont have a link but that should be a simple google search
OP see >>8151662
Keto
Drops Fat
Drops LDL
Raises HDL
No adverse longterm effects
Carbs are worth cutting out of your diet
Doubters gonna doubt
good night
>>8151928
>loosing weight while at maintenance on keto is real
>The liver needs to spend [more] energy creating ketones than processing carbs
Then it's not really maintenance, is it?
Also, it's losing, not loosing (which is the opposite of tightening).
>OP see >>8151662
OP asked if grains are bad, not if a diet without carbs works. Those have literally nothing in common.
>>8141664
no they're not
>>8151917
>It is objectively unhealthy
Untrue
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2015/01/milk-it-does-body-good.html?zx=c97b60a99a8f7bb4
>>8140363
>No one truly knows what is and isn't healthy for you.
But that's wrong
>>8151959
>OP asked if grains are bad, not if a diet without carbs works. Those have literally nothing in common.
semantics.
If a diet without carbs is better for your overall health carbs must be less healthy by comparison.
>Then it's not really maintenance, is it?
Touche
>Also, it's losing, not loosing (which is the opposite of tightening).
kek
>>8153031
>semantics
maybe not to disparage that which distinguishes you from the other apes
>>8138867
Every health related problem is mostly just speculation. Health related science is memescience. It's like how people think global warming is real, or how they think vaccines cause autism.
>>8152320
Shut up, you don't even know what foods I am allergic to, dipshit.
>>8153253
>. Health related science is memescience.
Then what do you think doctors are for?
>>8153369
Doctors exists to provided mental reassurance and make massive profit off of misery.
>>8153031
>semantics.
No, not at all.
>If a diet without carbs is better for your overall health
Slow down there, this was not stated anywhere.
You can do low-fat high-carb diets and lose weight and be healthier. You can do low-carb diets wrong and get health issues. Does this mean carbs are good and fat is bad? Obviously not.
>>8153031
Grains are unhealthy because we can't digest them as they're full of gluten, lechtins, and phytates. Carbs such as white rice, fruit, sweet/white potatoes are good for you as long as you aren't a sedentary fat fuck
>>8153477
>white rice
Come on man seriously?
Soaking grains especially in a slightly acidic solution gets rid of phytates.
As for the rest, only weak stomached people can't digest grains.
>>8153253
Anthropogenic climate change is real and its going to fuck us all, 2016 is the hottest year on record and there's cumulative wildfires in russia in size of over 1.5 million hectares, pull your head out of your ass
>>8153546
It just a fire monkey year, settle down we will have a fire cock to deal with next year, then the earth dog will bring us back together and things will cool down.
>>8149371
>2016
>Ketosis
>Emergency state
You know what? I'm not even disappoint.
>>8138706
Every Person who has ever eaten grains has already died or will.
Keep safe from the poison.
This has to be the worst circlejerk thread I've seen the last year.
The amount of false or unscientific information posted is too high.
Summer is on.
>>8153654
The fuck were you expecting
The mathfags live by calories in calories out
The bio and chemfags squabble amongst themselves about portions, meal timings, macros and evolutionary biology
Nutritionists have NEVER made up THEIR fucking minds
and trend diets everywhere
No one is immune to this shit
Nutrition divides science, because for every philosophy theres a different study.
Also keto is god tier
let's look at the machine the human body
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~turk/bio_sim/articles/metabolic_pathways.png
if u had to guess which materials would have to be thrown in besides water to keep this machine running - what sounds more reasonable?
a) a diet consisting of a little bit of everything
b) a diet without fat
c) a diet without sugar
d) a diet without trans fats
etc. etc.
you see where this is going?
