Right of the top of my head. Not all of them are scientific rigorous, just evidence that points against carbs.
A high carb diet was only introduced around 10k years ago with the invention of agriculture. As hunter/gatherers the diet was mostly hunted animals(protein/fat) and some occasional carbs from gathered fruits. So the human body is mostly adapted to protein/fat.
Methabolic pathways. Carbs once inside the body are broken down into sugar, which hasn’t much nutritional value other than providing energy and the excess is converted into fat. Proteins can be used to make energy too, but obviously are much more nutritious. Fat and protein is digested with a different methabolic pathway that will also assist in burning body fat. But all fat burning stops once you ingested carbs and the blood sugar raises which makes it hard to lose body fat. There is evidence that your muscles can also function more efficiently in fat burning mode, but for this transition to occur you have to get rid of all the carbs first(including the glycogen stored in your muscles) and retrain your metabolism(may take weeks).
you can survive on a diet without carbs but you can’t survive without proteins and fat(there are essential fats that are needed by the body).
Certain kinds of problems can be solved by a low carb diet(at least one kind of epilepsy), suggesting that certain adaptations are recent.
Lots of people develop health problems(overweight, diabetes) that has to do with an excess of carbs. Also there is a general trend in these problems over the years as people are consuming more and more high carb diet(aka junk food).
Carbs are appetite stimulants, causing overeating.
It’s easy to overeat in carb in general, they literally just melt inside your mouth, whereas with meat you have to do real work(chewing and digesting). Try eating just meat/fat for one week, I found this to be almost impossible.
From my personal experience it is very hard to keep a low carb diet because carbs are just so delicious, try staying off them for just one week and you will understand.
As hunter/gatherers the diet was mostly hunted animals(protein/fat) and some occasional carbs from gathered fruits
Many modern H-G cultures are the opposite, with the majority of calories coming from fruit or other mostly-carbo plants. It’s less clear what prehistoric people ate (except that they had widely different diets at different times and places; there’s surely no single “paleo diet”). But at least many non-HG historical people who eat or ate a “traditional” diet which is mostly carbohydrates (with rice, corn, or maize as staple foods), where only the rich ate meat often, had a much lower incidence of modern metabolism-related disease.
Lots of people develop health problems(overweight, diabetes) that has to do with an excess of carbs.
If only it were that simple. But “what causes obesity or type 2 diabetes” is far from a settled question. Many people believe excess (refined) carbs are partly or mostly to blame, but it’s not quite clearcut.
Carbs are appetite stimulants, causing overeating.
Everything that stimulates the appetite potentially causes overeating. All types of food, incl. protein- or fat-rich food, can be stimulating. Different people have different tastes too.
It’s easy to overeat in carb in general, they literally just melt inside your mouth, whereas with meat you have to do real work(chewing and digesting). Try eating just meat/fat for one week, I found this to be almost impossible.
Well, people used to a paleo-like diet may love meat and find it “almost impossible” (i.e. not fun) to eat lots of carbs. What people like has to do with what they’re used to, what diet they were raised with, how food is prepared and spiced, etc. What people like is not in any case an indicator of what diet is good or bad for them.
Many people believe excess (refined) carbs are partly or mostly to blame, but it’s not quite clearcut.
The evidence points strongly into that direction.
Everything that stimulates the appetite potentially causes overeating. All types of food, incl. protein- or fat-rich food, can be stimulating. Different people have different tastes too.
Well, people used to a paleo-like diet may love meat and find it “almost impossible” (i.e. not fun) to eat lots of carbs. What people like has to do with what they’re used to, what diet they were raised with, how food is prepared and spiced, etc. What people like is not in any case an indicator of what diet is good or bad for them.
Sorry, you are attacking a straw-man here. What I was saying is that it is much easier from a physiological point of view to digest carbs than protein and fat. This is not a matter of taste.
True, but there are other ways for food to induce overeating. For instance, salty food makes you drink more, and you may be drinking calorific beverages. Some theories hold that food becomes associated with reward value, making people eat more of it over time, regardless of its direct affect on appetite. Fat is calorie-dense, so it’s easier to eat more calories of it before feeling sated than with carbs. Food may modify the onset of satiety by various mechanisms. Etc etc.
Also, not all carbs are created equal and we should really be saying things like “sweet-tasting carbs are orexigenic’.
All of this is intended to support my point that the situation may be more complex than “carbs are orexigenic, which causes overeating, which causes overweight and other metabolic disorders”.
What I was saying is that it is much easier from a physiological point of view to digest carbs than protein and fat. This is not a matter of taste.
Simple sugars are absorbed more quickly into the bloodstream than any other type of calorie source. Is that your intended measure of being physiologically easier to digest? If so, why does this measure matter?
Simple sugars are absorbed more quickly into the bloodstream than any other type of calorie source. Is that your intended measure of being physiologically easier to digest? If so, why does this measure matter?
Eat 1000 Calories in the form of bread, then eat 1000 Calories in the form of meat. Do you agree that it is much easier and faster to chew/digest the bread?
Do you agree that it is much easier and faster to chew/digest the bread?
You’re not answering my questions. What do you mean when you say one is “easier” to digest than the other? And how does that measure affect eating behavior?
I’m not a biologist, but my friends who do bio research say that the blog post I linked to reflects their understanding of biology and the 60 minutes does not.
Right of the top of my head. Not all of them are scientific rigorous, just evidence that points against carbs.
A high carb diet was only introduced around 10k years ago with the invention of agriculture. As hunter/gatherers the diet was mostly hunted animals(protein/fat) and some occasional carbs from gathered fruits. So the human body is mostly adapted to protein/fat.
Methabolic pathways. Carbs once inside the body are broken down into sugar, which hasn’t much nutritional value other than providing energy and the excess is converted into fat. Proteins can be used to make energy too, but obviously are much more nutritious. Fat and protein is digested with a different methabolic pathway that will also assist in burning body fat. But all fat burning stops once you ingested carbs and the blood sugar raises which makes it hard to lose body fat. There is evidence that your muscles can also function more efficiently in fat burning mode, but for this transition to occur you have to get rid of all the carbs first(including the glycogen stored in your muscles) and retrain your metabolism(may take weeks).
you can survive on a diet without carbs but you can’t survive without proteins and fat(there are essential fats that are needed by the body).
Certain kinds of problems can be solved by a low carb diet(at least one kind of epilepsy), suggesting that certain adaptations are recent.
Lots of people develop health problems(overweight, diabetes) that has to do with an excess of carbs. Also there is a general trend in these problems over the years as people are consuming more and more high carb diet(aka junk food).
Carbs are appetite stimulants, causing overeating.
It’s easy to overeat in carb in general, they literally just melt inside your mouth, whereas with meat you have to do real work(chewing and digesting). Try eating just meat/fat for one week, I found this to be almost impossible.
From my personal experience it is very hard to keep a low carb diet because carbs are just so delicious, try staying off them for just one week and you will understand.
Just one link that I found right now: 60 Minutes explains the latest science behind the conclusion that excess sugar has measurable toxicity, the liver creates fats from excess sugar then linked to blood clots and heart disease, and cancer rates are linked to excess sugar, and reward regions make can sugar addictive
Many modern H-G cultures are the opposite, with the majority of calories coming from fruit or other mostly-carbo plants. It’s less clear what prehistoric people ate (except that they had widely different diets at different times and places; there’s surely no single “paleo diet”). But at least many non-HG historical people who eat or ate a “traditional” diet which is mostly carbohydrates (with rice, corn, or maize as staple foods), where only the rich ate meat often, had a much lower incidence of modern metabolism-related disease.
If only it were that simple. But “what causes obesity or type 2 diabetes” is far from a settled question. Many people believe excess (refined) carbs are partly or mostly to blame, but it’s not quite clearcut.
Everything that stimulates the appetite potentially causes overeating. All types of food, incl. protein- or fat-rich food, can be stimulating. Different people have different tastes too.
Well, people used to a paleo-like diet may love meat and find it “almost impossible” (i.e. not fun) to eat lots of carbs. What people like has to do with what they’re used to, what diet they were raised with, how food is prepared and spiced, etc. What people like is not in any case an indicator of what diet is good or bad for them.
The evidence points strongly into that direction.
Carbs are Orexigenic.
Sorry, you are attacking a straw-man here. What I was saying is that it is much easier from a physiological point of view to digest carbs than protein and fat. This is not a matter of taste.
Cite please? That’s what this post asked for.
True, but there are other ways for food to induce overeating. For instance, salty food makes you drink more, and you may be drinking calorific beverages. Some theories hold that food becomes associated with reward value, making people eat more of it over time, regardless of its direct affect on appetite. Fat is calorie-dense, so it’s easier to eat more calories of it before feeling sated than with carbs. Food may modify the onset of satiety by various mechanisms. Etc etc.
Also, not all carbs are created equal and we should really be saying things like “sweet-tasting carbs are orexigenic’.
All of this is intended to support my point that the situation may be more complex than “carbs are orexigenic, which causes overeating, which causes overweight and other metabolic disorders”.
Simple sugars are absorbed more quickly into the bloodstream than any other type of calorie source. Is that your intended measure of being physiologically easier to digest? If so, why does this measure matter?
Eat 1000 Calories in the form of bread, then eat 1000 Calories in the form of meat. Do you agree that it is much easier and faster to chew/digest the bread?
You’re not answering my questions. What do you mean when you say one is “easier” to digest than the other? And how does that measure affect eating behavior?
The 60 minutes and associated talk (“Sugar: The Bitter Truth”) makes many misleading claims, chief among them the one about sugar toxicity. See e.g. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/.
I’m not a biologist, but my friends who do bio research say that the blog post I linked to reflects their understanding of biology and the 60 minutes does not.