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?
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?