When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!!

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:59:30 GMT

Results wise yes it does appear to work very well, however how low are your carbs going?

The lowest i usually go is 25-30%.

Also remember results doesnt = healthy

Otherwise steroids would be the best and healthiest thing a bodybuilder could do.

Diet is about pushing the body into a corner to react, getting it muscly and strong doesnt mean its healthy.

We all know that ectos can eat junk all year long, get them in a race or get them to do something exercise wise and theyl be worse than a ashmatic 2 year old.

Its difficult as hell to tell body fitness just from looking at its external point.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (Yet)

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:47:31 GMT

Carb cycling is the best thing going, as far as I'm concerned.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:48:17 GMT

lol no what i mean is youre supporting keto by the same methodology that youre going against high carbs ( well not against but explaining carb sensitivity) hence double standard

guys can have sex and be great women do it and they get called sluts that kinda thing etc etc

The macronutrients being different doesnt quite fit the problem either.

Some people dont process carbs well, and i have noticed the members here who dont are all not white (maybe a few have slipped by i do not know about)
which suggests to me carb sensitivity is through certain peoples ancestors being predominantly in an area where processed carbs are scarce.

The problem with "carb sensetivity" is that basic bread has been around and popular in europe for over 2000 years, most people in fact only ate bread with very few fruits and vegetables.

People in Europe also couldnt afford meat apart from royalty or those with "higher blood"

Europeans lived off carbs and only carbs for pretty much 2 milleniums, in which case we should all be either ecto, or diabetes ridden.

Considering neither is the case means that neither extremity in this argument is correct.

Carbs are important, and so are fats, and going one way or the other doesnt appear to yield any devastating effects or anything to make obvious note of anyway.

People who are "carb sensitive" without keto diet beforehand could be anything

slow metabolism
IBS (which is code-name for "we dont know whats wrong, but its irritating you)
crohns disease (remember vdk?)

I dont have a problem with keto, it does work, in fact im willing to actually write out a massive post in post your own articles section of how it works if people want me to, because it does work, my point is for majority of newbs who simply need to lose weight, its best to put them on a standardised diet.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (David1991)

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:31:32 GMT

ORIGINAL: twistedlink

ORIGINAL: David1991

ORIGINAL: twistedlink

Carb sensitivity is a funny thing, because the people sensitive to it are keto dieters, which isnt really surprising, you eat 5% carbs if that in your daily diet, and as soon as you go onto standard 50% carbs, you get "carb sensitivity"

Is that really surprising?

Not at all, if someone whos on a 20% fat diet suddenly went to 60% odd im pretty sure theyd suffer "fat sensitivity"

thats not really a good comparison. some people are naturally "carb sensitive", regardless if they were on very low carbs before. and for ur "fat sensitive" example, thats the situation anyone who goes from a normal diet to keto goes through, like i did, and there was no "fat sensitivity" except i ate too much in general during that time.

You just posted a double standard in the same paragraph, you do understand that right?

how? u said people who go from 5% carbs to 50% carbs feel like they're carb sensitive, im saying that some people's bodies cant handle carbs that well. fat is a totally different macronutrient and when u switch to keto u dont all of a sudden gain a lot of fat.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:05:30 GMT

ORIGINAL: David1991

ORIGINAL: twistedlink

Carb sensitivity is a funny thing, because the people sensitive to it are keto dieters, which isnt really surprising, you eat 5% carbs if that in your daily diet, and as soon as you go onto standard 50% carbs, you get "carb sensitivity"

Is that really surprising?

Not at all, if someone whos on a 20% fat diet suddenly went to 60% odd im pretty sure theyd suffer "fat sensitivity"

thats not really a good comparison. some people are naturally "carb sensitive", regardless if they were on very low carbs before. and for ur "fat sensitive" example, thats the situation anyone who goes from a normal diet to keto goes through, like i did, and there was no "fat sensitivity" except i ate too much in general during that time.

You just posted a double standard in the same paragraph, you do understand that right?

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (DA)

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:30:15 GMT

ORIGINAL: David1991

ORIGINAL: twistedlink

Carb sensitivity is a funny thing, because the people sensitive to it are keto dieters, which isnt really surprising, you eat 5% carbs if that in your daily diet, and as soon as you go onto standard 50% carbs, you get "carb sensitivity"

Is that really surprising?

Not at all, if someone whos on a 20% fat diet suddenly went to 60% odd im pretty sure theyd suffer "fat sensitivity"

thats not really a good comparison. some people are naturally "carb sensitive", regardless if they were on very low carbs before. and for ur "fat sensitive" example, thats the situation anyone who goes from a normal diet to keto goes through, like i did, and there was no "fat sensitivity" except i ate too much in general during that time.

Indeed.

For a large amount of the population carb cycling works wonders.

And, a side note: David, is that you in your avatar?

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (David1991)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:54 GMT

ORIGINAL: twistedlink

Carb sensitivity is a funny thing, because the people sensitive to it are keto dieters, which isnt really surprising, you eat 5% carbs if that in your daily diet, and as soon as you go onto standard 50% carbs, you get "carb sensitivity"

Is that really surprising?

Not at all, if someone whos on a 20% fat diet suddenly went to 60% odd im pretty sure theyd suffer "fat sensitivity"

thats not really a good comparison. some people are naturally "carb sensitive", regardless if they were on very low carbs before. and for ur "fat sensitive" example, thats the situation anyone who goes from a normal diet to keto goes through, like i did, and there was no "fat sensitivity" except i ate too much in general during that time.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:18:49 GMT

Brilliant post Minotaur, seriously, and i agree wholeheartedly, i know not to take certain printed facts as a "bendover and take it" approach and never test against it.

I do know and agree low carb diets work wonders on some people, i myself (while not as extreme) have carb cycled and i got the best results ever, massive muscle gains and fat loss, my point is i could feel the toll it was taking on my body, and kept them to 4 week mini cycles in order for the body to get the results and not make myself feel worse.

As to increases in diabetes etc being carbs...ehh, to put simply thats bad science, i wont say its wrong, but i wouldnt say its a end all answer, i mean theres tonnes of crappy processed carbs out there, and when people eat vast amount of carbs and fats, the body starts getting overhauled with many processed chemicals and the metabolic pathways start going haywire.

I mean a lot of countries do eat carbs, but its mainly america and UK that has the carbs and fats in massive amounts, other countries are rather long distance runner ups.

If it were only carbs we would be seeing large diabetes increases in every country, which isnt happening in that set of variable trendline.

The problem is that there are too many extraneous variables, im sure if you did put the two variables of carb increases and diabetes increases you would get some nice correlation, then again.

I could make a nice bit of correlation from fat increases
water conditioning in water supplies
steroids in meats
processed carbs
carbs and fats combined
chemical antibiotics in meats
Genetics
Increase in populations = more diabetes anyway

Like i said i wont disagree, but too many extraneous variables are around to finetune that carbs do bring around increases in diabetes

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (grantoiz)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:46:24 GMT

all these long words are bloody confusing.., but imo low carbs work for losing weight.. has done for me in the past anyway..

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (Minotaur)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:31:56 GMT

all veggeep has said is people need to get a nice baseline with a simple effective diet that works for most people, after this they can then begin to cycle and play around a bit, and he admits low carbs can be a useful tactic in particular cases.

Maybe they have tried other ways. What offended me and does offend me is the way bodybuilders and weight trainers take a holier-than-thou approach. There is only one way: my way or the highway. I've run into this all too often.

All we both have ever been saying is when something goes longterm, it starts getting a bit into "unknown ground".

All the more reason to keep an open mind.

The USDA food pyramid which pushed grains and other carbs as the base was short term and wreaked havoc on peoples' waistlines. High fat diets don't do that. High fat/low carb diets have been around for a very long time. They just get dismissed.

Carb sensitivity is just a nice pair of words for "diabetic" or "borderline diabetic" personally.

And why is there such a preponderance of obesity and Type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance in the US in these last years? Carbs. And then there is gluten intolerance/celiac disease.

What factors in bloodwork have been done?

For me CMP which includes blood glucose, liver and kidney functions, lipid profile, all normal, and complete hormone panels (thyroid, testosterone, e2, psa, shbg, dhea).

No one size or diet fits all, I grant you that. If people want their carbs, go for it. But the out of hand dismissing of something else that works for people because someone disagrees with it or is ill-informed is off the mark.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:04:17 GMT

Im not saying youre wrong, the high fat diet works for you, im saying for the general population they shouldnt start off with this diet.

all veggeep has said is people need to get a nice baseline with a simple effective diet that works for most people, after this they can then begin to cycle and play around a bit, and he admits low carbs can be a useful tactic in particular cases.

All we both have ever been saying is when something goes longterm, it starts getting a bit into "unknown ground".

Carb sensitivity is just a nice pair of words for "diabetic" or "borderline diabetic" personally.

What factors in bloodwork have been done?

Im not questioning to get results or anything, just interested.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:58:21 GMT

woah woah woah

2nd argument where youve put words into my mouth

Lets go do some copy and pasting of my stuff yeah?

If low carb works, cool, good, but at the end of the day most people who arent carb sensetive end up getting pretty nasty symptoms from keto, at the end of the day if someone asks for advice on eating healthily and losing weight or gaining muscle, its best to start them off with a standard diet anyway.

They have lived there for thousands of years, and adaption and evolution has meant that the metabolic pathways have gone down a different route, get any baby american (white) and feed them on an inuits diet from birth, and get an inuit and feed them burgers etc.

Im not saying low carb diets are useless, they do work on select people, they really do, but if the governments and media are to give out diet advice, it should be for the majority, afterall, its the majority who are fat and at health risks.

I was very careful to not make a 1 sided rant.

Your diet works for you, it makes you comfortable bowel wise as you dont get carb sensitivty and you obviously get results from it, and i wont, have never, and never will say otherwise.

My posts were to the general population, of which most arent carb sensetive.

Its one thing to say "I was fat and unhealthy, low carb changed that" to

"every fat person has carb sensetivity"

Its just a unrecorded opinion that at most simply takes a few select people and turns it into something bigger to sound more credible.

Im glad youre feeling good on the keto diet, do remember though (and im not ****ting around to be a dick) my mums a nurse, and everytime she sees the same thing.

Damn near every single stomach and bowel cancer patient is pretty much carnivorous, every CHD sufferer is pretty much carnivorous.

She sees few omnivores with it. EDIT:I meant vegetarians here, no idea why i said omnivore.

Im not saying thats a "smack down, told you!" fact

Im just saying what appears to be the general trend in my one tiny area, but considering youre trying to prove keto through 1 sample or a select handful, you cant very well turn around and say my observations are too amatuer, because that makes your ones too, again, you cant label someones information as **** if your methodology is the same lol, youve done this twice now, and its a tad...ehhh...

We evolved from apes, they dont eat meat at all really, should we stop eating meat?
closer relations only ate meat because of extreme cold temperatures back then and a lack of decent plant material for fruits in the mainly northern hemisphere of the world, we were forced into a metabolic pathway, just like inuits only having certain available food.

The problem with saying "our ancestors did it" is that genetics change very fast, physical evolution is hard to detect properly with only hundreds-thousands of generations, but biochemical factors change amazingly through just environment change, diet change, and only a few generations.

There are still areas of the world who rely mostly on meats, and it works for them, dont deny that like i said i wont, but they have had many generations to build up a proper way of dealing with that.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (Minotaur)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:45:00 GMT

Well clearly those of us who follow low carb high fat diets are wrong... you said so! Despite being able to function very well and lift very well, and do two-hour mountain bike rides using fat for fuel, and have blood work better than when on a higher carb diet. But you know best!

Btw, I have yet to see any credible evidence that what you're saying is right. Parroting the internet is not credible evidence.

At any rate, I won't convince you that you are wrong, you will not convince me. Let's just leave it at agreeing to disagree.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:12:04 GMT

ORIGINAL: veggeep

TL, your patience is admirable, but I fear it is wasted on people who have already convinced themselves that ten minutes worth of recent assumptions can trump more than five decades of meticulously researched and journaled health science.

When some new hype comes down the wire, I don't waste my time defending common sense against it, because that has already been done to ample effect. Believe me. There are libraries filled to the rafters with facts and figures to refute low-carb if anyone really gave a sh1t about doing the research. But that's not how fads work. People are notorious for taking sound advice, twisting it into extremist dogma, and then putting the burden of proof on everyone ELSE to show why their silly hysteria doesn't make sense.

If someone shows up on an infomercial tonight and promises me I can carve a perfect six-pack just by hooking up a few electrodes to my abs and kicking back with a book for 30 minutes a night, I'm not going to waste my breath explaining why they're full of sh1t. And if it caught on, and millions of gullible fools ran out and bought this line of tripe, and it became the next fad, I'm sure they would be just as vocal and defensive about why the rest of us are unqualified to criticize something we've never tried.

lol i know...but i honestly have trouble keeping myself to myself when i read something that isnt wrong per se, but twisted out of proportion.

However do remember veg minotaur is using the fact you havent tried a low carb diet to undermine what you say.

I on the other hand have used a low carb diet, however, i did it without possibilities of detrimental health effects.

Its simple biology that to change a metabolic pathway you simply eat more fat/carb/protein.

That doesnt mean it has to be 5% and the one you want 60-70%

Thats way extremist and recipe for longterm disaster, i used a cycle method to change metabolic pathways (in order to keep my bodyfat super low, even by my metabolisms standards) but i still kept carbs within 25-30%.

It does work, but i did feel different everytime a went from cycle 1 to cycle 2, i could tell the first week my body struggled a tad, and i was only changing 20-30% either way on macronutrients.

Ketoers are doubling the required fat and eithing the required carbs, no wonder after a few months of keto carbs **** them up.

I agree wholeheartedly with you veg, ive always been a bit dubious of keto.

Funnily enough the science i posted here a year ago was called "bollox" even though most had to google the kind of **** i was talking about.
Now all these words are cropping up and theyre being used for keto, when it really is absolute BS.

Gluconeogenesis is claimed to simply be "making new sugar" which is true, but the body should have large reserves of sugar anyway, stored in the liver as glycogen.

Gluconeogenesis occurs in training when you have used all dietary sugar and the liver is on its last legs of glycogen, thats when the body has to start breaking down complex proteins and sometimes fats into all manners of sugars (mainly glucose)

It's what all cutters go through the lose bodyfat, it is the body being starved of something it needs.

A fat person losing fat is burning more calories than eating, that is starvation, only they can do with it LOL.

Relying all day on GGenesis is going to have amazing strains on the liver, not to mention the amount of fats it will have to deal with, just because fats are being used for energy means ****, yet this is stated by ketoers all the time veg

They harp on about carb sensitivity, despite the body using that as energy, yet somehow fats being used as energy means nothing else happens with them fats.

Macromolecules dont just magically make energy.

Try looking at the krebs cycle, that thing will take you 3 days at least to go through every damn process undergone to form ATP out of all kinds of metabolic pathways, whether most are being used for energy or not, the fats are still sitting around your body doing what they do best.

I mean sorry but our stomachs and small intestine comprises of mostly carbhydrases, which suggests our main diet should come from carbs

Its like when some PETA twat told me humans werent even designed to eat meat.

I just thwacked out 4 of my lovely 1000 page books from some of the most respected biologists and showed them combined hundreds of pages of proteases in the stomach and protein metabolism in humans.

Of course, it did nothing.

Minotaur and me recently had a argument, and he mentioned he wont believe anyone who hasnt been in a peer reviewed journal, yet i could easily find many stating CHD from fats and even diets being best with many carbs, yet he wont believe them.

If someone agrees with a phD they say they must be right because intelligent professionals say so

If someone disagrees with a phD they say they must be right because even phD's can get it wrong.

No matter how big and fat the human archival knowledge of anything is, someone will always find a way to **** with it.

RE: When is this RETARDED FAD going to die??!! (twistedlink)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:54:40 GMT

ORIGINAL: Yet

ORIGINAL: twistedlink

triple post...I cant be bothered to edit.

A lot of "If only we were taught about nutrition" is flying around.

I wasnt taught about nutrition in school, by TV, or in a book, first time i ever even read about diets was here at DBB when i was 17, yet despite that i still knew what was bad.

It is common sense that burgers arent healthy, i mean come on, it doesnt take a very powerful brain to eat burgers for a year, gain 65lbs and not realise the reason

"Oh it must be the genes"

Its simple observation science.

You just keep switching variables until you get the answer or the reason, and work on it.

I mean sure, i dont expect people to know exact diet ratios, or wholegrain breads etc.

But in general most people know that burgers arent healthy

Vegtables and fruits are

Fatty sausages made from hoof snout and pig ear arent healthy

Clean pork chop cuts are

Its not rocket science, it really isnt.

Well Twisted, growing up I thought sandwhiches were healthy (which they are healthier than some things).

Whenever my parents went away, or were working or whatever, I would just eat sandwhiches.

I don't think too many people know the difference between white bread and whole wheat bread, except that white bread is cheaper (I've always eaten potato bread, or rye, eff white).

I think if you ask anyone who's gone from eating white flour foods to whole wheat, they lost a significant amount of fat (I believe Odw did, and lost about 5 pounds or so).

I agree with you that it's quite obvious that some things are and some things are not healthy, but I don't think it's that cut and dry. Some people have no idea how many calories they eat, or they don't have time to prepare meals so they eat on the go.

Also, many people who try to eat clean don't realize what they eat.

For instance the instant oatmeals that are flavored. Those are loaded with sugar, most people will eat that in the morning and think oh it's oatmeal it's healthy. Then a sandwhich or salad for lunch and then dinner.

I think you know what I'm getting at, and I agree with you, but it's not so cut and dry.

But il let you off

when i said healthy i meant healthy as in 65% of the population shouldnt be obese (I didnt know it was 65%, ive been reading it here, someone was saying 65%, so if its wrong its not my fault)

I doubt if all the obese people suddenly changed from white to wheat or whatever we'd all live to 90 with no diseases and all have perfect bodies.

Theres healthy, and then theres very healthy, bodybuilders are very healthy, they eat very healthy foods (or meant to lol)

It is a science to be very healthy and become a sports related person or bodybuilder etc.

It is common sense to be simple healthy and be an average person within reasonable limits