My brief experience eating less carbs

[Sarumyan]

So you only did 2 days of keto and already posted a thread about?
Do it for 2 months, then come back with your thoughts.

 

[Fenderson]

I feel fine on carbs. I eat close to 200g a day and I train hard as hell. Nothing can keep me training hard and long like a bowl of rolled oats

 

[Codger]

The "speed of evolution" argument always intrinsically sounds like nonsense. Every single dog breed currently existing started differentiation after the advent of agriculture. Dogs are pretty damn different than wolves, with most of the differentiation happening in that relatively short span of time. Traits in the population respond to pressures. If eating grains killed us, then the people most resistant to dying of grain bullshit would have more offspring, and their traits would in short order come to dominate to pool.

Let's imagine for a second that there was a terrible fucking plague with near perfect lethality, but 2 percent of the population was immune due to a genetic mutation. How long would it take for us to "evolve" such that immunity was the assumed trait?

One generation. Everyone else would be dead.

Also, if we're not evolved to eat carbs then why do we have salivary amylase to digest starchy carbs into glucose in our mouths causing a sweet taste that we're evolved to enjoy? Cat's, who are most definitely not evolved to eat carbs, are unsurprisingly without this adaption.

I have to say my experiences with cutting back carbs a lot are quite opposite of the OP. I feel dreadful and my family eventually demand I return to an omniverous diet or leave the family home due to my ill-temper. And when I have my first carb meal, it tastes like heaven and I feel great.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Been doing Keto for a year now, though recently less strict and more concerned about eating less carbs lately.

Was at 235lbs this time last year, got down to 205lbs by 1st december - got back into running, did a half marathon in march, meaning i upped my carb intake slightly and have been pretty bad about drinking in the past 2 months - weighed in sunday, 208lbs.

I LOVE going to bed not feeling bloated and having energy like when i was a teenager.

 

[Tayski]

The "speed of evolution" argument always intrinsically sounds like nonsense. Every single dog breed currently existing started differentiation after the advent of agriculture. Dogs are pretty damn different than wolves, with most of the differentiation happening in that relatively short span of time. Traits in the population respond to pressures. If eating grains killed us, then the people most resistant to dying of grain bullshit would have more offspring, and their traits would in short order come to dominate to pool.

Let's imagine for a second that there was a terrible fucking plague with near perfect lethality, but 2 percent of the population was immune due to a genetic mutation. How long would it take for us to "evolve" such that immunity was the assumed trait?

One generation. Everyone else would be dead.

I suggest you do more research and read more about the human body and its evolution.

Eating carbs won't kill you, just like drinking alcohol won't kill you.
It still doesn't mean your body is designed to consume it or that you won't suffer consequences on the long term. An alcoholic is still perfectly capable of having many children before dying. They don't just go extinct.

Your argument sounds like carbs will kill you. That's not what I'm saying.

You can have generations and generations of people who let's say add dirt to their diet in all their meals, they still most probably won't go extinct.

What I'm saying to you is that the human digestive system has pretty much not changed for thousands of years, back when we didn't eat pasta, bread, etc.
Just like the human body was never designed to have 3 meals a day, that's a modern invention by doctors to give people a reference or basis and avoid people eating too many meals, or not enough meals.

 

[SexyMahnaz]

I ate a high carb diet growing up, & if I cut out bread/pasta/rice I tend to feel worse. But that could be because I find it hard to eat enough cals without them.

 

[Prime Ang]

Have lost tons of weight before on both the carb and caveman diets. I put my big ole stamp of approval on both.

 

[BoxingFan123]

Paleotards saying our bodies are less efficient at digesting carbs sound just like Vegans who say the same thing about our bodies digesting meat.

 

[Dinamita95]

Paleotards saying our bodies are less efficient at digesting carbs sound just like Vegans who say the same thing about our bodies digesting meat.

Buncha weirdos.

Train and enjoy your food maaan

 

[Tebowned]

I know you're mostly a troll but is this a serious thread?

 

[Tayski]

Paleotards saying our bodies are less efficient at digesting carbs sound just like Vegans who say the same thing about our bodies digesting meat.

Ignorance is bliss.
Funnily enough the people you call retards are right. Come back and comment once you've done some research.

 

[KILL KILL]

The human body hasn't evolved that much in centuries and has never been designed to consume large amounts of carbs.
What I mean by that is technically we should only need vegetables, meat/fish/eggs, and some fruits and nuts. That's what our bodies are designed to consume.

Also, most of your daily energy is used for digestion, meaning the more food you eat, the more energy you spend/waste. Hence why having big meals or lots of carbs makes you feel sluggish.

I have never been a fan of diets but gave that paleo diet a go as it seemed to be the sort of nutrition I was targeting myself to have. And just like you I felt I had more energy, quicker digestion, not ever feeling bloated, and just overall feeling lighter and better.

I only really eat pure carbs (pasta, etc.) if I'm doing lots of cardio or long training sessions, or if I'm just having an off day of feasting

I hate when people parrot this as fact with absolutely no information to back their claims. Agriculture has been a staple of human society for 12 - 15,000 years. Some evidence such as excavated mills have been found in some areas that suggests it goes even further back.

It's one of the primary reasons that humans have flourished so much. If you ask any anthropologist, they will tell you that one of the fundamental elements that is necessary for a group of people to form a society, they would tell you that agriculture is near the top of the list.

In larger populations, it was impossible to feed everyone with meat and animal byproducts. Wheat, barley, and other grains were subsided on far more.

Ok, so what's the point I'm trying to make?

Who are you to say that the human body can or cannot adjust to eating such foods over this period of time?

Changes in animals have been observed in far shorter durations, including humans. The mutation of blue eyes occurred between 6-10,000 years. Who's to say that such a resilient species, hasn't been able to adapt to eating higher amounts of carbohydrates and grains?

 

[anaconda]

I'm really sad that it's 2015 and we still have posts like those found in this thread.

 

[Tayski]

I hate when people parrot this as fact with absolutely no information to back their claims. Agriculture has been a staple of human society for 12 - 15,000 years. Some evidence such as excavated mills have been found in some areas that suggests it goes even further back.

It's one of the primary reasons that humans have flourished so much. If you ask any anthropologist, they will tell you that one of the fundamental elements that is necessary for a group of people to form a society, they would tell you that agriculture is near the top of the list.

In larger populations, it was impossible to feed everyone with meat and animal byproducts. Wheat, barley, and other grains were subsided on far more.

Ok, so what's the point I'm trying to make?

Who are you to say that the human body can or cannot adjust to eating such foods over this period of time?

Changes in animals have been observed in far shorter durations, including humans. The mutation of blue eyes occurred between 6-10,000 years. Who's to say that such a resilient species, hasn't been able to adapt to eating higher amounts of carbohydrates and grains?

I suggest some study of the human digestive system and its evolution through time as you seem to 'hate people with absolutely no information to back their claims'. You wouldn't want to be one of them, would you?

Some articles to get you started but I recommend full scientific books because its fascinating:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1773

http://www.britannica.com/science/human-digestive-system

Agriculture 11,500 years ago wasn't what is it today, we didn't have such fields as we have today, and we didn't have mass production of processed carbohydrates like we have today. Also most of what was cultivated was plants, legumes, and vegetables. Based on the study of teeth from that age and before, their diets were mostly composed of vegetables, legumes and a bit of meat or fish.

Cultivating cereals like wheat only started around 9,800 years ago and really developed in Europe around the middle-age period and not before.

Now let's go back to the human digestive system.
Our digestive system and especially parts like the colon are identical to those of monkeys and apes who eat essentially fruits, leaves, insects and from time to time meat. If you put a monkey colon and a human colon next to each other, you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. Our digestive system has not evolved since pretty much the history of mankind as it is essentially identical to the monkeys' digestive system, and works the same way, with the same glands and same acids.

A mutation in external colour takes much less time than an internal mutation of organs and basic functions of a body.
This is why as you mention eye colour for example is a recent mutation, just like certain skin colours or hair colours are recent mutations.

Besides, the consumption of processed carbohydrates has only massively increased in the last 60 years or so. It didn't use to represent such a high percentage of our diet as it is for most people today.

Basically such a mutation of the digestive system would require an evolution of our organs, which not only will take a very very long time, but also it can clearly be seen in our anatomy and the one of monkeys that it hasn't even mutated through time yet.

Good luck with your researches and studies.

 

[KILL KILL]

I'm really sad that it's 2015 and we still have posts like those found in this thread.

I remember people making this same argument and 2008 and everyone bought into it (including me).

 

[KILL KILL]

I suggest some study of the human digestive system and its evolution through time as you seem to 'hate people with absolutely no information to back their claims'. You wouldn't want to be one of them, would you?

Some articles to get you started but I recommend full scientific books because its fascinating:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1773

http://www.britannica.com/science/human-digestive-system

Agriculture 11,500 years ago wasn't what is it today, we didn't have such fields as we have today, and we didn't have mass production of processed carbohydrates like we have today. Also most of what was cultivated was plants, legumes, and vegetables. Based on the study of teeth from that age and before, their diets were mostly composed of vegetables, legumes and a bit of meat or fish.

Cultivating cereals like wheat only started around 9,800 years ago and really developed in Europe around the middle-age period and not before.

Now let's go back to the human digestive system.
Our digestive system and especially parts like the colon are identical to those of monkeys and apes who eat essentially fruits, leaves, insects and from time to time meat. If you put a monkey colon and a human colon next to each other, you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. Our digestive system has not evolved since pretty much the history of mankind as it is essentially identical to the monkeys' digestive system, and works the same way, with the same glands and same acids.

A mutation in external colour takes much less time than an internal mutation of organs and basic functions of a body.
This is why as you mention eye colour for example is a recent mutation, just like certain skin colours or hair colours are recent mutations.

Besides, the consumption of processed carbohydrates has only massively increased in the last 60 years or so. It didn't use to represent such a high percentage of our diet as it is for most people today.

Basically such a mutation of the digestive system would require an evolution of our organs, which not only will take a very very long time, but also it can clearly be seen in our anatomy and the one of monkeys that it hasn't even mutated through time yet.

Good luck with your researches and studies.

Our bodies can't effectively use the starches in our diet unless they are first broken down into simple sugars. This is where amylase comes in. Amylase is the protein in our spit that breaks the starch down. So your obsession with the digestive system is a bit misguided. It has been shown that changes in our ability don't require thousands of years to adapt, but instead, can be seen within a single lifetime

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/

We found that salivary amylase gene (AMY1) copy number is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein levels, and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have on average more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets.

People that tend to eat starchy foods have developed the ability to digest them better.

Next, I want to focus on your sources because I'm almost certain you simply Googled some phrases that you thought would back your argument and linked the first pages that popped up.

Source #1 blogs.scientificamerica - You linked to a website that posts articles that directly contradict your argument that the human digestive system hasn't changed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/

Several examples of recent and relatively speedy human evolution underscore that our anatomy and genetics have not been set in stone since the stone age. Within a span of 7,000 years, for instance, people adapted to eating dairy by developing lactose tolerance. Usually, the gene encoding an enzyme named lactase—which breaks down lactose sugars in milk—shuts down after infancy; when dairy became prevalent, many people evolved a mutation that kept the gene turned on throughout life.

Likewise, the genetic mutation responsible for blue eyes likely arose between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. And in regions where malaria is common, natural selection has modified people's immune systems and red blood cells in ways that help them resist the mosquito-borne disease; some of these genetic mutations appeared within the last 10,000 or even 5,000 years.

The organisms with which we share our bodies have evolved even faster, particularly the billions of bacteria living in our intestines. Our gut bacteria interact with our food in many ways, helping us break down tough plant fibers, but also competing for calories. We do not have direct evidence of which bacterial species thrived in Paleolithic intestines, but we can be sure that their microbial communities do not exactly match our own.

Here's another article from the same websites that claims humans have been eating grains as far back as 100,000 years. source

Source #2 - Apologeticspress.or : Now, I KNOW you didn't read this source because it does NOT back your argument in the least. The final conclusion is that evolution doesn't exist and that GOD is the reason why our digestive system is the way it is.

The human digestive system is infinitely more complex, and yet we are to believe it is simply the product of evolution? The only logical conclusion is that a Master Designer laid out the blueprints and then constructed the human digestive system the way we find it today. This intricate system is yet one more proof of God’s handiwork.

LOL

The key point your missing is that the ability to digest grains doesn't come from the anatomy of the digestive tract, but specific genes that allow it to be so (more on that shortly).

Now, we KNOW that the digestive system has changed over the years. Geneticists have conducted studies showing just that...

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html

Not only have our digestive system evolved, but people that descend from different areas have different tolerances to foods. How can you possibly suggest that our digestive systems are identical to apes and monkeys when they aren't even identical to other humans???

Source #3 Britannica.org - I'm not sure why you even added this as it simply describes what the digestive system is and it's basic functions.


Humans are far more resilient and diverse than you give us credit for. Our ability to adapt of the years are what has allowed us to become the most successful race in this planet's history. You seem to think that humans couldn't possibly adapt to consume grains in the last several years, but we've seen other species of animals adapt in other ways in much less time. It's assumed that dogs split from wolves approximately 7,000-11,000 years ago. Since then, the genome of dogs has changed significantly. In fact, because of domestication, and the introduction of grains to the diet of dogs, they've developed the ability to digest starchy foods, which wolves cannot.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature11837.epdf?referrer_access_token=m LbMva3Im3NWLp5CPmHs9tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv 0PsEGswKvNWIO3XBtlr6qEwJ5PJr3wqbLHfIajDY J1ASMtKuNHOVXc7RQ1nCLkYPHhr_KayVsp2Pw5Gb ORCpd2ncJQDLDy5PN9Yz2cj21TFDKk5CxYjp66Q4-8FiEJIFhoNdhfR73eaNz8cLsEAZX42Njxo5mOZjE 9OzwAGe1r0-w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=news.sciencema g.org

The Genome Signature of Dog Domestication Reveals Adaption to Starch Rich Diet

Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome. As a result, that gene was 28-fold more active in dogs, the researchers found. More copies means more protein, and test-tube studies indicate that dogs should be fivefold better than wolves at digesting starch, the chief nutrient in agricultural grains such as wheat and rice. The number of copies of this gene also varies in people: Those eating high carbohydrate diets—such as the Japanese and European Americans—have more copies than people with starch-poor diets, such as the Mbuti in Africa. We have adapted in a very similar way to the dramatic changes that happened when agriculture was developed.

Aside from those that suffer from celiac disease, grains are just fine.

Good luck with your researches and studies.

 

[fbmmofo]

I was beginning to think this forum had changed but then kill kill came along and restored my faith.

Good luck with your research and studies.

 

[Sinister]

Our bodies can't effectively use the starches in our diet unless they are first broken down into simple sugars. This is where amylase comes in. Amylase is the protein in our spit that breaks the starch down. So your obsession with the digestive system is a bit misguided. It has been shown that changes in our ability don't require thousands of years to adapt, but instead, can be seen within a single lifetime

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/



People that tend to eat starchy foods have developed the ability to digest them better.

Next, I want to focus on your sources because I'm almost certain you simply Googled some phrases that you thought would back your argument and linked the first pages that popped up.

Source #1 blogs.scientificamerica - You linked to a website that posts articles that directly contradict your argument that the human digestive system hasn't changed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/



Here's another article from the same websites that claims humans have been eating grains as far back as 100,000 years. source

Source #2 - Apologeticspress.or : Now, I KNOW you didn't read this source because it does NOT back your argument in the least. The final conclusion is that evolution doesn't exist and that GOD is the reason why our digestive system is the way it is.



LOL

The key point your missing is that the ability to digest grains doesn't come from the anatomy of the digestive tract, but specific genes that allow it to be so (more on that shortly).

Now, we KNOW that the digestive system has changed over the years. Geneticists have conducted studies showing just that...

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html

Not only have our digestive system evolved, but people that descend from different areas have different tolerances to foods. How can you possibly suggest that our digestive systems are identical to apes and monkeys when they aren't even identical to other humans???

Source #3 Britannica.org - I'm not sure why you even added this as it simply describes what the digestive system is and it's basic functions.


Humans are far more resilient and diverse than you give us credit for. Our ability to adapt of the years are what has allowed us to become the most successful race in this planet's history. You seem to think that humans couldn't possibly adapt to consume grains in the last several years, but we've seen other species of animals adapt in other ways in much less time. It's assumed that dogs split from wolves approximately 7,000-11,000 years ago. Since then, the genome of dogs has changed significantly. In fact, because of domestication, and the introduction of grains to the diet of dogs, they've developed the ability to digest starchy foods, which wolves cannot.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature11837.epdf?referrer_access_token=m LbMva3Im3NWLp5CPmHs9tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv 0PsEGswKvNWIO3XBtlr6qEwJ5PJr3wqbLHfIajDY J1ASMtKuNHOVXc7RQ1nCLkYPHhr_KayVsp2Pw5Gb ORCpd2ncJQDLDy5PN9Yz2cj21TFDKk5CxYjp66Q4-8FiEJIFhoNdhfR73eaNz8cLsEAZX42Njxo5mOZjE 9OzwAGe1r0-w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=news.sciencema g.org

The Genome Signature of Dog Domestication Reveals Adaption to Starch Rich Diet





Aside from those that suffer from celiac disease, grains are just fine.

Good luck with your researches and studies.

FWIW, I don't think anything you specifically posted in this post actually suggests grains are fine for "everyone" short of celiac disease. You're behaving as if hyperinsulinemia and genetic pre-dispositions to things like diabetes don't exist, and as if dietary carbohydrate intake would have no effect on such a thing, which are directly related to metabolic function, or dysfunction. There's also a paradox in what you're saying. In one sentence you imply that "our" (collective) digestive systems have evolved to tolerate grain/starch, and then in another sentence you suggest that humans digestive systems aren't similar to other humans. Just pointing out that this leaves room for difference in tolerance of dietary carbohydrate intake (which isn't a controversial assertion, I'm sure you're aware of the plethora of studies that corroborate such an occurrence and I don't need to do a bunch of homework for you on that matter, regardless of your believe of how widespread it is or isn't).

In terms of your points of genetics, I actually had the pleasure of speaking with a geneticist (who took up boxing for a while so I got to see him on a daily basis) who enlightened me to the existence of epigene studies and the emergence of epigenetics. These are NOT to be confused with "genes"...as they're a specific class that can be manipulated within a generation or two. And they're still relatively new as a field of study, you seem to be throwing around conclusions that are stronger than the data actually backs up, conclusions that apply more directly to daily life than we currently actually know for certain. This field is not dissimilar to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which could explain why some people have a grand initial misunderstanding of how the human body uses energy, never-mind what our genes will or won't, or have or haven't adapted to. Then you use an animal model, isn't that the cardinal sin of "science touters"..? What does that have to do with humans who notice beyond a doubt that they store weight much easier (for different reasons) when attempting purely isocaloric nutrition? The general assumption to that seems to be a very snooty "you're wrong, you're stupid, you don't science very good" etc. etc. And yet nothing they do violates anything proponents of purely isocaloric nutrition maintain. They don't violate caloric intake vs. expenditure (even if they think they do, they don't), they don't think their situation applies to everyone, obviously chronically skinny people who want to gain wait are different, as an example.

If YOU want to eat a bunch of grains, and can handle it, cool. If the OP doesn't and feels better, loses weight, and is healthier as monitored by his health care professionals, then all this arguing is bullshit and non-applicable. Call that anecdotal, or whatever, but that's what happens on the front lines, outside the labs. Doesn't make it any less relevant when it comes to people who do not tolerate these things well, for whom if you limit your viewpoint to a single notion, you're of no help to.

 

[Sinister]

P.S. - LOL@people defending the position of gential-mutilating lunatics who worked very hard to associate cereal grains with "health" in the United States (and by-proxy, the World).

P.P.S. - Societies harvesting grains/tubers to remain alive should never be confused with "eat all you want." Suggesting this is irresponsible. Sure there's epidemiological evidence of early harvesters of plant-based foods, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an early human who would take a ball of rice, or a cup of millet over a good leg of lamb. Unless of course, they did so for cooky religious reasons. Seems to be a running theme there.

 

[KILL KILL]

P.S. - LOL@people defending the position of gential-mutilating lunatics who worked very hard to associate cereal grains with "health" in the United States (and by-proxy, the World).

P.P.S. - Societies harvesting grains/tubers to remain alive should never be confused with "eat all you want." Suggesting this is irresponsible. Sure there's epidemiological evidence of early harvesters of plant-based foods, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an early human who would take a ball of rice, or a cup of millet over a good leg of lamb. Unless of course, they did so for cooky religious reasons. Seems to be a running theme there.

I don't think anyone suggested either. The guy I was quoting said that the body has not evolved to eat grains, which is not correct. I posted information to show that not only can the body change in the given time period, but it also has specific processes that allow it to digest starchy foods. The burden of proof is on him to show that we simply can't handle grains. He won't be able to do it because it's false.