My brief experience eating less carbs

[KILL KILL]

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.

I'm going to try and address your points one by one.

FWIW, I don't think anything you specifically posted in this post actually suggests grains are fine for "everyone" short of celiac disease.

The guy I quoted made the argument that people can't digest grains because the body can't possibly evolve in that short of a time. I provided examples that showed that humans have changed since the time that agriculture was introduced. I also provided examples that show that this is not some crazy phenomenon has occurred in other species as well.

The burden of proof is not on me, it's the low carbers that believe grains are the bane of existence. Prove it!

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.

What does this have to do with whether or not humans have the ability to digest grains? If someone has diabetes, then they should eat fewer carbs. that doesn't mean that eating a piece of bread will make them sick.

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).

Not all people are the same, but almost all people have the ability to digest grains. If you get the time, here is a really good article that suggests that non-celiac gluten sensitivity is not nearly as prevalent as people believe.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-balanced-look-at-gluten-sensitivity/

To save you some time, it suggests that an intolerance to FODMAPS is often being diagnosed / self diagnosed for gluten sensitivity. FODMAPS occur within some grains, but there are many that do not contain them, which may be suitable alternatives.

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.

I provided several studies that drew a conclusion based on the information provided. The conclusion in one was that agriculture has changed our genetics (i.e. to better process grains). The other showed that humans that tend to eat more grains have a better mechanism to eat more grains. Feel free to argue the study if you'd like.

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?

I used an animal model to show that such a change is not abnormal and has occurred in nature before. The second point you make has absolutely nothing to do with the digestion of grains. If you have information that shows that grains cause people to gain more weight, then by all means, prove it!

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.

Yes yes. More anecdotal information. Does this somehow show that the human body cannot digest grains? It doesn't.

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.

I feel like you're low carb bias is causing you to completely miss the point. Just because there are some people that may be less tolerant than others than they cannot digest grains. this is false. I cannot digest lead. I know this. You know this. However, the human body has mechanisms in place to allow us to digest grains.

EDIT: If any of that sounds dickish, it wasn't meant to. Sensitivities do exist. However, as a whole, humans can digest grains. there is no information that I've ever come across that supports the argument otherwise. If you eat a bowl of past, what happens? You won't shit out a full strand of spaghetti. Why not? Because your body digested it.

 

[Badger67]

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.

Not sure if you've read this but this is a good PDF to google.

Cereal Grains: Humanity

 

[Badger67]

"If any of that sounds dickish, it wasn't meant to. Sensitivities do exist. However, as a whole, humans can digest grains. there is no information that I've ever come across that supports the argument otherwise. If you eat a bowl of past, what happens? You won't shit out a full strand of spaghetti. Why not? Because your body digested it."

Using a micro nutrient as an example to a macro nutrient is not a great comparison. Also, this is why we require selenium in our diet; to balance out heavy metals like lead, mercury etc.

Edit: Along with FODMAPS, there exists cross protein reactivity in reference to gluten proteins; proteins similar in nature found in similar foods will set people off with similar reactions.

To chime in with agriculture, Ancient Rome only doled out grains during their agricultural increase when too many slaves and high populaces became to the area, prior to this despite having a bountiful population, grains weren't a staple like they have become today. Olives, grapes, lamb etc were primary sources of food. This obviously would not remain stagnant, however, as the population grew too numerously from the roman empire. Look up Roman grain doles. It's an interesting piece of history.

 

[Tayski]

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.

I never said that our body can't eat grains, I said it wasn't designed to consume as much carbohydrates as most people do today.
Our bodies are also capable of digesting alcohol, even large amounts of it, and even able to process drugs. Are you going to say that our bodies are meant to consume alcohol and drugs just because it can?

There's a difference between what our bodies 'can' consume, and what they're 'meant' to consume.

 

[Tayski]

If you have information that shows that grains cause people to gain more weight, then by all means, prove it!

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/02/13/three-hidden-ways-wheat-makes-you-fat/

http://aeon.co/magazine/health/is-obesity-caused-by-a-carbs-rich-diet/

http://www.naturalnews.com/038699_gluten_weight_gain_wheat_belly.html#

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/a-growing-epidemic-wheat-and-obesity.html

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/09/wheat-and-obesity-more-from-the-china-study/

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/02/13/three-hidden-ways-wheat-makes-you-fat/

http://chriskresser.com/the-top-3-dietary-causes-of-obesity-diabetes/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/03/05/obesity-carbs.aspx

On top of what Badger67 recommended you, I also recommend watching the recent documentary 'Fed Up'.

 

[Tayski]

Not sure if you've read this but this is a good PDF to google.

Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double Edged Sword by Loren Cordain. Published by the World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 1999

The conclusion to that research is interesting:

"Conclusions
From an evolutionary perspective, humanity’s adoption of agriculture, and hence cereal grain consumption, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Table 3 shows that this event occurred in most parts of the world between 5,500 and 10,000 years ago. Cereal grains represent a biologically novel food for mankind [341, 342], consequently there is considerable genetic discordance between this staple food, and the foods to which our species is genetically
adapted.
Cereal grains lack a number of nutrients which are essential for human health and well-being; additionally they contain numerous vitamins and minerals with low biological availability. Furthermore, the inability of humans to physiologically overcome cereal grain antinutrients (phytates, alkylresorcinols, protease inhibitors, lectins, etc.) is indicative of the evolutionary novelty of this food for our species. This genetic maladaptation between human nutrient
requirements and those nutrients found in cereal grains manifests itself as Cordain 58 vitamin and mineral deficiencies and other nutritionally related disorders, particularly when cereal grains are consumed in excessive quantity. More disturbing is the ability of cereal grain proteins (protease inhibitors, lectins, opioids and storage peptides) to interact with and alter human physiology.
These interactions likely occur because of physiological similarities (resultant from phylogenetic commonalities) shared between humans and many herbivores which have traditionally preyed upon the gramineae family. The secondary compounds (antinutrients) occurring in cereal grains (gramineae family), were shaped by eons of selective pressure and were designed to prevent predation from traditional predators (insects, birds and ungulates) of this family
of plants. Because primates and hominids evolved in the tropical forest, wherein dicotyledonous plants prevailed, the human physiology has virtually no evolutionary experience with monocotyledonous cereal grains, and hence very little adaptive response to a food group which now represents the staple food for
many of the world’s peoples.
Cereal grains obviously can be included in moderate amounts in the diets of most people without any noticeable, deleterious health effects, and herein lies their strength. When combined with a variety of both animal- and plantbased foods, they provide a cheap and plentiful caloric source, capable of sustaining and promoting human life. The ecologic, energetic efficiency wrought by the widespread cultivation and domestication of cereal grains
allowed for the dramatic expansion of worldwide human populations, which in turn, ultimately led to humanity’s enormous cultural and technological accomplishments. The downside of cereal grain consumption is their ability to disrupt health and well being in virtually all people when consumed in excessive quantity. This information has only been empirically known since the discovery of vitamins, minerals and certain antinutrients in the early part
of this century.
The realization that cereal grain peptides interact with and induce change in human physiology and therefore elicit disease and dysfunction is even newer and dates to the early 1950s with the discovery of wheat gluten as the causative agent in celiac disease. In the past 10 years has come the evidence (admittedly
incomplete) that certain cereal peptides may interact with the immune system to elicit a variety of autoimmune-related diseases. These two seemingly distinct entities (autoimmune disease and consumption of a staple food) are connected primarily through an evolutionary collision of dissimilar genes which bear identical products (molecular mimicry). Although, cereal grain consumption
may appear to be historically remote, it is biologically recent; consequently the human immune, digestive and endocrine systems have not yet fully adapted to a food group which provides 56% of humanity’s food energy and 50% of its protein.
Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double-Edged Sword 59 Cereal grains are truly humanity’s double-edged sword. For without them, our species would likely have never evolved the complex cultural and technological innovations which allowed our departure from the hunter-gatherer niche. However, because of the dissonance between human evolutionary nutritional requirements and the nutrient content of these domesticated grasses, many of the world’s people suffer disease and dysfunction directly attributable
to the consumption of these foods."

http://www.2ndchance.info/birdlover-cerealsword.pdf

 

[Codger]

I never said that our body can't eat grains, I said it wasn't designed to consume as much carbohydrates as most people do today.
Our bodies are also capable of digesting alcohol, even large amounts of it, and even able to process drugs. Are you going to say that our bodies are meant to consume alcohol and drugs just because it can?

There's a difference between what our bodies 'can' consume, and what they're 'meant' to consume.

Actually, since you mention it, yes some of us ARE evolved to drink alcohol and and evolved the ethanol dehydrogenase enzyme specifically. Some populations have not and get drunk and sick quickly on small quantities of alcohol. And there are many studies showing that moderate amounts of alcohol may well increase your lifespan and health.

Also you need to define "meant" in this context. What does that even mean? Are Ethnic Scandinavians "meant" to eat Chicken which is originally domesticated from jungle fowl and they would have had no contact with it until quite recently? Shoudl they only eat reindeer and fish? Are they OK eating brocolli which is a modern hybrid for which nobody can possibly be "designed" or "meant" to eat?

Tell me why we have salivary amylase if we're not "meant" to consume starchy grains?

 

[Badger67]

Actually, since you mention it, yes some of us ARE evolved to drink alcohol and and evolved the ethanol dehydrogenase enzyme specifically. Some populations have not and get drunk and sick quickly on small quantities of alcohol. And there are many studies showing that moderate amounts of alcohol may well increase your lifespan and health.

Also you need to define "meant" in this context. What does that even mean? Are Ethnic Scandinavians "meant" to eat Chicken which is originally domesticated from jungle fowl and they would have had no contact with it until quite recently? Shoudl they only eat reindeer and fish? Are they OK eating brocolli which is a modern hybrid for which nobody can possibly be "designed" or "meant" to eat?

Tell me why we have salivary amylase if we're not "meant" to consume starchy grains?

The alcohol enzyme we have likely developed during our experiences as cavemen and nomads from eating fermenting fruit so we don't die. We see and do these experiments with knockout strain drysophilia in Bio 101 as a survival mechanism.

Yes, we have amylase, this doesn't inherently mean we are meant to or should be eating as much carbohydrate when much of our evolutionary development didn't encounter much of it during our biorhythmic eating patterns (prior to agriculture, where will you get a plethora of carbs during fall wintry and early spring months when fruits and veggies, roots and tubers are next to non existent?). Cue in human bio-rhythmic eating patterns. We ate what was in season, available, and could carry. Meat was available all year round, anything plant related was only available during certain time periods of the year/season and geography, limiting many resources for numerous societies while allowing others to to be relatively unlimited.

We are meant to be omnivores and eat a wide variety of foods and to be adaptable sure, but the amounts of some foods we ingest today are problematic at times. We have immediate access to certain food stuffs we didn't previously and in large quantities, which is why you will rarely if ever hear of a caveman having diabetes; these problems didn't occur until agriculture was largely sustained.

The guy isn't saying we shouldn't eat carbs or are meant to, just that the amount is not typical for what our physiology seems to be able to handle as an entirety vs a large portion majority. Also, read the pdf http://www.2ndchance.info/birdlover-cerealsword.pdf

this may answer some more of your questions, and allow more discussion further afterward once you have this side of the coin.

 

[Oblivian]

Threads like this are the reason that I can never take the D+S forum seriously. There are loads of top performing, healthy athletes that function just fine consuming quite a bit of grains in their diet. You can consume grains as a staple in your diet without gaining weight, without decreasing health indicators at a physical, and while still performing in an athletic capacity.

The topic constantly bounces around to people not even arguing the same thing. "I never said that our body can't eat grains, I said it wasn't designed to consume as much carbohydrates as most people do today." Well no shit - we are an obese society with people eating way too much of everything.

It shouldn't even be that tough of a topic. A lot of people can handle grains just fine, a lot of people can't. The ones who can't shouldn't say "grains are the devil" as if they have the same affect on everyone else. In general, I don't think it's necessary to advise people against consuming grains unless they are having diet/digestive/health issues. At that point, try to identify if you are intolerant to grains.

 

[Badger67]

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/02/13/three-hidden-ways-wheat-makes-you-fat/

http://aeon.co/magazine/health/is-obesity-caused-by-a-carbs-rich-diet/

http://www.naturalnews.com/038699_gluten_weight_gain_wheat_belly.html#

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/a-growing-epidemic-wheat-and-obesity.html

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/09/wheat-and-obesity-more-from-the-china-study/

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/02/13/three-hidden-ways-wheat-makes-you-fat/

http://chriskresser.com/the-top-3-dietary-causes-of-obesity-diabetes/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/03/05/obesity-carbs.aspx

On top of what Badger67 recommended you, I also recommend watching the recent documentary 'Fed Up'.

Just for future reference, pick out the sources that are posted on these sites that say exactly what you want to say. And try to avoid documentaries as they can be largely bias, people will take arguments more seriously if they see a .org/journal vs mercola.

 

[Sinister]

Threads like this are the reason that I can never take the D+S forum seriously. There are loads of top performing, healthy athletes that function just fine consuming quite a bit of grains in their diet. You can consume grains as a staple in your diet without gaining weight, without decreasing health indicators at a physical, and while still performing in an athletic capacity.

The topic constantly bounces around to people not even arguing the same thing. "I never said that our body can't eat grains, I said it wasn't designed to consume as much carbohydrates as most people do today." Well no shit - we are an obese society with people eating way too much of everything.

It shouldn't even be that tough of a topic. A lot of people can handle grains just fine, a lot of people can't. The ones who can't shouldn't say "grains are the devil" as if they have the same affect on everyone else. In general, I don't think it's necessary to advise people against consuming grains unless they are having diet/digestive/health issues. At that point, try to identify if you are intolerant to grains.

So you can't take the place seriously because some people state something obvious, other people state something else that's obvious, and then a couple of people say something you don't like?

Methinks you've not evolved to handle basic discourse if that's true.

 

[Oblivian]

So you can't take the place seriously because some people state something obvious, other people state something else that's obvious, and then a couple of people say something you don't like?

Methinks you've not evolved to handle basic discourse if that's true.

Yes, these threads are the meeting of the great minds. You have people just digging and digging to try to prove some people can't tolerate grains and others digging for studies showing that people can. People always want to talk in absolutes and try to make things a lot more complicated than it needs to be. These threads are like a circle jerk where the porn is studies that aren't even applicable to prove a basic point.

 

[KILL KILL]

Not sure if you've read this but this is a good PDF to google.

Cereal Grains: Humanity

 

[KILL KILL]

I never said that our body can't eat grains, I said it wasn't designed to consume as much carbohydrates as most people do today.
Our bodies are also capable of digesting alcohol, even large amounts of it, and even able to process drugs. Are you going to say that our bodies are meant to consume alcohol and drugs just because it can?

There's a difference between what our bodies 'can' consume, and what they're 'meant' to consume.

This is anecdotal nonsense. Humans are so diverse that we've adapted to eat countless different varieties of foods. Ancestral diets varied widely in terms of both food selection and macronutrient profiles depending on foods available geographically. For instance, people indigenous to tropical areas are going to have far more access to carb laden fruits. I already provided info on how the body can effectively break down starchy foods like grains and now you want to turn this into a low carb debate?

Many of the cultures with the longest lifespans and lowest obesity subside on a carb heavy diet. The majority of high level athletes consume carbohydrates regularly. Your argument should be against the over consumption of calories, living a sedentary lifestyle, and the reduction of stress. Carbs are fine in most cases.

If you really want to debate whether or not we should be eating carbohydrates, I'll just copy and paste the vast amounts of info I've posted on the countless other threads just like this one.

 

[KILL KILL]

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/02/13/three-hidden-ways-wheat-makes-you-fat/

http://aeon.co/magazine/health/is-obesity-caused-by-a-carbs-rich-diet/

http://www.naturalnews.com/038699_gluten_weight_gain_wheat_belly.html#

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/a-growing-epidemic-wheat-and-obesity.html

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/09/wheat-and-obesity-more-from-the-china-study/

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/02/13/three-hidden-ways-wheat-makes-you-fat/

http://chriskresser.com/the-top-3-dietary-causes-of-obesity-diabetes/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/03/05/obesity-carbs.aspx

On top of what Badger67 recommended you, I also recommend watching the recent documentary 'Fed Up'.

You're just linking to random articles. Care to elaborate if you can?

 

[Badger67]

I respect you as a poster, but I would never take dietary information from Loren Cordain as fact.

Have you read his books? I have. In the Paleo Diet for athletes he spends the first half of the book explaining how terrible carbohydrates are and we should eat nothing but what he believes our ancestors ate (insert scare mongering), but then spends the second half of the book explaining how endurance athletes require gel energy shots (i.e. carbs) in order to complete a race.

Does he even logic bro? He's similar to Gary taubes in that he takes it soo overboard that he cherry picks info to support his ideals.

Much like anywhere there will be bias, look at the data more so than his own opinions on the data, there is a number of claims via the data that are backed in other studies that is useful for interpreting how our bodies may or may not respond to a certain degree of molecules. Taubes has a lot of good ideas, and some bad ones sure. But rather than ignore him completely, think of these individuals as a boat, take what is useful to get to Point B from A, then find a new one to hit final destination. This is what i do, i ignore things that don't add up or are reaching/bias, but keep what is useful and makes sense from education in physiology (which is a lot more than most in this forum).
Take soy estrogens for example, in very low doses, not a problem. Look at the doses most people get without even knowing it due to processed food, not the greatest ideal for ones diet. While we do have organs that work incredibly well at eliminating things we can't use or don't need or harm us, being bombarded daily with these things can have a decent sized impact. Reducing this would be beneficial when one knows what they do and don't respond to.

Endurance athletes use those gel carbs because they are directly into the blood stream and fuel long term duration exercise at steady state intensities. Even myself who is low carb, would advocate one either do this or fat load in order to achieve good results in endurance races. This isn't so much contradictory as it is a "tool in a tool shed" for the right season.

Edit: to add, if anyone wants proof we are meant to eat carbs and have been for over 5 million years, follow our evolution. We evolved to eat meat, not vice versa. The amount has changed sure, as our digestive tract and vitamin requirements changed, but its still present.

 

[Tayski]

You're just linking to random articles. Care to elaborate if you can?

The conclusion from the Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double Edged Sword by Loren Cordain published by the World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics in 1999 that I posted on the previous page pretty much sums up those articles if you can't be bothered to actually read them.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

My only point is that I felt better. Didn't think (though Sinister warned me) that it would turn into this.

I'm not prophet for some anti-carb view.... I just reported how I felt.

 

[ChainFlow]

My only point is that I felt better. Didn't think (though Sinister warned me) that it would turn into this.

I'm not prophet for some anti-carb view.... I just reported how I felt.

It always shocks me how upset some people get at the notion that other people feel better when not eating grains. Or carbs. Whatever.

It's like it offends them. Just don't get it.

 

[Badger67]

^ because many view it as unnecessarily restrictive to a flexible diet. I have found since being low carb, mine has been more flexible as i branched out to make different types of food i wouldn't have otherwise whilst relying on grains/rice, lather rinse repeat. As well as better sport performance and lifestyle (which has been the biggest for me). It's not a hindrance for myself, its beneficial.