- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
who doesnt eat grains, carb questions
- Thread starter maravillin
- Start date
Quinoa may not be a grain technically, but it should be treated like one, for all intents and purposes, IMO.
That may work for you, but many people (like me) don't tolerate grains (or high carb intakes in general) that well. Paleo explains why, and gives these people an effective alternative. I don't think the Paleo crowd should be vilified for that.
I still eat some grains. Namely, I eat oats for breakfast several days of the week. As I've said before, I acknowledge that it would probably be healthier for me if I did not, but other aspects of my life (such as convenience, $$$, storage, enjoyment, etc.) outside of health do play a role in my food choices. Also, I like regularity
...oats seem to do a good job of maintaining that. So, I make a compromise based on my circumstances and eat what is less-than-ideal (from a pure health/wellness perspective). In the grand scheme of my diet, it's probably not a big deal at all. But, I don't resent Paleo people at all for pointing out the problems my consumption choices may cause for me.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
As I said in my other post, I highly doubt a large percentage of the Paleo enthusiasts can't tolerate grains well.
My post was directly in response to "And for athletes paleo plus diary is recommended, so all you gotta keep in mind is not to eat, grains and junkfood." I would love to hear Jaedong's articulate explanation for this. In fact, I would venture to guess that most successful athletes consume high carb with a lot of grains.
Why Grains Are Unhealthy | Mark's Daily Apple
You can get high carbs out of veggies, fruit, milk, nuts. Unless you do marathons or train mma 4 hours a day. It's also a health question not just sports performance. Roids will make you perform better still that does not make them healthy. I personally also eat legumes so I think I get enough carbs for working out 6 days a week, also you can up your fat intake for more energy.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,025
- Reaction score
- 0
For the love of god please stop.
I don't know about that...I would venture to guess that many, if not most, of the people who gravitate toward Paleo are the ones that more conventional approaches did not work well for. If the high grain/high carb thing was working well for them, they probably wouldn't feel too compelled to switch (like you
)
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
That article is more lulz. Let's look at some of his statements:
Hyperbole anyone? I'd say the average unhealthy person is downing a lot of bullshit from McDonalds, ice cream, french fries, etc. Get the fuck out of here. Are you going to link the evils of a banana next? Fucking dorks.
Thats the only reason I choose to eat the way I do. Within minutes of consuming any grain my gastritis will flair and I will have severe acid reflux for 2-3 days following.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
I don't know about that...I would venture to guess that many, if not most, of the people who gravitate toward Paleo are the ones that more conventional approaches did not work well for. If the high grain/high carb thing was working well for them, they probably wouldn't feel too compelled to switch (like you
I'm willing to bet one that is scapegoating grains could easily meet their nutritional shortfalls while still consuming grains. Are they getting enough nutrients? Are they eating enough calories? Too many calories? Eating their veggies? I would guess that one of those categories are not being met. I don't think magically cutting out grains is doing something significant. My assumption would be that the exclusion of grains would result in the replacement of foods that may make up for their lack of nutrients. That's nothing revolutionary. Then the circle begins again where they say, "Why do it that way when you can go without grains?" Uhhhh it's your job to explain why I should drop grains.
Direct quote from MDA forums:
"Bananas are high in carbs, and a great derailer of health. I'd avoid them on principle."
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
Lulz.
IDRISCKY
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,077
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree. Just pointing out that it's not a grain.
When people claim they can't function or feel like crap without grains, it's most likely the carb content, and not the grains themselves.
immovablestone
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,916
- Reaction score
- 0
Sissons extrapolated "Grok" reasons are weak as hell against grains. The articles he references regarding antinutrients/etc, however, are not weak as hell, in my opinion. You just have to dig through a lot sometimes to get at them.
In the end, grains are a source of carbohydrates, with several of their own effects that can come along with them in general over time with chronic use relative to other whole food sources. That's basically it.
I personally don't dis grains as a carb source, I dis them as a nutritive source per calorie and for what I happen to buy into regarding things I've read about lectins/etc. I'd advise an average person to get the calories from a more nutritious source, but if they need the larger carb doses for some reason (performance or what-have-you) have at it, it's not going to kill you.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
And this is perfectly rational. When I was on a calorie restriction during my big weight drop, I definitely limited grains as I wanted my source of calories to be very nutrient dense. Now that I can meet my nutrients and still have A LOT of calories to spar, there is no reason to avoid grains. I feel a lot of athletes fall into the latter category.
That's the point. (?) In some way or another, they're malnourished with a high grain consumption, but by swapping out the grains for foods that are more nutrient dense, lacking in antinutrients, and, generally, lower carb, they do better.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
They're malnourished not due to the grains, but due to the fact that they don't know how to eat. Similar to eating 7 small meals a day as a cue to actually eat less calories and eat responsibly at meals, it's just a cue to do something right. Therefore the result may be effective, but the actual cue (cutting out evil grains) was not the cause of the result. It would be very easy to meet all of your nutrient levels while still eating grains even on a calorie deficit. It's a completely irrational and extreme method used to sell books.
Hopefully the above makes sense, but I'll explain with a couple quick example. Suppose someone is eating 4 meals a day and not a single meal has veggies and they all contain some form of a grain. Suppose their calorie intake is right on and the carb level is a bit high. A paleo enthusiasts analysis would be something extreme such as, "Newb!!! You need to cut out grains altogether!!!111!!". A simple, rational solution would be to cut back on the grains and add green veggies, as it's not necessary to eliminate the grains altogether to meet nutrient levels. Another example would be an athlete burning a shitload of calories who requires a lot of carbs. What is the point of all of the food being extremely nutrient dense such as veggies? Throughout his high calorie intake, he can easily meet his requirements on nutrients + protein while still taking in a lot of grain. Why does he need to sub out evil grains with something more nutrient dense?
So the point that "grains need to be substituted with more nutrient dense food" is understand for a lot of scenarios, but there would rarely be a need to cut them out completely. It's not as if every single nugget of food in an athlete has to be as nutrient dense as possible. It's very easy to meet nutrient levels without it for someone who has a high maintenance level due to athletic activity.
You're assuming your own conclusion (that grains in and of themselves are not the problem, and therefore you're looking at grains as benign, albeit less nutrient-dense foods than veggies and whatnot).
That sidesteps the whole issue Paleo people have with grains. Nutrition isn't just about meeting nutrient requirements in the positive sense. The whole beef Paleo people have with grains are the antinutritive effects of lectins, gluten, phytates, and so forth--consuming more veggies or other nutrient dense food does not simply "undo" the effects of these antinutrients. It is these characteristics (coupled with, yes, the relatively lower micronutrient content) that separate grains from other carb sources for Paleo people.
Like I said before, people have different tolerances for grains (though I would suspect problems can develop over time even in people who have no apparent ill effects from their grain consumption, but that's a separate discussion). If you handle grains well, fine, no one is forcing you to eat Paleo. But there are obviously a lot of people who don't handle grains well, and Paleo provides these people with both understanding of why and gives an alternative approach. I think that's at least very interesting, perhaps commendable...certainly not something that warrants vilification.
That sidesteps the whole issue Paleo people have with grains. Nutrition isn't just about meeting nutrient requirements in the positive sense. The whole beef Paleo people have with grains are the antinutritive effects of lectins, gluten, phytates, and so forth--consuming more veggies or other nutrient dense food does not simply "undo" the effects of these antinutrients. It is these characteristics (coupled with, yes, the relatively lower micronutrient content) that separate grains from other carb sources for Paleo people.
Like I said before, people have different tolerances for grains (though I would suspect problems can develop over time even in people who have no apparent ill effects from their grain consumption, but that's a separate discussion). If you handle grains well, fine, no one is forcing you to eat Paleo. But there are obviously a lot of people who don't handle grains well, and Paleo provides these people with both understanding of why and gives an alternative approach. I think that's at least very interesting, perhaps commendable...certainly not something that warrants vilification.
Since when are nuts a good source of carbs? Most veggies aren't a good source of carbs either. Judging from the rest of your post, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
The article is so terrible, I'm speechless. I'm hoping he has better articles than the one you linked. He's saying you don't need fiber? Why don't you go and ask Brock Lesnar how important fiber is. Or maybe just read a few studies about the importance of fiber in the diet.
Sure, it's true that you don't absolutely need grains in your diet, and there's nothing wrong with going Paleo if it works for you. You will survive. But as others have said, you can easily include grains in your diet while maintaining proper nutrition.
Grains also typically are easy on the budget as well. I'm surprised how often people overlook that.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 2,840
Let me remind you this whole conversation started with both of these quotes:
One quote is specifically telling athletes that they should not eat grains and the other is telling everyone to not eat grains at all. It's not saying, "Some people are intolerant of grains so those people should look to Paleo as an option".
So let's break it down - the reasons given against grains are as follows:
1. You don't need grains. They sure seem like a quick, easy, and source for carbs and calories for an athlete. Someone could say the same thing about red meat. Someone could say the same thing about fish. Someone could say the same thing about broccoli. You can meet your requirements without them, but does that mean you should avoid it?
2. Humans aren't tolerant of grains. There are tons of perfectly healthy people and athletes who have ate grains for years.
3. They have toxic anti-nutrients. One could make a similar claim about aspartame, but it doesn't hold much water. I would expect this type of paranoia from pussies who complain about the negative effects of bananas.
4. Some people can't tolerate them. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only valid reason. With that said, I don't think there are tons of people who can't tolerate them. That is to say I'm willing to bet many of the people going paleo are doing it because they are a sucker for marketing and hyperbole, not so much that they actually need to.
I really don't care to discuss it much further. I've made my stance pretty clear. I've also come to realize that most of the paleo crowd (not talking about anyone on this board) seem to be completely full of hyperbole, irrational, and emotional. I don't really give a shit if someone wants to eat paleo. I give a shit when people say, "You shouldn't be eating grains". Like I said, there are tons of athletes at the professional and olympic level that would beg to differ. But what the hell do they know? The runny nose 160 lbs nutrition guy banging away on his computer all day updating his blog probably knows better.
