>people still unironically eat carbohydrates >people still

Some guy posting bullshit on the internet.
OK

>>38099118
>bullshit

Literally everyone knows carbs are bad for you

They're literally cheap, intense fuel that gets converted to fat if you don't use it incredibly quickly

>>38099109
You keto faggots are almost as cancerous as vegans
Nobody whos clear in their head would cut out carbs completely. Thats some top level autism shit.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x550px

>>38099109
>mfw fruit evolved before humans

File: metabolic_pathways.png (66KB, 720x912px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 720x912px

>>38099109
ah yes, energy storage from plants and grasses, so new

>>38099790
try eating a wild banana or orange, Dumas

>>38099109
>brand new concept
>does not realize that you need carbs to keep your test high, otherwise your body goes into cortisol (stress modo) and reduce it

on the flip side, it is the best for cutting

http://ergo-log.com/exercise-and-low-carb-diet-combo-excellent-way-to-lose-weight.html

>about 20% more efficient for cutting

>>38099853
also to add:

>does not know that there advanced keto techniques like cyclical keto, where you load up carbs for weight lifting (because your muscles need it as much as protein)

>>38099853
you are an idiot

>>38099852
I eat wild fruit like berries from that I forage myself in the forest all summer. Hint: they are wild, not farmed, and contain simple sugars.

>>38099891
No you are, you are very dumb

https://www.anabolicmen.com/carbohydrates-testosterone/

I bet you wont even go through the links here that are tied to studies.

The low carb = low test thing is a truth.

I dare you to prove me otherwise with legit sources you mongoloid.

>>38099109

>people still don't realize that copious amounts of meat and deep green vegetables is literally all we need as human animals

Vegetables are carbohydrates you fucking retard. It's great that you started lifting last month and all but you should try to read more before you make yourself look like a moron.

>cheap, intense fuel that gets converted to fat if you don't use it incredibly quickly

Yeah, literally excess carbs will literally get literally converted to literal fat just like literally every other literal macronutrient

>>38099109
>>38099109
>people still deny that carbohydrates and simple sugars are (evolutionarily) a brand new concept for the human body and do not belong in our bodies
>Simple sugars do not belong in our bodies
Lol, you realise the D in DNA stands for deoxyribose, which is a monosaccharide, or "simple sugar".

File: 1440729864143.jpg (40KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x294px

>>38099109

Nobody is stupid enough to legitimately think you should cut out carbs for life, right?

>>38099958
anon, sugars truly do not really need to be in our body though. Carbs are enough. Those carbs get converted into sugar anyhow down the line.

But you can completely live without sugars though. There is no decrease in test without sugars as far as I know.

Though I have to admit, sugars can give you energy quickly. So perhaps some can use them strategically for sprinting or whatever.

But sugars are still the real devil.

this as well

http://ergo-log.com/live-12-percent-longer-on-a-low-glycaemic-diet.html

>>38099109

Leaving aside that anyone with the slightest knowledge of glycolysis or physiology in general knows that keto is idiotic, why do you retards defend it with this silly "paleo" argument? Even supposing your view of human evolution were right (a huge, unwarranted assumption), what makes you want to model your diet and lifestyle around a population with a life expectancy of <25 years? If you really think nature can take better care of you than humans can do you not go to the doctor either? Do you not wear a coat when it's cold out, because if nature had intended you to stay warm you would have evolved fur?

Honestly curious about the gymnastics you have to do to defend such terrible reasoning.

File: steps-involved-in-lipid-metabolism.png (49KB, 572x499px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 572x499px

>>38099976
CARBS

ARE

SUGARS

File: barefoot-running-research-2.jpg (39KB, 607x266px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 607x266px

>>38100131
the philosophy of paleo is not entirely untrue.

There are many small bits that say that some parts of us are extremely slow to evolve. That a hundred, even a thousand years as we have lived now is not enough for these ancient systems of flesh to adapt.

From carcinogenics, to pm 2.5 pollution, sugar water, even our sedentary lifestyle.

There are many of these things that lag behind. Or are just incompatible with many modern things.

The trick is figuring out which of these are like that.

>>38100155
but just of the low glygemic index, right?

Sugars being the highest, simple carbs come after that and as last are the complex carbs?

File: shitpost.jpg (45KB, 536x344px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 536x344px

>>38099109
>people still think carbs do ANYTHING besides bloat you and make you fat quick

I too enjoy having zero blood sugar and being unable to do anything more intense than shitpost all day.

Go do some heavy squats while on keto and tell me how that goes, after you regain consciousness.

>>38100131
>Leaving aside that anyone with the slightest knowledge of glycolysis or physiology in general knows that keto is idiotic, why do you retards defend it with this silly "paleo" argument?

Keto isn't paleo though.

>>38100226
keto kinda evolved from the sentiment of paleo people who thought that in the past we used to only mostly eat meat. Low carb, went to even lower carb.

File: asians and blacks.webm (712KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 600x338px

>>38100165

If you're going to go to the trouble of looking at how things interact with our present day biology, why bring up primitive humans at all? Whatever investigation you do to "figure out which things are like that" can replace

>muh distant ancestors

as an explanation entirely. For example, if high intake of simple sugars tends to interact negatively with our endocrine systems and cause diabetes, why not leave it at that? Tacking something on the end about cavemen not drinking pepsi adds nothing to the strength of that explanation. For every claim paleotards make, there is either

1. An explanation rooted in the physiology of modern humans, or
2. >fucking nothing

If you believe the claims in category 1 and not category 2, why bother with the paleo thing at all? Why deal with smoke and mirror buzzwords if biology and physiology are doing all the heavy lifting in your causal explanation anyway?

I personally get the impression that like OP, most paleo retards are not rejecting claims in category 2, and that's the problem.

>>38100173
complex carbohydrates are many sugars

>>38100248
Well that's fucking retarded. Meat is hard to catch.

>>38100287
>If you're going to go to the trouble of looking at how things interact with our present day biology, why bring up primitive humans at all? Whatever investigation you do to "figure out which things are like that" can replace

What part of "it takes time for the human to evolve and adapt" do you not understand?

primitive humans
>lived a really long ass time the same way (potentially thousands of years)

modern humans
>literally just a 100 years or so like this

Human biology, DNA cannot adapt so fast, we wont be able to grow wings in 100 years. That foot of yours wont drastically change in 100 years to accommodate new feet apparatus.

and there are a thousand different things like that who just need more time to evolve.

Human arrogance is not understanding their own biology and just throwing themselves off a cliff to see what works and what does not (hello asbestos)

>>38100294
shit, I have been living a lie. I have battled the sugars for so long, and the entire time, sugars were still nearly everything.

>>38099891
Le upBoatz for u my good sir

>>38100336

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. If primitive humans and modern humans have essentially identical biology (the result of slow evolution), why bring up the primitives at all?

>>38100469
No that is wrong, we are not the same like them.

There are changes, subtle ones from us to them.

Life is more complicated than you understand really.

Evolution is an ongoing process. Some things go extremely fast (like the 52% of us that are made out of bacteria), others go kinda slow (like our legs)

However, total knowledge of our internal systems, and how they interact with the world is limited, as science funding, research is tied to money, and it can often be flawed.

That is why people like to theorize to be on the safe side. Some people dont want to inhale a possible unknown asbestos. Or become dumber thanks to leaded gasoline.

File: 12.png (178KB, 920x516px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 920x516px

>>38099109
>carbohydrates [...] are a brand new concept for the human body and do not belong in our bodies

Nigger you're retarded

File: the-difference-between-humans-and-animals_50290a5b3e4f8_w1500.jpg (322KB, 1500x1060px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1500x1060px

>>38100530
here is a nice example

http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-throwing-evolved-into-humanitys-greatest-weapon-626239143

even between the races we kinda evolved differently.

That anon should really read more news articles.

>>38100530

Right, hence "essentially." So we have most things in common, and a few that aren't. How do we know the difference? We look at the biology. Since you can't know whether things are the same or not without actually doing experiments and checking, why not just explain things in empirical terms? We don't need to talk about primitive humans with respect to things like diet, because the process by which we explain THAT explanation is itself a superior explanation.

>>38100563
>no other animal is retarded enough to rationalize running forever (prey/predator)
except for the human being

>>38100568
The old type of man had more time to settle into his biology. Therefore he is good.

The new man does not have enough time to settle into his biology, therefore he makes more mistakes.

Dont mistake this for a simple nature fallacy anon. The rate at which DNA changes was more favorably aligned with the old type of man. That is why we sometimes take inspiration from him for that simple fact.

>So we have most things in common
You dont know which, and/or/if. Hense in the absence of evidence, we revert to a more stable lifestyle as it is the only way to maximize our odds for better success in judging how to live.

That is the whole philosophy behind paleo. I am not really sure what you are rambling on about though.

>>38099109

Well, no. SUGAR is bad, because it is literally addictive. While sugar is a type of carbohydrate, not all carbohydrates are bad.

>>38100568
Oh I get it now, your problem is that you dont realize that we need to fill the gap, with action.

We paleo tards realize more intricacies of life and how they may play out to be. We know more variables. While you are not aware of them yet.

Simply put, we encountered more bad things, and our pattern recognition told us "if there are bad things here, then perhaps there are bad things there"

Our drive towards paleo is simply a drive towards eliminating possible black swan events.

We cant just wait for science and research to catch up for everything. As we said, science is limited, and thus we must decide for ourselves with the best evidence that we have. And that is perhaps paleo lore.

>>38100629
>>38100598
things like this is what paleo tards are afraid off

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615

black swan events (google this term)

File: cozy pepe.gif (342KB, 666x386px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 666x386px

>>38100598
>>38100629

I'm about done rambling, I'm sorry. I'm complaining about a metatheoretical issue that doesn't concern you because you don't have a scientific or academic background, and would rather talk past and lecture better educated strangers. I'm foolish for expecting any other level of discourse on 4chan. I'll stop bothering you. Have a cozy pepe by way of apology.

File: 358w61h.png (37KB, 295x289px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 295x289px

>>38100629
>We cant just wait for science and research to catch up for everything.

>in 4 years
>we of the medical community have determined that the carbon cycle does not exist, and all previously known models of metabolism were 100% wrong
If you actually agree with this shit tier bait thread, you need to an hero asap

>>38100674
No I dont think you understand it really, or you are just not very eloquent in expressing yourself. Dont pretend that you are superior dude.

>>38100659
>http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615
thats a very rough correlation

Public programs increased in the 60-70
television played a bigger role (cultural influence?)

upcoming technology always creates new ways for crimes

to name a couple

It's a hard sale mate

File: PMC2749216_pone.0007233.g002.png (160KB, 447x824px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 447x824px

>>38100606
SUGARS are not bad

there are only two types of digestible carb, sugar and starch

>>38100716
Its what literally drove to the ban of leaded gasoline though. It was the decision of a whole nation. A whole world actually. I believe that they even did follow up studies and determined it to be a neurotoxin thingy.

Now imagine the thoughts of the paleo tards. If they see thousands of these kinds of legislation's, of these theories floating around. Some of them get thrown down, some of them get confirmed, some of them get debunked even later, or they get expanded upon and modified.

A normal person would only find chaos in all of this. Thus he will try to turn to a time where there was less chaos, less complexity in life. To the paleo man...

I am not saying if its bad or good this philosophy, I am just explaining how these people think so that you may understand it as well.

File: CXnDzNFWAAA70wX.jpg (33KB, 552x805px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 552x805px

>>38100674
>you because you don't have a scientific or academic background
Is this coming from the fucknut that is LITERALLY saying carbohydrates are bad for humans because science is wrong and says you need them?

You will never be proven correct, because your body is storing energy in the form of glucogen (a carbohydrate) as we fucking speak

>>38099109
>"Let us avoid anything that we are not adapted to right now"
>Evolution

Pick one.

This entire "If we didn't eat it 25k yrs ago, we shouldn't eat it now"-meme is getting so fucking stale.

File: 2ITONiX.jpg (159KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1080x1920px

>>38099109
Keto is great for rapid weight loss and subsequent rapid weight gain.

Keto is also great at killing your liver.

If you're in a weight loss competition you can win it with keto but it's not a realistic sustainable diet.

eliminating sugar on the other hand is.

Enjoy ypur stunted growth mr keto manlet

>>38100804
the problem however is that we dont entirely know what we ate 25k years ago. There is also some evidence that we did eat that a long time ago.

On the other end, our extended scientific lore as shown

>>38100732
>>38100155

tells us that we indeed are adapted for it, that its extremely important for us even.

So the paleo tards tried to go the right way with "let us avoid anything that we are not adapted to right now", but didnt know what the "right now" is.

If they did know, they would have eaten carbs.

>>38100659
That's retarded, no one on keto drinks petrol.

>>38099891
NOT AN ARGUMENT

NOT AN ARGUMENT AT ALL

>>38100732
Pure, white, and lethal? Sugar is the neo nazi of foods. Just look at how many blacks and pajeets die from the beetus.

>>38100829
>mfw
>4 years into keto
>grew two inches at age 32

Must be the hormones in meat.

>>38100849
similar thing can be said of milk, coincidence? I think not.

>>38100869
Congrats you're finally 5'6 ya fucking manlet retard

Lmao

4 years

Kys

>>38100835
>the problem however is that we dont entirely know what we ate 25k years ago

Yeah, I supposed this to be a given, due to this conversation being held over and over again. But to extend on that point: "Paleo" describes a period of several hundred thousand years. There are no recordings that go all the way back, what we have are some cave paintings and living sites of Sapiens, Cro-Magnon etc, which provide some evidence on what was going on food-wise, but most of it is a deduction based on human physiology and the flora & fauna of the period.
It's probably smarter to look back a hundred years and see what farmers cultivated back then, how their work routine, diet, health issues etc. looked like to deduce what could be healthy for us right now.

>>38100886
Yea perhaps, before the industrial revolution, before the complicated chaos started to arise. It probably would be a better data point than some obscure, hard to find evidence of 25k ago.

it might even calm down some of the more nuttier paleo tards. Though I have to admit, I was one of them. It is always easy to become to overzealotlike over certain things. Most humans have this autism.

Though I will never consume the sugary devil.

What you fags don't get is that for 99% of recorded history people mainly ate grains and fruit, meat was a rarity. Yes, even cavement didn't eat much meat because they would have to hunt it. Also throughout history most people were manlets, died at 40 from simple fevers and probably weren't 1/3rd as strong as modern people.

It's sugar that fucks your shit up, every diet where sugar is a staple(i'm looking at you america) people get fat as fatass. Eat your meat, your fish, your vegetables and nice good carbs like rice and oats.

Eskimos have an all meat diet and they don't look particularly good to me.

File: sanic.png (1MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x480px

>>38099109
>what is muscle glycogen?

>>38100931
Some anon argued that we used to consume sugar in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sugar#Sugar_cultivation_in_the_New_World

but didnt became fat because of it. That sugar used to be a popular staple in food back then.

I am not entirely sure of this though.

(personally, I am mostly avoiding the sugar because of the HFCS thing, and because I felt actual noticeable effects from candida, also sugar is directly linked to Alzheimer increases) (I think that the more extreme versions of sugar are actually the the bad things, but a large amount of sugar, beyond a daily 20 grams for a healthy person is also a cause)

Still though, if you dont need immediate energy, I like to be on the safe side and not consume it. Sugar is tied to many variables that make people fat and there is no need to risk it if carbs are a less harmful version of it.

>>38099109
I'm keto as fuck. I only eat carbs ironically.

>>38099905
>all summer

He admitted it lads pack it up.

>>38100983
When i mention sugar i mean processed white sugar. People always craved sweet foods like honey and fruits, but those didn't fuck their shit up because they didn't consume a shitton of them. Sugar was known to europe from the times of the crusades , but it was extremely expensive.

Another variable that we may not have thought about is this perhaps

>because we are evolving, we can choose which food we could exploit most (and teach to our children what to eat)
>even though it will probably take thousands of years, we now have the choice to what we should consume, so that our future generations may benefit from it
>ancient man chose both meat and plants

>>38099109
Why do people always say carb deliver nutrition(protein) into muscle?

File: image_25.jpg (40KB, 648x430px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 648x430px

>>38099891
LITERALLY BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

Wtf I hate keto now

>>38101018
Yea that is perhaps why people have been getting fatter, the expensiveness of it perhaps correlated to the rarity of it in nature. Through economics.

But today nations like russia are fat as hell, even though they did not have the same HFCS trends as the US did.

They did however have cheap sweets.

So perhaps, if people dont want to be fat, they have to manually adjust their food cravings in the most extreme way possible. By completely abstaining from it.

That perhaps in the vain hope that whatever neuron parts in the brain are responsible for sugar cravings, die down, shrink (with the hope that they are at least malleable like that, because neurons, your consciousness, behavior is one of the few things that you can adapt yourself without DNA manipulation)

File: 1468658302001.jpg (105KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x500px

>berries

Anyways the sane approach is to adjust carbs based on activity level.

>>38101077
also overhyped, but potentially relevant link related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQr5PMSqkSk

(take it with a grain of salt, but it does have some truth to it, to what extent is unknown however. The video is basically half sponsored by a corp, so half a truth most likely)

>>38100131
It's purely based on an idealised recreation of primitive humans, so paleo=marketing: it's interesting that I find that the same kind of people who follow paleo also tend to gravitate towards crossfit.

>>38101201
Well what does the rest of the people want to call itself who follow this trend a bit?

>reasonable time for evolution and least risk attainment ology?

wtf i hate carbs now

>>38099109
>people still deny that carbohydrates and simple sugars are (evolutionarily) a brand new concept for the human body

Yeah man, our distant ancestors would never have eaten fruit (like most of our closest relatives among the primates do).

Yeah, refined sugars without fiber are relatively new to us. Living off of grains is likely far newer than eating meat and greens. The copious amounts of sugar people eat these days is something the body still has no real way of dealing with. But carbohydrates don't belong in our bodies? The fuck outta here.

Paleofags are almost as bad as vegans. Why don't you tell us about the benefits of Crossfit and vaping next?

>>38101221
*ketofags, not paleofags
Though they can be just as annoying

>>38100165
Is that barefoot runner flat-footed

keto is reddit tier shake my head famalams

>>38101301
it literally says so on the picture, the right side is the one without shoes.

File: 1464810930585.jpg (35KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 633x758px

>>38101340
I don't think you understood my question

>>38101359
oooh, shit you are right. Well I have no idea then.

>>38099109

Carbohydrates will be broken into glucose by salivary and pancreatic amylase, glucose can also come from the breakdown of amino acids.

If you've graduated highschool you should know that glucose is necessary for the start of cellular metabolism (Glycolysis) which then feeds the rest of cellular metabolism. Without glucose, you're dead.

Since glucose can come from either the breakdown of proteins or carbs, you should have enough carb intake so that your body doesn't start cannibalizing your muscles for sugar.

If your carb intake is sufficiently high, or if your blood glucose levels are sufficiently high (they're basically the same thing) your body starts dumping sugar as glycogen in the liver. Once glycogen stores are sufficiently high, sugars start to be converted into fat.

In other words, eat a balanced diet and don't overeat and you should be fine. What a novel and surprising idea.

>>38102005
The average person doesn't do enough physical activity to warrant the amount of carbs that the average person consumes a day.

File: J6zbA.gif (96KB, 728x426px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 728x426px

>>38102058
That doesn't mean you shouldn't eat them at all.

>>38102103
The average sedentary person who doesn't think too much honestly doesn't need as much as they think.

File: 1468397352634.jpg (233KB, 541x458px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 541x458px

>>38099109
>implying humans are naturally meet eaters

>>38099852
>Dumas

Alexander?

Guarantee you that you're a fat fuck who just started trying to lose weight with keto.

Keto is literally only useful for losing weight .

>>38102243
Stupid weeb kys

if youve had trouble leaning into a sixpack, the meat/greens diet will melt that abfat off

can you make gains on a paleo style diet tho? no one truly huge is off carbs are they

File: b8.png (54KB, 319x315px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 319x315px

>>38099541

File: 3d4.jpg (20KB, 396x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 396x400px

>>38102243
>implying vegetarianism is a better alternative to eating meat

>>38102138
>who doesn't think too much
>think too much
if this isn't bait kys

>>38102335
>no one truly huge is off carbs are they
True, but most of your macro intake doesn't go to building tissue. The majority of it is converted to energy.

Yeah, you need plenty of protein to build a lot of muscle. But you can still have plenty of carbs and be big/ripped, so long as you're not consuming so many calories that you're storing it as fat, and you're getting enough protein.

File: gluc-fruc.jpg (62KB, 673x534px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 673x534px

>>38099832
this ones better

>>38102370
>implying vegetarianism is a better alternative to eating meat

Meh, you can easily hit all your macros and get all your micronutrients from a vegetarian diet. It just isn't as common, since most people aren't veggie, and many vegetarians/vegans are in it for the feels instead of the gains.

It's less complicated to just eat meat, but to each their own, as long as they are taking care of themselves.

>>38102411
kys

>>38102435
Well, you've thoroughly disproven my point and are clearly not some wannabe-Chad level idiot.

I take it all back.

File: 29991887.png (283KB, 685x793px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 685x793px

>>38099127

>hey're literally cheap, intense fuel that gets converted to fat if you don't use it incredibly quickly

It's hard to turn carbs into body fat, especially compared to dietary fat.

It doesn't even make sense that this is peoples' explanation of "carbs make you fat." It gets stored as fat if you don't use it quickly? Well what if you're still under the amount of calories your body requires for maintenance that day? If you're in a caloric surplus, all macros will lead to fat gain

>>38102411
>Meh, you can easily hit all your macros and get all your micronutrients from a vegetarian diet.
Easy as shit when you're taking 4 supplements a day.

Any diet that restricts entire food groups is stupid.
The only moderately justifiable diet that excludes livestock is pescatarian.

>>38102542

>Any diet that restricts entire food groups is stupid.

Why?

>>38099109
What do you think "deep green vegetables" are? Fat? Protein? No, mostly carbs.

I agree that simple sugars are probably best avoided, at least in large quantities, but you're gonna be eating some fucking carbohydrates.

>>38099109
So I see you don't do any cardio.

>>38102463
Kys

>>38099852
Why not you, D'Artagnan?

would /fit/ mostly agree that the most important predictors for a satiating, adequate diet could be dietary fiber, protein and water intake?

>>38100165

One of the dumber things about paleo is that it takes evolution of any specific thing as a given and pretends that evolution has a specific goal in mind that will definitely play out if enough time has passed. You can go millions of years without an evolutionary change if the selection pressures aren't there, and not everything we encounter requires a fundemental change in our biology for millions of years to adapt to.

>>38102542
>Easy as shit when you're taking 4 supplements a day.
Maybe for vegans, but you can get all your micronutrients on a vegetarian diet pretty easily.

>>38102542
>Any diet that restricts entire food groups is stupid.
The restriction is what makes their lives more complicated, but restricting meat alone does not restrict you from any particular vitamin, mineral, or macro. And that is what your body is processing. Your body doesn't care where it is getting its nutrients, so long as it is getting everything it needs.

If someone caught feelz for animals and wants to not eat them, but still takes care of themselves and gets everything they need, good for them. If you got a problem with their diet, even if they make sure their diet is complete and keeping them fit, that would be 100% your problem.

>>38100629

>As we said, science is limited, and thus we must decide for ourselves with the best evidence that we have

But the best evidence we have says the paleo diet is fadshit

>>38102626
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/295051.php
Don't make me drag the Google search for "balanced diet" to you for something you were taught in primary school.

>>38100594

except humans did this to catch prey they couldn't instantly catch. It's called persistence hunting and was used mostly by early humans.

So it was rationalized and not retarded. unfortunately, you are retarded. :(

>>38102764
variables, my most favorite word. What you say can be true. For some things perhaps, perhaps not to whole organisms either. Some parts of the body may change only. Some organisms also dont change at all. Like those crab things on the sea.

But we do change. We can even force the change upon ourselves since we now have enough brainpower to do so.

The trouble is that we didnt have a clear record for these millions of years. We dont even fully understand how our body works. What role bacteria play with it for example (extremely important in food), and those bastards change a lot. They can create lactose tolerance, they can allow you to drink raw milk. They can allow you to digest seaweed.

Perhaps thanks to this sugary laden diet that we have now, evolution will squeeze out those who are tolerant to it in a while.

But who cares lol.

The problem with any ideology is the lack of knowing many variables. Some people get tunnel vision and forget important ones, like time and location as well. Reality is a giant mathematical formula and if you lack one variable you may never be able to calculate the solution.

>>38102816

That says nothing about food groups, that's about getting all your micronutrients, which you can do while cutting out some foods.

>>38102787
the paleo diet mainly got popular because people on it lost weight, but the biggest thing with it was quite simple. No soda's and sugary things.

The rest didnt matter as much.

>>38102848
Literally just Google pescatarian vs vegetarian

>>38102847

What do you think of this argument?

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/

Maybe the miocene diet > the paleo diet

>>38102879

The thing you just linked doesn't talk about food groups and excluding or eating every type of food, just getting nutrients from a balanced diet, which they describe as a diet that gives you the nutrients you need, and may even include supplements. What are you trying to twist that into?

>>38102883
I think that the main question that I posed

>which bodily systems have evolved at which speed to which substances

pretty much makes everything null in those arguments. Since there is no evidence for or against these things. (comparison to teeth, digestive tracks, present bacteria, to wolves and other carnivores also improve this argument)

The dude also seems to grasp for straws a bit, not knowing what the correlation/causation may be. If humans as a whole are now susceptible to heart disease, is it because all of them eat shitty food with additives?

The dude does not seem like he has a control group.

Were the people who ate meat a 100 years ago before the industrial revolution also with the same rates? Do we have data of that time? Are there perhaps control groups in third/second world nations who only eat organic stuff that they grow/kill themselves?

He mentions africa, but there are also tribes who just as happily eat meat and fish who are probably also healthy.

Just as the paleo tards, he also has a very narrow view (dogma) for his idea.

Simply put, lack of evidence for multiple variables I would say.

>>38099109

Not a ketofag, but I agree. Carbs in moderation are good before liftan or runnan. dont be a dumbo yah dingus

>>38102883
>we dont know if meat was eaten, or if grains were eaten at that time
>but we for a certainty know that people only lived until 25 years old!

what, is it also a guess using skeletons? What if the old people had weird death rituals and only the young were brave enough to die somewhere where their bones were easily found?

>>38103017

He's working off the fact that meat, particularly the saturated fat and cholesterol in meat, raises our blood cholesterol levels and makes us susceptible to heart disease. His explanation for why we haven't evolved to prevent this even after millions of years with meat in our diets is interesting. The reasoning is sort of the opposite of paleo reasoning. Using evolutionary theory to explain modern observations, rather than starting with the theory and then trying to gather evidence.

>>38103134
>>38103134
well I can get it where you are coming from

http://ergo-log.com/live-12-percent-longer-on-a-low-glycaemic-diet.html

>>38103156
but this thing was tested on mice...

>>38103156
>>38103134
there is also the variable of omega 6...so I wonder, organic meats, clean diet, care for omega 3 etc. How would that pan out I wonder.

oh right, my trusty resource

https://examine.com/topics/HDL-C

>>38103186
>RECENT FINDINGS:

The lack of connection between heart disease and egg intake could partially be explained by the fact that dietary cholesterol increases the concentrations of both circulating LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol in those individuals who experience an increase in plasma cholesterol following egg consumption (hyperresponders).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340654

to start off with.

>>38103186

Omega-6 and lack of organic status doesn't raise your cholesterol so that doesn't really address the point.

>>38103197
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11023005

> These data help explain the epidemiological studies showing that dietary cholesterol is not related to coronary heart disease incidence or mortality across or within populations.

>>38103225
>>38103197
>>38103186
so yea, no reason to become a vegetarian.

HOLY SHIT THOSE ARMS
Is she natty?

>>38103197

>Fernandez ML

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-cholesterol-size-matter/

>>38103225

>click "author information"
>Egg Nutrition Center, Washington, DC 20036, USA

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/2/334.full

File: hqdefault.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>38099109
Dude doesn't want to reup glycogen used during exercise...

File: IMG_20160729_212951.jpg (375KB, 1440x1969px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1440x1969px

There is literally nothing wrong with carbs.

>>38103294

>fudge, donuts, and ice cream

Looks like he's fat-loading

>>38103246
interesting, but there are many sources in examine.com. So does nutritionfacts.com may have some. But are there specific research pieces that link to this hypothesis that I may read through?

>>38103301
was thinking the same
i actually think carb loading can be useful for certain activities, but this is just a dumb way to attempt it

>>38103301

>Donut
>Sugars
>Baked goods

>Not all carbs

>>38103349

m8 his tdee is probably 6000 calories

File: Cake_Doughnut_(chocolate_icing%26sprinkles)[1].gif (69KB, 1204x2604px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1204x2604px

>>38103374

Most junk food is fatty as fuck, many times even more fat calories than sugar calories. Fat + sugar tastes better than just dry sugar.

>most research on LDL and HDL cholesterol has shit sample groups who eat like the normies, like shit
>or who are young
>or who have something else wrong with them

So I wonder, a research that has old people in it. That are on a good diet. Does such a narrow and specific research piece exist?

Just to amuse me vegetarian dude. I am interested now.

>>38103439
and then are things like that buried in the comments.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538567/

So I wonder, vegetarianism cuckery vs corporate greedery? Which one is at play here? Is it both perhaps?

>>38103433
Kys

>>38103439

Are you saying the research linking elevated cholesterol concentrations to heart disease is based on "shit sample groups" and "normies"? It's been experimentally demonstrated in every animal species ever tested, including fish, birds, primates, and cats

>>38103472
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15721501
>1Yale Prevention Research Center, 130 Division Street, Derby, CT 06418, USA. [email protected]


>Short-term egg consumption does not adversely affect endothelial function in healthy adults, supporting the view that dietary cholesterol may be less detrimental to cardiovascular health than previously thought.

Yea, there seem to be too many pieces out there for simple payed research. Dietary cholesterol seems to be real cool bean.

>>38103513
Yeah but I bet those birds were normies!

>>38103472

And other meta-analysis find other conclusions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23643053

The individual studies are important to consider in a meta-analysis. It's easy to lose associations with bad study design.

>>38103513
I dont see any research links to your thing. There are plenty for HDL, dietary cholesterol being okay though.

File: 117199918.png (372KB, 1980x1002px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1980x1002px

>>38103520

You have to read between the lines especially when you're dealing with research funded by the industry that profits from it

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-arterial-function/

>almost as bad as vegans

Can I just note that vegans are depriving themselves of something they like in order to avoid participation in cruelty and unnecessary environmental destruction.

Keto/paleo fags are flagrantly misunderstanding both anthropology and physiology in an attempt to make themselves less fat (because they are all fat). And they do this by "I know, eat unlimited amounts of what I already like to eat"

>>38103531
ah there we go.

>>38103535

This page has a lot

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/may/travis.htm

>>38103531
paywall though, a shame, most pro and anti are paywall.

>>38103574
Indeed, its a shame its so late, its nice to read through. There hasnt really been a consensus here on /fit/ about it though, at least I havent seen one yet being made here. I am kinda out of my league here so anyone else wants to tap in? Otherwise a lot of this does make sense and it seems that there is also evidence. Though also pro. Very hard to tell who is right here.

>>38103654
>yfw you realize that it could be as easy as just buying a cholesterol meter

>>38103683
Would that make examine.com corporate shit though?

>>38102370
enjoy your colorectal cancer m8

so what is it? Is there a consensus there or not on this dietary fat? Pretty big amount of names being pro, but it seems also a pretty big amount being anti (even seems like some reasonable evidence)

It is also seems fairly easy to test out if a bunch of us bought cholesterol meters and tested ourselves out.

Why hasnt this been done yet though?

It seems rather strange, even such a large company like coca cola didnt manage to outmarket their garbage being healthy, and they are probably bigger than the egg industry?

So whats the deal with eggs?

>>38103853
>go through the comments of the nutritionfacts video's
>its just one giant shitflinging show

jesus, all it takes is a couple of cholesterol meters does it not? How has this not been settled yet? Is it truly a vegetarian crusade? Or is it an industry protection racket?

>>38104131
>have to factor in HDL cholesterol and testosterone as well

neat

>>38102243
I eet meet all the time

>>38102243
Considering that humans are capable of digesting meat without any major issues (that includes raw, granted our gut systems have developed to prefer cooked), it means that we are naturally meat eaters.
Now being natural does not necessarily mean something is good, but the correct quantity of meat consumption is a different argument altogether

>>38102005
No. Enjoy your beetus.

Do you people even realize we produce sugar through gluconeogenesis from some amino acids and glycerol?

Nerve cells and RBC's require glucose to survive. Ketogenesis can provide some of the energy but not enough

Source: I am a biochemist

>>38102464
carbs is literally the first thing that gets turned into body fat because it digests much faster than dietary fat, retard.

>>38105099
This
But that doesn't make carbs bad. Your brain literally needs carbs.

>>38102826
>was used mostly by early humans
we don't actually know that, its just an assumption because a few tribes in africa do it that way

File: 1469206213520.png (218KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 640x480px

>>38105099
>>38105155
>Study literally says the conversion to fat is insignificant for carbs
>/fit/ argues against the image, completely ignoring that it states this
>/fit/ is exactly the fucking same as tumblr