Food Pyramid Is A Pyramid Scam (or how USDA poisons you)

Caloric excess is caloric excess, nobody ever got obese from eating carbs within their caloric needs.
You should stop making absolute statements like this, unless you're going to provide some sort of source to back them up.

You're not even giving anecdotes like colorles.
 
My source is my own body. Merely removing the bread solved a wealth of health issues I had.
If you replaced its calories with literally anything, even just an occasional fruit, there's a good chance it wasn't that you were eating bread but instead were not eating enough non-bread things. Even if it was from eating bread, there's such a wide variety of metabolic abnormalities cascading into health problems from specific ingredients being handled wrong that it's more likely a "you" problem than the modern world somehow having toxified the ingredients for bread.

Ever been checked for a gluten intolerance, for a start?

And you know what sugar does to human body.
Gives it raw energy to run, but not much else? It's simply that high-carb food items tend to have fuck-all micronutrients, resulting in massively exaggerated appetites to make up for it or assorted issues of malnutrition when one can't. It is not that carbs are actively bad, it's that high-carb foods rarely have a wide range of what's needed.

Even the most bitterly impoverished medieval peasant would rarely develop scurvy on land, clearly indicating that despite cheap staple foods generally being carb-rich nutrient-poor caloric bulk they still ate other things that had vitamin C. The importance of the potato being an outlier here is difficult to overstate.
 
You should stop making absolute statements like this, unless you're going to provide some sort of source to back them up.

You're not even giving anecdotes like colorles.
Go ahead, show me someone who gains weight while eating too few calories.
Protip: You cannot, as it'd break the laws of physics as we know them

So unless some humans are cursed with miniature singularities inside of themselves, the absolute statements are true.
 
Go ahead, show me someone who gains weight while eating too few calories.
Protip: You cannot, as it'd break the laws of physics as we know them

So unless some humans are cursed with miniature singularities inside of themselves, the absolute statements are true.

Not unless the singularity is of stupidity. It would explain a few political movements out there. :p
 
Go ahead, show me someone who gains weight while eating too few calories.
Protip: You cannot, as it'd break the laws of physics as we know them

So unless some humans are cursed with miniature singularities inside of themselves, the absolute statements are true.
Was your post intended as a retort to colorles statement, or was it meant to be a statement taken in complete isolation?
 
If you replaced its calories with literally anything, even just an occasional fruit, there's a good chance it wasn't that you were eating bread but instead were not eating enough non-bread things. Even if it was from eating bread, there's such a wide variety of metabolic abnormalities cascading into health problems from specific ingredients being handled wrong that it's more likely a "you" problem than the modern world somehow having toxified the ingredients for bread.
Yeah, that is bullshit. As a matter of fact, more things I eliminated, the better my health got.

Removing bread was the biggest improvement, but removing vegetables and fruit also improved my health. So no, it wasn't "lack of non-bread things" that was an issue. It was too much carb-heavy foods that was an issue.

And if grains are not an issue, explain this:
Rise+in+US+Overwight+Obsetity+Coincides+with+DGA.png

grain-products-intake-USDA-Food-Guide-Pyramid.jpg

Ever been checked for a gluten intolerance, for a start?
You are aware that gluten intolerance test doesn't actually exist, right?
Gives it raw energy to run, but not much else? It's simply that high-carb food items tend to have fuck-all micronutrients, resulting in massively exaggerated appetites to make up for it or assorted issues of malnutrition when one can't. It is not that carbs are actively bad, it's that high-carb foods rarely have a wide range of what's needed.
Yeah, literally everything you have written here is wrong from A to Z.

Carbohydrates are literally sugar molecules. The only difference is that what we normally call "sugar" are really simple sugars, while carbohydrates are complex sugars. But these complex molecules are broken down into simple sugars during the digestive process, so it makes little difference whether you are eating carbs or eating white sugar straight from the store package. You see, human body cannot actually utilize carbohydrates - the only way to use carbs is to turn them into sugar.

And there is a host of things sugar does to human body regardless of what other nutrients may or may not be present in the food:
  1. Screws up hunger signals. These are based on blood sugar, and since sugar is quickly absorbed and turned into blood sugar, your blood sugar goes on a rollercoaster ride. You eat sugary food (including carbohydrates here), and you will feel hungry at most few hours later no matter how much you ate.
  2. Causes insulin resistance. High blood sugar can be lethal, which then causes human body to release insulin in order to get the sugar TFO of the blood and into fat cells. This by the way is what causes cravings, as rapid drop in blood sugar due to insulin causes lack of sugar in blood and thus hunger. Thing is, if you do this day-in day-out, your body gets adopted to insulin just the way it would to any drug - and besides, cells can't process infinite amounts of sugar.
  3. And this leads to diabetes. Diabetes is literally just insulin resistance due to high sugar food. And you can essentially cure it by throwing out all sugars and carbohydrates (so strict ketogenic diet).
  4. Heart and other blood system diseases. It is sugar that causes inflammatory response which in turn leads to arterial calcification. This in turn leads to stuff such as heart attack, brain attack (stroke) and so on.
  5. Suppresses immune system. High amount of blood sugar acts as immune suppressant, which makes you more susceptible to disease and allergies. And since sugar also feeds e.g. cancer cells, this means that people eating high-carbohydrate diets are more susceptible not just to infectious diseases, but to cancer as well. Lastly, sugar screwing with the immune system leads to autoimmune disorders, most often manifesting as inflammation.
  6. Liver damage. Liver is the primary organ that processes sugar, and thus major influx of sugar can overload it - and over long periods of time, cause liver damage. Liver cirrhosis is in fact more often caused by sugar than by alcohol.
  7. Kidney damage. High blood sugar can damage blood vessels in kidneys, and this leads to general kidney damage.
Or you can read this list by an actual nutritionist:

Or watch these videos:


Even the most bitterly impoverished medieval peasant would rarely develop scurvy on land, clearly indicating that despite cheap staple foods generally being carb-rich nutrient-poor caloric bulk they still ate other things that had vitamin C. The importance of the potato being an outlier here is difficult to overstate.
Yeah, and yet again, literally everything you have written is wrong.

Medieval peasants were not "bitterly impoverished" - at least not in the terms of the food they ate. In fact, their diet was significantly superior to what 99% of Westerners today eat. Medieval peasants ate a wide range of foods, including a lot of meat and eggs. And fresh meat actually fulfills all of body's needs for vitamin C - hence why Inuits don't get scurvy. Royal Navy had an issue with scurvy because most of the meat available on long voyages was salted meet, which had lost basically all of its vitamins. Further, medieval peasants actually didn't eat that much grains at all - their primary food were various stews of meat and vegetables, supplemented by massive quantities of cheese as well as lot of eggs.

That is literally opposite of "carb-rich nutrient-poor". In fact, Medieval peasant's diet was closer to being "nutrient-rich carb-poor", though they obviously didn't eliminate carbs.

And potato has nothing to do with medieval diet at all.
Go ahead, show me someone who gains weight while eating too few calories.
Protip: You cannot, as it'd break the laws of physics as we know them

So unless some humans are cursed with miniature singularities inside of themselves, the absolute statements are true.
Person can be underweight and fat though. In fact in some cases body will start metabolizing muscle mass long before it begins to metabolize fat.

So unless this is your ideal body:
christian-bale-photo-u115


Mere calorie restriction is not an answer to obesity. And it definitely is not an answer to an unhealthy diet, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that is bullshit. As a matter of fact, more things I eliminated, the better my health got.

Removing bread was the biggest improvement, but removing vegetables and fruit also improved my health. So no, it wasn't "lack of non-bread things" that was an issue. It was too much carb-heavy foods that was an issue.

And if grains are not an issue, explain this:
Rise+in+US+Overwight+Obsetity+Coincides+with+DGA.png

grain-products-intake-USDA-Food-Guide-Pyramid.jpg


You are aware that gluten intolerance test doesn't actually exist, right?

Yeah, literally everything you have written here is wrong from A to Z.

Carbohydrates are literally sugar molecules. The only difference is that what we normally call "sugar" are really simple sugars, while carbohydrates are complex sugars. But these complex molecules are broken down into simple sugars during the digestive process, so it makes little difference whether you are eating carbs or eating white sugar straight from the store package. You see, human body cannot actually utilize carbohydrates - the only way to use carbs is to turn them into sugar.

And there is a host of things sugar does to human body regardless of what other nutrients may or may not be present in the food:
  1. Screws up hunger signals. These are based on blood sugar, and since sugar is quickly absorbed and turned into blood sugar, your blood sugar goes on a rollercoaster ride. You eat sugary food (including carbohydrates here), and you will feel hungry at most few hours later no matter how much you ate.
  2. Causes insulin resistance. High blood sugar can be lethal, which then causes human body to release insulin in order to get the sugar TFO of the blood and into fat cells. This by the way is what causes cravings, as rapid drop in blood sugar due to insulin causes lack of sugar in blood and thus hunger. Thing is, if you do this day-in day-out, your body gets adopted to insulin just the way it would to any drug - and besides, cells can't process infinite amounts of sugar.
  3. And this leads to diabetes. Diabetes is literally just insulin resistance due to high sugar food. And you can essentially cure it by throwing out all sugars and carbohydrates (so strict ketogenic diet).
  4. Heart and other blood system diseases. It is sugar that causes inflammatory response which in turn leads to arterial calcification. This in turn leads to stuff such as heart attack, brain attack (stroke) and so on.
  5. Suppresses immune system. High amount of blood sugar acts as immune suppressant, which makes you more susceptible to disease and allergies. And since sugar also feeds e.g. cancer cells, this means that people eating high-carbohydrate diets are more susceptible not just to infectious diseases, but to cancer as well. Lastly, sugar screwing with the immune system leads to autoimmune disorders, most often manifesting as inflammation.
  6. Liver damage. Liver is the primary organ that processes sugar, and thus major influx of sugar can overload it - and over long periods of time, cause liver damage. Liver cirrhosis is in fact more often caused by sugar than by alcohol.
  7. Kidney damage. High blood sugar can damage blood vessels in kidneys, and this leads to general kidney damage.
Or you can read this list by an actual nutritionist:

Or watch this video:


Yeah, and yet again, literally everything you have written is wrong.

Medieval peasants were not "bitterly impoverished" - at least not in the terms of the food they ate. In fact, their diet was significantly superior to what 99% of Westerners today eat. Medieval peasants ate a wide range of foods, including a lot of meat and eggs. And fresh meat actually fulfills all of body's needs for vitamin C - hence why Inuits don't get scurvy. Royal Navy had an issue with scurvy because most of the meat available on long voyages was salted meet, which had lost basically all of its vitamins. Further, medieval peasants actually didn't eat that much grains at all - their primary food were various stews of meat and vegetables, supplemented by massive quantities of cheese as well as lot of eggs.

That is literally opposite of "carb-rich nutrient-poor". In fact, Medieval peasant's diet was closer to being "nutrient-rich carb-poor", though they obviously didn't eliminate carbs.

And potato has nothing to do with medieval diet at all.

Person can be underweight and fat though. In fact in some cases body will start metabolizing muscle mass long before it begins to metabolize fat.

So unless this is your ideal body:
christian-bale-photo-u115


Mere calorie restriction is not an answer to obesity. And it definitely is not an answer to an unhealthy diet, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

I think people are getting confused about some things.

It's a matter of fact that calorie deficit means you lose weight, while surplus means you gain.

That doesn't always mean FAT loss. And it doesn't mean you aren't losing muscle. You're always going to lose some muscle when you cut weight, but you can minimize that by getting enough protein and resistance training. (Exception for people with no previous resistance training. They'll be able to lose fat and build muscle at the same time for a while)

It's important to hit the 3 micronutrients, carbs, protein and fat.

I personally went 9 months with less than 10-15 carbs a day, all animal fats and protein (carnivore diet.) I lost a good chunk of weight, and felt pretty good, and not hungry.

But then I started working in more carbs, and I felt SO MUCH better. If I don't over-do it. If I over do it I feel sluggish, bloated and tired.

So these days I'll have a cup of Oats mixed with whey, a little milk and some syrup for flavor, along with My two sausage patties and 6 eggs for breakfast. And I'll throw in something with carbs for dinner, like potatoes, rice or pasta. Lunch is usually just a meat and a low carb vegetable for filler.

My athletic performance and energy levels are just plain better with carbs. But the 8 months without them taught me how much less I really needed than I previously thought.

All 3 micronutrients are an important part of a balanced diet. But the standard American diet is WAY too carb heavy and fat averse.
 
I think people are getting confused about some things.

It's a matter of fact that calorie deficit means you lose weight, while surplus means you gain.

That doesn't always mean FAT loss. And it doesn't mean you aren't losing muscle. You're always going to lose some muscle when you cut weight, but you can minimize that by getting enough protein and resistance training. (Exception for people with no previous resistance training. They'll be able to lose fat and build muscle at the same time for a while)

It's important to hit the 3 micronutrients, carbs, protein and fat.

I personally went 9 months with less than 10-15 carbs a day, all animal fats and protein (carnivore diet.) I lost a good chunk of weight, and felt pretty good, and not hungry.

But then I started working in more carbs, and I felt SO MUCH better. If I don't over-do it. If I over do it I feel sluggish, bloated and tired.

So these days I'll have a cup of Oats mixed with whey, a little milk and some syrup for flavor, along with My two sausage patties and 6 eggs for breakfast. And I'll throw in something with carbs for dinner, like potatoes, rice or pasta. Lunch is usually just a meat and a low carb vegetable for filler.

My athletic performance and energy levels are just plain better with carbs. But the 8 months without them taught me how much less I really needed than I previously thought.

All 3 micronutrients are an important part of a balanced diet. But the standard American diet is WAY too carb heavy and fat averse.
If you need carbs, fruits are a far better choice than grains as they don't contain most of the antinutrients that grains do. And as I said, carbs are not a biological necessity: body can use fat for fuel directly.

BTW:
 
If you need carbs, fruits are a far better choice than grains as they don't contain most of the antinutrients that grains do. And as I said, carbs are not a biological necessity: body can use fat for fuel directly.

BTW:
So I've ran ketogenic diets many times.

I used to compete in sports that required making weight, so a quick and easy way to cut, was keto diets.

Also, the whole carnivore diet I told you about. Also did whole30 and was getting few enough carbs there that it ended up being a keto diet.

For me, they're a great, relatively easy way to lose weight that doesn't leave me feeling like i'm starving.

But is ABSOLUTELY negatively effects my athletic performance. If I want to perform at my best, I need 100-150 grams of carbs a day. Even when I am fully adapted to the ketogenic diet, there is still a noticeable performance hit.

Different bodies react differently. I've discovered this myself through years of experimentation. 100-150 grams of carbs is the sweet spot to get a boost, but not feel bloated and shitty.

I've also used fruit to get the carbs. They're awesome. But I like Oats, rice, potatoes and pasta partially because they're delicious, but also, in the case of Oats and potatoes, they do a great job keeping me feeling full.
 
Yeah, that is bullshit. As a matter of fact, more things I eliminated, the better my health got.

Removing bread was the biggest improvement, but removing vegetables and fruit also improved my health. So no, it wasn't "lack of non-bread things" that was an issue. It was too much carb-heavy foods that was an issue.
Were you eating direct fruits and vegetables, or were they only in processed packages? Was it demonstrated to be malnutrition, or did you just "feel" better without any test clarifying why?

And the reason I'm continuing to dig at this is that your basic premise of "carbs are bad period" makes historic settlements treating carb-rich nutrient-poor foods as the staples into counterproductive stupidity despite these being the societies that nearly always dominate history. Sickly wretches do not conquer large swaths of the world or take well to the labors of erecting grand monuments, and that's what grains being the staple do with your takeaway of literature on sugar.

And if grains are not an issue, explain this:
Overeating to make up for nutrition quality with quantity? "Relying on bread too much fucks up your appetite" explains it perfectly well without the cascade of justifications to cover the gaping holes in history that carbs being actively bad introduces.

But these complex molecules are broken down into simple sugars during the digestive process, so it makes little difference whether you are eating carbs or eating white sugar straight from the store package. You see, human body cannot actually utilize carbohydrates - the only way to use carbs is to turn them into sugar.
It ends up making quite a bit of difference because it takes time for that to happen and the carbohydrate compounds take up more space, making the blood sugar impact less acute.

And there is a host of things sugar does to human body regardless of what other nutrients may or may not be present in the food:
Literally every single one of these is about excessive amounts of directly metabolically useful sugars sledgehammering the metabolism with abrupt changes. You were calling it poison without the qualifier of "too much" that medical science actually supports, demonstrate the claim you were actually making instead of this motte-and-bailey farce.

Medieval peasants were not "bitterly impoverished"
"The most bitterly impoverished medieval peasant" is using the singular, meaning that "the most bitterly impoverished" is an adjective to a hypothetical individual. It is a statement defining a subject of the peasantry, followed by noting that even this subset most biased towards the cheap high-carb low-nutrition staples for caloric intake did not rely exclusively on them.

Your reading comprehension was so poor that you literally supported the statement I was actually making with your attempted counterpoint.

And potato has nothing to do with medieval diet at all.
It was important for not fitting in the "cheap carbs with poor nutrients/expensive fats and proteins with rich nutrients" dichotomy said diet's economic pressures revolved around, being a major part of what ended it for many in the early modern period.
 
Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe

Interesting article about forever chemicals being in peoples' bloodstreams', and the execs of the company not giving two shits about it. Might as well call that last sentence "the story of the 20th century". And people wonder why male testosterone level is dropping by the year, and cancers and birth defects and mental illnesses are on the rise every year in younger and younger people...

but carbs are not the enemy. you should eat less of them if you are very inactive, thatIi agree with; but lead any kind of active life, be it a heavy physical job or athletics, and your body will crave carbs along with fats and proteins. eating doesn't have to be a "one way or the other" so of thing. Mike Tyson during his physical prime was said to eat only steak, pasta and cool aid (sugar water) when training. and that makes sense; those are a combination of foods I often ate myself after training sessions. that along with a nice cold shower and sometimes an ice bath. it's just what the body wants.
 
Were you eating direct fruits and vegetables, or were they only in processed packages?
Fresh fruits and vegetables, you doofus. Processed food was literally the first thing I cut out.
Was it demonstrated to be malnutrition, or did you just "feel" better without any test clarifying why?
Demonstrated, how? Do you need demonstration that a person shot in the head was killed by a gun?
And the reason I'm continuing to dig at this is that your basic premise of "carbs are bad period" makes historic settlements treating carb-rich nutrient-poor foods as the staples into counterproductive stupidity despite these being the societies that nearly always dominate history. Sickly wretches do not conquer large swaths of the world or take well to the labors of erecting grand monuments, and that's what grains being the staple do with your takeaway of literature on sugar.
Historical societies that treated carb-rich nutrient-poor foods as staples - Ancient Egypt, for example - had basically all of the diseases that we have today:

Rome treated grains as food for the poor. They did eat grains in general before they became an empire, but it was not a staple of diet. Rather, we can expect their diet was closer to traditional Sardinian diet: heavy in meats and cheeses, and relatively poor in grains and vegetables. They ate bread, but eggs, cheese and vegetables were a staple of the diet. In fact, Roman saying ab ovo (literally "from the egg", meaning "from the beginning") comes from the fact that eggs were eaten as a beginning of every breakfast. Also, the bread they ate was sourdough, which is literally fermented grains - and fermentation eliminates a lot of antinutrients present in the grains. Merely cooking them, or adding in dried yeast, as we do today, will not do so.

And Roman health declined as they became the Empire.

And yes, sickly wretches can conquer large swaths of the world if there are a lot of them. You can track human health through history from their average height, and people from societies that ate diet rich in grains were always short. And short means sick.
Overeating to make up for nutrition quality with quantity? "Relying on bread too much fucks up your appetite" explains it perfectly well without the cascade of justifications to cover the gaping holes in history that carbs being actively bad introduces.
Except if grains a) are healthy and b) were a staple of diet in basically all human history as you suggest, why would increase in grain consumption lead to increase in obesity?

Sure, you have high fructose corn syrup in the US, but that does not explain all the countries where that stuff is banned:
obesity-chart.jpg

It ends up making quite a bit of difference because it takes time for that to happen and the carbohydrate compounds take up more space, making the blood sugar impact less acute.
Yes, it takes time. But "quite a bit of difference" is false, because all it means is that you end up feeling hungry slightly later, slightly more. But you will still end up overeating and gorging on empty calories.
Literally every single one of these is about excessive amounts of directly metabolically useful sugars sledgehammering the metabolism with abrupt changes. You were calling it poison without the qualifier of "too much" that medical science actually supports, demonstrate the claim you were actually making instead of this motte-and-bailey farce.
Look, if you eat diet based on carbs, you will end up overeating, you will end up taking it excessive amounts of sugars and you will end up sledgehammering the metabolism. Sure, you can counter that with portion control, but you will also end up malnutritioned.
"The most bitterly impoverished medieval peasant" is using the singular, meaning that "the most bitterly impoverished" is an adjective to a hypothetical individual. It is a statement defining a subject of the peasantry, followed by noting that even this subset most biased towards the cheap high-carb low-nutrition staples for caloric intake did not rely exclusively on them.

Your reading comprehension was so poor that you literally supported the statement I was actually making with your attempted counterpoint.
That hypothetical of yours is completely useless because you have no knowledge of whether said hypothetical singular peasant had scurvy, making entire argument pointless at best and strawman at worst.
but carbs are not the enemy. you should eat less of them if you are very inactive, thatIi agree with; but lead any kind of active life, be it a heavy physical job or athletics, and your body will crave carbs along with fats and proteins. eating doesn't have to be a "one way or the other" so of thing. Mike Tyson during his physical prime was said to eat only steak, pasta and cool aid (sugar water) when training. and that makes sense; those are a combination of foods I often ate myself after training sessions. that along with a nice cold shower and sometimes an ice bath. it's just what the body wants.
Well, yeah. Carbs are an excellent short-term source of energy: I often ate a banana after physical activity (partly for carbs, partly for potassium), and as a matter of fact bananas are the only fruit I still eat on occasion.

My point is that a) too many carbohydrates is dangerous and b) grains specifically are dangerous, and it isn't just about the carbs either. In traditional societies which ate grains - China and Japan for example (rice) - said grains were nearly always fermented.

Read what I actually wrote in the post which started this whole shitstorm:
Bread isn't an evil word, carbs are. Carbohydrates are literally a form of sugar, meaning that if you are eating carbs, you are literally poisoning yourself. Not to mention that unlike everything else, they are completely unnecessary for human body to function. They are a good source of energy in an emergency, but that's it. Basically, if you eat them, you have to make sure to spend all that energy before sugar starts poisoning you. And fat is a better source of energy long-term anyway.

There are arguments to be made for eating fruit and some vegetables, but carbohydrates are not one of them.
 
Demonstrated, how? Do you need demonstration that a person shot in the head was killed by a gun?
If you're going from "they were shot in the head" all the way through the ballistics to a specific shooter, then yes, there are forensic details to elaborate upon. That's the better example, you're insistent on extrapolating a general category in one case to a narrative that large swaths of human history was actively poisoned by its food supply.

Historical societies that treated carb-rich nutrient-poor foods as staples - Ancient Egypt, for example - had basically all of the diseases that we have today:
Selection bias, much? Mummies that survive to today were not the lower-class bulk of the population, they were the much less physically active people who could trivially afford spectacular overeating. Show me the Irish potato-farmers working wheat fields for England getting obese, or the rice farmers fattened by their produce, not the fucking royal family members cropping up in your example.

Also, the bread they ate was sourdough, which is literally fermented grains - and fermentation eliminates a lot of antinutrients present in the grains. Merely cooking them, or adding in dried yeast, as we do today, will not do so.
Yet again undermining the point you were originally making. Removing the antinutrients does not change that the calories are carbohydrates.

But you will still end up overeating and gorging on empty calories.
This is not what your original position was:
Carbohydrates are literally a form of sugar, meaning that if you are eating carbs, you are literally poisoning yourself.
"Carb-dominant diet is baiting malnutrition and subsequent obesity by caloric surplus" is not the "carbs are toxic" you're pushing. And the bolded "empty calories" is my counter-argument to that. You're making out malnutrition as the fault of the calorie source, instead of said source rarely being dominant in nutrient-rich foods.

Defend your point that carbs themselves are actively bad instead of continually reinforcing mine that carb-rich typically coincides with nutrient-poor.

That hypothetical of yours is completely useless because you have no knowledge of whether said hypothetical singular peasant had scurvy, making entire argument pointless at best and strawman at worst.
Doesn't change that you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Repeatedly.
 
Quick question. Has anyone here tried what is called Ezekiel bread? And is it any good?

It's not terrible tasting but I prefer the fresh made stuff from the bakery

Edit: I just saw it was a recipe you posted. There's a brand with the Same name, which is what I was thinking of.
 
If you're going from "they were shot in the head" all the way through the ballistics to a specific shooter, then yes, there are forensic details to elaborate upon. That's the better example, you're insistent on extrapolating a general category in one case to a narrative that large swaths of human history was actively poisoned by its food supply.
I am not claiming that "large swaths of human history was actively poisoned by its food supply". Because they weren't as stupid as modern people.

In fact, I have difficult time remembering any civilization in history, before modernity, that used grains as its primary diet - there is Egypt... and surprise surprise, we actually do have the evidence that yes, they were indeed being poisoned by their food supply!
Selection bias, much? Mummies that survive to today were not the lower-class bulk of the population, they were the much less physically active people who could trivially afford spectacular overeating. Show me the Irish potato-farmers working wheat fields for England getting obese, or the rice farmers fattened by their produce, not the fucking royal family members cropping up in your example.
1) And why would anyone overeat unless food does not provide necessary nutrients? You do realize you are basically arguing here that starvation is the natural mode of existence for human body?

2) Nobody is going to get obese on a calorie deficit diet. That still does not mean said diet is healthy long-term. You can be "in shape" and still end up suffering from a heart attack.
Yet again undermining the point you were originally making. Removing the antinutrients does not change that the calories are carbohydrates.
It actually does reduce amount of carbohydrates in rice:

And medieval Chinese were not actually healthy. Beriberi was prevalent, precisely during the periods when they ate too much rice:

So yeah, turns out historical evidence actually supports my point.
"Carb-dominant diet is baiting malnutrition and subsequent obesity by caloric surplus" is not the "carbs are toxic" you're pushing. And the bolded "empty calories" is my counter-argument to that. You're making out malnutrition as the fault of the calorie source, instead of said source rarely being dominant in nutrient-rich foods.

Defend your point that carbs themselves are actively bad instead of continually reinforcing mine that carb-rich typically coincides with nutrient-poor.
Uh, "empty calories" is literally one of the reasons why carb-heavy foods are toxic. Combine the lack of nutrients with the fact that carbs are extremely quickly absorbed with the body, and you get propensity towards overeating - which could easily make food toxic even in cases where it would normally be tolerated by the body fairly well.
 
I am not claiming that "large swaths of human history was actively poisoned by its food supply". Because they weren't as stupid as modern people.
"Carbs are toxic" with the lowest common denominator foods across most of history which is what "staple food" means being carb-based calorie sources does in fact result in that. I am not letting you move the goalpost from direct carbohydrate toxicity, which is what your statements keep meaning.

1) And why would anyone overeat unless food does not provide necessary nutrients? You do realize you are basically arguing here that starvation is the natural mode of existence for human body?
Overpreparing food providing bountiful opportunity is a common feature of festivals, appetite signals relating to flavor get fucked with by cooking experimentation in general and spices in particular, physical volume in the case of dried-out or starch/fat heavy foods, for fuck's sake there have unironically been cultures using obesity as a wealth display in itself.

2) Nobody is going to get obese on a calorie deficit diet. That still does not mean said diet is healthy long-term. You can be "in shape" and still end up suffering from a heart attack.
Depends how you define "obese" and "calorie deficient", obesity standards typically break down with unusual proportions and there are actually metabolic disruptions that misappropriate calories to fat reserves. The latter is necessarily temporary, but hellish fatigue from insufficient metabolic sugars is not quite mutually exclusive with fat buildup.

It actually does reduce amount of carbohydrates in rice:
Only for the 24 hour sample:
The rice carbohydrate and fat were decreased during fermentation except for the carbohydrate of the 48 and 72 h fermented samples. Protein was only increased in the 24 h fermented rice.
Which means there's a fairly narrow window before the carbs come back, and with the fat calories gone. Not a good thing for the crop your society relies on to meet calorie demands exceeding shepherding.

So yeah, turns out historical evidence actually supports my point.
Not your original point of carbs being outright toxic.

Uh, "empty calories" is literally one of the reasons why carb-heavy foods are toxic.
Saying carbohydrates themselves are "toxic" means the individual chemicals are, not that the foods rich in them are nutritionally inadequate alone. Again, the former is your initial position I am arguing against, the latter is my counterpoint to it, you do not get to use one to support the other. Either the carbohydrates themselves are bad, or they are not.
 
"Carbs are toxic" with the lowest common denominator foods across most of history which is what "staple food" means being carb-based calorie sources does in fact result in that. I am not letting you move the goalpost from direct carbohydrate toxicity, which is what your statements keep meaning.
Not your original point of carbs being outright toxic.
Yeah, good thing that the claim that carbs were a staple food is bullshit, then. Commonly repeated bullshit, yes, but that doesn't make it correct. Carbohydrates from fruits are a natural part of human diet - but fruits weren't available all year-round until we learned to preserve them (4 000 BC).

And even in the Middle Ages, when some preservation was available, fruits and vegetables were eaten mostly in-season. And as I said previously, they were often fermented - which was the primary mode of preservation, but also significantly affects food's chemical composition.

And yes, too much carbs literally leads to toxicity. It even has a name - carbotoxicity:

So does too much protein by the way.
Overpreparing food providing bountiful opportunity is a common feature of festivals, appetite signals relating to flavor get fucked with by cooking experimentation in general and spices in particular, physical volume in the case of dried-out or starch/fat heavy foods, for fuck's sake there have unironically been cultures using obesity as a wealth display in itself.
Yes, and none of that means obesity, or grains, are healthy. Just look at how many kings had gout, or died from illness.

And festivals are not a normal mode of living, in fact they are so important because starvation was so common in agricultural societies. Festivals celebrate having something to eat at all. And of course, when you are on a starvation diet, your body converts basically everything into energy, so even carbs are far less dangerous because byproducts of carb eating don't accumulate in the body. Keep in mind that even hunter-gatherers, who had a far more stable food source than farmers, didn't eat all the time like us - they would find calorie-dense and nutrient-dense food (i.e. meat) and gorge on it, then go without food for maybe a few days.
Depends how you define "obese" and "calorie deficient", obesity standards typically break down with unusual proportions and there are actually metabolic disruptions that misappropriate calories to fat reserves. The latter is necessarily temporary, but hellish fatigue from insufficient metabolic sugars is not quite mutually exclusive with fat buildup.
True.
Saying carbohydrates themselves are "toxic" means the individual chemicals are, not that the foods rich in them are nutritionally inadequate alone. Again, the former is your initial position I am arguing against, the latter is my counterpoint to it, you do not get to use one to support the other. Either the carbohydrates themselves are bad, or they are not.
I am not talking about nutritional inadequacy here.

To simplify it, everything is toxic when eaten in excess. Proteins and fat are, too. The difference is that proteins and fats are satiating, so fat-rich diet is basically self-limiting in how much you can eat. They are also digested very slowly, so even if you overeat it is not much of an issue because you will not be overwhelming your body all at once. You can still give yourself protein or fat poisoning, but you will have to work really, really hard to get to that point.

But when you eat carbohydrates, you don't get that satiety signal. In fact, carbs will only make you hungrier due to how quickly they are digested into sugar. And this quick digestion also means that your body goes into the sugar shock - blood sugar skyrockets, and then body has to dump insulin to quickly reduce it because too high blood sugar will literally kill you. Which leads to storage of sugar as fat - but sugar does damage anyway, the fat you depose sugar as also accumulates actual toxins, and excess body fat screws up with your hormones. And if you repeat the process time and time again, then you get insulin resistance, diabetes etc.

Alll of this means that if you eat carb-heavy diet, then yes, you are very likely to give yourself essentially food poisoning. And that is the toxicity I am talking about.

You are acting as if carbohydrates' toxicity and carbohydrates' nutritional inadequacy are somehow two completely different issues, when they are in fact intrinsically linked to each other.

Capisci?
 
Yeah, good thing that the claim that carbs were a staple food is bullshit, then. Commonly repeated bullshit, yes, but that doesn't make it correct. Carbohydrates from fruits are a natural part of human diet - but fruits weren't available all year-round until we learned to preserve them (4 000 BC).
"Natural part of the human diet" does not apply to grain-growing civilizations. Period. Those plants as grown in the fields did not exist prior. How many food riots can you name being for anything other than grain products? That is why I mention "lowest common denominator", it's the downright essential calorie-padding to make the population even remotely stable, and it took the introduction of the still carb-heavy corn and potato plants to start clearing that up by getting more food better than wheat out of less land.

And yes, too much carbs literally leads to toxicity.
You said the carbohydrates themselves are toxic, following with a spiel about removing unprocessed fruits and vegetables improving your health. You are still trying to defend that with a goalpost shift to "too much", citing diabetes in the process.

Yes, and none of that means obesity, or grains, are healthy.
Not the point being made, it's countering you doubting anyone would ever overeat in the first place with a series of cases, in which festivals are but part of one out of four. Again, quit the goalpost moving.

I am not talking about nutritional inadequacy here.
Yes you have been:
And fresh meat actually fulfills all of body's needs for vitamin C - hence why Inuits don't get scurvy.
That is literally opposite of "carb-rich nutrient-poor". In fact, Medieval peasant's diet was closer to being "nutrient-rich carb-poor", though they obviously didn't eliminate carbs.
Historical societies that treated carb-rich nutrient-poor foods as staples - Ancient Egypt, for example - had basically all of the diseases that we have today:
and fermentation eliminates a lot of antinutrients present in the grains.
But you will still end up overeating and gorging on empty calories.
but you will also end up malnutritioned.
And why would anyone overeat unless food does not provide necessary nutrients?
Beriberi was prevalent, precisely during the periods when they ate too much rice

To simplify it, everything is toxic when eaten in excess.
Which is not what you started with, is more of the "too much" bailey, and does not support the active avoidance of carbs.

The difference is that proteins and fats are satiating, so fat-rich diet is basically self-limiting in how much you can eat.
So are no small number of denser carb-based food items, like the potatoes I keep bringing up. Again, you've been trying to push "carbs are poison, avoid if possible" here, it has to actually be a consequence of carbohydrates in isolation.

They are also digested very slowly, so even if you overeat it is not much of an issue because you will not be overwhelming your body all at once.
Again, potatoes, are you just completely unaware of the existence of starches? They even specifically get metabolized into short-chain fatty acids only when uncooked, meaning that putting starchy vegetables in a stew specifically increases the energy from carbs.

You are acting as if carbohydrates' toxicity and carbohydrates' nutritional inadequacy are somehow two completely different issues, when they are in fact intrinsically linked to each other.
Only because that's where you started:
Homemade bread is marginally better than the store-bought bread, but it is still toxic for organism if eaten regularly. Fundamentally, bread being "real" or not literally does not matter, because we no longer have real ingredients. I was making my own bread for years... made no difference in the end, I still had to stop eating it.
Not substituting with nutrient-rich foods, none of this spiel about antinutrients and lack of satiety and insulin responses, just blunt "bread is toxic, get rid of it".

Get back in your fucking motte, I can read the previous pages. At this point with how you're flipping from "no I'm not talking about malnutrition" to "nutritional inadequacy is just another part of the same issue" in the same post I'm starting to doubt you're actually able to keep track of the conversation.
 
"Natural part of the human diet" does not apply to grain-growing civilizations. Period. Those plants as grown in the fields did not exist prior. How many food riots can you name being for anything other than grain products? That is why I mention "lowest common denominator", it's the downright essential calorie-padding to make the population even remotely stable, and it took the introduction of the still carb-heavy corn and potato plants to start clearing that up by getting more food better than wheat out of less land.
Good thing we don't need to live on substinence-level diet, then. Not to mention that grains were far less popular as a food historically than commonly assumed. And societies which did have grain-heavy diet were invariably sick.

Grains were literally emergency food of the poor, empty calories to allow survival but not much else. A food for slaves, if you will. But when you look at periods where people were healthy (e.g. paleolithic, early Middle Ages - you can tell from height!) - these were periods where few to no grains were being eaten.
You said the carbohydrates themselves are toxic, following with a spiel about removing unprocessed fruits and vegetables improving your health. You are still trying to defend that with a goalpost shift to "too much", citing diabetes in the process.
And I am not wrong. Carbohydrates are a toxin. The end. They turn into sugar in body, and very quickly too.

Of course, as Paracelsus said, dose makes the poison. Banana or some grains here and there can be fine - body can handle a certain amount of arsenic just fine, so some amount of dietary carbs are not an issue. But if you use carbs as a basis of your diet, you are literally killing yourself. And if you have a disease such as a metabolic disease or cancer, you have to cut out all carbs, sugars and related stuff.
Not the point being made, it's countering you doubting anyone would ever overeat in the first place with a series of cases, in which festivals are but part of one out of four. Again, quit the goalpost moving.
I am not moving goalposts, you are just making shit up.

If you eat proper food, you basically cannot overeat because you will throw up first. Satiety signals will be that strong. It is only empty calories like carbs which really allow for overeating in the first place.

Proper food + listening to your own body = health. The end. But grains are not proper food.
Which is not what you started with, is more of the "too much" bailey, and does not support the active avoidance of carbs.
"In excess" means "more than a proper amount".

"Proper amount" of grains specifically for human diet is zero, or near enough to make no difference. Proper amount of carbs is more difficult to determine, but it sure as hell does not support living only on processed food, or hell, even only on fruit. And if you are not certain as to what you need or can get away with, carbs are literally one nutrient that is not necessary for good health. You need fat, you need protein... carbs are only "good to have" in certain contexts, but are not actually necessary. And can easily turn dangerous if you make them basis of your diet, or even just eat too much of them on a regular basis.
So are no small number of denser carb-based food items, like the potatoes I keep bringing up. Again, you've been trying to push "carbs are poison, avoid if possible" here, it has to actually be a consequence of carbohydrates in isolation.
Again, potatoes, are you just completely unaware of the existence of starches? They even specifically get metabolized into short-chain fatty acids only when uncooked, meaning that putting starchy vegetables in a stew specifically increases the energy from carbs.
Potatoes, particularly sweet potatoes, can be sating, yes. But they are also fairly nutrient-empty, and have high carb content. As a result, regular consumption of potatoes significantly increases risk of diabetes:

as well as of obesity, heart disease... "less toxic than grains" isn't exactly a good selling point.

So yeah, carbs are still poison. Whether it is simple carbs (sugars), complex carbs (starches), literally does not matter. You are making distinction where none exist, taking one aspect of a complex problem, and then saying "Gotcha!" when you are just factually wrong.

And why eat something if you don't need to eat it?
Not substituting with nutrient-rich foods, none of this spiel about antinutrients and lack of satiety and insulin responses, just blunt "bread is toxic, get rid of it".

Get back in your fucking motte, I can read the previous pages. At this point with how you're flipping from "no I'm not talking about malnutrition" to "nutritional inadequacy is just another part of the same issue" in the same post I'm starting to doubt you're actually able to keep track of the conversation.
This is not my job, so no, I don't really care about keeping track of the conversation.

Everything I have written are facts, as well as related to each other. As I explained god-knows-how-many-times already: bread being toxic is literally a consequence of everything else you consider "irrelevant spiel". Antinutrients, lack of satiety, insulin response etc, those are all different aspects of the same problem. You are only complaining because you don't understand the topic and more impotantly, you don't care to understand it. You just want to defend your addiction.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top