Modern Food Controversies! The Food Pyramid, Seed Oils, Corn Syrup, the 'F' in FDA, Processed Foods and More!

[colorles]

Carb adaptation is genetic. some people can eat a ton of pasta and breads and other carbs and not put on weight, regardless of physical activity. Other people...cannot do this and NEED to be very physically active to not put on weight from a high carb diet.

On another note, if you are an olive oil man like me...avoid the Italian and Turkish oils, and any oils that are produced in a bunch of random countries. chances are, they are fake and mixed with a bunch of other unhealthy seed oils. cut for profits; big mafia business. Legit extra virgin olive oil should have a robust flavor, maybe fruity, sometimes a spice to it...but a pretty strong flavor either way. I stick to Portuguese oils; there are many great ones. Saloio is the one I use mostly because it is pretty affordable while still being a good quality. are there comparatively better tasting Portuguese olive oils? of course and i do buy them. but legit 100 percent, non-laced olive oil is really what matters to me and as a go to every day oil, for me it's Saloio

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Carb adaptation is genetic. some people can eat a ton of pasta and breads and other carbs and not put on weight, regardless of physical activity. Other people...cannot do this and NEED to be very physically active to not put on weight from a high carb diet.

Physics is physics, calories are calories. Unless your body isn't digesting the carbs (AKA, you're going to shit yourself inside out), you're going to gain weight.

It doesn't matter how 'adapted' a human is, consuming caloric excess makes you fatter.

 

[colorles]

Physics is physics, calories are calories. Unless your body isn't digesting the carbs (AKA, you're going to shit yourself inside out), you're going to gain weight.

It doesn't matter how 'adapted' a human is, consuming caloric excess makes you fatter.

Wrong. I've known Portuguese men to have literally almost died from consuming too much protein...while they can eat bread and carbs all day long and literally not get fat. On the flipside, I have known Inuit men and women that can eat five times the daily protein of that Portuguese man and be completely healthy...but can't handle carbs for shit and they get fat and unhealthy. Genetics my friend.

Not to mention, what is considered "consuming caloric excess" itself varies from person to person based on metabolism.

 

[Aldarion]

Look, I'm going to be blunt. Press X to doubt you and your sources. I've seen way too many sales pitches on the internet to the point where I don't trust anything that doesn't come from a medical professional that I PERSONALLY TRUST, or doesn't come from personal experience.

My source is my own body. Merely removing the bread solved a wealth of health issues I had.

Then you also have basics of chemistry and biology. Carbs are sugar. Simple as. And you know what sugar does to human body.

And third, we in fact have the results of the massive scale experiment:

High carb, low fat = high obesity, low health.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Wrong. I've known Portuguese men to have literally almost died from consuming too much protein...while they can eat bread and carbs all day long and literally not get fat. On the flipside, I have known Inuit men and women that can eat five times the daily protein of that Portuguese man and be completely healthy...but can't handle carbs for shit and they get fat and unhealthy. Genetics my friend.

Not to mention, what is considered "consuming caloric excess" itself varies from person to person based on metabolism.

Caloric excess is caloric excess, nobody ever got obese from eating carbs within their caloric needs.

 

[LordsFire]

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.

 

[Morphic Tide]

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.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

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.

 

[DarthOne]

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.

 

[LordsFire]

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?

 

[Aldarion]

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:

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:

https://www.moonfamilyhealth.com/fileupload/146_Reasons_Why_Sugar_Is_Ruining_Your_Health.pdf

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.

May: medieval peasant menu | News and features | University of Bristol

www.bristol.ac.uk

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:

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.

 

[Rocinante]

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:

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:

https://www.moonfamilyhealth.com/fileupload/146_Reasons_Why_Sugar_Is_Ruining_Your_Health.pdf

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.

May: medieval peasant menu | News and features | University of Bristol

www.bristol.ac.uk

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:

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.

 

[Aldarion]

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:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6863116/

 

[Rocinante]

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:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6863116/

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.

 

[Morphic Tide]

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.

 

[colorles]

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.

 

[Aldarion]

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:

Obesity in ancient Egypt - EvolutaMente.it

Beautiful and enlightening article by dr. M. Eades which I thought of translating for the benefit of our readers: obesity in ancient Egypt.

www.evolutamente.it

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:

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.

 

[Morphic Tide]

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.

 

[Typhonis]

Quick question. Has anyone here tried what is called Ezekiel bread? And is it any good?

Ezekiel Bread (Ezekiel 4:9) Recipe - Food.com

This bread will supply protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, sodium, potassium, vitamins A and C, thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin. Plus it tastes good!

www.food.com

 

[Rocinante]

Quick question. Has anyone here tried what is called Ezekiel bread? And is it any good?

Ezekiel Bread (Ezekiel 4:9) Recipe - Food.com

This bread will supply protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, sodium, potassium, vitamins A and C, thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin. Plus it tastes good!

www.food.com

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.