Gilly wrote:
everyone should have a landmine or two
its goddam constitutional lol
joke btw

mushy wrote: Have you actually read the article? Here is a short extract just in case you haven't.
I was interested to read this as I was completely unaware of this until a few months ago, when I met a woman who was incredibly knowledgable about nutrition and diet in a way that I am certainly not, and she constantly emphasised how excessive carbohydrate consumption can be very bad for you, and that the percentage recommended generally - ie 45 - 65% - is absolutely ridiculous. She also pointed out to me that if you look at the diet of the wealthy, how much of it is composed of carbohydrates? How much bread and potatoes does the Queen eat? The rich gorge themselves on pheasant, on meat, on rich foods. And they get the proles to eat grains and tell them that it's good for their health. What's the first thing that bodybuilders look to do when they're trying to reduce their body fat percentage? Cut out the carbs; just try googling it.

The healthiest diet to eat is one low in carbohydrates, high in protein, with lots of vitamins and minerals. Anyone who believes you should be getting 65% of your calorie intake through carbohydrates is delusional.

Furthermore, the idea that we would all be diabetic without carbohydrates is quite ironic, considering that after carbohydrates are consumed they are broken down into glucose. Carbohydrates raise the body glucose level!

www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/w...t/carbohydrates.html
www.ucsfhealth.org/education/carbohydrat..._diabetes/index.html

mushy wrote:
Sounds like you haven't read it at all.
The two links are in reference to what insulin does in your body.
More carbs=more insulin=more fat storage.
Its really simply mushy and all proven by science, the only issue here is that the media have completely ignored mentioning it.
Lack of exercise is not the only factor at play here, its the overall sustained high carb diet that can lead to stuff like type2 diabetes, then ofc there are genetic issues with insulin production and even some people who are bone thin on top and fat on the legs or vice versa. To say that people get fat simply because they eat too much and/or don't exercise is simplification to hide something.


You still haven't answered my earlier question asking you to specifically point out where I say just anti-gun people are all fat fucks btw.

andyh wrote:
in the same sentence as anti gun people you mentioned you only need to look at the fat fucks on black friday ,
and as far i could tell that was connective grammar .

mushy wrote:
Black friday is a shopping day, you can watch the youtube vids of the fat stampeding cattle herds...
I've no idea how many of them are pro or anti guns, I wasn't there taking a poll..I wouldn't want to be there either!

There is no 'connective grammar' I'm afraid. Just mention of fat fucks in general :p
Just the same as the UK has its morons too. The US has a bigger population and more pervasive media so their idiots are just all the more easily spotted tbh.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
lets your correct about 65% carb thing ,
on a 70 mile cycle i burn 5000 calories (thats not including avg daily amount ) now do i reach for a high protien sausage and a biscuit for carbs and expect to continue lol

low glucose results in cloudy thinking shivering and fatigue to get me beyound that point i eat high carb food protien would make it worse ,
theres more carbs than glucose ones the trappoing sugar in the blood has been known for years it why carbs are regarded essential slow energy release foods trouble is people who dont burn that many calories are replacing a loss of say 2000 cal with up to 6000 do the maths ,
obese people replacing a normal allbeit huge diet with reduced carbs and high protiens would feel like shit and burn nothing because the protein requires certain foods to be digested that why in sports its regarded as a recover drink .

andyh wrote:
i know what black friday is ffs ,
it took you 6 posts or more to come up with that reason for saying fat fucks why did you let my mistake go uncheck so long ,
why not point this out first reply .
not convinced btw

On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23 calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it. Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store.

is andyh and wake up reading this article and my posts or just skimming over and getting it all wrong

mushy wrote:
Its about how many carbs you're getting as a % of your overall diet and how much exercise you get AND how much insulin your body is producing in response.

In MOST cases (not all as it does vary) around middle age after constantly eating the shit, the fat suddenly piles on.
This is due to the overproduction of insulin over a prolonged period in response to the carb heavy diet many people have AND the fat they take in with it. What is missing from modern fat myth is the connection between insulin and fat storage and how insulin can be controlled by reducing specifically carb intake.

The type2 diabetes situation can get so bad for example that people have low energy levels despite the enormous carb intake and fat levels.

If you are young and fit then none of this is relevant at all, other than to keep up the exercise and watch what you eat.

Its worth noting that fat people tend not to go on 70 mile bike rides....simply reducing 'calories' alone and whatever pitiful exercise they can manage isn't going to cut it for them.

It also seems like you have completely ignored the process of fat storage and its direct link to insulin production so I would say you're the one who's guilty of skimming things over here. Remember carbs trigger insulin production. Did you know that diabetics can get fat if they inject insulin in to the same area regularly (they get fat around the injection site).
The insulin is lipogenic.
carbsanity.blogspot.ie/2011/05/endogenou...genous-hormones.html

There are distinct differences between carbs, calories and fat and how the body processes them, the food companies would have us just focus on calories though, you ever notice that?

mushy wrote:
Because I'd no idea how/why you had made the mistake until now, lol :p

mushy wrote:
Sorry matey, don't think too many of us in gen pop are riding 70 miles a day too often.
mushy wrote:
Essential? There is nothing essential about carbs IMO matey.

(Wine is a must of course) Fish, meat, plenty of veg, porridge oat breakfast. No dairy, no wheat, no carbs, sugar only from fruit. End of. Unless you're climbing Mt Everest.

I'll leave you to Clubber Lang it out with the other guys Mr. I'm outtie.

Rewind wrote:
doesnt matter if you cycle 70 miles or sit behind a desk the ratio of calorie intake to expendature is the same its a given .

porridge is high carb ,lots of veggies are high carb also
without going on about forever
theres a lot of incorrect or mis interpreted info
about foods and diets
im not going into it anymore actually i will end by saying no general diet or advice will work
for individuals and some things regarding energy and food are inescapable whether you accept them or not
if your overweight see your doc or someone
and ignore quacks .

mushy wrote: I assume you mean "let's say you're correct about the 65% carb thing". I'm not sure what the relevance of the seventy mile cycle ride is, but if you're talking about people who regularly burn 5,000 calories through exercise then this is a pretty redundant argument! Very few people engage in that sort of exercise, obviously, I've no doubt that if you did you can burn up virtually anything. Michael Phelps' diet comes to mind:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7562840.stm

This really has no relevance to the question of whether or not carbohydrates raise the blood glucose level in the body. They clearly do, as the American Diabetic Association advises people thus! Therefore, if you're a relatively sedentary person and you consume over 50% of your calories in carbohydrates, you are obviously putting yourself at risk of developing high levels of glucose in the blood, and ultimately diabetes. Of course, the human body has tremendous restorative powers, and different people react very differently to the same lifestyle.
Yes, but you cycle seventy miles quite regularly. You know those metal things with four wheels that keep going past you? They're called 'cars'. Most people drive them, and wouldn't dream of cycling seventy miles. Hence, whereas you end up with low glucose levels in the blood and can get away with high-carbohydrate consumption as you will burn it off, most people do not. Very few people have low blood glucose levels in a culture in which sugar is added to so much food. This is one of the primary reasons you're seeing obesity and diabetes go through the roof. To make things worse, people are being advised for the majority of their diet to comprise of something that raises their body glucose level. You can read more about it here:

www.ajcn.org/content/79/5/774.long

If you just Google "carbohydrates type 2 diabetes", you will get literally thousands of results. Of course, there is always conflicting evidence because, contrary to what various people like to pretend, we don't completely understand the way that the human body works scientifically, and we never will, because it's too complex for the reductive scientific method to understand. It doesn't matter how much data you get, proving causality beyond all doubt always proves to be too difficult. At best, you can say there are strong correlations between various phenomena.

You also have to remember that the amount of exercise you do, you could eat anything and never get fat or suffer any ill effects from diet whatsoever. Probably more people should take a leaf out of your book, but this is not particularly likely.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
cycle 70 miles or sit behind a desk it doesnt matter same law applies ,
carbs supply sugars different types ,
all vital cut them out or dramatically teduce them thinking your dieting and you will be tired and grumpy ,
atkins diet any diet claims it is scientificy proven well sorry but some things are a fact theres a bunch of scientists that claim to made a vacine fore obesity
its on dif headlines page ,
thing is the facts are known and lots of people simply grasp them so diets are popular and anyone will dreas these fact to suit .

mushy wrote: When did I mention the Atkins diet? When did I say you should eliminate carbohydrates completely? I believe that very little related to diet is scientifically proven beyond all doubt, as the human anatomy is so complex and not even close to being fully understood. However, there would seem to be quite substantial evidence suggesting that there is a link between excessive carbohydrate consumption and diabetes, as you can find out very easily by a simple Google search. I was completely unaware of this until about four months ago, when someone who does know a great deal about diet and nutrition, and has studied it in great depth, told me about it. I personally consume carbohydrates every day, possibly every meal, but taking in over 50% of your calories through carbohydrates, as recommended by the FDA, is excessive in my opinion.

just eat food ....eat what your body enjoys

The only people that worry about carbs and protin etc etc are folk on a diet

I have known alot of women who would only eat lettuce or salad .......


If you are getting fat move more

dawnbreak wrote:
amen,
eat what you want theres no magic diet or scientific diet will work for all ,
listen to your body eat when hungry .

wake_up_bomb wrote:
no ,
some things about nutrition and diet are very well known ,
spoof and fad diets exploit this and interpret it foe anyone desperate enough to listen ,
short term weight loss is all they are good for.
if you eat less carbs ( i dont either you or andyh know what a carb is beyound what google has told you btw ) it means your on high protien diet like atkins which is notorously bad causing lethargy mood swinga etc (ooh what could cause that i wonder )
im not sell a diet book or giving out a diet sheet here just telling facts that are in practice making athletes the world over ,
if im lying or wrong they are too .

NEW series with Dr. Lustig "The Skinny on Obesity" www.uctv.tv/skinny-on-obesity. Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]
or watch it here https://sanctumzone.co.uk/the-zone/tv-zone/video/the-bitter-truth-about-sugar/default.html

mushy wrote: With respect, this has absolutely no relevance to anything in my previous post, nor have you directly addressed anything that I posted, nor, as far as I can tell, bothered to read it. If you don't want to take the time to simply look up "carbohydrates type 2 diabetes", which will take you about five seconds, that's entirely up to you, but completely erroneous and irrelevant arguments about athletes and the Atkins diet do not address it. I have already stated that I am not an expert on nutrition or diet, nor am I particularly interested in it, so why you're trying to score points off me, I have no idea. I am merely pointing out to you something that you evidently do not know. I didn't know about it a few months ago. Rather than take this information on board and perform the very simple web search required to corroborate it, you are ignoring / denying it instead. I'm really not sure why.

However, there will always be some conflicting data related to diet, nutrition and the effect of food and various food groups, as the human anatomy is not even close to being fully understood, and differs from person to person.