CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2004, 11:56 AM   #1
Roy
Departed Roy  is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 328
This is one of the best reads.

http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/ar...&articleid=186

One suggestion that caught my eye in this was to eat only one carb meal a day, preferably at night. This article does advocate cycling (one carb day every 3 or 4 days) which is what I do. Any opinions on this article(particularly from the biochemists, such as Rob W.)?

Cheers

Roy
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2004, 02:26 AM   #2
Paul Kayley
Member Paul Kayley is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: York  North Yorkshire
Posts: 195
Thanks Roy. Interesting read, but it would be good to know how much truth there is in the biochemical claims regarding the importance of dietary derived glucose.

Does this theory sound feasible to you Rob?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2004, 03:09 PM   #3
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
All of the biochemistry is sound EXCEPT the suggestion to limit carb meals to once/day. That suggestion is necessary to stay with the general theme of his book.

This is not to say that this approach is not effective. I ate similar to this for quite some time and it worked well and I enjoyed the simplicity. I have however had better results with the athlets zone ( abouty 50% of the recomended carbs for me). Tinker with it and see how you feel/perform.
Robb
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2004, 04:10 PM   #4
Alexander Karatis
Member Alexander Karatis is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Athens  Attica, Greece
Posts: 786
Roy, although not a biochemist myself, let me tell you what the "turn-off" for me is in the article. It is one of fundamental beliefs and mentality.

I too am part of the camp that believe that nutrition and exercise are still two areas which can't be completely quantified and scientifically disected so as to produce absolutes and certainties. Let me explain.

A. Hunter-Gatherer societies weren't plagued by our "modern" diseases.
B. Hunter-gatherers didn't have a some "modern" food groups available.
C. Those "modern" food groups usually contain high glycemic indexes.
D. High glycemic indexes are the source for "modern" diseases.

Therefore, we deductively produce an absolute conclusion (D).

Does that mean that C can be quantifiably variable? Therefore, the more frequent we eat high GI and the higher GI we eat, the more chances of developing "modern" diseases?

And therefore deduce that it doesn't matter when our food group was discovered , we just need to make sure it contains a low-GI?

You see where I'm getting at...

All this cannot be proven, so logic and experience sais we choose we the first conclusion that sprang to mind when trying to solve the problem, the more general one. We use that as a guide and customize. Science should use it as a guide and experiment.

The problem with "The Number Crunchers" is that they simply feel unconfortable believing and following something that has no mathematical application, and thus drill-down and produce "rules" arbitrarily.

It is an Art, very slowly being transformed into science.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2004, 09:05 AM   #5
Roger Harrell
Affiliate Roger Harrell is offline
 
Roger Harrell's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Rafael  CA
Posts: 2,318
What are you referring to as "modern" deseases. There are other contributing factors that need to be considered. Static lifestyles, close living quarters with animals, high population density allowing for epedemic disease spread. I don't doubt that GI is a contributing factor, but all things must be considered.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2004, 11:52 AM   #6
Mike Yukish
Member Mike Yukish is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: State College  PA
Posts: 448
A bit off of the main topic, but the book "Guns, Germs & Steel" offers up a great hypothesis about how and why civilizations formed, with farming and the availability of suitable energy sources (read: bad carbs) playing a key role. In short, I wonder if we could support the planet's population on a paleo diet. Doubtful.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2004, 01:46 PM   #7
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Mike-


We can not support our current population on a paleo diet. At the same time a grain/carb based diet raises our fertility such that our population continues to increase beyond the carrying capacity of ANY dietary regime.

The solution seems obvious but has some very unsavory consequences but that decision will either be met consciously by us as a species or it will be dictated to us...nature it nature.
Robb
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2004, 03:18 PM   #8
Roger Harrell
Affiliate Roger Harrell is offline
 
Roger Harrell's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Rafael  CA
Posts: 2,318
GGS (guns germs and steel) is a phenominal book. Definately worth the read.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2004, 01:45 AM   #9
Alexander Karatis
Member Alexander Karatis is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Athens  Attica, Greece
Posts: 786
Mike-What Robb said.

The argument concerning diets supportive of humanities population explosion is whether or not we shot ourselves in the foot by thinking we can "compartmentalise nature", "compress it", and thus make it more economical for our societies.

In other words, do the shortcuts humanity takes everytime it makes rapid advances catch up with it eventually? Are doomed to destroy natureīs equilibrium more and more as our intellect advances?

Robb, what is that solution you are reffering to? Short of starving half the worldīs population in order to bring it to "paleo manageable" levels I canīt for the life of me think of something that would bring healthy diets to every last man on the planet...

Cheers,

Alex
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2004, 02:06 AM   #10
Alexander Karatis
Member Alexander Karatis is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Athens  Attica, Greece
Posts: 786
"Whole complex carb food releases glucose at a slower rate than simple carb food and therefore may afford better glucose utilization with a decreased risk of insulin and blood sugar fluctuation."

Really?

"Minimize simple carb consumption. Prioritize your dietary carb intake. Always choose complex carbs with low a glycemic index and those that are naturally high in fiber. The best choices for carb food are legumes, roots, squashes, barley, oats, wild rice and quinoa. "

So why are complex carbs better?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is more important? Scott A. Fout Starting 3 04-15-2007 03:10 PM
Important Question!! Scott Miller Starting 8 02-19-2007 04:04 AM
How important is it to eat meat? Ben Jackson Nutrition 37 03-21-2006 11:01 AM
Important article regarding fats and Paleo Garrett Smith Nutrition 27 01-16-2006 05:54 PM
How important is it, really... Jim Aldridge Nutrition 5 08-04-2005 08:41 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.